"Can he become the first marginal, conspiracy-minded congressman with an embarrassing catalog of racist material published under his name to win the caucuses?"
The National Review's Rich Lowry goes hardcore.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६० टिप्पण्या:
I used to think it was just the [vast majority of] Republican primary candidates who weren't serious, but now I see they are merely pandering to a deeply unserious electorate.
It's hard to imagine being a bigger joke than Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul/etc., but I see the Republican voters have managed to pull it off.
It may be the ultimate commentary on the weakness of this Republican field...
Hmmm, where have I hard that before? Someone help me out...
Paul is definitely a bad salesman for libertarianism, no doubt. He comes off as a crank. It would have been nice if Gary Johnson were a better salesman; he is better-looking and comes off as more reasonable most times, but he also comes off as a bit of a goof.
I hope Paul wins the Iowa caucus. He is certainly a conservative on the issues.
And the state of Iowa continues its headlong cascade into irrelevance.
After Robertson and Huckabee you'd think we'd start to see a pattern.
Andy R. W won twice and Obama was elected POTUS. And now "you see they are merely pandering to a deeply unserious electorate."
We had 20 years of pretty good Presidents and now we're at a dozen years of fools. At this point, I would settle for a President who was just O.K.
Well, the first nominal Republican anyway.
_XC
Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and went on to be elected President of these United States!
At this point winning Iowa is the best thing that could happen to Paul. It's the kiss of death come New Hampshire. Then the adults can take over.
Huckabee's Iowa win in 2008 was pretty much the death knell for Romney back then.
Ron Paul might very well win in Iowa, but won't be the nominee. His win in Iowa is certainly the end of Perry, Santorom and Bachmann's campaign. If they can't carry Iowa running on the socially divisive issues, they need to quit.
Someone has to start whipping Paul for his kookiness before the Democrats start whipping the whole GOP over it.
"Let him" win Iowa. He ain't going any further.
Obama's handlers openly admit that his campaign for re-election will ignore the white working class but everyone else is a racisss.
Paul is in a class by himself. He is an under cover Nazi psychopath; and this as close we have ever let one come to taking us over.
His followers understand what that means.
Nobody has ever published the evil paranoid propaganda that he has published for a living and later had anyone believe that he is not the source of it then, now and forever.
"Paul is in a class by himself. He s an undercover Nazi psychopath."
Thank you, tradguy. But it makes no difference to Paulbots. Bring up his Stormfront support, his AIDS nuttery, his more-than-a-fling with Trutherism, and they wave it all away, usually with some dark, muttered comment about the Bilderbergers, the Trilaterals or the Jooooos (which is really the tipoff that Paul's hard core is more on the left side of the political compass than the right).
"It's hard to imagine being a bigger joke than Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul/etc.. . "
No wonder your hat doesn't fit right. You've been using it as an Obama kneepad for too long.
Paul is in a class by himself. He is an under cover Nazi psychopath
If that's true, Robert Smith...I mean Sean Penn will be on his ass shortly.
I'm completely fine with him winning in Iowa if that inoculates the rest of the country against his nomination. I still say let the president-elect add him to his cabinet to be the secretary of four different departments, closing one down per year and moving to the next.
There are some great things to advocate about the libertarian side of conservatism (Russell Kirk is preparing his lightning strike on me now), but Ron Paul is not doing a good job of communicating them.
Despite that, I'd posit the voters of Iowa are sending a message to the GOP about the self-sufficient, small government approach that they favor. I don't think they're the 'kooks' they're being made out to be.
The issue is how much of an organization does he have?
So far, Milton, Perry, and Bachmann seem to be the leaders there.
Andy R. said...
I used to think it was just the [vast majority of] Republican primary candidates who weren't serious, but now I see they are merely pandering to a deeply unserious electorate.
It's hard to imagine being a bigger joke than Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul/etc., but I see the Republican voters have managed to pull it off.
Hatman, the ultimate joke commenter, forgets the joke ticket of Barry/Joe and the write-in possibility of the Hildabeast.
mccullough said...
Paul is definitely a bad salesman for libertarianism, no doubt. He comes off as a crank. It would have been nice if Gary Johnson were a better salesman; he is better-looking and comes off as more reasonable most times, but he also comes off as a bit of a goof.
I hope Paul wins the Iowa caucus. He is certainly a conservative on the issues.
Only if one defines George McGovern as the gold standard of Conservatism.
Ron Paul is unelectable. He already rambles and would be 78 his 1st year in office.
The danger is with his Cult members goading him into a 3rd Party run - so they can vote for a True Believer that channels their anger and displays Purity.
Resulting in a 2nd term for Barack Obama.
Now Perot helped doom Bush I as someone that was too concerned with foreign relations and not the economy...but honestly, Clinton wasn't bad because he did focus on the economy and dumped all his liberal followers "social justice agenda" once the Dems were bashed in the 1994 elections.
But Ron Paul Cultists giving Obama 4 more years, 3 SCOTUS nominations? That would be them enabling the Obama Agenda - and the notion that Obama would "owe" the Paulistas something because they "shure sent a message!!!" Ridiculous!
Obama would be laughing all the way to his short list of liberal Harvard Law Lawyers and more trillions in debt while doing what the Greens demand.
Edutcher,
Paul wants to phase out Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the alphabet soup of entitlements (TANF, SNAP, WIC).
Isn't this the conservative position? Also, Paul believes they are all unconstitutional. Isn't this the conservative position.
You can't have a small federal government with a massive welfare state.
Why isn't the phasing out of entitlements the Tea Party's rallying cry? Aren't tea partiers conservatives?
Edutcher, aren't you conservative? You never demand the dismantlement of the welfare state (which includes SS and Medicare). Why not?
mccollough
You have to win for any of that to matter.
Cedarford,
There's no doubt Ron Paul will make a third party run. He's a megalomaniac.
Scott M,
The tea party is against Obamacare. That's it. Their idea of a "small government" is 2008. They are fools who love their welfare benefits (Medicare Part D in particular) as much as Pelosi loves handing them out. They are a joke. There is no Tea Party.
It's fascinating, really. Ron Paul has been endorsed here in Iowa by such disparate elements: for just two examples, The Daily Iowan, the "Independent Daily Newspaper for the University of Iowa Community Since 1868" (Iowa City is very, very liberal); and Pastor Rev. Mark McGlohon, a pastor of a very conservative Baptist Church in Sioux City in Western Iowa (a largely very conservative region in the state). Strange bedfellows, and all of that... .
I honestly don't know how it's going to go in the caucus for my specific precinct and the precincts in my part of town. It's an odd mix, where I live.
Regardless, it certainly is quite busy in this area this week (including this very day): It's swarming with candidates and people campaigning for them!
They are a joke. There is no Tea Party.
It's okay, everyone. The 2010 mid-terms were just a joke.
Paul is kind of a through the looking glass kind of character to me. He votes against big spending but gets it for his district. It's like he's at a buffet and is for roots and wild berries but for now he'll make do with the steak and creme brulee. And do you have chardonnay?
National Review started breaking up when Buckley went senile around 2003
Scott M,
The 2010 mid-terms were about preserving Medicare at the expense of Obamacare. The Tea Party's big issue is Obamacare. It cuts into their welfare. The Tea Party should be for overturning Obamacare but keeping the cuts Obamacare made to Medicare. They are not. They are fools. RINOs. If they were small government conservatives they would be for getting rid of all welfare, not just the welfare that doesn't benefit them personally.
Start thinking for yourself, sir.
Who could have predicted a self-destruction such as this on the part of the Republican Party.
I look forward to the open Nominating Convention.
I used to think it was just the [vast majority of] Republican primary candidates who weren't serious, but now I see they are merely pandering to a deeply unserious electorate.
It's hard to imagine being a bigger joke than Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul/etc., but I see the Republican voters have managed to pull it off.
Oh look, a dead horse.
And a stick.
Jeers to you, serious sideways ballcap guy. What's happening to Paul is the same thing that has happened to every other Republican candidate who bumps up in the polls. Unfortunately, for the electorate and for the country, the mainstream press does not allow this to happen to their candidate. Conservatives are going through a real vetting process, and it's not pretty. But relax, don't worry, CBSNBCABCCNN will save you from having to confront the real serious problems presented by your candidate.
Start thinking for yourself, sir.
Mind your own and fall short of telling me how to mind mine. One battle at a time. In the political culture we live in/under, there is no such thing as holistic fixes. This is by design. You chip away at the edifice and hope that inertia will start to build around you.
MadisonMan,
The Republican party is not really a bastion of leaders, so this is not surprising, though it is entertaining. The Dems aren't really any better, but they have an incumbent President. The Republicans remind me of the Dems in 1984 and 1988.
Scott M,
Chip away at the edifice? The debt is huge and the deficits are huge. This is bi-partisan nonsense that created this. The country's fucked and "small government conservatives" just want to repeal Obamacare?
Let's put Medicare Part D up for repeal right now, and get some votes and mea culpas on record. Then the Republican nominee can run against Obama and W. Frankly, there's not enough Bush-bashing from these Republican candidates. He was every bit as bad as Obama. Clinton was way more conservative than W.
Fine with me, but you have to deal with reality and the reality is herding cats. One kitten at a time is all we seem to be able to manage.
I don't understand why this is so hard. Republican establishment has it's undergarments all bunched up worrying about a Paul win. How about this: if he wins he wins. You move on to the next primary.
How about we get a pledge from the Republican establishment that they won't try and run a 3rd party candidate against Paul if he wins the nomination?
Because we all know that would insure an Obama win.
ITS ALREADY TOO LATE
Levi,
I think the Republican establishment, whoever they are, will agree to support Paul if he is the nominee, if Paul agrees that he will not do a third-party run if he loses. Paul will not make this commitment. He likes the idolatry of his cult following too much.
I think people would be wise to figure out what it is that Ron Paul says that makes this unelectable man so appealing.
It isn't his old racist tracts.
He is saying something people are wanting to hear, and I suggest many thought they heard something similar in Obama.
MayBee,
Paul's message of limited government as far as wars/interventions and getting rid of welfare state sounds good to young people. They don't want to fight or have their friends fight overseas, especially after the last 10 years of interventions, and they know they'll be no Social Security and Medicare for them so why should they have to fund it for their entitled Baby Boomer self-absorbed parents. Frankly, Ron Paul should be getting about 75% of the youth vote.
@MayBee:
I think people want to see something really, really different happen in this country, and--for whatever reason--think electing a really, really different sort of president will make that happen. I don't think the latter will work; I don't think it can. I think the former requires/will require something larger and more systemic and more systematic and much more arduous than that.
I see they are merely pandering to a deeply unserious electorate.
Bwahahahahahahaha!! Please, I have work to do and I can't stop laughing. The Dems elected such a serious candidate in '08. Oh, my sides hurt.
Liberals, all racism, all the time. No serious thought whatsoever.
But, McCullough, Paul has been endorsed in Iowa by people who are neither young NOR progressive [of the liberal-libertarian flavor], and it's a little hard to imagine the latter attending the Republican Caucuses, though not hard to imagine them voting for Paul in the general. So where is the "likely Caucus-goer" support coming from in those polls?
That's partly why I'm finding this so interesting.
This is all the fault of Romney's creamy hippie love chick center.
McCullough: I mean, as noted in an earlier comment, he's garnered support from both sides of the spectrum, but what's upcoming in the immediate future is the Republican Caucuses. It'll be interesting to see the makeup of those who participate in the Caucuses, and then the results.
mccullough said...
Edutcher,
Paul wants to phase out Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the alphabet soup of entitlements (TANF, SNAP, WIC).
Isn't this the conservative position? Also, Paul believes they are all unconstitutional. Isn't this the conservative position.
You can't have a small federal government with a massive welfare state.
Why isn't the phasing out of entitlements the Tea Party's rallying cry? Aren't tea partiers conservatives?
Edutcher, aren't you conservative? You never demand the dismantlement of the welfare state (which includes SS and Medicare). Why not?
I haven't? News to me and a lot of the commenters here.
Ron Paul, like most Libertarians, lines up with the Lefties on foreign policy and most social issues (yes, he is an exception on abortion).
He may talk a good game on fiscal Conservatism - and it's mostly proposals without any thought of how it's done, but, as others have noted, first you have to win and so many of his ideas are of the tin foil hat variety.
If you want to remove the alphabet soup, fine, but you'd better have an orderly transition planned.
If you want to get rid of a couple of Cabinet departments, you'd better be sure there's a plan to handle the economic dislocation of that many Feds out of work.
If you want to get rid of the Fed, you better be prepared with a plan to manage an economy tied to the very finite amount of gold available rather than the value of the goods and services produced.
mccullough's a good little moby who plays the Uncle Saul game, but he's dependent on people not working past his original premise.
In the last debate it was fascinating --in a repulsive watching a snake eat a live mouse kind of way---to watch Ron Paul do a melt down when Bachman called his foreign policy stance dangereous.
He started sputtering and his voice got even higher and squeaker, if that is possible.
Began flapping his arms and waving his hands around in a demented chicken dance.
Reminded me ever so much of the Hilter loses it parodies.
It was repulsive AND frightening.
I hope that Ron Paul doesn't get anywhere near the Presidency. If Ron Paul was the Republican Candidate...... I think I would vote for Obama just so we can get this train wreck over quicker.
Paul is a loon.
Paul wants to phase out Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and the alphabet soup of entitlements (TANF, SNAP, WIC).
Isn't this the conservative position?
No. It isn't. Reform. Fiscal responsibility. Perhaps eventual privatization. Phasing out. Yes. Immediate elimination ala Ron Paul's extreme libertarianism....nope.
Why isn't the phasing out of entitlements the Tea Party's rallying cry? Aren't tea partiers conservatives?
I think you are seriously confused about what are conservative, tea party and libertarian positions.
Edutcher,
If the federal government can use the commerce clause to outlaw partial-birth abortion in the states, don't they have the power to pretty much do anything?
You social issue conservatives are every bit as bad as the Progressives.
The only moby is you. You make conservatives look bad with your desire to control people's lives through the federal government and your wealth spreading.
Goldwater would be very disappointed.
If you want to get rid of the Fed, you better be prepared with a plan to manage an economy tied to the very finite amount of gold available rather than the value of the goods and services produced.
I'm pretty sure it's been done before.
DBQ,
Do you agree or not that a small federal government means no federally funded Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid?
Over what time table would you phase them out. 10 years, 25 years, 50 years?
Fiscal responsibilty could be achieved with high spending and high taxes.
Fiscal conservatism means low spending and low taxes.
Which one are you for?
Shorter DBQ,
Get your hands off my Medicare and Social Security.
Are there no more conservatives at Althouse?
All of this could have been avoided if the GOP had rallied around Sen. John Thune, like I suggested. But no, you had to be clever...
As someone who started out as a libertarian, in the 1970' and then morphed into a Buckleyish conservative only to jump ship when my party was taken over by the Lunatic Fringe it is enough to make a person weep to see how the GOP has descended into the morass of far Right Nutjobia. Where are the sane, common sense, real politic Republicans? Is Romney the only one who can claim the mantle "Not Crazy"? Maybe the post Obama purge worked too well and now the small town, small minded, talk radio crowd is all that is left. Must be time to come back and try and turn the wheel back to the center of the road. Lowry at least gives me hope that not all on the Right are nuts.
Somefeller,
John Thune is sort of a less handsome version of Tom Brady. The GOP should rally around Tom Brady. He's a Patriot. And he'll be 35 in September 2012. And he's a helluva lot smarter than Huckleberry Thune.
Do you agree or not that a small federal government means no federally funded Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid?
Yes, to an extent. Social Security and Medicare have been paid into for many decades. The premise was that the government takes your money for an annuity..social security and for an insurance program.
The fact that the programs morphed into the monstrosities of welfare programs like Medicaid and SSI are the main reasons that the system is broken.
People who have not contributed, illegal aliens, the permanent welfare class....the list of leeches is huge...should get NO benefits from the funds that have been paid in by those who have worked.
Personaly, and I've said it before.....you give me back all the money that I and my empolyers have paid in over these last 45 years, with a small annual compounded interest equivilant to what I could have earned....I'll call it good.
Over what time table would you phase them out. 10 years, 25 years, 50 years?
15 years. Starting right now by giving the option to anyone under 55 to privatize or opt out of both systems.
Opt out, means no going back either. Irrevocable.
Fiscal responsibilty could be achieved with high spending and high taxes.
You must be fucking joking.
Fiscal conservatism means low spending and low taxes.
Which one are you for?
Obviously, the latter.
I am also for a tax system where EVERYONE...and I mean absotively fucking EVERYONE, pays some income taxes.
No more free riding.
I don't agree with Paul on foreign policy issues. But he is dead right on most domestic issues. Sorry, but if you call yourself a "conservative" and for "small government" think it is okay for the federal government to spend billions trying to control drugs and gambling and other social vices, you are not a conservative. You are big government liberal with slightly different priorities.
You either believe in limited government or you don't. You can't say "government power is great as long as my people are in charge".
I am not a Paul supporter. But frankly the things other conservatives are saying about him are so embarrassing and stupid, they make me embarrassed to call myself a conservative.
Get your hands off my Medicare and Social Security.
Are there no more conservatives at Althouse?
Hell yes!!
I don't take kindly to being robbed.
Give me back my money....honey... and you can do whatever you want with both of those programs.
DBQ,
Good work. You passed the test. Welcome to the team.
Sorry, but if you call yourself a "conservative" and for "small government" think it is okay for the federal government to spend billions trying to control drugs and gambling and other social vices, you are not a conservative. You are big government liberal with slightly different priorities.
I don't give a flying fig over social issues.
The government has no business spending money or for that matter of fact, even making laws about those types of issues.
One of the best things about Paul is how he drives faux small gov't advocates as disparate as Lowry and DBQ crazy - because Paul actually believes in, and proposes ... small domestic gov't and an adequate defense, without the foreign adventures.
He is THE MAN.
wv: blatendr - get me another bourbon.
Levi, of course is correct. It's too late anyway.
DEAD COUNTRY WALKING.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that I would absolutely not under any circumstances vote for.
Tank,
Guys like Lowry have no problem with other Americans being soaked and shedding blood for the causes he believes in.
Provide for the common defense doesn't mean intervening everywhere. Lowry and NR are pretty much a joke. But so is Ron Paul. He's a racist kook whose presence alone discredits small government conservatism.
Fiscal responsibilty could be achieved with high spending and high taxes.
Now this, friends, is the lie of the year.
One of the best things about Paul is how he drives faux small gov't advocates as disparate as Lowry and DBQ crazy
Love the way the Paulbots can read our minds and presume to know what we think. You know what I think about some things becuase....you may have noticed...I'm not shy about giving you my opinion.
Take my opinion as it is, but don't try to read the tea leaves. You don't have the skills.
EMD,
Fiscal responsibility means balancing the budget. So in the late 1990s the federal government came pretty close to fiscal responsibility.
That's it. Fiscal conservatism means something else. Smaller taxes and smaller spending. The last time the federal government displayed some fiscal conservatism was in 1928.
Kevin,
How could you possibly vote for Ginrich, who spent the entire decade from 98 to 08 taking hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for Fannie and Freddie and helping to ensure the bankruptcy of the country?
How could you possibly vote for Romeney who gave us the blue print for Obamacare? And who used his political influence to stick the rest of us with a two billion dollar bill for the 2002 Olympics?
Whatever Paul's sins, they pale in comparison to Gingrich and Romney who are both absolute crony capitalist scum and are perfect examples everything that is wrong with our political class.
Or it could just be that much of Dr. Paul’s diagnosis for our national ailments rings true with more and more voters. Perhaps Republicans pols should take note. There may well be a winning right-of-center coalition out there if Republicans are smart enough to pick up on it.
Moderates/independents determine the winners in elections, as partisans are going to vote for their party’s candidate regardless and their votes more or less offset. Moderate voters are tired of the moral hectoring that emanates from some factions on the Right. More and more voters across the spectrum, including moderates, are questioning the drug laws and finding them wanting (If Repubs want to make quick inroads with Af-Am voters, ending the WOD could be it.). Many moderates are fiscal conservatives and see Leviathan in DC as a major problem. And 10 years into the Global WOT, more are starting to question this never-ending deployment.
Dr. Paul has something to offer all these voters.
IMO, it seems the Repubs have been putting up the same type candidates for 20+ years now, technocrats of one type or another, senators whose presidential sell-by date had expired, or social conservatives that are certain they can get God to sort out our problems. Dr. Paul at least is offering something vastly different than either party has brought to the forefront in a long, long time, someone who actually understands this equation: more government = less liberty.
Levi, of course is correct. It's too late anyway.
DEAD COUNTRY WALKING.
I agree with this. This country is on an irreversable trend. We are circling the drain.
That is why I live where I do, live how I live, and we are prepared for the coming disentigration, for there will be no government to rely upon for protection or for help.
We are on our own. It will be better that way in the long run.
The short run is gonna hurt.
mccullough said...
Edutcher,
If the federal government can use the commerce clause to outlaw partial-birth abortion in the states, don't they have the power to pretty much do anything?
You social issue conservatives are every bit as bad as the Progressives.
Cute.
Not all social Conservatives are in the same league as Rick Santorum. Some of us have actually read the Constitution and understand that the Ninth Amendment makes some issues a state province and don't respond well to his kind of pandering.
The only moby is you. You make conservatives look bad with your desire to control people's lives through the federal government and your wealth spreading.
And I said this when?
mccullough is Seven Machos without the mask. He'll put up something a Conservative has done as proof of their hypocrisy hoping no one actually goes back and looks at the facts.
Like pb&j (and that's probably him under another handle), he relies on lies, half-truths, misinformation, disinformation, and all of Uncle Saul's ad hominems to snow people.
Goldwater would be very disappointed.
Goldwater was owned by the mob.
And now the establishment Republicans will have their way with Ron Paul. Yes, he's a odd duck and probably unelectable. Instead of shooting the messenger, consider what market signal the voters are attempting to send to the other candidates.
Romney and Gingrich are like Bush and we know Obama is like Bush, which by the transitive property makes Newt Romney like Obama. Some Republicans think that stinks.
Maybe the post Obama purge worked too well and now the small town, small minded, talk radio crowd is all that is left.
Small town, you say?
You sound bitter. Perhaps it's because Republican politics is a simple game, but it’s played at a higher level.
McCullough:
I doubt with this economy and current debt situation your version of responsibility would work.
But we shall agree to disagree.
Ron Paul is scary, really really scary, When I think of how much damage someone who hold such a fundamentalist view of the constitution could cause it just makes me quake in my boots.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
When I think of how much damage someone who hold such a fundamentalist view of the constitution could cause it just makes me quake in my boots
Agreed, when the Gold Standard heralds massive DEFLATION and economic dislocation and Depression…when Iran explodes it’s nuclear weapon over Riyadh or Tel Aviv and oil hits $350/bbl…I would expect us all to be very, very scared…but you’re just being sarcastic, but I’m not…
Plus there’s his hypocrisy (haven’t read the thread, has it been mentioned) he’s received $30 Billion in earmarks? All that tasty pork he finds SOOOO objectionable, but loves to bring home anyway?
Paul is good comedy. Like all the GOP candidates. The problem is the electorate isn't in on the joke.
Edutcher,
It's the 10th Amendment that talks about the power reserved to the states (or the people). The 9th Amendment is about unenumerated rights "retained by the people."
Are you a moby trying to make conservatives look ignorant? Why are you so ignorant?
Glad you agree that W. and the Republicans who voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act violated the Constitution when they forced their regulation of abortion on the people and the states. No constitutional authority for this nonsense.
Have you come around yet on how bad Sarah Palin's wealth redistribution was before she quit as governor?
Baby steps, I know.
It'a almost like one of the founding fathers was running - the crazy bastard.
For those who cite the old racist charge against Paul, can you specify one thing he has said or one action he has taken in the past 20 years to back this up (the newsletters are more than 20 years ago). Twenty years is a long time, and he is always talking and writing. Cite something in the past 20 years.
EMD,
We can raise taxes to start paying down the debt, means-test Medicare and Social Security, and put Medicare, SNAP, etc. on the same 5-year lifetime eligibility as TANF. That would be fiscally responsible. We'd still spend a shitload of money, but it's a start.
The problem is there are only about 10 people in the country who would agree to this.
Tank,
Paul is 78. The last 20 years he was in his late 50s. His racism is hardly a youthful indiscretion. He was penning these kooky screeds when he was older than Obama is now.
Look, if he fessed up that he was a moron about this instead of lying that someone else wrote these under his name without his knowledge, then that would be one thing. But he's a fucking liar, like the rest of them.
Also, his blame America first bullshit has got to stop. It's one thing not to want intervention, it's another thing to say the U.S. has it coming. Paul is a lying, racist. Get over it.
Goldwater was owned by the mob.
And he was a weatherman in Indiana too, just like Andy Warhol!
I don't understand why the frontrunners don't go after Ron Paul and all his wild and crazy newsletters and opinions and followers.
Of course, the GOP are afraid to go after any opponent, especially Obama, so I'm not surprised.
A lot of people like America Firster oreintation -- bring home all the troops, close the 900 bases, Iran and Israel are not distinguishable, let's let them sort it out, and so on.
It appeals to something. I think it's a certain kind of demented fairness that is idealistic but not discriminating. He has a huge fan base among the 25 and unders. Those kids are very full of energy and haven't got families so they work all day and night.
Plus, they are impervious to any kind of logic.
Ron Paul is like a guru to them. If he told them to drink Kool Aid they would. Oy vey.
Paul's supporters see Paul the same way the 1930s Germans saw Adolph Hitler and his Party of the Hagencruz. They want to try THE MAN who will wreck the way things have been done to us by the Betrayers of America.
And nothing will stand in their way or resist them in taking power over ignorant fools who cannot spot betrayers.
It suddenly turns out that everybody is on the side of those betrayers except certain Strong Men that must simply eliminate the rest of us before we think wrong.
It's not about the racism they tempt people with; it's about insane people taking power.
"Glad you agree that W. and the Republicans who voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act violated the Constitution when they forced their regulation of abortion on the people and the states."
Because ensuring that human beings are not murdered is not a federal role. That whole due process thing be damned.
You are polluting my computer with stupidity.
Traditional Guy,
I say this as a national security conservative who doesn't plan to vote for Paul. But your statements are embarrassingly stupid. So stupid I would request that you please stop calling yourself a conservative for the good of the movement.
The Paul supporters are wildly naive about the world. They really think that if we just go home and leave everyone alone the world will leave us alone. I know that is not true. But I can understand why after ten years of war they would want to believe that it is true.
As far as domestic policy goes, they just want the federal government to go return to it being a limited government and stop trying to run everyone's lives. You may not agree with that. But it is the diametric opposite of fascism. And anyone with more than a child like understanding of history and fascism knows that.
So do us all a favor and stop embarrassing yourself, other conservatives, and the board by Godwining yourself every five minutes.
All I need to know about Ron Paul is that he thinks Bradley Manning is a patriot and a hero
All I need to know about Ron Paul is that he thinks Bradley Manning is a patriot and a hero
Citation please?
somefeller said...
Goldwater was owned by the mob.
And he was a weatherman in Indiana too, just like Andy Warhol!
No, but he was owned by the mob.
Tim Pawlenty got no where in his run for President. Why? He was a serious candidate with a good back ground, who gave speaches on policy issues.
Instead the nuts and ecentrics get the attention.
John,
So person in the 14th Amendment means a fetus? Since when? Does that mean if there's a miscarriage, the federal government has to pay Medicaid benefits?
Anyway, Congress invoked its commerce clause power, not its power under Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment. You do realize that where a state legalizes abortion, it is not depriving any person of life without due process of law, right? They passed the law, so that's all the process that's due. Unless you're in to that whole substantive due process thing. Which is where the right to abortion comes from in the first place.
I admire your sincere convictions. So can the federal government require all expectant mothers to purchase health insurance because the state's failure to insure prenatal care is a deprivation of "life" for the "person"? Is this a congruent and proportional response to state inaction?
I would like to see us pull back to just a few strategic bases. Those that apply directly to our interests.
I don't think we need to defend western Europe from invasion.
Goldwater was owned by the mob? I didn't know that. Did he have sex with Glen Rice, too?
Of course the answer to Lowry's question is "no". If you include 'Senator' and allow for the guy who most recently won the general election, the answer is "maybe that's the new normal."
It's surprising that the National Review is so afraid of Ron Paul, because, while I'm more on the libertarian side of things than NR, I can understand where they are coming from most of the time. I'm not AFRAID of Ron Paul, myself.
McCullough,
Since life begins at conception, the state should no more be able to ban abortion than it should be able to pass a law allowing parents to kill their children. If they passed such a law, it would be a direct deprivation of due process. Sorry the legislature passing it is not "due process of law".
My argument went right over your head.
BarryD,
Paul is not into military action. NR is chock-full of Neo-Cons. This is where the dislike comes from.
Crazy uncles everywhere are jealous.
I thought the Weekly Standard was far more Neo-Con, whereas the National Review was more of an assemblage that ranged from libertarian-leaning paleo-con, to neo-curious.
John,
I understand your argument completely. Unless you think Congress has power under the commerce clause to ban partial-birth abortion (or the patents/copyright clause because undoubtedly some of the aborted persons would go on someday to invent something or create a work of art), the only place they can do it is under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Since the states don't require anyone to get an abortion, it's odd to say there is any state action involved. I guess you could say that the states are failing to protect the unborn by banning partial birth abortion, but this is an odd argument that no one believes, except the few.
So where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to ban partial-birth abortions in states?
The Paul supporters are wildly naive about the world. They really think that if we just go home and leave everyone alone the world will leave us alone.
Yes.
And here is Paul himself:
Paul has called Manning, a crossdresser with acknowledged mental problems, a “hero” and “patriot” for stealing government secrets and providing them to WikiLeaks.
Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, is charged with one of the most spectacular and damaging leaks of classified information in this country’s history. The death penalty has been strangely ruled out in his case, but he could still face life in prison.
Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the “irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information.”
The Ron Paul 2012 website shows a young Ron Paul in a military uniform and as someone who would pursue a “pro-America foreign policy.” It says, “As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.”
It says nothing about the Congressman’s support for accused Army traitor Bradley Manning.
However, speaking at a campaign rally, Paul said that while Manning may have “technically” broken the law against releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, he did so for the purpose of exposing the “horrible things” being carried out by the U.S. Government.
Referring to Manning’s detention before trial, Paul said, “Should he be locked up and imprisoned?” Manning should be seen as a “political hero” and “true patriot who reveals what’s going on,” Paul said.
The man is a nut.
mccullough said...
Goldwater was owned by the mob? I didn't know that. Did he have sex with Glen Rice, too?
Did you?
You seem to be echoing one of your alter egos.
Jay,
Where does this
Paul has called Manning, a crossdresser with acknowledged mental problems, a “hero” and “patriot” for stealing government secrets and providing them to WikiLeaks
Quote come from? I would like to see a link to a credible news article showing were Paul said that.
Not saying it isn't true. But I know from all that happened with Palin, a lot of bullshit gets told as truth on the internet.
Edutcher,
Yes, I did, twice. Glen was a great college basketball player. Pretty good, pro, but not great. Handsome, too. Too bad his son didn't go to Michigan. Tim Hardaway's son does, and is a good player.
John,
Here is a link to the story.
Here is the video of Paul.
"Andy R. said... now I see they are merely pandering to a deeply unserious electorate."
Hilarious coming from the douchebag who approves of Democrats Mediscare tactics.
Can somebody explain to me the fear about Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate?
Has he ever said anything to indicate that he might even consider it?
No?
So why the fear?
He has refused to rule it out and I do not blame him. It is a rather insulting question to be asked given that there is no basis for it.
Has Romney been asked if he will run 3rd party if he loses?
Newt?
Bachman?
Perry?
Etc
Why is Paul the only one people are scared will do it?
I would also note that when that pig Murkysi in Alaska ran 3rd party after being legitimately beaten in the primary, nobody here (besides me) complained. Everybody seems just fine that Lieberman ran 3rd party.
So why the fuss about Paul?
Yes, I know that Murky and Liebokowski ran independent but I see no difference. Unless the people complaining about Paul can explain why independent is OK but 3rd party is bad.
John Henry
Proud Liberal
Andy R. said...
I used to think it was just the [vast majority of] Republican primary candidates who weren't serious, but now I see they are merely pandering to a deeply unserious electorate.
===========
OK, it is time to acknowedge Hat-Boy when he says something RIGHT for once.
Republicans "angry 24/7 but not serious other than venting!! and feeling good" - gave away the Nevada seat to Harry Reid and a certain Senate post to a 100% liberal democrat because they could not abide a 90% Republican RINO in Delaware.
This time it is about the fundamentally unserious rubes of the far Right and fringe libertarian Cults driving the Primary vote in a way the activist Left Wing gave the nation McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama.
Leaving candidates vulnerable to conservative activists to pander, as Hat-Boy says.
A lobbyist with more baggage than Hillary? Really?
A dumber then Dubya Texan? Really?
A 77 going on 78 year old that already rambles and can't seem to grasp that Iranian nukes are not a statement of Freedom-Loving right to self-determination that should be applauded by us? Really?
Thanks Jay,
I have no love for Manning. But that said, I don't think he is nearly as bad as he is made out to be. He was a idiot private in Badhdad who was left unsupervised. I frankly blame the people who allowed a cross dressing private access to so much stuff with no need to know more than I blame him.
And further, most of the stuff that is classified shouldn't be. So I don't quite take Paul's statement to be as bad as all that.
Why did you capitalize "Cults" ?
It seems to me that there is no fundamental difference between politicians who identify as progressives/"liberals" and those who call themselves conservatives.
Both are perfectly fine with America going to Hell in a helicopter. The only difference is who gets to fly it. The Conservatives would perhaps promise better food service and a less bumpy ride but the direction and destination is the same.
Paul is not and never has been a conservative. At least since I first started hearing about him in the 80s. He has always been a liberal (classical liberal, libertarian, minarchist if you prefer). He has always been consistent in that.
I think people are tired of the conservative/progressive (or progressive/conservative) bullshit that pols have been feeding us for the past 50-60 years.
It is time for a Change. Paul, like him or not, is the only one who is not going to give us the same old/same old.
That is why he has been consistently #2 or 3 in most polls around the US. It is why he is #1 in Iowa now.
John Henry
John Henry,
I agree. Newt Romney is like Obama.
Someone said that the gold standard would lead to massive deflation.
Perhaps they could explain why?
If you look at inflation in the US from 1790 to 1933, we had none.
Since 1933 gold was made illegal and the dollar was devalued we have had continual inflation. In the 1970s when we went off gold completely, we have had insane inflation. Since then we have grown comfortable with 2-5% annual inflation. Every year!
Seems to me that sound, non-inflationary money would be a good thing for the American people, if not for the pols in DC.
John Henry
I don't understand the attitude toward Paul. We are not at an issue of conservative vs liberal. I think a large part of the people want government out of their lives. That means that Republicans and Democrats represent a progressive party. That progressive party is against those of us that want our freedom returned. We don't want to fight wars, we want to be able to medically care for ourselves without the government supervising and controling medications, we see no benefit or purpose to the "war on drugs", we feel that the security in the US is stupid and non-productive, we want our property rights back, we want the end of the Feds in education, we want the EPA out but we respect the enviornment (and feel that the EPA in not safe guarding it), we don't want others morality and definitely don't want socialism,this is only a partial list. Name one candidate other than Paul that even knows what this is all about.
Re inflation 1790-1933 one caveat.
We had a fairly massive inflation in the 1860's when Lincoln took us off gold and issued unbacked paper money "Greenbacks".
We then had a fairly massive deflation in the 1870s when we went back on gold and the previous 15 or so years of inflation had to be rolled back.
John Henry
bagoh20 said...
This is all the fault of Romney's creamy hippie love chick center.
==========
Damn, that was funny! Romney's great appeal to come in entertainment media is that he is really the most important part comedy - the straight arrow waiting to be made slightly bent by the funnyman part of the act.
Straight men, amazing as it seems, are harder to find and get paid more than the clownish comics that use them as foibles.
I mean, Clinton blowing sax was cool. Obama, with his Ron Paul like Cultists adoring him - was cool to the media people. I venture that Mitt Romney, with some clever feigned "shame" that he is too straight, too scandal free - might be the new cool.
I wish Johnson had been able to grab the libertarian vote from Paul, but it didn't happen.
All things considered, I prefer him to Romney or Gingrich.
GulfofMexico said...
John Henry,
I agree. Newt Romney is like Obama.
===========
Then I take it that you wouldn't mind that much if Obama is reelected..since traitor RINOs like Newt, Mitt, Chris Christie, etc., are no different.
And that by defeating "Newt-Romney" you would send a Real Message to Obama!
John,
Obama would beat Ron Paul in every state, including Texas.
He is not a viable candidate. He is a kook.
Why is Paul the only one people are scared will do it?
because he has a fanatical following of people who will not use their common sense and not vote for self preservation and will seriously split the vote thereby assuring 4 more years of Obambi.
Idealogues are more frightening than any thing else. They always 'meant well'.
Just like Perot voters, and I was one. The consequences of an Obama second term are horrendous.
On the other hand, if we ARE going to Hell in a handbasket, might as well make the trip faster.....go ahead. Re elect Obama.
The sooner we self destruct, the sooner we can seriously begin to rebuild.
He is not a viable candidate. He is a kook.
True, but he is also the only small-government candidate with any chance of winning at all.
Just like Perot voters, and I was one. The consequences of an Obama second term are horrendous.
A Romney victory will kill the revived push for smaller government, though. Neither Romney nor Gingrich seems likely to be any better on fiscal responsibility than Bush was.
We can't afford to punt on this issue for another 8+ years.
I supported Obama in 2008 over McCain for reasons I have discussed here before.
Would we have had the tea Party with McCain?
We need an Obama to rile the American people into getting off our collective asses and taking back our country.
If the choice is gingrichromneybachmanperryetc or Obama, I'll take Obama.
Lenin said "Worse is better" He was not right about much but he was right about that.
Like the drunk who will not quit drinking until s/he has completely bottomed out, maybe we, the US, are not there yet. Maybe we need 4 more years of Obama.
We certainly do not need enablers like Newt Romney et al.
As horrible as he is, and I will agree with pretty much everybody here about Obama's faults, he is the best thing to happen to the US in 50-75 years.
John Henry
If, in 2008, the Republicans had put up Paul instead of McCain, we wouldn't be in this mess. :)
John,
Bush and Obama are the worst thing to happen to the U.S. since World War II. Let us never forget how bad of a President W. was. "Compassionate Conservatism." That is the same as Hope and Change. It is nonsense.
A Republican Congress with Romney would be a vast improvement over what there has been the last 11 years.
Not having read the comments (a prerequisite for some to comment)
If Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it is my opinion that Iowas loses it's "1st in the Nation" status.
....ask me why--if you want.
A Republican Congress with Romney would be a vast improvement over what there has been the last 11 years.
Which of Bush's policies is Romney against?
Blogger John said...
It seems to me that there is no fundamental difference between politicians who identify as progressives/"liberals" and those who call themselves conservatives.
You can see the virtue in not reading the comments prior to relaying your own thoughts-
I'm a "conservative".
I'm a "conservative" because that is the term that is used to define someone of my political/philosophical leanings.
I would be an "independant" if I were the only one who thought along certain lines...
But, since there are several of us, similar in thought, "they" call us "conservative".
Whatever.
I am in no way even on the same planet as a "progressive"...as it is understood to mean.
Word games?
John, with Obama we have someone who is in denile about our upcoming bankruptcy. We have someone who uses the justice department in ways that would shock President Nixon. We have a labor department that is just a tool of Big Labor.
But the biggest thing is Obama's war on science when it comes to energy. He has killed nuclear power by killing Yuca Mt. He is banning oil exploration.
Browndog....common discussion. The modern terms aren't the same as historical definitions.
Today's Republicans would have been "liberals" in the past. We support freedom. We support innovative ideas (see Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson). We stand up to entrenched powerful thugs (Unionists and corporate welfare).
Can you get more conservative (historic definition) than Wisconsin Democrats trying to preserve the status que where powerful union bosses run the state? Where they try to prevent any reforms?
Revenant said...
A Republican Congress with Romney would be a vast improvement over what there has been the last 11 years.
Which of Bush's policies is Romney against?
1. Medicare Part D paid for by tax cuts to Bush's wealthy donors exploding new jobs and revenue..
2. 1.3 trillion in Nation-building Muslim countries, paid for again by more tax cuts that enabled the "jobs creators (TM)" to fund it all.
With ever-grateful Islamoids granting the US contracts to oil. (Which didn't happen, to the Reaganite Acolyte's shock! Freedom loving - meant Freedom!! meant all Chinese oil contracts being awarded.)
Dubya - almost as bad as Jimmy Carter or Obama.
As Ice T put it, quoted by Ian Miller, Anatomy of Disgust, this is how democracy looks like:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8966325/YouTube-reveals-most-watched-videos-in-2011.html.
BTW: waht the good of being a conservative?
Constitution of Liberty. Appendix
Browndog,
Are you a politician?
No?
Read my note. I specifically said and you even excerpted:
"no fundamental difference between politicians who identify as progressives/"liberals" and those who call themselves conservatives."
Now if you are not a politician, I would say that a lot of people who say they are conservatives really are not. I think they are confused liberals/libertarians.
I have had some fascinating arguments with people who say that Ron Paul is not "really" a conservative. Well, duh. I don't think he has ever claimed to be. These people seem to think conservatism and liberalism are the same thing. They are not.
Liberals, such as Paul and myself, want very limited govt. VERY limited govt. Many who call themselves conservatives want much the same thing.
True conservatives do not seem that unhappy with the size and power of government. Perhaps a few trims around the edges, more efficiency and so on, but the concept of a powerful govt is just fine with them. They just want it to exercise its power to benefit them more.
So, not knowing anything about your politics, I would ask are you really a conservative or are you a liberal (libertarian if you prefer)?
John Henry
Andrew Sullivan came out for Ron Paul. So he's got that going for him.
I would just like to admit that I disagree with many opinions voiced here to the point of near violent anger, especially when you're right.
Ron Paul 101.
Phil Klein of the Washington Examiner is correct when he writes:
Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have both attacked each other for what was written in their respective books. If either of those books had included a number of overtly racist statements, their candidacies would be over before they started.
This is undoubtedly true. The media seems to simply accept that Ron Paul has some oddities in his past and in his inner circle. They take his grandfatherly demeanor at face-value. In part this is because they believe he is not a serious candidate.
If Ron Paul was serious about his racist support in the path he would be suing Lew Rockwell et al. He's not.
It's a waiting game of seeing which side calls out Uncle Ron first. And moves voters around.
Do people really want to be like Ron Paul? Can't find any better idols?
Paul will never win. People with common sense will run from him like he has a ton of dynamite strapped to his head.
I used to think it was just the [vast majority of] Republican primary candidates who weren't serious...
Fortunately they're still more serious than the Democrat field, with the exception of the kook in the title. But there's no way he gets the nomination. He's just color.
Do you agree or not that a small federal government means no federally funded Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid?
Over what time table would you phase them out. 10 years, 25 years, 50 years?
Fiscal responsibilty could be achieved with high spending and high taxes.
Fiscal conservatism means low spending and low taxes.
Which one are you for?
Another liberal demonstrates the liberal penchant for fallacious thinking. Two false dichotomies in only 58 words. Nice.
It's hard to imagine being a bigger joke than Cain/Perry/Bachmann/Santorum/Paul/etc.
Nah. Obama. Enough said.
John Henry-
I am not confused.
"Wrong" is always an option...but, in this case, not "confused".
I dealt with Paul and his chief of staff regularly during my journalist days. They were always good for a quote, it was usually interesting and off-the-beaten path. It only rarely made it into the story, because I was usually writing about something OTHER than what Paul thought, and while the tax code was on my beat, Congressional representatives themselves were not within the scope of our coverage, unless they headed a committee or something and there was a big bill coming up.
I was talking with his chief of staff about 10 years ago about some issue or other, and the chief said, out of the blue... "Well, obviously, the SEC ought to be abolished tomorrow!!!"
There was an uncomfortable silence and then the chief said "well, obviously, that's off the record."
I said "You mean, you WISH it were!"
If Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus, Iowa should immediately be given to Canada in exchange for a goalie and a forward.
We'll send back Celine Dion as part of the deal, provided they agree to monitor her whereabouts. And they get to keep kd lang until she learns to capitalize.
I'd be willing to throw in the part of Minnesota Al Franken is from, but we keep Hibbing.
I will reiterate-
In the classic sense of the meaning, a "republican" espouses for the least government necessary.
In the classic sense of the meaning, a "democrat" espouses for the most government the citizens can afford.
See...how twisted we've become?
Paul's racism was 20 years ago? I wasn't a racist 20 years ago. I don't expect a presidential candidate to be either. The only exception would have been where you have someone with a clear "Road to Damascus" moment.
Paul is a snake. He's hiding what he really believes. He's practicing Taqiyya. His followers, the pack of brain-dead zombies that they are, pick up on it, and they're poisonous and pathetic.
I'd take a hundred doe-eyed Obama kids over a single Paulbot any day of the week.
I'm as conservative as anyone. I'm a REAL small government conservative.
Paul is a kook. In the event he should win the primary, I will immediately begin working to defeat him. Better an Obama, hobbled by a Republican Congress, than that snake-in-the-grass.
Paul has the sense to stay above it all. Like King Lear, delegating the dirty work to vile aids. The people he would pull into his administration? Poisonous. They will be a black stain on the Republic worse than Nixon or Obama's henchmen ever thought of being.
The country is in pretty bad fiscal condition right now and it's deeply structural. Who was the radical extremist President that got us here? Answer: There wasn't one.
My point is: are sober moderate managers really less scary than a reformer at this point?
I hope Paul is not the nominee, but I don't get the great attraction of mediocrity, centrism and guarantees of incremental-ism at times like this. Well, other than electability, of course, but that is really only about who gets credit for not changing anything.
I think we forget about the alloying result of the separation of powers. The President will only get to provide a mild angle to the tiller at best, and that's only if he's the type to hang on it to one direction or the other.
Of course, FDR is the big exception, but if you are a conservative, or a libertarian, or just think government is out of control, you want a right wing FDR right now.
Ron Paul is a nut job-
My words.
20 years ago.....was 20 years ago-
Fiscal policy--yea, right on the money....20 years ago-
I saw something that seemed to have the ring of truth-
"The only difference between Paultards and OWS is a shower"
Sadly, I find myself in agreement-
Ron Paul's day has come and gone...in one area only-
The man got old, cynical...much like McCain.
If Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus, Iowa should immediately be given to Canada
How about just those people in Iowa who participated in the Republican Caucus AND who casts their ballot for Paul?
Ron Paul winning Iowa means nothing. Too many pixels have been thrown against the ramparts here for no good reason. He will not win the nomination. Period. End of sentence.
"I hope Paul is not the nominee, but I don't get the great attraction of mediocrity, centrism and guarantees of incremental-ism at times like this. Well, other than electability, of course, but that is really only about who gets credit for not changing anything. "
Better mediocre centrism than kooky gold-standard fetishes and big ideas about transforming the nation's foreign policy.
Can't we all just get along? Conservative-on-conservative crime makes me almost as sad as Amish-on-amish crime.
If Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate, the mainstream media, hoping for a Perot 92, might pull for him and highlight what an interesting guy he is while hiding his radical views and past.
On the other hand, you will have the vast majority of the right-leaning media (blogs, newspapers, etc.) digging up information about him. Unlike what happened with Obama, there's nobody who can cry racism so therefore no information embargo as with Rev Wright.
Perot was a bit nutty no doubt but he didn't consort with Alex Jones and other racist nutters. Never mind the fact that Ross Perot was a well-respected businessman while Ron Paul is a fringey congressman from a mostly rural district.
I haven't heard one conservative word about Pakistan's nukes. They're nominally an ally yet they secretly work against us. I'd rather hear some suggestions about what to do with the existing nukes.
R. Paul is a FRAID. How can he be a Constitutionalist and blithely accept the Usurpation of the Presidency by a NON natural born Citizen
R. Paul is a FRAID.
Is that supposed to be Freudian, that Fraid, or is it just Freudian?
Fraud, Fraid, Freudian. Phmmm.
Lemme think on it.
I just thought I'd take the time to remind y'all of this and this from back in 2007.
And then, of course, there's this guy,...
Paul's racism was 20 years ago? I wasn't a racist 20 years ago
It is a bit silly to call it "Paul's racism" when he didn't write the articles in question.
Certainly he has had close relations with distasteful people, but so have Obama, Gingrich, and Romney.
Better mediocre centrism than kooky gold-standard fetishes and big ideas about transforming the nation's foreign policy.
What is wrong about having big ideas for transforming something that has been an expensive failure?
Matt said " Paul is good comedy. Like all the GOP candidates."
At least that's what I read in all of the papers and see on TV.
"What is wrong about having big ideas for transforming something that has been an expensive failure?"
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not a serious policy. And we've had enough presidents who want to go big on change. Two in a row is enough.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा