Bold Statement from the Paul Campaign










Photo of Ron Paul and Rand Paul <- click caption for article on the vintage photo

The Paul campaign issues a pretty bold press release tonight after a 2nd place finish in New Hampshire:

Ron Paul Celebrates Historic Second Place Win in New Hampshire Primary

“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy.”



  1. Ron Paul The Champion of the Constitution!

  2. Gilbert Guy says

    “We urge the other conservatives in the race to get out and to forget their conservative views on social issues and to ignore the 20th century on foreign policy and endorse Ron Paul.”

  3. Gilbert G, so what exactly is Ron Paul’s foreign policy. I note you put up a cheap shot, but didn’t back it up.

    How about you list Ron’s FP for us, in HIS own words, then do a critique for us to see. I am very tierd of cheap shot artist with no back up.

    All you types do is prove Cass Sunstein right when he called you easy to manipulate Homer Simpsons.

    Here is Ron’s FP & several backups. Take them down if you can.

    List of Combat Vets links

    Blowback & 9-11

    Did blowback cause 9-11

    NY Times:

    Former CIA bin Laden expert, M Scheuer backs up Ron:

    M Scheuer endorses Ron-

    So does this,1 of 4 parts, find the other parts-

    Ron’s FP;

    Original FP

    Same as Founders

    Is Ron isolationist? No.

    Urgent message from our troops! [Plus more videos on the side]

    Soldier, a vet, talks about military waking up.

    More on troops, Ron’s foreign policy

    Combat Veterans For Ron Paul:
    Lots of support site links

    “Wiped off the map” rumor of the century-

    Betcha can’t do it!!! I challenge ya to even try. 🙂


  4. Ron Paul’s base is Democrats and Independents. Who’d a guessed. And who will they vote for in November?

    Ross Perot got a multi-billion dollar exclusive contract for his company EDS to provide national electronic data medical ID cards as invisioned under HILLARYCARE, buried in the 1,200plus pages of THAT OBAMACARE first draft. Evidently, Perot had more than just spite to motivate him thru his anti-GOP split the vote so CLinton could win campaign. Clinton got what 43%?

    WHat’s fellow Texan RP spoiler Ron Paul getting? His “supporters” who will vote DEM later are producing some pretty nasty stuff and he says he can’t control it.

    • Dems and indies elected him 12 times to Congress as a Republican congressman from TEXAS?

      Hmm… something in your argument doesn’t jibe, wanumba.

      • The current polling surveys are reporting his national base is Dems Independents, and that’s what’s relevent.

        • Actually it shows him pulling in MORE indies than any other candidate and the only one pulling Dems. You know which other candidate did that? Ronald Reagan.

          NO POLL showed his “base” as indies and dems. If you’ve got that POST IT. It’s not true, so you can’t. Nuff said.

  5. If we had applied Ron Paul’s foreign policy to Europe during World War II then Europe would have been completely conquered by HitlerGermany…

    Oh wait. It WAS.
    Our isolationist foreign policy allowed Hitler to plow unchecked thru Europe, sweep North Africa and overrun into the Balkans. Our isolationist neutrality pact with Japan got us Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March and loss of thousands and thousands of Americans in Philippines, and cost us hundreds of thousands of American casualties to stop it, roll it back and destroy it.

    Ron Paul’s ideas have already been tested and got us disaster. Had we applied Ron Paul’s isolationist foriegn policy after World War II, all of Europe would be speaking Russia today. We are free now to aske Eastern Europeans what they thought of living under it and whether it was worth the US effort to hold the line with our military presence there.

    The Democrats and Independents (“I vote D later”) who provide most of Ron Paul’ base want us to think otherwise so they can vote for Obama after mischief voting the GOP.

    Maybe we can call Ron Paul so-called Independent voters VLAD the Impalers. “Voting LAter Democrat”… after putting the stakes thru the Republican candidates.

    • Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the constitution.

      As he has said a million times, it is CONGRESS’ job to declare war, not the Presidents’. Once Congress declares war, then the president executes the war to successful conclusion, WIN and comes home.

      The constitution doesn’t make the president king and it clearly divides war making powers.

      The constitution also does not authorize taxing Americans to give money to other countries.

      There you have it.

      • Congress did not vote for entering World War II, holding to an isolationist foreign policy, including ratifiying a neutrality pact with Japan.

