1

RFK Jr's wife got arrested for DUI last night.

I guess sharing interests is the key to a long healthy marriage

2 I'm going way out on a limb here, but I think that last night's results mean that the voters are pissed.

3

Again, left out was the fact that turnout for the PA GOP Primary was significantly lower because there wasn't a competative governor or senate race.

 

 

4 Expectations about the Murtha seat were way too high. Let's not forget that Murtha himself called his constituents racists, and he still got elected.   Sheep outnumber men in that area of the country.

5

We'll just employ Plan 'B'. 

 It solves all problems the 'morning after'. All is well.

6 Drew, I know you wont like this, but Big Dawg campaigned for Critz and DLC still has pull with blue collar Dems, THAT is the message from PA-12, Obama DNC types are finished, if they find peeps to run as DLC types they can hold seats..

even Axelrasputin acknowledged that today, they will try to rerun Rahms play filling the House with 'blue dog' types...

GOP needs some peeps who will take a stand. You dont like Rand, fine, but he told it like he saw it, if the GOP cant do that, the Dems will hold on

but the bestest for me is how Obama types got shellacked and DLC is still filling voting booths after NeoProgs said it was dead

7

Lost:

Several Large Tar Balls in the Vicinity of South Florida.  If found, please contact for reward.  Many Thanks.

8 Shocker:  Democrats hold Congressional seat held by Democrats for three decades.

Film at 11.

9

A Republican victory was what people expected and if Burns had pulled it off, we'd be spinning dreams of huge Republican gains in the fall. It doesn't mean they won't still happen but I think it's time to put away ideas of 100 seats in play and concentrate are more likely targets.

 

You are exactly right Drew.  This has worried me for months now, this sense of inevitability that 2010 will be just like 1994 and all we have to do is sit back and watch the Democrats lose.  There's nothing inevitable about it, we have to work our butts off in order to make it happen.

Below is not an unlikely scenario, grok it to fulness.  2010 is our last chance to stop it.

1. Republicans make gains in 2010 but not enough to capture control of either house

2. Democrats still have the majority so they are able to push through, via whatever underhanded dirty trick, more socialist nonsense - maybe this time it's crap&trade, maybe it's card check

3. All the while, the wet concrete of ObamaCare continues to harden and become more firmly entrenched in people's lives

4. In the 2012 elections, Republicans nominate a stinker (Mittens anyone?) and Obama wins re-election

5. Then, ObamaCare is here forever and our transition to European style social democracy is complete.

10 The voters in PA-12 are the hard-core portion of the 52% that voted for Obama.  They were fucked-up then, last night and will be come November. 

11 PS Drew, Dodd effectively killed the derivatives bill by putting a 3 yr' look at it'amendment in to kill it.

12 Posted by: Ben at May 19, 2010 12:33 PM (wuv1c)

I don't remember if Gerahty talks about that in the piece I linked to or not but he made a good point...everyone knew that going in.

Yes, primaries and special election turnout is hard to model but all the polls had it a toss up going in.

Burns and the GOP knew that was going to be an issue to contend with and yet they weren't able to overcome it.

It's a tricky setting up expectations that will rally the troops but doesn't leave you with egg on your face if you lose. The GOP wasn't able to walk that line going into last night there.

13 just a little OT:  As a conservative, I respect Republican senators who wish to venerate well-established traditions. But now, in the fateful spring of 2010, those senators need to consider which of conflicting traditions they intend to venerate. They can either venerate the traditional rules of confirmation or they can venerate the United States Constitution — but not both.

Tony Blankley @ National Review today re: Kagan confirmation.  Blankley has sounded this note before.

My head's about to explode:  is the GOP ever going to stand up on its hind legs and fight for anything?  Is that a rhetorical question?

*reaches for pain-killers*

14 Posted by: mim/ginaswo at May 19, 2010 12:36 PM (/9f3m)

A serious question for you (or any Rand Paul supporter)...why shouldn't his relationship with Alex Jones be a bright line disqualification?

Jones is a nutter who we've killed here for years. Now because a guy a lot of people kind of like is cool with him, we're supposed to pretend Jones isn't who he is?

Why?

15 Ugh. I voted for Specter for nothing The dirt still isn't coming off. out damn spot, out!

16 About last night ..... Arlen may need a good proctologist. Now he knows how a muppet feels.

17

I concur with Chemjeff @10...I can see a situation developing here that parallels the British elections.

People are turned off of O'dems, but the GOP pisses them off just as much.  The Republicans need to get off their waffling asses, take a stand, and DO something -- something other than waffling and "keeping their powder dry".

18 "The voters in PA-12 are the hard-core portion of the 52% that voted for Obama. "

McCain won PA-12.

19 After watching our puke of a president say this very morning that "in the 21st century we don't define our country by its borders" and then he went on to suck Mexico's president's dick*, I'm guessing people are going to be increasingly pissed off at the voter booth.

*as figuratively as you can get before it becomes literally.

20 Posted by: mim/ginaswo at May 19, 2010 12:38 PM (/9f3m)

Right, but he could pull it out if he wanted to and give Lincoln cover.

You just know Halter's folks are going to have an ad up about some time this afternoon killing her for bait and switch.

Will Dodd hang her out to dry by leaving it in? I bet he does.

21 Why the hell do the Paul people hang around with Storm Front, Alex Jones, WND... all the usual suspects that make the right look awful?

22 PA-12 will get fixed thru redistricting. There are a lot more important races to focus on in PA - I hope Critz has an opportunity to vote they way he ran in the next few months and that Burns has the money to make him pay for it every time. Additionally, the national Dems won't be able to pour money into the district in November.

23 "The Democrats were more motivated in this race. This ain't the end of a trend. It's just another special election, in a Democratic district, and on a big Democratic primary day. And a Democrat won. Disappointing. But not paradigm-smashing shocking. And not devastating."

so says another blogger.  hmmmmmm?  encouraging words, just hope it's not pie-in-the-sky

*reaches for more pain-killers*

24 McCain won PA-12.

Critz is also white.

25 Shocker:  Democrats hold Congressional seat held by Democrats for three decades.

Film at 11.

Posted by: damian at May 19, 2010 12:37 PM (4WbTI)

Obama's bouncing back!

26

Posted by: Ben at May 19, 2010 12:33 PM (wuv1c)

I don't remember if Gerahty talks about that in the piece I linked to or not but he made a good point...everyone knew that going in.

Yes, primaries and special election turnout is hard to model but all the polls had it a toss up going in.

Burns and the GOP knew that was going to be an issue to contend with and yet they weren't able to overcome it.

It's a tricky setting up expectations that will rally the troops but doesn't leave you with egg on your face if you lose. The GOP wasn't able to walk that line going into last night there.

You're right, hopes were far too high. Hell Burns barely beat Bill Russel in the Republican primary yesterday for the right to run again in November

I honestly believe that had Specter stayed a Republican, and last night was Toomey v. Specter, the Republicans would have had a much beet chance of winning PA 12.

It wasn't a total loss Kelly in PA 3 and Rothfus in PA 4 won their Republican primaries and they are the conservative candidates. PA 3 and PA 4 are going to be republican pick ups in november as the are +R districts that elected democrats towards the end of the Bush years.

 

Also, keep in mind that Critz won't be able to get anywhere near the earmarks Murtha could get, that may cost him his seat, if not in 2010, then in 2012.  A lot of dems in PA 12 voted for Critz thinking he would just be a Murth type, but it took Murtha decades to get the kind of pork he did for his district. Critz will be just another freshman Dem who is thrown scraps from the table, which won't be enough to buy off votes in PA 12.

27 You know what I'd like to see? A ballot where there are any (R)'s or (D)'s  on it. How about people get informed and vote for the candidate, not the party?

28

About last night...

Yeah, they're not herpes, just a mild case of genital warts.

29

"Why the hell do the Paul people hang around with Storm Front, Alex Jones, WND... all the usual suspects that make the right look awful?"

Because the Paul people are awful, too.

I think I'd rather see the Democrat win in Kentucky if it meant keeping Rand Paul out of the Senate.  The Democrat would probably be better on the war than a Paul, and that's pretty pathetic. 

It's my most important issue, and I don't trust Rand Paul, who was anti-Iraq War and would probably vote against any tough action against the Iranians if it came up.

30 Also, keep in mind that Critz won't be able to get anywhere near the earmarks Murtha could get, that may cost him his seat, if not in 2010, then in 2012.  A lot of dems in PA 12 voted for Critz thinking he would just be a Murth type, but it took Murtha decades to get the kind of pork he did for his district. Critz will be just another freshman Dem who is thrown scraps from the table, which won't be enough to buy off votes in PA 12.

PA-12 voters tolerate corruption. Critz can just Abscam his way to addtiional $$.

31 My head's about to explode: is the GOP ever going to stand up on its hind legs and fight for anything?

They'll do everything they can to help the Democrats win in Kentucky by keeping Grayson supporters away from the voting booth in November. That's a thing.

A serious question for you (or any Rand Paul supporter)...why shouldn't his relationship with Alex Jones be a bright line disqualification?

I'm don't support anyone, but I un-support Paul less than I un-support most. Jones, though crazy, is less insane than the average MSNBC host or NYT editorialist. When talking with them is a "bright line disqualification," so is talking to Jones. Until then, eat a Frum.

32 Still, Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election in what is shaping up as a pro-Republican year. Conversely, it might embolden Republican lawmakers and candidates who oppose him.

And here I was told that if the Dems passed ObamaCare, there would be only smooth sailing for the Dems into November.  Reality is harsh, no?

Still, chemjeff's posited series of events may come to pass.  The US collectively screwed the pooch on November 2008.  And remember that the Republicans love to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

33 On the other hand, despite all the talk about this being a socially conservative district, it does have a 2-1 Democratic advantage and did send Jack Murtha to  Congress for over 30 years.

Please tell me why any other analysis trumps this one?

34 ###
A serious question for you (or any Rand Paul supporter)...why shouldn't his relationship with Alex Jones be a bright line disqualification?
Posted by: DrewM. at May 19, 2010 12:42 PM (9B5OK)
###

For the same reason that we don't bright line disqualify people who associate with bigots like Falwell or Pat Robertson or anyone else who's just as batshit insane and vile as Alex Jones. If you're going to start throwing people off of the island because of the crazies that they take pictures with, or talk to, or whatever, then let's do it universally. In the same way that Robertson and Falwell are conduits to voters that care about the same thing that many social cons care about, Jones is a conduit to voters that are concerned about economic freedom, civil liberties, and a runaway government (and also chem trails and the ZOG and Illuminati, but whatever).

It just seems stupid to me to be OK with the completely fucked up people that even squishy, fake moderate GOP candidates hang out with, but then to hate on Rand just because you don't like the brand of crazy that he appeals to.

35 Chairs.  Titanic.  Rearranging.

Not that I've given up hope or anything.

36

 I hope he manages to stay focused and disciplined enough to win in November.

This is my worry.  Or some old quote of his in Dear Old Dad's newletter or something derailing him.

37 I'm for anybody who is against marxism and can win.

38 I have to hand it to the Libertariantards, they've effectively infiltrated the Tea Party movement.

39 It just seems stupid to me to be OK with the completely fucked up people that even squishy, fake moderate GOP candidates hang out with, but then to hate on Rand just because you don't like the brand of crazy that he appeals to.

