A shocking report: Inside the Ron Paul conspiracy

Maybe you've heard rumors about an explosive newspaper expose on a major political figure that would rock the political world just as the presidential voting is about to begin.

We haven't either.

But we do know that today is when this newspaper blows the top off of the Ron Paul Conspiracy, that vast unorganized protest movement that has silently become one of the more interesting political phenomena of the current election season.

A Times reporter -- we'll call him James Rainey to protect his identity -- has managed to penetrate the Paul presidium.

In his story he recounts for the very first time the shockingly ordinary details of a movement of thousands of disparate, dissatisfied people, some of whom want an end to the Iraq war, an end to gun controls and the IRS, an end to laws banning marijuana and a return to the gold standard, whatever that means.

These Paulites believe the government has been hijacked by a bevy of big interests that threaten the freedoms of ordinary Americans. They're not going to take it anymore. Locally, they're even organizing a re-enactment of a brazenly defiant act, the BostonTea Party, except it'll be in Santa Monica and won't involve tea or white people dressed as Indians. And the protestors promise not to leave anything foreign floating in the water.

These committed partisans, bonded by their suspicion of authority and venal influences like the mainstream media that ignored them until they did something, have united behind a 72-year-old...

Headline of the day

Usually, a New York tabloid wins the contest, hands down. Sometimes, one of the more staid major dailies (like ours) claims the honor. But today, it goes to a magazine that, while influential within centrist and center-of-left circles, has a circulation well under 100,000: The New Republic.

The publication posted an article that thoughtfully examines a question that Democratic politicos have been mulling among themselves all year -- if Hillary Clinton snags the party's presidential nomination, to what degree would she harm other Democrats running for the Senate, the House, governorships or other offices next year?

The headline: "Drag Queen" (click here to check it out).

We can't help but wonder how the esteemed Walter Lippmann, who co-founded the New Republic 94 years ago, would have reacted.

The piece, by political science professor Thomas F. Schaller, goes on to make a persuasive case that a Clinton candidacy would NOT seriously jeopardize Democratic prospects in other races (the provocative head notwithstanding). Indeed, he states flatly: "... the fact is that neither she nor her main rivals will provide a significant drag or lift for Democratic office-seekers."

One quibble: Schaller impressively backs up his assertion, but it remains a thesis on his part, not a "fact."

-- Don Frederick

Now, Obama admits campaign/PAC donation links

Bad news for the Barack Obama camp and his politics of hope clean-guy image.

The Washington Post reveals today that there was, indeed, close coordination between the Illinois senator's presidential campaign and his leadership PAC, Hopefund, in deciding which local, state and federal politicians around the country were to receive thousands of dollars in contributions from Obama's PAC.

Such coordination appears to be forbidden under Federal Election Commission rules because it, in effect, would give a candidate another, less regulated financial fund to influence the outcome of his own campaign. But Obama officials express confidence they violated no rules. The Post's John Solomon reported the other day that Obama's Hopefund had distributed money in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to people like New Hampshire state Sen. Jacayln Cilley, who got $1,000 from Obama last summer. Six days later the Democrat in the nation's first primary state announced her endorsement of his candidacy because she said she believed in him.

Likewise, Obama's PAC gave $9,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was New Hampshire's first congressional member to endorse Obama. In the earlier story Obama spokesmen denied any connection between the PAC and Democratic presidential campaign.

But today's piece alters that account and says the PAC has distributed $180,000 to groups and candidates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa and another $150,000 to similar destinations in states with primary balloting through mid-February.

Bob Bauer, private counsel for both Obama's campaign and PAC, named names of those from the campaign who'd help select the PAC's recipients and professed confidence the Obama entities had met all FEC regulations.

But Scott Thomas, a Democrat and former FEC chairman, says: "He is clearly pushing the envelope."

Obama spokesmen continue to deny any connection between their donations and the recipients' endorsements. But expect to hear more insinuations about this in charges from the Hillary Clinton camp.

--Andrew Malcolm

Nobody's laughing at Hillary anymore (or Rudy)

Hollywood writers and behind-the-scenes production staff may be suffering as the Writers Guild of America strike rounds out its fourth week, but there appears to be one beneficiary of the labor stoppage:  New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

With the late-night talk shows forced into hiatus, the Democratic presidential candidate has been spared fresh swipes from the likes of Jay Leno and David Letterman. (Although, with their programs in reruns, viewers are getting plenty of opportunities to sample their old material.)

Clinton has been the top target of the late-night comedians among the White House hopefuls, spawning nearly as many jokes so far this year as all her Democratic rivals combined, according to a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

Between Jan. 1 and Oct. 10, the New York senator was the butt of 186 jokes cracked by NBC’s Leno and Conan O’Brien, CBS’ Letterman and Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. (The study examined just the hosts’ monologues, not the entire show.) The rest of the Democratic contenders were joked about a combined total of 197 times, with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama drawing 56 cracks, the second-largest number.

Most of the jokes about Clinton centered on her gender and portrayed her as cold and....

Most of the jokes about Clinton centered on her gender and portrayed her as cold and....

Money: McCain needs more, Clinton's handing it out

Funny how so often in politics it comes down to money.

John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, sent out an almost plaintive post-debate e-mail to supporters a few hours ago. Eight men stood on that debate stage, he said, "but only one man was a president. On issue after issue, John McCain rose above the bickering and gave voters straight answers with a winning message, raising the level of discourse."

He rattled off how close the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary dates are. "The only thing that is holding us back right now is money. We have the best candidate, the best message and the best organization in the states. But we are competing with well-funded and self-funded candidates." And he asked for immediate donations. "The time is now," he said.

In another part of the political and financial spectrum, Hillary Clinton visited Bennettsville, S.C., the other day. She toured the 50-year-old middle school there, decried its dilapidated condition, and said improving education was an important part of her presidential platform.

Then, as cameras recorded the event for the evening news and newspaper, the Democratic presidential candidate presented a check for $100,000 to the new $6.4-million Marian Wright Edelman Public Library fund there. Edelman, of course, is the founder of the Children's Defense Fund, which once employed a much younger law school graduate named Hillary Rodham.

The $100,000 check came from the Clinton Foundation, which is run by Hillary and Bill Clinton. But we don't actually know where any of the foundation's money really comes from because the Clintons do not release the names of their donors, one of many things about their lives and doings they've decided not to release to the public.

That secret part, however, didn't make the Bennettsville evening news or the newspaper. But the money and the smiles in the photographs looked really good for the Clinton campaign.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Bill Clinton grabs the spotlight

Perhaps Bill Clinton himself will provide the coda to the flap he sparked this week when, during a speech for his wife in Iowa, he asserted that he opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning."

Perhaps he'll remind us it all depends on what the definition of "from the beginning" is.

As it is, Hillary Clinton's campaign has seen precious attention focused more on something her husband said instead of on her own campaign's message.

The former president made his comment Tuesday, and it quickly caused headaches for Camp Clinton. The initial Associated Press story said he was "showing inconsistency on an issue that has dogged his wife." The New York Times article termed the statement "more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003." The Washington Post wrote that Clinton was "glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time."

In case anyone missed the point, the Post today reported that, according to an ex-aide to Condoleezza Rice, Clinton "was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion."

The New York Post, in the best tradition of tabloids, cut to the chase with this headline on its story today: BILL'S BULL ON IRAQ TRIGGERS RIDICULE.

The best -- and broadest -- perspective came from the AP's Ron Fournier, who used the remark about the Iraq war to reflect upon the "Good Bill" and the "Bad Bill."

Wrote Fournier: "As only he can do, Bill Clinton packed campaign venues across eastern Iowa and awed Democratic voters with a compelling case for his wife's candidacy. He was unscripted, in-depth and generous.

"He also was long-winded, misleading and self-absorbed," the Associated Press reporter wrote.

When Bill was the family politician seeking votes, Hillary was a key part of the package. We've gotten an obvious reminder now of how true the reverse is.

-- Don Frederick

GOP debate viewers set ratings record

Gee, maybe Americans are beginning to pay attention. Maybe.

The television ratings for last night's Republican debate in Florida show that 4.9 million folks watched -- 4.4 million on CNN itself and another 500,000 on CNN Headline News.

That makes it the highest rated primary debate in cable news history, surpassing the previous record-holder of only two weeks ago, the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, which drew 4 million. Reviews of the debates differ as shown here and here as eight people per party argue over what they thought they heard their opponents claim and attempt to draw divisive partisan distinctions foreign to the everyday lives of normal people.

But what seems to be happening is that the audiences have more than doubled since the early debates a few months ago. Candidates have become more practiced and argumentative. Media coverage has increased. The end of college football's regular season has left many passions pent up. And the start of balloting approaches almost as quickly as the shopping days left until Christmas dwindle.

It would be comforting to think that as American and other troops struggle in Iraq to bring stability sufficient for an infant democracy to maybe survive there, the folks living blithely back home were informing themselves on the choices they can make when the voting they've taken for granted all their lives occurs peacefully as scheduled this winter -- and most of us don't bother to participate.

But then we checked the population clock on the Census Bureau website. At last check tonight we had an American population of 303,486,444 542 748. Which means that slightly more than 98.4% of the country was not watching.

--Andrew Malcolm

Kennedy endorses Clinton!!! (But it's not the one who counts)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father was gunned down in Los Angeles while seeking the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination, today backed Hillary Clinton's bid for the party nod.

The endorsement should burnish Clinton's environmental credentials. Kennedy, 54, has a high-profile as an environmental activist; he serves as a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

He also earned plaudits within some Democratic circles for arguing the case, in a lengthy Rolling Stone article last year, that the 2004 presidential election was stolen from the Democrats. Its subhead: "Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House."

There's one more niche group (albeit, a minuscule one), in which Kennedy's support may carry some sway -- he's a master falconer.

Still, today's news from the Clinton camp served mainly as a reminder that, in the Democratic race, the prospective endorsers who are being closely watched are, as the National Journal's Hotline political briefing put it on Wednesday, the "Three Kings."

That trio would be ...

Republican gov$ doing O.K. in fundraising race

Republican presidential candidates are trailing badly in the campaign fundraising race to win the White House.

But so far this year, and going largely unnoticed is the fact that Republican governors are far out-raising their Democratic counterparts in the money race to control the state houses.

As members of the Republican Governors Assn. gathered at the St. Regis Hotel in Dana Point for their post-election conference this week with public sessions open for today's sessions, they can feel a measure of comfort, having won two of three races this year.

Led by Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, the GOP group raised $12.3 million in the first half of 2007, compared with $5.4 million for the Democratic Governors Assn. The GOP likely will need it, given that there are 22 Republican governors and 28 Democrats.

In 2008, there will be 11 gubernatorial races. Democrats expect four incumbents to defend their positions, and hold two others where Democrats are departing.

“They’re up in the numbers, but we’re up in the races,” according to Brian Namey, a Democratic governors spokesman told The Times' Dan Morain. He added that Democrats intend to target two Republican incumbents in Missouri and Indiana.  “We’re more efficient. We keep winning,” he added.

Republican spokesman Chris Schrimpf fired back simply: “We won two of three races. If you win two of three, you’ve had a better year. And if you out-raise the other side two to one, you’ve had a better year.”

Republican and Democratic governors organizations raise money from similar sources, according to their official reports filed twice a year with the Internal Revenue Service. Telecom giant Verizon, for example, gave $100,000 to each group; cigarette maker Altria gave each $75,000; drug maker Wyeth gave $50,000 to both.

Democrats instead tap into labor's money. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, for one, gave $300,000. Republicans tend to tap wealthy individuals. Texas homebuilder Bob Perry has given the Republicans $400,000 and A. Jerrold Perenchio, retired chairman of Univision, chipped in $100,000.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will discuss the future with the GOP governors at their meeting. On Friday, the Republicans will elect a new association chairman. None of the current crop of presidential candidates plans to appear before the group, whose membership has produced Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the association's most recent past president, Mitt Romney. No doubt, a future Republican presidential candidate or two will be in attendance.

(UPDATE: The RGA's three-day meeting ended Friday with the election of Texas Gov. Rick Perry as the new chair and first-time re-election of a vice-chair, Missouri's Gov. Matt Blunt. For the first time also a governor, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, was elected finance chair and the state leaders created a new position of recruiting chair to help find and develop GOP candidates for future gubernatorial elections. Georgia's Gov. Sonny Perdue was given that assignment as part of a multi-year plan for Republicans to win back a majority of the 50 statehouses from their current 22 by 2010.)

--Andrew Malcolm

Amid an often confusing debate, a few instructive answers

Was or was not New York a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants when Rudy Giuliani was its mayor? We're still not sure.

Does Mitt Romney bear responsibility for work done at his home by a company whose crew included illegal immigrants, thereby sanctioning what Giuliani sneered was a "sanctuary mansion"? We're stumped over that one, too.

The charges and counter-charges were flying fast and furious at Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube debate, often generating far more heat than light -- especially on the immigration issue, which dominated the proceeding's first 30 minutes or so. You can read more about the evening's give-and-take here.

But on at least two occasions -- on the key topics of tax hikes and abortion -- the forum produced some worthwhile moments.

In one instance, a YouTube question came from a major player in U.S. politics -- Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform. He posed the query for which he is most famous: would the candidates pledge that, as president, they would oppose and veto any tax increase Congress might send them?

Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee ...