The mystery man behind Ron Paul's millions

Slowly as the crucial primary votes come closer and closer, thanks to his growing legions of supporters working the Internet and street corners, Ron Paul is becoming a name to reckon with in the Republican nomination race.

Not so much because the 72-year-old libertarian-minded ob-gyn and 10-term GOP representative from Texas has any realistic chance of winning the nomination, let alone the election next November. But he can affect the outcome by drawing votes from others. (Though don't even hint at any skepticism about victory to his fervent, hopeful supporters, or they'll bury you in e-mails, some of them printable.)

Ron Paul is gaining more national recognition by the media, with voters and in the polls, where he's climbed from zero to nearly double-digit percentages, not necessarily because of his distaste for foreign entanglements and his eagerness to exit Iraq, and not necessarily because of his plan to dismantle much of the federal government, get rid of the Federal Reserve, honor the Constitution more and return to the gold standard.

Ron Paul is gaining more recognition because he's gaining more money, many millions of dollars in donations, much of it in small amounts. In the third quarter Paul outraised current Republican front-runner Mike Huckabee by 5 to 1. This quarter the Paul campaign has a shot at raising the most money of any Republican candidate, depending on how much of his own loot Mitt Romney puts in.

On Sunday, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the Paul campaign is shooting to break the one-day online fundraising record of more than $6 million.

So how is this little old man with the unorthodox political ideas doing all this? Well, as The Times' campaign finance guru, Dan Morain, explains in a fascinating feature article to appear here late tonight on the website and in Sunday's print editions, it's mainly because of a nobody named Trevor Lyman, who's so little known that Ron Paul called him Clymon during a TV interview.

He's a 37-year-old generally unshaven musician who was smitten with Paul's program last spring ...

and offered to help raise money. Using the Internet creatively and Paul's 1,200 meet-up groups, Lyman detonated the first "money bomb" on Nov. 5, raising $4.2 million for the Paul forces, which enabled them to get on TV in New Hampshire, among other things, and to finance a Ron Paul blimp publicity stunt.

The next target date was Nov. 30, a disappointment at "only" $500,000. The Web, including the comments section of this blog, has been abuzz in recent days with Paulites touting their candidate. The campaign's website puts this quarter's fundraising as having passed $11.5 million.

But tomorrow's "tea party" might change all that. You can read Morain's complete story here.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Todd]

Where did all the journalist go? Your bio says that you have a life long facination with politics. Perhaps, you've lost that childhood fasincation and replaced it with snobbish arrogance.

"Ron Paul is gaining more national recognition by the media, with voters and in the polls, where he's climbed from zero to nearly double-digit percentages, not necessarily because of his distaste for foreign entanglements and his eagerness to exit Iraq, and not necessarily because of his plan to dismantle much of the federal government, get rid of the Federal Reserve, honor the Constitution more and return to the gold standard."

Ron Paul is gaining for one reasoin and one reason only. His message of peace, sound money, individual responsibility, limited federal government, pro-life, and free trade. The money that he is getting from his supporters is because of this humble message of liberty. The media may only be paying attention because of the money, but, the money follows the message.

I hope that you can take off the blinders of cynicism that permeate your article and rekindle your passion for American Politics by climbing onboard the Ron Paul Revolution.

P.S. talk about money - my guess is $8 million tomorrow - December 16th, 2007

[Dann McCreary]

Hey Andrew,

Thanks for mentioning Dr. Paul again and again, and thanks for the links to the fundraising website.

Methinks you do protest too much, and too repeatedly that Ron Paul has no chance.... does the prospect of his Republican nomination and the coming Ron Paul White House frighten you that much?

[Andya]

Thank you Andrew. I know you had to put that line in about Ron Paul having no chance, but deep down you waving the Ron Paul flag harder and higher than ever. The proof is n the link egging us on. Good for you. Andy

[Guy Borders]

Don,

Your complete ignorance of the larger picture here is astounding, and if you are simply writing this article to add to your fluff on your CV, shame on you. There are millions of honest, capital producing Americans that want to restore the Constitutional Republic of our forefathers that fought and won their freedom against Governments that forged people into their indentured servitude helped by people like you that simply perpetuate the shackles around Liberty. Look inside yourself and I know you can find a better man.

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth."
...George Washington.

Guy Borders

[Al]

Nov 5th was not the first money bomb but why let facts stand in the way of a good story. Why do some people have such a hard time figuring this out? This would have happened with or without Lyman and he is far from the only one publicizing these events. It's not as if someone is going out and making more people donate, the money bombs are simply trying to get people to donate on the same day rather than randomly spread over a period of time.

I guess the concept that many people using the internet to communicate and share ideas on how to help an honest man become President isn't sensational enough... No idea why you needed to conjure a mysterious sneaky person to write about.

[Doug R]

Guess what? Clyman didn't even come up with the idea for Nov 5th. He made a website for someone else's idea. He also didn't detonate the first "money bomb" on Nov. 5, it was like the third or forth, and he didn't do it himself. 39,000 people participated and almost NONE knew or cared who he is.

There is no "man" behind the donations. It is a revolution.

[JR]

"So how is this LITTLE OLD MAN with the unorthodox political ideas doing all this? Well, as The Times' campaign finance guru, Dan Morain, explains in a fascinating feature article to appear here late tonight on the website and in Sunday's print editions, it's mainly because of a NOBODY named Trevor Lyman, who's so little known that Ron Paul called him Clymon during a TV interview."

Hmm...you are truly a bed-wetting liberal journalist, aren't you? Be ready. Here WE come. This is only the beginning.

(You are so funny. And the priceless names you come up with. You find a place that's been writing regularly about Dr. Paul and you criticize them and wonder why most of the world ignores your movement. But thanks for reading, writing and making our day. I'm still chuckling.)

[FZappa]

"Not so much because the 72-year-old libertarian-minded ob-gyn and 10-term GOP representative from Texas has any realistic chance of winning the nomination"

Way to discredit yourself right off the bat, Andrew...

[Pliny]

Do all journalists have to swear some kind of oath to stick the words "cannot win" into every piece they write about Dr. Paul?

(Hope does spring eternal and I wish you luck because it looks like so many dedicated folks are working so hard for his campaign. Guess we'll all see soon enough.)

[Joseph]

The mystery man is a prime example of the mysterious forces at work.

Joseph Campbell said that artists, poets, and storytellers are the prophets and seers of their own centuries.

The artistic voice has made a prediction, hauntingly accurate so far, about this election.

Consider the film Napoleon Dynamite. It tells the story of an election won by candidate who had the best campaign gimmick. Air filled objects, a football and a tether ball, appear repeatedly in the film. I leave it to readers to identify the real life candidate who has a gas filled object as a campaign gimmick. I suggest the film predicts he wins!

For an imaginative analysis of this election based on historical precedent go to http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=30&threadid=227812

Read all the comments on the blog thread and you may just conclude that Napoleon Dynamite has a very good chance of coming true.

Albert Einstein said his ability to fantasize was more important to his success than his ability to absorb practical knowledge.

A little exercise of our fantasy skills may help our country flourish in peace and prosperity with the rest of the world.

To paraphrase Fox news, We the People fantasize, and We the People will decide.

To the artists who created Napolean Dynamite, you deserve an Oscar for best picture of all time if it foreshadows a Ron Paul victory!

[Tess]

Thank you Andrew for the article, many thanks.

Ron Paul is gaining ground by speaking the truth, and spreading the message of Liberty and our Constitution, and mind you,
the press has not done it for him, they didn't have to, he and his supporters have. Huckabee has a very little support and not
much cash, and the media took him under their wing and took him to the top. He has peaked way too early, and the New Hamphire
primaries will show that, but by then the press will probably be touting someone else.

The press fears Ron Paul, and rightfully so. He will not tolerate what has been going on in Washington and all the Corporate Welfare
in America and that scares the daylights out of quite a few greedy people in this country. It is time to clean up Washington, and that is
exactly what Ron Paul and his supporters plan to do when he wins the GOP nomination. Ron Paul will put in place a good foreign policy plan,
bring the troops home, cut government spending, get rid of the IRS, and get this economy back on track. We The People, the supporters of
Ron Paul will be out voting, that you can be sure of.

[Becky Blauvelt]

Andrew,

You wrote:

"Ron Paul is gaining more recognition because he's gaining more money" but I would argue that Ron Paul is raising more money because he is getting more recognition. You yourself concede that the millions of dollars in donations he has recieved have come in the form of small amounts. The support for Ron Paul continues to grow, and it is exactly because "of his distaste for foreign entanglements and his eagerness to exit Iraq, and not necessarily because of his plan to dismantle much of the federal government, get rid of the Federal Reserve, honor the Constitution more and return to the gold standard." Because as a Ron Paul supporter though you may not agree with him on all issues, he explains his point of view in such a logical way that you must respect his views and his consistency.

Becky Blauvelt

PS Thank you for linking to the campaign website and mentioning the Tea Party Fundraiser- it will be memorable!

[Peter Liu]

I wish for once the media will stop saying "he has no chance". Do you ever hear these kinds of bias views on McCain, Thompson, or Tancredo? I mean, if anyone has no chance of winning, it would be Tancredo.

(Exactly And how much have you read about him here--or elsewhere? Now, if he got $4 million in one day in Nov. and went from 0 to 8% in polls you don't want to believe but always mention, you'd see more written about him.))

[Doug]

A better question might be, why are so many people donating to Ron Paul? What are they trying to tell you?

"Little old man"??? Did you see the last debate? Ron Paul is taller than John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee.

[Karl]

Here are a few reasons behind Ron Paul's money:

http://ronpaulforpresident2008.com/editorials/tossthis.html

[Craig]

I find it humorous that every article, and in every interview, it seems almost required that it be mentioned that Ron Paul cannot win. Why does it seem that everyone in the MSM knows this for a fact? Do they know something that the average person does not? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

(Well, we'll all see soon enough who was right. But a lot of people in the political media have seen a lot of campaigns over a lot of years and even though Dr. Paul's people think they are unique in their fervor and dedication, there have been millions go before them in countless hardworking insurgent campaigns with the same idealism and dedication and they lose. So after watching these campaigns for 40 years or more, you admire the workings of democracy but you do see some familiar patterns. What's neat is that nowadays you too have a forum right here to make your own case, as you and others do--the R. Paul boosters who think this is a great article because it links to their sites and the Paul people who don't. If we're wrong, there will be tons of coverage and comments because of the observations. If you're wrong, doubt we'll hear from you.)

[JohnnyB]

Thank goodness you reminded us he has no chance, John McCain is looking for a 3 million dollar loan to continue, Mitt needs to spend his own fortune, Fred spends all of his funds on "fundraising"lol and steaks, and Rudy tapped out every last NY socialite wanting a bubble over the city and the FEDs to walk their kids to school. Thanks for telling us who can win, without you we could not be led. Tell the sheople who to vote for.

(Gee, you're a little too excited for a Saturday. There's absolutely nothing in any item in this blog telling people who to vote for. Not one. There are words based on the polls you hate so much that indicate who those samples say they will vote for. It's just a snapshot at that moment. Thanks for reading and commenting.)

[Bill Jenjik]

"Not so much because the 72-year-old libertarian-minded ob-gyn and 10-term GOP representative from Texas has any realistic chance of winning the nomination, let alone the election next November"

Ya gotta love the arogance & stupidity of the third-graders who write for the LA Times...

(Oh, third-graders! That's a new one. We'll have to add it to the list of other names used by R. Paul boosters posted in the office.)

[Doug]

Mr Malcolm,

I'm still voting for Ron Paul ! Forty year of throwing mud at Candidates that's the best you can do? Shame on you !

P.S The two words that Ron Paul has going for him are integrity and honesty in your free time you might want to look those two word up

[Jules]

You don't show "skepticism about victory" instead you show a severe lack of skepticism about defeat.
Skepticism per se is a good thing, btw.

[Matt Salla]

This is the first time I've heard someone mention Dr. Paul getting Trevor's name wrong. I remember hearing it and just laughed. All the reading I do and I didn't know the name exactly. I thought Lyman was hist first name. Eventually I realized it was Trevor. Pointless, but tickled me.

Ron Paul is really his own man. He goes his way. He'll win a couple early primaries. Coupled with all the cash on hand and die hard supporters, Super Tuesday will seal the deal. We'll have a real election this November.

[cantwaittolaughatsocalledjournalistseverywhere]

I love the negative reporting of Ron Paul by so-called journalists...
I wonder if they realize it gets him even more support...hahaa
Thanks for the advertisement.

I think they secretly like Dr Ron Paul and theyre just scared that a whole lot of people besides them will be right.

[HR PAINE]

Andrew, you're a chump. The whole movement is about Ron Paul's political positions. Our tactics for waking people up may be what empty minded media figures like to write about, but those tactics are necessary because people like yourself are asleep at the wheel--or because you've got your orders and don't dare give Paul any genuine positive press.

Do a story about private criminal bankers manipulating the money supply, running the economy into the ground and ruining working people's lives. I dare you. Do a story about the erosion of rights, fearmongering, and warmongering that historically precedes tyranny. Do a story about the absurdity of Red China sustaining the American economy. Do a story about the real world success rate of public education, or the department of energy ....These things are why Paul is so relevant and why his supporters are so persistent. No one else has the guts to even name the problems, much less offer solutions.

Any idiot can come off smug. Where's the substance, Andrew? Where are your ethics?

(Chump. We'll add that one too. Thanks for reading.)

[cantwaittolaughatsocalledjournalistseverywhere]

I love the negative reporting of Ron Paul by so-called journalists...
I wonder if they realize it gets him even more support...hahaa
Thanks for the advertisement.

I think they secretly like Dr Ron Paul and theyre just scared that a whole lot of people besides them will be right.

(You sound like you think we care who wins. If Paul does well, bucko, it's a much better story, isn't it? So if you don't like this item, you can go to what I'm sure must be thousands of other major websites that are writing about and publicizing Ron Paul's Tea Party in advance.)

[Juris Purins]

I'm donating to Dr Paul's Campaign again on the 16tth of December as I did on the 5th of November. Dr Paul has the Only Message of Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity out there. The current crew of montebanks is only interested in fear mongering so they can do what they want to behind the curtain of 'Security'.

I say: throw them in the Harbor and Go for the Only Honest Man in Government.

P.S. Obviously Millions of Americans who respond to Dr Paul's message must be 'Fringe People'

[John Meaks]

Ron Paul has zero chance of making it to the White House (thank God). But I suppose his stance on legalizing marijuana is the one issue that causes such fervor with his college supporters.

BTW, does RP have any supporters over the age of 25?

[Silus]

Hah. If you talk about Ron Paul, you better have all your facts in order, and you most certainly should not make any predictions with great certainty.

Actually, this is just true of all journalists. Its so simple, yet they make such a hard time of it. I do not understand.

P.S. The funds for the Blimp was raised seperately from the "money-bomb."

[Emerson]

Are all Paul supporters this abrasive and snotty?

Every post here contains either a juvenile attack or an ad hominem insult.

Flash mobs aren't new, nor widely popular. Should you want to become something more than a coterie of enthusiasts, you should stop biting one of the few hands that feeds you.

[Jeffrey]

Unbelievable.
Who decides which candidate "has any realistic chance of winning"?
The press may have special protections by our Constitution, but choosing our next president is not the right of those controlling the media.
People.... lots and lots of people. Referred to even by the press as "an army of followers".
Are you saying the game is so crooked that the will of the people doesn't matter in US politics?
And this short-sighted 'chicken & egg' logic that he has many followers because he has received so much money in donations.... donations from his many followers.
Actually it is the press that finally have taken notice because of money. The money being a necessary evil perhaps, used to gain fair and respectful coverage of a serious candidate with original ideas. The media choosing so-far to cover the bland clones they deem the "Front-Runners".
These "Front-Runners", we see the alleged polls numbers, but what of their Armies of Followers? Where are the enthusiastic crowds? (Oprah isn't running for president), where are their motivated masses eager to donate, and more importantly eager to VOTE.
Write a real press-stopping news story- an investigative report on election manipulation by slanted media coverage.

[Dave]

Andrew,
We are Americans, Dem, Reb, Lib, etc that support a man's views on the Constitution. This movement is historical, whether you like it or not. We (America) need you. The media suggesting Ron Paul will never win may inspire some, however, it also sends a signal to millions of undecided voters that voting for Paul is a wasted vote. You know that. You also know the polls are based on data from previous elections. This election is unique. The data is not accurate. Paul's fund raising has already broken those rules. So please, we need you and your support. Just once say, "They (we) did it. looks like Ron Paul has got a good chance!" Peace brother.

