Paul raises $19 million in fourth quarter
posted at 9:17 am on December 31, 2007 by Allahpundit
The second best quarter for any GOP candidate this year. Is there time for one more moneybomb tonight? Yes.
The second best quarter for any GOP candidate this year. Is there time for one more moneybomb tonight? Yes.
You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.
|
|
© 2006-2012 Hot Air | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use | About | Advertise

Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
good lord 19 million!
zane on December 31, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Enquiring minds want to know.
Exactly who is sourcing all of this money?
Incredible, literally.
The insanity.
maverick muse on December 31, 2007 at 9:20 AM
It’s starting to sound more like brainwashing then anything else.
William Teach on December 31, 2007 at 9:23 AM
I don’t care how much money he raises, that’s priceless.
‘Never in the course of political events has one candidate owed so much to so few.’
James on December 31, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Thruthers, Skin heads, and Pot heads seem to put their money where the mouth is.
TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 9:23 AM
With all this money, if Ron Paul polls in the single digits in the NH primary, he should go down as one of the biggest losers in American political history.
Jimmy the Dhimmi on December 31, 2007 at 9:25 AM
The eventual fight over the Ron Paul endorsement is going to be interesting.
Of course … whoever is left may be fighting to AVOID the endorsement.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Would it be ridiculous of me to ask if, for any particular reason, the Hollywood Scientology crowd (no shortage of money there) look favorably upon
Buck RogersRon Paul?thejackal on December 31, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Yeah seems like a younger crowd in general. I’m guessing lots of small donations.
Dash on December 31, 2007 at 9:34 AM
is he actaully spending this cash on ads in the early states?
zane on December 31, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Soros.
Griz on December 31, 2007 at 9:35 AM
From what I can tell he is getting the donations from a lot of small donors. A lot of retired people and college kids.
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 9:37 AM
A little. But he has a grass roots organization that works for free (it is also not under his control).
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 9:38 AM
It shows that there is a rich market for a “change” candidate. In the general election the GOP candidate will be competing for those votes, perhaps against Ron Paul. If Obama is the Dem nominee he’ll also have an appeal for the “change” voters–Hillary not so much.
Huck might have some natural appeal to the “change” voter. The other GOP candidates will have to work at it.
This year’s campaign feels a little like 1992 where Pat Buchanan caused problems for Bush 41 in the primary and then Bush had to fight a Clinton and a strong 3rd party in the general.
If there is a recession, as there was with the 1992 election, “change” will become even more marketable.
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Clearly, this calls for an extra blimp.
NickTx on December 31, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Remember, the funding for the blimp (and a lot of Ron Paul signs) is completely separate from this $19million
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 9:41 AM
So…what’s our looy uncle been DOING with all this cash?
He didn’t pay for the blimp…
And is this actual cash, or pledges?
Somehow, I can’t get the image of the Ronbot converting it all into Kruggerands outta my noggin.
Wind Rider on December 31, 2007 at 9:43 AM
looy = loony
Wind Rider on December 31, 2007 at 9:43 AM
So, if he is not really spending the money that the Ronulans, Twoofers, and white supremacists are giving him, what is he doing with all the money? Is this some pyramid scheme?
William Teach on December 31, 2007 at 9:44 AM
good lord, 19mil….
who in the world has all this disposable income for crying out loud.
trailortrash on December 31, 2007 at 9:49 AM
He is buying some commercial time now. I suspect he will make big buys in the larger states. His strategy there is to find the districts that are heavily democratic and solicit the few republican voters there with personal visits from volunteers.
Don’t be surprised if the Paulites end up with enough delegates at the convention to cause a real stir.
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 9:50 AM
A lot of it is $100-$150 donations. There are a lot of people with that. PayPal is doing wonders for his campaign.
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 9:51 AM
19 million? Holy crap! That comes out to $211,000 per day. That is a minimum of 92 donors per day (at the max donation of 23000).
csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Good point. And disturbing if that turns out to be the case.
William Teach on December 31, 2007 at 9:55 AM
He’s doing it with periodic fundraising days over the Internet consisting of tens of thousands of donors each donating an average of $120.
Actually, he isn’t doing it, some Internet geek is doing it. Ron Paul is along for the ride.
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Are there any Paul supporters out there who can point me to something that would indicate Ron Paul has supported American involvement in any war, ever? From what I can tell he has been against even Afghanistan after 9/11, WWI and WWII, and even the Union Army in the Civil War. As I understand Paul’s position, if there isn’t an invading army on our border, then any use of our military is simply meddling where we don’t belong. That’s kind of a deal breaker for me.
