Ron Paul Raises Five Times As Much As Huckabee

Oh me of little faith. Ron Paul cannot be dismissed as a gadfly; the chance for him to outperform expectations rises exponentially with additional million dollars he raises. 5.08m is real money. There must be, within the Republican Party, a vein of anti-war libertarian sentiment. It is longer and deeper than many of us had suspected. The Paul movement is probably one part Buchanan bridage and one part fiscal hawk. It is clearly active in ways that most of us haven't adequately understood? Paul may be in a position to be a giant killer now. Imagine if he finishes second or third in New Hampshire ....

And Mike Huckabee raised a million. Realistically, with so little cash, he can either run a single flight of ads for two weeks or fund his field operations. His volunteer base has to expand at a rapid pace if he wants to remain viable. The political elites will be very hard on Huckabee tomorrow.

Comments

Did he raise more than McCain? He certainly has less debt than McCain, I have to imagine.

Posted by dylan | October 3, 2007 2:50 PM

Pretty depressing numbers for Huckabee. Maybe he will tax his supporters, since thats all he knew how to do whenever there was a budget shortfall in Arkansas! He's no conservative and its quite obvious prospective donors see that.

Posted by JL | October 3, 2007 3:33 PM

I seem to recall a few months ago hearing that Paul was also being a fiscal hawk when it came to his own campaign funds. 5.0m can go a long way spent wisely.

Posted by ProfD | October 3, 2007 3:33 PM

Imagine those dirty hippies, spamming poor Ron Paul with their filthy fiat money. The nerve!

I predict a number of new small-government conservatives will be filing for state and federal office shortly. It's all part of the danger to the two big-government parties from a Ron Paul Revolution.

Posted by TooConservative | October 3, 2007 3:35 PM

He raised about as much as McCain, possibly a little bit less - will have to wait for the official FEC filings to know for sure. And yes, McCain entered the quarter with $2 million in debt and probably spent most of the $5 million he took in, so I would expect Paul to have $5 million more cash on hand than McCain.
The various Paul meetups are going to put a thousand volunteers on the ground in NH in the days before the primary. Second or third is not our aim - we want our Republic back.
As for 'one part Buchanan brigade and one part fiscal hawk', I think you're forgetting about those on the Republican side who care about civil liberties. It's not just Democrats who think Guantanamo is an abomination. You can add 'one part homeschoolers, one part health freedom advocates, one part libertarians, one part character voters'... here's hoping it's enough parts when the votes are counted.

Posted by bbartlog | October 3, 2007 3:37 PM

And third part Goldwater Republicans. Remember us? We are still here and we still want our small government.

Republicans forgot about us, and now we have our man. I will be in NH for a week before the election. $600 of that 5 mil is mine and I will work for a return on my investment.

Posted by Rich | October 3, 2007 3:50 PM

Let's not count the some 50,000 people who've spent gobs of their own money (I'm one of them) in addition to the money given directly to the campaign. It's my conservative guess that the amount (unknown) is huge - maybe a couple of million in itself. Ron Paul - please for the sake our our country, check the man out thoroughly! He' the doctor America needs desperately at this time.

www.RonPaul2008.com
www.DailyPaul.com
www.FreeMe.TV

Posted by Rudy G | October 3, 2007 3:51 PM

There are many like myself who still believe in the *traditional* Republican principles of ficscal conservatism, civil liberties and non interventionism. Ron paul is drawing us back out and we are getting active in Republican politics again because of him. Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, Thompson: there is nothing inspiring about them because all they stand for is the same old, same old.

Posted by Gene | October 3, 2007 3:51 PM

War
Taxes & spending
Roe v Wade
2nd amendment
Immigration

Those are probably the biggest issues in the GOP primary. And Dr. No's views are more in line with the party than any other candidate on four of five issues.

I don't think it's that outlandish to think that he could ultimately be the party's nominee.

Posted by Tim | October 3, 2007 3:54 PM

Ron Paul seems to be the only fiscally responsible candidate. He's got my vote.