[Paul Supporter]

I'm looking forward to the piece where you tell us WHY he can't win.

If you're going to write an oped, why not give us your opinion?

I've come to enjoy your articles for entertainment value. It is obvious you enjoy the banter. When you tell us why he can't win, those 62 pages you got before will seem like nothing.

And don't worry, I'd bet most will keep coming back.

Regards.

[AfricanAmericans4Paul]

Hey, Andy, how come no one refers to McCain as a "little old man"? McCain is just as old and quite a bit littler.

Also, what's with referring to Trevor as "a nobody"? Elitism? Anyone you never heard of before is "a nobody"?

FYI: the blimp funding is completely separate from the Paul campaign, and does not come out of the $4.2M Guy Fawkes Day money bomb. Who does your research, you condescending twit?

(Oh, good another new one: condescendcing twit. Thanks. Actually, Lyman was so well known that the man he raised the money for didn't know his correct or whole name when asked on national TV. That's pretty unknown.
But not after tonight.)

[Brian]

Thanks Andrew for your continued support and reporting on Ron Paul. I do want to ask you to put some things into perspective when you imply Paul has no chance of winning.

Reagan was the laughing stock of the Republican Party at this time before his nomination. Kerry was low single digits before he got his nomination, Clinton was also low numbers at this time. Dean was 20% plus ahead in the polls and he lost both NH and Iowa. Could you please put that in your articles rather than going by the current numbers.

Even Huckabee was really low 2-3 weeks ago and look at him now. Polls are no indication who will win and they are really pointless and plain biased.

(Polls are a snapshot at the time. You're right, they are especially dangerous to rely on in Iowa caucuses. And are not predictive but can be indicative. For instance, wouldn't you say Dr. Paul's growth from 0% to 8% is a measure of more coming to know him? Or should we disregard them as fraudulent too? We'll see soon enough, i guess.)

[Paul]

Andrew,

Thank you for shining the light on both the shiny and not-so-shiny aspects of Ron Paul's campaign. It takes guts to write an article about RP that doesn't praise him absolute, knowing that you will surely be bombarded with Paulite criticism about your refusal to do a complete wash and wax of their beloved candidate.

Oh, and Paulites, please keep getting upset at people who criticize your idol. You'll be like the Dems in 2004, acting so passionate about your candidate that your grassroots mud slinging will motivate other voters to vote the opposite party just to spite you.

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for in 2008, but it definitely won't be Ron Paul.

[Dave Palmer]

Ron Paul's ideas are not "unorthodox." Since his ideas are from the Constitution for the U.S.A., and in line with the founding fathers' ideas, Ron Paul's ideas are ORTHODOX.

The current crowd in Washington who defy the constitution are unorthodox.

Quit calling black white, and white black, and hot cold, and cold hot.

You might want to use a dictionary. Here is a free one:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/orthodox

There you will see that "orthodox" means "conforming to established doctrine..." The Constitution and the founding Fathers define "established doctrine.

[amy lynn]

Good Lord why on earth is it so difficult for this writer and other members of the media to understand that many many folks in this country have felt an overwelming sense of doom and despair about the state of America. Ron Paul is like a ray of sunshine in a gloomy, crumbling old mansion. Paul is uniting people from all walks of life. He is uniting the country like no one else has ever been able to do. I attended a meet-up with Bible thumpers, right to lifers, feminists, Arabs, Hispanics, Blacks, country clubbers, soccer moms and myself, a pro-choice card carrying member of NOW, artist and mother of two soldiers, one stationed in Iraq. Ron paul will be the next president of this great country. I know this because in the end good always triumphs over evil and what has been going one with the Bush administration and the enabling media is pure evil.

[m ames]

I"m 40 and finally can vote FOR a presidential candidate instead of settling or cancelling out a vote for an even worse candidate....gore\bush...kerry\bush.....what kind of choices were those.

[Mick Russom]

The yellow journalism of the military industrial complex's propaganda wing, the mainstream media.

Ron Paul is no mystery. He s by far and away the most popular candidate with The People. He is not a dark horse, a fringe, an unlikely contender a mystery. He is none of these.

He is the real leader of the Presidential Race, 2008, and the military controlled media puppets are refusing to report the TRUTH.

[Stacey Kringle]

I am 36 years old.. I have never voted in my life. My first vote ever will be for Ron Paul in my state's primary.... My demographic isn't represented in polls..I am a Gen X cynical slacker who who ignored the Bill Clinton era..1992-2000....I have been awakened from my potical slumber by Dr. Paul...I am not alone..

[David Enser]

He can affect the outcome by drawing votes from others? That's it Andrew? That's your outlook for Ron Paul? Let me ask you, how did you vote on the Fed's TAF?

12/12/2007 The Federal Reserve dropped a bombshell on Wall Street: The central bank, in conjunction with its counterparts in Europe and Canada, unveiled a series of measures designed to inject added cash into global money markets in hopes ...

Nice to have "hopes" ... rolling the dice again with the US Dollar? And better yet, "unveiled a series of measures"? Did the American people have the change to review this plan? Designed again behind closed doors? For our best interest, right? We wouldn't understand anyway, right!

Stop the violence, support Ron Paul for President in 2008.

[Doug]

Your article and so many like it attribute Ron Paul's meteoric success to things like "money" and "the Internet", but you're missing the point. Both the money and the Internet support come from PEOPLE, people who have been alienated by the Democrat and Republican party machines. We work and sacrifice our time and money because we believe in the rule of law and that superb rulebook, the Constitution. We are dedicated because we finally have a glimmer of hope. And no matter the results of the election, we will be a force in American politics in the future, because now we know we can organize and make a difference!

[AfricanAmericans4Paul]

Mr. Meaks:

I personally know dozens of Ron Paul supporters, including my parents (who are both well over 70), but not one of the supporters I know is under 30, and you'd have to be stoned to support anyone else.

[Joseph]

Andrew,
Thanks for taking your lumps from my more emotional, fellow Paulistas.

In my 3:17 pm post above I discussed the mysterious forces at work in this campaign.

I include in the mysterious forces the effect of blogs such as yours because of the voice it gives to my imaginatively rational, fellow Paulistas.

Many thanks for your contribution to my excitement about this campaign.

I have a blog at another website which has received over 450 views in the last three days. I link to it in comments like this. I could not have talked individually to 450 people in that timespan about what appears at
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=30&threadid=227812

Andrew, you yourself are a mystery man contributing to the Ron Paul Revolution. Please keep up the good work and Thank You for accepting my comments

(And thanks for being such a loyal reader.)

[FZappa]

Andrew says the media knows RP is going to lose because they recognize patterns they've seen before. I say in response: 1) some of these "long shot" campaigns win (Carter, Reagan, Clinton), and 2) the media are covering their asses because they're all owned by 5 corporations, all of whom are major players in the Military Industrial Complex (GE, Westinghouse, etc) -- and they know the game is about to end. 3) The people have never had the power of the Internet before. Not like this -- now we have YOUTUBE, BEHOTCH!

RP08

[Scott]

In reply to John Meaks, yes he does. I'm a 51 year old M.D., independent, voting republican most of the time. To Andrew, thank you for the article and a question for you and your friends. I'm guessing you're aware of Patriot Act II and the power it grants the president to designate "enemy combatants" and suspend habeus corpus. Also the increasing use of signing statements by the last several presidents, the theory of the unitary executive, and the founders strong belief that no person limits their own power. I can only guess that, as Americans, you and your friends believe in freedom. Do the developments I've mentioned, and the involvement of both Congress and the President in bringing them to fruition, give you pause? If they do give you pause is there anyone on the national stage today that more directly addresses these issues than Dr. Paul? What say you, Sir?

[Brian P]

Well, for as much as I'd like to see the media giving a positive push to Dr.Paul regarding his poll numbers, I have come to understand that by writing articles about Paul any media outlet owned by a larger corporation must put some type of "1-liner" saying he is a longshot or polling in the single digits. However, if you read between the lines you get the authors true message about how Ron Paul actually a great candidate. It may be hard to see for some, but they must understand that the authors of such organization are just "one fish in a big pond" and they must do as their editors say, even if they disagree. If this is not the case, thanks for at least getting his name out there because we can't count on CNN or most other "reliable" TV news sources to even talk about his name for more than a few seconds - that is, until the next bomb drops. 5 hours, 10 minutes and counting until the air strike. www.teaparty07.com

(Hate to destroy your illusions, but no editor tells us what to write. Hard to believe, if you don't want to, but still true.)

