This makes no sense. Donors are limited to something like $2500. So those 30 billionaires, at most, directly gave $75,000 to Obama. He also raised many hundreds of millions from millions of donors. Why would he do something to maintain the support of 30 people who can contribute $75k at most instead of the hundreds of millions in small donations? You may be right that he's in the pocket of billionaires - but your chart doesn't show anything of the sort. It shows that 30 super rich people donated a drop in the bucket to Obama. If you assume "regular people" make small donations while "rich people" make big ones, this chart seems more interesting to me: By that measure, Obama is the only candidate who's actually gotten more money in small donations than big ones - it demonstrates a far greater breadth of supporters than the other candidates, especially Romney - who is almost exclusively supported by high dollar donors. On a percentage basis, Obama and Paul actually look quite similar in their support structure:
According to the Paul campaign, he is 2nd behind Romney in # of delegates. only behind Romney by 12 and if Florida gets reversed to where the delegates or portioned, then Paul probably goes ahead of Romney. The thing with that is, it's like it always is. I'll talk trash about both candidates, then go and support one of them? How can you support someone that's so far off base with where he should be? How can you have a back bone and flip flop to support someone else who you're totally against? Paul gets criticized for thinking this way, but candidate should do this when they drop out. Santorum/Gingrich/Romney are all insiders, they will take bribes to vote and support things. Paul will not and there is nothing wrong with that.
The last GOP nominee he supported was Ronald Reagan. I know he quit the party in 1988 because of the big deficits Reagan had created. I know that in 1992 and 1996 he backed Pat Buchanan (a non-interventionist) over Bush and Dole respectively. Also I know he was busy between 2000-2008 criticizing George W. Bush for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and big budget deficits. And that in 2008 he refused to endorse McCain and asked his followers to vote 3rd party...
While this is humorous, Paul did vote for the authorization to go after Bin Laden. Also, he introduced a Letter of Marque & Reprisal to allow privateers to go and hunt him down. He is a non-interventionist - not a pacifist. His main point is that Congress should declare war - not the president (as is stipulated by the constitution). So if Congress were to declare war on a nation, he would fight it, win it and come home. And I agree with his non-interventionism. If for no other reason, I don't see how we can afford to keep our empire or continue to fight wars. How will we be able to fund SS/Medicare for the future while spending Trillions on defense? How about we spend money rebuilding this country instead of spending them bomb & then rebuild bridges in Iraq/Afghanistan? How about we secure our finances here at home instead of sending billions overseas?...
“Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.” Rick Santorum ~
Damn... My girlfriend is going to be pissed when I tell her I'm a homosexual. I just love my freedom too much
I'd give my left primal lust nut if this guy was to get caught George Michael style in a bathroom. You make me sick mr santorum
This guy is mentally deranged. That he's possibly the leading Republican candidate for President is a national disgrace, considering that we effectively have only two political parties, and a boatload of "independents." It sickens me to see the depths the GOP has reached. It seems like when I think they couldn't possibly be any more extreme as a group, that their leadership couldn't become even more spineless and bereft of ideas, and that they couldn't possibly nominate someone more incompetent than George W. Bush, they surprise me by doubling down on extremist stupidity. What a pathetic excuse for a political party. Now be sure to put, "They're all the same, they both suck, there isn't any difference between the two parties, and it doesn't matter if Obama loses" on the turntable. And how stupid is that.
Come on now Deck. "It’s about sexual freedom." there was a time.... Personally I don't have anything against sexual freedom.
I think Santorum will make a fine GOP candidate for president. I hope he gets the nomination. Oh, how I hope he is the nominee.
Oh my goodness. You should see the news today on Santorum.: And I thought Mitt was the biggest flip flopper of them all. I'm not taking away Romney's title at all, but I will do like a (co-mvp) type of thing. They both win! Oh, here are the links. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-abortion_n_1291634.html http://i.huffpost.com/gen/507177/RICK-SANTORUM.jpg http://i.huffpost.com/gen/507176/SANTORUM-ABORTION.jpg
This Pro-Life thing of his is a sham! He can't honestly have this position and keep a straight look on his face!
Worth a two minute read for infotainment: With Romney flailing, could Republican convention be a dreaded brokered one? http://news.yahoo.com/romney-flaili...onvention-dreaded-brokered-one-222212948.html
Why exactly would anyone be surprised to see the name Santorum when it comes to speaking of orgies, homosexuality and sexual freedom? You people need to give Santorum a break. Ultimately, he's just the logical outcome of the very determined and repetitive forces that shaped him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...tpaces-obama/2011/12/01/gIQAxQLsXO_story.html Although donors are limited to giving no more than $5,000 directly to a campaign, new rules allow them to give to “super PACs” that run independent ads supporting the candidates. Donations to super PACs are not limited, so billionaires can donate as much as they want.
