Ron Paul

Follow the Money

|

Hillary Clinton is raking it in from defense contractors:

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics—gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field.

Ron Paul is raking it in from harmless eccentrics.

Paul's third-quarter financial disclosure report is sprinkled with supporters whose self-descriptions of their occupations are unusual, to say the least. Wade Talkington of Panama City, Fla., who donated $1,000 to Paul, lists his occupation as "tax slave to the Federal Govt." Erik Hovden of Olalla, Wash., is the "Head slacker in Chg" at Simpson LLC, and housewife Pamela Schuberg of Moorpark, Calif., a $2,300 donor, lists her employer as "our children."



Starchild
, a San Francisco-based escort and exotic dancer who ended up on Paul's list as "Star Child," contributed $300. Starchild, formerly Chris Fox, is a perennial Libertarian candidate in the Bay Area, having run unsuccessfully for district supervisor, the state assembly and the school board. Self-described monetary architect Bernard Von Nothaus, who has said Paul is the "Internet's favorite presidential candidate," has created a $1 Ron Paul coin and is listed in the disclosure report as giving a $2,300 in-kind contribution of coins.

On this I'm with Andrew Sullivan: God bless America.

Tim Cavanaugh's 2000 interview with Starchild is here.

NEXT: In Defense of Scalping

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Looks like the defense contractors liked the whole “not out of Iraq before 2013” line. Go figure.

  2. What about Paul’s contributions from Peter Von Nostrand and Art Vandelay?

  3. don’t forget the in-kind donations from that fiend Pennypacker. But if they’re all busy giving money… who’s watching the factory?

  4. So, the stripper supports Ron Paul and the “Merchants of Death” support Hillary Clinton. Self interest just might play a role in this.

  5. Defense contractors and other businesses with a great deal of business in Washington side with the winner.

    People talk about the political futures sites being a market-based way to predict the outcome of elections, but people on those sites are a lot more likely than defense contractors to let their hearts get in the way of their heads.

    Looks like the defense contractors liked the whole “not out of Iraq before 2013” line. And didn’t mind the “I will end the war as soon as I take office” line too much.

  6. I for one am not deluded enough to think that Hillary has any plans to end our country’s militaristic ways, whether its in Iraq or otherwise.

    News like this won’t phase the true believers though.

    When defense contractors give money to Republicans it’s because republicans are militaristic and they are soliciting contracts. When defense contractors give money to Democrats it’s because they pick the winner, and don’t want to be on their bad side.

    Sure.

  7. Looks like the defense contractors liked the whole “not out of Iraq before 2013” line.

    Not true! If this were the case, the defense contractors would be putting their money behind the candidate most likely to invade Iran.

    Oh, wait…

  8. “Defense contractors and other businesses with a great deal of business in Washington side with the winner.”

    And Hillary is the type of politician who sides with the contributers, ie, determines her policies on the basis of the big contributions. Look for her foreign policy to be little different from Bush’s.

  9. NEWSFLASH
    Late last night the Paul campaign sent out a fundraising email. And the money has been pouring in all day.

  10. When defense contractors give money to Republicans it’s because republicans are militaristic and they are soliciting contracts. When defense contractors give money to Democrats it’s because they pick the winner, and don’t want to be on their bad side.

    Don’t tell me you were suprised that joe would find some twisted rationale for defending Hillary.

  11. Reinmoose,

    Grow up. When defense contractors give a disproportionate share of their money to anyone, Republican or Democrat, it’s because they are siding with a winner.

    Also, “end our country’s militaristic ways” is the type of Naderesque ambiguity used by people who want to muddy the waters.

  12. Wow, I had no idea that noting that a candidate accepted money from defense contractors was “defending” her.

    You learn something new every day libertopia.

  13. When defense contractors give money to Republicans it’s because republicans are militaristic and they are soliciting contracts. When defense contractors give money to Democrats it’s because they pick the winner, and don’t want to be on their bad side.

    Reinmoose, Don’t you know that democrats are morally superior? They care more about “the children” than republicans. Libertarians are downright evil because they expect parents to care for their children. Get with the program. There are different rules for democrats. Don’t believe me? Read joe’s posts.

  14. On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: “Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage … You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will

    Funny how this always works the same way: I talk about facts and evidence, and my detractors talk about me.

  15. oh I can feel it! It’s going to be one of those days, isn’t it?

  16. http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/15/breaking-news-hillary-pledges-to-end-war-immediately-upon-taking-office/

    Clinton’s speech this week. Money quote:

    What I do know, is that I heard her say that she would end the Iraq war immediately upon taking office. Lots of heads snapped up when she said that (and there was plenty of applause, even a little whooping) and the very politically plugged in person sitting next to me remarked that the statement was “completely new”. She went on to say that the troops had already done everything they had been asked to do: got rid of Saddam, created a situation where elections could take place, surged to create political stability so the elected Iraqi government could do some legislating and work out a political solution (which she said they have not done) and that it was unfair to ask our troops to stay in Iraq and “play referee to an Iraqi civil war.” She said there is no military solution.

    To which the response is, ahem, DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT, WHY CAN’T YOU BE FAIR AND NONPARTISAN AND KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRAT MUST BE BAD?

  17. Wow, I had no idea that noting that a candidate accepted money from defense contractors was “defending” her.

    You learn something new every day libertopia.

    Joe, you didn’t just note it, you also apologized for it. Apologizing for politicians is something you seem to be accused of here on a regular basis.

  18. Uhh, Joe. That was from February. Don’t you know Hillary is a flip-flopper?

    All together!

    Flip!

    Flop!

    Flip!

    Flop!

  19. Where is that apology again? Point it out for me, please.

  20. Funny how this always works the same way: I talk about facts and evidence, and my detractors talk about me.

    Actually, joe, you tend to talk about what politicians say, and not what they do. Which makes your comment about talking “about facts” a bit ironic.

    Yes, it might be a “fact” that a politician said x or y–but so what? It’s what they do that counts. When the Dems stop the war you let me know.

  21. I’m sorry, I just can’t believe anything that Hillary says. I suspect she’d change her tune if it was going to cost her a vital primary state, or even the entire election, if she truly is the definitive Democratic Nominee.

