Campaigns/Elections

Ron Paul is the Future! (So You've Got to Ignore Him)

|

These two alternative opinions on the meaning of Ron Paul for the Republican Party and America are not coming from one confused hypocritical mouth, but represent a dichotomy that both the GOP and America are most definitely going to have to mind and choose about in the next year and a half.

Writing in the Hill, Juan Williams (one of the reporters questioning Paul and his fellow candidates at last week's GOP presidential hopeful debate) makes a cogent case for Paul's importance:

it is becoming increasingly clear that we are living in a time when Republican politics are being shaped by a 75-year-old, 12-term Texas congressman with a son in the Senate. And incredibly, it is no longer out of the realm of possibility that this outcast of the GOP establishment may win the party's presidential nomination.

If you have not been paying attention, it is time to look around and realize that we are living in the political age of Rep. Ron Paul. 

A CNN/Opinion Research poll released late last week shows Paul faring the best against President Obama of any potential Republican candidate. He trails the president by only 7 points, 52-45 percent, in a head-to-head matchup. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee trails by 8 points, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney down 11 points to Obama.

In February, Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Action Conference for the second straight year.

Last Thursday, the day of the first GOP debate, one of Paul's fabulously-labeled "money bombs" exploded with the announcement of $1 million in contributions for the Paul campaign.

Writing either from utter ignorance of what Williams' said about Paul's objective juice, or just fear of it, Hugh Hewitt says: we don't need to hear any of this stuff about actually seriously rethinking the state's role in our personal and economic lives and getting it to spend within its means. In fact, it would be better for the Republicans to do everything they can to keep Americans' from hearing it. (I suspect it is the very awareness of the facts that Williams presents that makes Hewitt so desperately want to shut Paul off.)

 the GOP needs to rethink its debate schedule and why the RNC should take over the operation of the debates and exile Cain, Johnson and Paul as well as every other candidate without a prayer of winning.  (Santorum is a long shot, but he has a realistic though small chance of winning the nomination, while the others do not.)  The seriousness of the fiscal crisis requires the GOP and its candidates to act seriously, and allowing marginal candidates to eat up time and distract from the enormous problems facing the country is not serious.

And why should the only two candidates whose limited vision of government and ability to imagine actual radical change give them the slightest hope of dealing with that fiscal crisis be kicked to the curb? Here's a bit of hint of where Hewitt is coming from, though he doesn't for a moment actually engage why the ideas of a Paul or a Johnson are better ignored. Not, uh, "strong" enough. Imperially, that is.

Our national security depends on our economy and its ability to pay for the SEALs and the rest of the amazing American military.

Really, Hugh? All the rest of it? Good luck squaring that idea with seriously solving the fiscal crisis.

Challenged on his ukase, and told to let the political market have its choices, Hewitt doubles down:

Nominations are bestowed by parties operating under rules and governed by committees, and parties that want to win important elections don't waste time and money and especially argument space on marginal candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, Alan Keyes or Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo

Calling Paul marginal at this point requires not merely ignoring good and necessary ideas. As Juan Williams explains nicely, it requires ignoring objective facts. Which the likes of Hewitt will be happy to do forever to shut up Paul's message, and his fans.

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.

219 responses to “Ron Paul is the Future! (So You've Got to Ignore Him)

  1. Remember people: If we keep telling the American Public that what they want isn’t practical, eventually they’ll have to listen to us.

    End the war on drugs? Shut up stoner.

    Cut back the entitlement state? Stop hating on grandma.

    As long as we can stay on top of this teetering pyramid, it’s better than being on the mid-level of a more egalitarian society with greater liberty.

    1. allowing marginal candidates to eat up time speak truth and distract from call attention to the enormous problems facing the country is not serious apropos to our unicorn-based agenda.

      FTFY

  2. Hugh Hewitt is a fucking moron. He was spouting this exact same shit a month ago. It’s transparently obvious he just wants to shut out ideas he doesn’t agree with. I mean, good lord, Ron Paul was at 10% in that last CNN poll! How is that marginal by any definition of the word?

    1. For perspective, Hewlitt was boosting Guiliani, then Romney, last time around. Ouch.

      1. If he was a Giuliani fan, then I’d expect him to be supporting this years’ chickenhawk blowhard, Don Trump.

        -jcr

      2. Why does Hewitt matter?

    2. It’s time to get rid of all of those neo-con cocksuckers.

    3. Apparently, Hugh Hewitt refers to his wife on air as “the felching Mrs. Hewitt.”

      http://www.urbandictionary.com…..m=felching

  3. Useless column in today’s WaPo by Dubya tool Michael Gerson pooh-poohing Paul’s call to legalize heroin, but the comments are encouraging:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..l#comments

    1. Apparently locking drug addicts in rape-land is more compassionate than letting them do what they want

  4. “Ron Paul did what Ron Paul does and so his supporters cheered wildly.”

    Now that is some damn fine commentary from Hewitt.

    What Joe M said.

  5. Listen, the only way we can win the election is by opposing gay marriage, supporting the drug war, spending jillions on the military, and giving in on entitlements.

    What? 60% of Americans want the exact of opposite? Bullshit! Stick with our plan and we can ride the other 40% all the way back to power!

