Ron Paul

Fox News Calls 2nd Place for Ron Paul

|

Link here. Current percentages are 36-24-18, Romney-Paul-Huntsman. I have no idea how Huntsman, who tried to Santorum New Hampshire, can recover from a third-place finish there, though he just told CNN that there will be "three tickets out of New Hampshire," etc.

We'll be updating throughout the night, including our various eyes on the ground. But if these numbers hold up, Huntsman and Rick Perry don't seem long for this world, and the second-place position after the first two elections belongs to the guy who finished 5th-5th four years ago: Ron Paul.

8:23: CNN now projects Ron Paul in 2nd, Huntsman in 3rd.

8:29: Have you ever watched a Mitt Romney stump speech this election cycle? Don't start now. Or shall I say, just go to Youtube; chances are you'll see the exact same talk as he's giving right now. Ron Paul, I would think, can't wait to get the other non-Romneys out of this campaign. That moment would/will be interesting indeed.

8:54: Exit polls are more interesting in early-state primaries than just about anywhere else. What do they show? Paul stomps Romney among the under-30 crowd, 46%-21%. Also among those who hadn't previously voted in a GOP primary (37-22). Among "independents or something else," which make up 47% of the electorate, Paul squeaked out a plurality: 31-27-23 (Huntsman). Huntsman, meanwhile, dominated among Democrats: 41-22 (Paul)-12 (Romney). Republicans preferred Romney over Paul, 45-15. More in a minute after Ron Paul speaks.

9:16: "We are dangerous to the status quo of this country!" And: "What should the role of government be in a free society? … The role should be to protect … our … LIBERTY!" "Freedom is a wonderful idea….Freedom is popular, don't you know that?" Also, "maldistribution"–DRINK! Rip-roaring and rambling, giddier than I've ever remembered, and 100% Paul-thentic.

9:25: More fun with exit polls–atheists totally love Ron Paul! (48% to Huntsman's 23 & Romney's 19.) A more important number, which is bad for Paul and mirrors what happened in Iowa, is that those for whom the economy is the #1 issue, the preferred choice is Mitt Romney, 42-21. Paul has convinced people that he's the debt/deficit/cut-government guy, but not that those policies will help the economy.

Another repeat oddity from Iowa exit polling: Paul does not win among those who describe themselves as "very conservative" (33-26-18, Romney-Santorum-Paul), but he does win among those for whom the #1 issue is backing a "true conservative" (42 Paul, 21 Santorum, 16 Gingrich, 14 Romney). The former category, obviously, is bigger than the latter. And Romney's main selling proposition continues to be electability: A ginormous 62% of people for whom beating Barack Obama is the #1 issue voted for Mitt Romney.

Final note on exit polls: Why, oh why isn't foreign policy a category here, people? For crying out loud, this stuff's important!

Advertisement

NEXT: Ron Paul in New Hampshire: Scenes from the Long Road to Some Place

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.

    1. I think this is a first for me

      1. And I was going to squeeze the Charmin but you are around…..

        1. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.

          Hmmm, I think there’s a mixed metaphor in there.

    2. Google News has results by town, which is of some interest if you’re familiar with New Hampshire.

  1. I have no idea how the media sold Huntsman as the “moderate” or “sane” one. Luckily it doesn’t seem to be working out for him.

    1. I do.
      He’s Obama-lite; that’s considered sane and moderate by the MSM.

      1. But how is he different than Romney in any way?

        1. Got me. Mitt = 4 letters, Jon = 3?

        2. Oh, and maybe he doesn’t have a failed ‘medical care reform’ hanging around his neck?

        3. He’s less well known than Romney. Therefore less creepy.

          But that’s it. The more I see of Huntsman, the more my skin crawls. (in a bad way)

          I’d rather look at Romney’s faceplate for 4 years than Huntsman’s “I’m an asshole” raised eyebrow of seriousness.

    2. What makes you say it’s not working out for him? He got to 3rd place, 3/4 of Ron Paul’s votes and 1/2 of Romney’s, and maybe that’s what did it.

  2. Well, that’s pretty impressive on Paul’s part, I have to say.

    1. Mittens is right now making a triumphant speech as if he just won the nomination, despite the fact that 2/3 of voters don’t really like him and Paul is slowly toppling all the other rivals…

      … and this is despite the constant media Blitz against Paul.

      Projection:
      Mittens 35%
      Ron Paul 25%
      Uh, who again? 17%
      Grinching 10% or maybe 11% WTFC?
      Ass juice 10%
      GOV Perry 1% (Ha-ha!)

      1. despite the fact that 2/3 of voters don’t really like him and Paul is slowly toppling all the other rivals…

        Herp doo dee

        See, 3/4ths of voters don’t really like Ron Paul, and that is a bigger number than Mittens, so Ron Paul is doing better.

        Logic is my master.

    2. I would give the Free Staters some credit, here.

      1. new hampshire IS the live free or die state.

        i’d love to see paul do well elsewhere, but new hampshire is libertarian as fuck compared to many other places

        1. Yes, but a lot of Massholes have migrated into NH to avoid the high taxes of MA, which is why they are voting for Romney.

          1. As a former Masshole, many have gone there because they are socially liberal but don’t want to be taxed up the ass. They’re closet libertarians, or “Gateway Libertarians”. I’m very happy about RP’s placement. There is momentum.

          2. Yes, but a lot of Massholes have migrated into NH to avoid the high taxes of MA, which is why they are voting for Romney.

            Hehe.

            It’s called the “locust effect” (and if it isn’t, it damn well should be), in which voters completely destroy their state’s economy with bullshit laws, then move to a state doing financially well, and procede to enact the exact same bullshit. It’s happening in Texas right now, with those fuckers from Cali.

        2. Makes sense, right?

          1. yea, i would imagine MAssholes would start infecting NH sooner or later

            sad

  3. So this counts as a failure for Romney, right? And a big win for Paul, with all the attacks he’s been getting from both TEAMZ.

    1. Mitt’s team won’t paint it that way; they’ll claim it’s a huge win over ‘acceptable’ candidates.

    2. No, moron, it’s a big win for Romney. That crackpot bag of shit has no chance, and having no chance come second is good for the front runner. You fucking idiot.

      1. Hey, Max! How you DOIN’ man?
        Was that you on the street corner in the sandwich board last night? Sure sounded like you!

      2. Re: Maxipad,

        No, moron, it’s a big win for Romney.

        Correction, it’s his only win for Romney.

        You lost.

  4. Romney is talking so much about Obama, you’d think the race is already over…

    1. No kidding; didn’t Hillary win this one the last time around?

  5. I know they keep saying that Paul is irrelevant because he can’t win, but after all the shit they throw at him they should be a little worried that he still can get 21% to 25% in states like IA and NH.

    That’s a pretty big hole in their electorate.

    1. And I’ll say this: I like the trends. Rand doesn’t have the baggage regarding newsletters and is more, so he’s a viable 2016 candidate, and Ron Paul’s massive support among younger voters is great. Ron Paul, I think, is liked in spite of his mannerisms and unfocused debating, so those young Republican are drawn more by ideology (even if they don’t all qualify for a top hat and monocle).

      1. If Rand is a viable 2016 candidate it means BO got a second term, in which case there may not be a country left to run for president of.

  6. CNN calls Ron Paul in second place, follows up by a whole column of Gingrich quotes.

    1. …”follows up by a whole column of Gingrich quotes.”
      Well, shucks. Missed it.
      Or if it’s still going on, I’m missing it.
      Or if it’s planned for sometime in the future, I will miss it.

