Do the math, the GOP is ahead. "The RNC reported raising $57.3 million so far this year, with $16 million on hand, while the Democratic National Committee raised $36.8 million so far this year, with $4.7 million on hand." Don't send money to the GOP yet, they still have plenty.

Jonathan, I don't think all the necessary information is there to draw any firm conclusions!

'The Blotter' tells us what the RNCC has on hand and how much it owes, then how much the DCCC 'reported'.
How does 'reported' pan out in terms of 'on hand' and 'owed'?
Apples & Oranges..., MAYBE.
Who can tell?

Then we're told about the Senatorial committees, but only reports of 'on hand' with no detail on how much was raised in total, or how much owed by either group.

The only clear "Apples to Apples" comparison is the last one, where the Repubs have an advantage in both dollars raised and dollars on hand.

I know you're only quoting 'The Blotter's article, but I personally like to have all the numbers at hand before I try and decipher what it is they're actually telling me.

I can't believe all the wasted money raised for Democrats. It's just blah, blah, blah to me. Ron Paul just raised $500,000 within a 2 week period. The excitement is growing with the possibility of real freedoms and less taxes. Thank God for Ron Paul. Please vote for him and save the Republic from the Socialist Hillary Obama.

DefendThyself -

Don't be naive - Paul is likely as full of shit as the rest of them. And his speak on small government is old Republican hat. He'd privatize the entire country if he had a chance, meaning you'd pay a toll to drive down the street to the market and your kids would have to pay for their education or NOT GET ANY. So for people unlike you [blogging from within your cubicle at a semi-professional job that pays decently for a big corp] who haven't the means, they'd go broke just trying to live. Get real.
Also, how easy for Paul to seem like the easy going, sensible candidate, because he can just chuck off all sensitive social issues by saying, 'Look, as I've said countless times, I want a small government, which means people have the FREEDOM to work these things out privately.' That's irresponsible governing and history has proven how little it works.

anyone who is tempted to think that Ron Paul is 'as full of shit as the rest of them' is encouraged to compare Ron's stated positions against Ron's substantial voting record
then do the same exercise with 'the rest of them' and compare

i've noticed that a lot of people tend to gravitate to the concept of individual liberty until it comes to their attention that if every American truly had that, then they could exercise no control (through government) over how their neighbors excercised their own liberties, provided the neighbors were not infringing on the equal liberties of someone else

some folks are just not comfortable with that concept, even if it means sacrificing individual liberty for themselves in order to see that others can't exercise liberty in a fashion they don't approve of
prohibitionists are a prime example of this thinking

Gee, jet, by 'some people' do you mean me? A cowardly way to debate an issue.
The problem with a itty-bitty government that's so cute and little you could put it in your pocket is that when you need it to PROTECT you from various kinds of violators, it isn't there; when you need it to offer things like public education and state maintained roads, which make life EASIER, it isn't there. As a gay man and a toker, believe me I don't believe in a big government with prohabitions, but I do believe in productive social programs that help people to feel invested in their government and nation. After all, if your government doesn't do anything for you, from providing laws about clean water to sending a cop out if someone it beating the shit out of your mom, the why even have a government? So in your mind, if we whittled down the federal government to the little stub that Ron Paul advocates, everyone would play nice and the harsh, aggressive and cruel would just whither away and let the rest of us hang out, using our legal semi automatics for killing squirrels for dinner and digging wells behind our apartment buildings in the hope that we could scare up something better than the city water the energy plant just dumped a bunch of poison into. Interesting, Jet.

didn't have any idea if that description of some people's reactions to the concept of individual liberty fit you or not, so i didn't presume to apply it to you
it was just an observation of what i've observed in the past
judging from your reaction, it must have hit close to home

a small government can, and once did protect Americans from those who would infringe on the liberties of others, at least as well as this one does
that function doesn't take all that much government, and what it really boils down to is providing for recourse after a transgression in either case

states and counties once provided all the roads America needed without the 'help' of the federal government
so the feds set up a department devoted to it anyway, write regulations for the states and counties to comply with, collect and funnel the funds FROM the states, through their 'efficient' bureaucracy, back down TO the states (what's left of it), monitor and inspect the constructions, and we can't trust our bridges
great argument in it's favor

with very limited government involvement in education, none of which was federal, American education once produced the most literate population in the world
now we have a cabinet level department to help us get educated and where do we stand in relation to the rest of the world?
should we re-examine the model that worked so well?
i suspect you'd say no
just do more of what we're doing now and it'll somehow suddenly start working

you know, with all the wonderful, big government you've got now, the supreme court has said the police are not REQUIRED to send someone out when someone is beating the sh!t out of your mom, even if you dial 911
look it up
how's that for a big government that you think is going to "PROTECT you from various kinds of violators"?
it isn't there!
the decision of the supremes says, essentially, that you are ultimately responsible for your own safety and should not rely on personal protection from the police, so go on and turn your nose up at that legal semi-automatic
i'm keeping mine

["So in your mind, if we whittled down the federal government to the little stub that Ron Paul advocates, everyone would play nice and the harsh, aggressive and cruel would just whither away and let the rest of us hang out, using our legal semi automatics for killing squirrels for dinner and digging wells behind our apartment buildings in the hope that we could scare up something better than the city water the energy plant just dumped a bunch of poison into."]

didn't say any of that did i?
wonderful strawman argument

but, lots and lots of big government hasn't made people play nice, now has it?

there is a point you and others seem to be at great pains to overlook, and that is that if anyone infringes on the equal rights of another person (such as poisoning their water supply for instance) then that is something even a small government is there to put a stop to and it can do so just as effectively as a federal government that employs more people than any private company in the nation

but hey, if you wanted to give up all the rest of the liberties you've got in trade for more of the government 'services' and 'protections' you're getting now is what you choose, then that would be your prerogative
go on and vote for whoever is offering the most appealing candy

that's the direction Americans have been taking for 70 years now, and most of us are none too thrilled with the taste of the stuff when it's finally served to us

i know, i know, if we only had 'the right people' in charge...

i don't fear my own liberty, nor that of my neighbors
i don't doubt the ability of the American people to handle their own affairs and look after their own interests, if they are re-empowered to do so

i'm backing Ron Paul

Mr. Miller, please don't use the word "shit". You may use the word "crap" instead. Please observe the same FCC rules that radio stations observe. This is an intellectual site. The use of such words takes away from your message and makes you sound more like some uneducated hillbilly from the Vermont woods than an educated person.

Cut the shit 'Doc'.
And quit using the childish tactic of repeating the 'adult word', while complaining about it's use.

You have a complaint with posters not being intellectual enough to suit you?
Take it to the top.

Take it up with the 'intellectuals' who run the site, and write articles like:
"Wanna Have Breakfast with Turd Blossom?"
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/09/5528_wanna_have_dinn.html

I'm sure they'll be concerned for your sensitivity to course language, and your aversion to the mere mention of natural bodily functions.
If not, I'll explain to them about how you've been psychologically damaged by your extremely strict "spare the rod" Southern Baptist upbringing.

This is the internet!
Government doesn't control it... YET!
So the FCC can go pound sand up it's ass.

In the meantime, go take your meds before I have you picked up and committed again.

Dr. Silberman M.D.,Psy.D.

Jet - I hear what you're saying and I doubt that there is a perfect model of either big, centralized or small, local government. If I may balance your points, which are sound: if you were a black kid in Alabama in the sixties, you'd see the value of your local government having to answer to a broader consciousness. The Federal government has brought good things to people who needed it just as much as it has failed people, i.e. FEMA in New Orleans. However, when a federal programs fails it's usually because some Republican with a grudge against big gov't has cut its funding and reduced its staff and standards to comply to the capabilities of the cuts. Having worked in Federal gov't and coming from a family that was able to earn better livelihoods working for the federal gov't in the last generation than their farming backgrounds could have provided, I know how the flow of cash based on the politicians in power can make a mockery of the best intentions any agency was assigned to uphold. This is experiential and it is true.

On another note, I wish that the troll who calls himself Dr. Webster would think of a less obvious fake intellectual snob name. What about Prof. Merriam? Webster is so....I don't know, shitty?

as a side note on republican fund raising, congressman Ron Paul started out this week trying to raise $500,000 by the end of the month (today) through an internet fund raising campaign

that took all of a couple of days to achieve

so his campaign asked if the supporters wanted to shoot for a million and they've now gone well over that, double the original goal with the rest of the day still ahead
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
but as the media is so fond of saying after the online or text message polls show he won yet another debate 'hey, that's JUST the internet'
lmao

i guess all these fund raising woes depend on which republicans you're talking about and what message they're spreading