BCS National Champions........still.

Woke up one day and everything changed

Well, not exactly like that. This has been coming down the pike for awhile and denial was the word of the day. Payback time, so to speak. 2010 can't come quick enough. It will be very interesting, indeed.

This is the official....

...time to get cranked back up post.

Before they know what hit them, we'll be on the beach earning 20%.

Those Newsletters

My esteemed colleague sends the following:

I’m not trying to prod you, seriously, but I don’t know if you’ve read these…

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html
http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=656

Well, Bidnotto’s been a Paul enemy from the start, so there’s no need to read that. The Reason piece is another matter.

I was really blindsided by this newsletter stuff. I didn’t start following the Mises Institute until 2004 or so, and I’ve never picked up on so much as a whiff of racism. On the contrary, the policies advocated by the organization would do much to reverse the plight of minorities in this country.

When Paul says he personally is not a racist, I can believe that. There are 20 years of congressional testimony, books and other non-ghostwritten writings without racist bent. The president of the Austin NAACP recently defended him publicly. Whether Rockwell or Blumert have recanted is anyone’s guess, but if Mitt Romney can change his mind on abortion, taxes, health care, etc in 6 months anything is possible.

Was the pandering-to-racists strategy craven? Absolutely. Many political strategies are (see Hillary Clinton circa 2008). Unless one is willing to denounce the American political process in general, where it's common practice to pander to all sorts of fringe groups with bizarre beliefs, it's hard to single out Ron Paul alone for criticism on this point. And while this does not excuse Paul's old newsletters, it's worth pointing out that this strategy as outlined by Rockwell, Rothbard and others has been defunct for over 10 years.

I think the bottom line is this: The folks at Cato, Reason, and many self-described libertarians across the blogosphere have little to show for their years of beltway libertarian “activism”. Today’s Federal Government is bigger, more intrusive and more aggressive than ever before. And now a libertarian politician comes along who is spreading the message and exposing these ideas to new audiences, and the established organizations feel threatened. Their relative influence is faltering, and they know it. In some ways, this fuss over the newsletters is little more than a turf war amongst egotistical libertarians, while real racist policies perpetuated by the federal government (i.e. drug war) continue indefinitely. As DiLorenzo put it on the Rockwell blog the other day, these guys are all competing for the title of the “prettiest and smartest libertarian in the world”.

It’s the same old story: libertarians spend so much time tearing each other down that the state keeps growing unencumbered. With endless welfare and warfare of every kind foisted upon us, with impending economic hardship and the slow destruction of the middle class, it's obvious that sticking our heads in the sand and clinging to the status quo (the current GOP strategy) is not going to be a recipe for political growth. In light of the broad coalition of facists, communists and socialists standing ready to provide government-sponsored "solutions" to crises, there is a need for a libertarian revival as never before.

While Cato, Reason and other beltway "libertarian" institutions may be real-world failures and while Ron Paul may be a messenger with serious flaws, I have to hope that the timelessness of the ideas can transcend party lines and petty squabbles and capture the imagination of people looking for a positive change of direction in this country. We should be thankful that the ideas are larger than any institution, any party and certainly any one man.

Update: more on the gap between beltway libertarians and what's going on with the Paul movement.

Uber Cool Light-Weight Nerd

Contrary to most early reports, it turns out I'm not so nerdy after all. I think it was the "internet vs. sex" question...

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.

"Lefty Girls Are Easy"

Classic stuff. Style over substance, baby!

UAE in The USA?

Saw this tag while heading home about two weeks ago - then I saw the same car in the High School parking lot (where I go to pickup women, or watch a game). Pretty cool, huh?

Let Freedom Ring!

First the taser incident, now this?