Thompson Raised $8M (Plus) In Third Quarter

You spelled "received" wrong.

Posted by susu | October 1, 2007 10:15 AM

I gave to Thompson. But I willnot supoort him any longer if he drops the Fair Tax from his platform. He should pick Huckabee or Newt for vice and that ticket willbe un beatable. Both Huckabee and Newt have the same platform as Fred in that they are strict constitutionalist but Fred has been wavering on the Fairtax and Newt and Huckabee are supporters. FRED GET WITH THE PROGRAM. I'll give you money......

Posted by SAM | October 1, 2007 10:16 AM

Check your spelling. It is "received" NOT "recieved"

Posted by Jim | October 1, 2007 10:20 AM

Thompson, Rudy, Obama, Clinton, it does not matter. "[T]here's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul, he raised $1 million in a week and is the only true conservative.

Posted by Tommy | October 1, 2007 10:21 AM

We are not hearing enough from Fred Thompson. While I support him, I say, "It's time for Fred to fish or cut bait."

Posted by George Darden | October 1, 2007 10:22 AM

How can we trust Fred to be the next Ronald Reagan if he doesn't even know where he stands on the issues?

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by Peter | October 1, 2007 10:25 AM

I would vote for Fred, but I really want Newt.

Ron Paul is not capable of winning and you are being distracted to the point that you may allow a true socialist into the Oval Office.

Posted by Andy | October 1, 2007 10:25 AM

Ron Paul made over 1 million in 7 days :)

Posted by thepro | October 1, 2007 10:28 AM

Huckabee and Newt are strict constitutionalists? And the Pope is a Lutheran! War is peace, freedom is slavery.

Ron Paul is the only constitutionalist running. Period.

Posted by Dave Updegrove | October 1, 2007 10:30 AM

This is low. Romney and Guiliani will report between $10M and $15M. If he can't step it up soon he'll go the way of McCain and have to accept matching funds.

Posted by Alan | October 1, 2007 10:32 AM

Fred needs to get more public, I agree its time for him to fish or cut bait. I also agree newt or huckabee would be an unbeatable ticket. Ankles would not have a chance vs that tic.

gata

Posted by Bill | October 1, 2007 10:33 AM

Hillary will trounce any of the Republican "stuffed shirts" except, the one candidate that can inspire a grassroot return to real vaulues, and that of course, is RON PAUL.

Posted by alan laney | October 1, 2007 10:34 AM

The Neocons have hijacked the Republican party. Dr Ron Paul is most like President Reagan (and was the first to support him back then) and Barry Goldwater (whose son has spoken favorably about Dr Paul). Neocons are not conservatives. Neocons are tax and spenders who love military adventurism. They don't raise taxes because instead, they ring up the national debt to trillions of dollars and print money out of thin air. Conservatives are for small government and no foreign adventurism. Conservatives are noninterventionists but simultaneously for a strong defense, that is, to protect the country against declared wars and to strengthen our borders. Dr Ron Paul is the only Conservative top tier presidential candidate. Rudy McRompson holds the President Bush philosophy of big government, intervening in foreign affairs, less freedom, and more intrusion like national ID cards, all of which are contrary to the US Constitution.

Posted by Ward Ciac | October 1, 2007 10:35 AM

HOw can Thompson or any other republican beat a democrat? Nothing has changed for the better since 2006!! At least Thompson wouldn't split the party, like Rudy or Romney.

Actually, maybe it's time for realignment anyway.

Ron Paul is the only one that can beat the Dems. Problem is, most republicans don't care about conservatism anymore, they care more about empire. They probably would vote for Hilary the hawk.

Posted by Bjorn | October 1, 2007 10:38 AM

Fred Thompson acts like someone who had nothing else to do....so he may as well try this. The press carries no news but Democratic news...so who would ever know if he's saying ANYTHING really.

Posted by surf66 | October 1, 2007 10:39 AM

'Dr.' Ron Paul is a loon. He has about as much of a chance of being taken seriously for the Republican ticket as Dennis Kucinich does for the Dems. Scary thought, but maybe they ought to ticket together. It would at least provide good entertainment next year.

Fred does need to speak out more, clarify his stance on the issues in the MSM and stir the pot. He's just too quiet. I have yet to donate to him but plan to sometime in '08. I like the idea of a Thompson/Huckabee or Thompson/Gingrich ticket...

Posted by The Yuppie | October 1, 2007 10:40 AM

Better a true socialist than a fake conservative. Sometimes failure is the first step toward success.

Posted by Jim | October 1, 2007 10:40 AM

If you want the best information on where Fred Thompson stands on all of the issues I suggest you go to http://www.fredthompsonforum.com

You will be enlightened.

Posted by William D Berg | October 1, 2007 10:41 AM

I'd just like to ask whether or not $8 million is newsworthy or if it places you in the top tier?

I would like that stated now, before Ron Paul's final tally is released.

Posted by Bill Moore | October 1, 2007 10:43 AM

So having no more than 3% in the polls makes Ron Paul a top tier candidate?

Source: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

Posted by Richard Leon | October 1, 2007 10:43 AM

Fred is doing great. He is talking about conservatism in a way that Barry Goldwater and Regan spoke about it. It is a "movement" kind of speech and it is desperately needed in this time of "bush republicanism." Huckabee is more liberal than Hillary. check out his record in Arkansas. It is abysmal. Don't take my word for it - check it out. Newt is an amazing intellect but he is too controversial to be Vice President. We need him to be President Thompson's domestic adviser.

Sen. Thompson should pick Gov. Christ from Florida as his running mate. It would guarantee Florida and Christ (sic) is a great governor.

Posted by Jay | October 1, 2007 10:43 AM

You guys don't actually think America is going to vote for guys like Thompson and Huckabee do you?

Huckabee believes in Creationism for Christ's sake. That's all well and good in one of your wingnut debates, but when the general election is up and the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate is saying he believes in fairies and witches and a 6,000 year old earth where evolution does not occur, it's over.

And Fred Thompson? Seriously, how far has the party fallen that they will vote for a guy just because he has a smattering of hillbilly charisma?

This is the most pathetic field of candidates on the right I have ever seen in my voting lifetime. That's why none of them can get a foothold, and why "no one" always gets the most potential voters in their polls. Their own party doesn't like them. That's the only reason anyone likes Thompson, he's the empty slate who spouts popularly right opinions which he doesn't seem to grasp very well (he doesn't "know enough" about Terri Schiavo?)

Meanwhile the Democrats love their top four or five choices, and even Hillary beats the top GOP contender in a nationwide poll.

Face it, my friends on the right. It's over. You need to focus on 2012.

Posted by Deren | October 1, 2007 10:46 AM

Guys....WAKE UP....Even I know I have NO CHANCE of winning! I'm only running to get me ideas out there....you crazy kooks.

Posted by Ron Paul | October 1, 2007 10:47 AM

if ron paul raises more money that thompson- will he remain a 'loon'?

can you state that now- before ron paul releases his money total for the quarter?

what happens if paul raised more money that thompson? mccain?

is that something you can continue to ignore?

Posted by bRIAN | October 1, 2007 10:49 AM

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist? Is that why he adds $400 million in earmarks to bills that have already finished debate? Earmarking is constitutional? Yeah, right. He's a small goverment constitutionalist as long as he gets millions of tax dollars to support shrimpers and shrimp research.

How nice to add pork spending to bills that have no chance of being defeated and then voting against them to appear principled. He's a fraud who thinks we deserved 9-11 and that retreat and surrender in Iraq is the best strategy for winning the war on terror. He believes the gold standard will create price stability and that earmarking is ok as long as you get your money but vote against it.

No wonder so much of the support he's receiving comes from the moonbats. He's one of them.

Posted by MM56 | October 1, 2007 10:51 AM

Andy,

You're an idiot. Ron Paul is a libertarian which is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism. Could you cite an example of some socialist policies that Ron Paul supports?

Posted by Drew | October 1, 2007 10:53 AM

Dr. Paul should be the hands down choice of any real conservative. He supports reduced federal spending, non-interventionist foreign policy, personal freedom, a secure America, and a return to Constitutional government.

Granted he may not be able to keep up with the top tier candidates in the money race, but grassroots candidates rarely do. However in the end it's still votes that count, not fundraising totals.

Ron Paul 2008, Hope for America!

Posted by Jerome | October 1, 2007 10:58 AM

Is this just for the primaries or does it include donations for the general election as well?

Posted by Liz | October 1, 2007 10:59 AM

You have to give credit to the Ron Paul people for one thing, they are absolutely dedicated to bringing his name up at every turn. I don't really care how much money he has or how many straw polls his supporters were able to overwhelm. He can't get above 3% in any serious poll and he is WRONG on Iraq. No one who doesn't understand the stakes in defeating Al Qaeda deserves to be President, and certainly NOT the Republican nominee.

Posted by PRE | October 1, 2007 11:00 AM

Received? no it's recieved. no wait...
You all must be Fred Thompson supporters.
Is it fred or freddie or fredrick?
i gotta get this right.

Posted by chris | October 1, 2007 11:00 AM

Ron Paul doesn't have a campaign - he has spammers. it's a fake presence. Ron Paul message board spammers please go home and let people discuss real candidates without wasting time on fringe kooks.

Posted by aeroplane | October 1, 2007 11:02 AM

Ron Paul has more liberal supporters than conservatives. He's a fake candidate intended to be a straw man against the Democratic candidate.

Posted by Susie | October 1, 2007 11:07 AM

Ron Paul is a vagina. Anyone who likes him is a vagina.

Posted by Jeff | October 1, 2007 11:10 AM

Ron Paul is the republican's party Ralph Nader right now. As some have said he should run as an independent he would only give the election over to the democrats. That is not the answer to our problems period.

He is not a true conservative he is a isolationist and a Libertarian. There is a difference between the two.

Posted by William | October 1, 2007 11:10 AM

Ron Paul doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. He's a nut.