Dudley Smith on December 31, 2007 at 10:03 AM
With or without delegates, if Paul has the money in the bank and can fund a 3rd party run he’ll have leverage at the convention if he wants it.
I’d guess he wouldn’t want it, claim to be snubbed and use it as an excuse to go 3rd party.
The primaries could be over in about 6 weeks. I think he is having too much fun to stop now–he’d have to return the blimp.
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 10:03 AM
When I was in college, I used whatever money I had on booze, weed, and dates. These losers are giving their money to Ron Paul? What the hell is going on here?
Its Tommy on December 31, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Ron Paul wants to legalize weed
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Does he get to keep the money when it’s all over and he becomes roommates with Ross Perot at the Ol’ Forgotten Candidates Rest Home?
Rod on December 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Where’s the fun in that?
fusionaddict on December 31, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Hmmmm.
Second look at Ron Paul!
And that explains A LOT.
Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Me too….ain’t that a bit$h? Our youth is sorely out of touch today.
Tim Zank on December 31, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. (Dec 2006)
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I’d love to see a thoughtful investigation and analysis of Dr Paul’s fund raising. About the most info I’ve found during an initial search is at Article at GOPUSA. I’ve also heard it suggested, but am not at this time ready to take the reports seriously, that there was credit card-kiting and other fraud involved in other money bombs.
The questions fairly cry out for examination because a) the numbers are extraordinary, b) Ronulans have used devious and dishonest tactics to inflate results in other areas, c) many “my rules” types flock to Paul’s banner, including some obviously very unsavory people.
I’m prepared to believe that the internet has funneled every kind of crazy, naif, and cynic together into one temporary venue, but you have to wonder what else there is to this story.
CK MacLeod on December 31, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Dude, he voted “Yes” on Afghanistan.
y2church on December 31, 2007 at 10:45 AM
He’s in ur cyberspace, storming ur strongholds.
Note the source.
wccawa on December 31, 2007 at 10:48 AM
At $120.00 per, thats a little more than tens of thousands of people…158,333 individual donors.
ChrisM on December 31, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Wouldn’t a libertarian have a mixed record with those groups, from a philosophical standpoint he’d be opposed to federal government restrictions on behavior but against affirmative action type government programs?
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 10:48 AM
CK MacLeod on December 31, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Yeah, clearly it’s not possible that real people are tired of the political abuses we’ve received from BOTH parties. No way those people would raise up and donate to the only candidate in the race who doesn’t feel beholden to cronies and party lines.
y2church on December 31, 2007 at 10:48 AM
CK MacLeod on December 31, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Ooops, almost forgot…
/sarc off
y2church on December 31, 2007 at 10:49 AM
It seems to be more of an executive power issue. If the congress declares war, then that reflects the will of the people.
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 10:53 AM
[Dudley Smith on December 31, 2007 at 10:03 AM]
Ron Paul is the one guy who, as president, could get us all killed and he’d be the last one to know it happened. Seriously, he’s so invested in “not getting involved” that the world could fall to pieces and he’d be looking in the Constitution for whether we should have a Coast Guard and be planning a major address to the nation on why the Merchant Marine is unconstitutional.
Dusty on December 31, 2007 at 10:56 AM
According to this, it sounds more like pledges than cash.
wccawa on December 31, 2007 at 11:00 AM
In my post I concede that it’s possible that “real people” really have put “real” money into the Paul campaign, but the past behavior and attitude of Paul’s supporters and of Paul himself invite skepticism. The false claims regarding military contributions – based on accounting quirks rather than on authentic representation of support among military members – are just one example of propagandistic manipulation of the process. Poll-spamming and other internet hijinks are another example. Even if the fund-raising has all been completely on the up and up, an analysis of the contributions, as in the GOPUSA article I linked, can tell us something useful about the phenomenon.
Presenting the numbers as a top Republican result, when neither Paul nor his supporters have much to do with what most of us previously considered Republican constituencies and policies, is another misrepresentation, though it’s an example of news analysts playing into Paul’s hands rather than Paul’s people doing anything “wrong.”
CK MacLeod on December 31, 2007 at 11:03 AM
[ChrisM on December 31, 2007 at 10:48 AM]
In 2004, Bednarik (L) garnered 394,000 votes. In 2000, Browne (L) received 384,000. He’d only need about half of those to chip in that $120 each.
