Paulnuts’ foolproof plan to win the election: Buying an ad on Roy Jones Jr.’s back
posted at 2:19 pm on January 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Big fight on Saturday night, coincidentally on the same day that two major primaries are taking place. What better time for a little product placement? He’s 15-20 points off the pace in Nevada but the thinking is that boxing fans will tune into HBO, be stirred by the pluck and savvy of paying thousands of dollars to have a greasepaint Paulnut logo slathered on Jones’s back, and then rush out after the fight to their polling places to cast a vote for the man half-drunk and sight unseen. The only problem: The fight starts at 9 p.m. ET/6 p.m. PT and will probably last an hour, by which time the SC polls will almost certainly be closed and the Nevada caucuses, judging from the time given on the SoS’s page, will have long since been over. rEVOLution!
TNR has new excerpts from the Ron Paul “Survival” Report out today, in case you’re interested. I recommend the one from April 1993 about whether AIDS was manufactured in a lab. Or just skip it entirely and read the condensed version at Something Awful. How many parasitic destroyers of American society can you find in the word-search game? I’ve found two so far.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Shouldn’t he put the ad on the other guy since Paul is the one being “knocked out”?
azcop on January 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Believing that doesn’t disqualify you from getting a Nobel Peace Prize so why should it matter in this presidential race?(semi-sarc)
ninjapirate on January 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM
It’s even worse than that. That’s the time the broadcast starts, but there typically are at least 1-2 undercard fights before the main event. It could be 11:00 PM ET before Jones and Trinidad finally step into the ring.
Also wondering what kind of PPV numbers this fight will do. These are two guys well past their prime, and ideally, this fight would have taken place about 6 years ago.
And finally, if Trinidad catches Jones the way Antonio (Mason The Line Dixon) Tarver did, Paul’s supporters won’t even be able to read the ad.
thirteen28 on January 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Yeah, it’s not a championship fight, though, so I don’t know how much of an undercard there’ll be.
Allahpundit on January 15, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Brilliant!
infidel on January 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Why is this lunatic getting any attention? He is either totally crazy or completely senile. His chances of being the nominee let alone getting elected are absolutely ZERO!
Just make him go away and stop wasting valuable resources while causing embarrassment to the Republican Party.
libhater on January 15, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Here’s the full card. They’ll probably show at least the two fights directly below the main event.
thirteen28 on January 15, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I think you pro-big government Republicans should be scared. This movement doesn’t end with Ron Paul. There exists in America a growing number of people who want the federal government out of their lives and wallets.
BlackCapitalist on January 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Their site is called paulunteer dot com?
Heck, if they do it to themselves, they’re free game. I don’t want to hear anyone decrying the Ron Paul name game any more.
“Ron Ron bo-bon, banana-fanna fo fon…”
(Just don’t do it for Huckabee…)
James on January 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I have to ask: are either of the fighters one of the urban savages that The Ron Paul Political Report warned us about?
billy on January 15, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Yeah, and you’ll find many of them in the comments here. They simply don’t regard a Bircheresque crank like Ron Paul as the mortal incarnation of that philosophy.
Repeat until it sinks in: “I can be a libertarian while opposing Ron Paul. I can be a libertarian while opposing Ron Paul. I can be a libertarian…”
Allahpundit on January 15, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Yes, Jones is black and Trinidad is Puerto Rican. So, look out, Paulnuts!
Allahpundit on January 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Yes, there is a movement made up of such people, and has been for quite some time. They’re called “conservatives” – you can look it up.
thirteen28 on January 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM
ahem.
That’s Dr. Ron Paul, pal
billy on January 15, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Like me? And (probably) Allah? And countless other conservatives on line? Perhaps we just don’t line up behind Crazy Uncle Ron.
amerpundit on January 15, 2008 at 2:41 PM
What made you think I was asking about their race AP?
You reading too much into my post; taking everything out of context to make me (and Dr. Paul) sound like some kinda nut.
billy on January 15, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I LOVE Something Awful that was great! I love the answer cube or whatever.
Sadly I have a feeling the Ron Paul Survival Report stuff is going to be even greater.
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Okay, tell me. Which candidate has a better voting record than Dr. Paul when it comes to downsizing the size of federal government and cutting taxes?