    2. I just saw a report on CBS (leading into NCIS) saying Romney won, Huntsman battling for second with Paul. The gap between Jon and Ron is nearly the same as the gap between Mitt and Ron, but there’s no battle there.

  7. Perry takes orders from his wife; he’s staying in.
    Roemer who? He has less than 1%
    Rand can take the next one, if Romney is Charles Foster Kaned.
    Gingrich is up in the air; the man has more lives than my spoofs

    1. Gingrich is up in the air; the man has more lives than my spoofs

      Ok, that was funny.

  8. Ron Paul, I would think, can’t wait to get the other non-Romneys out of this campaign. That moment would/will be interesting indeed.

    Well, hopefully it will clear out a lot of the stupid horse-race/chess-moves bullshit out of the media coverage, and help crystallize the actual philosophical battle that’s on the table.

    Once it’s down to “Mitt and Paul,” the argument — and choice — gets pretty streamlined and forthright.

    1. Well, I think Matt is also saying that the stark differences between Paul and Mittens in terms of style, message, and character will be thrown into a much brighter light with all the other retards out of the picture.

  9. “Ron Paul, I would think, can’t wait to get the other non-Romneys out of this campaign. That moment would/will be interesting indeed.”

    Unfortunately I think that will be the moment where you see a new first:

    The media not only ignoring a candidate, but an entire political race.

    “And now, on to talking about the upcoming general election match-up. Boy, does that Mitt Romney suck compared to the embattled light-worker.”

    Meanwhile, the stealth Paul campaign soldiers on to the convention…

    1. I’ve thought for a while that a Clinton/Brown ’92 campaign would be a decently strong possibility.

      1. I hope you’re right.

        It definitely has the potential to be unpredictable.

        Setting aside the principles versus electability contrast, one of the things that intrigues me about Paul in this race is that, for better or worse, he’s almost tailor made to stress the Republican coalition.

        God of fiscal/constitutional conservativism.

        Satan of neoconservativism (i.e., nationalism/foreign policy uber-alles and peace with the New Deal).

        He’s like the anti-Fusionist.

      2. Which Clinton and which Brown in 2092?

    2. No, see, Ron Paul and all these strong showings are just hindering all of the other serious non-Romney candidates, see? That’s what Britt Hume is telling me now.

  10. So, it’s Romney 1st, Huntsman 3rd, Gingrich 4th, right? No one came in 2nd place, right?

    1. Yep, see here:
      http://englishrussia.com/2007/…..orrection/
      Who? Is there someone there? Where?

    2. What’s a “2nd”? Such an odd combination of a number and a letter.

  11. Tis is the same Romney that was sitting at 41% the other day, ahead of the “surging” Huntsman, right?

    In my opinion, this is a huge result for Ron Paul. All he’s got to do now is get past SC, FL and NV in second place, and it’ll be between him and Mittens. Once the debates are two-man shows, Super Tuesday voters will be able to get a better look at libertarian proposals. And that’ll be the death knell to Mittens hopes as presenting himself as anything but an Obama clone.

    Things are looking good!

    1. “Obama clone” is good enough for voters who say “electability” is the most important issue. WeverTF that means

      1. Theoretically it should be the best thing for them. After all, Obama got elected, right?

    2. I’ll being doing my part here in Florida. I’ve convinced several family members to vote for Paul, but they’re all registered Democrats, so they’re no help in the primary.

    3. Two problems with this plan: SC and FL. After that, I’d say it looks pretty good.

      But just the same, I made a promise to myself that if Paul did 2nd or better in NH, I’d help a bit more with his warchest. And I’ll be keeping that promise.

      Paul in 2012!

      1. Even after Florida, less than 10% of the delegates will be awarded, and Paul will likely have a fair amount of those.

        Once a few more people fall by the wayside, It’ll likely be Paul, Romneybot and a third candidate, probably Shitlube or Titties, going into Super Tuesday. And it may even be a head-to-head by then with every asshole positioning himself on his/her knees in an effort to get the VP nod from Romney.

        1. Shitlube or Titties

          Excellent.

          I am thinking they may both stay in the race for a while though, since they seem to be splitting the not-Romney not-Paul vote evenly right now. Gingrich has more money I suppose, so he could stay in longer.

          1. Fine, so long as it stays a race between Paul, Romney and the not-Romneys, then at the very least Paul can have some substantial effect at the convention.

            Remember all, these things cost money, and I can’t do it alone, so if you’ve got a couple of bucks you can put into the effort, it might make a big difference.

            Ron Paul in 2012!

    4. All he’s got to do now is get past SC, FL and NV in second place,

      Unfortunately, this is not going to happen. SC is too full of SoCon “Let’s nuke Mecca and let God sort ’em all out” types, and FL is the home of “Hands off my medicare/medicaid/social security!” old people.

      1. This. NH is a very friendly state for Paul’s philosophy, and IA is a mixed bag but still a place not entirely hostile. This isn’t a representative sample, though it’s much better than I would have guessed he would do in those states.

      2. What makes you think he won’t win NV?

        1. Nevada has a lot of Mormons, and Romney cleaned up there last time. I could see Paul getting 2nd there.

          1. paul did do well there too though – i would expect him to get at least another strong 2nd

      3. Florida hated Romney last time. Don’t think we like him now.

        Florida has a considerable population of people who aren’t retired, and even among our retired, there are those who don’t want the economy to collapse.

        Paul has a real chance here, especially if other candidates drop out before then.

        1. Since their delegates have been halved and it’s a winner-take-all state, I recall that Paul’s campaign isn’t really going to be spending much money or effort there.

  12. I love how badly Ricky Cumfart did. Fucking hilarious.

    1. We don’t take kindly to Santorum’s type up here.

    2. I love how badly Ricky Cumfart did. Fucking hilarious.

      I guess New Hampshire folks like their queers out and proud – not latent and hateful.

    3. Newt too. Fuck them both.

  13. no one thought Ron Paul would break 20% and now he’s at 25%. Romney had over 40% and he’s currently at 35%… the winds of change are going the way of Ron Paul!!

  14. I think Ron Paul has had enough of that gal CNN keeps sending out to follow him.

    1. Robert, why do you hate fluffers?

  15. Ugh. I just saw that speech Mittens gave.

    I’m going to go take a shit out of sheer principle.

    1. I envy you, my friend, as I am currently having some “personal problems”, if you know what I mean.

      1. Be jealous.

        It just kept gurgling out like Santorum.

        1. I’m gurgling out a spew that looks like Santorum. But I’ve got some stuff from the doctor. I’m planning on a voluminous defecation tomorrow morning.

          1. Please do not liveblog this.

          2. Tell me more!

          3. Tell me more!

            1. I am not going to satisfy your sick poop porn fantasies….unless there’s money involved. You think I’m a Socialist or something?

          4. Coffee and weed didn’t do the trick?

          5. Do you have a newsletter?

  16. As with Iowa, I’m curious as to how Romney and Paul’s vote totals compare with the ’08 primary.

    Here are the ’08 results:
    Mitt Romney — 75,546 votes (31.6%)
    Ron Paul ——- 18,308 votes (7.7%)

    Again like Iowa, Ron Paul will almost certainly blow those totals away, and Romney will probably not have gained much.

    1. Mitt is going to be in the high 30s at least. Do keep in mind it’s much easier to improve an abysmal showing than to get above 40% or so.

    2. Looks like Paul will triple his vote total and percentage from last time, after more than doubling them in Iowa. Good stuff.

  17. So, what’s with the love-fest between Paul and Romney lately? Romney recently was the only one to say he WOULD vote for Ronnie over Obama, and Paul has savaged basically every “front-runner” except the actual front-runner, Mitt.

