Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

blogs.abcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
abcnews.go.com

Ron Paul for president

blogs.abcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well he may have a chance after all.

I'm pretty sure Hilldog already has over 30 mill though. Maybe not, but she has a lot of support from the east coast yuppies.

I hope she doesn't get the nomination. I'd rather have Obamanation than her...

Ron Paul, please step your game up. Or run Libertarian.

McCain has ruined himself in the Republican party. The guy is done, over. He will be lucky to win another senate position in Arizona, and they freaking love the guy!!

His stance on the border issue is atrocious, especially for a senator that represents a state that has to deal with the consequences of an open border policy.

Sen. McCain is yesterdays news, seemingly...

I still haven't figured out why Rep. Paul is so bees knees. So he's got more money, so not impressed. He's got to do a bit more to impress me than raise a lot of money.

A few more ideas and a little less ranting...'course I'm not in political mode yet, so it all sounds like ranting right now...would be good.

I saw this headline, and said "That isn't saying much"

Whoop-de-doo! Ron Paul has more money than McCain. Yes, McCain, a guy with no chance at the Republican nomination.

I guess the "Ron Paul Fantasy" will continue a little bit longer? This is so sad though.

But remember this is coming from ABC News, if it was coming from Drudge or WorldNetDaily, it might be more believeable.

Nevermind...Drudge is reporting it also, so it must be true!

Since the emigration bill isnt going to pass McCain has outlived his usefulness with corporate interests so it is no surprise that Corporate America isnt supporting him any more.

In the process of trying to pander to corporate interests McCain alienated his supporter base which certainly wasn't the brightest move and McCain is deservedly paying for his stance on emigration. I fail to understand why Ron Paul remains in the Republican party it is clear that he is an libertarian who is 30 or 40 years to late to the party. Ron would have been more at home with the likes of Goldwater.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by xpert11]

I would agree with that statement...It comes as no surprise to me after I posted: McCain cuts staff after low fundraising.


If I remember correctly, Ron Paul did try running as a Libertarian in the past...Perhaps he feels that he'll get more support by staying in one of the "popular parties?" If his Grass-Roots support keeps growing like it has been so far, I don't think he'll need to stay with the GOP. From what I've read/seen/heard about him so far, Ron Paul seems to be more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian anyway.

Constitutionalist or Libertarian the label matters less in this case because I regard Ron as an Republican in name only.
I think that Ron was the Libertarian party candidate at the 1988 election.
Ron could just be using to the Republican party to gain media exposure and build a core supporter base for a run as an independent in 2012/15. Forgive me for speaking in general terms but in terms of winning the 2008 nod he isnt attracting mainstream Republican supporters to his cause.

Of course there are exceptions but that wont be enough for Ron to win the Republican party nomination in 2008.

Just my ten cents.

I have to question how strong Paul's candidacy will be when people realize that the voters who support ending the war do not support privatized health care.



--Wikipedia

Alas...but because he beat McCain, Ron is now the #3 GOP candidate.... and do you see how even though he is in the top tier the main stream media still chooses to purposefully ignore him?

Paul isn't getting news coverage because he can't score more than 2% in any given poll. Unfortunately, a straw poll taken of a non-representative sample of Republicans in the middle of Philadelphia doesn't do much for him.

I disagree because he doesn't have the poll numbers, just the money.

In fact, this is empirical evidence that money does not immediately equate to political clout.