If you like Ron Paul, donate today (Mon. Nov. 5th)

[BradLohaus]

Ron Paul supporters on the net decided to try to get everybody to give him a bunch of money today in an attempt to get more media attention. So far, he's raised about $2.5 million since midnight last night. (He had about$2.7 million for the quarter at midnight and he's at around $5.2 million for the quarter right now.) So if you can, today's a good day to donate.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[xrayzebra]

Well, guess he will have to do without my donation. But who
is surprised?

[BradLohaus]

Oh come on Ray, his position on the IRS alone has to be worth a c-note. :)

[braeden0613]

Up to 2.6 million right now!! I predict about $3 million at least by midnight.

[braeden0613]

i think i may have to raise that prediction

[MannyIsGod]

I think Romney had a 3 million dollar day - this may out do that.

[MannyIsGod]

How the fuck is this not national news? I hate the fucking media.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016647.html

Look how far out of the way the corospondent goes to say they can't confirm things as if Ron Paul's people would be liars. :lol

[Walter Craparita]

I like Ron Paul. Too bad he has no chance.

[braeden0613]

$3.4 million! wow this is way more than i expected

[MannyIsGod]

Paul has now raised more money in one day than anyone else in the race.

[Yonivore]

Paul has now raised more money in one day than anyone else in the race.
Well, he suffers from premature contribution.

Creating an event and causing a one-day giving frenzy is no feat. Sustained fund-raising is the only thing that'll give him the over $100 million it'll take to be a serious contender.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, he suffers from premature contribution.

Creating an event and causing a one-day giving frenzy is no feat. Sustained fund-raising is the only thing that'll give him the over $100 million it'll take to be a serious contender.:lol

Yeah because everyone does it. :rolleyes

This wasn't done by Paul's campaign.

[Yonivore]

:lol

Yeah because everyone does it. :rolleyes

This wasn't done by Paul's campaign.
Well, he needs about 20 more days like today then...

[Holt's Cat]

You'll have to excuse Yoni. He can't recognize a candidate who supports the Constitution and has never deviated from that.

[braeden0613]

Well, he suffers from premature contribution.

Creating an event and causing a one-day giving frenzy is no feat. Sustained fund-raising is the only thing that'll give him the over $100 million it'll take to be a serious contender.
It isnt? Even though all ron paul supporters are bots and spammers? :rolleyes Do you think any of the other candidates could drum up enough support to get all of their supporters to donate on one day?

[Holt's Cat]

Ron Paul offers what most Republicans purport to support. Now if they could only recognize that...

[MannyIsGod]

40k short of four million with four minutes to go. :(

[Holt's Cat]

Romney feels like the reluctant choice. But will the Bible Belt sit it out instead of support a Utah cum Bay State heretic?

[boutons_]

Does the radical/fundamentalist/extreme "religious" right still hold the Repugs by the short-n-curlies?

Didn't the RR get the message that hypocritical Rove, etc played the RR like a violin while really thinking they were stupid? Politics is a filthy, dirty game, much like the filthy lucre the venal religious right wallows in.

[Holt's Cat]

Does the radical/fundamentalist/extreme "religious" right still hold the Repugs by the short-n-curlies?

Didn't the RR get the message that hypocritical Rove, etc played the RR like a violin while really thinking they were stupid? Politics is a filthy, dirty game, much like the filthy lucre the venal religious right wallows in.

How do you post with your arms handcuffed behind your back?

[Nbadan]

Republican front-runners, we have a problem....

Republican Raises Stunning $3 Million Online in Less Than 24 Hours


http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ron_paul_money_071105_ms.jpg

The 08 Ralph Nadar?

By Z. BYRON WOLF
Mark it down: A landmark moment entered the annals of political fundraising Nov. 5, 2007.


If Texas Republican Ron Paul's Web site fund-raising meter is to be believed, the Libertarian candidate, who has lagged in the polls but raised as much money as top-tier candidates, passed $3 million in online fund-raising in less than 24 hours.

ABC News (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3822989&page=1)

[Yonivore]

When he repeats the feat 10 more times then, the front-runners can start sweating.

[Yonivore]

If you actually want me to judge the seriousness of presidential candidates based on their ability to raise money, let's take a look at the numbers. According to Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp), Ron Paul has managed to raise about $8 million. That is considerable, and today's fundraising is impressive. Until, that is, you compare it to what other candidates have managed to raise.

Hillary Clinton - $90 million
Barack Obama - $80 million
John Edwards - $30 million
Mitt Romney - $62 million
Rudy Giuliani - $47 million
John McCain - $32 million
Fred Thompson - $12 million

With the exception of Thompson, who entered the race late, the other candidates have raised considerably more money, and poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/) more than the margin of error. If anything, these fundraising numbers should make the Thompson campaign nervous. They certainly should not be a cause for celebration among the Paulbots.

There are two major reasons the Ron Paul candidacy should not be taken seriously. One is Ron Paul (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/02/ron-paul-on-iranian-nukes-i-wouldnt-do-that-much-about-it/), the other is his supporters (http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/11/01/ron-paul-panderer-to-the-paranoid/). The evidence against Ron Paul is very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/10/video-ron-paul-bircheresque-crank/), very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/25/did-americas-greatest-patriot-get-a-500-donation-from-stormfronts-founder/), very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/19/video-ron-paul-supporters-getting-creepier-by-the-minute/), very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/audio-why-ron-paul-is-a-crank-episode-314/), very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/13/audio-us-in-great-danger-of-a-staged-terror-attack-or-new-gulf-of-tonkin-says-ron-paul/) disturbing. Paul finds common cause with conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and lounge singers (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121450.html) and he is using the Republican presidential primary to advance his message, not his candidacy.

In my opinion, that makes Ron Paul a disgraceful politician. Paul was elected as a Republican, campaigns as a Republican, takes money from the Republican party and is given a platform for his message during Republican debates. And yet he’s repeatedly stated that once the primary is over, he will not campaign on behalf of the Republican nominee, endorse the Republican nominee or vote for the Republican nominee.

What kind of man takes money and attention from a party when it helps him, then spits in their face after getting what he wants? This entitlement attitude, when looked at within the context of who supports Paul and what Paul believes, does not reflect well on the character of the man who claims to be the "hope for America."

[DarkReign]

He got my $$. First time ever in my life.

[Yonivore]

He got my $$. First time ever in my life.
Well, at least you're Eyeore post in the Hillary reaction thread makes more sense.

[Holt's Cat]

Paul benefits greatly from his online presence and doesn't need the level of cash that others do in order to fund his campaign.

[Yonivore]

Paul benefits greatly from his online presence and doesn't need the level of cash that others do in order to fund his campaign.
The best Paul can hope to do is pull a Nader.

[Holt's Cat]

In my opinion, that makes Ron Paul a disgraceful politician. Paul was elected as a Republican, campaigns as a Republican, takes money from the Republican party and is given a platform for his message during Republican debates. And yet he’s repeatedly stated that once the primary is over, he will not campaign on behalf of the Republican nominee, endorse the Republican nominee or vote for the Republican nominee.

That's rich. How about a candidate that campaigns as a fiscal conservative and then presides over the greatest expansion of the federal government in our nation's history? Don't give me the 'war' explanation, for I'm sure that we aren't defeating al Qaida by providing a drugs benefit for the elderly.

What's disgraceful is that the GOP no longer stands for fiscal conservatism and limited government at all. What's worse are those who pretend it does and then denigrate those who dare to point out the truth.



What kind of man takes money and attention from a party when it helps him, then spits in their face after getting what he wants? This entitlement attitude, when looked at within the context of who supports Paul and what Paul believes, does not reflect well on the character of the man who claims to be the "hope for America."

Kinda like the man who takes the support of those who want a limited government and then spits in their face with actual policies.

[Yonivore]

That's rich. How about a candidate that campaigns as a fiscal conservative and then presides over the greatest expansion of the federal government in our nation's history?
Meh, you may have a point but, he's also presided over the greatest growth in GDP in our nation's history.


Don't give me the 'war' explanation, for I'm sure that we aren't defeating al Qaida by providing a drugs benefit for the elderly.
Okay, I won't. But, I didn't vote for Bush the first time because he was a fiscal conservative and I certainly didn't vote for him the second time for that reason either.


What's disgraceful is that the GOP no longer stands for fiscal conservatism and limited government at all. What's worse are those who pretend it does and then denigrate those who dare to point out the truth.
That may be true but, I think your beef is with the entire Republican Party and not just President Bush.


Kinda like the man who takes the support of those who want a limited government and then spits in their face with actual policies.
Like I said, that's not why I supported the president and, seeing as how this "flaw" was revealed in the first term, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not why most Republicans supported him either.

Are we disappointed in the growth of spending? Absolutely. But, President Bush's positives far outweighed his negatives and, to boot, he negatives were going to be part of any Democratic administration anyway.

You seem to be arguing, however, that Ron Paul's behavior is justified by President Bush's. That's not a very good argument considering he's claiming to be different.

The man has a tough row to hoe, and I stand by my opinion that the best he could do is be a Nader in the next election. And, considering all the positive press he's getting from the left, he may be a Nader to the the Democrat -- again.

Doh!

[BradLohaus]

One is Ron Paul (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/02/ron-paul-on-iranian-nukes-i-wouldnt-do-that-much-about-it/), From the link:He has no moral or strategic interest, obviously, in partnering with Israel to check Islamism. Nor does he seem concerned with guaranteeing our energy interests. To do so would presumably hew too closely to the dreaded neocon “war for oil” bumper sticker, although how he’d plan to meet the demand for petroleum if apocalyptic war did break out isn’t addressed here.

So why are there still arguments here about whether or not our ME policy is based on oil? And if we elect Ron Paul, we won't have enough oil to fight an apocalyptic war. Got it.


the other ishis supporters (http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/11/01/ron-paul-panderer-to-the-paranoid/). This one was something. Clearly, there are Ron Paul supporters who are rational and grounded, not given to spouting conspiracies or blaming “neocons” for everything bad that happens in the world (neocons being a blind for anti-Semitism).

Wow. And that was just at the beginning.


The evidence against Ron Paul is very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/10/video-ron-paul-bircheresque-crank/),

I'm not sure what the point of this one is. I guess he's trying to say that Paul is bad for appearing on Alex Jones' radio show. But I watched the youtube of it and I don't know what the problem is. I guess if you like the Patriot Act and the president's new martial law powers then you would have a problem with it, but then I would call you crazy. Also, I listened to an interview on youtube about a year ago that Jones had with Joseph Stiglitz, who used to be the chief economist of the World Bank and is a nobel prize winner. It was interesting because Stiglitz was basically run out of the WB for being critical of their lending policies. My point is that the claim that Paul is bad or dumb or crazy or whatever for appearing on Alex Jones' show doesn't hold water.


very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/25/did-americas-greatest-patriot-get-a-500-donation-from-stormfronts-founder/),
A bad character - a guy who runs a racist website and happens to be David Duke's ex-wife's husband - gave Paul $500. I'm sure a racist or otherwise bad person hasn't donated to any of the other candidates. Also, Alex Jones gave Paul the $2,300 maximum, and Paul should give it back for some reason.


very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/19/video-ron-paul-supporters-getting-creepier-by-the-minute/), More of the same. "He appears on Alex Jones' radio show!", etc.


very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/audio-why-ron-paul-is-a-crank-episode-314/), I loved this one: The truth is, if it weren’t for his orneriness on the war, I’d put more stock in Paul’s staunch libertarian/small government ethic. I’m very sympathetic to all of that. But when it comes to the war and related security issues, Paul is just unreasonable, and if enacted his ideas would get more people killed, which would lead to even more of a security-heavy environment, not greater libertarian freedom. Why can’t he see that?

Electing Ron Paul would cause people to die. Why can't he and his supporters see that? It's impossible to argue against such impeccable logic... Well, if there's ever an attack ad against Paul we know what it will be: "Daisy Girl part 2" - "if you vote for Ron Paul, terrorists will kill this little girl!"

And I'm assuming that the Michelle from this article is Michelle Malkin. If you think that Ron Paul is crazy just for talking to Alex Jones, then anybody who actually likes what Michelle Malkin has to say must be certifiably insane. You've got to stop getting your news from this guy, Yoni.


very (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/13/audio-us-in-great-danger-of-a-staged-terror-attack-or-new-gulf-of-tonkin-says-ron-paul/) disturbing.

The DoD talked about doing exactly that type of thing in the 60s, staging plane hijackings or downing a ship to blame it on Cuba to create an excuse to go after Castro. Ah, the plan had a name, and I can't think of it or I'd give a link. Anybody out there know the name of it?

EDIT: Operation Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwoods

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

good to see Yoni still steals from blogs.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

good to see Yoni still steals from blogs.
Never stopped. ;)

[BradLohaus]

Pat Buchanan agrees with Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEgxHLii_ic

Do not tie me down with facts and dates, Pat Buchanan! :lol