Thompson Raised $8M (Plus) In Third Quarter

Here we go..

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson raised more than $8M since July, a campaign adviser said this morning.

Thompson has recieved donations from more than 70,000 individual contributors since June, when his testing-the-waters account opened. (The campaign has yet to release the amount of money he raised that month).

The large number of donors suggests that Thompson's financial base is fairly broad; in the first quarter of the year, Sen. John McCain obtained contributions from 51,000 different donors, a record at the time.

More..

Comments

You spelled "received" wrong.

Posted by susu | October 1, 2007 10:15 AM

I gave to Thompson. But I willnot supoort him any longer if he drops the Fair Tax from his platform. He should pick Huckabee or Newt for vice and that ticket willbe un beatable. Both Huckabee and Newt have the same platform as Fred in that they are strict constitutionalist but Fred has been wavering on the Fairtax and Newt and Huckabee are supporters. FRED GET WITH THE PROGRAM. I'll give you money......

Posted by SAM | October 1, 2007 10:16 AM

Check your spelling. It is "received" NOT "recieved"

Posted by Jim | October 1, 2007 10:20 AM

Thompson, Rudy, Obama, Clinton, it does not matter. "[T]here's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul, he raised $1 million in a week and is the only true conservative.

Posted by Tommy | October 1, 2007 10:21 AM

We are not hearing enough from Fred Thompson. While I support him, I say, "It's time for Fred to fish or cut bait."

Posted by George Darden | October 1, 2007 10:22 AM

How can we trust Fred to be the next Ronald Reagan if he doesn't even know where he stands on the issues?

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by Peter | October 1, 2007 10:25 AM

I would vote for Fred, but I really want Newt.

Ron Paul is not capable of winning and you are being distracted to the point that you may allow a true socialist into the Oval Office.

Posted by Andy | October 1, 2007 10:25 AM

Ron Paul made over 1 million in 7 days :)

Posted by thepro | October 1, 2007 10:28 AM

Huckabee and Newt are strict constitutionalists? And the Pope is a Lutheran! War is peace, freedom is slavery.

Ron Paul is the only constitutionalist running. Period.

Posted by Dave Updegrove | October 1, 2007 10:30 AM

This is low. Romney and Guiliani will report between $10M and $15M. If he can't step it up soon he'll go the way of McCain and have to accept matching funds.

Posted by Alan | October 1, 2007 10:32 AM

Fred needs to get more public, I agree its time for him to fish or cut bait. I also agree newt or huckabee would be an unbeatable ticket. Ankles would not have a chance vs that tic.

gata

Posted by Bill | October 1, 2007 10:33 AM

Hillary will trounce any of the Republican "stuffed shirts" except, the one candidate that can inspire a grassroot return to real vaulues, and that of course, is RON PAUL.

Posted by alan laney | October 1, 2007 10:34 AM

The Neocons have hijacked the Republican party. Dr Ron Paul is most like President Reagan (and was the first to support him back then) and Barry Goldwater (whose son has spoken favorably about Dr Paul). Neocons are not conservatives. Neocons are tax and spenders who love military adventurism. They don't raise taxes because instead, they ring up the national debt to trillions of dollars and print money out of thin air. Conservatives are for small government and no foreign adventurism. Conservatives are noninterventionists but simultaneously for a strong defense, that is, to protect the country against declared wars and to strengthen our borders. Dr Ron Paul is the only Conservative top tier presidential candidate. Rudy McRompson holds the President Bush philosophy of big government, intervening in foreign affairs, less freedom, and more intrusion like national ID cards, all of which are contrary to the US Constitution.

Posted by Ward Ciac | October 1, 2007 10:35 AM

HOw can Thompson or any other republican beat a democrat? Nothing has changed for the better since 2006!! At least Thompson wouldn't split the party, like Rudy or Romney.

Actually, maybe it's time for realignment anyway.

Ron Paul is the only one that can beat the Dems. Problem is, most republicans don't care about conservatism anymore, they care more about empire. They probably would vote for Hilary the hawk.

Posted by Bjorn | October 1, 2007 10:38 AM

Fred Thompson acts like someone who had nothing else to do....so he may as well try this. The press carries no news but Democratic news...so who would ever know if he's saying ANYTHING really.