  22. Episiarch,

    So let me get this straight. I have quotes from Hillary Clinton going back months declaring that she would end the war as soon as she takes office.

    You have nothing.

    I’m to be criticized for reading her words, when you’re reading her mind?

  23. Chancellor,

    In this political climate, with 70% of the public supporting an end to the war, Hillary’s Clinton’s history of tacking towards the most popular position would seem to be a point against the Episiarch/Reinmoose theory that she has a secret plan not to end the war.

  24. “On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: “Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage … You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will”

    She said that out of one side of her mouth back then and more recently out of the other side of the mouth she said she couldn’t gaurantee that she would have them all out by 2013. Which are we to believe?

  25. Where is that apology again? Point it out for me, please.

    Well, to be fair, it was implied. If the Defense Contractors are donating to Clinton more than the Republican Candidates, it may not be simply a matter of them getting behind the Lead Dog in the race.

    What motives could they have? Do they think she is lying? Perhaps they’re banking on an invasion of Iran? I just think that your answer is a bit too simplistic, and dare I say, naive?

  26. could somebody please define for me what “ending the war” means?

  27. How about during the last debate when she refused to commit to being out of Iraq by 2012? More recent, and more poignant. No need to defend her joe.

  28. But, yes, hopefully a 70% Disapproval rating of the War will encourage her to kowtow to the Public Interest; that is indeed a good point.

  29. You have nothing.

    Did you read the first post in this thread? By me? Referring to her saying troops not out until 2013? A statement that is more recent than your posted quote? Any of this getting through to you?

    It all comes down to what I said before: when the Dems stop the war you let me know.

  30. You need to stop mumbling joe, I can’t understand a single word your saying.

  31. Rattlesnake Jake,

    The two statements are not contradictory.

    Providing security for the Kurds is not the Iraq War. Carrying out counter-terror operations from bases in Kurdifornia and Kuwait is not the Iraq War.

    Hillary is talking about implementing the Murtha Plan – ending this war, but keeping troops in the area, perhaps even in parts of Iraq, to contain the damage we’ve caused and keep up the fight against al Qaeda.

    The people pretending in 2007 that this represents a continuation of the Iraq War, spent 2004-2006 declaring that it was a cowardly act of cutting and running and surrendering to terrorists, and are just trying to blur their own position – the indefinite commitment of well over 100,000 troops to prop up Iraq as an American client state – with the one they spent so much effort denouncing.

  32. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/11/407187.aspx

    When asked what she meant by “careful and responsible” and why in the recent debate she said she could not promise to have troops out by 2013, Clinton said she didn’t know what she was going to inherit and there could be a need for a continuing presence to protect the embassy and civilian employees.

    No, no way Blackwater and Halliburton likes to hear that kind of talk.

  33. Hey, look, I posted pre-buttal.

  34. could somebody please define for me what “ending the war” means?

    I would like to, Reinmoose, but I fear the only acceptable definition (all troops out of said foreign soil) would show that neither WWII nor the Spanish-American War are over.

  35. Providing security for the Kurds is not the Iraq War. Carrying out counter-terror operations from bases in Kurdifornia and Kuwait is not the Iraq War.

    Hillary is talking about implementing the Murtha Plan – ending this war, but keeping troops in the area, perhaps even in parts of Iraq, to contain the damage we’ve caused and keep up the fight against al Qaeda.

    a rose by any other name . . .

  36. dude, I’ve been against this war since about 2003 and I think Clinton has been politically opportunistic at best and downright two-faced at worst. She plays the anti-war card while failing to do anything substantive about it and simultaneously acting hawkish on Iran. Like I said before, joe, you don’t need to defend her. There are better Democrats out there who need defending.

  37. Couldn’t someone just technically declare the Iraq War over and just say that we’re now in a rebuilding phase, without making any actual tangible changes to what our roll is?

  38. Hey, look, I posted an out-of-my-buttal.

  39. Hillary is talking about implementing the Murtha Plan – ending this war, but keeping troops in the area, perhaps even in parts of Iraq, to contain the damage we’ve caused and keep up the fight against al Qaeda.

    Uhh, joe, how exactly is “staying and fighting” the same as “ending the war” ?

    You’re even starting to talk like a Clintonista now…

  40. Here, look at John-David’s post. Look at the quote: said she didn’t know what she was going to inherit and there could be a need for a continuing presence…

    Does John McCain say he doesn’t know what he’s going to inherit? Is Joe Lieberman unlclear about what American troops should be doing in Iraq in 209, and 20010, and 2013? No, the people who want to continue the war know just what American troops are going to be doing there if they have their way – the continuation of George Bush’s war to establish a client state from which to project American power throughout the region.

    Hillary Clinton, and every other Democrat, and Ron Paul, are against this policy, and want to end that war. Some of them, like Paul, Richardson, and Kucinich, want to immediately end all American military presence in Iraq. Others, like Clinton, Biden, and Obama, think we will most likely have other, smaller operations unrelated to “winning” the Iraq War for some time in the future. But those are gradations among the “end the war” faction. On the big question – should we continue to prosecute the Iraq War – every Democrat and Ron Paul say no, and every other Republican says yes.

  41. Taktix,

    How is it different?

    How about saving 1000 American troop deaths per year, $150,000,000,000 of our tax money, 100,000 Iraqi lives per year, and actually having a strategic reserve to use on the off chance something else bad happens in the next 8 years?

    Is that enough of a difference for you?

  42. In Quebec, the legislature recently banned the use of the term “weathervane”, declaring it to be a “hurtful”, unparliamentary slur.

    It had been directed at numerous politicions, who have been seen as frequently changing positions to accommodate their audience.

    In Hillary’s case, I’d suggest the term “toilet seat”.

  43. In other words, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Last time third-party partisans set out to blur the differences between the major party candidates, we got George Bush staying the course instead of John Kerry starting the end game four years earlier. The time before that, we got George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld starting the Iraq War, instead of Al Gore letting the inspectors finish their job.

  44. joe,

    Can you say Vietnamization?

    Peace with honor, right?