[Ryan]

Andrew, I appreciate your repeated coverage on Ron Paul. However, I want to differ on the point that he has no "realistic chance." Voting apathy is rampant, yet Ron Paul supporters are likely the most motivated to turn out to primaries and caucuses. I know I and my friends will. I've already changed my party affiliation from "undeclared" to GOP to do so.

[True American]

I suppose those crazy nuts, also known as the forefathers, had a chance in hell as well. I suppose their crazy nutty "American" ideas were to insane to have a chance with real political gentlemen.

Get real people... American is all about REVOLUTION, and always has been. It was born from it and will only survive with it. Ron Paul is REVOLUTION in the True American spirit.

All you Nay Sayers sound like the English Loyalist that tried like heck to prevent America from ever existing.

VOTE RON PAUL - - - VOTE AMERICA!

[Christopher Rasch]

Thanks for covering the campaign and the fundraiser tomorrow! It's much appreciated.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I apologize for the verbal abuse you've endured at the hands of some of my fellow supporters. Although I too am irritated by some of the campaign coverage (or lack thereof), it's rude to respond with name-calling and personal attacks.

Thanks for covering Paul despite the lack of social graces of some of his supporters, and I look forward to future articles about his ideas and campaign.

[dazzlemetruth]

Andrew,

First, this really isn't about who is right or wrong, but when you say that Ron Paul has no chance of winning it just comes off as sounding biased and not well informed, even if you have been covering politics for 40 years. Maybe you should bring up some of those previous campaigns that have attracted millions of fervent supporters and millions of dollars and which were as decentralized as this campaign, then maybe all those crazy RP supporters will actually have some context in which to evaluate this comment. People are just tired of hearing he has no chance because it appears to be obligatory to mention in pretty much every single story about Paul, instead of just talking about whatever the subject of the story is.
Second, I just can't believe that you don't care who wins the election. If you are truly apathetic then why are you reporting on the subject? You will probably answer that apathy is ideal for a journalist because you have to be neutral to report on the subject. But if you are truly neutral then you wouldn't bias your article by stating as fact that Ron Paul has no chance of winning because that comes off as an attempt to get people to stop trying and to influence undecided readers to not vote for him because, as we all know, people don't want to vote for a loser.

(You're correct, in the past millions of dedicated supporters have voted for their insurgent candidate. Millions. And they still lost. Ross Perot, for example, what did he get 20% of the vote, enough to elect Clinton? And he had billions at his disposal. So historic patterns suggest such campaigns as Ron Paul and George Wallace and John Anderson and Eugene McCarthy and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and all the others are going to lose. That's a statement of fact. That shouldn't discourage anyone from working for, contributing to, talking about, campaiging for their guy. That's great. I think you give us far more influence than we have if you think people will not vote because of what we write here. Our influence comes from suggesting what people talk about. But we're not into telling people what to do. Appreciate your readeship and taking the time to comment.)

[Matt]

Small donations, totaling a lot of money equals more people than any other candidate. Its time for the RNC to stop pandering to the religeous as that base will be leaving for the grave in the near future. Their future is in personal choice, deregulation, and a lower taxes not the anti-gay, anti-abortion

[Julio Marquez]

It will be very nice to quote this and other supposedly knowledgeable, insightful people after Paul really scares them next year with a very credible run. He may not win but he has way more support than those annointed as reasonably alternative candidates by the media (such as Edwards) do.

(I think he will make some waves, you're right, most likely in N.H.)

[J.P.]

All I want for Christmas is an article about Dr. Paul without the "he won't win" caveat.

[Tracker]

You guys really need to chill out. The guy has been giving RP a lot of coverage. Quit whining!

The "can't win" thing is annoying, but actually, I think the element of surprise will be a good thing. I think all the journalists know that these are polls of "most likely Republican voters", and RP has drawn people from all across the political spectrum, as well as people who weren't even previously registered. I doubt anything with this kind of dynamic has happened in recent times. The "shock and awe" will be fun to see.

Thanks, Andrew! The whiners aren't representative of all of us. They're just very vocal.

Oh, BTW... is "shill" already on your list of names?
;)

(I'll check. :))

[Craig]

Andrew, I actually learn more about the items on which you report and your frame of mind by reading your responses to the comments rather than the article itself!

One correction for you:
He is not "nearing double digits" in some of the polls; he is already at 11% in CNN's SC poll (as reported on Drudge).

I can tell that you are very versed in all-things-Dr.-Paul by the references, links, etc. I can't tell your predilection - the overall tone of the article is positive, but it uses subtle name-calling (possibly an attempt at being endearing?) and derogatory attributes to describe the Congressman, which I can't understand.

You address his increasing recognition in the media: that it's his fund-raising.

You don't address the fallacy: IF he's doing so well in fund-raising, it means that people who believe in his candidacy (and subsequent hopeful success), precisely for the reasons you claim the media doesn't, are large in numbers, driven, inspired, and opening their wallets. This is in fact why the media should be increasing their "awareness" to him - in terms of actually giving the Congressman more positive coverage - his message moves people to act. Quite a large number of people.

If the other candidates, as you state in the article, aren't pulling in "support" on the same level as Dr. Paul - in terms of fund-raising - then why are they getting (positive) media attention (such as "realistic chance of winning the nomination")? Perhaps because commissioned companies call people on their couches and ask them leading questions to determine "support?"

Sir, Dollars are quantifiable; they have no "margin of error."

The reason that the other candidates aren't getting the level of fund-raising "support" you address in this article must be because fewer numbers of people are interested in them!

Media focuses its attention and praise for the wrong reasons - polls are pretty much "yeah, I heard of that guy." It's your responsibility as a member of that media to engage those poll respondents (citizens) through a journalistic evaluation of actual interest in a candidate, especially how the people of this nation respond to the message.

Overall, any press is good press, yes? For that I thank you. I would only hope that you, and other journalists (notice I didn't say "reporters") should evaluate the state of the subjects on which they write (and ask "why?), rather than "report" on them. If the result of your inquiry finds that people strongly support something or someone running for office, shouldn't you encourage and educate those who may be "ignorant" of what their fellow citizens have discovered? More educated poll respondents might then beget more accurate polls. :-)

Cheers!

PS: from your response to the comments: "We'll have to add it to the list of other names used by R. Paul boosters posted in the office." I believe this is probably quite a long list. You should publish it some time, because I would love to read 'em all!

(Afraid not. Comments with curse words, anatomical suggestions, parts, coarse references to family members, etc. just get deleted. If those commenters invested their time instead in working for the candidate instead of coarsely denouncing perceived slights, RP might do even better than he will. But, hey, this is just a blog. Thanks for reading.)

[Tim_Ohio]

Hi Andrew.

Thanks for your writing about Dr. Paul. It IS good to have mainstream journalists cover Dr. Paul's rise and the pre-coverage of the TeaParty tomorrow.

To me it comes down to one thing on which I will base my vote.

Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE running that has a record of saying the same thing for many years with out flip-flopping or changing positions to pander to whoever's vote he is currently trying to woo. He stood as the one lonely voice against the current crop of "tax & spend and take your liberties to keep you "safe" " politicians for 10 terms in congress.

Honesty. Consistency.

No other candidate running has those two qualities.

I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's positions, BUT I know where he stands. I understand that he will at least try to fulfill his campaign promises. The last thing we need is one more pandering politician who promises one thing and advances the same demo-publican agenda once elected.

Do you believe anyone else running will do anything BUT escalate the perpetual wars? Do you believe anyone else will make a REAL attempt to fix the economy or will it be just more "tax & spend". Do you think any of the demo-publican candidates will give you back one single liberty?

I haven't believed a politician for a long, long time. I believe Ron Paul because of two things -- Honesty and Consistency.

There ya go Andrew. A RP voter who didn't call you a name.

P.s. I do wish you would stop saying that he doesn't have a chance. This guy has a REAL chance simply because the grassroots effort has never had the abilities it has today with meetup groups, facebook, etc. The ability to organize has never been as great. The outlets for the common man to share his convictions has never been seen in the history of the world. Unfortunately, this may also be the very undoing of this campaign. I do hope that in 20 years when us political aficionados look back on the 2008 campaign we aren't saying "he could have won but his followers alienated too many people". Thanks again for the article. -Tim

[Dennis Steele]

Liberty and justice for all! The revolution is here! All I can say is it is about time. The main stream media and the neo-cons have driven this country down the wrong path long enough! Finally freedom and liberty are ringing again in peoples ears.