Posted by surf66 | October 1, 2007 10:39 AM

'Dr.' Ron Paul is a loon. He has about as much of a chance of being taken seriously for the Republican ticket as Dennis Kucinich does for the Dems. Scary thought, but maybe they ought to ticket together. It would at least provide good entertainment next year.

Fred does need to speak out more, clarify his stance on the issues in the MSM and stir the pot. He's just too quiet. I have yet to donate to him but plan to sometime in '08. I like the idea of a Thompson/Huckabee or Thompson/Gingrich ticket...

Posted by The Yuppie | October 1, 2007 10:40 AM

Better a true socialist than a fake conservative. Sometimes failure is the first step toward success.

Posted by Jim | October 1, 2007 10:40 AM

If you want the best information on where Fred Thompson stands on all of the issues I suggest you go to http://www.fredthompsonforum.com

You will be enlightened.

Posted by William D Berg | October 1, 2007 10:41 AM

I'd just like to ask whether or not $8 million is newsworthy or if it places you in the top tier?

I would like that stated now, before Ron Paul's final tally is released.

Posted by Bill Moore | October 1, 2007 10:43 AM

So having no more than 3% in the polls makes Ron Paul a top tier candidate?

Source: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

Posted by Richard Leon | October 1, 2007 10:43 AM

Fred is doing great. He is talking about conservatism in a way that Barry Goldwater and Regan spoke about it. It is a "movement" kind of speech and it is desperately needed in this time of "bush republicanism." Huckabee is more liberal than Hillary. check out his record in Arkansas. It is abysmal. Don't take my word for it - check it out. Newt is an amazing intellect but he is too controversial to be Vice President. We need him to be President Thompson's domestic adviser.

Sen. Thompson should pick Gov. Christ from Florida as his running mate. It would guarantee Florida and Christ (sic) is a great governor.

Posted by Jay | October 1, 2007 10:43 AM

You guys don't actually think America is going to vote for guys like Thompson and Huckabee do you?

Huckabee believes in Creationism for Christ's sake. That's all well and good in one of your wingnut debates, but when the general election is up and the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate is saying he believes in fairies and witches and a 6,000 year old earth where evolution does not occur, it's over.

And Fred Thompson? Seriously, how far has the party fallen that they will vote for a guy just because he has a smattering of hillbilly charisma?

This is the most pathetic field of candidates on the right I have ever seen in my voting lifetime. That's why none of them can get a foothold, and why "no one" always gets the most potential voters in their polls. Their own party doesn't like them. That's the only reason anyone likes Thompson, he's the empty slate who spouts popularly right opinions which he doesn't seem to grasp very well (he doesn't "know enough" about Terri Schiavo?)

Meanwhile the Democrats love their top four or five choices, and even Hillary beats the top GOP contender in a nationwide poll.

Face it, my friends on the right. It's over. You need to focus on 2012.

Posted by Deren | October 1, 2007 10:46 AM

Guys....WAKE UP....Even I know I have NO CHANCE of winning! I'm only running to get me ideas out there....you crazy kooks.

Posted by Ron Paul | October 1, 2007 10:47 AM

if ron paul raises more money that thompson- will he remain a 'loon'?

can you state that now- before ron paul releases his money total for the quarter?

what happens if paul raised more money that thompson? mccain?

is that something you can continue to ignore?

Posted by bRIAN | October 1, 2007 10:49 AM

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist? Is that why he adds $400 million in earmarks to bills that have already finished debate? Earmarking is constitutional? Yeah, right. He's a small goverment constitutionalist as long as he gets millions of tax dollars to support shrimpers and shrimp research.

How nice to add pork spending to bills that have no chance of being defeated and then voting against them to appear principled. He's a fraud who thinks we deserved 9-11 and that retreat and surrender in Iraq is the best strategy for winning the war on terror. He believes the gold standard will create price stability and that earmarking is ok as long as you get your money but vote against it.

No wonder so much of the support he's receiving comes from the moonbats. He's one of them.

Posted by MM56 | October 1, 2007 10:51 AM

Andy,

You're an idiot. Ron Paul is a libertarian which is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism. Could you cite an example of some socialist policies that Ron Paul supports?

Posted by Drew | October 1, 2007 10:53 AM

Dr. Paul should be the hands down choice of any real conservative. He supports reduced federal spending, non-interventionist foreign policy, personal freedom, a secure America, and a return to Constitutional government.

