Washington Post
On Tea Party Anniversary, Ron Paul Raises Millions
Rep. Ron Paul, whose rock star status on the Internet has singlehandedly fueled his campaign, is poised to break another online fund raising record.
His own.
On Nov. 5, which was Guy Fawkes Day, a symbol of rebellion in British history, Paul hauled in $4.3 million in 24 hours -- the most money raised online by a candidate in a single day. Today, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the day that helped spark the American Revolution, Paul's Web-savvy, intensely loyal supporters planned another "money-bomb." And by 6 p.m. EST, the "Paulites" had raised $4.1 million from more than 30,000 donors, bringing the Texas Republican's fund raising total this quarter to $15.8 million. And counting.
"We'll definitely pass the 4.3 million [mark]" by midnight Monday, Jim Forsythe, the former Air Force pilot (and Bush supporter) who leads Paul's New Hampshire MeetUp group, told The Trail.
His opposition to the Iraq war sets Paul apart from the rest of the GOP field, the Paulites say, and his fiscal conservativism and fiercely libertarian, live-and-let-live views, have attracted independents, Republicans and Democrats. Though he's yet to break into double-digits in various national and state polls, he recently placed fifth among Republicans in a survey by the Concord Monitor, polling ahead of former senator Fred Thompson and behind former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Paul's online popularity, to the surprise (and envy) of other Republican campaigns, proves to be one of the most fascinating fund raising stories of the year. He's the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, to increase his fundraising haul with every quarter, raising $640,000 in the first quarter, $2.4 million in the second, $5.1 million in the third. And more than two-thirds of the money, his aides say, has come from the Internet. In what was first seen as an overly ambitious goal, aides said they needed to raise $12 million by Dec. 31 to be able to stay competitive in the early primary states. With the money raised, campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Paul bought television spots in Iowa and New Hampshire and radio ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Benton added that the campaign has attracted 107,000 donors this quarter, with the median contribution of about $50.
"We're in a really good position, money-wise," Benton told The Trail.
-- Jose Antonio Vargas
And then there's this one...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_el_pr/paul_fundraising
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term Texas congressman's campaign for the White House.
ADVERTISEMENT
Called a "Money Bomb," the goal was to raise as much money as possible on the Internet in one day. The campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.
At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations are processed credit card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Benton said the median donation is about $50 in the fundraiser, which was the idea of Paul supporters who are not officially connected to the campaign.
Trevor Lyman, a Paul supporter who is traveling the country following the Ron Paul blimp, said the date of the fundraiser coincides with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
The Ron Paul blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution." The blimp, another grass-roots effort, was in Chester, S.C., on Sunday, and organizers hope to get it to New Hampshire before the Jan. 8 primary there.
* Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
* Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
* Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
* Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
* Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
* No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
aanallein said:I think his stance on abortion is more along the lines of states rights vs federal rights with regards to the issue.
aanallein said:^ oh come on. This is the ONE issue you have with him so he's "trampling" on the consitution? he hasn't even said he'd try to illegalize it he merely says that he doesn't agree with it and thinks it should be the states right. Which you happen to agree with because - that's how the constitution would have it, no?
not to be a jerk but you are being a little hypocritical there. don't you think it would be ideal if each state had a pro-abortion stance but the federal government had no position in the matter? I think that's what the constitution would want personally. how does that make him anti-constitution?
oh and the treason thing just makes me wnat to lol.
aanallein said:^ but he hasn't. he hasn't tried to make it illegal he just wants to make it the state's choice. are you against him on the principal alone and the fact that he holds a different viewpoint than you? that's pretty juvenile if he's not planning to act on his feelings (ie, making abortion universally illegal - infact he would be AGAINST such an action considering his viewpoints on the constitution).
likewise i think its juvenile or atleast misinformed of you to claim he's "anti-constitution" when he clearly isn't any such thing at all.
mariposa said:1. It isn't the only issue I have with him. And "illegalize" is a non-word attempt at euphemism for taking away the rights of the people.
2. I see nowhere in Paul's policy statement that he is for the states' rights to decide for themselves whether to continue to preserve a woman's right to choose.
3. It is not up to anyone but me (and, to an extent, the other party involved) to decide whether I should have a child or not. And the government has done a shit job so far in providing for what would might (and might most kindly) have been the product of an abortion. Paul utterly fails to state what we do with those otherwise aborted "individuals" once they are born. He then has the audacity to say that he wants to cut taxes. That is the hypocrisy here. Who is going to pay for all of these babies without a personal guarantee of appropriate and appropriately allocated funding?
4. Bill Clinton got impeached for getting a blowjob by an intern and then lying about it. We held our Chief to higher standards than that and it did constitute a "high crime/misdemeanor" under the Constitution, so it was right in that context that he was impeached. As such, any American who supported the impeachment of Clinton cannot, by definition, support Ron Paul.
Ron Paul said:The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
aanallein said:^ ya I edited.
but again I'll just state it like so:
Ron Paul seems to be one of hte ONLY legit candidates that actually has a moral compass and wants to FIX whats wrong with America. If the only thing you disagree with is his Pro-Life stance and that would convince you to vote for any of the other candidates (who are all shite), then I really just have to wonder about people in this country. He can't change shit as president with regards to abortion. It would never happen. What he could do though is get this country running the way it should be running financially and stop all the BS that's ruining a perfectly good thing. Nobody else wants to actually fix anything they are all just puppets.
He'll never win anyways though so this whole discussion is pretty pointless.