  45. Taktix,

    Can you say shallow buzzwords?

  46. joe,

    exactly…

  47. “Vietnamization” was a strategy – a rather bad one – to achieve the goals for which the war was launched. It was an attempt to maintain South Vietnam’s territorial integrety and government.

    The Clinton/Murtha/Kerry plan is a renunciation of the goals for which the war was launched. It is an abandonment of the goal of an American client state within the borders of Iraq.

    Some would call that a pretty meaningful difference. One that would even indicate a difference in military policy.

  48. joe, can you say “actions speak louder than words”?

    Because you sure believe a lot of what Hillary says. Really think that’s what she’ll do? Really?

  49. Taktix,

    By your reasoning, George Bush didn’t change our Iraq policy, because we carried out air strikes and containment missions there throughout the 90s.

    I call shennannigans.

  50. Episiarch,

    What Hillary Clinton has done in the past year is vote for the bill setting a timetable to end the war, and against the subsequent bill funding it without a timetable.

    Funny, exactly the same actions that used to pointed to as proof of a politicians’ desire to surrender to terrorists are now pointed to as proof that she won’t change our policy in Iraq.

  51. Really think that’s what she’ll do? Really?

    I don’t claim to know precisely what she will do. I’m just citing the evidence we have available.

    And that evidence strongly suggests that she’ll end the Iraq War, and take up other, smaller missions to contain the damage we caused and fight terrorism.

  52. Funny, exactly the same actions that used to pointed to as proof of a politicians’ desire to surrender to terrorists are now pointed to as proof that she won’t change our policy in Iraq.

    Are you confused or something about where you are, joe? Why are you pointing out the arguments of war hawks to anti-war libertarians who never used them?

  53. Along with when the troops will be pulled out, could we please be ready to remember this next time someone wants to take over another nation?

    (actually the whole fucking thing from April Glasby, or whatever the hell her name was), through sandbox war 1, the clinton years, and then the powelpoint to and through tomorrow?

  54. I don’t claim to know precisely what she will do. I’m just citing the evidence we have available.

    Well based on “the evidence” of her entire adult life. I think it’s a no brainer to know precisely what she will do. She will reroute the pipe from Halliburton to the Rose Law Firm

  55. Episiarch,

    Why are you pointing out the arguments of war hawks to anti-war libertarians who never used them?

    Because so many of you keep falling for them.

  56. yer all just republicans in disgise and secretly support the war in iraq. thats why you wont vote for hilary who will end this unjust war and bring home teh troops. ive herd of libertarians before and you all are just bush lovers cause all you care about is corporations and you dont care about poor people being able to get healthcare.

  57. Apparently we have all been suckered into thinking of Hillary as a terroist surrenderer and not as a scumbag power-hungry politician–even though nobody here adopted the war hawk argument. Who knew? Thanks for setting us straight, joe.

  58. I will be consistent and say you can’t tell much of anything by who gives campaign donations. Everyone wants not to be hosed by the winner, so you donate to everyone.

    Hillary isn’t being bought be defense dollars and nobody else is being bought by their donations either. Candidates want to get the most votes, small contributors are trying to back some policy or idea they like, and large contributors are trying not to be seen as the enemy by whoever gets in office.

  59. And that evidence strongly suggests that she’ll end the Iraq War, and take up other, smaller missions to contain the damage we caused and fight terrorism.

    What evidence is that? Your Magic 8 Ball? A Nostradamus book?

    No, you’re basing this “evidence” on what a politician is promising during a campaign.

    And that’s not counting the fact that Clinton has been full of shit for a long time.

  60. Okay, I’m confused here. Somebody is going to have to help me out on this one.

    Providing security for the Kurds is not the Iraq War. Carrying out counter-terror operations from bases in Kurdifornia and Kuwait is not the Iraq War.

    Hillary is talking about implementing the Murtha Plan – ending this war, but keeping troops in the area, perhaps even in parts of Iraq, to contain the damage we’ve caused and keep up the fight against al Qaeda.

    So we’re gonna end the war, but we’ll still have troops in Iraq conducting combat operations? Maybe I’m dense, but that doesn’t sound like ending the war. To me, ending the war means “no combat operations”. When our soldiers quit shooting people and being shot at, the war’s over. Until then, not so much.

    It is an abandonment of the goal of an American client state within the borders of Iraq.

    If we have troops in Kurdish areas and troops running combat ops in the rest of the country, how have we abandoned the goal of a client-state? If US soldiers are conducting operations in your country, you’re either an enemy or a client-state. There’s not a whole lot of grey in our foreign policy on this one.

    Maybe she will end the war immediately upon taking office. I dunno. What’s being described is a ways off from ending the war.

  61. Energized Democrat wins the thd.

  62. Weird Old America v. the Empire

  63. joe-

    OK, let’s pretend that nobody else had posted in this thread. What is the point you would want to make about Hillary and defense contractors?

    Jason-

    You really think that large campaign donations are purely defensive? I can think of at least 3 reasons to donate to somebody: To support somebody you actually like, to persuade somebody to leave you alone, or to influence policy so that they’ll do more than just leave you alone. The first is arguably just a form of free association in the political arena, the second is arguably still defensible, but the third is repugnant. (Whether it should be regulated is a separate matter, but it’s certainly worthy of condemnation.)

    Besides, it’s worth noting that when the donor in question is a large government contractor, being left alone by the state doesn’t mean what it means for other businesses. Their idea of being left alone is “don’t cut my budget allocation”, not “Don’t regulate my voluntary transactions with willing buyers in a free market.”

  64. joe,

    I fear you’re attempting to defend the indefensible. Some politicians stand on some principles or on what they’ve said in the recent past. Others don’t. Clinton falls into the latter category.

    As for any corporate contributors heavily backing a winner, only political junkies and the media buy into the idea that front-runners today are worth pouring the lion’s share of money into. Most companies will support the best top-tier candidate in both parties during the primaries. There’s plenty of money left for the general election. It’s telling that the defense industry would certainly dump all of its money into Sen. Clinton’s campaign if it came down to, say, a Clinton-Paul race.