Granted he may not be able to keep up with the top tier candidates in the money race, but grassroots candidates rarely do. However in the end it's still votes that count, not fundraising totals.

Ron Paul 2008, Hope for America!

Posted by Jerome | October 1, 2007 10:58 AM

Is this just for the primaries or does it include donations for the general election as well?

Posted by Liz | October 1, 2007 10:59 AM

You have to give credit to the Ron Paul people for one thing, they are absolutely dedicated to bringing his name up at every turn. I don't really care how much money he has or how many straw polls his supporters were able to overwhelm. He can't get above 3% in any serious poll and he is WRONG on Iraq. No one who doesn't understand the stakes in defeating Al Qaeda deserves to be President, and certainly NOT the Republican nominee.

Posted by PRE | October 1, 2007 11:00 AM

Received? no it's recieved. no wait...
You all must be Fred Thompson supporters.
Is it fred or freddie or fredrick?
i gotta get this right.

Posted by chris | October 1, 2007 11:00 AM

Ron Paul doesn't have a campaign - he has spammers. it's a fake presence. Ron Paul message board spammers please go home and let people discuss real candidates without wasting time on fringe kooks.

Posted by aeroplane | October 1, 2007 11:02 AM

Ron Paul has more liberal supporters than conservatives. He's a fake candidate intended to be a straw man against the Democratic candidate.

Posted by Susie | October 1, 2007 11:07 AM

Ron Paul is a vagina. Anyone who likes him is a vagina.

Posted by Jeff | October 1, 2007 11:10 AM

Ron Paul is the republican's party Ralph Nader right now. As some have said he should run as an independent he would only give the election over to the democrats. That is not the answer to our problems period.

He is not a true conservative he is a isolationist and a Libertarian. There is a difference between the two.

Posted by William | October 1, 2007 11:10 AM

Ron Paul doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. He's a nut.

Posted by Frank | October 1, 2007 11:13 AM

Ron Paul has about as much of a chance winning as I do....none..Ron Paul is a NUT Case. In this world Economy you can not be a isolationist.

Posted by Bob | October 1, 2007 11:13 AM

Wow what a bunch of nuts! Ron who? has he registered at even 1%. If you put out your hasish for just a second you'd realize Ron is the Republican's Dennis K. a wack job who is only talking to a demented few on the fringes.

Posted by willy the impeached | October 1, 2007 11:15 AM

The fact that there's a virtually complete mainstream media blackout on Fred Thompson news says a lot. Apparently, the libs are very scared of him, as they should be. Go Fred!

Posted by ent | October 1, 2007 11:17 AM

NOTE TO PAUL SUPPORTERS: Do you see how your tactics are really ticking people off and making them LESS likely to support your guy?

I respect a lot of Ron Paul's positions - his message on limited government is a strong one that needs to be articulated (even if Paul isn't the most articulate spokesman for them), but he is absolutely hurt in this party by opposing the nascent victory in Iraq. Although one could make a case that going was a mistake, we ARE there now and we are fighting Al Qaeada. Ceding the field of battle to our enemy is called 'surrender' and the GOP will not surrender to AQ.

Posted by PRE | October 1, 2007 11:18 AM

Fred would make a great president. I remember wishing he would have run against Clinton. I liked him before he was on Law and Order.

I am a Floridian and poor Charlie Crist. Our state is in financial trouble. Needs to cut back millions in government spending. Bet he'd love to get out of Florida now. He'd love to be picked for VP.

Posted by Bette | October 1, 2007 11:21 AM

"Ron Paul doesn't have a campaign - he has spammers. it's a fake presence. Ron Paul message board spammers please go home and let people discuss real candidates without wasting time on fringe kooks."

Agreed, aeroplane- I've never seen a hippie movement in the Republican party before, but somehow 'Dr.' Ron Paul has managed to bring it. And only because he incompetently wailed against other candidates at debates earlier this year and voiced radical ideas and questions. These supporters probably think they're 'owning' the Republican party by backing this fake Republican.

I saw a couple dozen of his 'spammers' dancing to nearby live music and carrying 'Ron Paul' campaign signs on the streets of downtown Ft. Worth over the weekend. Why, I do not know... but they were an unconfortable thorn in the scene and nobody cared. Whatever.

