Ron Paul Beats McCain in the Money Race

David Weigel | July 6, 2007

I just left the scene outside of Ron Paul's interview with George Stephanopoulos in downtown D.C. Before he headed in to the Mayflower Hotel, Paul milled around with a gaggle of around 30 supporters and I asked him if he had more cash on hand than John McCain. "Somebody said we might, when the numbers come in," he said. "At least we're on the up slope, not the down slope."

And then he confirmed it for ABC News: He has $2.4 million on hand, $400,000 more than John McCain. (McCain raised $11.2 million this quarter but burned through most of it.)

In case you got one of those busted iPhones and can't see the video, here was my other question. (Who's up for a game of softball?)

reason: What do you think of John McCain saying he might take public financing?
Rep. Paul: He must need it. We don't need it.

Comments

CLS|7.6.07 @ 1:51PM|#

As I suspected it was no where near the $4 or $5 million that was floated a few weeks back. However, event this is a bit deceptive. I haven't looked at the most recent financial report but the previous one I checked showed Paul is raising money but not spending money. The other candidates are spending and raising both.

Paul's $2.4 million is close to the total sum he has raised. McCain's total is merely what he has on hand right now and not the total he has raised. Certainly $2.4 is nothing to sneeze at. It is true he has more on hand than McCain but not true that he raised more than McCain. I have to wonder why Paul is raising and raising funds but spending so little on his campaign?

When the first primaries come along and he's doing very poorly in them (and he will do poorly) and he drops out what will happen to the millions he raised but doesn't spend?

|7.6.07 @ 1:52PM|#

I'm not sure if this means I should be impressed and heartened by Paul's numbers, or if it means I should just say, "lol@McCain".

|7.6.07 @ 1:55PM|#

Maybe he'll get a little more MSM respect now. Nah, probably not. The media doesn't care for the sort of "maverick" who is actually a maverick.

|7.6.07 @ 1:55PM|#

when the first primaries come along and he's doing very poorly in them (and he will do poorly) and he drops out what will happen to the millions he raised but doesn't spend?

hookers and blow

Fluffy|7.6.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Actually, ABC News released this on their political news blog too and the $2.4 million represents the amount on hand AND the amount raised in the quarter.

So they spent all the cash they had on hand going in. That wasn't a huge amount, but it's not like they spent nothing,

ed|7.6.07 @ 1:59PM|#

Well, now he has enough for cab fare and cheap hotels. Good thing YouTube is free.

|7.6.07 @ 2:00PM|#

I don't understand all the attention to fund raising.Money isn't speech.McCain-Fiengold tells us so.

D.A. Ridgely|7.6.07 @ 2:02PM|#

hookers and blow

By which JasonC meant fishing while drinking a delicious and entirely legal (for now) "energy drink mix."

|7.6.07 @ 2:05PM|#

At this point in the race a candidate like Paul has little to spend money on --

consultants on rhetoric and how to look like an alpha male? No.

polling? No.

Ads? Too early only the fanatics are paying anything but the most scant attention.

Gray Ghost|7.6.07 @ 2:07PM|#

I'm happy Ron Paul is fundraising well. I plan on voting for him. (although in Texas, I'm sure it'll have to be a write-in vote). I've sent him some $.

That said, does anyone else find it funny that we get so worked up over such a paltry amount of cash? $2M is probably Paris Hilton's combined bar tab and fashion allowance and we libertarians are acting like Paul's found another Tutankhamen's tomb. P.J. O'Rourke probably said it best when commenting on Southern California that a fortune Joe Kennedy would have used to elect a new Senate, was being used there instead to buy wristwatches. It's just interesting how little money it takes to influence a entity with control over such vast amounts of money

|7.6.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Ron Paul beats McCain in the money race?

That headline is simply not true and blatantly misleading. It should be changed immediately if anyone is going to take this blog seriously and if this blog has any commitment to actually representing the truth.

Else it would appear you are no different from any other partisan hack with a favorite candidate.

|7.6.07 @ 2:11PM|#

I'd like to see how he compares with the other also-rans like Huckabee, T. Thompson, et al. The fact is that individuals comtributed almost 2 million dollars to what most in the media believe to be a dead duck campaign. That says something and hopefully this trend will accelerate.

Fluffy|7.6.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Well, Joe, it depends on your measurement.

Reason is perfectly entitled to use "End Q2 Cash On Hand" as their "money race" measurement.

You may think that total $ raised is the proper measurement, but you're not an editor. Ca va.