        Gemany had already conquered Europe, North AFrica and into the Balkans and Congress refused to vote to enter the war. Congress voted for war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on us, war which was declared by Germany the next day.

        So, yep. Congress holding to “neutrality” voted to stay out of the war until over a thousand Americans were killed in a direct attack on US soil. American and allied Philippine losses in Philippines were horrific until America was finally ready to launch war against Japan, which was already poised to invade Australia.

        Ron Paul-isolationist- mypoic-defense-foreign policy has cost this country dearly in American lives. There is a huge track record of homeland disasters associated with this thru American history. Every generation tries it and is sorry .. very very very sorry and each time the losses are worse than the previous time.

        • Wanumba, YOURE WRONG

          CONGRESS VOTES – December 8, 1941

          Read some history, wanumba before spouting.

          • Looks like more spouting is required:

            Congress did NOT vote for entering the war while our allies were being evicerated. Congress held to very publically declared isolationist foreign policy, and voted to go to war AFTER we were attacked on Dec 7, 1941.

            Dec 8 sure looks like a day AFTER Pearl Harbor, and several bloody YEARS after 1939, when Hitler began his conquest of Europe, a time when it would have been much easier to take him on. Millions of Jews, and political undesireables as labeled by Hitler’s regime were already murdered … the horrific slaughter of civilians unimpeded.

            Our open stated foreign policy of isolationist NEUTRALITY cost our allies Britain and France terrible losses, Asia was being wrecked by Japan. The Ron Paul form of isolationist neutrality cost the US and the world enormous losses in human life and property.

            Ron Paul has a dangerous and morally reprehensible foreign policy.

            • You mean that following the constitution is dangerous?

              Who do you supposed should have determined to send troops to Europe before the congressional vote on war?

              Generals? A generalissimo president? State your solution.

              What does the constitution say?

              • Can you READ?

                Yes, you can, therefore you are with malice twisting what I said because you don’t want people to look at the grisly, morally reprehensible, historical and well-documented awful track record of an uniformed, medical doctor’s Ron Paul isolationist and dangerous foreign policy.

              • Again, if you believe the US should have engaged in WWII earlier than the congressional vote on a Declaration of War, when should it have happened and what would have been the process followed, wanumba?

                Put up or shut up.

              • The US was unofficially in WW2 well before the official declaration of war. The US Navy was escorting merchant ships halfway across the Atlantic to Britain (and would sink German subs as necessary), there was a lend lease program benefiting Britain, and US air crews were fighting against Japan in China as the Flying Tigers.

                I agree that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is naive and counter productive. I think it’s better to fight against an enemy on foreign soil rather than our own. Placing forces strategically around the world can benefit our national interest by creating buffer zones to protect our country and ensuring our commerce around the world is protected from piracy (whether state sponsored or private). We don’t need a declaration of war to have military forces in other countries; Congress approving the appropriations is sufficient for that. As for fighting a serious war, a declaration is the constitutional thing to do, but, as long as Congress is voting to pay for it, not totally necessary. When the country is officially in a state of war, it is easier to suspend civil rights (though we already have plenty of that now), and it’s main purpose is to prevent a president from fighting wars without Congressional agreement and to allow blockades and other acts of war under international law.

                The bitter truth is that WW2 could have been averted by either France, Britain, or the US challenging and stopping German militarization in 1936 with a minimal application of military force. They looked other way, and Germany had no obstacle to building up its military into a force that occupied most of Europe during WW2. An ounce of prevention would have been worth a ton of cure. I don’t think Ron Paul and his supporters see things that why, and that’s the biggest reason I would not support him over any of the other Republican candidates.

                I think the constitution should be followed. For example, G.W. Bush got Congress to pass a resolution authorizing hostilities against Iraq. It wasn’t a formal declaration of war, but I think it was very clear that it was functionally equivalent. We need someone as President who will try to persuade Congress that we need to take appropriate military action before situations get out of hand and require us to fight wars which endanger our very existence as a nation.

            • Wanumba,

              There have been only five Congressionally declared wars since the founding of the USA. The most recent? WW 2.

              With the opportunity of the Internet and many independent researchers, be a critical thinker and do the research. If using the main stream media as your source, it might be a good idea to find other resources.

