I like Ron Paul, but....Personally I think all the money arguments regarding politicians are bogus. Fact will always be that it takes a ton of money to win the presidential election. This was confirmed by Ron Paul's own words yesterday about whether he would run 3rd party "like Ross Perot". He said he wasn't rich enough.
Regardless of anything else, you need name recognition and the infrastructure to simply get on the ballot in each state. So to even get started you need a lot of money. You must either be a career politician like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, and slowly build a name for yourself. Or you must have access to enough money to spread the word. Many people are arguing for congressional term limits to reduce Washington corruption. Ron Paul would essentially be a nobody right now if not for his lengthy political career.
I agree that it is nice that RP isn't gonna take a pension and that most of his donors are regular folks.
Defenders of Mitt could say that it is honorable that he doesn't take a salary while serving the country, and that he used his own money to furnish his office while governor.
During his first run he used a bunch of his own money to campaign, and he was harshly criticized for trying to "buy the election". This time around he has a considerable amount of support including both regular folks and rich donors, and he is harshly criticized for taking money from rich people.
Ron Paul hit it on the head, if he isn't supported by the republican party he simply doesn't have the fund raising capacity to win the presidency. To all those who support RP and insist that he can win the nomination, ask yourself a couple questions. Will he still be just as noble when he starts receiving multi-million dollar donations from wealthy individuals and lobbyist groups. I guarantee he won't send their money back.
If he will still be viewed as noble despite the donations, why would those same donations inherently make another candidate corrupt?
Regardless of anything else, you need name recognition and the infrastructure to simply get on the ballot in each state. So to even get started you need a lot of money. You must either be a career politician like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, and slowly build a name for yourself. Or you must have access to enough money to spread the word. Many people are arguing for congressional term limits to reduce Washington corruption. Ron Paul would essentially be a nobody right now if not for his lengthy political career.
I agree that it is nice that RP isn't gonna take a pension and that most of his donors are regular folks.
Defenders of Mitt could say that it is honorable that he doesn't take a salary while serving the country, and that he used his own money to furnish his office while governor.
During his first run he used a bunch of his own money to campaign, and he was harshly criticized for trying to "buy the election". This time around he has a considerable amount of support including both regular folks and rich donors, and he is harshly criticized for taking money from rich people.
Ron Paul hit it on the head, if he isn't supported by the republican party he simply doesn't have the fund raising capacity to win the presidency. To all those who support RP and insist that he can win the nomination, ask yourself a couple questions. Will he still be just as noble when he starts receiving multi-million dollar donations from wealthy individuals and lobbyist groups. I guarantee he won't send their money back.
If he will still be viewed as noble despite the donations, why would those same donations inherently make another candidate corrupt?