    Now Paul is defending Romney’s “firing people” comment, which I actually agree with:
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..Ms.twitter

    I can see what’s in this for Romney – Paul is his weapon to club the other contenders with, and he would LOVE to narrow the race down to just him and the “kooky jew-hating libertarian heroin-pusher”. But what’s in it for Paul?

    1. But what’s in it for Paul?

      Being Romney’s running mate, perhaps?

      1. that is an interesting combo to say the least

        1. Yeah, I was thinking that earlier.

          1. I don’t know if I could vote for that combo…

      2. I’m willing to bet $10k that Pawlenty is going to be Romney’s running mate.

        1. that is probably a good bet. I bet Romney offered it to him to get him out of the race so early.

        2. I’m willing to bet $10k that Pawlenty is going to be Romney’s running mate.

          That’s probably the case; however, I don’t see the anodyne T-Paw adding any significant population of voters to Romney. Whereas, if he chose Ron Paul, he’d get most of the Paulistas.

          1. yea. i imagine it would be a net benefit

            choosing a VP is a very tactical thing. it could seriously improve his voting base i would suspect

          2. I agree. I think putting Paul on would be brilliant. But it would be risky. Mittens thinks he can win by just showing up and won’t take such a risk. He may be right.

          3. Don’t think it’d work.

            A. I doubt Paul would put himself in a position where he’d possible have to at least implicitly endorse a Romney Administration’s policies. (I think even Rand would have this problem.)

            B. Even more importantly, Romney couldn’t ever trust that Paul could be bought into doing so. Paul would be the Sword of Damocles hanging over his Administration. (Can you imagine a situation where the VP is literally at war with the President on everything?)

            1. (Can you imagine a situation where the VP is literally at war with the President on everything?)

              President Adams, meet Vice-President Jefferson.

              1. I figured there would be a precedent from the days when the loser was VP.

                Add the modern communications and 24/7 news cycle magnifying and building up every intra-Administration dispute.

              2. That’s what I was thinking. Back in the good old days, the second highest vote getter became vice president.

              3. yeah and they changed the constituion after that

            2. Paul would be the Sword of Damocles hanging over his Administration. (Can you imagine a situation where the VP is literally at war with the President on everything?)

              A) That presupposes that Romney believes in anything (other than that he should be president).

              B) That the vice presidency matters for shit (it doesn’t).

        3. He’s going to pick a Christian but I’m thinking he needs to counter Obama with a female, or a minority.

          I think it is going to be a shocker; a Nikki Haley (she’s all three)

          1. That is not a bad guess either.

          2. I’ll vote 4 U, Nikki.

          3. Nikki likes the shocker? I’m not really surprised.

          4. Yeah but she doesn’t give him much, being the governor of South Carolina, which he should have wrapped up anyway. I think Pawlenty is a better bet as someone who could swing the midwest to Team Red.

            1. JoeM, you underestimate the South’s baby Jesus nature
              -I sentence you to watching this non-stop before you make anymore comments

        4. I’m so tempted to take the bet; hmm, who could we both trust to hold the money?

          Reason would spend it on grass, ass, and Cheetos?.

          Never mind, you’re a libertarian, you probably meant the Zimbabwean dollar

        5. How do I collect?

      3. Stupid move on Romney’s part. The VP is supposed to be a threat against those that would attack the president, not an enticement.

    2. A prominent role at the convention is Paul’s goal if he loses the nomination. He wants to narrow it down to just him and Romney with Romney as the “status quo” candidate, which is what he called Romney today.

    3. He recognizes, as I do, that Romney is the least bad alternative to himself in the race. There’s also the fact that Paul tends mostly to attack people who attack him; he used to be nice to Huntsman before the “Twilight Zone” ad a couple of weeks ago.

      1. Paul tends mostly to attack people who attack him

        Non-agression principle as applied to campaign adds. Nice.

  18. Mitt this, Mitt that. Ugh. I need a drink.

    At least the Jets are beating the Bruins.

    1. How can you people watch the cable news networks without vomiting?

      1. “you people”…made me feel like my invalidation was invalid.

    2. “At least the Jets are beating the Bruins.”

      Ha ha!

    3. and the NHL needs some competent linesmen for fuck’s sake. No wonder the Western Conference is a joke right now.

  19. I am so happy for Ron Paul and his campaign!!

    The media will continue to try to ignore him and focus on Romney’s rivals in SC. Media will make much of Ron Paul not really campaigning in Florida because of the expense.

  20. I think he has as much chance as Rue Paul

    Brit Hume

    1. Well, Rue Paul didn’t score 1%, so Hume seems to have his head planted somewhere stinky.

    2. Who the hell is Rue?

      1. One of the golden girls?

      2. Well, it’s sorta like the Alou family.
        You got Matty, Moises, Felipe and Jesus. But hardly anyone remembers Hulub and Beebop.

  21. Doesn’t this finish Santorum? When you lose to Huntsman doesn’t that kind of end things?

    1. No. They are heading South

      1. Santorum always heads south.

  22. um…

    When Seattle Police Chief John Diaz announced the suicide of Officer Richard F. Nelson last week, he did so with a heavy heart. And although he had spent the day at Nelson’s bedside, he has been told he is not welcome at his funeral.
    Nelson, a 21-year veteran of SPD, killed himself on Jan. 5 after his fellow officers investigated and arrested him for possession of crack cocaine. Now, police sources confirm to 97.3 KIRO FM that Nelson’s wife has requested that any member of the department’s command staff who knew about the investigation stay away from his memorial service.

    Sources say, however, that Nelson had tremendous respect for at least one person on the command staff who may be allowed to attend. The two worked together at one time in the city’s South Precinct. KIRO FM has decided not to release that name until Nelson’s wife comes to a decision.

    Nelson will be laid to rest Thursday in Kent after a funeral mass at St. Louise Catholic Church in Bellevue. According to his obituary, Nelson served six years in the U.S. Navy before being honorably discharged. He began work as a Seattle police officer in 1990.

    “As a mounted and bicycle officer, Rick devoted his entire 21 year career to making the Rainier Valley area safer for the community,” read his obituary. “Rick also served as a Field Training Officer, training and mentoring numerous young officers on the realities of serving in South Seattle.”

    Nelson was described as an avid outdoorsman whose “passion, jokes, great cooking, and friendship will be missed by many on the force.” He is survived by his wife and two teenage daughters.

    Assigned to the South Precinct, Nelson had been the subject of an SPD investigation for his handling of narcotics evidence. After an undercover sting carried out by the department’s command staff, Nelson was arrested for cocaine possession and booked into the King County Jail early in the morning on Jan. 5.

    After his release, Nelson was found with a self-inflicted gunshot wound on the John Wayne Pioneer Trail near North Bend. He later died at Harborview Medical Center.

    1. “Cocaine’s a hell of a drug!”

    2. Nelson is yet another victim of the drug war. May he rest in peace.

      1. i wish the agency would ahve reached out to him, offerend him counseling, etc. as they have done in the past, and once he got clean he could go back to work

        as i said, given the amount of scrutiny on SPD, diaz was gunning for him, so decided to do a sting, instead of treating this like a personnel addiction issue (which is how it was dealt with in the past, GENERALLY speaking)

        remember, they didn’t catch him in a crime or something initially. fellow officers expressed concern (note: they turned him in, contra the blue wall of silencememe) that he was acting strangely and expressing undue interest in seized drugs

        some have also criticized the SPD because if they suspected he might be under the influence of cocaine, by contintuing to let him work instead of pulling him in right away, they may have risked public safety out of desire to catch him in a sting-crime.

        that’s also an issue

        1. remember, they didn’t catch him in a crime or something initially. fellow officers expressed concern (note: they turned him in, contra the blue wall of silencememe)

          Awesome. And all it took was a full-court press from the feds and the national media about how they’d basically instutionialized the blue wall.