              Even FDR stated, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” It would make one wonder if WW 2 was the event planned to provide the avenue of acceptance of FDR’s socialistic programs.

              Since Woodrow Wilson’s administration, the USA has slowly drifted away from the US Constitution and today with the planned “dumbing down of the public” people no longer are critical thinkers.

              One would venture to say many members of Congress or the main stream media have not a clear understanding of the US Constitution. Because of that lack of understanding and in protection of their economic status, many MSM reporters know the “rules”. Listening to MSM reporters and news network shows is an insult to one’s intelligence and independent critical thinking skills.

              The main stream media and those who control it will only be successful in their indoctination process of spinning the truth if we allow them to manipulate us in voting for the candidate of their choice.

              Instead of playing the “D”,”R”, and “I” game, maybe being a USA citizen who upholds the Constitution would be a better idea.

        • Wanumba, argue with this:

          Combat Veterans For Ron Paul:
          Lots of support site links

          Former CIA bin Laden expert, M Scheuer backs up Ron:

          M Scheuer endorses Ron-

          So does this,1 of 4 parts, find the other parts-

          Show us Wanubma where Ron says we should close the US off from the world. Show us where he said he would not go to war under any circumstances.

          You make a lot of bold jive statements but back NONE OF THEM UP. Typical Ron Paul attack dog junk.


          • I’m not really typical Ron Paul attack dog junk. I have decades of experience and exposure that Ron Paul doesn’t have in foreign experience and as pertains to conflict, development, security and humanitarian aid. I could get by with a lot less and STILL be years ahead of Ron Paul on these matters. I wouldn’t presume to run for POTUS, but there’s Ron Paul and he’s been running what three times now? He’s got a great salary boost every time.

            How about you? On what personal experience are you drawing from in evaluating Ron Paul’s claims? Some links? That’s it? Kinda “jive talk” ain’t it? The sophomoric name dissing only enhances the effect that Ron Paul and his supporters are bad news.

            • Ron Paul = vet. You = not.

              Ron Paul = 12 term republican congressman. You = blog poster.

              Ron Paul = foreign affairs committee. You = blog poster with no specifics.

              Still trying to understand where all your experience comes from. You say you have it, but have cited none. Just repost these grandiose visions of yourself over and over, as if you envisioned yourSELF in 2nd place for the GOP candidacy for president.

              LOL You wish.

  6. Jack Scissor says

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t WW2 somewhat a result of WW1, at least in the European theater? You say we signed a neutrality agreement with Japan, yet we had a oil blockade(sanctions) against them around 1940 or 41? Then they attack us late in ’41. Sounds like Pearl Harbor may have been blow back.

    We cannot spread freedom by force no matter what atrocities are being committed. We must spread our Republican form of government and freedom by example and more people will follow. If the people are not ready for freedom then you get a power vacuum. If the people want freedom, they will get it if THEY go for it.

  7. A few months ago I laughed at the idea of voting for Ron Paul, but I’ve come around to supporting him. I have to say that my experience of Ron Paul supporters on many web sites was one of the reasons I found it hard to support him. You don’t do Paul any favors when you are obnoxious, or when you are so quick to see conspiracies everywhere. The turning point for me was when I became curious about something Paul said in a debate and watched some youtubes of Ron Paul in interviews and giving floor speeches in Congress. The more I heard of what he was actually saying, the more my resistance to the idea of voting for Paul was worn down.

    There were a couple of things in particular that changed my mind. On foreign policy and the whole “wanting Iran to have a nuclear bomb” thing, it’s a shame Paul isn’t better at explaining his position in debates because when I finally heard a clear statement of it I wondered why it was such a controversy to begin with. He says we should follow the Constitution when it comes to declaring war, and that if Iran is a threat to us and the Congress declares war (the only way we should ever get into a war, if we care about the Constitution) then we’ll have a clear objective, we’ll go in and win the war and then get out.

    Couple this with the fact that Paul gets more financial contributions from members of the armed services than all the other candidates combined, and my concerns about his willingness to defend our country have been answered to my satisfaction.

    Ron Paul is also the only one who seems to be serious about cutting spending, rather than just slowing the rate of growth a bit. Again it comes back to the Constitution. If we just insisted that our politicians follow the Constitution when they put together a budget we wouldn’t be in the financial disaster we’re in. Why is Ron Paul the only one talking about limiting the power of the federal gov’t to what is Constitutional? ALL of the Republican candidates should be on the side of Constitutionality, not just when it’s politically popular.