  65. “What is the point you would want to make about Hillary and defense contractors?”

    Can’t speak for Giuseppe, but what is so bizarre about presidential candidates getting donations from defense contractors? Isn’t this a regular part of politics even when there isn’t a war?

  66. Couldn’t Star Child also refer to Dave Bowman? Didn’t he evolve into a higher state of being called “Star Child” after the Discovery incident in 2001? Man, let me tell you, I got rid of my HAL-9000 right away when I heard that story.

  67. Lamar-

    Yeah. For all the talk of Democratic dovishness, the Dems controlled Congress almost non-stop from 1945 to 1994, and during that time we built a massive military-industrial complex, built bases around the world, and got involved in all sorts of things that were none of our fucking business. Sure, Republican Presidents certainly played their part in all this, but it’s not like the Democratic Congresses were uninvolved in the construction of the world’s largest military-industrial complex.

  68. And now I will post comment #69.

  69. What would Hillary’s position be on Iraq if she had to face off with Ron Paul (imagining he managed to get the Repub nomination). Would she adopt a Pro-War position to get the frustrated Hawks amongst us or would she play to the Pro-Peace crowd as one of the central issues of her Democratic base?

    Of course, Paul’s positions don’t change so we don’t have to wonder about him. I would pay money to see a debate between those two…

  70. Hmmmmm…. since when are “employees” of defense contractors actually the defense contractors?

    A somewhat misleading lead-in, no? I expected to read about how much those companies gave to Hillary, which would’ve been what the all the following sniping was about.

  71. Simon9,

    I think she’d try to stay somewhat hawkish in comparison to Paul, but it is possible she’d fear Democrats crossing over if she did so. Then we’d see a battle over who would be willing to scale back the military the most.

  72. since when are “employees” of defense contractors actually the defense contractors?

    Depends on which employees. If it is the executive management, then they are the essentially the same as the company itself.

  73. Hmmmmm…. since when are “employees” of defense contractors actually the defense contractors?

    Since their economic interests are strongly aligned therewith. See, Charger, Dodge Rallye.

  74. PL: So she might try to play to both sides? I’d like to see her try.

    Anyway, she’s not really gonna run for president. I remember when she ran for Senate in NY she said she definitely wasn’t going to turn around and run for Prez in ’08. She said it lots of times. And she wouldn’t lie to us. I think she’s taking all those contributions from corporations and defense contractors, etc and donate it all. Or buy a really big car so she can take Al Gore for trips to the country.

  75. Funny, exactly the same actions that used to pointed to as proof of a politicians’ desire to surrender to terrorists are now pointed to as proof that she won’t change our policy in Iraq.

    Note that joe specifically avoids saying who said what and when they said it.

    I have two questions for you joe:

    1. Who exactly pointed to the actions as proof of Hillary’s desire to surrender?

    2. Who exactly pointed to the actions as proof that Hillary won’t change our policy in Iraq?

    Without the answer to those questions, your lame-ass attempt at showing hypocrisy fails pretty quickly.

  76. You guys have a point, but I still think it’s sloppy writing. Especially since “defense contractors”, i.e., the companies, do business directly with the government while the “employees” do not.

    In other words, a story about Raytheon giving Hillary a wad of cash over Rommney is interesting in it’s subtext. The employees of said companies, not so much.

  77. In other words, a story about Raytheon giving Hillary a wad of cash over Rommney is interesting in it’s subtext. The employees of said companies, not so much.

    You live a simple life πŸ˜‰

    The campaign donations of management-level employess at a business that sells stuff to the government is always interesting, because there have been many organized attempts to use “personal” donations to thwart limitations on corporate donations.

  78. “What would Hillary’s position be on Iraq if she had to face off with Ron Paul (imagining he managed to get the Repub nomination). Would she adopt a Pro-War position to get the frustrated Hawks amongst us or would she play to the Pro-Peace crowd as one of the central issues of her Democratic base?”

    Hillary would try to play both sides to make both sides think she was on her side, the same as she’s doing now.

  79. Depends on which employees. If it is the executive management, then they are the essentially the same as the company itself.

    I have heard senior executives say they gave large contributions to get face time with a candidate. The goal was to discuss the needs of their company. They won’t get the time of day if they don’t contribute, even if they are executives at a major employer in a congressman’s district.

    In this case, the defense contractors probably just want to know what the needs will be for Hillary’s planned Ministry of Peace.

  80. “In this case, the defense contractors probably just want to know what the needs will be for Hillary’s planned Ministry of Peace.”

    Or they may want face time to try to persuade her of the need for an interventionist foreign policy.

  81. I think of defense contractor workers who donate $500+ to a candidate as richer versions of manufacturing union members who donate to candidates they think will protect their jorbs!

  82. Combining threads:

    From the Onion:

    Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

    For a majority of likely voters, meaningless bullshit will be the most important factor in deciding who they will vote for in 2008.

  83. The distinction between employees and corporate entities is meaningful, but I think it has a great deal to do with campaign finance rules (and circumvention thereof).

    As far as a nefariousness indicator goes, how much money from the defense sector has gone to Candidate Kucinich? Some people might ascribe it to the “electability factor.” Some people might also ascribe it to the expectation that a Kucinich Presidency is unlikely to be a golden age of prosperity for military contractors.

  84. You live a simple life πŸ˜‰

    Perhaps I’m just being a bit willfully naive, true. But I still prefer accurate language. Had Weigel wrote ‘defense contractor executives’, it wouldn’t bug me.

    The campaign donations of management-level employess at a business that sells stuff to the government is always interesting, because there have been many organized attempts to use “personal” donations to thwart limitations on corporate donations.

    Sorta like labor unions? πŸ˜‰

  85. carrick’s right–there’s quite a bit of pressure on employees (esp. of larger companies) to make contributions to the PAC or individually. The pitch is often indirect to avoid campaign finance problems, but it’s there nonetheless. I got fairly significant pressure to contribute as an officer for a bank I once worked for. But I resisted.

  86. Sorta like labor unions? πŸ˜‰

    Well, execs aren’t forced to contribute union dues which get redirected to campaign donations with or without the consent of the employee . . . But yeah the pressure is there to support the “company” by donating to the right set of candidates.

  87. thoreau | October 18, 2007, 11:38am | #

    And now I will post comment #69.

    thoreau, noting your affinity for #69, I’m curious, were you frightened by a missionary as a
    child? πŸ™‚

  88. Also from The Onion, Clinton doing what she does best. If only this would really happen.

  89. J Sub:

    it was the CUPCAKE incident.

    plus, a self 69 is also known as a TAINT EVALUATION!

  90. But I still prefer accurate language.

    No you don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t discuss politics.

  91. Harmless eccentrics?

    Neo-Nazis Heart Ron Paul
    Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 8:39:46 am PST

    We know that Ron Paul is popular with 9/11 Troofers and Daily Kos, but here’s another hotbed of Paulmania-at Stormfront, home of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, where they’re urging the skinheads to ‘VOTE RON PAUL IN THE ONLINE POLLS!’ – Stormfront White Nationalist Community.

    (Warning: the link leads to a truly vile neo-Nazi web site; it’s there only to prove that this really is happening.)

  92. THAT’S OKAY, EDDIE. WE WEREN’T GOING TO FOLLOW THE LINK, ANYWAYS.

    OH – LOOK AT THE TIME. SHOULDN’T YOU BE DOING SOMETHING ELSE NOW, BEFORE NAPTIME?

  93. No you don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t discuss politics.

    I never discuss politics as it bores me. But I do like to discuss political philosophy. πŸ˜‰

  94. Edward,

    How about, instead of proclaiming that you’re never going to post here again and that all your comments can be deleted, you pre-delete your comments first?

  95. thoreau:

    “You really think that large campaign donations are purely defensive? I can think of at least 3 reasons to donate to somebody: To support somebody you actually like, to persuade somebody to leave you alone, or to influence policy so that they’ll do more than just leave you alone.”

    I think the notion that raytheon donations to parties drive foreign policy is a tad silly. They aren’t going to give to The War Party (whoever that is) so they can have more war and bigger profits. They probably wouldn’t give to a thoreau campaign with their “slash military spending by 75%” plank, granted, but I suspect mostly people are out there ‘playing ball’ so they can be seen as a constituent of whoever wins.

  96. The Raytheon execs just perceive what we all perceive about Hillary. She’s the most hawkish Dem who is most likely to win her primary. Interesting news to hear, but far from surprising.

  97. EDWARRRRRRDOOOOOOOOO!!!

  98. Let’s look at the fact here. Remember facts? Let’s look at the donation patterns from the link. Remember links?

    Hillary Clinton took in $52,600. John McCain took in $19,200. This indicates A) that Hillary Clinton is much more likely to continue the Iraq War than John McCain, or B) that Hillary Clinton is much more likely to win the election than John McCain.

    Is that a hard problem to puzzle through? Apparently it is.

  99. joe’s the only one that loves me

    *sobs into hands*
    *runs away over a bridge, in the rain*

  100. Remember folks, there are two major parties in the US: Incumbents and challengers. Corporations always support incumbents.

  101. Taktix, Episiarch, Pro Libertate,

    If you wish to pose as worldly seers who can see through politicians’ public pronouncements and understand their true motivations, while the rest of us mortals are blinded by our prejudices, you’re going to have to work on your ability to reason through politicians’ self-interest.

    Because as of now, you are arguing that Hillary Clinton is such an unprincipled follower of public opinion that, upon taking office, she’s going to stake out an incredibly unpopular position on the the most heated, most important political issue of the day.

    Not only is that completely implausible, it isn’t even internally logical.

  102. joe, there are a couple of factors involved here. First, they expect her to win. Second, they know she is hawkish enough to play ball with them.

  103. Since the 2006 elections, what has Ron Paul done to end the war that Hillary Clinton has not done?

    Anyone?

  104. R.J.,

    I think that’s just right. She passes a minimum-hawkishness test, and among those who do, she is the most likely to win.

  105. “Corporations always support incumbents.”

    And Hillary is part of the Bush/Clinton incumbancy.

  106. Pro Lib,

    If you read the link, you’ll find that Ron Paul collected twice as much money from the defense industry as Barack Obama.

  107. Also note that funds not spent during an unsuccessful presidential bid may be carried over to the next senate race, where the incumbent senator and member of the following senate committees would almost certainly be re-elected.

    * Senate Armed Services Committee

    * Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

    * Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

    * Senate Special Committee on Aging

    Can you say “hedging your bets”.

  108. T,

    Did you oppose Bush going to war in 2002?

    I hope not. Because, by your logic, there is no difference between the containment actions we took in the decade previous to that invasion – actions which involved combat operations and special forces inside Iraq, and the support of the Kurds’ security and democracy – and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    I disagree with you. I think that reducing the number of troops in country by 95-99.9%, reducing the money spent there by 90-99%, reducing our casualties by 99%, and eliminating entire categories of military operations from the missions does, in fact, represent a significant change in policy.

  109. One last point: the last time a Clinton won the presidency, he implemented the largest cuts in military expenditures since the end of World War 2.

    The last time a Republican won the presidency, he implemented the largest increase in military expenditures since the beginning of World War 2.

  110. Hillary is talking about implementing the Murtha Plan . . .

    Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005 8:56 a.m. EST

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/22/85938.shtml

    Sen. Hillary Clinton: Rep. John Murtha’s Iraq Exit Plan a ‘Mistake’

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be “a big mistake.”

    The New York Democrat said she respects Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., the Vietnam veteran and hawkish ex-Marine who last week called for an immediate troop pullout. But she added: “I think that would cause more problems for us in America.”

    “It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us,” she said

  111. carrick,

    You did not the date on that story, right? Because it’s from 2005.

    Are you just now realizing that Clinton has changed her position over the past few years?

  112. carrick,

    The Freedom Fries guy flip-flopped, too. What do you think this means?

  113. Results 1 – 10 of about 593,000 for murtha plan clinton. (0.22 seconds)

    The link provided above was the number one item from google. If Clinton has made public pronouncements refuting her original comments, they are flying below the radar.

  114. The Freedom Fries guy flip-flopped, too

    Relevance?

  115. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/23/clinton.iraq/

    Sun September 23, 2007

    Clinton: I won’t fund Iraq war without withdrawal plan

    “I don’t believe we should continue to vote for funding that has an open-ended commitment, that has no pressure on the Iraqi government to make the tough political decisions they have to make, or which really gives any urgency to the Bush administration’s diplomatic efforts.”

    Summary: 1) Won’t approve funding without a withdrawal plan. 2) Can’t guarentee troops will be out of Iraq before 2013.

    So where exactly does she define the specifics of how she will end the war in Iraq.

  116. carrick,

    The term “Murtha Plan” was my creation. No one but me actually calls it that.

    Her statements in support of the actual elements of the “Murtha Plan” – endng our war to install a client government in Baghdad, acting as that country’s security force, refereeing the civil war, starting the withdrawal posthaste, leaving a much-diminished force in safe areas in or near Iraq to conduct counter-terror operations – are easily found.

    I just use the term “Murtha Plan” to highlight the tremendous shift in how the hawks have taken to describing such a policy. Just a year or so ago, it was the height of cowardly, terrorist-appeasing surrender. Now, they claim, it is an expression of solidarity with George Bush’s Iraq policy.

    Relevance? Just pointing out that there are numerous former war supporters who have seen the error of their ways.

  117. “Are you just now realizing that Clinton has changed her position over the past few years?”

    It hasn’t been a year since Hillary said we should not give a time frame for withdrawal. That was when she was trying to project herself as a hawk to prove that a woman could be a Commander in Chief. Then after the Obama mania set in, she changed her position to favoring a time framed withdrawal to win back the left base from Obama.

  118. carrick,

    She doesn’t “define the specifics” of her withdrawal plan to any great extent. She’s made statements of principles, not laid out policy specifics.

    Nor have hawks like McCain, yet I doubt you would claim to be confused about McCain’s intent.

  119. Rattlesnake Jake,

    And it has been amost exactly 7 months since she voted to support the Democratic bill mandating timelines for withdrawal.

    I agree, hes position on this probably has been driven by the changing politics of the war. I don’t expect much more from professional politicians like her. That’s why it’s so important that the next president’s political position depend on the support of war opponents, and not war supporters.

  120. The term “Murtha Plan” was my creation. No one but me actually calls it that.

    Google Results 1 – 10 of about 25,100 for “murtha plan”. (0.19 seconds)

    ===

    http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/MurthaSpeech.htm

    This article presents the complete text of “War in Iraq” Released on November 17, 2005 by Congressman John P. Murtha (D-PA)

    My plan calls:

    — To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
    — To create a quick reaction force in the region.
    — To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
    — To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

  121. “She doesn’t “define the specifics” of her withdrawal plan to any great extent. She’s made statements of principles, not laid out policy specifics.”

    That’s her secret. We’ll have to elect her to find out what her secret plan is, just like we had to elect Nixon to find out what his secret plan was for winning in Vietnam.

  122. If you’ve used the internet before, carrick, you know how small 25,000 hits is.

    There was a point here – something about Hillary Clinton’s position. Would you care to discuss that, or are you committed to wowing us with your googling skills?

  123. Rattlesnake Jake,

    Have you actually tried to read about what Hillary Clinton has said about the war, or are you just taking someone’s word for it when you say she has not discussed what we should do?

  124. “The term ‘Murtha Plan’ was my creation. No one but me actually calls it that.”

    Carrick: IMP: Jack Murtha had a plan, and there have been several variants. It’s been long enough since Jack’s plan that his basic idea is associated with him rather than the specifics.

  125. — To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
    — To create a quick reaction force in the region.
    — To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
    — To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

    I don’t believe Clinton has actually specified which branch of the service should constitute the over-the-horizon force. Other than that, she has come out in support of each of those points.

  126. My personal opinion is that in the arena of foreign policy MS Clinton will be a pragmatist. Which means that the US will have a substantial presence in Iraq for another decade or more. However, MS Clinton is also a very, very adept politician, so she will “end” the war in Iraq much sooner than that. It just depends on what the meaning of the word “end” is.

  127. If you’ve used the internet before . . .

    You would now that “search term” dramatically reduces the number of hits to ensure you only find exactly that phrase.

  128. Other than that, she has come out in support of each of those points.

    I’m glad to hear that she “supports” the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And I am impressed with her ability to demand that the military create such a plan.

    However, it would be nice to know if she actually had some concept on how to achieve that noble goal and that she would share that concept with the public prior to taking office.

  129. …a substantial presence in Iraq seems to beg the question.

    Do we have a substantial presence in the Balkins?

  130. Jason-

    I don’t think they necessarily care what the foreign policy is, as long as we’re spending insane amounts of money on equipment.

    And keep in mind that there’s a big difference between a company in the free and open market trying to be left alone, and a government contractor’s idea of being “left alone.” A government contractor’s idea of being “left alone” is that the contracts and spending keep rolling on. A company in the free and open market wants no regulation when it asks to be left alone.

    Two very different concepts of being left alone.

  131. “She doesn’t “define the specifics” of her withdrawal plan to any great extent. She’s made statements of principles, not laid out policy specifics.”

    In other words, her plan is still under construction, subject to change as public opinion changes. Does this whore have any core values at all?

  132. “Immediate,” of course, refers to the beginning of the withdrawal, not the end.

    We don’t actually have transporter technology.

    I’ll take a withdrawal carried out “consistent with the safety of U.S. forces” over no withdrawal at all. It seems folly to me to ignore the difference.

  133. I’m glad to hear that she “supports” the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I’m glad I could provide you with that link to the Firedoglake blogger who reported the speech in which she came out for that position.

    And I am impressed with her ability to demand that the military create such a plan. The White House and Congressional Republicans seem much less impressed, as they backed up the Undersecretary of Defense when he accused her of aiding the enemy by requesting last month that they report to her committee on the planning they’ve done for a withdrawal.

  134. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be “a big mistake.”

    In summary, immediate withdrawal in 2005 was a big mistake, but immediate witdrawal in 2007 is OK.

    That must mean there has been enough progress in Iraq over the last two year to ensure that Iraq won’t collapse into civil war and become a failed state.

    I feel so much better now.

  135. Rattlesnake Jake,

    If the worst thing that can be said about Clinton’s Iraq policy is that she is going to follow public opinion, then we’re going to have to start decorating the floats for the homecoming parades this weekend.

  136. In summary, immediate withdrawal in 2005 was a big mistake, but immediate witdrawal in 2007 is OK.

    That must mean there has been enough progress in Iraq over the last two year to ensure that Iraq won’t collapse into civil war and become a failed state.

    Or, that her position, rather than the facts on the ground, has changed. Perhaps the Anbar shieks’ turning on al Qaeda after we left convinced her that withdrawal would not result in jihadists taking over the country.

  137. That must mean there has been enough progress in Iraq over the last two year to ensure that Iraq won’t collapse into civil war and become a failed state.

    Or that she realizes now that a continuation of the war will not stop the civil war or bring about a political agreement.

  138. “If you read the link, you’ll find that Ron Paul collected twice as much money from the defense industry as Barack Obama.”

    That’s what confuses me. The defense industry supporting Ron Paul is like the oil industry supporting Al Gore.

  139. It’s kind of hard to judge her motives when she doesn’t actually state them in a public forum, isn’t it.

  140. She does, carrick. Repeatedly. You just ignore her when she does, because she’s the Hildebeast, and must be lying.

    Rattlesnake Jake,

    The oil industry would, no doubt, give a great deal of money to Al Gore, in an attempt to get on his good side.

  141. She does, carrick. Repeatedly.

    Since your google skills are superior to mine, why don’t you help me out. Shouldn’t take you more than a few seconds.

    because she’s the Hildebeast

    I don’t believe I have posted anything negative about her personally in this forum. I disagree vehemently with her on nearly all of her concepts on federal, social programs. But like I said, I think in the realm of foreign policy I think she will be a pragmatist. Hardly anything to be fearful of.

  142. “Perhaps the Anbar shieks’ turning on al Qaeda after we left convinced her that withdrawal would not result in jihadists taking over the country.”

    If that’s the case, why doesn’t she say so? I’m convinced all her positions are politically motivated. I believe when she supported giving Bush authority to invade Iraq, it was to pose herself as a hawk to show a woman is qualified to be Commander in Chief. The disgusting thing about this, if true, was that she was willing to send people to their graves or become crippled for life for her political motivations.

  143. joe,

    I thought Gore already had strong ties to Occidental Petroleum?

  144. “You just ignore her when she does, because she’s the Hildebeast, and must be lying.”

    When somebody has a record of lying, even about the smallest matters, how can we ever be sure when she’s telling the truth?

  145. actually, ProGLib, Incidental Petroleum

  146. joe,

    You’ve posted about 20 times on this thread since I called you to the carpet on this:

    Funny, exactly the same actions that used to pointed to as proof of a politicians’ desire to surrender to terrorists are now pointed to as proof that she won’t change our policy in Iraq.

    Note that joe specifically avoids saying who said what and when they said it.

    I have two questions for you joe:

    1. Who exactly pointed to the actions as proof of Hillary’s desire to surrender?

    2. Who exactly pointed to the actions as proof that Hillary won’t change our policy in Iraq?

    Without the answer to those questions, your lame-ass attempt at showing hypocrisy fails pretty quickly.

    Care to answer it or prefer to avoid it?

  147. I don’t even need a few, carrick. Here is the text of her “Ending the War in Iraq” page, founder under Issues on her campaign homepage. First google that comes up.


    America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq and a president who will respect our Armed Forces by properly planning for the missions we ask our troops to undertake. If the Bush administration won’t, as president and commander in chief, Hillary will end this war.

    The war in Iraq has imposed a tremendous cost on our troops, their families, and our budget. Four years after the start of the war, the violence continues to grow, and there is no end in sight.

    Hillary opposes President Bush’s plan to escalate the war and proposed, along with Senator Robert Byrd, legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 — the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq — as the expiration date for that resolution.

    The President would be required to come to Congress to seek new authority. Following deauthorization, Senator Clinton would not support any new legislation that did not start to remove our troops from the middle of this sectarian civil war.

    She has also proposed a cap on troop levels to January 1, 2007 levels and put forth a comprehensive roadmap for ending the war. If it is followed, Hillary’s bill, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, will end the war before the next president takes the oath of office. But she has also been clear: if George Bush refuses to end the war, when she is president, she will.

    Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

    In addition to capping troop levels, Hillary’s Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 would:

    Require President Bush to begin removing the troops from Iraq within 90 days of passage, or Congress will revoke authorization for the war.
    Put an end to the blank check to the Iraqi government and give them real benchmarks with real consequences if they fail to meet them.
    Require the Secretary of Defense to certify that all troops sent to Iraq have the training and equipment they need.

    The page seems a bit old, but the principles are pretty clear.

  148. Rattlesnake Jake,

    If that’s the case, why doesn’t she say so? For the same reasons every candidate, on both sides of the aisle, is avoiding specifics at this point: because it’s the primary, which makes it smarter to make general statements of principle than to get into the nuance required for specific policy; and because there is enough time between now and election day that specific policy proposals at this point could be obsolete by the general election.

    I’m convinced all her positions are politically motivated.

    Ditto. Seen any polling on withdrawal lately?

    x,y,

    Neither of you questions has anything to do with what I wrote, so I will continue to ignore them. Why you go back to that comment you’re referring to, and see where you went wrong.

  149. Actually, x,y, that’s not true. Your #2 question is appropriate:

    Who exactly pointed to the actions as proof that Hillary won’t change our policy in Iraq? Off the top of my head, I can think of National Review, the Weekly Standard, and our own, beloved “John.”

    jAs for your first question, I’ll help you out: I didn’t say anyone had accused Clinton of being a surrender monkey for endorsing the Murtha Plan, because at the time the Republicans were arguing that is was surrendering to terrorists, she was agin’ it. What I wrote was that war supporters were referring to that position, to that plan, as a cowardly surrender.

    If you need evidence of that, I point you to Jean Schmitt.

  150. joe,

    You tried to establish that someone was being hypocritical (that Clinton’s position has been effectively the same, but now someone is moving the goalpost to cover his ass). The problem, though, is that you did no such thing because you’re statements were not definite, i.e., it was not clear who said what. You claim to be a friend of facts, so it was strange to see your comment completely devoid of a desciption of the persons involved.

  151. and our own, beloved “John.”

    NOT THE MELETARY LOIER!!!!!!!!

    *JARRING CHORD*

  152. How about, instead of proclaiming that you’re never going to post here again and that all your comments can be deleted, you pre-delete your comments first? –Chucklehead

    I’ll tell you what, fuckwit. I’ll stop posting when you stop reacting. I’m only a troll for Christ’s sake.

  153. I find that John, the meletury loier, is a very effective conduit for transmitting RNC talking points.

  154. THAT IS A GOOD THING, BECAUSE AS A CONDUIT FOR COMMUNICATING WITH THE NETHERWORLD OR EVEN THE NETHER REGIONS, HE WAS TERRIBLE.

  155. Providing security for the Kurds is not the Iraq War. Carrying out counter-terror operations from bases in Kurdifornia and Kuwait is not the Iraq War.

    Ahhh, yes. Ending the Iraq war by a creative redefinition of when it might be declared ended, despite troops still being there after 2013. Totally different than Bush ending torture by redefining waterboarding, etc. as not-torture. Democrats good, Republicans bad. Got it, joe.

    Maybe Hillary can borrow Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” banner when she announces she’s “ended” the war?

  156. prolefeed,

    There are appropriate times and places to use military force. Afghanistan. The “Afghan/Pakistan region.” The special forces mission in the Phillipines. The naval patrols off the Horn of Africa. We really do have enemies out there, and sometimes, military force needs to be used against them.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom has created, or threatens to create, exactly the threats that those of us who opposed it from the beginning predicted it would create. Regional instability. Neighbors pushing in. Al Qaeda able to operate. Our allies, the Kurds’ safety and security threatened more than it has been in years. These things are not the Iraq War.Some of these things may well become big enough threats that we will have to use force to protect ourselves, but most likely, we’re talking about the numbers of troops and amount of combat comparable to what we’re doing in the Horn, or what we did in the Phillipines.

    I don’t think you actually misunderstand this, and I think it’s pretty cowardly that you’d rather play dumb and throw out pointless rhetoric than try to put forward some substantive argument.

  157. x,y,

    I never claimed that Hillary’s position had stayed the same. I claimed that criticism of that position had changed.

    Here’s the entire post:

    joe | October 18, 2007, 10:28am | #

    Rattlesnake Jake,

    The two statements are not contradictory.

    Providing security for the Kurds is not the Iraq War. Carrying out counter-terror operations from bases in Kurdifornia and Kuwait is not the Iraq War.

    Hillary is talking about implementing the Murtha Plan – ending this war, but keeping troops in the area, perhaps even in parts of Iraq, to contain the damage we’ve caused and keep up the fight against al Qaeda.

    The people pretending in 2007 that this represents a continuation of the Iraq War, spent 2004-2006 declaring that it was a cowardly act of cutting and running and surrendering to terrorists, and are just trying to blur their own position – the indefinite commitment of well over 100,000 troops to prop up Iraq as an American client state – with the one they spent so much effort denouncing.

    And here, again, is the relevant quote:

    Hillary is talking about implementing the Murtha Plan – ending this war, but keeping troops in the area, perhaps even in parts of Iraq, to contain the damage we’ve caused and keep up the fight against al Qaeda.

    The people pretending in 2007 that this represents a continuation of the Iraq War, spent 2004-2006 declaring that it was a cowardly act of cutting and running and surrendering to terrorists

    I have never claimed that Hillary Clinton’s position has remained the same. “This” – the Murtha Plan – was the subject of that comment. The only reference to Clinton is to what she is now arguing.

    No moving goalposts. No ass-covering.

    You just misread the comment.

  158. If you read the article, you’ll find that it ends with a list of the maxed-out defense industry donors to Clinton’s campaign. The very last one is:

    Michele Kang, Northrop Grumman Vice President for health science solutions

    Yikes! What do you think THAT means?

  159. Some of these things may well become big enough threats that we will have to use force to protect ourselves, but most likely, we’re talking about the numbers of troops and amount of combat comparable to what we’re doing in the Horn, or what we did in the Phillipines.

    I don’t think you actually misunderstand this, and I think it’s pretty cowardly that you’d rather play dumb and throw out pointless rhetoric than try to put forward some substantive argument.

    Ah, joe, throwing out personal attacks like “cowardly” after misunderstanding my POV. The sweet stench of civility, yeah?

    My point is that Hillary can’t be trusted to end the war in Iraq by drawing down troops to miniscule levels. Her repeated triangulating and changing positions on this issue do not inspire high levels of trust for me. She says whatever is expedient, on this or any other issue, and is no more to be trusted than Bush was in the 2000 campaign when he talked about a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. Clearly you don’t share this apprehension of Hillary, because she’s a Democrat and they are Teh Good Guys TM in your book. Politicians tend to lie prior to elections — a lot — and Hillary is near the front of the pack in this dissembling.

    Oh, and P.S. — I have major problems with having U.S. troops in virtually every nation in the world. That is the work of the Department of Offense, not the Defense Department.

  160. Let’s work out a system, prolefeed. When I’m interested in your opinion about civility, I’ll type a series of dashes and asterisks, like this: –*-**. Look for it in the future.

    As for your “point,” it’s too bad you can’t discuss the issue beyond “I don’t like Hillary Clinton.”

    You would be a smarter person and more effective commenter if you were able to understand politics at level beyond personality.

  161. how does one explain that ron paul received more contributions from defense contractors than any other republican candidate other than john mccain?

  162. JL,

    And Romney.

    Perhaps people who work for defense contractors consider something other than which candidate will give them contracts?

  163. well, i’m sure they do consider other things. it’s just a strange statistic is all.

    the military contributions for ron paul makes sense, but not so much for defense contractors.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.