GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
If you had to guess, which candidate has:
1. Received the most active duty military and veteran donations by landslide proportions?
2. Has 18,000 more YouTube Channel subscribers than Mitt Romney, and 12,000 more than Barack Obama?
3. Has 20,000 more Meetup.com members than Mitt Romney and 15,000 more than Barack Obama.
To maintain the fun of it all, make your guess in the comments section. Then click here to see the correct answer.
BTW… The source for the military donations question is here.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:26 am
But he can’t win!!!
July 17th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Hey… I made no contention re: his viability. These are just some very interesting facts.
What is also interesting is what this all means for the Republican Party.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Edit?
**You are correct Johiow!**-KWN
July 17th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Gotta be Rudy
July 17th, 2007 at 9:39 am
God save the Republic if that man ever gets close to the White House
July 17th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I can’t explain it, but I was taking a 30-minute drive last week and I saw a giant *edit* for president yard banner and three *edit* bumper stickers. I don’t understand it, but this man has extreme grassroots support.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Ouch sorry for revealing the answer. Feel free to edit out the name Kavon.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Thank You for noticing *Edit* at last.
Just came today. 23% registered Republican Don’t Know who will they vote.
Is it, because all “1st Tier’ers” not represent American Republican Traditional Values? I think so.
23% is more than possible votes for any candidates. I know who will they vote for *edit*. And He Will Win by the landslide.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:52 am
MirekChicago,
I edited out the name in your post just to keep the suspense up. When people see the link, they will know of whom you are speaking.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I think if ___ ____ were a democrat, he would win in a landslide. But as a republican he is too off the wall-ish.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Just think…25% of Republicans are against the war. 25% could, potentially, be a winning percentage, especially with 9 or 10 pro-war Republicans to divide the vote.
He’s just a Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater Republican. Don’t see many of those any more.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:28 am
By the way…I also think ___ ____ is the only candidate for either party who would actually actively try to reduce the size and scope of the state. Everyone else is just arguing about the rate at which the state should expand.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I call vocal minority on this. Anybody remember Snakes on a Plane and how it was revolutionizing fan/movie interaction. They were expecting at least 100 million dollars, but barely broke even at 34 million.
Winning the Web 2.0 primary will at best get you some free advertising, but isn’t indicative of national performance.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Personally, I think ___ ____ has already won. He’s been the biggest dissemenator of libertarian ideas since Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am
The guy has scarrry huge support for being the bottom of the GOP field. Wait a minute…How about Bloomberg/**** ‘08?
http://political-buzz.com/
July 17th, 2007 at 10:35 am
____ wouldn’t go for that. Bloomberg is a nanny state liberal, like all the other GOP candidates.
If he goes third party, he’d go to the Libertarian Party. That’s a big if, because I think he would have more of a voice if he just reclaimed his house seat (quite easily, now).
July 17th, 2007 at 10:41 am
KT!
How, so he is too wall-ish. He preaches The Constitution. Votes against raising taxes.
Talking and votes for small goverment.
Voted against every increase of congretional pay raise.
How is that Democrats values?
And many more good things can be said about him.
I think you base your opinion on one thought:
“They came to kill Us, because They hate Freedom” nonsens.
How about: They came to fight for they’re own Freedom, which was denied to Them by Us,
stationing our military in their own country.
I don’t want you to think that I am excusing them. I am not.
I simply hate to hear that nonsens over and over again.
And RP expressed similar views. And you judge him, because his not loyal to the Party.
His loyal to the people who voted for him and The Constitution.
I guess American people still don’t know how many horrible acts have been done in our name
and goverment never informed us about it.
It is time to wake up.
I did. I supported this unjust war for oil.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I guess it’s time to just come out and say that it’s to divulge that it’s Ron Paul.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Actually, Mirek…I greatly dispute that this was a war for oil. If the government did manage to bring back huge supplies of oil, that would disrupt the oil market so much that it would have unfathomable economic consequences. I just can’t see the situation in which invading Iraq for oil would be profitable.
The war was probably more for an invasion of state power than anything, because if a government wants to take away freedoms, starting a war is the best thing they can do.
I was against the war all along…how could we have known Iraq didn’t have WMDs? We were willing to attack them. No nation with WMDs that can be used against the invader has ever been attacked.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am
BarkTwiggs…. Snakes On a Plane did lousy because of that ugly-ass actor in it..
July 17th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Ugly-ass actors don’t necessarily mean overhyped failures. Just look at Fred Thompson! Oh wait…
July 17th, 2007 at 10:59 am
MirekChicago… I said he was too off-the-wallish to be the REPUBLICAN nominee… he should run as a libertarian. I know he has some good positions…
July 17th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Nusrat I agree I agree!!
July 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Agree about what?
July 17th, 2007 at 11:21 am
So does this mean that Fred Thompson will hire Ron Paul to run his “new kind of campaign”?
July 17th, 2007 at 11:22 am
HeavyM MattC, you can’t create RP’s online excitement, like Fred’s trying to do. THe excitement has to be natural, which I think is Fred’s fallacy.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Nusrat,
It was snark toward Fred more than Ron, don’t worry.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:26 am
hehe, I know
I was just throwing that out.
I’ve been posting a lot the past two days at work. Is my posting bothering anyone?
I can tone it down.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Nusrat,
Heck no! Post away!
July 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Kavon,
It makes perfect sense. There’s a large section of the libertarian Right that feels marginalized by the political process. That’s a large part of why the right blogosphere tends to be more libertarian than the party as a whole.
Its basically the netroots phenomenon in reverse.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Nusrat, you said he’s the only one who will “actively try to reduce the size and scope of the state”. I’ve watched a bunch of the Romney videos and he repeatedly states that he is the only GOP candidate to have signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge. He is committed to not creating any new taxes. At the club for growth meeting Mitt also says that spending must be reigned in and pledges to cap discretionary domestic spending at inflation minus 1 percent and veto any bills that don’t meet that target. He also says it is critical that we balance the budget.
Mitt Romney is also the only top GOP candidate I know of that has actually bragged about cutting state jobs (when he was governor), in order to reduce spending. On the fiscal side this is a theme he constantly brings up that the government is too big and is spending too much money. And I think as a business executive who’s lived a relatively frugal lifestyle, he would apply those same principles were he to be selected as president. He did a great job as governor at getting his state back into fiscal shape and leaving with a 2 billion dollar surplus after four years.
Now Massachusetts has a Democrat as governor, and that hard work might be reversed once again–it’s way too easy easy for government to spend our money, and I want someone who will actually reduce that spending.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
It’s Ron Paul, of course! The Internet phenom. I Google for news about him daily; I find the whole thing so interesting. I like him a lot, but could never support him over Rudy, due to the War in Iraq.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Can someone explain what these numbers mean? … It seems hard to believe.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Nusrat!
I think you put more trust in the Fed Goverment than I.
I think Clinton military actions came from the premise you brought.
But this war is about big oil corporations, access to biggest unexploit oil resources. Iraqis know that, that’s way they fight.
Also benfits go to Military Industrial Complex. Something Eisenhower warned us in his last speach.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
(^ I’m wondering about the military contributions, which isn’t as amenable to a ‘noisy but small grassroots support’ hypothesis.)
July 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Oh don’t worry. I don’t trust the federal government at all. I just think it was for a more egregious reason than oil: our freedoms.
Don’t worry. I don’t trust the government one bit. And I agree about the Mil. Ind. Complex.
And about Romney…He would make the government grow at a slower speed, but he just wants to make a more efficient big government…clean out all the “junk”.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Regarding Romney as well…
He supports No Child…’nuff said.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Here is a nice article on Rudy (for some of the “doubters” out there)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4969.html
July 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Nusrat, I think you’re right about federal government growing at a slower speed.. part of the reason is because budgets never seem to decrease, they just increase. I watched another video of Romney where he talks about how some people in government hold fiercely to their turf and it’s nearly impossible to cut their budget or programs. Also, these people are good at weathering out presidents who sit in office for a few years, while they sit in their beaurocracies for entire careers.
I think any president would face that difficutly, so it’s a matter of what you can actually get done as an executive. This is where Romney would shine, because as you said, he would first make the kinds of cuts that are hard to argue with and are most painless, which are cutting fat, waste, and making things leaner and more efficient. But why would he stop there? That’s just the beginning. The president can’t do it all, but I think Romney would take strides to really get the government’s financial house in order, just like he’s done at every other major organization he’s worked at.
And as far as education goes, where you saying he supports “No Child Left Behind”?
July 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
He mentioned it in one of the debates.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
But spending under Romney would still increase. Just at a slower rate.
With a President Paul, he would get rid of most of the departments and revoke many of the Executive Orders that have been passed. Those are two things he could do on day one, i believe, without any congressional approval.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
(not sure about the department thing)
July 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Nusrat!
“that would disrupt the oil market so much that it would have unfathomable economic consequences.”
I ask you to rethink that. It’s not serious argument.
Actually it’s silly and again putting more trust into the FED GOV.
You think that They would not go to war for Oil Magnats, because that would cause economic instability to oil market when they would bring more oil?
They would not bring more oil, but rather have access to more of it.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Nusrat, my point is that a president can only do so much, it doesn’t matter if he’s Libertarian, Republican, or whatever. I can guarantee that if Paul were elected and a Democratic majority held in the senate and house they would put up all kinds of roadblocks to him trying to cut programs/departments/whatever. Besides, rather than just cut everything on principle, I’d rather have a seasoned executive who could bring an A team in to look at what actually works and is doing well and what is not, and restructure, retrofit, cut, and fix. That’s what Mitt Romney will do to the federal government and we’ll be better off for it.
As far as what he said about education in the debate, as we all know, the debates today give the candidates very little actual time to air where they really stand on the issues. For a fuller explanation of Romney on education, see this video:
http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=210798
He basically says he doesn’t think federal government should have much control over education. He goes on to say that setting standards are important. And then build motivation into the system by rewarding those who do well. Pay good teachers more money, etc. Also, kids should be taught in English, so they learn the language they need to succeed in America.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Emtee!
“I’d rather have a seasoned executive who could bring an A team in to look at what actually works”
Sure. Let’s bring another aparatchik, because it is not practical to follow The Constitution.
How about, if the Democrats could not do much of the same, because Ron Paul as President would
veto every unconstitutional bill passed by corupt Congress.
How about voters would realy found out from the President himself how Dems waist their money.
How about disapearing wastetful Departament of Education.
How much Liberals could waste of our money, if IRS would disapear and Dems had nothing to spend
on useless initiatives. I can go on with this, but I hope you got the idea.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Emtee…
It’s much better to have an idealist than a pragmatist. “What works” isn’t always what’s moral.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
There is huge movement for him here in Boise, ID, too. Signs at every main intersection — with people waving!
July 17th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Emtee (#44), I think you are right in that the population has been spoiled by the services from Federal Government. Even if this candidate does something about it, the people will have a revolution of a sort against him. Unfortunately, they do not care about the Founding Fathers because, *gap*, they have not been educated about them! They do not understand the reasons why they have formed the government as they did. So, if I have a choice between a president who can communicate with them and get rid of the easy programs (meaning failing programs) or a president who would cut down the departments with the ignorant population, I really do not have much choice. Hopefully, this first candidate could do something about the ignorance of the population to prepare them for the candidate like this candidate here.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Query: Will Ron Paul be the long-awaited viable third-party candidate of the Race 4 2008 who will succeed in garnering double-digits in the general, fill the George Wallace role, complete my 2008 as 1968 analogy, and allow me to pen the soon to be bestseller, “See, I Told You So… The Cyclical Nature of American Political History” by DaveG?
Only time will tell.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Incidentally, those stats sort of eviscerate the notion that the military supports the Bush Doctrine.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Odd note, that I realized reading the pro-Paul comments under the linked article, is that the numbers do not include donations under $200. The RP guy said “if those were included we’d see Paul’s lead widen!” I’m not totally certain of that, but I really am curious as to whether there is any sort of division between those who can afford or have a strong enough opinion to give big at this point and those who don’t.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Well, the average donor for RP gave about $50, if that helps you.
July 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
All you Neocons and Dems are scared now, notice how all of you attack his campaign and credibility, but he’s the highest rated politician there is. Also Dr. Paul never attacks personally as all the other candidates do, he never tries to turn an argument on another candidate to put words in the other candidate’s mouth. Have you morons not noticed that every other candidate up there is an absolute dirtbag, with their B/S slogans of 9/11 and the “people’s” safety. Wake up if you’re responsible for yourself! On the other hand if you want a babysitter, move to China.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:05 am
[...] Nikrad, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the wait for this year’s Perot is over. Sayeth Kavon: (Ron Paul) [...]