    His answers about the newsletters were kind of weaselly. I understand that he’s tired of answering the question but his answers on that issue get attention in part because that’s the one place where he starts to sound like an evasive politician. I’m convinced he didn’t write them. A lot of his supporters get upset about the issue coming up at all but the newsletter thing is a legitimate issue because it showed very poor judgment on Paul’s part. But it it was a long time ago, and he’s taken responsibility for it and owned up to it being a mistake on his part. More importantly his record is clear on opposing things like the war on drugs and biases in the court system that disproportionately affect minorities.

    Another thing that hurts him, unfairly, is that he’s probably the least “presidential looking” of all the candidates up there. More of a “Mr. Rogers” character. I have huge respect for Mr. Rogers but it’s not the image one usually associates with being Presidential! But that’s just a matter of appearance.

    When it comes to defending the Constitution, which should be something we demand from every candidate, Paul is the only one up there on the stage who is consistent about it. He follows the Constitution whether that leads to a vote-getting position or not. I have huge respect for that. And I’ve learned more about the Constitution in the past few months than in the ten years before that, so whatever happens with Paul’s campaign my view of politics has changed permanantly.

  8. CP Rogers says:

    January 11, 2012 at 9:59 am

    . The more I heard of what he was actually saying, the more my resistance to the idea of voting for Paul was worn down

    THat was a very nice essay you wrote, fit for English class.

    However, oddly enough the more I found about Ron Paul the more I found him to be a complete tool, with a unbelievably dangerous foreign policy. If I want that kind of losing crap, I’ll vote straight up Democrats .. oh wait, that’s what Ron Paul’s DEM and INDY voters are going to do in November.

    See the FOX NH exit poll… WOW!

    Most of the Ron Paul voters are reasonable happy with the current Obama administration and that voting for a candidate to knock OBama out was NOT their number one priority. What?!?

    Oh what a surprise. Guess they’ll be more careful to lie about their intentions next poll so they are caught out on their duplicity.

    • Wanumba,

      Upon reading your replies, one has to wonder your motives in attacking anyone who has an opinion which differs from yours. In respect to your opinion, please do no insult others.

      Are you sure FOX news is always telling you truth or the truth as they see it? In most cases, the news networks and MSM report the news and then spend hours repeating what “they” interpret it to be. To an independant critical thinker, it’s insulting.

      It is your unalienable right to voice your opinion and others can read and disect your comments. Would it be safe to say you find pleasure in attacking Dr. Paul and those who support him? SamFox has listed several websites which may be enlightening.

      Each voter has plenty of time to do independent research of each candidtate before November’s election. Allowing FOX, CNN, NBS, CBS, ABC, and all the others to manipulate voters is insulting. Edward Bernays would be proud of their progress in controlling the masses.

  9. Oberserve says:

    January 11, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Again, if you believe the US should have engaged in WWII earlier than the congressional vote on a Declaration of War, when should it have happened and what would have been the process followed, wanumba?

    ASk the correct question, Mr. Twisty, the one that corresponds to the issue, not your very blatent dishonest torquing of it.

    The Isolationist Policy was wrong and a FAIL.. Even Roosevelt knew it. But Constitutionally. he couldn’t do anything, because the People were not convinced, and their Reps voted accordingly.

    It was all up and up Constitutionally, just the situation Ron Paul argues, but the whole premise of isolationism was evil and allowed devastation and massacres world wide when the US had the means to stop it early on. WE COULD have backed England and France, stopping the Blitzkrieg in its tracks. It is a known fact that Hitler was gambling on non-interference because the German Army wasn’t prepared for serious resistance. Our delay allowed the Germans and the Japanese to entrench, fortify, and it was our troops that had to dig those enemies out of their bunkers ast heavy losses.

    WE withdraw physically, that sends a message loud and clear to our enemies that our allies are on their own.

    Our enemies back their allies. WHat’s Ron Paul’s problem arguing for us deny the same backing to our “republican democracies?” Let India be hammered by Pakistan and CHina?

    We won’t have allies, and the world will spit at us for sitting selfishly on our hands while they were slaughtered.

    On Dec 7, 1941, the AMerican People knew instantly when the news of Pearl Harbor was blared into our streets that war had come to us, we had tried to hide from it, let it get nearly out of control, but there was no place to hide. WE had to fight, and GO to the fight to stop it.

    We have that lesson of history for this generation and you are arguing to go back to the cowardly policy that put us in that danger in the first place?

    • Wanumba, you are right, as the reincarnation of General Pershing, you clearly should have been put in charge of the WWI expeditionary forces to Europe so you could have stayed in Europe and taken care of business and we could have avoided WWII. Thank you for your insight.

      • If you would refer to my SA Veterans Day post, you would see I referenced George Patton who served under General Black Jack Pershing, and who fought in France during WWI in the trenches and who, like many many of his contempories recognized that the punitive Versailles Treaty was a disaster, and who was one of many voices at that time warning that another war was to be expected.

        So, you display your ignorance or deliberate cover-up of ALL this by snarky suggesting I made it all up, in hindsight.

        Which do you want to be know as: a rotten liar or complete ignoramous?

        Ron Paul voters in the majority claim they really aren’t about unseating Obama at all, so a vote for Ron Paul is worse than throwing it in the trash, it enables Obama.

        • What do you know? I’m a Ron Paul supporter. You are not.

          Why? Because he is a gentleman, statemen, defender of the constitution and carries the Spirit of 76, not to mention that what he says is the rock solid unassailable truth. Further, that he’s the ONLY Republican who can beat Obama.

          The more you post, the more I believe that you are a clandestine Obama supporter, despite your protestations to the contrary.

          • Tsk tsk. Ron Paul supporters are not voting for him to unseat Obama, but to “send a message” … to … ? So, you spend your time around here knocking everyone while you vote for Obama and Democrats at every opportunity?

            Mischief Voter.

  10. Ghost of Friedman says

    I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of these arguments. On the whole, Wanumba is right that we easily could have prevented Hitler from inflicting such horrific damage across Europe, had we not adopted such a non-interventionist policy. However, hindsight is 20/20, and it’s not fair to ascribe such current-day knowledge to people that lived during that time. Sure, our entrance into WW1 helped bring it to a close, but at a cost of many American lives, so Americans were understandably reluctant to get involved in another “entangling alliance.”

    I think those that argue that the United States military should police the world are wrong. Such a policy costs lives, not to mention trillions of dollars that we don’t have. However, I think those that adopt a strict non-interventionist policy are also wrong-headed. There are instances where our involvement is both appropriate and in our national interest–if pursued pursuant to a formal, congressional declaration of war. It’s a tough line to draw, and I think Paul goes a bit too far, but that’s not to say that our foreign policy wouldn’t be well-served by withdrawing our forces from nations in which they don’t need to be, including Iraq and Afghanistan, where our efforts have gone from legitimate retaliation to expensive nation-building.

    I do have one question for Wanumba regarding congressional declarations of war: You’re right in that congress has largely allocated (unconstitutionally, in my view) this power to the President. Do you approve of that? Are you in favor of a president who exerts war powers beyond those envisioned by the framers? Do you approve of a complicit Congress? No accusations here–just trying to get a feel for your viewpoints on the matter.

  11. I do have one question for Wanumba regarding congressional declarations of war: You’re right in that congress has largely allocated (unconstitutionally, in my view) this power to the President. Do you approve of that? Are you in favor of a president who exerts war powers beyond those envisioned by the framers? Do you approve of a complicit Congress? No accusations here–just trying to get a feel for your viewpoints on the matter

    I actually do not see yet that Congress has largely allocated this power to the President .. unless you refer to Libya which is an American policy mess, from the get-go, and has basically handed Libya to the Islamic Fundamentalists who want to restore the old Caliphate empire. Bombing and walking away while chaos reigns is hardly “humanitarian” “just” or sensible. It creates exactly the vacuum the US filled in Europe after WWII and gave Europe 50 years of real peace, stopped the Soviet Empire expansion until the Soviets exhausted themselves and collapsed. In Libya, the US is not intervening to invest in the stabilization of a friendly, democratic government, just letting it spin out to land iin the ready hands of the radicals.

