Ron Paul keeps $5.1 million in his warchest, refuses to spend more than 600k

Thorgrim · 04-24-2008, 09:02 PM

John McCain has locked up the nomination, it's over, Ron Paul announced long ago his campaign was "suspended" before McCain locked things up

Look at the list of candidates, they are all basically around $200,000 or less Cash on Hand...they knew their contributors gave to them...so they'd spend their money or use it for the causes their candidate gave them money for...

Ron Paul?
Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period $5,099,857.82
REPORT FOR RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

Yep, $5 million sitting in his warchest, he has many times more than any other candidates except...Hillary, Obama and McCain

He had over $5 million last month, rumor had it he was going to use it for all the libertarian-leaning candidates across the country who DESPERATELY need cash

What did he do with those 30 days? Still has $5 million...

I haven't heard from the Congressman or his money...but I am sure every single Ron Paul donor is happy to hear he has it stored away for himself and it isn't to help libertarian-leaners or any libertarian-leaning ideals

motivez · 04-24-2008, 09:15 PM

Several of the people I know IRL who support Paul are going to write him in, still want to see him run as an Independent, etc.. so who knows what the future holds, unless I missed him rule it out entirely?

thewise1 · 04-24-2008, 09:29 PM

Good for him. There's no need to spend more than necessary. Fiscally responsible to the end.

Thorgrim · 04-24-2008, 09:45 PM

There are people with similiar views to Ron Paul running across the country...are they are unworthy of this money?

Ron Paul isn't running a country, what do you suggest he spends it on...in the general election...considering he's ruled out running 3rd party?

In the 5th century before the Common Era, the Athenians were very lucky in their mining operations, they could have sat on it...done nothing...been "fiscally responisble" in some perverse way...or maybe, just maybe, they could spend it on a campaign to pretect liberty

Indeed, the Athenians did not sit on their new found wealth, they "wasted" it on a fleet that defeated the Persians and saved Greek liberty that would found our western civilization

TankRizzo · 04-24-2008, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Good for him. There's no need to spend more than necessary. Fiscally responsible to the end.

How about spending what IS necessary. That would have been a good start.

Ardentfrost · 04-25-2008, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

How about spending what IS necessary. That would have been a good start.

True, but that ship has sailed. He chose poorly in setting up his campaign staff, which isn't too surprising really. He's a really smart man, but he's not the political powerhouse that the Clintons and others are.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure the LP hasn't officially chosen their candidate yet. I think their convention to choose is in May, so maybe he's waiting for that to happen to see if it's someone he can throw some support to. Additionally, it's WAY early in the season for smaller gov't campaigning even if it is known which libertarians are running and which have a remote shot at winning.

He has done nothing irresponsible with the money yet. I doubt he will. But as long as he doesn't spend it on something like Obama or McCain or some neo-con NPO or whatever, then I'm cool.

BTW, I do like the use of the term "Warchest" which is obviously supposed to incite some sort of emotion from the readers. " 'War'?? War is bad! RP must be bad!" lol

Thorgrim · 04-25-2008, 10:40 AM

it is what it is...

WickedLou9 · 04-25-2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Good for him. There's no need to spend more than necessary. Fiscally responsible to the end.

Or you could call him a thief. People donated to his campaign. If you donate money to a candidate so that he can campaign and instead he sits on the money... Don't you think that's violating the trust of those who donated money to him? Isn't it dishonest?

JaJae · 04-25-2008, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Or you could call him a thief. People donated to his campaign. If you donate money to a candidate so that he can campaign and instead he sits on the money... Don't you think that's violating the trust of those who donated money to him? Isn't it dishonest?

People donated for him to run as the Republican candidate for president. He did that to the best of his ability. I don't think him sitting on the money until he thinks it's most useful to spend is dishonest.

thewise1 · 04-25-2008, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Or you could call him a thief. People donated to his campaign. If you donate money to a candidate so that he can campaign and instead he sits on the money... Don't you think that's violating the trust of those who donated money to him? Isn't it dishonest?

I donated to him so that, like JaJae said, he could run as a Republican candidate. That was shot down early, now he's got a warchest for use in the future whether it be in congress, the senate, or another run at President.

I don't feel cheated at all

kombayn · 04-25-2008, 12:20 PM

I donated to Ron Paul too. I have no problem with him sitting on the money, it's smart for him to use it in places where he can pick up delegates. He won 16% of the vote in PA, so he earned delegates. (Hell, the Huckster had 11% in PA as well, that's 27% of Republicans that don't like McCain, that should tell a big story there.) Ron Paul will use this money to hang on to his district for years to come.

Thorgrim · 04-25-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I donated to him so that, like JaJae said, he could run as a Republican candidate. That was shot down early, now he's got a warchest for use in the future whether it be in congress, the senate, or another run at President.

I don't feel cheated at all

anecdotal argument...what you think is not exactly what all Ron Paul donors think

Phantom · 04-25-2008, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

anecdotal argument...what you think is not exactly what all Ron Paul donors think

First person anecdotal argument > hypothetical outrage by those who disagree with Paul.

We've had this debate before.

I don't think a single Paul contributor came to complain last time and I don't see one here.

Seems like there's nothing new to talk about. Again it's those who disagree with Paul complaining on behalf of contributors who are not upset themselves.

Thorgrim · 04-25-2008, 02:49 PM

so there were like 70,000 donors...we have like what, 10 donors on this site...and like 4-5 will come forward

i think that's pretty worthless information if we even bothered to collect it

Phantom · 04-25-2008, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

so there were like 70,000 donors...we have like what, 10 donors on this site...and like 4-5 will come forward

i think that's pretty worthless information if we even bothered to collect it

It's some information, wouldn't you agree.

And some information is more than you brought in support of the idea that people are upset.

Thorgrim · 04-25-2008, 03:08 PM

I think Lou's logical reasoning has more value

Phantom · 04-25-2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I think Lou's logical reasoning has more value

That's why we're in politics and not science, right?

Despite the existence of evidence only of the alternative, we can cling on to the logic.

thewise1 · 04-25-2008, 04:15 PM

this is all a hypothetical argument, since you presumably didn't donate anything anyway. Worry about your own candidate, at least mine took my money from me when it was volunteered and isn't trying to take it from me by force.

motivez · 04-25-2008, 04:24 PM

I know several Paul supporters IRL who donated to him and none of them are unhappy with him for not spending it aside from a few who wished he had spent more to get more coverage early on

They don't want refunds or anything though.

Galactic Gigolo · 05-04-2008, 10:16 PM

Where are these mysterious Ron Paul supporters who are angry that he didn't spend their money? Seriously. You bring them up constantly, and then push aside those of us who are still proud to have given him money. Please tell these people to sign up and make their angry feelings known.

It's May. Elections are in November. He has plenty of time to help fund candidates with his message if he actually wants to do that.

There was an article, maybe on a Los Angeles Time blog, that predicted he may start up a publishing house to push libertarian works. I have zero problem with this and I'd encourage him to do it if I was to meet him again.