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

[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.)