70.6% of money from the troops was to anti-war candidates

Here we see that 70.6% of the money that the active duty troops gave to Presidential candidates in Q2 was to anti-war candidates (the Democrats + Ron Paul). Only 29.4% was to pro-war candidates (the other Republicans).

Why do the troops hate the troops?

Anti-war:
Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Bill Richardson 5.59%
John Edwards 2.63%
Joe Biden 0.84%
Mike Gravel 0.16%
Dennis Kucinich 0.05%
Chris Dodd 0%

Pro-war:
John McCain 18.31%
Mitt Romney 4.05%
Rudy Giuliani 2.44%
Mike Huckabee 1.84%
Tom Tancredo 1.63%
Duncan Hunter 1.05%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%
John Cox 0%

•  so

  contributions to Hillary Clinton nearly quintupled those to Ghouliani?  that's so flippin fabulous.

  by CC Music Factory on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:05:31 PM PDT

  •  Even Edwards beats the Ghoul.

    Craziness.

    But even crazier is the DK got anything at all!

    Seems like the Pentagon's propaganda machine is failing.

    by polecat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:27:00 PM PDT

    •  better Blackberry Karen Hughes immediately

      at [e-mail]

      by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:02:52 PM PDT

      •  really?

        by lineatus on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:22:47 PM PDT

    •  Ironically, Dodd is the only Dem who ever served

      as an Army reservist.

      And 'Why do the troops hate the troops?'  LOL  I just love that!

      by NYFM on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:23:08 AM PDT

      •  I gave him money, but I'm not in Iraq.

        I'm trying to reward candidates for adopting "MY" positions.  :)

        I gave to others, too.

        by polecat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:33:56 AM PDT

  •  Guess no one with boots on the ground

    is buying his faux "I know about terrorism" act.

    by Petronella on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:15:44 PM PDT

    •  it is amazing

      that citizens in the hinterland are falling for that bunk while residents in the heart of Manhattan will be voting for the (or any) Democrat in droves.

      by CC Music Factory on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:09:53 AM PDT

      •  Perception is reality,

        come election day.

        by Simplify on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:18:59 AM PDT

        •  well... unless

          diebold has something to say about it.

          by Dem in the heart of Texas on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:57:47 AM PDT

  •  Yeah ......

    despite what all the naysayers are whining about her "negatives" and here "unelectability".

    Pure GOP spin, regurgitated by the folks who prefer a different candidate.

    by emsprater on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:30:38 PM PDT

  •  These stats should be the answer every time a Dem

    candidate for President has their anti-Iraq position equated with an anti-troops position - EVERY TIME.  

    Any campaigns for President that intend to win this election should take that point to heart, because it strikes at the very heart of the GOP machine's only weapon, and their only shot at winning.

    by ShadowSD on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 04:30:57 AM PDT

•  Hmm.

  Barack Obama at 24%.  Interesting.

  by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:05:42 PM PDT

  •  Very.

    And more than double Clinton.

    This might sound weird but I understood H. C. to be in good with the military.

    I guess Obama is more so!

    by LithiumCola on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:01:43 PM PDT

    •  Well... not to sound .....

      obvious, but look at the racial make up of the military, and you might find the underlying factor. It's very easy to understand folks trying to elect someone like themselves for the first time in history.

      by emsprater on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:32:38 PM PDT

      •  Nothin' wrong with that. n/t

        by Petronella on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:10:10 PM PDT

    •  Not sure where you got that idea

      There's an unusually high level of misogyny among the troops. There's also a very high level of racial and cultural tolerance and a strong demographic slant toward minorities. And probably most importantly, Ms. Clinton is (rightly or wrongly) associated with her husband's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy, which is universally unpopular, pissing off both the homophobic majority who don't like the idea that they might be in close quarters with closeted homosexuals and the pro-gay-rights minority who don't think gay servicemembers should have to be in the closet.

