Hat tip Presidential Politics ’08.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has raised a staggering $5 million for the third quarter of 2007.
Dr. Paul, currently a Republican Congressman from Texas, is an obstetrician who has a very large grassroots following, especially among libertarians. To many that libertarian support is even more stunning, considering that Dr. Paul opposes abortion, whereas the Libertarian Party does not hold such opposition. However, completely in keeping with libertarian principles, Dr. Paul advocates immediate withdrawal from Iraq, at one time angering Rudy Giuliani during a debate when he suggested that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback” from previous US activities in the Middle East.
Wolf Blitzer broke the fundraising news on his CNN show “Situation Room” with the following statement:
Some stunning political news this hour concerning Ron Paul: The Republican presidential hopeful is low in the national and state polls, but now, when it comes to campaign cash, he’s standing very tall.
Ron Paul’s campaign reports that the congressman from Texas raised five million dollars over the past three months. That’s in the same neighborhood as what rival John McCain is expected to report, and it’s five times what former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee reportedly raised. It’s also more than three million dollars more than Paul raised over the first six months of this year. Paul can partially credit his big bucks to a strong following on the Internet.
Blitzer was not the only political pundit to express astonishment at this unexpected development. A similar sentiment was expressed by other news organizations, including MSNBC and ABC.
ABC World News Tonight is flying to New Hampshire to interview Mr. Paul for tonight’s episode. Earlier today, ABC called Ron’s totals “jaw-dropping.”
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
Good deal!
Keep up the good work, and don’t forget the LP candidates while you are at it 🙂
ElfNinosMom, sorry, but I have to say it again. No more support for Ron Paul/GOP. Real libertarians support the real libertarian candidates. NEVER AGAIN vote republican. pauliecannoli, Agreed. ElfNinosMom has done some good posts. “…and don’t forget the LP candidat4s…” Agreed.
i agree with robert. if murray rothbard comes back from the grave and runs for office with an “r” beside his name, we shouldn’t vote for that statist. it’s all about my team vs. your team – who cares about advancing the cause of liberty?
run, ron, run!
Libertarians, the third quarter is over. 2 more complete quarters till the convention. I’m asking you all to IMMEDIATELY cease support for Ron Paul. Support REAL libertarian candidates ONLY. That should be enough time to run some good campaigns. At the convention I will represent the Progressive Alliance strategy-greens endorse LP executive ticket. EITHER a Libertarian OR green on EVERY ballot, so as to not split the progressive vote. In 2008 EVERY ballot agreed to be secured on a first come, first served basis, in order to motivate the 2 parties to compete & fill ALL ballots. Your support is wasted on Ron Paul. He will not win even one primary. The Libertarian Vote/Cato Institute=13% max. Ron Paul is getting 3% on national polls which polls republicans. His actual support (straw polls)is about 4X that i.e. 12% which is the Cato max.(13%) Open primaries should draw in another 7% (about 1/4 of the leftist vote) from leftists= 20% consistent Gallup Governance Survey. Paul CANNOT get more than that. Now, if the libertarians pursuade the leftists to coordinate ALL of their vote which I estimate =27%. 27% + 13%=40% max. combined libertarian/leftist (progressive vote) That is enough to be VERY competitive in what would then in effect be a three way race. Ron Paul alienates the leftist vote therefore cannot do this even if he switches to the LP. Even if he were to win the nomination then the election, he would be ONLY the president. The Congress & judiciary are virtually ALL republicans & democrats. He could accomplish VERY LITTLE. We need a progressive president & Congress & begin to appoint progressive judges. I urgently implore you to try this strategy. Cease support for Ron Paul. Support your “REAL” libertarian candidates. Do not register to vote republican in the primaries. NEVER AGAIN vote republican.
But, Robert Milnes, YOU are not a real libertarian. You are a “progressive greenie” and libertarian in name only. I haven’t heard you say one thing that a libertarian would support. In fact, what you HAVE said indicates you are willing to force things upon people. That is very un-libertarian. Even Republican Ron Paul doesn’t want to force people to do anything AND HE”S A REPUBLICAN!
What’s your deal anyway? You say Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance at the nomination with 13-20%? With 10 guys in the race for the nomination, 20% could easily take any states delegates. Do you think a libertarian (a green/progressive libertarian no less) will garner 13-20% of anything? I will donate to a libertarian candidate when one shows up that is not insane.
Here’s a question for those of you that live on this planet. Does anyone know if a candidate gets all a state’s delegates if they win the state? Are delegates proportioned by vote numbers? I assume some states do things a little differently than others, but generally does anyone know?
Nick, I scored left libertarian on the Quiz. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz So did David Cobb. All previous libertarian nominees scored right libertarian, including I assume Ron Paul. There is a peculiar confluence of political ideology at the political extremes. Left & right get blurred.///I said about the12/13% that is about what Paul is straw polling. That is the max. An open poll would allow about 7% or 1/4 the left vote go to the libertarian. I believe some states proportion delegates, so, yes, Paul could drag it out all the way to the convention & get some delegates like Alan Keyes did in 2000. Which is why I’m asking all libertarians to immediately cease to support him. It would be a waste & be taking away not only support but the prestige that should go to the ‘Real” libertarian candidates & nominee.
Mr. Milnes, I’ll say it one more time: Ron Paul is a REAL libertarian candidate. Thus far, the only argument you’ve presented to refute that claim is that he happens to be running on the GOP ticket. Most of us are concerned much more about the PRINCIPLES of what makes one a libertarian than mere party labels.
In any case, even if you could somehow convince all of his supporters to immediately stop supporting him, the idea that this support would simply shift over to your mythical green/libertarian super candidate, is absurd. Certainly, some of it would as well as some additional support from other lefties, but I’m convinced it would be a net loss. Ron Paul has energized a large following of independents and non-voters who would find little to no appeal in what you consider to be the ideal candidate.
That’s very kind of you to say, Mr. Milnes. However, I can’t take credit for this particular post (which I agree is very good), because I just copied it from http://www.08presidentialpolitics.blogspot.com.
Please understand, I am never advocating support for any candidate in particular, since I am still undecided. I just saw the information and thought it was worth sharing, since I have seen Ron Paul’s recent fundraising efforts mentioned on other libertarian blogs.
I think it may very well happen. There have been bigger upsets in the past, and we know that those mainstream polls are lying.
Stuart,
What do you think may happen? Murray Rothbard coming back from the grave to run for office?
Bob Milnes,
It’s just paulie. When I signed up for wordpress, I did not find a way to create a space between paulie and cannoli. Obviously it can be done, since other people have done it, but I’d have to start over to do it at this point.
Your math does not add up. Most of the voters who lean either libertarian or green aren’t going to vote Libertarian or Green, whether as separate parties or as a fusion candidacy. In fact, many of the people who vote LP or GP now won’t vote for a fusion candidacy. (And I say this as someone who would love to see a true green-libertarian fusion – specifically, consistently libertarian means towards consistent green goals).
Even if they did, it certainly would not be your candidacy, since you are neither a libertarian nor a green.
Do you think anyone fails to understand this?
paulie, agreed, “Most of the voters who lean libertarian or green aren’t going to vote libertarian or green…”. It looks to me like they wind up voting rep or dem. I have to admit I have been one. Last pres. election I voted dem because I heard it would be close in NJ between the dem & rep. No one else was in contention. Now, if the green-OR LIB-was in contention, I would be strongly preferring to vote for that candidate-to hell with the dem or rep. But that was not a choice.
paulie, “…consistently libertarian means towards consistent green goals.” I like that. Can I use that?
As far as I know, it is neither original nor copyrighted.
Of course, you don’t advocate either, so using it to describe your views would be inaccurate.
As a former Green, I would like to say that the Green ends are nearly as evil and corrupt as the brutal means they would use to pursue them.
I have to disagree.
See
http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/
“Community-based economics,” whether voluntary or through state force, results in poverty and death. I don’t think this is an admirable goal.
I know of no definition of “social justice” that is anything other than refried communism.
Read the link?