Posted by morning in america | October 3, 2007 3:59 PM

Huckabee desperately needed at least two or three times the amount he managed to raise. There can be no add blitz in Iowa, now. At least anytime soon. The big-time James Dobson types will probably steer clear of endorsing him, now. Again, at least anytime soon. And, yes, this will even hurt his darkhorse/underdog media status. He needs to totally reinvent his candidacy at this point.

The only way he can manage to spin this into a positive is by turning his campaign into a populist crusade for the "soul of the party" overnight and pivoting to target Rudy Giuliani as a heretic pretty much exclusively. He is more anti-Rudy than any other candidate: homespun; heartland; evangelical. He could still become the anti-Giuliani of the race, but he'll definitely need to turn up the heat on him, October 9th. Less jokes. More teeth. Conservatives are convinced he's too compassionate to win. He needs to prove them wrong.

Posted by grant | October 3, 2007 3:59 PM

War
Taxes & spending (CHECK)
Roe v Wade (CHECK)
2nd amendment CHECK)
Immigration (CHECK) - the # 1 issue in this country!

I just started to pay attention to Politics b/c I always vote in the primaries and I was like hmmmm who should I vote for. I was leaning towards Fred. Now, I'm voting for Ron Paul. In his first day in office he can get rid of the Income Tax, put all the Troops on our Boarder (We got rid of Saddam in Iraq for the Iraqis - They can do the rest if they want a republic - I want Boarder security here- That's my # one Issue.) Ron Paul is the only one who will do it. YOU KNOW we can keep our guns and his stance on abortion is MUCH better then anyone else running! Conservatives NEED to rise up. Take our party back. Thanks.

Posted by BZ - Bedford-NH | October 3, 2007 4:14 PM

President Paul
President Paul
President Paul

Posted by Derek Johnson | October 3, 2007 4:17 PM

Marc,

You and Chuck Todd have been way behind on the Ron Paul phenomenon. Just last week your National Journal rankings had Paul in 7th place, behind Brownback and Huckabee, and you said Paul's campaign had "lacks purpose" and that he should pull out of the race.

No offense, but you missed the boat on this one.

Ron Paul is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Chew on that as you write sentences on October 3rd thinking out loud about who this Ron Paul Revolution might be. Hint: we like the Constitution.

Posted by FZappa | October 3, 2007 4:31 PM

[B]There must be, within the Republican Party, a vein of anti-war libertarian sentiment. It is longer and deeper than many of us had suspected.[/B]
Yeah, how 'bout that.

Posted by Syren | October 3, 2007 4:42 PM

There seems to be a Republican Party leadership conspiracy against Ron Paul.

* They clogged the field with a record number of candidates in order to crowd and drown him out.

* They moved up the primaries so that there would be less time for a grass roots campaign to take hold.

* In the first debate, front-runner Giuliani made a big deal out of accusing Ron Paul of being a 'terrorist sympathizer,' and the Party-picked audience exploded with applause.

* Knowing Ron Paul's strength on the Internet, they tried to dodge the YouTube debate.

* The first-tier candidates let Romney have the Iowa straw poll to himself, lest they split the vote and enable Ron Paul to place higher.

* They brought in Fred Thompson to draw off the Reagan-nostalgia vote from Ron Paul.

* Local Republican Party officials, doubtlessly acting on orders from on high, have attempted to exclude Ron Paul and his supporters from straw polls.

* GOP High Command even tried to exclude Ron Paul from the Fox News debate.

Now, if they're this hysterical when he's only placing 2-4 percent in the polls, how will they react if his support continues to grow?

Posted by Joe Schembrie | October 3, 2007 5:00 PM

I'm a Libertarian, and Paul is the one candidate in this election who I have any excitement toward whatsoever. It's Paul or *bust* as far as decreasing the size of the federal government, following the Constitution, and protecting individual liberties.

Posted by Scott Fedor | October 3, 2007 5:00 PM

Born in 1965, I missed the Goldwater campaign, which I am told was similar in its enthusiasm, radicalism -- and youthfulness. I predict that the influence of the campaign on the GOP extends well beyond election day.

"There must be, within the Republican Party, a vein of anti-war libertarian sentiment. It is longer and deeper than many of us had suspected."

Yes!

Posted by Philip Blumel | October 3, 2007 5:16 PM

"There must be, within the Republican Party, a vein of anti-war libertarian sentiment. It is longer and deeper than many of us had suspected."