    The Constitution lays out the authorities very clearly and it makes good sense. The POTUS has authority to immediately react to an attack on US interests or territories. A further commitment to wage war then must be approved by Congress, which is meant to be the voice of the People. Congress must debate and react to the population’s majority will.

    The problem at WWII was that isolationism was the most argued position, yet omitted the sordid history of it, so the People wanted to believe the soothing assurances that isolation would be the best course to avoid loss of life and property. Japan proved that folly wrong in the space of one hour. Isolationism depends on a basic unstable assumption: other countries will respect this “isolation.” They haven’t yet. The moment America develops a weak defensive position based on isolation, we are attacked.

    Our enemies support and back their allies. We don’t do the same to our allies and we won’t have any … not only will they hate us, they will have been overtaken by our enemies.

    Hitler was in full bore war, to intervene would not have been a “police act” but an allied defense. We could have stepped in much earlier to stop Hitler from taking France at a minimum, maybe even Belgium and Holland, even Poland. Hitler’s intentions were VERY clear by then, and he was weaker than he let on. WE sat out and let countires be destroyed and it still came to us.

    The Liberal Left argues a policing role: see CLinton and the Balkans. This is the antithesis of a strategic national defense and does indeed count as “meddling.”

    • In this age of nuclear weapons, ther really is no such thing as “isolation.” President George W. Bush was right: the devastation of even one nuclear bomb is too high a cost. We cannot afford to be reactive, we have to be proactive.

    • Ghost of Friedman says

      You (correctly) cite that most US wars did not begin with a formal declaration of war. So explain how Congress has not allocated the war power to the president, if we’ve fought years-long wars without a formal declaration? Isn’t the War Powers Resolution itself a sort of constitutional concession?

      I won’t get into it too much with you on isolationism vs. neo-conservatism. I agree with neither completely. I’ll just point out that just because intervention is justified in some circumstances (WW2) doesn’t mean that every US intervention has been so justified, or that such interventions haven’t, in fact, resulted in an increased need for intervention (i.e., blowback). The logical extension of your position seems to be that anytime any nation, anywhere in the world, is oppressing its citizens, it is the job of the US to intervene and impose democracy. I find that position costly, untenable, unsustainable, and unwise. Where intervention is directly linked to our own national security, there is a strong case for it. But where it is nothing more than an effort in democratization or nation-building, such an approach is at odds with our framers’ vision of limited government.

      • Ghost of Friedman says:

        January 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm

        The logical extension of your position seems to be that anytime any nation, anywhere in the world, is oppressing its citizens, it is the job of the US to intervene and impose democracy.


        That’s a leap of logic that isn’t suported by my statements. That’s straight out of sterotypes. Can we drop those tedious and rapport-poisoning things and deal with what was actually said?

        Does your nic refer to Thomas Friedman, btw?

        • Ghost of Friedman says

          First, it’s not a leap of logic. You indicated no circumstances under which you would find intervention inappropriate. The bulk of your replies are attempts at condemning isolationism and justifying interventionism. I’m not saying you’re wrong or right, just saying that your language suggests that you’d support US military missions in most circumstances. Which is totally fine. Own your position. Plus, you’ve done your fair share of stereotyping when it comes to your depictions of isolationism.

          Second, no, my nic doesn’t refer to Thomas Friedman–ugh. Plus, he’s not even dead, so I can’t really be his ghost.

          I speak from the grave for the lovable, brilliant, inspiring economist Milton Friedman.

          But I should say to Oberserve–this nonsense about Ron Paul’s foreign policy somehow being more legitimate because he leads candidates in armed-service support is ridiculous. Support from a particular group doesn’t make a policy position good or bad. It’s just support.

  12. The most ironic thing about Wanumba’s posts is this. You can read his 7 or 8 textbooks above, but no matter how many diatribes he writes, he just cannot change the FACTS, which is that the military not only supports Ron Paul with a greater number of donations but in total dollars than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED, both Republican and Democrat – ALL.

    Sorry, wanumba, but as a chickenhawk, I know how much this upsets you (see link), but there’s absolutely NOTHING you can say or do about it, no diatribe of yours will ever overcome the collective knowledge of our military and veterans:

    Paul received at least $95,567 from military donors between January and September of last year, the most recent data available, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s nearly seven times what Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who edged out Paul in Iowa, collected from military donors combined.

Leave a Reply