Posted on 02/21/2008 6:18:29 PM PST by markomalley
On a couple of other boards, I have heard the allegation that "Ron Paul is the Military's Candidate." I always figured it to be your typical overblown hyperbole...
So I decided to research the numbers, in order to blow away the conspiracy theory. There's no way that he could be the leading candidate for military contributors...right?
Well, I went to the FEC Contributions Database that is maintained by opensecrets.org...the numbers I came up with were both surprising and very, very disturbing.
First of all, the methodology:
What I found was that the Paul folks were right! Both the number of individual contributions (372) and the amount contributed ($167K), far outstripped the other candidates checked. In comparison, McCain only had 110 contributions for $50K.
The disturbing part of this was that the runner up to Ron Paul wasn't McCain, it was Obama (172 contributions for $77K)! That was a shock!
There may have been the assumption that Thompson had name recognition, but I believe it was only an assumption. That, plus his ineffectiveness as a campaigner sunk him. The 2 most conservatives guys that ran--Hunter (My #1) and Tancredo--polled less than 1% combined. That should show you how far left America has gone even within the Republican Party.
I don't see this as America having moved that far to the "left" as much as I see two candidates with zero name recognition on a national level, and zero zest in their campaigns.
You're new to politics, aren't you? Never seen a political candidate treated in such a derisive manner? Let's see, Bob Dole; Ronald Reagan (his first run for POTUS); Dan Quail; Gary Hart (to have one on the other side of the spectrum); George Herbert Walker Bush; if I did some research I could come up with more candidates who were escoriated by the Lame Stream Media. R-U-N Paul is not as unique as you make him out to be. Then there's the factor that his ideas identify him as a kook. He and Dennis Cookoocinich are two from the same mold.
More MSM hogwash.
The first casualty of battle is the plan. The plan always needs to be revised in light of the developing situation on the ground.
There was indeed a plan to win Vietnam, but that plan was hamstrung by handwringing fools at home. After Tet Vietnam was in our hands, but it was stolen by politicians and journalists.
The situation on the ground in Iraq changed far more rapidly and more often than in Vietnam, but our troops and commanders faced it with tenacity and resourcefulness. Armchair generals in Congress and on editorial boards cried and whined and carped, but it is being seen throuigh without them.
What is our MILITARY GOAL?
Pretty much the same as our military goal in Nazi Germany: defeat the elements of the criminal regime as thoroughly as possible and retrain and requip the legitimate government's forces so that they are able to sustain a legitimate government.
How long will we have to be there?
The allies completed the occupation of Germany by June 1945.
Germany's full sovereignty was restored in May 1955.
I can't give you a date and a time, but historically, we are well ahead of schedule.
It's technically illegal, but it's like jaywalking: the punishment is minimal and you will only get caught if the authorities are paying very close attention to you.
It's effectively an honor system, which makes it a field day for the dishonorable.
Whats kind of comical is how a large contingent of Paul supporters tell us how GWB,allegedly the stupidest President in the history of the USA was able to ‘pull off’ 911 yet its seems so improbable to the same folks that Saddam couldnt have packed up his most incriminating WMD possessions and trucked them out of the country.....Syria for instance as some evidence and witnesses indicate.
BTW-Im sure the ‘military’ listed as donors while perhaps actual veterans or employees of the armed services could certainly include aged vets from other conflicts as well as non soldiers types.Simply working for the AF doesnt equate to being a ‘veteran’ Im fairly sure.
I can personally attest to the fact that we had NO PLAN to win in Vietnam. We were NOT allowed to go outside the bounds of South Vietnam, for any reason; we were not allowed even to fire back at artillery sited north of the DMZ. Our aircraft had their targets PERSONALLY selected by LBJ and no other targets were permitted. We could NOT go into Laos or Cambodia to target NVA supply routes and reinforcements. In a word, we were FORCED to lose, and not only because of the anti-war crowd, like Uncle Walter Cronkite.
We have the SAME situation brewing in Iraq, with rules of engagement that make criminals of those who are accused, by the “enemy,” of violating them. Look at the Haditha Marines.
We HAVE NO military goal. We “won” after deposing Saddam, which was our announced goal. Then we caught him and we should have taken the opportunity to bring him to Guantanamo Bay and hanged him ourselves. AFTER we got our folks out of that pest hole.
And maybe you aren’t paying much mind to McLame (not that I blame you much if you aren’t), but HE’S of the mind that 100 years isn’t too long to be there.
So:
Unwinnable.
No plan whatsoever.
