Ron Paul: He's in the money
Our Republican/Libertarian congressman, Ron Paul, the Grumpy Gynecologist, has a reputation as a naysayer, since he's against a lotta stuff, including the Iraq War, but it hasn't hurt him at the box office.
He's whuppin' young pup Democrat Shane Sklar like a rented mule when it comes to fund-raising, and all of it's from individual contributors and not PACs.
The latest figures show Paul with $929,000 and Sklar with just under $275K.
(Memo to political operatives: throw some of that political advertising into The Brazosport News. We're GLOBAL!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[AP via dfw.com]
Posts
5 comments:
Your characterization of Paul's fundraising is not quite accurate. He's raised $943K total (according to the FEC), it's true, but he'a also spent over $730K, and has $395K on hand right now. He had over $700K on hand at this same point in 2000.
Sklar has raised $274K, spent about $156K, and has $118K on hand.
-- Kuff
Dude. You mean you would accept a political ad in here? For how much? I mean, I'm not running for anything, but I might want to run an ad, if it's cheap enough.
Why write about Nobodies?
And about Michael Jackson selling Lennon's "All You need Is Love" to Cahse for commercials, well, didn't Lennon willingly sell it to Jackson?
You couch things in your own terms, and that doesn't always bring clarity the reader needs.
JD, yeah, why not? $1 per day (less than a bottle of Diet Coke at Buc-ees and oh-so-much-more satisfying)
Anonymous, Lennon was long dead before Paul McCartney lost the rights to the Lennon/McCartney songbook to The Gloved One.
There you go again: McCartney "lost" the rights to Michael Jackson? As I recall, Paul sold the rights for "millions." Why can't you bring yourself to tell it "like it is"?
Post a Comment