"Ron Paul is breaking through. His call to return to the vision of the Founders, and the principles embodied in the Constitution, is piercing the wall of silence that surrounds the conduct of our disgraceful foreign policy." The Ron Paul Breakthrough Ready for a real change? http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Paul has hired an Iowa power broker to manage his campaign there. Drew Ivers, the same guy who managed Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan's Iowa campaigns and has been involved in Iowa GOP politics since Reagan. Right now, the grassroots is very focused on New Hampshire, with PACs via small donation fund raising are planning to run full page ads in the Union Leader, and perhaps some smaller papers. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=253854&postcount=1 I believe there is also going to be a grassroots NH TV buy soon and there is talk of advertising via billboards. Iowa seems to be moving slower with organized grassroot advertising, as is Michigan.
Do 'grassroots efforts' and 'power brokers' go well together? I know Ron has to deal with the Establishment, but the main strength of his movement is real people who are (often) willing to work for free.
Do a search on Youtube for "bill moyers impeach" Drew Ivers was on that show and I think you will understand why he is in the campaign based upon his views on the Constitution.
People sure had to shut up when fundraising results came in. Ron more than doubled his take from the 2nd quarter, and everyone (short of Huckabee, maybe one or two others), made less money than the 2nd quarter. Some notable news for each of the candidates: Guiliani pretty much has every evangelical Republican group saying there is no way they'd endorse him, and they are willing to look into 3rd tier candidates rather than the people they have running now. Romney had to lend himself another $8 million dollars to keep up, and probably has Iowa locked down, but who else is going to vote for him? He is the John Kerry (flip-flop) of this election, and people are starting to call him out on it. Thompson, the supposed new blood and someone conservatives can get behind, had 4 months to gather money, and barely raised as much as the front tier candidates, pulling in $9 million. Some big debates are coming up, and everyone knows Freddy ain't the best public speaker. Look for him to butcher his chances once he actually has to say something that isn't pre-written for him. Huckabee, the supposed evangelical vote (according to the Values Voters debate anyway), might have been the endorsement from Dobson and others, but guess what? He raised about a $1 million dollars, so his ship is sinking fast. McCain, well...he just looks done. He has people jumping ship from his campaign left and right, he has less cash on hand than Paul AGAIN, and he just doesn't seem to have the spark that he did 8 years ago. It seems like for all the talk about Paul not having a chance, the party doesn't want to take a chance with anyone else. As I said, evangelicals don't want to support any of the mainstream, and a decent amount (if 70% of the USA wants out) of Republicans want us to get the fuck out of Iraq. Paul as a candidate looks better and better every day, but I guess you guys would rather have Hillary for 8 years. :-/
What's positive is that Paul has spent next to nothing in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he's polling at 4% in both. I recently read that he is polling around 8~10% with moderates, those are the people who do not declare themselves as "likely republicans" or "likely democrats". Considering it is rare for a 3rd party candidate to get more than a few percent, it's interesting to see Paul starting to grow in the polls, particularly in such a wide field. Grassroots folks are hoping for top 3 finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. I think that would be pretty amazing and a good platform for the rest of the primaries.
Latest poll results from Sunday: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ap...20071007/NEWS09/71005048/-1/iowapoll07&lead=1 Top Tier: Mitt Romney - 29% Fred Thompson - 18% Mike Huckabee - 12% Second Tier: Rudy Giuliani - 11% John McCain - 7% Tom Tancredo - 5% Bottom Tier: Ron Paul - 4% Alan Keyes - 2% Sam Brownback - 2% Duncan Hunter - 1% Uncommitted - 9% The surge in Iraq has seen a 50% decrease over four months, yet some argue and twist it to negativity. Ron Paul's numbers have gone from 1-2% to 4% over the last four months, and it's a huge success - positive! Interesting observation.
Thanks. I think it is an interesting observation as well. We haven't even started the Iowa campaign yet. We're strictly grassroots campaigning right now, and Paul is travelling around the country (sold out house of 1500+ in Tennessee this weekend) raising more money. Word through the campaign grapevine is that it is all about fund raising right now. The primaries aren't for 80+ days, and Paul can only go up, meanwhile those 1st tier candidates can continue to shuffle their pool of points or drop.
