The rest of the '08 candidates are filing their finance reports and there are no huge surprises. Duncan Hunter has $212,926 on hand, Tom Tancredo has $598,451 (more than Huckabee!) and Mike Gravel has... $31,141. And $64,715 of debt. Nice guy, right about the drug war, and a reason subscriber, but not campaigning on Ron Paul's level despite the best efforts of ABC News.
I don't see any interesting donations for the other two, but Gravel has scored from two fun supporters. He's got $750 from actor Mark Ruffalo and $250 from Marc Perkel, the full-service internet political kook/escort service guru.
More '08 Campaign Cash
Comments to "More '08 Campaign Cash":
Tom G | July 17, 2007, 11:04am | #
It's too bad Gravel didn't get more in contributions. I have a soft spot for him on account of he tells things like he really sees them. He has a few worthy positions, also.I hope he stays in at least for one more debate...
Stephen Thomas | July 17, 2007, 11:13am | #
OOO Mark Ruffalo! I saw him in the Soho Grand recently and just SWOONED.It's kinda fitting that someone with Gravel's policies is in debt...
Can the media now please stop mentioning Ron Paul in the same breath as Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo?
Edward | July 17, 2007, 11:46am | #
Ron Paul won't win, but he will contribute a new word to the language:Ron.paul TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: ron·paul·ed, ron·paul·ing, ron·pauls
1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: fraudulent ads that ronpaul libertarian keeners into sending in money. See synonyms at deceive.
Edward | July 17, 2007, 11:50am | #
As a noun, ronpaul means "wildly indulgent wishful thinking": "Her hope of losing weight by limiting herself to two desserts was a ronpaul of elephantine proprotions."John McCain | July 17, 2007, 11:51am | #
Money isn't speech.I said so in the Senate.Brian Defferding | July 17, 2007, 11:54am | #
Man, that's too bad about Gravel. He, along with Richardson, are the only likeable Democrats.Warren | July 17, 2007, 11:54am | #
Edward,Ron Paul has already changed the political landscape, and every day his influence grows. Suck on it.
Edward | July 17, 2007, 11:58am | #
WarrenOnly in your dreams. Ron Paul's effect on the political landscape will be roughly equivalent to the sound of a cat farting at Niagra Falls.
Fluffy | July 17, 2007, 12:13pm | #
Edward, let's get one thing straight:NO Republican currently running for President will take the oath of office in 2009. None. Nada. Zip.
That being the case, ALL contributions sent to ALL declared Republican candidates fit your nice little definition.
ALL hope by supporters of ALL Republican candidates fit the noun definition.
People with no hope of winning the election shouldn't throw stones at other people for having no hope to win the election.
Edward | July 17, 2007, 12:19pm | #
Fluffy,I'm not supporting any Republican candidate. But the Ron Paul/farting-cat-at-Niagra Falls analogy still holds. Sure, you guys can hear the cat farting, but you've got your ears right up against his asshole. Everybody else is listenting to the Falls.
Randolph Carter | July 17, 2007, 12:21pm | #
Edward, it's been asked before, but I'll ask it again:Who should we support? Unless you're one of those "I don't vote because the system sucks, man" anarchists, you've gotta have a preference. So who is it?
Lost_In_Translation | July 17, 2007, 12:23pm | #
Edward = TrollTherefore, he has no need to support any particular idea or candidate. His goal is to annoy and incite hate and discontent. That is what drives Edward, not any particular feeling that we are right or wrong in what we do.
It has been said before, do not feed the trolls.
Brandybuck | July 17, 2007, 12:24pm | #
Edward,It doesn't matter if Ron Paul will win or not. I will still support him because he is the only candidate for president that even comes close to my views. The purpose of voting isn't to guess who the winner will be. The reason so many of us are excited is that while he may not win the playoffs, at least he's in the playoffs! Which is more than I can say for many other candidates.
'Buck
Hit and Run Troll Rating Service | July 17, 2007, 12:25pm | #
Edward, I give your attempt at trolling a 3 out of 10, for generating a few responses at least, not for style or panache, both of which you are severely lacking.THIS HAS BEEN A MESSAGE FROM THE HIT AND RUN TROLL RATING SERVICE. HAD THIS BEEN A REAL TROLL EMERGENCY, THE TRUCKS THE INTERNETS RUN ON WOULD BE SHUT DOWN.
