http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Vaulti...ohn_McCain

Quote: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.

Hell, I could top McCain.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Vaulti...ohn_McCain

Quote: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.

Good for him...until you compare that to Giuliani's $18 million on hand and Romney's $12 million. And that's not even counting what Thompson will rack up if he enters the race. Paul is an interesting sideshow, but he will have no impact on whom is eventually elected PotUS.

Keep your heads in the sand. If Ron had more money in the bank than all the others -- I'm sure you'd come up with something else to dismiss him with. From nowhere in March to third in July, despite very little media coverage. He's doing just fine, and if the growth rate holds up the front runners are in deep ****.

Restore the republic, negate the neocons. Ron Paul '08.

Great, one loser has more money than another loser. Woohoo!

Who's your candidate?

Rudy's abortion stance will make it difficult for him to win the primary.
Fred Thompson isn't running at this time. He also has Watergate dirt on his record.
Romney is the Republican incarnation of John Kerry.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Who's your candidate?

Rudy's abortion stance will make it difficult for him to win the primary.
Fred Thompson isn't running at this time. He also has Watergate dirt on his record.
Romney is the Republican incarnation of John Kerry.

All losers. The candidate selection sucks. I will more than likely vote Constitutional or some other ultra conservative group.

GrayBeard Wrote:Constitutional

That's probably one of the best adjectives to describe Ron.

blazr Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Vaulti...ohn_McCain

Quote: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.

Good for him...until you compare that to Giuliani's $18 million on hand and Romney's $12 million.

Not to mention Bill Richardson's $7 million, John Edwards' $9 million, Hillary Clinton's $27 million, and Barack Obama's $32 million raised in the second quarter alone.

$2 million isn't jack in a presidential race. That's pocket change.

I'm betting McCain can take on more debt than Ron Paul though, so I'm not convinced CoH is going to matter as much.

But Paul has no chance to win the nomination. Neither does McCain probably, but he has a slightly better chance than Paul.

In the end, it will probably be Romney, very reluctantly on the part of most in the party.

Giuliani will get waxed in the early states, and Romney will coast through to victory.

By the way, Barack Obama has more donors this quarter than all of the GOP candidates combined -- and raised 32 million dollars as a result. Thats 58 million, or nearly twice what any GOP candidate has raised so far. None of this matters of course -- whichever candidates get the nomination will have plenty of money flooding in come January. But you have to like the way Obama is raising money -- from 260,000 ordinary Americans. No PACs, no lobbyists.

OUGwave Wrote:I'm betting McCain can take on more debt than Ron Paul though, so I'm not convinced CoH is going to matter as much.

But Paul has no chance to win the nomination. Neither does McCain probably, but he has a slightly better chance than Paul.

In the end, it will probably be Romney, very reluctantly on the part of most in the party.

Giuliani will get waxed in the early states, and Romney will coast through to victory.

By the way, Barack Obama has more donors this quarter than all of the GOP candidates combined -- and raised 32 million dollars as a result. Thats 58 million, or nearly twice what any GOP candidate has raised so far. None of this matters of course -- whichever candidates get the nomination will have plenty of money flooding in come January. But you have to like the way Obama is raising money -- from 260,000 ordinary Americans. No PACs, no lobbyists.

Obama won't win the primary...not this year. He doesn't have the experience and that will trip him up somewhere down the line. Maybe in '16. BTW, it won't be a Clinton/Obama ticket, either...Obama is too smart for that (the Clinton machine/miasma torpedoed Gore's political future, and Obama has too much ahead of him to go down that road).

I disagree. Experience is as experience does, to borrow from Forrest Gump.

If he was such a neophyte, there's no way he would be out-raising THE FREAKING CLINTONS in a democratic primary. And by 10 million dollars.

I mean, think about it. These are the lords of fund-rasing in my party. They have had over 15 years to put together a rolodex of people to tap into, to build an organization that would trounce him. He's been in national politics for less than three years. For him to out-raise her among DEMOCRATS is a testament to his intelligence, work ethic, and overall abilities.

I've seen him on the trail, having gone to a fundraiser, and he's incredibly impressive at deflating the experience argument. His three principle points are going to be that 1) Experience didn't prevent Hillary from royally screwing up her Iraq war vote, which he was right on. Judgement matters way more than "experience". 2) "I may not have been in Washington long... but I've been there long enough to know that Washington needs to change drastically". 3) Having lived abroad as a child, in a Muslim environment as a "non-believer", having taught constitutional law, having been editor of the Harvard Law Review, having spent years organizing black churches after area steel mill closings on the South-side of Chicago, he's got the diverse set of experiences it takes to understand the problems America is facing right now.

Now, these may not be persuasive arguments to you or even many people here... but come January, with Hillary and Bill fatigue setting in again and poll numbers about her unelectability omnipresent, they are going to be very persuasive to Democratic primary voters.

I wouldn't count him out so easily. The guy has a talent for this stuff.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blazr Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Vaulti...ohn_McCain

Quote: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.