Money cannot overcome questionable positions though. Lots of candidates have money. I won't take away his fund raising success, but that alone isn't going to be enough.
All of the candidates have questionable positions. A christian candidate may not appeal to other sects or atheists. The Pro-War folks may not appeal to the anti-war folks. The big spenders may not appeal to the fiscally conservative. The social welfare system may not appeal to the small government people. It only depends on which side of the debate we stand that makes the opposite view "questionable". Did you know that of the $5,080,000 in Q3, the average donation was $40? We have a limit of $2,300, and the average was $40. That's around 125,000 donations. RP's message is being heard and listened to by a lot of people. So much so that people like Huckabee are trying to emulate him now with Adwords buys, and MeetUp groups. But the thing is, while Paul is charming, it's his message that appeals to people. End the war. Bring all of our troops home. Secure our borders. Remove government secrecy (particularly on domestic issues). Repeal questionable amendments. Cut spending, cut taxes, reduce the size of state. Trade everywhere. Remove the incentive for welfare or lobbying. End the $40 Billion dollar war on drugs that incarcerates users who don't peddle. This stuff resonates. I think I kinda know where you stand on a few of these things, but be aware, that a large part of the population is fed up, and tired of the direction we have been heading in for the last 15 years. it's not sustainable. We're running out of troops, we're running out of money. The bill is going to come due, if not in our lifetimes, then in the lifetime of our children. Don't get me wrong. If you are for the war, want someone with Christian political positions, or believe that stuff like the Patriot act makes us safer, then he's not your candidate. That's why we have so many (although sadly, not a lot of differentiation). But Paul speaks to a lot of Americans.
Good points guerilla. I can understand your disenchantment. To this, I would just add that while all candidates have questionable positions, RP is the only one I've seen whose national security positions are weaker than that of democrats. There may come a time when we can scale back on the importance of national security, but that time is not now. Not in the least bit. National security is my primary concern. Not for my own personal welfare, but for our country It's an unselfish position. Where I live...I can't even fathom it's something I (personally) would ever have to be concerned over. Far too remote here. None-the-less, I do care about my fellow Americans; the threats we face are real, and shifting from a policy of preventing such attacks to dropping our shield and willfully letting them happen is not something I wish upon my fellow Americans.
Thank you. But I am also positive, that things can be changed for the better. That the problems we have today won't last forever unless we don't address them. There is Hope for America. Our national security right now is pretty weak. Our forces are overtaxed, we're using mercenaries foreign and domestic to support our forces, and our borders are wide open. The Office for Government Accountability did some field testing, and it's a joke to walk across our northern and southern borders. They even simulated bringing baggage with them, stuff that could contain bombs, and they were able to get into cars on the US side, and drive off. That should scare the sh1t out of us. But we've sent our best border guards to Iraq to help them secure their borders. I understand you aren't being selfish, I always have. I tease you about being a chickenhawk, but it was only teasing, and never a question of whether or not you love this country enough to do whatever must be done to defend it. You'll just have to trust me that Paul would love to see the domestic shield tightened, and some foreign relations dealt with diplomatically so Americans are able to travel abroad somewhat safely. This nonsense of confiscating our toothpaste isn't making people safer. Not when our borders are wide open. That's why I take issue with people calling him an isolationist. He's anything but. I'm ravenous to absorb as much of his policy as possible so I can speak accurately about it. He's mentioned once, maybe twice that he would like to see us have a faster to react, elite military. The kind of force that can be deployed on short notice, and with the highest level of training and equipment. Believe the Reagan quote. Paul was a military man who fulfilled service during two wars. He's not soft, he's just not aggressive or too stupid to know when to come home (like Reagan when he brought troops back after the bombing).
http://rp4.us/2007/10/09/after-the-michigan-debate-ron-paul-speaks-to-a-rally-of-over-2000-people/ Enormous turnout. This is getting to be a bad habit, wherever he goes, he speaks to very large crowds.