Posted by The Yuppie | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Thompson's fundraising base means nothing. He was supposed to blow the competition away. So much for the great "demand" for Fred from right wingers.

"Political Dispatch" podcast!
http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is an isolationist or says Ron Paul thinks we deserved 9/11 has their head in the sand doesn't know their facts. Please, quit listening to the Republican establishment and the MSM interpret Ron Paul and listen to what RON PAUL says.

And what moron thinks our current system of inflating our fiat currency as a hidden tax on the American people is a good idea? Maybe it's time for you uninformed folks to learn some history and economics too!

Posted by Eric | October 1, 2007 11:30 AM

No one cares--nice spin though for a paltry sum.

Freddie is Wes Clark without any clear message other than "I don't know", and well, I know--No Fred Thompson.

Why would anyone support him? He is the same centrist as McCain and Giuliani, and he has lackluster career.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_Centrist_Coalition

Posted by jimrob | October 1, 2007 11:31 AM

Ron Paul is a vagina. That's was funny. Good Laugh. Anyway Ron Paul is a little weasly old man who got beat up in elementary school. Although I like the fact he wants to strip government. But realistically he has no chance. Vote for someone who will put money in your pocket instead of " Take the corporate profite" The angry pantsuit want to rob you blind and give it to the "poor". When was the last time you guys have met any "poor" in America. I bet that "poor person" had a cell phone and 3 welfare babies. Get real. As 50 cent says " I GET MONEY" Vote Vote Vote......

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 11:32 AM

1.2 million in online donations in 7 days is just spammers? Wow, some rich spammers. He raised more money faster online than richarson or edwards, and those are 25m candidates.

Posted by EEKman | October 1, 2007 11:32 AM

Fred set a record for number of donors by a Republican - that sounds like he is blowing them away. How else are you to measure success - most people would agree that when you receive money from more people in a single quarter than any other candidate in Republican Party history, that you are achieving great success. I know Huckabee was desperately trying to reach 3,000 donors this quarter - fred got over 67,000 more donors than Huckabee (I would say that he blew him away).

Posted by Jay | October 1, 2007 11:33 AM

Vagina is too good a term for the Ronster. He's a nutjob and has been for years. He has no following except for a few fringe lurkers. He is not electable and, frankly, neither is Newt. Fred is the way to go. Rudy will split the party and, the Balls believes, will tilt toward the illegal immigration amnesty side of things once he is free and clear to do so. Hopefully, the Fred will step it up a little, although he's not doing too badly for someone who sat on the sidelines for so long. Just a thought. HB

Posted by HarryBalls | October 1, 2007 11:33 AM

>> republicans don't care about conservatism
>> anymore, they care more about empire. They
>> probably would vote for Hilary the hawk.

Current breed of republicans only care about power, dictatorship and sex. They are the most corrupt and love the power grab. Look at this field..

Thomson:
He is a twice married old guy is a foreign lobbyist and a trial lawyer with a trophy wife 25 years younger than him. He has lobbied for Libiyan terrorists and earned millions as a lobbyist.

Guiliani:
He is thrice married lunatic who thrives on dead bodies of 9/11 victims with $9.11 fundraisers. His first wife was his COUSIN and he was scre*ing his mistress while he was married to his second wife.

Romney:
He does not know what he believes in. He changes his position from morning to evening and in reality is a liberal. He is the most deceiving politician ever who uses his millions to buy presidency.

What we need is a real conservative.

Posted by GuessWhat | October 1, 2007 11:38 AM

If at all there is a va*ina they have to be Rudy, Mitt, Freddie, etc since they are republicans in name only and are getting on their knees now to act like conservatives!

Posted by Noah | October 1, 2007 11:40 AM

Ron Paul is a nut and the Clintons make me miss Carter.

Posted by JOHN | October 1, 2007 11:40 AM

Thomson is a nutt and makes me miss Saddam.

Posted by lol | October 1, 2007 11:41 AM

WIll all you Ron Paul people, all 5 of you, just get a life. Should their be any Poll's asking if the voters in the US know who Ron Paul is, they would 99% answer He's that TranSexual actor, Right?

No one knows who is is, nor do they care. He is a little congressman that keeps getting elected since no Dem in his or her right mind would want to be the congressperson from that dist..

Outside calling Hannity or Rush or Beck,& making a asp when you call, NOONE cares! Simple, put you money and time in something besides Ron Paul.