That's because for all your time covering this stuff, you guys are horribly out of touch.

He's the only candidate that has a complete and consistent philsophy, as well as a near perfect 20 year voting record-- which practically none of the media report.

This is what makes him attractive.

He is the only one that is bringing in new voters to the party. And he is the only one that is reviving the old school small government types. He is the candidate for true peace and freedom.

Look at the county and state straw polls. He has more wins and top 3 finishes than any other candidate. Sometimes he wins by landslide. This is never reported on national TV by MSNBC, CNN, CBS or ABC. It's always about what Giuliani or Hillary did that day.

I've heard some excuse that they never report on him because of gallup and rassmussen polls or whatever. Those polls are completely flawed and their results are wrong.

They are based on land line telephones and previous primary voters. But most of his supporters are young and have only cell phones, and pollers do not call cell phones. And if they do have a land line, some are young enough to have never voted in a primary so again they aren't going to be called. On top of that, the questions asked are flawed. I spoke to one woman polled that said that Ron Paul wasn't even given as an option.

Does that mean everyone knows him and he's amazingly popular? No. But his numbers are a lot higher than the 3-4%. If I had to guess, I'd say he's more like 10-15%-- but I have no data to back this up.

The point his, he's not small time and he's gaining ground day by day.

"It is clearly active in ways that most of us haven't adequately understood?"

Again, that's because you are out of touch.

The old media are part of the problem. Sure, they have political science degrees or journalism degrees, but they are so short on reality it's both funny and sad. The very idea of all these talking heads trying to tell us who are our candidates are has made people sour. I remember Jon Stewart joked once that most news today just seems like noise. He was making a joke, but what he said is true. Why is it that a comedian has to point out the obvious?

Ron Paul's campaign is actually 2 separate campaigns. There is the "official" campaign. And then there's the unofficial "guerilla army" campaign.

The unofficial people have never previously met each other. They were all perfect strangers to each other. There was no previous connection at all. But now there is a connection: his name is Ron Paul.

Nationwide, they don't coordinate efforts. Nobody controls them. They all act independently, exercising their rights as citizens. They don't have any contact with the official campaign. In fact, many of them have balked at the very idea of linking up with the official campaign. It's like the free market in action, they make decisions and can do it better and faster than waiting for somebody in high office to give the orders. They have a very strong presence and initiative. If they see something the campaign isn't doing, they go and do it themselves.

They create their own campaign materials. Homemade shirts, stickers, flyers, pamphlets, signs. They set up their own campaign booths at county fairs, set up their own donation drives in their neighborhoods, create their own newspaper ads, create their own campaign videos and create their own websites. They drive hundreds of miles just to see him speak. If word gets out Dr Paul is going to be somewhere speaking, somewhere between 500-1000 people show up.

I heard someone saying once that Ron Paul's followers have probably put in near $10 million in their own campaign for him. I doubt the number is near that high, but without a doubt very large amounts of money are being spent by people independent of the campaign.

Sometimes it is almost like they have co-opted Ron Paul and he is just part of their own little revolution. He's jokingly said this himself a few times. I assure you he has no control over anything the people are doing. It is just a large number of individuals inspired by his message going out and trying to make it happen. It's a movement that's going on and none of you guys is reporting this. This loses you what little credibility you have.

If there is any news, it is inacurrate or skewed. You say he's "fringe" or an "isolationist" or "crazy" or the number one favorite, "He can't win." (As if the electoral process is about voting for someone who can win as opposed to voting what you believe. That's incredibly stupid nonsense. If you aren't going to vote for what you believe in, why vote at all?)

The amount of either non-reporting or mis-reporting on Ron Paul is astounding. Sometimes there are straight out hit pieces that get aired or printed and one wonders what kind of journalistic integrity these people have.

The talking heads on TV and the newspaper writers that get paid so much really know so little. I remember a time when I felt news wasn't about opinion and editorial like it is now.

If you guys want to save yourselves from the embarrassment of a possible "Dewey defeats Truman" you should get on the ball and report more on Ron Paul. (Without the smear attacks and inacurracies, please.)

