Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Ron Paul Sets GOP Fundraising Record, $4.2 Million in 24 Hours

Posted by Richard Blair, The All Spin Zone at 6:00 AM on November 6, 2007.


Richard Blair: Paul's raising some serious online cash that the other GOP presidential wannabes could only dream about tapping into.
ronpaulfull
Paul

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Richard Blair, originally appeared on The All Spin Zone

The Republican establishment doesn't seem to be paying much attention to the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. But, on Guy Fawkes Day, and with Paul raising more than $3.5 million dollars in an online fundraiser in less than 24 hours, perhaps it's the Democratic Party establishment that should start taking note.

You've gotta hand it to Ron Paul supporters - he's raising some serious online cash that the other GOP presidential wannabes could only dream about tapping into.

The third "Ron Paul Moneybomb" started today at 12:01 AM. As of 9PM, approximately 3.5 million dollars have been raised for the Paul campaign. I don't really have the desire to go back and compare this to the 2003 / 2004 Howard Dean campaign (widely acknowledged as the first true internet grassroots presidential campaign), but I can't imagine that even the Deaniacs raised this much money for their candidate in such a short period of time.

Paul's third quarter fundraising was quite impressive, and it bought the campaign some airtime that only the big boys (and girls) can afford. Reviews of his first TV ads were mixed, but the point is, they were actually able to afford an extensive ad buy. That's news unto itself.

Still, I'm fairly certain that the big dogs on the GOP porch are thinking, "Yeah, sure, but Lyndon LaRouche has managed to buy quite a bit of TV time over the years..." in his erstwhile Democratic Party presidential campaigns. It goes without saying that LaRouche never made a dent in Democratic presidential politics (and that was even before he went to jail).

This whole Ron Paul phenomena just has a totally different feel to it. It's still a solid bet that when the GOP caucus and primary results start rolling in, Paul doesn't stand much of a chance. But here's where I think it gets interesting - and why Democratic Party presidential contenders need to take serious note of Paul's campaign.

The Paul campaign is raising a lot of money, but not spending scads and scads of cash. And I'm not completely sure what the rules are, but I believe that if he decided at some point to take an independent shot at the White House (after the Dem and GOP candidates are chosen), he could roll this money over to an independent campaign, as well as mine the network he's built for more.

An independent run by Ron Paul might be the worst case scenario for the Democratic Party, and the best case scenario for the Republicans. Were that to happen, he's not going to peel away a substantial block of votes from the GOP candidate, rather, he's going to pull votes from the Dem. At this moment in time, many progressives are predicting a wide margin victory in 2008 for the Democratic Party, including the presidency. But what if Paul were to end up being the spoiler next year - kind of a well funded Ralph Nader, if you will?

Oy. That's not a worst case scenario for the Dems. That's the nightmare scenario.

UPDATE: I want to make it clear - my concern is not that Ron Paul would win as an independent. I don't believe that Ron Paul has any shot - none - at winning such a race. What he does possess is the ability to peel off enough anti-war Dems as a 3rd party candidate to throw the general election to the Republican.

And I fear Rudy Giuliani much, much more than I fear Ron Paul.

UPDATE II: Paul sets one-day GOP fundraising record

White House hopeful and Iraq war critic hauls in $4.2 million

The Associated Press
updated 12:20 a.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 6, 2007

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."

Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.

"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.

The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors, fundraising director Jonathan Bydlak said Monday night.

Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.

Paul as of Monday had raised more than $7 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.

Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.

Digg!

Tagged as: election08, democratic party, republican party, fundraising, paul

Richard Blair is the blogmaster of All Spin Zone.