Freedom ROCKS ON!

[Mike]

The circumstances are PERFECT for Ron Paul to win the Presidency:

1) He is running as a candidate of the two major parties unlike Ross Perot.

2) The internet use is larger then ever.

3) The United States government has reached it's peak in corruption. The American people have never been this ANGRY. They thought the US government wouldn't have a repeat of Vietnam and Watergate type scandals but it happened again and again. Everyone is tired of the endless wars which lead to 9-11, they are tired of spending a third of their income to bureacrats and tax attorney's, they don't want a National ID card, debt, inflation, etc.

Everything the media said about Ron Paul's campaign has been WRONG! They said he wouldn't win debate pol's and then he won them. Then they said he wouldn't win straw polls and then he won 26. They said he wouldn't win any delegations and he won the WV delegation. They said he wasn't going to raise money and then he raised the MOST MONEY OF ALL REPUBLICANS.

"Ron Paul is going to win, I guarentee it" Joe Namath

[HRPAINE]

Is it Mr. Malcolm himself who is actually inserting comments into the comments?

Did you write this, Andrew?

(You sound like you think we care who wins. If Paul does well, bucko, it's a much better story, isn't it? So if you don't like this item, you can go to what I'm sure must be thousands of other major websites that are writing about and publicizing Ron Paul's Tea Party in advance.)

If so, I'm sure your immigrant parents who stressed the importance of ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in democracy would be impressed with your convictions. Don't care who wins? And you're presuming to contribute anything useful to the public discourse--or society? It's kind of pathetic. What are you, 14 years old? Trying to convince yourself you're too cool for things you're afraid to be part of?

And yeah, Paul supporters sound off when they don't like an item. If you don't like THAT then do some research, write something intelligent, get concerned as the country you live in goes down in flames. Make your parents proud.

(As a professional writer, I don't care who wins. I'm not rooting for anyone on either side. I'm just telling interesting stories about candidates on either side. If you bothered to read anything here about anyone other than RP, you'd see we are equal opportunity offenders. But I suspect, since you brought it up, that I have been involved in the actual workings of democratic institutions such as the press as well as working in govt/politics for more than your few months supporting Dr. Paul. I'll vote my own conscience at election time, as I have since I became eligible, and my vote will count as much as yours. And I'll live with the collective judgment of the American voters, those who bother to go anyway. And my vote will have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've written here or elsewhere. Clear enough for ya?)

[muhlskinner]

You sir are doing your job well, you love this don't you?...... I am sure your column will flourish indeed.
I feel compelled to comment that reading your expert and seasoned opinion has triggered a sad and disheartening feeling within me. Is it so obvious to you, that as a nation we are so far removed from our founders ideals that if someone comes along and throws them up as a template to compare our progress to , he is ridiculed and marginalized. If this little old man stands no chance in this country, it implies volumes about how far we have mutated from the most advanced governing document yet devised. What were we thinking? a healer, who radiates integrity and honesty. He'll get eaten alive. This is profoundly bad news to me . I was just starting to feel a small semblance of hope, watching a VAST majority of apathetic AMERICANS get energized enough to actually get involved. To inform themselves, read up on the constitution, become aware, inspired and effectively empowered as citizens of a great experiment called The United States.
I have a question: Wouldn't it be better for us elect a commander and chief who was a genius in the field deception and deceit (politician). Is our train so run away as to need an individual who knows how to play dirty. A brilliant devil who could expertly wield this military industrial war machine, since this is what we told we do best? Perhaps a doctor is the wrong prescription.

(Having been involved in govt/politics for a few years so I could better understand their operations, I profoundly appreciate the energies of those who involve themselves in political campaigns. It is grueling and grinding and often thankless. Alas, too few Americans do get involved, preferring to spectate. All the attention on Iowa with its 3 million people and do you know how many will actually participate in the caucuses Jan. 3? About 260,000. Hats off to them and too bad for the other 2.74 million.)

[Interested]

Andrew, I wish you wouldn't say he has 'no chance' etc. as it can only make you look foolish. plenty of candidates have won primaries and elections from worse 'official polling' positions than Congressman Paul and there are many precedents, since you're a seasoned professional you should know this. He clearly doesn't have 'no chance' as he has a campaign in several states and lots of money; he clearly has a greater chance than Alan Keyes, Tom Tancredo and California's own "I built the fence and by the way my son is serving in Iraq" Duncan Hunter. so you must conceed he has some chance better than 'none' no matter how small that chance is.

(I agree. He has a better chance than those three.)

[Paul]

"Not so much because the 72-year-old libertarian-minded ob-gyn and 10-term GOP representative from Texas has any realistic chance of winning the nomination, let alone the election next November. But he can affect the outcome by drawing votes from others. (Though don't even hint at any skepticism about victory to his fervent, hopeful supporters, or they'll bury you in e-mails, some of them printable.)"

You're as free to be as skeptical as you want. After all, having reasonable prospects of being the top GOP fundraiser for quarter 4, and likely taking 3rd place at Iowa and possibly better at NH doesn't indicate that Ron Paul will win. However, it also means that maybe you should quit saying "There's *no chance in hell whatsoever* Ron Paul will win!" as if you'll lose all of your credentials by taking a moderate stance on Ron Paul's chances.

[Bob]

A great majority of Americans don't trust car salesmen yet they will vote for one to run their lives and the lives of their children. All wise people know that the other candidates are narcissistic but unfortunately there aren't enough wise people left in America today. I don't think book smart equals wise at all either. People are easily swayed by the media but there is still a large group of us who know the truth. You can say what you will about us and you can convince the majority your way is the right way but sooner or later, one by one the people will wake up. You will learn the hard way someday and you will think to yourself it all could have been avoided if you hadn't been shooting for that promotion at work by writing this piece. Can't we just once vote for an honest man rather than a car salesman. I support Ron Paul and he would approve this message.

[JEP]

What if what we are seeing with the growth of Ron Paul support is THE silent majority
coalescing and becoming vocal? Ultimate blowback ?

[wils5742]

I liked the article, minus the ubiquitous statement that he can't win. I might point to pollster dot com, where one can see that he is one of only two candidates actually rising in most Republican polls. The most important element going into primaries is the vector, not the position. Huckabee will most surely be going down by then, which leaves Ron Paul with more than a "chance to steal votes from others." He is the legitimate candidate. It would be nice if an article was written about him that didn't evoke the statement "but he won't win". How about letting the voters decide that please? Thank you.

(The voters WILL decide that. And you'll read about that too right here.)

[Joseph]

Andrew,
I share with you an e-mail from our fearless leader, Ron Paul.

This is an earthshaking gesture.

I have never received even a thank you from our current president for my letters or e-mails to suggest a direction for our country.

If Ron Paul understands the power of the internet as exemplified by this letter, the Washington Press Corps is out of a job. I can see it now: The Oval Office Blog. We the People will post comments and Paul will reply. He could create YouTube video to answer really good concerns or questions and then we would know he was really participating in the blog and not just his staff.

Here is the letter. Thanks again, Andrew.

December 15, 2007
What an amazing mission you and I are on. What great ideas we uphold -- the legacy of the most important thinkers of liberty in our country's history, and the most important doers of liberty in America. At the top of that list are the donors and volunteers of this campaign.

I could spend all my time thanking personally you and everyone who has done so much for our country's future, and not scratch the surface of what justice demands. But I want you to know how much I owe you, and everyone dedicated to the real America. You and I know our real country -- the America of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, of economic, civil, and personal liberty, of strong families and communities, of great businesses and professions, of strong peace and low taxes and sound money-all of which are under assault by the politicians who occupy our nation's capital.

With your help -- and I can't do anything without your help https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ -- I want to change all that. Together, we can restore our constitutional republic, and oust the mountebanks who violate the ideals of the Founders with income taxes, Federal Reserve inflation, deficit spending, preemptive wars, torture, secret prisons, and abolition of habeas corpus.

How thrilling too are all the great Independent efforts in this cause, involving so many tens of thousands of patriots. Of course, since they are Independent, the election laws to do not allow me to coordinate with them in any way. But I will mention that this Sunday, I am really going to enjoy my tea at a party!

We are making real progress. And goodness knows we need to. Help https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ me keep our revolution going and growing. For freedom, peace, and prosperity, for the real America, all our
generosity and hard work are justified.

Sincerely,

Ron

[Darren Donahue]

So by your statistic:

260,000 people will vote in the Iowa caucus.
60% will vote for a Democrat or 156,000 people.
100,000 will vote for Republicans.

Hmm,

So, if Ron Paul can get 30,000 people out to vote in Iowa he will win?

That seems doable.

(Don't forget much depends on where those 30,000 are, the 15% viability rule and other arcane parts of caucusing.)

[David]

Mr. Malcolm is obviously out of touch with reality. Ron Paul will destroy any Democrat that runs against him. The problem he is facing is getting the Republican nomination. The Republicans obviously don't want to win in 2008. If they did they would give him the nod. They just want to maintain the pro-war, big government status quo. If he gets the nomination, he's a shoe in for the White House no matter who the Democrats run against him.

[larry]

Of course Ron Paul can't win. All his supporters will be too busy blogging to vote.

[Kyle]

Thank you Andrew for a nice story. After donating on Sunday, the focus of the grassroots must be to write personal letters to the folks in Iowa and NH, and MI . Grassroots 101; boots on the ground. If Ron does not win the Rep nom; I hope he goes third party; if it is Rudy Hillary and Ron; I think this might be the perfect storm for a third party win. Please do a story on this after Feb 5th.

[Scrooge aka Joseph]

Christmas Eve excitement has come 9 days early this year.

The reason I am a 50 something year old who feels like a 5 year old:
http://www.teaparty07.com/

This is one Scrooge swept up by the Christmas spirit.

We the People are about to open a big gift for the entire world!!!

[Paul]

Others said it better already, but I want to add my two cents. This "article" quite an example of low-grade journalism. The bigger picture is that Ron Paul is the only hope we have for pulling this country out of decline. The money Ron Paul raises comes from hard-working middle-class Americans, not special interests or corporate interests. People donate to Ron Paul because they truly believe in him as a person and trust his sincerity. If the mainstream media would stop repeating itself with this message that Ron Paul has no chance, I suspect his poll numbers would double overnight. There are so many people I talk to that like his message, but feel they cannot vote for him because it would be "throwing their vote away." Well, I just wish more people believed the slogan that, "No vote for liberty is a wasted vote."

[Eric]

The $4.2 million is not funding the blimp. The blimp is a separate entity from the campaign and the sponsorships for it have nothing to do with the official campaign donations.

[Barbara]

I LOVE RON PAUL.... He believes in the Constittution. If you don't vote for RON PAUL
YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN. He puts all the other candidates to SHAME.

[Alicia]

I am tiered of hearing "He has no chance of winning". That statement is the most ignorant statement that I have ever heard, and frankly it is an insult to all the good Americans fighting along side of Ron Paul. Why would 10’s of thousands of people give their precious time and money to the campaign if they didn't think that it had a chance. Could you try not to insult us? He is the most qualified person running! Goodness Gracious, your a journalist, do your research, this man is very qualified, he is not running for personal gain, can you say that about any of the other candidates? He is willing to give the last years of his life to America, what a patriot! Hey GUY, get accurate information and report fairly, stop mass marketing other journalists negative and pessimistic OPINIONS. Try to be original.

(Here's the problem: It doesn't matter how tiered you are of hearing Dr. Paul's chances are slim to none. It's the truth. Now you and thousands of others can do all you can to try to change that and who knows what can happen? He's certainly making waves and will draw votes from others and affect the race that way, like Ross Perot in 1992. But, right now, no matter how much you wish it otherwise, it doesn't look good. No one's fault. Just political reality.)

[Trent]

WOW! I made it to the end of the remarks... Are all these comments from just the past day or two? Holy cow batman... someone out there is paying attention. I haven't seen too many comments on here that do not support our next president (Ron Paul).
Everyone seems to have the same idea. Liberty and the Constitution are strong campaign tools. I have to admit that I am sick of the bloodshed, I think America misses peace... war is just not cool.

(Trent, These comments are just since this afternoon, maybe 5 hours. Click on some of the links in this item. You'll see past items with even more comments. A lot of people are working very hard for Dr. P.)

[eb]

Dear Mr. Malcolm,

Thank you again for your article about Dr. Paul. I think you can agree with me that it is indeed an exciting time to be alive!

I would like to pitch a few ideas to you for your next article:

1. Go a little deeper into the man; tell the story of his life-long interest in economics and give a brief review of a couple of the 11 books he has written. Tell a story about how he can pull Ben Bernake up short and left with nothing to say. This will give insight into why supporters admire and trust him and perhaps why the ruling elite are uncomfortable with him.

2. Do another story about the psychology of some of the very fervent, and sometimes overbearing Ron Paul supporters. Is it just that they are jerks, or is there a deep level of discontent that is fueling their responses in this and other blogs?

I also want to thank you for your personal response to my last comment to you. You must be kept busy for hours and hours just responding to posts!

This is not a criticism, but from your picture you too look to be a little old man yourself, albeit a mentally acute one, just like the very good and brilliant Dr. Paul, so I am guessing that you called him that name as a sign of affection.

Keep writing.

[christopher]

Hey Moron.

Trevor Lyman is not the reason Ron Paul raised the most money of any candidate this quarter.

Ron Paul's message is the reason.

Put Trevor Lyman in charge of Hillary's campaign, or Giuliani and they would not do what we have done because people are not passionate about them like we are Ron Paul.

Maybe someday you will wake up and understand this isn't about anyone man, its not even about Ron Paul. The American people are running for president through him now.

This is going to be one for the history books.

(Moron? C'mon, Christopher. You can do better than something as trite as that.)

[Charles Seligman]

I want to answer to the question why all the SMS's have to put that he has no chance of winning. You, thr so-valled independant Press, are using NAZI's tactic of repeating something, the more it is repeated, until people beleive. Hiltler himself said it. So far, Dr. Paul has been attacked by so many sides, including his own Party, and he has managed, to my surprise, to remain a Gentleman. As for any candidate, who would have won nearly all debates and straw polls, that candidate, would have been, in normal circumstaces, the very potential next President, but instead, your "ananlyses" brings you to say he has no chance of winning? Do you expect people to beleive your logic and reasonning that makes you "know" Dr. Paul has no chance of winning. I am interested how you and your collegues get to arrive at the same conclusion, when looking at Dr. Paul's statistics. I am really curious how you all come to the same illogical conclusion.

[blakmira]

Andrew, in one of your replies, you compared Ron Paul's lack of any "realistic chance" of winning with the failures of Ross Perot, George Wallace, John Anderson, Eugene McCarthy, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I see absolutely no similarities with the phenomenon of Ron Paul and his campaign to any of those unsuccessful candidates!

They certainly did not have the hordes of passionate, dedicated and devoted supporters raising millions of dollars for their candidate, defending him tooth and nail; nor were any of them saying anything radically different that the people were so hungry to hear, as Ron Paul is. Nor did they have the Internet as it exists today, which more and more people are relying on for their primary source of information.

We are hearing a politician speak the "truth" about the corruption of government and the desire to adhere to the Constitution for the first time with no background of deceit, dishonest behavior or flip-flopping, and frankly, it is just mind-blowing and revolutionary to so many of us! Especially those of us who have never bothered to vote before, feeling it a waste of time voting for the lesser of two evils. It's just unheard of in this day and age that a politician speaks the truth with no fear of the "consequences" (i.e., angering those in power, alienating some of the hypnotized masses, etc.).

By the way, any commenter who says they're not voting for Ron Paul just because they don't like his supporters is either not being truthful, not thinking logically, and/or possibly has an ulterior motive and an axe to grind. It won't be the supporters that will be presiding in the White House, so who cares?? Ron Paul has remained kind, humble and unchanged throughout all the ostracism, sneers and criticism directed at him, and that's whose attitude counts.

It's so important to think for yourself, do thorough research on all the candidates, and be open minded to radical solutions to radical problems to bring about positive change. If you follow those guidelines, the only logical candidate is Ron Paul.

I for one believe in the power of positive thinking and prayer, and will not be swayed by anyone telling me that Ron Paul has no chance of winning.

P.S. And Andrew, please report on how many millions of dollars are raised tomorrow for Ron Paul's Historical Boston Tea Party One-Day Fundraiser! I would like to see your reaction :)

(I'll bet you report raising many millions. You're correct about those previous campaigns not having the internet. But you're wrong about everything else. They were just as passionate and devoted and dedicated and convinced their candidate was the True One. I was there. I covered them. Nothing wrong with that. Those are the energies that drive democracy and without such eager participation this country would crumble. Thanks for reading.)

[Phillip Charlier]

This attempt to attribute Ron Paul's success to Trevor Lyman is a scam the traditional media (formerly known as the 'main stream media') began to perpetuate a couple of weeks ago.

Andrew Malcolm, you are behind the times and are obviously just repeating what you read elsewhere. Why don't you do your own research and come up with your own conclusions. It's pathetic to read this kind of mindless drivel.

Lyman is just a small cog. He has played an important role, but if not him, someone else would have done it. I mean, just about anyone can build a website and send email these days. It is the people who are behind Ron Paul, not just a bunch of paid experts and corporate shills.

Mr. Malcolm, you are not the only one embarrassed by the success of Ron Paul, because for years, you watched tyranny destroying the USA and did not have either the brains to see it or the guts to stand up to it. It's people like you who allowed Hitler and the Holocaust to happen. RP's supporters will do their best to save their country and in this fight, they are the hero's and you are mediocre at best.

The world is watching and reading your blog. Everything you have written and will write is on the permanent record.

(The whole world is watching? Well, I'm honored it's all worth keeping and that you keep coming to read it. We made the mistake of listening to Dr. Paul say on national TV how important Lyman is to the effort instead of checking with you. What a silly mistake. As for being embarrassed by Dr. Paul's success, I'll leave the embarassment to Dr. Paul's rude supporters. And the Hitler reference is just too funny to top. Thanks again for reading. Now, you can go back to all those other major newspaper blogs that have written dozens of items about Dr. P.)

[Mark]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I guess I'd prefer nothing less than glowing praise for the man and his message. Aside from that I thought your article was pretty good. However, I think the most important thing you wrote was in one of your responses that contained this sentence:

"But a lot of people in the political media have seen a lot of campaigns over a lot of years and even though Dr. Paul's people think they are unique in their fervor and dedication, there have been millions go before them in countless hardworking insurgent campaigns with the same idealism and dedication and they lose."

I think you have a good point. I remember George Wallace and Ross Perot. Having said that, I think the level of disgust for establishment politicians of both parties, may have reached a new high. It certainly has for me. I think there's something different in the air. As you say, we will see.

[AfricanAmericans4Paul]

"Lyman was so well known that the man he raised the money for didn't know his correct or whole name when asked on national TV. That's pretty unknown."[Andrew Malcolm?]

Not surprisingly, you completely missed my point: it wasn't important whether Paul or anyone else knew who Lyman was; what was significant is that YOU referred to him as "a nobody" (indicative of a person of little value, or unworthy of notice), not as "an unknown" (which would indicate a person whose name is not widely recognized). My calling you on your elitism had zero to do with Lyman; it had everything to do with your attitude. As Lyman himself would tell you, he didn't "raise the money," he helped promote the fundraiser. Your characterization is a transparent effort to spin the $4.2M as a one-man-show (i.e., "major donor"), rather than as over 37,000 voters supporting their favored candidate, to the tune of a little over $100 each.

Likewise, your "little old man" comment was a transparent effort to belittle (no pun intended) Paul, who is the same age as McCain, and much taller (in fact, I believe that only Thompson and Romney are taller than Dr. Paul). My point was that you wouldn't use the same language to characterize McCain, to whom the characterization would more aptly apply. If I'm wrong, just point me to one article in which you do so, and I will apologize (even if that article follows this one).

So I called you at "twit." So what? My characterization of you was far more accurate than your characterization of Dr. Paul. You think you deserve a cookie, just 'cause you spilled some ink on the man's shoes?

(Your apology is not something I would covet. Thanks for reading.)

[Christian]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and from other things I've read this isn't half bad. The problem with the overall analysis though and the problem journalists and dare I say, the powers that be can not comprehend and have failed to recognize, failed to anticipate and failed to prepare for is the FACT that 50% of the entire American population has disengaged from the political process all together.

The most successful democracy in the world has had a stacked deck of politicians since probably JFK, Dem / Rep meaning these 50% that never voted or participated or stopped participating are now awakening to the first candidate since JFK that inspires hope and speaks to the very founding principles of the Republic.

This message is strong for all Americans and will reach out and bring millions back into politics. All Republicans have to wake up and realize that a Ron Paul president is still a Republican president and this is the best scenario for the Nation. 50% of the nation doesn't even participate by virtue of voting in the general election usually. This is where the support is coming from and it will only continue to grow. The key time is RIGHT NOW though, the winning of the Republican party nomination. If he does not win, millions will disengage again from the political process, an ominous sign in a democracy with a constitution designed for the will of the people...

[Mike]

In 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a tougher battle than he had faced in the 1970s. Since the Republicans had taken over both houses of Congress in the 1994 election, Paul entered the race hopeful that his Constitutionalist goals of tax cuts, closing agencies, and curbing the UN would have more influence,[50] but he quickly concluded "there was no sincere effort" toward his goals.[14] The Republican National Committee focused instead on encouraging Democrats to switch parties, as Paul's primary opponent, incumbent Greg Laughlin, had done in 1995. The party threw its full weight behind Laughlin, including support from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the National Rifle Association. Paul responded by running newspaper ads quoting Gingrich's harsh criticisms of Laughlin's Democratic voting record 14 months earlier.[38] Paul won the primary with support from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan (who served as honorary campaign chair and made ad appearances) and tax activist Steve Forbes.[10][33]

Paul's Democratic opponent in the fall election, trial lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, lost in a close margin, despite assistance from the AFL-CIO. Paul's large contributor base outraised Morris two-to-one, giving the third-highest amount of individual contributions received by any House member (behind Gingrich and Bob Dornan).[51] It became the third time Paul had been elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.[10]

Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[52][53] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[54][55] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[56][57]

If anyone can win the Presidential election with little expectations starting out, it is Ron Paul.

[StopTheFed]

DARNIT! Why, oh WHY doesn't the media report everything Dr. Paul says, chapter and verse? Why do they question anything he says? Don't they realize he's the only sane candidate in the race?

We must bully, attack, and cuss at anyone who disagrees with us one iota because Dr. Ron Paul is the only good candidate. Why, to even discuss why Ron Paul is absolutely perfect is not only a waste of time, it's Un American and Un Patriotic.

If you aren't supporting Ron Paul it is our duty to cajole, pick on, crap on, and yell at anyone who doesn't support our beliefs and remind people of the 2nd Amendment. If Dr. Paul gets elected we will be unquestioning minions who will serve the Great Leader and crush all opposition with blimps, blogs, and other measures.

Do not question Ron Paul . Do not make him look bad. Do not question anything he says or disagree with him in any way. Do not even like Ron Paul for the WRONG reasons.

Support Ron Paul. Chairman Paul demands it. He loves you. Now love him back!

[Parke]

(Well, we'll all see soon enough who was right. But a lot of people in the political media have seen a lot of campaigns over a lot of years and even though Dr. Paul's people think they are unique in their fervor and dedication, there have been millions go before them in countless hardworking insurgent campaigns with the same idealism and dedication and they lose. So after watching these campaigns for 40 years or more, you admire the workings of democracy but you do see some familiar patterns. What's neat is that nowadays you too have a forum right here to make your own case, as you and others do--the R. Paul boosters who think this is a great article because it links to their sites and the Paul people who don't. If we're wrong, there will be tons of coverage and comments because of the observations. If you're wrong, doubt we'll hear from you.)

I understand it too. The thing is.. Ron Paul is breaking records left and right. The GOP may be arrogant and not nominate Ron Paul just because, but I think the timing is right for Ron Paul.

Remember this, he's 72, he was one of four congressmen to back Reagan initially.. this isnt his first rodeo. He's beaten Democratic incumbants in his district.

I carry my laptop with me virtually everywhere. Its got a nice Ron Paul sticker across it.. I can tell you this, every single person Ive shown a video too.. EVERY SINGLE PERSON wanted to know more about him.

That doesnt happen with any other candidate.

I understand where you are coming from, and I understand the sarcasm and doubts.. Just look at how Bush has treated our troops, citizens and economy. He really hasnt done much for 'the people' of this country. If you wonder why people are touchy.. itd be a good sumation to start with Dubya.

BTW... Ill be here long after Ron Paul.

[Wallace]

What will all of you do when Ron Paul doesn't win? My guess: Go back to your jobs at Dairy Queen.

