ABC, Others Project Gingrich Win in SC as Polls Close

ABC calls the South Carolina primary for Gingrich over Romney. The network doesn't say who filled out the other slots.

8.22: OK, the projections are currently Gingrich (41 percent), Romney (28 percent), Santorum (17 percent), and Paul (13 percent).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • flacid tuna||

    First.

  • Lisa||

    OMG!

  • ||

    Nothing to see here.
    Move along.

  • Grim Reeper 1776||

    Exit polls say evangelicals broke for the trice married, disgraced speaker and Freddie Mac lobbyist and his mistress by a 2-1 margin over the fucking mormon

  • Circling Roadside Buzzard ||

    You didn't think Romney and busload of well healed BYU kids was going to work in a place like Dixie did you?

  • bmp1701||

    But he supports vaporizing Teh Muzlimz

  • ||

    S.C. residents live in the same Maury Povich world as everyone else; everything's been normalized. In the end, they decided they could tolerate a guy who wasn't ashamed of cheating on his second wife more than they could a guy who was ashamed of capitalism.

  • ||

    they could tolerate a guy who wasn't ashamed of cheating on his second wife more than they could a guy who was ashamed of capitalism.

    Aren't those guys both Newt?

  • ||

    One was ashamed, one was shameless about capitalism. The latter won.

  • ||

    I think you have that backwards.

  • ||

    See the guy who shamed but was shameless was the one who... no wait, I mean, the ashamed guy who was shamefully shameless about the sham... um... apparently the South Carolina electorate found one fellow's arguments more compelling than the other's. Happy now?

  • Realist||

    When everyone can vote, everyone loses.

  • mr simple||

    OT: I don't know if this has been covered yet, but, penile tattoo leads to permanent erection.

  • Old Man Winter||

    I've heard stories about people shooting up in the vein in their penis and ending up with permanent erections. I thought it was a urban myth.

  • flacid tuna||

    CANCEL MY DAMN SUBSCRIPTION!

  • Mitt Romney||

    Third.

  • Summer, 2011||

    Gingrich is toast.

    Oops.

  • ||

    I'm like a Cassandra. I was reminding people that McCain's campaign was left for dead in the summer of 2007 when they were declaring Gingrich toast. Also, I was the first to smell the tide of Santorum coming in.

    And what do I get for my cogent predictions? Nothing but mockery and acusations of insanity. That's it, I'm canceling my free subscription.

  • Narcissists Anonymous||

    We can help.

  • Tebow||

    Yes, your predictions are infallible.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Sounds like Cassandra is on her period and pouty. Don't worry sweetheart, it only lasts about four days and then you ovulate and the whole world looks bright and shiny.

  • ||

    Do you actually know any women? Ovulation doesn't normally immediately follow menstrual flow. Typically there's like 10-14 days in between.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Do you ever actually laugh at a joke? Typically, there is a like a 1 to 3 second delay before the laughter flows.

  • db||

    Thank Science for that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You do have an uncanny ability to call it I gotta admit.

  • yonemoto||

    "And what do I get for my cogent predictions? Nothing but mockery and acusations of insanity."

    Quit whining and open up an account on intrade already. Sadly, I bet (a lot) that Ron would pull a surprise second in SC, and lost about $60.

  • affenkopf||

    Democracy sucks.

  • anarchist||

    affenkopf for...um...(thinking)...what's the alternative to democracy...um...

    affenkopf for dictator!

  • ||

    Guess it's a good thing we live in a Constitutional Repub.... aww who am I kidding.

  • CE||

    Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to hear more about your newsletter.

  • Realist||

    affenkopf is right. Democracy does not work....as anyone should be able to see.

  • ryan||

    what is wrong with these people

  • fish||

    So it surprises you that South Carolina...a state that has suffered the Clay Aiken of the senate not once but twice.....wouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

  • ryan||

    I just imagine the thousands of voters who chose Newt Gingrich and I can't think of any humane explanation.

  • fish||

    I just imagine the thousands of voters who chose Newt Gingrich and I can't think of any humane explanation.

    Yeah...I got nuthin eithert!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Newt: Not a Yankee (Santorum), Not Mormon(Romney), Team Red loyalist (Paul).

  • Anacreon||

    Is that who they named Aiken, SC after?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiken,_South_Carolina

  • Rachel||

    Clay is from NC. yee haw!

  • Wolves and coyotes||

    Reverend Limbaugh and his drones figure Professor Gingrich is just the guy to debate Obama -- he has a fat mouth, no scruples, no shame, and a massive ego that prevents him from exhibiting modesty. In short, Professor Gingrich is a masterdebator. His grandoise solutions for your life may make being an American increasingly hellish for you personally, but he is not a Black nor a Mormon so you can thank Reverend Limbaugh for delivering you from that.

  • sasob||

    In other words he is a Republican version of Obama?

  • Robert Johnson's Guitar||

    Who says American politics in 21st Century has anything to do with principles?

  • Realist||

    But Newt is a stupid fuck!

  • Amakudari||

    Grew up in Charlotte.

    I know them about as well as an out-of-stater could, and I still don't get 'em.

  • Dan G||

    Gingrich > Tebow

  • number54873||

    topless only strip clubs > gingrich > tebow

  • Grim Reeper 1776||

    China > topless strip clubs> gingrich > tebow

  • Flood Gates||

    [open]

  • Joe M||

    The CNN exit poll makes it look like Paul might come in fourth, ugh.

  • Flood Gates||

    OMG!

  • flacid tuna||

    And Newt caught a whopping 46% of those who never attended college.

  • Flood Gates||

    LOL!

  • Jumbie||

    In Iowa and NH Paul scored well with non college-grads too. Don't read into it.

  • killazontherun||

    Paul's proletariat voters are hard working Americans, humble folks without temptation. Newt's white trash are layabouts on welfare who spend the day teaching their daughters how to kiss.

    How hard is it to deduce the obvious from those polls?

  • ||

    Ed Rollins on FNN "We are a Southern Party and Gingrich is the Southern candidate".

    Fuck you, South Carolina and GOP. The original traitor state.

  • Flood Gates||

    ROFL!

  • fish||

    What do you care? A Gingrich nomination guarantees Black Kennedy a second term. I figured you would fully turgid about this.

  • fish||

    ...be fully turgid,,,,

  • jasno||

    Yeah.. this..

    Although at this point, with the economy on the mend, we're in for another four more years.

    That's four more years for the GOP to try and understand why they're out of touch. Maybe they'll get it this time....

  • jasno||

    Sorry, that should have read:

    Although at this point, with the economy on the mend, we're in for another four more years no matter who the GOP nominates.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It'll be on the mend until all that printed money gets into circulation. Then things get I don't even

  • ||

    Ha ha, on the mend. That was good.

  • Realist||

    "That's four more years for the GOP to try and understand why they're out of touch. Maybe they'll get it this time...."
    Right! No reason to think that.

  • wareagle||

    A Gingrich nomination guarantees Black Kennedy a second term.
    ----------------------------
    ironically, two overlapping marriage/divorce scenarios could gain Newt some Kennedy cred. And if those two are in a debate, it will have to be an open air venue. There is no closed structure that could contain both of their egos.

  • Brian D||

    Combine Newt's private infidelities and public corruption with his pudgy frame and pasty complexion and he'd make a passable Ted Kennedy clone.

  • Realist||

    "There is no closed structure that could contain both of their egos."
    That is unwarranted egos.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He is, fish. Our shrike luvs The Barry.

  • Stonewall Mike||

    Your ancestors were not even here during that settlement of disagreements, so butt out sunshine.

  • Grim Reeper 1776||

    You pig fuckers deserved worse!

  • Stonewall Mike||

    That's no way to talk about your mother, son.

  • Grim Reeper 1776||

    Oh, a momma joke. Did you learn that in your little frat massaging your small gonads? Southerners are cowards and make lousy soldiers. I wish Grant and the glorious Sherman had finished them off once and for all.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    I'm South Carolina has a special "Fuck You" reserved for you. Hope Paul does better in Minnesota ...for what it's worth.

  • Grim Reeper 1776||

    All this talk about cults -- try thinking out loud in the South and see where it gets you.

  • Grim Reeper 1776||

    Welcome to South Carolina: Where we can't hate blacks anymore, but it is still perfectly fine to hate Mormons!

    Not that it will actually happen, but Evangelicals deserve 4 years of grandiose Gingrich and his mistress in the White House devising bold plans to interfere with every aspect of life.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Fuck you, South Carolina and GOP. The original traitor state.

    And just think, we wouldn't have even had to worry about them if liberal Yankees hadn't fought a war to keep them part of the country.

  • SIV||

  • Flood Gates||

    ADHD!

  • ||

    "It's not illegal because we don't want people to feel better. It's illegal because it makes good people do crazy things," said Mailloux's defense attorney, Mark Anthony Raimondo.

    Right, so the answer is to make it more expensive and its production less supervised for quality.

  • wareagle||

    love makes people do crazy things, too. Do we outlaw it next?

  • The DEA||

    We're working on it!

  • Rick Santorum ||

    So am I

  • the gayz||

    too late

  • ||

    Maybe we should pass a law requiring that babies have "hand wash, line dry" tattooed on the back of their necks at birth.

  • ||

  • ||

    it's not the meth per se. it's the side effect of meth, which sometimes leads to people going DAYS without sleep. regardless of why, if you go too long w/o sleep, serious psychological disturbances happen e.g. psychosis.

  • ||

    What does that have to do with dickhead cops arresting a mother for allowing her 10 year old son to get a tattoo memorializing his 12 year old brother that got killed in a car crash?

  • Robert||

    I'm bugged that some parents pierce baby girls' ears, but along with circumcision that seems to be accepted practice, so why not tattoos.

  • ryan||

    it's not the irresponsible bitchiness per se. it's the side-effect of irresponsible bitchiness, when sometimes leads people to do drugs and have babies then forget to take them out of their washing machines.

  • ryan||

    which*

  • Rick Santorum ||

    it's the side effect of meth,
    -------------------------
    I am tired of that argument. One potential side affect of smoking is lung cancer. One potential side affect of drinking is getting in a car and killing someone; another is beating the hell out your wife and/or kids. Yet, the govt not only condones both, it runs the market.

  • ||

    You make a lot of sense. I'm changing my vote.

  • Jumbie||

    Holy crap, the comments to that article are 50% in favor of the arrest and basically talking shit about black people being degenerate and that the kid is harming himself and the tattoo will stop him ever getting a good job.

    Have these people never seen welders, programmers, graphic artists, even office drones with tattoos? It's really not an unusual sight anymore.

  • ||

    Although a girl with a dragon tattoo can be a bit scary.

  • ||

    Ah, another episode of "Retards and the Mentally Ill on Drugs, Which is Why You Can't Have Any."

    The backwards logic of drug warriors astounds me.

  • JEP||

    it makes me sick looking at the numbers form the exit polls. Voters that really care about religion are voting for Newt...how does that work? He's a serial adulterer.

    People who think the economy is most important don't really consider RP even though he's been on the finance committee, butted heads for the past 20 years with Paul Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernanke - and somehow people don't think he'd be able to debate Obama on the economy.

    Romney is differing constitutional questions to Paul openly in debates.

    I feel so sorry for the brainwashed in SC.

  • Dan G||

    The exit polls are sickening...Paul is last regarding the economy, Gingrich is first among evangelicals and regarding religion. It's like bizarro world.

  • ||

    The Bob Jones fundie nuts had two choices perceived Newt as more electable than Little Ricky.

    Ron Paul will not bring them their precious Zionist Armageddon. I hear this first hand from family.

  • Barack Obama||

    Keep them on their toes, shrike. I have some funerals to go to for six service members killed a few days ago.

    Bwahahaha! Like I give a shit! Me at one of their funerals. Who do they think they are, Bill Ayers?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Zionist"

    Fuck. That was old and tired fifty years ago, shrike.

  • Reverend Diddlemoore||

    Bible thumping fundies and evangelicals haven't really changed much in fifty years either - except now they have computers and cell phones.

  • General Grant's Whiskey Bottle||

    "there can be no separation from the US and Israel"

  • juris imprudent||

    He's a serial adulterer.

    But he did that because he loves this country so much.

    Plus Jesus forgives him... each and every time.

    And he wants to fuck Iran next.

  • ||

    If Ron Paul had asked forgiveness for coddling Iran and wanting to let children smoke crack if their state allowed it, then he would have done better in SC too.

  • Wolves and coyotes||

    Gingrich loves his country so much he was willing to lend his vast historical knowledge to Freddie Mac for a paltry 1.6 million bucks. Awesome to have a First Harlot, Callista, stinking up the halls of the White House. Monica Lewinsky eat your heart out!

  • Rokk Krinn||

    You ever wonder if the media would make as much effort to find out about the women in teh wuns life? I would like to here some stuff on where teh wun got his blow too.

    Nevermind....it took the National Enquirer to break the John Edwards story and from what I remember the LA Times sat on the story for pretty much the whole year in 2008.

  • Realist||

    Many of you act like you're suprised that fundies are fucking idiots.

  • wareagle||

    Voters that really care about religion are voting for Newt...
    ---------------------------
    Consider the irony: Newt and Santorum are both Catholics, usually viewed with skepticism by the Baptists, Methodists, etc. Romney is a Mormon; skepticism squared. That leaves Paul. And yet..... The state elected a TP type as Governor, two new Congressmen from the TP movement. And yet.....

  • juris imprudent||

    Are you sure you meant irony and not insanity?

  • wareagle||

    maybe...I've lived in the South long to enough to know that worst evangelists for the church are the evangelicals themselves. They are worse than reformed smokers.

  • Bingo||

    And to think we fought a Civil War to stop these people from leaving the country...

  • MWG||

    FTW!

  • Chatroom Crank||

    You were addicted to the tax money.

  • Bill||

    They barely talked about the economy in the debates. What a joke.

  • ||

    Frankly, at this point I am so disgusted with the Republican party I hope Newt is the candidate and Obama wins in gigantic landslide.

    Gingrich basically stands for everything that the Republican party is opposed to, but because he attacks the media and Obama, he's their hero?

  • Bingo||

    TEAM RED RAH RAH RAH!

    The political culture in this country is diseased and beyond repair.

  • hazeeran||

    I've been told "we have to elect the most conservative candidate in 2012." With the implication that Newt is somehow vastly preferable to Obama. Diseased isn't strong enough.

  • Bingo||

    What the hell does "conservative" even mean anymore? Bashing on Democrats the best?

  • SIV||

    Apparently so.

  • Realist||

    "The political culture in this country is diseased and beyond repair."
    It is a product of the majority.

  • juris imprudent||

    The only thing the Republican Party is truly opposed to is the Democratic Party.

    It isn't like they really have principles or anything.

  • Wolves and coyotes||

    You forgot Blacks and Mormons.

  • DavidT||

    An odd thing about Evangelical anti-Mormonism: It's not just a matter of their thinking Mormons aren't Christian--because many of them say they would have no problem voting for a Jew. Mormons are considered to be more dangerous because they *pretend* to be Christian and because they proselytize.

    I think the real reason Romney is holding back on his tax returns is that they will reveal huge contributions to the LSD Church and to BYU. That, Romney thought, would kill him in the southern primaries--but he's going to do terribly there anyway.

  • DavidT||

    "huge contributions to the LSD Church"

    That should be LDS, of course...

  • Realist||

    Religion is the opiate of the masses. This a paraphrase of the only intelligent thing Marx said.

  • wareagle||

    it's the side effect of meth,
    -----------------
    ^^^this, squared. Today's result was set in motion on John King's first question at the debate, a true softball if ever such a thing existed. Newt knew it was coming and anyone with a working brain had to know what would follow.

    At that point, it was over. The other candidates could have dropped their pants and pissed on the stage, and the takeaway would still have been "ole Newt sure tore into that CNN boy".

  • wareagle||

    damn it....quoted part should read "becasue he attacks the media". On the other, the voting could be a side effect of meth.

  • juris imprudent||

    It made perfect sense just the way you wrote it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Attacking media = conservative meth

  • sasob||

    ...and the takeaway would still have been "ole Newt sure tore into that CNN boy".

    Who was it said that the best defense is a good offense?

  • Mike M.||

    Tearing into the scummy, lowlife, liberal media wouldn't be so effective if the media weren't in fact such a bunch of scummy, lowlife liberals.

  • Realist||

    "I feel so sorry for the brainwashed in SC."
    Why just South Carolina?

  • ||

    What the motherfucking fuck?

    How does CBS calculate this shit? Pretty sure their Iowa calculations are fucked. And it's no surprise it's Ron Paul's #'s that are wrong.

  • Joe M||

    Their numbers are total bullshit. Paul is going to "win" Iowa with the most delegates, which will be most amusing down the line.

  • Jerry||

    It's statistics, so completely meaningless.

  • ||

    Statistics may be bullshit, but this is an out and out fabrication. CBS needs to be reminded of how Iowa keeps score. And that reminder needs to be aired nationally.

  • Jerry||

    Oh wait, this about Iowa...it indeed was just a straw poll. Have you tried emailing CBS News?

  • Banjoes||

    Oh, Sloop, you big stud, come back to bed. The internet can wait.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You're slacking Banjoes. How about some music videos?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    No poll that appears in the media is intended to accurately represent the views of the people it allegedly represents. They are there to manipulate the people into thinking "51% of the people like masturbating with steel wool. I'd better join the majority or I might be ostracized."

  • Flood Gates||

    Must...stop...!

  • wareagle||

    congratulations to Fox. Their relentless harping on Romney's pointless tax returns and water-carrying for Gingrich seems to have resonated with the narrow minded Bible vote that believes LDS akin to Jim Jones. I've said it before - never underestimate the Repubs' ability to self-immolate.

    When even Rick Santorum is calling you undisciplined and pointing out that you lost the Speakership to a palace coup, that should say something. Let's all get ready for Obama, the sequel.

  • killazontherun||

    Obama, the sequel.

    If it's titled, Obama, the Impeachment Years, I might learn to love the bam.

  • killazontherun||

    Oh, I was thinking you were saying President Gingrich would be like Obama, and i was thinking more like Nixon, but that is not hat you meant. Still, he deserves to be impeached for at least assassinating an American citizen. But so doubtful it will happen. Next to nil chance.

    Last week Drudge asked in a headline about the pissing soldiers, 'The Next Abu Graib'. I thought that was bit naive, and the story being dead a week later confirms it. Abu Graib would not have been Abu Graib under a Democrat president.

  • MWG||

    Either way it's a win-win for libertarians. If repubs self-immolate, the juicy tears come election night will be enough to get me through at least 2 more years with Obama. If they're able to somehow miraculously pull off a win, democrat tears will be tasteful as well, if merely a different flavor. Grab the popcorn everybody...

  • Maxxx||

    Yep.

    I love seeing the rep establishment getting bitch slapped even more than seeing the dem establishment getting bitch slapped.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'd be happier if I knew they'd learn something. With Newt losing, I fear the only thing they learn is 'we should've nom'd Romney'.

  • Wolves and coyotes||

    Rep establishment? What the fuck are you nattering about? Sarah Palin, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh are all for Gingrich!

  • OMG!||

  • Homer||

    D'Oh!

  • Nelson ||

    Ha-Ha

  • Marge||

    Homer!

  • Bart||

    Don't have a cow, man!

  • ||

    Looks like JoePa is about to buy the farm.

    And on the same day, The Sweatervest may end up getting the Colts job.

  • ADHD Anonymous||

    We can help. Call us.

  • ||

    I tried, but 1-800-SHITHEAD keeps ringing busy.

  • fish||

    Is she hiding in there too?

  • ADHD Anonymous||

    Keep trying.
    Our operators are standing by to serve you.

  • ||

    The trustees have to be kicking themselves. If they'd just waited they would have been rid of him without having JoePa's cult (that really is the only way to describe it) at the trustees' throats.

  • ||

    Oh, hell yeah. I mcan hear the cries now about how the trustees killed JoePa because he lost his will to live after he got shitcanned. (Of course, they'll forget to add that he got fired for allowing a child rapist to go unreported and continued to give him access to his program.)

  • Gojira||

    To be fair, JoPa surpassed being held to the same standard and laws as mere humans sometime in the mid 80s. It's really not for us to judge him.

  • ||

    Mr. T is the only person besides Chuck Norris who is in a position to judge Joe Paterno. And that's only if Chuck gives him permission.

  • ||

    Fuck Chuck Norris. What the hell? He has got to be the lamest fucking 'action' star to ever get his ass beat by Bruce Lee.

  • ||

    It's kind of an open secret that they'd wanted to get rid of JoePa for several years because he'd become too powerful. The Sandusky revelations merely provided a convenient way of firing him while avoiding the backlash from the cult, or so the trustees thought.

  • Gojira||

    If you know true Penn St. fans, they would think that having to sacrifice some 5-yr old virgin buttholes to keep JoPa happy would be a small price to pay.

    Shit, he could have demanded human sacrifice from them, and they'd have done it. Even the ones who believe it really happened don't actually care - JoPa > child rape.

  • ||

    What the fuck is wrong with people?

  • Gojira||

    My friend, if you could answer that question, would we be looking at a Catholic Serial Adulterer Newt Gingrich win in a primary state dominated by religious right protestants right now?

  • ||

    He is not known to have committed adultery since becoming Catholic.

  • ||

    @ Tulpa

    I made the mistake of watching the local news a couple of weeks ago and they had some Penn State boosters holding some sort of rally for Paterno. The way they spoke you'd of imagined that old fuck was Jezus Kreist hisself.

    Even if he wasn't a baby raping apologist asshole, all he did was teach fucking football. Wow, big fucking deal. I hope hell's waiting with a dual-clawed hammer for his ass.

  • ||

    Yeah, that's what I was refering to. Immaculate Receptor Franco Harris isn't helping his rep in the Tulpa household much, either.

  • ||

    So if Franco Harris ever finds himself in the Tulpa household, does that mean he should run out of bounds? I'm sure he was planning to do that anyway.

  • ||

    @ Tulpa

    I made the mistake of watching the local news a couple of weeks ago and they had some Penn State boosters holding some sort of rally for Paterno. The way they spoke you'd of imagined that old fuck was Jezus Kreist hisself.

    Even if he wasn't a baby raping apologist asshole, all he did was teach fucking football. Wow, big fucking deal. I hope hell's waiting with a dual-clawed hammer for his ass.

  • ||

    He's already dead. Media doesn't know it yet.

  • ||

    That's cause he died on Ron Paul's campaign bus.

  • Hank||

    Win!

  • ||

    Fuck!

    You guys just lost some serious cred in my book tonight.

    I've never been a big JoePa fan, but he didn't deserve this. To say he didn't report it is completely disingenuous. Schultz was the head of campus police.

    He should have been fired years ago, just on his coaching record, but was a good man and doesn't deserve this.

    Can't believe you guys, of all people, bought into this media frenzy.

  • ||

    He reported it but didn't follow up. Major ethical lapse considering the events were considering.

    Particularly in view of the fact this isn't some assistant night manager with no juice. This is the friggin messiah of PSU; no one can retaliate against him for annoying the powers that be.

  • ||

    If you accept the notion that he knew, at the time, the depravity of the acts committed. McQueary admitted he didn't go into graphic detail "out of respect for the coach."

    Everyone's making a pretty big assumption as to how much he actually knew. Astounding how people here are willing to give anyone ever arrested for a crime the benefit of the doubt, yet are unwilling to in this case.

    You guys bagging on him need to ask yourself if you are being objective or do you like the idea of an icon (who is probably a rival) taking the fall.

  • Gojira||

    I got no dog in any Big 10 fight, so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But child-rape is such a serious matter that even if you have the tiniest hint that something might be going on, no stone should be left unturned until everyone involved has been brought to justice.

    Then have everyone who did the investigation killed by a second group of people, so that no direct knowlege of the incident remains.

  • ||

    You'll get no argument about the seriousness of the accusations and it seems pretty clear with 202/20 hindsight. But we don't know exactly what Paterno was told, and by McQueary's testimony, he wasn't specific.

    It is entirely credible that he reported what he believed something less than rape. Which, if true, would put him at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from that of which he's accused.

    For as skeptical as everyone here is of the media, I can't believe you are accepting the hype at face value.

  • Ted S.||

    That attitude also led us to the McMartin/Amiraul/Edenton cases.

  • ||

    Uh, the closest I've ever been to a PSU rival was growing up a couple of hours from Northwestern. Pitt hasn't played PSU in football since 2000, if that's what you're asking.

  • wareagle||

    a lot of people thought his coaching record justified removal, but anyone who said so publicly was treated like a leper. The man was lionized to a level far beyond what he deserves. And, he practically ran Penn St; had he wanted something substantive done, it would have been done.

  • ||

    I said it 25 years ago, when I was an undergrad there. I wasn't alone.

    Like I said, never been a fan as a coach, but he was a good person. He honest to god gave a shit about his players and made damn sure they got an education, which is a lot more than some of his peers.

  • Eddie Willers||

    This is what you get by pretending to be an Ayn Rand hero.

  • ||

    You're correct about the education thing, but if nothing else, he stayed on too long.

    In the absence of a scandal like this, he was going to coach until he died. Nobody at PSU was willing to force him out for EXACTLY the reasons we're seeing now.

  • ||

    Made sure they got an education? Well they are in fucking college.

    Is that what it takes to be a good man? Doing what you should do and not being a complete shit?

    In the words of Chris Rock, What do you want, a fucking cookie.

    Good leadership is about going well above what is expected of those under you. Accountability and the highest ethical standards come part and parcel with the responsibilities of being a leader. Joe Paterno was sorely lacking in those attributes as shown by his behavior. Times of severe crisis are the test of a man and Joe failed. For a "molder of men" doing the legal minimum is not good enough.

    And just because he stands out in a crowd of amoral users that spits out young players like chewed fat doesn't say anything.

  • ||

    Cap, I'd agree with you if there was proof that he was told the full extent of the act by McQueary. There is a difference between inappropriate behavior and the anal rape of a 12 year old boy.

  • ||

    The difference is K-Y

  • Gojira||

    Wareagle is correct - he had so much power, if he actually wanted something done about the situation, it would have happened.

  • ||

    Dude, I respect you a lot, but you've got it wrong on this one.

    JoePa continued to give Sandusky access to his program and offices even after Sandusky's abrupt resignation in the wake of his rape of a child. JoePa enabled the behavior to continue, which led to the shower incident.

    Fuck JoePa, for this and this alone. The man was a great coach and molder of men, but he failed morally when he was most tested.

  • Fuck JoePa||

    So profound.

    Wait, what does this have to do with the SC Primaries?

    This is like the worst chat room ever!.

  • ||

    Thanks Sloop, but it wasn't Paterno's call. Sandusky had emeritus status. It was up to the BoT to boot him.

    In addition, my wife, also an alum, has done some research on the BoT bylaws. Without going into detail, it is a completely dysfunctional clusterfuck of a bureaucracy, where all information begins and ends with the president. It is/was an organization just begging for a scandal, and is where I believe the blame belongs.

  • ||

    While his emeritus status is up to the BoT, Paterno allowed him access to the football locker room, the football weight room and the football practice field...with young children, after he was abruptly forced to resign in the wake of serious misconducts that Paterno was fully aware of. And while this may fall short of holding the kids down while Sandusky raped them, it sure enabled the behavior by giving him access to places any young kid would think are exciting.

    Again, I just think Paterno enabled the behavior by not demanding he be stripped of emeritus status and personally barring him from the football facilities.

  • ||

    Emeritus status gives him access to ALL PSU facilities.

  • ||

    I didn't know that. I assumed Paterno had control of the football facilities. Thanks for the heads up. It changes my feeling on the situation a little bit, but not that much.

  • MJ||

    That was part of the problem with Paterno's part in the scandal. A lot of people assumed that Paterno had more official power than he actually had because a legendary head football coach is supposed to be more powerful than the entire school administration (I am looking at you, Colin Cowherd). From what I see, Paterno did the minimum of kicking the issue up the chain of command and tried to put it behind him because the subject squicked him out.

  • Some Guy||

    A decent person in that situation would have beaten the pedo into quadriplegia, thus making access to the facilities moot. The only way he'd be able to molest a kid in that state would be if he could sweet-talk them into a hand job in his hospital room.

  • Mo||

    Duff Lite™ on sale, tonight only!

  • Bingo||

    Please let Santorum be in last, that's all I ask for.

  • Grim Reeper, 1776||

    Santorum should start his own party -- maybe the "pro-moral sex party". But he refuses to attack Gingrich because like the original secessionists, South Carolina, he'll take a morally depraved christian to a fucking Mormon any day of the week.

  • ||

    Prediction for the night: We'll hear Paul's name a lot more than normal during all the analysis/punditry/etc.

  • ||

    (If he indeed finishes fourth, I mean.)

  • Lisa||

    If anyone needs me, I'll be in my room.

  • Jerry||

    Just goes to show that money doesn't buy nominations Mitt.

  • flacid tuna||

    Class warfare. It's a winner?

  • ||

    How is it class warfare to point out that spraying cash around indiscriminately is bad politics?

  • flacid tuna||

    Newt was behind the King of Bain stuff. Also behind the income tax return stuff.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Money buys elections! Don't you know anything? Don't you know that Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision EVER? Just ask California Governor Meg Whitman.

  • Wolves and coyotes||

    Nope. Money don't buy elections. Bigotry, guile, and lies buy elections! The war-loving, bible belt has done a great deal to destroy the nation over the years. They continued their streak last night by putting the only alternative to DNC socialism in the hands of a government loving lobbyist with no scruples.

  • Barney||

    Beeeelch!

  • Flanders||

    Romney is a Mor-diddly-ormon?

  • Principal Skinner||

    I thought this was all about JoePa...?

  • asdf||

    Do I cut off my right or left leg, hmm decisions.

  • ||

    newt? NEWT?

    look, romney would SUCK, but he would be way way way better than Newt.

    Newt is legitimately scary.

  • Maxxx||

    No way, Romney is way worse.

    he'd be Bush's 4th term.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Newt would be Bush's 4th term with an unbalanced mind and unsound judgement (yeah go ahead laugh). Romney-who I fucking loath-would at least be...predictable. Stable. Manageable.

  • Realist||

    Look at it this way Gingrich is McCain redux.

  • jester||

    Newt is unscary because he couldn't win. No fucking way. Not possible.

    OTOH, I can entertain the idea that if...yes, he would be very scary. But that simply isn't going to happen.

    My guess is that Dems in the state voted heavily for him and lied at exit polls. No conspiracy. It's what I would do if had Obama love.

  • Jerry||

    WTH is CNN doing airing pro SOPA ads during its political coverage.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    "First Amendment for me, not for thee" -- libertarians show their true colors.

  • ||

    I didn't hear Jerry calling for CNN to be censored.

  • wareagle||

    why do you think CNN would oppose it? Besides, revenue is revenue and the idea of certain ads running at specific times is so 10 years ago.

  • Jerry||

    CNN is not Time Warner. If I were a journalist working at CNN I would be very worried about this.

  • ||

    If I were a journalist working at CNN I would be very worried about this.

    Why?

  • Jerry||

    Because I know have to work harder at looking "impartial" when interviewing people from say Google or Facebook.

  • ||

    Ahh, I read your comment to mean "worried about" SOPA itself.

    Yes, you're right about appearances of impartiality. But professional journalists definitely have a reason to embrace robust protection of property, in this case intellectual property. (Not that SOPA is the right approach to that protection.)

  • wareagle||

    there are no "journalists" working at CNN, at least not how the dictionary defines the term. There are a lot stenographers on staff.

  • Almanian Blitzer||

    ...and that's the way it was, January 21, 2012.

  • ||

    Everybody go enjoy this:

    http://www.cnn.com/

    CNN has dropped Paul from its primary-results chart. There are three candidates running for the Republican nomination, apparently.

  • ||

    If you click through to the candidates page, RP is still there.

    It's likely they only had room for three candidates on the front page, and Paul is in fourth.

  • ||

    No, Paul had been listed the entire time. They'd just nixed him a couple of minutes before I posted that comment.

  • Barack Obama||

    Who should be so lucky. Whom ever the GOP sends my way in November, I'm going to turn him around, bend him over and not bother with the lubricant nor friendly pull on the balls.

  • michelle obama||

    he means it...I've been there. Only it was him getting bent over, if you know what I mean.

  • Barack Obama||

    he he he

    Wasn't expecting that back in Hawaii. You never go anywhere without that strap-on, babe.

  • michelle obama||

    Strap-on?

  • George Snuffleupagus||

    You should have seen her banging bubba Clinton.

  • Mitt Romney||

    I'm the one with the strap-on, silly. You didn't actually think a dude could ever look as good as I do, did you?

  • ricky santimonius||

    Oh! Oh! Do me! Do me!

  • Barney The Frank||

    God!!! I am wet!

  • Realist||

    "CNN has dropped Paul from its primary-results chart. There are three candidates running for the Republican nomination, apparently."
    It has been that way at Fox since the get/go...except when they want to insult him.

  • ||

    An exhaustive and detailed study on how police in Washington State are treated completely different than other civilians. Great setail paid to how the influence of police unions and lobbying organizations have made it nearly impossible to use evidence against police, investigate their criminal behavior and even find crimes to charge them with due to their myriad exemptions from the law.

    It also details how the police in that particular state are treated dramatically different that their counterparts around the country, where their charge and conviction rates at least approach those of the general population.

  • Gojira||

    That can't be true, because our favorite 5-0 works in Washington, and he assures us that so many cops get fired the turnover is like a fucking call-center in a college town.

    Also, cops are held to a higher standard and there is media bias against them, so your article is just wrong.

  • ||

    That can't be true, because our favorite 5-0 works in Washington,

    Dunphy? I thought he was in LA. Isn't he that guy who writes pseudonymously for National Review?

  • ||

    my name is an homage to that writer

  • ||

    Er... well, it's confusing, dude.

  • ||

    that's a fair cop, mate

  • ||

    that's a fair cop, mate

    Isn't that an endangered species?

  • ||

    nope. as most americans recognize, cops are amongst the most trustworthy of professions, and deserving of respect.

  • ||

    You take those polls (which you never cite or link to, btw) as the gospel truth, yet refuse to believe the actual data as presented to you in this study.

    And you wonder why you are a laughing-stock on here.

  • ||

    AGAIN, you lie. i've linked at least half a dozen times.

    and i haven 't refused to believe any data. try to keep up. i am saying that the data does not necessarily prove what you claim.

    furthermore, being a laughingstock amongst bigots is a badge of honor

    i never see you counter with facts, just ad hom and rhetoric.

    and for AT LEAST the 7th or 8th time, here is a poll

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/145.....-year.aspx

  • ||

    as most americans recognize, cops are amongst the most trustworthy of professions, and deserving of respect.

    Um, actually, 57% of the 1,037 people surveyed rated them high or very high on honesty and integrity, which is the lowest of any profession with a commensurate number of workers.

    Hell, if I was in a profession that only 57% (of a small sample set) of the general public thought was above average, I'd be embarrassed to show the poll.

    But you keep on with that meme that "barely over half=most." Oh, and keep saying the public says they are "deserving of respect," even though the poll doesn't make the claim and it isn't even categorized.

    Whatever gets you through the night.

  • ||

    i never see you counter with facts, just ad hom and rhetoric.

    Um, did you read the linked article? It's nothing but unwashed facts.

    And if you're gonna drive that goalpost mover that fast, you should at least put on your seat belt.

  • jester||

    Look at the trust put in the clergy and you'll understand why this poll reflects the opinion of South Carolina more than it does the avg Reason commenter. Sir, I appreciate your participation in the comments; but I must say that in my unimportant opinion you make too many excuses for dipshits in the force. In your shoes, I would make a case that I was a lone libertarian in a sea of authoritarians. I have faith that eventually you'll do that some day. You seem to have it in you.

  • Anacreon||

    Yeah, but below us docs. Can't believe we lost to grade school teachers, though -- after seeing the way they behaved off school grounds.

  • Nipplemancer||

    HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    FTA: Notice how Washington resides near the top of both lists. In fact, for the 21 months of the sample period, Washington state police officers were implicated in 186 alleged incidents of misconduct but only 30 cases resulted in criminal charges and, of that 30, only 5 were ultimately convicted of a criminal act. Of those 5, none were sentenced to any prison or jail time.

    Also, of the five convictions in Washington, none involved excessive force and two occurred during the course of the officer’s duties:

    A Washington State Trooper was convicted on a custodial sexual misconduct charge for groping a woman in a cruiser.
    A Medical Lake police officer was sentenced to probation in a plea deal in a sexual harassment case.
    A Wahkiakum County deputy pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge which was reduced from the original domestic violence charge.
    A Seattle police officer was convicted in Grays Harbor County for driving under the influence in a case where he was accused of asking for some professional courtesy when he was arrested.
    A Kitsap County deputy received a diversionary sentence for a DUI charge.

    But they're often held to a higher standard, right? Sorry, but I find it hard to believe not a single officer in Washington committed an act of excessive force in the 21-month period of the study.

  • Gojira||

    I find it hard to believe not a single officer in Washington committed an act of excessive force in the 21-month period of the study.

    They're just...that...damn...good.

  • ||

    and of course nobody is making that claim.

    in that same period, several officers were fired for excessive force. so CLEARLY that is not the case

    sloopy just can't understand there is a difference between excessive force and criminal assault both in the actual offense AND in the level of evidence required to establish a violation

  • ||

    Excessive force=criminal assault.

    In any civilized nation where people enjoy equal protection under the law, all assaults are treated the same.

  • Some Guy||

    >fired for excessive force

    Did they do time for these vicious, violent crimes? No?

    QED.

  • ||

    wow. you STILL don't get it

    first of all, LOTS of WA officers (some in my very agency) were found to have committed excessive force in that 21 month period

    as usual, you conflate CRIMINAL law violations, with excessive force. only SOME incidents of excessive force result in CRIMINAL violations

    furthermore, your other logical fallacy is your failure to recognize that even given an incident of eexcessive force that IS criminal, there must be sufficient evidence to convict

    that's why i support filming of cops. because it helps convict bad cops. it provides EVIDENCE

    what you continually fail to recognize is that excessive force =/= criminal act

    only a subset thereof does.

    for that matter, a lot of de minimus assaults by normal non cops are not prosecuted, just as with cops.

    for example, an officer in my dept. was demoted and suspended after shoving somebody. i've never personally seen the prosecutor charge a person in my county with a mere shove, and they didn't in this case (the victim also didn't want prosecution. it was a witness who reported it).

    that was an example of force that was not prosecuted.

  • ||

    as usual, you conflate CRIMINAL law violations, with excessive force. only SOME incidents of excessive force result in CRIMINAL violations

    Um, in a civilized society, any use of excessive force against another person is criminal. Period. Full stop.

    The fact that you cannot recognize this means that you are beyond hope of being reached.

    Can you please point out a scenario when use of excessive force against another person is criminal for a "civilian" and is not criminal for a cop? And I mean morally and ethically, not just legally.

  • ||

    as even findlaw says, when CITIZENS are makign a citizens arrest (an analogous situation), they have LESS strict rules than we do

    that aside, there are lots of situations where a person's actions are civilly but not criminally actionable.

    that's why we have civil courts

    i know that YOU think that all incidents of excessive force SHOULD be criminal acts. but that is not th law ANYWHERE in the nation

    you can keep repeating your normative arguments, but i am discussing the law, not the law as sloops WISHED it was

    if you can't even use the same terms i am using, there is no point discussing

    excessive force means something. it does not mean CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

    it means force in excess of either constitutional restrictions, legislative restrictions, or dept. policy.

    SOME are also criminal offenses. most aren't

  • ||

    http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr.....rrest.html

    as i said, citizens making arrest actually GENERALLY operate under LESS strict rules than law enforcement regarding force

    something you fail to recognize

  • ||

    I see you've found "findlaw." Too bad there's not a website called "findmoralityandfairnessforallpeopleregardlessofwhetherornottheywearabadge". That would have a greater impact on me.

    It was against the law in Germany in 1936 for Jews to own businesses.

  • ||

    lol, sloopy criticizing the source because he can't stand the facts.

  • Coeus||

    I'm waiting on a cab, so i'll be brief:

    Citizens arrests are actually held to a higher standard. They must witness the crime being committed, and it must be an actual crime. They aren't allowed (in any state I can think of) to arrrest for crimes against the state. Cops are within the law to assault people who they think may have committed a crime.

    If a home owner attacks and restrains someone who they think (but is later shown to be innocent) was the person who broke into their home, they are most certainly prosecuted. Contrast this with that cop who went death wish in a Target parking lot, ramming the car and opening fire on a guy she thought charged sole stuff on her husband's credit card. She was found to be within procedure.

    Higher standards my ass. (okay, maybe not so brief)

  • ||

    if you can't even use the same terms i am using, there is no point discussing

    You're right. Fuck off.

  • ||

    lol . a pure sign of utter fail on your part.

    you don't even know what excessive force means, you have no idea that citizen's arresters are held to a LOWER standard than cops, etc.

    i get it. you are a sad and bitter boy

    i get it

    go cry to yer mama, boy

  • ||

    for example, an officer in my dept. was demoted and suspended after shoving somebody. i've never personally seen the prosecutor charge a person in my county with a mere shove, and they didn't in this case (the victim also didn't want prosecution. it was a witness who reported it).

    Yet our anecdotal evidence is dismissed by you out of hand.

  • ||

    false.

  • Coeus||

    I've seen you do it to me and sarcasmic. I'm sure there's others.

  • ||

    i don't dismiss it out of hand. i have for example, never questioned sarcasmic's account of his arrest and conviction

    its simply a lie

    the difference is coeus, you ONLY see what the media tells you and what gets to court.

    by virtute of my experience, i see a LOT more.

    how many IIU investigative reports have you read?

    i've read dozens.

    etc.

    sloopy doesn't even understand the terms he uses. he thinks excessive force is always criminal, for instance.

    it's like discussing algebra with a person who doesn't even know the numerals and what a variable is

  • ||

    Don't believe your lying eyes, Coeus!

    And excessive force should always be a crime. Especially when it results in a bullet-riddled body and a review board declaring the shooting was unjustified.

  • Coeus||

    So just me then? If sarcasmic comes by he can refute that (i recall you calling him delusional when all he did was tell a story). Still makes you a liar for saying "false", so why would we believe anything else you say without a cite? I have a wealth of personal experience with law enforcement, very little of which made the press, so your "you only know what the press tells you" comment is also bullshit. Why should your personal experience be the only non-citeable data considered?

    Fuck this. It's pissing me off typing on a cell phone. There are plenty of others here who know how full of shit you can be, i'll let them take the reigns. I've got to grab a shower and head down to Washington ave. to make sure my dick still works after hernia surgery.

  • jester||

    'he thinks excessive fore is always criminal, for instance'

    By definition it is. Why don't you euphemize it with 'sufficient force'? Jesus Christ, don't you work for the government? Please.

  • ||

    false.

    as usual, you lie

    i said IN SOME RESPECTS, cops are held to a higher standard. iow, the double standard works both ways.

    but continue to lie and misstate my position

    oh, and the article is correct that in WA there is a legal double standard vis a vis HOMICIDE by law enforcement

    i have oft commented on it

    it is written into the law, and is a CLEAR example of a double standard biased in favor of police

    the prosecutor was correct in re: the birk case, BASED on that law...

