CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Ron Paul raises 4.2million in one day
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ron Paul raises 4.2million in one day

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...Li6awD8SNV5Q02


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."

Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.

"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.

The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors, fundraising director Jonathan Bydlak said Monday night.

Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.

Paul as of Monday had raised more than $7 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.

Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.
post #2 of 31
I like the guy, so that's cool. But do you think it changes the seeming inevitable truth that nobody's ever gonna vote for him? I guess he's inching forward, and still doing better than anybody expected he could.
post #3 of 31
What does a Texan Libertarian have to do with Guy Fawkes?
post #4 of 31
His supporters are beginning to remind me of the Browncoats.
post #5 of 31
I'll give him this: That's a great day of fundraising.
I'll also give him this: It's refreshing to see someone not simply toeing the party lines. If nothing else it should spur debate.

However, his followers are some of the most obnoxious people on the internet.
post #6 of 31
I agree completely with what LD and Marshall have to say. I still find it strange that he wants to make sure that Civil Liberties are not to be trampled on but would still want to ban abortion.
post #7 of 31
My understanding is that while he's against it personally and wants to repeal Rowe v. Wade, he wants to do so in order to make it a state issue instead of a federal one.
post #8 of 31
I can see the logic in that but that still bothers me. Plus his fixation on the gold standard is complete nonsense.
post #9 of 31
While it would pain me to see abortion become a state issue, it could do some good as well by taking other issues that arguably fall under the police power and moving them out of the Federal sphere. Expansion of federal responsibility can be a very mixed blessing.
post #10 of 31
The Libertarian party booted him out because of his abortion stance. It actually splintered the party into pro-life and pro-choice sects, which is just completely stupid. If RvW was changed to be a state law, I would just about bet my life that 75% of the states would vote to abolish it.

EDIT: And by abolish it, I mean take away the right of choice.
post #11 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick
His supporters are beginning to remind me of the Browncoats.
They haven't burned down a competing candidate's offices because the other guy raised more money, have they?
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall
What does a Texan Libertarian have to do with Guy Fawkes?
I'm guessing here, but Libertarians want to minimize Government if I understand correctly - cast the responsibility back to the individual. V in the film wanted the same thing.

Not so much about Guy Fawkes himself
post #13 of 31
I love the fact a Republican is essentially using a Religious Terrorist as an ideological hero.
post #14 of 31
I'm starting to get a serious Martin Sheen vibe from this guy. Not Martin Sheen in The West Wing, Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone.
post #15 of 31
I love that line from The Dead Zone when Anthony Zerbe says to Walken, "Are you registered? Well, get registered and vote against this turkey. He's dangerous."

If Ron Paul has a Stillson vibe it's because I think most Americans feel disconnected from Washington because no one in Washington will break the omerta about 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Except Paul on the Rep side and Kucinich on the Dem side. Ergo, they seem much more "of the people" and less "of the system." That's probably stating the obvious.

Whether Paul can get elected remains to be seen, obviously, but it seems unlikely that we'll have to deal with his extreme beliefs on domestic issues and should enjoy the wild card aspect while we can.
post #16 of 31
I can't believe the other Republicans haven't caught on that the only reason this guy has support is because he's standing out from their dick-swinging, macho rhetoric. All of them are trying to be Bush III and Paul realizes that America (or at least Goldwater Republicans) are looking for a different direction.
post #17 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beageal
I like the guy, so that's cool. But do you think it changes the seeming inevitable truth that nobody's ever gonna vote for him? I guess he's inching forward, and still doing better than anybody expected he could.
I hear this all over the media..... so people will give him their hard earned money just not their vote? Makes sense in a Fox News sort of way I guess.
post #18 of 31
I think the reason people will give him money, but won't vote for him is they want parts of his message to get across, but they don't like him and most of his message.

I think people like the ideas of Civil liberities and getting out of Iraq, but I can't see much else. As he is one of the few candiates preaching it, it's what makes him viable in the short term.
post #19 of 31
Thread Starter 
deleted
post #20 of 31
Thread Starter 
deleted
post #21 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey
I think the reason people will give him money, but won't vote for him is they want parts of his message to get across, but they don't like him and most of his message.
I think people like the ideas of Civil liberities and getting out of Iraq, but I can't see much else. As he is one of the few candiates preaching it, it's what makes him viable in the short term.


That's the funniest strangest logic I've seen in a long time!!!! They don't really like him and most of his message but give him their money anyway? LOL

You should work for FOX NEWS
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
I hear this all over the media..... so people will give him their hard earned money just not their vote? Makes sense in a Fox News sort of way I guess.
I didn't literally mean nobody would vote for him. I just meant that even with impressive fundraising, he's not one of the big name, celeb candidates, so his chances are slim. It's a safe bet that everyone who gave him that 4.2 million will vote for him. But it's not the people who contribute to a campaign who determine the winner. The money helps, but does it help enough?
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beageal
I didn't literally mean nobody would vote for him. I just meant that even with impressive fundraising, he's not one of the big name, celeb candidates, so his chances are slim. It's a safe bet that everyone who gave him that 4.2 million will vote for him. But it's not the people who contribute to a campaign who determine the winner. The money helps, but does it help enough?
Oddly enough, the fundraising episode seems to have DRASTICALLY raised his profile - he went from a political-wonk curiousity to a mainstream player almost literally overnight (though it may only last for one or two news cycles).
post #24 of 31
Thread Starter 
The media will still try to discredit him especially FOX.....watch


The next debate on NOV28 the other candidates especially Rudy will attack him and spread bullshit propaganda.
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
The media will still try to discredit him especially FOX....
What am I missing where conservatives dislike him? The ONLY difference I see from him policy-wise is on Iraq.

It makes it look even more like if you don't toe the neo-con line 100% YOU MUST BE DESTROYED. But I'd figure they'd be a bit more subtle about it.
post #26 of 31
I read a report that Ron Paul is against the "Secular Left" and wants more God in government. GULP. I think that may explain where some of the 4.2 mil is coming from.
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
I read a report that Ron Paul is against the "Secular Left" and wants more God in government. GULP. I think that may explain where some of the 4.2 mil is coming from.
Doesn't sound very Libertarian to me.
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
If Ron Paul has a Stillson vibe it's because I think most Americans feel disconnected from Washington because no one in Washington will break the omerta about 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
Not to mention that he wants to "throw the bums out".
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall
I love the fact a Republican is essentially using a Religious Terrorist as an ideological hero.
Here's a pretty funny post that tries to parse the rhetorical confusion involved:

http://jacobtlevy.blogspot.com/2007/...uve-heard.html
Quote:
Guy Fawkes Day did have a certain kind of place in the English Whiggish self-interpretation, since freedom from Catholicism was always understood as partly constitutive of and partly symbolic of English liberty. The fact that it was Parliament Fawkes had tried to blow up only made the symbolism starker-- the devotee of a slavish religion who wanted to enslave good Englishmen tried to destroy the symbol of English liberty. And that anti-Catholic Whiggish ideology is one of the great-great grandparents of certain kinds of anti-statism in the Anglo-American world, something that entered the intellectual DNA of the U.S. in particular in the 18th century.
The whole post is interesting reading (not very long).
post #30 of 31
I like Paul, but he has the worst speech writers. Every week a new jumble of rhetoric about Fawkes or religion or money or ethics, and none of it ever makes sense.
post #31 of 31
Paul appears to be turning into this decades Ross Perot. Heck, he's even got the same initials and comes from Texas. He may not become president, but he gets a good amount of attention (and money) from those who don't trust the other canidates.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Ron Paul raises 4.2million in one day