November 30, 2011

Nasty New Ron Paul Ad Hits Gingrich Hard
— Ace

Incidentally, let me go on the record here: For any Paul fans who are thinking "This is his time," I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever.

That's where I'm coming form. Under no circumstances whatsoever will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik "We brought 9/11 ourselves" pacifist Chomnskyite crank.

And I'll say it: I will, yes, be amenable to Barack Obama being re-elected under those circumstances. As members of the Purity Brigade used to tell me-- Sometimes you win by losing.

I would decide at that point to use my own "Sometimes we win by losing" chits at that point. As was said of Mike Castle -- it's better that we lose, because at least the guy in office won't be one of our own, making those bad decisions.

Anyway, that's my line in the sand. I figure a lot of people agree. Might as well just put that on the record, that for some of us, Ron Paul is not an acceptable third, fourth, or fifth choice.

Paul thinks he can possibly win, and so goes after Gingrich.

A lot of this stuff is stuff that I am frankly thankful to Paul for outing, since a lot of the party just seems to be on Anti-Romney Autopilot, and jumps in support without really giving the new candidate much of a look-see.

There are some things that aren't fair. I was pro-TARP, if you remember (and some of you will never let me forget). So I have a good idea of who was pro-TARP. Gingrich was not pro-TARP. I remember thinking he was guilty of playing clever politics, as usual (this is my general objection to Gingrich, clever in politics, but not nearly as sound in judgment).

But the point is, while I disagreed with him at the time (and currently neither disagree with him nor agree with him), he wasn't pro-TARP. He was frequently on the air, for example, advising Congress to suspend mark-to-market rules for banks with lots of bad mortgages as an alternative to a bail-out.

He did, if I have this right, say that if the only thing on the table was TARP, he would have ultimately reluctantly voted in favor of it; but he was a pretty strong advocate against it.

Again, this sticks in my memory, because at the time I thought he was a playing-politics douchebag for it.

On the other stuff: Look, if you don't believe Gingrich was a "lobbyist," well, scenic bridge in Brooklyn, graced by the decades, frequently photographed, must sell.

Personally I can forgive him for pushing for Fannie and Freddie and Medicare Part D, just as I can, if needed, forgive Romney for ObamaCare.

See, I keep saying this, but I'll say it again: The party has changed dramatically in the past three years, but a lot of people seem to forget this, or to say "Well I was always on the right, Tea Party side of things."

Well maybe a lot of people were, but not everyone was. From the 1990's into the 2000's, the dominant strain of Republicanism was neoconservatism, and here I am not talking about foreign policy, but domestic policy. Neoconservatism was invented by the original "neoconservatives," who were in fact liberals who deserted the Democratic Party when it became a special-interest Sugar-Daddy soft-socialist creature.

But the basic underpinning of neoconservatism was this: We shall address most of (or even all of) the major policy goals of liberalism; but we shall do so using market-based principles and sounder, conservative-tilting economic principles to do so.

This proved to be a politically popular movement, and we tended to win a fair amount during this period.

But Tea Partyism -- the current dominant mode of thought in the party -- is an explicit rejection of the old neoconservative line, which can in fact be fairly criticized as "just arguing the liberals down from $800 billion on free health care to $400 billion on free health care."

I have said this before, but personally, I am willing to forgive deviations from the Tea Party line in the past, because, well, I guess I'm more understanding. I was more of a neoconservative than many here. Not wholly, because I did not understand why we were continuing to spend, spend, spend and increase the scope and range of government intervention in our lives, but I also thought that a citizenry which insists on being paid off for its votes will get its way, one way or the other, and, the citizenry being basically corrupt in this sense (Give us more free stuff, taken from other citizens!) would produce, necessarily, a political class which curried to that corruption.

In the case of Gingrich and Romney both: It is worth remembering that during the mid-90s to 2000s there was a widely agreed-upon urge that we must "do something!" (anything! do something!) "about health care." And of course the hated individual mandate was created by the the conservative Heritage foundation, as a supposedly "conservative, market-based, no-free-riders, individual responsibility" initiative towards the general gauzy goal of "doing something!" about health care.

We all know how this think-tank idea went over when it was actually imposed on us, and we had the chance to examine it, and weigh the supposed benefits (no free riders on my health insurance policy, which is inflated in cost to pay for the uninsured) versus the serious objections to it (since when can government boss me around? Why are we further expanding government's power to make up for the problems with its current exercise of power?).

Still, this was, in fact, considered a "conservative" response. Not everyone believed in it. Very few tried it. But it was bandied about as being "conservative." And few objected when it was so characterized.

In fact, this proposition was in fact so non-controversial that most people don't even remember it. There was not a big argument in the early-mid 2000s whether an individual mandate was "conservative."

Point is, the party has changed, and the overton window has moved, significantly. Stuff that was a clear submission to the ever-growing socialist state was given a quick paint-job and branded a "conservative" solution.

Medicare Part D? Bush did that, and a Republican Congress passed it.

And Gingrich lobbied for it, calling it "conservative."

Do you forgive?

I don't know. Personally, I can forgive this stuff, but what I can't do is pretend that this fundamental inconsistency will not be a very, very handy talking point for Barack Obama during a debate, or during the campaign.

It's going to be quite hard for Romney or Gingrich to make any sort of political attack on ObamaCare when Obama can say, correctly, "The individual mandate? Oh right, the idea I got from you."

Does that mean they won't sign the repeal of ObamaCare, if given the chance? No, they probably would, assuming they had the chance. Arguments, after all, require intellectual consistency, but actions really don't.

The base wants this repealed; they'd probably, I assume, repeal it, if they had the chance.

But arguing about it in a debate? Don't expect Mitt's textbook perfect memorized answers to overcome the simple and powerful point But you did it yourself and called it a "model for the nation" and don't expect Newt's glib gray-cell rolodex of interesting but half-baked policy ideas to rebut Obama's You mean the individual mandate you cooked up at Heritage?

As for Freddie and Fannie, honestly, the media refuses to note the role these played in the Great Meltdown, so the fact that Newt can't bring it up himself doesn't really lose us all that much.

But... to the extent it comes up at all... It's going to be hard to make the case that Fannie and Freddie caused the implosion when our candidate lobbied for them.

And no I don't believe he just wrote "historically-oriented white papers" for them.

People say I'm in the bag for Perry. I'm not in the bag for him, exactly; I support him. But the reason I talk about this stuff is that while everyone knows the problems with Perry -- these problems are notorious and palpable -- no one ever seems to know the problems with the current NotMitt Flavor of the Week, as Palin called Cain.

And you have to know these things. My pretending that Perry doesn't have an immigration problem, or a debate problem, doesn't make those problems go away, and similarly, not knowing that Herman Cain doesn't seem to read the newspapers, even the front pages, doesn't make that problem disappear, either.

Gingrich would not be a bad candidate. Although I don't think he'd be as good a debater as many seem to, no doubt, it would be nice to have a candidate who was inarguably an intelligent man, well-versed in federal policy wonkery.

But as far as the next Great True Conservative Hope -- as with the previous ones, sure, as long as you don't bother to actually do much inspection, and keep him a blank slate upon which you can project your hopes that this guy is a Pure Conservative.

We don't have a Pure Conservative in the race. (Possibly the unelectable Bachmann, but only because she's only been in office since shortly before the outbreak of the Tea Party, and really has never been asked to do anything except play to the Tea Party. And, meanwhile, she and her husband's clinics scooped up all the federal and state money they could.)

I guess I don't have a point except to say I really don't think it is useful or true to debate these guys in terms of "The True Conservative I Can Get Behind."

None of them are that. None. So the Quest for the Pure True Conservative can and should end, and we should stop talking about such nonsense and start talking, seriously, about the imperfect candidates we have.

Gingrich would be an okay imperfect candidate. So, I guess, would Romney.

But this idea that someone here must be a True Conservative, because, gosh, someone must be, is just plain wrong.

The Great Shift On Immigration: Let's not forget, either, that prior to the Shamnesty melt-down, most conservatives at least talked up the possibility of some kind of deal or pathway to citizenship.

Bush was elected as president, twice, expressly running on this platform.

I never liked that. I suppose most of you didn't, either. But we didn't object to it so vigorously we chose some other candidate, or even argued with him about it.

Sometimes I just think people are little bit nutty when they expect politicians to have always subscribed to Circa 2011 Conservative Orthodoxy, when this orthodoxy is, in fact, pretty dramatically different than the 2007 Conservative Orthodoxy.

People change. They bend with new winds. Most conservative voters have done this -- despite protestations, no, 75% of the party was not really diehard Tea Partiers in Training in 2006; they were mostly just standard Orthodoxy of 2006 conservatives.

If voters changed -- if half of you have shifted rightward -- it's kind of nuts to go berserker-pants over politicians who did, too.

They're whores. That's what they're paid to be, idealistic ideas of Men of Resolve be damned. That's 1% of them. What about the other 99%?

At any rate, since I'm talking about Great Red Shifts on Medicare and Fannie and Freddie, it's only fair to point out this happened on immigration, too.

Yes, a Texas Governor signed a politically-popular piece of legislation that allowed the children of illegals to attend Texas schools at the same cost other Texas residents paid. There was, I think, two dissenting votes on this, in the whole legislature.

Politically Popular Governor Makes Move That Continues His Political Popularity; Film at 11.

We'll be right back with breaking developments in what analysts are dubbing "WhatTheHellDidYouThinkHeWasGoingToDo?Gate."


Posted by: Ace at 02:45 PM | Comments (557)
Post contains 1997 words, total size 12 kb.

1 I see where you're coming form.



Posted by: pcoast at November 30, 2011 02:47 PM (i07/u)

2 The good news is - Ron Paul has a chance in hell. So, your promise to not vote for him won't matter. No way he'll be the nom.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at November 30, 2011 02:48 PM (O7ksG)

3 Posted from the dead thread:

I have a different nightmare.  I am very concerned that Newt gets the nom, and then the press stops holding its fire and let's him have it, resulting in a fatally wounded candidate long before the election but after any possibility of choosing someone else.  From that point of view, Paul has done us a favor, assuming you accept the idea that he is unelectable.

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 02:49 PM (6TB1Z)

4 (he being Newt)

Paul definitely is unelectable.

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 02:50 PM (6TB1Z)

5 Ron Paul gets the Grampa Simpson vote.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 02:50 PM (MMC8r)

6 Man, I seem to be the only speed reader around here.  (I hope there won't be a quiz)

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 02:51 PM (6TB1Z)

7 Is this thread a honeypot for Ron Paul's nasty old supporters?

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 02:51 PM (4pSIn)

8 Wow ace is working hard today.  Must have had a good day of hobo pelt gathering yesterday to increase his energy level.

Great stuff ace, thanks.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 02:51 PM (/izg2)

9 7 Is this thread a honeypot for Ron Paul's nasty old supporters?

Watch your mouth, whippersnapper.

Posted by: Gabby Hayes at November 30, 2011 02:52 PM (6TB1Z)

10 I just spent a few days with my brother and s-i-l.  They are Ron Paul supporters.  I am not.  We did not discuss Dr. Paul.

Posted by: huerfano at November 30, 2011 02:53 PM (fecOD)

11 Did Gary Johnson siphon off all the pot-head voters?

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 02:53 PM (4pSIn)

12 Remember the good old days - say six months ago - when it was just common knowledge that O would go down.
We forgot: A republican has to run against him.

Pistol, bullet, foot: some assembly required.

Posted by: Dandalo at November 30, 2011 02:54 PM (GAJm6)

13 I have a different nightmare. I am very concerned that Newt gets the nom, and then the press stops holding its fire and let's him have it, Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 07:49 PM (6TB1Z) Your fatal error is in thinking that this will *not* happen to a given candidate. It worked for them, so they will always do that now. Just ASSUME it will be all-out against ANYONE you put forward, and go from there.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 30, 2011 02:54 PM (bxiXv)

14 Man, I seem to be the only speed reader around here.

Some of us still have to get work done. (West Coast.)

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 02:54 PM (bjRNS)

15 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 02:55 PM (7WJOC)

16 Ron Paul doesn't really want the job anyway.  He's doing this to line his pocket with the dollars and support of his gullible followers, exactly like he was doing with his racist, anti-semitic newsletters way back in the Pony Express days.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 02:55 PM (MMC8r)

17 There is only one republican I will not vote for, and his name is Ron Paul. I will stay home if he and only he is the nominee. Thanks and goodnight.

Posted by: JUSTIN at November 30, 2011 02:55 PM (tclnS)

18 Your fatal error is in thinking that this will *not* happen to a given candidate.

No, I don't assume that won't happen to every other candidate.  It's just that I think Newt is uniquely vulnerable.  Call it a gut instinct. 

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 02:56 PM (6TB1Z)

19 We did not discuss Dr. Paul.

Posted by: huerfano at November 30, 2011 07:53 PM (fecOD)


I've found that it's better to avoid politics during holiday gatherings.  Especially with family.  Seriously.


At least your relatives are conservative.  Mine love Obama.  FML

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 02:56 PM (/izg2)

20 All I ask for is for a GOP President & Congress who will move things in the right direction (e.g. smaller government, regulatory reform, &c.). I can dream, at least...

Posted by: The Political Hat at November 30, 2011 02:57 PM (XvHmy)

21
Some of us still have to get work done. (West Coast.)

Big whoop.  You guys all start at what, noon?  You know, after the waves have settled down.

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 02:57 PM (6TB1Z)

22 Great post Ace...Thanks!

Posted by: Survey sez at November 30, 2011 02:57 PM (wrGst)

23 But this idea that someone here must be a True Conservative, because, gosh, someone must be, is just plain wrong.

Thank you Ace for saying this.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 02:57 PM (s7mIC)

24 There is only one republican I will not vote for, and his name is Ron Paul. I will stay home if he and only he is the nominee. Thanks and goodnight.

I think it depends on who his VP is. I'd be gambling that he'd be dead before he was worse than Obama.

But who am I kidding? Guys like that live forever.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 02:58 PM (bjRNS)

25 I voted for Clinton for president, and HRClinton for NY Senate.  I apologize to everybody for that, and I can never outlive those mistake.  I was stupid then; my explanation (which is not an excuse) is that I was young and stupid.

I've changed.  It seems unAmerican to pretend that someone's position from 10, 15, 20 years ago fully and completely defines them.  It's current positions that bother me the most.

Posted by: dustydog at November 30, 2011 02:58 PM (2p9Ss)

26 Ace has keyboard diarrhea today.

Posted by: eastvalleyphx at November 30, 2011 02:58 PM (qiOph)

27

I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever.

You're worrying over nothing, Ace. 

Posted by: RushBabe at November 30, 2011 02:59 PM (tQHzJ)

28 Ace, sir, this is a wonderful and necessary piece of writing. Thank you. Exactly my thoughts, as always. Why do Ron Paul supporters always refer to him with both names?

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 02:59 PM (g8Wdt)

29 "But this idea that someone here must be a True Conservative, because, gosh, someone must be, is just plain wrong."

Dude, Ron Paul

Posted by: DOOOOOOOOOOOM at November 30, 2011 02:59 PM (Hs8/g)

30

@2: "So, your promise to not vote for him won't matter. No way he'll be the nom."

Of course not.  My role is that of a third-party spoiler.

Posted by: That's *Dr.* Ron Paul, and don't you forget it at November 30, 2011 03:00 PM (jAqTK)

31 Why do Ron Paul supporters always refer to him with both names?

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 07:59 PM (g8Wdt)


WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT????

Posted by: MATT DAMON!!! at November 30, 2011 03:00 PM (/izg2)

32 All I ask for is for a GOP President & Congress who will move things in the right direction (e.g. smaller government, regulatory reform, &c.).

And I think they will all do this.  We won't have someone who will take us to Conservatopia in one fell swoop.  The best we can do is nudge things in a conservative direction.  The Left plays the long game, so should we.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:00 PM (s7mIC)

33 32 Ron Paul is a freakin nutcase.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at November 30, 2011 08:00 PM (qjUnn)



Hi Shrimps, yeah it is difficult to picture myself voting for him

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:01 PM (s7mIC)

34 The line that bothers me most is the bit about "right-wing social engineering". Now, maybe that line will not help the DCCC in some crucial districts as much as they think it will, but I hate the fact that Newt handed the Democrats a weapon. Newt also has not completely renounced the idea and IIRC rephrased it during the debate with Cain. We cannot wait for a national conservation.

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 03:01 PM (d6QMz)

35

Of course not.  My role is that of a third-party spoiler.

That's my job, old man! 

Posted by: Gary Johnson at November 30, 2011 03:02 PM (UR5vq)

36

That's my job, old man! 

Posted by: Gary Johnson at November 30, 2011 08:02 PM (UR5vq)

no, your job is as a third-party stoner

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:02 PM (s7mIC)

37 Did you see the polls, Newt is rubbing is dick on romneys face in Florida. If he does not implode and it has not happened, he can be nominee

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 30, 2011 03:03 PM (pMrYf)

38 Can't ron paul just go off and play with himself some where nice and quite

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 03:03 PM (eCnLg)

39 Big whoop.  You guys all start at what, noon?  You know, after the waves have settled down.

Dang, you're right. I missed out on good surf this morning. It's not going to be any good for a least a week now.

(Actually, I don't surf, but know enough about it to be able to read a surf report.)

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 03:04 PM (bjRNS)

40 Don't worry, fellow conservatives.  Bob Dole is still available.

Posted by: Bob Dole! at November 30, 2011 03:04 PM (s7mIC)

41 Ron Paul was born in FDR's first term.

He's a year older than John McCain.

He's not nuts.

He's senile.

And nuts.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:04 PM (MMC8r)

42 I tried to explain this a while back in explaining why we weren't getting a true conservative candidate.The reason I gave is that itis not nearly as far right as I or many of you would like.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 03:04 PM (7WJOC)

43 Wow.  That's a lot of words.  I even read most of them.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:05 PM (P6QsQ)

44 @chemjeff Considering that the last time we has a GOP President and Congress we got expanded government & massive debt (though I admit the SCofMF makes Bush's tenure seem like halcyon days...), I am always skeptical of the idjits in charge of the GOP.

Posted by: The Political Hat at November 30, 2011 03:05 PM (XvHmy)

45 OT cheerleader injured at the Jimmy V classic,they took her off immobilized but hopefully only as a precaution.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 03:05 PM (7WJOC)

46 Look, times change and if politicians change with the rest of the Republican Party I dont mind that. I forgive that kind of flip-flopping. But Romney was even back then too liberal for the consensus of the neoconservative Republican Party. Just look what he said about the Contract with America in the fukkin 90ies! When we were in the midst of the battle. He was even a squish by the squishy standards back then, whereas Newt was on the forefront of the fight. Sorry, no sell. Romneys problem is not that he is not conservative enough for the Tea-Party standard, but that he isnt even conservative enough for a fukking neocon like myself. No comparison between Newt and Romney. They are not the same!

Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at November 30, 2011 03:06 PM (97AKa)

47 Why do Ron Paul supporters always refer to him with both names?

Courtesy. They know we don't like Ron Paul, and we don't want to be agreeing with them because we accidentally think they're talking about Rand.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 03:06 PM (bjRNS)

48 oh my... my missing the point comment is that the mandate is a tactic to getting rid of Obama's (hastily, secretly, and sloppily written) single payer trojan horse. But yeah, conservative ideals have mashed up against federalism too. The rules cut both ways.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:06 PM (QxSug)

49

None of them are that. None. So the Quest for the Pure True Conservative can and should end, and we should stop talking about such nonsense and start talking, seriously, about the imperfect candidates we have.

Nothing more exciting than discussing who sucks less as potential leader of the free world.

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2011 03:06 PM (jGDVS)

50 Sorry, Paul wins over Obama.  But that's my problem with the Paultards...I really think most of them would rather have Obama than have their guy lose.  And so many of them are single-issue voters (potheads, anti-war sheep, etc) that line up with the Left on most things anyway but want to be even-more-outsider-than-you.

Libertarianism is a conservative, right-wing philosophy, period.  Any self-described [L|l]ibertarian (and that is what Paul claims to be) that would even consider a vote for a Marxist is disingenuous or deranged.

Posted by: Dirt McGirt at November 30, 2011 03:07 PM (lHn6+)

51

@33: "The Left plays the long game, so should we."

That should have been the strategy decades ago.  The coming economic whirlwind won't allow for much in the way of long game strategies, though.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at November 30, 2011 03:07 PM (jAqTK)

52 Ron Paul is a freakin nutcase.

Which is why we should all support him.  He only has that one single flaw!

Posted by: jwb7605 at November 30, 2011 03:07 PM (Qxe/p)

53 Hey this is nothing 45 more debates won't clear up.

Posted by: USS Diversity at November 30, 2011 03:07 PM (2sy9r)

54 once again Ace dumps all over a candidate without expressing an alternative preference.

Big help that is

Posted by: Jose at November 30, 2011 03:08 PM (srIqv)

55 How exactly will Newt implode?   More than maybe any of the others, he's a known quantity.  We've known he's a philanderer for years.  We've seen his flip-flops.  He's been smeared by the media for almost 20 years, both fairly and unfairly.  He's known to be an arrogant jackass.

But what would burst his balloon right now?

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:09 PM (MMC8r)

56 32 Ron Paul is a freakin nutcase.

He is, but the ad makes some great points about Newt without even addressing the end of Newt's tenure as Speaker. It would never lead me to vote for Dr. Paul but it is effective in targeting Newt.

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 03:09 PM (d6QMz)

57 Is this a 2 birds one stone post?

Posted by: Ronster at November 30, 2011 03:09 PM (/c/ec)

58 Ron Paul is the one true libertarian in the race, but he's also the one-true nutball. All of us foreign policy wingnuts who traded cultural confidence for armed excursions should at least take note that Ron Paul's answers (when they make sense) or towards more freedom and less government which is a good thing. Also, Gingrich. His reign as speaker gave us shit that Reagan couldn't deliver like welfare reform and NAFTA. So much of what Clinton takes credit for (at least the economic benefits thereof) come from Gingrich's holding the line. FWIW.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:09 PM (QxSug)

59 The problem with getting stuck with a mediocre Republican President now is that we could have such an awesome field of conservative candidates in 2016.  Ryan, Rubio, some of the up and coming Tea Party newcomers. If we win in 2012, we're probably stuck with whoever the mediocre R bonehead is for 8 years.  By then people will be sick of Republicans and will vote for a Democrat.  So is we put in an R president this time around, we really will not have another shot at a true conservative till probably 2024.

And if Obama wins, we're doomed.  So I'm thinking either way, we're toast.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:10 PM (P6QsQ)

60 56 once again Ace dumps all over a candidate without expressing an alternative preference.

umm, Jose?

People say I'm in the bag for Perry. I'm not in the bag for him, exactly; I support him.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:11 PM (s7mIC)

61 but I see in Perry, the same deer in the headlight policy look that some criticize in Cain. This whole one-true conservative, political purity stuff is weird. Why can't we expect someone who agrees with the basic checklist of conservative ideas and who isn't interested in letting the left repopulate, reform, and otherwise upend the country.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:12 PM (QxSug)

62 If we win in 2012, we're probably stuck with whoever the mediocre R bonehead is for 8 years.

nah, only 4
then the next Democrat Demagogue will surface

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:12 PM (s7mIC)

63

Paul is 90% right and 10% batshit crazy, but that 10% is enough to rule him out as a candidate.

I'm an intensely small government conservative, and my Paulian friends don't understand the issues I have with him. Defense is one of the few things the Constitution mandates the government to do, and Paul has no interest in defending the country. None. He's as much a blame America first guy as the worst leftist, and that alone would be a nightmare after Obama has weakened the country so badly.

I'm a Perry person by default now, although I'll vote for whoever the nominee is, strictly so we don't get another Socialist on the Supreme Court. The country wants large intrusive government. It's been that way since Reagan left office. They should get what they want. I'm preparing for when the consequences of their choices finally come to fruition.

Posted by: Palandine at November 30, 2011 03:12 PM (g7D8V)

64 47 OT cheerleader injured at the Jimmy V classic,they took her off immobilized but hopefully only as a precaution.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 08:05 PM (7WJOC)


That's a scary time whenever it happens.  Its really dangerous when one of their pyramid or "flying" stunts fail.  I've been on the field twice when my football teammates were carried off immobilized on a backboard.  It is really difficult to go out and perform after that, whatever the sport.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 03:13 PM (/izg2)

65 56 once again Ace dumps all over a candidate without expressing an alternative preference. Posted by: Jose at November 30, 2011 08:08 PM (srIqv) If you aren't going to read the post, could you at least comment on something that you *DID* read?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 30, 2011 03:13 PM (bxiXv)

66 **The problem with getting stuck with a mediocre Republican President now is that we could have such an awesome field of conservative candidates in 2016. ** you go to war with the army you have, don't you know? Also, at the risk of sounding like a write-in Palinite, every member of the plu-perfect 2016 fantasy teaparty elite graduating class will be destroyed by the media by 2016, so let's fight today's battles today.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:13 PM (QxSug)

67 mama winger - This is why we shouldn't be hanging our hopes on a particular candidate. And this is why I'm actually nudging towards Gingrich. At least he can give the conservative's side of the story without sounding like a nutjob. And if the people pressure any of them to do the right thing, hopefully they will.

Posted by: GergS at November 30, 2011 03:13 PM (dptRY)

68 A little something from HotAir:

Update: A thought experiment from Dan Foster: What if Gingrich had spent the past six years running for president and entered the primaries as the “inevitable” nominee, and then Bachmann, Perry, and Cain had all imploded? Would Romney now be surging on the strength of anti-Newt sentiment? If not, why not?

Posted by: cthulhu at November 30, 2011 03:13 PM (kaalw)

69 umm, Jose?

People say I'm in the bag for Perry. I'm not in the bag for him, exactly; I support him.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 08:11 PM (s7mIC)

I stand corrected and issue a retraction.

Sorry, but Perry's record and policy proposals are utterly irrelevant if he can't sell them. 

Posted by: Jose at November 30, 2011 03:13 PM (srIqv)

70 Well, at least by 2024 Paul Ryan's kids will be all grown up so he can't get out of it with that excuse.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:14 PM (P6QsQ)

71 Be nice to Dr. Paul. He's got his thumb on the dead-man trigger labeled "third party candidate" and he could blow this place sky high....