  • Gojira||

    I said: [According to Dunphy] cops are held to a higher standard

    You retort: as usual, you lie

    i said IN SOME RESPECTS, cops are held to a higher standard.

    So was my leaving out the words "in some respects" what caused that whole statement to be a lie? If so, is everyone lying if they don't quote others exactly everytime, even if it's just a modifier that doesn't really change the tone of the position being taken (for instance, "cops are held to a higher standard" v. "cops in some respects are held to a higher standard")?

  • ||

    because it works BOTH ways. i don't deny a double standard. i am saying the double standard in some respects works AGAINST cops, and in some cases for it.

    the reasonmeme(tm) is that it solely benefits cops/

  • Coeus||

    Despite the constant stream of cases supporting cops receiving nothing where a normal citizen would be jailed and tried, you've provided but a single example of it going the other way. And you purposely left out the extenuating circumstances of that case. Not to mention it's regarding sentencing and not the actual charges filed, as most of the counter examples are.

  • ||

    again, that's simply false

    your analogies are false

    if you are going to compare police use of force DURING arrest, then you need to compare that to citizen use of force DURING arrest

    which you and sloopy never do

    you can't present disanalogous situations and claim they prove your point

    they don't

  • ||

    And where is your evidence of how "citizens" act while arresting people? Where is your evidence that "citizens" get away with excessive force while making arrests with the same regularity that cops do?*

    *For the record, we hate being called "citizen" because we don't have a badge. It's akin to calling cops "pigs" to differentiate them from us.

  • ||

    the prosecutor was correct in re: the birk case, BASED on that law...

    The law is an immoral slap in the face of anybody who gives even a fleeting fuck about equal protection under the law. Fuck you if you do not decry it loudly and publicly.

  • ||

    i already HAVE decried it. try to keep up

    i said it should be repealed, because it is a double standard.

  • Coeus||

    So because the double standard is actually in the law books, we're supposed to discount its results? The claim is that cops get special treatment. Even if its legal special treatment, it's still special treatment.

  • ||

    and i've never denied that this WA law *is* a double standard, that it IS unjust

    why is that so difficult for you to grok?

    as i have said, the law is a double standard, and it's unjust

    i should note that WA *is* amongst the most protective states in the country for noncops using self defense since the state must DISPROVE self defense and the state must pay lawyer and lost wage fees upon acquittal for self defense

    however... there is still a double standard and that's WRONG

    get it?

  • ||

    the question begging, logical fallacies etc. are immense in this article

    for example, it is often reported that the conviction rate for officers is much lower than that for non-officers

    the conclusion the article comes to FAILS TO EVEN consider that if different criteria are used to consider prosecuting officers in the first place, then the conviction rate will be lower due ot those criteria.

    generally speaking, prosecutors decide to posecute when they think they have a very high chance of winning

    however, with cops (and other politically charged prosecutions), they often make political decision, iow given sufficient pressure, even with a weak case, a decision will be made to prosecute and/or overcharge (diallo is the perfect example of overcharging).

    the article IS correct about WA law and the good faith exception, which is something i not only acknowledge, but have mentioned several times

    it clearly IS a double standard... a legal one

    and of course the only solution is citizen initiative or getting the legislature to repeal it

    it's a DECENT article, but the assumptions are pretty obviously clouding the conclusions, as one would expect from the authors

  • ||

    the conclusion the article comes to FAILS TO EVEN consider that if different criteria are used to consider prosecuting officers in the first place, then the conviction rate will be lower due ot those criteria.

    1. Why should different criteria be used? Why are cops special?

    2. Conviction rates are so much lower in Washington than the national average that it's fair to question them. Remember, the rest of the nation's sample size is 49 entire states.

    however, with cops (and other politically charged prosecutions), they often make political decision, iow given sufficient pressure, even with a weak case, a decision will be made to prosecute and/or overcharge (diallo is the perfect example of overcharging).

    Yeah, they overcharge cops a lot there. They overcharge them to the point that only four were charged with excessive force, even though review boards often deemed their actions unjustified.

  • ||

    different criteria should NOT be used. that's my point. my point is that the article doesn't consider that possibility, especially in liberal politically correct WA may tend to skew the results

    if officers are charged, for political reasons, with LESS evidence than the average joe, it would skew the conviction rates

    an officer i work with was charged a few years ago with a VERY bogus assault. the victim literally gave two completely different accounts at two different times, no physical evidence, etc.

    the case was dropped, but he was fired before it was dropped and it took him a year to get his job (and back pay).

    if he wasn't a cop, he never would have been charged in the first place

    the DV advocate specifically recontacted the "victim" and ADMITTED she did so, because she saw one of the people in the case was a cop

    in another case, an officer was threatened with charging for unlawful internet gambling (a c felony). only after his union threatened file a suit did they drop the charge (because nobody has ever been charged with this 'crime' and it was purely political).

    the officer was still fired, though

  • ||

    Their charge rates are also much, much lower than the national average, so your little comment about politically motivated charging leading to lower conviction rates is utter hogwash.

    Pull the other one.

  • ||

    and again, that proves nothing. charge rate compared to what? compared to allegations?

    again, who would naturally tend to get false allegations? joe average, or some guy who just arrested you, took away your liberty, and who a select group of whingers (e.g. your ilk) sees as the sourceof all evil

    again, you fail to recognize ANYthing that could dare interfere with your metanarrative

    again, this is why i support filming of the cops. because most of us, as gillespie has said, do a good job, and video just helps out the bad ones, and protect the good ones, and help punish the false complainers and bad cops

    there are lots of factors in conviction rates.

    two i would mention are the jurors tend to trust police more than the average joe

    another is politically motivated charging.

  • ||

    The charge rate of cops in the state of Washington is dramatically lower than the national average. The conviction rate of cops in the state of Washington is dramatically lower than the national average.

    Add to that that the USDOJ recently lambasted the largest department in the state for failing to even investigate claims against officers.

    Yeah, there is a systemic problem with cops and their abuses of power and the double-standard used in the treatment of those acts. It just appears to be most severe in Washington. Sorry if you don't believe your lying eyes, but the data is right there in front of you.

  • ||

    The crickets! Oh, how they chirp.

  • ||

    yup. they sure do. in several places in this threa andd where your jackbooted butthurt little ego can't respond because you know you are wrong.

    look up. there's more than one

  • ||

    I noticed you didn't address any of the points I made, instead choosing to deflect.

    I'm not surprised.

  • ||

    Maybe you should start investigating Oregon police abuses for a change.

  • ||

    Why, do we have a resident griefer cop from Oregon that is a champion big wave surfer, inductee into the Rock and Roll Hal of Fame, trainer of world class athletes, spouse of Morgan Fairchild and former King of Norway on here that I'm unaware of?

    Besides, Washington State is the den of double-standards. The standard-bearer for cop-worshiping sycophantic politics. No, Oregon may be bad, but the sunlight needs to be shone on the police of Washington State and their political cronies that have allowed them to become super-citizens with exemptions to the most basic of laws.

  • ||

    how can anybody take you seriously, sloopy?

    you are all about hyperbole.

    your first paragraph is a bunch of hysterical nonsense, followed closely by the second.

    i honestly don't know. maybe you are just some pimply faced closeted nerd, so anything beyond high score in a video game sounds like a fallacious claim to you.

    maybe you are just a bitter dried up loser.

    i have no idea.

    but get over yourself. and your bitterness.

  • ||

    Oh, I'm not a bitter dried up loser. Hell, I'm marrying Banjos in 10 weeks, which pretty much makes me the opposite of a loser.

    The first paragraph is pretty much a joke, since any time anyone brings up anything, you seem to have done something even greater. OK, I'll admit it's a bit childish.

    My second paragraph, however, stands on it's own. And the fact that you run away when I call you out on the sketchy details of your one measly example of a cop getting allegedly harsher treatment only makes you seem less credible in my, and many others', book. And your consistent decrying of anecdotal evidence, while failing to provide anything but the same makes you come across as the apologist that I am certain you are.

    And the simple fact that you have hoodwinked some posters on here into thinking that you are "one of the good cops we need more of" just because you are in favor of legalized gambling (so you can benefit from it), legalized pot and meekly decry the double-standard makes me want to vomit.

    You enable the rotten system of abuse in the name of the law to continue because you do not take an active stand against the evil acts of your brothers in blue.

  • ||

    10 weeks? I guess me and rather have to move up the date to one-up you guys.

  • ||

    Is that the barfman signal?

  • barfman||

    I shant be typecast.

  • ||

    sloopy, i did not run away

    these are the facts

    1) he was a prior MISDEMEANANT(not a convicted felon)
    2) he was charged with assault offenses based on one incident

    he was given a 23 yr sentence

    the judge in the case was quoted as saying that cops deserved a harsher standard

    those are all facts

    and you have yet to find me ONE example of a noncop in WA state without felony priors getting 23 yrs for assault

    YOU are the one who ran away

    again, show me one

    ONE

  • ||

    shocking. no response

  • ||

    You first said a non-cop would have gotten 2 years. I proved that false.

    Then you said he had no priors, which I proved false. Then you changed it to no felony priors.

    The man's own attorney expected between 15 and 17 years, a far cry from 2.

    And while the judge mentioned that a LEO should hold himself to a higher standard, there's no proof he used that in deciding the sentence. Oh, and for some reason every appeal on the harshness of the sentence was denied.

    Maybe the fact that the convicted had just pleaded guilty to 10 counts of failure to follow a court order, which you keep saying was for one incident, but it's still 10 convictions nonetheless, had something to do with the severity of the sentence.

    Tell you what, trot out that link you so like to use for this case and I'll pull out mine. We can let the readers decide who's being a disingenuous twat.

  • ||

    again, all that wanking aside, not ONE case

    i didn't say the case wasn't serious

    i said he got a harsher sentence than a noncop would get

    there have been literally THOUSANDS of people charged with assault in WA state

    again, show me ONE who was not a convicted felon who got as long a sentence as this guy for an assault (and note... not a rape. an assault)

    find me... ONE

    you can't

    and no, there's no PROOF the judge took into account that cops should get a higher penalty.

    so, if the judge said "blacks should get a higher penalty", you wouldn't assume he was employing that when he gave a black guy a higher sentence than any white guy got?

    sure.

    lol

  • ||

    i said he got a harsher sentence than a noncop would get

    No, you said a non-cop would have gotten 2 years. You lied and figured nobody would look up the actual facts of the case, which your link failed to detail.

    so, if the judge said "blacks should get a higher penalty", you wouldn't assume he was employing that when he gave a black guy a higher sentence than any white guy got?

    Again, you are being disingenuous. FTA: Spearman, before sentencing McCarthy, said police and others in positions of authority should be held to a higher standard of conduct. He never said he was exacting a harsher sentence because he was a cop. As a matter of fact, here is another quote FTA: "That's the hardest part of this case is the good life you have lived, the people you have helped and the good things you have done," Spearman said. "People have written about it for years, how a flash of anger like lightening can overrule a lifetime of doing good." Hell, if anything, it looks like he may have passed a lighter sentence on the cop because of his "lifetime of doing good."

    You've performed so many gymnastic feats since your first narrative on the case, you probably don't even know what you said anymore.

  • ||

    IOW, if he said "blacks should he held to a higher standard," then proceeded to say that blacks have undone in a flash of anger all the great things they had done in a lifetime of doing good, I would not think he was passing an overly harsh or overly light sentence on a black man.

    I would especially think this if every appeal that the sentence was overly harsh was denied.

  • @dunphy||

    Why did he get back pay?

  • ||

    I'm only concerned for the smooth functioning of the blog. When you bring up Washington State cops things become unsmooth.

  • ||

    i'm smooth, tulpa/ and i'm easy as sunday morn, too

  • jester||

    Jesus Christ, sloopy, you forgot ee cumings plagiarist!

  • ||

    +one

  • Robert Johnson's Guitar||

    To be perfectly fair, Oregon and Washington both suck ass and need to get over themselves.

  • Almanian's Balls||

    SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

  • cynical||

    That can't be true, because the 14th amendment require states to grant equal protection under the law to all of their residents.

  • ||

    derp derp derp

  • ||

    derp derp derp. The 14th Amendment, and you say derp derp derp?

    Goddamn, you are a fuckhead statist jackboot apologist piece of filth.

  • ||

    i realize you are butthurt little boy.

    and if anybody's a jackboot, it's you.

  • ||

    I'm not butthurt. I just hate the fact that cops and legislators treat themselves as our betters.

    And yeah, I'm really a jackboot. Raising the consciousness of the populous to abuses under color of law and the fact that we have abandoned equal protection makes me a jackboot.

    You're a fool.

  • Gojira||

    South Carolina - Come for the History, Stay for the Madness.

    SC - Defending Slavery Southern Heritage Not Hate Since 1861.

  • wareagle||

    when in doubt, take cheap shots at the South. Where was Rodney King beaten? Mamadou Diallo and Abner Louima assaulted and killed? Not the South. On your next stroll through Chicago's South Side, Detroit, or Harlem you can explain why those folks in SC are what they should fear.

  • Gojira||

    I grew up in and continue to live in the South. Doesn't mean I'm particularly happy with SC right now, so yeah, I'm going to take cheap shots at them.

  • Gojira||

    And I fucking hate Steve Spurrier with a passion, so FUCK South Carolina.

  • wareagle||

    hated him at Florida...kinda indifferent now.

  • Gojira||

    I just think he's a grade-A dick who is constantly mouthing off in the press without being able to back it up on the field (at least in SC). He was like that at Florida, and he's still like that.

  • Almanian||

    I didn't think it was possible, but I actually hate Steve "Sphincter" Spurrier MORE since he went to SC.

    Fuck that overrated couldn't-cut-it-in-the-NFL cocksucker.

  • killazontherun||

    Don't be so sensitive. Doesn't reflect well on the rest of us. We're Southerners, we can take the heat and dish it out like chilli over tortillas.

  • General Grant's Whiskey Bottle||

    But, but the "new" South Carolina has a Muslim crescent on its flag and has replaced its insipid hatred for Whites and Jews with insipid hated for Massachusetts and Mormons.

  • Underzog||

    Keep in mind this shenanigans about declaring Santorium the winner in Iowa -- after Romney was confirmed the winner -- was probably a cynical attempt to cut down Newt Gingrich in the best bannana republic style. However, this Santorium suddenly wins in So. Carolina stuff missed Newt Gingrich and hit Ron Paul instead.

    Such dirty election tricks hurt not only Conservatives but Libertarians as well.

    Ron Paul would've been in third place if not for Rick Santorum suddenly winning Iowa>/i>.

    Something to think about despite it coming from your... favorite source of information.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

  • ||

    Keep in mind this shenanigans about declaring Santorium the winner in Iowa -- after Romney was confirmed the winner -- was probably a cynical attempt ...

    Meh, I think that news flew over most people's heads. It wasn't a big deal.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Gingrich? Seriously? No, Seriously?

  • The Angry RPh||

    Agreed. He's so unacceptable on so many levels. It's mind boggling.

  • Abe Lincoln||

    (sigh)

    Maybe I should have just let them go.

  • General Grant's Whiskey Bottle||

    Is it too late?

  • ||

    FUCK. just had to say that

  • CNN||

    j/k

    Ron Paul is the winner.

  • Almanian||

    Thread winner, anyway

  • Lewis H||

    Ron Paul still going on about the Gold Standard?
    He's insane.

  • Ronald Wilson Reagan||

    No. You're insane. Paul is a fine American. He headed my gold commission for one when it was not automatically presumed that Republicans are the collared bitches of chairman of the Federal Reserve.

  • Underzog||

    All my...fans on this board know I don't support Rep. Paul, but I to want the gold standard back in this country.

    As Rep. Paul would say, it's in the Constitution and while the Articles of Confederation allowed paper money (emit bills of credit), the Constitution does not!

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • ||

    The constitution prohibits states from making anything other than silver or gold valid payment of debt. Doesn't restrict the feds whatsoever.

    How RP can misread this over and over and over and over again (however many times he's read it) is beyond me.

  • Underzog||

    The Federal Reserve is a private bank. It is not a government bank.

    Why is that? As the Constitution does not grant the federal government the right to print currency.

    As bad as the Federal Reserve is, it would be even worse if it were a government bank.

  • ||

    It's the Treasury that prints the bills, not the Fed. And Art I Sec 8 gives Congress the authority to "coin Money and emit Bills of Credit", which is close enough.

  • Underzog||

    Art. 1; Sec 8 says congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof -- not to make something of no value money.

    And the U.S government does not print money actually. What the government does is print up bonds, give them to the bank, and the bank then prints up the money.

    Why this step? It is because the private bank, the Fed, gives out our Federal Reserve notes.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

  • ||

    The Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints US dollars.

    And the Federal Reserve is part of the US government. Are you a G Ed Griffin crackpot?

  • ||

    From the Wiki:

    The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.

  • Underzog||

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.

    Wiki is a bad source (anyone can write in it); however, the above quote given by Tulpa proves one of my points.

    The federal government prints up bonds, gives the bonds to the Federal Reserve Bank, and, then the Federal Reserve Banks print up Federal Reserve Notes for us to hold instead of the constitutionally authorized gold coins or gold certificates.

    Does Tulpa realize that he has helped prove my case?

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

  • Underzog||

    Oops -- my mistake. Wikipedia might be incorrect because of its inaccuracy, but I did read that wrong.

    Will check.

  • ||

    How's that check coming, 'zog?

    Here's an appropriately-named website to help.

  • Underzog||

    Yeah.... Here is what I found. It's a little complicated:>>>>>>>>>>Now, there was one important distinction between these two notes. U.S. notes [issued by the Union during the Civil War] were never charged interest when U.S. notes were created since they were run off and distributed directly by the government. Federal Reserve notes, on the other hand, came into being more subtly. The U.S. government would print up some U.S. bonds and take them to the Fed and borrow Federal Reserve notes, leaving the bonds as collateral, with the government paying the Fed interest on the bonds deposited. However, since the "currency" the Fed gives to the government is irredeemable paper of the same quality that the that the U.S. government can print itself, why doesn't the government print all the money it needs directly and save the taxpayers all that interest? The answers to these questions can only be: (1) If the government were to print its money directly, the cat (that the U.S. government simply prints its money) would be out of the bag {that is a reason the 1971 u.s. note was withdrawn from circulation]. Since few understand how Federal Reserve notes came into being, the country can continue to be hoodwinked into not realizing that the U.S. government, in reality, prints when it prints government bonds. It is interesting to note that the original Federal Reserve Act prohibited this type of transaction since the government bonds were not then deemed to be fit collateral for Federal Reserve notes. (2) Since the process of the government printing bonds and the Fed printing notes is far more complicated and costly than printing U.S. notes directly, this arrangement apparently fits the thinking and requirements of the Washington bureaucracy)....1

    1. "The Biggest Con"

    PP: 28

    Wherever the printing press is located, it is the Fed that calls the shots as to Federal Reserve notes being printed up.

  • ||

    You, or your source, or both, are totally wrong.

    The Fed is actually prohibited by law from taking treasury bonds directly from the Treasury, so your explanation of "how things work" is totally wrong. In order to increase the money supply they buy bonds from private banks by crediting their reserve accounts and then allow the banks to withdraw FRNs from these excess reserves. The FRNs are printed by the Treasury agency BEP.

  • mr simple||

    You might want to check your bills again, Tulpa. They say "Federal Reserve Note." They are liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks. They replaced UNited States Notes, which were issued by the Treasury and stopped being printed in 1971.

  • ||

    They also have a picture of George Washington on them. Does that mean he printed them?

  • Underzog||

    You guys are supposed to be Libertarians, yet you are ignorant about this? And you are also ignorant about one of the correct stands Dr. Paul does support?

    Maybe because I am the...troll of Hit & Run, you just won't listen to the facts.

    Since you won't listen to me because of my position on this board, I suggest you go to the book, "The Great Income Tax Hoax" by Irwin Schiff; read the appendix (better yet, read the whole book); and then maybe -- just maybe you'll understand some of the workings of the Federal Reserve Bank.

    There is a lot of hostility against me on this board because I don't like the eliminationist antisemitism amongst the Libertarians, but maybe if one sees the arguments I stated in print from the reference I suggested, you'll understand better the workings of that bank and the Constitution.

    It is ironic as hell that I am the one defending Ron Paul on this of all boards.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

  • ||

    The US was printing paper currency AND on the gold standard for several decades. They're not mutually exclusive.

  • Underzog||

    It wasn't written as Federal Reserve Notes are written now.

    You have a lot to learn.

  • ||

    And I am listening to you. How else could I have just proved you wrong? Twice.

  • Underzog||

    Man o man.... It is scary. Do the Hit and Runners agree with Ron Paul on his very dangerous foreign policy and disagree with him when he is correct about the gold standard.

    That is almost as frightening a prospect as Rep. Paul winning the presidency or BHO being re elected.

    "There's no need to fear -- actually, in this case in my discussions here, there is ):"

  • ||

    The BEP, an agency of the Treasury, produces the notes and delivers them to the FRS. The name "federal reserve note" is a reference to the fact that they pass through the Fed.

  • Underzog||

    See my post immediately above yours. Calling them U.S. notes (as they were called during the Civil War) would have given the game away. Those U.S. notes had to be stopped by the government or they would've given the game away (as Irwin Schiff explained).

  • Underzog||

    Good move on Gingrich's part. I hope he means it: Gingrich makes play for gold vote.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • General Grant's Whiskey Bottle||

    You know it's time to sell your gold investment when Gingrich is shrilling for it.

  • cynical||

    No, he's moved on to the Golden Rule. Next debate, it will be the golden ratio.

  • Underzog||

    Newt is praising Ron Paul for his exposure of the fed and this fiat currency nonsense.

    Cynical manuever? Perhaps, but at least someone is referring to Constitutional money again.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • H. Reardon||

    The Golden Shower. Callista - you dirty whore!

  • ||

    What did you expect? "Welcome, libertarian"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new South. You know... morons.

  • Almanian||

    That made me lol. Well done.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    +10 to Tulpa. That got my funny bone.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Well played, sir. Well played.

  • Cytotoxic||

    +1 although can be applied to just about all voters.

  • MWG||

    *Golf clap*

  • ||

    A big fuck you to everyone in S. Carolina who voted for Santorum, that disgusting turd of a candidate.

  • General Grant's Whiskey Bottle||

    True, Santorum is a sanctimonious blowhard. Gingrich is a maniacal villain the likes which haven't been since Richard Milhouse Nixon. South Carolina, deep in the throes of Mormon phobia, could have been forgiven for giving us a Santorum. There can be no forgiveness for what they have done to us today.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Who's the blond chick standing to Ron Pauls right during his speech?

  • AlmightyJB||

    She might not be blond. May just be the lighting. Totally doable just the same.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Someone on the Reason team want to help a brother out? You know who these people are.

  • AlmightyJB||

    No seriously, this is really important. I need to google image her name to see if there are any pictures of her online with less clothes on. This is Gods work, truely.

  • killazontherun||

    Not sure what you are watching, but Paul's foxy grand daughter (a light brunette though) has been doing the rounds.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I was watching the post SC primary speech that was playing live 10 minutes ago. She's has very nice features.

  • killazontherun||

    That's her -- scroll the dailypaul you'll see some interviews she did this week.

  • Laura Paul Fite||

    I'm flattered, AlmightyJB, but, alas, I'm married. I was on Judge Napolitano, yesterday:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFTIj5D7y48

  • AlmightyJB||

    Your husband is a lucky man:) I'm pulling for your grandfather all the way!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah I think that's her. Laura Paul Fite. Thanks.

  • Jerry||

    Who knew that Ari Fleischer is a bigger douche than James Carville.

  • killazontherun||

    Me.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Me too. Carville married Matlin which at least presumes he has the capacity to think that it's poosible that not everyone thinks like he does.

  • killazontherun||

    I'm biased towards people who sometimes can make me laugh like Carville and biased against those who put e to sleep like Fleischer.

  • ||

    Sometimes you need a douche to counteract Santorum.

  • killazontherun||

    rim shot

  • Sevo||

  • El Commentariosa||

    I have the rimshot and sad trombone widgets on my Nexus. Infinite uses.

  • Sevo||

    Need to find some violins for the non-vintage whines.

  • Principal Skinner||

    Class!

  • Bart||

    JoePa!

  • Edna Krabappel ||

    Bart, is that a roll of Life Savers in your pocket, or are you just glad to see Nelson?

  • Milhouse||

    Uh, I like Nelson.

  • BlueBook||

    Small consolation, but at least Paul's pulling in more than 3x his 2008 percentage.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Looking at it half glass full, that's not such a small consolation. that's three times more people who get that the status quo is not acceptable.

  • Professor Frink||

    You've got to listen to me! Elementary chaos theory tells us that all Newt Gingrich supporters will eventually turn against their country and run amok in an orgy of blood and the kicking and the biting with the crooked teeth and the hurting and shoving.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If we're lucky

  • General Grant's Whiskey Bottle||

    In other words, history repeats itself.

  • Christopher Walken||

    A round of coleslaw for everyone!

  • AlmightyJB||

    You know what's awesome. Mix some Asiago Peppercorn Salad Dressing with some cole slaw mix. It's seriously awesome. Start with mixing in less dressing than you think you need because the cabbage mix will absorb the dressing and soften up as it sits. Plus, Christopher Walken rocks as does cowbell and BOC.

  • killazontherun||

    I'll remember that. Got a pack of roasted slivered almonds that I've been at a loss to do something with.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, that would go well with that.

  • Jerry||

    CNN has Paul at 10 delegates.

  • ||

    Romney 31
    Gingrot 22
    Paul 10
    Fecal Matter 8

  • ||

    You know, Paul has got to find a way to hone the foreign-policy rhetoric.

    Not betray his principles.

    Not obfuscate.

    Not hide or withhold anything.

    Not pander to bloodthirst.

    Just hone the rhetoric. That's all. It could be as simple as prefacing every foreign-policy answer with something like, "The Constitution makes it clear that the federal government has a few limited but crucial roles in our society. One of those roles is the defense of our country. As president -- as commander in chief of our armed forces -- I would vigorously ensure this country's defense, just as the Constitution outlines. There is nothing more important to me than protecting the lives and liberty of Americans."

    And then get into the weeds with all the particulars about Iranian-nuke-prospects or whatever happens to be the latest warmongering meme du jour.

    The foreign-policy stuff continues to be a stumbling block for Paul's campaign in a way that it doesn't need to be. That's the biggest frustration, really.

    Yes, the Republicans are always going to have their Bloodthirst Bloc. No, that bloc probably isn't going to be hopping over to Paul's side anytime soon, no matter how he hones his delivery.

    But there's definitely room for convincing with all the rest of these folks. They just need to be shown that Paul isn't some 76-year-old version of a clueless hippie -- and it's his burden to show them that.

    Emphasizing that he grasps the importance of military defense -- as a core Constitutional role -- is the only way he's going to crack that wall.

  • Binky||

    Well said. Will the Paul campaign take it to heart?

  • ||

    Too late dude...too late

  • Newt Gingrich||

    Oh, ye of little faith.

  • ||

    Yeah, that's what I was getting ready to say.

    The way this primary campaign has unfolded, nothing is "too late" yet. The game is still early in the first quarter, easy.

  • Robert||

    I think we're going to see the same phenomenon during the primaries that we saw before them: different candidates in the national polls taking turns in the #1 spot and others, except for Romney, tanking, but Paul never tanking too badly. This will be reflected somewhat in the states as they come up, but with some disproportionality in the delegate counts because of states that elect delegates by plurality statewide or by Congressional district. Nobody's going to have more than 35% of pledged delegates going into the convention.

  • Jumbie||

    ^I agree. It's the place where most of my Republican friends. (OK, my only Republican friend) draws the line on supporting Paul.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I agree TomD. When I mention RP to people they're like oh he's too far out there. But when I talk about his specific policy positions (ie no more world police, the failure of the drug war, government spending, etc.) They're in agreement. I think he comes off to to many people as "anti-american". It's so easy to argue his policy without coming off that way, it's frustrating to me that his campaign team can't figure that out.

  • AlmightyJB||

    To that same point. 47% Support Pulling U.S. Troops Out of Europe. How does this jive with any reduction in US military force is a "disaster".

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co....._of_europe

  • flacid tuna||

    It doesn't matter. So long as he doesn't support bombing Iran than he doesn't win anyone.

  • Yuno Hoo||

    **coughcongressionaldeclarationofwarcough**

  • ||

    It doesn't matter. So long as he doesn't support bombing Iran than he doesn't win anyone.

    See, I don't think that's really the case.

    Your average Joe Voter Guy doesn't know anything about Iran. He doesn't know anything about uranium in Iran. He doesn't even really understand anything about the Middle East, except that apparently a lot of the people there don't like us for some reason, and that there are certain of them we're supposed to dislike and certain of them we are supposed to like, and who knows... it's just a bunch of weird-sounding names and complex, confusing dynamics, as far as he's concerned, and frankly, more than anything, he finds it all really fucking boring.

    Joe Voter Guy can't even really follow the conversation when it gets into all the convoluted details about that stuff.

    All he wants is reassurance that President So-and-So knows how important it is to make sure America is safe.

    Paul spends too much time arguing his positions with the "complex, confusing dynamics" part, and not enough doing the reassurance thing.

    It would help his cause -- quite a lot, I think -- if he would flip that around.

  • The Angry RPh||

    It would help his cause -- quite a lot, I think -- if he would flip that around people were more intelligent.

    FIFY

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Though I might agree on some intellectual level, it is nice that Paul doesn't see a need to dumb down his ideology, and talks to people like they are actual adults.

  • ||

    So you want to turn him into a Newt?

  • Cytotoxic||

    They just need to be shown that Paul isn't some 76-year-old version of a clueless hippie -- and it's his burden to show them that.

    This assumes he isn't clueless...

  • ||

    Right, cause not wanting to bomb the fuck out of Iran or play world police makes him clueless.

  • El Commentariosa||

    YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTHS WHILE RAFA IS PLAYING

  • Ted S.||

    Can I yell "Time!" every time he takes more than the allotted 20 seconds between points?

  • El Commentariosa||

    As long as you realize it will have no effect.

  • A scene at dunphy's||

  • killazontherun||

    That's hilarious. Would have worked with any one of us though.

  • Jumbie||

    Gingrich did BETTER than Romney among women.

    I suppose if he's been scoring all that luvin through the years he probably has some kind of appeal? Women love a bad boy, maybe?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's his god-like physique. If you count Buddha as a god.

    (got that joke off a T-shirt)

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You know what's really pathetic? His second wife, who started out as an affair, ended up being utterly shocked when she got replaced by a younger, more attractive woman. It's like these women think, "Oh, it won't happen to ME...he really loves me!"

  • The Reverend Diddlemoore||

    Uh yeah, women love bastards. Cuz they always figure they'll change him or he'll make a big exception for them. It's an ego trip of wishful thinking.

  • Jerry||

    Mitt has a problem because he can't act like a jerk because of his Mormonism.

  • AlmightyJB||

    But the fact that he doesn't act like a jerk is the only reason most people tolerate him.

  • killazontherun||

    How did the guy who gave Hillary the finger during a debate become president? It was such a passive aggressive punkass way of doing it too.

    Oh, wait . . he gave Hillary the finger, that's why he is president.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I forgot about that. Depending on the GOP pick it might work again.

  • Sevo||

    But Mitt *is* a jerk.

  • Jerry||

    Newt: "...and then I would like to thank CNN, without whose help I never could have imagined winning South Carolina."

  • Jumbie||

    So how many delegates can Paul expect out of this 13% showing? Globe and Mail says Gingrich has a confirmed 15 plus there's 10 to be decided.

  • Fluffy||

    None. You have to win a congressional district to get a delegate. Mitt and Newt will split them all.

  • Robert||

    I don't think Mitt gets any in SC -- no plurality in any CD.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I realize the pickings are slim this cycle, but even so, the idea that I live in a country where Rick Santorum can out-poll Ron Paul is.... disturbing.........

  • flacid tuna||

    At least this loss in South Carolina should cement the fact that Ron Paul is not a racist. Am I right?

  • killazontherun||

    Absolutely. If anybody has the racist equivalent to gaydar it is those Newt loving humps.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If by miracle Paul would win the GOP primary, that fight hasn't even started in earnest yet.

  • Binky||

    Whoever the GOP nominates, count on a large racial aspect to the general. Sorry.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh thats no doubt true.
    Dem strategy
    1. Accuse GOP candidate of being stupid and/or racist.
    2. ?
    3. Win election
    with 2 most likely being MSM and pop culture cooperation on 1.

  • Rastus Johnson||

    No, but you are RACIST!!

  • DK||

    I guess the best way to spin this for Paul would be that it gives him a better shot at a plurality of delegates. If Romney had won, he probably would have "MSM-steamrolled" to a majority (at worst, a decisive plurality). Gingrich has stripped the anointing oil from Romney, for the time being. Paul will have to win some caucus states to get some momentum going into Super Tuesday.

  • flacid tuna||

    Last place thought... yeesh!

  • flacid tuna||

    though

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think Paul is shocked to be doing as well as he has. I think it's all positive as far as he is concerned.

  • ||

    WPXI is on Paterno death watch. Slow news night, I guess.

  • ||

    Wow, they're talking about renaming Beaver Stadium to Starfish Stadium in honor of his work.

  • Jumbie||

    I just saw upthread some talk about racial politics and wondered: Any info out there on the racial split of the SC vote today?

    I've looked over the NYtimes chart of the Edison exit poll and didn't see a racial breakdown of the votes.

  • ||

    I seriously doubt many non-whites were voting in the SC GOP primary.

  • Hulking Libertarian Chick||

    99% white according to exit polls. 1% Negro. In South Carolina there is the Black Party (Dems) and the White Party (GOP). Both parties want free shit from the government, whether its welfare checks or military bases.

  • flacid tuna||

    The black guy voted for Santorum.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm not all that familiar with SC demographics, but this is a GOP primary, so I have to wonder if there is enough black republicans in the GOP in SC for that to make a meaningful difference? Not really sure but just throwing that out there.

  • Jumbie||

    Was thinking mostly about how well Ron Paul did with blacks compared to the other candidates, but was I had also heard that SC had a significant hispanic minority now and wanted to see how they split.

    Or are the hispanics there all illegal and can't vote?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I'm not sure. We'll probably see that breakdown tomorrow. They ususlly slice and dice this stuff in detail.

  • Jumbie||

    1% black voters in the GOP primary according to CNN.

    1%!

  • Jumbie||

    Also 1% Hispanic

  • The Reverend Diddlemoore||

    Heh. Heh. If dead people can vote, what makes you think illegal immigrants can't?

  • SIV||

    There's a lot of Black people in SC. They even have a Black GOP US Congressman.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Are there a lot of black GOP primary voters though? That is the question.

  • SIV||

    No, but more than in most states I'd reckon.

  • MNG||

    So 10 then?

  • affenkopf||

  • MNG||

    Stop teasing SIV with your facts, it's cruel.

  • JEP||

    Watching Paul's speech, I can't help but think what could be done if someone with Paul's principles and ideas and Newt's wit ran for president.

    Paul will throw some punches, but he can't turn the crowd like Newt can in a debate.

    Newt didn't win on substance, he won because the media helped paint him as a victim and he "stood up" to big, bad media and Romney.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I've already told you media jackals, I made mistakes in my life. I was working for my country delivering babies, and I had an inappropriate extramarital relationship with some hard-core paleos and published some things I regret. I had my relationship with them annulled and my political status was regularized in the eyes of the Church.

    "But more importantly, the media sucks!" [standing ovation from crowd]

  • AlmightyJB||

    Newt started his campaign by attacking the media in the very first debates. It's actually a very smart strategy given the fact thst peoples opinion of the emedia isn't that much better than their opinion of congress.

  • JEP||

    And he stayed very general. If he criticizes the "media" then people will assume he's attacking whatever they don't like. If he goes after CNN or FOX, then he's being polarizing.

    I really think that the trick to running for national office is to create imaginary enemies. You can rant against those enemies to rile people up and blame those imaginary enemies when things go wrong.

    In these times, it's incredibly easy to create a faceless enemy. Corporations are sued, not the individuals who actually committed the crimes. Political parties are blamed instead of individual politicians.

    We're fighting a war against a particular military tactic instead of a particular group of people for crap's sake.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's the trick to all politics. That's how you get people to rally around you. Create a common enemy. It's worked since the beginning of time. It's both the most lazy and the most effective tactic rolled into one.

  • ryan||

    Exactly, he won because of the media.

    Ron Paul isn't particularly at fault so much as the voters. They want a Newt or Mittens presidency so I'd say they deserve it.

    It's a shame that we're voting knowing in advance the kinds of precedents past authoritarian presidents have established.

    It's a further shame that so much of the US population is completely retarded.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    It's also a shame that these psychotic assholes we have to live with in this country can drag the rest of us down the cesspit of history. Looks like I need to bone up on my Spanish and learn to love farming in Argentina.

  • jester||

    Argentina. Out of the pan and into the fire. Good luck, buddy.

  • The Angry RPh||

    The Dollar Vigilante begs to differ.

  • SIV||

    The best way to look at SC voters is they just gave a big Fuck You to the GOP establishment and the mainstream media. They derailed that "Massachusetts moderate" and sowed chaos Unfortunately Newt Gingrich was the immediate beneficiary. I'm more disturbed by Paul coming in last behind Santorum. I hope the good Doctor can make the most of his caucus-focused long term strategy.

  • JEP||

    CNN put a bunch of undecided Repubs. in Florida in one room to watch the speeches and poll them during the night.

    Before the results were in, the majority of the room thought that Romney had the best chance to beat Obama. Afterwards, they thought that Gingrich had the best chance.

    Is that not the definition of collectivism? "I changed my opinion because those people over there in South Carolina are doing it."

    It's amazing the damage that FOX and CNN have done to the political opinions of this country.

  • ryan||

    That's not collectivism; that's emulation. It's a subset of 'stupidity'.

  • JEP||

    Yes, stupidity is pretty all encompassing.

  • ryan||

    Only in SC apparently.

  • killazontherun||

    Amazing story, how capitalism found a way into communist China.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money.....rmed-china

  • killazontherun||

    Do NOT read the comments. Those people are a lost cause. Not worth your time nor trouble. Shades in Hell really.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well it's NPR, what to you expect. It's such a simple concept that it's amazing that it isn't common sense to everyone. The first settlements here in the US had that same collective mindset. Luckily, they figured out very quicky that owning what one produces incents production. Duh, right?

  • El Commentariosa||

    What was the voter turnout in SC?

  • Lewis H||

    Repubicans are morons.

    That is all.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You are coreect but you forgot to mention that democrats are morons too.

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H = shiny objects.
    To be ignored.

  • Lws H||

    Rpbcns r mrns.

    Tht s ll.

  • Guest1776||

    It sure would be fun seeing Obama diss Clinton and his legacy to try and make the point against Newt that budgets weren't balanced, debt wasn't paid down etc... Do you think that will PO the Clintonites who are already POed Obama played the race card on (of all people) the Clintons last election. Quite the conundrum for Obama if Newt is the nominee. What else does Obama have other than personal attacks that people aren't going to care about?

    Oh wait! The people that worked with him hate him blah blah blah.

    Newt passed the only conservative entitlement reform in our lifetime. Why would I trust what the people who ran him out of town on trumped up BS charges say ie Romney is the guy? Those people doubled the debt in his absence while they grew the size and scope of government more than any since LBJ. Those people left the GOP brand so tainted that Republicans were basically unelectable in 2006 and 2008 and we got Nancy, Harry, Obama another 5 trillion in debt piled onto our children and Obamacare as a result.

    The fact the establishment GOPers call themselves 'conservative' is a joke because conservatism begins with and ends without fiscal sanity. The fact they call Newt immoral because of his personal business which does not affect my children is laughable because piling 10 trillion onto the backs of my children is far more immorally irresponsible and reprehensible than anything Newt ever did in his private life.

    We know why the establishment wants the flip flopping milquetoast mush that is Romney and its because they can push him around and its quite the contrary with Newt.

    The American people don't want business as usual, we want big reform in DC and Newt can deliver it and knows how to twist arms to get it done. Romney's executive experience will frustrate him more than it helps him because he can't order pols around like his subordinates at Bane and he won't have line item veto like he did as governor. We don't need another Harvard know-it-all who knows nothing about how to operate in DC in the WH.

    Romney motivates the base even less than McCain and will lose or at best it will be too close to comfort and the last thing the country needs is another Gore vs Bush type debacle ending up in the courts.

    Imagine the conundrum for Obama attacking Newt's record as Speaker he'd be attacking Clinton too ie balanced budgets, paying down debt, jobs jobs jobs etc... I wonder if the Clintonites have forgiven Obama after Obama played the race care on the Clintons last election.

  • Guest1776||

    Why would Obama want to run against the man who helped balance budgets, paid down debt, lowered taxes, helped put policy in place for a booming economy whcih created jobs jobs jobs and is capable of motivating the base etc...

    You know because:

    Why would Obama want to run against a flip flopper from MA when he himself is polling under 50% and most especially since it didn't work out so well for Bush. ;)

    Why would Obama want to run against Romney whom he can easily paint as a 1%er and Wall St's boy toy who hides his money offshore and made a fortune as a corporate raider. Surely in this political environment that's a big mistake because people just love those CEOs who cash out credit give themselves raises then bankrupt the companies, send jobs to China and such. People love and reelect Governors who impose fees on the blind and try to impose them on the mentally challenged. Its a sure loser for Obama.

    No way, not in this economic and political environment. Obama would be a fool to wish for someone whom he can say my O-Care was based on your R-Care and some of your people even helped us write it.

    Nope, No way Obama wants to run against Mittens who doesn't defend himself or conservatism very well. Nope, not in a million years does Obama want to run against Mittens.

    Seriously, think about it. Why would Obama want to run against a guy who doesn't motivate the base of the Republican party.

    And of course we all know Newt's affairs will take him down like they did Bill Clinton in 1992. Bill would have been POTUS if it weren't for them flings. And Newt actually marrying the women is far worse than Clinton dumping them right after he had his fun.

    /sarcasm

  • ||

    Er, Obama won't be running against Bill Clinton...and he did beat a Clinton, once.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm still stunned at how quickly Hillary allowed herself to be rendered politically irrelevant after the 2008 election. The woman had been gunning for the Presidency practically since Bubba first ran in 1992, and it was pretty much a given that she would win if she got the nomination. Instead, she showed that she didn't have the skills to beat an opponent in a race where she didn't have an overwhelming party advantage, and she immediately nuked whatever future presidential prospects she had when she became SecState.

    If Obama wins, the electorate's going to likely have Dem fatigue in 2016 and will be looking to go in the opposite direction; if he doesn't, she's attached herself to a loser who was over his head, which doesn't speak well for her judgement skills.

    Gotta give Obizzle credit for single-handedly nerfing the most self-promoting female in recent US political history.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The quality of Fairfield, NJ products has really gone to shit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That's it, I'm planting my doomsday machine in South Carolina just so they get taken out first.

  • romulus augustus||

    Really hate to say it but it is all over for Ron Paul. So let's not answer any more money bombs and start saving up to promote Gary Johnson's campaign.

  • JEP||

    Heck no. Even if Ron Paul can't win the nominations, he's got the right idea.

    People have tried using a third party to change the course of politics before and doesn't usually work very well.

    Paul has the right idea staging a coup from within the party. What would be amazing is if there was an analogous candidate in the democratic doing the same thing.

  • killazontherun||

    Are you suggesting South Carolina decides everything going forward? Do you recall what Newt looked like two seeks ago? Heavily derided as a Republican Marxist Leninist for going after Romney's private sector record and with no better than a fourth place win to his credit. He was finished. He was done.

  • How Status History Is Wrote||

    But there was one who believed that he could become president. Believed in his talents and his perseverance to be something special and not drudge his way through life in a meaningless job working for the corporations, but instead serve his country. That person was Newt Gingrich . . .

  • SIV||

    Let Gary Johnson work to raise his own fuckin' money. That fairtax Lame-O couldn't outpoll Buddy Roemer.
    Ron Paul is in it to win it!

  • Cytotoxic||

    But he's not winning it. After RP loses, the best option going forward is helping Johnson. Quit being so gripey over the fair tax.

  • ||

    What precisely is Gary Johnson supposed to accomplish? You think RP got ignored by the media during the primaries, where it's expected that there will be several relevant candidates... how do you think that's going to improve for GJ during the phase of the election where it's normal to focus on two candidates to the exclusion of all others?

  • FreeRepublic||

    Ron Paul is going to cause Obama to win reelection! Argh! *spittle* Commies!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Johnson is supposed to provide an alternative and to break the GOP by siphoning votes. Maybe he can get a 'deal' out of the GOP nom. A tall order, but it's what we've got.

  • ||

    He's not going to siphon shit, and even if he could, any significant deal with the LP would alienate many more GOP voters than it brings back into the fold. They'd be crazy to take it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Gee, vote for Mitt Majikpanties because he'll be 2% better than Obama? That makes a lot more sense than voting for someone I actually like.

  • ||

    Vote for whoever you want. I'm just saying it's bonkers to claim that the "pragmatic" thing to do is to start saving up to donate to a totally futile GJ campaign.

    Not only will he not win, he won't spread the message.

  • MNG||

    If you think John is caught in a bind over the upcoming election, don't forget SIV. SIV went on record over and over here castigating libertarians who said they would pick Obama over McCain as the lesser of two evils and argued that any real libertarian would vote LP. But SIV has been bad mouthing the likely LP candidate this time around, so get ready for The Great Walk Back for him...

  • ||

    Maybe he didn't think Obama was a lesser evil than McCain.

  • Jumbie||

    The money you spend on Ron Paul IS spent on Gary Johnson.

    As pitiful as his access to the media has been, Paul gets far more press than Johnson and is thus a better venue for airing the libertarian ideas.

    Once the ideas get sold, Johnson's bid has a firm base in people's minds to build off of. He doesn't have to win them over on the ideas, just sell his presence.personality etc. (A tough enough barrier for poor Gary)

  • ||

    Ron Paul is going to endorse Gary Johnson (or the Libertarian nominee) in September.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Nah, more likely he won't endorse anybody. That way, he doesn't totall piss off the Republican establishment and hurt Rand's future political career in the GOP.

  • ||

    Uh...he endorsed everyone that wasn't President Obama and Senator McCain last time. No one in the Republican Party cares who Ron Paul endorses when it comes to Rand Paul, mostly because neither is very likely to be president of the United States ever.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....rty-field/

  • ||

    Uh...he endorsed everyone that wasn't President Obama and Senator McCain last time. No one in the Republican Party cares who Ron Paul endorses when it comes to Rand Paul, mostly because neither is very likely to be president of the United States ever.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....rty-field/

  • AlmightyJB||

    Spottswoode: From what I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.N.C.E has gathered, it would be 9/11 times 100.
    Gary Johnston: 9/11 times a hundred? Jesus, that's...
    Spottswoode: Yes, 91,100.
    Chris: Basically, all the worst parts of the bible.

  • ||

    If you want to rub statist noses in libertarian ideas, continue to support Ron Paul.

    If you want to be pragmatic about bringing about the best case scenario, support Mitt Romney.

    I don't see any plausible reason to jump ship in favor of Gary Johnson, who by the way does NOT yet have the LP nom. I wouldn't be surprised if the sad little kings of the sad little hill of the LP reject any more attempts by GOP losers to take over their party.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Romney/Obama = Shit Sandwich/Giant Douche, Tulpa.

    Or reverse the sandwich and the douche. Both are applicable to Romeny and Obama.

  • ||

    I felt the same way about McCain vs. Obama in 2008. And I voted LP.

    If I could do it over again, I'd campaign door to door for McCain until my toes bled.

    Nothing is as bad as BO.

  • protefeed||

    It can always be worse. Obama is not as bad as, say, Pol Pot.

  • Barack the Jaunty Dictator||

    Workin' on it, protefeed. I need at least two more terms.

    Oops! Inner voice. Inner voice.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Vote for Mitt Romney then, and enjoy big government and anti-abortion conservatism!

  • MNG||

    "If I could do it over again, I'd campaign door to door for McCain until my toes bled.

    Nothing is as bad as BO."

    I don't think, even from a libertarian perspective, that Obama's administration has necessarily been worse than a McCain one. Remember McCain and his "national greatness conservatism" was reviled by libertarians for a long time before anyone had heard of Obama.

    When Obama won the states he lost he lost big. He was a polarizing figure. That made sure that anything he proposed was going to generate serious antipathy in huge chunks of the US. That would not have happened with McCain, who was known for being able to appeal to and work across the aisle to pass the kind of big government bi-partisan stuff he adored. Remember he ran promising to "do something about executive compensation," enact "cap and trade" legislation, TARP like programs and joked about bombing Iran. These are exactly the kind of things he could have reached across the aisle on.

    In comparison pretty much everything Obama has proposed, while admittedly bad from a libertarian policy position, has generated significant opposition. The only thing he really was able to ram through over that opposition was Obamacare, and whatever happens to that in the courts I think that law is going to ultimately be repealed (it's unpopular enough to be a killer in off-term elections).

  • ||

    Remember McCain and his "national greatness conservatism" was reviled by libertarians for a long time before anyone had heard of Obama.

    Yes, I was (and am) one of the revilers.

    Remember he ran promising to "do something about executive compensation," enact "cap and trade" legislation, TARP like programs and joked about bombing Iran.

    You're going to need a link to the promise to enact cap and trade. And of course BO has started his own wars too, jokes aside... and if it were a Republican in the white house the Dems and their puppets in the MSM would still be anti-war.

    Basically, in every way McCain was bad, BO has been just as bad. And he's been bad in ways that McCain wouldn't have been.

  • MNG||

    "In a major environmental speech, Sen. John McCain on Monday said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy."

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....in13m.html

  • MNG||

    "BO has started his own wars too"

    Libya < "bomb, bomb Iran" + "100 years in Iraq"

  • protefeed||

    If you want to be pragmatic about bringing about the best case scenario, support Mitt Romney.

    "Best case scenario" does not mean what you think it means.

  • DNC||

    We think it's great. Romney'll take the fall for all the bulshit. Then we storm in on a populist fervor anti-Wall Street anti-capitalism like you haven't seen. Tulpa's right supporting Romney is the right pragmatic thing to do.

  • 0x90||

    Damage factor (war, spending, etc), scale of 0 to 50:

    obama + congress
    -----------------------
       gop: 10
       split: 25
       dem: 50

    romney + congress
    -----------------------
       gop: 50
       split: 35
       dem: 25

  • ||

    Making up numbers is easy.

    Justifying them is hard.

  • ||

    I'm especially curious about how Obama becomes 30% less damaging with a GOP senate than with a split Congress.

    The GOP is able to block all the legislation they want already. To some extent this isn't effective because the executive has so much arbitrary authority under previous legislation, and BO has shown himself willing to utterly ignore the Constitutional role of Congress when it suits him.

    I'm very unclear on how GOP control of the Senate makes that much of a difference.

  • 0x90||

    I am tempted to entertain the impression that you are purposefully avoiding the point, as it was clearly not the intra-category rankings. Whatever the case, you don't like that 30%; wonderful, name a different number. Once we're finished debating that, we can talk about whether or not you disagree with the point, which was to call into question the purported pragmatism of your original pronouncement.

    I will break down those rankings one by one if you like, though I hardly see doing so as necessary, seeing that it is not difficult to predict some of the ways in which the dynamics between Obama, Romney, and a hostile/split/friendly congress might be expected to play out. Perhaps more interesting: you plug in your own numbers, and we can discuss why they are different.

  • MNG||

    Like I said the other day, it's nice to see Tulpa has at least dropped even the barest pretext of being a libertarian these days.

  • ||

    I'm not sure how Ron Paul isn't a good Republican for Tulpa, and Gary Johnson (let's face it, most likely Libertarian nominee) isn't a good Libertarian...

  • ||

    Ron Paul is a good Republican, and assuming he lasts till 4/24, I'll vote for him in the PA GOP primary. I don't like Gary Johnson as much but I'd prefer him to any of the four viable candidates (NG, RS, MR, BO).

    But we live in the world we live in, not the world we wish we lived in.

  • ||

    I'm being pragmatic.

    Ron Paul can't win the GOP nom. (that's been known for quite some time)

    Gary Johnson really, really can't win in the general election. (that's clear to anyone with two neurons to scrape together)

    So, it comes down to Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, or Obama. While in a sane world, all four of them would be considered dangerous nutjobs while RP and GJ would be the voices of moderation, it's abundantly clear that Romney is the best of a bad lot.

    Ron Paul certainly seems to believe as much, seeing as how he's given him the kid gloves treatment so far.

  • The Donald||

    I think I will run against Newtrino.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You would fit right in DT

  • El Commentariosa||

    Even David Frum dislikes Newt.

  • ||

    That made me think well of Newt.
    Then I remembered the fallacy
    The eneny of my enemy is my friend.

    It is a fallacy.

  • How Status History Is Wrote||

    For several years Gingrich bore a terrible burden. He could have saved America from the fate of 9/11. If he had still been Speaker of the House, his gifts, his sharp intellect, his vision would have in all certainty worked in concert to avoid the terrible day that awaited America. But for a palace coup orchestrated by the puppets of selfish corporate interest (while Gingrich's every waking hour was consumed in service to the Republic he loved) ousting him, America would have avoided that fateful day, 9-11.

  • Circling Roadside Buzzard ||

    Not bad. But you forgot the part about having to sex Callista for the good of the country.

  • How History Gets Erased||

    [Transcript from Office of the Speaker Thursday evening June 6, 1997]

    Heavy breathing

    Callista: That's it fatboy. The way momma likes. Smack my ass with those jelly rolls!

    Newt: Need another Dole pill. Whew Whew Whew.

    Callista: Fuck. Goddamn phone. Keep going bitch! Hello? Nancy?

    Newt: Oh, Jeez. Sweating like a mad dog.

    Callista: I'll tell him it's done. Bye, hon.

    Newt: She giving me the flag lapel pin contracts out of Chinatown?

    Callista: Shut the fuck up and push, bitch. Yes. You got what you want. Joint mark up at 2 pm.

    Newt: Fucking you, and fucking America, everyday is my birthday!

    Callista: Now turn around so I can choke you. Fuck. I didn't tell you you can touch yourself.

    [several slaps]

    Fuck, you are wasting the cum, you idiot!

    [popping noise]

    Newt: It landed on something? I smell smoke. Smells like an electrical fire . .

    [sound garbled and then nothing]

  • AlmightyJB||

    Syracuse, Baylor, and Duke all knocked off today. Gonna be one of those seasons.

  • Sevo||

    "Gonna be one of those seasons."
    Poker? Tennis? Scrabble? What did I miss?

  • El Commentariosa||

    No, Backgammon dude.

  • jester||

    Thank chaos!

  • El Commentariosa||

    Harry Brown was fucking underrated.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I concur.

  • The Ghost of Harry Browne||

    Whatever the price, identify it now. What will you have to go through to get where you want to be? There is a price you can pay to be free of the situation once and for all.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Santorum "glitter-bombed" over his views on gays:

    http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com.....an-primary

    Yeah, he's a dick. But good thing it wasn't a snowball, eh?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Or a cream pie.

  • Circling Roadside Buzzard ||

    Way to go, Dixie!

  • Dixie||

    We're getting out of this Union one way or another. Taking you down with us is likely the easiest path to victorah.

  • Csonka||

    In 1992, the first three Dem primaries/caucuses were won by three different people, none of whom was Bill Clinton.

    It's way early yet. Just saying.

  • A Serious Man||

    After tonight I hope Ron Paul decides to just deliberately sabotage the GOP and make sure Obama wins reelection by amassing a bunch of delegates, telling Newt or Mitt at the convention to go fuck himself, and declaring that he will run third party with Gary Johnson. Paul has nothing to lose since he's retiring after this and it shouldn't hurt Rand at all since he has his Senate seat and four more years of Obama should make the Paul message more appealing.

    I want these morons to suffer another 4 years with a commie A-rab in the White House knowing that their party can't win shit if they continue to ignore the libertarians and independents.

  • Raston Bot||

    all that except have Rand go back to his private practice after declaring Congress a lost cause.

  • ||

    And then have Romney or Newt pick up where they left off four years later? No thanks. I'd rather have a Republican in the White House, have them fail, and make Paul's ideas even more desirable.

  • ||

    Do you feel better now?

  • np||

    I don't think people should be so worried or give up now.

    It's only 3 small states so far, with A LOT more delegates to gain later with larger states and proportional allocation, and Paul has gotten a good number of delegates already (or pledged in Iowa), unlike Newt.

  • Libertarian2||

    Friendly reminders:
    1. RP is in this race to educate. Revolutions are driven from the bottom up, not from the top down.
    2. Current delegate count has RP third, Santorum 4th. The more delegates he gets, the longer he lasts and the longer he'll be putting out the libertarian message.
    3. Florida is next and is a winner-take-all state. If Romney wins Florida, he'll be way ahead of NG in the delegate count.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is 4th, Santorum is 3rd

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2...../delegates

  • Jerry||

    They miscalculated Santorum.

  • M||

    Ron Paul and his supporters are like those morons who went around saying the world was going to end last year and after it didn't no one cared and they faded into obscurity. When America eventually recovers from the recession completely and we don't go bankrupt and the UN doesn't control the USD then people will laugh and say "Remember that idiot Ron Paul? lol Those fucking people were crazy"

  • Bee Tagger||

    Yeah, it was much easier to not listen to him when he was warning about the coming housing bubble/burst for 10 years before it happened.

  • Libertarian2||

    I double dog dare you to read this
    http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj.....lsLike.htm

  • Punkster Brewey||

    When America eventually recovers from the recession completely

    I gots to know. When, and how, do you think that will be, exactly?

  • ||

    Once we accept Obama into our hearts and truly believe that he is the only way to our salvation.

  • MNG||

    So SC's religious intolerance and regional xenophobia trumped their historical slavish obedience to party authority and establishment. Good for them (?)

    I'm afraid I never expected Paul to do well there...I lived in the South most of my life and their 'conservatism' is a strange mix of racism, militarism, defense spending, jingoism, racism, evangelicalism, and racism. Paul shows his usual integrity and ability to think outside the mainstream box by promising to cut defense as well as welfare, to end non-defensive wars, and to end the WOD which has ravaged the black community, but none of that wins votes among the SC GOP electorate...He needs to focus on the West.

  • ||

    I certainly agree. I think Ron Paul will do better in non-Bible Belt and Blue States. Not Christian-Sharia states like South Carolina.

  • ||

    If Paul truly wanted to, he could edit his message down to get more votes, but I don't think that's his goal. He knows he is not going to win either way. His goal is to show that his message gets votes, not just what the mainstream wants to hear.

  • MNG||

    I think this is how libertarians have to think about this. Paul will probably not win. He's got too much integrity, he's going to have to tell big components of the GOP electorate that he's going to take their goodies away (defense workers, chambers of commerce, the elderly, military, etc). But what he does do, every election, every debate he is in, is he gets a message out there. You can win a war while losing every battle (look at Goldwater). The same with Gary Johnson. Every time he gets a mention it hopefully makes more people go "hey, those drug laws are f*cked up, why doesn't some national pol talk about that?" Libertarianism is not at the point where a libertarian president gets elected, but it is at that point where it gains for every person who asks a question like that after seeing a libertarian candidate speak...

  • shamalamadingdong||

    That is a good post, MNG. Not even John has come along to call you a moron yet.

  • ||

    He's not a moron; assuming he's sincere, he just has a wicked case of tunnel vision.

  • MNG||

    "If Paul truly wanted to, he could edit his message down to get more votes"

    I do think one thing he could do is highlight how friendly his stances have been to evangelical conservatives a bit more. He's got a pro-life record that's hard to beat, he's criticized things like the SCOTUS Lawrence decision. Maybe he's not emphasizing that because then he appeals less to indies and Dems, but I'm not sure that makes any sense...

    Also, any candidate who is serious about real, honest government cuts(not "with common sense exceptions" bs like the current GOP talking points) has got to pitch that as "this nation is broke, we are selling out our grandchildren" rather than "the government shouldn't be doing these things even if we were flush with cash." Even if you agree with the latter, the RESULT is the same and the former is better politics.

  • ||

    He's got a pro-life record that's hard to beat

    Nope. Santorum is correct when he says that RP has been unfriendly to anti-abortion legislation at the federal level. Of course we know why -- because he doesn't think the feds have Constitutional authority in that area -- but the evangelicals aren't going to accept that excuse.

  • ||

    This country deserves 4 more years of Obama if we're dumb enough to make Newt Gingrich the GOP nominee. That being said, I agree with Jesse Benton's (Ron Paul's Campaign Manager) comments about the race still being wide open with no true frontrunner yet.

  • ryan||

    Ron Paul may do quite well, but I'm not optimistic considering the way MSM treats him.

    That being said, I'm very curious to know how those who depend on, or acquiesce to, government handouts feel and think about RP throughout the year. I know there must be a lot of people getting some gov't benefits who'd rather see the country become a better place than keep 100% of those handouts or see them increased. But I can only guess as to how that group is divided between bigger gov't supporters and people who genuinely would prefer higher living standards and economic prosperity (and believe RP will provide that). I also wonder how many in that group care enough about the future to act responsibly. If the "in the long run, we'll all be dead" mentality continues to thrive and proliferate, this country might be fucked.

  • ||

    I want these morons to suffer another 4 years with a commie A-rab in the White House knowing that their party can't win shit if they continue to ignore the libertarians and independents.

    There's a lot of collateral damage involved in that "plan".

  • MNG||

    You're starting to see all the GOPers who've come to make up about 1/3 to 1/2 of the commenters here, folks like Brooksie, Tulpa, John, et al., slowly trotting out the same strategy lately: yeah, the GOP and Romney in particular are not perfect, and we wish they would treat Paul better, but Obama is so bad to the max we have to start thinking about the lesser of two evils here. Gary Johnson and the LP get ignored (he's a little to "cosmo" for these "paleos").

    It's kind of funny because the meme from paleos in 08 was to attack any libertarian who suggeste support for Obama as the lesser of two evils or to rebuke eight years of GOP misrule on the grounds that there was a "perfectly good LP candidate" in Barr.

  • ||

    Seriously, MiNGe? Brooksie a GOP shill? The other two I'll give you, but Brooks is hardly in the tank for those assholes.

    You'd probably be pissed if I called you a Team Blue shill, especially since you keep going out of your way to let us all know how much you support GJ this time around. It wouldn't be cool then, just as it's not cool now.

  • ||

    I am not yours to give.

    I was ripping into GWB, Hastert, Frist, etc when your commentership was in diapers. Show some respect.

  • ||

    I take it back, dude. I had no right to label you.

    My bad,

  • ||

    I forgive you. This time.

    But if you ever hurt Banjos you can expect a Tulpa-sized bootprint on your forehead.

  • ||

    John has been supporting Ron Paul this time around, no?

  • MNG||

    Er, I don't think so. He's ripped Paul's foriegn policy (he defines himself as a "national security conservative" so it's hard to see how that is not a dealbreaker) and his domestic ideas (see the thread on 80% of the fed gov being unconstitutional).

  • Jerry||

    Look Obama is going to get reelected, but as long as Republicans take Congress all is fine with me. Obama deserves to get nothing done for 4 more years.

  • robert||

    I have been trying to mention this point lately. I don't want any one of the three GOP "serious" candidates rolling into the WH with a GOP house and senate and telling us how they have a "mandate" to spend tons of money and start three new wars. Obama v congress for a few years may not be the worst alternative.
    I would prefer to see Ron Paul win.

  • ||

    It's quite likely four more years means he replaces Scalia and Kennedy on SCOTUS. Plus there's the danger of the Dems retaking Congress in 2014.

    Contra MNG's little spurt above, I'm no GOP shill; I was ripping GWB and the GOP congress back in the mid-aughts. But 2009-10 showed us that unified GOP govt is much less dangerous to liberty than unified Dem govt.

  • MNG||

    "It's quite likely four more years means he replaces Scalia and Kennedy on SCOTUS"

    I see that as one of the few arguments anyone should vote for Obama. Kennedy has some libertarian leanings, but he most certainly would not be replaced with someone similar, we'd get another "friend of liberty" like Roberts and Alito...

    Dem pols let liberals down on issues like rights of the accused, but liberal SCOTUS justices do pretty good...

  • ||

    I mean, with control of the House and a viable filibuster ability in the Senate, the GOP is as able to thwart Obama usurpations as they would be controlling both houses. And yet they're not because he ignores the Constitutional checks on the executive.

  • robert||

    What kind of SCOTUS appointments would you expect from Santorum or Gingrich? I do understand the importance of the appointments, but it is also a simple argument that just leads us to fall in line with the Team red/blue dichotomy. It is very frustrating.

  • ||

    Santorum or Gingrich would be hideous presidents, though it's likely that BO would mop the floor with either.

    That's why I'm saying the PRAGMATIC thing to do would be to support Romney, while the IDEALISTIC thing would be to help RP continue his idea-spreading campaign. Romney's nominees are probably going to be awful on executive power and BoR-type civil rights but that's going to be the case regardless of who gets in. But at least Romney views the private sector as paramount over the government, so he's unlikely to install a socialist-fascist like BO will.

    And I understand your frustration, indeed sympathize with it. I long for the day when things won't come down to Team Red vs Team Blue, and the IDEALISTIC route above may prove helpful in making that day come sooner rather than later. But we can't ignore the realities of today as we hope for tomorrow.

  • robert||

    I believe the appeal to our "pragmatism" is what allows the GOP to consider our votes something they have a right to. I know I am preachin to the choir here, but there has got to be a way to break out of this logic feedback loop.

  • ||

    What the Pauls are doing is exactly what it takes to break the feedback loop. They're flawed messengers unfortunately.

    If we could put Ron Paul's ideas in Chuck Shumer's mouth with Rick Perry's face on Salma Hayek's body, we'd be in business immediately.

  • robert||

    You have my vote.

  • MNG||

    How about we put my face and mouth on Selma Hayek's body?

  • Gray Ghost||

    OTOH, Obama gets to nominate judges for the next four years if he wins, and can you imagine what shit he'll try to sneak through if he no longer has to worry about re-election?

    I honestly don't know which will be worse: Obama or a Gingrich/Romney with a friendly Congress. I live in Texas, so I can vote for Johnson with a clear conscience. (After Paul loses the GOP nom, of course.)

  • Bee Tagger||

    Joe Scarborough is killing Newt on Meet the Press right now. Over and over saying he's not a conservative.

  • Proper Role of Govt.||

    Why are they avoiding me?

  • ||

    Gary Johnson was on Hipster Douchebag Focus Group on MSNBC yesterday morning. In the brief period it took to become disgusted by the self-satisfied smugness of the assembled sages (not long), Johnson did not utter a single word; he sat there with a bewildered look on his face.

    Maybe he was thinking "I could be riding my bicycle in Santa Fe right now."

  •  ||

    the self-satisfied smugness

    But enough about you.

  • SIV||

    Gary was just waiting for his Sherpas to carry him up to the summit.

  • ||

    all the GOPers who've come to make up about 1/3 to 1/2 of the commenters here, folks like Brooksie

    Once again, your idiot dog savant analysis is spot-on.

  • JoePa||

    You guys kill me!

  • Bee Tagger||

    Who doesn't love a joke that is 99% shock and 1% humor?

  • Libertarians||

    We are the 1%.

  • ||

    Paterno croaked.

    What a bummer. I wanted to see him on the witness stand, explaining his "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

  • Mike M.||

    I guess it's official about Paterno then. What a shame his entire legacy went down the toilet in the last months of his life.

  • JoePa||

    I wanted to see him on the witness stand

    Death is full of disappointments.

  • Mensan||

    I've seen in several places (e.g. here) around the interwebz this morning that the US has deployed 12,000 soldiers to Libya. Has anybody else seen anything about this? Maybe from a more reputable site?

  • CBS||

    TMZ is saying it's closer to 15,000.
    Haven't checked Perez Hilton yet.

  • NBC||

    The polls indicate 18,000.

  • Mitt||

    I'll let you know on April 15.

  • db||

    I hear they're wearing hoverboots so, don't worry, they aren't on the ground.

  • ||

    Yep. Apparently there's a rebellion against the NATO-favored National Transition Coalition government afoot and we need to make sure the oil ports are protected.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yup. Whee.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sorry, I should have checked the story - it's the wrong one. The 12,000 figure has been repeated by several news sites of equal value as Infowars.

  • ||

    The troop count may be suspect, but the instability under the NTC is real.

    Do recall also that many times, these sorts of military surprises have first been reported by non-mainstream sources. Doesn't mean they're right this time, of course.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I saw the WaPo story when I went back to check. It wouldn't surprise me if the troop story is true.

  • Mike M.||

    Holy crap. Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton wrote an editorial a couple of days ago calling on the mainstream media to do a better job of scrutinizing Obama's record.

    First Jonathan Turley's critical piece about a week ago, and now this. Maybe the long honeymoon period is finally over after three years.

  • ||

    He's the ombudsman, dude. His entire purpose in life if to write an editorial once every year or so criticizing the paper's handling of something so the public will get the feeling they will change their policy.

    I predict this will result in a negative story or two about The Chosen One over the next week, followed by another 156 week lovefest.

  • ||

    Tom Friedman apparently wants an omniscient President with superpowers.

    I can save both parties a lot of money. I am one of those voters, and I can tell you exactly for whom I want to vote — and I don’t think I’m alone.

    I want to vote for a candidate who advocates an immediate investment in infrastructure that will create jobs and upgrade America for the 21st century — ultrafast bandwidth, highways, airports, public schools, mass transit — and combines that with a long-term plan to fix our fiscal imbalances at the real scale of the problem, a plan that could be phased in as the economy recovers.

    And dictatorial control of the economy. Why didn't anybody else think of that?

  • ||

    and combines that with a long-term plan to fix our fiscal imbalances at the real scale of the problem, a plan that could be phased in as the economy recovers.

    If he wanted to say "five year plan," why didn't he just say "five year plan."

  • ||

    ultrafast bandwidth, highways, airports, public schools, mass transit

    flying cars, warp drive, bees that spread air freshener, dogs whose poop doesn't smell bad, peaches that don't go bad after three days, replicators, and a bird that eats fucking stinkbugs!

  • db||

    a bird that eats fucking stinkbugs!

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Now you're asking the impossible.

  • ||

    I was inspired by one of those things crawling around on the outside of my screen door. As soon as the temp goes above 32 those fuckers come out.

  • ||

    Bible thumping evangelicals have the highest rate of divorce in the US...So only Newt can understand their hypocrisy...

  • ||

    Probably due to the disproportionate rates of early marriage.

  • Almanian||

    Death > JoePa

  • ||

    It's quite likely four more years means he replaces Scalia and Kennedy on SCOTUS.

    But Romney will seek out jurists with a deeply rooted faith in individual freedom and a healthy distrust of government overreach.

    Because that's how he rolls.

  • ||

    Name a viable candidate for the presidency who will seek out such jurists.

    BO will nominate rank statists of the socialist-fascist variety who are noxious to liberty in every way on every issue.

    Santorum or Gingrich would come close to this, but probably would be OK on 2nd amendment issues.

    Romney would appoint executive power oaficianados, no doubt, but at least he respects both the 2nd amendment and the primacy of the private sector.

  • ||

    Would Gangrinich even bother to replace a departed Supreme Court Justice?

    Maybe he would just appoint himself.

  • robert||

    The SCOTUS appeal is just not going to be enough for me to logically try to wrap my head around the lesser of two evils argument this time.

    Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, somebody give us a choice here.

  • BakedPenguin||

    For more fun, Egypt just elected an Islamist government.

  • Hulking Libertarian Chick||

    Eat your heart out, Dixie!

  • Romney's Illicit Landscaper||

    Newt Gingrich wins big in South Carolina, especially among evangelicals.
    Christian theocrats give ethically challenged serial adulterer a vote of confidence. Strange bed fellows indeed. Does this mean we can stop taking these pig fuckers seriously?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement