The Ron Paul Factor

What Does The Future Hold For The $5 Million Man?

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

---

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul announced this week that he raised more than $5 million in the third quarter, a figure that put him in the orbit of Arizona Sen. John McCain ($6 million) and far ahead of Mike Huckabee ($1 million). [The former is considered one of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination, and the latter was identified by former President Bill Clinton as the only "dark horse that's got any kind of chance" for the GOP nomination.]

Not bad for a guy who has generally been treated as a fringe candidate whose only impact on the race would be as a punching bag for more legitimate candidates looking to score political points. For example, in one of the early Republican debates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani attacked Paul for saying extremists "attack us because we've been over there."

Paul is far from a typical Republican presidential candidate: He has been against the war in Iraq from the outset and embraces a libertarian platform that includes dismantling the Department of Education. His support is largely Internet-based, with 70 percent of his donations coming online, according to Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton. His passionate supporters regularly bombard online news stories with comments on why Paul is the only candidate worth considering in the GOP field.

But Paul is little more than a blip on the national radar screen, coming in at just 3 percent support in a Washington Post-ABC News poll out this week. Despite his fundraising prowess, he remains a long shot to win the GOP nomination, and Huckabee dismissed Paul as "anything but" electable in an interview with CBS News this week.

"The Republicans are, frankly, divided up between nine or 10 candidates," said Huckabee. "Libertarians have one guy and they're fanatically loyal to him ... but it's not a Republican crowd, it's essentially either a Libertarian, in some cases, just an anti-war crowd."

Paul now has the money and name recognition to make an impact even if he doesn't get the Republican nomination, however. His campaign staff has grown from 10 to 40-plus over the past few months, and his team is now working on a second round of television ads. Benton says Paul had more than 30,000 donors for the quarter.

But Paul wants to do more than siphon votes from the bigger candidates in the GOP field. And if he is unable to become a legitimate candidate for the Republican nomination, he could potentially become the most serious and recognized presidential candidate in the history of the Libertarian Party.

Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, and Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory says he is welcome to seek the party's nomination this time around. "It was fantastic to see that wide support (for Paul)," said Cory. "It's a positive sign for the Libertarian Party and for liberty in general." Cory said his party does "not want to ride Paul's coattails," but noted that he is encouraged by Paul's success. He says if Paul continues running as a Republican, he hopes "some of his integrity rubs off on his opponents."

There is a potential stumbling block to Paul jumping to the Libertarian ticket: A number of states, including Paul's home state of Texas, have "sore loser laws" that prohibit a candidate who loses in the primary of one party from appearing on the ballot with a different party in the general election. "If Paul were to seek our nomination, he'd have to make sure his name wasn't on those ballots," said Cory. "It would not disqualify him from being our candidate, but would weigh heavily on the minds of our delegates."

Paul has repeatedly said that he will not run on a third-party ticket; this week he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "the system is so biased against a democratic process of allowing competition. You know, we can't get in the debates, it's hard to get on ballots."

Benton, Paul's communications director, echoes that sentiment.

"He has run as a third party candidate before," said Benton. "You spend half your time and two-thirds of your money just getting on the ballot. In his mind, the only type of candidate that could run a successful third party campaign would be a very, very wealthy person that could self-finance."

"You never say never, but it's 99.9999 percent," added Benton. "It's as close to absolute as possible."

[sftodd]

If you do a bit more checking, I think you%u201Dll find as I did, that Ron Paul generally votes against resolving issues at the federal level, against spending money we don%u201Dt have (deficit spending), and for civil liberties (gay or otherwise).
Posted by Akston at 01:22 AM : Oct 08, 2007

Okay, you have forced me to concede that unlike the other republican candidates, Ron Paul appears to at least have some integrity. Good luck -- you''ll need it to get ahead of the rest of the republican candidates who will stoop to almost anything.

[sftodd]

SF Todd,
If you are a Rudy supporter - go find the other 3 of you . . . . You need to stop posting lies posed as questions or I will report you for abuse.
Ron is for freedom of speech but I''''m not
Posted by brettrix at 02:41 AM : Oct 08, 2007

Umm, first of all, Rudy is a scumbag who, as Mayor of NYC, demonstrated his contempt for the First Amendment by knowingly and intentionally violating controlling Supreme Court precedent on cutting public funding as a means of punishing the freedom of expression. So, no, I''m not one of his three supporters.

Secondly, please report me!! I''m so scared!!

Thirdly, Ron Paul is coo coo!

[usawatchman]

What I can''t believe
is the most of the MAIN STREAM PRESS

Want us to believe that the TWO CANDIDATES have already been picked

CLINTON / OSOMA Binladen

and

Giuliani / THOMPSON

=============================
??? SOCIALISM and/or SELL OF THE GOVERNMENT ROADS???
=============================

PEOPLE THIS MAY BE OUR LAST AMERICAN ELECTION

GET OUT EVERYONE YOU KNOW
GET THEM REGISTER
AND GET THEM TO VOTE

and THEN MAKE SURE THEY DON''T STEAL YOUR VOTE
WITH THEIR ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

I''M PUSHING FOR ALL RON PAUL VOTERS
TO REGISTER YOUR VOTE ON ELECTION DAY
(i.e. BE COUNTED...)
and if the electronic votes don''t match up with
the number of SWORN AFFIDAVITS

THEN WE THEN CHALLENGE THE ELECTION..
and the PEOPLE
the MASS MEDIA want us to believe are OUR REPRESENTATIVE

REMEMBER (IMHO)
VOTE STEALING (VOTER FRAUD)
IS THE GREATEST TREASON a person or GROUP
can COMMIT

[njriverman]

Ron Paul rocks.

Join his local "meetup" group and vote for him on "eventful" "demands".

http://eventful.com/demand/D0-001-000460967-7

Paul in New Jersey
http://www.granorprice.com

[brettrix]

Go Ron Go

[radiob-2009]

Look at Ron Paul''s voting record on labour.

[cfin5]

charles1123,......When you push the publish button, you can scroll on up to the top to see if what you wrote is there. If it is then you don''t have to push it again. I had that problem figuring it out when I first got here :) Ron Paul, the unsocialist in ''08!

[charles1123]

Media bias does exist! Look at the story above. That should not surprise anyone. The columnist hints at Ron Paul being a punching bag for more legitimate candidates! More legitimate! What do you expect from a neo-con mouthpiece anyway. This networks complicity in not only censorship, but smear tactics is obvious! The fact is Ron Paul is steaming along with more supporters every day for a reason'' Check out Ron Paul Before you make a decision for the Presidency! Ron Paul 2008!

[charles1123]

Media bias does exist! Look at the story above. That should not surprise anyone. The columnist hints at Ron Paul being a punching bag for more legitimate candidates! More legitimate! What do you expect from a neo-con mouthpiece anyway. This networks complicity in not only censorship, but smear tactics is obvious! The fact is Ron Paul is steaming along with more supporters every day for a reason'' Check out Ron Paul Before you make a decision for the Presidency! Ron Paul 2008!

[charles1123]

Media bias does exist! Look at the story above. That should not surprise anyone. The columnist hints at Ron Paul being a punching bag for more legitimate candidates! More legitimate! What do you expect from a neo-con mouthpiece anyway. This networks complicity in not only censorship, but smear tactics is obvious! The fact is Ron Paul is steaming along with more supporters every day for a reason'' Check out Ron Paul Before you make a decision for the Presidency! Ron Paul 2008!

[charles1123]

Media bias does exist! Look at the story above. That should not surprise anyone. The columnist hints at Ron Paul being a punching bag for more legitimate candidates! More legitimate! What do you expect from a neo-con mouthpiece anyway. This networks complicity in not only censorship, but smear tactics is obvious! The fact is Ron Paul is steaming along with more supporters every day for a reason'' Check out Ron Paul Before you make a decision for the Presidency! Ron paul 2008!

