Check out Ron Paul. Think about making big news, even if you're not completely supporting him for election. Even if he doesn't win, but supporting him, you might get a few other candidates to pay attention to freedom.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Well it seems like everyone else is making endorsements, so I suppose I should make one as well.

I'm a registered Republican. I've been a Republican for as long as I can remember. I've run for election as a Republican. I helped get other Republicans elected. I'm even a life member of the Republican National Committee.

I like freedom more than any other aspect or issue in politics. I think abortion is murder. I'm pro-gun and vociferously pro-freedom. So what sort of candidate should I support?

Mitt Romney just got an endorsement from Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich and conservative Bob Jones III. Romney supports same-sex marriage (sometimes). Romney supports government forcing people to buy health insurance. Romney's campaign is spending more money than they're taking in. Romney wants to increase the war in the Middle East and spend more money. Romney wants more immigrants in America (legal or illegal). Romney wants to spend more money on "education."

I'm not sure I agree with Mitt Romney on ANYTHING. And I'm not sure he supports freedom anywhere. But hey, if you like government and you like government getting bigger, more controlling, and spending more, it appears that Romney is your guy.

Rudy Giuliani just got an endorsement from Pat Robertson. Mr. Robertson loves Rudy because Rudy "is the best candidate to handle the War on Terror." Well, Rudy LOVES illegal immigrants, spending, abortion, and same-sex marriage. He hates guns. He wants to increase power and control of government. In fact, when asked to name a difference, ANY difference between his positions and those of Hillary Clinton in a recent debate, Rudy COULD NOT NAME ONE.

So hey, if you're a single-issue voter that thinks sending more troops to Iraq and Iran is the way to go, I would say that Rudy is your guy. But if you like freedom, you cannot possibly argue that Rudy supports freedom.

John McCain just got the endorsement of Sen. Sam Brownback, a former candidate for president. McCain wants a bigger, stronger military and wants to fight more terrorists in more places around the world. McCain despises freedom of speech. In fact, if McCain had his way, I would literally not even be able to post these words on the Internet. McCain wants government to control all insurance to ensure that everyone gets "fair" insurance. McCain thinks we should have no southern border at all and anyone who wants to get free stuff from the American government should be able to, even if they're not citizens.

If you're a big supporter of government regulation of speech, McCain is your man. Oh, and he's a war hero.

Johnny Thompson -- or whatever his name is. He was a Senator. And in a TV show. Yeah, that's about all he's got so far. So I guess if movie stars are your thing, Thompson's your guy.

Duncan Hunter is the first candidate to agree with me on immigration. He wants a damn fence. I'm with Hunter on abortion and a few other issues. I like a lot of what Hunter wants to do. In fact, there's not much I can actually disagree with Hunter on -- except he does think we should keep fighting in Iraq. He's got a few ideas that make federal government intrusive, but for the most part, he does support freedom and states rights.

Mike Huckabee is a destructive force. He's loved by some, but he really is a true big-government type. He might say the right things for some people, but he supports wacko ideas like a federal government ban on smoking everywhere. He wants enormous piles of new money to be spent on education. He wants to force people to be healthy, rather than "permit" them to be free to make bad choices. He is just outright dangerous to freedom, if you ask me.

Ron Paul, however, likes freedom. He has consistently voted for freedom for decades. He thinks that we've spent enough time and money in killing in Iraq and that we should just come home. I don't know if that idea will work, but I'm sure willing to give it a try. Paul is also anti-abortion. He's pro-gun. And he really, really supports freedom -- both socially and financially. He absolutely terrifies the establishment because he will get rid of those thousands of people who are becoming the richest in the country by living off government contracts. And Paul recently got the endorsement of over 38,000 citizens who all put up around $100 for him.

So, since my primary issue is freedom, I find that I simply will not be able to vote for Rudy, Mitt, Thompson, Huckabee, or McCain. That leaves me with a choice of Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter. Since I think Paul will do more to advance freedom, I'm going to throw my support (and my money) behind Ron Paul. I think he would be GREAT for freedom and WONDERFUL for this country. I think he would advance freedom and we'd have an economic boom the likes of which have never been seen (after the government employees actually find productive work).

But don't worry, hard-core big-government, pro-war Republicans -- I live in North Carolina and unlike some Democrats, I believe in playing by the rules -- so my vote won't make any difference as it will all be over long before our presidential primary (but I'm still sending campaign donations to Paul).

Posted by: Ogre at 05:04 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 909 words, total size 5 kb.