Posted by Frank | October 1, 2007 11:13 AM

Ron Paul has about as much of a chance winning as I do....none..Ron Paul is a NUT Case. In this world Economy you can not be a isolationist.

Posted by Bob | October 1, 2007 11:13 AM

Wow what a bunch of nuts! Ron who? has he registered at even 1%. If you put out your hasish for just a second you'd realize Ron is the Republican's Dennis K. a wack job who is only talking to a demented few on the fringes.

Posted by willy the impeached | October 1, 2007 11:15 AM

The fact that there's a virtually complete mainstream media blackout on Fred Thompson news says a lot. Apparently, the libs are very scared of him, as they should be. Go Fred!

Posted by ent | October 1, 2007 11:17 AM

NOTE TO PAUL SUPPORTERS: Do you see how your tactics are really ticking people off and making them LESS likely to support your guy?

I respect a lot of Ron Paul's positions - his message on limited government is a strong one that needs to be articulated (even if Paul isn't the most articulate spokesman for them), but he is absolutely hurt in this party by opposing the nascent victory in Iraq. Although one could make a case that going was a mistake, we ARE there now and we are fighting Al Qaeada. Ceding the field of battle to our enemy is called 'surrender' and the GOP will not surrender to AQ.

Posted by PRE | October 1, 2007 11:18 AM

Fred would make a great president. I remember wishing he would have run against Clinton. I liked him before he was on Law and Order.

I am a Floridian and poor Charlie Crist. Our state is in financial trouble. Needs to cut back millions in government spending. Bet he'd love to get out of Florida now. He'd love to be picked for VP.

Posted by Bette | October 1, 2007 11:21 AM

"Ron Paul doesn't have a campaign - he has spammers. it's a fake presence. Ron Paul message board spammers please go home and let people discuss real candidates without wasting time on fringe kooks."

Agreed, aeroplane- I've never seen a hippie movement in the Republican party before, but somehow 'Dr.' Ron Paul has managed to bring it. And only because he incompetently wailed against other candidates at debates earlier this year and voiced radical ideas and questions. These supporters probably think they're 'owning' the Republican party by backing this fake Republican.

I saw a couple dozen of his 'spammers' dancing to nearby live music and carrying 'Ron Paul' campaign signs on the streets of downtown Ft. Worth over the weekend. Why, I do not know... but they were an unconfortable thorn in the scene and nobody cared. Whatever.

Posted by The Yuppie | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Thompson's fundraising base means nothing. He was supposed to blow the competition away. So much for the great "demand" for Fred from right wingers.

"Political Dispatch" podcast!
http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is an isolationist or says Ron Paul thinks we deserved 9/11 has their head in the sand doesn't know their facts. Please, quit listening to the Republican establishment and the MSM interpret Ron Paul and listen to what RON PAUL says.

And what moron thinks our current system of inflating our fiat currency as a hidden tax on the American people is a good idea? Maybe it's time for you uninformed folks to learn some history and economics too!

Posted by Eric | October 1, 2007 11:30 AM

No one cares--nice spin though for a paltry sum.

Freddie is Wes Clark without any clear message other than "I don't know", and well, I know--No Fred Thompson.

Why would anyone support him? He is the same centrist as McCain and Giuliani, and he has lackluster career.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_Centrist_Coalition

Posted by jimrob | October 1, 2007 11:31 AM

Ron Paul is a vagina. That's was funny. Good Laugh. Anyway Ron Paul is a little weasly old man who got beat up in elementary school. Although I like the fact he wants to strip government. But realistically he has no chance. Vote for someone who will put money in your pocket instead of " Take the corporate profite" The angry pantsuit want to rob you blind and give it to the "poor". When was the last time you guys have met any "poor" in America. I bet that "poor person" had a cell phone and 3 welfare babies. Get real. As 50 cent says " I GET MONEY" Vote Vote Vote......

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 11:32 AM

1.2 million in online donations in 7 days is just spammers? Wow, some rich spammers. He raised more money faster online than richarson or edwards, and those are 25m candidates.

Posted by EEKman | October 1, 2007 11:32 AM

Fred set a record for number of donors by a Republican - that sounds like he is blowing them away. How else are you to measure success - most people would agree that when you receive money from more people in a single quarter than any other candidate in Republican Party history, that you are achieving great success. I know Huckabee was desperately trying to reach 3,000 donors this quarter - fred got over 67,000 more donors than Huckabee (I would say that he blew him away).

Posted by Jay | October 1, 2007 11:33 AM

Vagina is too good a term for the Ronster. He's a nutjob and has been for years. He has no following except for a few fringe lurkers. He is not electable and, frankly, neither is Newt. Fred is the way to go. Rudy will split the party and, the Balls believes, will tilt toward the illegal immigration amnesty side of things once he is free and clear to do so. Hopefully, the Fred will step it up a little, although he's not doing too badly for someone who sat on the sidelines for so long. Just a thought. HB

Posted by HarryBalls | October 1, 2007 11:33 AM

>> republicans don't care about conservatism
>> anymore, they care more about empire. They
>> probably would vote for Hilary the hawk.

Current breed of republicans only care about power, dictatorship and sex. They are the most corrupt and love the power grab. Look at this field..

Thomson:
He is a twice married old guy is a foreign lobbyist and a trial lawyer with a trophy wife 25 years younger than him. He has lobbied for Libiyan terrorists and earned millions as a lobbyist.

Guiliani:
He is thrice married lunatic who thrives on dead bodies of 9/11 victims with $9.11 fundraisers. His first wife was his COUSIN and he was scre*ing his mistress while he was married to his second wife.

Romney:
He does not know what he believes in. He changes his position from morning to evening and in reality is a liberal. He is the most deceiving politician ever who uses his millions to buy presidency.

What we need is a real conservative.

Posted by GuessWhat | October 1, 2007 11:38 AM

If at all there is a va*ina they have to be Rudy, Mitt, Freddie, etc since they are republicans in name only and are getting on their knees now to act like conservatives!

Posted by Noah | October 1, 2007 11:40 AM

Ron Paul is a nut and the Clintons make me miss Carter.

Posted by JOHN | October 1, 2007 11:40 AM

Thomson is a nutt and makes me miss Saddam.

Posted by lol | October 1, 2007 11:41 AM

WIll all you Ron Paul people, all 5 of you, just get a life. Should their be any Poll's asking if the voters in the US know who Ron Paul is, they would 99% answer He's that TranSexual actor, Right?

No one knows who is is, nor do they care. He is a little congressman that keeps getting elected since no Dem in his or her right mind would want to be the congressperson from that dist..

Outside calling Hannity or Rush or Beck,& making a asp when you call, NOONE cares! Simple, put you money and time in something besides Ron Paul.

Give those of us who want real change go about doing that.. The last thing we need is 4 or 8 years of another clinton. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton..Nuff said..40% of those alive today have know no other Presidents but B-C-B and now you want the C. We need real change in the WH, not some little man wantabe..

Posted by R J | October 1, 2007 11:42 AM

No to Newt. He's too polarizing. Thompson/Romney....'nuff said.

Posted by Fred is GOD | October 1, 2007 11:50 AM

The top tier candidates:

Rudy is as pure an evil next to Hillary. His ex-wives and family members hate his guts. The NYPD and NYFD hate his guts. Many New Yorkers hate his guts. People are tired of him milking a national tragedy for personal benefit. I am too.

Romney is a flip flopping rich boy that can only get support if he buys it with money out of his own pocket. How much money has he loaned his campaign? $8 million? He is like John Kerry in better looking but Republican form. He's the worst kind of politician, he'll say anything to get elected. What's his position on abortion this week?

McCain has lost his mind. Iraq is a waste of our boy's lives. Why are we there? Iraq did not attack us, Al Queda did. According to him we must stay. He blew $24 million in campaign funds with in 5 months. How can you mis-manage that badly? Doesn't make me think he can manage the country if he can't even manage his campaign.

Thompson. . . Ex-abortion and Haitian dictator lobbyist. Drove a beat up old truck around his state while campaigning to make it seem like he's a "good ol' boy." He's an actor you know. Didn't show up at the last 2 debates because if he did, people would realize he has no concrete positions he can remember. I've seen him giving speeches and it's painful. The only thing he has going for him are Law and Order re-runs.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. He speaks truth and has a consistent record going back 30 years. If he says he will vote one way, he will without fail vote that way. There is no flip flopping, no vote trading, no games. He's the only one that makes sense.

Great interview that covers pretty much everything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Posted by J Reyes | October 1, 2007 11:55 AM

Ron Paul is a crazier version of Ross Perot. If you remember that gave us 8 years of Clinton....Whackos that ignore history are failed to repeat it. Just vote for Clinton directly don't go through the Ronpaul middleman. DallasTheMan..........

Posted by Dallas Jackson | October 1, 2007 11:56 AM

So you think Ron Paul is wrong on Iraq, ok. But what about taxes? What about roe v. wade? What about government spending? What about border security? What about 2nd amendment and gun ownership? Hardcore conservative views there I think. Understandably makes the moderate republicans uncomfortable.

Posted by P | October 1, 2007 11:57 AM

The fringe is more war and more torture. Any republican you supports Bush's stance on Iraq IS NOT WINNING!!! Ron Paul is the republican parties only chance against Hillary, he'll show the fraud that she is.

Posted by W Masur | October 1, 2007 12:03 PM

You guys are totally underestimate Mitt. He's the only one that stands a chance against Hillary/Obama. He's already proven he can bring people together instead of polarize. He's a businessman, not a lifelong politician, which is what we need for the economy. He truly is conservative, just look at his record, not all the rhetoric.

Go Mitt!

Posted by Rhett | October 1, 2007 12:04 PM

Another thing, stop voting to keep Clinton out of office, vote for the best candidate, to me the choice is obvious.

Posted by W Masur | October 1, 2007 12:04 PM

I have sent support money to Fred's campaign, but I think it is time for Fred to try and pull together the conservative Christain voters. To do that he will need to be clear where he stands on: abortion; North American Union; Trans Texas Corridor; China threat; tax and spending; and defense spending. He can't please everyone, so he needs to go ahead and lay his platform on the line.

Posted by Wayne Greene | October 1, 2007 12:08 PM

Huckabee and Newt will make a great ticket, America has lost it's moral and ethical leadership it once had. Bringing in someone who is afraid to create policy on their own personal beliefs(clinton, rudy, obama, romney, fred, john and everyone else) is a cop out. If you would not get an abortion then vote that way, if you would not marry someone of the same sex then vote that way. We need to vote for someone who has the highest moral and ethical standards and who will not compromise them. This administration is not to blame for the problem of ILLEGAL immigration - its the last 8 who have let it go on until it got to this point. Here are a couple interesting compromises that would be awesome to see. Create universal health care and get the money by getting rid of the WELFARE program, both sides claim a victory and people are now healthy enough to get a job and contribute to our society. Another one, Eliminate the Death Penalty in exchange for making Abortion Illegal, once again both sides claim a victory and we can all be PRO LIFE from start to end. There you go

Michael
Radcliff, KY

Posted by michael | October 1, 2007 12:09 PM

Conservative Republicans will be handed their hats come November 2008. And as a result the GOP will adopt all of the Dems NWO socialist lite philosophies in order to regain power. This is because this how you win big mainstream media event elections. Conservatives like myself will be without representation in the two ruling political parties and therefore this Republic; it is imperative that we break away in order to survive as a philosophy.

Posted by Ray Valera | October 1, 2007 12:13 PM

HERE'S THE DEAL:

Ron Paul is not a conservative.

He is Texas Libertarian and not anything close to the classical definition of libertarian. While he may be more conservative than a Liberal....he is more analogous to a anarchist.

Vote Fred Thompson. The only candidate thus far to stand up for Federalism.

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:17 PM

Ron Paul is a NUTCASE. Ron Paul is WRONG on national defense. Ron Paul is a JOKE. And all of you who are following him or claiming to are a teensy lunatic fringe?

Could I make it any clearer?

Ron Paul AND anyone who takes him SERIOUSLY are all NUTS. Period. End of story.

Posted by Victory6 | October 1, 2007 12:20 PM

Fred needs Rudy or maybe Romney, not another Southern boy. Newt is toast, Huckabee is unelectable. Rudy can help Fred win NY and Penn., wrapping up the race early. If you want Hillary to win, then you want Newt or Huck as the GOP VP candidate.

Posted by R. Karl | October 1, 2007 12:21 PM

Thompson's fundraising base means nothing. He was supposed to blow the competition away. So much for the great "demand" for Fred from right wingers.

"Political Dispatch" podcast!
http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Whew ....... Hold on now Matt my boy, Fred is facing a virtual blackout from a leftwing media except when he is reported to make a gaff, a little bit of coverage from centrist media such as FOX news but I suspect that FOX supports Rudy for obvious and not so obvious reasons, and has not been on stage yet with the others during debate or whatever it is, and yet the cheese is rolling in. We have many months to go. Money will not get the Conservative vote, its the one who contrasts the most to Hillary/Billary.

Posted by ben newton | October 1, 2007 12:22 PM

You know on all the blogs I check out frequently, people either would go to war for Ron Paul, or they think he's from Mars.

I think the 900lbs gorilla in the room is that it doesn't really matter which Republican gets the nomination, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary Clinton. Look what happened to us in 2006, and you think since then the Iraq War will be less of a factor? It will matter twice as much, and approximately 70% of the public (who may or not be voters) want our guys to come home. They don't think we're surrendering, they're just sick of putting coffins in the ground for a group of people who don't care one bit about how we are trying to help. I am tired of the "fight them over there" argument, as having 130 bases worldwide in 2001 didn't seem to help us.

I know I won't see my brother for x-mas, but I just hope he's still alive. He isn't fighting for "freedom there" or "security here", he's fighting for quite possibly the biggest monumental fuck-up in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Shit happens I guess.

I thought Ron Paul was a complete loon, until a friend twisted my arm hard enough that I spent an hour objectively reviewing his points. Whatever you think of his policies, he's right on examining the root causes of our blunders. A lot of the candidates treat foreign policy like ripping the the leaves and stem off a weed --- "There, take that weed---we win, you're dead". But to REALLY kill a weed, you need to get to the ROOTS. If only they could apply that logic to foreign policy, something might actually change. He has a lot of good principles, and frankly given the mess we have now, I'm going to cast a vote to give him a chance to apply pragmatic solutions to our festering problems.

God bless our troops.

Posted by Chad C. | October 1, 2007 12:22 PM

Ron Paul is an interesting person but his pure libertarianism marks him as a crank.

Sometimes a candidate (or official) can be too pure.

Secretary of State Stimson shut down the Black Chamber on moral grounds.

Secretary of War Stimson had no probems with intercepting first class mail and breaking codes.

One can find a lot of fault with FDR but his deceptiveness and skill at manipulation were assets in wartime.

Posted by Arthur Downs | October 1, 2007 12:25 PM

Ron Paul? He's nuttier than squirrel turds.

Fred's getting my money and my vote.

Anybody who thinks he needs to define his platform need to go to http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx and read it.

Posted by Apostasy | October 1, 2007 12:32 PM

Thompson and Duncan Hunter...that's the ticket that will win. (If only Duncan could make first tier.)

Posted by Jane Brauer | October 1, 2007 12:34 PM

Ron Paul is the only hope to get us back on track!

Posted by Adam | October 1, 2007 12:34 PM

I contributed to Thompson, and will again. I saw Fred on his initial trip through Iowa. I do agree that Thompson needs to get out more and speak more, but the MSM is so in love with the Hill and Bill show, as well as Obama and John "Breck Girl" Edwards that it will be tough for any Republican to get their information out. I think JC Watts would be a good running mate for Thompson, especially if Obama gets the nod. As for Hillary, right now she is the darling of the Dems, and the others are giving her the white glove treatment. Tim Russart tried to push her and she dodged and weaved better than flip-flopper Kerry did. I hope the American people see her for the phony she is, Edwards too! Ralph Nader has said he will run if Hillary is the Dems candidate. Nader will take away from Hill like H Ross Perot took from George H.W. Bush. Add to that here extremely high negative polling numbers and I don't think the Hildabeast has a chance. For the sake of our country, I sure hope not.

Posted by Doug | October 1, 2007 12:37 PM

A Ron Paul is the Republican equivalent to a vote for Ralph Nader.

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:37 PM

I love all you guys who say Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. You guys are absolutely clueless to what the terms mean. Ronald Reagan said it best:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Posted by Sean | October 1, 2007 12:39 PM

Paul is a true Liberal in the classic sense. His stance on issues is strictly guided by our Constitution which results in a disciplined logic that is predictable 100% of the time. Its amazing to me that fellow "Republicans" feel the need to write off Paul as a crackpot. I still remember when the Republican party actually stood for less government; lower taxes, free markets and peace. But the Bush / Clinton regiemes have decided to incrementally do away with our Republic and build an empire instead.

By the way, with the exception of the IRAQ war Thompson is trying to emulate the Ron Paul playbook at every turn. Anti-Big Government, less taxes, free markets. His latest campaign slogan is a Return to the Revolution. While Paul's crusaders have been promoting the rEVOLution all along. Yabadabadoo!

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:39 PM

Abolish the IRS

Move to the gold standard

A few of Ron Pauls "nutjob" ideas. I guess he should follow the herd and focus on banning gay marriage, and bombing Iran, THAT would make him more mainstream. He should start quoting intellectual heavyweights like Ann Coulter, Fred Barnes, and Sean Hannity rather than lightweights like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Ron Paul is a lightning rod for controversy because he is advocating a Libertarian/Constitutionalist position that many younger people like myself enjoy. Personally I am sick to death of the tired old ideas of the 60's for the Dems and the 80's for the Repubs. Lets get back to the ideas of 1776.

Posted by Zim | October 1, 2007 12:39 PM

RON PAUL for president.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

Posted by kc6404 | October 1, 2007 12:41 PM

... and there's only one person running who should be known as the vagina.

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:41 PM

I'm tired of the beer swilling yahoos in the republican party, and if Ron Paul wins, I hope they leave and join some kind of imperial war party or something!! :) If he loses, we'll go somewhere else, and that is more than 5% of the party, I assure you.

Either way, there is an irrepairable split in conservatism.

Posted by Bjorn | October 1, 2007 12:42 PM

Law Dog is right. Federalism. Can't use those big word with the libs in here. You will confuse them. They don't understand the constitution or the words Federalism. They think we are a democracy. WE ARE NOT. I can't wait to hear the idiotic comments on that. They think that governmant is the solution and not the power of individualism. Fred is a federalist and giving the states and PEOPLE back their power should be the only ticket. Not social welfare like the angry pantsuit want to do. She will rob you blind and then smile to your face.

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 12:45 PM

So, on this thread -- Ron Paul has been labeled a socialist, a libertarian, a texas-libertarian, a conservative, a republican not-a-libertarian, an anarchist, a squirrel-turd, and a liberal.

Conclusion: People on this thread are very confused. :)

Posted by Charlie | October 1, 2007 12:47 PM

You forgot "vagina."

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:48 PM

Here is a little excerpt from a certain conservative newsletter. I hate the cut paste option, but this is well written and clear. If you are going spout about our Founding fathers I recommend a little research. The anarchy that Paul and other Texas Libertarians like to disguise as libertarianism is anything but conservative, it does not take into account the need for a strong constitutionally limited central government.

"Ultimately, libertarians and liberals stand at opposite ends of the age-old problem of “the one and the many.” Whereas libertarians champion the nearly unfettered rights of individuals (the many) at the expense of society, liberals demand rights for society (the one) to the detriment of society’s individuals.

Unlike libertarianism or liberalism, conservatism seeks to reconcile the one and the many by means of a singular bedrock principle: government limited by the law. In American government, this commitment takes the form of constitutional constructionism—the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the federal government is limited to those things explicitly set aside for it in the Constitution.

In our federal system, all other rights and responsibilities are left to the discretion of individuals and the states (the 9th and 10th Amendments). Federalism, then, is the hallmark of constitutionally limited government in our system. Under such a system, the federal government should actually be strong where it has a constitutional mandate to govern (contra libertarianism); this same strong government should be nonexistent where no constitutional mandate exists (contra liberalism).

Regrettably, there is little room for federalism among libertarians or liberals. The strange fact of the matter is that libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals."

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:49 PM

The Federalists wanted a strong central government and had little interest in individual rights. Yep, sure sounds like Fred.

We are a Republic - unfortunately in name only these days.

Restore the REPUBLIC - register Republican &vote Ron Paul!

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 12:52 PM

What kind of Republic Vera???

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 12:55 PM

Posted by Andy | October 1, 2007 10:25 AM
"I would vote for Fred, but I really want Newt.

Ron Paul is not capable of winning and you are being distracted to the point that you may allow a true socialist into the Oval Office. "

I agree. But I am in Full Support of Thompson now. 8 million with 70 thousand donners in the 3rd quarter. I guess I am not the only one.

Drock

A concerned Michigander that has given the state another 500 bucks a year thanks to Jeniffer Grandholm as of this morning.

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 12:55 PM

"libertarians are becoming increasingly dissimilar to conservatives across a whole range of issues, and increasingly similar to liberals."

Please note this and refer to Vera's post. It is similar to arguing with liberal....They refuse to actually argue the points and then they lie....Fred is the only candidate thus far to endorse true Federalist ideals....unlike Ron P who is quite simply a half tick to the left of anarchy.

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 12:56 PM

I like Ron Paul. Not sure why everyone wants to make general attacks on his supporters? Many of us are just people who agree with him and think we should support the guy we agree with most in the primary! Isn't that the way democracy works? The primary is the time to vote for your heart :)

Posted by Amy | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Wasn't Howard Dean a doctor too?

Posted by candy | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Lazy Fred turned out to be just a baboon-faced moron who likes young chicks.

Romney 2008.

Posted by Dave S. | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Law Dog has set forth the exact reason for Federalism. Good article. The libs don't get it.

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 12:59 PM

Dave S. What is wrong with hot chicks. You got an ugly one and your jealous. If Fred has game, don't hate the player hate the game. You must be lazier than Fred because I don't see you in the Senate of practicing law or all of the other lazy things he has done in his life. Where's your resume'?

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 1:03 PM

I want Fred to win. I don't know where he stands on the issues and I don't care but he was on TV so I know I can trust him. He not like the rest of them anti war Hollywood liberals he drive a pickup truck wears a cowboy hat and won't let those moslems rape my daughter. We ought to put them all the surviving ones down in club gitmo right after we nuke iran, if theys any left. If Fred don't win I'll support Ruby, because every time them terrist do something up in New York, Ruby becomes a bigger man. He knows how to handle them moslems. All you stupid liberals out there best wisen up, we're fighting moslems, you can't be free and fight moslems, it's gonna take every thing we got, so shut your mouths and join the fight.

Posted by Toby Stepford | October 1, 2007 1:03 PM

Somebody get Fred a good script and an acting coach...QUICK!

Posted by wgadget | October 1, 2007 1:04 PM

At least Fred has only one wife. Romney? Who knows????

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 1:04 PM

I would like to see more of Fred on the television.
The media won't
cover him, they only cover Hillary...its revolting. Next time use spell check

Posted by Madge Owens | October 1, 2007 1:05 PM

What kind of a Republic?

Oh, you know, a lil' ol' sovereign nation that builds upon a foundation of unshakable core values like protecting inalienable rights, liberty and freedom. The kind that that can't be voted away by a majority. The kind described by Jefferson and Franklin and Paine to name just a few.

Posted by Vera Rae | October 1, 2007 1:08 PM

It comes down to interventionism or non-interventionism. DO you want the government to interfere with individual rights and liberties or don't you? Most people do-- either for a sense of safety, or social security, or what not. The same principle applies to foriegn policy.

Posted by Bjorn | October 1, 2007 1:09 PM

Lazy Fred turned out to be just a baboon-faced moron who likes young chicks.

Romney 2008.
Posted by Dave S. | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

That took some thought, hey?

Freddy D and Rudy G 2008

Drock

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 1:09 PM

I understand the support of Ron Paul by many. And I question their knowledge of American history. Paul would fit right in, during the eighteenth century. You see, although he is absolutely right about many things, the type of government that he wants was destroyed after 1865. The federal government was the winner of the "War of Southern Independence". That ship has sailed, much to our detriment. Support Conservatives, not noble romantics.

Posted by Charlie | October 1, 2007 1:11 PM

Dang Vera. All I was looking for was representative. I bet your hot.

Posted by Sam | October 1, 2007 1:13 PM

These are good numbers for Fred... what's not being reported much yet is the fact that since he announced on 09/06... Fred has raised an average of 200k per day... far more than any of the other candidates... he also outraised Mitt this quarter... but Mitt will write a personal check to pump up his numbers.

But even if he had raised 100 million... Ron Paul supporters would say Fund Raising doesn't matter... then they would play the CFR card...

CFR SCHMEE FR

Go Fred - Beat Hillary

Posted by FRedStates | October 1, 2007 1:14 PM

Lazy Fred turned out to be just a baboon-faced moron who likes young chicks.

Romney 2008.
Posted by Dave S. | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Lazy? Lazy?

Dave
over 70,000 donations and 8 million Donaro's in 1 querter what not be a lazy stat.

Freddy D and Rudy G 2008

Drock

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 1:18 PM

I like Newt and I like Fred. I cannot support Ron Paul or Obama or any of those like them who fundamentally don't understand the threat to our homes and children that is abroad today. Reagan was not at all like Ron Paul because Reagan fought the USSR in a similar way to which Fred supports fighting Islam-al-sheitan-ists today. Paul is a pacifist. I'm with Fred!

Posted by Chloe | October 1, 2007 1:21 PM

A lot about Ron Paul... I am from Texas and always support locals, but Ron Paul has only one idea, get out... While that might bring support from moderate liberals and the war haters, it is not enough to be president... Who in the world will respect that guy???

Fred, you need to really get your message out!!! I am voting for you because of your stance and principles... You have a good sense on where we should be headed in this country!!! And that is for those of you who are lost in these troubled media times is:

1. Security - Build the Fence - Remove lawbreakers (illegal immigrants) no matter the cicumstance

2. Military - Keep the military as strong as possible no matter what - cutoff social programs to the illegals

3. Energy - Drill in Alaska, Improve the energy Grid, Fed gov help build nuclear power plants

4. Taxes - Lower them... Cutout pork barrel spending, social programs to foriegnors and give the people THEIR money to spend their way

5. Help American families - develop countrywide morals that protect our heritage - Build up our internal infrastructure - bridges, roads... By getting all these illegal lawbreaking immigrants out, by force if need be, imagine the time saved on the road, at the store, and the environmental impact they have on our land!!!

Fred, just get your message out and bring Newt in as the VP, nobody can beat that!!!

Austin, Texas

Posted by T. Shannon | October 1, 2007 1:22 PM

Mike Huckabee is a neo-prohibitionist, saying like his liberal buddy Hilary Clinton, that he would ban smoking in public places nationwide. That sounds like plans that liberal fascists have been pushing state-by-state over the past several years. It is a complete and utter slap in the face of personal property rights, and I would not support nanny state lover Huckabee just because of that.

Posted by Mac | October 1, 2007 1:24 PM

Ron Paul is the best thing going...

it is sad to see people bash normal, constitution loving americans like me calling us "spammers" and "fringe" and "nutjobs".

when you can't stand on your own feet, you attack...

Ron Paul has joined the movement of the People...

wake up and be part of the rEVOLution.

Posted by Dallas | October 1, 2007 1:27 PM

Does anyone here think that Newt Would Except A VP nomination. If he excepted along with Thompson, that would be a very Imposing Ticket. I would support that 100 %

Freddy D and Rudy G 2008

Drock

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 1:28 PM

So called conservatives are going to get what they deserve in '08. and that is hillary c. They don't have enough sense to see the only true conservative who can defeat her because he is the only one who is truly diffrent than her. His name is RON PAUL and i can't wait to vote for him.

Posted by kf | October 1, 2007 1:29 PM

First off...

Ron Paul is not a conservative. He's an anarchist. And anyone that supports him is a fricken psychopath. Have you seen his supporters? You call yourselves conservatives? Half of you are hippies and the other half are the types of protestors you'd see at a WTO convention. Get real Ron Paul supporters... you don't belong in the Republican Party!

Rudy is a liberal, and so is Romney. John McCain is just an old washed up loser who likes talking to the media too much.

Is Fred Thompson a perfect man? No. But it's clear from his politics that he's a small government man. And... for all you Ron Paul guys out there... small government in that he could do things that are DOABLE. DOABLE... as in A) Ron Paul would never be elected. B) You have half of the country wanting more government, thus, you need to make things smaller in moderation. Fred Thompson is a states-rights guy, and would elect conservative judges.

You need more than that... you need some friggen anarchist like Paul... go right ahead. But you'll loose the election that way.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 1:31 PM

TO Tommy:

When did this administration suspend Habeus Corpus? I too, am a Ron Paul supporter but that is a stretch. I have not read of a single time when an American citizen has been detained illegaly. Also, there are times when protestors should be arrested.

Posted by Onan | October 1, 2007 1:32 PM

I Have nothing against Ron Paul People!

Give it a Break. Reality Check! I am praying the The Laughing Muader Gets them Dem nod. Truley! But I know of only a few Males that would vote for here and they anti war Lib Hacks!
Look at the Polls. They will tell you who will be on the Rep Ticket. Geez. How hard can it be to support these incredable Men?

Freddy D and Rudy G 2008

Drock

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 1:34 PM

some highlights of Freddie:

~ He is a lifetime Corporate and Foreign Lobbyist.

~ Thompson helped represent Libyan Terrorists who bombed Pan Am Flight 103.

~ His real name is "Freddie".

