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

[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.)