Wow. How is this not bigger news? Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, just raised more money in one day than ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. He raised more than Rudy, Mitt, or Thompson. He raised more than Hunter, McCain, or Huckabee. And while the story is in a few news reports, it's really not showing up much.

Even more amazing is HOW he raised this money. He didn't have a big dinner in New York to gather lobbyists. He didn't charge $1000 a plate for corporate donations and soft money. He didn't invite Chinese businessmen to a downtown party. He didn't even wander to Hollywood and have a party. So what did Ron Paul do to raise all this money in one day? Absolutely nothing. And that's the real story there.

This money came from people. With over $3.8 million raised from 35,000 people, that's an average of just over $100 a person. A few people just got together and said, "Hey, let's all raise a pile of cash on one day." They told their friends. Eventually, around 35,000 people, completely on their own, without any help or organization from any campaign, just donated $3.8 million in 24 hours. That's just unreal.

No matter what you think about Ron Paul, this is really huge. NO other candidate can claim anything even close to these numbers with ZERO campaign coordination. You might think the Ron Paul Revolution is just a few college kids, but this event shows it's at least 35,000 people around the country who are willing to put their money where their mouth is (in just 24 hours). Ron Paul could win this thing.

Even more amazing, imagine if Paul won the Republican nomination. I think he'd cream any Democrat on the ticket. Think about it -- do you think many Republicans would cross over and vote for Hillary just because they think Paul's a nut? Sure, some might, but not huge numbers. And then Paul would pick up a lot of the Democrat vote because he'd get all the billions or so (according to the media) anti-war voters. I really think he'd win in a landslide.

Of course, he'd have to get past the Republican nomination, and there's a lot of Republicans vehemently opposed to him because of his position on the Iraq war (primarily). Also, those fat cats in Washington oppose him because he doesn't like giving away billions in taxpayer money to people, just because they want it. The establishment honestly hates him because he WILL upset the apple cart and stop billions flowing to private individuals and corporations.

So think about it -- if you like freedom, you should vote Paul. If you're anti-war, you should vote Paul. If you hate the rich and insider Washington deals, vote Paul. If you hate high taxes, vote Paul. If you support less government regulation, yes, vote Paul. If you are pro-gun, vote Paul. If you don't want government controlling insurance and want health care freedom, vote Paul. Heck, if you're anti-establishment, again, Paul is your man.

He's raised over $7 million from individuals with no soft money included since October 1st. That's more than just a few college kids who are supporting him. He could actually win this thing.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 3 kb.

This is, reportedly, Fox News setting up a camera shoot covering a Republican conference:

Just can't let those darn Ron Paul supporters be seen. He's got dangerous ideas, so the mainstream media, even Fox News, apparently, simply cannot let people know about him.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:04 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow. In the midst of the election season, the Democrats are trying to outbid one another. Each one says that they can spend more money than the others. And of course, that's money that you earn that they're bidding to spend. And Edwards even admits that he's going to raise taxes -- a LOT.

He wants to force 3-year old children into schools. It's not enough that the government brainwashes children from age 5-18, now he wants to start at age 3. Why? Because the school system NEEDS to take your children from you earlier so they can program them before you do. Seriously. Government schools are evil and they will destroy your children. And adding a couple years at your expense is what Edwards will do as president.

He wants to put banks out of business because he wants to create a new federal bank savings program -- just for "poor" people -- that will give them free cash. Again, he will have to take that money from people who actually work to earn it so he can give it to "the poor." He's calling it "matching savings accounts." I think I want to be poor so I can get a 100% return on my money. In fact, just in case he becomes president, I think I'll start working now on creating two or three new identities (I think I'll be from Mexico) so I can launder money through federal accounts with 100% interest.

He wants a $9.50 minimum wage. Well that makes sense because he needs "poor" people to support with his other various programs and the quickest way to create more poor people is to make the economic market so screwed up that more people will have to be fired -- or work under the table. The more government screws with the capitalist system, the more people will work to find ways around it. Then again, that might be a good thing because then we could all be "poor" and get a 100% return on our savings accounts.

He wants to give away a million houses to "the poor." Don't you want to be poor now? Not only do you get a 100% return on savings investments, you also get a free house! And like other crappy Section 8 programs, if you don't take care of your house and you destroy it, running it into the ground, the government will just give you another one to destroy.

But wait, there's more!