      She might be in good with the officers (I don't discuss politics with people who wear shiny stuff) but the enlisted troops make up the bulk of the military, and a lot of enlisted men don't like female leaders or Don't Ask/Don't Tell...and we have a history of very positive experiences with racial minorities in leadership positions. I'm not at all surprised at the amount of Obama support.

      by kyril on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:49:51 PM PDT

      •  Yeah but

        If as you say, many people in the military hate Hillary or rather the Clintons and women, then why is she 4th best among the military with Vietnam Vet John McCain the only repub besting her (and Ron Paul who is more Libertarian than Repub)?

        That's a searing indictment of the Repub brand don't you think?

        I'm not surprised about Obama because as you say, demographics are favorable for a minority (which might also explain why Richardson does as well as he does).  I AM surprised about Hillary doing as well as she is among a group of people who should by all accounts including your own, loathe her.

        by DisNoir36 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:01:08 AM PDT

      •  I think you are overstating things

        there are plenty of military members who have no problem working with women leaders.

        I'd go so far to say as there is little difference between the military and the average joe as far as women leaders.

        BOTH groups have some issues with it but for the most part we have reached the point where it is something a majority can accept.

        by qazplm on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 04:32:33 AM PDT

        •  I am NOT overstating things

          There is no way to describe the experience of being a female NCO in today's military. You'd have to experience it. You'd have to deal with being called a bitch and a whore and a slut on a daily basis, not only behind your back but to your face, with no real recourse. You'd have to suffer the indignity of being openly accused of sleeping your way to the top. You'd have to see the young female Marines and Sailors who would come to you weeping, asing for advice, begging you to tell them how to deal with being treated that way - and have no answers for them because you've secretly been crying too. You'd have to be told - openly, seriously, without remorse - by not one but two of your supervisors that they don't believe women have a place in the workplace at all and especially not in the military. That they wouldn't "let" their wives work. You'd have to here the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" meme repeated endlessly.

          I love my guys, I really do. I even get along with them because I've learned how to be accepted as one of them. But the more acceptance I gain, the more I start to get treated as "one of the guys," the more I get to hear about their real opinions about other women, or about women in general. It's always, qualified, these days, with something to the effect of "of course I'm not talking about you, you're cool." But that's kind of like hearing "I'm not racist, I have a black friend." It reinforces the fact that they really are that bigoted.

          Maybe the Army/Air Force side of the military is a little better. I don't know, I have no contact with them. But the Navy/Marine Corps is deeply permeated with misogyny.

          by kyril on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:57:26 AM PDT

          •  Well

            I can't speak to the Marines, except to say they are crazy ;)

            I can speak only to the Army, and while I am not at all saying that it's all peaches and cream, I guess I am saying it is no less peaches and cream in my experience and observation than it is anywhere else.

            I've worked with infantry for five years as enlisted and now legal professionals as an officer for slightly longer, and gotta say I saw little difference between the former and say college students, and the latter and any regular group of folks.

            Now that may be saying bad things about regular folk and college students, but that was my only point.

            I don't know what to say about Air Force except that they seem to be very conservative and have high "religiousosity" which is not a word except in my head.

            by qazplm on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:06:48 AM PDT

      •  Your KO sig still gives me chickenskin! n/t

        by dolphin777 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:13:00 AM PDT

  •  Ron Paul on top is interesting

    I'm starting to think Paul might be a sleeper.  He's crazy as a loon in a lot of his uber-libertarian ravings, but he is the only anti-war Republican, and he leads the field.

    I'm beginning to wonder if Ron Paul may prove to be a stalking horse for Chuck Hagel.  We've already seen with Judy that the right-wingers will swallow anybody if they think they can win.  Hagel may yet prove to be the dark horse we haven't seen yet.  There's certainly a market opportunity in being an anti-war Republican.

    by Dallasdoc on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:10:06 PM PDT

    •  True dat. (stalking horse thing)

      by lineatus on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:23:54 PM PDT

    •  I'll tell ya --

      you heard it here first (or whatever) but I'm starting to think that Ron Paul might just take Texas in the primary. There has been a TON of RP stuff around Austin, lawn signs, even a grassroots home-made sign campaign around town. (I considered taking the one closest to me down, but the street-cleaners beat me to it.)

      I wouldn't be surprised if he managed to pick up his home state, and the # of votes down here might thus throw the rest off. Add to that the fact that the Libertarian party is fairly well organized in this city at least... Could be interesting.

      Though I wonder if all of the frat boys will still vote for him when they find out he would prevent their one-night-stands from having an abortion.

      by kath25 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:38:42 PM PDT

      •  There are a number of Republemmings...

        here in my office who have been talking him up.

        Balkanize the GOP. Divide and conquer.

        The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale.

        by LostInTexas on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:00:06 PM PDT

      •  Why would you take down

        a political sign near your home?

        Was it illegal?

        Don't RP supporters have the right to show signs supporting him?

        by bartman on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:56:56 AM PDT

        •  The sign was placed illegally.

          It was hung in a place where such signs are not allowed. That's why it got plucked up by the street cleaners. We have fairly strict laws here about where and what you can post.

          Furthermore, the city suggests that citizens take down "Bandit Signs" as they are called, to save the city the trouble. They pick up tens of thousands of signs a year.

          It's actually a Class C misdemeanor to post an illegal sign. Arrest Ron Paul! ;-)

          by kath25 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:59:22 AM PDT

      •  the only thing good about him staying in

        would be that someone else would have to represent my district!   Y'all can have the mad doctor as a spoiler... just get him the hell out of my district, and don't let him in the white house!

        by Dem in the heart of Texas on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:00:00 AM PDT

      •  I saw a big Ron Paul '08

        sign on the side of a barn in NY last weekend.

        He's got die hard supporters on YouTube, too.

        by Newsie8200 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:06:56 PM PDT

    •  Great analysis

      in comment form, as always, Dallasdoc.

      by LightningMan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:44:03 PM PDT

    •  Only available choice with an (R)

      Some habits and cosmologies die hard, specially in the armed forces. Max Planck: "a new ... truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

      by fouro on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:47:31 PM PDT

  •  Young people love Obama. n/t

    by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:54:08 PM PDT

    •  Thing is, anytime you count on the youth vote

      to deliver the election, you lose.

      by Simplify on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:20:34 AM PDT

    •  I was told this by a DEM insider

      We are friends with a woman who is a sister of a famouse DEM TV guy, who has worked on many campaigns, who says everyone she speaks to under 30 is indicating a vote for Obama.

      I love Hillary, it may be she is the most competent, but Obama is the future, the only way to clean house and reset America with the world.

      by karenc13 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:32:02 AM PDT

  •  Obama was against the war from the beginning

    and they know that.

    by vivacia on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:54:44 PM PDT

    •  didn't you mean "Obama was against the

      war before he was for it" ?

      (he says mockingly, given I don't see mr. Smooth Rhetoric doing anything to agitate to get them home. Too busy on campaign trail and not doing his primary work in the senate. ditto hillary.

      Get to WORK assholes! 2 year campaign cycles are bullshit. Go do your jobs now, instead of presenting your wonderful plans for 2009)

      by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:14:24 PM PDT

      •  The appeal of Obama for many people is that he's

        the one major Democratic candidate who WON'T be caught in that for it/against it contradiction, because he was always against going into Iraq, and has never wavered on that point.  

        Furthermore, Obama just voted against the Iraq funding bill and proposed his own withdrawal bill months earlier, and besides, cutting funds is a more complex issue than starting the very wars that initiate those funds to begin with.  I mean seriously, do I vote for the guy who's against dropping a piece of glass on the ground, or do I ignore that altogether because picking up the shards of the glass takes too long; seems like I'm best off supporting the guy who won't drop the next piece off glass, so we won't be cleaning up that mess in five years.  

        by ShadowSD on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 04:24:09 AM PDT

•  This is a good talking point!

