PART 2 of 2
By Jon Christian Ryter
March 14, 2008
Even before a single primary vote was cast, the Election of 2008 was shaping up to be the most expensive presidential election since Richard Nixon. More money will be raised and spent this year than what was raised and spent in 2004—then the most expensive political campaign in the history of the United States. Before the traditional campaign season even began the presidential challengers had raised $582.5 million—and had spent $481.2 million. Those amounts exceeded the total fundraising and spending in each election from 1976 to 2000. In 2000, Al Gore, Jr., George W. Bush, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader and the lesser third party candidates raised $528.9 million and spent $343.1 million. (If they "retired" from politics after that race, the candidates got to keep whatever portion of the remaining $185.8 million was left in their treasuries.) In 2004, Bush and Sen. John Kerry [D-MA] and the combined third party candidates raised an unheard of $880.5 million, spending $717.9 million. (The retirement fund for the spoilers is increasing dramatically.) This year, the Center For Responsive Politics conservatively estimates that the candidates will have raised well over $1 billion before November 4.
The media has suggested that you can determine who the front runners are by the amount of money they have received in contributions. If all of that money came from working class Americans that might be true. However, the megamillions are not donated by Joe and Judy Workingclass, but Joe and Judy Wealthyclass who expect major quid pro quos for their bucks when the candidates who received the money get in office.
If you could actually gauge front-runner status by the amount of money raised, then in the 4th Quarter of 2007 Dr. Ron Paul and not Sen. John McCain (or former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani whose 4th quarter, 2007 totals were so negligible they didn't even register) should have been construed to be the front-runner The only thing you can tell from the dollars raised by any candidate is that those who raise the most are beholden the most. Further, if you examine the business interests of the largest donors, you can actually chart, with a fairly good degree of accuracy, the legislative agenda of any candidate running for office.
The largest donors this season have been what is construed as the Rockefeller-Morgan banks—which before New Hampshire were only backing McCain and Clinton among the presidential candidates. On the eve of New Hampshire, the banks expanded their net and included Obama with their generosity. Broken down, the top donors look like this: www.ActBlue.com (which backs only the extreme far left) donated $2,246,871.00 to socialist candidates. This included both Obama ($228,161.00) and Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] ($76,670.00). www.ActBlue.com, which flies under the radar screen, raised $37,745,300.00 for far left candidates since 2004 when it was formed to elect Sen. John Kerry.
The top bank donors to presidential candidates are: Goldman Sachs, which gave $1,472,646.00 this election cycle. Seventy-one percent of the money went to Democrats (with the bulk going to Hillary and Obama) and the balance to Republicans, with the bulk of the funds going to McCain. Citigroup gave $1,317,453.00 with 61% going to Democrats and 39% to Republicans. Morgan Stanley gave $1,012,097 with 62% going to Democrats and 38% to Republicans. Lehman Brothers gave $990,000 with 61% going to the Democratic contenders and 39% going to the GOP candidates—basically, McCain. JP Morgan Chase gave 66% of their $793,894.00 to Hillary and Obama, and 34% to McCain. UBS AG gave 64% of their $696,839.00 in contributions to Democratic presidential hopefuls and 36% to Republicans. Only Merrill Lynch favored the GOP over the Democrats. Fifty-eight percent of their $932,376.00 went to McCain and 42% was split between Hillary and Obama.
DLA Piper is a high technology company with offices located throughout the Asia, Europe, the United States—and, most important, in the Middle East. DLA Piper is Hillary Clinton's top money source. Blank Rome LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP. bankrolled both McCain and Clinton. Blank Rome, specializes in IRS regulations. They are McCain's primary money source. Greenberg Traurig specializes in international law. While I have not seen it in his FEC filings yet, its a sure bet that DLA Piper, Blank Rome and Greenberg-Traurig are now writing checks with Barack Obama's name on them. Campaigning is, after all, all about money. Today Obama has it and Hillary does not. Adding to Clinton's woes in the money department, Obama also broke a campaign promise not to take matching funds, which added additional millions to his coffers. The Clintons and their allies are criticizing Obama for breaking his word. Obama said he has not broken his word, clarifying that his position all along was that he would not use public money if his Democratic opponents did the same. But if they used public money he would be obligated to do the same. Hillary applied for matching funds. Obama followed suit.
Hillary, whose campaign is running lean, still leads the presidential wanabees in dollars collected from lobbyists like disgraced kingpin lobbyist Jack Abrahamoff. The lobbying industry doled out $2.7 million to the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle. Of that money, $823,000 went into Clinton's war chest. Military-related donors, frightened by the rhetoric of the far left, have poured money into their war chests. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the candidate who received the most was Ron Paul who opposes US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
During the 4th quarter, Dr. Paul raised $19,873.329.00. McCain only raised $9,714,236.00. What is most interesting is that, of the GOP candidates, Dr. Paul was the top money raiser in Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Wyoming. Yet, the voters who contributed to him apparently voted for McCain in the primaries that were held just before and during Super Tuesday. Dr. Paul came in second in Nevada, third in Alaska, fourth in Alabama, Michigan and Oklahoma, and fifth in New Hampshire where irregularities between the paper ballots that were examined and the computer tallies suggest the totals received by Dr. Paul and McCain were somehow flip-flopped. I find it hard to believe that voters would support Dr. Paul with their checkbooks and then vote for McCain. (One of my business associates suggested that perhaps they voted first and then opened their checkbooks. While that is possible, it doesn't really make sense to suggest that someone would vote for McCain and then write checks to Dr. Paul.) The first scenario is more likely to be true—the problem most likely lies in the electronic voting system where the results can be preprogrammed to credit votes for one candidate to another and visa versa. Clearly, the best grassroots organization on the ground in New Hampshire did not belong to McCain—it belonged to Ron Paul.
How McCain Stole the Marbles
The one candidate few conservatives wanted to win any primary—and were surprised when he did—was Sen. John McCain who is a Teddy Kennedy liberal on 80% of the issues. It should not have surprised conservatives however, since conservatives are traditionally one or two issue voters and they fracture very easily. Liberals, on the other hand, are in the game to win. Thus, even if they don't like the candidate they are stuck with, they rally round the the flag and vote for him. For that reason, the left has controlled Congress for over 75% of the 20th century.
Conservatives, sadly, are pouters. If their "guy" doesn't win, they take their marbles and go home. Look at the candidate "mix" on the GOP side when the vetting began: McCain (liberal), Rudy Giuliani (liberal), Mike Huckabee (moderate), Mitt Romney (moderate), Ron Paul (Libertarian), Fred Thompson (conservative), Tom Tancredo (conservative), Duncan Hunter (conservative), Sam Brownback (conservative). Do you see the problem? McCain—the easiest candidate to beat with the exception of Giuliani (who is even less qualified than Barack Obama)—was assured of roughly 35% of the GOP vote from Rockefeller Republicans and Independent crossovers who wanted to make sure that easy-to-beat McCain won the nomination.
If you checked McCain's wins (before everyone except Huckabee dropped out), you would see that most of the primaries McCain won was with 32% to 38% of the vote. The balance of the ballots cast, representing 62% to 68% of the GOP primary voters, were split between eight other contestants. If you examine the raw data, you are pretty much forced to conclude that the true conservatives—each with their personal quirks about candidates—simply stubbornly refused to coalesce around the candidate with the broadest appeal, convinced that the most appealing candidate was the one they were currently supporting. No one will agree 100% with the politics of any candidate. Because of that, conservatives—as a group—lose more than they win. There hasn't been a Ronald Reagan in the race in almost a quarter century.
