Election 2008

• Ron Paul - 115
• Fred Thompson - 31
• Rudy Giuliani - 18
• Mitt Romney - 16
• Mike Huckabee - 8
• Duncan Hunter - 5
• John McCain - 3
• Cort - 1
• Undecided - 1
• Sam Brownback – 1
• Tom Tancredo - 0

October 10, 2007 - According to an MSNBC online poll participated by over 16,000 people, Texas Congressman Ron Paul won the GOP Michigan debate in a landslide.

Sister-station, CNBC, who hosted the debate also had an online poll but they, like Pajamas Media, took it down when they saw that the most conservative congressman in office was winning by such a wide margin.

When asked who they thought was standing out from the pack, Paul, who favors the legalization of marijuana, the abolition of Income Tax, and for Presidents to be forced to declare war through Congress before bombing and invading other countries, received 83% of the online vote.

On the question of which candidate shows the most leadership qualities, the only GOP candidate who agrees with the majority of the US population in saying that the troops in Iraq should be brought home immediately, Paul got 81% of the vote.

Critics poo-pooed the results claiming that Paul supporters "spam" these polls. Fox News host Sean Hannity - an immoral, un-American liar and cheat in his own right - upon hearing that Paul had won the Fox News debate told his viewers that they were cheaters, despite the fact that it was a text poll meaning there could only be one vote per cell phone. But it was CBS who said that it's the millions of dollars he's raised that is making it harder for people to ignore him, but practice makes perfect!

Ron Paul has been winning these online polls and straw votes now for months. If he has this organized, underground cabal of Internet geeks - why have none of their scheming emails surfaced? If it's so easy that even Ron Paul can do it, why have none of the other candidates been able to motivate and mobilize their alleged supporters to log on to the computer after one of these debates?

Fred Thompson has had months to prepare out of the spotlight and he can only get 505 votes on the MSNBC poll for Leadership Quality? Or is the next allegation going to be that Ron Paul supporters have figured out how to take votes away from other candidates.CNBC should be ashamed of itself for opening up a poll and taking it down when the person who they want to win doesn't look very good on it. That website is a professional site, owned by a media giant. If months into a race, CNBC can't figure out how to run a fair, reliable, accurate poll, they shouldn't put it up in the first place.

October 9, 2007 - Call it the Alberto Gonzales approach to the system of checks and balances.

Asked whether he would obey the Constitution and consult Congress before sending U.S. troops into combat, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says he would consult his lawyers first.

Just as President Bush turned to Gonzales for legal opinions that the disgraced former White House counsel and Attorney General wrote with the purpose of absolving the commander-in-chief of any duty to uphold the Constitution, so Romney says that he would take his cue from contemporary counselors rather than the Founders of the American experiment.

The question in Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in Michigan came from MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who asked, "Governor Romney... if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?"

Romney responded, "You sit down with your attorneys and (they) tell you what you have to do. But obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress..."

Matthews interjected: "Did (President Bush) need (a go-ahead from Congress)?"

"You know," Romney replied, "we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do."

Most of the other GOP contenders paid at least a measure of lip service to Constitutional niceties, with Arizona Senator John McCain and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson displaying relative respect for the separation of powers while former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee adopted the mad-bomber line.

When all was said and done, however, only Texas Congressman Ron Paul actually challenged Romney's disregard of the essential document.

Matthews asked, "Congressman Paul, do you believe the President needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?"

:Absolutely," said Paul, who in 2002 was one of six House Republicans to vote against authorizing Bush to attack Iraq. "This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war."

Paul went on to dismiss the whole notion that Iran poses a threat to the U.S. "The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way. This is just... war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while."

Later, Paul would attempt to explain to Rudy Giuliani that the September 11, 2001, attacks were carried out by terrorists, rather than a foreign government. When the former New York mayor again attempted to use the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as justification for preemptive attacks on sovereign states, Paul explained with regard to September 11: "That was no country. That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country."

Giuliani wasn't having any of it. "So imminent attack is a possibility, and we should be ready for it," the Republican front runner ranted, before declaring that "we have to be willing to use a military option" against Iran.

That dust-up may explain one of the more intriguing exchanges of Tuesday night's debate.

"Congressman Paul," moderator Matthews asked, "do you promise to support the nominee of the Republican Party next year?"

"Not right now I don't," Paul replied. "Not unless they're willing to end the war and bring our troops home. And not unless they are willing to look at the excess in spending. No, I'm not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes."

WASHINGTON - October 8, 2007 - Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.