David Weigel|7.6.07 @ 2:12PM|#

It should be changed immediately if anyone is going to take this blog seriously and if this blog has any commitment to actually representing the truth.

So it's my fault that McCain has less campaign cash than Ron Paul?

|7.6.07 @ 2:13PM|#

joe,

I agree the title is not really representative of what actually happened (I believe McCain raised like 10 million), but its still good news for the Paul campaign.

|7.6.07 @ 2:15PM|#

So it's my fault that McCain has less campaign cash than Ron Paul?

No, its the fault of Ron Paul servers. We "gamed" the money race by hacking bank servers. We are all powerful! Soon we will make you submit to the gold standard!

thoreau|7.6.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Weigal is shilling for libertarians!

(And I'm sure that's not our much beloved joe at 2:10 pm, given the email address and capitalization in "Joe" instead of "joe".)

Stephen Macklin|7.6.07 @ 2:19PM|#

Actually they tossed Paul a softball question and he wiffed it.

That was a great opportunity for him to remind everyone that he's not going to take public financing because he opposed it on principal. i.e. it's not a legitimate Constitutional authority of the government.

Instead he gave a cheap shot answer that implies that if he needed it, he would take it as well.

|7.6.07 @ 2:19PM|#

What are these guys spending cash on at this point? It seems like a ridiculous waste to be putting millions into ads that are simply for FOX and CNN (and the Daily Show, lest we forget) to re-run in commentary.
Let Paul build up the war chest for everyone to see.
And is it just me or is McCain a different candidate this time out than in '99? He just seems more like 'establishment' than he did (or was portrayed as) in his last bid for the Nomination.

|7.6.07 @ 2:19PM|#

And for the record, I laughed at the cheap shot.

|7.6.07 @ 2:24PM|#

everyone knows McCain at this point and they don't like what they see. Ron Paul is the only one at this point to gain from more name recognition, but he needs to time it right and keep building momentum all the way to February '08. If he advertises too much too fast, he risks losing a dark horse status and exhausting his resources. Also, if he's smart, he thinking about carrying over enough cash for his congressional campaign and beating Dondero over the head with a large gold brick.

|7.6.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Also,

I predict Fred Thompson getting the nomination over Rudy. Mitt will steal some of the most conservative states early on and then Fred will win the big ones (Florida, California, Texas and some of the mountain west ones and Rudy will be stuck with some paltry wins in the Northeast and collapse like Howard Dean with a maniacal yell.

TallDave|7.6.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Still no chance at the nomination, but there's a good chance he could push the major GOP contenders toward more libertarian positions, esp. if his support grows.

thoreau|7.6.07 @ 2:29PM|#

thinking about carrying over enough cash for his congressional campaign and beating Dondero over the head with a large gold brick.

I dunno, that might damage the gold brick.

TallDave|7.6.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Lost,

I think Fred takes the South, Rudy takes the East, and the Midwest and West are up for grabs but leaning Rudy.

|7.6.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Hey, qualifications and caveat not withstanding. This is the best a libertarian candidate has done on the national stage in my lifetime. We are a growing movement and this is great news.

For all Ron Paul has already done for this country, I'd have no problem if he did take the whole boodle to Vegas. In fact, throwing a multi-million dollar libertarian election night blow out might be the best way to spend it.

RON PAUL 2008

|7.6.07 @ 2:35PM|#

TallDave,
But isn't Rudy already libertarian? ;););)

|7.6.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Warren,

Damn straight warren. I'd support Paul to do whatever he feels is necessary with my contribution because he's atleast given me a voice I wouldn't otherwise get on the national stage. God bless the man.

|7.6.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Money race measurements aside let me take a moment and quote the great Richard Crenna:

It's over Johnny.

When you're mentioned in the same breath as Ron Paul your days as a top tier contender are long gone.

No disrespect to Paul.

|7.6.07 @ 2:39PM|#

People I've talked to here in Wyoming hate Rudy, mainly because he's from New York, but also because he's such a squishy conservative. I think that sentiment will reverberate through most of the mountain states and they'll go with the manly man Fred Thompson. Rudy would probably get Oregon and Washington though. Fred's got homestate advantage in Cali, so he'll be harder to beat.

TallDave|7.6.07 @ 2:40PM|#

But isn't Rudy already libertarian? ;););)

Well, between him, Fred, McCain, and Romney probably the most so. But they could all do better.

Where's Fred on the whole libertarian thing, anyway? Haven't seen much talk on that.

|7.6.07 @ 2:40PM|#

McCain's been running a dead campaign for a while. He just isn't what he was back before 2000.

|7.6.07 @ 2:42PM|#

Fred's a Bush man, but I'm less afraid of him that mitt or rudy, especially rudy.

|7.6.07 @ 2:44PM|#

Matt J,
I hope you're right. In another six months I hope to hear Mitt, Fred and Rudy mentioned in the same breath with Ron Paul!

|7.6.07 @ 2:52PM|#

I'll only be satisfied when one of (Obama, Hillary, Richardson) is mentioned in the same breath as Ron Paul.

|7.6.07 @ 3:00PM|#

McCain has already lost
Thompson is too sick to run
Everyone hates Ghouliani
Rommny is too wishy washy

RON PAUL is gonna win!!

|7.6.07 @ 3:08PM|#

Upadate:

It appears Ron Paul RAISED 2.4 million last quarter, on top of his 600,000 he raised previously, which really puts his total raised to 3 million, an impressive amount, and he's spent approximately 600,000. Atleast, that's what I gather from reading the Ron Paul site along with www.politicalmoneyline.com.

So he basically quadrupled his fund rasing total and doubled the 1.5 mil total that DOOOONDEROOOOOOO was claiming.

Granted, that's still a quarter of what I recall McCain claiming he raised last quarter, but it's probably double or more of any of the other 2nd tier candidates, putting him into a solid position all the way to the primaries.

|7.6.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Hey, just listen to all the guys tell you what the future holds. Look at all the other things they've been right on, like the Iraq war, WMD, liberators, getting OBL etc.

|7.6.07 @ 3:36PM|#

I don't think Rudy has any chance in the West(at least the Southwest). We like our guns too much to vote for that gun grabber.

|7.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#

I agree with the sentiment that this whiffs of desperation. It is misleading and H&R would probably have been better off without it.

Below|7.6.07 @ 4:04PM|#

He's probably saving rather then spending because after the primaries when he has to address the public nationally for several months it will be an arms race in terms of finances. I believe he said it himself once, they simply outspend the minor candidates out of the race.

|7.6.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Ron Paul truly believes in the Constitution. That puts him at odds with most of the voting public.

|7.6.07 @ 4:16PM|#

We are months away from the primaries. Spending now would be a waste. Spin it anyway you want, this is great news for us friends of liberty. I thought I'd never see the day a candidate I'd vote for had millions of dollars in his war chest.

RON PAUL HAS 2.4 MILION DOLLARS!!!!
I'll repeat that, because it bears repeating.

RON PAUL HAS 2.4 MILLLLION DOLLARS!!!!
2.4 MILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLION Dollars

*Does happy dance

|7.6.07 @ 4:25PM|#

"I'm happy Ron Paul is fundraising well. I plan on voting for him. (although in Texas, I'm sure it'll have to be a write-in vote)."

Why will it have to be a write-in vote? If he's not on the ballot in the Texas primary, I'll have to vote in the Democrat primary against Hillary.

James D|7.6.07 @ 4:36PM|#

"Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."
- - Victor Hugo (1802 - 1885)

"Lack of money is no obstacle. Lack of an idea is an obstacle."
- - Ken Hakuta

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
- - Senator Everett Dirksen (1896 - 1969)

|7.6.07 @ 4:36PM|#

It will be interesting to see how he does in the next few quarters -- it could be every crazed libertarian who knows Ron Paul just contributed and maxed out and he peaked early. Can he continue to get major media and more donors? Will this induce hesitant libertarians and the odd lefty to give more $$$?

Duckman|7.6.07 @ 4:38PM|#

I think this is just the beginning for Ron Paul. He still does not have universal name recognition, and people tend to like what they hear if they actually listen to him.

The main problem he has (other than lack of name recognition) is the fact that he has been smeared as an "America hater" by conservative talking heads because he doesn't support current U.S. foreign policy. However, I think the tide is turning towards Ron Paul in this regard, and I think September will be big, since that is when the next war authorization bill comes up, and it's also at the point when the surge was supposed to have worked, and with all the Republican defections on Iraq, I think Republicans may be looking for a face-saving way to get out of Iraq, and Ron Paul provides it.

|7.6.07 @ 4:53PM|#

I note that those most interested in dismissing Ron Paul's chances of winning are also least interested in discussing the philosophical positions that are making him so popular. They are reduced to stridently booing and hissing the messanger while pretending the message is irrelevant.

