Starring Claude Rains as Ron Paul


Jon Stewart on the Invisible Man:

NEXT: CT Scans for Lung Cancer Screening - Who Should Decide?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Have you ever looked at a dollar bill… on weed?!

  2. Ill admit, its been a while sence ive checked out The Daily Show, but that was pretty funny.

    1. The latest Ron Paul commercial:…..3453.story

      Two winners in a row. The campaign is light-years ahead of the 2008 effort.

      1. That is really good, actually. Given how he wasted all the money he was given in 2007 and 2008, it’s refreshing to see some decent media coming out.

        1. I have a hundred buck during for the money bomb and was then horrified at the commercials that were run for the Paul campaign.

          These first two commercials make convince me to contribute again this year.

        2. If they can avoid having Ron speak in public, he just might have a shot this time 😉

          1. Ron must be getting better advice. Someone understands that image is critical. Some people buy books for their covers.

      2. I was a bit taken aback by the “The One” thing — not only did Obama use that meme — “We are the ones we have been waiting for” — but a certain German politician who was thoroughly discredited did the same — “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer”.

        That kind of egotism gives me the willies, even if it is effective at stirring emotions and getting votes.

        1. Remember “Nixon’s the one”? The buttons must be valuable, association, not so much.

      3. I can’t see where to play the video at this link. I see the word video, but no actual video. Or maybe I’m just an idiot. Here is my pathetic contribution to the Ron Paul campaign. I’m not saying it’s good, only that I think these are the sentiment that would appeal to the American people. And, yes, I don’t actually believe the American fairy tale anymore about our history, but there was no point in the video of getting into revisionist history.

      4. The first sentence of the article calls him a “libertarian wolf in Republican’s clothing”. No need to read any further. Apparently libertarians are even more anathema to the liberal media than Republicans, probably because they don’t support any Middle Eastern wars.

    2. We’re all going to chip in and buy you an apostrophe key. Your overwhelming gratitude more than covers the cost of our generosity (23?). kthxbai

  3. It would have been nice if one of my fellow commenters would have posted a link to this clip in Morning Links.

    1. Beats shilling some crappy book.

  4. Didn’t watch, but Johnson is invisible. Paul isn’t.

    You’d think the GOP faithful would vote for a guy trying to undo the growth of Leviathan. Then again, their anti-government rhetoric always seems to fail when power looks to be coming back their way. Strange how that is, huh?

    1. Oh, I see. This is referring to his high placement in the straw poll, and the media treating him like he dropped out? Strange how that is, huh?

    2. 1. Served honorably in the military
      2. Anti-abortion
      3. Anti-tax
      4. Anti-spending
      5. Pro-gun
      6. Hates Obamacare

      I dont understand how he isnt the GOP dream candidate.

      1. Because he is anti-war in the nationalist party.

        1. He voted for war in Afghanistan.

          So anti-war is a stretch.

          He proposed a Declaration of War for Iraq too, IIRC.

          Actually, he might be the only pro-war member of congress, vs pro-police action.

          1. He proposed the Declaration of War for Iraq to make the point that you’re not supposed to go to war without Congressional declaration of war.

            1. Im aware, but it still makes him “pro-war” in the war vs police action sense.

              1. I would say anti-interventionist is a more accurate description of RP’s position.

                Though he does subscribe to a belief that war is such a terrible thing that it it can only be justified in extreme cases and should only be undertaken as a last resort.

                1. But, he is certainly not anti-war in any pacifist sense.

                2. I would say anti-interventionist is a more accurate description of RP’s position.

                  You say potay-to, I say potah-to.

              2. Relative to the “police action” linguistic construct, perhaps. I disagree that it makes him pro-war. It’s more accurate to say it makes him “pro-debate about war.” One can easily promote debate on a topic on which one takes a negative stance. The rest of Congress’s cowardly to debate the topic openly and own the consequences is the problem here.

                1. …cowardly refusal

              3. Well, no. Using a political tactic to try to get people to fucking admit they are at war when they are, but find it convenient to pretend otherwise, isn’t the same thing as actually supporting that war.

                In other words, if Congress had picked up the gauntlet and actually voted on the Declaration of War, arguably Ron Paul might have voted against his own resolution.

