Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby | Rich Enemies Can Be Good Allie... »

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

$5 Million for Ron Paul

posted by on October 3 at 14:05 PM

As the third quarter fundraising numbers trickle in, this one, from the Ron Paul campaign, leaps out. Via The Politico:

Ron Paul raised just over $5 million this quarter. For somebody who is mostly living off the land (ok, the internet) that is not a bad figure, just below where John McCain will wind up and about three million less than Fred Thompson’s anticipated haul.

What’s more, it’s $4 million more than what Mike Huckabee raised.

RSS icon Comments

1

When will the liberals realize this guy is an ultra-conservative freak show and stop giving him money? Not that I think all or most of that money came for liberals, but I know a lot of people who get all starry-eyed over him.

Seriously, just because he's against the war doesn't mean you should just hop in bed with him. He's also anti-environment and anti-choice, amongst other things. I guess uncompromising fanatics would find an uncompromising fanatic appealing, no matter which issues there are that he's uncompromisingly fanatic about.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 3, 2007 2:24 PM
2

Eli,

There's something you should know about those "scientific" polls Ron Paul doesn't do too well in...

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rasmussen_Polls_Rigged_against_Ron_Paul_unbelievable

Posted by FZappa | October 3, 2007 2:29 PM
3

Elizabeth,

I don't think you understand Ron Paul's position on the environment if the label you use is "anti-environment."

Paul believes strongly in protecting the environment, but not doing so primarily through government regulation, which he feels is ineffective, but rather through protection of provate property rights, which the courts have failed on.

Paul's view in a nutshell: just as I don't have the right to dump trash on my neighbor's lawn, corporations don't have the right to pollute the air or water. Those who do should be sued, class action if necessary. As RP himself said, Ralph Nader (whom Paul admires) should be working in the private sector.

Posted by FZappa | October 3, 2007 2:33 PM
4

Ron Paul looks suspiciously like Gandalf the Grey, but with a shave and passable haircut. :|

Posted by NapoleonXIV | October 3, 2007 2:47 PM
5

Libertarianism is great in principle. I think it will be the ideal form of government in the future when technology makes housing, food, energy, and health care are all too cheap to meter. In the current context, libertarianism is irresponsible and cruel.

Posted by skweetis | October 3, 2007 2:49 PM
6

skweetis,

Come to Washington, D.C. and I'll take you on a tour of the Southeast quadrant of town. You'll see what happens to people's productivity, self-esteem, and livelihoods when government insists it should do everything for them. We'll have to go in the daytime, though.

Poor people will have jobs, a lot more money, and a lot more control over their own lives under a Ron Paul Administration. It's funny how much this prospect threatens statists, but when lots of poor people help vote Ron Paul into office you'll see that it's true.

Posted by FZappa | October 3, 2007 3:05 PM
7

I'm telling you, he's Ross Perot. When we the last time you even saw Ross Perot? EXACTLY!!!

Posted by monkey | October 3, 2007 3:19 PM
8

Meanwhile, in the real world, Dems continue to raise 3 to 4 times as much as the entire Repub field - individually.

Ron P is toast, just not as crispy as the other Red Bushie toasted critters.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 3:29 PM
9

you got me fzappa. my plan for a complete socialist state is totally shot to shit. what's the poverty rate in the evil marxist empires of canada, england, or sweden?

Posted by skweetis | October 3, 2007 3:42 PM
10

Yeah. And how do you hold private citizens and corporations accountable for their pollution? Would that be, I don't know, GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

Sorry, last time we tried unfettered libertarianism we had child labor. Ron Paul is so two centuries ago.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 3, 2007 3:46 PM
11

This guy just weakens the republican moderates who have a chance at the nomination doesn't it? So their nominee will be even more of a wingnut?

That seems good. Same reason Karl Rove had Blackwater employees give money to the Greens in the Santorum race.

