Paul leads in donations from military voters, with Obama next

[CGowen]

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the congressman from the Houston area who opposes the Iraq war, has gotten more contributions than any other White House contender from donors identified as affiliated with the military.

According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.

Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.

He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush's decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.

The military contributions — nearly 1,000 of them are listed in Federal Election Commission records for this year — represent a small fraction of the overall contributions to the candidates.

...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html

[saltpoint]

1. Ya know, I really don't begrudge someone their successes, but Ron Paul

is such a right-wing kook.

[CGowen]

2. Is there a list with all candidates somewhere? n/t

[saltpoint]

3. The DU front page has all the Democratic candidates.

Biden / Clinton / Dodd / Edwards / Gravel / Kucinich / Obama / Richardson.

The Pukes are running Giuiliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, Cox, Thompson. I may be leaving someone out. Brownback is reportedly set to withdraw from the race tomorrow.

[CGowen]

4. A list with all contributions from the military, I'm interested in numbers from Kucinich, Gravel n/t

[saltpoint]

5. Good point. I wonder to what extent Kucinich and Gravel have

tried to escalate communication with military families?

[IndianaGreen]

6. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and he believes in the Constitution

which is more than what I can say about Nancy Pelosi.

[saltpoint]

7. He's a far-right Republican by registration and has supported the president

on a multitude of far-right domestic initiatives.

His far-right voting record is capsulized here:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

A relatively favorable article about him is here, in which he is identified as a registered Republican. He actually votes more conservatively on some issues than even some Republicans.

He's a kook.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/15/Worldandnation/GOP_hopeful_floats_on.shtml

I slam the man because I'm not interested in a right wing social political agenda.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Ron Paul is a far-right libertarian crank

and any comparison of him to the liberal Nancy Pelosi is stupid.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Pelosi doesn't support the Constitution. Ron Paul does

as does Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden.

[saltpoint]

12. We disagree.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Bullshit. He believes in the parts he wants to believe, NOT Article One

Google "Ron Paul Religion" and prepare to get sick.

Once again, another libertarian shows his true stripes of wanting it both ways: complete freedom from having to do a damn thing for other human beings, freedom from taxation, but government imposition of things he happens to like. For someone who claims to be laissez-faire when it comes to government, he's a downright domineering authoritarian prick when it comes to religion.

If he and the other "miniscule-government" crackpots had their way, we'd truly be the "Fuckyouistan" the reactionaries have been hell-bent on making us since 1980.

Let's see how this strutting virtutarian stacks up on the Constitution, by examining the abstract of the document, the preamble. This is the mission statement of our government:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

He's hot and heavy on the securing liberty for the most part, and interprets the "common defense" in a very narrow sense. The "justice" part is very subjective, and he completely dismisses anything that isn't pretty much property rights, so he scores very low there. As for forming a "more perfect Union", he's pretty much against that; what matters is what individuals are allowed to do. Then there's that pesky little admonition to "promote the general Welfare"; he HATES that, dismisses it outright and rails against anyone who'd say such a thing. That "insure domestic tranquility" part is also another very subjective part, and the idea of having people be compelled to knuckle under for the common good on certain things sends him into a frothing rage.

So let's summarize: the grand experiment has basically six objectives. How does he do?

Perfect Union: D+
Establish Justice: D+
Domestic Tranquility: D-
common defense: B-
general welfare: F
secure liberty: C (A+ with a gold "fuck you" star for most aspects except religion; F for religion)

So, taking the traditional 4.0 scale(B- is 2.7, B+ is 3.3) he gets the following:

(1.3 + 1.3 + 0.7 + 2.7 + 0 + 2) divided by 6, which equals 1.33.

If this seems about right to you as it does to me, HE GETS AN OVERALL D-PLUS ON THE CONSTITUTION.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. But is against the war and a Republican .For GOP soldiers, he is all they got

if they want out of the hell hole in Iraq but would rather die than vote Democratic.

[saltpoint]

9. Well, McCamy, i think those Republican soldiers ought to get their

heads out of their hindends and switch their votes to blue.

Their red party Republicans keep sending them off to die.

I think a change of political directions is indicated.