Under Pressure From Tea Party Activists, Charleston GOP Censures Lindsey Graham For Bipartisanship
Part of the fury from the right against Graham is being spurred by the oil and coal industry.
Post by Lee Fang. November 11, 2009.
Murdoch and Murdoch Flak Confused About Racism, Truth
What must it be like to do spin for News Corps?
Post by Tana Ganeva. November 11, 2009.
Right-Wing Pundits Now Lecturing the Military: Bases Need More Guns
Logically more guns would mean less shootings, right? Wait ...
Post by Eric Boehlert. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The disturbing thing about Paul
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 6, 2007 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that people not as familiar with his record over the years as we who live near his district hear about a couple of positions (opposition to the war and as a Libertarian, he favored pot legalization. He is Republican now.) and think he is some kind of progressive.

This guy makes Cheney look liberal! Like Social Security? The minimum wage? Any regulation of big business? Public transportation - even highways? Any social expenditures? Forget it!

This is the candidate that the KKK is supporting - and they have reason.

I agree with the libertarians on a few issues (and that's what Paul essentially is) but most of their (and his) positions are so far out of the mainstream as to be completely whacko.

PLEASE people, before you even consider contributing, supporting in any way or voting for this wingnut, check out his voting record and the numerous positions he has taken over the years!

Is that too much to ask?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The disturbing thing about you ... Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: I'm with you tommy Posted by: channing
» RE: The disturbing thing about Paul Posted by: Sheerterror77
I disagree...
Posted by: peacelf on Nov 6, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ron Paul will not pull anywhere near as many Dem votes as Republican. Like Ross Perot's independent run, the Repubs lost because Ross Perot (who strangely has the same intials as Ron Paul and both are from Texas-what does it mean?) pulled votes away from Repubs.

Besides, Ron Paul is naive about the "market." If anyone thinks that the wealthy will ever give up power and let the market truely decide, he greatly underestimates the power of the rich. His "revolution" will be short lived... just like Ross Perot. Hmmmm.

peace

(Has Ross Perot transformed himself into a Congressman from Texas?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I disagree... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Surprisingly... Posted by: peacelf
» RE: Surprisingly... Posted by: channing
» RE: Surprisingly... Posted by: Sheerterror77
» RE: Surprisingly... Posted by: Sheerterror77
He would not be stealing anything
Posted by: drmflorida on Nov 6, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure what makes the writer certain that the votes peeled away by a hypothetical 3rd Party Ron Paul campaign would be mostly democrat votes. Aren't there still a lot of small government - fiscal libertarian - social conservatives out there? Don't they normally vote 'against democrats' more than they vote 'for republicans'?

As far as their champions in the punditocracy, I'm not sure. After the last 8 years, I think most of those 1990s blow-hards were actually neo-conservative closet fascists. Now that it has become embarassing to be neo-conservative, many (like Andrew Sullivan) are now trying to re-paint themselves as neo-liberals. But those pundits had an audience. When they were screaming about constitutional government, someone was listening. When they were wailing about the excesses of federal power, someone was nodding. Regardless of the disaster of the past 2 terms, I don't think Bob Barr is going to suddenly vote for Hillary or any democrat. Neither are his supporters.

In 2000, and 2004, we tried to win by default. We didn't offer something exciting and promising as much as something that was not the Republicans. And when Nader ran in 2000, I screamed bloody murder that he was stealing Gore's votes. But those votes weren't earned or won, deomcrats like me felt they were ours by default.

If Ron Paul runs, he will run as the anti-UN, anti-welfare and anti-abortion candidate. God speed. We haven't earned or won those votes, and I'm not sure we want to. We want the United States to be engaged on the world stage. We want the right to make our own medical and moral decisions. We a government that provides AND protects.

And if we make our case rather than stifling debate, perhaps some of them would change their minds and be democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This explains the phone calls from the Democratic party.
Posted by: Lauren on Nov 6, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I received two phone calls in as many days from the Democratic party, first the national, then the state. The state caller acknowledged the Dems have a problem. I keep telling them they are on the wrong side of the drug war.

Ron Paul promised the potheads freedom, a very motivating factor to those living under the drug war on some people, state mandated tyranny.

The state caller made it clear they just can't go there, I don't get that. I don't know why not.

