After raising $4.3 million last Monday, congressman Ron Paul has moved from a far-flung extremist to an increasingly important presidential candidate.

With opinions that draw heavily from the marginalized libertarian components of the Republican Party, Paul has, throughout his campaign, advocated radical change to U.S. policy overseas and at home. Change has become the bane of every candidate, with the 24/7 media and the meticulous examination of every statement.

One can look at the front runners of both parties and see few major differences between the two. With the ridiculously lengthy running process now, each candidate must appeal to everybody out there. As a result, candidates promote dry policies, jumping from one stance to another depending on the debate or the state.

As a result, none of the candidates have seized an immense amount of momentum. Their entire campaign revolves around a single issue, name recognition and a lack of honesty about the issues, or not actually running much of a campaign at all.

Paul, a scarcely known candidate from Texas, sticks to a philosophy that revolves around the Constitution. Why stop at pulling American troops out of Iraq? They shouldn’t be anywhere other than our own country, the Constitution and the isolationist policies that this nation was founded upon. Is this school system in disrepair? Why not just put the responsibility of educating children on the parents instead of the state?

So how did he raise more money in a single day than any other GOP candidate in history? He has no ties to the major corporations, who have such a stranglehold on the democratic process, and unlike Mitt Romney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, he has no vast personal wealth to pull from. Instead, he makes up for it with sheer numbers.

The $4.3 million that Paul raised came from 37,000 different donors. In fact, 99 percent of Paul’s donations came from single donors as of July 6, a figure that is simply remarkable in an age of assumed political apathy.

Maybe Paul’s legitimately conservative goals are hitting home to a populace burdened with false conservatives like George W. Bush.

Paul’s campaign, as old fashioned as his views are, rests upon the tenants of new technology. Post-debate polls taken online and from text messaging-based surveys consistently show Paul winning by wide margins. His YouTube channel boasts 33,000 members, a number far greater than that of any other candidate. His Web site has a live countdown to his goal of $12 million in contributions, with the most recent contributor graciously thanked by name.

Paul also has issues. Is his rampant Internet fan base actually as large as it seems, or is its propelled by a tight group of guerilla marketers? The two-party system has done an incredible job eliminating radical candidates in the past, thanks to the media. In time, Paul’s message could prove too radical for Americans to support. But it’s nice to think that an honest and incorruptible candidate can gain support in this country. Whether or not he has a chance at winning Paul and his supporters are good for the country and for the election process as a whole.

Columnist: Morgan Little - 12/05/07