That's probably true, but the GOP has seemingly redefined itself as the party of imperialistic, preemptive military action and obscene overspending. I guess my main gripe was that the US needs a real candidate that can run and win as an independent or member of a third party. The two parties as they exist today are so similar that it's often hard to tell them apart...

6/13/2007 10:49:03 AM

Quote :

"the GOP has seemingly redefined itself as the party of imperialistic, preemptive military action and obscene overspending."

Both parties have, really, although the GOP has become far more fascist leaning in the last few years than I expected.

Quote :

"the US needs a real candidate that can run and win as an independent or member of a third party."

The problem is that the people who profit from "imperialistic, preemptive military action and obscene overspending" have the funds to screw that guy over.

6/13/2007 11:57:48 AM

^which is why we so desperately need campaign reform in our country at all levels.

6/13/2007 11:59:10 AM

I'm not sure if it would make a difference. I'm not saying there is a cabal of men in a room with a big map of the world, low-level fluorescent lights and cigars, but an increasing amount of information is being controlled by fewer and fewer people, campaign finance would do little to change that.

6/13/2007 12:19:28 PM

Congrats to Ron Paul ... He tripled his support in New Hampshire, from 1% to 3% in the most recent poll.

Romney leads at 28% as G and Mc are tied at 20%.

6/13/2007 12:25:11 PM

Polls don't mean much in NH, look at Pat Buchanan coming out of nowhere a few years back.

I will never vote for Romney. I trust him less than Hillary.

6/13/2007 12:43:41 PM

Quote :

"but an increasing amount of information is being controlled by fewer and fewer people, campaign finance would do little to change that. "

not if outside contributions were not allowed at all, or at least highly regulated.

money=clout, and if the people with the money can't use it, it reduces their influence.

As I see it now, the candidates are trying to get elected for a select few special interest groups (who gave them money or because they stand to gain so much from the partnership), and doing it through manipulation of the public......

I also think that any company that an elected official is a major part of should be unable to get that level of gov. contracts.

6/13/2007 1:24:24 PM

Well I was referring to what we could call the Paris Hilton effect. Someone, somewhere, decided that she was news-worthy. She really hasn't done anything worth the attention she gets (yes, I know, she makes $texas through her companies, but a lot of anoymous people do too) but she gets it anyway. Same goes for the presidential candidates, I don't think anyone would claim that CNN gave all the candidates equal time during their debates, and in that sense they control it regardless of who contributes.

6/13/2007 2:21:05 PM

troo, but there was also a lot of public scrutiny toward cnn because of that.....it's what goes on behind closed doors that the public will never hear about that worries me.

is there a resource were you can see campaign contributions for each candidate broken down into contributors and amounts?

6/13/2007 2:25:50 PM

http://www.fec.gov/

6/13/2007 3:21:25 PM

^^^^

Barrack Obama

Contributions
Individual $25,665,688
PAC $0
Party $0
Candidate $0
Transfers-In $0

from the fec.gov website

thats all from individuals, no PAC or any bullshit.

6/13/2007 3:34:00 PM

it's interesting to see that edwards has raised $1.4 million in NC compared to less than $600K for all the other candidates combined.

6/13/2007 3:37:16 PM

Quote :

"thats all from individuals, no PAC or any bullshit"

How hard is it for a big donator to "mask" their contributions?

I mean, it wouldn't be good for a candidate to publicly have huge donations from special interest groups.

I don't believe for a second that 100% of obama's 25+ mil came from truly private sources.

6/13/2007 3:44:30 PM

i made this because i was bored. interestingly the top two people with the least money from the top bracket of donations and the most money from the lowest bracket of donations are obama (expected) and mccain (unexpected):



and the slew of "lower tier" candidates:




[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : lower tier]

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 4:15:46 PM

that's interesting.....it's pretty uniform all in all.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 4:19:08 PM

Quote :

"lol at those who want to morph the constitution and tout it as a "living and breathing document" so they can circumvent the laws of the land..."

well the real genius of the constitution is that it can be changed. the people who authored it left room to be corrected, should they need to be.

6/13/2007 4:33:37 PM

changed through set procedures in the government, not on the whim of the current president because "he belives it's within his powers" when it never was before.

6/13/2007 4:40:54 PM

on Colbert Report tonight

6/13/2007 10:15:18 PM

haha, he has a good sense of humor

6/14/2007 9:38:13 AM

Quote :

"lol at those who want to morph the constitution and tout it as a "living and breathing document" so they can circumvent the laws of the land..."

Have your read the Federalist Papers and Jefferson's writings? Our framers disagreed vehemently about the meaning both major and minor elements of the Constitution. If there was a vibrant debate about the meaning of the Constitution then, what makes you think there is one universal interpretation of the framers' intent today?

6/14/2007 9:52:22 AM

^there's not, but bush is in essence rewriting it himself.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 10:05 AM. Reason : and it's supposed to be the courts job.]

6/14/2007 10:03:53 AM

Ron Paul on Colbert Report, 6/13/07:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs

(no rickroll)

6/14/2007 5:49:56 PM

Quote :

"I will never vote for Romney. I trust him less than Hillary."

Romney is the Republicans' version of John Kerry.

6/14/2007 11:23:48 PM

anyone else get this email?

Quote :

"June 19, 2007 Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate. Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited. We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited. The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended. Lew then called Mr. Steve Sheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Sheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond. Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day? We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Sheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below. It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines. Kent Snyder, Chairman Ron Paul 2008 Contact Information Edward Failor Iowans for Tax Relief 2610 Park Avenue Muscatine, Iowa 52761 Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600 Fax: 563-264-2413 E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org Steve Sheffler, President Iowa Christian Alliance 939 Office Park Road, Suite 115 West Des Moines, Iowa 50265 Phone: 515-225-1515 Fax: 515-225-1826 E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com"

i already posted it in its own thread but i'm already catching flames for it so here

6/19/2007 5:20:28 PM

Quote :

"Rights of Taxpayers Is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate by Ron Paul June 27, 2007 The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all. On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded anyway, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses. In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers. Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards. Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents – often heavily-armed federal agents – to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks. If Congress attempts to override the President’s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of “either subsidize it, or else ban it,” it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point. Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles."

6/28/2007 12:16:25 AM

Quote :

"The Honor of Ron Paul -Joseph Sobran I guess I’ve known Ron Paul for a quarter of a century now, and I don’t remember how we met. My first memory of him is a quiet dinner on Capitol Hill, during the Reagan years. He told me with dry humor of being the only member of Congress to vote against some bill Reagan wanted passed. For Ron it was a matter of principle, and he was under heavy pressure to change his vote. What amused him was that the Democrats didn’t mind his voting against it; all the pressure came from his fellow Republicans, professed conservatives, who were embarrassed that anyone should actually stand up for their avowed principles when it was unpopular to do so. That was Ron Paul for you. Still is. The whole country is getting to know him now, and the Republicans still want to get rid of him. The party’s hacks, led by Newt Gingrich, have even tried in vain to destroy him in his own Texas district. They’re right, in a way. He doesn’t belong in a party that has made conservative a synonym for destructive. George Will calls him a “useful anachronism” because he actually believes, as literally as circumstances permit, in the U.S. Constitution. In his unassuming way, without priggery or histrionics, he stands alone. He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox. If they can’t expel Ron Paul from the party, they can at least deny him the nomination. The GOP front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, who says he hates abortion more than any other constitutional right (or words to that effect), went into raptures of phony indignation during the first “debate” when Paul said simply that the 9/11 attacks were a natural result of U.S. foreign policy. The pundits applauded the demagogue, but millions of viewers were thrilled to find one honest man on that crowded stage. (By the way, Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and never killed one.) Ron — I’m very proud to call him my friend — fares well not only in comparison with the party’s sorry current candidates, but also with its legendary conservative giants, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He lacks their charisma and of course Reagan’s matchless charm, but he excels them both in consistency, depth, historical awareness, courage, and honor. Heaven grant him some of Reagan’s luck! Which brings us to the big question: does Ron Paul have a prayer? Well, he may have a prayer, but that’s about it. He doesn’t have a billion dollars; delivering babies, often free of charge, is not the way to amass a staggering fortune. He has nothing to offer the special and foreign interests who pour millions into Rudy’s and Hillary’s coffers. Sorry, this isn’t a Frank Capra movie. But virtue — honor — is rare enough to be an asset, especially when the two big parties don’t have much of it. If both offer pro-war, pro-abortion New York liberals next year, there could be an urgent demand for a third option, especially since Giuliani could smash what’s left of the Bush-riddled GOP coalition while Hillary remains, well, Hillary. What if Ron Paul runs for president on, say, the Constitution Party ticket? Who knows? I can only attest that to know him is to love him, and knowing him for many years has only deepened the esteem I felt for him when we were both much younger men. This is a man who strikes deep chords in people’s hearts. Every attempt to portray him as an extremist, or even eccentric, founders on his palpable probity and wisdom. His words are the carefully measured words of one given to meditation. Ron Paul is a man you listen closely to. The odds are heavily against his being elected president next year. But if he is on the ballot in November, the odds are far heavier against his candidacy’s being forgotten. He will say things worth pondering long after the votes are cast. Until now, the GOP has been able to contain Paul by pretending he wasn’t there. But the silent treatment can no longer stifle this soft-spoken man. He has been proved right too often. "

