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!
No, thank you George W. Bush. You do believe the President, don't you?
Thank the Lord, and I'm not blaspheming - I literally thank the Lord - that there are some grown-ups in America who have their eyes open and are willing to make serious decisions to defend my family as well as overgrown children like yourself.
As one of the men who wore the uniform, and spent time away from my family to protect your stupid @$$, and now having my son do the same thing, and not presuming to speak for God or my boy, You're Welcome.
Frankly, i'm not going to loose sleep over the evil "mooslims", when i stand a better chance of being killed by an ODC (Ordinary Decent Criminal) or dying in an automobile accident.
Get a clue will ya?
You KNOW these folks will NEVER get a clue... nor even have sense enough to buy a vowel... It may finally be over and our once-proud republic history. I pray not, but given what we see just on this forum, I don’t have much hope. The illusion of security trumps liberty. This wideawake (more like eyeswideshut) individual only wants someone to protect him/her/it. Not liberty. Not limited government. Just the illusion of security... and for that he/she/it is more than willing to give up MY liberty, MY freedom, that which I served well over 20 years to protect... but he/she/it is willing to trade away MINE as well as its. Shameful and downright useless as well.
Along with many Freepers, I disregarded Ron Paul, until I discovered a well-educated, very conservative friend of mine was supporting him. “What? That nutty pacifist?” I thought. So I went and read many of his actual speeches and writings. He’s not anti-war, he’s really anti-US-as-a-pawn-of-UN-induced-wars. I don’t think he has a problem defending America, but there’s merit to his idea that the US is really the scapegoat for enforcing UN resolutions.
He believes we are entitled to defend our interests, with a declaration of war, and unilaterally, with or without a coalition. Really, in a sense, he is more militant that the neocons, but more selective about when and where we get involved. Looking at this Kosovo mess proves him right in that regard, we got involved in a European country’s civil war, and never got out, and more American lives will be lost, for what?
I still don’t agree with his every thought, but Paul is very bright, incisive thinker. Except for the Iraq issue, I believe on most other topics (pro-life, 2nd amendment, low taxes, states rights, immigration, etc) he’s the true conservative most Freepers are.
When the folks in the military see their friends being tried for torture, murder and other trumped up charges, sentenced to prison for 10 years for following orders (see my tagline), accused of war crimes, threatened with potential ICC and UN rules, I can see why they begin to want a Commander in Chief who is very clear on how and when and why they can be sent to some hell-hole to face possible death, and who will be extremely careful not to send them there unless we formally declare war and are fighting our OWN (not UN, NATO, EU, etc) war for our own interests or protection.
Bravo. You make your case very well. Thank you! Though now you are branded as a Paultard or Paulbot or just plain kook! Welcome aboard!
No, I go back to the famous LBJ bomb commercial. My statement still stands. While the people you mentioned did have some problems with the MSM, it was not at the level of what they have done to Ron Paul.
Actually Gary Hart was the darling of a lot of the press until the incident with the boat.
Also all of the people you mentioned had defenders in at least a portion of the media. Nor do I remember any newscasters actually lying to discredit any of you candidates mentioned above.
Thanks! That’s OK, I’m used to being considered a little kooky, but just a little bit mind you!
Let's see, before the election of 1992 the Lame Stream Media was telling the American people that the economy was in the toilet. Almost immediately after Clintoon took office the economy miraculously recovered. Yeah, I guess you're right. The Lame Stream Media has never lied about a candidate for President before R-U-N Paul. Let's see, before the 2000 election the Lame Stream Media reported that George W. Bush had not actually served in the National Guard; they also tried to make accusations of drug abuse stick to him as well. I guess, yet again, you're right. The Lame Stream Media had never lied about a GOP candidate until R-U-N Paul. I could go on, but for the sake of brevity, I'll let these two incidents stand on their own merits.
Is there any chance that people who are in the military contributed to the campaigns of other candidates, but did not identify themselves as being in the Military? Is there any chance that the other campaigns did not go to the same lengths as the R-U-N Paul campaign to identify those members of the military that contributed? If so, then the fact that under 400 members of the military contributing to R-U-N Paul's campaign means exactly nothing.
The economy was in a downturn or a recession in 1991. While it was starting to come out of it in 1992, it was not apparent to the general public, nor to many reporters. But, once again it was not a universal opinion of the media, there were supporters of Bush promoting his point of view.
The MSM did not say that G.W.Bush did not serve in the National Guard, only that there was a question of whether or not he got special treatment towards the end of his enlistment. There was also speculation that he got preferential treatment to get into the guard.
As far as the drug situation, no one said that he did drugs, but they reported on the speculation and the reports that he did.
Most of the MSM is unfavorable to Republican candidates, but there is usually a segment favorable to the Republicans.
Ron Paul won more straw polls, online votes and got the largest amount of people to most of his appearances, but that was almost completely ignored or scoffed at by the MSM, on both sides.
As a former supporter of Pat B. in 92 and 96, he got a lot of bad publicity, but it was 10 times worse for Ron Paul.
When contributing to a campaign, you have to give your employer, as required by campaign finance laws
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.