Posted by: Edj at November 30, 2011 03:14 PM (+QKfp)

72 Laup Nor is living proof that Texas needs more lenient laws regarding involuntary commitment for the mentally unstable.

Posted by: redc1c4 at November 30, 2011 03:14 PM (d1FhN)

73 But what would burst his balloon right now?

just wait until his next crazy goofball idea at the next debate
you know, something like: "To have a workable food stamp system in this country, we need a bold, transformative, visionary, 21st century solution.  Like putting community boards in charge of food stamp rationing."

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:14 PM (s7mIC)

74 Ron Paul is not an acceptable third, fourth, or fifth choice. Okay then, 6th look at Ron Paul? Great post.

Posted by: Chris Coons at November 30, 2011 03:14 PM (uuXjC)

75 I heretofore state...

Heh.

Just an hour ago I was complimenting my new boss on drafting a major internal communications piece without using the words ergo or heretofore.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 30, 2011 03:15 PM (piMMO)

76 You know, I don't give a rat's ass that you don't like Ron Paul. Your blog, your opinions. But those straw polls which included every candidate EXCEPT Paul were sleazy and demeaning to yourself.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at November 30, 2011 03:15 PM (g9neE)

77

Paul is 90% right and 10% batshit crazy, but that 10% is enough to rule him out as a candidate.

I think you have your ratio incorrect.

Paul is a right wing wackademic. He talks a good game on some issues, but he has never done squat about it. He's been in Congress since before James Madison, but never did a damned thing.

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 03:16 PM (4pSIn)

78 Like putting community boards in charge of food stamp rationing."


I like putting.  Fore!

Posted by: Barack Obama at November 30, 2011 03:16 PM (/izg2)

79 @ 31 My sister's cat is named Matt Damon. Is this you?

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 03:16 PM (g8Wdt)

80 So is we put in an R president this time around, we really will not have another shot at a true conservative till probably 2024. Posted by: mama winger

You only have to contemplate 3 points:
1) Judges - even Mitt can't fuck this one up

2) Cutting spending - this is pretty much baked into the next presidency. It's just a matter of how much the courts will let the GOP get away with.

3) Taxes - Mitt/Newt and the rest all have at least some tax fighting boner fides. There's no way the base will allow Mitt to go 'Pappy Bush' and cornhole this one either.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at November 30, 2011 03:17 PM (mIucK)

81

I think that Romney is stunned that his main competition turned out to be Newt Gingrich.  But in all fairness, I think most of us are.  It's going to be interesting to see his approach in a contest with Newt.  Does he go directly at Newt Gingrich, or does he stay as indifferent as he can toward him and focus his campaign against Obama.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 30, 2011 03:17 PM (1P47F)

82 >>>but I see in Perry, the same deer in the headlight policy look that some criticize in Cain. I appreciate the deep irony in the fact that I, who routinely say so and so is unelectable because she's dim and not prepared, am agitating for Perry. All I can say is he does well in interviews, if not debates, and I assume that most of his problems are due to the fact he is late out of the gate, and will get better, over time. Perry's problems are POTENTIALLY fixable, assuming he's not actually a moron, whereas Romney and Newt really cannot go back in time to change what happened in the 2000s.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:17 PM (nj1bB)

83 But those straw polls which included every candidate EXCEPT Paul were sleazy and demeaning to yourself.

no, they were so the polls wouldn't be gamed by Ronulan poll-trollers

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:17 PM (s7mIC)

84 Be nice to Dr. Paul. He's got his thumb on the dead-man trigger labeled "third party candidate" and he could blow this place sky high....

Dear Lord, but I hope Rand can exert some influence over that decision.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 30, 2011 03:17 PM (piMMO)

85 72 Well, at least by 2024 Paul Ryan's kids will be all grown up so he can't get out of it with that excuse.

Currently, he lacks executive experience. Also, once his term on Budget expires, it would be wise for him to ask for a foreign policy committee assignment.

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 03:17 PM (d6QMz)

86

Anti-Semitic?  Hmmm, I'd say it's high time for me to take another look at this Ron Paul feller.  I'm already liking the jib of his jab.  If he's against RINOs that's what I want to hear.  I'd rather the entire nation perish than to have a RINO in office.  What's General Paul's position on abortion and Mexicans?  If he's against abortion in every circumstance except my daughter getting knocked up by a Mexican, and if he's in favor of rounding up and then deporting every Mexican from the country, even those born here, then I'd say we've got the best candidate in our midst since Sharron Angle got my motor running. 

Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 30, 2011 03:18 PM (f8XyF)

87 >>>You know, I don't give a rat's ass that you don't like Ron Paul. Your blog, your opinions. But those straw polls which included every candidate EXCEPT Paul were sleazy and demeaning to yourself. We got sick of the Ron Paul Fans4Ever rigging every goddamned poll. What, you think we owe you the right to CHEAT on every goddamned poll? Why? Why do you think you have the right to CHEAT and play your Freeping the Polls games on every goddamned poll on the internet?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:18 PM (nj1bB)

88

But those straw polls which included every candidate EXCEPT Paul were sleazy and demeaning to yourself.

Nobody freeps a poll like the Paulnauts.

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 03:19 PM (4pSIn)

89
He's that crazy uncle in the attic I kept talking about.

Posted by: Ross Perot at November 30, 2011 03:20 PM (W7HXV)

90 >>>Did you see the polls, Newt is rubbing is dick on romneys face in Florida. If he does not implode and it has not happened, he can be nominee

Congratulations, you smug c*nt.  Now can he WIN A GENERAL ELECTION? 

Because that's the issue we're discussing here.  How convenient that you declined to engage on *that* particular question.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 03:20 PM (hIWe1)

91 well, it should also be pointed out that Newt has never won a state-wide election

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:20 PM (s7mIC)

92 There's a guy at the place I work who makes upwards of 10k a month selling Ron Paul stuff.  Those followers of his are a dedicated bunch.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:21 PM (P6QsQ)

93

I think I'll vote Bachmann.  Seems to be the least amount of dirt on her.  Don't like Romney, but would vote for him over Obama.  Ron Paul...I'm a libertarian, with the exception of the "let's destroy our national defense" mantra many of them tend to have.  I'd still vote for him over Obama, though, might get a few useful Court nominees from him.  And that really can't be stressed enough given the age of many on the Court now.  We cannot possibly allow a Supreme Court with a near majority hand picked by Obama.  Paul would be for four years, that Court would be setting precedent for ages to come. 

The Senate is probably as important as the Presidency, though.  Need to have enough to pass or check nominees.  Any idea how that front looks right now? 

Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2011 03:21 PM (Tlix5)

94 <i>Why do Ron Paul supporters always refer to him with both names?

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 07:59 PM (g8Wdt)</i>

Because his last name is a first name.

Because his son is also a politician.

But mostly because it's like a reverse-inception that prevents opponents from calling his followers Ronulans, or Mitt Romney opponents from calling him Willard.

Posted by: alexthedude at November 30, 2011 03:21 PM (0+B+X)

95 Ron Paul would be the one GOP nom who would keep me home on Election Day.  Honestly.  I can't vote for an anti-Semite.

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 03:21 PM (I2LwF)

96
Instead we see a long line of candidates sucking Mittens dick,

That's because the magic underwear is cherry flavored.

Posted by: Mittens! at November 30, 2011 03:21 PM (s7mIC)

97 But truth be told I am losing any real steam for Perry, and will accept whatever the party decides on, whether Romney or Gingrich or (dare I say it?) huntsman or whoever goes to the top of the pigpile next (except paul). I'm just getting a littled tired of the True Conservative thing. I got very mad when people insisted that they couldn't vote for Perry because he was not a True Conservative but then told me that Cain was the shizznat. Cain, who thinks abortion is a "family decision" he doesn't want the government getting involved in. Here's the thing: I cannot tell you the correct order to prioritize issues in. That is a gut level decision each person makes. But if you HAVE prioritized something very highly, I can tell you, objectively, that your candidate fails the very test you yourself have established as determinative. A "True Conservative" does not get weak at the knees at the predictable "but what about cases of rape?" question and start talking about how the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:22 PM (nj1bB)

98 Be nice to Dr. Paul. He's got his thumb on the dead-man trigger labeled "third party candidate" and he could blow this place sky high....

I'm not sure that he'd pull more votes from the GOP candidate than Obama.  I could see a fair number of frustrated anti-war lefties casting a protest vote for the Bircheresque Crank.

In other words- fuck Ron Paul, and his batshit crazy Truther support base.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 03:22 PM (SY2Kh)

99

A thousands words of horror against nutty ole Ron Paul. All you had to say is "He's not RickPerry"!!!!

Posted by: GMB who is building his own maginot line at November 30, 2011 03:22 PM (wY55N)

100 Ron Paul would be the one GOP nom who would keep me home on Election Day.  Honestly.  I can't vote for an anti-Semite.


Write-in Hillary

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 30, 2011 03:22 PM (piMMO)

101 ace@84. true that, I guess. I've only watched Perry in debates, and my feelings when he speaks are (a) he sounds like W which is going to scare the soccer moms or something and (b) wondering if the stripper stories are going to surface once he secures the nomination or in october 2012. Maybe he speaks pretty in interviews, don't know. Is the "she" a reference to P or B? Avoiding the write-in-Palin stuff, I've always thought that -aside from lying her ass off about liquid whore - B sounds pretty and knows her stuff. But who knows, she apparently has crazy eyes and is the queen of rage (and is, anyway, unelectable) damn, have any of us considered hunstman or Santorum?

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:22 PM (QxSug)

102 Hi everybody.......... Myself and a few proud residents of Brattleboro are in New York tonight to be with Presadant Obama at the Winter Holiday Tree event. We are so excited to be hear with our Prasedent and will be celebrating all evening. Good bye for now and I will write about this great event when I get back to the grate state of Vermont........

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at November 30, 2011 03:22 PM (Te1S8)

103 Totally Irrational, I busted a nut laughing at the "Dr. Cain" reference in the Gut thread. Hilarious.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:23 PM (nj1bB)

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 03:23 PM (I2LwF)

105 95 There's a guy at the place I work who makes upwards of 10k a month selling Ron Paul stuff.

Seriously?  Hmm....  maybe this Ron Paul fellow isn't so bad after all

Posted by: chemjeff looking into his empty wallet at November 30, 2011 03:23 PM (s7mIC)

106 Okay, so Knute, the private citizen, was paid to be a lobbyist.  Did he earn his pay?  Did he produce?

Ideological hypocrisy aside, Knute certainly was hired for his insider's understanding of the process and professional connections, but could one or should one consider this to be a betrayal of morality or the act of a mercenary?

Posted by: Fritz at November 30, 2011 03:23 PM (FabC8)

107 81 @ 31 My sister's cat is named Matt Damon. Is this you?

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 08:16 PM (g8Wdt)


Hi elizabethe!!!  I like you better than your sister.  Purrrr......

Posted by: MATT DAMON at November 30, 2011 03:23 PM (/izg2)

108 I'm active in local republican politics in a solidly Dem county with a Hispanic majority.
In the last several months many people have made a point to tell me, completely unprompted, that they will not vote for Obama.
I believe whoever runs against him will win walking away

Posted by: Pecos, All Perry, all the time at November 30, 2011 03:23 PM (2Gb0y)

109 Ron Paul racecar spatula overdose from mining the cavity fighting medicine cabinet! Let Newt just dancing for light bulb cheese because charcoal fonts and close the book.

Bastards.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (Qxdfp)

110 93 Why in fuck hell does nobody in the GOP primary ever go after Romney? EVER?

Instead we see a long line of candidates sucking Mittens dick, with the possible exception of Perry.


They want to be in his Administration.

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (d6QMz)

111 "She" was a reference to Palin and O'Donnell. Bachmann is neither dim nor underprepared. If I were going on preparation and general smoothness, I'd go with her, frankly. It's the other stuff. The crazypants. The "of Satan" stuff.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (nj1bB)

112 >>>How exactly will Newt implode?   More than maybe any of the others, he's a known quantity.  We've known he's a philanderer for years.  We've seen his flip-flops.  He's been smeared by the media for almost 20 years, both fairly and unfairly.  He's known to be an arrogant jackass.

No.  This is wrong.  YOU know these things.  WE know these things.  We are a minority of a minority: hardcore political conservative GOP voters who are ALSO very politically informed.  That describes *maybe* 10% of the nation (probably less).

The rest of the country?  They have no idea about Gingrich's baggage.  They may vaguely know that he has "issues."  They have no idea whatsoever about what those issue exactly are. 

And they will not forgive them the way certain True Conservatives -- motivated purely by ideology and/or cultural resentments -- will.  To claim that Newt's issues are already "priced in" is disastrously wrong.  Hey, you don't have to take my word for it: if we're dumb enough to nominate this shithead, we're all going to find out rather definitively when the overwhelming majority of voters begin to engage sometime around the time of the GOP convention.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (hIWe1)

113 There's a guy at the place I work who makes upwards of 10k a month selling Ron Paul stuff.  Those followers of his are a dedicated bunch.

This "stuff" is sold by the 1/8th ounce, isn't it?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (SY2Kh)

114 If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, I will vote for him.    But that is highly unlikely.  I will vote for anyone, ANYONE to beat Obama.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (O3R/2)

115 Seriously?

Yup.  10k a month. The good doctor is a cash cow.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (P6QsQ)

116 My take is that there is a certain amount of feeling at the base of the GOP that the leadership has compromised us into the current situation, and that their leadership chops should be highly suspect. Further, the GOP establishment has been overwhelmingly disdainful of the Tea Party folks who -- as noted -- managed to move the Overton window even if they pissed off some people in the process. Accordingly, Romney was doomed when he became the "establishment" choice.

Posted by: cthulhu at November 30, 2011 03:24 PM (kaalw)

117

Everything you say about Paul is true and I'd still vote for him, and campaign for him, and I'm thinking I might vote for him in the primaries.

The reason is simple.

He is the only politician in this country who is treating our current financial situation as an emergency requiring drastic measures to resolve.

The other guys are still in focus group mode.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 03:25 PM (epBek)

118 120

Don't tell him that or he'll make a hamburger out of his leg.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at November 30, 2011 03:25 PM (Qxdfp)

119 Hey, take it easy on the crazy old anti-semite.  He's not-Romney, of the body he is says Landrew.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 03:25 PM (dBvlk)

120 I think I'll vote Bachmann. ****** Bachmann today said she would close our embassy in Tehran. Well that oughta be easy-talk about pre-emptively keeping your campaign promises.... And don't forget girls and boys-she's on the Intel Committee!

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 03:26 PM (rJVPU)

121 I am giving Gingrich a second look for a couple of reasons. Perry doesn't seem to be recovering. Newt is smart and articulate, someone who can compete with the slickness of TOTUS and who crushes him on substance. The evidence that Newt is "not really a conservative" is equivocal. He is surely more conservative than Mitt or Barry.
Ron Paul? I can't go as far as Ace. The nation would survive 4 years of Paul. I don't think it will survive 4 more of SCOAMF. Anyway the entire Paul discussion is like how many angels can dance on a pin - he ain't getting the nomination.

Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 03:26 PM (w7Lv+)

122 Hunstman sounded like an asshole for sounding like a smug and ignorant (but I repeat myself) democrat on global warming. But the blogging powers that be have the idea that H is a RINO, and what do I know, but his non-asshole answers in the debates thus far sound g ok-ish. But, are we being closed minded in shopping for a candidate who hits every point on our shopping list? I was all in on Romney in 2008, but now he's a RINO too. Finally, there's no room for more SCOAMF, he's filling up the judiciary and DOJ with raging commies. Has to be stopped.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:26 PM (QxSug)

123

Tim Tebow?  Never head of him.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at November 30, 2011 03:26 PM (I2LwF)

124 What is Ron Paul's signature accomplishment after his many, many years of being a Congressman?  Like Joe Biden, he's been there for years but not known to have done anything.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:27 PM (MMC8r)

125 Anyone have a Cliff Notes version?  ;-)

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 03:27 PM (5H6zj)

126 98 Ron Paul would be the one GOP nom who would keep me home on Election Day.  Honestly.  I can't vote for an anti-Semite.


I'm glad he's retiring. About time. Though Rep. Justin Amash is currently trying to out-Paul Paul in terms of voting.

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 03:27 PM (d6QMz)

127 Shrimp-Jeff inc?


Just don't tell the fine waitresses at Fapplebee's.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 03:27 PM (/izg2)

128

I was all in on Romney in 2008, but now he's a RINO too.

I was, too.  The difference is that in 2008, Romney was the most-conservative of the top contenders.  This year, he's the least-conservative.

OTOH, it is his turn...

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 03:28 PM (I2LwF)

129 ... anybody read all that? I didn't. I'll vote for the Grinch!

Posted by: chunky at November 30, 2011 03:28 PM (o1FK0)

130 >>>Ideological hypocrisy aside, Knute certainly was hired for his insider's understanding of the process and professional connections, but could one or should one consider this to be a betrayal of morality or the act of a mercenary? On becoming a lobbyist? Guy had to leave his job at age 55 or whatever he was in 1998. What else was he going to do? I don't know, yes, professional creature of Washington. I guess that's bad. But that itself, to me, isn't really a killer, because, that's what they all freakin' do. Well not all but enough. It is kind of funny that he's running against DC. I'm more bothered about what he specifically lobbied for. Not that he lobbied, but that it was Fannie and Freddie, and what was that about, exactly? Medicare Part D I guess I can shrug at. The whole goddamned party, almost, was involved in that boondoggle. His dissembling about this is objectionable, but again, I kind of expect people to lie. Tell the truth: Don't you? I'm not even really all that bothered by the Cain affair stuff. I kind of expect it. No, I don't care that he's denying and I think he's lying; I expect it. But I can't say that this will HELP him in taking on Obama, now will it?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:28 PM (nj1bB)

131 They want to be in his Administration.

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 08:24 PM (d6QMz)

I think I might just stay home and drink heavily while watching the returns.

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2011 03:28 PM (jGDVS)

132 What type of election gear do you sell that makes you $10k/mo?

Shrimps - that is an intriguing proposition

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:28 PM (s7mIC)

133

"Bachmann today said she would close our embassy in Tehran."

Damn.  Cliff Clavin it is then. 

Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2011 03:28 PM (Tlix5)

134
As my Mom says, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But unlike a broken clock, Paul is batshit insane and the other 23 hours and 58 minutes a day he'll sodomize us with a pineapple while chanting for his drool cup.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at November 30, 2011 03:28 PM (Qxdfp)

135
This is the Ace Film Review thread, right?

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2011 03:29 PM (G+B5p)

136 That commercial sucks, btw.  Good clips, but badly edited, and the intro is pointless and takes way too long.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 03:29 PM (epBek)

137 **"She" was a reference to Palin and O'Donnell. ** Ok, in the dark corners of my soul, I know that COD, bless her unfairly maligned soul, cost us at least 6 senate seats in 2010, and fuck, we could've used them.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:29 PM (QxSug)

138 I want to state for the record, that the "Free Rider" problem is entirely a government created problem, so I have no sympathy for a government imposed mandate as a solution to that very problem they created.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 03:29 PM (GTbGH)

139 Bachmann is neither dim nor underprepared. If I were going on preparation and general smoothness, I'd go with her, frankly.

Bachmann needs to calm down a bit at times other than on issues about vaccination.  Check out this gaffe from today:

US Embassy in Iran? Michele Bachmann’s ‘Oops’ Moment

I know she knows better, but she got so caught up in the moment...

Posted by: Gary Johnson at November 30, 2011 03:30 PM (UR5vq)

140 when the overwhelming majority of voters begin to engage sometime around the time of the GOP convention.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 08:24 PM (hIWe1)


And herein lies the problem.  Uninformed voters.  Sheeple.  Stupid fkn bitches.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 03:30 PM (/izg2)

141 129 What is Ron Paul's signature accomplishment after his many, many years of being a Congressman?

He voted 'no' a lot.

Just like Bachmann.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:30 PM (s7mIC)

142 Bachmann today said she would close our embassy in Tehran.

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Reminder:  She sits on an intelligence committee.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 03:30 PM (SY2Kh)

143 See this again I think is a mistake. Ron Paul should be proving he's a better candidate than Gingrich against Obama, not that Gringrich is a rotten SOB. Attack Obama and show your greatness, not how lousy your rivals are.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 30, 2011 03:30 PM (r4wIV)

144

JeffB is right about Newt's baggage the average voter doesn't remember much about Newt other than he used to be in Congress....probably couldn't even remember he was speaker or from Georgia. Most probably think of him as a talking head on Fox. Bet your ass the "divorced wife on death bed" shit will come out in a hurry and be believed.

Posted by: kehoe at November 30, 2011 03:30 PM (Iy9jc)

145 137 What type of election gear do you sell that makes you $10k/mo?


Voting machines.  And its a lot more than ten grand a month.

Posted by: Diebold at November 30, 2011 03:31 PM (/izg2)

146

Ron Paul racecar spatula overdose from mining the cavity fighting medicine cabinet! Let Newt just dancing for light bulb cheese because charcoal fonts and close the book.

Bastards.

Relax. The chair isn't even close to the wall.

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 03:31 PM (4pSIn)

147 Attack Obama and show your greatness, not how lousy your rivals are.

Too late.  The form of the destroyer has been chosen for this primary cycle.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 03:31 PM (GTbGH)

148 Bachmann today said she would close our embassy in Tehran.

you can't be serious...
and this is a woman on the House Intelligence Committee?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:32 PM (s7mIC)

149 JamieNBCNews James Novogrod by allahpundit Bachmann tells Waverly IA crowd that were she president, "we wouldn't have an American embassy in Iran." The US broke ties w Iran in 1980. 3 hours ago

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 03:32 PM (rJVPU)

150

"Bachmann today said she would close our embassy in Tehran."

 

I think that was already taken care of about the time Led Zeppelin released "In Throught The Out Door".

 

That should pretty much end any talk of a "second look" at Bachmann...who I like....but at this point should drop out.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 30, 2011 03:32 PM (1P47F)

151 And they will not forgive them the way certain True Conservatives -- motivated purely by ideology and/or cultural resentments -- will.  To claim that Newt's issues are already "priced in" is disastrously wrong.

I'm not forgiving anything regarding Newt, but I'm saying that there is nothing there that can be a surprise to anyone.  Even someone who looks at himfor the first time will immediately have the whole laundry list and decades of newsprint detailing pretty much everything. Unlike Cain's revelation-of-the-day.

Unless Newt gets Bachmann's Crazee-Eyes and starts blaming the talking potatoes, I don't see what's going to be the grand revelation that makes him crash and burn.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:32 PM (MMC8r)

152 137 What type of election gear do you sell that makes you $10k/mo?

To be fair, he's a great artist. Name's Dan.
http://tinyurl.com/5n8l7u

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:32 PM (P6QsQ)

153 Ace; Concerning the "new" more emphatic take on immigration - six years ago very few of us had neighbors decapitated by Mexican nationals in their own goddamned yard. Six years ago, the Federal government wasn't, in effect, declaring entire states as persona non grata because they decided to make sure that the laws currently on the books be enforced. Six years ago, we thought that the government was constrained by the Constitution and that a majority of the office holders would at the very least feel like villains for violating it. It is all different today.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at November 30, 2011 03:32 PM (ffmSG)

154 Hollowpoint beat me to it
urgh that's nutso that she would say that

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:33 PM (s7mIC)

155 interesting conundrum...  if it was Paul vs. Bachmann... who would you vote for?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:33 PM (s7mIC)

156 damn, I hate it how our nominees make gaffes. The democrats never do that. They must be better than us.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:33 PM (QxSug)

157

Y-Not this will about sum it up for you...........

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 08:18 PM (nj1bB)

Posted by: Racefan at November 30, 2011 03:34 PM (8mZS+)

158

Sometimes I just think people are little bit nutty when they expect politicians to have always subscribed to Circa 2011 Conservative Orthodoxy.

But a candidate would be a complete whore to have once been a less-than-doctrinaire paleo! The only true conservative is one who only came on the scene after we decided what conservatism was for this cycle.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2011 03:34 PM (puy4B)

159 we wouldn't have an American embassy in Iran.

So which is it?  That she will close our embassy, or that she wouldn't have an embassy in Iran.  The first is, of course, ridiculous, the second, self-evident but rhetorical, I think.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 03:35 PM (GTbGH)

160

115 "She" was a reference to Palin and O'Donnell

Palin = O'donnell. That's seems like a stretch. I'll just take your word for it.

Posted by: Ronster at November 30, 2011 03:35 PM (/c/ec)

161 "In fact, this proposition was in fact so non-controversial that most people don't even remember it. There was not a big argument in the early-mid 2000s whether an individual mandate was "conservative.""

There was no real argument about it then because it was clearly unconstitutional and no one with a brain ever would have proposed it for a nationalization of health care.


"Bush was elected as president, twice, expressly running on this platform."

Bush's (and the GOP's) truly idiotic support of amnesty is much of what killed the GOP, before the Tea Party saved it from itself -- saved it so that it can now get back to trying to kill itself. 

It's enough to make a Speaker cry.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 03:35 PM (X3lox)

162 if it was Paul vs. Bachmann... who would you vote for?

The short chick > the old man in the ill-fitting suit, no hesitation.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 03:36 PM (GTbGH)

163 >>>It is all different today. but that doesn't undermine my point, does it? I''ve shifted right on immigraiton. It used to be a fairly low-level thing with me, and I didn't have firm ideas on it. I was squishy. "Whatever.' Now I'm not all the way to the farthest right on it but it's definitely a higher priority and I have some firm no-go items.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:36 PM (nj1bB)

164 @159, also recall that in 2006, RushL. unleashed holy hell on Congress when amnesty rumors came around. This shit's real, yo. The left no longer cares about anything. They pair up with LaRaza, they just want power. They see a potential voting block of a group of people loosely defined as "5.7 billion people not currently allowed to vote in American" and they think that they can find .01 billion of those to bring on in here and set-up a permanent hold on the country.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:36 PM (QxSug)

165 I believe Gingrich has a much better chance then Romney in the general. Mittbots are pissing themselves. They should seeing how Mitt cant do interviews for sh*t and Gingrich is up in the polls

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 30, 2011 03:37 PM (pMrYf)

166

We seem to have three groups of candidates: 

1) Those that can't refrain from saying dumb shit, 2) those that pandered to the left over the last six years, and 3) the group of rampant sex.  Pick somebody from group 2 or 3. 

Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2011 03:38 PM (Tlix5)

167 The mandate is a tactic to getting rid of Obama's (hastily, secretly, and sloppily written) single payer trojan horse. There may or may not be a medical coverage problem, but euro-style single payer shit systems aren't the solution.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:38 PM (QxSug)

168 171 I believe Gingrich has a much better chance then Romney in the general.

Dude, you weren't even out of diapers when Newt was Speaker
The rest of us remember that he wasn't all as brilliant as he now claims to be

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:38 PM (s7mIC)

169 There's that Joe Walsh song: Everybody's so different I haven't changed I don't think most people are aware that they themselves have shifted right. And I think that causes them to look at politicians' records and think "Oh dear lord, what was he thinking?" Well, he was probably thinking sort of what you were at the time, but maybe you've forgotten.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:38 PM (nj1bB)

170

@129: "What is Ron Paul's signature accomplishment after his many, many years of being a Congressman?  Like Joe Biden, he's been there for years but not known to have done anything."

Fuck that noise! He earmarked us some sweet Federal cashish!

Posted by: Texas Shrimpers at November 30, 2011 03:38 PM (jAqTK)

171 >>>And herein lies the problem.  Uninformed voters.  Sheeple.  Stupid fkn bitches.

Yeah, well do YOU have a magic wand we can wave to suddenly transform the masses into rational voters operating on perfect information? 

Didn't think so.  In the meantime, we operate under the constraints of reality, and shouldn't nominate a candidate who should "deserve to win" in a country where "the electorate was smart enough to understand its own best interests."

Because, I gotta tell you...that sounds awfully reminiscent of Marxist phraseology to me.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 03:39 PM (hIWe1)

172 The rest of us remember that he wasn't all as brilliant as he now claims to be

He was great in the minority.  A real flaming shit throwing backbencher.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 03:39 PM (GTbGH)

173 1) Those that can't refrain from saying dumb shit, 2) those that pandered to the left over the last six years, and 3) the group of rampant sex.

And why is it everyone from group (3) is a guy?  Why can't we have a hot Republican chick caught in a sex scandal?  And why can't the poor innocent victim of such sex scandal be me?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:39 PM (s7mIC)

174 Yes, a Texas Governor signed a politically-popular piece of legislation that allowed the children of illegals to attend Texas schools at the same cost other Texas residents paid. There was, I think, two dissenting votes on this, in the whole legislature. Politically Popular Governor Makes Move That Continues His Political Popularity; Film at 11. A policy that conforms with federal law, thus saving the State of Texas a costly, futile legal battle.

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2011 03:39 PM (elbGQ)

175

Somewhere today I heard Gingrich was the choice of the Tea Party.

NO, HE IS NOT!

I agree with Ace in that he is a Washington conservative. He will sound conservative but watch as he grows government. He will believe in the free market principles until he abandons them.

The Tea Party has no candidate in the Republican Presidential nomination contest.

Posted by: mantuaBill at November 30, 2011 03:40 PM (96j+b)

176 he'll sodomize us with a pineapple while chanting for his drool cup.

Pineapple?

WHERE!?!

Posted by: John Cleese, not at all concerned with poin-ted sticks at November 30, 2011 03:40 PM (7n+zT)

177 There was no real argument about it then because it was clearly unconstitutional and no one with a brain ever would have proposed it for a nationalization of health care.

As a long time listener to the enemy broadcasts from NPR I can assure you that national socialized medicine including the mandate has been on the left wing wish list at least as far back as the mid 80's.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 03:40 PM (dBvlk)

178 At any rate, since I'm talking about Great Red Shifts on Medicare and Fannie and Freddie, it's only fair to point out this happened on immigration, too.

Bush and much of the Republican establishment may have tried to sell us out on immigration, but they both opposed the out of control Fannie/Freddie scheme.

Both Bush and McCain tried to reign them in, and lost to a narrow majority of Democrats with just enough Republicans.

Posted by: 18-1 at November 30, 2011 03:40 PM (3aXbg)

179 And the mandate, and conservative's embrace of it, whether a mandate on a state level or a federal level wouldn't be the first time that conservatism and federalism bumped heads with each other. The libs love them some federalism when it comes to legalizing marijuana. But federalism is the rules/boundaries/ideals by which we americans should operate.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2011 03:40 PM (QxSug)

180 Well, he was probably thinking sort of what you were at the time, but maybe you've forgotten.

Nah .... I've always been pretty much out there on the fringe of the whacked out Christian right.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:41 PM (P6QsQ)

181 Dude, you weren't even out of diapers when Newt was Speaker
The rest of us remember that he wasn't all as brilliant as he now claims to be

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 08:38 PM (s7mIC)

You never went through a Romney governorship. Look, dont think newt is that great but he is better than Romney, if Perry can stop tripping over his dick that would help as well. Debates make up a lot of the Presidential gen race. I can see Gingrich punching Obama's lights out while Romney gets all huffy cause the moderator is going after him

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 30, 2011 03:41 PM (pMrYf)

182 "Incidentally, let me go on the record here: For any Paul fans who are thinking "This is his time," I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever."

Seconded.

Same goes for Romney.

Why, yes, I WOULD rather have Obama's second term instead of either of those gentlemen.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2011 03:42 PM (H3Kr3)

183 interesting conundrum...  if it was Paul vs. Bachmann... who would you vote for?

Cyanide.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 03:42 PM (SY2Kh)

184 My version of the Mandate is as follows:  If you don't pay for it, you don't get it. 

That's the Mandate of the Market.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:42 PM (MMC8r)

185

It's too bad Perry can't debate. Really. It's a flipping shame.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at November 30, 2011 03:42 PM (O7ksG)

186 154 Bachmann today said she would close our embassy in Tehran.

you can't be serious...
and this is a woman on the House Intelligence Committee?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 08:32 PM (s7mIC)


OK I'll be honest and say I haven't yet read HER reasons for doing this.  But off the top of my head I can't say its a bad idea.  The Brit's embassy just got overrun.  They invaded America's embassy there in 1979.  What's to say they won't do it again?  So we just leave all these defenseless state department employees hanging out in Tehran just waiting to be put on trial for spying?  I'm sure that will work out well.  Is the small but awesome force of Marines that provide security for the embassy supposed to fight to the death to protect them?

Pull them out and shut it down, it's pretty obvious that we are or are about to be at war with them.

And what do they do once Israel starts defending herself?  Any American or Jew within Iranian borders will be a big-ass target.

We want to keep our embassy in Iran open because we look forward to honest and productive negotiations?  Really?

Posted by: Diebold at November 30, 2011 03:42 PM (/izg2)

187 I still support Perry but he hasn't improved as much as I hoped he would.When he started out I chalked it up to needing to get caught up to speed.Well,he should be caught up by now.He is better in interviews than debates but that might not be enough.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 03:43 PM (7WJOC)

188 As a long time listener to the enemy broadcasts from NPR I can assure you that national socialized medicine including the mandate has been on the left wing wish list at least as far back as the mid 80's.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 08:40 PM (dBvlk)

Even THEY didn't think it was remotely Constitutional or would be accepted by America.  They just liked to dream about forcing it on us, somehow.  Well, that "somehow" washed up on our shores from the Far Pacific.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 03:43 PM (X3lox)

189 Fkn sock.  And I look forward to hearing why we should keep our embassy in Iran open.  Really.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 03:43 PM (/izg2)

190 I don't think most people are aware that they themselves have shifted right.

 I have a friend who grew up in Kansas, but now lives in Oregon.  She is a mainstream Oregonian now, meaning, reliably progressive.  But her family in Kansas, from her description of it anyway, is quite conservative.  When she visits her family, she told me that it is as if her parents are "brainwashed by Fox News" and she said things like "I barely recognize them".  At the time I just thought she said stuff like that to get my conservative goat.  But now maybe it is because she has drifted left while her folks have drifted right, so the gulf has gotten a lot bigger even as the familial relationship has stayed the same.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:43 PM (s7mIC)

191

You never went through a Romney governorship.

You're a Masshole?

Posted by: fluffy, Masshole at November 30, 2011 03:43 PM (4pSIn)

192 Paul vs. Bachmann? Bachmann, easy. I just don't think she could win the election. In fact, my gut, which is always right, is completely sure she can't.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:43 PM (nj1bB)

193 The Muslim Brotherhood's party appeared to be leading Egypt's elections on Wednesday after 90 percent of the votes in a number of cities and provinces were counted, according to Al Jazeera. Egypt's Al Nour party, considered a radical Islamic party, appeared to be in second place behind the Muslim Brotherhood, and the centrist party is only in third place, according to Al Jazeera. The results show that the Muslim Brotherhood have become the strongest political force in the country since the fall of Hosni Mubarak, although it is still too early to announce whether they will enjoy the solid victory that has been expected, or whether they will see even greater success at the polls, as there are still votes to be counted, and this is only the first stage of Egypt's three-part elections Thank you Mr. Acavano!...urh I mean obama

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 03:44 PM (eCnLg)

194

We want to keep our embassy in Iran open because we look forward to honest and productive negotiations?  Really?

Posted by: Diebold at November 30, 2011 08:42 PM (/izg2)

Uhmmm we haven't had an embassy in Iran since 1979.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 03:44 PM (MtwBb)

195 It's too bad Perry can't debate. Really. It's a flipping shame.

Word.  And that he foolishly implied that I was a bigot.  I still think he would make the better president, so he is still my candidate, but that hurt.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 03:44 PM (GTbGH)

196 Zionism is not a religion, and anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. However, Judaism IS one of the world’s three, great religions – all Semitic in origin. Merry Christmas.

Posted by: Zionism_is_not_religion at November 30, 2011 03:44 PM (FpnQu)

197 >>>There was no real argument about it then because it was clearly unconstitutional and no one with a brain ever would have proposed it for a nationalization of health care.

Nobody except Newt Gingrich, that is.

And, not to drop credentials on you or anything, but as someone with a professional familiarity with Constitutional Law doctrine and precedent, I have to confess: nothing about the national mandate would really have been thought to be "clearly unconstitutional" in the climate of the 2000s.  Don't get me wrong -- I WISH it would have been, and in my opinion it should be, and I desperately want the precedents here to be dragged back towards a much more limited purview for federal power under the commerce clause -- but I'm just telling you straight, the idea that the individual mandate was/is unconstitutional was birthed into legal respectability pretty much singlehandedly by Randy Barnett of George Mason University in conjunction with GOP lawmakers and a few other conservative legal minds around 2009. 

Thank god for it...but I wouldn't be an honest scholar or lawyer if I pretended that idea of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, which SHOULD BE obviously true in a world I'd prefer to live in, wasn't actually very evident at all in legal world we actually occupy until the national revulsion towards the mandate plus some very clever lobbying and argumentation by smart legal minds made it quasi-plausible.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 03:45 PM (hIWe1)

198 169 >but that doesn't undermine my point, does it? ________ Nope, I was just answering your implied question of why this is now an emphatic need versus a more cerebral policy stand. The big thing is that now a lot of us are looking at the Way Things Are and realizing, quite strongly, that we are not in the middle of a common election cycle. We're desperately trying to avoid various types of cataclysms and dooms we see reflected in the near future. Things like death, slavery, anarchy, murder, and civil war. So yeah, that makes for the pressing need for someone to get bedrock serious. The real question I ask is : "Will this candidate be likely to slap people around and do the right thing? Or is this candidate a fucking pussy?" For me, that translates into "Is this candidate as conservative as we can get and as sharp as he is strong willed?" So far, I ain't been convinced yet about anyone. Except like you, I'd sooner eat a load of honey-roasted buckshot than vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at November 30, 2011 03:45 PM (ffmSG)

199

Poor little Acey.  Desparately spinning and grasping at straws in search of a viable candidate.

Doesn't matter much.  Neither of them will ever set foot in the White House unless it's on a guided tour with the rest of the old folks.

Posted by: carlito at November 30, 2011 03:45 PM (76BCT)

200 Then Bachmann also makes this slip up- It's a t this link at Hot Air in the post- http://tinyurl.com/78k7lop Watch the video it starts at the 1 minute and 40 second mark. Michelle Bachmann: ....he (Newt Gingrich) was sitting on the couch with Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying we needed to do something about Global Warming-now he's not so sure. He was also the father of the individual health care mandate and admitted as much on stage when when he was - questioned on stage by Newt Gingrich.... ******* Think Michelle Bachmann made a Freudian slip there.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 03:45 PM (rJVPU)

201

 

Newt hit the Stuerring Idiot pretty hard today, right after the Paul went after him...

I'm seeing a pattern.

“When he said he was a community  organizer, it wasn’t Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. It was radicalism  taught on the south side of Chicago by Saul Alinsky.”

Posted by: Rev Dr Carnac at November 30, 2011 03:45 PM (LWXG/)

202

I've been hard right on immigration since before it was cool, but Ace's description of how the party shifted fits with what I remember.

If I recall, I was into mandates as a way of sticking it to the deadbeats and I was okayish with Part D.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 03:45 PM (epBek)

203 And I look forward to hearing why we should keep our embassy in Iran open.  Really.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 08:43 PM (/izg2)



We don't have an embassy in Iran.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:45 PM (s7mIC)

204 Diebold, The gaffe is that we have no embassy in Teheran, and have not since they kidnapped our entire embassy staff in 1979. There is no embassy to shut down. It's definitely a duh thing. Then again, I could see not knowing this, or forgetting it. But... yeah still not super-reassuring. Outside the stuff she knows because she's studied (and she is good at that stuff), she does seem to be a bit weak.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:46 PM (nj1bB)

205 188Dude, you weren't even out of diapers when Newt was Speaker
The rest of us remember that he wasn't all as brilliant as he now claims to be

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 08:38 PM (s7mIC)

 

 

I'm 40, and I remember it well.  What I remember most is the smear campaign the drive-by media did on him.  I remember them reporting incessantly that Newt proposed to "cut" Medicare which was an outright lie.  In 1995 the internet wasn't much more than a curiousity.  Today the old guard press has a much smaller degree of influence, and because of the internet's relevance now it will be easier to cut through the bullshit.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 30, 2011 03:46 PM (1P47F)

206 anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism Yeah it usually is, sorry to say

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 03:46 PM (eCnLg)

207 Oh, also...

...that ad is outstanding.

Newt aint our guy either.

Seriously, I need a candidate I can get behind (and no, I'm not hinting at Palin. I don't want her as president just yet. VP, sure, but not president.)

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2011 03:46 PM (H3Kr3)

208

"I haven’t had a gaffe or something that I’ve done that has caused me to fall in the polls."

-Michelle Bachmann

Posted by: Doctor Fish at November 30, 2011 03:46 PM (Lt/Za)

209

Zionism is not a religion

Nor is it a dirty word. If you think it is, you are

a) a bigot

b) ignorant

c) both

Posted by: fluffy, Masshole at November 30, 2011 03:47 PM (4pSIn)

210

Posted by: Diebold at November 30, 2011 08:42 PM (/izg2)

The bigger question becomes... what is an embassy for in the Modern World?

With modern Transportation and Communication, its NOT for Governments to communicate with each other.... but more for a situation where one of our citizens in that country needs help... so they have a place to go...

But... should there be ANY American citizens in Iran?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 30, 2011 03:47 PM (NtXW4)

211

Why, yes, I WOULD rather have Obama's second term instead of either of those gentlemen.

OK. Because that may the last chance you get to vote.

Posted by: USS Diversity at November 30, 2011 03:47 PM (2sy9r)

212

Uhmmm we haven't had an embassy in Iran since 1979.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 08:44 PM (MtwBb)


Oh.  LOL well we fkn shouldn't.  Thanks for the 411.


Bachmann said that we did?  OK now I get it.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 03:47 PM (/izg2)

213 Enter the Paultards.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:48 PM (MMC8r)

214

How can you not vote for Paul if he's the nominee, Ace? Disgusting.

Seriously, I can't read this fucking blog anymore.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*because I hope to be on the Protected Rolls when Ron Paul's people come to rule this planet.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 03:48 PM (DiqH3)

215 Of course socialized medicine is constitutional, it's in that "freedom from" section, but yes your right they knew it wouldn't fly in the 80's.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 03:48 PM (dBvlk)

216 I can just imagine congress filled with an army of mike castles. Hell yeah!! There would be no point to have an opposition party, would there?

Posted by: GMB who is building his own maginot line at November 30, 2011 03:48 PM (wY55N)

217 The CIA and the 9/11 Commission are the sources for Paul's assertions about 9/11. Like him or not, Ron Paul speaks truth. The fact that people like Ace can't bear to hear it doesn't make it less true. And yeah, Newt was for TARP. Malkin has the quotes. Don't vote for Paul, fair enough, but ten bucks says you'll write a long whiny diatribe blaming :ideologues" and a lack of suitable devotion to the Party when middle America stays home instead of turning out to vote for more of the same crap we've been served for the past 20 years. I seriously hope the old fucker runs third party, just to piss you and yours off.

Posted by: Janie at November 30, 2011 03:48 PM (kvGX4)

218 Then again, I could see not knowing this, or forgetting it.

Even if you were a member of the House Intelligence Committee?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:48 PM (s7mIC)

219 >>>Word. And that he foolishly implied that I was a bigot. He was dumbassedly unprepared for some serious push on this issue -- and that was total dumbass shit -- and went to a desperate politician's go-to toolbox and picked out "Attempt emotional shaming or hectoring." I have to tell you I am baffled that Perry did not "get" this would be a problem. That more than anything is what makes me worry about him.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:48 PM (nj1bB)

220 I'm amazed at the tea leaf readers here who can definitely state what this candidate or that candidate will do if elected president. History can be a good indication, but it is not definite.

Posted by: Ronster at November 30, 2011 03:49 PM (/c/ec)

221

Fkn sock.  And I look forward to hearing why we should keep our embassy in Iran open.  Really.

We are having difficulty finding staff that speak fluent Iranian.

Posted by: Doh!bama at November 30, 2011 03:49 PM (GM96x)

222 >>>OK I'll be honest and say I haven't yet read HER reasons for doing this.  But off the top of my head I can't say its a bad idea.

I'd say a pretty strong argument against it is that the United States hasn't HAD an embassy in Tehran since the hostage crisis in 1980, and therefore has nothing to "close" in the first place.  You know, you might remember -- that little international incident that decisively torpedoed Jimmy Carter's reelection? 

I mean, no big deal or anything.  Not like it was a major foreign policy crisis that decisively altered the course of American history or anything like that.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 03:49 PM (hIWe1)

223

But... should there be ANY American citizens in Iran?

 

Forward Air Controllers with huge brass balls.

Posted by: fluffy, Masshole at November 30, 2011 03:49 PM (4pSIn)

224 Without Part D, Bush loses the olds in Florida, which he won by 500 votes.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2011 03:50 PM (puy4B)

225

 

 

Sweet bias the National Journal. Check this shit out.

"GOP candidate links Obama to famed organizer that tea party now emulates."

Oh yeah...wow.

http://bit.ly/sK2rYs 

Posted by: Rev Dr Carnac at November 30, 2011 03:50 PM (LWXG/)

226 "Bachmann today said she would close our embassy in Tehran." I think that was already taken care of about the time Led Zeppelin released "In Throught The Out Door". ******** Holy crap-was it that long ago?

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 03:50 PM (rJVPU)

227 Forward Air Controllers with huge brass balls. shit, someone knows their stuff...

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 03:51 PM (rJVPU)

228 but I'm just telling you straight, the idea that the individual mandate was/is unconstitutional was birthed into legal respectability pretty much singlehandedly by Randy Barnett of George Mason University in conjunction with GOP lawmakers and a few other conservative legal minds around 2009. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 08:45 PM (hIWe1)

You're kidding, right?  Anyone with a brain knew it was unconstitutional, un-American, and just outright stupid and repulsive as national policy.  It rubbed any American the wrong way from the very first time they'd hear about it.  It goes against American culture.  Your particular circle might not have ever thought it unconstitutional, or just not considered it, but that's just a comment on who you are hanging out with, I think.  The rest of have known it was unconstitutional since the first time we ever heard of it.  Even the libs knew how Americans would react to the idea, and it scared them.  It's not really a tough call, you know.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 03:51 PM (X3lox)

229 If Perry had fucking hired me to be his debate coach, I would have brought him to tears -- with no cameras on us -- on immigration, and he would have been prepared for the real thing. Who prepared him, I don't know. Some idiot who was afraid to confront the boss and wound up screwing him.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:51 PM (nj1bB)

230 interesting conundrum...  if it was Paul vs. Bachmann... who would you vote for?

I'd take Ace's advice and write in Sarah Palin's name.
Anti-Semitism is a deal killer with me.

Posted by: jwb7605 at November 30, 2011 03:52 PM (Qxe/p)

231 eh screw that that lets perry off the hook. It is his job to understand the basics of politics.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:52 PM (nj1bB)

232

But... should there be ANY American citizens in Iran?

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 30, 2011 08:47 PM (NtXW4)


No.  Which is the point I was trying to make.  I guess I just thought Obama had followed through on his campaign promise to dialogue with them and we somehow got the keys back....

Posted by: NC Ref at November 30, 2011 03:52 PM (/izg2)

233 The thing I worry about with Newt is if he gets power he'll think he is smart enough to tweak things until they work, instead of shrinking the whole mess.  All in the name of reaching across the couch to get things done, for your own good.  I sure did like him back in the '90s, these days I'm not so sure.

Posted by: kurtilator at November 30, 2011 03:52 PM (juh4Z)

234

You know, you might remember -- that little international incident that decisively torpedoed Jimmy Carter's reelection? 

OMG! The rabbit was from Iran?

Posted by: Cicerokid at November 30, 2011 03:52 PM (GM96x)

235 Posted by: Janie at November 30, 2011 08:48 PM (kvGX4)

Thanks for fulfilling the Ron Paul supporter = Truther stereotype for us.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 03:52 PM (SY2Kh)

236 Anyone, and I mean ANYONE on here who will be voting for Ron Paul should be kicked in the nuts. "Moron" is not a label we use here in a literal sense.

Posted by: Chris R, red in NY-9 at November 30, 2011 03:52 PM (vnZ0e)

237 Bachmann has no dick,yet she consistently manages to step on it.Perry's dick must be quite swollen and bruised as well.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 03:53 PM (7WJOC)

238 02:56Obama: 'No ally more important than Israel' (AP) Hum last year he said it was the France. I guess the British are out of the running? Or as obama refers to them, the "english". And this schmuck got elected President? Shit I need another drink

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 03:53 PM (eCnLg)

239 Actually 'the rabbit" was a rabid Persian cat....

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 03:53 PM (rJVPU)

240
I seriously hope the old fucker runs third party, just to piss you and yours off.

He'll draw off the OWS types that the Left is counting on,so I'm fine with it.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:53 PM (MMC8r)

241 Part of the deal with running is too skillfully take down your opponent. Lets see if Mitt has what it takes without looking like a DNC member. Also- until Newts gets indicted for a crime regarding his lobbying or foundation, I'm not interested how it "looks" considering who we're running against.

Posted by: jjshaka at November 30, 2011 03:54 PM (8g5xG)

242 okay... how about:  Paul vs. Huntsman?  who would you vote for then?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:54 PM (s7mIC)

243 Few things:

We ...DO...have an embassy "building" in Iran...it just hasn't been occupied by us for 30 years....i think Iran is using it to train their version of the republican guard.

Newt: As a spouse of someone that has gone through a conversion I can honestly say that I do trust him. Now. I do believe he has shed his uncle sugar ways and it is up to you/us to let go of our MEDIA engrained biases. ahem.

Perry -- keep him away from spur of the moment items and he is fine.


Anyways, it matters not to me whether you want to give Newt another chance. The marriages...dont care. Medi-D -- don't care. All I care about is what he will do from being elected and onwards.

All that other previous shit: Just. Doesn't. Matter.

Posted by: exsanguine at November 30, 2011 03:54 PM (I+thf)

244 really.... oh people "just know." Okay. In the real world, what is and is not constitutional is determined, in an official "this is the rule that will be imposed on you, with the full coercive power of the state" by judges. I know you can intuit these things but last time I checked "really..."'s holding would not cut any ice with police or prosecutors. Why don't you just accept that someone in the law knows more about current jurisprudence than you? Oh right we're all equal. No one's really an expert. We're all equally knowledgable about everything.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:54 PM (nj1bB)

245

and went to a desperate politician's go-to toolbox and picked out "Attempt emotional shaming or hectoring."

I hadn't considered that. I went with "Take this chance to ingratiate myself with all the worst people". That and palling around with Sheriff Joe pretty much toasted the guy for me.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2011 03:54 PM (puy4B)

246

Ron Paul's candidacy is being harmed by Ace's constant criticism and Paul's batshit lunacy, but mostly by his batshit lunacy.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 03:54 PM (DiqH3)

247 All of our best conservatives are bloggers.  Too bad 98.7% of them have arrest records/ are alcoholics / have hobbies like roasting hobos over an open fire / have previously been involuntarily committed.  Otherwise they'd make great Presidential candidates.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:55 PM (P6QsQ)

248 Who prepared him, I don't know. Some idiot who was afraid to confront the boss and wound up screwing him.

From what I understand he largely used his TX campaign staff.

It was (in hindsight) a mistake, even if it's common practice.  I have to wonder if they thought the illegal immigration issue would play the same nationally as it does in Texas.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 03:55 PM (SY2Kh)

249 exsanguine, interesting trivia -- I guess we still own it, right? Technically. I didn't think of that. But still, really, that's not what Bachmann was thinking... though I can see her claiming that's what she meant.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:55 PM (nj1bB)

250 #135 Ace, let me put you some knowledge about the people who "lobbied" for Fannie and Freddie. Most of them did two things: 1. Jack 2. Shit Fannie and Freddie had their own in-house lobbyists who did the real lobbying. Fannie had Jim Johnson and then Frank Raines who were their uber-lobbyists. Freddie had a guy named Mitch Delk who was one of the most effective lobbyists in town. Then they went and threw around millions of dollars all over DC hiring everyone who wasn't already under contract to one of the big banks. Why? Because they could. They had a carpet-bombing policy that left no lobbyist unemployed. They hired people just to keep their opponents from hiring them. I am telling you, I was a lobbyist for one of Freddie Mac's biggest customers from 2001 to 2004, and for one of Fannie's biggest customers from 2004 to 2008, and I never knew Freddie had Newt Gingrich as a consultant. I went to dozens of fundraisers they gave for Republicans and Newt wasn't at any of them. Besides, the reason legislation to rein in Fannie and Freddie never went anywhere was because of the Democrats in the House and Senate who were being massively paid off by Fannie. A really, really big culprit that nobody ever talks about was Paul Sarbanes, who controlled the Senate Banking Committee. He was completely in the tank for Fannie. Republicans never had the votes to get a reform bill out of committee in the Senate, and none of the Republicans in the House were going to make their members walk the plank and draw the wrath of Fannie - and of the Realtors and Homebuilders who always took their side - by passing a bill they knew would die in the Senate. So the worst you can say about Newt is that he milked Freddie Mac out of a million bucks to do basically nothing.