Fluffy|7.6.07 @ 5:14PM|#

I'd be interested to hear the number of donors, and not just the total number. It would answer spur's question, for example.

Somehow I doubt that there are a lot of $2000 donors in that $2.4 million. If we were having a pool, I'd bet that the average donation size was $250 or less.

|7.6.07 @ 5:15PM|#

I wouldn't automatically hand the northeast to Rudy. Northeastern Republicans are pretty heavily pissed about Iraq and the WoT (I think a disproportionate amt of the 30% of Repubs opposing the surge was from the NE), and those are Rudy's two main talking points. I'd think Romney is the man to beat around here.

If Rudy's going to cakewalk anywhere, it'll probably be in the Great Lakes states or the mid-Atlantic. His stance on gay marriage and abortion is going to spell trouble for him in the South -- even though it's not showing yet, it will when the time comes to cast da ballots.

|7.6.07 @ 5:17PM|#

About the "claimed 4 to 5 million":

For one thing, I have never heard or seen/read anyone actually from the campaign float anything about 4 to 5 million $. That was all rumor from the blogs and "news" releases of a couple Paul supporters. It was all wild speculation from unreliable sources.

From what I can tell no one from the Paul campaign ever mentioned anything but very modest general figures ( like fundraising increased after the 2nd debate,etc) and IIRC the only thing I read from the campaign stated that Paul quickly raised $100,000 ( not $5 million, not even $1 million) after the second debate.

Now you have the Paul cheerleaders backtracking and all these idiots like Doug Thompson ( and others who act like Ron paul slept with their wives or something) saying " haha, your John Birch racist nutjob ron paul didnt raise any money at all, nowyouarespinning thecashonhandfigures whenhedidntraiseshit, blah blah lolz"

|7.6.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Comparing Cash In Hand numbers shows how much more fiscally responcible Ron Paul is compared to John McCain

Jerry|7.6.07 @ 5:26PM|#

$2 million is a good figure, especially if it took only $600k in expenses to get it. It's still a long way before the first primaries, so the war chest can still go all ways. I do hope McCain exits in the near future.

|7.6.07 @ 6:17PM|#

"When the first primaries come along and he's doing very poorly in them (and he will do poorly) and he drops out what will happen to the millions he raised but doesn't spend?"

Buchanan was polling 6% nationally 1 week before he won New Hampshire. He shot up 15 points the day after that.

I don't know if Ron Paul can win the nomination but winning New Hampshire and having a serious impact on how the other candidates react to this (and scramble to the right) is very possible.

|7.6.07 @ 6:20PM|#

I can't believe even our lame electorate is stupid enough to elect Rudy.

|7.6.07 @ 6:41PM|#

It cracks me up watching political bleacher creatures carp on the Paul campaign. Ron Paul has beat out incumbents to win a seat in the House not once, not twice, but three times...

Dr. Paul may be an ideologue, but he also is a veteran politician who knows how to win elections. Excuse me if I trust his judgment over that of casual (and pessimistic) observers.

P.S. WTF is campaign McCain spending all their cash on? Salaries for overpaid cronies?

ERIC FUCKING DONDEROOOOOOOOOOO|7.6.07 @ 6:49PM|#

when the first primaries come along and he's doing very poorly in them (and he will do poorly) and he drops out what will happen to the millions he raised but doesn't spend?

hookers and blow

Can we be friends again, Ron?

D|7.6.07 @ 10:40PM|#

To Eric D,

Just because you were a shit staffer and got fired, is no reason to behave like a little kiddie and be angry at your ex-boss. Just realise the intellectual and moral superiority of Ron Paul and STFU.

Bob|7.6.07 @ 10:47PM|#

Will $2.4 million cash on hand at the end of the last quarter earn long-shot presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul enough credibility to warrant a spot in upcoming presidential debates? It should.

The ABC News Political Radar blog reported today that the nine-term congressman from Texas has $400,000 more cash on hand than his Republican rival Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Upon reading that news, I had to wonder whether or not groups sponsoring future presidential debates would follow the sad precedent set by Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance - co-sponsors of a presidential candidates forum in Des Moines June 30 - and refuse to consider Ron Paul a "credible" candidate.

Any group with even a shred of decency and self-respect must now include Ron Paul in any presidential debate it sponsors - or exclude John McCain, too!

|7.6.07 @ 11:52PM|#

As much as I hate McCain for being an opponent of free speech and an interventionist douche bag, its still possible he will pull a "John Kerry" and get the nomination after being discounted as a has-been.

|7.7.07 @ 1:23AM|#

So it's my fault that McCain has less campaign cash than Ron Paul?

Yes.

|7.7.07 @ 1:39AM|#

So after Paul wins the Republican nomination and after he wins general presidential election I will say this:

"I was a libertarian before it was cool to be a Republican"

Just so you guys know before hand...and so you can start getting use to the idea, Ron Paul is going to be our next president.

|7.7.07 @ 4:07AM|#

It's interesting to note that in 2000, John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" machine set what then were the new records in "internet fundraising". It was McCain's success raising a quick few million dollars via the internet that served notice to the Bush campaign and to the media, that there was a serious challenge for the Republican nomination.

Perhaps a valid metric would be to compare McCain's success then to his current standing vis a vis Paul. Why is it that the same enthusiasm which prompted people to give so much money to McCain, and to do so in record time, has not occured for McCain this time around?

Can you say Iraq war?

Mostly, the support Ron Paul achieves, and which is evident on the internet, is the result of enthusiasm for someone who tells it like it is. Not surprising, since the internet is home to those who don't get their news from FOX or from other play to the masses media.

Ron Paul openly and beautifully expresses opposition to the Iraq War and to the War on Drugs (reference Paul's stance on Medical Marijuana). These views are supported by a majority of voters, and are studiously avoided by so-called top tier candidates.

Paul's internet fueled success is no surprise. What is a surprise, and a pleasant one, is that he's now getting air time on shows like that of George Stephanopoulos.

The so-called Mainstream Media seeks an audience, a mass audience, and the various outlets must compete for that audience. There's a convergence happening, and some in the media recognize Paul because of his internet fueled successes.

The internet helped propel McCain to top-tier status in 2000, and did the same for Dean in 2004. No reason to think it can't happen again. Fact is, it must, because increasingly, the internet is where the audience is going.

Increasingly, it's where most reporters go for their research.

|7.7.07 @ 11:06AM|#

In case the people don't know, Ron Paul is going to be interviewed on ThisWeekWithGeorgeStephanopoulos this Sunday on ABC at 10:30 AM EDT. This is probably a step up toward legitimacy...

|7.7.07 @ 11:26AM|#

Crimethink--

Is the secret mind control we developed ready so we can "game" the interview?

|7.7.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Any group with even a shred of decency and self-respect must now include Ron Paul in any presidential debate it sponsors - or exclude John McCain, too!

Well, let's just say that Paul has as much credibility as any of the long-shot candidates. He's got a national constituency - libertarians - plus he's the only choice for antiwar Republicans, and there are more of them every day.

|7.7.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Interesting to note: Ron Paul took second in a Cobb County, GA Republican Straw Poll over the 4th of July. As seen here.

Of the declared candidates, he was the winner.

The Wine Commonsewer®|7.7.07 @ 2:19PM|#

Now that I think about what Gene Berkman said over at the Requiem for a Jerk post, I realize that every politician is running for office on the taxpayer's dime.

In essence, the rule for calculating slime/crime seems to be that it's okay to spend your own work time to run for office but not to spend your own work time helping someone else run for office as when Revenel was stumping for Ghouliani.

Case in point, right here.

Ron Paul is my guy, but mid-morning on a Friday is work hours according to my calendar. He was at a press conference telling all comers how his campaign was progressing.

|7.7.07 @ 4:14PM|#

""""plus he's the only choice for antiwar Republicans,"""

How many of those exist? The Republicans jumping the Bush ship are not anti-war or anti-Iraq war. They are anti-Bush's handling of the war. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is the only anti-war Republican.

|7.7.07 @ 4:43PM|#

OK, I have to think that Ron Paul has jumped from Lyndon LaRouche territory, up into the Brownback/Gilmore tier.

This positions him to shoot for final-six or final-four status. Campaign in every primary, gradually pick off support and watch opponents drop out.

He's certainly not going to get the nomination, but it's conceivable the last couple of debates could be Guiliani, McCain, Romney, and Paul. That would be a great achievement. A good showing in such a venue could have all kinds of repercussions for the GOP.

|7.7.07 @ 5:19PM|#

How many of those exist? The Republicans jumping the Bush ship are not anti-war or anti-Iraq war. They are anti-Bush\'s handling of the war. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is the only anti-war Republican.

Well, I think that may not entirely be true. I think there were probably many Republicans in the base that had strong mis-givings about Iraq but they bit their lip and went along with it; they wanted to be patriotic and support the troops and didn\'t want to be lumped in with the commie-hippy-pinko-Left, according to the partisan retoric that is used so effectively to herd people along.

But Paul articulates the issue in such a way that, along with his fiscally conservative and small government stance, makes it possible for Rebublicans to get behind even an anti-war stance, and still hold fast to their conservative principals.

Those that felt all along there was something not quite right with the way we went into Iraq, thanks to Paul, can now articulate why and get behind the message, whereas, before the war, criticism was coming mostly from the Left. Add to this that many of the Administration\'s predictions and reasons for going have proved false.


Take a look at Paul\'s answers on the issue in the second GOP debate on CNN and listen to the audience\'s reaction. When a family member of a soldier asks him why we shouldn\'t stay the course -a question probably designed to trap him into looking like an unpatriotic traitor- Paul\'s forceful and straight-forward answer elicited spontaneous applause and approving gasps of amazement.

It\'s really amzing to see how Paul\'s campaign is helping to take the partisan blinders off.

|7.7.07 @ 5:49PM|#

TrickyVic,

Remember when the FoxBots hosting the SC debate asked Ron "are you sure you're in the right party?" The lead-in to that question was a poll that showed 77% of Republicans at that time supported the Iraq war.

If he gets the support of just the other 23%, that puts him up there with Fred Romliani.

|7.7.07 @ 5:54PM|#

When a family member of a soldier asks him why we shouldn't stay the course -a question probably designed to trap him into looking like an unpatriotic traitor-

Actually, the family member asked that question of all the candidates -- it was Wolf Blitzer who directed it to Ron Paul in particular. Now, it could have been because he wanted to direct the audience questions to the candidate who would have the most difficult time answering it (a good moderator tactic), but later he directed the "what's wrong with America's morals" question to Pastor Huckabee, a softball question if ever there was.

|7.7.07 @ 6:26PM|#

Actually, the family member asked that question of all the candidates

Ya that\'s true. I didn\'t mean to sound all conspiratorial there.

Maybe it was the particular emphasis that was put on it. And I think I remember right after she asked it, there were woohos and applause; like some people were thinking, \'Let\'s see him get out of that one!\' In other words, you can sense that type of spirit in many of the interviews and questions he\'s asked.

I\'ll have to go back and re-watch it. I think it\'s still one of his best performances to date.

|7.7.07 @ 8:02PM|#

The Republicans jumping the Bush ship are not anti-war or anti-Iraq war. They are anti-Bush's handling of the war. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is the only anti-war Republican.

The grownup Republicans (e.g. Bill Buckley, George Will) have been anti-Iraq-war for quite some time now. And about half the Republicans in Congress are at least inching in the antiwar direction, even if most aren't fully there yet.

|7.8.07 @ 12:19AM|#

Max, If you asked any Republican in Congress what they would do differently than Bush, they would tell you. Ron Paul is probably the only one that would say, "I don't have that problem, I wouldn't have went at all." Afterall, how many Republicans voted against the war?

As far as the real conservatives, or as you say the grown up ones, they were gung ho for Iraq until it started looking bad. As Senator Kerry might say, they were for it before they were against it.

|7.8.07 @ 7:49AM|#

As far as the real conservatives, or as you say the grown up ones, they were gung ho for Iraq until it started looking bad. As Senator Kerry might say, they were for it before they were against it.

Yes, of course. But you said nobody was having second thoughts, except about Bush's competence, and that's false. I don't mean to say that Republicans in general are embracing isolationism in general, but at least about _this_ war they are grudgingly admitting that the isolationists were right.

|7.8.07 @ 8:17AM|#

Afterall, how many Republicans voted against the war?

There was one senator* and seven representatives, including Dr Paul. But, as Hillary has pointed out, showing her true Clintonian nature, voting for an Authorization of Military Force is technically not voting for war. ;-)

* Lincoln Chafee of RI, who lost in 2006, with most voters in exit polls saying the reason they wanted him out was because of the Iraq war, apparently unaware that he had voted against it!

|7.8.07 @ 11:50AM|#

Here's a link to Ron Paul's interview on ThisWeek

|7.8.07 @ 1:06PM|#

Remember when the FoxBots hosting the SC debate asked Ron "are you sure you're in the right party?"

and

Actually, the family member asked that question of all the candidates -- it was Wolf Blitzer who directed it to Ron Paul in particular.

Um I thought Wolf was a CNNbot not a FOXbot