Former GOP Congressman from Georgia Bob Barr seems, at least for the moment, to be steamrolling his way to becoming the Libertarian Party candidate for the presidency in 2008. Insiders are now hinting that he may be a declared candidate within a week. The conventional wisdom has thus far been that he would draw the majority of his support from conservatives and Republicans, potentially dashing the hopes of Senator John McCain. George Will went so far as to describe a Barr run as being potentially “ruinous” on the same level as Ralph Nader keeping Al Gore out of the White House in 2000. But how much of a worry should it be to McCain’s supporters? And what sort of platform will Barr run on?

During a challenging and revealing interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Barr provided some insight into these and other questions, including what we could expect from a Barr presidency. To examine how much GOP support he should expect and how much of a “spoiler” he might be, let’s take a look at this one question and answer from that interview.

Inquirer: What do you hope to accomplish?

Barr: I want to move the agenda of smaller government and increased individual liberty forward; help the Libertarian party to become a major, consistent player on the national political scene; raise the level of debate; bring the issues of smaller government back to the table, and cut government spending - that’s at the root of all the issues facing the American people. I want to end the artificial control of the economy and end burdensome taxation; take a hard look at cutting cabinet positions; reduce the cost of the occupation of Iraq by beginning the process of removing the security blanket from the Iraqi regime . . . return respect for habeas corpus; reinstate the rule of law; stop the warrantless surveillance of American citizens; and remedy the abuses of the Patriot Act. . . .

Granted, the first portion of this answer will carry a lot of appeal to some conservatives who didn’t receive the nomination of John McCain very warmly. Smaller government, reduced spending and lower taxes are hallmarks of the conservative credo, and were all issues which Barr championed in Congress and for which he will be fondly remembered. However, some of his more recently adopted platform planks from the Libertarian party will likely give pause to that same group of people.

reduce the cost of the occupation of Iraq by beginning the process of removing the security blanket from the Iraqi regime: This is not even a thinly veiled message. It is a clear statement that Barr intends to begin pulling us out of Iraq. McCain and the Republicans are too heavily invested in the Iraq war to show any sign of support for this, and it will have the scent of the Democrats on it. That’s a big non-starter right there in terms of stealing a lot of McCain’s votes. The anti-war Republicans are probably already supporting Ron Paul and will likely shift over to the Democrats in November.

return respect for habeas corpus; reinstate the rule of law: This one takes a bit more parsing, but not much. It ties into the entire “war on terror” mantra among GOP supporters, and suggesting that Habeas Corpus is important is most always translated into “going easy on the terrorists.” This, again, will be spun up as being a Democratic initiative, turning off the base.

stop the warrantless surveillance of American citizens; and remedy the abuses of the Patriot Act: Again, this ties into the war on terror. Republican supporters are married to the full enforcement of the Patriot act, often displaying an attitude of willingness to trade personal liberty for national security, much to the dismay of the Democrats. It’s a talking point straight out of the playbook of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and will not endear Barr to the national security Republicans.

And from a different part of the interview:

I believe it’s important to turn that decision [marijuana laws] back to the states. If California voters decide in a referendum to recommend the use of medical marijuana, it should be respected by the federal government.: The war on drugs, much like the war on terror, is strictly a GOP stomping ground. It ties in strongly to the old “pot smoking smelly hippy” pictures which conservatives like to paint when speaking of liberals. This is another non-starter for Barr in terms of sniping McCain’s November supporters.

The Libertarian Party offers much which is attractive to large segments of the Republican base on certain issues. However, as long as Iraq looms large on the political radar, along with the war on terror, disgruntled core Republicans will likely still swallow some bile and vote for McCain. The real base for Barr is likely to come from the independent middle, which both McCain and Obama desperately need. Could Barr draw significant numbers of voters? It certainly seems possible, but it may be too soon to assume that he’ll be shopping almost exclusively from Senator McCain’s grocery cart.

I don’t really know what it’s all about, but I know that one of my favorite readers and commenters is a Libertarian or at least holds a lot of libertarian views, so I thought he’d enjoy this post by The Boring Made Dull.

[Here’s an earlier TMV post about the move.]

From the source, Fox News:

In an announcement released late Tuesday, Gravel said he is joining the Libertarian ranks because it “is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can’t be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America.

“My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American; elites that reject the empowerment of American citizens I offered to the Democratic Party at the beginning of this presidential campaign with the National Initiative for Democracy,” he said in a statement.

In an e-mail to supporters, Gravel, 77, wrote, “I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.”

I wrote an article about party switching for Campaigns & Elections and I think what was written there about sincerity and possessing core beliefs still applies.

It gets a little more nutty, from Fox:

[Libertarian National Media Coordinator Andrew] Davis noted that Texas Rep. Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party but is running as a Republican presidential candidate. Paul was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988.

Davis said 15 candidates are on the slate for the Libertarian Party nomination, which will be determined at the May 22-26 national convention in Denver, Colo. He said Gravel isn’t “a perfect libertarian” but he supports essentials of the party — opposing a military draft, empowering the American voter and standing against “the war of American imperialism.”

Last month, Gravel endorsed Green Party presidential nominee Jesse Johnson. National Multimedia Director Sklyer McKinley said at the time that Gravel didn’t see any reason “why not” to offer his backing since “voting party line is not smart” and he agrees with Johnson’s message as well as the Green Party’s approach of “direct democracy, mobilizing at a grassroots level, working with people one-on-one and enabling citizen democracy.”

“He’s a current Democratic presidential candidate who is now a member of the Libertarian Party who has endorsed a member of the Green Party,” Davis said. [my emphasis]

Yet more reasons to love America.

This morning, Former Senator Mike Gravel, who was pursuing the Democratic nomination for president, sent the following email to his supporters:

Dear friend,

I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views.

By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.

I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

Please take a moment to make your most generous donation to my presidential campaign today. $10, $20, $50 — whatever you feel you can afford.

I want to thank you all for your continued support.

Gratefully yours,
Mike

As an Independent with libertarian-liberal leanings, there’s something about a Democratic politician leaving his former party for the Libertarian Party that gives me a warm and toasty feeling deep inside.

Read the rest of this entry »

Say what you will about William F. Buckley’s contributions to conservatism and civil discourse. They were immense. But he picked a really lousy time to die.

Republican conservatism today bears scant resemblance to the movement that Buckley nurtured over a half century as the founder and longtime editor of National Review, a widely read syndicated columnist and host of the popular Firing Line program on PBS.

There is no question that Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism respectable.

If it was a neoconservative brain trust that was the engine behind the ascendancy of George Walker Bush and helped open the door to the extremists who have hijacked his beloved GOP, it was Buckley more than anyone else who was responsible for the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the coming of Ronald Reagan in 1980, who checked the liberal advances made since the New Deal in the 1930s.

Buckley, ever the independent and outspoken thinker, had been one of the first conservatives to break with Bush. I can only imagine that he went to his grave embittered over how his legacy has been so tarnished by self described conservatives drunk with power who champion fear mongering and cultural warfare above all else.

Buckley, who died this morning, was 82 and had been suffering from diabetes and emphysema.

Read the rest of this entry »

Onetime iconic consumer advocate Ralph Nader has announced yet another run for the White House — but past-campaign political hubris plus a loss of a big chunk of his previous voting constituency is unlikely to make him a major factor. Even so: his presence in the race threatens to siphon some votes away from the Democratic Party’s 2008 nominee.

Several factors have converted Nader from a onetime-youthful consumer advocate, idolized on college campuses, to what he is today: the modern Harold Stassen whose philosophy, resentment towards both major parties and apparent love of the national political spotlight probably means he’ll run again until his aging legs can’t carry him. The news reports give you some of the story and his prospects — but not all of it.

The Associated Press:

Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.”

Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he said. “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”

“In that context, I have decided to run for president,” Nader told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a “bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.

The AP story also noted that Republican former Gov. Mike Huckabee said that GOPers will welcome Nader into the race, since he draws votes away from Democrats.

Reuters neatly summarizes the context:

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Sunday that he is launching another long shot independent campaign for president of the United States.

Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his presidential bid on NBC’s “Meet the Press” saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are addressing the problems facing Americans.

Nader also ran for president in 2000 when he got about 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate and played a role in deciding the final presidential outcome. He also ran as an independent in 2004 and got only a tiny fraction of the vote.

Many Democrats blame Nader’s participation in the close race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush in 2000 for tipping the election in favor of Bush. They believe that but for Nader’s name on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have been the clear winner and president today instead of Bush.

Nader called Washington “corporate occupied territory” that turns the government against the interest of its own people.

The MSNBC video of Nader’s announcement is HERE.

The Chicago Tribune’s The Swamp says times have changed — but that Nader could indeed play a role:

The days of a third-party candidate claiming a large share of the American vote — such as the nearly 20 percent that H. Ross Perot won in 1992, playing a role that many Republicans will never forget — may be gone.

Yet, with elections contested on the margins in many states — from Iowa to Wisconsin, and from New Hampshire to Florida in recent years — any active third-party candidacy could have an impact on the Electoral College balance.

And already this year, sizable numbers of people have voiced discontent with the leading candidates — discontent manifested in the campaign of Republican Ron Paul, for instance. So the question looms this year: Might Nader play the spoiler once more?

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that current Democratic party primary front-runner Senator Barack Obama professes not to be concerned:

Barack Obama said today during a visit at the Ohio State University Medical Center that he wasn’t terribly concerned about the prospect of a Nader campaign. “I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”

An email to supporters from Nader’s presidential exploratory committee ticked off a list of issues that have been “pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year,” including defense budget cuts, opposition to nuclear power, and a single-payer national health insurance system.

Obama responded to criticism from Nader, who has suggested that the Democratic hopeful lacks substance, by noting that Nader has reached out to his campaign. “My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies thinks you’re not substantive,” Obama said, before praising Nader as a “heroic” and “singular figure in American politics.

So that gives a clue how Obama — if he wins the Democratic spot — will deal with Nader, respectfully but assertively. It sounds as if Obama won’t ignore the Nader challenge but won’t kowtow to it.

In realistic political terms, three party bids have been losing propositions in American politics because of our winner-take-all system. Third parties have (a) influenced the future policies of a major party, (b) didn’t have much of an impact, or in some close races (c) siphoned votes away from a major political party, often giving victory in some cases giving victory to the party the siphoning party’s voters agreed with the LEAST.

See the Boston Globe’s review of third parties’ history HERE.

Even though his followers and third party advocates hate to hear it, there is virtually no chance Nader can win. And his influence on the American electoral scene has waned from the days when he was an iconic young crusading lawyer taking on the car manufacturing corporations in his landmark book Unsafe At Any Speed.

I was then a student from Connecticut — his home state. Nader would be often be on the radio, on TV talk shows — he was the epitome of the serious, incorruptible, idealistic young crusader with his devoted “Nader’s Raiders” followers all over the country.

What has happened to him since is sad because he became overexposed politically and weighted-down with hubris — so the most he will gain in 2008 would indeed be siphoning-off Democratic votes if it’s a razor-thin-victory-margin election. He is not an up and coming force — or even as respected as he once was — any longer.

Some reasons why it has changed:

Read the rest of this entry »

Did any of the Republican presidential primary candidates tonight during the final GOP debate before Super Tuesday sound like they really want this job, have dreamed of this job, have desired and thought about what they could accomplish for so many in such a role before, oh, say, they started running for the job (including John McCain)?

If they have, it is not coming through.

I’ve heard GOP talking heads describe their field as having people who would make “fine presidents,” but don’t we deserve better than fine?

It’s been a tough few days for Ron Paul, libertarian wetdream and exception to the Republican rule, who has done only one thing well since announcing his candidacy — raising buckets of money on the Internet.

First, everyone’s favorite GOP oddball – that is except within the Republican Party itself – tanked in the Iowa caucus, finishing a distant fifth and besting only Mr. 9/11, who had skipped the state altogether.

Then one of the archeologists digging into Paul’s quixotic background struck a mother lode with the discovery that his campaign newsletters in the early 1990s were filled with bigoted statements.

If that wasn’t a campaign killer, Paul’s finish yesterday in New Hampshire was even worse with him only out-polling Fred Thompson (who is showing signs of rigor mortis), Duncan Hunter (isn’t he the cake mix guy?) and Tom Tancredo (who is no longer in the race).

A particular peeve of mine is national candidates who stand zero chance of being elected but stay in a race. While Paul stands for some things that I agree with in the abstract, he couldn’t get elected dog catcher and knows it.

It’s time for Paul to return all of that money, turn out the lights and go home and lick his wounds.

Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

Change Yes, Ron Paul No

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

Ron Paul’s supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul.
Read the rest of this entry »

Bill Steigerwald is a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. His column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons.

Dr. Paul’s Glorious Drive For Freedom

by Bill Steigerwald

It won’t matter how high Ron Paul finishes in the Iowa caucuses this Thursday or in the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8 or anywhere else.

He’s already won his prize.

Despite the fact that his ideas and his unconditional devotion to the Constitution are exactly what America needs, the Pittsburgh-raised libertarian doctor and 10-term Texas congressman isn’t going to become the Republican presidential nominee.

In Iowa, he’s been averaging about 6 percent in polls, though a Dec. 20-23 poll by the American Research Group shows him hitting double digits for the first time at 10 percent. In New Hampshire, he’s been hovering around 7 percent or 8 percent.

The actual vote totals may turn out higher. But he and everyone else who hasn’t lost his grip on political reality has always known that America’s future doesn’t include a President Ron Paul.
Yet Dr. Paul — arguably the closest thing to a libertarian America’s voters have seen since Grover Cleveland — has already succeeded beyond his and any liberty-lover’s wildest dreams.

Read the rest of this entry »

Much has been written about the rise in popularity of libertarian Republican Ron Paul’s presidential campaign—both good and bad. Lew Rockwell’s paleo-libertarian blog—notorious for his opposition toward both Democrats and Republicans and the State in general—has been perhaps the most ardent supporter of the Republican Congressman’s presidential campaign while pro-war “libertarian” Ilya Somin of The Volokh Conspiracy has become one of the latest critics to join to growing chorus of critics of the Ron Paul campaign.

But while much of the media and blogosphere’s attention has been spent on the messenger—his “quirkiness”, his naivete about believing he can win his party’s nomination, his avid internet supporters, his one-day fund-raising totals, and his supposed “support” for the 9/11 Truth Movement—much less time has been spent focusing upon the message itself and what it means to the future of American politics. Ron Paul, himself has admitted, “I may not be the best messenger, but the message is powerful.”

And just what is that message?

Ron Paul says it’s a message of liberty. And indeed, in terms of elevating the freedom of the individual over the power of the government, Ron Paul is the most libertarian presidential candidate offered by one of the two major parties in many decades.

Yet, as many of his critics have pointed out, Ron Paul is not completely consistent in his libertarianism. His strong support for securing our nation’s borders and cracking down on illegal immigration is not consistent with the libertarian philosophy of allowing people and trade to travel freely across borders. His defense of his vote in favor of our military’s Don’t ask, don’t tell policy—while convincing in its rejection of group rights—was a missed opportunity to criticize yet another government policy that the vast majority of libertarians believe is unjust and unnecessary. And at times, Mr. Paul’s devotion to federalism seems to overshadow his support for libertarian principles, as when he argues that certain issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage) should be decided by state and local governments rather than by the federal government instead of raising the fundamental question of whether government at any level should be involved in these issues in the first place.

Still, Ron Paul’s notion of liberty and his willingness to speak out against policies that expand the power of the federal government and infringe upon our freedoms (both personal and economic) has set him apart from the current crop of presidential candidates (both Democrats and Republicans) and seems to be transforming American politics towards a new realignment—one that defies the traditional Democrat-versus-Republican, liberal-versus-conservative paradigm.

Libertarians Nick Gillespie (Editor-in-Chief of Reason Magazine) and Matt Welch (Assistant Editorial Page Editor of the Los Angeles Times) wrote a recent opinion piece in the Washington Times in which they attempt to explain the improbable rise of this maverick Republican Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas:

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him — and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties’ soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it’s listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast “obscenities” or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rep. Ron Paul may not have shaken up the Republican 2008 Presidential nomination race yet in terms of poll numbers, but he is certainly rocking the establishment’s conventional wisdom world in terms of fund-raising:

Ron Paul’s head-snapping fundraising puts a new face on a campaign that the media, politicians and much of the public had relegated to the sidelines.

The Texas congressman is now the presidential candidate tugging at the establishment’s coat.

The question: will it remain just a tug?

Or can part of the coat possibly come off?

Funneled through the Internet, Paul’s one-day loot totaled $4.3 million from about 37,000 donors, considered the largest sum ever collected online in a single day by a GOP candidate.

That means he’ll easily get his message across via TV, radio and…of course…. the (cheaper) “new media.”

Paul is indeed an online force who attracts support from people who do not fit easily into the standard Democratic and Republican political pigeonholes. His fame, as much as it is, stems from the political shorthand that has defined his candidacy: The only Republican opposed to the war in Iraq.

But Paul leans libertarian in his ideology and cites the Constitution as his guide. He opposes law enforcement or anti-terrorism measures that he believes encroach on civil liberties. His views on small government extend to weakening if not eliminating the Education Department. He favors limiting immigration and strengthening border security.

In that sense, he appeals to voters who may be happy mixing and matching their political views.

The Washington Post’s The Trail campaign blog:

Everyone — Republicans, Democrats, pundits who crowd the cable news cycle, you name it — is wondering: Who are these Ron Paul people?

Speculate, theorize, stereotype. Only one thing is clear: the Paulites, the loyal, organized, Web-savvy supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, know how to raise money online, and 37,000 Paulites set a record yesterday by hauling in more than $4.2 million in 24 hours. That’s the most money raised online by a candidate in a single day. A Paulite came up with the fundraising idea, a few more Paulites joined in and set the date for Nov. 5, Guy Fawkes Day, a symbol of rebellion in British history, then the “money bomb” effort spread virally.

Context is crucial here. Sen. John McCain, who placed second in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, raised $6 million last quarter. But that took three months.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, still holds the record for raising the most money in one day: $6.2 million on June 30. But she’s a Clinton, and that cash didn’t come entirely from Internet fundraising.

So who is Paul and how did he set this record?

The Post blog talks about his online popularity and also contains this quote from a veteran political GOP pro:

“What he’s done — what his supporters have done — is astonishing,” Ed Rollins, who managed Ross Perot’s campaign in 1992 and served as an adviser to President Reagan, told The Trail. “You can’t dismiss his anti-war vote. You can’t dismiss the power of one man standing up with a powerful message. I’ll tell you, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I’ve learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there’s this uncontrollable thing like the Internet. Washington insiders don’t know what to make of it.”

And, indeed, in the case of Ron Paul the Washington Insiders are as out-to-lunch in understanding what’s going on as many newspapers that have responded with lame efforts to compete with Internet web blogs ( My former employer The San Diego Union-Tribune has a really good one that was highly popular, useful and constantly updated during the recent fires). The Post again:

One main asset for Paul is his multi-leveled appeal. Analysts like Rollins say it’s the whole Perot-Buchanan-Nader effect, an anti-establishment, outside-the-mainstream candidate who’s got a message and has rallied a group of messengers. Though, unlike some of those other outsiders, Paul has not talked about running as an Independent (although he did run as a Libertarian in 1988). Online political strategists argue that Paul’s fundraising success proves the power of Web 2.0: build a site, like RonPaul2008.com, tap the grassroots support and wait for the supporters to join the campaign.

Not only that, but Paul is getting a considerable “bounce” due to the fund-raising in terms of free media news coverage — and he is becoming a major political celebrity to boot.

CNN reports on the fund-raising drive:

He appears on Jay Leno’s late night show:

OF RELATED INTEREST:

–Ron Paul and the ignored multitudes of libertarian lites
–Republican Ron Paul: Who’s laughing now?
–Paul Calls $4M Haul ‘Remarkable’
–Ron Paul’s ‘money bomb,’ records and lessons
–Ron Paul’s Internet cha-ching
–Understanding Paul’s Haul
–Ron Paul, Fruitcake
–After Massive Fundraising This Week — Will Press Stop Underplaying Ron Paul’s Race for White House?

–The Ron Paul Phenomenon
–Raining on the Paul-istinians Fundraising Parade
–Ron Paul’s $4.2 Million Haul
–57% of AOL Respondents Say Ron Paul Has Chance of Winning GOP
–Ron Paul money boomlet