  Can't wait to share it with the non-believers ;)

  by bobbyd100 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:07:26 PM PDT

  •  My thoughts too. This info should be emailed

    to O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al., all the
    right-wing assholes. Get in their faces with
    it.

    by Wildthumb on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:10:59 PM PDT

  •  just want to make sure it's BACKABLE

    Here is the sequence of links cited, from where this data appears to have been compiled. I'm no expert in this, but i do know how to follow links :)

    1 )  http://thespinfactor.com/...

    2 ) that refers back to:
    http://thespinfactor.com/...

    3 ) and that refers back to:
    http://query.nictusa.com/...

    ---
    An asterisk is worth noting -- to make sure the information is positioned correctly, such that it is not knocked down and lambasted by Hannity/O'Reilly as some trick from the left wing:

    Percentages**:

    49.5% Ron Paul
    34.6% McCain
    7.0% Romney
    4.6% Giuliani
    2.0% Hunter
    2.3% Others

    *Note: These statistics include the contributions of employees who recorded or indicated their military branch. Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included.

    I would LOVE to be able to throw this in the face of Spray-Tan Thune

    by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:00:33 PM PDT

    •  Were you satisfied?

      Thanks for tracking the links, but I can't tell from the comment if you were satisfied that the data is hunky-dory.

      by LithiumCola on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:04:17 PM PDT

      •  I'm neutral because I don't know how to

        extract the data from what I'm taking to be the reliable sources -- the US Govt FEC pages.

        Trust me, i'm not questioning the reliability of the numbers, but I don't personally know anything about thespinfactor.com .. and they're the ones supplying this extracted data chart.

        This is wonderful ammo against the Conglomerate Media Cartel and their agents, Hannity to Tweety. So don't get me wrong. It's a credibility issue at the moment due to the asnwer one would have to give if asked:

        Oh yeah, where did that data come from, some liberal blog?

        No, it came from TheSpinFactor.com .

        see what I mean?

        Seems like someone at TPM would authenticate and verify ?

        by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:05:57 PM PDT

  •  Senator Webb should use this data

    In the videos I've seen of him in the past week or so,  he's directly challenging Republicans when they claim to speak for the troops.  Stammer, stammer, talk fast is the usual response.

    I don't think Senator Webb is trying to say that the Democrats speak for the troops either but, nevertheless, this would be powerful data for him to cite.  

    by sawgrass727 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:41:34 PM PDT

    •  yeah, he specificall said during the allnighter

      when he addressed SprayTan, something like "You're not suggesting the troops are something other than respresentative of the entire political spectrum, are you?"

      to which spraytan quickly said "No"

      while Webb's eyes burned xrays into SprayTan's untanned eye sockets...

      by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:09:53 PM PDT

      •  Great moment, especially when you

        just looked at those two guys - one, a geniune, normal-looking man, and the other a spray tan freak in a very expensive suit who still managed to look like a low rent model.

        by Petronella on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:11:44 PM PDT

        •  I think I took a screenshot of Webb's face at

          that moment. i need to hunt that down and throw it up at dKos periodically -- as a rallying cry...

          by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:17:29 PM PDT

          •  Battle lines being drawn...

            Somebody's right, the other guy is wrong ...

            

            by rhfactor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:19:52 AM PDT

      •  When Webb tried to read the polls

        Spray tan interrupted him several times and finally appealed to McCain to stop Webb, which McCain did. They did not want it read into the record in the middle of their BS.

        by splashy on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:42:25 AM PDT

•  I Don't Suppose Anyone's Working to Leak This

  to the press media are they?

  by Gooserock on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:07:47 PM PDT

  •  Nice strike-through. n/t

    by Petronella on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:17:08 PM PDT

    •  (aside) i've never known how to do that?

      and I see it more and more used as a blog convention for snark... instructions please? i'm a bonehead, not a coder)

      by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:18:50 PM PDT

      •  No idea, sorry. n/t

        by Petronella on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:59:38 PM PDT

      •  Strikethrough (and a few other tips)

        You can write <s> </s> for strikethrough, or <strike> </strike> which also works.