Posted by: DMXRoid at May 19, 2010 12:52 PM (vd872)

52% of the voters in 2008 didn't have a problem with the crazies Obama hung out with...

40 Let all the paid trolls yuk it up about about a gerrymandered, pork laden district that the Democrat had to run as a conservative to win. Bait and switch worked in 06' and still will occasionally, but you're socialist masters are undermining that ruse. Enjoy you're brief respite.

41 Look at the difference between the Rep primary numbers and Burns' total. The only reason Pubs had to show up last night was to get this guy in for 6 months. It Burns can pull a normal 'Pub turn out and those independent (likely dems who cared about the Seestak/Specter primary) and Dems break the same way it will be much closer (about 20% of Dems broke for him).

42 Falwell are conduits to voters that care about the same thing that many social cons care about, Jones is a conduit to voters that are concerned about economic freedom, civil liberties, and a runaway government (and also chem trails and the ZOG and Illuminati, but whatever).

Alex Jones is a Illuminati plant...discuss.

43 We like Alex Jones. He should be supported.

44 Please tell me why any other analysis trumps this one?

Because snapdragon is unable to counter it with one of his patented dumbfuck half-sentences.

45 If I suddenly found myself living in Kentucky [never realized what a strange word that is!], could I vote for Rand Paul?  Maybe.  The campaign will tell.  Playing vector force politics sucks, but I did vote for McCain...

46 ###
Posted by: Colin at May 19, 2010 12:49 PM (4ZFlx)
I think I'd rather see the Democrat win in Kentucky if it meant keeping Rand Paul out of the Senate. The Democrat would probably be better on the war than a Paul, and that's pretty pathetic.
###
Really? Are you that batshit insane that you'd rather have a fucking tax raising, high spending, Barry nominee confirming fucking DEMOCRAT instead of a guy whose dad you don't like? Do you even know Rand Paul's position on the wars? They're not the same as his old man's (which is too bad, but whatever, you take what you can get). Are you a single issue absolutist voter, or are you just off your gourd?
###
It's my most important issue, and I don't trust Rand Paul, who was anti-Iraq War and would probably vote against any tough action against the Iranians if it came up.
###
You know that sanctions don't work, right? Like, never. Ever ever ever, in the history of mankind, have sanctions done what we wanted them to. Partially because a.) There will always be black market sellers to sanctioned nations, and b.) In the kind of nations that you sanction, the leaders will just confiscate more of what comes in to maintain their own lifestyles and priorities. We sanctioned Iraq, didn't do dick. We've been sanctioning Cuba for 50 years, hasn't done dick. Maybe Rand is just fucking connected to reality.

47 Another dirty sock disposed of!

Here's a story to raise the BP.

MexicoÂ’s Calderon says new Arizona immigration law causing discrimination

"We share the interest in promoting decent living conditions, legal and in order for all workers, immigrants, who despite the enormous contribution the U.S. economy, are still living in the shadows, like in Arizona, facing discrimination," Calderon said.

How about the US adopts Mexico's immigration laws?  Would that be good enough, Calderon?

48 The dirt's still not coming off!!! ARRGGHHH

49 Jones is a nutter who we've killed here for years.

I never heard anyone say a damn thing about him until today after the election. What I have heard is a lot of supposed conservatives on here rant about how we need to get behind RINOs because that is the best we can do.

Personally I don't see Rand Paul as being as big a nutcase as is father on policies. But I am seeing a lot of the people who chided us to get behind the RINOs for a win dis someone who is not a RINO after a win.

What we don't need in our camp is in-fighting because a party hack like RINO Mitt Romney didn't get the win. 

50 Ron Paul!

51 I don't get the hate for the Pauls. You know our current existential threat? Socialism. TARP (hi, ace!), bailouts, the Wall Street "reform" bill, health care, cap and trade, not to mention traditional entitlement programs going bankrupt last year and this year. Inflation, market volatility. Ron Paul is wrong on Israel and terrorism, but we're going to be killed by socialism first and he's right on that.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan - you know who effed up those wars? Bush. Fighting a necessary war badly is worse than not fighting it at all. See also, Obama, Barack.

52 Alex Jones is a Illuminati plant...discuss.

Andy Levy re-tweeted the following snark:

Tonight was bittersweet for Rand Paul. Sure he won, but his victory proves the Bilderbergers don't control everything.

53 After sleeping on it, here's my take.

A loss is a loss, but Burns was running against a Perfect Storm of circumstances. Despite everything stacked against him, he still pulled 45% and ran the closest race that district has seen in 36 years:

But even against such a tide of difficulty, Tim Burns still managed to garner 45% of the vote, losing by a mere 8 points. Why is that significant? In the 2008 general election, Critz' old boss won by a 16-point margin of 58-42. In 2006, it was 61-39. Murtha was unopposed in 2004, but in 2002 we won 73-27. In 2000, he won 71-29. And so forth, and so on. In fact, the only time Murtha was ever seriously challenged in a PA-12 election was a February 1974 special election when he won with 50% of the vote.

I think Burns has a chance to review tactics and try again in November, after another six months of high unemployment, deficit spending and general Democrat stupidity.

54 1. Relax, all kinds of things will happen before Nov, a loss in a 2 to 1 dem district isnt that big a deal even if the MFM want to portray it that way.

2. There will be independents voting in Nov and we are looking a  +5% or more swing.

3. O going 0 for 4 seems a big f'n deal to me.


I remain optimistic.

55 Rand Paul needs to draw a line in the sand with the 9/11 truthers and Stormfront types -- I hope he can see how those associations have marginalized his dad and correct the problem. Senators have survived at lot worse, see Byrd, Robert.

56

#51

Yeah but did you see who I just endorsed?

Chester Joo for Congress.  He will represent Alaska well.  Better get onboard morons.

57 +1 Vic.

You pragmatists supported McCain, for crying out loud, and you can't support Rand Paul? Who the hell is in-fighting and tearing apart the "party" and all that now?

Own it, pragmatists. You liked McCain and supported all of his RINO positions. That's the only conclusion I can draw when you're willing to vilify libertarians who are no further away from you.

58

I don't get the hate for the Pauls.

Of course you don't.

59 I think if Murtha had been alive to run, he would have been beaten. Critz appears as an outsider.In my opinion that is why he won. They couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican. That is why so many Democrats are "retiring" this year.They are being pushed by Obamas "people to retire and let some unknown "outsider" run in their place. No paper trail so to speak.

60

You liked McCain

*BUZZ* Incorrect!

61 "We share the interest in promoting decent living conditions, legal and in order for all workers, immigrants, who despite the enormous contribution the U.S. economy, are still living in the shadows, like in Arizona, facing discrimination," Calderon said.

How about the US adopts Mexico's immigration laws?  Would that be good enough, Calderon?

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 19, 2010 12:57 PM (9hSKh)

Memo to Calderon: If they weren't here illegally, they wouldn't have to live in the "shadows" you stupid fuck. Maybe if your country wasn't such a shithole, they'd actually stay put and quit crossing over into our country. 

62 I've never been optimistic. I think conservatives are going to lose in November and any Republican pick-ups will be RINOs like McCain and Specter.

We're so screwed.

63

Good.  It needs to become obvious to all, even those wearing their blue-tinted shades, that Obama is nobody's idea of an ideal teamleader.  He can't deliver votes to vulnerable co-conspirators, period.  He's election poison, and isn't even all that pleasant of a guy, especially when he's ticked off (which is going to be more often as time goes by.)

John Murtha's dead body delivered that seat to his former worker bee, it had nothing to do with Obama. 

It's a long way to November 2010.  We need to stay focused.

64 OT. So. Does Arizona have the nads to cut the juice from L.A.? If I were running the show, I wouldn't blink at cutting off power to the nitwits in CA. Is that topic thread worthy?

65 Own it, pragmatists. You liked McCain and supported all of his RINO positions. That's the only conclusion I can draw when you're willing to vilify libertarians who are no further away from you.

What website have you been reading? I can think of a single poster here who likes McCain.

66 Damn Skippy - yet you voted for McCain? You excoriate people for not towing the party line when it comes to RINOs like McCain, but not when it comes to libertarians like Rand or Ron Paul?

So ... you like McCain better. That's who you defend. That's who you identify with.

67 I think conservatives are going to lose in November and any Republican pick-ups will be RINOs like McCain and Specter.

Piss off, Moby.

68 Mexico's chief export is people with ambition.  The chief import is dollars sent back by those people.

69 I didn't vote for anyone, asshat.  So please feel free to lick my sphincter.

70

Umm, not good to Ella's comment.  You never know what comment you will be following when you hit the POST button!!!

 

Carry on!!!!

71

I don't get the hate for the Pauls.

me either...

72 taylork,

I can think of dozens here who voted for him and chastised people like me for not voting for him. Yet they blast people for voting for Rand Paul and at least one dude here is going Democrat over Rand Paul.

See my point? Y'all are much more comfortable with RINOs than with libertarians.

73 "In Kentucky, Rand Paul and the tea party movement just wiped out establishment Republican Trey Greyson. I still think a guy who is comfortable hanging out on the radio with Alex Jones is a very bad idea for Republicans. I hope he manages to stay focused and disciplined enough to win in November.

Paul has some work to do to get Greyson supporters on board for november. If Greyson Republicans don't come home or just stay home, a safe Republican seat could go to the Democrats."

 

that's some hand-wringing that David Brooks could be proud of...

74 where is the video of obama bowing to the mexicans?  or is that on his agenda for tonight?  if tonight, before or after dinner?

75 Is there any precedent for a sitting governor- of New Jersey, for instance- heading the RNC?

76

I don't care for Ron Paul, but I am willing to give his son the benefit of the doubt.

He shouldnt' be responsible for the sins of his father.

Also, while i agree alex jones is a crazy douche, do you not think that ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, etc are filled with 9/11 truthers? The difference is Alex Jones is open about his insanity. Does that make him any better? I don't think so.

77 Y'all are much more comfortable with RINOs than with libertarians.

I laughed out loud.

78 Enormous contribution to the Us economy? Jeezzzz, as a Californian I've seen first hand the "contributions" these illegals bring to our economy. Hospitals shut down because of doling out free health care to these "shadow" dwellers. Schools broke and failing because of non- English speakers. Food stamps and welfare going broke.Crime rising. Yeah great contributions!

79 " I have to hand it to the Libertariantards, they've effectively infiltrated the Tea Party movement."

Not that hard considering they founded it...

80 come on, Paul is the candidate.  There was a primary, he won.  Do we really have to start the cannibalism already? 

81

Memo to Calderon: If they weren't here illegally, they wouldn't have to live in the "shadows" you stupid fuck. Maybe if your country wasn't such a shithole, they'd actually stay put and quit crossing over into our country. 

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at May 19, 2010 01:02 PM (YVZlY)

Well stated; I was trying to format something slightly different when you posted it, which says it very effectively.  The only other thing I'd tell Felipe Cocksuckeron is to learn to put together a coherent sentence fragment instead of incomprehensible horseshit like , who despite the enormous contribution the U.S. economy,

82 Not that hard considering they founded it...

???

83 Keep speaking Truth to Power, sister Ella.

84

>> So ... you like McCain better. That's who you defend. That's who you identify with.

You're new here I take it?  Stroll through last year and check out our superduper support of J-Mac.  Hell, two weeks ago Drew and I were busting on him for telling AZ anything they wanted to hear about illegal immigration, a decidedly different point of view than he's held for oh, I don't know, forever.

Paul-bot.

85 Damn Skippy, I'm not a Moby. Don't be hateful. I'm not a liberal troll or a concern troll. We disagree. Come up with something more to respond to me than pointless ranting.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul have some major negatives in the foreign policy department. But fiscally they're awesome, and fiscally is where the Democrats are turning the knife.

86 Donna... You and the rest of you white cracker racists are the problem .

87 #79 In Calderon's defense, he didn't say that these "enormous contribution"(s) would be good...just that the contributions are enormous.  Wouldn't you call all of that "enormous"?

88 I can think of dozens here who voted for him and chastised people like me for not voting for him. Yet they blast people for voting for Rand Paul and at least one dude here is going Democrat over Rand Paul.

See my point? Y'all are much more comfortable with RINOs than with libertarians.

Would you rather have McCain or Obama. That was the reality of the shit choice we were given. Both were crap sandwiches, but at least one of them had some hot sauce on them. You got blasted because, in the end, not voting for McCain helps Obama.

As far as Colin, wanting a dem over Rand Paul, we'll he can speak for himself.  I'd rather have a Paul that's weak on defense than a dim that's weak on everything.

89 80 " I have to hand it to the Libertariantards, they've effectively infiltrated the Tea Party movement."

Not that hard considering they founded it...

I must be confused then.

90

Also, I don't know enough about Rand to trust him, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Kentucky Republican voters sure seem to want him.

 

His association with Jones is distasteful.  Surely he knows what Jones is all about.

 

91 Dave in Texas, nope not new. Been reading for several years. Not a Paul-bot either. I voted Duncan Hunter in the primaries.

I do remember a lot of screaming and finger pointing for anyone who didn't vote for McCain. (Kensington accused me and others like me of causing him to lose his job because of the bad economy.)

92 The conventional wisdom is if this really is a Republican wave year, then you would expect to see them winning this kind of seat.

This is another thing I disagree with. Personally I think "conventional wisdom" is out the window this year. This is a heavily gerrymandered district and I personally have never figured an easy Republican win there.

I am in such a district here. The MFM and the "conventional wisdomers" are saying the same thing about my district and a Republican win. While I think it will be easier for an R win here is is not going to be a simple win.

In my district a newbie R has a tough row to hoe because the district is gerrymandered to cross 14 counties in 3 different media markets. With EVERY newspaper and TV station aligned with the dems to the point of being their free PR agents they will have a damn tough time. I had to google up a national newspaper to find out who is even running in the Republican primnary for my district.

But all of that said, I think an R will have a chance this time if they don't go all RINO and cause the R base to stay at home. I fully expect the D base to stay at home this election. If they both stay at home the Ds win and we just have low turnout. 

93 Going on Alex Jones doesn't bother me; he is just Beck with an apparent head injury, hell it my be all an act and the guy is really a Rockerfeller Republican voter, who knows. My break with his father came with the associations with the Stormfornt clowns -- that is a deal breaker.

94 75 where is the video of obama bowing to the mexicans?  or is that on his agenda for tonight?  if tonight, before or after dinner?

Posted by: texasmamma at May 19, 2010 01:06 PM (4L69q)

We'll let you know.

95 That whole "Yes, but you've got me" is working like gangbusters there, BO.

96 Given how Blue Doggy and Boll Weevily Critz presented himself, and given how skewed this district is, this isn't really a loss.

97 Hey, taylork, I lived in Oklahoma in 2008. All 77 counties went for McCain. My non-vote didn't make a lick of difference.

But you know what? I don't support liberals. Period. I don't care if they're a liberal with an R after their name.

I honestly know very little about Rand Paul. I just don't understand this frothing at the mouth hatred. Especially since the R will win in November, and isn't that all that matters to you?

98 The White House has asked us to use story, song, and narrative to tell you all to cool it until November. Pretend to be anti-Washington, anti-Marxist for a while. It'll all pay off in the end, just get elected for the final push...

99 Fine, whatever. The charge that people here were ga ga crazy for John McCain is total bullshit.  It was the lesser of two evils. 

100 Since Barack Obama was sworn in, the Republican Party has lost all six special election house races because special election candidates have been selected by party insiders as opposed to actual GOP primary voters.

101

>> So ... you like McCain better. That's who you defend. That's who you identify with.

You're new here I take it?  Stroll through last year and check out our superduper support of J-Mac.  Hell, two weeks ago Drew and I were busting on him for telling AZ anything they wanted to hear about illegal immigration, a decidedly different point of view than he's held for oh, I don't know, forever.

Paul-bot.

Wow I hate to be in this position. But I think the point the nut is making is that we don't agree with John McCain because he is a liberal, yet everyone here voted for him.  Now most of us don't agree with Rand Paul because he is too far to the right(not sure how to define him), but people won't vote for him

I think that is a legitimate point he is making. That many here seem fine with voting for a left leaning republican than a "right"(at least domestically) leaning republican.

 

And I am saying this as someone who hates Alex Jones, and conspiracy theories.

 

102 If I were running the show, I wouldn't blink at cutting off power to the nitwits in CA.

It's not as if they're supplying it for free.

103

If we ever had to go in for another military operation, say against a nation on the horn of Africa, or across the bab, or in central Asia, I just have no doubt Paul would vote against it.  I think he'll shit backwards on enhanced interrogation techniques as soon as he's safely ensconsed in the Senate.  In short, even though people are saying he better than his dad, I think he's fucking lying, and will pull all of Ron Paul's shit in the Senate.

104 Um, not sure how to take being called a nut - or a dude - but thanks, Ben. That's EXACTLY my point.

105 #106 is for #102.

106 "I think I'd rather see the Democrat win in Kentucky if it meant keeping Rand Paul out of the Senate.  The Democrat would probably be better on the war than a Paul, and that's pretty pathetic. 

It's my most important issue, and I don't trust Rand Paul, who was anti-Iraq War and would probably vote against any tough action against the Iranians if it came up."

Okay, I'll bite.  What is so great about "the war" that it's your "most important issue"?  Is there anything short of exterminating every last Muslim on the planet that would justify ending "the war"?  How is "the war" good for America?

107

If I were running the show, I wouldn't blink at cutting off power to the nitwits in CA.

It's not as if they're supplying it for free.

Also, it is not like the state of Arizona owns the power. The utility companies do.

108 OT but scary:  Identity theft anyone?

109 I just don't understand this frothing at the mouth hatred. Especially since the R will win in November, and isn't that all that matters to you?

I don't support people that willingly associate with 9/11 truthers and neo-nazis, led alone solicit campaign donations from them.

110 #105, I'm sorry, how is that different than John McCain's position? Why the hate -- I mean, really astonishing vitriol -- for Rand Paul for the possibility that he could do exactly what John McCain has done?

Rhetoric isn't the same as action.

111

Is there anything short of exterminating every last Muslim on the planet that would justify ending "the war"?  How is "the war" good for America

 

and you just lost everyone. even people that aren't totally on board with the war by reverting the the lefty-type hyperbole of "exterminating every muslim".

Congratualtions, you win nothing.

112 This past April 15 Barbarian wife and I went to our local Tea Party protest. On stage was a raging Paulnutted woman with a tri-corner hat bouncing up and down and yelling about something or another. We looked at each other, took our signs, and threw them in the shit can and left. We will not attend another Tea Party event. We have our dignity.

113 Colin: Maybe he would vote against a war, but without knowing the circumstances, can you say that'd be a bad idea? Is Iran getting a nuke worth going to war over? Or is that something we should just let the Israelis handle, since it's in their back yard already? And even if he would, why should that disqualify him? Really, are you a single issue absolutist? And if so, what reason do you have to think you'd get any better out of a Democrat? At least with Paul, you get the domestic awesomeness in exchange for his foreign policy failings (in your view).

114

Okay, I'll bite.  What is so great about "the war" that it's your "most important issue"?  Is there anything short of exterminating every last Muslim on the planet that would justify ending "the war"?  How is "the war" good for America?

Exactly. While Rand Paul is a chip off the old nutty block on foreign policy, given the illegal alien invasion and Obama Porkulus, what is the point of winning abroad while losing at home?

Where the Paulians rock: Any domestic issue, including immigration.

Where the Paulians are bonkers and should be disregarded: any foreign policy matter.

That concludes the case for, and against, Randy Paul.

115 I am sure Steele and his crack team were there helping Burns....oh, he was pimping his book and picking up his DNC check.

Cornyn, McConnell, Graham, Hatch, McLame
probably did their part too....burp, gurgle, where is my check?

116 The problem with Rand, isn't with Rand. It is with Ron and MSM trying to paint all tea party candidates, and by extension any Republican, as Ron Paul supporters. Rand needs to slam those doors shut, early.

117

In the end it doesn't matter.

Rand Paul won, and it is important he wins in November. The next couple of years are going to be filled with domestic and fiscal problems, of which I think the Pauls are on the right page. Their foreign policy is crazy and impracticle in my mind, but again the main issues of the near future will be domestic and economic.

 

Also keep in mind that this seat was Jim Bunnings, who just retired. A good conservative and we can't lose it to a dem.

118

Nope Ben, sorry.  I'm more than a little tired of genius mind-readers who can explain our motivations to us.  This constant impugning motive is insulting (and, not astonishingly in most cases, completely friggin wrong).

See above, "y'all prefer RINOs to libertarians".  No, it's just that in Ron Paul's case, we don't prefer batshit crazy and we kinda hope his son isn't the same.

Legitimate. Concern.

119

I am sure Steele and his crack team were there helping Burns....oh, he was pimping his book and picking up his DNC check.

Cornyn, McConnell, Graham, Hatch, McLame
probably did their part too....burp, gurgle, where is my check?

For all the foreign policy nuttiness of Papa and sonny Paul, don't these "republicans" actually cause more internal damage???

I know Ron Paul is a foreign policy sap/dupe/fool, and so is his son.

But really....

120 wow did i screw up the word impractical

121 But you know what? I don't support liberals. Period. I don't care if they're a liberal with an R after their name.

Your choice of course, as is the definition of a liberal, and in OK your vote probably will be lessened in that degree.  But for more competitive races, I would like to remind everyone that you have to be in the majority to block Odumbass.  Party trumps person, especially in the House when in 2 years you can vote for a more conservative in a primary.

Without a majority you have nothing.

122 There are a bunch of cheese-dick morons in PA-12 who really like that goddamn airport, apparently.

123 Posted by: Jeff at May 19, 2010 01:14 PM (1XDhC)

Off the top of my head I can't think of any place I've ever heard of primaries for House special elections.

There may well be, I know MA had one for the Senate but I don't think that's the norm for House races.

124 The problem with Rand, isn't with Rand. It is with Ron

Word.  It's like an anti-dynasty.