Good for him...until you compare that to Giuliani's $18 million on hand and Romney's $12 million.

Not to mention Bill Richardson's $7 million, John Edwards' $9 million, Hillary Clinton's $27 million, and Barack Obama's $32 million raised in the second quarter alone.

$2 million isn't jack in a presidential race. That's pocket change.

You are correct. Paul's finances are considerably smaller than those you mention. But to be at the level he is right now was inconceivable to most Americans just tow months ago. And this in the face of a media freeze. We are in the early stages of this challenge. If Paul can continue his gains over the next several months, it could get real interesting.

Paul's people were predicting $4 million, so he came in nearly have that.

also, Paul isn't the least bit 'constitutional' by judging by the actions of the Founding Fathers who wrote the thing in the first several administrations and congresses, all the way up to the Barbary Wars. It takes a far out extremist to take paul's isolationism/non-interventionism and 'only 3 federal crimes' positions. not to mention refusing to support Israel.

the left is worried to death that Rudy or Thompson will be nominated, especially now that thompson is tied with Hillary and he hasn't even announced yet. So they rush out a 'story' claiming he was a 'mole', a claim coming from the most untrustworthy of people from that case, unfortunately for them Thompson's book on the subject that has been out of print for 20yrs will come back soon enough....all this for a candidate who hasn't even declared yet, this early in the game...........but if the repubs get 4 more years and nominate same type judges they lose their god for decades, the courts.

[quote=GGniner]
Paul's people were predicting $4 million, so he came in nearly have that.

also, Paul isn't the least bit 'constitutional' by judging by the actions of the Founding Fathers who wrote the thing in the first several administrations and congresses, all the way up to the Barbary Wars. It takes a far out extremist to take paul's isolationism/non-interventionism and 'only 3 federal crimes' positions. not to mention refusing to support Israel.

I'm confused, where in the constitution does it say we are supposed to support Isreal? Especially after they repeatedly attack our sailors and attempt to kill over 200 of them? And where does the constitution object to nationalism and isolationism?

Observer Wrote:[quote=GGniner]
Paul's people were predicting $4 million, so he came in nearly have that.

also, Paul isn't the least bit 'constitutional' by judging by the actions of the Founding Fathers who wrote the thing in the first several administrations and congresses, all the way up to the Barbary Wars. It takes a far out extremist to take paul's isolationism/non-interventionism and 'only 3 federal crimes' positions. not to mention refusing to support Israel.

I'm confused, where in the constitution does it say we are supposed to support Isreal? Especially after they repeatedly attack our sailors and attempt to kill over 200 of them? And where does the constitution object to nationalism and isolationism?

support of Israel is not in constitution, not what I meant either. I was just pointing how politically dumb a position it is. The 'attack on the USS Liberty' has been concluded to be a mistake also and was way back in 1967 anyway. israel is a democracy, the arab states allied against them are not....................my point about isolationism is that the founders that became presidents, all used the military around the globe in US Interest(see Barbary Wars for modern day parallel). Paul on the other hand tries to position himself as taking a constitutional position on all this stuff.

if he were to ever get big enough to merit media/opponents to really looking into his record, they will tie his Katrina comments around his neck(especially now with all the pork request he has for his district). I agree with much of what he said about Katrina, spending and FEMA....however politically and with our pathetic media he would be made out to be Satan in no time.

GGniner Wrote:

Observer Wrote:[quote=GGniner]
Paul's people were predicting $4 million, so he came in nearly have that.

also, Paul isn't the least bit 'constitutional' by judging by the actions of the Founding Fathers who wrote the thing in the first several administrations and congresses, all the way up to the Barbary Wars. It takes a far out extremist to take paul's isolationism/non-interventionism and 'only 3 federal crimes' positions. not to mention refusing to support Israel.

I'm confused, where in the constitution does it say we are supposed to support Isreal? Especially after they repeatedly attack our sailors and attempt to kill over 200 of them? And where does the constitution object to nationalism and isolationism?

support of Israel is not in constitution, not what I meant either. I was just pointing how politically dumb a position it is. The 'attack on the USS Liberty' has been concluded to be a mistake also and was way back in 1967 anyway. israel is a democracy, the arab states allied against them are not....................my point about isolationism is that the founders that became presidents, all used the military around the globe in US Interest(see Barbary Wars for modern day parallel). Paul on the other hand tries to position himself as taking a constitutional position on all this stuff.

As a member of the United States Naval Security Group I can tell you without question that the attack on the Liberty was intentional and our government is hiding the thruth from our citizens. The attack was no mistake. It was murder of American servicemen. Screw Isreal.

if he were to ever get big enough to merit media/opponents to really looking into his record, they will tie his Katrina comments around his neck(especially now with all the pork request he has for his district). I agree with much of what he said about Katrina, spending and FEMA....however politically and with our pathetic media he would be made out to be Satan in no time.