        A few other things I like to do: I like to add a title with <a href="" title=""> </a> to my links, which gives a tooltip when you hover over the link, like this: Plame's Suit Against Top Officials Dismissed.

        Sometimes I like to use an em dash, with &mdash;, instead of a hyphen — because it gives a longer, more satisfying dash. Also, I sometimes like to mark a footnote with a &dagger;. †

        † You can also get a double dagger (‡) with &Dagger;.

        by dconrad on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:41:43 PM PDT

        •  you iz a badass mutha ---

          shut yo mouth --
          but I'm talkin bout Shaft!
          --------------

          That's great, thank you -- wow simple enough!

          by rhfactor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:42:08 AM PDT

        •  shorter strikethru:

          Put a dash before and after the word -like so,- and you get this.

          If you use a star* as a footnote reference, when you try to start the footnote line with the star,

          • it ends up as a bullet,

          * but if you put a forward slash \ in front of it \*, it cancels the special effect of the star character.

          Forward slash cancels the effect of any special character.  Forward slash is itself a special character, so get it to show above, I had to put two of them, like so: \\

          I like the &mdash; character, dconrad — I use that punctuation all the time, so thanks.  Full character lists here.  And the link title is cool.

          by Simplify on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:30:24 AM PDT

          •  Awesome! You are aptly named!

            I didn't know you could do that! You easified simplified it for me!

            Also, I didn't know that about using * for footnotes, although I found another workaround for that problem.

            * If you put *&nsbp; to put a non-breaking space after the asterisk, it doesn't turn it into a bullet. But the backslash* is easier.

            * Backslash, not forward slash.

            Thanks!

            by dconrad on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 12:24:21 PM PDT

      •  There are two ways to do strike-through

        • First way: use "s" tags.
          <s>stuff to strike through</s> turns into stuff to strike through.
        • Second way: use a pair of hyphens (minus signs).
          -stuff to strike through- turns into stuff to strike through.

        by lotlizard on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:02:11 AM PDT

        •  less strokes = better for hunt & peck typists

          thanks for the super double secret method!

          by rhfactor on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:42:30 PM PDT

•  That is very telling

  and speaks volumes.

  by ohcanada on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:08:25 PM PDT

  •  Not surprising though

    As a veteran I can tell you most troops are not stupid can tell when they're being sent somewhere for BS reasons. Even though many put on the brave face (can't be on TV and reassure your family you're ok if you criticize the rationale for being there) they know those who truly support them are those who are calling for them to come home.

    I heard the Iraqi ambassador on NPR today saying we can't just leave because it would be irresponsible and criminal to do so, and I agree with him. We broke Iraq and it's up to us to fix it, but that doesn't mean keeping combat troops in Baghdad. It's time for the Iraqis to be allowed to build their own government. If that means it breaks up into three countries, so be it, but our military presence there is only making problems worse and is the best recruiting ad for Al Qaeda in Iraq and other would be terrorist organizations throughout the middle east.

    We owe it to the Iraqis to help them rebuild what we destroyed. We do not have the right however to try to unduly influence their fledgling government.

    by Cali Techie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:28:35 PM PDT

    •  Most of this money probably came from Officers.

      They're not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but they do make enough to make some modest cash contributions to political candidates.

      I don't know what that implies. It's just an observation.

      by Jimdotz on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:51:10 AM PDT

•  Jim Webb

  made comments about the troops' opposition to the war on the floor of the Senate the other night and called out John Thune (at around 2:40 am, just after Jim had finished presiding) when he made false statements about this.

  by noweasels on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:15:37 PM PDT

  •  But, but...