Posted by: rockmom at November 30, 2011 03:55 PM (A0UFZ)

251

I read Milton Friedman in the 60s, and later (but before there was a Tea Party) Sowell, Hayek, and von Mises. I never supported Medicare, Medicaid, the prescription drug benefit, Food Stamps, or subsidized housing, so I'm hardly late to the Tea Party, and I do NOT have to forgive those who were. I get to call them all (except Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Johnson) shifty, spineless, slimy jellyfish. And crooked (Perry's vaccine contracts, Gingrich's Fannie Mae consuting).  As a loyal ZPG'er since 1971, I support the "build a wall" school of immigration policy. Perry's "You have no heart" is not just a bad endorsement of bad immigration policy, it's a dimwitted " 'Fuck you' if you disagree with me" response that I'll now expect in response to any disagreement, when he can't explain himself.  

Did Ace ever explain his antipathy toward Palin? I did not see it. Since Cain and Bachmann get the same cold shoulder, it looks like (a) he's a closet RINO supporter or (b) he's got something against Christians. What's (c)..., Ace? You backed yourself into this corner. Why?

Concur about Ron Paul. I would not mind 20 more of him in Congress, but even a Cabinet post is too much executive authority to give him.     

Posted by: Malcolm Kirkpatrick at November 30, 2011 03:55 PM (LJl1D)

252 238 If Perry had fucking hired me to be his debate coach, I would have brought him to tears -- with no cameras on us -- on immigration, and he would have been prepared for the real thing.

That is why Perry did so poorly.  Some guy DID bring Perry to tears in private.  That's when Perry brought out his gun.

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 03:55 PM (s7mIC)

253 All of our best conservatives are bloggers. Too bad 98.7% of them have arrest records/ are alcoholics / have hobbies like roasting hobos over an open fire / have previously been involuntarily committed. Otherwise they'd make great Presidential candidates. Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 08:55 PM (P6QsQ) Sounds a lot like the resume of a Chicago Cubs Fan also?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 03:56 PM (eCnLg)

254 Ace, thanks for the post. Excellent and full of useful reminders! I just wanted to note that the largest problem I think Newt has relative to Romney (or Perry, I guess) is that he was never a Governor of a state, and is more of a "congressperson" (or was known as that, at least). Not sure if that's something that's going to fly in this particular election. I think people are going to be able to easily understand the concept "hmm, hiring a congressperson to CIC didn't work out very well" . . . and certainly his having been a lobbyist doesn't help, either.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 03:56 PM (SB0V2)

255 "Why, yes, I WOULD rather have Obama's second term instead of either of those gentlemen.

OK. Because that may the last chance you get to vote."


Don't let your tinfoil hat get too tight, Sparky. We're a long way from that...


...and if it does actually come to that, I welcome it. Let him try to take my vote away. Let him declare himself emperor of America. That way we can hold a re-revolution and restore the Republic to its former greatness.


Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2011 03:57 PM (H3Kr3)

256

If Perry had fucking hired me to be his debate coach, I would have brought him to tears -- with no cameras on us -- on immigration, and he would have been prepared for the real thing.

 

Why didn't you come to him like a fucking man and tell him he was unprepared for the debates?


Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 03:57 PM (DiqH3)

257

You mean the individual mandate you cooked up at Heritage?

I wish he would just respond with, "Yes, that was a mistake--one you followed me in making and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge."

"The American people didn't want this health care legislation--they spoke loudly and clearly to that effect before your Democratic party rammed it through and you signed it, all without reading it."

"I will respect their wishes and admit my own mistake. If elected, the first order of business will be to repeal this monstrous bill. That's a promise."

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 03:57 PM (D30E/)

258 "Concur about Ron Paul. I would not mind 20 more of him in Congress, but even a Cabinet post is too much executive authority to give him. "

Spot on.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2011 03:58 PM (H3Kr3)

259 Newt is ahead for one reason,  and one reason only:  he can talk in a debate format and used that format to attack the media,  which I think almost everyone hates.

If Obama doesn't debate what is Newt's advantage?  Ads won't be able to convey his ideas or his explanations,  because the time is limited.  Meanwhile,  the media are furiously going through their archives to bring up embarrassing statements he made,  whining complaints about Clinton that he was fond of uttering, hypocritical statements about Clinton's private life,  etc.

How much money does he have?  Does it look like he can raise more?  Who are his friends?  What does Callista do to earn money?

Not saying I won't vote for him if he wins,  but I am not looking forward to the general campaign if he gets the nomination.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 30, 2011 03:58 PM (GoIUi)

260 You know why the hell is Ron Paul polling better this time around... I know SurveyUsa is changing their methodology to include more cell phone users because they have bought into the whole-Democrats are under represented when only land line users are polled. Cell phone users are probably younger-but do they vote in the same percentage they would answer a survey? Will they do a four hour caucus in iowa?

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 03:58 PM (rJVPU)

261 okay... how about:  Paul vs. Huntsman?  who would you vote for then?

Huntsman, easy.

To be honest, I'm not sure he's that much less conservative than Romney or Newt.

Watching Newt, I very much get the impression that he's still very much in the "The Federal Government can solve all our problems" camp.  Federalist he ain't.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 03:58 PM (SY2Kh)

262

The loon.

Official birdcall of the RonPaul! campaign.

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 30, 2011 03:58 PM (4q5tP)

263 Bachmann has no dick,yet she consistently manages to step on it.Perry's dick must be quite swollen and bruised as well.

Cain keeps his protectively encased in co-workers.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 03:58 PM (MMC8r)

264 Sounds a lot like the resume of a Chicago Cubs Fan also? Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 08:56 PM


You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 03:58 PM (P6QsQ)

265 I do believe he has shed his uncle sugar ways

I've never seen anyone after exposure to the corrosive environment in DC (or Austin) get better with time, only worse.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 03:59 PM (dBvlk)

266 eh screw that that lets perry off the hook.

It is his job to understand the basics of politics.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 08:52 PM (nj1bB)

Yeah well you don't have a heart either.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 03:59 PM (MtwBb)

267 Jeff B. is a lawyer.  That explains so much.

Posted by: mpfs, I pop in, I pop out. Too much drama!!! at November 30, 2011 03:59 PM (bv3B0)

268 <blockquote>But still, really, that's not what Bachmann was thinking... though I can see her claiming that's what she meant.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 08:55 PM (nj1bB)</blockquote>


Well, with her you never know...she does tend to speak in hurried thoughts. Ie: she had  a coherent thought in the brain, it just didn't translate to mouth.

Posted by: exsanguine at November 30, 2011 03:59 PM (I+thf)

269 I have to tell you I am baffled that Perry did not "get" this would be a problem. That more than anything is what makes me worry about him.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 08:48 PM (nj1bB)

It has nothing to do with why he didn't "get" it.   He said what he felt.  Don't you get that?   Sometime those "gaffes" are not gaffes at all.   Now, he can come out and try to spin what he said, but when he said it, it was exactly how he felt about it.

That's what fucking pisses me off about it.   He truly belives that shit.

Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2011 03:59 PM (/W+SA)

270 It is his job to understand the basics of politics.

I honestly think that Perry was high.  That back surgery must have really hurt, and if that's it, it was the worst of timing.  Almost as bad as The Fred's cancer treatments.  That man looks better now, four years later, than he did in the campaign.  Alas, that was his one-and-only shot.

Perry has won too many elections to be that clueless.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 03:59 PM (GTbGH)

271 Is Bachmann Ron Paul Really Running For Mitt's VP Slot? I just kinda think that Newt could destroy Ron Paul while reciting Mitt's 59 points. ...in an improved order.

Posted by: t-bird at November 30, 2011 04:00 PM (FcR7P)

272 Can I get a one-sentence summary?

Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2011 04:01 PM (P1nni)

273 I am categorically against giving in-state tuition to the children of illegal aliens.

Posted by: The Cowardly Lion at November 30, 2011 04:01 PM (I2LwF)

274 >>>You're kidding, right?  Anyone with a brain knew it was unconstitutional, un-American, and just outright stupid and repulsive as national policy.  It rubbed any American the wrong way from the very first time they'd hear about it.  It goes against American culture.  Your particular circle might not have ever thought it unconstitutional, or just not considered it, but that's just a comment on who you are hanging out with, I think.

All that means it that you hang out with people who have no familiarity with American law, specifically American constitutional law, and specifically Commerce Clause jurisprudence.  (In other words, your "layman's" opinion is worthless -- I don't mean that as an insult so much as I mean that your "gut feeling" about what's 'obvious' in terms of ConLaw is about as useful as your lay opinion on brain surgery.  If you don't know the rather knotty and non-intuitive precedents that govern these issues, you don't know shit about dick.)  Because I guarantee you -- and I know Ace is a lawyer so he can back me up on this too -- that even in the post-Lopez and Morrison world the federal regulatory power under the Commerce Clause was/is insanely broad (just read Scalia's abhorrent opinion in Raich for confirmation of that), and that the distinction (first articulated by Barnett) about action vs. inaction is one previously unrecognized and unaddressed by any legal precedent.

You need to understand something that I tried to emphasize in my earlier post that you (predictably) elided entirely: this isn't the way I want it to be.  This isn't something I approved of.  When I learned about this line of cases I thought to myself "this is some bullshit!"  But it's the way it is, or at least was.  If anything, it proves the maxim that the Supreme Court is far more responsive to public sentiment and the "zeitgeist" than they are ever willing to admit: it's only now remotely conceivable that SCOTUS could strike down the individual mandate because of the immense backlash against Obamacare in public opinion polls (which itself strikes me as a lucky thing -- more related to the concurrent economic distress we're in rather than a deep-seated principle from the majority of Americans).  I can guarantee you that if the mandate were overwhelmingly popular that the Court would never strike it down.  That's reality.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 04:01 PM (hIWe1)

275 Newts on hannity now. Newt is also a Dick, always has been. Everytime he opens his mouth he reminds me of a fucking professor explaining to me like I was a 3 year old.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 04:01 PM (MtwBb)

276 Oh, shit, no that is me who's against it

Posted by: The Tin Woodsman at November 30, 2011 04:01 PM (I2LwF)

277 269 History is littered with the dead bodies of candidates who counted on the youth vote. Whats interesting about Abe Simpsons DNC ad on Newt is why? Who promised him a lot of silver dimes? Personal animosity? Interesting if nothing else.

Posted by: jjshaka at November 30, 2011 04:02 PM (8g5xG)

278 Can I get a one-sentence summary?

Hang 'em all.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 04:02 PM (P6QsQ)

279 "Concur about Ron Paul. I would not mind 20 more of him in Congress, but even a Cabinet post is too much executive authority to give him. " Treasury Secretary, just for grins?

Posted by: t-bird at November 30, 2011 04:02 PM (FcR7P)

280 Sounds a lot like the resume of a Chicago Cubs Fan also? Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 08:56 PM You say that like it's a bad thing. Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 08:58 PM (P6QsQ) Not at all. My favorite Cubs fan is one of the Navy Corpsman in my Unit serving her second tour of duty in Afgansitan.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 04:03 PM (eCnLg)

281

Concur about Ron Paul. I would not mind 20 more of him in Congress

What for? He has done nothing in Congress. Nothing. He's been there since the 19th century and he has never tried to clean up the mess.

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 04:03 PM (4pSIn)

282 Treasury Secretary, just for grins?

RON PAUL FOR FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 04:03 PM (s7mIC)

283 Uh.... I just got a disturbing email.  Naked pictures of Obama's mother.
anyone else get this email?
Is it real?

I am going to research this.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at November 30, 2011 09:00 PM (qjUnn)

There are some out there.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 04:03 PM (MtwBb)

284

If Obama doesn't debate what is Newt's advantage?

If Obama doesn't debat Newt, then he'll have a grand time mocking The One and calling him out for being a coward.

Obama can't get away with not having a debate with the Republican candidate.

And if you think he can, then what is Mitt's advantage if Obama won't debate him?

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 04:04 PM (D30E/)

285 @: Bret Baier: Romney told me my questions were "uncalled for" - http://t.co/kyF5bcQ6

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 04:04 PM (d6QMz)

286

(A) Don't let your tinfoil hat get too tight, Sparky. We're a long way from that...

(B)...and if it does actually come to that, I welcome it. Let him try to take my vote away. Let him declare himself emperor of America. That way we can hold a re-revolution and restore the Republic to its former greatness.

Part A.....think so, huh? Nothing you've seen in the last few years gives that type of concern any credibility?

Part B I agree with.

Posted by: USS Diversity at November 30, 2011 04:04 PM (2sy9r)

287 Uh.... I just got a disturbing email. Naked pictures of Obama's mother. anyone else get this email? Is it real? I am going to research this. Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at November 30, 2011 09:00 PM (qjUnn) There are some out there. Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 09:03 PM (MtwBb) Actually I remember hearing they are not real, but then i don't really give a shit or want to see them

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2011 04:04 PM (eCnLg)

288 Not at all.

Just pullin' yer leg there, nevergiveup - forgot my sarc tag

But now that you mention it, it is kind of remarkable how many points on that list are also included on my resume.....

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2011 04:04 PM (P6QsQ)

289 251 okay... how about:  Paul vs. Huntsman?  who would you vote for then?

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 08:54 PM (s7mIC)

Empire of Jeff / Lacey 2012

Posted by: Racefan at November 30, 2011 04:04 PM (8mZS+)

290 279 You know I Youtubed Perry months ago just to see his style and what popped up was an attack ad by Kay Bailey Hutchinson that focused on guess what- a terrible debate performance against her- complete with stammering etc. Had a bad feeling then.

Posted by: jjshaka at November 30, 2011 04:05 PM (8g5xG)

291 Oy Vey! I'm becoming a Paulbot! Never thought it could happen, and his foreign policy is naive, but....

We don't face an existential threat from the middle east. We do face an existential threat from bloated government and unaffordable entitlements.  I'll choose the candidate who can address the domestic, fiscal stuff effectively, 'cause if we keep blowing out the size and scope of government and its borrowing, then foreign policy doesn't even move the needle.

I wish it were Perry, but he's sadly an inarticulate crony capitalist. Newt is entertaining, but having whored himself out to fannie or freddie, he's not it. ugh.


Posted by: Luke Duke at November 30, 2011 04:06 PM (PKRQS)

292 I am currently in soft support mode for Gingrich, mainly because I think Perry is dead in the water. If Perry should show signs of life before I vote in the SC primary then I'll jump on board, but for now it's Gingrich. And not because I think Gingrich is the great conservative hope, but because I don't want Romney. Gingrich can at least claim to have espoused conservative principles and ideas long before he ever decided to run for President.

As for his past foibles (Medicare Part D, the couch, market solutions to "global warming," etc.) these are things that have rubbed me the wrong way on Gingrich for quite some time. He's a guy who unfortunately too often looks at things through the prism of political victory and has pushed these ideas as a means of killing the issue. Gingrich does it because he thinks it helps the GOP win elections by taking the issue off the table and preventing the Democrats from campaigning on it, but I don't like it because it ends up ceding ground to the liberals.

Having said that, the main difference I see in Gingrich vs. Romney is that Gingrich is happily and directly combative whereas Romney is Greg Marmalard (a sneaky little shit).

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 30, 2011 04:06 PM (diO4R)

293

Think its legit?


Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at November 30, 2011 09:04 PM (qjUnn)

dunno but if it's the same ones they turned up before he got elected

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 04:06 PM (MtwBb)

294 And when the angel opened the seventh seal, a trumpet sounded with a nasally twang, and I saw a beast with the likeness of Sarah Palin come forth to proclaim its third party candidacy and it slew Babylon's chances of unseating the SCOAMF.  And the number of disgusted voters who stayed home were 10 million and twenty.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 04:07 PM (DiqH3)

295
We don't face an existential threat from the middle east.

Of course not.

Posted by: Mahmoud Ahminejahd at November 30, 2011 04:07 PM (MMC8r)

296 Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 09:01 PM (hIWe1)

Jeff, I believe you're making the common lawyer mistake of confusing "constitutional" with "what the SC says is constitutional". There's a difference.

The current interpretation of the "interstate commerce clause" is insanely broad and overreaching, but the original text and intent isn't.

That "interstate commerce" is currently interpreted to include purely intrastate commerce doesn't make that interpretation constitutional in the minds of us non-lawyer types.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 04:07 PM (SY2Kh)

297 285 Yes,and that's why he supports big goverment.He thinks HE is smart enough to make it work.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 04:07 PM (7WJOC)

298 exsanguine So you think Tehran recognizes our sovereignty over the building? What's Bachmann going to do-bulldoze it? ...oy.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 04:08 PM (rJVPU)

299

 I'll choose the candidate who can address the domestic, fiscal stuff effectively

Ron Paul didn't do his job in the house, what makes you think he will do his job in the White House?

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 04:08 PM (4pSIn)

300  274 I do believe he has shed his uncle sugar ways

I've never seen anyone after exposure to the corrosive environment in DC (or Austin) get better with time, only worse.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 08:59 PM (dBvlk)


Well, I do say that with my faith behind me. If you aren't Catholic...or have not witnessed someone who has converted to Catholicism,  you won't quite get it, and that's fine.


But as I said in closing; there are some hammered in biases, in conservatives, from the media lambasting in the 90's and still today that persist in tainting Newt. Whereas I have a completely different view of him , knowing what he has gone through as a convert. It is all a matter of perspective.



Posted by: exsanguine at November 30, 2011 04:09 PM (I+thf)

301 You need to understand something that I tried to emphasize in my earlier post that you (predictably) elided entirely: this isn't the way I want it to be.

I understood that.  All I addressed was your contention that the theory that the mandate was un-Constitutional (or however you put it) didn't appear until 2009.

No matter what bullshit lawyers come up with (and legal arguments are very often nothing more than ridiculous bullshit that no one with any sense would ever accept) people have a feeling for what the limits on our federal government mean and what happens when those limits are entirely done away with.  You and your lawyer buddies can argue legal sorts of arguments all you like (arguments that could not exist outside of a courtroom without everyone breaking into laughter) but most of us are very clear on how unconstitutional the individual mandate was and never had a doubt about it.

The conservative answer to the problem of the uninsured screwing up the system for those who actually pay for it (and them, too, incidentally) is that the courts never had any right to force hospitals to work on anyone without paying for it.  Period.  End of story.  But then you'd have to put up with people calling you heartless.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 04:09 PM (X3lox)

302 We don't face an existential threat from the middle east.

Posted by: Luke Duke at November 30, 2011 09:06 PM (PKRQS)

I have never met a non-liberal who has ever said anything this monumentally, mind-numbingly stupid.

I salute you for the purity and intensity of your idiocy.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 04:09 PM (nEUpB)

303 >>>As for his past foibles (Medicare Part D, the couch, market solutions to "global warming," etc.) these are things that have rubbed me the wrong way on Gingrich for quite some time. He's a guy who unfortunately too often looks at things through the prism of political victory and has pushed these ideas as a means of killing the issue. Gingrich does it because he thinks it helps the GOP win elections by taking the issue off the table and preventing the Democrats from campaigning on it, but I don't like it because it ends up ceding ground to the liberals. Yup. Let me propose another explanation: He overbelieves in the power of cleverness. That is, given a seemingly binary choice of X and Y, he always thinks he can synthesize some unexpected, outside-the-box Gordian-Knot solution Z, which is actually both X and Y but better. And if you listen to him and his glib debate answers, that's what he does again and again, he avoids the clear binary choice of X or Y, in favor of some half-baked, half-considered Proposition Z which he claims is somehow superior to both. In fact Z is usually a lot like X, the liberal path, just with some de minimis conservative nod. This is the whole neoconservative thing I'm tallking about. The party has now decided it's going to stop being bashful and just start saying "NO." Not "let me coutneroffer," not "let me meet you halfway, with some market-based solutions." But "No." Period. But Newt's basic impulse is to go for Synthetic Clever Brilliant Unexpected Answer Z. "No" will suffice. Let's work on some good intellectual defenses of "No."

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 04:10 PM (nj1bB)

304 Incidentally, let me go on the record here: For any Paul fans who are thinking "This is his time," I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever. That's where I'm coming form. Under no circumstances whatsoever will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik "We brought 9/11 ourselves" pacifist Chomnskyite crank. And I'll say it: I will, yes, be amenable to Barack Obama being re-elected under those circumstances. As members of the Purity Brigade used to tell me-- Sometimes you win by losing. I would decide at that point to use my own "Sometimes we win by losing" chits at that point. As was said of Mike Castle -- it's better that we lose, because at least the guy in office won't be one of our own, making those bad decisions. Romney, too, for me. I voted Libertarian for that Right-wing Liberal Jorge Arbusto, and I'm doingit for Mittens "Cap'n Underoos" McRhino, too. It's past time that the blogosphere stop doing the Beltway RNC's bidding and destroy any challenger to their annointed one. Ain't buying him. End of story.

Posted by: Gonzman at November 30, 2011 04:11 PM (AKlwH)

305 310 exsanguine

So you think Tehran recognizes our sovereignty over the building?

What's Bachmann going to do-bulldoze it?

...oy.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 09:08 PM (rJVPU)


Oh for fracks sake. .I was being facetious -- giving Ace a hard time for giving Bachman a hard time.


Turn you friggin sarcasm meter on.


Posted by: exsanguine at November 30, 2011 04:11 PM (I+thf)

306

So what if Romney or Gingrich got the nod and picked the other for VP.  Would that fly?

Posted by: Jaimo at November 30, 2011 04:11 PM (KVG2i)

307

Having said that, the main difference I see in Gingrich vs. Romney is that Gingrich is happily and directly combative whereas Romney is Greg Marmalard (a sneaky little shit).

That's where I'm at.

I'm not in love with Gingrich--the guy has some huge weaknesses. But just about any negative you can point to in Gingrich, you can point to in Mitt.

And it looks like those are the two choices.

I give Gingrich the edge. I think he's a better tactician and I think he'll fire up  the base more.

And even though neither are trustworthy, Romney's demeanor makes him seem a lot more oily and untrustworthy, in my opinon.

Either way, I'd eat through a mile of glass to vote against SCOAMF.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 04:11 PM (D30E/)

308 "Bush was elected as president, twice, expressly running on this platform.

I never liked that. I suppose most of you didn't, either. But we didn't object to it so vigorously we chose some other candidate, or even argued with him about it."


Bush was elected, twice, in spite of including Shamnesty on his platform. Actually, Shamnesty wasn't part of his platform as he ran the first time though he did pander a bit with his spanish. He used a good bit of nuance to keep his open border inclinations under the radar. Also remember, he was the lesser of evils. Again. It's also the very policy that began the beginning of the end for him as he proved himself NotConservative. In fact Shamnesty was the straw that led to the populace uprising which led to the Tea Party revolution. Americans of all stripes opposed Shamnesty, the first debate that both sides of the political aisle wanted and worked tirelessly to bludgeon through but could not because voters kept shutting down switchboards with anger, an historic first. Even Obama and the Democrats with a dominant Congress refused to touch that rail. Still do.

When Bush got serious about Shamnesty, America said FYNQ. You're misremembering just how pissed-off Americans were/are, and many Americans argued plenty about it.

Just tweaking the record here.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at November 30, 2011 04:12 PM (eHIJJ)

309 I wish it were Perry, but he's sadly an inarticulate crony capitalist. And you're a Sandusky acolyte. Got links on the crony capitalist charge? Inarticulate I can live with if he best aligns with my views.

Posted by: Wink Martindale at November 30, 2011 04:12 PM (uuXjC)

310 I know what Gingrich is. Mittens is a cypher, another Harriet Myers. At least I know Gingrich, being an astute politician, won't try that shit. Romney would, and would stick by her.

Posted by: Gonzman at November 30, 2011 04:12 PM (AKlwH)

311 Funny, someone today basically told me that it will be almost un American not to vote for the republican, no matter who that republican will be.  He said to me that "4 more years and we won't have a country".   He is not a republican, I'd say more a conservative democrat and he caught me by complete surprise.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 04:13 PM (oZfic)

312 My problem with Newt isn't that he changed positions for populist or political reasons, it's because he changed positions based on his own reasoning. Even that doesn't bother me that much on most domestic issues but it scares the hell out of me when it comes to foreign policy. You couple that with Newt's globalist views (which is why he's wrong on immigration) and we're sitting ourselves up for global conflicts that make the Bush Doctrine seem tame.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 30, 2011 04:13 PM (GZitp)

313 Newt being asked by Hannity about "anti-Romney" said "not anti.  I said not Romney".

And then rather skillfully turned the conversation to it currently being a case of "not Newt", which was surprising him on how quickly things had changed.

With no bashing of competition at all.

Advantage: Newt.

Posted by: jwb7605 at November 30, 2011 04:14 PM (Qxe/p)

314 Well at the time Perry's state was in a drought and on fire. He should have taken ace's advice at the time and stayed out of the debate cycle-and used some of the time to bone up. Unlike a lot of the candidates Perry actually has a job. I do think he has improved.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 04:14 PM (rJVPU)

315 One problem with Gingrich we're not considering, because it's such old news to us, is the two affairs and two divorces. You don't have to believe the cancer-divorce-papers story (though that will get play) to know two affairs and two divorces is kind of a problem. We've made our peace with that. Are we confident others have?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 04:14 PM (nj1bB)

316 Ron Paul didn't do his job in the house, what makes you think he will do his job in the White House?

How did he fail to do his job in the House? Seriously.

I thought it was awesome when Perry kicked off his campaign with the statement that "i'll work every day to make government a non-factory in your life" or something like that. That's the right message. But sadly, his inability to articulate that message leads me to doubt his sincerity.

Posted by: Luke Duke at November 30, 2011 04:14 PM (PKRQS)

317 I don't think this Newt surge is going away.  I agree with Ace on all the drawbacks he states in his post, but I think Newt is quick enough on his feet in a debate to parry those attacks.  There is so much more ammunition that Newt can use against Barky that Newt has nothing to fear.

One other point - I think Barky is scared to death of having to debate Newt.  In fact, I doubt that Barky will agree to more than two debates.  He knows he'll get his clock cleaned. 

We have to have someone as our nominee that can speak eloquently.  I'm sorry - Perry just can't cut it.  With Romney, if he's the nominee and gets elected, our economy will be just where it is today by 2016.  My kids and future grandkids just can't afford it.

Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for short at November 30, 2011 04:15 PM (yqCoj)

318  Funny, someone today basically told me that it will be almost un American not to vote for the republican, no matter who that republican will be.  He said to me that "4 more years and we won't have a country".   He is not a republican, I'd say more a conservative democrat and he caught me by complete surprise.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 09:13 PM (oZfic)

Yeah I agree with that though, the only candidate train I am on is the WE WIN THEY LOSE train.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 04:15 PM (MtwBb)

319

Turn you friggin sarcasm meter on.


Posted by: exsanguine at November 30, 2011 09:11 PM (I+thf)

 

It looks like this.

 

s/

 

It could help you out too.

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2011 04:15 PM (jGDVS)

320 I, like most people, have changed my mind on huge issues over the years. What drives me nuts about this stuff is not the inconsistency as much as the inability to admit that they were dead wrong (i.e. Romneycare)...and when they do admit to a change of heart, it reeks of flagrant political opportunism. (i.e. Newt referring to his Pelosi couch hump as dumb, sounds more like dumb "politically" than it does dumb, as in buying into the big lie of the movement in the first place.) Be that as it may, I will never forget how gut wrenching it was to watch that last McCain/Obama debate. McCain would just not go after him. Not expose him. Not call him on all his ties or lack of accomplishments. Nothing. None of it. He even went so far as to say at one of his rallies, that Americans had nothing to fear from a President Obama. It was like watching a boxer who'd decided that his best strategy was to tie his own gloves behind his back. I don't like Newt for all of the obvious reasons, but I do believe he has the ability to go after this SCOAMF and expose him for the disaster he is. In fact, with his ego, I think he would be emboldened (gladiator style) by the reaction of the right if he did. (as opposed to being embarrassed, ala McCain) Romney (as impressive as his private sector cred is) is McCain with a tan. There is no fight in him. This election is going to be Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. We need a brawler.

Posted by: AtlasMugged at November 30, 2011 04:16 PM (r9vQr)

321 Romney or Gingrich. Doesn't matter to us.

Posted by: The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016, K. Rove, Chairman at November 30, 2011 04:16 PM (KbGY6)

322 What's Bachmann going to do-bulldoze it? Dude...I was being sarcastic-I knew you were so I thought you would get it.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 04:16 PM (rJVPU)

323
One other point - I think Barky is scared to death of having to debate Newt.  In fact, I doubt that Barky will agree to more than two debates.  He knows he'll get his clock cleaned.

Remember Paul Ryan schooling his ass.

And only Chris Matthews gets to clean Obama's cock.

Posted by: Mahmoud Ahminejahd at November 30, 2011 04:17 PM (MMC8r)

324 The ...oy is sorta a sarc tag.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 04:17 PM (rJVPU)

325

 

 

I lost my bone for Perry when I saw him on bret Baier's show just come off as a bit of a robotic lightweight.

Next will take it to Mr. Obama intellectually...that can turn people off.

Milt will smile his smile, and maybe take on Barry, but my guess is he'll try to make friends and lose his appetite for victory.

I wish perry was able to just fucking TALK ferchissakes.

 

Posted by: Rev Dr Carnac at November 30, 2011 04:17 PM (LWXG/)

326 >>>:Romney (as impressive as his private sector cred is) is McCain with a tan. There is no fight in him. I'm no Romney fan but this is wrong, Romney has a lot of fight, he is a knife-fighter, he borders on being mean and a total douchebag. Which is, in a way, good thing.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 04:17 PM (nj1bB)

327

Ok, I'll ask again.  Would a Romney/Gingrich, or Gingrich/Romney ticket be overkill?

Posted by: Jaimo at November 30, 2011 04:17 PM (KVG2i)

328 327 One problem with Gingrich we're not considering, because it's such old news to us, is the two affairs and two divorces.

That might make him a harder sell to the religious base then even Romney's Mormonism.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 30, 2011 04:18 PM (GZitp)

329 We must cut our defense, else we will go broke.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 04:18 PM (PEob2)

330 all of the 2008 Republican candidates HATED romney for his constant attacks and working the press behind the scenes.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 04:18 PM (nj1bB)

331 Oh, cLock.

Posted by: Mahmoud Ahminejahd at November 30, 2011 04:18 PM (MMC8r)

332 We've made our peace with that.

Are we confident others have?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 09:14 PM (nj1bB)

I don't know, probably. That is the least of our problems right now. It does go to can you trust him to make the right decisions though. You don't get 3 chances with running the country when it's teetering on the edge.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 04:18 PM (MtwBb)

333 >>>Jeff, I believe you're making the common lawyer mistake of confusing "constitutional" with "what the SC says is constitutional". There's a difference.

No, there really isn't. 

I mean, I understand the point you're making, but as a lawyer who deals with these issues in appellate cases I'm trying to explain that the law is what court says it is.  We can argue about notional principles all we want, but the ONLY thing that matters is where 'the rubber meets the road': what the actual results for plaintiffs and defendants are when they take their cases to the courts. And that is decided (at least on difficult, abstracted ConLaw matters as opposed to simpler CrimLaw or Admin-based statutory things) by SCOTUS precedent -- what is "constitutional" is what will succeed in court vs. what won't.

I don't like this -- in fact, I fucking hate this, I consider it a judicial usurpation of legislative prerogative and my opposition to it pretty much forms the basis of my identity as a legal conservative -- but when I go into, say, the DC Circuit and try to argue with the judge about what "should" be constitutional, as opposed to the precedent on the books, I'm going to get my ass laughed out of court 99% of the time. 

This, of course, is why it's so fucking important not to let Obama get reelected.  Sometimes I think that a lot of you people simply have no idea how critical judicial appointments -- not just SCOTUS but federal Circuit courts as well -- are to the continued health of the nation.  It's practically everything.  And if you send Newt Gingrich up there to get slaughtered by Obama, you're guaranteeing the death of America by judicial fiat over the next four years of lifetime judicial appointments.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 04:19 PM (hIWe1)

334 /sock

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 04:19 PM (MMC8r)

335 I wouldn't be surprised if Romney is behind the Cain scandals.

Posted by: Jaimo at November 30, 2011 04:19 PM (KVG2i)

336 #93: The also-rans will be left with hefty campaign debts when they drop out. Mitt Romney will be in a good position to retire those debts for them, whether he ends up with the nomination or not. I think that's why they all seem to want to stay on his good side.

Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 30, 2011 04:20 PM (vQfJ3)

337 I was very happy to search out this web-site.I needed to thanks to your time for this excellent read!! I definitely enjoying each little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.

Posted by: Fates Edge ePub at November 30, 2011 04:20 PM (vaJa6)

338 I wouldn't be surprised if Romney is behind the Cain scandals.

Posted by: Jaimo at November 30, 2011 09:19 PM (KVG2i)

Cain's doing Romney too? Damn Herman, cool your jets.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 04:21 PM (MtwBb)

339 You're a fool Ace.

Posted by: cvb at November 30, 2011 04:22 PM (HRFxR)

340

I'm thinking that Newt's divorces will mean less during this election than they normally would.

People tend to care about social issue less when they're taking it in the shorts financially.

Still, it's a concern.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 04:22 PM (D30E/)

341 We've made our peace with that. Are we confident others have? ***** Actually it's more about the timing.... It's not simply the affairs.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 04:22 PM (rJVPU)

342 AtlasMugged: "This election is going to be Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. We need a brawler."

In that case I nominate Zell Miller of Georgia. And Palin as VP. John Bolton's 'Stache gets whatever's left.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at November 30, 2011 04:23 PM (eHIJJ)

343 You're a fool Ace.

Well that settles it, tiny person who lives in my flat screen.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 04:24 PM (GTbGH)

344 And the Progressives are laughing and laughing...

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2011 04:24 PM (jGDVS)

345

And if you send Newt Gingrich up there to get slaughtered by Obama, you're guaranteeing the death of America by judicial fiat over the next four years of lifetime judicial appointments.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

 

Heh.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 04:24 PM (D30E/)

346 Weren't you the guy lecturing Tea Partiers about how people had to pull together for the good of the party and elect Republicans even if they weren't quite the sort of republicans some people would prefer? Hypocrite. Presented with a man who has principles and sticks to them, you scream and throw your poo. Ok. You and Obama belong together.

Posted by: Rollory at November 30, 2011 04:24 PM (T+g/u)

347 The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016

Jeb is another one who could be a Great American if he was seeking the Democratic party nomination instead of pulling the stupid party farther left.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 04:24 PM (dBvlk)

348 You're a fool Ace.

Another PaulTard heard from.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 04:24 PM (MMC8r)

349 One problem with Gingrich we're not considering, because it's such old news to us, is the two affairs and two divorces.

You don't have to believe the cancer-divorce-papers story (though that will get play) to know two affairs and two divorces is kind of a problem.

We've made our peace with that.

Are we confident others have?

Anecdotal evidence here, but this is an issue that both my mother-in-law (wonderful woman, but not a deep thinker) and my wife (doesn't follow politics much) have raised. My wife just mentioned this issue this morning, in sort of an, "I don't think Gingrich can win because of his cheating and divorces." I don't think this is a dead issue at all.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 30, 2011 04:25 PM (diO4R)

350 I'd probably have to vote for Paul over SCOAMF, even though every fiber of my being says let SCOAMF take US to rock bottom quickly, and all the blame that goes with it. Icing on the cake would be to watch him escape to exile (under live fire) back to Kenya from the roof of the Whitehouse. But I tend to fantasize.

Posted by: Jimmah at November 30, 2011 04:25 PM (jup4s)

351 "No" will suffice. Let's work on some good intellectual defenses of "No."

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 09:10 PM (nj1bB)

Ace, that may be the most brilliant thing you've ever uttered.

Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2011 04:25 PM (/W+SA)

352 >>>One problem with Gingrich we're not considering, because it's such old news to us, is the two affairs and two divorces.

>>>You don't have to believe the cancer-divorce-papers story (though that will get play) to know two affairs and two divorces is kind of a problem.

>>>We've made our peace with that.

>>>Are we confident others have?

No, they haven't.  But even DISCUSSING this will get you shouted down as a Romneybot, a Perryista, or a general Establishment RINO Who's Trying To Choose Our Candidate For Us.

Oh, and by the way: who says we've "made our peace with that?"  I sure as hell haven't.  I can forgive flip-flopping on issues from any candidate, hell I could even forgive a one-time affair or something awful like that.  But I'm not exactly a bluenose...and I can't forgive Newt's behavior.  I mean, I CAN in the Christian sense...but as someone at NRO pointed out, 'forgiving' him in that manner is not the same thing as decided he's therefore fit for the Presidency.  That's a higher standard than private forgiveness.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 04:25 PM (hIWe1)

353 Ace, you're an idiot.  Not because you disagree with Paul, but because you can't give an intelligent reason for doing so.  Labeling him a peacenik crank isn't a reason, that's ad hominem.  I'm a specwar vet.  I speak Arabic.  I've lived the better part of the past decade in the Middle East from Afghanistan to Yemen to Lebanon.  Been There, Done It.  You may think you shit doesn't stink and apparently have grown fond of the taste of your own ass, but it doesn't make you right.  You seriously don't know WTF you're talking about.  And frankly, it's offensive the way chickenhawks like you (I'm guessing you've never been down range or even served behind a desk for that matter) describe Paul's mindset in such anti-American terms.  I guess it's not possible for America or more specifically any of its bureucrats (elected or otherwise) to make any mistakes whatsoever.  Are you really that big of a fool.  It's really not complicated.  Go do some homework.  Go see what experts like Michael Scheuer, Robert Baer, etc., are saying.  Why does the military so overwhelmingly support Paul as compared to others.  Go read some online specwar vet message boards.

Posted by: AceIsAnIdiot at November 30, 2011 04:27 PM (WSj9U)

354

Really,

you are deeply out to lunch.  i don't for one moment think you had the conversations and views about the mandate's constitutionality ten years ago that you say you did.  You can keep repeating it and I can keep calling you a liar, because it just wasn't on the radar back then.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 04:27 PM (epBek)

355

but as someone at NRO pointed out, 'forgiving' him in that manner is not the same thing as decided he's therefore fit for the Presidency.  That's a higher standard than private forgiveness.

So you DIDN'T vote for McCain?

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 04:27 PM (D30E/)

356 Icing on the cake would be to watch him escape to exile (under live fire) back to Kenya from the roof of the Whitehouse. 

Posted by: Jimmah at November 30, 2011 09:25 PM (jup4s)

I love the fantasy, but hate the timing. How about if that happens in, say, two weeks?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 04:28 PM (nEUpB)

357 Romney and Gingrich are flipp floppers and hypocrites of the highest order. Plus, if either are elected we will be in at least one new war within the year, on top of the 3 we are already fighting.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 04:28 PM (PEob2)

358 >>>I wouldn't be surprised if Romney is behind the Cain scandals.

Yeah, Romney used brilliant 'spoofing' techniques to place 13 years' worth of calls to that woman's phone from Cain's private cell line at ungodly hours of the night.   And managed to use his incredible private sector finance wizardy to wire money from Cain's bank accounts to the woman over that same period.

Hell, even if Romney actually WERE that diabolically brilliant...isn't that the sort of knife-fighting bastard we claim to WANT as a candidate?

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 04:28 PM (hIWe1)

359 Obama has to be petrified of Newt winning the GOP nomination. Mainly because he has spent the last year and a half setting up a campaign against Mitt Romney that will completely not work against Newt. I've been convinced since 2008 that he had planned to run against Romney back then and was genuinely surprised that McCain won. then he expected Romney to be McCain's running mate so he could still use the campaign he had planned. Obama is purely a class warrior. That's all he knows how to do. He can't run a class-warfare campaign against a guy from a middle-class family, who went to state schools and taught history at one. He also can't run a campaign trying to ignore the massive national debt and 9% unemployment if he runs against the guy who actually produced our last balanced budget and ran Congress during a time when 10 million jobs were created. You guys are too afraid of Obama's campaign hacks being able to exploit Gingrich's personal flaws and policy sloppiness. But they aren't planning to run that kind of campaign -- God knows they are smart enough to know Obama cannot win a campaign based on policy -- and if Newt gets the nomination they won't have time. They won't have time to do all the polling or organization or media massaging they will need to do. I hope Newt keeps up his promising to challenge Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates. This is pure genius and smarter than 9-9-9 or anything else any other candidate has produced. It appeals to middle-American sensibilities that long for the days when great men debated great issues and everyone watched. Debates really, really matter in a general election - just ask President Al Gore. There is simply no way Obama can duck debating Newt. Unlike some, I do not think newt will "destroy" Obama in debates. What he will do is speak cogently, forcefully, and optimistically about the future, and then watch Obama destroy himself with a bunch of whining, silly platitudes and tired left-wing agit-prop.

Posted by: rockmom at November 30, 2011 04:29 PM (A0UFZ)

360 You know Ace, if you made me a TB, I could clear out that cheesy smell from the HQ.

Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2011 04:29 PM (GTbGH)

361 This is accepted wisdom, but so was, "I don't think he can win because he's black/Marxist/has terrorist cronies/coke user/possibly gay/ahas a Muslim middle name".

Posted by: USS Diversity at November 30, 2011 04:29 PM (2sy9r)

362 Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 09:19 PM (hIWe1)

You just made a great case for the folks who were arguing this morning on the headlines thread about the ability to detain American citizens and then have them have military tribunals.  I still haven't sat down to read the bill but enough people all over the internet are freaking out about this bill for me to think there has to be something there to pause about.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 04:30 PM (oZfic)

363 Well if Perry could get himself back to competitive I would support him. I agree right now he looks like the best choice. But I won't risk splitting the !Romney vote over it until I think he has a good shot at winning. My seething white hot hate for Romney is actually unfair. He isn't a lot worse than the rest of the field. It is merely an extension of my seething white hot hate for the Republican party, whom has squandered every opportunity to avert econogeddon because of their cowardice; while making promises of the big fight at this election only to present to us the worlds largest pile of MEH in the form of primary candidates. This, essentially selling us into depression at best and real DOOM at worst, angers me in ways I can scarcely describe. That now since the Republican party has decided it would rather grind the decline and aggregate political power rrather than take the slightest political risk to actually fix things, I'm retributive. They play like it is a game to make sure I can't have what I want. Fine I will do everything I can to make sure they can't have the Romney they want. Because they've told me they don't care and they aren't taking our situation seriously.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2011 04:30 PM (VQnS/)

364 Great piece, Ace.

You pretty much much sum up where I am at...   You sound as frustrated as I am.  I fantasized out loud this morning how maybe we'll get a hung convention and Chris Christie would step up.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 04:30 PM (UTq/I)

365 Posted by: AceIsAnIdiot at November 30, 2011 09:27 PM (WSj9U)

I find the accusation of ad hominem argument followed by several sentences of incoherent ad hominem argument to be unconvincing.

I'll take ace's points over yours, at least until you graduate high school.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 04:30 PM (nEUpB)

366 >>>So you DIDN'T vote for McCain?

As I said, I could forgive a one-time affair.  And McCain's circumstances were vastly different: he and his wife had both radically changed during the years he spent in captivity, and had little in common when he returned.  Newt simply decided he wanted to trade up to a younger, hotter, less-potentially-terminally-ill model several times in sequence.

And don't get me wrong, dude.  I'll vote for Gingrich in the general if that's what it comes to.  I wouldn't hesitate.  But he'll get slaughtered if he's our choice.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 04:30 PM (hIWe1)

367 This is the epitome of the Black and White thought process that so grips America today. People vote not on the person they support, but against the person they've already demonized in their heads.

Posted by: RonLOL at November 30, 2011 04:30 PM (M/gcG)

368

Would a Romney/Gingrich, or Gingrich/Romney ticket be overkill?

RINO suck squared

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 04:30 PM (epBek)

369 I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever.

Me, too.  Won't happen, not in this lifetime or any other.

Posted by: Peaches at November 30, 2011 04:31 PM (PcI2Q)

370

Newt simply decided he wanted to trade up to a younger, hotter, less-potentially-terminally-ill model several times in sequence.

Isn't his ex-wife still alive?

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 04:32 PM (D30E/)

371

two affairs and two divorces happens, it's not that new ya'll.

what we have to have is someone who has the balls to stand up and say Fuck this shit. if we stay on the path we are on now we might as well kiss our ass goodby........

i just dont think Mitt or Carzy as a Loon Paul are up to the task.

Posted by: Racefan at November 30, 2011 04:32 PM (8mZS+)

372 Never get in the way of a political party while they are in the midst of destroying themselves.

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2011 04:32 PM (jGDVS)

373 Summing it up for those who don't want to read the entire thing: PLEASE DEAR GOD, ANYONE BUT RON PAUL!.. hmm, what can I do to sway you.. oh oh , I know.. I'll call him an, an.. an ANTI-SEMITE!! oh wait. don't the lefties call people racists when they can't win and they have no proof? hmm.. well, it works for them, so I'll go with that. Yup.. erm.. guys, don't vote for the really really really old jew hater, ok? never mind his policies.. he just hates joooos. Oh, and pick someone from the GOP.. your choice, because I've got no clue who to vote for anymore.. /end summary.

Posted by: Ugrev at November 30, 2011 04:32 PM (862vz)

374 once again Ace dumps all over a candidate without expressing an alternative preference.

Big help that is

Posted by: Jose at November 30, 2011 08:08 PM (srIqv)

Lazy butt. Did you not notice that he wrote he supports Rick Perry?

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 04:32 PM (YiE0S)

375 Fat Toby, STFU and go eat more cake. :-)

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 04:33 PM (PEob2)

376 Gingrich - 84 ethics violations in 6 years. "But I won't vote for Paul!"

Posted by: bannedin27countries at November 30, 2011 04:33 PM (uA+vD)

377 This, essentially selling us into depression at best and real DOOM at worst, angers me in ways I can scarcely describe. That now since the Republican party has decided it would rather grind the decline and aggregate political power rrather than take the slightest political risk to actually fix things, I'm retributive. They play like it is a game to make sure I can't have what I want. Fine I will do everything I can to make sure they can't have the Romney they want. Because they've told me they don't care and they aren't taking our situation seriously.

Co-sign. Part of the reason I don't want Romney is because of douchenozzles like Georgette Mosbacher ("Perry? Hah. We already know who our candidate will be.")

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 30, 2011 04:33 PM (diO4R)

378

you are deeply out to lunch.  i don't for one moment think you had the conversations and views about the mandate's constitutionality ten years ago that you say you did.  You can keep repeating it and I can keep calling you a liar, because it just wasn't on the radar back then.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 09:27 PM (epBek)

Some people have talked about an individual mandate as something the dems would like to push since even before HillaryCare and the idiotic ideas that were bandied about back then.  Your memory doesn't go back that far.  Sorry.  But, don't expect the same is true of others.

For your information, Arizona had Prop 101 on the ballot back in 2008, which said that the federal government could not force any sort of health insurance mandate on Arizona citizens.  But, maybe you think I made that up?  After all, who was talking about any individual mandates or anything of the like back in 2008, before Barry the Retard was even elected?

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 04:34 PM (X3lox)

379 Why does the military so overwhelmingly support Paul as compared to others.  Go read some online specwar vet message boards.

Posted by: AceIsAnIdiot at November 30, 2011 09:27 PM (WSj9U)

Because they don't you pomous ass.   Specwar boards?    The military overwhelmingly supports Paul?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a fucking doucheass.

Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2011 04:34 PM (/W+SA)

380 "387 once again Ace dumps all over a candidate without expressing an alternative preference."

Ace wants Palin. No agnostic or atheist in their right mind wants Palin, Bachmann, or Perry for president.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 04:35 PM (PEob2)

381 Paultard's hissin' and spittin'...all is well.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 04:35 PM (MMC8r)

382

I'm a specwar vet. I speak Arabic. I've lived the better part of the past decade in the Middle East from Afghanistan to Yemen to Lebanon. Been There, Done It.

 

If by "specwar vet" you mean "fucking liar," then YES.  You are a specwar vet. 

Who, the last time he was on here, lectured us about our cheeleading for Bush's illegal wars for oil and our "irrational hatred of Islam."

It's the internet, Andrew.  Figure it the fuck out already, Paultard.

 

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 04:36 PM (DiqH3)

383 Ace wants Palin. No agnostic or atheist in their right mind wants Palin, Bachmann, or Perry for president.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 09:35 PM (PEob2)

I've said it before and I'll say it, again.   Stupid should be painful.

 

Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2011 04:37 PM (/W+SA)

384 I can't see any other candidate in the running as able to show up our current Affirmative Action Precedent to be an inept boob as well as Newt.

I'm waiting to see teh Grinch rip the guts out of TOTUS (our first Female President, a ball-less Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure).

I do believe that once he's elected, teh Grinch will fight to make America strong again. He loves this country, at least, while Mittens ... well, he just wants the Power.

Posted by: chunky at November 30, 2011 04:37 PM (o1FK0)

385 That Alex Jones fellow likes L. Ron Paul, does he not?

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 04:37 PM (MMC8r)

386 Not because you disagree with Paul, but because you can't give an intelligent reason for doing so.  Labeling him a peacenik crank isn't a reason, that's ad hominem.  I'm a specwar vet.  I speak Arabic.

Here's a reason, there may or more probably will be times when America will be called on to stop the spread of totalitarianism in the form of Islam. Paul wouldn't heed that call to the expense of our western values and culture. His form of isolationism is not an option anymore.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 30, 2011 04:37 PM (GZitp)

387  Paultard's hissin' and spittin'...all is well.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 09:35 PM (MMC8r)

Meh, they aren't going to win. They cheaped out this time and didn't get a blimp. If they had a blimp this race would be over now.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 04:37 PM (MtwBb)

388 my seething white hot hate for the Republican party

I found a really good use for those Zimbabwe 100 trillion dollar notes.  When the RNC begs for money I send them one of those.

Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 30, 2011 04:38 PM (dBvlk)

389 Purity Brigade > Wants to be liked and unable to learn from past experience brigade.

Posted by: cackfinger at November 30, 2011 04:39 PM (a9mQu)

390

After all, who was talking about any individual mandates or anything of the like back in 2008, before Barry the Retard was even elected?

 

Um, Barry the Retard?  2008 was when the individual mandate started getting national attention.  Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred about it in the Democratic primary.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 04:39 PM (epBek)

391 That Alex Jones fellow likes L. Ron Paul, does he not?

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 09:37 PM (MMC8r)

I think he does. Is he broadcasting from under 5,000 feet under our feet?

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2011 04:40 PM (jGDVS)

392

389Gingrich - 84 ethics violations in 6 years.

 

Nope.  He was charged with 84 ethics violations.  Found culpable of one.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 30, 2011 04:42 PM (1P47F)

393 Let me propose another explanation: He overbelieves in the power of cleverness. That is, given a seemingly binary choice of X and Y, he always thinks he can synthesize some unexpected, outside-the-box Gordian-Knot solution Z, which is actually both X and Y but better.

Yeah, he probably needs to tone down that think-tank noodling algorithm looping in his head.  He strikes me as a political mercenary who values the primacy of processes and solutions above all else and often finds himself with a foot in his mouth.  But he also seems to recover well from his idiocies because he's a prick, and we most likely are going to need one to force a roll back from the brink.

Posted by: Fritz at November 30, 2011 04:42 PM (FabC8)

394

This blog could have written about romney at any time over the last six months. Only after watching their precious faves get eaten by the monster they created, do they say this... hey, wait, no one is perfect... Times have changed...

But no for Romney, fron his race against Kennedy 18 years ago to his race for governor ten years to 2011, everything must be uniformly consistent, Tea Party conservatism, or else he is a scumbag with no convictions.

Posted by: Winning at November 30, 2011 04:42 PM (ozpOn)

395 2008 was when the individual mandate started getting national attention.  Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred about it in the Democratic primary.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 09:39 PM (epBek)

And you actually think that Arizona put the Prop up as a reaction to that dem primary?  No.  It was in the works long before that.  Some of us remember how these things actually went.  But, just call me a liar again.  You're good at that.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 04:43 PM (X3lox)

396 Just read the whole post.  Nice, Ace, I enjoyed it and thanks for going to all the trouble.  I particularly liked the "So the Quest for the Pure True Conservative can and should end, and we should stop talking about such nonsense and start talking, seriously, about the imperfect candidates we have." It's about time people figured that out.

Posted by: Peaches at November 30, 2011 04:44 PM (PcI2Q)

397 Oh, and . . .

Perry/Gingrich!!!!!

Posted by: Peaches at November 30, 2011 04:45 PM (PcI2Q)

398 very good post.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 04:46 PM (h+qn8)

399 Right wing fascist dupes, we can not afford another war.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 04:47 PM (PEob2)

400

And you actually think that Arizona put the Prop up as a reaction to that dem primary?  No.  It was in the works long before that.  Some of us remember how these things actually went.

Yeah, you had conversations with millions of conservative voters back int he 90s about mandates, but you can't recall what were the big issues in 2008?

Liar.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 04:48 PM (epBek)

401 So willow, I had to go out but what was that thing this afternoon with Hollowpoint? I agreed with someone and he started freaking. I hadn't even commented about that before. I sometimes suggest we shouldn't eat our own but that doesn't deserve that kind of violent reaction?

Posted by: dagny at November 30, 2011 04:48 PM (I4h50)

402 Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2011 09:25 PM (/W+SA) this.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 04:49 PM (g8Wdt)

403 Jeez. All the candidates SUCK. They SUCK. Now, let's pick the one least likely to lose.

Posted by: dagny at November 30, 2011 04:51 PM (I4h50)

404 " idealistic ideas of Men of Resolve be damned. That's 1% of them. What about the other 99%?"

Ron Paul has never flipp flopped like the other smelly fish running for the repug nomination.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 04:51 PM (PEob2)

405

BTW, Liar, I just looked up the ballot initiative and its mostly about socialized medicine.  And there is nothing whatsoever in there about a mandate being unconstitutional.  A little googling says that none of its proponents were talking about constitutionality either.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 04:53 PM (epBek)

406 dagny, i have no idea why the anger. Maybe stress, maybe just a dick :}
anyway He is generally opinionated but often has an amusing sense of humor.
hnstly don't know.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 04:53 PM (h+qn8)

407 Wow i really found this to be an interesting read; thanks for sharing

Posted by: Hedys Folly epub at November 30, 2011 04:53 PM (vaobd)

408 OK, I did post a while back I would vote for even Paul instead of Obama... well, hell, I think I would, if it came down to it. Paul may be many things, but even he is not a communist. I do believe that, based on his associates, the secrecy shrouding his past, and the things that come out of his mouth, Obama is not far from one.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 04:54 PM (niZvt)

409 #407: Romney has changed his mind on global warming during this campaign season.

Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 30, 2011 04:55 PM (vQfJ3)

410

JeffB, why do you repeat left wing lies about Gingrich's divorce?

"In fact, the divorce, requested by Mrs. Gingrich, has already been set in motion before her hospital stay. Far from dying of cancer, the first Mrs. Gingrich had a benign tumor removed. The conversation in the hospital room was not a sudden shock as the legendary story suggests. The first Mrs. Gingrich is very much alive, albeit a private person who does not give interviews. "

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 04:55 PM (HzhBE)

411

Yeah, you had conversations with millions of conservative voters back int he 90s about mandates, but you can't recall what were the big issues in 2008?

Liar.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 09:48 PM (epBek)

Ha.  The Arizona proposition was more about state health insurance than federal - though it would have blocked federal mandates, too.

Call me a liar, again.  You don't remember anything, but you can always accuse me of lying about stuff that you don't know.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 04:56 PM (X3lox)

412 No, there really isn't.

I mean, I understand the point you're making, but as a lawyer who deals with these issues in appellate cases I'm trying to explain that the law is what court says it is.
Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 09:19 PM (hIWe1)

Yes, there is.  And that's what I was referring to as a "lawyer mistake".

As a practical matter- yes, I understand that a lawyer has to operate within the bounds of precedent. You can't argue in court that the Supreme Court was wrong, you're right, so fuck you and rule in my favor.  Only in practical terms does the law means what the court says it does.

However from an ideological standpoint, the SC has and does get it blatantly wrong far too frequently, ruling in such a way that clearly isn't supported by the text and intent of the Constitution. That's what we non-lawyer types are referring to when we say "unconstitutional", regardless of whether a court (the SC or otherwise) would disagree.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 04:56 PM (SY2Kh)

413 Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 09:55 PM (HzhBE)

Thank you for that, Warden.  Although, anyone who continues to be all "lalalalala, I can't hear you" about that is not likely to be persuaded by reality.

Posted by: Peaches at November 30, 2011 04:58 PM (PcI2Q)

414 The first Mrs. Gingrich is very much alive, albeit a private person who does not give interviews. " Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 09:55 PM (HzhBE) I'm very private, too.

Posted by: Vince Foster at November 30, 2011 04:58 PM (niZvt)

415 Are you working out the kinks in what is basically a "He started it" or "He does it too" argument? 

Won't fly.

It no longer matters what we would put up with before.  What does matter is if we continue to put up with it.  At what point are we allowed to expect behavior more consistent with our principles without being labeled a crybaby?

From what I've seen with respect to the editorial policy here, that would be the day after never.

BTW, the one thing that makes Bachmann being "unelectable" a certainty is everyone decreeing it so.   That goes for any other candidate.  As long as you let the GOP establishment and the left control the language and set the narrative, nothing will ever change, and we will get squishes like Romney, who, by the way, will be destroyed by the left and the MBM in the general election, in the same way the other candidates have been destroyed one by one. 

They all had flaws outside the ones the MBM pushed, of course, but that doesn't matter because those flaws pale in comparison to the simple narrative the MBM has created and used as a bludgeon.

Cain, for instance, may have failed on his own, without the breathless repetition of accusations of harassment and infidelity without any vetting of the accusers.  However, the fact that he was immediately condemned on the basis of accusations, with no proof beyond a he said/she said should be a cautionary tale to all.  This technique will be used again, and successfully, because some are too afraid to stand up to the media onslaught and prefer to just go along with the narrative as set by the left.

Whoever thought what happened to Cain (or, earlier, Palin) was okay, you can bet your ass that your chosen candidate will be next.  I will cherish your tears of frustration, as they will taste so sweet.

Posted by: cranky-d at November 30, 2011 04:59 PM (H2G0R)

416 #390  NOTHING hhas infuriated me more than Georgett Mosbacher's comment.  Nothing.  Hers is the attitude that I hear from quite a few pundits and assorted GOP hacks.

I don't much like being treated like Leona Helmsley's hired help.

I am sticking with Perry.  Not great in a debate,  but he has hired some damn fine ad writers,  he's good in interviews,  and he's great on the campaign trail.

I also like it that he grew up pretty poor and actually served in the military.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 30, 2011 04:59 PM (GoIUi)

417 "Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 09:56 PM (SY2Kh)"

I think willow called you a little dick

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 04:59 PM (PEob2)

418 I'm no Romney fan but this is wrong, Romney has a lot of fight, he is a knife-fighter, he borders on being mean and a total douchebag.

Which is, in a way, good thing.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 09:17 PM (nj1bB)

What is he fighting for, except being in charge? Remember Ohio when he didnt give a shit about what was happening there? But it was a nice photo-op for Willard and thats the main thing, isnt it? After all we saw in Wisconsin and what is happening in other states regarding the fight against the influence of public sector unions, Willard was blissfully oblivious. After all it didnt relate directly to his career plans and he didnt wanna risk offending anybody by taking sides. 

Posted by: Elize Nayden, Newtist at November 30, 2011 04:59 PM (97AKa)

419 You're talking about Jackie Battle Gingrich, right? Yeah, she's alive and well, playing running back for the Kansas City Chiefs.

Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 30, 2011 05:00 PM (vQfJ3)

420 I think you sorta hit on it, Ace. The problem lots of people have with Perry is that, as Governor, he's had to ...you know, govern. And that means when it comes to the issue of immigration, he can't dance around it like the other candidates, none of whom strike me as ready to stand on the border with guns in hand. They can say whatever they want, whatever makes them sound like the guy people who care about this issue want them to be, but Perry has to run on his record. So they hate Perry's position, because it's not fluff and fairy dust, like whatever Newt or Mitt are saying this week, as opposed to what they said 5 years ago.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 30, 2011 05:00 PM (Gc/Qi)

421 #429: Agreed on all counts!

Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 30, 2011 05:01 PM (vQfJ3)

422 430 She was being nice

Posted by: dagny at November 30, 2011 05:01 PM (I4h50)

423 wait.. i didn't say little.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 05:03 PM (h+qn8)

424 And there is nothing whatsoever in there about a mandate being unconstitutional.  A little googling says that none of its proponents were talking about constitutionality either.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 09:53 PM (epBek)

Who said that the proposition had anything to do with declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional?  I didn't.  I was just pointing out that discussions about individual mandates have been floating around since STATES had already started, and other states didn't want to be forced into that abyss with some lunatic lefties in charge.

JeffB claimed that no one had even thought of the constitutionality of a NATIONAL mandate and that that was only created in 2009.  That is silliness.  I showed the Prop 101 vote to show that many people were concerned about govenrments (state and federal) forcing socialized health care on the citizenry.  The fact is that most people just didn't even consider any national implementation of that to be even remotely possible.  Sort of like discussions of gay marriage 20 years ago.  No one really gave that serious thought, though clearly most people just assumed that the culture wouldn't accept it.  That's why laws for marriage weren't written with the need for male and female.  Just the thought of "gay marriage" was enough to get you laughed out of any serious conversation.  That's how it was with a national mandate from the federal government on health care.  It was a joke, if that.

And JeffB and you seem to think that an idea that people wouldn't entertain as anything but a joke didn't have a serious taste of unconstitutionality (or unamericanism, for us poor lay folks who can't say anything about the Constitution).  Okey doke.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 05:05 PM (X3lox)

425 Ok, now willow infers HP is a big dick? What is he? A big, average, or little dick?

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 05:08 PM (PEob2)

426 Whoever thought what happened to Cain (or, earlier, Palin) was okay, you can bet your ass that your chosen candidate will be next.  I will cherish your tears of frustration, as they will taste so sweet.

Nobody is saying it's OK.  What's also not OK is the way they handled themselves, both of them looking the worse for it.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 05:08 PM (SY2Kh)

427 "Jeb is another one who could be a Great American if he was seeking the Democratic party nomination instead of pulling the stupid party farther left."

What exactly is "left" about Jeb?

Two solid conservative terms as governor.

Posted by: Bob from Ohio at November 30, 2011 05:09 PM (eTybj)

428 haha. ron you bastid,
just a dick.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 05:09 PM (h+qn8)

429 fcol

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 05:10 PM (h+qn8)

430 I don’t usually add my comments, but I will in this case. Nice work. I look forward to reading more.

Posted by: Pricing the Future ePub at November 30, 2011 05:12 PM (mLPSm)

431 This is one of those "if a tree falls in the woods..." circumstances. Is an ad really hard-hitting if no one sees it or cares?

Posted by: Jordan at November 30, 2011 05:12 PM (XJYf4)

432 Why does the military so overwhelmingly support Paul as compared to others. Riiiiiiiiiigggghhht. Borrow authority much? Do you think you could post and let your rational stand on it's own? Or do you have to steal the voice of "spec war vets"?

Posted by: Real Politik at November 30, 2011 05:14 PM (rJVPU)

433 >>> What is he fighting for, except being in charge? but that's all I meant, Romney vis a vis Obama. I think we're all agreed that being president is extremely important to Romney, and he will not be overly dainty about Obama, who stands in his way. Re: fighting for any particular policy, that's a whole 'nuther question.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 05:15 PM (nj1bB)

434 So willow, I had to go out but what was that thing this afternoon with Hollowpoint? I agreed with someone and he started freaking. I hadn't even commented about that before. I sometimes suggest we shouldn't eat our own but that doesn't deserve that kind of violent reaction?

If you really must know (and I was perfectly happy to drop it, as I don't take Internet comments personally), the fact is that you rub me the wrong way when it comes to discussing politics.  You have a long history of making comments I consider reactionary, irrational and naive

Take it personally or don't; I couldn't care less.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 05:16 PM (SY2Kh)

435 I think a lot of people do not realize that a president with a knowledge of economic conditions, some one who truly understands what is going on is what we need right now.  Sure, it's nice to know foreign policy and even conjecture what you might do.  The fact remains, though, that the world is moving at such a fast pace that what you think you might do now may be entirely opposite of what you might have to do in the future.  Thus, some will say "oh the president is flip flopping when, in actuality, the president is doing what is best for the country at that date and time.  You can say what you want about Cain, but he'd know what every single number means.  And, for that matter, since romney untangles financial messes that no one will touch, he'd know too. 

The next president is going to have to deal with the economy in a way no one has ever had to deal.  He/she can't be afraid of numbers.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 05:16 PM (oZfic)

436 Michael Scheuer, Robert Baer... Most people I know in the military are too busy to even know who these two "authorities" are...

Posted by: Real Politik at November 30, 2011 05:16 PM (rJVPU)

437 Ladies, we must end the wars. Ron Paul will do that.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 05:17 PM (PEob2)

438 so in romney's case, getting support underneath him (down ticket) to hold his feet to the fire.
what about Newt, would He do it naturally or need the same if we can make it happen?

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 05:18 PM (h+qn8)

439 sigh.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 05:19 PM (h+qn8)

440

Who said that the proposition had anything to do with declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional?

. . .

JeffB claimed that no one had even thought of the constitutionality of a NATIONAL mandate and that that was only created in 2009.  That is silliness.

 

Posted without comment.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 05:23 PM (epBek)

441 I think a lot of people do not realize that a president with a knowledge of economic conditions, some one who truly understands what is going on is what we need right now. 

Economics is a very soft science, to begin with.  What a President needs is nothing more than an appreciation of the importance of the sanctity of contracts, the integrity of the dollar, the absolute necessity of private property rights for any individual liberty to actually be possible and the importance of those individual liberties, and maitaining America's interest abroad (and into space, as now is the time - which we are, sadly, blowing).  That's about it.

The next president is going to have to deal with the economy in a way no one has ever had to deal.  He/she can't be afraid of numbers.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 10:16 PM (oZfic)

Actually, Presidents and the federal government are not supposed to be mucking around in the economy any further than is required to fulfill their Constitutional duties.  Running the economy is NOT one of those duties.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 05:24 PM (X3lox)

442 So Newt doubled down on Ryan's plan being "right wing social engineering" again on Hannity tonight.  He says we can't do any reforms that aren't popular.  I guess he feels that all of his half baked ideas would be popular, like "community boards" to decide which illegals should be kicked out. 

Any radical reform is going to require an explanation and some of his explanations plain suck.  He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and is a fucking egomaniac. He isn't that smart, he just has a good line of bullshit. I don't get this cunt or the people who are supporting him.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 30, 2011 05:27 PM (9zzk+)

443

Saying 'well, the feds shouldn't have got involved with running the economy in the first place' doesn't help much when they've already ignored your advice.

The feds are MASSIVELY involved in our economy.  Unwinding it is going to require judgment and skill, not just waving the purist stick around about what should have happened in the first place.  Simply repealing all laws that deal with the economy is neither politically feasible nor practically sound.  Nor in accord with the Constitution, I might add.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 05:29 PM (epBek)

444 455: I don't get this cunt or the people who are supporting him.

Well, they probably don't get you either, so I guess that makes you fucking even.

Posted by: Luddite Cannon at November 30, 2011 05:31 PM (sTS/8)

445 @ 289 Treasury Secretary, just for grins? Well, I guess any of them ('cept Defense), so he could explain to the 75% of the employees who get terminated  why they have to go. He'd be good at that.

Posted by: Malcolm Kirkpatrick at November 30, 2011 05:31 PM (LJl1D)

446  

Good points on the individual mandate. As far as Ron Paul goes; I know he is unelectable, but to call him a anti-Semite is quite a stretch. Israel is surrounded by people who hate them and they are preparing for the inevitable war. Ron Paul thinks that Israel can take care of it's self. I agree. No one can match Israel militarily, and if they threaten with nukes; both the US and Israel will annihilate them. No more propping up dictators for cheap oil. Produce domesticly and let the Middle East rot. No more attempts at the absurd idea of bringing "peace" and "Democratic Values" at the point of a gun, drone, or rendition facility to any society.

   

Posted by: Hekura at November 30, 2011 05:33 PM (PZOQu)

447 A president doesn't really need to know economics beyond a basic level.  In no particular order:

1.  Every time the government passes a regulation, taxes something, or subsidizes something, it creates a distortion in the market.  Often the distortion is not immediately apparent.

2.  The government cannot fix one distortion by introducing another one, since there is usually a ripple effect.

3.  The government cannot create private-sector jobs at will.  The only thing it can do is encourage their creation.  See numbers 1 and 2.

4.  History has proven that revenue and tax rates are only proportional up to a point.  We have already passed that point.

Note that business experts are usually experts in getting around the results of 1 and 2.  I'm not sure that's all that helpful in a president.

A president needs to be able to organize and lead.  He or she does not have the time to be digging into details.  That's what advisors are for.

Posted by: cranky-d at November 30, 2011 05:34 PM (H2G0R)

448 Simply repealing all laws that deal with the economy is neither politically feasible nor practically sound. 

Strawman alert!  What's important is that the President UNDERSTAND that "handling the economy" is not his job.  You'd be amazed at how many people don't know that basic and essential piece - whether they decide to espouse it or not.  Congress will do what they do.

Nor in accord with the Constitution, I might add.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at November 30, 2011 10:29 PM (epBek)

The strawman Constitution?

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 05:38 PM (X3lox)

449

This is some thread!  Both Newt and Mitt are big government guys, no matter how you cut it.  Ron Paul, well, is Ron Paul and his fiancial wisdom is important.  In truth, both Republicans and Democrats have been big government acolytes -- Bush and the so-called neoconservatives were among the worst.  The "new" conservatism, or the tea party populism, as it is being discussed on this thread?  Yes, it is new.  It is new because most people did not really understand that we were/are flocked financially.  We are bone dry.  Dead in the water.  We will lose our country, our hope for a Constitutional Republic, or some semblance thereof, if we do not "radically" change our spending/living habits. 

One way I can get a handle on just how flocked we are/have been is to review how most non-real scientists believed in AnthropogenicGlobalWarming from at least 2000 on -- this included most of the (silent) scientific establishment, especially all the "Scientific Professional Societies" and "Environmental Organizations".  (I carefully read the "scientists" in Nature and Science and most other "scientific" publications during this time while they were perpetrating one of the greatest scientific frauds of all time on the developed world.  I have had to decline my memberships in what should have been great conservation efforts.  I refer you to WhatsUpWithThat for the latest on ClimateGateII and how a small cabal subverted the greatest potential for scientific understanding.)  We have been so shafted for so many years.  We have been left without scientific truths (also in the financial arenas) or the scientific method -- without these there can be no liberalism (freedom from authoritarianism) or conservativism (preserving our liberal freedoms, hard fought and won by our founding fathers and mothers). 

Now I refer you to Prince Gingrich sitting on the couch with Princess Nancy (no apologies re titles) and touting Cap-N-Trade to protect us from EvilCO2/GlobalWarming.  Prince Genius is making these statements after the real scientists have reamed the hell out those AH's who call themselves "climate scientists", fraudsters all.  This is symbolic of why Gingrich must not be Obama's opponent.  He does not possess a "real mind".  If he did he could cherish a wife as a life's real partner.  He is simply more of the same, even if in a more recognizable Republican so-called "conservative" form.

Even when he was giving us more "balanced budgets" in the 1990s, he -- and Clinton -- were doing this by robbing the Social Security "trust fund" (and other sleight of hands, I think).  The budget was still wildly out of control, but it did not look like it on a chart. (Of course, Obama's budget is designed to totally, absolutely, destroy the America we have known.)  These people -- the Gingriches, the Romneys -- are all sleight-of-hand fakers.  They think they can make "significant changes" to the system as it has existed.  Yeah, I agree they are not radical marxists like Obama and most of the rest of the Democrats today.  But we end up in the same place.  Flocked.  Fleeced.  In the Abyss.

We have been so shafted by all our elites, whether governmental, academic, corporate (including financial), and media (if this is different from "corporate"). Everyone is on the take, including, of course, Gingrich himself.  Taking us into insolvency.

The only one who has a record -- a lengthy proven record -- of developing a limited government, free market model, is Rick Perry from the state (13th largest economy in the world) of Texas.  Do I "like" him as a stellar communicator or candidate?  Not a lot.  Do I think he stumbles around both verbally and conceptually.  Yes, I do.  But in these perilous times we need a doer, not a talker.  We must see what our candidate for President has actually achieved that works as a model for any kind of safe future we can hope for.  I require achievements in this election, not talk.  No more glib, supposedly brilliant, talk.  And I hold myself (and all others who want real "hope and change") responsible for filling in where he is lacking. 

One further point that sticks in my craw.  You "conservatives" who hate Perry for his "have a heart" comment, again, need to get a life.  Texans who have had to live with the longest unprotected border in the U.S., with a current Democratic President who wishes them ill, with a former Republican President (Bush) who did nothing to secure the border, have done the best they can.  Even so they have maintained, under the most trying circumstances, the 13th largest economy in the world.  Everyone should have a heart for Texas and Texans, and, if they have any sense of the dire straits in which we exist today, will cast their vote only for Rick Perry, warts and all.  His, Texas', is closest to any model that will carry us into a productive future. 

Today, I am not talking about only a USA model, but a global one.  Can anyone find any other country in the world today that "works"?  

Posted by: pyromancer76 at November 30, 2011 05:42 PM (i0aYq)

450

Today, I am not talking about only a USA model, but a global one.  Can anyone find any other country in the world today that "works"?  

Posted by: pyromancer76 at November 30, 2011 10:42 PM (i0aYq)

Have you looked at China?  Very impressive.

Posted by: Thomas Friedman at November 30, 2011 05:46 PM (X3lox)

451

Everything you say about Paul is true and I'd still vote for him, and campaign for him, and I'm thinking I might vote for him in the primaries.

The reason is simple.

He is the only politician in this country who is treating our current financial situation as an emergency requiring drastic measures to resolve.


Indeed, but he shows many so-called small government Conservatives to be hypocrites. So he must be minimized.

"Anti-semite" - hah.


Posted by: A Jew at November 30, 2011 05:47 PM (/v94V)

452 It's interesting.  The Blaze it touting Beck's inclusion in Business Insider's  "THE POLITIX 50:  Here Are The Only Pundits You Need To Pay Attention To Between Now And The Election"

Some you will say "oh of course" but others you say to yourself "who the heck is that, never heard of them".  It seems malkin is yesterday's news but ariana who is wildly irrelevant these days is on the list.  Breitbart is not on there and ace isn't either. 

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 05:47 PM (oZfic)

453 Shut up troll.  No one cares what you say.  Constantly changing your name won't change that curious.

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2011 05:50 PM (GULKT)

454 I've been arguing the pro-Romney side a lot lately.  I could live with Newt, though I hope people realize that takes screwing with the establishment and defense of marriage right off the table.

What I haven't been saying is that I doubt either of them will win.  Right now there's a diverse group onstage polishing their conservative bonafides amongst themselves and to us as a group.  I'm only here for fiscal conservatism in Washington, but I'm seeing people who honestly believe that the whole true  conservative brand has been pre-ordered by the public, and I don't think that's the case. 

I pay attention to the health care issues.  Drug coverage for seniors was part of GWB's first campaign.  Affordable health care was part of McCain's.  Going back to the 1996 elections, Republicans had control of Congress and set about planning cuts to SS and Medicare and alarmed people enough so that Clinton gained enough momentum back for re-election.  That's what could happen here, especially since the exact same guy (Newt) is at the front of the charge.  Romney too favors block grants to states to solve the Medicare & Medicaid problem and he's going to get slapped around hard for that - people here just don't see it yet because everyone is pretty much on the same page politically.  But just wait.



Posted by: Tee at November 30, 2011 05:52 PM (Wm9FJ)

455 Fuck me, it seems like the ad guys are getting sharper and sharper at making these things. This is just harsh, amazingly well constructed, but harsh.

Posted by: Uriah Heep at November 30, 2011 05:55 PM (YW11a)

456

Ace is just angry because The Masterdebator Newt Gingrich is kicking his boy Perry's ass!

Not really. I am just writing this as an excuse to float The Masterdebator trial balloon as a nickname for Newt.

It can be complimentary or derogatory, I'm not sure, I don't care.

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2011 05:57 PM (ccBqU)

457

It has nothing to do with why he didn't "get" it.   He said what he felt.  Don't you get that?   Sometime those "gaffes" are not gaffes at all.   Now, he can come out and try to spin what he said, but when he said it, it was exactly how he felt about it.

That's what fucking pisses me off about it.   He truly belives that shit.

Bingo.

Our host's problem is, still, that Perry wasn't slick enough in fooling the rubes. It isn't that Perry is an open borders ideologue. 

Booster he remains.

Posted by: A Jew at November 30, 2011 05:57 PM (/v94V)

458 I know you guys say the president should have nothing to do with the economy well then surprise cause he does.  And he should have nothing to do with illegal nato sponsored pseudo wars but he did and does.  Until you decide to deal with the world you have and not the world you want to have then you are going to be really surprised come election day.  Seriously, the president is going to have to roll up their sleeves and tackle the economy head on.

The economy is a threat to national security and therefore how can you conduct yourself in world affairs if you can't get your country in order?

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 05:58 PM (oZfic)

459 No one can match Israel militarily, and if they threaten with nukes; both the US and Israel will annihilate them. No more propping up dictators for cheap oil. Produce domesticly and let the Middle East rot. No more attempts at the absurd idea of bringing "peace" and "Democratic Values" at the point of a gun, drone, or rendition facility to any society.    

Posted by: Hekura at November 30, 2011 10:33 PM (PZOQu)

IF your religious and explicitly stated goal is to destroy Israel and everyone in it, you don't "threaten" with nukes; you launch them.  Israel can't stop them, and all the Jews die.  So let Iran have nukes, they launch them, Israel counter-launches as they die, the Middle East is uninhabitable for centuries.  And we need our oil online in the next 3 months... but it'll take more than 5 years to get it going... so 4+ years of fucking hell... awesome plan; but a bit thin.