MORE SPRINKLES, PLEASE!

[Jeugenen]

DAWN OF THE AMERICAN REFORMATION, AND END OF THE ERA OF THE UGLY AMERICAN

This Ron Paul Libertarian rebellion is an escalation and re-orientation of the American Cultural War, by the American People, against the rising governmental tyranny by Neo-Con Republicans and Neo-Lib Democrats.

It is sweeping across America like a wildfire - ignited by the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq. It raises many crucial questions, such as:

Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to sacrifice precious American wealth and blood, in interests of domestic and foreign lobbies?

Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to allow my nation to be invaded and permanently occupied by illegal aliens?

Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to support the sacrificial killing of children, by their own mothers?

Where does the American Constitution give my government the right to discriminate against traditional religious practices in public schools, universities, marriage institutions, armed forces, and governmental offices?

This creeping governmental tyranny, driven by perverse special interests, has now been going on for so many decades, like the illegal alien invasion, that the impending American Reformation is regarded with fear and loathing, by those who are to lose their illicit gains.

Like Gandhi, Ron Paul is drawing his intrepid volunteers from the full spectrum of humanity; and World is cheering him on to victory.

[Mike]

I think some of these comments are not really made by Ron paul supporters. I`ve read just about every RP blog article on the net and this one has WAY more abusive RP "supporters" than any other comment section anywhere. Either anti-RP people are posting this stuff or someone is going to a lot of effort to make RP supporters look bad. Andrew I would check IP addresses if I were you and see if these ad hominem posters are the same people posting over and over.

[Melanie]

I just think that his broad appeal will draw voters to him.

If he does decide to go Independent after the primaries should he not win, he will get the vote of the Evangelicals who can't stomach voting for Mitt the Mormon, and the Democrats who can't stomach the thought of voting for the hypocritical Billary. The racists who won't vote for Obama, the steadfast middle ground homeschooling, personal freedom folks who won't vote for the Baptist Pastor Huckabee,the anti-universal healthcare non-bleeding hearts who won't vote for Edwards, the anti adultery, anti abortion, anti -homosexual Christians who won't vote for Rudy "9-11" Guliani, and the people who really just think "Big Red Truck" Thompson should stay in Hollywood and work on an Oscar and the moderates who defected from "Toeing the Line" hypocrisy of Reformed Maverick McCain.

He is gaining more fund raising money from the actual troops, and since 70 percent of America wants OUT of this money sucking, illegal War that isn't doing anything...and costing us a fortune... he will get their vote too.

Keep in mind I don't use those derogatory terms in reference to the candidates.But the people who dislike them do. I am saying, there are too many people who dislike the other candidates with a STRONG passion and will do anything to vote against them.

[AfricanAmericans4Paul]

"Your apology is not something I would covet."

A journalist with integrity is something your readers crave. Of course, you have plenty of company: there are hordes of ink jockeys, who attempt to mold opinion, while feining objectivity -- but it isn't the best of company.

"Thanks for reading."

Garbage men pick up trash, too, but that doesn't mean they enjoy it.....but, you're welcome. ;^)

(This is a blog. Not pretending to be objective. And thanks for clicking here again.)

[Greg J.]

Dear Mr. Malcolm,
I appreciate your coverage of Dr. Paul. I certainly won't attempt to add to your name-calling "wall of fame." But I, like so many others, are so fed up with practically every story out there reminding America that Ron Paul has no chance to win.

As a journalist, doesn't something tickle at the back of your mind the danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? What if your Journalism 101 professor had repeatedly told you that you had no future in journalism, and you ended up in some unfulfilling profession? Would your lifelong misery be due to your professor having some great knowledge of the future? Or simply that you let his words as an "expert" on the matter sway you?

Please continue to inform us. We depend on journalists to get us information. But please don't tell us what to think, and don't predict the future. Give us the info and let us decide. If its an opinion piece, by all means, let us have it. But even then, I'm pretty sure that old Journalism 101 professor would at least make you lay out why you thought that "little old man" who happened to raise $12 million + this quarter and been elected to Congress ten times doesn't have any "realistic chance" of winning.

Thank you for your time,
Greg J.

(See, no name calling!) :)

(Thanks. Much appreciated. Not telling YOU or anyone what to think. Saying what I think. It's a blog. That's why my name is there. Obviously, you can and do disagree and leave your arguments here for everyone to evaluate. That's what a blog and comments do. It's a dialogue. Ron Paul and his fans are a very interesting story. That's why we write about him/them so much. He's raised an amazing amount of money, which = support in politics. Now, we'll see if that translates to votes in a few more weeks.)

[Nash]

Andrew if you're wondering why we rebuke the MSM like ravenous attack dogs and rush to rally around our candidate it's because Ron Paul and his supporters have been so often slighted and ignored and are now belittled we suffer from a collective frustration. Even you must agree the attention given to Dr. Paul by the MSM does not correspond accurately with his fundraising and grassroots support. Early in the race Paul had no money and therefore wasn't credible. Now he's probably gonna end up with more money than ANY other Republican running but he's "nowhere in the polls". Soon he'll probably be polling higher than McCain and Thompson in most early states and what then? I'm sure the MSM will come up with some other excuse as to why he isn't a credible candidate. Yes his ideas are radical and not "mainstream". So what? These are radical times. We're in a never-ending illegal war, have troops sprawled all over the globe, are watching our civil liberties being systematically stripped by both parties and are staring at a financial crisis. Maybe radical ideas are what we need right now and it baffles me why the MSM doesn't discuss that and instead either marginalizes Paul, his supporters, or his ideas as "kooky". The status quo clearly isn't working out for us so why not try something new (old/different).

(I think the successful fundraising adds to the credibility of the campaign and you'll find more coverage comes with that. It's already happened. But be careful what you wish for as the additional coverage may explore areas, votes, etc. that candidates prefer not be explored because it no longer broadens their appeal.)

[Nathan]

The mystery man behind Ron Paul's millions is the people who identify with his message and donate. Money doesn't appear out of thin air. Unless you're the Federal Reserve!

This article's slam against Ron Paul as not having a chance is weak. Complete disrespect, and completely oblivious to the powerful message that Ron Paul has to offer...

[Rod Adams]

I am not sure why media types like to dismiss any candidate out of hand a year or more before an election. It today's world of nearly instantaneous, yet inexpensive communication, those early dismissals can lead to a lot of sheepish apologies from commentators - if they have any honesty at all.

Ron Paul has a compelling message of hope. He has a lot of life experience, a demonstrated deep thinking nature, and a legion of smart, dedicated followers. He has tapped a huge well of money that comes from a diverse group that shares his beliefs in smaller government, individual responsibility, freedom, right to life, and fundamental principles as set forth in the Constitution. That is the document that I have long sworn as a commissioned officer to "uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

His message is welcome for many American - even if it scares the pants off of establishment figures in the defense industry, the energy industry, the education industry, and the media industry as well as both political parties.

So far he has raised nearly $1 million TODAY and it is only 0510 EST. Dismiss him and his message at your own risk of being wrong.

(I know how important it is for campaigns like Dr. Paul's to have something big and evil to push against like the msm. Fine. But nobody here is dismissing him, hence all the items that draw so many comments. Must point out, however, that the elections that matter for him are not a year away but start in two weeks.)

[Jeff]

You know I had a prayer answered this year.

I wanted to be able to see a decent human being run for president, just once in my life and now I finally got to see it happen.

Andrew:

One question I would like to have more discussion about is the value of polls themselves as a measure of public opinion. I think they have at least one fundamental flaw - as currently conducted, they have little statistical validity since the pollsters do not capture a random sample of voters.

People who have taken college level probability and statistics recognize that the "margin of error" reported in the fine print at the bottom of poll results is a mathematical computation based on the size of the sample taken. There are recognized and accepted formulas for those computations. I am not claiming that the pollsters are being deceptive.

However, many people fail to remember that those statistical formulas are only VALID if they are based on a true random sample. They fail to provide an accurate picture of the variation if the sample of people is not representative. There is a famous story in some statistics books about early polls providing spectacularly poor predictions because they did the poll by telephone at a time when most voters did not have a personal telephone.

We have again reached a point where telephone polls have no statistical validity because many people will never get a call from a stranger - caller id and answering machines help us to screen those out. In the rare circumstance where the caller gets through, how many busy (translated into working adults with businesses and or raising children) will take the time to answer a pollster's questions?

In other words, polls today sample from a limited segment