Give those of us who want real change go about doing that.. The last thing we need is 4 or 8 years of another clinton. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton..Nuff said..40% of those alive today have know no other Presidents but B-C-B and now you want the C. We need real change in the WH, not some little man wantabe..

Posted by R J | October 1, 2007 11:42 AM

No to Newt. He's too polarizing. Thompson/Romney....'nuff said.

Posted by Fred is GOD | October 1, 2007 11:50 AM

The top tier candidates:

Rudy is as pure an evil next to Hillary. His ex-wives and family members hate his guts. The NYPD and NYFD hate his guts. Many New Yorkers hate his guts. People are tired of him milking a national tragedy for personal benefit. I am too.

Romney is a flip flopping rich boy that can only get support if he buys it with money out of his own pocket. How much money has he loaned his campaign? $8 million? He is like John Kerry in better looking but Republican form. He's the worst kind of politician, he'll say anything to get elected. What's his position on abortion this week?

McCain has lost his mind. Iraq is a waste of our boy's lives. Why are we there? Iraq did not attack us, Al Queda did. According to him we must stay. He blew $24 million in campaign funds with in 5 months. How can you mis-manage that badly? Doesn't make me think he can manage the country if he can't even manage his campaign.

Thompson. . . Ex-abortion and Haitian dictator lobbyist. Drove a beat up old truck around his state while campaigning to make it seem like he's a "good ol' boy." He's an actor you know. Didn't show up at the last 2 debates because if he did, people would realize he has no concrete positions he can remember. I've seen him giving speeches and it's painful. The only thing he has going for him are Law and Order re-runs.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. He speaks truth and has a consistent record going back 30 years. If he says he will vote one way, he will without fail vote that way. There is no flip flopping, no vote trading, no games. He's the only one that makes sense.

Great interview that covers pretty much everything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Posted by J Reyes | October 1, 2007 11:55 AM

Ron Paul is a crazier version of Ross Perot. If you remember that gave us 8 years of Clinton....Whackos that ignore history are failed to repeat it. Just vote for Clinton directly don't go through the Ronpaul middleman. DallasTheMan..........

Posted by Dallas Jackson | October 1, 2007 11:56 AM

So you think Ron Paul is wrong on Iraq, ok. But what about taxes? What about roe v. wade? What about government spending? What about border security? What about 2nd amendment and gun ownership? Hardcore conservative views there I think. Understandably makes the moderate republicans uncomfortable.

Posted by P | October 1, 2007 11:57 AM

The fringe is more war and more torture. Any republican you supports Bush's stance on Iraq IS NOT WINNING!!! Ron Paul is the republican parties only chance against Hillary, he'll show the fraud that she is.

Posted by W Masur | October 1, 2007 12:03 PM

You guys are totally underestimate Mitt. He's the only one that stands a chance against Hillary/Obama. He's already proven he can bring people together instead of polarize. He's a businessman, not a lifelong politician, which is what we need for the economy. He truly is conservative, just look at his record, not all the rhetoric.

Go Mitt!

Posted by Rhett | October 1, 2007 12:04 PM

Another thing, stop voting to keep Clinton out of office, vote for the best candidate, to me the choice is obvious.

Posted by W Masur | October 1, 2007 12:04 PM

I have sent support money to Fred's campaign, but I think it is time for Fred to try and pull together the conservative Christain voters. To do that he will need to be clear where he stands on: abortion; North American Union; Trans Texas Corridor; China threat; tax and spending; and defense spending. He can't please everyone, so he needs to go ahead and lay his platform on the line.

Posted by Wayne Greene | October 1, 2007 12:08 PM

Huckabee and Newt will make a great ticket, America has lost it's moral and ethical leadership it once had. Bringing in someone who is afraid to create policy on their own personal beliefs(clinton, rudy, obama, romney, fred, john and everyone else) is a cop out. If you would not get an abortion then vote that way, if you would not marry someone of the same sex then vote that way. We need to vote for someone who has the highest moral and ethical standards and who will not compromise them. This administration is not to blame for the problem of ILLEGAL immigration - its the last 8 who have let it go on until it got to this point. Here are a couple interesting compromises that would be awesome to see. Create universal health care and get the money by getting rid of the WELFARE program, both sides claim a victory and people are now healthy enough to get a job and contribute to our society. Another one, Eliminate the Death Penalty in exchange for making Abortion Illegal, once again both sides claim a victory and we can all be PRO LIFE from start to end. There you go

Michael
Radcliff, KY

Posted by michael | October 1, 2007 12:09 PM

Conservative Republicans will be handed their hats come November 2008. And as a result the GOP will adopt all of the Dems NWO socialist lite philosophies in order to regain power. This is because this how you win big mainstream media event elections. Conservatives like myself will be without representation in the two ruling political parties and therefore this Republic; it is imperative that we break away in order to survive as a philosophy.