Fluffy | July 17, 2007, 12:26pm | #
Edward,Your anti-Paul argument seems to consist of the claims:
1. He can't win, so no one should send him money.
and
2. He can't win, so having hope that he can win makes you a fool.
But ultimately the only evidence that can ever exist to prove these will arrive when Paul fails to win the Presidency. The problem is that that same evidence will arrive for every other candidate in the race but one - and that one will almost certainly not be any of the currently declared Republican candidates. That being the case, your taunts need to be broadened.
Brandybuck | July 17, 2007, 12:27pm | #
Richardson can't win against the Clinton/Obama machine. So maybe we should make it a new TRANSITIVE VERB! "Aaargh! My $2300 donation has been richardsoned!"Edward | July 17, 2007, 12:29pm | #
Brandybuck,Fair enough. You know you're supporting Ron Oaul even though he has no chance of coming close to winning because he holds your views, and you recognize that those views aren't very popular. But lots of your libertarian buddies have talked themsleves into believing that Ron Paul has a chance, and I'm pointing out that that's delusional. I hope you're not sending him money, though. That's just a waste.
Fluffy | July 17, 2007, 12:30pm | #
But Edward, Bill Richardson has no chance to win the nomination. That makes for the nice neologisms:Bill.Richardson TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: Bill.Richardson·ed, Bill.Richardson·ing, Bill.Richardson.s
1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: fraudulent ads that billrichardson democrat keeners into sending in money. See synonyms at deceive.
-and-
As a noun, billrichardson means "wildly indulgent wishful thinking": "Her hope of losing weight by limiting herself to two desserts was a billrichardson of elephantine proprotions."
Edward | July 17, 2007, 12:32pm | #
I said I like Richardson, not that he would win. However, he has a better chance of winning than a cat faring at Niagra Falls has of being heard, which you can't say about Ron Paul.Edward | July 17, 2007, 12:35pm | #
Aren't you guys forgetting not to feed the troll? I'm gonna tell Jesse.Stephen Thomas | July 17, 2007, 12:35pm | #
Big pharma influence creep watch: now trolls spell "niagara" like "viagra".Edward | July 17, 2007, 12:38pm | #
I'm a terrible speller and typist, but I'm not dumb enough to think Ron Paul will have a greater political impact than a farting cat.Stephen Thomas | July 17, 2007, 12:39pm | #
I don't know, I saw this Ashton Kutcher movie that posited that a cat farting in Mexico can change the world.Fluffy | July 17, 2007, 12:44pm | #
Edward,Richardson does not have a greater chance to win than Paul.
They are tied at zero chance.
tarran | July 17, 2007, 12:54pm | #
What's comical is that for someone who thinks Ron Paul doesn't matter, Edward spends alot of time writing about him. Almost to the level of obsessing about him.Odd that.
Full disclosure: I will not be pulling the lever for Ron Paul, but am enjoying his run and would not be that upset if he won the presidency.
FatDrunkAndStupid | July 17, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Ron Paul has a much better chance of winning the Presidency than Bill Richardson. Richardson is an establishment candidate running an establishment campaign with insuffcient establishment tools. He's going to get routed the same way the Germans ran over the Poles in WWII. Paul on the other hand, is using unconvential tactics. That still doesn't make him likely to win, but it does give him hope. Ron Paul is the Viet Cong of 2008 Presidental Race.Edward | July 17, 2007, 1:12pm | #
tarranObviously Ron Paul Matters greatly to the airhead libertarians who post here, and I like to make fun of airhead libertarians and their delusional politics. What's odd about that?
Edward | July 17, 2007, 1:14pm | #
FatDrunkAndStupidIs there supposed to be a relationship between you name and your views?
Edward | July 17, 2007, 1:25pm | #
Bill Richardson has a much better chance of winning his party's nomination than kooky Ron Paul has of winning his party's. Let's compare the numbers when this is all over. Or maybe by that time you libertarians will want to move on to some new delusion and forget poor old Ron Paul.Wikinger Elch | July 17, 2007, 1:30pm | #
VEE DID NOT INVADE. VEE VERE INVITED!!!!robc | July 17, 2007, 1:34pm | #
Edward,On Intrade right now the Bid/Ask for winning nomination are:
Richardson 2.5/2.6
Paul 2.8/2.9
That doesnt say who has the best chance of winning the Presidency, but neither has numbers in the "win general election".
So, according to people willing to put money on it, Paul has a better chance to win the nomination (Im actually surprised Richardson's numbers are that high)
Minion of URKOBOLD | July 17, 2007, 1:38pm | #
ALL YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE WASTED.ZOD WILL STILL WIN.
tarran | July 17, 2007, 1:39pm | #
Obviously Ron Paul Matters greatly to the airhead libertarians who post here, and I like to make fun of airhead libertarians and their delusional politics.Well I guess the first step to fixing a personality defect is to admit that one has it.
Stephen the Goldberger | July 17, 2007, 1:40pm | #
I want ron paul to win, but i realize that's very unlikely. However if he draws up signifficant support it will mean at the very least he can not be ignored. And if he has money he can spread his message, a message I suppport and want heard.So I'd much rather give him money to spend on ads than a candidate i don't support who is likely to win (and i feel is the lesser/least of many evils). I don't see how this hard to understand.
Fluffy | July 17, 2007, 1:58pm | #
"Bill Richardson has a much better chance of winning his party's nomination than kooky Ron Paul has of winning his party's. Let's compare the numbers when this is all over."No, he doesn't.
The only way to rebut my statement that Richardson has a 0% chance is to run a series of elections and see how many of them Richardson wins. Unfortunately for such a proof, we don't get to run a series of elections, we only get to run one. In that one, Richardson will lose. If both Richardson and Paul lose, their demonstrated probability of winning a Presidential nominating primary will be zero.
Actually, Paul has previously won a Presidential nomination, in 1988. Richardson has not. So if anything the existing data indicate that Paul has a better chance than Richardson.
Fluffy | July 17, 2007, 2:00pm | #
By the way, if by comparing the numbers when it's over you mean you want to look at some figure other than actual victory in the nominating process - delegates won, percentage of vote attained, etc. - save it. If Paul gets 0.5% of the total primary vote and loses, and Richardson gets 25% of the total primary vote and loses, they still both lost. Their losses are equal. Their chance of being the nominee will still be tied at 0.I wish Bill Richardson would win the Dem nomination. Hes the only Democrat that doesn't insult my intelligence by saying if the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" are repealed, I will get 'free' healthcare, a balanced budget,no more hurricane disasters Osama bin Laden's head on a plate, a lifetime supply of micro brews, and an Aston Martin.
Edward | July 17, 2007, 2:11pm | #
In any case, I'm arguing not only that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, but also that his candidacy will have on impact on the political landscape, which is the chief delusion of libertaians who are smart enough to count.Edward | July 17, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Make that NO impact.Edward | July 17, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Make that libertaRiansFluffy | July 17, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Actually, Edward, if you're arguing "impact" I think you're even further off base.Richardson's campaign is having absolutely no impact on the Democrat nominating process in ideological or personal terms. None. Were he not there, the primary season to date would have proceeded in exactly the same manner.
Paul is, at the very least, creating acrimony on the Republican side; he's aggravating a traditional weak point in the post-Nixon Republican coalition; he's angered and rankled other candidates. The primary season to date on the Republican side would be noticeably different if he had not run.
Richardson may as well just go home now. The best he can hope for is VP, and his campaign is having no impact on his VP chances, either. They'd be the same if he went to New Mexico and sat on a porch for the next year.
Edward | July 17, 2007, 2:38pm | #
You know, Fluffy, I think you're probably right about Richardson. Given his credentials, it's a shame.crimethink | July 17, 2007, 4:15pm | #
Fluffy,If Ron Paul gets the GOP nom (a long shot, I know), I think it would be worth it to try to recruit Richardson as a VP nominee. If things get acrimonious between him and the Clintons during the Dem primaries, he may be willing to jump ship...and TBH he's more libertarian in his politics than any prominent Republicans are.
Edward | July 17, 2007, 4:40pm | #
Hmm, a Ron Paul/Bill Richardson ticket. That would be a little like a Bozo the Clown/Einstein ticket. It might just work.Edward | July 17, 2007, 4:54pm | #
RICHARDSON FOR PRESIDENT INC.The query you have chosen matched 10118 individual contributions.
RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
The query you have chosen matched 2236 individual contributions.
Lost_In_Translation | July 17, 2007, 5:40pm | #
Edward, what website gave you those results.I find it hard to believe the average Paul supporter is giving
Lost_In_Translation | July 17, 2007, 5:41pm | #
$1000 a person