            2. True, that’s why he did it, but I think that battle was lost when the War Department was renamed.

              The most important thing is the explicit Congressional approval, not the semantics.

              1. The most important thing is the explicit Congressional approval, not the semantics.

                Actually, the semantics clearly ARE important or the congress-critters would have happily thrown the phrase “declaration of war” into their approval.

                The fact that they not only didnt, but refuse to do it, says the semantics matter very, very much.

                1. Oh, the semantics matter for political reasons, and demonstrate that they’re gutless. I just don’t find semantics a sufficient reason to make it unConstitutional, though.

                  1. If the semantics matter for political reasons then they matter for constitutional reasons.

                    If they can say politically “I never declared war” then they cant say constitutionally “I declared war”.

                    One or the other.

                    We all have bullshit language we have to put in documents at our jobs. We know it doesnt matter, so we do it. If we care enough to not do it on priciple, then it isnt bullshit anymore and actually means something.

                    1. Ah, so you’re of the conclusion that the Barbary Wars were unconstitutional, because Congress authorized them but didn’t do it in the standard formal way?

                    2. No need, they had declared war on us. Formally.

                    3. No, they did not, not in the formal recognized sense of written documents. Tripoli cut down the flagstaff in front of the US Consulate.

                      The US Congress then responded with something like an authorization of military force, but no formal declaration of war.

                    4. ^^ THIS ^^

                      Once upon a time, a man’s word was his bond. Why do we tolerate, no, legitimize, less?

                    5. To robc’s:
                      “We all have bullshit language we have to put in documents at our jobs. We know it doesnt matter, so we do it. If we care enough to not do it on priciple, then it isnt bullshit anymore and actually means something.”

          2. He’s made the point many times that if we bring all of our troops home from overseas and mind our own damn business we wouldn’t be in these wars. That’s a lot more anti-war than any of the other candidates.

          3. Re: robc,

            He voted for war in Afghanistan.

            He voted for the use of force to get Osama Bin Laden as he had indicated the attack was a clear act of piracy; he also introduced TWO bills to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to authorize the hiring of professional mercenaries to apprehend and retrieve OBL to the US. I don’t see how that makes him “pro-war.” It would make him pro-reprisal.

            1. …he also introduced TWO bills to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to authorize the hiring of professional mercenaries…

              Makes you wonder if a private group of bloodthristy bastards would have got OBL at a fraction of the cost in deaths and dollars it took for the US Military machine to get him.

              1. I think we will find out soon enough in Somalia and Mexico.

              2. If you’re pondering that question, you’re headed to dangerous territory. No chance that privateers lose 4k employees and kill 100k foreign citizens and maintain their mandate, let alone get a trillion-dollar fee up front.

              3. I smell an action movie!

              4. And in a fraction of the time.

        2. Because he is anti-war in the [Republican wing of the] nationalist party.

          I hate to do a FIFY, but he is getting the same treatment from most of the non-Republican Party organs like CBS, CNN, NPR etc.

          They’ll toss him an interview bone occasionally but Stewart has actually recognized him as a “real” candidate, even if he doesn’t agree with him on everything. Though it seems pretty clear that he likes RP’s anti-interventionist foreign policy position.

          1. The media–left and right–favor the state. Paul is significantly anti-state in his voting and rhetoric. Naturally, they oppose him getting the nomination.

            1. Then why does he get a fair shake on radio? It’s not “the media” that seems to be the problem here, it’s TV. I don’t watch TV, so I wouldn’t notice except for what’s written on the Internet about this disconnect. The difference between radio & TV is really strange, considering that they’re owned by the same businesses or types of businesses, and their employees go back & forth frequently between them.

              Some phenomenon is going on here similar to that whereby Kennedy was said to have won his debate with Nixon on TV, and Nixon to have won on radio. TV is like another word.

              And it’s not about video, either, since Ron Paul seems to do OK with video via Internet.

              Anybody know how it is in printed media?

