No more Texas governors for president
If you think about it, presidential debates are just as bad. They aren’t really debates, they’re more of group interviews with vaguely debate-ish rules. The moderator asks questions, the candidates answer with crazy lies, and we’re supposed to get something out of it. If we rules similar to high school debate team debates, things would be a lot different. Candidates would have to cite sources and prove what they say. (via quickhits)
(via quickhits)
A not-so-well-kept secret is that Ron Paul runs for president to raise money for his congressional campaign. So how well or how poorly he does in polling is irrelevant — he’ll keep campaigning until people stop giving him money.
So when’s Ron Paul going to wake up and smell the doom?
The Army Times reported in February that anti-war GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) was at that time, “by far,” getting the most in campaign contributions from members of the United States military. According to a review of Federal Election Commission data, Paul received nearly $250,000 in donations from servicemembers, President Obama, $130,000 and GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney just $23,000. But now that Paul’s campaign is all but over and presumably, Romney will be the Republican nominee, the military’s donation trend is beginning to shift: away from Paul and toward Obama, the Open Secrets blog reports…
A not-so-well-kept secret is that Ron Paul runs for president to raise money for his congressional campaign. So how well or how poorly he does in polling is irrelevant — he’ll keep campaigning until people stop giving him money.
And it looks like that’s beginning to happen now. How long Paul will stay in is anyone’s guess, but at a certain point the effort isn’t going to be worth the payoff.
We’ve built a pretty spiffy interactive that lets you see how the GOP candidates’ Wikipedia entries were edited during the course of the primary.
Good question: Now here’s my burning question: What if there’s a man and a woman, married in heterosexual matrimony, who just really dig sodomy of all kinds? Is that then a sodomy-based marriage? Or does God give them a Mulligan since it’s not two dudes?
Ah yes, trying to campaign on disgust and fear. It’s been done, y’all:
Ooh, they even have a voter pledge too!
One of the PAC’s co-founders, Mike Heath, is fond of statements like this one:
“We should also seriously consider forcing Maine government to end it’s [sic] regulatory franchise over marriage, and give marriage back to individuals and the church. It would be better if our government and political class would choose agreement with Jesus. If this isn’t possible then they must choose neutrality. Some Maine people argue for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This costly venture is likely to produce nothing positive.
And by continuing our focus on political and government solutions to this threat we are probably giving the devil what he wants. Jesus warned us about power and money. There is no place in Maine where power and money are more concentrated than in our state government. We would be naive to trust it… Both political parties have made themselves irrelevant. Maine will not long survive without strong families.
He’s also Ron Paul’s former Iowa campaign director.
Now here’s my burning question: What if there’s a man and a woman, married in heterosexual matrimony, who just really dig sodomy of all kinds? Is that then a sodomy-based marriage? Or does God give them a Mulligan since it’s not two dudes? I’M SO CONFUSED! Does God have a preference on giving and receiving? Help me, internets!
Voters say “no” and “old” define the GOP field. I’m especially enjoying the ones for Newt Gingrich.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.
“There is no such thing as federal money,” Paul said, on CNN’sState of the Union. “Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me.”
“The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance,” Paul said.
Paul said there was a role for the National Guard to restore order and provide care and shelter in major emergencies, but that theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) led to nothing but “frustration and anger.”
“To say that any accident that happens in the country, send in FEMA, send in the money, the government has all this money—it is totally out of control and it’s not efficient,” Paul said.
Lose all your things in a natural disaster? Too bad, shoulda had insurance.
Lose all your things in something beyond your control? Too bad, the government shouldn’t pay for it.
Lose all your things thanks to my God? Too bad, you can remain homeless and hungry.
Good work Ron Paul. Keep it classy.Fuck this man. Why would you vote for him?
Ron Paul is also a racist and a medical doctor who thinks people without health insurance should die, but let’s all act surprised anyway.
![Typical Republican hypocrisy.
theatlantic:
Does the Romney-Ron Paul Pact Make Paul a Sellout?
Ron Paul is helping Mitt Romney. It’s been obvious for months. You’d think Paul’s followers would be outraged by this — but they’re not.
The Paul-Romney alliance means the race’s most ideologically pure fiscal conservative has effectively sold out to the least conservative, least consistent, most establishmentarian candidate in the field. Romney favors the basic concept of progressive taxation and a government’s right to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. It’s unthinkable that he would, if elected, end the Federal Reserve. Alone among the candidates, he insists that there be no cuts to any military spending. All these stances are anathema to Paul’s staunchly absolutist world view.
On paper, you would think Romney would be the chief subject of attacks from the Paul campaign, which has, in its television ads, been more unapologetically negative than any other. Paul has runone ad that slams all three of his rivals — Newt Gingrich (“serial hypocrite”), Rick Santorum (“counterfeit conservative”) and Romney (“flip-flopper). But that’s nothing compared to the attacks he’s unleashed pointed solely at Santorum (“fake,” “a record of betrayal”) and Gingrich (“selling access”).
Romney is the major only candidate Paul hasn’t singled out in an ad. And Paul’s ads against his competitors have been far more brutal than anything Romney or his super PAC have put on the airwaves. In crucial stages of the GOP primary thus far, he’s put hundreds of thousands of dollars behind these ads, helping squelch Santorum and Gingrich when they posed the most danger to Romney’s candidacy.
Helping Romney in his quest to make potential alternative candidates unpalatable to the conservative base is a major assist. But it’s far from the only way Paul has boosted the man who ought to be his biggest nemesis — the embodiment of the sort of soft, big-government Republicanism Paul says it’s his mission to eliminate.
Read more. [Image: Joe Raedle/Getty]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m07y6tKQhC1qcokc4o1_500.jpg)
Typical Republican hypocrisy.
Does the Romney-Ron Paul Pact Make Paul a Sellout?
Ron Paul is helping Mitt Romney. It’s been obvious for months. You’d think Paul’s followers would be outraged by this — but they’re not.
The Paul-Romney alliance means the race’s most ideologically pure fiscal conservative has effectively sold out to the least conservative, least consistent, most establishmentarian candidate in the field. Romney favors the basic concept of progressive taxation and a government’s right to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. It’s unthinkable that he would, if elected, end the Federal Reserve. Alone among the candidates, he insists that there be no cuts to any military spending. All these stances are anathema to Paul’s staunchly absolutist world view.
On paper, you would think Romney would be the chief subject of attacks from the Paul campaign, which has, in its television ads, been more unapologetically negative than any other. Paul has runone ad that slams all three of his rivals — Newt Gingrich (“serial hypocrite”), Rick Santorum (“counterfeit conservative”) and Romney (“flip-flopper). But that’s nothing compared to the attacks he’s unleashed pointed solely at Santorum (“fake,” “a record of betrayal”) and Gingrich (“selling access”).
Romney is the major only candidate Paul hasn’t singled out in an ad. And Paul’s ads against his competitors have been far more brutal than anything Romney or his super PAC have put on the airwaves. In crucial stages of the GOP primary thus far, he’s put hundreds of thousands of dollars behind these ads, helping squelch Santorum and Gingrich when they posed the most danger to Romney’s candidacy.
Helping Romney in his quest to make potential alternative candidates unpalatable to the conservative base is a major assist. But it’s far from the only way Paul has boosted the man who ought to be his biggest nemesis — the embodiment of the sort of soft, big-government Republicanism Paul says it’s his mission to eliminate.
Read more. [Image: Joe Raedle/Getty]
12 Valentines from Presidential Candidates
If there’s anything these guys know about, it’s meaningful relationships and connecting with other human beings.
Gawker.com via Washington Post
The Washington Post is out with an excellent update on the history of the racist, homophobic, survivalist, nutcase newspapers that were published under his name in the 80s and 90s, which comes awfully close to confirming the most likely version of the story: He may not have written every word of them, but he sure signed off on them and wanted them written that way to pick up more subscribers and make more money.
The Post quotes Renae Hathaway, a Paul supporter and former secretary at Ron Paul & Associates, the company that published them, saying, “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it.” Ouch.
And who could confirm that Paul was behind the editorial decision to make his newsletters so offensive? The head of the most prominent libertarian think tank in Washington D.C. should suffice:
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period, and the two men discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” are more likely than others to respond.
Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.
Let’s throw in one more anonymous source for kicks:
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.
It’s a welcome reminder that the libertarian movement that’s now headquartered in lush glass, brick, and steel think tanks and research centers, populated by savvy young intellectuals, made its money in the early years by pandering to deep-pocketed extremist lunatics. This history doesn’t set it apart from that of many other proud American institutions, but after years of hearing petulant neener-neeners from all libertarians about how they’re the only group in American politics that lives and dies by profound moral principles and nothing else, let’s send a hearty neener-neener back their way.
But if you’re already dedicated to Ron Paul’s campaign, who cares? The goal here is to use the first viable libertarian candidacy in a major political party in some time to pick up enough delegates in nominating contests to matter, mathematically, and then leverage that into a major convention speech, insertion into the party platform, or role in playing kingmaker to the eventual nominee. The specific nominee’s editorial history from decades back — which wasn’t that different from the mainstream Republican party’s at the time — needn’t derail that. It’s just an icky compromise every supporter will have to make. (Neener neener.)
But he’s not racist right?
Opportunism of the worst kind? Hmmm….
(via inothernews)