          Great point. This totally disproves the blue wall of silence.

        2. i wish the agency would ahve reached out to him, offerend him counseling, etc. as they have done in the past, and once he got clean he could go back to work

          Because that’s what they usually do with people they catch in drug stings, right?

          Go and fuck yourself and your double-standards.

          1. i was waiting for this false analogy

            yawn.

            they found out an EMPLOYEE might be using drugs

            they chose to sting him and make a criminal case.

            it’s an EMPLOYEE

            if they pulled him over and found drugs on him, THAT would be a double standard if they didn’t handle it criminally

            however, in this case, they were notified an officer might be (not even RS) using drugs

            they could have offered him help (that’s what i suspect my agency would do), but they decided to set up a integrity test

            i would have preferred they did the approach i mention

            but it’s completely disanalogous to the situation you mentioned.

            hth

            1. iow,they created the drug sting once they found out an employee might have a drug problem

              if starbux finds out an employee might have a drug problem they don’t call the cops to sting them

              hth

              1. So, what you’re saying is: if the cops find one of their own is stealing drugs (which is why they set the sting up), they should set up a sting as an employment matter, but when they see joe the crack dealer on the street, they should set up a sting as a criminal matter.

                And you still want to say that you don’t advocate a double-standard? Holy fucking shit.

                1. Don’t you get it, sloop? Any time you compare identical situations between LEO and non-LEO it’s a false-equivalency. KNOW MADDER WUT

    3. For the record, The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet sucked balls.

      I sure hope his wife doesn’t get his pension.

      1. considering that given 21 yrs of service, he PUT IN SCORES OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO THE PENSION why the fuck shouldn’t he?

        the way LEOFFII works is that we put INTO the pension system. it is taken OUT OF OUR PAY. it is not like the systems of old,e.g. NYC’s back in the day which was solely defined benefit

        i would guess that he probably has AT LEAST 200k in the pension system . that’s based on 21 yrs of service (including OT) and the average return we’ve seen in the LEOFF II system.

        frankly, i’m not sure what the LEOFFII system does in cases like this, but at a minimum, she’d have to get the contributions back plus the interest

        1. Once they find all of the IOUs in the evidence room that pension won’t be worth shit. Coke’s an expensive habit.

          1. it’s almost impossible for him to have gotten stuff from the evidence room. iow, i doubt it.

            what he could have done is take cocaine PRIOR to putting it in evidence, most of which will never be known

            like if he got 5 rocks of crack off a street punk and only submitted 3

            or more likely, never submitted anything

                    1. i’m talking about SPD, dood.

                      i have been speaking with this cop’s best friend on the PD ,s o i know a liiiitttllleee bit more about SPD EVIDENCE procedures than you do

                      in a lot of podunk etc. PD’s it is easy. it is NOT easy in SPD for a patrol officer to voucher out drugs

                      they are looking into it, and if it appears he stole any drugs from the evidence room, it will come out

                      at this point, i r emain extremely skeptical

                      hth

                    2. All right, fuck it. I’m gonna ask dunphy if stealing and possessing 120 Oxycodone pills usually carries a penalty of three days, or if they just reserve that lenient sentence for cops.

                      Of course, the double standard cuts both ways. He just can’t find more than one questionable example where it ends up being tougher on cops.

                    3. i can’t speak for new hampshire. i can tell you that i have seen similar sentences for FIRST TIME OFFENDER non-cops as well

                      again, i am not claiming a double standard doesn’t exist. i said it works both ways

                      like the cop with ONLY a prior misdemeanor case (yes, 10 counts. from ONE CASE) who got 23 yrs in WA. when i can’t find ANY example in the entire state of ANYbody gettign convicted of an assault offense(s) who was not a felon who got more than 20. 10-15 is the max range you see

                      yet he got 8 yrs more. and the judge STATED that he thought cops should get harsher penalties

                      so again, you are playing games. you fail to recognize both sides. you recognize ONE side, because that’s what bigots do

                      the retrials after hung juries, the stiffer sentences, etc. get ignored by you because it doesn’t fit your metanarrative

                      man, that cognitive dissonance must hurt, huh sloopy?

                    4. i can’t speak for new hampshire. i can tell you that i have seen similar sentences for FIRST TIME OFFENDER non-cops as well

                      again, i am not claiming a double standard doesn’t exist. i said it works both ways

                      like the cop with ONLY a prior misdemeanor case (yes, 10 counts. from ONE CASE) who got 23 yrs in WA. when i can’t find ANY example in the entire state of ANYbody gettign convicted of an assault offense(s) who was not a felon who got more than 20. 10-15 is the max range you see

                      yet he got 8 yrs more. and the judge STATED that he thought cops should get harsher penalties

                      so again, you are playing games. you fail to recognize both sides. you recognize ONE side, because that’s what bigots do

                      the retrials after hung juries, the stiffer sentences, etc. get ignored by you because it doesn’t fit your metanarrative

                      man, that cognitive dissonance must hurt, huh sloopy?

                    5. this guy got a year.

                      no priors.

                      that’s in EXCESS of the standard sentence for 1st time offenders here in WA

                      so, again.. you can be selective or look at the ENTIRE piciture and admit that it is not as simple as you proclaim

                      http://blog.thenewstribune.com…..narcotics/

        2. considering that given 21 yrs of service, he PUT IN SCORES OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO THE PENSION why the fuck shouldn’t he?

          Well, perhaps he should. She didn’t contribute a dime.

          frankly, i’m not sure what the LEOFFII system does in cases like this, but at a minimum, she’d have to get the contributions back plus the interest

          Right, because when a living cop who’s not a felon gets their contributions plus interest, they stop sending him/her a check, right?

          Just so I’m clear: if a crooked cop (this fuckhead didn’t have a problem putting other people in cuffs for drug crimes) kills himself, his wife should get the full amount he put in. If he had not taken the coward’s way out, would you be clamoring for him to keep getting retirement pay even after he had surpassed his contribution plus interest?

          ^^This^^ is why idiot police unions ought not to be able to negotiate for publicly funded pensions.

          1. it’s HIS money, dipshit

            it was taken OUT of his paycheck.

            if his wife, was his beneficiary, then it’s her money

            like i said, i don’t know if LEOFF II would pay her the PENSION iow the defined BENEFIT stuff, if he committed suicide after he was vested, but the money he put in is HIS money. even if HE went to jail for murder, he’d still get it.

            as it should be. otherwise, it’s a theft

            1. I would agree if, and only if, they cut every other pensioner off once they reach their contribution + interest.

              But oh no, if they’re alive they can suck on the taxpayer teat forever. If they’re dead, it’s only fair for their beneficiary to get what they paid in.

              Then why the fuck doesn’t Social Security work the same way for the rest of us peons? Oh, I know: it’s because we don’t have a union that negotiates those terms with the same people whose campaigns we finance.

              as it should be. otherwise, it’s a theft

              But somehow, it’s not a theft when they keep collecting long after the amount paid + interest has been surpassed, right?

              1. no, that’s not theft, because it’s part of a contract, sloopy. remember contracts? under the LEOFF-II system which is a CONTRACT in the state of WA, officers and firefighters get a defined benefit equal to a %age of their highest five paid consecutive years

                they also must, per the law PUT INTO THE SYSTEM a certain percentage of their pay every paycheck

                the money he put in, plus interest is his NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. he could commit a triple homicide and it’s still is

                because committing another crime doesn’t justify the state in STEALING FROM HIM

                however, his getting his PENSION is contingent on service etc.

                you are confusing two issues. you may consider it theft, just like you can consider taxes theft, but LEGALLY SPEAKING, since there is the LEOFF II contract, officers and firefighters are LEGALLY ENTITLED to our pensions hth

                but our pensions =/= our contributions, which are ours REGARDLESS of whether we meet pension requirements (vesting etc) if we leave etc

                1. It’s theft as long as they’re taking my money without my consent and giving it to an agent of the state that contributes to the election campaign of the person they negotiate with.

                  In the private sector, it’s called extortion.

  23. The big bald bearded guy standing from Ron Paul looks familiar. Isn’t he the founder of the FSP or something like that?

    1. … behind Ron Paul

      1. I think that is Bobby Fisher – former world chess champion. He is cleaned up a bit.

  24. End the Fed! End the Fed!

    Ron Paul victory speech is killing them.

  25. So, if each of the top 3 (Mitt, Rick, and Ron) got 6 delegates in Iowa, and Ron is in second in NH (with Santorum nowhere to be found), why is MSNBC showing the delegate count as Romney 16, Santorum 11, Paul 5, Huntsman 1, and so on? Did I miss something?

    1. Did I miss something?

      Yes, but only because you’re not on the revamped Journolist mailing list.

  26. Romney is probably going to get the nomination, but RP is likely to enter the R natinal convention with a bunch of delegates.

    I would be happy if RP traded his delegates to Romney for a promise from Romney to end the drug war. Ending the WoD is my make or break issue with any candidate.

    1. It’s a pretty good indicator of a person’s feeling on individual liberty. I’ll never vote for another candidate that won’t end it.

        1. there is no way on earth romney would end the drug war

          note also, the president CA N’T end the drug war.

          first of all, they can’t affect state drug laws, and second of all, etc.

          he could certainly promise AND DELIVER on not usurping state authoritah vis a vis medical mj and/or legalized MJ when it happens

          given romney, it’s almost unthinkable. he’s a drug warrior. plain and simple

          1. he’s a drug warrior. plain and simple

            So are you.

            1. false. but nice trolling attempt
              endlessly asked and answered.

              1. I’m no fan of most cops, but I’ve gotta say I’d rather get pulled over by someone like dunphy than a lot of the power-tripping assholes I’ve interacted with before.

                1. thx. also, i work a state with a right to privacy. our search/seizure powers are thus much more limited than many other states. a good thing

          2. You are right, of course, Mitt is a plain-vanilla freedom-hating drug warrior.

            Actually, when I say, “end the drug war”, I mean get the feds out of the picture. I am content to let states make their own rules even if they decide to outlaw drugs.

            I would be content to remove Cannabis from schedule 1 (this is something the prez could do), and just get the feds out of the killing people for Cannabis business.

            1. can the prez remove cannabis from schedule I?

              i am not sure the precise procedures, frankly, for scheduling or descheduling (or moving between schedules) a drug…

              is it an executive branch thang under the federal code?

              1. It’s administrative. The sec’y of HHS is supposed to report to the att’y gen’l on the characteristics of the substance (“potential for `abuse'”, safety under medical sup’v, etc.) and the att’y gen’l then act on those findings. They can add & remove substances from any federal control schedule, and can also remove them from one schedule and put them in another. A number of substances have gone thru those processes.

                Acts of Congress can always amend the statute to do it themselves, undo what’s been done administratively, etc. Congress has indeed made many changes to the schedules legislatively.

                Someone could always challenge a change on legal grounds, saying the agencies were arbitrary & capricious. It happened in the Reagan admin., when someone sued to overturn deregulation of motor vehicles in the area of passive restraints; the deregul’n was reversed in court.

                1. good info. thx

                2. Any bets as to how fast Congress would draw up a law removing that authority if a president were to act on it and remove mj from Schedule 1?

                  I’d say it’d be done in 30 days or less.

                  And I’d also bet they’d have the numbers to overrule a veto too.

          3. You have a good point. However, the state thing is not really a deal breaker. The day after federal funding for the drug war was cut off, at least 40 states would legalize.

            1. No way. You forget that narcotics prohib’n by the states preceded its federal enactment, and that the states are still passing new controls on substances in advance of the feds.

              1. But they still rely heavily on federal money to fight the WoD.

                That’s part of the reason why so many states are scared to act. They know that the minute they were to enact some sort of legalization legislation, the tens (or hundreds) of millions of federal dollars which pay for very large, UNIONIZED police forces and their happy toys is gone. The drug war is an industry that survives largely because of the federal trough.

                Rand Paul noted that if KY were to no longer have federal funding for the drug war that KY would have to essentially give up on marijuana prohibition so that the state could focus their resources where the larger problems lie (meth manufacturing, for instance). They simply would not have the money to keep up large scale prohibition, and would have to prioritize (like any good government should do anyways).

                This would be a very good thing.

                As soon as the feds pipe down in the WoD, the states will follow because their cash cow will be dry.

            2. 40 states is pure hyperbole. I think there’s a chance maybe 5 western states legalize marijuana more quickly following such action (Wash, CA, Ore, Col, AZ), but I don’t see any state out and out legalizing anything like heroin or cocaine very quickly.

          4. note also, the president CA N’T end the drug war.

            It all depends on who he puts in charge of the Justice Department and who that person puts in charge of the DEA, etc. Law enforcement can use discretion. At least on the federal level, the president can effectively, if not nominally, end the drug war.

      1. [The drug war is] a pretty good indicator of a person’s feeling on individual liberty. I’ll never vote for another candidate that won’t end it.

        ^^THIS^^

    2. Romney would break that promise on January 21, 2013, if he won the election.

    3. I’d be happy with a Romney promise to make Jim Grant Fed chairman.

  27. Check out this guy’s blog. Fucker is just certain God is a conservative and that’s why he’s a Titties supporter.

    Of course, he dismissed Paul, saying he’d get “15-20% like always.”

    But I just can’t get over supporting Titties. I mean, unless God supports serial adultery, deprivation of human rights and aggressively bombing people into the stone age. And last I checked, Jesus was pretty much against any of that bullshit.

    1. Yep, but Jesus was pretty much against a lot of shit socons get riled up about.

      1. He was more of a Democrat.

        1. he was more of neither

          1. He never was.

        2. no, Jesus was NOT a Dem. He never called for the long arm of govt to take from one to give to another. He did, however, think those with should help those without, charity in keeping with many conservatives.

          1. He was more of a commie

            There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. – Acts 4:34

            1. Yawn. Voluntary sharing of resources != communism. And Jesus wasn’t involved at that point.

            2. I don’t recall the Acts of the Apostles as being a book about Jesus of Nazareth…

        3. Caesar ? God.

          1. No, but Cesar could troll even the Most High.

    2. At some point it’s going to dawn on these types that the GOP can’t afford to throw away the Paul vote. Or not.

      1. When they throw it away, they lose. Again. And 2016 will be even darker for their ilk…assuming we aren’t living in Mad Max times.

    3. The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it… In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.

      1. So, is that a vote in support of Romney’s “firing people” comment?

    4. I saw your post.

      I posted something similar.

      Where do these assholes come from?

      1. You’re truly doing God’s work, jacob…even if you have the name of a Joo! (I keed! I keed!)

        OK, you gotta check this out: It’s the Barracuda Brigade. That dumbshit above linked to it as a favorite. Check it out while I go bleach my eyes.

  28. Paul just gave a stellar speech

    1. shrike|1.10.12 @ 9:05PM|#
      “End the Fed! End the Fed!
      Ron Paul victory speech is killing them.”

      rather|1.10.12 @ 9:17PM|#
      “Paul just gave a stellar speech”
      —————–
      Were there two speeches?

        1. OK, it isn’t up yet but I followed all their wrap-ups and his was in-depth, not bromidic political diarrhea

          1. I thought it was good.

            1. He stabbed the “we are scary” mantra in the heart, and the vampire media and politicians are going to have to go to regroup if they want to go for his blood

  29. On the same CNN page as the primary results was the story “Americans are binge drinking more”.

    Think anyone at CNN will make the connection?

    1. I want to binge drink everytime I read exit poll numbers.

  30. How about this for a conjecture as to the Romney-Paul “love-fest”?

    I don’t see a Romney-Ron Paul ticket much use to Paul. The VP slot is really only meaningful as a springboard to a future presidential nomination.

    But, a Romney-Rand Paul ticket would be ideal. If Romney wins the general, it sets up Rand nicely in 8 years. If Romney loses, it sets up Rand nicely in 4 years.

    1. A VP nomination is a huge deal It does more than set you up. The VP has a lot of influence in an administration. a libertarian VP isn’t as good as a President. But a lot better than anything in the past.

      1. The VP has a lot of influence in an administration.

        That’s completely at the discretion of the prez. For every Dick Cheney imperial veephood there’s a Dan Quayle hiding somewhere far away from any cameras or microphones.

        It’s hard to tell where Biden is on that scale; the utter incompetence of the administration certainly fits in with him, but it might be a koinkydink.

    2. Is the Governor of KY a Republican or Democrat? What is their process for replacing a Senator that leaves? Those will both be important factors in whether or not Rand Paul is viable as a Team Red VP candidate.

      1. Steve Beshear, a democrat I think.

      2. Good point – KY has a Democratic governor. Not that I care, since both parties are essentially the same, but it would definitely matter to the RNC. Though, they probably wouldn’t mind to see Rand out of the Senate and take their chances in 8 years.

    3. not a bad conjecture.

    4. Rand is much ore acceptable to mainline conservatives. Romney Rand would be a hell of a unity ticket.

      1. But a VP with just two years of political experience under his — oh wait, we elected a President with about the same experience politically, and far less in life experience. But then again, he is the worst president of the modern era so it clearly was not a good idea.

  31. Paul’s speech was awesome!

    1. but cuntsman has 2 hot chicks in the background

      1. The brunette in the red dress was especially babeilicious.

    1. How big is the anti-war crowd? I’ve gotta believe Paul is getting somewhere around 90% of their votes.

  32. Can someone please link to Paul’s speech?

  33. Damnit, Huntsman edged Paul 35-34 in my dad’s hometown.

    1. That’s actual votes, not percents.

  34. I have no idea how Huntsman, who tried to Santorum New Hampshire, can recover

    One nice thing about English is that any noun can be verbed.

  35. I would like to remind everyone that Meredith is still a bullshit, froo-froo pussy town. No matter how they vote. The fact is that Meredith businesses don’t even open on Mondays because the Masshole jagoffs who enjoy hanging around a place like that are all at work, and thus only go on the weekend and leave by Sunday evening. Meredith sucks.

    1. It’s Lakes Region, what do you expect?

  36. I have no idea how Huntsman, who tried to Santorum New Hampshire, can recover from a third-place finish there

    I’m not sure how you’re getting the notion that the guy who finished in third place in NH “can’t recover” from the allegedly disasterous showing of beating the near-winner from Iowa by about a 2-1 margin.

    Are you really about to call this a two person race after two states? Really?

    1. But isn’t Huntsman really weak in SC?

      1. Well colbert is polling better but im sure he can convince the democrats to change their voting plans

    2. I’d tend to agree that one of the socons is still going to be around after SC and FL.

  37. Looks like the main messaging from Paul’s campaign for tomorrow’s news cycle is set:

    Ron Paul To Everyone But Mitt: Drop Out

    Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.

    “We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy,” campaign chair Jesse Benton said in a statement.

    1. Who would the other four endorse, between Romney and Paul?

      Oh, and does anyone know if Bachmann has endorsed anyone yet? I’m betting on Santorum.

  38. Very striking in the exit polls is the more schooling, the more Huntsman voting; not as strong a correlation with Ron Paul votes, but there it’s negative.

  39. It seems like liberals get enraged when atheists support Paul, a socon. I don’t get why it’s so hard to understand that political actions and personal beliefs don’t have to be the same.

    1. paul is not a socon

      he’s pro-life, but that alone does not make him a socon.

      1. He is. He just isn’t in the political meaning of the word where SoCon means to necessarily use government to force socially conservative views on everyone.

        But Paul is socially conservative.

        1. oh ok. yes, that’s a good distinction. you are correct.

          i actually haven’t paid a lot of attention ot his personal stances on issues, because to me what is relevant is one’s political stances.

          iow, i don’t care if prez thinks premarital sex is an awful, terrible thing, that gay sex is worse, that drugs r bad, mmkay, etc. as long as same prez candidate doesn’t want to use the power of govt. to enforce THOSE viewpoints

          not saying RP has those, just using an extreme example

          that’s why his prochoice thang is consistent with libertarianism, since it’s “other affecting” whereas drug use, etc. is self affecting

          good point

          1. He’s a SoCon (to some extent) as a Texas voter. Opposes gay midge and abortion at the state level, etc.

            1. Maybe I’m picking nits here, but Paul is Socially Libertarian. He is conservative in his personal life.

              There is a difference.

              1. Well, it depends on the issue. Abortion and gayriage, etc.

                1. I’m taking “gayriage.” Good word.

              2. I don’t know, I could believe that he thinks society would be better off if people were more conservative in their lifestyle choices. We shouldn’t make the same mistake as others in confusing society with the state. One can be a social conservative without being a state conservative.

    2. It seems like liberals get enraged
      ————————-
      doesn’t ‘seem’; it’s what they do.

    3. It seems like liberals get enraged when atheists support Paul …

      Awesome! I do so enjoy enraging liberals.

  40. Romney’s statement about firing people, and in fact his entire career at Bain Capital, shows that this whole Republican job creator mantra is, to steal a line from Newt Gingrich, pious baloney. The word pious fits because Republicans really do worship the top 1 percent and the Wall Street tycoons like Romney who manipulate money but don’t actually build anything or create net new jobs. In fact, not only do they not create them, they actually destroy them.

    1. Please quote mittens’ statement about firing people, in context. That, or shut the fuck up.

    2. he didn’t say firing people, he said firing service providers who give you lousy service, like health insurance providers. Stop being like the Dem sheep. Good grief; this quote – IN FULL CONTEXT – has been out since breakfast.

      By the way, Romney’s company created jobs…ever hear of Staples? And the company used its own money. Obama, by contrast, is a net job-loss POTUS.

      1. Actually he did say “fire people” but he meant organizations, not people. He misspoke and it cost him dearly.

        1. yes, technically he said ‘fire people’ but only the clueless (read: liberals) took it to mean that. If it costs him, as you say, the electorate gets the four more years of Obama it will deserve. Not saying Mitt is the answer but economically, he beats the current office holder.

    3. “The word pious fits because Republicans really do worship the top 1 percent and the Wall Street tycoons”

      Unlike, oh, that guy Obama, right? Is he a Republican? Or are you just full of shit?

      1. Obama doesn’t worship Wall Street tycoons.

        He extorts them.