But as AP notes on the front page, it’s the 3% he’s attracting, iow, those who have one pet peeve that will sway their decision. Most don’t ever contribute, but they are doing so now, because Paul has one position that coincides with their’s. It resonates because they have never given before. I looked at his 3rd quarter A’s and about half have never given before.
Cast off your sandwich boards, people, and march to your Different Drummer.
Dusty on December 31, 2007 at 11:13 AM
You can view Ron Paul’s fundraising data here:
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM
I bet Ron Paul beats Rudy in Iowa. What will that say about Rudy?
ThackerAgency on December 31, 2007 at 11:15 AM
If anyone is familiar or has had run-ins with Ron Paulians directly then they should know that this is not a surprise. It’s a cult. They can get 63,000 people to donate 100 dollars or more each then you can see where they get this kind of cash. Say what you want these libertarians know how to mind fuck each other. I call this a cross between Hippies and Anarchists. Libertarians are the Marxists of the Right. They are against all forms of government completely.
Ron Paulians are libertarians. They are not conservatives! They ride off the backs of liberals and conservatives.
On Moral Sanctions
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Well, the Million Nerd March is on for him tomorrow!
Rightwingsparkle on December 31, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Here’s A Metaphor for the USA if Ron Paulians get into power.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 11:20 AM
That it might have been clever for him to write-off Iowa, but it was crazy for him to write-off both Iowa and NH.
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I was reading through some Bill White post on that neo-nazi site the other day, he has a thread about how they are running the same fraud that Buchanan did. Which is to get their leaders to pimp these guys on their sites and radio shows and encourage donations, then guys like Don Black are getting kickbacks for it.
jp on December 31, 2007 at 11:37 AM
You guys sure it’s not “The 7% Solution”?
Moriarity will be so disappointed…
mojo on December 31, 2007 at 11:45 AM
jp,
Libertarianism is an amoral and unethical movement that can justify any action to achieve it’s end of promoting what they call “Liberty” which is really unfettered amoral anarchy. Legalize drugs, de-fund the military, eliminate the government completely, all justified as long as physical force is not used. It’s a disgruntled Hippie’s paradise.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 11:45 AM
On a positive note, I would say that having the energy of some substantial fraction of the country’s naifs, crazies, and cynics focused on Ron Paul and his actually rather quaint notions of Constitutionalism may be preferable to some of the alternatives. Protest movements at other times and in other countries have sometimes taken much more dangerous form.
As with any candidacy, radical or mainstream, the motivations of supporters can cover a wide range. The Paulians I’ve had contact with or know well through their work generally fall into two familiar categories: 1) People who’ve persuaded themselves that they understand much more about history, economics, and world affairs than they really do – this group including college students and others among the half-educated, including true sophomores as well as the merely sophomoric. These often are the most ardent supporters, given to writing effusive and even unhinged internet posts, sometimes in all-caps, explaining just how Ron really is in position to win the nomination or the election, and how the country and the world need Ron now or all is lost! 2) People who who fully understand that there is no real world likelihood of Paul being elected, but who still like to imagine what would happen if the impossible did occur, and in the meantime take pleasure in scandalizing their peers with the lack of respect shown to the conventional candidates and the system.
The crazies are another story – sometimes their own group, sometimes in one or both of the others (something crazy people are good at).
Together with the naifs and cynics, such people will usually amount to 5 – 10% of the polity of any advanced democratic nation. When focused around one or another political orientation, then can temporarily achieve local superiority over their adversaries. Unless they and their issues are co-opted into larger groups, or, more rarely, political and economic destabilization (as in Weimar Germany, pre-revolutionary Russia, or even late Republic Rome) prevents the normal forces of conservatism from coalescing against them, they usually fall apart as spontaneously as they originally mustered, leaving some tragi-comical remnant still raising the flag long after the battlefield has emptied.
Perot’s radicalism of the center was a much broader phenomenon and probably a much more serious challenge to the two-party system as we know it. At times it showed some similarities to the contemporary Ron Paul phenomenon, but it was less ideological – which meant on the one hand it could play more broadly, but on the other hand there was less to hold it together.
CK MacLeod on December 31, 2007 at 11:47 AM
CK MacLeod,
I see some of your point but that’s the same attitude that allows the passive to blow off the cash rich advances and agenda of Communist China. They got cash rich because they are using amoral business dealings that steal or acquire intellectual property from inventors and manufacturers. The net effect is loss of knowledge and capability by the those who are passive about it. In a nut shell cash does influence those who have no regard for ethics or morality.
Just like Ron Paul doesn’t care where is money comes from.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Some of the founding fathers argued against the Bill of Rights, contending that enumerating individual rights would imply that citizens had a finite list of rights, with the government reserving all others. The 9th amendment was adopted based on those concerns by Madison and Hamilton.
Based on the views of the founders, it is the federal government, not the individual, that out to be limited.
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 12:19 PM
dedalus,
Libertarian definition of “Liberty” are not the same as those envisioned by the founders. There is a difference between morality and liberty. Libertarians don’t see a difference. Individual liberty is not absolute freedom to do whatever you want. The Libertarian version is a rejection of rationality and justifying actions based on an individuals feelings rather than logic. Hence their ability to condone drug and abortion as personal liberty without any regard for moral ramifications or even justifying the reason drug use is a good “liberty”.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 12:32 PM
@ Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 12:32 PM
You are missing the entire point. Libertarians don’t condone drug use or abortion necessarily, but they argue that you should have the liberty to be able to do them. The federal government has absolutely no right to legislate against things like this, its something they should have stayed out of to begin with.
muyoso on December 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM
People may make decision based on logic (their checkbook?) feelings (love of family?) or a combination of both. Fundamental to the notion of liberty shared by the founders and leaders like Goldwater and later Reagan is the contention that the government is there to protect liberty, not to ration it out. You are endowed by your creator, not the government, with rights.
Abortion and drug use are two different matters. Abortion involves competing rights, not just moral conduct. Drug use–marijuana, alcohol, prescription meds, etc.–are much more a private moral decision. If someone wants to poison themselves with tobacco or weed, I don’t think they should have to get the government’s permission.
If the government could deliver the mail, repair the bridges, and secure the borders that would be a better use of our tax dollars than getting involved in what goes on in private homes.
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM
dedalus,
You have just described the root and core Conservatism. Libertarianism is a poor copy of Conservatism and claims its self as the only alternative to saving the principals of the constitution. They claim to be the only ones concerned about big government and high taxes. All this without the philosophical and moral explanations that get in the way.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 1:21 PM
muyoso,
Again, you are claiming the Libertarians have originated these ideas and trying to establish the pretext that they are the only ones who think this way. If Ron Paul get’s elected there will be a huge shift away from true conservative principals in lue of liberal anarchy.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Libertarians don’t understand liberty, just raw individual liberty/freedom and dumb down or ignore the other side of it when one’s freedom starts to infringe on others freedom, etc.
There are two sides to Liberty also, and Libertarians such as paul basically ignore one side and focus on the Individual Liberty side. There is also the Liberty of the Society as a whole to be secure/safe(i.e. National Security) which is a Civil Liberty. The two sides must balance out to acheive true Liberty given the real world realities of the day, and the hardest thing for legislatures to figure out. The Founders put words like “Unreasonable” in the 4th amendment for a reason. When you have Sleeper Cells for Terrorist agents intent on overtaking the country living inside the country, much less the threats from outside, you have a problem and to some extent “Individual Liberties” will be limited. Paul and Libertarians basically ignore this reality and come up with wild conspiracies and lots of wishful thinking to stay true to absolute individual Liberty. See Murray Rothbard who argued the Cold War was a ruse to expand big govt., same logic is being applied by the same crowd to War on Terror.
the Founders new better, they caught Benedict Arnold and other British spies/traitors, by INTERCEPTING Mail intended for them, reading it, then placing back in mail flow undetected. George Washington did that, he understood the full scope of Liberty unlike modern day libertarians.
This is why the President in his famous 2005 Inaugration address said that “increasingly Liberty at home is dependenet on in prospering abroad”…
jp on December 31, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Newt Gingrinch has articulated much of what I said there and notes how today there is too much focus on Individual Liberties by certain groups at the expense of the Collective Liberty of the Nation(National Security). The 2 sides are dependent on each other.
I was hoping newt would run to be in the debates for that reason, he’d make Paul look like a fool more so than he does. maybe he’ll be the VP pick for whoever is nominated.
jp on December 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Ron Paul has raised $20 Million, but I haven’t seen one Ron Paul commercial on national TV. What is he spending the money on?
SoulGlo on December 31, 2007 at 2:24 PM
When given a choice I prefer the individual over the collective. Part of the appeal of the Cold War was that we were fighting societies that emphasized the collective over the individual.
dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I am not a “Paul supporter”, per se, but I entertain some similar positions.