Posted by elenchos | October 3, 2007 3:50 PM
12

Oh yeah, and Zappa I don't notice you defending him on the anti-choice front. Libertarians who think the government should ban abortion (ie regulate the most personal and private part of a woman's body) are the rankest of hypocrites.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 3, 2007 3:51 PM
13

Ron Paul bears the distinction of being one of the only politicians who I disagree with vehemently, and yet still respect for not being an unctuous, corrupt, and possibly dangerous douchebag. Like every other Republican candidate. His motives are unquestionably good, he's just wrong about a great deal of things.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 3, 2007 4:13 PM
14

skweetis & exelizabeth FTW. Great points.

oh and fzappa, the idea that RP opposes environmental regulation because it is ineffective is utter bullshit, he opposes it because it impedes the unfettered corporate expoitation of the planet, so thus(to him and his slimy ilk) it is too effective, as it costs them $$$...

the only thing Paul and his campaign have going for them is the tapping into some quasi-libertarian feelings of the socially maladjusted internet dweller. it really does seem like he has trolls for every blog/discussion out there.

Posted by hipsterlite | October 3, 2007 4:16 PM
15

Interestingly he has quite a following over on StormFront, the neo nazi site.

Posted by The Baron | October 3, 2007 4:18 PM
16

Ron Paul: The candidate of choice for people who know nothing about politics or government.

Posted by Original Andrew | October 3, 2007 4:26 PM
17

Paul is for a decentralised government. How many people here think that D.C. can do better than we can do for ourselves.... not individually but as a State.

His position on Choice is to let the States have control. Now that might suck if you're in Alabama but it might just keep you free in Washington. You think Scalia and the increasingly hypocritical court is going to save you?

Same with the environment. No EPA? How effective has it been with Exxon calling the shots for the last Seven Years. What has actually been able to go through is on the State level with other States like California.

You want to stay free? You want to continue to have control of at least our own environment? You'd better start thinking about getting out from under the centralized power of Federal Government.

Hillary is going to win this time. Next time??

I used to be on the Left but now support Paul. What changed? The experience of the last Seven years. Before anyone complains about States rights and all for one, tell me how you're going to guarantee that we don't get another Shrub/Cheney catastrophe in four or eight more years.

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 4:27 PM
18

Cascadian @ 17,

Well the problem is that those departments and programs would function pretty well if we had reasonably intelligent people running them. Instead, we have shit-for-brains cronies and right-wing hacks that’ve turned the whole thing upside down.

It's this kind of incompetence that has created mass disillusionment and has people turning to an extremist like Ron Paul. You can't put your nation's worst citizens in charge and expect ice cream and puppies.

Libertarians also happen to think that the government has no obligation to educate, feed, clothe or provide for its citizens well-being.

Can you please name one country where this works successfully?

Why has ever other developed country successfully embraced democratic socialism?

Posted by Original Andrew | October 3, 2007 4:37 PM
19

I think the Libertarians are doing well in Greenland, since they moved there in 900 AD ... oh, wait, no, they all died off because they refused to adapt to reality.

Hmmm.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 4:42 PM
20

Andrew:
Yes, we've just had the worst administration in a long time. Even with that, the Dems have been unable or unwilling to provide actual oversight. I'd like to remind you that one in three Americans still think he does a great job. It wasn't that long ago that those numbers were much higher. For chris sake he won in '04 after letting people watch his incompetence for the first four years. How are you going to protect against that kind of idiocy.

I have certain libertarian leanings. I'm certainly a civil libertarian. However, I'm most concerned with our right to govern ourselves. You want democratic socialism? Where do you think you're going to have your best chance to bring that about, Olympia or DC. Washington is roughly equivalent to Sweden in size and productivity. Are you trying to say that we have it as good as it could be? That there is a compelling reason to stay connected to Red America? I'd love to hear it.

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 4:48 PM
21

OA asked: "Why has ever other developed country successfully embraced democratic socialism?"

probably because most other countries have at least a working knowledge of history, and a sensitivity to that history, that america and its citizens often lack. that and stubborn refusal to realise that free market dogma(the business of america is business, after all) is inherently destructive.

or i guess i coulda just said "american exceptionalism"

Posted by hipsterlite | October 3, 2007 5:01 PM
22

Read today a few democrats in the Fed want to have a war tax. I think with the plummeting dollar, and the Iraq war being fought by high wag mercs, the Dem elites are starting to sweat our massive country sinking deficient. None of the leading Dem Pres contenders think we will be out of Iraq by the end of their first term. What does this tell us? Our strong central government is going to bleed us-the people-fiscally dry. Facts progressives need to understand: We can’t fund the war and social services much longer without a massive increase in taxes. The Dems are not going to end the war. The war and the machine that makes the war, are destroying our planet, our government. Ron Paul is our best bet yet.

Posted by libzilla | October 3, 2007 5:01 PM
23


Oh, I don't think the US should necessarily stay together. I just don't think that Libertarian views have any practical application in real life, and there’s no evidence at all that these cruel and draconian theories actually work, in fact the opposite is true. Plus, when the Libertarians start talking, the crazy pours out.


Part of me does wish that we had an active secessionist movement, like say if Washington, Oregon and California formed The Pacific States of America, we would already have the legal, economic, political and physical infrastructures in place to be one of the top countries in world in every respect, not that I've fantasized about it that much.

Posted by Original Andrew | October 3, 2007 5:05 PM
24

A war tax sounds like a terrific idea. What, you don't want to pay taxes? Well then you're a coward, and you don't support our troops!

It's genius.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 3, 2007 5:07 PM
25


@ 22,


Electing a psycho, far-right Republican to fix the problems created by a psycho, far-right Republican is a logical impasse.


The open secret is that the Democrats want the war. They're all being paid off by the same "defense" contractors, after all.


Americans are going to have to learn from their mistakes and choose their priorities. Most Americans are feeling no pain from the war because we're borrowing money hand over fist, but eventually a day of reckoning will arrive and we'll have to choose if we're going to continue spending more than every other country on Earth combined on our military and spreading violence, or if we're going to actually take responsibility for ourselves and our nation and stop promoting right-wing insanity.

Posted by Original Andrew | October 3, 2007 5:19 PM
26

@22

Calling Paul a “psycho” is absurd, considering he voted against this war, and almost every Dem voted for this war which has resulted in over 1 million Iraqi dead. And, “if we're going to actually take responsibility for ourselves and our nation and stop promoting right-wing insanity,” it behooves us not to vote for a Democrat, especially if it is Clinton. But Original Andrew, if you want to keep paying taxes for things like Abu Graib and Blackwater contracts vote for “liberal” Clinton if it helps you sleep at night.

Posted by libzilla | October 3, 2007 5:40 PM
27

correction @25

Posted by libzilla | October 3, 2007 5:42 PM
28

#26
"Calling Paul a “psycho” is absurd, considering he voted against this war, and almost every Dem voted for this war which has resulted in over 1 million Iraqi dead."

sure, o.k., whatever! As if everything turns only on that one fact. The thing is, it does not . The other things he stands for and are about are too damaging, divisive and wrong headed to be enough to outweigh his "antiwar position"... Would that the dems had some balls re; the militarism and fear tactics of the administration and media. Things would be different. We should demand of them to stand up for what is right and end the war, now.


Many here are anti-war, but they are also anti-kooky ideas, of which the likes of Paul and most of his supporters are predominately about.

You may be right calling him psycho might be be a little far(i personally dont think so) but would you feel better with loon, kook, ass, mysogynistic tool, luddite, corpratist shill, or evil-doer?

Posted by hipsterlite | October 3, 2007 6:20 PM
29

The solution to bad government is not no government, but good government. Just like the solution to bad health is not no health, but good health.

The Bush administration's approach to environmental regulation, social welfare, and consumer protection is quite close to the libertarian one. Let corporations do what they want and refuse to regulate. If you think that is working go ahead and vote for Paul.

To summarize
1. Elect libertarians
2. Dissolve government
3. Everyone pursues Randian self interest.
4. ???
5. Paradise!

Posted by giffy | October 3, 2007 6:22 PM
30

OA@23:
"Part of me does wish that we had an active secessionist movement, like say if Washington, Oregon and California formed The Pacific States of America, we would already have the legal, economic, political and physical infrastructures in place to be one of the top countries in world in every respect, not that I've fantasized about it that much."
We do. It's called Cascadia.

Hipster@28:
Very creative list of pejoratives. Not much else.

Giffy@29:
Your summarization is wrong. This is not about adopting national Libertarian economics. It's about returning to Constitutional State's rights. It's the difference between coming up with our own solutions vs. allowing others to do it for us. It's not really more or less government. It's who gets to choose for whom. I'd rather we make our own choices.

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 6:46 PM
31

People, please, connect the dots. This is not our grandfather's Democratic party. FDR awesome, LBJ, at least part human, but unless you are a member of Aipac, or the Christian right, you need to be outraged at todays democratic party. One, our policies are going to bankrupt our government and drive US into a depression, and two, those with capital are going to buy everything in this country cheap, and consolidate their power yet more. Look at 1930's Germany. The Dems do not have your back, they have you by the neck. We are in a loose, loose situation. To be a little crude, I am going to make an easy analogy: choosing between the Dems and the Repugs, is like choosing between the eating out of a dumpster, or chocolates out of Dan Savage’s butt. Now I know a lot of you wold be eager for the privilege, but a lot of us are not into degradation, even though Dan has come a long way.

Posted by Libzilla | October 3, 2007 6:55 PM
32

Washington is a pretty enlightened state.

What would you hold up as examples of our superior local powers to solve problems?

The Prop 1 road & transit solution? The monorail? Our fast and wise response to the crumbling viaduct? Does the caliber of people in the WA legislature actually impress you more than Congress?

I don't really have that much faith in Nickels and Sims and Gregoire. They're nice folks, but we need, more, you know, leadership. Intelligence.

Libertarianism does get a bum rap. It's been tried in lots of places and it's just rotten, rotten luck that every time a bunch of kleptocrats take over before it hardly gets going. Really rotten luck.

Posted by elenchos | October 3, 2007 6:58 PM
33

All that money and 3% nationally, 2% in early primary states.

Posted by Gitai | October 3, 2007 7:01 PM
34

elenchos:
That is a most excellent question. We have failing infrastructure, school finance problems (many times imposed by Liberals) and what do we do? build stadiums....

The only hopes I have is that without the staged national fight between red and blue corporatists we'd be able to better concentrate on our own problems. We can hardly blame a failing national politic if we can't take responsibility for ourselves. (It's not like there's a big Republican presence in Olympia.) Even in failure, it will be easier to step back from the brink with a smaller political institution than what it takes to move national politics at the moment.

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 7:10 PM
35

"Hipster@28:
Very creative list of pejoratives. Not much else."

---awww shucks thanks..

but about that "secessionist movement"
wow, I find it notable that the aryan nations/the order also wanted to secede, to be able to be free in their own area to do as they wish, and that they said they would support the cascadian secession and respect the western boundary that was to be located somewhere in eastern washington, but all that boundary stuff could be hashed out after they freed themselves from the yoke of the fed govt. and the jewish conspiracy that "controlled" them.

that and this from the baron at #15:
"Interestingly he has quite a following over on StormFront, the neo nazi site."

yup interesting.

Posted by hipsterlite | October 3, 2007 7:11 PM
36

hipster:

"CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) — In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.

Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2ax-qLr2hKTc6PJMZIgs3jr9ekwD8S1K47G0

Want to try again?

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 7:16 PM
37

ummm, non sequitur???
--wow...o.k. i guess.

Posted by hipsterlite | October 3, 2007 7:22 PM
38

@35

Is it not sad that voting for a democrat has the result of killing more people in a racist war on Iraq, then say the real world influnce of the Nazi skin head movement in America? Titles like Democrate and Republican are misleading when it comes to hard numbers and the direction this contry has charted. We are on a one way street to war with Iran. We are stuck in a war with Iraq. The powers that be are willing to sacrafice the health of this country for the likes of the right wing Likud party in Isreal, and the profit margin of global corparation based out of the USA. Look at the AIPAC website if you do not see wht Israli intrests are doing to this country. Yes, genocide the genocide agaisn teh Jews was horrible, but so is the genocide against the people of Iraq.

Posted by athiestzen | October 3, 2007 7:27 PM
39

Oh, I get it. It wasn't that you wanted to know if the South and other secessionists could work together. It was simply guilt by association. Such that if Cascadians, or Vermont Free Staters were sick of the union that they were necessarily like their Southern brothers.