        1. Yeah, in much the same way that a hooker extorts a john.

        2. And I fail to see a difference between blue and red, unlike full of shit Mike Lux.

  41. Curse you Perry the candidate!

      1. A-GENT P!

        1. Probably my favorite show that my kids like.

          1. Easily the best show that my kids like.

            It seems that the writers of P&F understand that, oftentimes, parents will be watching television with their children, and throw bones in just for us to keep us from going batshit insane.

            Lots of 80s humor, snide remarks, particularly from Dr. D, etc.

            It also teaches my children that it’s okay to go out and be reckless while having fun.

  42. The bad thing for Ron Paul, and much more so for Huntsman, are their votes among those who say they’re dissatisfied with the GOP field. That means they could lose votes to a new entrant.

    1. The likelihood of a new entrant would be pretty low at this point. It’s awfully late in the party (npi) to be building a campaign from scratch while trying to get on the ballot in the remaining primaries.

    2. Re: Robert,

      That means they could lose votes to a new entrant.

      Yeah, and since there are such a great lot of them all lined up just outside the door…

      1. is… there is a great lot – man, I have to learn to press the “preview” button always, not just when I think my tags are wrong.

        1. Makes as much sense as a plural as singular…maybe more, in fact.

          Anyway, this field is so shaky that all it’ll take is someone to do some polling in July that says a particular someone else is favored by more, and a deadlocked convention will draft hir. It’s a fool’s errand, though. Come election day, voters won’t care who the Republican nominee is; they’ll be voting either Obama or Not-Obama. All Republicans are equally electable this year. Obama is more polarizing than any president I can remember. People will hardly even pay att’n to the Republican nominees for prez & veep. I don’t know if Obama’s going to win again or not, but it’s all on him.

    3. Like Boothead?

    4. I’m thinking if this is down to a four man race after SC or Florida, then Roemer might get a little attention if he stays in. Or Karger. They could steal votes, but I’d find them more acceptable than, say, Newt or Santorum.

      Of course, they may have dropped out, and I’d never have heard.

  43. …is that those for whom the economy is the #1 issue, the preferred choice is Mitt Romney, 42-21.

    I think this goes away when it becomes a two-man race. Paul could then focus more on the economy rather than all of these media-driven “Republican” issues.

  44. According to CNN, Paul “decisively” won the votes from Independents, followed by Mittens in second and Huntsman a distant 3rd.

      1. How the fuck is it that those who support the TP voted 2 to 1 in favor of Mittens over Paul. Paul is the fucking godfather of the Tea Party, and he doesn’t have RomneyCare around his neck. If ObamaCare was a huge sticking point for the TP, and it was, you’d think they would flock away from Mittens in droves.

        This tells me that fiscal conservatism isn’t the foremost thought in the minds of your average Tea Partier.

        1. At least in New Hampshire. But what about elsewhere?

          1. A similar trend happened in Iowa as well. Santorum took the TP vote 1.5 to 1 (as compared to Paul). And Santorum (nor Romney) are anything but fiscal conservatives. In fact, it’s demonstrably true that BOTH are every bit as happy to spend our money as your average tax-n-spend liberal.

            The voters in these two states have other things besides fiscal conservatism on their minds when they get to the polls.

            How much you wanna bet that it holds for at least 46 of the 48 remaining states, with perhaps exceptions in TX (Ron’s home state), and KY (Rand’s home state)?

        2. Those who claim to support the TP, you mean.

          1. It appears (and has for some time) that the red team accomplished a TP takeover. Sad really, but when both red and blue were pushing for it that hard for that long (along with the entire MSM) it was probably inevitable.

            1. Mainly it’s a matter of distinguishing between activists — i.e. people who actually attend the tea parties — and people who are voting in a primary and if you ask them on the way out whether they support the tea parties…. Of course the latter are going to be more numerous and hence more mainstream.

        3. You have alluded to something that I’ve kind of thought all along.

          The Tea party states they are an alternative to the Republican establishment, but they I think they are the Republican establishment. Just about every local Tea party website is pushing for Romney or Gingrich or Santorum. There are very few Tea Party groups that support Ron Paul or Rick Perry.

        4. You’re right, conservatism isn’t foremost in their minds, getting Obama out of the White House is. They think (incorrectly) that it’s going to make a difference in electability as to who the Republicans nominate; it won’t, but they think Romney is more electable. Why? Because he’s the front runner, so he must be more attractive to voters.

          1. I agree that the foremost thought in every non Team BLUE lemming is getting Obama out of office.

            But the point of getting him out of office is because he is reckless with our money and freedoms. Choosing to go with someone else who is demonstrably as reckless with our money and freedoms defeats the purpose. They might as well let Obama stay in office and own EVERYTHING that happens.

            Until we elect a president who is consistently pro-freedom, it will be the same guy. The only substantive difference is the letter after his name.

      2. Notice that 41% of the Democrats voted for Huntsman and 40% are satisfied with Obama?

        I love statistics.

  45. More horror stories from the Republican assault on the poor: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/08/…..p-profile/

    1. “horror stories from the *Republican* assault on the poor”
      See anything in the link that claims “Republican”? Or are you just full of shit?

    2. The 44-year-old mother of five grown children scoops up boxes of food. She doesn’t have time to go a mile away to the Occupy protests and shake her fist. She’s just trying to make sure her family can eat today.

      _________________________

      Looks like she’s been eating about 15 meals a day since she was 4. And can you believe, they only have ONE CAR? Gosh, it is heart breaking. They probably have a window unit and no central air, too.

  46. I can only hope that Romney will win NH with less votes than he got in 2008.

    1. He was smeared by McCain in NH in 08.

      1. How could Romney have been smeared? He has held every conceivable position on every issue at some point in time.

  47. Armstrong Williams wrote that Paul is not really serious about being President and that he’s really preparing the young pup Rand Paul Atreides for his potential capture of the coveted post by 2016…

    Yeah, and people say that Paul is nutty.

    1. They tend to say he’s crackpot bag of racist shit.

      1. Max|1.10.12 @ 10:07PM|#
        *They* tend to say…”

        Max, it that a turd in your pocket? Does that qualify the “they”?

    2. It seems to me that he may well be doing both. He’s certainly trying to be president, but he’s also cultivating Rand at the same time.

      Good for him. At the very least, he’s ploughing the field for more libertarianism in our future.

      1. Uh, keep in mind that Ron has never won an election as high-profile as Rand’s Senate victory. The cultivation might be going the other way.

        1. The field metaphor I alluded to, apparently unsuccessfully, was that Paul is ploughing America for more libertarianism, not that he was somehow parting the Red Sea so that Rand could achieve victory.

    3. So he’s going to sabotage Mitt in 2012? That’s the only way Rand is going to be in a position to run in 2016. Unless he switches parties.

      1. I don’t know that Rand runs in 2016.

        He’ll have a Senate seat to defend, and I don’t know that he’ll run for both senator AND president simultaneously (even if one is able to do that).

        It would be a shame if Rand were to run as president in 2016, lose, AND lose his Senate seat. That would be a huge blow for libertarianism (even if imperfect forms of it).

        Were I Rand, I would not run until 2020, when I can have a fully committed campaign to winning the presidency, while not having to worry about losing a seat in the Senate.

  48. Depending on how things shake out after tonight, Paul’s goal has to be not to finish last in SC and FL. If Huntsman stays in that shouldn’t be too hard. If he drops out it’s going to be tough. I don’t see him beating Newt or either of the Ricks in that area.

  49. This is about as good as a result as one could hope for. Paul kicked some ass. Romney didn’t do terrible but didn’t do great. Hunstman may be a douche but he’s better than Newty or Santorum and he crushed them both. A Romney-Paul ticket…that would so interesting.

    1. Pushing 40% in a six man field, with a target on your back and Cuntsman lying his ass off to tear you down, is pretty good.

    2. I’m polishing up my rifle, now.

  50. This is good news for Paul. Romney has three states that he’s supposed to “own”: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Utah. If the field had narrowed before this vote by even one candidate, Paul could’ve won. It’s that close.

    I think Romney is going to blow apart in the South (with a couple of exceptions). Just too many conservatives despise him and suspect he’ll keep the plane firmly on “dive.” If Paul can win and place high there, he could really win this thing.

    1. Why do you think Paul would win in the South, and not Gingrich or Santorum?

      [retching]

      1. Because the South isn’t the monolithic region people think it is. Paul won’t alienate people with his anti-government stance down here, nor will his personal beliefs. Some won’t like his foreign policy, but this idea that the entire South is in love with foreign intervention is a little silly and untrue. We’re just as worried about the federal government and the economy as any other person not in love with the partisan gamesmanship.

        It’s not that everyone is going libertarian, but the frustration with the status quo is reaching a high level. Romney is clearly not the answer.

        1. Yep, the South has no more egregious “let’s go whup that ass” mindset than any other broad region of the country.

          Anyone who assumes that is just mindlessly leaning on old, tired, unquestioned cliches.

          As someone who grew up in Charlotte — where it seems half the streets, parks and schools have names like “Independence” and “Freedom” — and then later moved to Michigan, I can tell you with whatever absolute certainty my personal observations may contain: These fuckers up here are far more wedded to this “Amurrica fuck yeah” tough-guy complex than the just-leave-me-alone-thanks folks I grew up with in North Carolina.

          Now, I don’t know how well Ron Paul will do down South (I just genuinely don’t know; the dynamics of the evangelical blocs and all that are too boring for me to care). But if he stumbles there, “foreign policy” won’t be any more culpable there than it’s been anywhere else.

    2. So Romney is going to fall apart, but legalize-drugs and be-nice-to-Iran Paul is going to win some states?

      (I agree with both those positions but those are going over like a non-Mythbusters lead balloon in the South)

      1. S/he never said Dr. Paul would win, only that Romney would do badly. If anybody but Romney wins FL and their unit rule for delegates holds up at the nat’l convention, that will close to equalize the delegates count, putting Romney in the same stew as the entire field and giving anyone the chance to be front runner.

    3. And…Romney owns a state where one of his opponents is governor, a state where he’s supposedly so unpopular from his own governorship, and a state that happens to be near the state where he used to be governor? No one’s saying Paul “owns” Louisiana, are they?

      Way to downplay the Mitt juggernaut. The Romney Express will come through your town soon, and if you care about liberty you better come out and wave.

      1. You seriously think that Huntsman will survive until then? Sometimes I think you just like the nay-say for the heck of it.

        A good chunk of the party doesn’t like Romney. They’re uncomfortable with some of Paul, but not so much that they’re going to vote Romney if it’s between the two of them.

        Santorum is dying rapidly, and Gingrich isn’t likely to surge much, either. While SC is likely out of reach, Florida isn’t. In fact, I think Florida is going to be a surprise to many.

        1. They’re uncomfortable with some of Paul, but not so much that they’re going to vote Romney if it’s between the two of them.

          You’re high.

        2. Sorry tater. But it’s spelt Cuntsman. Not Hunstman. Cuntsman. CUNTS MAN.

      2. And, of course, I’m not downplaying anything. Him performing in Iowa was significant; him winning New Hampshire isn’t. Trust me, he knows what’s next, as he encountered the next phase of the primaries and didn’t survive long at all.

        1. Well yeah, he’s likely to do worse in the South, but not “falling apart” worse. Unless one of the sociocons sweeps SC & FL, he’ll still be comfortably ahead going into Super Tuesday. Paul just has to try not to finish last.

  51. I hate to rain on everyone’s parade but it is Romney- 2, Everyone else 0. That is the is the meme being presented. SC, FL isn’t going to go well for Paul. I hope that he remains within 10 points. NV will be interesting even though there are a lot of Mormons. If Mittens when by 14% in all three states, it is over.

    1. I wouldn’t count FL out for Paul. It’s far too diverse to say that it’s an evangelical state, and in North Florida, where the evangelical demographic is strong, Paul’s face and name is EVERYWHERE. Billboards. Radio. Church signs. Front Lawns.

      Fucking everywhere.

      1. Cuban exiles + retirees = Paul last place finish

        1. Yeah. Because the only demographic in FL is Cubans and old fogies.

  52. Go, RP. Even though he is an imperfect messenger libertarian ideas will have a better airing than they have previously.

    Santorum will surge in SC.

    Mittens will win in VA but Paul will show well.

  53. So, latest polls before the vote showed Paul at 20% in NH and he’s l0ooking at 23% right now with 78% of votes counted.

    Anyone think that his debate performance boosted him? I think it did. He seemed stronger, more emotional (in a good way) and more cogent than ever. This weird drawn out never-ending debate cycle seems to have produced one good side effect in making the old boy a better communicator.

    1. Just scrolling through some YouTube videos this past half-hour, I was struck that Paul’s recent interviews, conversations and speeches have been notably more crisp and lucid than they were coming off even a couple of weeks ago. Less fumbly and mumbly, more precise and pointed. Fewer of the half-finished sentences that were abruptly veering off into some other half-expressed thought — even half-finished words in some cases — and more sharp, poised clarity.

      That’s a very good thing. And it’s impressive: In perhaps the most clamorous, intense campaign stretch of his career, he’s looking more bright-eyed and smooth.

      Maybe they’ve got him popping some Ritalin or something, or whatever it is that shake outs verbal cobwebs. I don’t know. Whatever it is, his oratorical skillz certainly seemed to have stepped up a notch.

  54. now that all the not ron paul not romney’s have had their surge, is it time to start again with Michelle?

    Wolf:”Michelle Bachman may have dropped out too soon, can she get back in for SC? Back after the break…”

    1. I’m unclear on what’s changed since a week ago that suddenly makes her candidacy viable.

      1. Ron paul keeps doing well in the primaries, that’s what makes heer candidacy viable in the msm. If ron paul manages to win a state primary, the msm will start taking about sarah palin. If ron paul were to actually win the primary, they’d start talking about walter mondale.

  55. Npr actually talked about ron paul… I mean, they talked about him like one would talk about an illegitimate, back room sprog that no one in the family really wants to acknowledge… Ej dionne said, and I quote, “i don’t know what to make of him”…but they talked about him.

    1. “i don’t know what to make of him”

      We’re so backward as a people, we put those who were unable to fit squares in square holes and circles in circular holes during test administered in kindergarten to the front of the class.

    2. i don’t know what to make of him

      It’s likely because they’ve never seen a candidate with, you know, integrity.

      The media is fucking flabbergasted that what they’re trying to spoon feed to the general public about Paul being a extreme right wing loony, racist, tea bagger isolationist who wants old people to die in the streets isn’t resonating with enough of the people.

  56. So who is this Ron Paul chap? Salon appears to need an introduction.

  57. “Where we stand right now is a solid, comfortable, confident position. And we go south from here,”

    Huntsman is right. That is exactly where his campaign is going.

    Fun Fact: Over 1,000 people wasted their vote on Rick Perry in New Hampshire.

    1. Not to be a dick, gosling but it’s spelt Cuntsman. Not Hunstman. Cuntsman. CUNTS MAN.

      Oh and for some reason…Santorum is pronounced ASS JUICE.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.