    1. Remember, only candidates that can win the base deserve to talk to the American public. That means they must be able to talk out of both sides of their mouth and make the bullshit smell sweet at both ends.

    2. …the GOP gots to be just like Barack Obama.

      1. The problem with that “big tent” strategy is that when a flashier circus comes to town, all the clowns pile into their little car and bail on you.

    3. Move any less than that and you arent willing to compromise!

      Meet you half way? Fuck that shit.

  6. I missed this the first time through:

    and by rewarding two-percenters (those who score there or lower in national opinion polls) or extreme ideologues like Paul, we encourage more and more each year

    So he has to make an exception for Paul, since he’s way above 2%, because he’s an “extreme ideologue”. But Santorum is okay (“Santorum is a long shot, but he has a realistic though small chance of winning the nomination”), even though he IS polling at 2%, because… why, exactly?

    I’ve heard Hugh Hewitt on the radio, and I’ve never liked his bullshit, but I like him even less now.

    1. When election day comes, just remember “Santorum”!

      1. You’ve got a filthy mouth there sir.

      2. Yes, I fail to see how Americans will elect someone whose last name refers to the fluid aftermath of anal sex. Paul is a long shot, but he’s still more electable and has a higher chance of winning the nomination than Santorum, period.

        1. Also, important note: that’s the first page I got when I Googled “Santorum.” Two below is this (NSFW-ish).

          Someone explain to me how Santorum is being taken more seriously than Paul/Johnson again?

          1. LOL @ Dan Savage. Viral name killing FTW!

            1. Well not @ him, with him.

          2. More.

            If you Google Image Search Ron Paul you get official photos, pictures of him speaking and a few positive Photoshops. Related searches deal with his presidential bid and the Constitution.

            If you do the same for Santorum you get pictures of him giving the deer-in-headlights look, his daughter squeezing a doll and crying, a cartoon about cunnilingus, a definition of “santorum,” and Shops of him as a leather gay and a Nazi. The second page has him proclaiming that he eats cock. The only related searches are “rick santorum” and “santorum crying.”

            Sure, it’s the internet, but it’s at least a decent measure of popular perception. How does Hewitt think people consider Santorum seriously?

            1. I want a new bumper sticker for campaign season:
              Google Salty Ham Tears

          3. Well once you’ve had “that”….Santorum, I mean…. the residue……… named after you….well that’s all the name recognition that you will ever need.

            1. Serious people consider a candidate’s qualifications.

    2. “extreme ideologue” = someone whose ideas scare asshole Hugh Hewitt

      1. Good Heavens, he’s cracked the code! How did you get your filthy hands on an Enigma machine?

        Deploying counter-measures:
        You’re an anti-semite!

        1. America is currently at War with four Semite counties (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya). Does that make America Anti-Semetic? Oh, and if you’re unfamiliar with the historical (non-wikipedia) definition of “Semite” (root word of “Anti-Semite”) click below
          Adults – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite
          Kids – http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi…..&va=Semite

          1. Umm, not at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. Allegedly at war IN them, but not WITH them. (And we’re told we’re engaged in kinetic military operations in Libya, but not at war there, either.) Oh, and what about Yemen?

          2. Um, how do you figure Pakistan as Semetic? It’s languages clearly aren’t Semetic, and as for the ethnicities there, no again (the Boluch are closest), the Pashtune may even have a claim on being Caucasian.

            1. Ditto for Afghanistan, not semetic.

    3. I’m pretty sure if we keep doing what we’ve always done, we’ll get what we’ve always got. Fuck me if I’m voting for the big government guy or the giant government guy. So tired of the tautology: “If we change, things’ll be different!”

      1. If we ACTUALLY change, there’s a fair chance things will be different. Voting for a donkephant is by definition not change.

    4. I think the idea of that quote is that an extreme ideolog is unlikely to build consensus, to pick up compromise votes as others drop out.

      The point of the nomination process is to produce candidates who are acceptable, even if only barely, and even if only by lack of someone more acceptable to broad numbers. The idea is not necessarily to be many people’s favorite, but not to have high negatives to too many.

      It’s the same strategy with mass market beers. If you ask Budweiser and Miller, they’ll admit they don’t expect to be practically anyone’s favorite beer, although there probably will be a tiny percentage who do like them best. (The employees and bosses at the respective companies freely admit they have their own favorite beer, and that the one they make isn’t it; but they won’t name their favorite and thus give it free publicity over their own brand.) Rather, they strive to be inoffensive enough that when the bar doesn’t stock someone’s favorite beer or second favorite beer, they’ll pick one of the big two, especially if they’re getting a pitcher to share. Similarly, they know the beer vendor at the ball game isn’t going to stock a bunch of beers, probably only one, so they’re aiming to be that one. And so on for bottles, cans, and kegs.

      1. Except in this example, Paul does better head-to-head in at least one poll than Romney, or anyone else for that matter. And frankly, candidates like Huckabee will have a harder time making up the difference. Santorum will never win, ever, and does the GOP really want that debate colored by the myriad anti-gay comments he’s made?

        IMO Republicans are crazy to think that a mainstream Republican with only minor differences — a tweak to the military here, a tweak to the economy there — versus an incumbent is going to be a real challenger.