Not even a HINT as to what constitutes victory and when we can pull out our troops.
No limits on lives lost or money spent.
All in all, Dr. Paul does have the right of it. We need to get out NOW, close our own borders to keep out terrorists as well as all the OTHER illegals, and tell the Iraqis, the Iranians and anyone else who needs to know, that if we have ONE SINGLE INCIDENT, their cities will glow in the dark for the next thousand years and their deserts will be sheets of glass. Then we need to cut off ALL “foreign aid” to the whole area (the whole world, as well) and tell Israel that we will no longer compel them to act against their own best interests when it comes to dealing with those who wish them dead. THAT is the CONSERVATIVE way of doing things, the PROPER way.
Oh, but I bet you are one of those who divides the world into two classes, the Progressives, who continually make mistakes and the Conservatives whose job it is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (And I cannot remember to whom I should attribute this.)
Man, thats not even 1 battalion.
Using Obama Math, that's a rifle company, headed up by a LTC.
I figure he’d make the terrorist happy with his isolationist politics, but I think national security under a Ron Paul would leave the USA in great peril and disarray.
Oh, and I notice you did not bother to answer the other questions. Which is hardly unexpected. Not one of your ilk can answer them, for some reason. It’s just endless war and endless increases in government power, government spending and lives lost to no good purpose. It’s what Bush himself condemned when Clowntoon was doing it: Nation building on a grand scale.
GK Chesterton, an awesome author.
Here's another one of his:
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
Burkett’s book does NOT hint that there is an entire subculture of (primarily) Vietnam veteran wannabees. What he DOES point out is that there are a number of people, a goodly portion of whom are/were “conservative republicans,” who found it advantageous to assume the mantle of war veterans for one or another reason... These fakes got phony medals and awards and pumped themselves up real good. They “were” SEALS, Marine Force Recon, Green Beanies, all elite troops. Their stories fall apart quickly when they run across someone who really WAS there. But they, mostly, are NOT of the LEFT. Only a notable few were, including J. F’n Kerry and that jackass who came back from Afghanistan or Iraq (allegedly) and told of his participation in atrocities... when in fact he never got out of boot camp. But those are the strong exception and you are (charitably) factually challenged when you say otherwise.
So now it’s kooky to want to hold fedgov in the constraints of the Constitution? Who’d a thunk it??? It’s Conservative to want to intervene externally, Liberal to want to intervene internally, and it’s moderate to want to do both... but it’s kooky now to want to do neither? You have some strange notions of what’s right, dude.
(Attribute my paraphrase to Joseph Sobran, I believe)
Simply because R-U-N Paul is a kook due to his beliefs regarding the WOT and the WOD, doesn’t mean that I believe he’s a kook for the reasons you posted.
I refer you to post 207 of this thread. And WRT the WOsD, can you point out one single place where the Constitution gives FedGov (or, indeed, any level of government) the specific authority to regulate or ban possession or ingestion of ANYTHING WHATSOEVER? I suggest you read the Tenth Amendment first and do not try to suggest that the ICC grants such authority, as it does NOT. In fact the Founders were quite specific as to what they meant by the power to regulate commerce between the states... and that was ONLY to prevent the states from impeding commerce from an outside state into theirs. Or quarrels between states. And that was all. Until the FDR era. Oh, and the act passed in about 1913 or so outlawing possession and use of smokable opium by the Chinese... you know, real noble stuff and all.
Oh... and my family’s history in America goes back to the Mayflower. And I have spent most of my adult life in uniform. Your “creds” are not all THAT impressive.
If you are counting some subset of the armed forces such as the number of mohammedans in the military, 372 might be a number of some significance.
You're right. And I do realize this. But it's interesting that 372 members/employees were highly motivated enough to contribute to RuPaul, while dramatically fewer were motivated enough to contribute to any other Republican candidate.
I find that fact interesting and, frankly, surprising (as I stated in the original vanity).
Actually, I prefer to go with just like George Bush campaigned as in 2000 and conservatives and Republicans were for over 100 years but to each his own. Code Pinkos only think this way about Iraq because it’s a Republican in office. Before this, Republicans were almost universally against nation building, and that was one of the biggest criticisms of Clinton.
So the fact that our only candidates is McCain, Hillary, and Obama (and Obama is the likely overall winner) doesn’t indicate to you that the populace hasn’t moved left? 25 years ago Republicans wanted to repeal wasteful departments like the dept of education. Now we are increasing it more than Democrats did. You are simply being blind if you don’t think we’re moving left.
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.