Ron Paul did vote “for” the war in Afghanistan. Regarding Iraq; I don’t agree with RP that we were sold false information, however, I do agree with him up to the point that we should have never entered into the war in Iraq for reasons of “Regime Change” or “Iraqi Liberation”. Regarding Afghanistan; we were provoked. Regarding Iraq; I believe we are not the world police and should not be meddling in the affairs of other nations.
However, now that our troops are in Iraq, I would like to see Congress find their spine and let our troops do the work the military needs to perform.
Regarding the War of Northern Aggression; If Ron Paul would not have joined the Union Army, guess I would have been standing with him on the Confederate side (no, I am not pro-slavery).
AZ_Redneck on December 31, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Personally, I think individual liberty scares the conservatives as much as the liberals.
AZ_Redneck on December 31, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Happy New Year. Everyone!
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Let’s hope that the new year doesn’t bring us to make a choice between a women with low self esteem and sympathies towards Communism who we can’t afford or man who condones anarchy wrapped in the stolen ideas of conservatism has sympathies for NeoNazis. Wouldn’t that be fucked up?
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 3:20 PM
@ Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Lets hope the new year doesnt bring us an ultra christian nominee from the republican party, who is weak on every issue that conservatives should be strong on, simply for the sake of electing a religious candidate. Lets hope someone like Romney who is anti second amendment, pro universal health care and who thinks the government should be used to solve all the worlds ills is elected. I don’t see how you can claim RP isnt a conservative. Find me a candidate with more conservative positions on issues than this:
NEVER voted for a tax increase
NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget
NEVER voted for a restriction to the second amendment
Wants smaller government
Wants government OUT of the lives of people
Wants personal liberty to be restored by getting rid of things like the patriot act.
THOSE are things that always were conservative issues. Just because the republican party has changed in the past decade, and only focuses on God, Gays and abortion, doesnt mean conservatism has followed.
muyoso on December 31, 2007 at 3:29 PM
14-17 year olds and credit card fraud.
- The Cat
MirCat on December 31, 2007 at 4:00 PM
@ MirCat on December 31, 2007 at 4:00 PM
3000/19000000 – .015% fraud
muyoso on December 31, 2007 at 4:13 PM
I have a question… what’s the difference between Libertarianism and anarchy? Except Libertarians think we should have a military?
As far as I can tell, the Paulbots are anarchists for the most part.
Vanceone on December 31, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Let’s see, Paul’s other positions of blaming America first and always, running way from the international community, surrender in the war on terror, surrender in Iraq, hobnobbing with Truthers and neo-nazi’s/white supremacists, yup, those are Conservative ideals!
William Teach on December 31, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I live in California and have yet to see an ad for ANY of them.
BallisticBob on December 31, 2007 at 6:30 PM
muyoso,
Fact is… there are no real options hear. The ones that are good don’t have a voice.
Egfrow on December 31, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Depends on where does individual liberty end and anarcy begins. That has always been the major issue with the Libertarians. Ron Paul is no different.
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Too early for your state.
bnelson44 on December 31, 2007 at 8:07 PM
I am not a big WikiPedia fan, but they have a decent representation for Libertarianism.
Regarding the military; former active duty Marine myself, but I am no longer the fan of a large standing army. I prefer an armed citizenry where everyone participates and the limited government operates at the consent of the governed.
Maybe you need to evaluate just how tied you are to the government. I don’t think it is anarchist to decide how much water you want to flush in a toilet, choose your own lightbulbs, or whether to wear a seatbelt or not.
On a larger scale, I would like to see every socialist program (Medicare, social security, grain subsidies, etc) in the federal government cut tomorrow. Also, the end the IRS, Dept of Education and the repeal of every gun control measure since 1933 for starters.
AZ_Redneck on December 31, 2007 at 11:33 PM
AZ, you’d better be careful, you’re in danger of sounding like a Ronulan, Paulnut, Paulite, ad nauseum. Nevermind that it makes perfect sense, or that it is the truly conservative Constitutionist position, the RINOtards are liable to start blasting you any minute…
y2church on January 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Wow. I just had a really cute Ronulan show up on my front doorstep and leave off some campaign literature. It’s a shame I have so much intelligence and political integrity, because she sure did make me want to… er… vote for him. Oh. I took the literature so it would stay out of the hands of someone more impressionable than I am. Reporting from the front lines…
trigon on January 2, 2008 at 7:44 PM
This jerk needs to have pity on those poor, retarded people and give them back their money. They need it.
Jaibones on January 2, 2008 at 9:58 PM