After I hung up I realized I may have made a statement I meant as personal advice to the caller, that could be interpreted as permission to publicly use my statements (was I recorded?). Opps! I sure didn't mean THAT, I want to run for office against them. Oh well, that is not the worse of my problems.

If the party feels threatened I must be getting success. I told them I was building a third party, they should have listened to me.

I've cut the tie with my Kaiser shrink. I presented to her my legal case (including the fact that their practice - denying marijuana's medicinal value as a treatment for alcoholism - is torture) and complained their treatment of my case was religious discrimination. She thinks my belief in my own political success means I am 'grandiose'. I think it displays that I am lion-hearted and know what I am doing.

I am trained to be a leader, she is not. They will never back down on their label of 'delusional' for me. Although she was suggesting that if my husband didn't believe me, he was delusional. That's rich, THEY are the delusional ones. Then they deluded him.

It is time for me to move on - UP the ladder. I told her I didn't need her help anymore, I have Girl Scout friends. When your shrink is the ONLY person in your life who won't say the very bad advice the policeman gives you was a wrong thing for him to do, you seriously need a new shrink.

I took a couple of printouts to her boss, Dr. Leslie Bryant, (PTSD treatment and Marine Combat Vet Discusses Iraq, PTSD and Medical Marijuana) with an explanation to the secretary of where I am coming from. The whole business there has been discriminating against my race and religion. I am really steamed.

Kiaser's refusal to consider marijuana as a treatment for alcoholism is, in-fact torture. It is a religious/cultural discrimination asked for by the state. Ouch! It hurts. Believe me, it hurts.

We'll see what happens next. They have an awful lot of new information from me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

both parties have sold America, time to support the Constitution
Posted by: channing on Nov 6, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans must First stop killing other human beings and invading other sovereign countries for profit, the very worst Crimes ever approved by Congress and the President. That means standing with the ONLY candidates who've Proven that they have what it takes to stand up to War Inc., the Corrupt Executive Cabal, and the State-Secrecy they're hiding behind, not to mention the Backwards oil-bent energy priority and Conflicted foreign policy driving it... Paul and Kucinich have never failed these issues in Congress and have courageously championed Constitutional Solutions in the face of Fascist-Media attacks and Party-Marginalization, Heroes in our own time running for president right now!

This is the time for a Constitutional Insurgency/Resurgency if ever there was one. The Dem/Rep Beltway and all its corrupt mega-bribery that keeps stacking more laws and restrictions against our Liberties while simultaneously Overreaching the world in energy, finance and military oppression has run its course and We must prove we're not with them by refusing to support them with our wallets and our votes. Elitism has always been the nemesis of Freedom for "Every-Man", or Equality Under the Law as we once put it, and it has been lost once again to Secrecy, Un-Restrained Greed, Foreign Policy Overreach, and this time through the Buyout of Congress, both Dems and Reps in the Beltway.

Unlike Congress who is essentially Guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Treason for Failing to Impeach this Executive over Laws Known and Proven to be broken, I will not be voting "political-expediency", or "win-ability", I will be voting for the Constitution. I owe neither political party, and will not be supporting them. It is my sincere desire to see Paul and Kucinich abandon their respective corrupted parties, who have all but abandoned them, and champion a reigning in of this "Beastly" attack on our Liberty and our Constitution.

Loud and Clear: Constitution First!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Other than his anti war stance
Posted by: chaoslegs on Nov 6, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is he so fascinating? I am glad that lonely voices are getting some coverage. But as the first poster noted, there coverage is still more of the superficial kind. Not the in depth, holy crap this is what a libertarian would do. If you like the electricity crisis in California back in 2001, then bring Ron Paul on.

As David Cay Johnston writes in the NY Times today:

Retail electricity prices have risen much more in states that adopted competitive pricing than in those that have retained traditional rates set by the government, new studies based on years of price reports show.

Yep, the wild west of energy pricing with all the profits going to big energy.

It would be nice if Alternet would give some of the dems more coverage, Kucinich and Biden (I don't care for him).