~ Freddie has a fetish for young girls.

~ He has a trophy wife half his age who is even younger than Fred's own daughter by 5 years.

~ His first wife accused him of "cruel and inhuman treatment" in her original divorce writ.

~ His 1960 yearbook his picture was captioned: "The lazier a man is, the more he plans to do tomorrow."

~ He was so lazy that during his 6 years in senate Freddie was major sponsorer only for 5 bills.

~ Thomson has a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer which tends to relapse.

~ Thompson spied For Nixon During Watergate Hearings.

~ He does not think its important to catch Osama Bin Laden and thinks its only "symbolic" to catch Osama.

~ And if Osama is caught Thomson wants to give him the "due process of the law".

~ One of his ex-girlfriend says.. "Chicks dig him because he is a soft place to lay".

~ Thompson is a chickenhawk since he has no military service despite having been of prime fighting age during the Vietnam War.

~ He is running as a conservative but does not belong to any church or attend one in Virginia, where he currently resides.

~ Thompson launched his political career as a "pro-choice moderate" in a contest against a conservative Democrat.

~ He lobbied George H.W. Bush administration about easing the government's gag rule in regards to federally funded abortion clinics.
~ Thomson is AGAINST cracking down on illegal aliens.
~ His first campaign manger, Collamore, is a tobacco lobbyist while second one, Abraham, is a Big Oil lobbyist.

~ He called Cuban immigrants "terrorist".

~ As a trial lawyer he has urged that more witnesses should refuse to testify before grand juries by invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination, boasting that "I start on the assumption that my client will not testify."

~ He has represented white-collar criminals, drug defendants and lawsuit victims.

~ He is so lazy that he does not even know hot political issues like Terri Schivo case and recent courts ruling on death penalty.

~ When he campaigns he goes around in a golf cart.

Posted by Mittster | October 1, 2007 1:37 PM

Ron Paul Sucks!

Maybe if I had 1% of the time that a typical loser Ron Paul supporter had (cause apparently all they do is spam websites all day like little brothers with nothing to do) I could compete with the nonsensical support you see for the kooky old man out there on the web.

Who supports that creep anyhow? The guy is so... non-inspiring (this puts it lightly). He sounds like a whiney old man who drinks too much before the debates. Of course... I'd drink too if the bulk of my support came from conspiracy theorists and "9/11 was an inside job" types.

Ron Paul supporters are the worst sort of human beings, next to Islamic terrorists, on the face of this earth. Totally irrational, totally insane, false in their claim to being conservative Republicans (they are anarchists).

"F" all of the Ron Paul supporters who read this. Y'all need to get a life cause you're guy is a LOSER.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 1:38 PM

George Will, conservative columnist:

Fred Thompson's plunge into the presidential pool -- more belly-flop than swan dive -- was the strangest product launch since that of New Coke in 1985. Then the question was: Is this product necessary? A similar question stumped Thompson the day he plunged.

Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."

He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know [...]

New Coke was announced on April 23, 1985, with the company's president piling on adjectives usually reserved for Lafite Rothschild -- "smoother, rounder yet bolder." Almost 80 days later, the public having sampled it, the company pulled the product from stores. Perhaps Thompson's candidacy will last longer than New Coke did.

Is there, however, a huge cash value in the role for which he is auditioning -- darling of religious conservatives? Perhaps. But their aspiring darling recently said in South Carolina, "I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean right now. I don't attend regularly when I'm up there."

"Right now"? He has been living "up there" in that upscale inside-the-Beltway Washington suburb, honing his "Aw, shucks, I'm just an ol' Washington outsider" act, for years. Long enough to have noticed that McLean is planted thick with churches. Going to church is, of course, optional -- unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.

Posted by GeorgeWill | October 1, 2007 1:38 PM

Jason M.:
You are ridiculous! Ron Paul is a strict constructionist. He believes that the country should be run on the principle and ideas that founded the country. You don't like him because he is against the war. But he is right, we would be better off never involving ourselves militarily or by treaty with the outside world. Keep our troops at home, on the borders...that would solve illegal immigration and our part in the war on terror. I voted for Bush twice, and I dont necesarilly disagree with the war...but I understand Ron Paul's position and I don't attack him just because he says he disagrees with the war. I do attack democrats because they dont agree or disagree they just attack republicans.

Posted by Onan | October 1, 2007 1:39 PM

Ron Paul is a lier and he makes me want to puke, I would be happy to give him a punch in the nose.

I like Fred but my vote is still up in the air.

Posted by EMC | October 1, 2007 1:39 PM

Dobson hates Thomson

According to a private e-mail obtained by the AP, influential evangelical leader James Dobson told friends he will not be backing Fred Thompson's candidacy for president -- another setback for Thompson, who is vying for the conservative mantle. Earlier, Dobson said he would not vote for John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.

Said Dobson: "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote. "He has no passion, no zeal and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

Posted by Dobby | October 1, 2007 1:40 PM

George Will is a Giuliani supporter. What do you expect?

I suppose if you want a New York City liberal, adulterer, 3rd marriage-loving, gun hating, abortion supporting guy on your ticket, vote for him. I'll be over here with the real conservatives voting Thompson.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 1:40 PM

Onan,

I don't attack Ron Paul for being against the war. I think that plenty of people make credible arguments against the war. Ron Paul however would be against this war, WW2, WW1, The Korean War, and any other war you could think of. Ron Paul wants to dismantle the CIA, the FBI, and other federal organizations because he believes he lives in 1776.

Yes, conservatives should honor the constitution. But you're talking about a man that believes Thomas Jefferson was right 100% of the time. Well... he wasn't... and this nation would not have survived without Hamilton's insistance on a strong federal branch as well.

Ron Paul is not a Republican, he's a Libertarian. And he belongs in his own party debating his own types of candidates. His existance in our debates is a waste of time, a disgrace, and he's such a loser that the top candidates won't even address him anymore. His supporters are scummy hippies who don't have jobs and practice anarchy demonstrations for a living. Wake up... the guy is not a Republican.

Fred Thompson = 2 more conservative judges, "moderate" drifting towards less government, electability, and statesmanship. Ron Paul = Non electable, a policy of dismantling important federal bodies that keep us all alive (The CIA), and a ranting lunatic platform.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 1:46 PM

Dr. Paul lives in a world of fantasy. Allow Congress to declare war is thee most stupid comment Dr. Paul has made. At a time when military is paramount in the Freedom of US Citizens. Our Congress is one of the most corrupt in the worlds governments.
Fred Thompson is a memeber of the CFR. That is enough to cut him.
I want someone who is strong and for the USA. The only person I see who is strong enough to run this country is Ann Coulter/Laura Ingrahms. I will write them in.

Posted by Mike Steele | October 1, 2007 1:47 PM

Thompson has about as much chance at being on the top of the GOP ticket as Hillary. He strikes me as a gun-toting, marble-mouthed, redneck who has zero chance of pulling states outside of the DEEP south. As for for his wife...I'd hit it.

Posted by Groover's Grove | October 1, 2007 1:47 PM

Dobson hates Thomson

I respect Dr Dobson. But he is putting his own personal problems ahead of our nations. That is not what we need in our Party.

Freddy D and Rudy G 2008

Drock

Posted by Drock | October 1, 2007 1:50 PM

Let's use the term Dr. Paul lightly by the way. It implies some "worldly view" of economics or something.

The guy was a gynaecologist. Makes him even creepier.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 1:51 PM

Ron Paul crazies are all high on something and if Paul gets elected he can make it legal.

Posted by richard lloyd | October 1, 2007 1:55 PM

Eric said:

"Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is an isolationist or says Ron Paul thinks we deserved 9/11 has their head in the sand doesn't know their facts."

Ron Paul isn't an isolationist? In what alternative universe do travel? He's absolutely a classic isolationist. The world is far too dangerous to place our heads in the sand and hope all will turn out ok if we just mind our own business.

Ron Paul said:

"They attacked us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

Hussein was shooting missles at our planes while we were enforcing the law. That fact doesn't matter to Paul. He believes the 9-11 attack was justified because we were bombing them for 10 years. What an idiot!

"And what moron thinks our current system of inflating our fiat currency as a hidden tax on the American people is a good idea?"

What moron thinks having 5% inflation one year followed by 5% deflation the next year, like we did under the gold standard, was advantageous for our economy, and was the right prescription for attracting investment capital?

Since predicting GDP growth, and increasing the money supply accordingly is so difficult, the Fed opts for mild inflation rather than risk deflation. If you understand anything about economics, you'll know that deflation is much more dangerous to our economy than low inflation. We've experienced mild annual inflation since 1982, which is why we've experienced such phenomenal economic growth and increased household wealth over the past 25 years.

You Paulbearers don't understand basic economics or what's required to win the war on terror. That makes you uniquely unqualified to run the world's only remaining superpower in an environment that is increasingly more dangerous.

Posted by MM56 | October 1, 2007 1:57 PM

Let's keep it civil. Most of us are on the same page here - whether you support McCain, Rudy, Mitt, or any Republican INCLUDING Ron Paul, we should all honor Reagan's commandment. Speak no evil of your fellow Republicans.

Keep your guns trained on the REAL enemies. There are lots of negatives for each candidate, but the biggest negative of all would be 8 years of the pantsuit. Aren't things already bad enough for our party that we can avoid eating our own or chasing away potential voters?

Posted by PRE | October 1, 2007 1:57 PM

Best part of this deal is that the Mittsters only response is twisted facts and outright lies.....

Here here for Federalism and here here for Fred!!!

(Not the anarchy of Paul)

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 1:59 PM

Ron Paul has as much chance of winning as Kinky Friedman does of being governor of Texas.

Posted by cptxrepub | October 1, 2007 2:00 PM

I give money monthy to Fred. But I agree with whoever said it above; it's time to fish or cut bait. I want to see issue advocacy. All those essays he wrote for blogs ought to be put to use soon. I think they are playing out the clock, and to a degree that's fine. But I want to see discussion about relevant issues and I'd like to see it happen sometime before the next election.