125

it's just that in Ron Paul's case, we don't prefer batshit crazy

Like the crazy uncle/aunt that you still love, I don't worry too much about the foreign policy naivete and foolishness. Especially when the Obamunists are essentially destroying us at home.

Seriously, we know Ron and Rand Paul are foreign policy batshit. But to paraphrase what Dick Morris said to Billy Jeff, "It's the economy and immigration, stupid...."

126 Where the Paulians are bonkers and should be disregarded: any foreign policy matter.

From what I have seen on Rand Paul he is as far out there as his father on foreign policy.

127

62  How much aid/monies/whatever do we give to Mexico each year?  Including helping them prop up their government against drug cartels?

I don't know, that's why I ask -- but I'm guessing we help them out a bit.

Perhaps Calderon needs to be reminded of that...and that what is given can be taken away (I'd like to call it the Arizona gambit from here on out).  That pissy little bastard needs to be slapped around some.  Of course, it will not happen -- now that we engage in smart, nuanced diplomacy.

As for the elections -- as a self-defined independent-moderate (maybe it should be independent-eclectic-constitutionalist), the more I see of things, the more I'm inclined to stay just as I am...and the more a third party does appeal (yes, I know it won't work, but honestly: WHY should I feel any loyalty to the Republicans as a party?  individual canidates, yes, I can support -- but the party in general?).  The only hold the Republicans have on me is the feelings I hold towards the Dems (I'm a woman and this time I do claim feelings: I despise the Dems; I detest them; and I see where the Dems are still winning the "hearts and minds" bullcrap...if the O'dems do badly, the Clinton ones are beginning to be viewed with nostalgia -- dear God, people really do have short memories.  And in all of this, with all this opportunity, with all that is on the line...the Republicans as a party DO NOTHING.)  Basta!  I'm fed up with the lot.

 

128 The problem with Rand, isn't with Rand. It is with Ron.

Well Rand isn't doing himself any favors by associating with Jones or Stormfront.

The Acorn doesn't fall very far from the tree.

129 Dave, when all politicians are like a Baskin Robbins of batshit crazy, the question becomes why McCain's (or other statists) flavor of insane tastes worse than even the worst caricature of Rand or Ron Paul's. Illuminati theories are nuts, but so is the idea that people should have their political speech restricted. Is the counter-factual belief in the rise of the Amero and NAFTA Superhighway necessarily more crazy than the counter-factual belief that the drug war works, or that the government can effectively and efficiently regulate anything the size of the US economy? The former in each comparison has caused nobody harm, the latter in each has done great evil to the citizenry. That's not to diminish the fucking insanity of the former, but let's have some perspective

130

And at the same time we won't vote for right leaning republican no matter how good his positions seem if his associations are with those that deserve as much vehemance as Neo-Nazis and KKK fanatics.  Some things really are deal breakers no matter how "good" one is on the positions.

You seem more upset about these alleged connections than does the MFM, who you would think would start screaming about them, especially now that Rand Paul has won.

But they haven't.

Why do the work of the MFM for it?

131 Posted by: Vic at May 19, 2010 01:26 PM (6taRI)

And we're stuck with that bong-hitting retard here.

132

Nope Ben, sorry.  I'm more than a little tired of genius mind-readers who can explain our motivations to us.  This constant impugning motive is insulting (and, not astonishingly in most cases, completely friggin wrong).

See above, "y'all prefer RINOs to libertarians".  No, it's just that in Ron Paul's case, we don't prefer batshit crazy and we kinda hope his son isn't the same.

Legitimate. Concern.

I agree. But like you said above, I too am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't as crazy as his father.  Let's say he is a libertarian, ok fine. We will disagree one seveal major issues, but on the whole we will agree about domestic issues.

The worry  that I think you have is that not only will be be libertarian, but he will choose to embrace the farthest fringes. I too have that concern. But I think he should at least be supported in november. If it turns out he is batshit crazy like his father, fine, run a primary against him in 6 years.

My biggest issue is that a democrat not get that seat.

 

And again I am saying this as someone whohates Alex Jones or conspiracy nuts.

 

133

I don't support people that willingly associate with 9/11 truthers and neo-nazis, led alone solicit campaign donations from them.

What he said.  RON PAUL~!'s voting bloc consists of potheads, skinheads, and shitheads.

134

His association with Jones is distasteful.  Surely he knows what Jones is all about.

My friend the Alex Jones fan tells me that the Pauls - pere et fils - are not 9/11 truthers, and have made that clear in interviews. 

135 To help McCain, I have decided to support and campaign for him in Arizona. Everybody loves me there !!!!

136

My friend the Alex Jones fan tells me that the Pauls - pere et fils - are not 9/11 truthers, and have made that clear in interviews. 

Matters not.  Guilt by association.

137

The GOP is going to need the tea partiers in the tent in November, and that means letting them have a seat at the table.  It does remain to be seen whether Paul can bring back Grayson's backers in the general, but Grayson would have been even worse at bringing back the tea partiers.  I'm not worried about Paul's orthodoxy on the fine points as long as he's a fiscal conservative and he caucuses Republican, neither of which are in doubt.

138 Well Rand isn't doing himself any favors by associating with Jones or Stormfront.

I keep seeing references to that and Neonazi shit. How about a link to some reputable evidence that Ran Paul supports Stormfront and is a neonazi?

139 126 There are a bunch of cheese-dick morons in PA-12 who really like that goddamn airport, apparently.

But they don't love it enough to use it.  "An airport ghost town". 

140 opinions are given freely BUT when you have to put real money down on what you believe, like on Intrade it is clear that yesterday was perceived to be positive for the Dems. Obama's re-election went up, to 61% and the chance of Democratic control of the House in 2010 also went up and now is 61% also. Does anyone really think that Obama wanted Specter to win whom everyone knows would be a weaker candidate than Sestak ? And Rand Paul will cross party lines to vote with the Dems on some core issues like foreign intervention

141 Ben, your error: "of which I think the Pauls are on the right page" -- Rand Paul is not, and cannot be, Ron Paul. He has to separate himself from his father and some of his father's positions and associates.

142 Just give them time, Curmudgeon.

Taking money from a white-supremacist organization like Stormfront, going on a 9/11 Truther nut talk show (Alex Jones) and being pro-dope. That is just for openers.

Jesus!

It's not like they have to work to dig up dirt on this guy and they're not going to burn up all of this A+ material during the election cycle.

143 the question becomes why McCain's (or other statists) flavor of insane tastes worse than even the worst caricature of Rand or Ron Paul's. Illuminati theories are nuts, but so is the idea that people should have their political speech restricted.
Posted by: DMXRoid at May 19, 2010 01:28 PM (vd872)

Dude, be careful near open flames...you're strawman might catch fire.

Opposing a candidate because he actively courts some very unsavory supports is not restricting their speech.

144 And we're stuck with that bong-hitting retard here.

If you are referring to me you can kiss my ass. I have been here much longer than you.

145

My friend the Alex Jones fan tells me that the Pauls - pere et fils - are not 9/11 truthers, and have made that clear in interviews. 

Matters not.  Guilt by association.

Its not the truthers that bother me a ton. they are idiots, every party and society has them, some 30 percent of dems are  truthers.. it is the stormfront people that Ron caters too that i find worrisome.

146
McCain won PA-12.

Posted by: snapdragon

 

The idiot is back.

1. McCain was running for President.

2. His opponent was Barack Obama.

3. Obama repeatedly and clumsily insulted them.

4. That district did something rare for Dem districts; they split the ticket, voting against the jerk that insulted them, and voting for the jerk that brings home pork.

5. They later re-elected this same jerk after HE insulted them.

 

Lesson: some districts will take crap from some politicians that they will not take from others.

147 Drew, that's not the argument I was making, I was referring to McCain-Feingold.

148 While it's possible to explain/rationalize the Democratic victory there, image is important in politics.

Yes, it si, but this is a district that rewarded a criminal (ABSCAM) and then rewarded a traitorous lowlife who called our Marines murderers, IN CONGRESS, and then didn't even have the integrity (as if) to apologize to them as they were acquitted.  PA-12 has made it very clear what they care about, and America isn't part of that.

But, the joke's on them, because that criminal money train is over.  Murtha had seniority and that is now gone.  They can rot in hell, without assistance of any sort.  That is what they deserve.

149 No, Vic! I am not talking about you, I used time/date stamp to quote your post. I was referring to Rand Paul. Not you. I live in Kentucky.

Sorry for the confusion.

150

#133 for the win! Yes, we know the Paulian foreign policy is crap, but relative to what? Statists who still kinda sorta fight the war on terror?

I'd like a better candidate than Rand Paul--but HE WON THE PRIMARY. And he did so because he's spot on on most issues AOS morons claim to care about, his batshit crazyness about a foreign matter or two notwithstanding.

151 You know the real story of the KY Republican primary last night and who it hurts the most????

Hugh Hewitt

152 #142  I keep seeing references to that and Neonazi shit. How about a link to some reputable evidence that Ran Paul supports Stormfront and is a neonazi?

I'd love that info too.  Quick Google searching yields Ron Paul references, but nothing about Ran Paul. 

153 Posted by: Clever Moniker at May 19, 2010 01:34 PM (qs11W)

Sorry I snapped back.

154 Don't be hateful. I'm not a liberal troll or a concern troll. We disagree. Come up with something more to respond to me than pointless ranting. Posted by: Ella

Don't be hateful? Don't be hateful? Coming from the person who suddenly acquired the powers of reading the minds hundreds of readers and then declared that they prefer to see RINO's win in November?

Don't be hateful?

If someone I've never met assumes a whole shitload of information about me and then asks for a friendly conversation, we're going to have a problem. And then top it off by admonish us for "pointless ranting" begs my patience.

You came here looking for a fight. You wanted to be offended.

Take your appeals for a reasoned debate and kindly shove them up your ass.

155

Its not the truthers that bother me a ton.

I guess I'm just touchy about the President of the United States being accused of mass murder.  I'm funny that way.

156 Posted by: DMXRoid at May 19, 2010 01:33 PM (vd872)

Ah.

I missed that on the first reading but I see what you mean in retrospect.

157 Dave in Texas, you're not expressing legitimate concern. Aside from one Alex Jones interview, you're not even citing facts. You're passing around rumors and innuendo in full-on Paul Derangement Syndrome.

Vic gets it. Ben gets it. Curmudgeon gets it. (I'm not saying they agree with me, just that they get my point.) I am more scared of socialism than anything. Rand and Ron Paul are right on fiscal/economic issues.

If I thought we had a prayer of fighting an effective war, then probably foreign issues would be more important, but, frankly, I think both parties have wussed out on that and whatever happens with Iran is going to happen.

Where is your evidence that Rand Paul is a racist neo-Nazi? That would be a dealbreaker. But y'all have gone all Charles Johnson here. Pamela Gellar once stood by a guy who knew a guy from Tennessee which has a racist flag and that guy looks like Rand Paul! Burn him! Burn the Nazis!

158 113 Rhetoric isn't the same as action.

F**********in'-A right!!!!!!! *swinging club madly, hitting things with it*

159

Okay, I'll bite.  What is so great about "the war" that it's your "most important issue"?  Is there anything short of exterminating every last Muslim on the planet that would justify ending "the war"?  How is "the war" good for America?

Nuance!

160

Ben, your error: "of which I think the Pauls are on the right page" -- Rand Paul is not, and cannot be, Ron Paul. He has to separate himself from his father and some of his father's positions and associates.

Look, you're right.

His associations are questionable. 

But my point is that on domestic and fiscal issues, I am willing to bet more people agree with Rand or Ron Paul than McCain or Graham.

AGAIN I am not saying you agree with their associations or foreign polciy. I don't. I'm a jew and very uncomfortable with the stormfront alex jones crowd. I think Rand went out of his way to point out he completely disagrees with his father on Israel. Its a start i guess.

But the point is he will be a senator, not a dictator. He will be voting on issues that come before him, not issues of his choosing. I think he will vote on fiscal issues and domestic issues the way we want all republicans too.

Sure he will be problematic on foreign policy, but lets be serious here. Foreign policy is going to be on the back burner for the next several elections. Economics, Budget, Energy, Debt, Unemployment will be the major issues.

And on those issues, and those issues alone, i think it is fair to say Rand Paul is on the same page as most everyone here.

Also, If he does turn out to be batshit crazy like his father, we can vote him out in the  primaries.

161 In lieu of evidence of racism, I am going to say that the foreign policy stuff (that I disagree with) isn't as important as the Pauls' rightness on fiscal stuff.

162

Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election

I'm actually looking forward to the gyrations Sestak will need to perform as he attempts to disown the 0bamacare vote, and divorce himself from SanFran Nan. Think I'll call that dance: The Sestak Lockstep Two Step.

163 As for Ron Paul and Stormfront, a Google search of 'stormfront donation ron paul' turns up:

http://tinyurl.com/2u55gv

http://tinyurl.com/27x53l2

http://tinyurl.com/2a58rnt

...to start with.

164 Posted by: Vic at May 19, 2010 01:35 PM (6taRI)

It was my fault. I'm sorry.

165 Rand and Ron Paul are right on fiscal/economic issues.

Posted by: Ella at May 19, 2010 01:38 PM (FJSCC)

I don't know about Rand, but Ron Paul (whom I generally like) is not right about fiscal/economic issues, as it were.  He's right on the limits of the federal government in domestic policy (for the most part) and he's far more accurate about monetary policy and the risks that our errant policy poses to us (though I am definitely not a hard currency supporter).

166

Its not the truthers that bother me a ton.

I guess I'm just touchy about the President of the United States being accused of mass murder.  I'm funny that way.

You're missing the point I was making. The truthers are retards yes. Yes I hate them. Yes I think they are incompetent fools. Yes I wish they all shut up.

But the Truthers aren't like the Stormfront group in that the Truther don't want to kill people. The Truthers aren't dangerous.  They aren't, as part of their doctrine, threatening violence.

Its the Stormfront people that concern me because of their goals and ambitions, whereas the Truthers don't seem to really have any but do drungs and pontificate. They're harmless idiots. The Stormfront people aren't

167 Clever Moniker -- the question was Rand and Stormfront. If we can't get it right here - how messed up do you think the media will be?

168

Let's make a list of politicians that have been on Alex Jones's show.

169

The Truthers aren't dangerous.

See, that's apparently where we disagree.

170

Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election

I'm actually looking forward to the gyrations Sestak will need to perform as he attempts to disown the 0bamacare vote, and divorce himself from SanFran Nan. Think I'll call that dance: The Sestak Lockstep Two Step.

Its his 100% pro life rating from NARAL that will hurt him in Catholic Socially Conservative PA

171 The dem in PA 12 ran as a conservative.  The republican played it as too much of a gentleman.  People tell me that the dem ran commercials accusing the republican of being in favor of the 23% VAT.   When they did not see the republican refuting the commercials in any way shape or form they had to conclude that the dem was correct in his assertion and, as one person put it, "who wants more taxes?"...so people felt they had no choice but to vote for the dem.

Someone last night was saying that the republicans need more "fire in their belly"...and they were right.  You guys need people who really believe that they are the best, will do the best job, will listen to the people and implement their wishes, someone who is immune to the DC viri of power intoxication and self appreciation.  People aren't falling for the promises.  They are going to take a good long look at you.  They are going to listen to every word you utter.  They are going to peruse your record if you have one and search the web for anything you have written or any opinion you have espoused.  This is a year when you won't be able to hide that little speech in favor of lightening the burden of Social Security by just getting rid of old people who get sick.  They will find this, they will confront the candidate and the candidate will be toast.

It may be that the "few good men (women) will skip dems and republicans entirely and flock to the "Taxed Enough Already" party.

172 Voting for McCain != liking McCain or his policies. On the other hand, sitting at home or supporting The Only Man Who Can Save America (TM) = Obama. There are such things as lesser evils, and McCain was one of them.

173 With all the hand wringing here, its no wonder the repubs in washington don't have a clue.  How about a post hammering on Rand Paul's super liberal, baby killing, high taxing, big spending, sheep humping, pelosi kissing, american hating, socialist loving, pro-amnesty, gun hating opponent?

174

Its his 100% pro life rating from NARAL that will hurt him in Catholic Socially Conservative PA

That makes no sense.

175

Its his 100% pro life rating from NARAL that will hurt him in Catholic Socially Conservative PA

That makes no sense.

you're right. pro choice. pro choice.

 

sheesh

176 That's more like it.

177 Posted by: Jean at May 19, 2010 01:42 PM (h0rZ/)

It is still guilt by association. Rand may not have taken any money from Stormfront, but his father has. As someone else stated, the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Rand Paul is enough of a kook without having taken any lucre from neo-nazis cretins.

178 But y'all have gone all Charles Johnson here. Pamela Gellar once stood by a guy who knew a guy from Tennessee which has a racist flag and that guy looks like Rand Paul! Burn him! Burn the Nazis!

Posted by: Ella at May 19, 2010 01:38 PM (FJSCC)

 

Way too much of that six degree's of separation stuff going on.  While I am not fond of either Pauls' foreign policy stuff, I have yet to see one legitimate link for either one of them with any neo-nazi skinhead organization.  The only thing I saw was some paid magazine/flier advertisements way back when that Ron Paul could be linked too. 

179 Guy Fawkes, but that opponent isn't related to someone who received a donation from a guy at Stormfront. So he's not the real enemy here.

;-)

180 opinions are given freely BUT when you have to put real money down on what you believe, like on Intrade it is clear that yesterday was perceived to be positive for the Dems. Obama's re-election went up, to 61%

Actually, it's Democratic Party candidate to win 2012 Presidential Election so some may be betting Barry gets tired.

Volume 8187 contracts or 80,000 dollars total.  For some of us, that's probably real money.  Indicative of pretty much nothing but sporting interest.

181

I do not hump sheep!

Anymore, I mean...

182

What he said.  RON PAUL~!'s voting bloc consists of potheads, skinheads, and shitheads.

Posted by: Damn Skippy at May 19, 2010 01:28 PM (VDgKF)

Don't forget us!

183 On the one hand, Rand is closer to a proper conservative than what passes for the GOP establishment.

On the other hand, he's a very dangerous brand of crazy.

On the gripping hand, considering where "sane" seems to have gotten us, maybe we should just get it over with and let the crazies on both wings bash it out.  I've little or no idea how you keep from having that anyway at this stage.  Just stash what you can, reinforce some key structures (literal and figurative), wait for Hurricane Whackadoo to rip through, and rebuild after.  At the very least, anyone left after that should be thoroughly disabused of any romantic notions of the value of unrealistic political positions.

184 And clearly the Illuminati control my sockpuppets.

185 Where is your evidence that Rand Paul is a racist neo-Nazi? That would be a dealbreaker. But y'all have gone all Charles Johnson here.

This charge has been dogging Rand Paul for months now and he's done zero to address it. If  I were a politician and there was this much chatter about questionable associations, I'd put them to bed ASAP--he'll even Obama threw Write under the bus. 

186

@Ben -

I believe Toomey will narrowly win against Sestak, mainly due to anti-incumbent sentiment and a lot of pissed off and disillusioned Indies who thought they voted for a centrist presidential candidate. The one group that worries me is the PA women voters who will choose Sestak due to the hormone factor.

187 Ella, good snark, had me for a second.  great name by the way, my daughter's also.

188

Re: Rand Paul. I really don't know much about him. Not much into his Dad's schtick but have been LMAO re the recent Congressional action to audit the Fed.

If my choice is a House or Senate majority vs. only perfect Rs elected, I'm going for the majority. Particularly with a D Pres. Majority sets the agenda and can stop some of the BS. But you need someone to ride herd on the RINO types.

Recent problem with Rs is that the agenda set is the Ds by slow death. Rs seem to want to be loved by the media so they dance to the media's tune. Whatever Chris Christie is drinking [and it appears to be beers, brats and milkshakes and 12 egg omelettes] the rest of the Rs should drink and eat. That is where cons gotta go. Fearless.

Ironically, my fear is that everyone puts too much on winning big in 2010 and 2012 and then gets dejected and gives up when the results aren't as good as expected. The conservative side has been losing this war since the Wilson administration but for the Reagan adm. This will take a decade to turn around. Battles will be lost.  Our only choice is to persevere and keep taking the battle to them. We can't give up. Ever.

Use every opportunity to confront the Ds with simple questions. Force them to take a position and defend it.  Dem candidates should be asked generic questions: Is lying about military service or being unable to remember whether or not you were in combat a disqualifying factor for elected office?  How is the public served by politicians who mislead the public about even the most mundane verifiable facts? Is Elena Kagan the best of the best lawyers in the US. Do you think laws that undermine protections against voter fraud should be repealed? Do you think the purpose of a law should be to legalize cheating in elections. Why should felons be allowed to vote? Why should people from other countries vote in US elections? Should people in my state be able to vote in your district's primary?

189

You know the real story of the KY Republican primary last night and who it hurts the most????

 

I thought that it was the lack that caused the pain?

190 taylork, there is no charge. There is a rumor because of a stereotype of his father. "The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree" isn't an accusation. It's a slur.

191 The donation wasn't from some guy at Stormfront. It was from the man who founded and runs Stormfront which advocates outright hatred of Jews,  blacks, Hispanics, etc. Paul kept the donation. Is he that hard up for money that he wouldn't simply return the donation? Or is he glad to have the votes of people who think the Holocaust is a hoax and blacks are subhumans?

192 "Rand Paul is enough of a kook without having taken any lucre from neo-nazis cretins.

Posted by: Clever Moniker at May 19, 2010 01:45 PM (qs11W)"

You are looking at this using the prism of your own experience.  Seems he is the perfect fit for the people of Kentucky as he really trounced his opponent.  They seem to be willing to take him as he is, a little nerdy good looking eye surgeon who felt compelled to enter politics and fore go his probably very lucrative professional career to contribute to the welfare of his neighbors.  He's not a flim flam man, he's plain speaking.  He isn't making promises. And if you look at his dad which all of you want to do, his dad does his job and doesn't get involved in the petty BS that seems to characterize our nation's capital...

193 Guy Fawkes, thanks! I like my name, too, but I can't take all the credit. My grandmother and mom had it first.

194 "I must be confused then."

It's easy to be confused.

Ron Paul's supporters founded many of the Tea Parties.

Many Tea Partiers try to deny their connection to Ron Paul.

But after last night the Tea Partiers are desperate for any kind of victory so they're claiming Rand Paul as one of their own.

195 It's easy to be confused, especially when you're as fucking stupid as I am.

196 "The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree" isn't an accusation. It's a slur.

Actually, it's an aphorism.

197

Its his 100% pro life rating from NARAL that will hurt him in Catholic Socially Conservative PA

There were those that thought that issue would hurt Obama, but it didn't seem to matter a whit. It seems that the vast majority of people are personally opposed to abortion, but it doesn't seem to affect their choice in the polling booth. Either that or the Catholic Church has backed down on some of the election eve sermons they used to give

We'll see. Oh and  I forgot to mention Sestak has a F rating from the NRA. PA is filled with guns. Go watch the film Deer Hunter, that is pretty accurate portrayal of the type of people that live here.

Sestak is too far left to win. I bet Toomey wins by 3-5 percent.

198 Posted by: curious at May 19, 2010 01:50 PM (p302b)

I sincerely do hope, for the sake of my state and of our nation, that you and the other Rand Paul supporters here, there and everywhere are correct in your assessment(s) of him and that I am completely wrong in mine. Why? Because we're stuck with him.

199 "This charge has been dogging Rand Paul for months now and he's done zero to address it. If  I were a politician and there was this much chatter about questionable associations, I'd put them to bed ASAP--he'll even Obama threw Write under the bus."

These aren't the kind of things you can "put to bed".  Any acknowledgment would just draw attention to them and fuel the flames.  With the media the way it is, "I am not a Nazi" becomes "I am... a Nazi" and it's not like anybody who believes these crazy things (including many on this site) are going to be convinced otherwise anyway.

200

Its the Stormfront people that concern me because of their goals and ambitions, whereas the Truthers don't seem to really have any but do drungs and pontificate. They're harmless idiots. The Stormfront people aren't

But how significant are the Stormfronters, disgusting as they are? They get accused of far more than they actually pull off. Heck, the animal rights groups and eco-fiend anti-development types do more property damage and terror attacks (not sure about the body count).

201 Ron Paul's supporters founded many of the Tea Parties.

Pure speculation, and also stupid.

202

Its his 100% pro life rating from NARAL that will hurt him in Catholic Socially Conservative PA

That makes no sense.

you're right. pro choice. pro choice.

 

Pro abortion. I refuse to use the PC guidebook enshrined by the NYT. Are we calling supporters of the Confederacy "pro-choice'?

203 This charge has been dogging Rand Paul for months now and he's done zero to address it. If I were a politician and there was this much chatter about questionable associations, I'd put them to bed ASAP--he'll even Obama threw Write under the bus.

Posted by: taylork at May 19, 2010 01:47 PM (0Hn5w)

His father never bothered addressing the same charges. I've never seen evidence of Ron Paul being for Stormfront or anti-semitic or anything of the like. He's an isolationist and his foreign policy reflects that. Many are ticked about it (I don't like that policy, at all) and they make shit up about him because they can't take him on in legitimate debate. That's bullshit. Screw them. They are generally talking out of their asses. Ron Paul's foreign policy is nutty and bad for the US, but that is about the extent of it. It's not anything like the traitors we have now, who are trying to ally with COMMUNIST CHINA in an attack on Arizona. That is pure treason - as was the whole of the World Traitor Tour and lots of other crap the Indonesian Imbecile and his dem junta have done.

Ron Paul is just an isolationist. Big whoop. It's a silly policy, but not malevolent, in the least. I don't know Rand's foreign policy, but I assume it's a bit softer on that front.

204

Re: abortion as an issue in predominantly Catholic areas. A counter-argument to those who say they are pro-life but support candidates who believe in unlimited abortion rights :  Would you support candidates who believe slavery should be legal as long as you, yourself, don't own slaves?

So far, I've never got an answer to this one.

205

Ron Paul's supporters founded many of the Tea Parties.

This *is* the same crapdragon who claimed the Tea Parties were orchestrated by the GOP, right? Just checking.

206 Posted by: Clever Moniker at May 19, 2010 01:39 PM (qs11W)

Those are all Ron Paul, not Rand Paul and they are donations and support by Stormfront. I would think that those are beyond his control. Did you find anything that said Ron Paul or Rand Paul supported Stormfront?

I do understand that Ron Paul has taken some hard anti-Israel stances, but not necessarily anti-Semitic stances. But on that regard, Rand Paul has stated he disagrees with his father on those stances.

As I said earlier, Rand Paul is not as big a foreign policy clown as his father.

207 Ron Paul's supporters founded many of the Tea Parties.

The essence of the Tea Party Movement is that there is no Party in the Movement, so there is nothing to found, which john ryan would know, were it not for that whole retardation thing.

208 185

I do not hump sheep!

Anymore, I mean...

Posted by: Rand Paul's super liberal, baby killing, high taxing, big spending, pelosi kissing, american hating, at May 19, 2010 01:46 PM (VDgKF)

Oh really?

209

There were those that thought that issue would hurt Obama, but it didn't seem to matter a whit.

Pro-life conscience trumped by White Guilt "social justice" vote.

(Excuse me while I  kill that little "i" button.)

210 Ron Paul's supporters founded many of the Tea Parties.

There were some there at the beginning, but they weren't "founders".  They were just part of the group - and not a dominant part.  Paulian ideas only go so far in the Tea Party groups.

211

Serious question.

Worst case scenario?

Will he ... re-legalize slavery?

212 First: how much fun was it to be back at the electoral roulette wheels yesterday? Much. Next: enough with the rationalizations on PA 12. It's clearly some sort of 'pocket' throwback; maybe this is where we parked our neandertals. Maybe in a few centuries the peculiar branch of hominoids there will have evolved sufficiently to handle modern technology, like plugging in those RCA Victor 10" b&w TV sets. Is there any evidence they even have cable? The printing press? Fire? Someone wrote yesterday asking hopefully if Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand; and someone else answered beatifically 'yes'. Since his given name is "Randal Howard', that would suggest his parents had some insider knowledge as to Ayn having shortened her last name, AND we accept "Randal" as the natural Ellis Island conversion of "Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum". Anyone else concerned Rand Paul has not actually ever before won, leave aside contested, even one single contested general election? I've heard that at least some prior experience in such things can be useful, in avoiding things like naïve beginner's errors and stuff. This has a lot to do with why I think McConnell dropped the ball in not getting out in front of last night's primary when internal polling made the outcome clear. There's one effort I know of, in Louisville, to set up a website to track this guy's rookie progress, on the basis it's going to break an awful lot of, shall we say, conventional wisdoms. I can't think of a senatorial race anywhere in the country more likely to cause eye bulges and taken breath. Think playing blackjack with a marginal understanding of the rules of go fish. Chris Dudley's performance in Oregon: loads of name identification, backers, money, the works-- way more of it that any other contender for the primary; yet ran into a real struggle. Bright side: Boozeman in Arkansas--gets to run against either the most-wounded-duck-incumbent-in-drowning-phase there is, or a guy so obviously gifted and just darn likeable he can't exceed her numbers in round 1.

213

But after last night the Tea Partiers are desperate for any kind of victory so they're claiming But after last night the Tea Partiers are desperate for any kind of victory so they're claiming Rand Paul as one of their own.

Posted by: snapdragon

And the idiot flares again, like a festering boil. Any citations available to prove that a de-centralized national movement is in they state that you claim?  And how you discerned this in less than a day?Or is this the newly approved latest spin on the eeeeeeeeeeevil tea-partiers?

214 Will he ... re-legalize slavery?

Too late!  Get back to work drudge, my programs aren't going to pay for themselves.

215 "The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree" isn't an accusation. It's a slur.
Posted by: Ella at May 19, 2010 01:49 PM (FJSCC)

2nd generation politicians all have to deal with that.

They usually want to cash in on their parent's popularity, memories, supporters but don't want to have the negative stuff held against them.

It's undeniable that Rand Paul has benefited from a lot of his Dad's supporters contributions and enthusiasm. He's going to have to take the downside of that when it comes to people who don't like Ron.

He (and you) can't have just the part he likes because it helps him..

216 The dirty little secret that probably scares the lib/dems to death is the fact that a lot of lib/dems like ron paul and probably like his son.   They come out and say it, in front of their peers.  So there are a lot more dems who would pull the lever for ron paul in an election than would make the dems comfortable.  Plus, you can say what you want about the guy.  he has been right about a lot of the financial stuff and he has three hundred plus other lawmakers signing onto his audit the fed bill...he is not alone on that.  So he must be a good consensus builder.  Oddly enough Americans admire someone who has an opinion or blief and sticks with it, even if they don't agree with it.  In the toxic environment that is our nation's capital, sticking with a belief, not living by the polls but by conviction, character, moral fiber, makes you are rare bird in that jungle and Americans are starting to recognize that they would rather hook their horse to that cart, a cart they can predict than someone else's cart which may become erratic while you are really close to the cliff.

217 Chris Dudley's performance in Oregon: loads of name identification, backers, money, the works-- way more of it that any other contender for the primary; yet ran into a real struggle.

My understanding is Dudley was running away with it and then at the end they added a free throw competition to the campaign. That nearly cost him the nomination.

218 Posted by: Vic at May 19, 2010 01:55 PM (6taRI)

What i think is that it would not have hurt Ron Paul to decline the donation and say something along the lines of, "While respect the rights of Americans to believe in anything they choose, I cannot accept this donation in good conscience."

The fact that he did accept speaks ill of him - whether he is a racist or antisemite, taking a mere $500.00 from Holocaust denying, race haters was a bigger deal to him than his probity or his conscience.

219 About Last Night....

--Damn, I thought there'd be some sweet photos of young Demi Moore

220 I'd rather not see RP as Prez, but he, on his worst day, is still better than the best we can hope for from the Dems.  If Paulistas can win vs. Dems, I consider it the lesser, and therefore preferrable, evil.  Not the optimal situation, but preferable.  And frankly, I prefer some RP craziness to RINO limp wristedness. 

221

This brief lesson is for the benefit of trolls who don't know better.

The TEA party grew out of two events:

1. Legislators' refusal to listen to constituents who flooded their offices with anti Porkulus calls and e-mails, and voted it through against citizen's objections.

2. Then came the Health nonCare town halls, at which constituents were once again told to sit down and STFU.

Citizens of all parties - and no party - suddenly realized they had no voice. So they joined together to make themselves heard.

 

222 There's one really, REALLY, good outcome from the KY Senate primary last night.  It shows that the New World Order, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission and those scary Rothschilds don't control everything.

Yet.

223 It shows that the New World Order, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission and those scary Rothschilds don't control everything.

Who's being naive now?

224

Vector force politics!  That's a phrase I need to remember, it captures what I tried to say above much more concisely.  Rand Paul isn't going to set Republican policy if he wins the general.  But having him at the table on fiscal issues is heck of a lot better than having a Democrat or a go-along Republican at the table negotiating.  And, again, he won the Kentucky vote in the primary, and not on the strength of having appeared on the Alex Jones show.  If the GOP can't capture the tea party and fiscal conservative votes this year of all years it is doomed.  And the Grayson bid shows the establishment still doesn't get that.