Posted by Ray Valera | October 1, 2007 12:13 PM

HERE'S THE DEAL:

Ron Paul is not a conservative.

He is Texas Libertarian and not anything close to the classical definition of libertarian. While he may be more conservative than a Liberal....he is more analogous to a anarchist.

Vote Fred Thompson. The only candidate thus far to stand up for Federalism.

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:17 PM

Ron Paul is a NUTCASE. Ron Paul is WRONG on national defense. Ron Paul is a JOKE. And all of you who are following him or claiming to are a teensy lunatic fringe?

Could I make it any clearer?

Ron Paul AND anyone who takes him SERIOUSLY are all NUTS. Period. End of story.

Posted by Victory6 | October 1, 2007 12:20 PM

Fred needs Rudy or maybe Romney, not another Southern boy. Newt is toast, Huckabee is unelectable. Rudy can help Fred win NY and Penn., wrapping up the race early. If you want Hillary to win, then you want Newt or Huck as the GOP VP candidate.

Posted by R. Karl | October 1, 2007 12:21 PM

Thompson's fundraising base means nothing. He was supposed to blow the competition away. So much for the great "demand" for Fred from right wingers.

"Political Dispatch" podcast!
http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Whew ....... Hold on now Matt my boy, Fred is facing a virtual blackout from a leftwing media except when he is reported to make a gaff, a little bit of coverage from centrist media such as FOX news but I suspect that FOX supports Rudy for obvious and not so obvious reasons, and has not been on stage yet with the others during debate or whatever it is, and yet the cheese is rolling in. We have many months to go. Money will not get the Conservative vote, its the one who contrasts the most to Hillary/Billary.

Posted by ben newton | October 1, 2007 12:22 PM

You know on all the blogs I check out frequently, people either would go to war for Ron Paul, or they think he's from Mars.

I think the 900lbs gorilla in the room is that it doesn't really matter which Republican gets the nomination, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary Clinton. Look what happened to us in 2006, and you think since then the Iraq War will be less of a factor? It will matter twice as much, and approximately 70% of the public (who may or not be voters) want our guys to come home. They don't think we're surrendering, they're just sick of putting coffins in the ground for a group of people who don't care one bit about how we are trying to help. I am tired of the "fight them over there" argument, as having 130 bases worldwide in 2001 didn't seem to help us.

I know I won't see my brother for x-mas, but I just hope he's still alive. He isn't fighting for "freedom there" or "security here", he's fighting for quite possibly the biggest monumental fuck-up in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Shit happens I guess.

I thought Ron Paul was a complete loon, until a friend twisted my arm hard enough that I spent an hour objectively reviewing his points. Whatever you think of his policies, he's right on examining the root causes of our blunders. A lot of the candidates treat foreign policy like ripping the the leaves and stem off a weed --- "There, take that weed---we win, you're dead". But to REALLY kill a weed, you need to get to the ROOTS. If only they could apply that logic to foreign policy, something might actually change. He has a lot of good principles, and frankly given the mess we have now, I'm going to cast a vote to give him a chance to apply pragmatic solutions to our festering problems.

God bless our troops.

Posted by Chad C. | October 1, 2007 12:22 PM

Ron Paul is an interesting person but his pure libertarianism marks him as a crank.

Sometimes a candidate (or official) can be too pure.

Secretary of State Stimson shut down the Black Chamber on moral grounds.

Secretary of War Stimson had no probems with intercepting first class mail and breaking codes.

One can find a lot of fault with FDR but his deceptiveness and skill at manipulation were assets in wartime.

Posted by Arthur Downs | October 1, 2007 12:25 PM

Ron Paul? He's nuttier than squirrel turds.

Fred's getting my money and my vote.

Anybody who thinks he needs to define his platform need to go to http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx and read it.

Posted by Apostasy | October 1, 2007 12:32 PM

Thompson and Duncan Hunter...that's the ticket that will win. (If only Duncan could make first tier.)

Posted by Jane Brauer | October 1, 2007 12:34 PM

Ron Paul is the only hope to get us back on track!

Posted by Adam | October 1, 2007 12:34 PM

I contributed to Thompson, and will again. I saw Fred on his initial trip through Iowa. I do agree that Thompson needs to get out more and speak more, but the MSM is so in love with the Hill and Bill show, as well as Obama and John "Breck Girl" Edwards that it will be tough for any Republican to get their information out. I think JC Watts would be a good running mate for Thompson, especially if Obama gets the nod. As for Hillary, right now she is the darling of the Dems, and the others are giving her the white glove treatment. Tim Russart tried to push her and she dodged and weaved better than flip-flopper Kerry did. I hope the American people see her for the phony she is, Edwards too! Ralph Nader has said he will run if Hillary is the Dems candidate. Nader will take away from Hill like H Ross Perot took from George H.W. Bush. Add to that here extremely high negative polling numbers and I don't think the Hildabeast has a chance. For the sake of our country, I sure hope not.

Posted by Doug | October 1, 2007 12:37 PM

A Ron Paul is the Republican equivalent to a vote for Ralph Nader.

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:37 PM

I love all you guys who say Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. You guys are absolutely clueless to what the terms mean. Ronald Reagan said it best:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Posted by Sean | October 1, 2007 12:39 PM

Paul is a true Liberal in the classic sense. His stance on issues is strictly guided by our Constitution which results in a disciplined logic that is predictable 100% of the time. Its amazing to me that fellow "Republicans" feel the need to write off Paul as a crackpot. I still remember when the Republican party actually stood for less government; lower taxes, free markets and peace. But the Bush / Clinton regiemes have decided to incrementally do away with our Republic and build an empire instead.

By the way, with the exception of the IRAQ war Thompson is trying to emulate the Ron Paul playbook at every turn. Anti-Big Government, less taxes, free markets. His latest campaign slogan is a Return to the Revolution. While Paul's crusaders have been promoting the rEVOLution all along. Yabadabadoo!

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:39 PM

Abolish the IRS

Move to the gold standard

A few of Ron Pauls "nutjob" ideas. I guess he should follow the herd and focus on banning gay marriage, and bombing Iran, THAT would make him more mainstream. He should start quoting intellectual heavyweights like Ann Coulter, Fred Barnes, and Sean Hannity rather than lightweights like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Ron Paul is a lightning rod for controversy because he is advocating a Libertarian/Constitutionalist position that many younger people like myself enjoy. Personally I am sick to death of the tired old ideas of the 60's for the Dems and the 80's for the Repubs. Lets get back to the ideas of 1776.

Posted by Zim | October 1, 2007 12:39 PM

RON PAUL for president.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

Posted by kc6404 | October 1, 2007 12:41 PM

... and there's only one person running who should be known as the vagina.

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:41 PM

I'm tired of the beer swilling yahoos in the republican party, and if Ron Paul wins, I hope they leave and join some kind of imperial war party or something!! :) If he loses, we'll go somewhere else, and that is more than 5% of the party, I assure you.

Either way, there is an irrepairable split in conservatism.

Posted by Bjorn | October 1, 2007 12:42 PM

Law Dog is right. Federalism. Can't use those big word with the libs in here. You will confuse them. They don't understand the constitution or the words Federalism. They think we are a democracy. WE ARE NOT. I can't wait to hear the idiotic comments on that. They think that governmant is the solution and not the power of individualism. Fred is a federalist and giving the states and PEOPLE back their power should be the only ticket. Not social welfare like the angry pantsuit want to do. She will rob you blind and then smile to your face.

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 12:45 PM

So, on this thread -- Ron Paul has been labeled a socialist, a libertarian, a texas-libertarian, a conservative, a republican not-a-libertarian, an anarchist, a squirrel-turd, and a liberal.

Conclusion: People on this thread are very confused. :)

Posted by Charlie | October 1, 2007 12:47 PM

You forgot "vagina."

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:48 PM

Here is a little excerpt from a certain conservative newsletter. I hate the cut paste option, but this is well written and clear. If you are going spout about our Founding fathers I recommend a little research. The anarchy that Paul and other Texas Libertarians like to disguise as libertarianism is anything but conservative, it does not take into account the need for a strong constitutionally limited central government.

"Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of “the one and the many.” Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society’s individuals.

Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism—the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.

In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).

Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals."

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:49 PM

The Federalists wanted a strong central government and had little interest in individual rights. Yep, sure sounds like Fred.

We are a Republic - unfortunately in name only these days.

Restore the REPUBLIC - register Republican &vote Ron Paul!

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:52 PM

What kind of Republic Vera???

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 12:55 PM

Posted by Andy | October 1, 2007 10:25 AM
"I would vote for Fred, but I really want Newt.

Ron Paul is not capable of winning and you are being distracted to the point that you may allow a true socialist into the Oval Office. "

I agree. But I am in Full Support of Thompson now. 8 million with 70 thousand donners in the 3rd quarter. I guess I am not the only one.

Drock

A concerned Michigander that has given the state another 500 bucks a year thanks to Jeniffer Grandholm as of this morning.

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 12:55 PM

"libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals."

Please note this and refer to Vera's post. It is similar to arguing with liberal....They refuse to actually argue the points and then they lie....Fred is the only candidate thus far to endorse true Federalist ideals....unlike Ron P who is quite simply a half tick to the left of anarchy.

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:56 PM

I like Ron Paul. Not sure why everyone wants to make general attacks on his supporters? Many of us are just people who agree with him and think we should support the guy we agree with most in the primary! Isn't that the way democracy works? The primary is the time to vote for your heart :)

Posted by Amy | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Wasn't Howard Dean a doctor too?

Posted by candy | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Lazy Fred turned out to be just a baboon-faced moron who likes young chicks.

Romney 2008.

Posted by Dave S. | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Law Dog has set forth the exact reason for Federalism. Good article. The libs don't get it.

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 12:59 PM

Dave S. What is wrong with hot chicks. You got an ugly one and your jealous. If Fred has game, don't hate the player hate the game. You must be lazier than Fred because I don't see you in the Senate of practicing law or all of the other lazy things he has done in his life. Where's your resume'?

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 1:03 PM

I want Fred to win. I don't know where he stands on the issues and I don't care but he was on TV so I know I can trust him. He not like the rest of them anti war Hollywood liberals he drive a pickup truck wears a cowboy hat and won't let those moslems rape my daughter. We ought to put them all the surviving ones down in club gitmo right after we nuke iran, if theys any left. If Fred don't win I'll support Ruby, because every time them terrist do something up in New York, Ruby becomes a bigger man. He knows how to handle them moslems. All you stupid liberals out there best wisen up, we're fighting moslems, you can't be free and fight moslems, it's gonna take every thing we got, so shut your mouths and join the fight.

Posted by Toby Stepford | October 1, 2007 1:03 PM

Somebody get Fred a good script and an acting coach...QUICK!

Posted by wgadget | October 1, 2007 1:04 PM

At least Fred has only one wife. Romney? Who knows????

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 1:04 PM

I would like to see more of Fred on the television.
The media won't
cover him, they only cover Hillary...its revolting. Next time use spell check

Posted by Madge Owens | October 1, 2007 1:05 PM

What kind of a Republic?

Oh, you know, a lil' ol' sovereign nation that builds upon a foundation of unshakable core values like protecting inalienable rights, liberty and freedom. The kind that that can't be voted away by a majority. The kind described by Jefferson and Franklin and Paine to name just a few.

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 1:08 PM

It comes down to interventionism or non-interventionism. DO you want the government to interfere with individual rights and liberties or don't you? Most people do-- either for a sense of safety, or social security, or what not. The same principle applies to foriegn policy.

Posted by Bjorn | October 1, 2007 1:09 PM

Lazy Fred turned out to be just a baboon-faced moron who likes young chicks.

Romney 2008.
Posted by Dave S. | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

That took some thought, hey?

Freddy D and Rudy G 2008

Drock

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 1:09 PM

I understand the support of Ron Paul by many. And I question their knowledge of American history. Paul would fit right in, during the eighteenth century. You see, although he is absolutely right about many things, the type of government that he wants was destroyed after 1865. The federal government was the winner of the "War of Southern Independence". That ship has sailed, much to our detriment. Support Conservatives, not noble romantics.

Posted by Charlie | October 1, 2007 1:11 PM