I don't think that Paul as an independent/reform/libertarian party would hurt the dems as much as the repubs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Republicans Posted by: Lauren
Paul is a shallow version of Kucinich
Posted by: batteredup on Nov 6, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ron Paul has a couple good ideas; namely, ending the war, restoring our stolen liberties and reducing the power of government. But that's where it stops. When it comes to protecting the true interests of the working class - protecting jobs against outsourcing, fairer taxes and the all-important social safety net that protects us from financial ruin - health care, social security and generally the ability to determine the most humane, moral and responsible course of political action on any given issue and elimination of corporate dominance of the electoral process, Dennis Kucinich stands miles above any Presidential candidate we've seen in 40 years. Many people agree with this assessment, but the majority prefer to let the corporate-run media dissuade their choice into a compromise candidate they deem as "electable" to avoid getting stuck with the worse of two evils, like we've been burdened with the past 7 years. Isn't it time we stand together and defy the corporate war machine and its complicit (and bought and paid for) media and ignore their preference with support for Kucinich? He's the best hope we've had in my lifetime to prevent what appears to be the inevitable destruction of this country. It's a long shot to bring about either - Kucinich's election or preserving this country from being wasted - but considering the options - Jewleeonnie, MittWitt Romney or Billary bushClinton - it's imperative we act while we still have the option on the table. And even that may disappear before next November if our puppet-emperor creates the crisis needed to allow him to invoke the emergency executive order so he may retain his first American dictatorship and nullify the election results next year. And for that I'd like to thank all the moronic voters who insist on "party loyalty" - particularly the Gestapo On Parade (GOP) lemmings - for your shallow political views and reactions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why over-complicate things - it's all about the taxes. . . .
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Nov 6, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who have litmus tests (abortion, immigration, etc.) make up a relatively small portion of voters. The vast majority of the electorate are not especially politically aware, so the details matter little. People vote their "self-interest" as best they see it and the ending of Income Tax is an extremely hard offer to pass up for those in the middle class.

Couple that with the near promise of new taxes from other candidates, and its not hard to see why Paul has such appeal. You can hypothesize many other pro and con factors, but at the end of the day Average Joe/Jane Voter are going to vote for the candidate who promisses them the most.

Healthcare is amorphous (how much will it cost and what level of care) people agree on getting out of Iraq but differ on timing (you broke it you bought it) and the reprecussions of no income tax are unpredictable (could raise prices vs. gov't revenue without income taxes is high enough to support our 2000 spending levels, so if the budget cuts are agressive as well, it may balance), but the promise of getting back between 25-30% of your take home pay is serious money you can count right in your hand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul accepted $500 from Neo-Nazi Stormfront website owner Don Black.
Posted by: yellow on Nov 6, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True the donation was paltry. Doesn't matter. Ron Paul is a neo-Nazi presidential favorite and refuses to reject their support!! It makes sense too. The man hates Israel no matter what they do. The Israelis could give back all the land taken in 1967, eliminate all 400 of their nuclear warheads and admitt all 4.5 million Palestinian refugees and give them citizenship, free healthcare, exemption from Israeli army service and annual seasons tickets to the Dallas Cowboys and Paul would still refuse to to deal with Israel or sent aid.

Paul is a darling of the US far right. He is actually more of a fascist than a libertarian. Libertarians support a women's right to choose an abortion. They also support the right of people to freely immigrate here to better their lot. Most are for amnesty seeing it as support for freedom. NOT PAUL He opposes both abortion and immigrants rights and amnesty. He supports inhumane raids and deportations that would break up families. So much for family values!!

Paul's agenda is based less on freedom than hate!! He is feeding off the anti-Latino frenzy which has also given a boost to fascism, neo-nazism, racism and zenophobia. His opposition to abortion, the support for which is a no brainer for all libertarians, dovetails perfectly with right-wing populist and fascist attitudes toward women which are generally virulently sexist!! Paul's visceral hatred of Israel is not so much based on Israel's illegal occupation but his belief that Israel is not a legitimate state.