Posted by dellbabe68 | October 1, 2007 2:05 PM

For those of you who snidely spout that Ron Paul is nuts, you obviously 1) don't truly understand Ron Paul's positions, 2) don't understand or respect the Constitution, and/or 3) don't understand that today's Republicans have rammed through every piece of liberty-destroying legislation (and then-some) that they railed against under the Clinton administration. He's more conservative and has consistently supported less government intrusion and voted against federal power grabs more than the large majority of neocon "Republicans" who have taken over the party. Quit listening to media sources who have a vested interest in marginalizing the man--they're afraid of him because he's the only candidate who honestly/truly intends to return the federal government to the boundaries it should never have crossed under ever more socialistic Democrats AND Republicans.

If you're tired of federal encroachment on nearly every aspect of your life, read Ron Paul's own (numerous) position papers on his stances...don't make your judgment of him based on dismissal by figures who want to lead you down the path of "more government".

Allison

Posted by Allison | October 1, 2007 2:05 PM

Take off the gloves Fred. You are boring me. Also, answer your letters and E mails with a thank you for my donation or...no more. Who ever is your ho hum web master...fire him/her!! Double boring.

Posted by Mortimer | October 1, 2007 2:08 PM

That's not a very good record of money generation. His biggest restraint on his winning the nomination is lack of coverage. He got a lot more when he was 'going to run.' When he announced, they stopped talking about him.

He needs a real strong VP pick, however, to solidify his conservative credentials and not just someone who is kinda good, but shunted away to never never land if he were to be elected.

Posted by beneficial | October 1, 2007 2:16 PM

Allison,

I have never said Paul was nuts....at least not on this blog....but I you may have over stepped. I have read 1) Ron Paul's positions and 2)constantly study the Constitution. I don't agree with a majority of what the Republicans in Washington are doing.....However, that said, perhaps you need to do a little more Constitutional examination yourself....I would also recommend reading a little Hamilton, Madision, and Jay....instead of strictly Jefferson.....We live in a Constitutional Republic...not a democracy....what Ron Paul advocates is ignoring any of the Constitution that establishes a central government. Its not just about individual rights or states rights.....its about a balance.....what Paul advocates is unbalance....

Fred is the only candidate supporting Federalist viewpoints...the only one and that says enough....FRED 2008

Posted by Law Dawg | October 1, 2007 2:16 PM

Fred should be more visible on TV have not heard or seen anything about him on TV ....
Is he still running?

Posted by Bernard | October 1, 2007 2:20 PM

You said it, Dawg.

Why can't we have a true federalist government as the Constitution clearly defines as opposed to what everyone else (say, 98% of the population of this country) call a democracy?
If we had a true democracy then Gore would have had a run as president. Stop calling the US gov't a democracy THEN post what Ron Paul says about his federalist stance.

Posted by cptxrepub | October 1, 2007 2:25 PM

Newt? For VP? OK, let's say his once more, together: We can either prove a point to the rest of the country by building a ticket that is completely unelectable but makes us feel good and ultra-republicany, OR, we can build a ticket that has a shot at winning and doing something other than blabbering on talk radio. Newt is one of the least-likable candidates ever. And YES that matters. Fred's charisma and style (i.e. his likability) are his greatest assets and are the reason his campaign is in the lead despite a late start. To go with Mr. OldSchool would be a complete travesty to Fred's electability.

Posted by SteveO | October 1, 2007 2:29 PM

On VP Picks... my site www.postpolitical.com has been exploring alot into Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska.

Very conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-business "female" candidate. Incredible look, more all-American mom (with a REALLY hot twist) as opposed to Hillary's... ehmm... bull look : ). Her main issue thus far? Taking care of corruption in Alaska. She was responsible for cancelling the "bridge to nowhere" project personally and has publically come out against her own's party's chairman as corrupt. Very nice twist to answer the Dems arguments on our so-called corruption.

We've been Thompson supporters for some time now but are starting to lean towards Palin as the VP. She'd make a strong... strong fresh face of a Veep.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 2:31 PM

Well put SteveO.

Check out Sarah Palin if you get the time. About as fresh a face as you can get, young, attractive, ultra-conservative, and female (to counter the excitement over the "first woman president").

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 2:33 PM

All this goofy 'rEVOLution' crap from the Paul supporters.....

Kinda makes me wanna start to sing:

"This is the dawning of the age of aquarius....age of aquarius....."

Posted by cptxrepub | October 1, 2007 2:34 PM

Paul is a non-starter. And I don't have to know anything about him to say that. Why? Look at the opinions of your brothers wearing W buttons - even amongst ourselves there is widespread doubt about Paul. That means he would repulse 95% of the other team in an election and doom a ticket. Game over.

Posted by SteveO | October 1, 2007 2:36 PM

Let's see:

Paul/LaRouche '08

Ron Paul:
The Crazy Aunt Ross Perot Warned Us About

You can always tell a Libertarian at a barbecue; empty hands and a full appetite.

How many Ron Paul supporters does it take to change a light bulb? There is only 1 and he's got to get back to spamming about it!

Posted by Thomas The Paine | October 1, 2007 2:41 PM

"As a conservative--but more important, as an American concerned about the future of this country in the face of a terrorist threat--Thompson's choice of Spencer Abraham was the final nail in the coffin for me in opposing Fred Thompson's quest for the White House.

As a Senator, he took marching orders from James Zogby of the pan-Islamist Arab American Institute, opposing profiling of Arabs, the use of secret evidence against Muslims (at the behest of Muslim groups), attempting to repeal the Clinton counterterrorism package, refusing to fund computer tracking of student and other foreign aliens, giving millions in our tax money right to Hezbollah, and putting CAIR on the map on Capitol Hill (taking the group's officials around to meet other Senators and Members of Congress). He took campaign contributions from the relatives of Hezbollah-backed top Lebanese officials after he got the group millions in our tax money.

Spence was one of only two Senators in the entire U.S. Senate who refused to sign a letter calling on President Clinton to condemn Palestinian terrorism and Yasser Arafat. This was at the height of a series of homicide bombings in Israel in 1999 and 2000.

As Energy Secretary, he gave top secret tours of nuclear facilities, as well as detailed information on how we secure them to Muslim nations who are our enemies. And he gave out undue post-9/11 awards to Al-Qaeda money-launderers . . . at the White House. The money launderers were raided by U.S. Customs Service agents.

After he left the Bush cabinet, Spence became a lobbyist for Mid-Eastern Muslim countries that practice the Arab boycott of Israel and don't really like us too much either. He took their money and until the Thompson race, did their bidding.

Do you really support a guy, Fred Thompson, who picked this man to head up his team? Either Thompson is clueless about Abraham, which should immediately disqualify him for the White House and frighten all of us about how he makes decisions. Or he knows about Abraham, and went with him anyway. Just as bad.

If you want to say no to jihad, you WILL say NO to Fred Thompson. He chose, and now we must choose against him"

Posted by Monty | October 1, 2007 2:45 PM

I know Huckabee was desperately trying to reach 3,000 donors this quarter ...

WRONG! The goal of 2,500 contributors was set on September 18 for that date through the end of the quarter (less than a two-week period) and was exceeded by over a thousand contributors (3,525 to be exact).

Given the fact that Thompson has been the media darling since at least July and Huckabee has had to fight for any exposure, I'd say that's an pretty commendable showing.

Thompson is doing well because he's still a blank slate. In the absence of any substantive positions, people see him as their personal Rorschach test and read into him their own hopes and dreams. Huckabee, on the other hand, has had his boots on the ground since January. He hasn't been afraid to take a stand on the major issues and mix it up with the other candidates. Thompson wouldn't deem to debate Huckabee one-on-one (despite his alleged support for a Lincoln-Douglas style debate format) and has yet to even show up at any candidates' debate.

Once Fred makes his first appearance in a debate, then we can talk about who's the better candidate.

Posted by Curious Texan | October 1, 2007 2:47 PM

Great for Thompson

BTW: On WronG Paul. Surrender monkey's need not apply.

Posted by meej | October 1, 2007 2:59 PM

Monty,

Your ridiculous paranoia is a classic example of Ron Paulism gone wild. Monty, there are no conspiracies in this world. Spencer Abraham is not an agent of Islamic terrorists that want to blow up nuke sites, and Ron Paul is definately not the answer to a global war that involves our committment overseas. Can you people ever at least attempt to win arguments without using false propaganda of a conspiratorial nature? Go hand outside of a post office or something.

You need to search your soul for a refreshing dose of reality my friend. It's a shame seeing Ron Paulists this delusional.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 2:59 PM

someobody say newt and huck have the same platform? is he or she kiddding?

http://www.taxhikemike.org/

check this out. huckabee is no fiscal conservative. the whole fair tax thing is jus this way of avoiding his horrible past on tax issues. i would say his platform is much more like the democrats from a fiscal perspective.

Posted by jon | October 1, 2007 3:02 PM

Didn't read all the posts but I think the $8 mil raised was just for September after he announced. There are FEC guidelines on this. Probably should wait til the final announcement comes out before everybody knee jerks a remark and then has to live with it.
If he raised $8mil in less than a month and he is in second place then the writing may be on the wall for the others.

Posted by buffy | October 1, 2007 3:15 PM

I can't see why people waste so much time even discussing Ron Paul. He is a total nonentity, he couldn't get 500,000 votes. It's one thing to elect a dishonest, manipulative, insincere harpy like Hillary; it's quite another to vote for a man who wears a tinfoil hat like Ron. I'd like to see him and Dennis Kucinich in a celebrity death match. Anyway, regardless of who the Republican nominee turns out to be, anyone with any sense of loyalty to America would have to vote for him, so as to keep the communist Klinton from office. That is the imperative in the next election.

Posted by GFM | October 1, 2007 3:19 PM

are you douchebags really so arrogant and bored that you have to apply posts with spelling corrections? how about replying on the subject.

Posted by KAL | October 1, 2007 3:25 PM

Here's how the cycles of American politics work.

At the end of a cycle only an outsider to the dominant regime (GOP) can win. Therefore...

Guiliani is the only Republican who can beat Hillary. If he wins, he splits the party like Jimmy Carter did to the Dems in 1976. Then in 2012 a true netroot Dem wins the election and becomes the Ronald Reagan of the Progressive/Dem party... and we all live under this regime for the next 30 years.

No conservative (real or not) stands a chance against Hillary in 2008... which might work to our advantage... as she may actually be too conservative for the moveon.org crowd (I know it seems crazy to say Hillary is too conservative... but to them she is). Anyhow, if elected she might tear the Dems apart in the same way Grover Cleveland (II) tore the Populist / Democrat fusion supporters apart in 1894.

In which case, we need to be thinking about who our McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt leader will be in 2012... and stop fighting over who acts the most like Reagan did in 1980.

The issue is not really what Reagan did, but what would Reagan do given that it is almost 30 years later and the world has changed. Its stupid to think he'd do nothing different today. If you think so, then you're doing everything to welcome in 30 years of netroot rule... (politics is about winning elections, not about sticking to your guns and watching your ship go down... that is called excessive pride...)

And thats how the cycles of American politics works.

Posted by PhD Poli Sci | October 1, 2007 3:32 PM

Allison, you're my kind of...er, not PC...I like your points.

Posted by beneficial | October 1, 2007 3:41 PM

It would be nice if you folks would rally behind Fred... He is, after all, the only hope for the Republicans. There are enough rational people left in this country to elect him president in the 2008 General Election.

So, start acting like adults and stop pretending to "know-it-all" about politics. Just do your jobs the best you can, realize that a party/country divided will fall, and then mark an "X" next to Fred Dalton Thompson for President in '08 -or- get ready to bend over for Hitlary and her merry band of wenchmen (such as Billary, her "first man" aka, the philanderer in chief).

Fred '08! We're just gettin' started folks!

Posted by Topsy Kretz | October 1, 2007 3:43 PM

I support almost all of Ron Paul's bullet point statements but the guy is a lunatic. Listen to him talk about Islam and how they just want us out of their hair. Good God People! Is he blind AND deaf? Iraq may never accept democracy and therefore there is legitimate reason to think we should not be there, but there WILL be a bigger war with Islam as a whole someday. There is no getting around it. Iraq will only look like a drop in the bucket at that point.

Posted by Rick | October 1, 2007 3:46 PM

You people supporting Ron Paul need to a little subtle. And I, being a middle of the road person, have never heard of him, so that should concern you Paul people. In fact, when you call him Dr. Ron Paul he comes off as some religous whacko movement or something...TONE it down, because you have already been tuned out.

Robert

Posted by Robert | October 1, 2007 3:49 PM

I love how everyone refers to Ron Paul supporters as spammers instead of acknowledging the fact that there might actually be a significant number of us. Just wait till we start spamming the real polls.
Oh and wait till you see how much money us 'spammers' raised for Ron Paul this Quarter.

Posted by Dante | October 1, 2007 3:50 PM

Wyoming will hold the first Republican primaries. And Fred Thompson attended the event, while the other contenders stayed home. Thompson was a crowd pleaser with positions on every issue.

Fred Thompson has plenty to say, and he's speaking all over the country. The problem is: the corporate media refuses to cover him. The New York establishment does not want a conservative in office, and FRED IS A CoNSErVATIVE.

Instead the corporate media presents Fred Thompson as lazy. The truth is that his campaign is resonating with Americans fed up with open borders, deficits and government corruption.

Posted by leslie | October 1, 2007 3:51 PM

Rick,
Ron Paul is highly supportive of our efforts in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeida.
Its a well known fact that Ossama didn't turn anti-us / west until he started seeing all of the western/ usa involvement and influence in the middle east.
Its also a well known fact that Al qaeida wasn't in Iraq until we got there.

Posted by Dante | October 1, 2007 3:53 PM

Anyone with any sense can see that Fred is laying low to memorize the platform which his advisors are cutting and pasting from current candidates , notably , Ron Paul . For those who think it is spamming , look in your rear view mirror , Ron Paul supporters are covering your entire view and it is by numbers not spam . It must be hard for you war hawks to swallow .(no pun intended) Small increments of money multiplied by masses will add up to enough for what is needed . Please don't take it as a personal affront , it is life and you may have some if you like , only you will know , you don't need to tell your hard line friends .

Posted by bob graham | October 1, 2007 3:56 PM

Dante,
Neither of those statements are actually "well-known facts". They don't even qualify to be used in such a propaganda technique. And don't think OBL was pro-US before just because we supported him in another war. I'd let Hillary give me $50, but that doesn't mean I like her.

Posted by Rick | October 1, 2007 4:03 PM

Dante,

This is the major issue that I have with Ron Paul types... lack of understanding of the war. Actually... let me restate that... using particular irrelevant bits of information to prove your misguided points.

OK... So it's "fact" that al Qaeda wasn't interested in us until we had a long standing relationship with moderate Arab countries to buy oil from them. So what??? Are you suggesting that it is the business of some fringe political group like al Qaeda to tell one sovereign state, the United States, that it is not allowed to do business with another sovereign state, Saudi Arabia? What business is it of al Qaeda's that we choose prosper mutually with?

See this is the thing that ticks me off about you guys. You talk as if it's all our fault. Like... Gee... If only we didn't let the Arabs kill all the Jews or choose to have business relationships beyond our borders... the world would be perfect. Get a grip Dante!

How DARE al Qaeda assume that it isn't our right to protect our friends the Israelis. How dare they suggest that it's not our right to do financial business with who we want to. We don't force the Saudis to sell us oil, they want grant us that opportunity, and I'm sorry that I don't share your hope that Arab countries become al Qaeda infested instead of moderate.

As for al Qaeda in Iraq. You may be right about the "current" al Qaeda group not being in Iraq until we got there. However... is this bad? Have you noticed a terrorist attack on American soil lately? Why is that do you think? Well I'll give you a clue, and it's not the Homeland Security Dept that you probably protest every night in your sleep, it's that WE'RE OVER THERE!!!

Al Qaeda is like any other army, they have so many troops. Rather than having a timid Clinton choosing to ignore their little regime, we now have a President Bush who is like... OK... you want to bomb our cities... how about we address the entire Muslim world on your asses now. Like the Bush strategy or not, it has lead to no terrorism here. This, my friend, is a fact. Accept it.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 4:09 PM

Whether we like it or not, Guiliani is the only person that polls show, can beat Hillary. Newt, who was my guy, is not running. At the moment, I prefer Mitt Romney. He's got the experience, proven record of accomplishments, a winner, and a family that looks like "the all-American family". But, can he win is the big question??

Do we want to win the Presidency or do we want to lose to Hillary? That people is the question.

Posted by Eyes Wide Open | October 1, 2007 4:12 PM

"For those who think it is spamming , look in your rear view mirror , Ron Paul supporters are covering your entire view and it is by numbers not spam ."

Baaahahahahahaha!!! Are you serious? Ron Paul polls at like less than 1% dude. Your numbers are just that... you have more losers in your camp that have nothing better to do with their time but to spread propaganda on the internet all day. What is it with these jackasses that makes them think any serious candidate feels threatened by Paul? Yeah bro... his message is catching on. You keep on believing that, and I also have a bridge I'd like to sell you too.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 4:14 PM

Wrong is not an adverb. Should have read, "You spelled 'recieved' incorrectly."

Posted by Brandon Kostman | October 1, 2007 4:17 PM

Rudy can not beat Hillary. Conservatives will simply not show up to the polls if he is the candidate. He is an adulterer, anti-gun, pro-choice, and reflects nothing that the heart and soul of the Republican Party stands for. You're simply not hearing all the dirt yet because the media is salivating over this guy passing the primary stage.

Didn't you see the various Christian orgs coming out saying they'd run a 3rd Party if Rudy became the nominee? These are serious threats from guys like Tony Perkins, Lamb, and others.

Believe in Thompson my friend. He's a fine candidate. Likeable, clean from corruption, small government, and a good speaker.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 4:17 PM

McCain does nearly as well as Guiliani vs. the Pantsuit, and McCain is actually pro-life. People may dislike some of McCain's positions, but his integrity and honor are absolute. He has his positions because he believes them to be right, not because he thinks that they will give him the best poll numbers. McCain is right on Iraq, life, spending and taxes. He is the only one with the integrity to win and the right positions on all the major issues (for me).

In a race between Rudy and McCain, I would VASTLY prefer John McCain. But, unlike the Christian Coalition, I will vote for Rudy if he is our nominee.

Stick together Republicans! Our enemy is the Pantsuit, not each other.

Posted by PRE | October 1, 2007 4:22 PM

McCain sucks ballZ dude. Integrity? Here's a guy that folds like a cheap suit anytime he thinks he can get Katie Couric to like him. He's old, washed up, and finished man... face it. He looks like a ghost walking around, in those hats and sunglasses of his. And he's about as inspiring a speaker as my grandmom. Who could possibly want to run this guy as their nominee?

This is the party with Republicans this year. I suppose Fred Thompson just needs to do well in a debate or two to convince you guys. Romney, Rudy, and McCain cannot win this. Stop looking at polls and use the old mind for a change. In October a year before the election, people are generically thinking Republican and Democrat. This won't be the case when we have 2 real candidates hitting each other all day with insults and diverse opinions. Thompson is the only electable conservative in the party right now, and he's a solid choice.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 4:30 PM

Anyway... I'm out soon. Good luck to Fred Thompson.

Posted by Jason M. | October 1, 2007 4:33 PM

Jason - after you have served in our military, spent time in the Hanoi Hilton, been tortured AND refused to be released because you didn't want to leave your men behind THEN YOU CAN CRITICIZE THE INTEGRITY OF JOHN MCCAIN. Take issue with his positions, but it is ludicrous for us to be attacking each other and it is Move-on like for you to attack the lifetime of service of John McCain.

Posted by PRE | October 1, 2007 4:39 PM

I had never heard of Ron Paul prior to the last debate.

My first response to him was, "Whose the nutjob whose acting like he may start killing someone?"

At that time I knew nothing about his positions...he just comes off as a crazy person. If he doesn't have the demeanor to be President you might as well forget it.

Posted by Kader | October 1, 2007 4:47 PM

Wow. Quite a thread. Amazing how that happens when there's good news for Dr. Paul.

A few thoughts...

My apologies to the ladies for this one, but I do wonder about those who speak of vaginas as a pejorative. Me, I kinda like vaginas. I realize that there are those men who don't like vaginas, and you can usually find them in the men's rooms of any of our finest airports apparently. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

I doubt Dr. Paul was picked on in high school or any other time. The man was a state champion in track, and a 4 letter athlete, not to mention student body president. Unlike most of the Paul detractors here, I suspect, he was the type of lad growing up any father would be proud to have call on his daughter. He is gaunter than his colleagues because you never catch him enjoying a lobbyist-bought steak at the Capital Grille. Rather, he spends his lunchtime eating in his office, actually reading the legislation he is going to vote on. Tough to get work done at the Capital Grille, especially in the presence of influence peddlers.

We call him Dr. Paul, because that is his title. I suppose ettiquette would call for him to be referred to as "Congressman Paul", but that has too many syllables, and associates him him with far too many unsavory characters. But he is an MD, and served as a flight surgeon in the USAF (that's right, in uniform, unlike so many of the sunshine patriots he shares the debate stage with). I like to think I honor him by calling him "Dr. Paul". Yes, he was an OB/GYN. Yes, he delivered over 4000 babies in his career. Someone who considers baby doctors creepy speaks volumes of what he thinks of his own birth, and even his own mother. Sad, really.

Ron Paul has a strict ideology. Good for him. My party has suffered too much from neocon Judases who are willing to crucify our liberties for 30 pieces of electoral silver. How did we get from eliminating the Department of Education to NCLB in 20 years? When did Republican presidents start taking their marching orders from the UN? When did our party include a devotion to the biggest expansion of government in decades? At what point did we become the Party of War?

My GOP has been hijacked, and I want it back.

And I'm going to take it back, with a little help from a lot of friends, and a lot of help from Dr. Ron Paul. We may be hippies. We may be gun nuts. We may be survivalists. We may be young. We may be old. We may even be a little kooky. But we're on the move, we're fired up, and we know exactly where we want to go and exactly who we want to take us there.

We may not get it back this time. But we're gonna leave a mark, and we're going to have fun doing it. And therein lies what makes the Ron Paul campaign different. What detractors call kookiness is, in fact, joy. Why are we so loud, so persistent, so motivated? Because we support a candidate, and our consciences have no qualms about it whatsoever. We don't agree with Dr. Paul on every issue. But we know where he stands, how he got there, and that he'll be moved neither by force of arms, nor lure of pelf, nor temptations of power.

And that kind of clarity of conscience allows the type of enthusiasm that sets Paul supporters apart. Let the supporters of Mssrs. Thompson, Giuliani and Romney remember that in an early January New Hampshire morning when they are going door-to-door in the snow, or making that 367th phone call. Remember, and know that your Ron Paul counterpart is doing so with a smile on their face, not because they expect favor, but because they know they back someone who, come hell or high water, isn't going to sell them or their principles out. Remember that, and remember it well.

Ron Paul 2008. Because taking your country back should be fun.

Posted by Edward Keithly | October 1, 2007 5:59 PM

Maybe all of these Ron Paul doubters should get a walk down memory lane with ole' Grandpa Reagan. Reagan supported Goldwater and gave one heck of a speech. You could cookie cutter the speech and it would be endorsing Ron Paul. In fact Barry Goldwater Jr. is supporting Ron Paul.

For those of you still dreaming of Reagan. Listen to this speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHoOfcFM33c
part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bYdUM9qgkk
part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB8khuAQWNY
part 3

Walk down memory lane and then call Ron Paul's platform of: small government, sound money, no nation building, lower taxes and stopping entitlements kooky.

As for me, I'm a conservative Republican, married to a doctor, own a business, never have been on welfare, and only wore a tinfoil hat while dressed as The Statue of Liberty.

The GOP was my party and I'm going to help take it back!

Posted by JC | October 1, 2007 6:52 PM

If you want the best information on where Fred Thompson stands on all of the issues I suggest you go to http://www.fredthompsonforum.com

I found his forum to be as discursive and hard to follow as his campaign.

There's another web page that does a better job of it, but it took him until September 17, 2007 to get it posted.

It looks like Mr. Thompson has a lot of catching up to do. Maybe if he were to show up at the debates and show us how well he can articulate his positions, we'd see whether he has the ability to inspire us. Until then, I'll have to consider him a Potemkin candidate.

Posted by Curious Texan | October 1, 2007 7:19 PM

Jason M,

You say that all Ron Paul supporters are hippies, unemployed, delusional, and other unkind things. I guess I could say that "all fred thompson supporters are tobbaco chewing, gun-toting, jesus freaks that are inbred." Yet that would be totally untrue and a gross mischaracterization based upon stereotypes. It's quite easy to spit vitriol, make categorical statements, and dismiss ideas. As a Tennessean that was part of the Original Draft Fred movement I started looking over his record and realized he was not quite who I thought he was. After a careful review of where everyone stood on thier Voting Record I swapped my allegiance to Dr. Paul. (By the way everyone who is a gynecologist is not a twisted person, he delivers children for a living) People can agree and disagree as they choose, but having a little restraint, more logic, and a little class goes much further than unfurling passionate insults. The umbrella of ideas should be big enough to accompany constitutionalists, Libertarians, and people like Dr. Paul. Telling people to leave the party is rather un-wise as we are united in defeating the Democrats. I hope no one heeds your invitation to leave and go to the Libertarian Party where you think they belong. I'm sure Hillary would love that.....

Posted by Gadfly | October 1, 2007 7:32 PM

Fred Thompson is the only Republican who can win against Hillary.

Posted by Fred Thompson | October 1, 2007 11:24 PM

COME TO THE FRED THOMPSON FORUM. SHOW YOUR CONSERVATIVE SOLIDARITY. WITH YOUR HELP, FRED WILL TURN IRAN INTO GLASS!

Posted by Fred Thompson | October 2, 2007 12:21 AM

Ron paul supporters are spammers that aren't real?

I guess the 5.3 million raised this quarter is virtual dollars?

Fred Thompson has not even joined a debate why?

Could it be that he would be laughed out of the forum because he has no clue what is really going on?

Thompson just recently said that Iraq had WMD'S that how clued out he is get a clue people thompson is a farse

Posted by Steve | October 3, 2007 2:33 PM

Oh my dear sweet God. It's rant time.

I read about half these comments before my brain imploded on it's self, but don't worry, it's both sides of it that are driving my neurological discord. So if I missed anything in the second half of your internet dribblings, forgive me dear fascists and conspiracy theorists.

For the record, I am a libertarian. I would vote for Ron Paul but that would be because I am a libertarian. I disagree with many of the extremes Paul goes to, and flat out disagree with him on two subjects, the war being one (OMIGOSH! A libertarian can be pro-war? Imagine that. Retards).

Though I also believe in the old adage of a man far greater than any of us, or any of these men and women. "Talk softly but carry a big stick.". George, Fred, Rudy, and the other GOP morons have the stick. But don't know the first thing about talking softly, or we might actually be in a better position in the global theater than we are under the unique brand of neo-con 'leadership'. I believe this conflict needs to be fought with pen and sword, neither exclusively. And pen doesn't just cover UN sanctions, it means taking steps to better ourselves in the eyes of the Muslims that aren't psychos hell bent on 'exploding' random people. This can't be won any other way. And I don't think Thompson getting on Leno and accusing the rest of the world of hating us because they are jealous (seriously, this only applies to France and you know it. Maybe Canada but we love them anyway like we do that one cousin at the reunion that smells like moldy pork rinds) and that America has 'nothing to apologize for' is NOT kosher and is NOT the man I will vote for. Don't get me wrong. Any little Dennis Kucinich twit that runs around crying about how sorry he is should be chuckled to and shown to the door politely, maybe given a free tin foil hat and a happy meal (with a soy patty rather than meaty murder, of course).

I support the idea of a Government that minds it's own damn business and stops trying to be it's citizenry's father figure. Because that was NEVER intended. It's Uncle Sam, not Mother Samantha. United States of America, not Soviet Amerikastan.

In the end, I see a much more screwed up America domestically than foreignly (but only by a hair), and I think Paul's domestic policies, radical as they may be, is what is needed to knock things in the right direction.

Aside from that there are a few anti-war capitalists, fire arm owners, and the like who need a person to vote for. That's why Ron Paul has more than five people running around spamming him. Because he appeals to a base of people that are more numerous than you think, and are sick of having no voice. If he were to make the nomination (he won't, I am a realist. =P) he would get the Republican votes automatically unless the democrats put up a Southern Democrat (there are none on capital hill) or that dem happened to be at least a little pro-war (and I am not talking about Hillary, she will say whatever it takes to appeal to the most people.). He will get the Libertarian and Centrist votes. He would even steal a few of the democrats who actually seem to have a large sub-base that hates Hillary, and a few more that think Obama wanting to give MORE power to the IRS is insanity (it is).

That said, he's going to lose yeah- most of the people that support him aren't registered republicans (though he's tied with Huckabee in fifth place on the Gallup poll, but that's the Gallup poll). But that's not the point.

There are 77 Million Democrats in this country and 55 Million Republicans.

There are 42 Million third party and independents. While only 200,000 of those are Libertarians, polls show that 17% of Americans hold libertarian views, making libertarianism in the majority amoung the non-major party voters.

If you want ANY chance of winning, any at ALL you will choose a candidate that will get those independent voters. Sadly, you won't.

And you will lose.

Posted by Silvsilvchan | October 4, 2007 10:47 AM

Thompson Raised $8M (Plus) In Third Quarter

Comments (179)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives