Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain

Delaware's Ron Paul blog ^ | 7/16/07

[John Farson]

The US Department of Elections has released the Selected Presidential Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly, and there are a few surprises. No surprise, of course, is that people in the armed services and veterans overwhelmingly support the Republican Party. However, after digging through individual candidates’ contributions by employers, we find an elating (or disturbing, if you’re rooting for Rudy McRomney) trend. The breakdown? Here you go.

Direct FEC data

[jonrick46]

Ron Paul fund raising is the proof of his legitimacy as a candidate. In the second quarter he has raised only $539,517. He is spending much of his own money. He must be rich.

[mnehring]

LOL.. someone listed the following for a contribution to Hillary:

TRILATERAL COMMISSION 250.00

[John Farson]

The Army Corps of Engineers isn’t military is it? I thought they were entirely civilian.

I did see the missed Hunter line — which changes his total by a whopping $100.

I’ll need to check the other numbers.

[ex-snook]

Paul’s view is a lot closer to reality than McCain’s. Boots on the ground never makes sense unless overwhelming force is achieved [ala WW II]. With the unfriendly demographics there, that needs draft mobilization and rationing and that ain’t about to happen.

Rumsfeld went in with a lean, mean, mobile fighting machine prepared for a quick cakewalk. Unless Bush can muster overwhelming force, get those men out of the hot sun.

[billbears]

to wait for a mainstream source to pickup on this story

Yeah, the day after the election next year. Course the Politico hit piece editorial (that has since been literally disproven by the NRO) is still in news. Interesting isn't it how one warrants news to some and another doesn't....

BTW, if you haven't, take an hour and watch his question time at Google. An excellent piece

[mnehring]

Isn’t really about numbers per say as this is a manually entered line, it is about trusting blogs as news.

[SeafoodGumbo]

This table expresses in dollars the total campaign contributions that each candidate has received from individuals who marked “Air Force,” “US Marines,” “USMC,” “Army,” “Navy,” or some other such permutation of letters as their employer that gives the appearance that they are a member of the armed services. The “veteran” column was derived by looking for “retired ______,” “______ retired,” or anything containing the word veteran, with the exception of Veterans’ Affairs (or the like).

Given that Paul supporters have so avidly spammed online polls for their candidate and the fact that Paul had 0% in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last week, I smell something fishy. Could it be that Paul supporters are just pretending to be in the service when they send in their donations?

[billbears]

Could it be that Paul supporters are just pretending to be in the service when they send in their donations?

LOLOL!!! First they were 'spammers' now they're impersonating military officials? What will be the next excuse for valid trackable, measurable data showing support for Rep. Paul? You guys are absolutely hilarious

[John Farson]

It may be re-assuring to believe that Paul supporters don’t exist... but polls have a margin of error. His support could be 4-5% at this point.

Poll numbers do not give an accurate picture of likelihood to win at this point. Plenty of candidates have won their party’s nomination with similarly low early numbers.

[mnehring]

Another interesting number:
Ron Paul- Total Receipts This Period 2,369,452.95

John McCain- Total Receipts This Period 11,591,043.81

Rudy Giuliani- Total Receipts This Period 17,599,291.85

Mitt Romney- Total Receipts This Period 20,997,715.31

And for fun, some D’s
Joe Biden- Total Receipts This Period 2,451,179.70

Chris Dodd- Total Receipts This Period 3,280,384.17

Bill Richardson- Total Receipts This Period 7,090,277.96

[John Farson]

Romney has loaned himself $9 million — so that isn’t entirely grassroots support.

[TexasAg1996]

Romney has loaned himself $9 million — so that isn’t entirely grassroots support.

Even without that, it's still 5x RP's receipts.

[John Farson]

The election is not tomorrow, friend.

[TexasAg1996]

The election could be in 20 years, and Ron Paul wouldn’t win despite 20 years of campaigning. All it would mean is 20 years of campaign ads showing Ron Paul supporting 9/11 coverup theories and whatever else this kook has said. I guess the complete shelacking in the polls (my favorite is the 0% number in the latest) makes RP supporters look elsewhere for favorable news regarding their chosen loon, er, candidate.

[John Farson]

You continue to parrot inaccurate slander. National Review debunked that nonsense claim.

It is funny how some feel so threatened that they are compelled to attack a fellow Republican with an impeccable conservative record.

[finnman69]

40 grit sand paper or fly paper

for toilet paper

[TexasAg1996]

You continue to parrot inaccurate slander. National Review debunked that nonsense claim.

I'm not talking about the claim that Ron Paul said the U.S. might stage a terrorist attack. I'm talking about the video of Ron Paul discussing how there might have been a coverup in the 9/11 investigation. That's the stuff that the kook MIHOP or LIHOP crowd over at DU likes the hear.

[John Farson]

Recognizing the information in the 9/11 report is substantially correct...

...you believe the government has never withheld politically sensitive information?

Paul's assertion has firm historical support. Governments are known to lie, especially during wartime.

[bnelson44]

Army numbers are wrong should be 6925 for McCain.

What do the “Vet” numbers mean? Veterans or people who work for the VA? If veterans, how did they get the numbers, I can’t find them in the report.

I wonder how many of the people who didn’t specify an employer (those that contributed over $2,000,000 to McCain) are military? It would really skew these number of a lot of them were military or veterans is my guess.

[bnelson44]

Well the guy did publish in National Review but David Freddoso is a political reporter for Evans and Novak Inside Report.

Here is what Politico said about it today:

There’s been quite a stir over an item I posted Friday about an appearance by Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas on the Alex Jones radio show.

Paul’s supporters have been crying foul over the Crypt’s headline to the post:

I stand behind the item, though it may well be open to interpretation just how far Paul goes in his warning. Asked by Jones if the country was in danger of a “Gulf of Tonkin provocation,” the congressman agreed the country is in “great danger of it” and made no effort to deflect or clarify the question.

I took that to mean a staged terror attack, because Jones had just referenced Cindy Sheehan’s comments on that possibility.

Here’s the transcript of Jones’ question and Paul’s answer

Alex Jones: “Congressman, just out of the gates. Cindy Sheehan yesterday on my show went further than anybody has ever gone. She said, ‘a distinct chance of a staged terror attack or the government allowing that to happen it to happen.’ Bush is saying he doesn’t care what the people want the war will continue. They’ve set up the military commissions act; they’ve set up the John Warner defense authorization act. He signed PDD 51, making himself literally dictator…he ‘gave himself that power.’ How much danger are we in now, with the Homeland Security head feeling in his gut we are about to be hit. Republican memos saying they need terror attacks, they need Al Qaeda hit us to be able to continue the war, top military strategists saying it. How much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?”

Ron Paul: “Well, I think we are in great danger of it. We are danger in many ways - the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that is in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment, which endangers our troops and our national defense. So everyday, we are in worse shape. And right now there is an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq. And we’re quite concerned, many of us, that the attack will be on Iran and that will confuse things and jeopardize so many more of our troops, so I would say that we are in much greater danger than we have been even 4 or 5 years ago. Whether it is overseas or even by terrorists here at home, because I just think the policies are seriously flawed.”

The Alex Jones Show also wrote a follow-up story saying Paul “agrees with the question, that the U.S. is in danger of a staged ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ provocation, as is cited in the question. How anyone can infer anything different from this exchange is puzzling.”

Paul even made reference to a “contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident” resulting in a U.S. military strike against Iran during a Jan. 11 floor speech in the House:

“I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin type incident may well occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable, since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Paul_comments_stir_a_fuss.html