Paul's agenda merges nicely with the fascist US right-wing. It opposes trade unions, all government programs including social security, all foreign trade pacts, further immigration of third world people, and the idea of a central bank. It supports the gold standard which would destroy what little is left of the US middle class, lower taxes for the rich and the poor (who would lose more in subsidies and services than they gain tax cuts) and elimination of a regulation to protect American consumers.

Paul opposes the draft and foreign military intervention. He blames the War in Iraq on Israel and the Jews. The notoriously fascist and anti-semitic Willis Carto rag The American Free Press supports Paul wholeheartedly as well as his analysis of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Much of what Paul believes resonates with anti-Jewish conspiricy theories even if he himself doesn't openly subscribe to such theories. His blaming of the FED for America's economic problems and his hatred of Israel certainly sends the messege to the far right that they are correct about what counts.

Paul's appeal has nothing to offer minorities, workers, the middle class or anyone who isn't very white (Christian) and very rich. His campaign is based on racism, sexism, xenophobia and a false anti-militarism which in reality would not be sustainable given global corporate expansionism and the role of the military in propping up a sagging US economy which Paul's policies are powerless to fix.

The only reason Paul gets the Republican support he gets despite his opposition to the Iraq War is because he is drawing support of discontented people away from the left. He is causing ideological confusion and muddying up the discourse that is emerging for a new social democratic agenda pushed by those like Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Denis Kucinich and John Edwards. No better proof of this can be seen than those morons who call for a Kucinich/Paul ticket. No two candidates could be further apart than the left social democrat Kucinich and the fascist Paul!! The far right only wants to cause confusion because it fears the resurgence of the left.

That Ron Paul got Neo-Nazi support is no suprise. It is a logical outcome of Paul's reactionary ideology and appeal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yellow Panic Attack pt.1 Posted by: channing
» RE: Think about this yellow Posted by: channing
» RE: Yellow Panic Attack pt.2 Posted by: channing
» RE: Yellow Panic Attack pt.3 Posted by: channing
» RE: Yellow Panic Attack pt.3 Posted by: channing
Relax!
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 6, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does this writer think Ron Paul will take votes from the DEMOCRATS? Oh, yes: because the Dems plan to run a warmonger.

In reality, Ron Paul will probably run as a Libertarian, official or independent; he is very far-right, so he will pull votes primarily from the Republican - especially an authoritarian like Giuliani. There are a lot of libertarian Republicans; they're just as disgusted as progressives. (I know some.)

The Dems do have something to worry about, though: the Green Party will run somebody, all out this time. Given the record the Democratic Congress is piling up, that will be a very strong run. The Republicans will be a non-factor by then, with Ron Paul and the fundies running on their right; so there will be nothing to keep people from voting their disgust with the worthless Dems.

I do envy Ron Paul his avid followers and bank account, though. We're behind the curve, but we're working on it. Nothing counts until next year, and the major parties still have a whole year to bleed out.

It's going to be really exciting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does this country really need another conservative TEXAN
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 6, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the White House? Paul is also anti-choice. He believes it is a state matter-and you know what that means in most red states. Paul is just an anti-abortion tool, among other things. Born again assholes just love him. Keep him in Texas, you retards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW!
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sitting member of Congress is introducing a measure to impeach the vice president of the United States and the story isn't visible on Alternet. This should be the leading story on a website that bills itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream. Some alternative! More like left gatekeeper.

For those who are interested in doing something constructive about our current state of affairs, please call your representative and urge them to support Mr. Kucinich's bill. The Capitol switchboard is:

1-800-828-0498
1-800-862-5530
1-800-833-6354

Just ask the operator for your representative's office. If you don't know it, tell her/him where you live and she/he will look it up. Once transferred to your representative's office, politely tell the person who answers the phone that you urge your representative to support Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the vice president. You will probably be asked for your name and address.

I just did this. It's the first time I had ever called my representative (Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ). It was easy and I felt better after doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yellow has an Israeli agenda...
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 9:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and most of us know what that does to rationality.

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]