“Perpetual war”? I’d like to think I’m on the side that seeks victory and end to war as quickly as possible.

Nonetheless, your comment suggests an interpretation of conservative doctrine that is well outside the mainstream of where conservatism has been for 50 years. It is the same school of thought that opposed waging the Cold War on the grounds that Soviet and Chinese communism was a made-up justification for the expansion of the state. Most conservatives (Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan to name but a few) rejected this thinking a long time ago, recognizing that the national government’s primary responsibility was indeed to protect the country against external threats, and that expansionist communism was just such a threat.

I’ll grant you that most national GOP figures don’t have the courage to stand firm on most of the traditional conservative principles you list, and that Ron Paul certainly cannot be counted among that weak-kneed crowd. But today, most self-identified conservatives agree that Islamism is a threat to our way of life and our freedoms, and should be aggressively confronted. To imply that those who embrace this notion are liberal Republicans or RINOs is ridiculous, and to say that they have “abandoned all other principles” in favor of it is downright ignorant (see, e.g., Rudy’s position on judges, Fred’s position on a flat tax, Mitt’s position on free trade, etc. etc.).

As I said, it may very well be that Paul has the most contributions or highest amount of contributions from military people. My only point is that the method employed to make this claim is flawed. At bottom it is probably too difficult to prove or disprove.

Also, when I see campaigns organizing to put people on buses to get them to straw polls or state conventions or whatever, I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to think that somewhere within one candidate’s organization (especially one so diffuse and decentralized as the Paul organization) that someone would see an advantage in being able to point to as many military-related donors as possible and act accordingly. I think it’s a good tactic and I even welcome it for the level of respect it implies for military voices.

BUT, if a claim is being made that more members of the military have contributed to a certain candidate’s campaign than to others, and that claim appears to rest at least partially on specious grounds (i.e., people’s self-identification of their occupation as “Veteran” or whatever) that deserves to be pointed out, particularly when we are talking about a relative handful of people to begin with.

Ron Paul should continue to make as much hay out of this claim as he can. However, based on my personal experiences and ongoing relationship with the military and its members, and on the points I’ve raised above, I’ll maintain my skepticism.

Doe we still have troops in Japan, Germany, South Korea, the Balkans?

Do we still have troops in Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Somalia?

Do you see a pattern in the results of places we have cut-and-run and places where we finshed the job and helped new democracies become stable?

We need to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq as long as it takes to see stable, free governments emerge. To do anything short of that will eventually come back to burn us.

Additionally, look for him to have more petition signatures getting him on the Virginia ballot than any other candidate.

So what tier does that put your candidate, if we’re on the lower one?

I’ll add- that your candidate (and Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, and Tancredo) are all in danger of not even making the Virginia ballot for a lack of signatures.

Knowing this, I’d suggest you set your keyboard aside and head to your nearest grocery store and start collecting some signatures- you may not even get the opportunity, except maybe ‘writing-in’, to vote for your guy.

Vote VICTORY in Iraq and the WOT, vote Fred.

http://Vets4Fred.net

Don’t you think simply, one, of the GOP Presidential nominees (hello- John McCain), would of called his bluff on this, again, if indeed it is untrue?

Wouldn’t one of the other Presidential candidates enjoy making this claim, if indeed they were the candidate that had actually received more from the military?

Yet not one news organization, not one opposing campaign nor candidate has said word challenging this has untrue? Not one.

So let me get this right- you’ve got some conspiracy theory that Paul is instructing folks to put ‘Veteran’ on their donation cards to his campaign just to bump this number? Really – thats what you think?

C’mon ya’ll? Everyone on this post who has commented against Paul, and claimed him and his supporters as whacked out, need take a long, hard, look at themselves in the mirror, because those that you’re claiming to be so adamently opposed to, are those that you sound exactly like.

* OpinionJournal.com is not a paysite. It is the free editorial page of the WSJ, but it does offer a subscription-only Political Diary. WSJ.com is a paysite.

* Google does not turn up any evidence that John Fund has opined on the issue of military contributions to Ron Paul. Even if it were behind a pay wall, had this work actually “thoroughly debunked” the Ronulans’ claims, I’m guessing we’d see it repeated somewhere else, but I can’t find it anywhere. What I could find was at the Weekly Standard blog, in a post entitled “The Fantasy of Ron Paul’s Military Support.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_fantasy_of_ron_pauls_milit.asp

* If one actually examines the data linked to by Pauloids above, one finds that the conclusions the Paulnuts have drawn to be somewhat suspect. For instance, included in Ron Paul’s total is a “VETERAN” category. This is entirely specious, as the FEC does not gather information on a donor’s veteran status. Instead, what they gather is the person’s self-identified occupation and employer, which is not always reliable. For instance, Paul lists someone whose occupation is amusingly reported as “tax slave to the federal government,” while yet another lists himself as “Head Slacker in Charge.” Bottom line: while there may yet be merit to the overall claim, the Ron Paul number linked to above is a made-up number.

* I think there are likely other problems with the Paulite claim as well, such as its lack of the disclaimer “from contributors who gave $200 or more,” as only those donations require submission of employer information. Another angle is that an active duty member’s spouse (most likely not a military member) is often the one within a military family to make the donation, so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or violation of UCMJ or Hatch Act provisions governing political activities while on active duty (I saw this a lot when on active duty myself). Still another: they are probably counting civilian employees of certain agencies (e.g., Department of the Navy) as active duty servicemen. Another: given their (uncharacterstic for libertarians) penchant for organizing, it would not be surprising to me to discover a concerted effort by the Paul people to have donors describe themselves on FEC forms in ways that hint at a military association, or that they are taking steps to “over report” military contributions (i.e., by formally reporting military donations under $200, where the other campaigns do not).

I’d love to see a reporter really dig into this and come up with the full story, and one that relies on more recent data than the 1st two quarters of this year. And Paulbots, please don’t link to the same CRP/Houston Chronicle/ABC regurgitation of the same tired data as I’ve described above. Counting someone who describes his occupation as “VETERAN” doesn’t work, as most veterans (unless instructed by their campaign to do otherwise) will list themselves as members of a their new occupation. I am a veteran who is undecided between Rudy, Fred, & McCain. When I get around to making my choice and my donation, I’ll list my occupation as attorney, not “VETERAN.”

And one last thing, with respect to the futures trading market, as was pointed out in 06, they are easily manipulated. As Paulnuts have already shown a willingness to swamp websites during informal debate polls, and send millions of dollars in support of the insane doctor, it is not a stretch to think that they would be willing to lay down some big bets to move the betting line for the PR value.

Look, Paulnuts aren’t stupid. They may include a large number of racists, frustrated Democrats and various America haters, but that doesn’t make them dumb. Aside from cozying up to David Duke and his ilk, they have run a pretty good campaign given Paul’s obvious limitations as an appalling, disgusting and pathetic man. I think the rest of the field should expect them to use every underhanded, deceitful and thuggish trick they can. Ultimately, it will thankfully not be enough to get the mentally unbalanced Doctor elected (and has anyone noticed the striking similarity between Paul and Senator Thinskin?), but that doesn’t mean that Republicans should not denounce the candidate, his despicable tactics and the large number of morally questionable supporters.

And let me know when you find that Fund report- I can’t seem to locate it either. Not saying it’s not out there, I simply can’t track it down on the net.