USMC Disclaimers

You know those disclaimers at the end of drug or car ads? What if they did that for the military?

What Really Matters Is...

In light of my colleague's excellent analysis of super-important themes of the 2008 election season, such as which fringe racist groups are voting for whom, I found it appropriate to post the following video:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

You don't say?

I posted awhile ago something that touched on the premise you might want to be aware of the company you keep, or maybe better said, attract.

Here's an update as it pertains to said presidential hopeful. I'll borrow a line that led me to this link...."The Dangers Of Grassroots Campaigns: The Weeds."

Rumor has it....

Night Owl pundit has dropped his support for Ron Paul in favor of a new candidate.

Feel the Truthiness - In Book Form!

Only one question here... will he beat Ann Coulter?

The Media Loves Ron Paul

Or not. Funny how the candidate with the best track record on tax, spending, budget and other economic issues is alloted the least time at a debate on economics, particularly at a time when his campaign is gaining momentum in the polls and in fundraising.

Update: More McCain foolishness.

Coaching Meltdown - Take 2

It's hard to get truthful advertising these days...

President Hillary Clinton

The chemotherapy analysis is unorthodox, but apt.

The Ooze...

This is like a bad cartoon...

How Things Change...

The most interesting part about my colleague’s obervations below is not so much the content, but rather how that content has shifted from as recently as July. Ever since Giuliani’s opportunism at the Carolina debate, totally awesome and totally credible pundits such as the intrepid correspondents at RealClearPolitics were predicting: Paul is done. My own estimable colleague would reply to a post of mine with a short quip meant to dismiss the guy altogether. After the below, we see how that’s changed. Apparently, there’s now a need to address actual issues.

My guess? There are more changes coming.

Addressing the post specifically, I’d like to point out that you can go to basically any political rally in America and cherry-pick the craziest attendees, claiming that this particular fruitcake or another represents the “soul of the party”. This video on Huffington Post by Max Blumenthal is a great example. Most Americans, however, don’t attend political rallies. The ones that do? Yes, they’re more passionate than most. Some are a bit crazy. But it doesn’t mean that the candidate does not or cannot have broad appeal.

I particularly love this:

Of course in this style of ad-lib stump speech, there is a dangerous chance for rhetorical mistakes. Rookies in their first presidential primary can sink their candidacies with one ill-chosen phrase. But Paul, who barely registers in the polls, is pleasantly free of speaking
carefully.

So in essence, style trumps substance, and statements that fall outside the parameters of pundit-accepted speech codes are “dangerous”. Even if such statements increase that politician's appeal to potential voters, they should be avoided if not rubber-stamped by a “blogger” at RealClearPolitics (my colleague gives no names). Such a statement might be made by another widely read pundit, say, Hugo Chavez.

I checked in to the RealClearPolitics site, and saw this:

RealClearPolitics has become a trusted filter for anyone interested in politics.

Um, I’ll filter the news myself, thanks. Opinion? Fine. But a filter? I'd prefer all the facts, please.

The point about Howard Dean has been made before, but there are clear differences. Ron Paul has been building a paleo-conservative/libertarian network for the last 30 years and started with a committed, although relatively small, nationwide base of support. Additionally, his platform has elements that appeal to Americans across the political spectrum and now Paul is raising serious money. My understanding of Howard Dean was that his boomlet was a creation of the media, comprised of basically a bunch of twenty-somethings looking to get laid. That demographic has turned to Obama. Ron Paul can barely get the media to pay attention at all. When they do, it's usually a smear.

As Paul continues to make his presence felt, we’ll keep seeing these smears. But they'll continue to only help his campaign. Of course, RealClearPolitics has been doing this for awhile.

Well, maybe not all the time…

Ron Paul: The GOP's 2008 version of 2004 Howard Dean?

Ron Paul's campaign for the 2008 presidency has flown, for the most part, under the radar. I say this because when you look at his polling numbers, they are still in the single digits nationally. However, Paul has rung up some impressive numbers as of late in campaign funds and my colleague likes to tell us that this may be a telling sign that change is at hand. Then again, maybe it's Howard Dean 2004 all over again. What I mean by that is just because you raise a lot of money doesn't mean you're going to win over the electorate.

Paul recently spoke in Chicago to a pack filled ballroom at the Hyatt Regency. This blogger, if you will, was there to witness what all the hoopla was all about. Of course, this blogger is from the so called "independent" 'Real Clear Politics' website. While I'm sure this source will be accused of being some republican driven marketing machine, Paul is running as a Republican, after all (though to me and the rest of the world, in name only). When the question comes up in my mind, why doesn't someone like Paul stand a chance in 2008?, I simply will refer to these bloggers observations at this event as some of the reasons why:

A man in an "Investigate 9/11" black t-shirt was walking up and down the aisles handing out fake dollar bills with Dick Cheney's face where Washington's should have been. In the corner of the bill, instead of a dollar amount, it read "9-11." Above the picture, where it should have read United States of America, it read "Unmask State Sponsored Terrorism."

Now, I know Ron Paul doesn't subscribe to the theory, per se, that 9/11 was a cooked up grand conspiracy by the evil Bush and his Darth Vader side kick Cheney, he still grants the "Truthers" his time which to me lends creedence to their validation. I don't think that sits too well with, oh I don't know, maybe 80-90% of the country? But that's just me.

Then there's this:

Of course in this style of ad-lib stump speech, there is a dangerous chance for rhetorical mistakes. Rookies in their first presidential primary can sink their candidacies with one ill-chosen phrase. But Paul, who barely registers in the polls, is pleasantly free of speaking carefully. His proposals come full-throated and without qualifications:

What do we replace the 16th Amendment with? "Nothing!"

What do we replace the "unconstitutional" Federal Reserve with? "The gold standard!"

But as appealing as several of these policy prescriptions might be for some conservatives, such as leaving the United Nations for good, Paul always manages to go too far.

For instance, the prescription drug companies, he says, "are no better than the military industrial complex," which is one of the far left's most cherished phrases.

Another example: "A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways," a comment guaranteeing political oblivion for anyone serious about reaching the White House.

These statements are just part of the reason most Republicans will keep a safe distance from Paul's candidacy. The shame of it is that there are probably a lot of Republicans who share Paul's "minding-our-own-business" flavor of foreign policy and economic libertarianism. It's just that so much of it comes off as something Noam Chomsky might have written 30 years ago.

And continuing with:

The other part of Paul's candidacy hurting its appeal with the larger electorate is that it's a circus of ideologues each with their own pet causes. Paul deftly satisfies the factions individually with his peculiar politics, but what this amounts to is a grab-bag of radical policy proposals. Some might say that this is libertarianism or "true Republicanism," but the fact is that it leads to a chaotic campaign, whose only guiding light is some mythical American past where an unsullied constitutional order reigned.

To me, all these things stand as reasons Paul doesn't stand a chance next year. While some of his ideas are novel and "out of the box" so to speak, some are just too far fetched in the world in which we find ourselves today.

Yes, Ron Paul would make a great president.........in 1910.

Ron Paul vs. Frudy McRomson, Cont'd...

Apparent his "internet-only" followers have been spamming his campaign with loads of cash. He's got more cash on hand than all others but Rudy, and he's starting to get serious mainstream coverage.

That cracking sound you're hearing is Stephen Green's ego. The only thing that can stop his rise, at this point, is the Republican Party establishment.