[brettrix]

SF Todd,
If you are a Rudy supporter - go find the other 3 of you and get in a dress for Donald trump. You need to stop posting lies posed as questions or I will report you for abuse.
Ron is for freedom of speech but I''m not

[akston-2009]

SFTodd,

I did a search for link on my own. I found the following (add the 3 w%u201Ds to the beginning of each link):

From: ontheissues. org/Civil_Rights.htm#Headlines

Don%u201Dt ask, don%u201Dt tell is a decent policy for *** in army. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-*** marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

(Also, following up on the gay adoptions reference from Jul 1999, I found an actual synopsis of the bill and don%u201Dt see where the %u201Cbanning gay adoptions%u201D part exists. The bill is mostly about federal funding, and I%u201Dd guess that was why he wouldn%u201Dt support it).
See vote-smart. org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2410&can_id=296

If you do a bit more checking, I think you%u201Dll find as I did, that Ron Paul generally votes against resolving issues at the federal level, against spending money we don%u201Dt have (deficit spending), and for civil liberties (gay or otherwise).

[sftodd]

SFTodd,
Could you help me out with a link to where Ron Paul demonstrates the hatred of g a y Americans you mention?
Posted by Akston at 12:14 AM : Oct 08, 2007

It''s this simple: Ron Paul refuses to publicly condemn discrimination against g a y s or to state that be supports full civil rights for g a y s, yet his website states unequivocally that he supports "family values," which everyone knows is the equivalent of being anti-gay. If he doesn''t know that, shame on him for being so blatantly ignorant.

[akston-2009]

SFTodd,

Could you help me out with a link to where Ron Paul demonstrates the hatred of g a y Americans you mention?

[akston-2009]

Here are a couple links to Ron Paul%u2019s stance on abortion (that the comment program will probably break and you%u2019ll need to repair, start them with the 3 w%u2019s):

ronpaul2008. com/issues/life-and-liberty/
youtube. com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk

To summarize: Ron Paul is an OB/GYN doctor. He%u2019s delivered more than 4000 babies. His personal position is anti-abortion. His political position is that the constitution does not provide for federal control of *any* social issue. This means that the fed should not support *or* prohibit abortions. Ron Paul has stated consistently that he%u2019d relegate this (and all other social issues) to the states or the people (as required by Amendment 10).

The more controversial an issue, the more appropriately it should be handled at the lowest possible level of government (including %u201Cnot at all%u201D). The federal level is for universally conceded issues that are directly specified in the constitution (see Article 1, Section 8). Handling abortion (or any other controversial social issue) at the federal level always results in a tyranny of the majority. One size will never fit all in such issues.

Also keep in mind that Ron Paul is running for President, not King. All of his policies will need to be implemented via the structures and limits which the constitution provides. If you check his voting record, you%u2019ll find that he seems more aware of these limits than most of the other candidates.

[sftodd]

Saiorse -- I''m curious, since you so cogently and persuassively articulated why he is pro-life, would you please also enlighten us as to why he hates g a y Americans? How does that fit perfectly into his libertarian bent? Or, is that just a necessity of living in Texas? I guess you have to be an outright political w h o r e on some issues, no matter what. Ron Paul is apparently no exception.

[sftodd]

STDTODD.

Ron Paul IS against Roe V Wade.
Because he doesnt think the government should be responsible for bad judgement.. its our government not our parents.. do you also want them to tell you, youre fat and put you on a diet??
Posted by saiorse at 11:26 PM : Oct 07, 2007

Uh, actually, if I were fat, like most conservatives, I would want him (or anyone) to put me on a diet. So the only way to keep the government from being responsible for our bad judgment is to outlaw abortion? You, my dear, are a genius!! Thank you for proving my point. It''s coo coo time!

[saiorse-2009]

STDTODD.

Ron Paul IS against Roe V Wade.
Because he doesnt think the government should be responsible for bad judgement.. its our government not our parents.. do you also want them to tell you, youre fat and put you on a diet??

[saiorse-2009]

check out ron pauls awesome speeches on youtube

RON PAUL 08
america needs an enima.. and hes a doctor!! sweeeet.