        1. Santorum should be completely unacceptable to everyone who prays upon the alter of Reagan.

          Reagan may not have lived up to the rhetoric, but he at least payed lip service to the idea of individual liberty. Santorum, on the other hand, doesn’t even try to conceal the fact that he loathes the notion of individuals acting in their own self interest.

          If only conservatives would heed the words of their Reagan god:

          If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

          1. I’m not a conservative and don’t know about this alleged “Reagan god”, but Santorum appears to be unacceptable to anyone who isn’t a relatively narrow slice of the already-narrow so-con club.

          2. ^^ THIS ^^

      2. Budweiser really is a lot of people’s favorite beer. Miller is a default-pick for the budget conscious. Miller fits your model better than Bud but yes, your point holds.

        1. The only reason I drink Miller is that a 30 rack is 20 bucks round these parts. WAY better than Keystone for drinking type games.

          On the other hand, I wouldn’t drink it for pleasure. Nor would I do so for Bud, or Coors, especially when I can get 24 Mooseheads for 25 bucks. Moosehead is like slightly better, slightly more boozy Canadian Budweiser.

        2. You’re mad sir! Irredeemably mad!

          1. Whiskey-more alcohol, fewer calories.

        3. His point is entirely wrong (as related to beer). Miller is a lot of people’s favorite beer too. Miller isnt the budget choice, that is Busch for the Bud crowd.

      3. This makes sense — but only sometimes. If candidates are not sufficiently differentiable, then inertia dictates that the candidate with the steeper slope will not be elected.

        If Reagan had run as a less bad Carter, it is doubtful that he would have been as popular or (dare I say it) as electable as he proved to be.

        In contrast, Kerry worked very hard to make himself look similar to Bush — and lost to a weakened incumbent.

        Politics is a little more complex than BudMiller: exciting core supporters and having a different message/shiny thing than the other guy which holds some cachet has proven to be a winning strategy in politics. From Irish politicians mobilizing their immigrant community, to more ideological methods of taking power, it’s not clear that being the “most inoffensive” pol is always a winning strategy.

        1. Sorry, that was way too serious of a comment. To make up for it, I pose the question: if Team Red/Team Blue are Bud/Miller, what microbrew is Ron Paul?

          1. I believe his district (victoria, tx) is pretty close to shiner,tx

            I like to think of ron paul as the original coke, booze mixed with cocaine

            1. So you’re saying you like Ron Paul because he can Party… Okay then, he’s got my vote.

            2. Shiner Beer tastes like beer did when I was a little kid – in other words, like real beer.

              1. My local grocer just received the Shiner Ruby Redbird. Delicious as a chilling-on-the-porch on a hot day beer.

            3. I’m pretty sure Shiner has a smoke flavored beer. That’s what we will drink the night Ron Paul is elected!

          2. Because he’s like a KKK member or something.

            *shrieks, runs from room*

      4. The clueless potential drink crappy light American lagers of Bud, Coors Light and Miller until they discover high-hopped, flavorful American strong ales like Stone.

        Such Americans learn the difference between authentic and the inauthentic they accepted all these years.

        Morons who continue to want government welfare and who continue to want to believe that they “paid into” Social Security continue to drink Bud, Coors Light and Miller.

        Some of the “if only they had more encouragement” morons might discover Natty Ice after watch a Falcons NFL game.

        1. Screw that, who’s the Pliny the Younger of modern American politics? They may get my vote, but I’ll certainly buy a keg from them.

        2. Your syntax intrigues me.

      5. If you ask Budweiser and Miller, they’ll admit they don’t expect to be practically anyone’s favorite beer, although there probably will be a tiny percentage who do like them best.

        You are wrong. This is exactly what they expect. They want brand loyalty.

        In the craft brewing world, a loyal customer is one that buys your brand 1-2 times PER MONTH. A regular customer is once per 90 days.

        The big boys couldnt survive with that kind of “loyalty”. They need the multiple times per week customers. And so they need you buying their brand in exclusion of all others.

  7. Are you just trolling for me and the other metaphor nazi when you write “doubles down” instead of “doubles up”? Or just plain “doubles”?

    1. Doubles over?

        1. Double penetration is probably the most apt metaphor for the government we currently have in place.

          1. Ass to ass?

          2. It certainly feels like fingercuffs.

  8. Hugh is a Mittens Man.Paul, Johnson and Cain probably look like they could draw votes from Romney in the primary contests.

    1. All three could too. Johnson has “moderate-appeal” for the pot-smoking/pro-choice Republican crowd. Paul could break out with the Tea Party-types if he could temper/finesse his stand on an issue that’s moving his way anyways: foreign/military policy. Herman Cain can (and maybe will) eat Mittens alive in the role of competent, problem-solving CEO who “knows how to run an economy” by freeing up the Private Sector. Easy to see why Hugh Hewitt is shitting bricks.

      1. Yeah, he only maligned the three candidates with any freshness at all. Everyone else is the same old shit.

        1. I think Hewitt just likes waterboarding.

          1. Andy Breckman was waterboarded by genuine Rumanians. Just to raise money for WFMU.

            1. I have a nice WFMU link on Cav’s Cali RD-yawner post comments.

        2. Old shit is actually less repulsive than fresh shit.

          1. I’ve never seen a dog eat old shit.

            1. You need to get out more then.

            2. You should meet my dog.

          2. At least now we know how Tulpa’s evening out with Max went.

        3. Dude, Hugh Hewitt is all about the same old shit. His entire purpose in life is to perpetuate it.

  9. The actual reason Ron Paul might lose is that people buy into the MSM message that he’s “unelectable” or “extremist” or “too old” and don’t vote their conscience.

    1. and frankly some people are just scared he’ll do what he promises. Defunding the Dept. of Education!!

      *lady gasps, faints

      1. First, the Department of Education was only created in 1979, and education has not improved with more federal control.

        And second, though Ron Paul is in favor of getting rid of the Department of Education, he hasn’t “promised” to get rid of it. He knows the limits of executive power, and he knows such a thing would take an act of Congress.

        1. Yeah but couldn’t he appoint a new director whose goal is to do precisely nothing?

  10. All I know is that when the GOP runs the anti-gay oppression candidate (Paul or Johnson), I’ll see the day that when we’ve forever left behind the Robertsons, Falwells, and Phelpses of the world…that is if the Democrats ALSO run a anti-gay oppression candidate.

    1. I finally figured out what you meant when I realized your hyphen was misplaced — or needs another or should’ve been omitted, or something.

    2. Phelps shall rise again!

      1. That son of a bitch will be with us for a while I’m afraid. I hope to see the Phelps obituary penned by Christopher Hitchens.

        1. I plan to show up at Phelps’ funeral with a “GOD HATES FRED PHELPS” sign. Anyone else with me?

          1. And I will be there with a “PHELPS LOVES SANTORUM” sign….thereby confusing 97% of those in attendance!!

    3. Phelps is a registered Democrat. His family-church ran the Gore Democrat Presidential campaign in Kansas back in ’88.

    4. We’ve already lost the Phelps’. As for the others, the only one left is Dobson, and, well, he’s no Falwell. IMO, the militarists will be a much more persistent threat to libertarian-conservative fusionism than anything else in the near future.

      (Even though things on that front are trending towards us now, who among us believes that it will last the next GOP Presidency? This is where we could use a rational Sowell type to explain problems with expansive foreign policy…)

  11. All I know is that when the GOP runs the anti-gay oppression candidate (Paul or Johnson), I’ll see the day that when we’ve forever left behind the Robertsons, Falwells, and Phelpses of the world…that is if the Democrats ALSO run a anti-gay oppression candidate.

    1. I finally figured out what you meant when I realized your hyphen was misplaced — or needs another or should’ve been omitted, or something.

  12. And why should the only two candidates whose limited vision of government and ability to imagine actual radical change give them the slightest hope of dealing with that fiscal crisis be kicked to the curb?

    Not to nit-pic, but maybe “vision of limited government” might be a better construction than “limited view of government.”

    1. To be fair, the government is too big to see it all at once.

    2. Paul the Younger might be able to help with that vision thing. They could bill it as the Presbyterian versus the Presbyopian.

  13. Hewitt must be Karl Rove’s lap dog

  14. *limited vision”

  15. I guess it’s to early in the game for the objectivists to join the fray.

  16. Cain is the frontrunner. He’s much more personable than Romney and doesn’t have the baggage. He’s the best that the Bush-Romney wing of the GOP has.

    1. Cain isn’t the Bush/Romney wing.The “Steve Forbes with charisma” appellation is about right.

  17. I really hate Ron Paul supporters and their fanboys.

    1. Ron Paul is so awesome, even his supporters get fans!

  18. I think the idea of that quote is that an extreme ideolog is unlikely to build consensus, to pick up compromise votes as others drop out.

    http://www.petclothing-brand.com

    1. Is somebody spoofing anon-bot?

      1. To spoof the anonbot is to become the anonbot; so spoofing the anonbot is impossible.

        1. Frankly, I look forward to the glorious day when AI algorithms become sufficiently advanced that all the most relevant and insightful comments on any given web article will come from spam-bots.

          1. Aren’t they already? Present company excluded.

          2. Judging from most other comment boards, I think we’ve arrived.

          3. http://xkcd.com/810/
            I hope this is what you were referring to!

        2. I reject your anti -spoofing rhetoric and the extreme ideolog is unlikely to build consensus, to pick up compromise votes as others drop out.

          http://www.petclothing-brand.com

  19. How the fuck sad is it that every GOP candidate losing by at least 7 points to Obama?

    1. This is a compelling point: if we can somehow contrive to unionize the Armed Forces, maybe the GOP base’s giant Liberty Chubby for all war spending would deflate.

      1. Um, whoops, wrong comment.

    2. I know. It’s like, what kind of selling point is the fact that Dr. Paul is behind Obama by slightly less than the other Republicans, and all of them by a hefty percentage?

      1. Well to be fair, Obama is in the news like every day. Plus he just personally raped and killed OBL.

        1. LOL, that’s what they call a “dead caliph bounce”

    3. “Generic Republican” kicks his commie ass!

      1. He/she has no chance. The debates shouldn’t waste time with Generic Republican blathering on about his/her extremist positions.

    4. Was this before or after Obama got the temporary “killed Osama” bump?

      It’s almost a year and a half out — polls mean dick at this point.