Yes, not to be outdone with his spending, Edwards also wants to disrupt the entire economic system of higher education by giving away college educations for free, too! It's called "College for Everyone." Awwwww. Isn't that special? Yes, Edwards is going to take enough money from working people to force children into school from age 3 to 23 now. Twenty years of your life will be spent in government education buildings. Government will decide what and when you shall learn for twenty years. You WILL go to the government education camps buildings.

Oh, and you'll have socialized medicine "instantly" according to Edwards. Let's vote for this guy and just be done with this experiment we called "Democracy." It will be better if we end it quickly.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.

Planning on attending a sporting event this fall? Why not make it a political event? The NC Young Republicans Club is against sponsoring a Tailgate Contest -- you could win $500 for supporting a Republican candidate this year.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You mean "again" of course and not "against"

Posted by: joated at October 28, 2007 12:15 AM (AiJXe)

2 WHoa. Now that's a neat typo! You are correct, of course.

Posted by: Ogre at October 28, 2007 07:27 PM (2WD8n)

3 Passed this on to my political operatives at Western Carolina and UNC-Wilmington.

Posted by: Wuptdo at October 29, 2007 03:47 PM (axYNA)

4 You have "operatives?" Neat.

Posted by: Ogre at October 29, 2007 03:55 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well, it seems that Fred Thompson has released his immigration plans. They sound good. Then again, most of the people running for president right now are saying all sorts of things they don't really mean, support, or have ever done before. I don't know enough yet about Thompson to support him. Of course, I don't know enough about him yet to oppose him, either.

Then again, if immigration is your single issue, Tom Tancredo is the only way to go. Seriously. No one can beat Tom on immigration. Duncan Hunter is right there with Tancredo. Ron Paul's got great long-term solutions to immigration. Rudy McRomney all support amnesty and no international borders at all. Take your pick.

ABC News (D) has up a quiz to "help" you decide your candidate. It's pretty bad. Admittedly, you can only have so many options in a multiple choice test, but still, the questions are VERY slanted. For example, one says, "What is the best way the federal government can get more people covered by health insurance?" There's no answer for "The federal government should shut up and get out of all associations with health insurance, including any and all regulation of insurance at all."

I still ended up with Ron Paul #1, Tom Tancredo #2, and Duncan Hunter #3. Well, those are the three I certainly support the most at this time (even if I did disagree with them on this quiz a whole bunch).

Posted by: Ogre at 02:09 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath, either.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Just a couple notes on the debate from last night. Oh, you didn't see it? Were you too busy watching the Red Sox trounce the Indians? Or perhaps you were watching the football game. No matter, you really didn't miss anything. Actually, it was the same things they've been saying all along. But a couple notes because I did actually watch just about the whole thing.

Rudy: I honestly don't understand how any Republican can vote for this guy. I've previously mentioned that Rudy cannot beat Hillary. He was asked during the debate to describe where Hillary and he disagreed. He did not answer the question AT ALL. He literally could not give ONE single example of an issue upon which he would disagree with Hillary. That's just sickening.

Mitt: I'd been waffling on him. I want to support him. Peter Porcupine has been big in trying to sway Ogre's support for Romney. But after last night, I've got to add him to the short list: the list that Ogre will not vote for, even if it's Mitt vs. Hillary. Sorry, but he outright said last night that he WILL FORCE every person in America to buy health care. It doesn't matter if you want it or not, you WILL buy it, or he will jail you. He said it is absolutely unacceptable to him for anyone to NOT have health care. Sorry, Mitt, but I'd prefer freedom to government-forced, well, anything.

Huckabee: Despite a few questions about Huckabee, and some SERIOUS states' rights issues with him, and with Chuck Norris' endorsement, Huck really looked good. I think he did a great job at the debate and really looked and sounded the best. I can't really throw my support behind him because of a few issues, but I could at least vote for the guy.

Tancredo: Still great, but still just not getting support.

Paul: Consistency, consistency, consistency. He keeps saying the same thing. There's NO question where he stands on anything. He got a lot of boos every time he mentioned getting the US out of, well, ANY foreign entanglement. That's sad because it was Republicans in the audience. People would do well to remember Jefferson's words:

I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.

I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:04 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I watched the whole thing. The only real opinion I was left with is that Ron Paul is too much of a whiner! I do think the Libertarian tendency to avoid big government and keeping the government out of things where a free people should be able to manage is a good thing, but he is just too whiney for me. Just MHO.

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at October 22, 2007 03:00 PM (eaqGd)

2 He did complain about government a lot...sort of like I do all the time...

Posted by: Ogre at October 22, 2007 03:53 PM (oifEm)

3 I suppose Hunter isn't getting the support either. I don't like a one of them, save Tancredo and Hunter. Even Fred- who bores me to no end, isn't a supporter of American interests. I dunno. I'm pretty bleak on it all right now. I too cannot go for the lesser of two evils mindset. It goes against my conscience.

Posted by: Raven at October 22, 2007 07:47 PM (vUhK4)

4 That seems to be the general mood of all Republicans -- no one excites them. No one is really motivating anyone to get out and vote. Democrats are energized by Bush Derangement Syndrome and cannot wait to vote. Hillary will be a very painful president.

Posted by: Ogre at October 22, 2007 10:06 PM (wkwq7)

5 He complained a lot but in a high pitched whine! If my son did that I'd smack him. LOL!!! I just think a President should sound like a Man when he speaks. He should sound like he's no one to be messing with. Ron Paul sounded like a whiney old woman. LOL!!! OK, I'll duck now if there are any Ron Paul fans out there in cyberville.

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at October 23, 2007 02:06 AM (cU/eW)

6 That is true -- the more excited he gets, the higher pitched his voice gets! If you were to select a president just based on his voice from this debate, Huckabee would be the easy choice.

Posted by: Ogre at October 23, 2007 02:21 AM (wkwq7)

7 Ogre, I am pretty much hoping for a Huckabee and Thompson finale at this point. I could not support most of the others, at least not with vigor. As a father of an Iraqi war vet I will not support Paul. He comes off as a nut. Romney is not conservative. I can see a flip flop fest at the Dem convention if he is chosen, just like Kerry saw at the GOP convention. McCain has not been on our side for a long time. Guilliani is too liberal, but at least consistent about most of his stances. Hunter is a good man, but no Representative, even from CA will ever win. Tancredo is not presidential. I hope Fred gets better because you are right about Huckabee's issues. He is quite sharp on his feet though.

Posted by: David at October 23, 2007 04:03 AM (sihpF)

8 I'm still a bit unsure on Thompson, I just don't trust him at all. One reason I like Paul is that he's saying the same things he's always said -- no changes on positions at all -- unlike the top 4. It appears that of the others, only Paul, Huckabee, and Hunter seem to have any chance at all.

Posted by: Ogre at October 23, 2007 08:53 AM (wkwq7)

9 Actually, if we could just resurrect Teddy Roosevelt I'd be happy! I took the test on Cao's and the highest score was 40 for Hunter and Thompson. The Dems all scored 12 down to 5. LOL!!! I guess I really am a "reformed" former Democrat!

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at October 26, 2007 01:21 AM (cU/eW)

10 That's certainly good to hear! I just with there was a Republican that could really excite people like Reagan did. But I think Reagan was once in a lifetime.

Posted by: Ogre at October 26, 2007 11:29 AM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This is excellent. No comments needed from Ogre.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:01 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

(Manassas, Virginia) Following are the main points made by Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006), in his new paper, “Mike Huckabee—Wishy-Washy Republican”

Mike Huckabee poses as a conservative, but he enthusiastically promotes big government.

In fact, he’s just another wishy-washy Republican—inconsistent in policy because he’s inconsistent in principle.

Gov. Huckabee claims to support “empowering people to make their own decisions”, but he has consistently promoted government meddling in the market economy.

He called no-tax pledges “irresponsible” but then signed one.

In his 10 years in office, Gov. Huckabee had raised the stateÂ’s sales tax by 37 percent, motor fuel taxes by 16 percent, and cigarette taxes by 103 percent.

He publicly opposed repealing a tax on groceries and medicine, though he claims that he’s “always philosophically supported” axing the tax.

State spending under Gov. Huckabee rose by 65.3 percent during 1996 to 2004.

Not only did he increase ArkansasÂ’s minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.25 per hour, but he even encouraged the U.S. Congress to do the same thing nationally.

He supported President George W. BushÂ’s 2003 massive expansion of Medicare by adding a prescription-drug benefit.

He called the No Child Left Behind Act, which increased federal education spending by 48 percent and expanded big-government control of local schools, “the greatest education reform effort of the federal government in my lifetime”.

He wants to fence illegal immigrants out, but to give them cheap tuition while theyÂ’re here.

Mike Huckabee calls conservatives “blind purists” but poses as one of us. ]

Many more details about Mike Huckabee’s conservative charade are contained in Richard Viguerie’s paper, “Mike Huckabee—Wishy-Washy Republican”, available on-line here.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

Fred Smith, Republican candidate for governor, recently held a BBQ fundraiser. Now if you want Ogre to show up somewhere, food is a sure way to get him there. And BBQ will do it nearly every time. His campaign sent me a nice invitation, and I was getting excited about going to the rally (and eating BBQ) and meeting Mr. Smith, asking him questions, and perhaps taking some pictures to post here.

Then I read the date and time on the invitation. It was Wednesday, October 17, from 6:30-8:30 in Statesville. Then I looked at the clock/calendar on the computer. It was Wednesday, October 17, 7:45 pm. Oops. I had just received the invitation in the mail that day. Mr. Smith, you need to talk to your campaign people, because I bet I'm not the only one who missed the rally because of not getting the invitation!

Well, he also sent a copy of his book, "A Little Extra Effort." I'll take a read and post some updates and quotes from the book over the next week or so as I learn more about this fellow who wants my vote.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

I often have given up hope on freedom in America. But I have found there is real hope today.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:06 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ah! you're a ron paul guy. (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at October 19, 2007 01:29 PM (vR7Sl)

2 I think I'm going to have to go there...

Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 01:36 PM (oifEm)

3 Bach for background music, I think: "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded."

Posted by: Always On Watch at October 19, 2007 11:49 PM (d/RyS)

4 Good call!

Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2007 01:22 AM (wkwq7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This post is for those who support Giuliani because "he can beat Hillary."

I've heard, many times, the argument of selecting someone because they can win the election, even if they're the best candidate. I've heard it a lot in the Republican primary, and it really is one of the #1 reasons I've heard people give for supporting Giuliani. However, take a look at this poll.

It shows that the Giuliani CANNOT beat Hillary. All other issues and discussions aside, this poll (I know, it's a poll) clearly shows that Giuliani will not beat Hillary. I know the election is a long ways away. I know there's lots of other factors. But based on this poll (and other anecdotal evidence), the argument that Giuliani can beat Hillary is no longer valid.

Giuliani CANNOT beat Hillary. Numerous groups have mentioned that they will support and run a 3rd-party candidate should Giuliani win the Republican nomination. This situation is very real. Again, to those who support Giuliani just because he can "win," please note these results. He cannot win. I know I won't vote for him if he's the only name on the ballot. And there's clearly a lot of others like me.

Know what would be a true dream ticket for me? And would have a VERY strong chance of beating Hillary? Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Holy crap. Both strong on the Constitution and freedom and Keyes with very strong foreign policy experience. Wow.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Ogre at 06:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

So, did you see the Democrat debate last night? Me neither. But hey, if you want to know what today's Democrat party stands for, take a look at some of their positions on the issues:

War: YES.

According to the formerly mainstream media, something like 70% of the people of this country oppose the current war in Iraq. 70% of the people want the US out of Iraq. The top Democrat presidential nominees DO NOT. Edwards, Osama Obama, and Clinton ALL support continued war. In case you missed it: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ. If you, personally, want to vote for someone anti-war, I'd suggest Ron Paul.

Taxes: Higher, more, bigger, huge, massive.

Only Richardson found a tax he didn't like. Every other Democrat candidate crowed about how much they could increase the payroll tax. Yes, that means if you work, they want MORE of your money. Imagine your paycheck. Now imagine your paycheck under a Democrat president: it's smaller.

Biden was one of the few who actually had a coherent, logical thought. His solution to the government paying out too much cash to people who do nothing was to consider raising the retirement age. Total wacko Kucinich actually wanted to REDUCE the retirement age! Then again, maybe that would be good because then the government could go bankrupt right away instead of waiting a few more years.

Keep in mind: social security was NOT designed for everyone! It's official title includes the word "supplemental!" This was a system designed for people who were too old and physically incapable of working. It was supposed to be for widows who lost support from their husbands. If this system was indexed for the increasing life span of people, the social security retirement age would be EIGHTY-ONE -- and it should be. You shouldn't get free cash from the government just for turning 67.

Oh, and all the Democrats promised to spend billions and billions of dollars of YOUR money to ration health care so you can have less of it. Go ahead, vote Democrat. I think things are going to have to get worse before they can get better.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

I know, I know. He's a "lower tier" candidate. The mainstream media polls won't even include him. But is it possible that Ron Paul could actually win the Republican nomination?

I just happened upon a list of national Straw Poll results. Ron Paul is winning them. Look at this:

Ron Paul vs. Rudy: Ron Paul beat Rudy 23 times, Rudy beat Paul 3 times.
Ron Paul vs. Romney: Paul beat Romney 15 times, Romney beat Paul 11 times.
Ron Paul vs. McCain: Paul beat McCain 22 times, McCain beat Paul 3 times.
Ron Paul vs. Thompson: Paul beat Thompson 13 times, Thompson beat Paul 12 times.
Against the other candidates, Paul beat them 88 times, they beat Paul 8 times.