Posted by B Reyes | October 3, 2007 5:27 PM

Okay, I've had enough. You folks are obviously convinced Ron Paul is actually going to win the nomination of a Party still 70 or 80 percent staunchly behind the war. I have friends who feel this way, too. I question their sanity at times, but there's another big question on my mind and I'm honestly looking for an answer so please respond...

Assume Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination and decides to run as an independent third-party candidate. Would you and others like you still support him? How realistic do you think it is that he would consider such an option?

Posted by grant | October 3, 2007 5:39 PM

Ron Paul has so many volunteers--5 mil is going to go so far. He doesn't have to spend a sent for all the many libertarian volunteers in New Hampshire to go door-to-door. Glad to see this.

Posted by Hooray! | October 3, 2007 5:44 PM

You folks are obviously convinced Ron Paul is actually going to win the nomination

No, far from it. Even with this piece of good news, I think his chances are slim. Do you therefore expect us to go home and drop out? Think again.
An oldy, but still good:

Say not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been, things remain.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke concealed,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light,
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
But westward, look, the land is bright.

Ron Paul 2008!

Posted by bbartlog | October 3, 2007 6:11 PM

What the Republican field (- Rep. Paul) has lacked is enthusiasm. Mr. Romney bought his Iowa win. Rudy hides amongst those rich enough to know him. The patriot, Sen McCain has allowed Pres Bush's war to taint his image. Mr. Huckabee is folksy, yet he misses the the mark on what his base wants (e.g. health care platform). I will be watching from Iraq with great interest, to see if Ron Paul can bring me home and then fire me. I'll gladly go.

Posted by James Aragon | October 3, 2007 6:13 PM

"Okay, I've had enough. You folks are obviously convinced Ron Paul is actually going to win the nomination of a Party still 70 or 80 percent staunchly behind the war. I have friends who feel this way, too. I question their sanity at times, but there's another big question on my mind and I'm honestly looking for an answer so please respond...

Assume Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination and decides to run as an independent third-party candidate. Would you and others like you still support him? How realistic do you think it is that he would consider such an option?"

I'm not going to re-argue all of Ron Paul's position re: Iraq, but I was strongly for the war until I started to understand that we are creating more new enemies faster than we can kill them. A clincher was his 35 prescient "Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq" that made me realize that he does not reason from emotion.

As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul is the only viable candidate worth electing. Let's just say that I hope that the GOP gets behind him.

One last thing: Many are dismissive of Ron Paul as a youth candidate, but this is not true. I am 55 years old and am as suburban as they come.

Posted by Pete | October 3, 2007 6:19 PM

I'm supporting Ron Paul. I support him on my blog and wish that I'd have been in a financial position to make a contribution during this past quarter. (I did during the second.) I want to respond to Grant.

Yes, Ron Paul is a long-shot for the nomination. the GOP has become overrun by the holy rollers and, as Pat Buchanan called them, boat-people from the McGovern Campaign. The GOP has strayed and many of us want it back. Assuming that Dr. Paul doesn't win the nomination, I would be hard-pressed to vote for anyone else in the GOP field.

Mitt Romney would be tolerable if he was running as the same person who was governor. He's flipped and flopped so much to try to appeal to the holy roller population of the GOP's base that I can't vote for him.

Anytime I hear the socialist from Arkansas speak, all I can think about is him talking about his desire to "reclaim America for Christ." He's not talking so much about converting people as he is about increased social spending. Just what we need, another tax-cut and spend "conservative".

Rudy Giuliani? The man was a decent prosecutor and a very dynamic mayor. He's the wrong man for the wrong times. He's bull-headed and less tolerant of dissent than Bush, the younger. Watch the Executive grab extra-Constitutional authority in ways that Dick Cheney could only dream of.

Fred Thompson is a joke, he'll fizzle out soon enough.

Do we want a tax and spend liberal, big government Democrat? Or would we accept a tax-cut and spend conservative, big government Republican? I'll follow Ron Paul. If I'm on the losing side, at least I can be proud of my choice.

Posted by R. H. | October 3, 2007 6:22 PM

Yes, I would still support Ron Paul as a third party candidate, or support another third party candidate. Hillary Clinton is horrible, but the other republicans in the race are only slightly less horrible. Not enough of a difference to get my vote. The Ron Paul movement is in it to win, but win or lose, politicians need to know that as Americans we can no longer sit by and watch our government grow while our liberties shrink. The republicans really blew it from from '94-2006. It's not about Ron Paul, the man. It's about his message. If he started to change the way he votes or his constitutional stance, these thousands of supporters would dump him in a heartbeat. The thing is, if another politician picks up his rhetoric, that's real nice, but has that man (or woman) actually got a 20 year record of saying no thanks to the lobbyists and the special interests? That's what really makes Dr. Paul unique: he has been in a position to serve his own interests, and has instead served the people and upheld the constitution. None of the other candidates come anywhere close.

Posted by Chesley | October 3, 2007 6:29 PM

Reply to: grant | October 3, 2007, 5:39 PM, who wrote:

"Okay, I've had enough. You folks are obviously convinced Ron Paul is actually going to win the nomination of a Party still 70 or 80 percent staunchly behind the war. I have friends who feel this way, too. I question their sanity at times..."

The operative question is: What is the Republican Party? It certainly is not what it was before. The former membership had been dropping in free fall until Ron Paul appeared on the scene and the Freedom Revolution co-opted him as a standard bearer, but running out in front of him. So, 70-80% of a decimated Party, how many is that?

What about all of the new people who are registering as Republicans now, who were formerly Democrats, Independents, and Republican dropouts? They are strongly antiwar, pro freedom and pro small government. What percentage of the TOTAL new Republican ranks do they comprise? I suspect that the 70-80% pro war people that you mention probably represent less than 30% of the new people who will be voting in the primaries. I base this on the fact that about 70% of the country is against the war, and you did allow that 20-30% of the old-line Republicans do not support the war.

Personally, I question the sanity of people who keep their heads firmly buried in preconceived perspectives of the political world and thus ignore facts and developing trends.

Posted by Likkerish | October 3, 2007 7:00 PM

Kudos to B. Reyes | October 3, 2007, 5:27 PM, who wrote a thoughtful and impassioned commentary ending with:

"The talking heads on TV and the newspaper writers that get paid so much really know so little. I remember a time when I felt news wasn't about opinion and editorial like it is now.

"If you guys want to save yourselves from the embarrassment of a possible "Dewey defeats Truman" you should get on the ball and report more on Ron Paul. (Without the smear attacks and inacurracies, please.)"

To the Atlantic Monthly, I say, as a subscriber: I am glad to see that you are finally paying attention to what is happening behind scenes in this country. Report it objectively from here on out and see what fair and honest reporting will do to unseat the power brokers who are only interested in dominating the world and lining their pockets. Be at the vanguard of intelligent news reporting as I expect you to be.

Posted by Likkerish | October 3, 2007 7:26 PM

This country was founded on the principle that "The government is best which governs least." That principle was the secret of our freedom and gave us peace, prosperity, and progress that the world had never before seen.

Two hundred thirty-one years later:

1. We work until May or June to pay taxes that the government openly assesses;

2. Every year an unknown percentage of our income and property is taxed away, under the table, by the federal reserve. The government admits to 2 to 3 percent, but we all suspect it is much higher;

3. We are regulated to a tune estimated to cost an additional trillion dollars. Have you looked at the CFR lately? Shelf after shelf of incomprehensible fine print;

4. We can take medicine that our doctor thinks is best unless it has been "approved" by an agency in Washington that we believe is owned by the drug companies;

5. We can't watch TV or listen to the radio unless the programming meets the approval of another Washington agency;

6. We can't grow wheat in our own backyard to make bread to eat unless approved by another set of Washington bureaucrats;

7. Our phones can be tapped, our mail opened, our e-mail read without a warrant by yet another set of bureaucrats;

8. The rulers in Washington create a seemingly-endless series of scandals. They seem far more interested in power and serving their pals, the lobbyists, than in benefiting us.

WE WANT OUR LIVES, OUR LIBERTIES, AND OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!

RON PAUL is our only hope.

Posted by Buddy | October 3, 2007 8:39 PM

I am impressed by Congressman Ron Paul. His dedication to the US Constitution is a much needed breath of fresh air in the Presidential campaign. I sense he has momentum now. His message of peace, freedom and prosperity is resonating with the American people.

Posted by George Whitfield | October 3, 2007 8:55 PM

Well, Ron Paul is the only hope of me voting for a Republican, I'll tell you that. If he's up against HRC I'll donate the max AND vote for him.

Posted by Phoebe | October 3, 2007 8:58 PM

The general consesus is that the non voter is (was, by the time you realise it) ignorant or apathetic. You'll need to rewrite that one too. Maybe they were just waiting for Ron.

Posted by Carl | October 3, 2007 9:12 PM

I voted for Ron Paul in 1988. I took my Ron Paul bumpersticker off my car a few years later when he endorsed Pat Buchanan because of Pat's unAmerican stance against immigrants, but I still think Ron's the best Republican candidate out there. (By best, I mean "Best President if he were to win", not "Most Likely to beat the Democrats, which he's not, unless the Dems get fed up with their front-runners and nominate Dennis Kucinich as a compromise candidate.) I'm still a Libertarian, so I don't get to vote in the Republican primaries, but Go Ron!

There are a few leftover real Republicans who like what Reagan said about fiscal responsibility and small government (as opposed to what Reagan did, which was the opposite.) And there are a lot of right-wingers who don't want immigrants and might support Ron as opposed to some of the other anti-immigrant Republicans, so he's got some support base.

But Ron's always been radically different from the Bush/Cheney/Nordquist/Dobson/Neocon mafia that took over the Republican party and co-opted the religious conservatives - not only are his views on the issues genuine as opposed to manufactured (so they don't like him even when he agrees with them), but he's honest, opposed to big powerful governments, anti-war, anti-drug-war, anti-military-industrial-complex, anti-wiretapping, doesn't want to keep America and the world in fear just to keep the Bushies in power, and really only supports Big Oil when it's trying to do stuff in Houston or get free trade, not when it's trying to control the world. He is absolutely Not With The Program, and the Bush League don't want him in the debates, much less in charge.

My Democrat friends really hope the Republicans pick Giuliani or McCain, but they're Obama fans and think he can beat them handily - Hillary would have more trouble. Romney would be more challenging, though the Dems have figured out that nailing him as a flip-flopper on abortion and gay issues can alienate the religious base, and in spite of seven years of sales pitch from Bush and Cheney, I don't know how much longer the main Republican candidates think they can keep up telling the public that the Iraq War was either a good idea or related to terrorism.

Posted by Bill in Silicon Valley | October 3, 2007 10:26 PM

I'll have to donate more money to Ron Paul now.
But he'll have to spend it soon, as it loses value every day.
Too bad I don't have any gold ...
Dr. Paul's kind of money...
It has true value ... Just like the good Doctor....

Posted by rich | October 3, 2007 11:10 PM

Dr. Ron Paul cured my apathy!

Posted by Scott W. | October 4, 2007 1:08 AM

everybody remembers what happened to Goldwater in '64, right? pretty much the same thing that's going to happen to any Republican candidate in the '08 election: they will get creamed.

Posted by EJ | October 4, 2007 10:17 AM

Just a few reasons (taken directly from his Border and Immigration stance bulletpoints)Ron Paul is WRONG for the USA:

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals." -- We've done "whatever it takes" to fight the War on Drugs and that hasn't worked. In fact, drugs (at least cocaine) are more prevalent and cheaper than ever. If we can't even make a dent in the War on Drugs, we won't win one against people seeking out our country* for pure, old fashioned freedom (whatever that might mean these days). *Don't we kinda encourage that somewhere? Something about a tablet and the Statue of Liberty?

"No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws." -- Who's going to round them all up? How will we transport them back across our borders? Where will we send them? How much will these combined efforts cost? If a solution presents more questions than it solves, is it still valid to consider it a solution?

"No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services." -- Maybe instead of deporting all these people we should round them up, put them on reservations and have them set up casinos.

"Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods." -- I bet the Indians are kicking themselves right about now for not passing "true immigration reform."

Posted by EJ | October 4, 2007 10:47 AM

Ron Paul is the man, and even if he loses, he has done something great. He has pulled together the freedom-loving people all around the country who thought they were along and created a movement that will surpass him, hopefully only growing stronger in the future.

- Rick

Posted by RSDavis | October 4, 2007 10:58 AM

I don't know where you get your information, but the number of Ron Paul campaign events as of this morning stands at 7,803.
I challenge ANY or ALL of the other candidates to match that number.

Posted by Michael Wagner | October 4, 2007 12:21 PM

"Okay, I've had enough. You folks are obviously convinced Ron Paul is actually going to win the nomination of a Party still 70 or 80 percent staunchly behind the war."

Okay, I've had enough. You folks are obviously convinced Rudy Giuliani is actually going to win the nomination of a Party still 70 or 80 percent staunchly pro-life.

In a race between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton, who do pro-war Republicans vote for? Who do anti-war Democrats and Independents vote for?

Ron Paul wouldn't just win. He'd win big, likely drawing new candidates into House races and return the House to Republicans.

Posted by 8 | October 4, 2007 1:26 PM

Dr. Ron Paul has cured my apathy. He is saying things I have waited 20 years to hear from a legitamate candidate for president. I notice the press seems to lie about Dr. Paul many times, calling him isolationist or libertarian. Dr. Paul is a true Republican who believes in the rule of law. We have been foolish for too long, we have let the media and politicians frame the arguments and bend our minds. People know truth when they hear it, the reason they worry about Ron Paul is that when he is heard, he is beleived. Nobody trusts politicians anymore, but we trust Ron Paul.
Why vote for liars?

Posted by Rahn | October 4, 2007 1:34 PM

I will say one thing I remember growing up in the 80s and early 90s and both my parents were very staunch supporters of the Democrat party. We were suppose to vote Democrat just to show how much we despised the Republicans. It's interesting to see how I was fooled into believing that Democrats help the poor and the Republicans are the big money corporate types. After reading 'Where the Right Went Wrong' My head spun around and I said, 'What! The Republican party was hijacked?' So now we are witnessing the beginning of the civil-war in the Republican Party... Now that I know what true Republican views are, what true Republican positions are, I too am registering as a Republican and voting for Ron Paul, he will also be getting 1000.00 in donations from me. The man is a pure genius...

Do you know in weaponry we are light years ahead of even Russia and China? Imagine if we pulled back all those military bases, the money that could than be channeled to create even more powerful weapons for our defense, no one even dare to *&&k with us! That's just the facts.

I can't wait to leave the WTO and NAFTA too! I'm sick and tired of a party that only talks about Al Qaidea all the time! What about the thousands in the midwest that have lost their manufacturing jobs to cheap labor over seas?

As far as Homosexuality and Abortion my God Ron Paul or rather (True Republican views) are dead on! These are issues to the individual state!

If you don't like California you can do like many do and move to Montana or Indiana, and if you dont' like Indiana move to Oregon it is truly a free country. I think the True Republican view is awesome, you can be a Christian, Muslim, Homosexual and we can agree to disagree but I'm not about to make a piece of anti constitutional legislation that dictates that you have to live as I do!
Genius pure genius!!!

Posted by Jason Wilson | October 20, 2007 10:09 AM

no fragileness outmagic parleyer slush bikini metamorphic coccyzus
http://www.guru-web.com >Wilson
http://www.kingstownelawn.com/

Posted by Jackie Leon | November 20, 2007 5:08 PM

no fragileness outmagic parleyer slush bikini metamorphic coccyzus
http://www.witnessdesigns.com/ >Witness Designs Sign Company
http://geocities.com/cantseem/index.html

Posted by Babette Wilkins | November 25, 2007 7:06 AM

no fragileness outmagic parleyer slush bikini metamorphic coccyzus
http://www.techshout.com >Tech Shout
http://cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/05/29/whale.art.ap/

Posted by Jeanette Hopper | November 27, 2007 1:02 PM

rarefactional disrespect recidive interthing staurology wirble chattery shaleman
http://www.stgileslondon.com/ >St Giles Hotel
http://www.myleader.com/

Posted by Nikki Mcgee | December 17, 2007 2:05 AM

Rock on Ron Paul!

Posted by HDR | December 17, 2007 2:35 AM