Wait, I know, lets have China invade Taiwan and North Korea invade South Korea at the same time.  Good, but not enough; we need more war.

Oh yes, back out of all our treaties in Eastern Europe and sell them all out to Russia.

Now we've got 3 major wars running in three different areas of the world... awesome.  But who cares; we'll just work on our economy; which requires a functional global economy... which we've just destroyed.

Well that kind of sucks doesn't it?  Where do you plan on getting oil from when you set off WW3 exactly?  I mean assuming you're planning on having a functional economy and not a complete clusterfuck of epic proportions...

Oh... you have no idea and assume that if the US isn't involved everyone will play nice and never invade anyone... like we assumed before WW2.  Yep, worked awesome then, it'll work just as well now.

THIS is why people think you're a fucking moron without the brains god gave a flea.  and your perfect willingness to see Israel nuked off the map is why people wonder if you might have something against the Jews.

If this is your long term plan, go all the way.  Figure out how to crack the crust of the fucking planet and destroy the atmosphere to make absolutely sure you so completely fuck up everything that every single person on the planet dies.  Why go half measures and just mostly fuck over the entire planet when you can destroy the entire fucking thing?

Posted by: gekkobear at November 30, 2011 05:59 PM (8FizU)

460

2 conditions.

Newt Gingrich's mother is not allowed to talk to reporters.

Connie Chung is not allowed to talk to anyone.

Zombie Chris Farley playing a Zombie Newt Gingrich character must be his VP choice.

3 conditions.

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2011 05:59 PM (ccBqU)

461 All of our candidates have warts, Gingrich perhaps a bit more than most, and Paul with some that are unforgivable.  So why are people settling on Gingrich instead of Romney or someone else?  A large bulk of people are fairly casual followers of politics, especially moderates, and base a great deal of their preference in candidates on who seems nice and knowledgeable.  That, and general fatigue with Bush hurting Republicans in general, propelled Obama to the top in 2008.  This time, though, people aren't going to buy the SCOAMF's platitudes.  Gingrich has been doing something very effectively that helped Reagan become successful...he is explaining the rationale and history behind conservatism, and doing so in an effective manner that leaves people nodding in agreement when they may not have done so in the past. 

Posted by: Grimaldi at November 30, 2011 06:00 PM (rWwnY)

462 Hey Ace, what's your opinion on perry's islam views?

Posted by: A. Fufkin at November 30, 2011 06:02 PM (7F26S)

463 The economy is a threat to national security and therefore how can you conduct yourself in world affairs if you can't get your country in order?

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 10:58 PM (oZfic)

I believe Barry is already running on the idea that the economy is a threat to national security.  He's been fighting that enemy since his first day in office.

Recessions are not threats to national security.  Not even depressions.  Get a grip.

Once again, the President's job is MOST CERTAINLY NOT to "get your country in order" - in whatever weird sense you might mean that.

Posted by: really ... at November 30, 2011 06:03 PM (X3lox)

464

LOL! Ace and his moron crew are such pussies.

Ron Paul 2012: No bribes, no bailouts, no more wars for israel. Deal with it bitches.

Posted by: Baron Hater von Antisemite at November 30, 2011 06:04 PM (SQDbu)

465

Now that Cain is out of the way, Ace and his republican establishment cronies must write novellas attacking Gingrich to make room for the Romney and Perry.  This is why he wanted people to write in Palin in Iowa, the more people that do that, the less votes Cain or Gingrich gets, hence the Republican establishment wins.

The stated 'negatives' in the original post were purely just 'negative' because of the authors use of words around them.  Voting for Tarp becomes bold and the right thing to do, wanting to fix the real problem with getting rid of the mark to market rules becomes 'political'.  Hence after Ace gets done with that little part he portrays Newt as bad and the idiots that are the establishment as good.

And now Newt was 'lobbying' for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. and that doing that was equivalent to Romneycare. 

Of course the intellectual is smart enough to realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities, are not the real problem,  the real problem was the congressional oversight that forced those entities to do what they did.   Real conservatives, at some point need to separate those two.  It was the laws and regulations that were forced on them that caused them to become what they are, not the entities themselves.

And no, Romneycare and Obamacare and any law that requires you to purchase and consume something that you don't want to, are far more serious than someone being paid to help an organization.

Posted by: doug at November 30, 2011 06:05 PM (gUGI6)

466 The person who puts a plan on the table to deal with illegal immigration is going to win the election.  The person who keeps tweaking their financial plan and truly understands that plan is going to win the election.  The person who vows, not just promises, but vows and maybe signs a contract with the American people, to repeal obamacare, is going to win the election.  The person with the real deal jobs plan, is going to win the election.  The person who show unabashed love for this country, belief in American exceptionalism, is going to win the election.

All the debates have done is to make people see that they don't want another professional politician for president.  They are looking at the republican field and saying "guess obama's getting 4 more years" cause they aren't comfortable with the folks they see on the stage and they figure people will take the course of least resistance and vote for obama again.  Michelle Bachman is the only candidate making the case for why we can't have 4 more years.  But she's being ignored because she's, according to many, not electable.  Paul and Huntsman are starting to look good to a lot of people.  You can't smell the fear coming from their bones.  They both have the courge of their convictions.  Newt, a retread and a clintonista, according to many of the old people you talk to.  Mitt, just wants the job, doesn't show that he really cares about anything but that.  At least huntsman and paul make it real obvious that they care.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 06:09 PM (oZfic)

467

The Ron Paul ad is fucking deadly though.

If Ace wasn't such a whore in the bag for Gingrich he wouldn't have shoved it all the way at the bottom of the TL;DR anti-paul rant just like newspapers put stuff on page 16.

Seriously, regarding reading the post; I'm working on it. Can I download this thing on my kindle and read it in chapters?

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2011 06:11 PM (ccBqU)

468 Not safe for reading-while-driving. Ace, can't you do these long ones as an audio stream or something?

Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at November 30, 2011 06:13 PM (ndp2I)

469

 The person who puts a plan on the table to deal with illegal immigration is going to win the election. 

Here is your plan: Fix Mexico.

Period. End of story.

Look, you are not going to stop the flow of illegal immigration by building a fence (slow it...maybe, stop it, nope). Your not going to fix illegal immigration by giving everyone citizenship. And your sure the hell not going to fix it any other way than to fix what is causing illegal immigration, which is mainly....Mexico sucks.

Fix Mexico - fix illegal immigration.

But no one wants to talk about that...why....cause Mexico is, was and continues to be a fucking basketcase. And there is no sound bite solution.

Oh, and to your main point.....bull.

The person who puts together the best plan to fix our current economy will win the election.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 30, 2011 06:16 PM (OWjjx)

470 Mallamutt you're responding to it.  Go get some Febreeze to get rid of the odor of cat piss.

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2011 06:18 PM (GULKT)

471 Good post, Ace.

Posted by: Travis at November 30, 2011 06:20 PM (9WkMB)

472

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2011 11:18 PM (GULKT)

Oh fuck me! I did not check the hash. Jesus, this god damn kitty litter doesn't come off your shoes easily.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 30, 2011 06:25 PM (OWjjx)

473

Ron Paul 2012: No bribes, no bailouts, no more wars for israel. Deal with it bitches.

No winning, no more Congress, just sweet, sweet retirement.

Deal with that........bitch.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 30, 2011 06:26 PM (OWjjx)

474

ABO

Anybody but Obama!

Focus on the prize, and find the best one most able to win it.

There is no perfect one. Get used to that idea.

I am a Conservative Libertarian. Accuse me if you will of abandoning my principles in the name of practicality, but I will support any Republican who can beat Obama. The alternative appalls me.

Posted by: lazy american fool/clown clinging bitterly to my guns at November 30, 2011 06:28 PM (wN82N)

475 A question in relation to your healthcare Mandate claim.  You claim that Newt thought of the healthcare mandate...wasn't Newt's version something like states use for car insurance in that in order to drive on the road you have to have insurance UNLESS you can prove that you can afford (something like $50,000) if you cause an accident?  Wasn't that his stance on healthcare, that you should have health insurance unless you could afford not to?  That you would have to have an insurance bond of some kind just so that the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay your emergency room visit if you didn't, that some other company would .  I'm just curious about that, because if it was, I imagine there were more holes in the mandate issue than just saying Newt's plan is the same as Romneycare.

Posted by: doug at November 30, 2011 06:30 PM (gUGI6)

476 _____________

Ace,

I liked your analysis quite a bit. I especially liked your insights regarding the origins of neoconservatism and the dramatic changing of GOP priorities (especially immigration) over the past several years.

I don't agree, however, that Gingrich would make an okay candidate. And it's not substantive issues like his lobbying for Fannie/Freddie that will cause him the most trouble. Neither will the substantive issue of Newt having been one of the originators of the individual mandate at the Heritage Foundation cause him much trouble. Think about it: Did it cause Newt trouble just a few debates back when he attacked Romney for Romneycare, and then Romney effectively countered by basically pointing out, "I got the idea of an individual mandate from you and the Heritage Foundation."?   No, this didn't hurt Newt. We conservatives didn't say, "Oooo, burn! That's it Gingrich, no nomination consideration for you!" These kinds of substantive points of argument are not what decide elections. - On their best day, they'll make a marginal and temporary difference in the polls.   

Gingrich will be a disastrous candidate because he will be easy to demonize. And we know this for two reasons: A) We have already seen this movie. Gingrich was thoroughly demonized in the 90's by the Clinton machine.  B) Gingrich's personal story is stained with ugly episodes (due to his own poor judgment) that will be used to define him early on in the minds of swing voters.  

Whoever our nominee is will have to be "reintroduced" to the broader American voting public. Obama will hit Gingrich hard as he's coming out of the gate. Gingrich's reintroduction to the American people will be over before Gingrich makes his first stump speech as the GOP nominee. So that vital aspect of the election will be over before it gets started.

If Obama is defeated next November, it will be because the GOP offers a credible and likeable alternative to a likeable but failed president. It won't be because the GOP nominee argues the American public into voting against Obama. Absolutely nothing that either Romney or Gingrich has said or will say is going to change voters' minds regarding Obama. Our nominee's only job is to be a credible and likeable alternative (-and, yes, this involves laying out a vision for the country) who constantly advertises himself through campaign appearances. That's it. No Jedi mind tricks will come into play. And it's not going to be a national exercise in profound logical reasoning.

Romney will be a vastly superior candidate over Gingrich because he will be extremely difficult to demonize (the guy's slicker than Teflon), and he's got a huge personal checking account that he can dip into at will. (Which, incidentally, makes him less persuadable by monied-interest groups.)

Also, Romney will force Obama to have to spend more resources and personal energy defending in northeastern States like Massachusetts. - That's less time and energy that Obama will have to try and recapture States like Virginia. 
 

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 06:30 PM (SV650)

477 Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 11:09 PM (oZfic)

Just a bit of friendly advice:

Those rectal fissures won't heal unless you stop taking it up the ass five or ten times each day.

Posted by: Typical troublemaking moron at November 30, 2011 06:31 PM (nEUpB)

478 "Incidentally, let me go on the record here: For any Paul fans who are thinking "This is his time," I heretofore state I will not support, or vote for, Ron Paul, under any circumstances whatsoever." Yes Ace, you have abundantly made it clear you would rather have a socialist than Paul.

Posted by: Texan Economist at November 30, 2011 06:33 PM (TC/9F)

479 Well, considering Paul is the only candidate actually offering to balance the budget within a year... Sorry Ace, you are part of the problem.

Posted by: Texan Economist at November 30, 2011 06:36 PM (TC/9F)

480 ___________

Ace,

Oh yeah, I also meant to say that I think your treatment of Romney in this post was evenhanded.

As a default Romney supporter, I'm having trouble understanding some of the vitriolic comments being directed at you in the threads.




Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 06:39 PM (SV650)

481 Posted by: Texan Economist at November 30, 2011 11:36 PM (TC/9F)

We tried isolationism and stupidity once before; it didn't work very well.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 06:40 PM (nEUpB)

482 hey ace,

enough with the retard from texas. i ain't doing stupid this time no matter that it makes you an ass for supporting a loser. suck ewoks buddy.

Posted by: newrouter at November 30, 2011 06:42 PM (xD4bD)

483

"IF your religious and explicitly stated goal is to destroy Israel and everyone in it, you don't "threaten" with nukes; you launch them. Israel can't stop them, and all the Jews die"

What was the USSR's stated goals? How many nukes did they have? Who was their main advisary? Does some commie  beating his shoe on the table whilst shouting," we will bury you!" ring any bells?

 

 

 

 

  So let Iran have nukes, they launch them, Israel counter-launches as they die, the Middle East is uninhabitable for centuries. And we need our oil online in the next 3 months... but it'll take more than 5 years to get it going... so 4+ years of fucking hell... awesome plan; but a bit thin."

 Iran has thousands of nukes pointed at them.  They know what will happen if they get froggy. If we stay in the ME, we will fight endless wars for no gain. Israel has to make peace with it's enemies, or destroy them. Same as us.


 

Posted by: Hekura at November 30, 2011 06:43 PM (jXKc2)

484

Sorry Ace, you are part of the problem.

Yea....its always someone's fault when your candidate can't win.

It is never your god damn candidate. Nope. Never

 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 30, 2011 06:46 PM (OWjjx)

485 ridiculous

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 06:46 PM (h+qn8)

486 Everyone needs to take a step back and use your Spock brains instead of your Kirk brains.

1. I'm just going to take it for granted that whether the nominee is Newt or Mittens a solid 99% of you will be shilling you asses off out of fear that Barry will get a second term.

2. Newt or Mittens will be subjected to all out attacks. I don't see a case that either is more protected. The only difference will be the subject of the attacks. But they will be ugly, nasty, and unfair most of the time.

With all that in mind let me address the current criticisms of Newt and how they will be dealt with by you:

Peliosi-couch: Oops, he fucked that up. He believed the bad science before he knew it was bad, as a majority of Americans did. He thought the best thing to do was join the debate and try to move it towards free market solutions. But look how willing he is to work with the opposition. Obama's a dunce who is using the EPA is destroy jobs.

Lobbying: He is a historian with a mountain of knowledge and experience. He started several think tanks and policy factories that worked with government agencies. The advice and policy created waere always aimed at free markets and empowering individuals. He can unload a dumpster of position papers and analysis to back that up. Oh, and they didn't listen to him look what happened. Obama is semi-retarded and unable to spell "policy" let alone come up with any.

The individual mandate: Newts idea of a mandate was a bond. Not a tax. Not a fee. Not any kind of payment to government. His idea of a mandate was to be a single part of a broader policy that would free up the health care industry from government intrusion and allow for cheaper prices and better service. Oh, and they didn't listen and look what happened.

Personal indiscretions (pussyhounding): When he was a younger man he liked the poon. Then one day, he got enough poon. Now he's old and prefers lively debate. Get over it you prude! Plus, Obama is a homo.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 30, 2011 06:52 PM (i3PJU)

487 I would totally support, and vote for, RonPaul.  Except that he is batshit crazy.  And completely fuckin' repulsive.  Otherwise, I am sooooooo there.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!11!!!11!!

Posted by: Peaches at November 30, 2011 06:58 PM (PcI2Q)

488 You know you people are funny.  I say the president has to understand the economy, fix it and create jobs.  That's what people expect.  You tell me that's not the president's job.  ok, fine but then you can't jump all over Obama for not doing any of it then, can you?   See how that works.  It really doesn't matter what the president's job description is if the people don't know the description and just expect the president, no matter R or D to go above and beyond when the country is in this state.  Sometimes perception trumps reality.  Maybe if romney touted his background and showed a little more of the spunk he showed in the brett beier interview people might listen.  Right now, an awful lot of dems who are disgusted are turning towards huntsman and paul.  Maybe the republicans are doing a piss poor job of getting the "sense of urgency" across.  But, maybe like a lot of you folks on this blog they don't really believe there is a problem with the economy.  They don't really believe that we need jobs, they somehow, like the kids at OWS think we will default and there will be a nice "reset" and life will go on as usual.  Cause that is what the republicans are telegraphing to the American people.  They have no guts, no gumption, no life cause they are all the same.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 06:58 PM (oZfic)

489 No one is telling you anything.  No one cares what you have to say you brain dead skank.  Its mindless drivel and that's why you have to keep changing your name and your hash to hope someone doesn't spot the stupidity immediately.

Posted by: buzzion at November 30, 2011 07:03 PM (GULKT)

490 "Sorry Ace, you are part of the problem."

I say Ace is delusional and loves war.

Posted by: Kilgore Trout at November 30, 2011 07:05 PM (imJYs)

491 Ron Paul's 1987 Resignation Letter to the RNC As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter.

My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise

philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast

my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.


Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was

going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974.

Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied

to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited

government, and balanced budgets.


Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a

Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the

U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide

its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still

exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents

a danger to our constitutional system of government.


In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the

four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other

Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his

efforts.


Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the

Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.

Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing

deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party

of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated

red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill,

although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.


Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic

growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent;

Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to

four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.


All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit.

But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government

spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the

federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.


Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter,"

the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and

Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the

spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been

legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was

tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about

his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile

effort to hold on to control of the Senate.


Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of

Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less

secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's,

Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign

intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for

foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments

abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial

problems.


Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President

and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-

item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of

California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President

he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending.

Instead, he has encouraged it.


Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees

to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation

than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit

increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and

America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over

Keynesianism.


Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when

he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to

abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.


Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the

Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial

privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to

conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people

really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at

one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a

clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive

"lie detector" tests.


Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more

arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has

"sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their

substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the

President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend

the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the

IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more

revenue for the government to waste.


Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan

disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal

funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with

the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.


I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given

us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate

military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming

foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our

personal liberties and privacy.


After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and

out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be

carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the

Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in

the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called

them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government.

It has become big government's best friend.


If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which

Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is

no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of

government. That is the message of the Reagan years.


I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is

ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.


I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my

membership card.

Posted by: Ron Paul at November 30, 2011 07:06 PM (e8kgV)

492 We must cut defense. We are here on earth for a short time. So defending ourselves is meaningless in the ether of reality.

Posted by: Kilgore Trout at November 30, 2011 07:12 PM (imJYs)

493 You know what I mean, not what I say.

Posted by: Kilgore Trout at November 30, 2011 07:16 PM (imJYs)

494

I look forward to a Newt presidency if for no other reason than his speeches are a pleasure to listen to.  He's often entirely spontaneous, and rarely consults notes, if ever.  Obama merely reads a teleprompter well, and is lost without it.  As we've all gotten used to his schtick, we've learned how he's merely a "me-too" academic that learned how to repeat the Marxist rhetoric that his professors wanted to hear.  Obama thinks inside the box:  His brain is like spam in a can.

Posted by: theCork at November 30, 2011 07:37 PM (IsLZ7)

495 I don't buy the red voter shift theory. American society in general and politics have certainly lurched to the left over the last several decades due to liberal domination of media, education, and hollywood. However, there is still a large conservative voter block that reject the moderation and RINOs. The tea party and palin's popularity are largely the product of their frustration. These are productive members of society that have never demonstrated in their lives, but are fed up with the out of control spending, cronyism, abuse, and waste in DC. They are tired of holding their noses and voting for the lesser of the career politician evils. They are desperate for a "true conservative" candidate that will not participate in the dc establishment schemes and not afraid to make the necessary bold and painful moves to get this country back on a solid financial footing. The pessimism that dominates the conversations of how any of our candidates would fare in the general fail to factor in the likely economic climate during the election. Does anyone believe that unemployment will be below 8% eleven months from now? Does anyone believe the EU is going to hold together for another eleven months? Are the wishy-washy 10% that determine every national election going to care about Newt's Freddie Mac contract, Cain's women, Perry's immigration stance, or Romneycare when the country is sliding into another recession?

Posted by: phxjay at November 30, 2011 07:47 PM (7AzcL)

496 Calling it " Underground Great Wall", the students pushed on by their hard charging professor, a former top Penatgon official, have said in the report that China could have as many as 3,000 nuclear warheads, far higher than the current estimates which range from 80 to 400, Washington Post reported.

The 363-page study, which according to the Post has not been published yet has claimed that Chinese Second Artillery Corps- designated to handle nuclear weapons- has dug thousands of miles of tunnels across the country to disperse the nukes and keep them away from prying eyes in the sky.

Posted by: George Wallace at November 30, 2011 07:47 PM (e8kgV)

497 berserker-pants

That's a keeper.  Does it just rhyme? a Hulk ref?

Posted by: DaveA at November 30, 2011 07:50 PM (1kXSm)

498 When he was running for president, Obama was even more of a peacenik than Ron Paul. Isn't it likely that if Paul were elected president and were faced with reality, he would jettison as much of his claptrap as Obama has?

Unlike Obama, Paul has pretty decent economic policies going for him. I would end up voting for Paul on the assumption that he would carry on the Bush-Obama approach to national security.

If a Marxist community organizer from Chicago saw the light, it seems likely that a former Air Force flight surgeon would, too. Like Obama before he was elected president, Paul currently has the luxury of play acting and indulging in self-aggrandizing rhetoric. As president, he would have far too much pressure on him to actually implement the libertarian wet dream.

Posted by: Llarry at November 30, 2011 07:53 PM (e7bui)

499 Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 11:58 PM (oZfic)

Do you really think the wall of text is meaningful?  I mean really?

Look on your keyboard, over at the right past the keys; there is a key called "ENTER".  Give it a try.  Imagine if you were speaking the screed you're typing, where you'd pause for breath, give that enter key a tap or two; try for some paragraphs.

Or do you not breathe normally when you're in the middle of one of those psychotic rants?  If this is the case, please go for one about three times the length of that one... then at least you'll pass out for a bit; which is better than nothing.

Posted by: gekkobear at November 30, 2011 07:55 PM (8FizU)

500 will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik "We brought 9/11 ourselves" pacifist Chomnskyite crank.

There's no n in Chomsky is there? and you forgot racist-suckup, goldbug, nutjob.

He might actually be better than Obama though in an experimental "Will it Blend" or Kaboom sort of way.

Posted by: DaveA at November 30, 2011 07:57 PM (1kXSm)

501 [racist crap removed]

Posted by: Lynch Democrats at November 30, 2011 07:58 PM (ItOCy)

502 Ron Paul equates giving Congress more money with giving a drug addict more drugs. This from a guy who wants to legalize drugs.

Posted by: SethPower at November 30, 2011 07:59 PM (e6MoS)

503 Paulthetic.

Posted by: SethPower at November 30, 2011 08:01 PM (e6MoS)

504 If you are against Ron Paul you're against freedom.

Posted by: Ed at November 30, 2011 08:01 PM (ItOCy)

505 Go back to Israel kike.

Where's "Israel kike"?

Posted by: Llarry at November 30, 2011 08:14 PM (e7bui)

506 Posted by: gekkobear at December 01, 2011 12:55 AM (8FizU)

When I posted, there were paragraphs.  Not sure what happened to them but they were there, right in front of me.

oh and thanks for reading.

Posted by: merry at November 30, 2011 08:20 PM (oZfic)

507 RON PAUL IS ANTI-SEMITIC
HE DON'T GO TO WAR FOR ISRUL SO HE HATES THE JOOS

Neocon faggots.  "We need to spend trillions fighting overseas!"

Posted by: Some asshole. at November 30, 2011 08:25 PM (G2Jt7)

508 RON PAUL IS ANTI-SEMITIC
HE DON'T GO TO WAR FOR ISRUL SO HE HATES THE JOOS

Name one war we've fought for Israel.

Posted by: Llarry at November 30, 2011 08:31 PM (e7bui)

509 Ah, sweet silence.

Posted by: Llarry at November 30, 2011 08:39 PM (e7bui)

510 I am definitely bookmarking this page and sharing it with my friends.

Posted by: December 1941 ePub at November 30, 2011 09:46 PM (5FOUx)

511 I find it interesting how conservatives dismiss Paul over his foreign policy. We can't be bothered by the fact that the rest of the field is a bunch of liars and opportunists and only one candidate has had a consistent message that has been proven right throughout the entirety of his political career. Not only that, but a message that should resonate with small government, constitutionalist, republican voters.

Everyone bemoans the loss of American liberties, yet the one candidate that has a shred of credibility about giving Americans back their freedoms is laughed out of the room.

I guess people really aren't interested in freedom. They want another politico that will spend more of our money and create new regulations so we can "fix" more problems with government intervention. They would rather continue unsustainable wars on multiple fronts and succumb to the very thing that has ended the dominance of basically every major world power throughout recorded history. But who cares about the historical record of world powers and multiple wars? We're different right? The GOP couldn't possibly be as terrible as the DNC right?

Have you stopped and thought about much you agree with the rest of the planks of Ron Paul's campaign? Is one plank enough to dismiss him on when you easily disagree with many of the views held by the rest of the field? It's nonsense.

Posted by: crow at November 30, 2011 09:48 PM (LakVK)

512 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! mtv downloader  flv to dvd converter  dvd creator
pdf to word transfer

Posted by: nanonu at November 30, 2011 10:02 PM (vzqIo)

513 Also Ace, Perry isn't popular in Texas. He was the the lesser of two evils as most politicians are. We don't particularly like him here and everyone still remembers that he used to be a democrat.

Posted by: crow at November 30, 2011 10:10 PM (LakVK)

514 There's a difference between accepting that there is no "Perfect Conservative" in the race vs. accepting someone who isn't conservative at all. I don't think that Gingrich would be a bad POTUS, but it's worrisome that Newt goes wherever his "brilliant mind" leads him - regardless of politics. Clinton's bemused recent description of Newt was quite accurate. He comes up with ideas and THEN sees if he can make them conservative. If he can't - no problem.

His infidelities dont bother me from a morality point of view, but I think they are meaningful in terms of describing the kind of person Newt is, i.e. he changes his mind a lot and has trouble committing to one idea. I can see him "cheating" on the base in the exact same way!

Neoconservatism or the GOP's move to the TP/right does NOT explain sitting on that couch with Pelosi pushing global warming. And Newt's admitting that it was the stupidest thing he's done (a clever manoeuvre on his part) does not excuse it.