    ...but joncary said they were uneducated and stuck in Iraq so that means teh dems hate teh tr00pz!! 11!!

    by BlueEngineerInOhio on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:20:42 PM PDT

    •  I was asked what I thought about that comment

      when Kerry made it:

      My response "As I understand it, he mispoke while trying to make a joke, but either way he isn't that far off."

      Our military has always been a force of the middle class/poor. That's why I am here. I didn't do so well in high school (my fault) and didn't have the money to go to college without scholarships. So I called a recruiter instead. Or actually, I waited till the recruiter called and woke me up at 10a.m. on a school day. While I don't think I should have been handed tuition money for screwing off in high school, I'm sure there are a lot of more affluent kids who worked (I use that term loosely) as hard as I did and will be getting a degree this spring instead of sweating their balls of here in the desert with me.

      by RockRichard on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:12:48 PM PDT

      •  As an Operations NCO

        I saw an awful lot of poor grammar and spelling errors on Counselings and NCOERS (evaluation reports).

        by txlosthorn on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:24:46 PM PDT

        •  I'm a JAG NCO

          I bet I see at least twice what you saw. Not trying to one up or anything, but the guys who barely speak english (not a racist, comment. generally, we're talking WASPs here) get even worsed when they are pissed off giving joe a 4856.

          by RockRichard on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:31:49 PM PDT

      •  Kerry was alluding to Bush's "C student" line

        Bush said that he was proof that a C student could become President. That's what Kerry meant when he said if you don't study, you get stuck in Iraq.

        I remember watching CNN (I was just thinking about this earlier), and Wolf Blitzer had Christopher Hitchens and one other pundit (maybe Andrew Sullivan?) on, and they both agreed that Kerry wasn't referring to the troops.

        Then, in the very next segment, they had on Ann Coulter and some guy who was supposed to be a Dem, but whom I had never heard of. Paula Zahn hosted this segment. Coulter said that of course everyone agreed that Kerry meant the troops. Paula said nothing about the fact that the previous two guests on the show had specifically disagreed. Nothing. And the "Dem"? He basically said, "Ann, John Kerry has already apologized for insulting the troops, it was just a botched joke, can't we just move on?"

        by dconrad on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:47:32 PM PDT

        •  The appalling thing about Kerry's joke

          was that most of the Kerry bashers obviously weren't aware of Kerry's solid and long record of supporting veterans as well as active duty military.  For an informed follower of veterans' affairs it was a non-starter, but that RW noise machine sure can distort.

          by NYFM on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:18:23 AM PDT

  •  Spray-Tan Thune was despicable.

    by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:01:32 PM PDT

    •  He was a clown.

      All the Republicans who pretended that Webb's poll data "didn't mean anything" or "must have something wrong with it" or "doesn't sqaure with my own glorious trip to the Green Zone where I met countless bright-faced and eager troops who want nothing more than to spread democracy and joy to people who want to kill them to make them leave" . . .

      . . . were all clowing.  Lying.  Shamefully.  At Jim Webb.

      by LithiumCola on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:08:31 PM PDT

      •  Yes.

        And good on Jim Webb for calling out Thune on it.  It was a glorious moment.

        by noweasels on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:56:06 PM PDT

•  And even if you

  consider Clinton, Edwards and Biden to be pro-war because of the original vote...heck, you could eliminate everyone except Paul and Obama and they lead by themselves.

  by BlueEngineerInOhio on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:19:03 PM PDT

  •  Can we eliminate RP, please?

    Except for being against the war, the man is a nutjob.

    by polecat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:27:53 PM PDT

    •  PATRIOT Act, Real ID, Drugwar

      by ben masel on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:42:25 PM PDT

      •  Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Acts, basically

        anything giving rights to people who aren't wealthy white males, he's against.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:00:54 PM PDT

        •  You mischaracterize him

          He's against giving anything to anyone. Even wealthy white males. In fact, he'd pretty much like to dismantle the entire government. While that would de facto benefit the wealthy, it's not exactly fair to characterize it as "giving rights" to the wealthy.

          by kyril on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:57:25 PM PDT

          •  he wants to give rights

            to the contents of my uterus.

            I appreciate his anti-war status, but nothing can change the fact that he's an OB-Gyn who values fetuses over women.   If that doesn't convince you he's f'ed-up, I'm not sure what will.   The best I can give him is that his Iraq War stance is consistent with that.

            by Dem in the heart of Texas on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:05:49 AM PDT

            •  Le sigh

              He doesn't want the federal government to have control over ANYTHING, and that unfortunately includes your pet issue.

              by shii on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:35:58 AM PDT

              •  I beg to disagree

                My "pet issue" is one of the few areas he DOES want the government intrusion into.  

                Explain to me how a libertarian can support laws that remove a woman's right to an abortion... and you will be describing Rep. Paul.

                by Dem in the heart of Texas on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:05:34 PM PDT

                •  uhhh

                  "Explain to me how a libertarian can support laws that remove a woman's right to an abortion"

                  He doesn't. He supports NOT HAVING such laws at the federal level-- that's ALL. He doesn't want Congress involved in something not outlined in the Constitution (and abortion did exist when the Constitution was written!). What the states do is their own business.

                  by shii on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 03:29:17 PM PDT

                  •  I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

                    If it were the way you were putting it, it would be bad enough - you are saying that he is in favor of taking away the protection of abortion rights by allowing states to pass laws restricting it - something they are currently restricted from doing, thanks to Roe v. Wade.

                    Actually, here is a little bit about his stance on abortion.   It seems pretty clear to me.

                    He is one of the authors of the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" - which would make it a FEDERAL policy that life begins at conception... meaning, in essence, that anything that interrupts such life would be murder.

                    Hmmm, what else?

                    How about his address to the US House of Representatives, in which he stated

                    "While I have always supported this Act [the "Partial Birth Abortion" act - not exactly a "government out of my uterus" kind of thing] and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder's view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property."

                    Translation:  the good Libertarian side of me knows that the government should stay out of people's medical business, but since they've already "gone there,"  I support making it illegal.   Note also that he's not promoting that such laws be struck down at the Federal level and sent back to the states - quite the contrary.

                    So, if you're bound and determined to be an aPaulogist (sorry - couldn't resist), know you're supporting someone who would be ecstatic if the US went back to the back alley days.   He's only Libertarian when it's beneficial to him.

                    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:24:55 PM PDT

      •  *sigh*

        by PhantomFly on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:09:03 AM PDT

    •  Yes he is, but I like that he shakes up

      the Repub debates a bit, and he doesn't have a shot at the nomination anyway, so what's the harm in leaving him in there?  I think that the people who watch the GOP debates need to hear what he is saying on the war, because they're sure as heck not going to hear it from any other source.

      by Petronella on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:24:33 PM PDT

      •  Oh, I meant HERE. He can stay THERE

        as long as he wants.

        This is not the right place for RP, as I'm sure we'd all agree.

        by polecat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:35:09 AM PDT

    •  Well the MSM seems to

      have eliminated him from any major published poll I have seen. His 'Ron Paul Revolution' signs are posted everywhere already here in Phoenix.  Interesting that he's on top of the donations, considering he isn't included on the polls, which would lead one to believe he isn't a "real" candidate.

      by trueblueliberal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:26:04 PM PDT

      •  Maybe he'll run as independent ...

        ...when he doesn't get the nomination and slice off a few percentage points from Fred Thompson or whoever.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:13:20 PM PDT

    •  Buddies

      Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have been cooperating for years to expose the folly of the neocons' march to empire.  Before the '06 elections, Ron Paul gave Kucinich a hearing-room in which witnesses testified that there were 600,000 "excessive deaths" in Iraq, due to our invasion.

      It is true that Ron Paul favors the Gold Standard.  I think Kucinich may be in favor of "free coinage" of silver.

      Neither candidate favors printing paper money to feed the maw of the military-industrial complex.

      That said, I'm waiting for Al Gore.

      by willb48 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:26:55 PM PDT

      •  If we went to a "hard" currency

        or on gold, we'd immediately drop into a Depression.

        Nixon took us off of the Gold standard and we've been on a defacto currency ever since.

        But a certain amount of inflation is built into our economy and both the problem of that disappearing AND our balance of trade means that we'd be in deep doo doo very soon.

        At this point, going to a gold/silver/copper/grain based currency would be a rocketslide to H*ll.

        by polecat on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:16:13 AM PDT

        •  Yep.

          What we're going to do is let the dollar fall to historic lows.  China - hey China! - you think you're so cool?  Take this, China!

          The ensuing global economic chaos as the Dollar becomes essentially worthless - well, we live in interesting times.

          Unfortunately, during our interesting quarter-century of sell-outs to international money interests (no, I'm not talking about the Bilderberg Group - but would someone PLEASE think about CitiBank?)

          As Joe Hill said, "Don't mourn for me - organise!"

          by willb48 on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:00:52 AM PDT

    •  Ron Paul bumper stickers, dozens of 'em

      There was a car parked where I work a couple of days last week that had messages about RP ("Who is Ron Paul?" — apparently they have noticed the near rhyme of his name with "John Gault") written on it with soap and dozens of RP bumper stickers all over it.

      I took some pictures, but I haven't uploaded them from my digital camera yet. I'm planning to do a diary about it, actually.

      by dconrad on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:50:16 PM PDT

•  The troops see what's going on

  They are where the action is and see the follies of the war for themselves.

  by BlueTide on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:28:30 PM PDT

  •  In troops eyes, a way to fight them here rather

    than being stuck fighting them over there.

    by Skid on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:59:39 PM PDT

  •  what I want is more home-made VIDEO

    from the front lines ... That speaks volumes ... way more than VoteVet ads... problem, i know, is that they're prohibited from expressing an opinion on their operations or on officials in military or us govt.. still, can't someone figure out a way to creatively get around that --- as in

    maybe camera is pointing in direction of a war zone, and the soldiers don't go on camera, but speak off-camera giving commentary a la:

    "See that? That goes on all day, all night. The surge is bullshit and anyone back home in Congress who tells you otherwise is a tool and a liar."

    Then they have to do what the TV networks do when protecting a source -- by tweeking and modulating the voice so it is not identifiable.

    Someone got laptops with video editing capability becasuse those parodies of SNL's Lazy Sunday (Chronicles of narnia) were made overseas from what i recall..

    Is this realistic?

    Because if so, it would turn the tide faster than anything and cause an uproar here at home.

    by rhfactor on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:27:52 PM PDT

•  These troops...

  ... are just feeding into enemy propaganda!

  by canoeist on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:32:57 PM PDT

•  Great research!

  thanks for letting us know!  Forward to candidates, ActBlue.

  by TheFatLadySings on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:55:39 PM PDT

•  "Why do the troops hate the troops?"

  lol!

  by Cassiodorus on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:02:04 PM PDT

  •  exact same comment I was going to post

    just browsing the thread to see if someone else beat me to it.

    appparently so.

    rock on.

    by navajo on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:13:26 PM PDT

•  $150

  went to john edwards from this troop.

  by RockRichard on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:06:41 PM PDT

  •  1/10th of his total.

    by ben masel on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:16:23 PM PDT

    •  Wow,

      I didn't look at the numbers that close. I gave more the previous quarter, because I gave another donation in March in addition to my regular monthly contribution. Wonder what my percentage was then?

      by RockRichard on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:18:30 PM PDT

      •  Reporting thresholds