Haha blast from the past, thanks!
had not thought of this in decades!
Posted on 10/17/2007 11:01:03 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Romney, Obama Bring in Most Money in N.H.; Ron Paul Brings Second Most
By - Beth LaMontagne
(October 16, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., may be in second place in most New Hampshire polls, but he was far and away the winner of the third-quarter "money primary" in New Hampshire. His campaign brought in $125,538, more than any competitor on either side of the aisle, and four times more than the $28,170 U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., raised within the state.
His third quarter fundraising numbers in New Hampshire are twice what he raised last quarter, while Clinton raised about the same amount each quarter in the state.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had a strong showing in New Hampshire, taking in $24,745, a big improvement over the $12,833 he raised here in the second quarter. U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., showed an increase in support by raising a respectable $19,500, more than four times what he brought in during the spring.
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has seen his polling numbers drop over the summer and his fundraising numbers, which lag behind Clinton and Obama's, reflect this. Edwards came in fifth in local fundraising, bringing in $13,555, less than the $14,525 he raised last quarter. He did come in far ahead of U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the top Republican fundraiser, taking in $85,400, more than twice his two closest rivals in the polls, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
What may come as a surprise to some is the second highest fundraiser in New Hampshire. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has cultivated an avid libertarian following in the state, received $46,146 in campaign donations from New Hampshire voters. He out-raised McCain, who took in $33,167 and Giuliani, who raised $31,706.Romney and Paul's fundraising numbers indicate they are continuing to grow support in New Hampshire. Both saw sizeable bumps in the donations made in the Granite State this quarter compared with what was given in the spring. Giuliani, who raised $22,000 during the second quarter, also saw a jump in donations.
McCain, however, failed to top the $59,406 he raised in New Hampshire last quarter. Despite improved polling numbers and the fact McCain can still draw sizeable crowds in New Hampshire, his campaign failed to pull in the kind of money now expected of a top tier candidate.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who raised $10,825 locally, raised only half of what he pulled in during the second quarter despite an increase in media attention and a number of visits to the state this summer. He beat out former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who raised $9,450 locally. Thompson is a newcomer to the race and has only been in New Hampshire once since announcing his candidacy. The only candidates that fared worse than Thompson in New Hampshire were U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
October quarterly reports information from Federal Election Commission's Web sitehttp://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/
Republicans
Romney $85,400
Paul $46,146
McCain $33,167
Giuliani $31,706
Huckabee $10,825
Thompson $9,450
Brownback $2,762
Tancredo $555
Hunter $60
Democrats
Obama $125,538
Clinton $28,170
Richardson $24,745
Biden $19,500
Edwards $13,555
Dodd $3,200
Kucinich $3,035
I can’t prove it, but I just can’t shake the sneaky feeling that Paul’s campaign is being funded by Soros front-organizations and well-coordinated lib hacks trying to play havoc with the GOP primary process.
I’ve begun growing irritated at the bizarre focus on voters in New Hampshire. Its a VERY small state, and really has far too much influence on national elections.
I’m starting to think a national primary day sometime in March would be beneficial. This nonsensical focus on NH and Iowa has to stop.
H
Barry Manilow, musician
(Updated)
Q2/2007
Ron Paul
$2,300
2008 21650 OXNARD ST
Woodland Hills CA
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=manilow&fname=barry&search=Search
Soros seems to be the Karl Rove of the liberals. I seriously doubt he is helping to fund conservitive candidates let alone the most conservitive in the race.
Better still, RP should run for congress from New Hampshire, where they still seem to take “live free or die” seriously.
You left off the $2300 each he also gave to Clinton, Obama, Edwards & Biden.
Soros is not Karl Rove, in terms of strategic thinking or even position, but he does have billions of dollars that he's been spreading throughout the liberal establishment through various front organizations and think tanks. In short, he's manipulating the political process through his cash infusions, and I would not at all be surprised to find out that Paul was receiving Soros-originated money to keep his campaign going as loudly as he is when he has almost no support in the GOP at large. There's something very fishy going on there, but no one has bothered to follow Paul's funds to see where they came from.
Just my .02...
NH will remain the key early battleground state whether you like it or not. If you have to have just one early state, NH is a good pick in many ways.
The Paul campaign says they are going to spend lots of money on TV and Radio ads in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada. And by the way, when I asked them what their number one targeted state will be the answer was New Hampshire. Makes sense. The voters up there have an Independent streak.
Paul's Possibilities - The Brody File: David Brody Blog - CBN News
Democrats, total: $217,743
>>>I’m starting to think a national primary day sometime in March would be beneficial. This nonsensical focus on NH and Iowa has to stop.<<<
I couldn’t disagree with you more. I think it’s absolutely fabulous that we a system set up that puts essentially 3 states as the testing grounds before selecting the party nominee.
It just makes a lot of sense to see who is capable of organizing, setting up grassroots support, meeting people face-to-face, and holding daily scrutinized events before an informed public. And that these events are in smaller states where a great deal of the public can be addressed.
I’d hate to see the emphasis taken away from the early states, frankly. In a poll not too long ago, 40% of likely Republican voters couldn’t identify Rudy Giuliani as the one pro-choice Repubilcan candidate. I believe that figure was 7% in New Hampshire. The people know what’s going on there. They see it as a duty that comes every 4 years, and they take it seriously. Good for them!
If you don’t have the IO, NH, SC system in place, you’re going to have the candidates running to California and Florida and only those with huge name recognition getting anywhere. Frankly, that’s not what I want to see happening.
1- There is only one major television station, and it reaches the entire State.
2- There are only a few newspapers.
3- you can drive from one end of the State to the other, and back, in the same day.
4- Our State, with only 1.31 million people for just over 9,300 miles, has a large legislature, with 400 State Representatives and 24 State Senators. Hardly any of them have staff members, and the pay is $100 a year, paid biannually. State Representatives and Senators are easily accessible to the public, with almost all publishing their home phone numbers. New Hampshire legislature is the third-largest English-speaking legislative body in the world, behind only the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the United States Congress. So the average person on the street in New Hampshire is more politically aware than most other people from different States.
5- Registered independent or undeclared voters are a significant voting block because they can vote in either primary, and can decide as they walk into the voting booth. As of 2006, the breakdown of registered voters in NH is 44% undeclared, 30% Republican and 26% Democrat.
Indeed, New Hampshire will continue to play an important role in the primary process in the future. One point that I have to strongly disagree with you on is your advocacy for a national primary day in March. The current primary process is becoming very bad for America because the "debates" on mainstream TV aren't debates and the primaries are getting earlier and closer together. So far this cycle, the most debate we've gotten from any of the 5 or so major media "debates" was a 45 second exchange between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Has there been any meaningful, memorable DEBATE between the candidates?
States moving their primaries forward only further reduce the changes of any meaningful debate between candidates, and a national primary day ruins the tradition of States setting their own primary dates, slowly eliminating lower tiered candidates and focusing real debate between whoever is left.
>> I think it’s absolutely fabulous that we a system set up that puts essentially 3 states as the testing grounds before selecting the party nominee.
It is simply out of whack that a state like New Hampshire (with a population of about 1.2 million) has a greater influence in primaries than Texas (population 21 million). There twice as many people living in the greater Houston area than in all of New Hampshire ... it makes no sense that NH should have a particularly large influence on nominations.
>> It just makes a lot of sense to see who is capable of organizing, setting up grassroots support, meeting people face-to-face, and holding daily scrutinized events before an informed public.
Imagine the organizing that would need to be done to campaign to the whole country (as it should be). I fail to see why New Hampshire voters should get catered to, while the rest of the nation is ignored.
I want to judge for myself - I don’t need New Hampshire voters as a buffer to test grassroots organizing and face-to-face talents. I’d like the opportunity to see all the candidates in action in my home state ... instead, we’re used as a fundraising state for New Hampshire campaigning. We’ve got to pay $1,000 a head to get into an event in Texas ... while candidates go out of their way to meet every lousy voter in Podunk, New Hampshire.
>> And that these events are in smaller states where a great deal of the public can be addressed.
So a great deal of the NH public is directly addressed ... and NOBODY in the remaining 49 states is even acknoledged unless they’re holding a checkbook? That doesn’t make sense.