Lincoln compared the Union to a marriage. At the time, that was thought to be indissoluble. In this day and age it's still a good analogy but under a different understanding. The Union is a relationship that is passed salvageable. (I would argue that it was never meant to be a marriage in the first place.) The very best we could do is a legal separation -- returning to constitutional limits. Otherwise, it's probably in everyone's best interest to amicably go their own ways.

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 7:36 PM
40

exelizabeth @ 12

Oh yeah, and Zappa I don't notice you defending him on the anti-choice front. Libertarians who think the government should ban abortion (ie regulate the most personal and private part of a woman's body) are the rankest of hypocrites.


Yeah, and I think that pro-abortion Democrats who are in favor of the War on Drugs and keeping dope illegal are right up there with them. Seriously, why is it that so many pro-abortion (please, let's not say "pro-choice", it's every bit as stupid a euphemism as "pro-life".) politicians are OK with a woman having a knitting needle rammed up her snatch to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy (or popping a Plan B, and don't you wish that Barbara Bush had done that instead of trying to abort G.W. by drinking a quart of Gilbey's gin every day and smoking a carton of Camels while she was pregnant with him) but are against letting adults take whatever drugs they want?


Oh, and I find it interesting that you consider the most personal and private part of a woman's body to be her reproductive system. Personally I consider the most personal and private part of my body to be my brain, but that's just me.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | October 3, 2007 7:52 PM
41

to 35:
it is sad, I'm about human rights for everyone, and not based on race, creed, nationality, sexuality... you know the litany of the opressed. humans!! wherever they are, palestine, alabama, central america, eastern europe, iraq, south central L.A., Belfast(though a bit better now), Indonesia... o.k. you probably get my point, but pulling up stakes and letting people in idaho go backwards even further by removing governmental influence is really no solution, probably more chaos and pain would ensue.

kinda like how most of these ron paul fans, accept a states rights interpretation of reproductive rights, it would only create a patchwork of places where rights are denied or granted simply on geography....and that seems very scary. considering the realities of family ties/ability to travel etc.

it is also ironic that some people think or say we need to stay in Iraq for stability of the region, when western influence has been the largest destabalising force of that area the last 1100 years or so....

Posted by hipsterlite | October 3, 2007 8:10 PM
42

cascadian,
not their southern brothers, their north idaho white supremecist brothers...they veiwed the idea of a cascadia (to their west)as preferable to the federal govt (that was lurking and oppresing their whiteness everywhere)....and wanted all the minorities out of their area by whatever means.

Posted by hipsterlite | October 3, 2007 8:24 PM
43

@41

So the soultion is?

Posted by athiestzen | October 3, 2007 8:25 PM
44

hipster @42

Yes there are even secessionists that wear pointy white hats. Do you think there is a large population of them here in Washington? Should we talk about every idiot that has marched under the banner of socialism? What do you think is the best WASHINGTON could do? What's the worst? Can Hillary or any leader be as good at solving our local problems as we could? Is there any way we could do worse than what we've had over the last seven?

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 8:49 PM
45

Cascadian, why do you even worry about what goes on in all of Washington? What do people in Spokane have to do with Seattle? It's not in their interest to care. Why not have Seattle be completely autonomous?

But wait: Do you even know Mayor Nickels? Do you talk to him about your problems occasionally, and then he helps you out? Now that I think about it, there are a lot of people in Seattle, and it doesn't seem like the mayor is going to be able to look out for all of them. It's probably better to organize your own government in the neighborhood that you live in, so that all of the local issues concerned can be addressed directly and to everybody's satisfaction. You could even run for King!

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 3, 2007 9:12 PM
46

Chris:

What, your giving me a slippery slope argument? States rights leads to anarchism? Most States are the size of European countries. My preference is to return to a constitutional framework where each State makes their own way collaborating on the bear essentials federally. I'm willing to contemplate secession if that isn't possible.

Taking the question head on. Do I have anything against bio-regionalism, the hundred mile diet, or even Urban Secession. No. I think they may all be a bit extreme but never the less they introduce interesting questions and should certainly be kept as options in a changing world.

I'm not even King of my own house. That seems too much to dream of.

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 9:38 PM
47

Original Andrew @ 18

Why has ever other developed country successfully embraced democratic socialism?

Andy, do you even know what "democratic socialism" is? Do you have even the slightest fucking clue what "democratic socialism" is. Do you? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question, the answer is of course that no, you don't have a fucking clue what "democratic socialism" is. FYI there are no democratic socialist countries on Earth, at least as defined by Wikipedia (or any introductory college course in political science).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism


There is not a single country on earth where the means of production are owned by the state and controlled by the citizenry through a democratic process, not a single one.
Now, since you're ignorant (and hipsterlite seems to be as ignorant as you are) you might be thinking of "social democracy"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy


which is a totally different thing than democratic socialism, even though the words are the same. The fact is that the United States, with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC and extensive regulation of the economy is actually more of a social democracy than it is a capitalist free-market paradise.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | October 3, 2007 10:15 PM
48

The world is moving in the opposite direction. We'll have a World Nation before states and districts start seceding to keep tighter controls over what they deem to be important. Your perspective is antiquated. Since tribes eventually formed nations, and nations eventually formed alliances, which gradually turned into permanent unions and collections of like-minded nations, this trend has only one inexorable outcome.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot just section away the good parts of a nation-state from the bad parts. The bad parts will get worse far faster than the good parts will get better, and then the rot will naturally spread. Whether you're talking about state rights or secession is moot. The outcome will be the same. The fundamentalist movement will gain strength in all but a few states, and then state rights will be gone along with all other rights. If there's not a war, that is.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 3, 2007 10:54 PM
49

43 asked:
"So the soultion is?"

I doubt there is a solution, but there are better ways we could be doing things.
We really should stop mucking about with other peoples governments, like no more invasions, support of puppet regimes and coups. I think we should cut defense spending by around 60% or so. We should also foster more cultural exhange in areas of science/art etc.

--just a couple of ideas.

and Cascadian,

Do you think there is a large population of them here in Washington?

nope, not the pointy hat kind, but there are still issues of racism and intolerence in this state that should be addressed. look at some of the attitudes washingtonians have about native americans or latinos, for example.

"Should we talk about every idiot that has marched under the banner of socialism?"

well, not every idiot,:-) but there is a strong sentiment for, and a rich history of organized labor in the northwest, and I think we can be proud of that. (and the anti-gov/supremicist types, are conversely a source or derision and shame)

"What do you think is the best WASHINGTON could do?

well first off, legalize same-sex marriage, full stop, and perhaps raise the minimum wage 50cents, new regulations on developers to discourage sprawl, and on contractors to discourage graft, offer incentives, (or something, anything, please dear god) to get people out of their single occupancy vehicles.

What's the worst?

probably the amount of money we spend in the prison system. its not necessary, as we could decriminalize the use of drugs, and treat addiction as a medical issue and not a judicial one.

o.k. almost done...

"Can Hillary or any leader be as good at solving our local problems as we could?"

what local problems are we solving now? after that monorail fiasco, the viaduct debacle and the roads and transit morass we are in now...I'm not seeing how we are much better at getting things done than the feds....anywhooo the clintons are a bit to far right for me, and way too cozy w/ lieberman.

Is there any way we could do worse than what we've had over the last seven?

it sure doesn't seem like it, but i'd never underestimate the american resolve to fuck things up....

whew...sorry that was so long.
chris in tampa summed it up waay better in #48.

its a moot point anyway, ron paul will never get the nomination, and there is no way the next pres. is going to come from a third party at this point in history...

Posted by hipsterlite | October 4, 2007 4:01 AM
50

"If you go back 150 years you are a reactionary; but if you go back 1000 years, you are in the foremost ranks of progress."
-- Isabel Paterson

Governments use violence and threats thereof to force people to do things without their consent and prevent them from engaging in interpersonally harmless activities to which they do consent. Period. You self-styled "pro-choice, anti-violence" statists will get nothing but less choice and more violence the harder you ram your "enlightened" socialist demagogues up the collective asshole.

Posted by vforvindiesel | October 8, 2007 1:13 AM
51

I live in Tulsa, OK and there is alot of support for him. He has signs up all over town! He will be our next president and the media is totall clueless as to this man's national and even international popularity.

Posted by kellyu | October 11, 2007 11:09 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).