  20. Oh yeah, and SEALs are apparently the warmongering Right’s new NYFD. All the asskicking without the public sector union ickiness, I suppose.

    1. This is a compelling point: if we can somehow contrive to unionize the Armed Forces, maybe the GOP base’s giant Liberty Chubby for all war spending would deflate.

      1. That’s not half bad.

    2. Plus they don’t shoot American dogs.

      1. Wait, firemen are sooting dogs now too?

  21. You people are so fucking stupid, you make Joy Behar sound like FA Hayek.

    Do you know why RP has No/Zero/Zip/Nada chance of being President? Because he doesn’t want to be!!

    It’s just a way for him to make money and feed his ego. He’s a joke re: foreign policy. Really, he’s pathetic. Just like Obama. Pie in the sky if I was king bullshit.

    Domestically, RP is great. But again, he doesn’t want to be President. Stop being delusional.

    Oh, to the poster up above who claimed that RP Google searches have the Good Doctor coming up roses. Why? Um, because the media know he’s a joke and treat him kindly, like they do to ALL loser (as in electoral losers, not in the Max/Tony/Chad sense) Republicans.

    And Santorum has no chance either. Ever hear the guy speak about economics and govt. interference into the econ? He’s great.

    But hey, keep hitting the RP bong. Kinda leaves you with a nasty sore throat in the AM.

    1. Kinda leaves you with a nasty sore throat in the AM.

      Just like Mormon cock.

      1. Or the fumes from adhesive on a cheap rug.

      2. You know that from experience?

    2. Oh, to the poster up above who claimed that RP Google searches have the Good Doctor coming up roses. Why? Um, because the media know he’s a joke and treat him kindly, like they do to ALL loser (as in electoral losers, not in the Max/Tony/Chad sense) Republicans.

      Uh, what? You think the media was kind to Tom Tancredo or Alan Keyes? You think the media’s kind to Ron Paul? Every comment about him emphasizes that he’s kind of a kooky old man who can’t win anyway and, man, what a strange bunch his followers are.

      My point, anyway, since you struggle with this whole reading business, is that Hewitt saying Paul is non-serious but Santorum is totally serious is stupid on its face. We will not have a president whose name also refers to the froth of lube and feces. Santorum represents many of the worst tendencies in Republicans that lost them elections in ’06 (including his own by a huge margin) and ’08, and none of which were brought back to win seats in ’10. Paul’s chances are infinitesimally small, but Santorum’s are null, zero, nada. Paul has greater support and does better head-to-head, and Hewitt would see him shut out of the debate for violating some make-believe set of rules that doesn’t like isolationism but is totally cool with banning homosexuality — not banning gay marriage, mind you, but having the government regulate sexual activity between two consenting adults.

  22. Ron Paul is not a long shot; he’s a fucking no shot. Continuing to tout the old fart just makes Reason look silly.

    1. I’m starting to suspect you and Holy Cow are actually the same person…

      1. If your basing that on our opinion of that fucking old Birchite scum Ron Paul, we are legion.

        1. I have pity on you Max. You obviously have been propagandized to the point you can’t even think. So your resort to name calling. Ron Paul will make a great Article II section 1. Yeh, google it.

  23. Right, Tulpa. Warmongering. Taking down the guy who masterminded a plot to murder 3K civilians.

    Anyway, I’m getting a bit sleepy. Got any more faux moralizing left in ya? It really helps me sleep.

    Warmongering. Just too funny. Kinda lot the fat chick who never gets the high hard one, you know, the one who calls every attractive woman a whore.

    Find me a quote from any Prominent American Republican living or dead who’s on the recording saying: “MMMM! War, I loves me war! Can’t get enough of it!” Just one.

    1. Actions speak louder than words, Mr Cow.

      1. That’s Ms. Cow to you.

    2. But it is nice to know you get the high hard one on a frequent basis.

    3. “MMMM! War, I loves me war! Can’t get enough of it!”

      Are you stupid or something? Good luck even finding a politician to call war “war” these days. We’re fighting three kinetic military actions and having debates over the use of enhanced interrogation technique against enemy combatants and tens of thousands of civilian collateral damages.

      So no, you won’t hear a politician say that. He’ll polish that turd first. Evil is banal.

  24. Dear Col Dubois:

    Thanks!

    1. He sucked your cock, too?

  25. Riiight. Ron Paul is gonna be president. Sure, he first ran in ’88 and got no votes. And has ran ever since, and has never got any votes, NOT EVEN FROM TEXAS. Not even Texas voters in his district support his bid for president.

    Yet, this time, it’s gonna be different.

    The only Paul America knows is Mrs. Paul’s fucking fishsticks. And Rand Paul. Yeah, he could probably be president one day.

    But then again, this is the same crowd that thinks America is gonna rise up against cops, ALL COPS, because some labrador retriever lost his pig ear in a no-knock raid.

  26. Liberal troll meet conservative troll.

  27. If RP can rile up all of this resentment on the Left and the Right, he must be doing something right.

    1. Maybe he’s just an old kook.

      1. And maybe you’re just an old cock, sucker.

  28. From The New Republic
    http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-pl…..ul-bircher

    The factual record on Ron Paul and the John Birch Society is clear, and his association with the fringe organization that made itself famous by alleging that Dwight Eisenhower was “a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy” cannot be so easily brushed aside. In October, Paul delivered the keynote address at the Society’s 50th anniversary dinner; prior to his speech he released a statement praising the “great patriotic organization.” Nor is his involvement limited to this one address. When I reported my story last year, a Birch Society spokesman told me that Paul had spoken to the group about a half dozen times over the past decade. Sorry, but this is not the stuff of Barack Obama being at a dinner in the presence of Rashid Khalidi.–James Kirchik

    1. **Yawn**

    2. Feature. Not bug.

  29. Sorry there is nothing sadder than a political website whining about how their pet fringe goofball isn’t treated seriously. That he won’t win is beside the point. That he’s be a disaster as president because he’s a total ideologue is what should matter to you.

    1. Well, Tony, we’ve had 8 years of “mainstream” candidate W.Bush, and almost 3 years of “mainstream candidate Obama, and look at all the shit we are in. Only a fool who is happy with the way things have been going for the past 11 years would support anything but a fringe candidate.

      1. Oh, c’mon, things aren’t that bad. You wingnuts on the fringe always justify your wingnuttiness by exaggerating our troubles. Imagine how bad things could be if your wingnut heros were running them,

        1. Yeah, we might be in three wars, have an unemployment rate approaching depression levels, trillion+ dollar deficits and incipient inflation.

          Who in their right mind would vote for that?

      2. I’m unhappy with the way things have been going for 30 years. Ron Paul’s beliefs are just a more consistent distillation of the ideology that has dominated policy for that period. RP–or any Republican–doesn’t care about moving the country up from 48th in education. They certainly don’t care about decreasing the wealth disparity that is the essential cause of our problems. Their policies are tailor-made to exacerbate that problem, justified by a ridiculous antigovernment cult ideology, for which perhaps RP only gets points for being sincere.

        1. Shoveling money at education is not an enumerated power granted the federal government.

          It is also a waste of money, because the feds are too far away from the problems to know what they are.

        2. Yeah, but the anti-government cult amounts to a miniscule fringe. Welch and compoany make a living on the dimwits who take them seriously. Right-wing libertarianism is a pimple on the world’s ass. But Rp is a paranoid racist conspiracy fuck who would be dangerous under the right crisumstances

          1. I hate libertarians!

            I hate my father!

            I hate Max!

            (commits suicide)

          2. Yeah. I’m right with you. Goddamn our classically liberal roots!

        3. Government-run everything! And if that doesn’t work it’s only because we haven’t purged the right-wingers and capitalists that keep screwing up the system.

        4. “Ron Paul’s beliefs are just a more consistent distillation of the ideology that has dominated policy for that period.”

          Could you give some policy examples during that time that relate to anything Paul says? Because you’re full of shit.

          “doesn’t care about moving the country up from 48th in education.”

          And what, exactly, should the DOE be doing to bring us from 48th to the top 10? How much more money do they need, and why? Be specific.

          “They certainly don’t care about decreasing the wealth disparity that is the essential cause of our problems.”

          Your talking points are always so predictable. Usually with zero evidence or rational thought behind them.

        5. Ron Paul’s beliefs are just a more consistent distillation of the ideology that has dominated policy for that period.

          Really? Ron Paul wants to shut down the federal reserve and pull American troops out of every war they have been in.

          How is this consistent with the ideology of the past 30 years?

          I’m sure you mean that marginal decreases in the tax rate combined with massive increases in spending, no changes in social security, and an expansion of medicare, are the essence of libertarian philosophy.

          As I’ve pointed out before, yes, we like lower taxes, but we like lower spending even more. If you cut taxes and increase spending, you’re not cutting the size of government.

          1. If you cut taxes and increase spending, you’re not cutting the size of government.

            If you increase spending, you’re increasing taxes, whether it’s direct taxation or indirect taxation through currency debasement.

            -jcr

        6. the wealth disparity that is the essential cause of our problems.

          Jealousy is a highly corrosive emotion, Tony. get some professional help.

          -jcr

        7. “doesn’t care about moving the country up from 48th in education.”

          The Democrats and the left have been running the education system in this country since at least as far back as the 1930’s. If the country is 48th in education, perhaps you should look to their policies for an explanation.

          1. US high schools are terrible, but US universities are best in the world. The former are govt monopolies, the latter are largely free market (ok, tax subsidized, but competitive). Which model should we follow to move up from 48th?

            1. The fact that our universities and hospitals are the best in the world tends to distract us from the fact that only a small segment of the population has access to them. We still have bad metrics. Again, wealth inequality is the underlying problem. I’d argue it contributes to our willingness to go to war as well.

              1. Idiot, 55% with some college and 40% with diploma, from the wikis not really a small segment. I think that is too high, college is useless for at least 75% of the population.

              2. As far as I know, access to universities and hospitals remains pretty high. I think the contention is the cost and payer.

        8. Ron Paul’s beliefs are just a more consistent distillation of the ideology that has dominated policy for that period.

          Bullshit. Make up your mind. Either he’s a “kook” and a “fringe candidate” with no chance of winning the nomination or his ideas have been dominating policy for 30 years. Which is it?

          1. Reagan started the antigovernment bullshit. RP has just taken it to its most extreme conclusions.

            1. Goldwater thinks you’re an idiot Tony.

            2. Oh. Now I get it. “Anti gov’t bullshit” didn’t exist before Reagan.

            3. I thought Bastiat started the antigovernment bullshit.

        9. “RP–or any Republican–doesn’t care about moving the country up from 48th in education. They certainly don’t care about decreasing the wealth disparity that is the essential cause of our problems. Their policies are tailor-made to exacerbate that problem, justified by a ridiculous antigovernment cult ideology, for which perhaps RP only gets points for being sincere.”

          In lieu of neatly unpacking the multitude of false premises that constitute that tired liberal cliche, I’ll just let an old dead guy uncover the most obviously fallacious aspect:

          “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

          We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

          – Bastiat

    2. I don’t think Mr Doherty was whining about Paul not being treated seriously, but rather pointing out how irrelevant and incoherent Hugh Hewitt has become, praise Allah.

  30. Hugh Hewitt did acolumn a week or two ago proposing that people be allwoed to withdraw money from their retirement account, tax-free, to pay off their mortgages or buy homes. I pointed out that this would just bid up real estate prices. It wouldn’t stimulate construction much, since we already have enough housing constructed in most parts of the country, just bid up land prices. The Washington Examiner printed my letter, I’m happy to say.

    1. Well, that accomplishment earns you a blowjob on Reason. Congrats

      1. You’re servicing commenters now?

        1. that’s a libertarian’s duty. I’m sure you’ll do a great job 😉

        2. Tulpa, do you want mega-AIDS? No?

          Then don’t stick your dick, cut or uncut, anywhere near rather’s mouth. Even five layers of condoms won’t save you.

          1. I think the idea of that quote is that an extreme ideolog is unlikely to build consensus, to pick up compromise votes as others drop out.

            http://www.petclothing-brand.com

            Maybe if she would file those teeth down…..

            1. Anon-bot, your ? is showing through. I’m starting to think you aren’t a computer

          2. pee water, you could put 100 condoms on your dick but no girl is going to call it thick

  31. The seriousness of the fiscal crisis requires the GOP and its candidates to act seriously, grandstand and posture and blame the Democrats, and allowing marginal candidates that might offer serious solutions to those problems to eat up time and distract from the enormous problems facing the country grandstanding is not serious embarrassing to the party establishment.

    Fixed.

  32. Right wing pundits seem to be saying Pawlenty and Santorum have a realistic shot at winning the nomination, despite their lack of charisma, money, and followers, simply because they take positions that are more in line philosophically with how Republican primary voters have voted in the past.

    This presupposes that the attributes of the typical Republican primary voter aren’t changing, or that there is more than a single page of paperwork preventing other voters with different views from registering and voting in the primaries. Similarly, CPAC poll results used to be touted as an excellent early indicator of candidate strength, until those results, with a higher barrier, changed away from the established script.

    It also ignores the impact of branding in a crowded marketplace — if there are 10 candidates pitching business as usual, and 1 (or maybe 2) candidates pitching new and exciting ideas, another empty suit selling the same tired product is going to get crushed by the guy with the momentum and the charisma and the ideas and the demographics on his side.

    1. Santorum is like a Catholic slightly-less-socialist Huckabee, so he has plenty of followers. Maybe that’s an illusion from living in his stomping grounds, but I seem to recall conservative Catholics loving the guy in other parts of the country too, and they tend to be staunch Republicans these days.

      And remember the winner and runner-up in the 2008 GOP nomination race both started with essentially no money in Iowa and NH.

      1. Yes, but that becomes a challenge for socon Protestants. I grew up in a Catholic family in the South, and there’s plenty of residual distrust of Catholics in socially conservative places, not to mention those who don’t even recognize Catholics as Christians (seriously). And socons usually don’t have many qualms about socialism ? la SS/Medicare/Forever Wars, they just find the word itself unsettling. The Huck is strong in such folk.

        1. damn idolators the lot of you

        2. I, unfortunately, am related to some evengelical socons who are of the opinion that catholicism is not christianity, but a cult. That opinion is not reserved solely for catholics however. They say that only methodists and southern baptists are real christians.

        3. That’s too bad. The Whore of Babylon rocks!

  33. Don’t forget the cadidates pitching loony ideas.

  34. Hugh ever Hugh Hewitt is, he’s obviously a paid liar. The propaganda machine he originates from won’t keep the wool over for much longer.

  35. This is a good post. Thank you so much. Keep up the good works. Bothbest bamboo flooring bamboo plywood bamboo plywood, ???? gives you best support.

    1. *baaarrrrrrrrfffffffff*

    2. Thanks! I need all the support I can get.

    3. Hey….that fucker is stealin my bit!

      1. Another quality American job lost to a dirty foreigner.

    4. Bamboo is expensive. I was thinking about buying some land and growing bamboo.

  36. Who the hell is Hugh Hewitt and why should I care what he says?

    1. He’s part of the second-tier media.

  37. Hewitt is exactly the kind of effete snob who mocked Ronald Reagan until he won. He’s what’s wrong with the Republican party.

    -jcr

  38. RP will do well right up until the first time he actually gets a shot on the national stage. Right at that very moment, he’ll launch into a monologue about gold dust. Or memories of gold from a by-gone golden age.

    Or, he’ll find some other way to glaze America’s collective eyes over.

    People would have to be thinking entirely too much in order to elect Ron Paul. Ron Paul just doesn’t do rhetoric.

    Sooner or later, the campaign will return to its regularly scheduled programming.

    1. Sad, but true. RP has a charisma gap. He also needs some slogans that encapsulate his core message to appeal to short US attention spans: think – “Get the govt off the backs of the taxpayers”, “stop interfering in other countries’ business” etc

  39. Hugh Hewitt is long Mitt Romney and has been since before the last election. Now he doesn’t want any spoilers to ruin his favored (bland) candidates run.

  40. Everytime I see the name “Hugh Hewitt”, I have to mentally clarify that it’s not Huell Howser.

    Due no doubt to their “HH” initials, in a better alternate universe, they swap careers.

    Huell entertains 80 year olds by bringing his guileless childlike awe to political commentary, and absolutely luvs Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson (and Barack Obama, and Joe Biden) because they’re all so swell.

    Hewitt is a small minded, unpopular dickbag tv host that shits on California’s historic Spanish Missions, orange farms, soda fountains, and other small things that give people pleasure.

    But that’s where the differences end. As in this universe, no one watches either of them and they are both secretly gay married to Juan Williams, rounding out a trifecta of inconsequentiality. NTTAWWT.

  41. Here’s a fact. The GOP would rather nominate someone they know can not win than nominate Ron Paul even if they felt certain he could win. Both parties routinely nominate certain losers – it’s all part of the charade. Ron Paul could be polling 98% against Obama and the GOP establishment would still do everything in its power to prevent his nomination. This with the assistance of Fox News and Sean Hannity.

    1. You are absolutely correct.

      Team Red and Team Blue are both institutions of the same ruling elite. They are organized to put forward candidates who either are committed to the interests of the ruling elite or are easily co-opted by the lobbyists representing the interests of the ruling elite. Of course, the ruling elite has competing interests and is not unanimous on every single issue, so there are some minor differences between Team Red and Team Blue candidates. These minor differences create the illusion of meaningful elections and democratically representative government.

      Like him or not, Ron Paul’s ideas are in large part opposed to the interests of the ruling elite.

  42. That’s okay, GOP, just keep doing what you always do: nominate whichever wanker whose “turn” it is, and then act shocked at the outcome.

  43. Apparently Hewitt is not satisfied with seeing the Republican Party be just the stupid one, he wants them to be evil as well.

    1. He needs to stop it, evil is our job!

  44. As a fiscal conservative and a constitutionalist, I think the republicans need to run away from the jesus freaks that are running their party as fast as possible. People that do not believe in evolution have no place in the decision making process for the people of a free country.

  45. It’s pretty amazing that Juan Williams would write this article about Ron Paul. Maybe it takes seeing Ron in person for some to finally see how genuine he is. Ron Paul seems to have almost complete integrity in his political philosophy. Plus he’s totally cute!

    Maybe abolishing the Fed is an idea that will catch on in 2012. People are becoming more and more distrustful of it (I read somewhere that it’s almost as unpopular as the IRS), and this awareness has to have come from Ron Paul’s constant harping about the Fed.

  46. Sounds like Hewitt will be hitting the campaign trail with Obama. Presumably carrying Osama’s head on a pike.

    “We remain in deep trouble, though physically safer with bin Laden dead and an intelligence trove captured.”

    “Our national security depends on our economy and its ability to pay for the SEALs and the rest of the amazing American military.”

  47. I was a college lad in 1980 when I started delving into free-market economics and came to embrace it. Of course, the laissez-faire candidate that year was Ronald Reagan, so the timing for my first presidential ballot seemed propitious. Or so I thought.

    Then I stumbled upon a Libertarian Party pamphlet. This is back when the LP still stood for something. The great Murray Rothbard had written its platform; he pulled no punches.

    It was an eye-opener. The Iranian Hostage Crisis had been in the news for months, but I knew nothing about the U.S.’ dark legacy of imperial mischief-making there, overthrowing a democratically-elected leader and installing the Shah in his place. It turns out the Iranians did not hate us for our freedom. They hated us because we got in the way of their own.

    The pamphlet also opened my eyes to the astronomical costs of NATO, the “mutual defense” pacts with South Korea and Japan, and the “special relationship” with Israel–the only democracy in the Middle East since the U.S. had overthrown the Iranian version years earlier. Americans bore these costs at a time when their own economy compared rather unfavorably to their defense-subsidized allies’.

    Non-interventionism has always driven my libertarianism. I have no use for “responsible” conservatives like Hewitt. They have driven the U.S. and the world to the brink of economic calamity–and that’s not the worst of it.

    As far as these crackpot realists are concerned, U.S. military intervention is the default mode. They’ll tell you in one breath the Federal Government is incapable of running a daycare center, and in the next they’ll insist it’s fully qualified to manage a global military empire. And when the occupied wogs react the way Americans would react if they were occupied by a foreign military power, of course it’s all the wogs’ fault. What are you? Some kind of Blame-America-Firster?!

  48. Ron Paul 2012!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.