?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Ron Paul has more cash on hand than McCain - Open Knowledge — LiveJournal

Jul. 6th, 2007

11:40 am - Ron Paul has more cash on hand than McCain

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m.html

Original: craschworks - comments

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:pasquin
Date:July 6th, 2007 06:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, but how much is he drawing in? Cash is great, but no income is deadly. McCain's problem was he spending it quicker than it didn't come in.

Is Paul running a fifty state campaign? Or is he and his wife licking stamps in his basement? Either way, money in the bank after the election is lost is not the point.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:July 6th, 2007 07:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
He had about $650 K in the bank at the end of Q1. He spent that in Q2, and pulled in an additional $2.4 million. So his expense/income ratio is pretty good so far.

What do you mean by "running a 50 state campaign"? If you mean, is he buying TV ads in all 50 states, no. He doesn't have the money for that yet, and this early in the campaign it would probably be wasted.

However, part of the reason he can run such a frugal campaign is because he has such a strong base of volunteers. There are 416 Meetup groups for Ron Paul, vs. 70 for Barak Obama, his next closest competitor. That suggests to me that there are organized groups in all 50 states actively working on his campaign.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:greendalek
Date:July 6th, 2007 06:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Good to know. I just sent Dr. Paul's campaign a bit of $$ --he is to date the ONLY Presidential candidate for whom I have even remotely considered doing that, I might add.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:July 6th, 2007 08:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Awesome. He's the first candidate I've given money to as well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:July 7th, 2007 12:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, he's my guy. See my latest post for my thoughts on his newsletter quotes.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:madfilkentist
Date:July 7th, 2007 01:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I came upon this when looking through my friendsfriends.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to specify in detail how elections are conducted. As I understand it, this is the basis of Paul's opposition to legislation which does that.

I can't speak to those quotes without knowing their context. The statistical fact that black men have a higher crime rate is certainly relevant under some circumstances. Women are more likely to be nervous when they're out alone at night and see a strange man of any skin color than if they see a strange woman; is this sexist, or is it a rational response to the probabilities?

On the other hand, Paul's comments on immigrants are irrational and conflict with his libertarian philosophy, so I can't dismiss your concerns out of hand.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:evokate
Date:July 7th, 2007 03:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
In religious discussions, I've noticed a tendency for folks when defending their religion to view "heretics" as worse than "atheists." The heretic's beliefs are at least within the same mythos, the same realm. The heretic is dangerous... the heretic might more easily "convert" someone who already believes in the same core mythos, albeit with mildly different details. The atheist, though... how can one even have a discussion with them? The atheist is so far removed as to be less of a threat to potential adherents to your own religion. Note of course that I bring this up for metaphorical point, seeing as I'm an atheist personally. :)

I think I initially fell into that trap, that line of thinking, when first considering Ron Paul. There are many details of his political philosophy with which I disagree strongly. But the fact is, he is merely the "heretic" in this scenario. He is the only candidate that I'm aware of that even comes within a parsec of my own views toward government and of freedom. The others seem to reside in an entirely different universe bafflingly devoid of reason.

So, despite moderate misgivings, he's the first republican candidate I've ever donated to. He's the first I've ever even considered voting for. Well... if I were the type who actually voted.

Great journal, btw!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:pasquin
Date:July 7th, 2007 04:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Interesting point. Logically deduced. But wouldn't someone who repudiates an entire philosophy be more threatening? There's a reason 90% of americans say they won't vote for an atheist while more than half are willing to vote for someone of a different faith.

During the inquisition people were often condemned as atheists even though you espoused a belief in a god. Just a different one.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:evokate
Date:July 7th, 2007 05:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
See, you're taking all the fun out of my attempt at diatribe along the counterintuitive line of thought. Hmph. :P

That 90% of americans wouldn't vote for a candidate espousing religious views utterly contrary to their own... well that's just boringly obvious.

So yes, you're right of course. Spoilsport.

But that said, I don't follow your point about the inquisitions. In all four of the major inquisitions, people who were devout Catholics could be condemned for relatively minor heresies. In fact, during most of these periods, due to legalities involved, the Catholic church only had jurisdiction over baptized members of the Church. Non-Christians were instead typically tried in the secular courts, as were those accused of witchcraft.

And it wasn't like you'd be made dead for, say, being a Gnostic, but made "even deader" for being an outright atheist. Particular inquisition periods had their own favorite whipping boys, e.g. recent converts from Hinduism during the Portuguese inquisition. But from what I've read, all of them tended to stray into the realm of eliminating all sorts of political undesirables, regardless of how minor the charges of heresy they trumped up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:July 8th, 2007 09:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks! That's an interesting analysis, one I hadn't heard before. And I think you're right--Ron Paul is a heretic in the church of Republicanism. Which is why he seems to raise such antipathy among some neocons, despite his history of rock-solid support of theoretical Republican values (small government, individual liberty, low taxes).

Of course, I also agree that he's a flawed candidate. But good gravy! I'm not waiting until Christ returns so that I can vote for the perfect candidate. He's a far better candidate at the margin than the others, and even if he loses, it will give future candidates reason to pander to freedom lovers for a change.

Glad you like the journal! Where are you, if I may ask?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:evokate
Date:July 8th, 2007 10:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I have heard rumors that there remain a handful of small government supporters still within the ranks of the Republican party, but I've yet to manage to catch one on film... elusive creatures. I'm beginning to suspect they're mythical, much like unicorns, Jesus, and William Shatner's hair.

I'm in south florida.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)