              1. They only want pretty people (like them) and insiders on their TV shows.

          2. No your right =\

          3. TEAM LUBE and RED MEAT don’t want anyone closing down their candy store. Where will they get favors to spread around?

      2. Paul hates Team America!

      3. Ron Paul’s GOP Problems:

        1. Served in the military, rather than joining the National Guard or getting a deferment
        2. Is actually anti-spending
        3. And most importantly, believes in national *defense*

        1. a couple other drawbacks – actually has integrity and operates by a set of principles. Neither the GOP nor the Dems understand the concept of principle. I would add that sociopaths tend achieve high visibility in any society and there is a much higher percentage of sociopaths among influencial/powerful people than there is among ordinary people the upshot being that the truth of things is irrelevant for the most part to those controlling national discussion.

      4. BTW, people understand my I dont understand how he isnt the GOP dream candidate. is facetious right?

        1. Well, duh.

          But it also makes a good point. Paul’s candidacy highlights the fundamental failings of the GOP (from a libertarian perspective). He really is right there with what some consider to be the GOP hard-liners (you forgot to list Anti-immigrant). But the GOP is so wedded to entitlements and war, that anyone who rejects these two principles is considered alien.

          1. Neither entitlements nor warfare will restore the American economy.

            1. Since when did you think that the GOP plan to restore the American economy was an actual plan which would garner actual results?

              1. when they made Ron Paul their candidate.

                So, probably, never.

                1. If he does get nominated, the GOP will have a major, major psychotic break with reality. Beyond the one they’ve already had.

                  As an aside, I got an e-mail on the RLC list the other day, which was a forward of an anti-endorsement of Rick Perry by the Texas chapter of the RLC.

                  1. If he does get nominated, the GOP will have a major, major psychotic break with reality. Beyond the one they’ve already had.

                    Yep. I want to see the twisting of how they always supported him, all the way back to the 70s.

                    Im guessing “honest” neo-cons become Obama supporters, as he supports their wars.

                    1. I want to see a redstate commercial supporting president obama. I think the cognitive dissonance would melt their servers.

            2. Prominent award-winning economists believe that interplanetary warfare will restore the economy.e e

              1. Bachm ann hits most of the right notes for the GOP and her super religiosity will attract the Jebus crowd.

          2. Paul’s voting record matches his fiscal sanity & limited-government rhetoric. He’s despised because he holds up a mirror to the GOP establishment (& their warbot apologists over at Hot Air, RedState, et al) and they do not like what they see in it.

      5. During the Bush Administration, being pro-Iraq was a litmus test.

        …and that hasn’t gone away. It’s like being against the Vietnam War was a generation ago. For a long time there, you couldn’t have been against the Vietnam War–and not have been someone who spat on returning Vietnam veterans.

        This is all evidence of something important to keep in mind too–which is that the Republican base hasn’t changed its stripes.

        Voting to repudiate the Obama Administration will likely prove to be an empty gesture–it may just mean a return to more of a Bush teh Lesser aesthetic.

        The Republican Party still needs to be purged. The Tea Party impulses still aren’t being taken seriously.

        1. Yeah it’s disgusting how the republicans are treating Paul, too bad they almost can’t lose against Obama, regardless who the nominee is.

          1. I wouldn’t be so sure. The democrats couldn’t lose to Bush is ’04, yet they chose one of the worst candidates since Walter Mondale.

            1. Obama was the only serious candidate the Democrats had who was against the Iraq War.

              The reason Obama is the president now and not Hillary Clinton is because Hillary’s criticism of the Iraq War boiled down to the idea that the Bush Administration didn’t go far enough…

              McCain might have beaten Hillary Clinton. …if the choice was between two people who both supported what the Bush Administration did in Iraq.

      6. 1. Served honorably in the military
        2. Anti-abortion
        3. Anti-tax
        4. Anti-spending
        5. Pro-gun
        6. Hates Obamacare

        I dont understand how he isnt the GOP dream candidate.

        Because World Police neoconservatives think he is poison.

        1. I’ve come to believe that the neoconservatives are the worst thing to ever happen to America.

      7. Ah, but he doesn’t feel that he has the right to force everyone else to serve in the military or to do what he deems good with their bodies. That’s the difference between Ron Paul and a GOP dream candidate.

    3. I was thinking the same thing. At least Paul gets invited to the debates.

      Johnson – a much more qualified candidate as a successful 2-term Governor – isn’t allowed in the building.

      Meanwhile, we have a mediocre radio host, a Democratic Govenor of CO, and a failed PA Senator up there talking nonsense.

      1. They take people like Huntsman and Gingrich who have no actual supporters but are part of the club and include them at the expense of people like Johnson and Paul who have supporters but are not.

        The media exists to protect the powerful and the status quo as much as they are liberals. I wouldn’t begrudge them that if they weren’t so smug and convinced they were everything they are not.

      2. Maybe it’s because Gary Johnson isn’t campaigning well. I’ve never been involved in a presidential campaign, but I’m sure it’s like other campaigns (political, commercial, whatever) in that the better ones get respect and the worse ones don’t.

      3. Johnson – a much more qualified candidate as a successful 2-term Governor – isn’t allowed in the building.

        Because Johnson would draw even more of those who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

        The problems of this country are profitable, and there are a lot of people who like the current system because they’re profiting from it. The last thing they need is someone shutting down their income.

        1. Gary Johnson is bieng shut out by the GOP because he is not a socon. They think tat because Obamas weak right now they can get greedy and get socon in office. The basically just shooting themselves in the foot becuase I don’t think most people really want a socon agenda especially younger people. Johnson would give a great opportunity to expand the base but why do that when you can just make your party less relevant over time.

          1. Gary Johnson is bieng shut out by the GOP because he is not a socon.

            Agreed, but he’s being shut out by more than just the GOP.

          2. No, Gary Johnson is doing poorly because up on the podium, he looked like Ed Grimely.

            When I listened to the debates on the radio, I was very impressed with him. When I watched the debates I realized he will never like it out of the minors.

            Americans want a charismatic leader. I wish it weren’t so, but there you go. Dubya won because he ran against the only two candidates to have worse charisma- wooden doll Gore, and John Kerry who reminded people of every stuck-up, condescending professor they ever had to suffer.

            1. Gary Johnson is doing poorly

              How would you know if there’s no mention of him or his policies?

              Your argument asserts that the only people who can get elected are those with charisma.

              That may ultimately be true, but it doesn’t explain the lack of comment on Johnson. There isn’t even any discussion of the poor performance of his campaign. He wasn’t even invited to an early debate against Bachmann even though she hadn’t declared her candidacy yet.

              There is a consistent bias against even the mention of these candidates – and RPaul’s case proves that it has nothing to do with performance.

            2. See? Another example of the difference between TV & radio.

              The real story here isn’t Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and “the media”. The real story is the political effects of the difference between TV & radio. Why am I the only one who’s seeing this?

  5. 8-16-11: Reason links to the Daily Show.

    1. …And nothing else happened!

  6. You support the Military Industrial Complex. You support all the psuedo-wars (Terror, Drugs, etc) or the GOP establishment wants nothing to do with you. Santorum with his condescending shock that anyone could possibly have an opinion that differs from him really embodies what they’re about. The ONLY reason they even have a party is because the democrats suck, and vice versa.

    1. Also, he doesn’t pledge allegence to Israel. You have to do that whatever party you’re in or the media isn’t going to let you compete.

      1. Well, BJ, you either support Israel unconditionally(in any and all circumstances) or you are obviously a cryogenically-preserved Nazi of the 3rd Reich and deserve to be murdered by a UN council.

        1. It was because of the UN that the world was Un-Nazi’d forever.


  7. The media decides who runs this country. How dare voters think they support someone unless the media says it is okay.

    It is a shame that Stewart is not less partisan. The media are nothing but buffoons. And he will never run out of material pointing out such.

    1. Like any daily comedy show Stewart’s show is very dependent on material. The better the material available to them, the better the show gets.

      When the show has to force things it gets cringeworthy.

      1. The better the material available to them, the better the show gets.

        With the collection of retards currently in political office nationally and locally, I would wager that the real problem is which material to present, not a lack of said material.

    2. It is a shame that Stewart is not less partisan.

      His other guest on that show was a CNN guy who regurgitated the talking point that the country’s real problems stemmed from some people not getting on board.

      Of course there was no mention that the impasse was due to the complete refusal to implement any actual cuts.

      1. Or that the only plan that could correct the problem was ridiculed in the media (cut cap balance)

  8. I saw Mark Sanford on TV the other day. I actually caught myself thinking, “Hey, why isn’t he running for president?” Then I remembered.

    1. I dont see it as disqualifying, but that is just me.

      1. Not necessarily, I suppose, but he isn’t running, is he?

        1. Nope.

          At least not that I know of.

          1. He’s not. I was very sad about the whole incident for that reason.

            I was kind of impressed with how normal it was, for an affair. Including how his wife actually got pissed about it instead of taking one for the team.

            1. I just don’t get it.

              If I was one promotion away from the big chair, there’s no pussy in the world fast enough to catch me, no matter what Chris Rock says.

              1. He’d have had a solid chance at the nomination, given the current field.

              2. It says that he has a complete lack of self control and probably shouldn’t be President.

                1. No, I think that like Bill Clinton he though no one would find out.

                  Unlike Bill, he couldn’t brazen it out when people did find out.

              3. You have teh GaYe!!!

  9. The funny thing is that outraged reporters are now claiming that Stewart is being mean to them. They claim that Paul didn’t get coverage like Bachmann’s because they “know” he can’t win anyway, so it’s not news. “A second-place finish doesn’t make Paul a contender, so we aren’t going to call him a contender,” they say.

    But the blackout on Paul went beyond simply not claiming that his second-place finish made him a contender. Many reporters and commentators refused to mention him at all, to the point where some of them produced some variation on “Bachmann First; Pawlenty Third”.

    1. I would almost buy that excuse except that they give people like Gingrich and Huntsman, who obviously have no shot whatsoever and no reason to be running coverage. Since when do you have to be a “contender” to get coverage?

      1. Yeah, huntsman gets more coverage than Paul, completely fucking ridiculous.

        1. Totally. Paul can’t win the nomination, but at least he represents a genuine constituency. Huntsman is a complete zero with no following to speak of.

    2. That’s such crap. He finished second in Iowa, within a hair of first, he made a significant splash last election (esp. in fundraising), and is probably the most significant “reform” candidate in this entire election.

      The media, by and large, doesn’t want him to win. So much for “speaking truth to power.”

      1. Contrast the coverage Paul gets to the coverage that was given Bill Bradley in 2000. Everyone knew Bradley had no shot against Gore. He was never going to be nominated much less elected. But the media fawned over him. He was the only man running on principle. Paul is much like Bradley in that regard. Yet, the media don’t much like his principles. And thus they ignore him.

        1. When it comes to presidential candidates, the media practices “Fiji math.” There are one, two, and many.

          By the time the Iowa caucus rolls around, either Romney or Bachmann will have been squeezed out and the story will be “Perry vs. X.”

      2. The media have power. Platitudes like “speaking truth to power” are nothing but platitudes. Frankly, it’s just another variation of projection, and the media projects a whole fucking lot.

        1. I was mocking them, of course. The pretensions they have about being outside of the established power base would be amusing if they weren’t so disgusting.

        2. It is a big club. If it were up to the media, the Republicans would never win. But even the media understands that occasionally Republicans are going to win no matter what. But the media will be damned (and that includes all of them) if they are going to allow someone from outside the club R or D to win. They decide who is serious and who can be in power not the voters.

      3. I can’t buy that “the media” (which apparently means TV) don’t want him to win. I can’t see Ron Paul, or any other president, as being bad for the TV business.

        1. I can’t see Ron Paul, or any other president, as being bad for the TV business.

          That statement assumes that Network and Cable (along with their parent companies) themselves understand what is good/bad for the TV business.

          A cursory perusal of their choice of content cross indexed against ratings should disabuse you of that idea.

          1. They understand who panders to them.

            1. What is it to “pander to” the media? Free booze? I’m sure Ron Paul’s campaign mgr. knows that as well as anyone else. Compliments? Convenient scheduling? I can’t believe that separates any of them.

              But explain to me why if he’s not pandering well enough, he does just fine on radio.

              I’m coming to think, as a 1st guess, that it boils down to looks — looks in motion, not just stills. I think that’s the correct explanation as to why Nixon beat Kennedy on the radio but vice versa on TV at the same debate.

              TV channels want to put on people who look good, because they hold audience. Internet channels can afford to have on moving or still pictures that aren’t as pretty because they can always insert eye candy into the frame somewhere — as is frequently done here, you’ll notice.

              All the other hypotheses I’ve seen to explain things here are screwy. A massive media conspiracy that somehow involves TV, but not the radio stations the same companies own and that employ the same people? The idea that media people are afraid a certain candidate will wreck all of their business? Will you people take into account all the available facts?

              And it’s not just in the USA, it’s a worldwide phenomenon.

              1. I’m coming to think, as a 1st guess, that it boils down to looks — looks in motion, not just stills.

                So Hillary wouldn’t stand a chance of garnering attention if she staged a primary challenge?

                Or is our next president going to be either Angelina Jolie or Adriana Lima?

              2. If you are correct, this is good news – because the internet is killing television.

    3. Well if anyone can put the news media in their place it’s the pop “culture” media. This is exactly the kind of thing libertarians need. Is Ron Paul going to be president? No, but more and more people are getting turned on to what he’s saying and that’s a large step in the right direction at least.

      1. “We ignore politics most of the time.”

  10. we’re not covering him b/c there’s nothing new:

    “So by nabbing 27.65 percent on Saturday, Paul didn’t actually do anything to change the prevailing perception of his campaign and its appeal. Bachmann and Pawlenty faced legitimate questions about their ability to effectively organize for the straw poll. But no one doubted the Paul campaign’s skills in this regard.”….._paul_2012

    1. Nigger, please.

    2. I actually laughed at that. They’re really scared that the voters might do something unpredictable this time, aren’t they?

      1. The best part is “9% is exactly the same as 27%”!

    3. They’re not covering him because he’s too good already, even though he can’t win. That is wild.

  11. (Dateline: November 6, 2012)


    In yet another election surprise, President Obama lost his bid for re-election today, getting only 46.3% of the popular vote and 194 electoral college votes.

    In a press release, President Obama congratulated Vice President-elect Mitt Romney and his running mate.

    Specualtion now turns to President Obama’s future and what he will do once he leaves the White House. The President has been receiving numerous calls from foreign governments congratulating him on his near re-election.

    Vice President Joe Biden was busy trying to match socks, but many believe Mr Biden will attempt to return to the Senate in 2014.

        1. Or at least pwnd for us reasonable users.


      1. robc, your link is blocked for me at work and Comedy Central is blocked in Canada, so I don’t know if I’ve been trying to duplicate what someone else has done.

        Maybe if someone could give me a precis of the video, it might help.

        1. Its a gif or orson welles clapping.

          I was just appluading your future article.

    1. Or they’ll just report that we don’t have a president. Anarchy Reigns!

  12. Steve Kornacki (the least crazy political writer over at Salon) explains why it’s OK to ignore Ron Paul.….._paul_2012

    But the experience of 2008 demonstrated that it’s very easy to exaggerate the breadth of Paul’s support — and that his views (particularly on foreign policy) are so far outside the GOP mainstream that the party establishment will go to great lengths to make sure it doesn’t expand beyond his base. That still seems to be the case today.

    1. Woah. That is so 8 minutes ago.

      1. I read it this morning, but didn’t get around to posting it until I got out of a meeting.

        And always refresh before hittig submit 😉

    2. They can go to all the lengths they want to, but I’m voting for him. Again. And I think others may vote the same way.

      1. Yep. My parents dont like Rand Paul, but they would vote for Ron. Well, my Dad is registered GOP, so him. My Mom wont be voting for Obama, so if he gets to the general, she will vote for him too.

        1. Any particular reason why your parents prefer Ron over Rand?

          Unsurprising to me that the best thing about Kentucky is a Duke grad, incidentally.

            1. Nah, I think they thought that was kind of funny. But he said some other things during the senate race that I dont think they quite get.

  13. I think the big mistake was changing the name of the Department of War to Department of Defense.

    1. So why don’t they sell naming rights to Departments? Like “The General Electric Dpartment of Defense”.

      1. The Borders Amazon Department of Education.

        1. The Khan Academy.

          1. ^this plus the free compsci and AI courses Stanford provides that would normally cost over 40k tuition:


            1. Plus:

              Highly variable in what you will get, but there are some awesome gems hidden in here.

              1. Actually the story on the main page regarding “curing the common cold” was pretty exciting stuff. The ability to completely knock out viral infections would be a significant breakthrough to say the least.

      2. The Cargill Department of Agriculture

        1. The Department of Monsanto Agriculture?

          1. The Department of Education brought to you by the NEA

          2. The Department of Housing and Urban Development Fannie Mae

          3. The Department of Transportation Infrastructure Dreams

            1. The Treasury, brought to you courtesy of Goldman Sachs.

      3. I believe you mean the “General Dynamics Department of Defense”.

        1. Yeah.

          It’s the General Electric Tennessee Valley Authority.

        2. That was my original thought but since GE is cozy with the white house right now I went with them. Maybe should be The POTUS brought to you by GE. I suppose SEIU would work as well.

          1. I think the government should be required to refer to every politician as the *org name* Senator/Representative/President/etc., where *org name* is the name of that person’s largest single campaign donor. No exceptions. It would work for a cycle or two until companies & PACs started renaming their subsidiaries things like “Strong Families, Strong Country” or “Compassionate Action.”

            1. The “[$NAME] Is A Douche” Senator from Florida, Senator [$NAME], would be such an awesome way to fuck with someone in a losing election. Throw all of your money behind them in late October… Yeah, I’m liking this one.

              1. I like your thinking here.

    2. ‘Department of War’ sounds a lot more badass than ‘Department of Defense’. Defensive wars are still wars, you know! Let’s change it back and tell the politically correct shitheads to suck it.


      1. How about department of conquest? Or to be more freedom friendly. The Department of Freedorm Exportation through the use of Aggressive Kinetic Action.

        1. The Department of Freedorm Exportation through the use of Aggressive Non-Passive Kinetic Action.

          1. The Department of Freedorm Exportation through the use of Non-Passive Kinetic Action… Brought to You by Carl’s Jr.

  14. Anyone have a link to the clip that works from Canuckistan?

    1. I don’t get the Reason vids either, on account of my non-flash playing device. Try this:


      1. No luck. I went to Comedy Channel’s website but the clip isn’t there, or I couldn’t find it in their abysmal affront to all sensible web design.

        1. Comedy central is trying to retain ownership of the content, and it reflects in their web design.

          There are mediocre quality vids on YouTube. Search “daily show Ron Paul”.

  15. In another unrelated news:

    Neo-con of paralized neo-cons derides non-neo-con candidate.

    Krauthammer: ‘Ron Paul is not going to be president of the United States’

    1. Oh noes, the Krauthammer feels threatened.

  16. Why hasn’t there been much discussion of the scenario where Ron goes third party after missing the nomination narrowly? It not infeasible he pulls 20% or so.

    He would be a legitimate threat. He can run to “right” of the Republican and to the “left” of Obama simultaneously.

    This time around, he’s not tied to his Congressional seat. The only thing I can think that would stop him might be the backlash it could have for Rand’s political career.

    1. He recently said there is almost no chance of him running thrid party in the general election. Alot of states have rules about running on different tickets so the fact that he is running inthe GOP primary excludes the possibility of running as a third party candidate in the general election. Also, his son is a major up and comer. His views are very similar to his fathers, but he is a much better public speaker, and I think Ron knows that his son may have a shot at the presidency in the future. However, running third party now, and splitting the vote causing an Obama win would most certaintly earn Rand Paul a blackmark. I also, think Ron is comfortable with the idea of not winning because he knows that the general trend of the nation is coming his way in the long term.

  17. …impressive-seeming…

    In his 2008 campaign, he was unable to do this. Think back to the later months of 2007, when Paul stunned the political world by raising more money than any of the other Republican candidates. No one was quite sure what to make of it. Paul was supposed to be a niche candidate with no chance, but he wasn’t raising niche candidate money. Was something revolutionary taking place? So, the MSM decided to ignore it and Paul altogether. The answer came So, when the primary and caucus season began and Paul performed … like a niche candidate .

    Fuck you for not seeing through your own backwards logic, fucknut.

    What Paul and his supporters did this past weekend is something we’ve long known they’re capable of doing. So, we’ll just keep ignoring him.

    An entire article written to excuse the MSM’s behavior. Shouldn’t that tell you something? Perhaps, use the same article space to write who Ron Paul is, why he has these ” unusually loyal and dedicated supporters,” and since you’re giving opionion anyway, write your opinion on his positions?

    1. It is also funny, well not really funny, considering that Ron Paul did not poll nearly so well in the Ames poll in 2007. HE only got 9.1% of the vote finishing 5th. This time around he barely loses to Bachman and still has more votes than Romney in 2007. His base of support has grown substaintially.

    2. Also – I understand that candidates that get .01% of the vote are niche candidates who can be ignored – but a candidate that’s consistently getting 5 or 10% in actual elections – that may be a minority, but it’s not merely a “niche”.

  18. I never really thought about it like that before.

  19. I know that he isn’t always very well regarded around here, but I’ve got to give kudos to Stewart for putting this bit together.

    1. It seems to me that he’s slowly rediscovering the notion that a comedian’s soapbox allows him to lambaste all comers, not just partisan opponents. I think he’ll also discover that removing his partisan glasses will give much greater weight to his words. And make his show more entertaining to boot.

    2. Jon Stewart has had Paul on as a guest more than once. From what I can tell, he genuinely likes and respects Paul, even if they’re not ideologically in sync. And for a committed leftie whose bias is obvious, I think that’s pretty good.

      1. I swear I never let Obama’s dick out of my mouth a second. Take it back!

  20. It’s ridiculous. Ron Paul was polling around 2% at this time in 2007. He didn’t do his first money bomb until November. We’re months away from there and he’s already ahead of what his final primary/caucus results were last time. The crap about his “ceiling” of support is just that. I don’t think he’s even begun to flex his fund-raising muscles yet.

  21. Rick Perry Almost Alone in Military Service

    Except for, you know, that other guy…….._blog.html

    1. Interesting little factoid: since 1992, the candidate with less military experience has won every presidential election.

  22. Whether electable or not, there is a fantastic story here with all kinds of grassroots, quirky, conspiracy, young people, ideology, etc.. The fact that nobody wants to cover it becomes highly suspicious.

  23. TV must be just plain weird. I don’t watch it, and I wondered what people meant when they said Ron Paul was being slighted by the media. What they apparently meant was that he was being slighted by TV. This is not happening on radio.

  24. Feburary 7, 2012

    Bachman disappoints at Iowa Caucus with 2nd Place showing

    Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, long thought to be a shoe-in to win the Iowa Caucus, disappointed many of her supporters yesterday with an unexpected second place finish. Mrs. Bachman’s biggest rival, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, placed third, an unexpected showing given that Mr. Romney’s campaign has been primarily focusing on New Hampshire. Mr. Romney’s third place showing should put a great deal of pressure on both Bachman and the other front runner, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who finished a distant fourth.

    Bachman, a native of Iowa, held a consistent lead in the polls after her victory at the Ames Straw Poll, but that lead began to disappear after the winner of the Iowa Caucus raised a record setting amount in November with a so called “Money Bomb” allowing him to buy airtime in the key Iowa market. While disappointed, many in the Bachman camp pointed to a discrepancy in funding to explain their candidates disappointing loss.

    The winner of the Iowa Caucus, who sources tell us is a Congressman from a state in either the South or the Southwest, could not be reached for comment.

    1. Interestingly enough, N.H.’s Union Leader does mention Ron Paul.

      1. Follows the pattern that it’s only TV that’s a problem for Ron Paul.

  25. More like Claude Balls, no wonder I don’t have cable. Motherfuck MSM.

  26. This tactic is working against Gary Johnson, but backfiring when applied to Ron Paul because Ron Paul is already known and too well organized. The media was out there claiming Pawlenty and Huntsman are serious candidates when another successful two-term governor is getting the invisible man treatment. This is not sour grapes against Ron, far from it, I am glad the media can’t keep Ron down. I am just sad that Gary has, so far, been so successfully muffled.

    1. Give me one reason “the media” would have that motiv’n…and why it doesn’t apply to radio or print.

  27. That is freaking hilarious. I didn’t realise how much effort MSM went to hide Ron Paul. It is a disgrace and it’s good to see Jon Stewart pointing it out!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.