7/6/2007 10:17:14 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m.html

Ron Paul raised $2.4 mil in Q2a, with $2.4 mil cash still on hand. More than McCain.



[Edited on July 6, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : q]

7/6/2007 3:23:45 PM

Graffiti in the Reynolds Deck stairwell.

7/6/2007 9:03:05 PM

Come on.

More people should find the story about cash on hand funny.

McCain's dropping like a stone...

7/6/2007 9:20:33 PM

Only the TV news idiots would actually think McCain had a chance, his poll numbers were only high because there was not much else out there widely known. While I know Ron Paul has no chance this news makes me happy. I wish Thompson would get out there and start making his platform known if he is in fact going to run... it reminds me of the horrible campaign waged by Dole against Clinton back in the day, it started really late and always seemed really half-hearted to me. After all the garbage Clinton did any half-way serious candidate should have been able to take him down. That campaign much like the ones I see now was just lackluster enough to usher Clinton into the Whitehouse with less than 50% of the vote, I hate to say it but unless things change radically in the primary season and the republicans start standing on core principles without apology to the inane media we will likely again see another Clinton in the Whitehouse, well really HRC's 3rd term truth be told.

7/6/2007 11:22:09 PM

last month the big festival in seattle was The Solstice Parade and Fair.

Ron Paul workers were out in force at the entrance points with their annoying LaRouche-type sign/literature presence. one dude was sitting on a trashcan smoking a cigarette near the bus stop, half-assedly trying to pass out little flier.

i had already refused their offers of literature. i was waiting for the bus. (traffic was was too insane to drive around there).

dude asked me what time it was, i told him. he said it was "time to cash out" and jumped down. he accidentally broke another sign that was hanging there, related to the Festival. he looked at the broken sign tried to prop it up shrugged and said something like "ah, i'll just say it was like that when i got here (laugh)"

i said "is that how Ron Paul expects his supporters to act, breaking shit then pretending they didnt do it? ... damn, love those Republicans"

he got all defensive and said "hey man, I dont even know Ron Paul. I'm only just doing this for the money."

I rolled my eyes, and said "Oh, wow, now that just impresses me even more" and started walking to the bus that was arriving at the stop.

he kept after me saying "Hey, man, at least I'm working. you know, like i'm trying to better myself, and not just sitting around all day."

the dude was about 23 or 25. looked like any college dropout. but you know, probably didnt ever go to more than a class or two at community college, what with getting in the way of bong hits.

i had to get on the bus, so i held out my hand and said "shut the fuck up"

and some gal then shouted, "oh my god, dude, you have a kid" ... because i was carrying my 2-year old.

i sat on the bus and realized, "I'm an asshole" and I need to chill the fuck out.

7/9/2007 5:39:13 AM

im not voting for a guy with two first names

7/9/2007 8:16:38 AM

ATTN: RON PAUL-ITES

Plz to stop digging Ron Paul articles. No one cares.

http://www.iaocblog.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/3/3068799.html

7/9/2007 9:54:15 AM

A guy got 17 diggs on an article (more than he had ever gotten in the past, until he wrote this one slamming Paul) that referenced Ron Paul so he claims that Ron Paul's 'guerrilla' tactics are unethical?

7/9/2007 10:09:49 AM

Congratulations, you read the first couple paragraphs.

[Edited on July 9, 2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

7/9/2007 10:12:16 AM

He doesn't really prove anything other than the fact that Ron Paul has devoted support on the internet. He doesn't really even prove that it's a well-formed effort. He just states 'theres a group of people here and they have accounts on digg and they digg ron paul stories.' Guess what, that's how digg works, you post something you think is interesting on say, a forum, people on this forum (which are usually like-minded people) go to the site and 'digg' it. Tell me how this is unethical in any way? It's not like they're hacking the site, 17 'diggs' is hardly a 'digg bomb.'

7/9/2007 10:16:43 AM

Quote :

"sat on the bus and realized, "I'm an asshole" and I need to chill the fuck out."

Hah..yea you gotta start being careful what you say. Swear words must be the easiest thing for kids to pick up. And they will repeat them at the most embarassing times.

7/9/2007 10:45:09 AM

Quote :

"i sat on the bus and realized, "I'm an asshole" and I need to chill the fuck out."

I agree completely.

7/9/2007 12:07:47 PM

Sent to me by a friend on the Edwards campaign:

Quote :

"Although it's been pointed out that Ron Paul now has more net CoH than does John McCain (factoring in McCain's debt), Paul also has more CoH than 7 other WH'08ers combined (Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Gravel.)"

Sheesh.

7/17/2007 9:57:16 PM

Quote :

"don't believe for a second that 100% of obama's 25+ mil came from truly private sources."

Barack Obama
Total Receipts $58,912,520
Individuals $58,605,160
PACs $4,975
Net Contributions* $58,495,873

Ron Paul
Total Receipts $3,009,997
Individuals $3,002,818
PACs $4,074
Net Contributions* $2,997,867

Hillary Clinton ~ Certainly my personal favorite....
Total Receipts $63,075,927
Individuals $52,538,649
PACs $532,946
Transfers $10,000,000
Net Contributions* $52,532,868

[Edited on July 17, 2007 at 10:30 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2007 10:28:06 PM

cmon paul, rake in some more donations!

7/17/2007 11:29:24 PM

^^ i dont see whats the issue with those numbers.

$500K from PACs seems like small potatoes. yeah, the other two are definitely less, but look at percentages:

percent of total money from PACs

Obama <0.01%
Paul 0.13%
Clinton 0.83%


i know its way too early to judge. the money hasnt even begun to flow. but at this point, you cant really make any judgments, every single one of them are less than one percent

7/18/2007 3:06:53 AM

but how hard is it to mask PAC contributions as private?

7/18/2007 8:39:56 AM

^ If the money is coming from a PAC it is reported to the FEC as PAC money. There is no way around that. Individuals that are employed by the PAC can contribute to a campaign. That's technically the only way that they can be masked. But if you're talking about the PAC giving money to campaigns through individuals (i.e. the employee gets a raise with the understanding that the raise will go towards the campaign) that's highly illegal. It's somewhat harder to catch, but if the campaign knows about it, it's required by law to return the money.

Interestingly enough, this breakdown doesn't show lobbyist contributions, which may paint a different picture.

7/18/2007 8:49:43 AM

Man I want to go to the Solstice Parade again. I'm surprised anyone there would be in support of Ron Paul or anyone with an (R) beside their name. I guess maybe Paul is "counter-culture" enough to garner some support in Seattle. I remember in '04 I saw more Howard Dean signs within a couple blocks of my house than anything...seemed like everyone had one in their window.

Honestly I'm surprised Paul has managed to pull in $3mil, considering how little press he gets. Gotta hand it to him for that.

7/18/2007 10:32:32 AM

Quote :

"I'm surprised Paul has managed to pull in $3mil, considering how little press he gets."

His message of individual liberty and limited gov't strikes a basic chord in the average American's gut. The response he is getting tells us that the country hasn't yet been swallowed up completely by socialists.

7/18/2007 10:53:08 AM

I've been seeing a few Ron Paul bumper stickers lately.

on a side note, should I change my party affiliation from I to R, to assure myself of being able to vote in the R primaries? I know registered I's can vote in one primary, but isn't it also true that the major parties can block I's from voting in their primaries if they want?

7/18/2007 11:17:40 AM

They haven't been on a red & gray 95 F150 have they?

7/18/2007 1:32:37 PM

so, say ron paul won the election and became president. would he then proceed to veto 90% of all the bills that come to his desk?

7/18/2007 1:42:33 PM

Prolly. I'll be honest, I don't support Ron Paul with the slightest expectation of him being elected to the presidency. I support him because his presence provides an increasingly vocal counterpoint to the rest of the tired old political hacks that dominate the stage today.

7/18/2007 1:55:07 PM