At least with Romney, you can understand why the guy went liberal while he was governor. It was freakin' Massachusetts. It's not like he was serving conservatives! Not making excuses for Romney, but I think his flip-flops fall more in line with what you were saying Ace (he went to the left to please lefties, he's now going to the right to serve righties, who knows what he would do as POTUS - probably go to the middle).

I think Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, and even Huntsman would *ALL* be much better for America than Obama. The funny thing is, that the one who is held in total contempt by every right-wing site I visit, and polling at near-negative, is probably the one with the best shot to beat Obama - namely  Huntsman. He's a harder-to-attack Romney. He would appeal to the middle and probably the media. But he's no conservative enough for the right.

I remember the Dem primaries years ago...when nobody knew who Clinton was...

Posted by: mike bell at November 30, 2011 11:44 PM (Kz6PE)

515

If Newt is the nominee... we would do better to vote for Obama.

Newt is so full of scandals that the Party would not survive him.

Not that a Party who would do such a hypocritical thing as nominate someone as corrupt as Newt Gingrich deserves to survive... but it won't.

Newt is the epitome of everything bad about politics, government and crony politics.  His opinions are sold to the highest bidder on a regular basis.

It is time to reconsider the Mitt hate, and ask yourself what is so very bad about Mitt Romney that it is worth nominating someone as corrupt as Gingrich.  Mitt is annoying.  But Mitt is clean.

Newt is something old and smelly the cat dragged in.  Newt is dirty, he stinks to high heaven and there is no way around that.

 

Romney is clean.  Never a whiff of financial scandal, or sex scandal, or ethics violations.  Mitt is clean.  Vote for clean government.

Don't let the completely corrupt,  be the enemy of the okay, but he is clean.

Instead of anyone but Romney, it is time to say, well not anyone... not Newt.

Posted by: AnybodybutNewt at November 30, 2011 11:52 PM (hgrmi)

516 "Name one war we've fought for Israel."

First Gulf War.  Sure we put half a million troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them from Saddam, but you know how those Zionist Saudis just love them some Jooooooos.

Posted by: Peppermint Patti Buchanan at December 01, 2011 12:17 AM (9CzKK)

517 It is time to reconsider the Mitt hate, and ask yourself what is so very bad about Mitt Romney that it is worth nominating someone as corrupt as Gingrich.

Romney is Obama. He votes present on everything, signed horribly destructive health-care legislation, signed horribly destructive energy legislation, lies about whose fault his failures are, gets angry when questioned, engages in hideously dishonest demagoguery, and wants to be president so he can bask in warm waves of applause.

Posted by: Llarry at December 01, 2011 01:49 AM (e7bui)

518 Any Repub ad that uses Schultz Blitz that broad forgot her name, and Steffi cannot be brutal.

BTW Geri Willis? I'd give her the best 28 seconds of her life.

Posted by: LtT26 at December 01, 2011 02:40 AM (Qsk03)

519 I could support Gingrich if he were the nominee.  Much more than I could support Romney.

But, with that said, Gingrich is our version of Clinton.  A policy wonk.  A clever politician.  A sordid personal life.  Some sleaze factor in his political dealings.  Of course, he's our version of Clinton without Clinton's charisma.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at December 01, 2011 03:24 AM (sOx93)

520 My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many words,

Posted by: Emperor Joseph II at December 01, 2011 03:49 AM (0b17P)

521

There is a deep desire for competence in this country right now.

Perry is a competent governor, but can't speak in complete sentences.

Mitt is a competent businessman, but is all over the map.

Gingrich is the most competent candidate to enter the race.

On top of that, he's a policy wonk, knows where all the gears and levers of government are located, is a workaholic, is literate, articulate, and full of ideas. Gingrich debating Obama would be like watching someone hunt dairy cows with an AK-47.

We win when we run the most conservative candidate, not the "most electaable."

Dole was moderate, got pounded.

McCain was moderate, got beat.

Your choices have come down to Mitt or Gingrich. Which one has actual conservative cred?

 

Posted by: -Shawn- at December 01, 2011 03:53 AM (gjW6u)

522 Another terrific post by you, Ace. Thanks. Two specific points I want to remark on. Under no circumstances whatsoever will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik "We brought 9/11 ourselves" pacifist Chomnskyite crank. And let me add, "inbred hillbilly extra-chromosome The Hills Have Eyes bridge troll" for good measure. If voters changed -- if half of you have shifted rightward -- it's kind of nuts to go berserker-pants over politicians who did, too. They're whores. That's what they're paid to be, idealistic ideas of Men of Resolve be damned. That's 1% of them. What about the other 99%? That is probably the right answer, at least in some cases. But what about this possibility: that if by shifting their positions on some issues they responding to the will of the electorate they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do in a democratic republic such as ours? I know what I just said contrasts sharply with the scorn I've heaped on the Mittster here in the past. And in response I'll say that the whore label applies to him and anyone like him who changes his positions on issues from one interview/stump speech to the next. I honestly don't know if the same applies to Gingrich or not. Time and vetting will tell, I guess.

Posted by: Ed Snyder at December 01, 2011 03:57 AM (S/f3m)

523 Ace, get outta my head. 

That is all.

Posted by: Beth at December 01, 2011 04:37 AM (kBxk7)

524

"For any Paul fans who are thinking "This is his time..."

Jesus, forgive us, f-fAce.  Time to "get back in line" & vote for the haplesss, AOS designate.

 

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 01, 2011 04:53 AM (Mv/2X)

525 Anyone who thinks Obama would be better for America than Paul isn't going to be taken seriously by at least one person.

Posted by: Chuckit at December 01, 2011 05:21 AM (oRTYL)

526

"Peter Schiff, one of my favorite Austrian-school finance guys..."

FYI, Ace.  One of your minions missed the last edict on right-thinking.

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 01, 2011 05:39 AM (BuYeH)

527 Comments about voters shifting right and politicians shifting right are absurd. It shows the moral and ethical degeneration of our society.

If you swapped views, it means that either you favor political fads because it is socially expedient, you were previously ignorant, or you are morally bankrupt and are attempting to manipulate people for your own ends. The most understandable and forgivable is ignorance, but none of those qualities are desirable.

We can do better than someone who is ignorant, elitist, or immoral. We have thousands of people in politics in this country. Certainly ONE must have the qualities we need in a president. I can state with absolute certainty that neither Romney nor Gingrich are that person.

Posted by: crow at December 01, 2011 08:13 AM (IQIgM)

528  Israel has to make peace with it's enemies, or destroy them. Same as us.
Posted by: Hekura at November 30, 2011 11:43 PM (jXKc2)

Well that makes sense.  My roomate got into a bar fight and expected me to back him up.  But even though we're friends and allies; I figured he had to make peace with the guy smashing a bottle over his head, or destroy him.  But in any case it should be done without my involvement, so I ran away screaming like a little girl; as any good friend and ally would do... right?

He thinks I abandoned and betrayed him; but I just hung him out to dry, so he'd be forced to suffer on his own without my help; and that's the right response in this situation, right?

Yeah; that's an impressive set of moral values you have there.

Have you clarified to your friends that you're only ever in anything for yourself; you'll hang them out to dry at a moment's notice, and you'll run away if they're attacked to protect yourself and let them suffer or die as the fates will it?

Or do you just assume your friends know you're completely fucking self-absorbed and useless?

Oh wait... my bad.  I assumed you have friends didn't I?  Sorry about that, not sure what I was thinking.  Obviously I've made some seriously unwarranted assumptions... I apologize for the confusion.  I'd explain what a "friend" is; but I'm not sure you've got the background to comprehend the definition.

Posted by: gekkobear at December 01, 2011 09:13 AM (X0NX1)

529

Ace? In your sentence that starts with "My pretending that Perry doesn't have an immigration problem".  What immigration problem are you speaking of?

Is it in-state tuition? People keep hanging the in-state tuition tag around Perry as if it's full blown amnesty. As a matter of fact, Perry is against amnesty.

It's been miscontrued, lied about and overblown into something it's not. You'd think Perry himself was killing off Americans and replacing them with illegals.

It's in-state tuition, plain and simple. That's it. It's not free. It doesn't put illegals ahead of others. They don't get in if they don't have the grades, etc. 

I don't like it either. But as a border state who has to live it, I understand it.  Especially when the Federal Government won't do a damn thing about it.  A state cannot deport and the Feds won't. Texas felt BY AN OVERWHELMING VETO-PROOF VOTE that was best for their state.

If education is a magnet then it started with the Supreme Court. It's ruling on Plyler vs. Doe. States are required to give all illegals and their children education through grade 12. Now they're here and have gone through high school hopefully, now what? 

Does Texas let them live off the taxpayers?  Do they let them commit crimes, fill up their prisions?  Additionally, the second a state tries to do something here comes the Feds then. The Feds, ACLU, etc are all over them and suing.

Something big and crucial to the immigration discussion and the bashing of Perry is being omitted. NEWT SUPPORTS IN-STATE TUITION FOR ILLEGALS.  As well as many other aspects of the Federal DREAM Act.

http://tinyurl.com/7cnkelf

And Michelle Bachmann VOTED FOR IN-STATE TUITION FOR ILLEGALS.

Where exactly is Newt on immigration anyway? In 2006 he wrote a 25 page paper to AEI that stated he had a Zero Tolerance Policy. Look it up.

Yet, now that he's running for President, he's for amnesty?  It's called pandering and being political which Newt is very good at.

As far as flip-flopping, I can see growing or whatever they call it today to change positions. However, with Newt, he's held life-long views on many, many of his now flip-flops. After researching him, I have found this to be true.  

Newt has always said he's a moderate. He's touted it proudly and loudly for decades. Yet, I am to believe he's truly changed in the last 6 months? I mean, really, he was for the individual mandate publicly as recent as 5 months ago.

I cannot trust him and believe he's truly a changed man. You either have a principled core or you don't. After leaving office, he moved more and more to the left. And profitted off of it at our expense.

I'm not willing to give up my principles on a maybe.  Are you?  Do you want someone who is a wonderful talker with a questionable record especially in the last decade?  Are you sure he would govern conservatively?  What if he only serves one term and doesn't have to worry about reelection?  

Please research.

Or do you want a doer who actually has a recent record that's over a decade old, that is conservative?

The Perry obituary is written but the man isn't dead yet.

Posted by: Tricia at December 01, 2011 09:25 AM (gqG91)

530 526 I find it interesting how conservatives dismiss Paul over his foreign policy.
Posted by: crow at December 01, 2011 02:48 AM (LakVK)

When your plan is:
1) slaughter every firstborn son, rape the daughers, and salt the land.
2) Minimize the size and scope of government.
3) Restore Constitutional right and protections
4) Simplify the tax plan
5) Minimize regulations to avoid blocking access to the markets
6) Simplify the budgeting process and stop the earmarks and hidden agendas in Congressional spending

People are going to get hung up on #1 regardless of how awesome the rest of your plan is.


Ron "Leave our Allies swinging in the breeze and let the world BURN" Paul has sort of a flaw in his policies.  Decent people who understand friendships and alliances think bailing on all your allies and telling them to fuck off and die is sort of a bad thing.  Unacceptable really.

It's kind of a deal-breaker for a lot of people.  You know, the social ones who actually leave the basement and talk to other people... who understand the concept of a friendship or alliance.  I'm sure you've seen them before; when you have to go out and buy food or something probably.

They seem to dislike the "let our friends and allies die; fuck them all" school of foreign policy.  And yeah, that one issue can be a dealbreaker to the point where being right on tons of other issues doesn't matter.

I know, that whole social thing is just weird for you; but it's really how a lot of people work.  Sorry about that.

Posted by: gekkobear at December 01, 2011 09:27 AM (X0NX1)

531 Just saw this topic and just guessed that it would have 550 comments.  Missed it by 5.  Well, less now.

Well done, Ace.

Posted by: Sterling Archer at December 01, 2011 10:25 AM (1H47k)

532 Hey gekkobear, I thought your point #1 was initially referring the US, as our foreign policy seems to be nothing but propping up one murderous dictator after another. The let our "friends and allies die" is what Iraq experienced during the '90s wherein Maddy Albright admitted on national TV that half a million dead Iraqi children was sooo totally worth it. I don't blame America, I blame the Goldman Sachs monopoly men commies who run our foreign policy for their own gains.

Posted by: republican mother at December 01, 2011 02:04 PM (9+1/P)

533 gekkobear,

You've clearly made up your mind about Ron Paul and are willing to make up all kinds of straw men to satisfy your dislike of the man who is more right than you want to believe.

Some counter points to your argument:

1) Ron Paul has never stated we will abandon our allies. Only that we should not be occupying half a dozen countries with our military. We should bring them home to defend America. If China invades or some shit, I'm sure we'd still be there to help.

2) Ron Paul's foreign policy view is not that dramatic or divergent from what a large percentage of American's now believe. We happen to have some historically ignorant people on the right who didn't read much about the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, British, French, Germans, etc. etc. and how their empires fell, but that doesn't make his point of view wrong. It just makes those people ignorant.

Twisting "bring our troops home" into "fuck our allies" takes some serious mental effort. I'm quite amused that someone with such self-serving sense of logic could label Paul supporters as socially awkward.

One only needs to look at the new National Defense Authorization Act to see where neo-cons and libtards will take us. Say goodbye to your liberties.

Posted by: crow at December 01, 2011 02:46 PM (LakVK)

534 Paul is really the only chance y'all have at beating Obama. He is the ONLY one that takes votes away from Obama. I don't understand why so many people think he's crazy? Have you even investigated the guy? -The guy is consistent -Proposed a plan to cut $1 trillion from the first year's budget. Check it out for yourself. -Never voted for a tax increase. -Opposed the bailouts. -Advocates abolishing the income tax and the IRS. -Predicted the economic collapse in 2003. -Supports an exhaustive audit of the Federal Reserve. I guess he's crazy because he's principled and doesn't pander?--Yea i guess that is crazy when talking about politicians...

Posted by: Cali-crat at December 01, 2011 04:19 PM (jKaqH)

535 Paul warned us of the housing crises and  nobody listened,now he is warning us of a police state and today they are trying to pass a bill worse than the patriot act.He is warning us that our meddling in the middle east  may trigger another cold war or world war3 and everyone calls him crazy.We are truly screwed, the American people have become a bunch of blood thirsty brainwashed idiots.

Posted by: james at December 01, 2011 05:15 PM (37oiF)

536

Wow,  I didn't know that being a Ron Paul supporter made me nasty!  Being over the age of 50 I have been called "Over the Hill", Serving in Berlin, Germany during the Cold War made me a veteran, but I haven't been called Nasty by anyone other than my wife of 30 yrs.   I graduated from college with a 3.8 GPA so I don't consider myself stupid but I read most of the comments on here and I fail to see any proof that Ron Paul is any of the bad things written about him on this blog.  If you can't back up your claims against Ron Paul then where is it that you think you picked up any credibility by just making a statement based on what you think and not what you know.  Many of you anti Paul people have nothing to base your opinion on but gossip.  Ron Paul may piss you off because you don't like to hear the truth.  You lack the concept of Liberty and civility.  So based on my age and experience I guess I have a right to be rude or nasty but if that is what you are personlly getting from Ron Paul supporters maybe the problem is not them, but you.  Think about it!!!

 

Posted by: Larry at December 01, 2011 05:48 PM (N099h)

537 Ace, you are an idiot. Wait until Obama wins a second term. He's going to throw Israel under the bus all over the place. The only reason he's being nice to Jews now is so he can get their campaign contributions. Once he's re-elected, he'll be a Lame Duck president and will most likely go after Israel. If he wins again and does that, I will be back here and I promise to laugh in your face, every day for a whole year.

Posted by: Sean Serritella at December 01, 2011 05:52 PM (LIqBZ)

538 I don't really care if you vote for Ron Paul, because everyone else is going to.  Rick Perry tried to implement the Trans Texas Corridor, the NAFTA Super Highway in Texas, I talked to farmers who had their land split in half for this.  Rick Perry tried to give away America's sovereignty.  Apparently you do not fully research candidates before you vote for them, so of course you won't vote for Ron Paul, because you know nothing about him.  You seem to get your talking points from the radio and television, that is your first mistake.  Ron Paul is not pascifist, he is a veteran.  Have you been to war, did you ever choke the life out of someone?  War is to be taken very seriously, when men and women kill and feel it is for something other than the security of their nation, they come home and kill themselves.  I am a former Marine, so I was ready to do what I was called for but never had to.  Ron Paul has recieved more donations from the military than all candidates combined including Obama, so why don't you call the military a bunch of pascifists?   Your quote on the top of your page about slitting throats tells me you are a coward behind a keyboard.  Go pick up a rifle and get your ass on the front lines hero.  Ron Paul is trying to save your ass from a government that will soon take away every freedom we have, Ron Paul is on the front lines of freedom, he is going against the most powerful people in the world.  Have some respect and educate yourself.  Ron Paul 2012!!!!

Posted by: tog2476 at December 01, 2011 06:10 PM (bOQr9)

539 It's okay buddy, I understand where you're coming from. I won't be voting for any Republican other than Dr.Paul so you'll get Obama no matter what.

Any Neocon scum that could could pass a bill that would give the government the okay to send a US citizen to Guantanamo without a trial and hold indefinitely deserves what treason brings.

Posted by: Ant at December 01, 2011 06:15 PM (ZNlyt)

540 Ron Paul is pro national defense, not offense.  If you are all pro national offense, why don't you all volunteer to go over there with no pay.  If you will all go for free and fight some wars we cannot afford, that will be great.  I don't mean to come across as rash, but some of your comments are definitely formed by being brainwashed by the media.  Research Ron Paul and wake up, he follows the same ideals of our founding fathers, his ideals are America, but it seems like the propaganda they have fed you has worked, and now you go against the only person trying to save this country.  They got you, but they did not get me.  This former Marine looks forward to seeing Ron Paul in the White House, wake yourselves up before you vote for your own chains.  Ron Paul 2012!!!!!

Posted by: tog2476 at December 01, 2011 06:16 PM (bOQr9)

541

Woooo, wait a minute here guys what seems to be the problem with accepting the truth.   The candidate thats speaks softly yet carries a big stick is Ron Paul.  A strong defence starts with a military that isn't spread throughout the world but rather here at home armed to the teeth.   I find nothing wrong with that logic and futhermore countries are destroyed financially, following the logic of our current foreign policy.  Anyway I will have to come visit you guys more often and see if we can find some middle ground, I think most of you really would admire Ron Paul, he's really a chance of a lifetime,  I'll leave you with this, we hold the key to our future but only to find the riddle.......................................  ri ght d onkey d onkey le ft.......ummmm thats pretty nuts I know,  didn't want to disappoint you guys   

 

Posted by: Jon at December 01, 2011 06:29 PM (btEyR)

542 Most of these flamers probably voted for Obama last time anyway!   Big government liberals and cry babies that want the gubmint to take care of them.  Paul is winning already, he started most debate topics, get ready to put on your big girl panties and take care of your lazy self!

Posted by: Deet at December 01, 2011 06:41 PM (J6EHd)

543 All I can say is that I expect that America will get the government it deserves. Unfortunately for the sane people who want Paul or Johnson, we'll get fucked right along with you losers.

Posted by: David Rairigh at December 01, 2011 06:46 PM (zJZHp)

Posted by: I am Ron Paul at December 01, 2011 06:53 PM (pho68)

545

Wow.  How did I end up in this malinformed, ignorant cesspot?  What in hell are you people talking about?

Ignoring Ron Paul in mainstream media isn't working so I guess the next move is places like this where people who don't know monetary policy from an insurance policy get paid to trash the character of a man with a record so pristine even the prince of crappola Bill O'Reilly can't find anything on him.

Can't win eh?  Why don't you mosey on down the local campaign office for Ron Paul and volunteer to work the phones.  Bring something to read, because you'll likely end up waiting because all the phones are filled with people volunteering their time.

The only way Paul loses is if they hack the elections.  There are many millions of us, aware, awake Americans completely disgusted with how things are.  It's time we returned to the constutional rule of law.  We're lucky to have areal leader to get us there.

You Obama supporters, please be sure to enlist to die in the next bullshit war.

What a farce. 

Posted by: bob t at December 01, 2011 06:58 PM (RHzdq)

546 If you would vote for Obama over any of the Republicans, then obviously your opinion is opposite to conservatives.  Ron Paul is more conservative than any other candidate out there.  He would balance the budget in 3 years.  Nobody else is saying anything like that.  So, if you want the budget to continue to soar, vote for your big government liberal friend, Obama.

Posted by: I am Ron Paul at December 01, 2011 06:59 PM (pho68)

547 The Punk Fag Ace is still calling Ron Paul anti semitic.  Face it Ace, you're a loser in the game of life.

Posted by: William R at December 01, 2011 07:46 PM (XzSRs)

548 Anyone who votes for Newt Gingrich is an idiot. Anyone who votes for Obama is a traitor and a coward. RON PAUL 2012!!!

Posted by: Cam Davis at December 01, 2011 08:14 PM (Hx71z)

549 LOL, proves you are a TOOL of the NWO. This should expose your traitorous motives to your "followers". What an idiot you are!

Posted by: Bobby at December 02, 2011 04:27 AM (iccUM)

550 I wonder which candidate receives the most support from the troops. FEC campaign filings are public record...

Posted by: Jim McClarin at December 02, 2011 04:28 AM (WF//8)

551 So you don't believe in freedom sac? It is good to spot all you traitors during this election. Your words mean so much less this morning than they did yesterday. We see how lackys like you make your living. You get paid off for trying to discredit the one true American who is running for office.

As far as the anti-Semitic thing, you show yourself to be a fool. This word does not carry the weight that it should because of liars like you. There are people who hate Jews and this is wrong but sprayed cockroaches like you cheapen this word. Many Americans now realize this word is used for anyone who disagrees with Zionist propaganda. That is a far cry from being anti-Semitic.

Ron Paul loves this Country and as a retired US Army NCO, let me tell you that my friends and I will be voting for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Dave Infinger at December 02, 2011 04:49 AM (Qhlb0)

552 Ron Paul has five kids; three of whom are doctors. he also has 18 grandchildren. Newt Gingrich couldn't be trusted by his wife. Newt Gettingrich can't be trusted by taxpayers or patriots either after getting caught with his fingers in Fannie's honey jar. Yet, somehow, some conservative just want to believe Gingerich is a conservative. Dream on. Ron Paul, by contrast, votes against the existence of Fannie Mae. Newt is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, an internationalist, promotes a measure of amnesty, does commercials with Pelosi, supported government health care initiatives, and foreign nation building, but talks conservative talk.

Posted by: strayaway at December 02, 2011 05:25 AM (MWZMa)

553 why are you still pretending? President Obama has virtually the same foreign policy that Bush did (he "pulled out" of Iraq, actually, on Bush's own timetable; he's ramped up the war in Afghanistan; he's even started a few new ones). Military spending under Obama is even higher than it was under Bush (an increase of 3.6% in 2010 and then 2.5% in this year alone). Oh, but gays and lesbians can now openly die in endless, undeclared wars too... Federal Reserve policies and domestic/international bailout practices are exactly the same. The federal government was already paying for 50% of healthcare costs before ObamaCare, so the insurance mandate is really all that's substantially different now. The Patriot Act and its regular suspension of 5th Amendment rights is the same, and the TSA is even stronger than it was when Bush was in office. What's the difference? Rhetoric? Obama has increased the debt by 15.4% so far in his first term, while Bush increased it by 27.8% over his two terms. So who's worse? I'd say it proves they're almost entirely the same. Again, what's different? All the anti-opposition-party talk? EVERY OTHER candidate will only trim the federal budget at the edges. Ron Paul would eventually cut it in half, and he would finally limit the function of government to what is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. That's the Rule of Law. I'm sorry, but Ace's talking points are not the Rule of Law. If you can't support a complete return to the limitations of the Constitution, then you're effectively supporting the collapse of the American republic as we know it. And if preserving the American way of life really is such an "extremist" or "unelectable" option, then I wonder if we actually do deserve those repercussions. The party of the winner next year won't really matter. The end result - our economic, international, and domestic ruin - will be the same, because the most crucial policies that will lead us into financial ruin are exactly the same with both parties. Anyone who thinks that Romney/Gingrich are going to do anything other than delay that collapse, in a better fashion than Obama could, is completely delusional. The reverse is also true. In the end, this election is about principle over party. The tipping point, as opposed to the regular denials of so many media pundits, is here. This election is markedly different, and so many people have finally begun to realize it. Whether you elect the Romney/Gingrich type or the Obama/Pelosi type, it's all the same bloated, centralized government. Big deal if the rhetoric is different. The reality is, either way, our country will eventually bankrupt and the dollar will inevitably collapse because of unsustainable debt and runaway inflation.

Posted by: Chris at December 02, 2011 05:43 AM (mPO4l)

554 I'd love to see someone explain how bankrupting ourselves through non-Congressionally-approved wars provides any lasting kind of "military strength." Are you serious?! We know full-well that unchecked military spending has been one of THE major factors in our rising national debt. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone have added between $1.1 and $2 trillion to the national debt, plus another $45 billion annually in interest. How much longer do you think our country can handle the spending? How could we ever adequately defend ourselves if something ever hits home, with such an overextended presence around the world? Conservatives are supposed to think this is okay? Really? I don't think so. I rely first and foremost on my Bible, and then the U.S. Constitution as the primary rule of law in this country. I don't bow to any pundit's talking points.

Posted by: Chris at December 02, 2011 05:47 AM (mPO4l)

555 http://tiny.cc/ezzs7

Posted by: fbgermanson at December 02, 2011 08:44 PM (H4IXs)

556 Thanks for outing yourself. It would have happened soon, anyway.

Posted by: longshotlouie at December 18, 2011 06:15 PM (brOPt)

557 Apparently someone hasn't read CIA or DOD 911 explanations, nor have they read Bin Laden's own explanations, nor have they read other terrorists explanations, nor has this someone read expert Robert Pape, Michael Schruerer or Chalmers A. Johnson, nor does this someone respect that fact that Paul receives more donations and support from veterans than all of the GOP candidates combined and more than Obama, nor has someone truly studied Paul's position. I'm going with the thesis of the aforementioned experts and the men and woman of our armed services, before an ignorant blogger.

Posted by: Robert Pape at December 18, 2011 07:27 PM (SVUI4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
440kb generated in CPU 0.53, elapsed 1.7532 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3028 seconds, 793 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.