To His Credit

Ron Paul has set a 4th quarter fundraising goal of $12 million and hit his first $100,000 in the first 48 hours. We can say what we will about the guy and his supporters, and believe me, I do, but they are committed.


  1. Doug Deal says:

    They are indeed committed. So much so, many need to be committed.

    I appreciate a number fo things RP has to say, but he is not presidential material. (Of course, Republican or Democrat, what candidate is?)

  2. ugadog says:

    So he’s trying to raise 12 million in a quarter and has raised 100k in 2 days. There are only 90 (arugably 91 or 92) days in a quarter. By my calculations that’s $4.5 million if he keeps up this pace.

  3. StevePerkins says:

    Wow, ugadog… you REALLY have to spin like crazy to scoff off $100k in two days, or 3rd quarter results that beat John McCain’s (with the average amount per donor being just $40).

    In the 3rd quarter, Romney’s fundraising dropped 29% compared to Q2. Guiliani went down 40%. McCain’s take dropped 55%. Paul’s performance INCREASED by 114%. As you point out, ugadog, Paul just started Q4 already on pace to repeat the $5 million ballpark. However, up until this morning no one thought his campaign was financially viable. Apparently, the campaign is betting that funraising will pick up further now that even the mainstream news outlets are reporting that they are. I’ll point out that Paul has taken in an additional $35,000 since Erick posted this story.

    Paul’s limited-government beliefs may go a lot further than those of many people on Peach Pundit. I’m a Paul supporter, and those beliefs go a lot further than MINE. However, the man has built a network of around 125,000 contributors and counting (dwarfing even the front-runners)… and with the average contribution being just $40 so far, he has plenty of room to hit them up again and again. Like it or not, Paul will not be dropping out of the race with the Huckabee’s and Brownbacks after the first primaries… he has the financial infrastructure in place now to stick around and see the campaign all the way through to the end.

  4. Donkey Kong says:


    If RP wasn’t against the Fed, he’d narrow the gap in my mind. I just can’t vote for a Presidential candidate who wants to abolish the Fed.

  5. Erick says:

    If Paul’s campaign would be vocal in denouncing the anti-Semites who are some of his most rabid supporters, he’d go a long way in restoring himself in my mind.

  6. StevePerkins says:

    DonkeyKong: I’m not personally educated enough as an economist to say whether a gold standard or fiat currency is superior. For that matter, I don’t support abolishing the Dept. of Education… or half the other cuts that Ron Paul supports. However, the process of picking a candidate isn’t about finding the guy who’s a 100% match with you on ALL issues. Many people who voted for Bush (including myself in 2000) didn’t believe that women should lose abortion rights… even though that’s what Bush publicly supports. Presidents seldom get their way 100% on highly contraversial issues anyway, so you prioritize the ones that are most important to you in a candidate. No offense, but the fate of fiat currency seems a strange top-priority.

    Erick: This is the first time I’m hearing an anti-Semite smear being sent Ron Paul’s way (I guess that’s further evidence that he’s “arrived”). Paul is basically the only candidate on the GOP side who says that Israel, as a nuclear power, should shoulder more of the burden for its own national defense. Every other candidate in the field is leering at Iran and discussing which other Muslim countries we should consider bombing on Israel’s behalf. If I were an anti-Semite, I suppose that Paul would be the only remotely palatable candiate in the field. However, that does NOT mean that it’s an anti-Semitic candidacy. I just don’t understand these kinds of smears… if you’re not more hawkish on Israel than the average voter IN ISRAEL ITSELF, the American Israeli lobby declares you “anti-Semitic”. That crap is worse that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on african-american issues.

    Overall, it astouds me that whenever I talk to someone about Paul… so many people point to oddball fringe issues as being their “dealbreaker”. Meanwhile, the Republican front-runner is currently a pro-choice, pro-gun-control, acknowledged philanderer from New York City. WE’RE the crackpots (?!?)… it’s absolutely insane what is and isn’t a “dealbreaker” issue with GOP Establishment activists these days.

    Ron Paul gets laughed at because grassroots-level Republican politics, from what I’ve seen so far, is basically just an extension of High School popularity contests. People back the rich kid or the cheerleader for Prom Queen, but that’s how the politics work… and nobody wants to stand out by failing to jump on the “right” bandwagon. Some of the reasons I hear for backing other candidates are no less crackpotty than anything Ron Paul represents… you just won’t fit in with the “cool crowd” (i.e. the people that might give you a political job someday, or even support your own candidacy that you privately dream about). So be it. However, SMART Republican leadership should be thinking about outreach to Paul’s constituency. The man has accumulated more financial backing than than McCain (the race’s initial front-runner), and a network of 125,000-and-climbing donors. Not just voters… DONORS. Pointing fingers and calling these people crackpots is quite simply leaving money and votes on the table. Although I’m quite ready to declare myself GOP, I’ve been attending Young Republican meetings lately for two reasons: (1) Ron Paul is running as a Republican, (2) a couple of officers who know about my libertarian-leanings recruited me. The Ron Paul candidacy gives the Republican Party an “in” with a constituency that’s abandonded you over the past 20 years, as you tilted too far toward the religious-right and neocon foreign policy constituencies instead. You can take advantage of that opportunity through the next step (outreach), or you can squander it foolishly. We’re watching and waiting.

  7. Doug Deal says:

    It would help if he would realize that whether you are for or against the war, we are involved with Iraq, and cannot just say “oops, my mistake” and the leave the country to chaos.

    Responsible adults take care of things that they are responsible for. Leaving the Iraquis to the four winds is irresponsible and demoonstrates RP as a “statement” candidate and nothing else.

    Does he also propose that Social Security be gutted, and promisses made to people on the verge of retirement be forgotten with a snide remark about “too bad, we changed our minds”.

  8. StevePerkins says:

    Iraq is a collection of three separate groups, thrown together when Great Britain redrew the region’s borders following WWI. They never wanted to live and work together, and it took a century of strongmen dictators to hold them together. Currently, we are just yet another strongman trying to hold them together because that would be more politically convenient for us. I acknowledge that the “surge” has calmed violence… but without political change the surge is no long-term solution, because it would require us to stay there FOREVER and continue playing strongman.

    The political solution is to divide up control among the three groups… giving them more autonomy and independence, with weaker centralized control. You know, FEDERALISM… another forgotten Republican principle that the Party would do well to re-embrace. I don’t think that de-centralized control would be an immediate “magic bullet”, and it would be as efficient or convenient for the U.S. to deal with… but I don’t see any other way that we’ll ever be able to leave that place.

    As for Social Security… President Bush burned up all of his infamous “political capital” just trying to divert a percentage point or two into private accounts, and it went nowhere. Our federal government has more than just one branch… so I doubt that President Paul would be able to disband Social Security altogether with a snap of his fingers, just as the baby boomer generation retires. I’d just be happy with someone genuinely pushing in the direction of reducing it.

  9. drjay says:

    no one seems to be talking about it b/c i guess a lot of folks still think of paul as a bit of a fringe candidate–but people have mentioned like mcains age–isn’t ron paul about 108 or so and isn’t a valid concern to have about a prez candidate?

  10. DMZDave says:

    RP turned 72 in August and would be 77 by the end of his first term. He is almost exactly one year older than McCain.

  11. drjay says:

    ok–a lot of people are concerned about mccain’s age–paul is older than mccain–ergo–my question about whether that is a valid concern to have in a candidate stands…

  12. drjay says:

    look i love reagan as mcuh as any good gop–named a pet after him, have pix of him displayed in my home, the wife has reagan earring’s, etc…but he was 77 at the end of his 2nd term, and he was diagnosed w/ alzheimers shortly thereafter, before reagan ike had been the oldest and he was “only” 70 when he left office…i’m not saying, i’m just saying

  13. StevePerkins says:

    Ronald Reagan was 70 when he took office. George H.W. Bush was 65. The ages of the current 2008 field are:

    Ron Paul – 72
    John McCain – 71
    Fred Thompson – 65
    Rudy Guiliani – 63
    Mitt Romney – 60
    Mike Huckabee – 52

    I suppose that if you’re looking for a young buck, Huckabee or MAYBE Romney is your man. Of course, Huckabee is right around the age that Bill Clinton was, and everyone moaned about how that was too young at the time.

    I’m not saying the point you raise is invalid, drjay. However, Ron Paul IS a practicing medical doctor, so I’m sure he knows as well as anyone how to look after his health. Also, I do think it’s a bit silly for Reagan having Alzheimer’s to mean that we never consider candidates above age 65 ever again. If ANYTHING, it just makes it more important who their VP picks are.

  14. drjay says:

    clinton was still in his 40’s when he assumed office–he was one of the youngest presidents ever–its not necessarily an issue to me–but if dr. paul is going to raise millions and muscle his way into serious consideration i just think it is a legit issue to bring up

Comments are closed.