>> I’d hate to see the emphasis taken away from the early states, frankly. In a poll not too long ago, 40% of likely Republican voters couldn’t identify Rudy Giuliani as the one pro-choice Repubilcan candidate. I believe that figure was 7% in New Hampshire.
Maybe if they’d leave NH for more than 15-minutes this wouldn’t be the case. This is EXACTLY the problem! Candidates are spending loads of money and time talking to and informing 1.2 million people in New Hampshire ... and precisely ZERO speaking to the rest of the population. The population is uninformed BECAUSE of the excessive focus on New Hampshire - not the other way around. New Hampshire isn’t a bastion of extraordinary voters ... they just get pampered and catered to so much that they’re more informed.
>> The people know what’s going on there. They see it as a duty that comes every 4 years, and they take it seriously. Good for them!
They know what’s going on? In 1996 they voted for Pat Buchanan, and in 2000 they voted for John McCain. They’ve been wrong in the last two contested Republican primaries. I question their qualifications to decide for the rest of the country.
Perhaps the rest of the country might see it as a “duty” if candidates paid any attention to the rest of the country. Instead, people like you would rather cede the responsibility to the miniscule population of New Hampshire. There are plenty of people outside of NH that take this seriously ... and plenty more that might if they thought their state mattered in the primaries. The nomination will likely be decided before Texas ever votes ... why should we care?
>> If you don’t have the IO, NH, SC system in place, you’re going to have the candidates running to California and Florida and only those with huge name recognition getting anywhere. Frankly, that’s not what I want to see happening.
I see no reason that a California, Texas, Florida, New York system would be any more absurd than a New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina system. At least they’d speak to a larger segment of the population if the primaries were focused on larger states. Right now, they’re speaking to a miniscule population (4M people in SC, 1.2M in NH, and 3M in Iowa) that has a hugely excessive influence in the primary system. Assuming EVERY person in SC, NH and Iowa is spoken to ... that’s 3% of the population. There are more people in TX than in those three states combined.
The current primary system makes little sense - and gives excessive and undue influence to an insiginificant minority of voters in three VERY small states ... while entirely ignoring the 97% of the population living outside of those three states.
H
>> It just makes a lot of sense to see who is capable of organizing, setting up grassroots support, meeting people face-to-face, and holding daily scrutinized events before an informed public.
It also should be noted that nationwide primary organizing and a nationwide primary election day would more mirror the current system for the November elections. Perhaps it would be better to test national viability in the primary rather than local organization in New Hampshire.
If we want to test organization skills for the actual election, it would make more sense to make the primaries a national event that mimics the actual election.
H
>> New Hampshire is the key early primary State for several reasons: 1- There is only one major television station, and it reaches the entire State. 2- There are only a few newspapers. 3- you can drive from one end of the State to the other, and back, in the same day.
I fail to see why any of these items makes New Hampshire voters more qualified to select a candidate than voters in states with (1) more than 1 TV station, (2) more than 1 newspaper, and (3) that you can’t walk across in a day.
>> [...] So the average person on the street in New Hampshire is more politically aware than most other people from different States.
Oh - I get it. Its because you’re “more aware” in NH than the rest of us ... so we should just let you decide for us. Ridiculous. I don’t need the population of NH to decide for me.
>> Registered independent or undeclared voters are a significant voting block because they can vote in either primary, and can decide as they walk into the voting booth. As of 2006, the breakdown of registered voters in NH is 44% undeclared, 30% Republican and 26% Democrat.
People who can’t decide until they walk into the voting booth do not inspire confidence in their decision-making skills. Neither does the label “independent”.
>> One point that I have to strongly disagree with you on is your advocacy for a national primary day in March. The current primary process is becoming very bad for America because the “debates” on mainstream TV aren’t debates and the primaries are getting earlier and closer together.
Setting a national primary day would stop primaries from getting earlier. Additionally, if everyone was allowed to choose on the same day, there would be more necessity for national debates ... as it stands now, Texan voters don’t have to decide until March, while NH voters decide in January ... so we’ve got a dozen forums for individual states.
>> The current primary process is becoming very bad for America because the “debates” on mainstream TV aren’t debates and the primaries are getting earlier and closer together. So far this cycle, the most debate we’ve gotten from any of the 5 or so major media “debates” was a 45 second exchange between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Has there been any meaningful, memorable DEBATE between the candidates?
That’s my point entirely. The current primary process is a mess. The complaints you’ve listed above are the result of the system you’re currently advocating ... with states having sporadic and chaotic primaries, and where individual states are jockeying for the “first” primary date to exert more influence than they deserve.
A structured primary system, like the current electoral college system, with a national primary voting day and national debates is the answer to the problems the current system has caused.
H
Actually, a lot of people have been following Ron Paul’s fundraising. Check out http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/directory.html for detailed information about fundraising. That link provides 45 near-realtime graphs and charts. For a list of the last 699 unique donors to Ron Paul, visit http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html. More graphs are available at http://slact.net/paulcash.php.
The Ron Paul campaign truly is the largest GOP grassroots campaign right now, and the most open amongst all Presidential campaigns.
LLS
Must be costing Soros a bunch of money to pay all those people to show up at Ron Paul events. Plus it takes a lot of effort to make 100,000 individual donations.
However, I still find his position on National Defense in general, and the Iraq War in particular, reprehensible.
I’m starting to think a national primary day sometime in March would be beneficial. This nonsensical focus on NH and Iowa has to stop.*******
The reason it so important is that it is a small state and candidates have to deal with the people, not just run a bunch of commercials.
Having a national primary will just put more power behind the big money candidates and the MSM.
How can you say that he gets “almost no support” from republicans when he regularly wins straw polls in which only republicans can vote?
>> Having a national primary will just put more power behind the big money candidates and the MSM.
First - the MSM is still exceedingly important ... the power is just concentrated on the NH mainstream media. Additionally - the MSM is the only outlet the rest of the nation has to the candidates. Outside of NH, ALL candidates are filtered through the MSM ... as we’re dependent on reports from New Hampshire. Just another flaw in this ridiculous system.
Second - It remains unclear as to why we should rig the system to benefit certain candidates (including “small money” candidates). I am less concerned with fairness to candidates as I am with fairness to voters ... voters, not candidates, are being trampled by the current system.
The system, as currently designed, is inherently unfair to voters who do not reside in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Iowa. The clamor to move primary dates up is a direct result of this inherent unfairness ... as states like Florida and Michigan try to get their voters into a more powerful position by accelerating the date of their primary.
An excessive amount of voting power is concentrated in the hands of less than 3% of American voters. The rest of the electorate faces the possibility of having the primary election skewed as the powerful few in NH and SC dictate the results to the powerless many in the other states. Primaries are often decided before their vote has even been cast ... and, as such, the voices and votes of people outside of NH, SC and Iowa are rendered less important.
Fairness to candidates is of secondary concern to fairness to voters.
>> The reason it so important is that it is a small state and candidates have to deal with the people, not just run a bunch of commercials.
No, they don’t have to “deal with the people” - they only have to deal with the people of NH. The rest of us aren’t getting candidates OR commercials! People in states other than NH should have the opportunity to meet candidates.
We’re getting our decisions made for us by people in other states. We’re getting news reports out of NH (by the way, an artificial empowerment of the MSM due to the flawed primary system) and Tonight Show appearances while people in NH get a hundred personalized stump speeches ... NH could do with a few less speeches and a few more commercials so that the rest of the country could have the opportunity to meet candidates and see speeches as well.
I’m not proposing that face-to-face meetings with candidates are unimportant ... I’m proposing that the nation would be better off if those face-to-face meetings weren’t concentrated exclusively on the people of NH.
H
If you have no proof, then there was no need to post your drivel to begin with. Virtually all of Paul's money comes from individual donors, and his website follows all FEC regulations.
BFD
Are you saying that being pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, and pro-border security is NOT conservative? If these are libertarian ideals, then just what makes up a conservative?
Ron Paul has none of these, as evidenced by his repeated direct association with the 'Rats effort to undermine the war. Paul's very public musings about 9/11 purportedly being an inside job, as well as his fears that our government would cook up a Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to whack Iran, don't do him credit as a Conservative either.