Overall, Paul beat other candidates 161 times, while he was beat 37 times. He's finished first in 10 of 26 straw polls. I know they're straw polls, but people are voting for him. Could he actually win the nomination? I'm not making a prediction, just looking at the poll results.

Just imagine the election campaign of 2008: Paul vs. Hillary. Now there would be some real choice!

Posted by: Ogre at 05:07 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

I got this note from some folks that are trying to do the impossible -- get a Republican elected to Congress in Massachusetts. I honestly don't think it's possible, even when you consider Republicans like Romney got elected there. But is a moderate Republican better than a moderate Democrat? Some would say yes. I'm not sure. So check this fellow out -- you might want to support him:

Meet Lt. Col. Jim Ogonowski (Ret.), the Republican candidate running in the October 16th special election in Massachusetts' 5th district. Jim is a 28-year veteran of the Air Force and Air National Guard. On September 11th, 2001, Jim's brother John was the pilot of hijacked American Airlines Flight 11, the second plane to hit the World Trade Center. Ever since, Jim has dedicated himself to helping John's family, and no w works his brother's farm.

A SurveyUSA/WBZ-TV poll out last week shows Jim behind by just 10 points -- 51-41 percent. That's remarkable in a state that hasn't elected a Republican to Congress in over a decade! What makes this even more incredible is the fact that Jim's Democrat opponent is the well-known wife of a late U.S. Senator.

You need to watch Jim's TV ads to understand the tremendous appeal he has in this race. And once you have, will you chip in $25, $50, or $100 through Rightroots to keep Jim going all the way through Election Day?

http://www.RightRoots.com/Ogonowski

This race is winnable if Jim gets the resources he needs to stay competitive. This is a district that only went for John Kerry by 7 points in the last Presidential election and where Democratic governor Deval Patrick was held to 50% in 2006 despite winning the state overwhelmingly. Polls show Jim winning with independent voters 46-39% -- and that's 51% of all the district's voters. All the ingredients are in place for a stunning upset -- and now Jim needs our generous support to carry him across the finish line.

Taking back a Congressional seat in the bluest of blue states would simply stun the liberal media and show that the GOP is alive and well heading into to 2008.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

There was a debate last night -- did you notice? All Republican candidates for president were invited. Not everyone showed up. Well, it was put on by values voters -- so those who disagreed with their positions, for the most part, didn't show up. Absent, but invited, were: all Democrat candidates and Rudy McRomny-Thompson.

Many questions did circle around Christian values. They asked questions that would have been quite tough for many of those people to answer. I watched part of the debate, but my internet connection got funny towards the second half, so I missed parts.

In short, basically all the candidates agreed with just about all the positions of the Values Voters group. The one exception was Ron Paul -- who was solid and outstanding. Mr. Paul was incredibly consistent -- he supported freedom at all times. When asked who would use government to correct behavior like prostitution, all agreed they would except Paul. When asked about expanding government to do, well, anything, most agreed -- except Paul.

And when it came to the discussion about the Iraq war, everyone agreed that the US needed to stay "until victory is won" -- except Ron Paul. At the same time, Mr. Paul agreed with all the positions of the values voters. Keep that in mind: Ron Paul agreed with all the values of the Christian Values Voters. And Ron Paul can beat Hillary Clinton.

A new entrant was in the race and appeared at this debate -- Alan Keyes. Wow. This guy can talk. I absolutely love to listen to him speak about issues that he's passionate about. I have a couple recordings of his speeches from back in 2000. I even managed to vote for him back in 2000 in the presidential primary (I still have the T-Shirt!) He is powerful and passionate -- I really don't understand why he has so much trouble getting votes. And Keyes really understands the war on terror:

The Islamic fascists are evil, and it is right to defend ourselves against them. But we do not fight them because they are Islamic, or even because they are fascists. We fight them because, by their practice of terror, they prove themselves to be people who have no regard for the fundamental tenets of decent conscience that we believe must be respected when human beings deal with one another, even in war.

If you missed that debate, you did miss some really exciting candidates. Now if we can just find a way to ensure that Rudy McRomney-Thompson don't get elected, things could really improve...

Update: Stop the ACLU isn't so inclined to favor Ron Paul after this debate.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.