Winning In 2008
So, the question is: how do we win without Reagan, or someone like him, in the race? First, we recognize that while its nice to have "our guy" in the White House, the real power in Washington is on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue—Congress. Sitting out the election is not an option in 2008. This is the year that if we "snooze" we lose. Not just the White House. Not just the super majority the Democrats will get in Congress since 29 Republican House members have "decided" to retire. What we stand to lose is the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and national sovereignty. The globalists, who have been waiting 88 years to establish world government, are now impatient. The far left, with the help of the "true-blue" neo-conservatives (globalist Republicans) plan to create their century-long dream during the 111th Congress. If conservative America does not have a majority of sufficient strength in the House and Senate on January 5, 2009 to block this agenda, the nationalists among us will be forced to watch our Northern and Southern borders erased and our nation seamlessly merged with both Canada and Mexico as we are told this will bring not only prosperity to all of the Americas, it will ultimately bring peace to the world.
The serpents on Capital Hill speak with forked tongues. The meshing of the economies of North America and Mexico, followed by the merging of the economies and political systems of Central America and, eventually, the political and economic consolidation of North, Central and South American into a hemispheric nation called the American Union will merge with an enlarged European Union that likely will not include the Eastern bloc "union," (i.e., the rebirthed—but "kinder, gentler"—Soviet Union and Red China) and an Islamic "union" that will unite the Muslim world under one flag. One hundred and eighty-five national currencies will be compressed into 6-to-8 regional monetary units that will ultimately be collapsed into a single global cyber-monetary unit.
It is unlikely that the Republican Party will hold the White House—particularly since the far left media has already started the "slice and dice" campaign on presumptive nominee John McCain—who, very likely, is guilty of the latest allegations that McCain—one of the stars of the Keating Five Scandal—had an affair with a lobbyist, Vicki Iseman (an allegation both of them have denied), The New York Times has reported that McCain used his high office to intercede on behalf of Iseman's clients by pushing legislation that would benefit them. Conservatives who "vote their conscience" and who adamantly refuse to "vote the lesser of two evils," as they did in 2006—and caused the GOP to lose both Houses of Congress—need to rethink their voting strategy, at least in part, this time around. Sitting out the election is no longer an option although most of them argue that since there is no longer any differences between Republicans and Democrats it make little difference which party is in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. However, the differences between the two parties remains as stark as the difference between day and night.
Since those differences impact your pocket book, you have a vested interest in voting even if you abstain from voting for anyone at the top of the ticket based on principles. The social progressives on the left will always vote for more entitlements for minorities, particularly Hispanics which is now the second largest voting block in the country, in order to shackle them to the feeding trough voting booth. Paid for by you. In addition, the social progressives, who feel we have an obligation to support the rest of the world, will vote for even more entitlements for third world nations to be disbursed through the UN. Paid for by you. The social progressives believe that global peace can be achieved only when the impoverished of the world have jobs. These jobs will be supplied to the third world at the expense of the United States. Paid for by you.
This is the reality of what will happen if the Christian conservatives sit out the Election of 2008 the way they sat out the Election of 2006. You will have higher taxes. You will have socialized healthcare that will clone the system Canada just jettisoned under decree by its high court because Canadians were dying while waiting for treatment. You will see the rebirth of the generational welfare system. You will see even more of your tax dollars (if you still have a job) funneled to the same third world nations who are taking our jobs.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
The Reagan conservatives—Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and Independent—are going to have to take it upon themselves to save this nation. How? They need to fill the voting booths in sufficient force to take veto proof control over the US Senate and the House of Representatives. Let the liberals have the White House. A house divided cannot stand. If either party controls both the White House and Congress, liberty will cease to exist by the next presidential election. But we must absolutely recapture Congress—with enough strength to control a presidential veto from a far left social progressive president—which will be, it appears, any of the candidates on either side of the aisle. So, in November—get out and vote. I will. My voting will begin one line below the vote for President which I intend to leave blank. For part one click below.
Click here for part -----> 1,
© 2008 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights
Happened to America?"]