No, he's a hard core Libertarian, and a Libertarian he will always be, not a Conservative.
I must agree with you on this. Without this “testing” system the only states that would see any of the serious candidates for the office of President would be the most populous states. Plus, specifics about each candidate and their political ideology would not be available for public discourse if there were but one national primary.
New Hampsire Free State Potheads.
either Hsu donated for manilow or the toe tapping singer is doing his own version of electoral sabotage.
active and RETIRED? like weasely clark?
does this include democrats who happened to serve?
do draft dodgers count?
does MacArther the phoney count?
Does Mr. dailykos count?
how about active ALONE?
I’m really not interested in fairness when it comes to who sees a candidate. I’m interested in an informed electorate making an informed decision about who will be the leader of this country.
If you start nationalizing this process, what you’re going to get are:
1) Massive events still only attended by a handful of potential voters, and likely die-hard supporters, anyway
2) An electorate voting on the name-brand recognition of a candidate rather than what he stands for
3) Very few question and answer sessions. You see Romney doing hundreds of these “Ask Mitt Anything” sessions. Same thing with some other candidates, as well. If you’re jaunting across the entire country, what percentage of the early voters get to participate in anything like that?
Sorry, I’m just not going to be with you on your desire to have massive percentages of the population having an equal say in all of this. And I say that sitting here in Tennessee. I’m perfectly happy letting the people of NH, Iowa, and South Carolina make the decision.
As I cited in my earlier arguments, yes, they are more informed than your average American. I have no doubts they’d be more informed than your average American who would be voting in the hypothetical national primaries you mentioned, as well.
I also like the fact that these elections are state-wide things. They’re not influenced by the national media as much. There isn’t the hype to vote. The informed who have followed things will vote. Those who couldn’t care less will continue to do such.
>> I’m really not interested in fairness when it comes to who sees a candidate.
Fairness in voting is the utmost concern. The opportunity to see the candidate is secondary to the opportunity to have an equal voice in the primary process.
>> I’m interested in an informed electorate making an informed decision about who will be the leader of this country.
And I’m interested in that electorate actually being representative of the entire country. An “informed” New Hampshire resident might not come to the same conclusions as an “informed” Texan ... it simply isn’t right that New Hampshire has more powerful voters than the rest of the country.
>> If you start nationalizing this process, what you’re going to get are: 1) Massive events still only attended by a handful of potential voters, and likely die-hard supporters, anyway
That’s what you have now. The only difference is the “handful” of attendees are all from one state. The undecided outside of New Hampshire are no less important than the undecided inside New Hampshire.
>> 2) An electorate voting on the name-brand recognition of a candidate rather than what he stands for
The people outside of New Hampshire are already voting this way. We don’t get to see anything but prepackaged debates and commercials. We’re forced to vote based ENTIRELY on mainstream media coverage - as we’re not given the opportunity to question candidates as NH voters are.
>> 3) Very few question and answer sessions. You see Romney doing hundreds of these “Ask Mitt Anything” sessions. Same thing with some other candidates, as well.
You’d get the same number of sessions ... simply spread out to more than one state.
>> If you’re jaunting across the entire country, what percentage of the early voters get to participate in anything like that?
What percentage get to participate now? I certainly don’t ... do you?
>> Sorry, I’m just not going to be with you on your desire to have massive percentages of the population having an equal say in all of this.
So you’re in favor of “massive percentages of the population” having an unequal say? That’s ridiculous. I’m sorry, but New Hampshire voters simply don’t have the right to diminish the weight of other voters in the primaries. A Texan vote should be equal to a NH vote ... right now, it isn’t.
>> And I say that sitting here in Tennessee. I’m perfectly happy letting the people of NH, Iowa, and South Carolina make the decision.
You’re comfortable with someone else deciding for you? Why vote at all, then? You may be comfortable with that ... I am not. I am as American as anyone from New Hampshire - and my primary vote should have equal weight to a vote from New Hampshire, South Carolina, or anywhere else.
>> As I cited in my earlier arguments, yes, they are more informed than your average American. I have no doubts they’d be more informed than your average American who would be voting in the hypothetical national primaries you mentioned, as well.
It is not within their prerogative, or yours, to determine that a NH vote should be more important than a Texan vote because people from NH are deemed more informed. A vote is a vote ... they should be equal.
New Hampshire has been arbitrarily deemed more important, and more informed, for decades. It is a self-powered cycle ... NH voters are more informed, so the candidates give them more speeches, so they’re more informed, so candidates spend more money there ... so they’re more informed.
And then people like you say they deserve more powerful votes because they’re more informed. I’d suggest they’re more informed precisely because they’ve been given more power. Distribute voting power equally, as it should be, and things will even out.
They’ve been artificially given excessive power in determining the nominees for President, and doing so has lessened the importance of votes outside of the “early” states. Such inequality in voting power cannot stand.
>> I also like the fact that these elections are state-wide things. They’re not influenced by the national media as much.
Voters outside of the “important” states are subjected exclusively to national reporting, and are influenced exclusively by national media. We’re not afforded the opportunities for face-to-face discussion ... as we’re in states deemed “unimportant” outside of fundraising trips.
>> There isn’t the hype to vote. The informed who have followed things will vote. Those who couldn’t care less will continue to do such.
If driving down voter turnout is your goal, then casting 97% of the population into irrelevancy might be the way to go.
The goal should be to inform and turnout voters nationwide - not elevating a few small states to ultra-important status, putting their voters on a pedestal as if their high-mindedness makes their decision-making superior to that of the rest of us ... and ultimately discouraging informed voters from other states from voting at all.
H
Conservatism follows fiscal, social, and other spectra. One definition of a conservative is someone who calls for a restoration of original or traditional views.
Ron Paul is about as fiscally conservative as you can get. He's personally a social conservative. He's also conservative by traditional standards, calling for a return to the old ways of the Constitution.
Where he differs from contemporary 'conservatives' is that he sees foreign policy from a more restrained perspective. He does not believe that our power to bring about change outside the United States is unlimited. This is prudent, and cautious, two other adjectives often used to describe conservatives.
>> he sees foreign policy from a more restrained perspective
“Restrained” is a nice little euphemism there. I’d say “liberal”. It does not bode well for Paul that similar “restraint” can be found in the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.
>> This is prudent, and cautious, two other adjectives often used to describe conservatives.
Prudence and caution in the defense of good, and in the fight against evil, is not a virtue.
H
In the abstract, you would be correct. In practice, our current foreign policy dabbles in evil far more than I can tolerate. We hold hands with Saudi royalty and permit their youth to come to America in droves, after the Royal Saudis have and continue to spend billions around the world constructing mosques. Mosques are being built by the hundreds here in America by Saudi money. We leave Pakistan alone, and bin Laden is probably comfortable in one of their underground networks. We force Israel to negotiate with terrorists, conceding hundreds of square miles of territory, to appease the Saudis and Arab Emirates. The list goes on and on. Our foreign policy is out of control.
It won't change with any of the "same as always in Iraq" candidates. They'll bring more of the same.
>> It won’t change with any of the “same as always in Iraq” candidates. They’ll bring more of the same.
We’re winning ... as even Democrats have had to admit. I fail to see what is wrong with “more of the same” in a war that we’re winning.
>> We hold hands with Saudi royalty and permit their youth to come to America in droves, after the Royal Saudis have and continue to spend billions around the world constructing mosques. Mosques are being built by the hundreds here in America by Saudi money. We leave Pakistan alone, and bin Laden is probably comfortable in one of their underground networks.
Enemy of our enemy. We cannot slay all dragons at once ... so we prioritize. Saudi and Pakistan’s numbers will come up eventually ... but, for now, they’re being helpful enough to put a higher priority on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
>> We force Israel to negotiate with terrorists, conceding hundreds of square miles of territory, to appease the Saudis and Arab Emirates.
Ron Paul himself wants to negotiate with terrorists. You’re supporting Paul because the US has “forced” Israel to do exactly what Ron Paul suggests that WE do? That doesn’t make sense.
>> The list goes on and on. Our foreign policy is out of control.
Its this kind of nonsense that siphons any credibility that Paul may have had. Given all the good being done by the American Military in the name of American foreign policy, and all the evil being combated on a daily basis ... it is simply ludicrous to suggest that American foreign policy has an evil influence on the world.
The American military, and the actions it is currently involved in throughout the globe, are a net good. We’re winning ... evil is on the run in Iraq and Afghanistan. More of the same is a good thing.
H
"Paul would secure the borders. Muslims would be banned from immigrating here.
83 posted on 09/30/2007 3:01:09 PM EDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist"
yeah. right. whatever.
By a narrow definition of the term, perhaps. There's an enemy body count. We take back and then some times lose regions we've controlled before. We have secured expensive agreements with this and that "friendly" Moslem country, for now. What's missing is a true objective, one that can be defined and measured. The war goals are vague, ill-defined.
[The Saudis are an] Enemy of our enemy. We cannot slay all dragons at once ... so we prioritize. Saudi and Pakistan’s numbers will come up eventually ... but, for now, they’re being helpful enough to put a higher priority on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Disagree. They are the enemy. They agreed to fund Islamism all over the world in exchange for a fatwa against zealots who had taken over the grand mosque. The CIA directed the assault, and french commandos stormed the facility. In exchange for cleric approval, the Saudis agreed to literal fund the ideological war to expand extremist Islam. Most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Saudis make up a large portion of the suicide attackers in Iraq. Saudis continue to fund terrorism outside the country with their wealth. They truly are an enemy above all others. Yet they receive our most advanced AWACS planes, our fighter jets, and regionally, it is Saudi Arabia for which we fight these wars, not Israel. If bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, the architect of our worst terrorist attacks, how can this nation be seen as a friend? Once again, they simply are not. It's a hollow cliche. But the within the globalist agenda, which is something other than crushing our real enemies and avenging our terrorist horror, requires what you see today.
Ron Paul himself wants to negotiate with terrorists. You’re supporting Paul because the US has “forced” Israel to do exactly what Ron Paul suggests that WE do? That doesn’t make sense.
Talking is one thing. He has never said that we would offer up Israel on the bargaining table. It is actually we, under 'conservative' globalist leadership that offers up Israeli concessions to their enemies. Israel is more than capable of defending itself, but we hold them back and push them back month after month after year after year. Ron Paul would let Israel win its own wars without meddling. With Ron Paul curtailing the fraud of State Department globalism, Israel would be much safer than it is today.
Given all the good being done by the American Military in the name of American foreign policy, and all the evil being combated on a daily basis ... it is simply ludicrous to suggest that American foreign policy has an evil influence on the world.
I did not say that the American military has not done good things, even in the Iraq war. But the undeclared wars we have fought since 1951 have been done under the aegis of the United Nations and other foreign agreements, in the interest of others, and with the control just outside the United States people's hands.
You hear "Ron Paul is weak." He's actually much stronger than the globalists we have conducting our foreign policy today. He simply understands that Americans can't achieve utopia overseas by military force. I wish any one of the top five candidates understood that.
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
I do not believe Ron Paul has ever said anything about limiting legal immigration from current levels. I differ with him on that issue, but I understand why he takes the stances that he does: most of the problems we have are due to federal welfare for immigrants (educational, medical, unemployment insurance, etc...).
Who is Barry Manilow? Ellen is already up clintons ass, literally.
I'm sorry Virginia, but kooky conspiracy theorists are supposed to be for Ron Paul. Didn't you get the memo?
As for your tagline - GWB has proved our own worst enemy when it comes to growing the federal bureaucracy (education and prescription drugs), unable to balance the budget, throwing open the borders to illegals (amnesty), selling out our national security (Dubai Ports), and undermining American sovereignty (NAU and Law of the Sea Treaty).
We need to clean our own house. And enemy number one is not Ron Paul - it's GW Bush.
But I realize logic is worthless with you. You seem quite willing to come up with arguments which have absolutely no basis in fact. Go ahead - continue to try to associate Ron Paul with boogeyman George Soros, even though they are polar opposites politically. That seems to make you happy. It makes no difference - you're just preaching to the choir here anyway. Most here hate Paul and will continue to do so. Those of us who like him will not be swayed by your specious arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.