I can see why the point above about "preferring" McCain could be offensive, but I don't see what's false about it.  If a backstabbing "moderate" (liberal, big-spending) Republican is an acceptable hold-your-nose vote but a small-l libertarian is a bridge too far, than you do literally prefer the squish Republican, don't you?

On the Alex Jones/stormfront point...  Rand Paul has rejected those positions.  Ascribing their views to Paul is simply false.  And casting him into outer darkness just for having appeared on the Jones show is a form of playing by rules Democrats don't follow.  Do the Dems shun anyone who has ever appeared with truthers, avowed communists, traitors and apologists for mass murderers?  No they do not.  Do they return unsolicited donations from unsavory characters?  No - in fact, if there is anything Barack Obama is more committed to than social justice and redistributive change it is keeping the money.

225 the New World Order, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission and those scary Rothschilds don't control everything.

Of course they don't.

226

I'm not thrilled with the idea of somebody who might possibly, maybe sorta, kinda has ties to Truthers and Stormfront folks (as I consider those people to be rather...unbalanced).  However, not my state, so I don't vote there.  If that's their pick to go up against the Dem, then I wish them luck...certainly can't throw stones considering my state's political atmosphere.

I am concerned about the in-fighting in the Republican party -- and the lack of support for people who will fight from the RNC; I'm beginning to lose patience with the gelded mandarins that are running the GOP.  The Dems have to be stopped (preferably destroyed as a party -- they have never been good for this country, speaking in generalized party terms; they have never been the advocates of freedom or the constitution).

227 Posted by: kallisto at May 19, 2010 02:03 PM (+FkcS)

The pre-history of the Tea Parties really goes back to a seminal event when the federal government first truly showed what contempt was held for the citizenry and the Constitution - the Shamnesty.  No organization was formed, but that was the true beginning of the sentiments that later became the Tea Parties.  The first shot by the federal government at America.  Then the TARP got it all ramped up and the election of the ineligible, America-hating retard just pushed it over the edge, especially as his policies ended up being far, far worse and more insane than most had imagined in their worst nightmares.  Even that dipshit O'Reilly is playing the allahpunditinmyass of TV by saying, "I just can't figure out what they're thinking." [paraphrasing his silly musings about the attempt to ally with China against Arizona].  We know what they're thinking, and that's what drove the Tea Parties to emerge, though the sentiment was building for a while.

228

>> Where is your evidence that Rand Paul is a racist neo-Nazi?

 

The fuck?  I didn't say that.

229 Then assume the latter and spell it out for me.  I don't think you can.

230

It's a a false choice. Trey Grayson is hardly a "squish Republican".

 

231

Except...  Grayson is a Rino, and Paul doesn't think that maybe the Nazis had a good idea.  He has rejected those ideas and people, just not as publicly as you would want him to - but doing it publicly carries the risk of making the charge stick when it wouldn't otherwise.  So, granting you're not doing so for its own sake, but in accepting the proposition of guilt by association, the anti-Paul position does in effect prefer the beltway milquetoast to a fiscal conservative, small-l libertarian.

Again, I get that it's a charged issue, but you still haven't shown me where I'm actually wrong.

232
what the goddamned hell is going on around here?

the TEA PARTY guy won.  Who cares who it is, this win just sent a collective shiver down the rudimentary vertebral columns of every establishment squish and RINO in the nation.

I don't care if it's Ron Paul's son, he ain't gonna be my congressman, and the damage one Rep can do is extrememly limited. 

Who gives a fuck what his positions are, we just won one over the country-clubbers.

Jeez

233

that said, DiT is right, Grayson was a solid conservative.

http://www.treygrayson.com/issues/

but facts, please, not "Paul is bad b/c his father's a kook"

234 the TEA PARTY guy won.  Who cares who it is

I rest my case...

235 Have you made a case?

236 BTW, erg's horning in on your Intrade shtick in the other thread.

237 I had considered Grayson an establishment conservative at best, a reliable party guy but more a Bob Bennett type (usually conservative but willing to "do the right thing" occasionally for the Dems) than a Paul Ryan.  But granting the point for the sake of argument, this strengthens a different point I made earlier.  The GOP needs to bring the tea party onboard.  Yes, the Democrats need defeated and that will take compromises but the compromises can't all be in one direction.  Grayson went down in flames with the backing of a locally popular and powerful Republican party pol, McConnell.  Party loyalty conservatism is obviously no longer enough.

238 s'moron, yep, the Rand Paul win put a shiver down every RINO spine, and a lot of them are here.

He (and you) can't have just the part he likes because it helps him..

Posted by: DrewM. at May 19, 2010 01:59 PM (9B5OK)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that that made it okay to spread rumors about a man - nasty rumors about Holocaust denial and racism and "unsavory associations" - because those rumors already persist about his father.

Substitute "George Bush" for "Rand Paul" and "Preston Bush" for "Ron Paul" and you have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

This hatred of libertarians is why I have no faith in the GOP wins in November, btw. An establishment backlash against fiscal conservatives and libertarians is going to make them stay home. Again.

(And just because you say "douche" and make boobie jokes doesn't mean you're not establishment if you support John Freakin' McCain and you don't support libertarians because of rumors.)

239

Party loyalty conservatism is obviously no longer enough.


Exactly right and exactly what we have been wanting (at least most of everyone here). Party loyalty got Spektor elected last time (now he's gone, but wouldn't having Toomey been nice?)

You cob loggers really need to let the damn Paul stuff go. (incidentally I agree taht the Paulbots and Paul pere are insufferable; don't know enough about Rand, but like I said it don't matter unless you're IN KY)

240

Ella,

Drew and DiT aren't "establishment" any more than anyone else here (well, maybe Drew is, but he has awful political strategy skills anyway (how about the Stupak amendment, Drew?)),  they are just vociferously anti-Paul (with reason). 

But my point is that Rand Paul being who he is is entirely incidental to the import of this election

241 s'moron, I don't think they're establishment like Graham or Rove or somebody who's, you know, establishment. I do think that they want to be part of The Team, though. Like all those bloggers who jumped over to "legitimate" journalism sites as soon as they could get paid. Being mainstream seems more socially acceptable.

The reason I don't understand the Ron Paul hate (leaving aside his annoying followers) is this: he'd simply leave everybody alone. He may have an insane policy ... which he really wouldn't force on anyone on account of leaving everyone alone.

Leaving some things alone is dangerous (Israel), leaving others alone (Europe, international aid, bank bailouts) is the best we can hope for.

But there are no caveats here the way there were with McCain. No "yeah, we hate this, but he's still our guy!" unflagging support.

242

But if for example there is a candidate that thinks maybe the Nazis had a good idea then I don't care how in line with me his other positions are I will not be voting for him. 

Paul doesn't think that maybe the Nazis had a good idea.

Too bad I didn't say that huh?  That was a hypothetical example.  Paul was who I was talking about concerning whether the associations are real or not.

If it was hypothetical why mention it in relation to Paul, and if Paul was who you were talking about then it wasn't hypothetical.

On the the supposed strawman, what I am claiming is that the anti-Paul at any price position did in fact, just now in this thread and in the campaign previously, on the record support the less conservative candidate (Grayson) to the more conservative but also libertarian candidate (Paul).  Apparently you see both Grayson and Paul differently, but it's a little too precious to pretend the Paul-more-conservative-than-Grayson view, which just won with Republican primary voters in Kentucky, is so unintelligible I must have been speculating about what you would do in some other hypothetical race.

243 I'm sorry if it seems like I'm beating on this, but I have kept my mouth shut through a LOT of libertarian hate recently.

Dudes, I'm not a Republican. I don't care if the GOP goes down in flames because all it could ever be is a vehicle. If that vehicle is not going the direction I want, I have no reason not to bail.

I am a fiscal libertarian and a classical liberal (re: Protein Wisdom). I'm all about freedom. I am not all about supporting a party that doesn't care about freedom. The fact that Republicans are 17% less vicious on freedom doesn't make me love them. It's like arguing that it's GOOD to be stung by a bee because it's less bad than being stung by a hornet.

244
Ron Paul, the father, had some real whacko shit coming out under his name in that newsletter.  My dad was a full on racist, though (not militant, mind you, just very bigoted).  Does that mean I can't run for office?

What the fuck?

Anyway, I don't want much part in the Paul v. Anti-Paul fight.  It's out of my comfort zone.  I just don't know enough. 

I'm more of a Tea Party v. Country Club/RINO guy.

245 I'd rather vote for a wacky libertarian than an establishment RINO... don't know how to put it any clearer than that.

246 Way down in the comments here, so I doubt it will be discovered... but I want to correct the record.  You referred to Bill Halter as "Lt. Bill Halter."  He's the Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas, not a military officer.  To the best of my ability, I can't find one military source that lists him as having served, nor does he claim service in his official bio.
For what it's worth, that bio mentions working in the Clinton administration three times, and being a Rhodes Scholar twice... so military service might not be a plus to that crowd.  I doubt he'd completely gloss over it though.

Yes, it's small potatoes for a likely typo, but it means a great deal to those who do/did serve.  Thanks.

247 the GOP Elders won't even oppose a marxist stooge like Kagan for SC... so yeah, I'll vote for libertarian, give me more of them.

248

even though i'm not a libertarian, i'm sick to death of the libertarian-bashing.

Libertarians aren't socialists and they don't seem to be in the mood to compromise with them.

right now, that's enough for them to get my support.

if the Republican Party leadership ever gets it's head out of it's ass long enough to realize that the days of Big Government HAVE to end then and that there is no Democratic Party anymore we are fighting the Socialist Party, the Dems are ALL socialists, we must fight everything they are doing, we must repeal what they have done.

but McConnell, McCain, Graham et. al. are stuck on stupid, it's obvious to me that those ass-clowns don't see the danger so fuck them and anyone who hangs with them.

 

 

249

>> Like all those bloggers who jumped over to "legitimate" journalism sites as soon as they could get paid. Being mainstream seems more socially acceptable.

As mentioned before, I'm pretty fucking tired of you impugning my motives.  Not to mention flat out making shit up I never said.

I don't really care who you support.  If you think libertarians are going to outdistance Republicans or Democrats on the nation scene you're delusional. I don't hate libertarians. I do despise Ron Paul.

I'm on record supporting the Tea-Parties until they start pushing 3rd party candidates at us.  I'd rather fight it out in the Republican party and persuade them to nominate and get elected the most conservative candidate we can get.

250

Dudes, I'm not a Republican.

Gee, I never woulda guessed. 

251 Dave in Texas, if you think Republicans are going to win without libertarian support, you're delusional. Even if it's 3%, that's a difference in a close election.

The reason libertarians are going third party (which, btw, RON AND RAND PAUL AREN'T) is because the Republicans are fielding crony RINO insiders and people like you are telling us to vote for them no matter what.

I'm not making up anything you said, and I'm sorry if it's come off like that. I'm not only responding to you. There have been a lot of Rand Paul and anti-libertarian posts lately, not only this one. I'm responding to those cumulatively.

252 Damn Skippy, I used to be a Republican. I changed my registration to Independent after TARP.

253

if "as conservative as we can get" ends up being a Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney what the hell have we gained?

nothing

and I might as well "throw my vote away" on a libertarian.

party alligence is a suckers game a lot of us just aren't playing anymore

254 +1, shoey.

255 Posted by: Ella at May 19, 2010 03:08 PM (FJSCC)

There are a lot of libertarian ideas I support.

I do however dislike most Libertarians I've come across. There self-righteousness is pretty unbearable. Considering that most of their ideas are disconnected from reality and their inability to win very many elections (which means convincing the majority of their fellow citizens they are right) you'd think they'd be a bit more humble. Not so much.

Far too many self-identified libertarians (big and small L) have a sense of righteousness not matched by their actions.

256

>> I'm not making up anything you said, and I'm sorry if it's come off like that.

So in post 161, addressed to me, the one where you ask me about all the rumors I'm spreading, and "where's my evidence that Rand Paul is a neo-nazi?", you meant other people who are anti-libertarian and anti-Rand Paul.  People who are not me because I never asserted that I was.

You're just sloppy, is that it?  Ok, got it.

 

If it's not too much to ask, since you aren't referring to me, could you stop putting my name in there then?  I know it seems nit-picky but it's kind of confusing.

Thanks.   

257 how about the Stupak amendment, Drew?
Posted by: s'moron at May 19, 2010 03:12 PM (UaxA0)

What about it? The Republicans should have abstained or voted no and called Stupak's bluff sooner.

How'd the strategy of pretending of giving him a pass for 3 months work out?

258

if this thread is still alive, I'm not advocating for the Libertarian party.  AT ALL.  I think that supporting a person who will caucus with teh Reps is vitally important.  This is PRIMARY season though, so it boggles my mind why people aren't damn glad that SOMEWHERE the official GOP was shown the heel of the voter's boot because they weren't responsive to teh Tea Party folks.  This is nothing BUT good news, and the fact that it's Paul's son is all but irrelevant. 

One rep from Kentucky, even if he loses, is  not going to define the speakership or result in any appreciable difference in House votes.

259

>> One rep from Kentucky

*cough*Senator*cough*

but yeah, even then it ain't the end of the world, and he will likey vote my way 90% of the time.

260
Drew,

Seriously?

If stupak's amendment wouldn't have passed, the Senate would have passed the house bill (or passed a very close copy and had it reconciled in regular conference committee) and the whole thing would have been done before anyone knew it.

Instead, HCR became a national issue for over 3 months, and allowed the mobilization of public opinion solidly against the bill.  Slowing the demon of HCR for 3 months has, I'd argue, made ALL the difference Drew, both in public perception and in the November vote. 

Without Stupak, we'd be railing in a vacuum.

You simply don't think of the longer term than a few news cyles out, and it makes your predictive/strategic thinking qualities less than stellar.

But you're probably a nice guy, and you might even smell OK, so it's a wash.

261

Sorry, DiT,

You're right, I was just typing the wrong thing.

My fingers mistyped, I tell ya, and I was in teh shit in the Stan, too!

262 I'm sorry if it seems like I'm beating on this, but I have kept my mouth shut through a LOT of libertarian hate recently.
Posted by: Ella at May 19, 2010 03:24 PM (FJSCC)

What "libertarian hate" to you run across here? Unless you think saying it's not cool to hang out with Alex Jones is "libertarian hate" or pointing out Ron Paul has some pretty wacky positions, I don't think there is much/any around here.

It's possible to like the philosophy but not the messengers.

I am a fiscal libertarian and a classical liberal (re: Protein Wisdom). I'm all about freedom. I am not all about supporting a party that doesn't care about freedom. The fact that Republicans are 17% less vicious on freedom doesn't make me love them. It's like arguing that it's GOOD to be stung by a bee because it's less bad than being stung by a hornet.

And this is one major reason a lot more conservatives who are amenable to (L)libertarians don't identify that way. We chose to live in the world. That means accepting that in a democratic society ideological purity is not going to happen (in fact, the founders set that up as a feature, not a bug of the system). We chose to do the best we can as mere mortals and not philosophically pure deities such as your average (L)libertarian fancy his or her self.

We do apologize for our imperfections and appreciate your willingness to continually point them out from your lofty perch while we toil away here in the real world.

263

if there is one Party that spends way too much money, then there is another Party that just spends a little too much money no matter which one you vote for you're still spending too much money.

if there is one Party that likes Big, Huge Government, then there is another Party that likes just Big Government no matter which one you for you still have too much government.

if you have one Party that rapes the Constitution everyday, then you have another Party that only rapes the Constitution every other day no matter which one you vote for the Constitution is still getting raped.

do I need to go on?

264 If stupak's amendment wouldn't have passed, the Senate would have passed the house bill (or passed a very close copy and had it reconciled in regular conference committee) and the whole thing would have been done before anyone knew it.
Posted by: s'moron at May 19, 2010 04:41 PM (UaxA0)

Not even remotely true.

There were other issues to be dealt with that would have caused a second vote (Cadillac tax, Cornhusker Kickback and GatorAid to name a few). The reason they didn't do conference committiee is because McConnell (RINO who gave up the fight!) said he would have refused to appoint conferees and that's what prevented them from doing it that way.

Stupak had nothing to do with forcing reconciliation.

265

Maybe, maybe not, but the real point is that the abortion issue gave cover in the Senate for tehm to cratf their own bill entirely, which included all of those "dealbreakers", and also held up the machinery enough to get the dull public paying attention. 

That would not have happened absent Stupak, and if the bill went through in a few weeks as opposed to a few months, we would not have gotten the public anger and electoral shift that we are now getting (at least not to the same degree)


The delay born of Stupak's amendment made everything much more public, and much more infuriating to the average voter

266

It's the inaction and spinelessness of the Republican Party that is driving me towards the libertarian camp. I don't really want to go there because a good number of them are fanatical God-haters who make me more than a little uncomfortable ( Cthulhu Dreamers  but there doesn't seem anywhere else to go since the GOP refuses to back any true conservatives like DeMint or Inhofe.

at this point I'm willing to trade some pot smoke for smaller government.

267 in fact i'm even beginning to see them as one in the same.

268 Posted by: s'moron at May 19, 2010 04:41 PM (UaxA0)

Look at it this way...Stupak is gone, Mollohan is gone. What if Republicans had forced them to vote for a health care bill that didn't include Stupak back in November? We could have spent that time rallying their voters against them. Might have changed some votes.

269 Maybe, maybe not, but the real point is that the abortion issue gave cover in the Senate for tehm to cratf their own bill entirely, which included all of those "dealbreakers", and also held up the machinery enough to get the dull public paying attention.
Posted by: s'moron at May 19, 2010 05:02 PM (UaxA0)

Dude, you're just making shit up.

The Senate was working on their own bill all year.

The Senate HELP Committee reported their part of the health care bill out in July!

The Senate Finance Committee reported their part of the bill out in October.

Please explain to me how the Stupak amendment, which passed in November, gave cover for the Senate to act 4 months earlier?

270 DrewM, so having health care pass was worth it as long as Stupak is gone?

And Dave, you're PO'ed about a guy who will vote 90% your way because his dad is "batsh*t insane"? That's some tasty pragmatism going on over there.

271 DrewM, so having health care pass was worth it as long as Stupak is gone?
Posted by: Ella at May 19, 2010 05:42 PM (FJSCC)

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Have you ever read this site before?

272

Ella, when did I say I was pissed off about Rand because of his dad?  I said I give him the benefit of the doubt, hope he isn't a goof like his dad.

Are you even reading this shit? Is there some other guy named Dave in Texas blasting Rand Paul on the other blog you're reading today?  Close a browser tab.  It's ok if it's this one.

Sheesh.

273 DrewM, as for my "lofty perch," what exactly are you saying? Do you mean that in a personal way, like I don't have a real job and a real rent and real gas to buy for my real car? Or do you mean in a political sense in which case - how's that 2006 and 2008 election cycle working for you? How realistic was your real world approach?

You are attacking (!) a primary election (!!!) where voters went for the more conservative candidate over the chosen apparatchik. Because you don't like the guy's father, who probably is still more in line with your "real world" unlofty, unperched political views than the RINO who got beaten.

This isn't a third party argument. There isn't a third party candidate to be seen. The only ones being judgmental and moralizing are the people like you because you don't like the ideological positions of people in your own party. For being TOO INDEPENDENT.

Geez, Louise. It's like I'm taking crazy pills.

I get that some of you are single-issue voters for the war, and so you don't like libertarians. Cool. Some of us are single issue for the economics. If you don't want the social conservatives and you don't want the fiscal libertarians, who the heck do you want in your party? Just the pro-war guys? How do you hit 51% of voters based only on people who support the Iraq war?

274 DrewM @282, I misread DrewM @279. I thought you were saying having the Stupak amendment helped pass HCR which helped run Stupak out. I had the wrong November in mind.

275 Posted by: Ella at May 19, 2010 05:52 PM (FJSCC)

I'm just sick of (L)libertarians telling more mainstream conservatives, the people who actually compete in the real world of politics, about "how things should be" and why anyone who doesn't buy into that is just a sellout.

Paul's primary win is the biggest win for a libertarian in quite awhile. Go out and get something approaching a workable majority for your brand of purity (did you read the CATO link?) and then you can bitch about how the rest of us are just accepting 17% less evil or apparatchiks.

You and many of your brethren are awful quick to cast aspersions on others given how piss poor your record of actually convincing people to support you is.

276 DrewM., while Republicans are a major party now, it's not exactly going to last forever. They've been hemorrhaging voters over the past decade, and this tear - when they should be winning - they're not picking up much of anything that they wouldn't have already gotten.

And define "compete in the real world of politics." Yeah, the Libertarian Party is a no-show. But how many people participate in the Tea Party? How many people are in the NRA? Or pro-life groups? Or pro- and anti-gay marriage groups? A group can still be a political influence even if it is not, by itself, a major political player. (End the Fed? Ring any bells?)

It's the heavy-handed arrogance of the Republican party that drove me out. They went for TARP and the response at the time was "where else you gonna go"? And that's still the response from people like you.

Well, let me put it like this: I quit voting Republican. I don't actually need to go anywhere else. Republicans are the ones selling a commodity, and their future depends on their ability to sell. I don't actually have to buy it, though. Which means they have to reach out to me. When that reach out effort includes someone like Jim Inhofe or, yes, Ron Paul, I'm in. When it's John McCain and Rick Perry and Kaye Bailey Hutchinson, I'm out.

277 And define "compete in the real world of politics."

Get votes, win office, sit in legislatures, win a state house. That sort of thing.

It's great to protest and get on blogs but ultimately the power to change things comes from winning elections. Obviously participation and agitation is part of that but it's a means to an end.

Too often it seem libertarians want to win an argument, not an election.

This isn't a dorm room at 2am, it's the real world where actions have consequences. If you want to influence them, you're going to have to make deals and concessions. Again, that's not RINOrific! talk, it's the system the founders created.

If libertarians are interested in purity of thought and vote, fine. Just don't be surprised when no one takes your ideas very seriously.

278 We like Alex Jones. He should be supported.

279 Led watch watch led watches led led wrist watch