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Which candidate can claim all that other than Dr. Paul?
BlackCapitalist on January 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM
No. It’s only been set back 30 years because of Ron Paul. Too bad libertarians didn’t latch onto someone who didn’t decide that 95% of black people are criminals and is incapable of running the local kinkos much less a country. But hey. Can’t go back in time – unless you are part of the conspiracy.
lorien1973 on January 15, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Repeat this too: “He’s an unelectable racist Bircheresque crank. He’s an unelectable racist Bircheresque crank. He’s an unelectable…”
I refuse to believe that there are no other libertarian politicians in America who subscribe to what you just laid out without thinking that AIDS was made in a lab. Find them.
Allahpundit on January 15, 2008 at 2:58 PM
SECOND LOOK AT FORGED SIGNATURES!
pedestrian on January 15, 2008 at 2:58 PM
That’s great. His stance on national security? Fighting terrorism overseas?
Then we could get into his conspiracy theories, racist newsletters, Neo-Nazi supporters, hanging out with conspiracy theorists…
By the way…how’s Iran’s Army and Navy doing as of late?
amerpundit on January 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM
He can also claim to have written a newsletter that is full of racist demagoguery.
He can also claim to have not paid attention to said, newsletter (prolly staffed by less than 10 people) – which makes him totally qualified to run the government.
He has never denied money from a white supremecist group, either.
RP kicks ass.
lorien1973 on January 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Hey, paulbot, what exactly do you call his taking his government salary while missing a significant number of votes on his quixotic campaign?
Taking taxpayers money for work he hasn’t done, while travelling throughout the country?
Sounds like a “government-paid junket” to me.
Jack M. on January 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Wait.
He’s got the greatest pound-for-pound fighter in modern history on his side? *AND* a blimp?
I give up. I’m voting Ron Paul. He’s just the shizzle. If he can get Chuck Norris, I’ll even send money.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:02 PM
And. He may not vote for an unbalanced budget, but he’ll stick his pork projects in there so they go through anyways. It’s the best of both worlds!
Ron Paul. The last hope. The best hope. For humanity. Take the red pill. Ron Paul.
lorien1973 on January 15, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I agree that this is a stupid idea, but every one of you who uses the term “Paulnuts” is a stone cold asshole. Why can’t people just disagree without calling names? Didn’t your parents teach you any better?
RWLA on January 15, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Hey, I’ll bet if you call him “Doctor” Paul a few more dozen times, he’ll seem even MORE impressive! What d’ya think?
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:03 PM
It’s pretty easy to say that one didn’t vote for X when that candidate has a history of simply rubber stamping every vote “no”.
I actually agree with Paul on a lot of issues, including a drastic reduction in the size of the federal government. However I’d not vote for an insane douche like Ron Paul if he was the only name on the ballot- not for President, not for Dogcatcher.
Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Don’t know. Maybe you can ask the Paulnuts who used to come over to my comment section and insult me and my intelligence every time I wrote a critical post about RP.
I’ve been a Fascist, a Communist, a few words I can’t type here…
amerpundit on January 15, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Do you have any idea how STAGGERINGLY hypocritical that comment is? Do you have any idea how dangerous that much irony can be? Seriously. I literally almost died laughing.
“Hey you assholes – quit calling people names!”
Dude. Seriously. Dude. You can’t top that kind of irony.
And it only could have come from a Paulnut.
As for “Paulnuts,” well, don’t you think its more polite than “whacked out unthinking loons eager to embrace a racist demagogue because the cult Kool-Aid is just so darn sweet?”
I thought Paulnuts was a rather pleasant euphemism.
Now don’t call me any names, buttface.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:06 PM
To be fair, Ron Paul doesn’t have a boxer or a blimp. His supporters do.
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM
As I said above, they use ‘paulunteers dot com’ for their own website…now it’s open season.
Doctor Detroit was VERY impressive.
James on January 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Yeah, but where are they going to find another racist garden gnome to lead their movement?
snickelfritz on January 15, 2008 at 3:08 PM
That’s why I prefer the term Ronulan.
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 3:08 PM
That’s Dr. Garden Gnome to you.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Support for Ron Paul requires- among other things- developing a complete inability to recognize irony or hypocrisy.
Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Or comedy, apparently.
I can honestly say that was the funniest thing I’ve seen this year so far. “You people are assholes! Don’t you know better than to call people names!”
That’s just … beautiful, man.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Ron Paul has done some pretty impressive damage to the political brand-name of Libertarianism.
That’s too bad, in my opinion. It’s not fair that his name will be associated with it for a while.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:15 PM
A couple of months ago, Ronulans laughed at me when I said he was damaging libertarianism for the next generation. No one laughs now. Sadly. And I thought it had been picking up a little steam too, outside of government, that is.
lorien1973 on January 15, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Yup. The truth is I’m more libertarian than conservative. But the sort of unthinking dolts that political libertarianism seems to attract …. (shudder).
It’s supposed to be a broad philosophy of limited government and freer society. Not just an excuse to smoke a lot of dope and trade conspiracy theories.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Good point, Rontard.
Jim Treacher on January 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I think you’ve just eloquently described the present libertarian movement to a tee … and it’s too damn bad, because there are a lot of good ideas in there.
thirteen28 on January 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM
You forgot some
He has never supported the US when it has been attacked by enemies.
He has never supported our Military
He has never voted to give the troops the equiptment they need to fight.
He has never been very effective
He has never cared about anything but his crackpot theories
He never has a change to be President
William Amos on January 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM
agree that this is a stupid idea, but every one of you who uses the term “Paulnuts” is a stone cold asshole.
Good point, Rontard.
If you’ll do it, I will too, cockface.
The irony was intentional, but the sentiment was real. I don’t get you people who want to call names instead of speaking to someone in a reasoned tone.
RWLA on January 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Jim Treacher on January 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM
RWLA on January 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM
.
You cyber-rapscallions have turned the once genteel pastime of web surfing into something truly ugly with your viscious name calling.
billy on January 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I think the real question is, does his voting record make it ok to be a conspiracy riddled white-supremacist? For me, no. I don’t care who the candidate is or how perfect their voting record is, theres no way I would vote for them if they had the kind of dirty laundry Dr. Paul has. I have to have some standards.
Keli on January 15, 2008 at 3:37 PM
You cyber-rapscallions have turned the once genteel pastime of web surfing into something truly ugly with your viscious name calling.
As far as I’m concerned, you people started it. There may be other Paul supporters who are name callers, but I’m not (or in your language, I ain’t) one of them. I prefer to reason with people and have conversations, no matter how stupid they are, or if they support socialist candidates like McRomneyThomiani.
RWLA on January 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Sniff, sniff…
OK, who left the thesaurus out all night? It’s absolutely STINKING UP this thread.
wccawa on January 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM
The best part is that the results will be known by the time the fight actually starts. I think this could be the start of something really big. Hillary supports pay to have a girl painted on the back of one fighter and Obama supporters pay to have a little black boy painted on another, then they all get drunk and watch a fight after each primary. Silky supporters would go through the audience selling bottles of union-made shampoo.
pedestrian on January 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Yeah. Me, neither.
Seriously. Stop it. You’re going to make me rupture something.
Here’s some unsolicited advice for you and all the cockface assholes: if you want to know WHY people mock you and call you names, look in a mirror.
Conversations just like this one, threads just like this one, are the reason why. If you want to fix it, fix yourselves first. There is nothing in libertarianism that requires you all to act like a bunch of semi-retarded robotic adolescent cult members hopped up on peyote and sunscreen. And then getting all huffy about it when people point out your behavior.
There is nothing wrong with mature libertarianism. But this most definitely ain’t it.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM
The problem for Paul is that Jones’ pound-for-pound greatness is history. Buying advertising on Jones would have been a better idea in the 1996 election. Still, I’ll be cheering for Jones to stay young long enough to stay away from Trinadad’s right hand.
The good thing about an advertising stunt like this is you get the exposure at the event and then a second ride from the media talking about the advertising.
dedalus on January 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM
And see this is where my mind shuts off.
You don’t know what socialist means, and I believe that I explained that to you earlier, but yet you still use it as an improper slur.
How can I expect to have a reasoned discussion when we can’t even name the names?
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Two items: Jared Taylor’s (the racist that Ron Paul in TNR is supposedly outside the mainstream of that time in considering an authority on race relations) book that got everyone’s attention is Pave With Good Intentions. Go to amazon and check the back cover blurbs: National Review; Human Events; the Conservative Book Club; and drum roll please … Walter Williams.
David Duke is not mentioned in the issue that TNR says he is.
Martin Luther King was a philanderer and rubbed intellectual shoulders with communists, and was a plagiarist. Now, maybe that sort of stuff ought not take precedence over the good he did (this is what I believe), but it surely can’t be called slander, outrageous or racist for Ron Paul or whomever to point it out.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM
But they have a blimp. Doesn’t that count for something? Anything?
wccawa on January 15, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Ah, now there’s a compelling argument. Stick, meet stone.
Because an ‘asshole’ is a thing, not a person…right? Nice of you to bring the redneck implication, too.
See, this is what I like about you paulunteers. You’re all about ‘negative descriptors,’ not names. (Unless you make them up yourselves and use them for your websites. Then it’s all good, I guess.) It’s about time we raised the discourse in American politics…to negative descriptors!
James on January 15, 2008 at 3:52 PM
You don’t know what socialist means, and I believe that I explained that to you earlier, but yet you still use it as an improper slur.
Oh, YOU explained it to ME. I get it. So you gave your slant on what socialism is? I’m sorry, I’ve offended the delicate genius.
Every other GOP candidate that has “a shot” at winning the nomination (McCain, Romney, Giuliani) WILL bring socialized medicine to this country, decimating $2 trillion of our economy. That’s socialism JUMPING through the door, not putting it’s nose under the tent flap.
RWLA on January 15, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Does Paul appeal to the cigar smoking addicted gambler?
bnelson44 on January 15, 2008 at 3:53 PM
the fact the paleo-libertarians end up engaging in wild conspiracies, is them defacto admitting they don’t have a leg to stand on. Things like the Patriot Act and International Terrorist Surveilance programs are obviously needed to secure the Civil Liberty that is National Security, given the reality that there are sleeper cells in the US masquerading as citizens and are a real threat and enemy of the United States. Just like George Washington knew there were british spies doing similar in his day, so he seized Mail to them, read it to confirm intentions then placed back in mail flow undetected.
In an odd way, the conspiracy crowd within the paleo-libertarians act more logically by creating these wild anti-govt. conspiracies and then can claim “the war on terror is a hoax”, to justify their Individual Liberty absolutism.
jp on January 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Laura Ingraham probably has Pat Buchanan on her show every few months or so. Now, Buchanan has talked and written at length about America’s (California’s in particular) “disappearing white majority,” and he has talked about it on her show.
The newsletter use of “woods colts” to describe Bill Clinton’s illegitimate children was the term used by the black activist whom the story was about.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 3:55 PM
So is this the reasoned debate you want?
Socialism, properly defined in political science, is a system of government in which the state owns the means of production. Now you could argue that the United States is slowly moving toward socialism with increased regulation that puts the government in charge of how the means of production are used. Or you can speak of taxes which we must pay in order to use the means of production. But we are most certainly not socialist, and neither are any of the republican candidates.
Romney’s Massachusetts plan may have been retarded (I think it is), it may have moved in the wrong direction, but even I wouldn’t say it socialized medicine. I just don’t think it’s free market. It’s somewhere in between.
And it’s great to see that you can read minds through the television. Can you read them through the internet as well? Tell me, am I a socialist?
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM
The bottom line, again, is that Paul doesn’t worship the state, nor does he think war is peace, nor does he put the world’s interests before America’s. These are all issues that Republicans can no longer claim to be conservative about.
In fact, it is exactly this shift into liberalism that Rush is presently dealing with when he talks about Huckabee and Newt.
We are all liberals now. Or at least some of us.
You can kill the messenger …
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM
You asked and answered your own question Libhater. Paul gets the attention BECAUSE he embarrasses the Republican Party.
Texas Gal on January 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Paul is obviously not a great candidate, separated from his positions (though I think you’re wrong to label him a racist) — but look at the rest of the field. Three war-mongering liberals, a socialist theocrat, and E.T. dead in a ditch. Not the one of them anything resembling an advocate of minimal government. The Libertarian Party is too dysfunctional to do any good, and the system is almost irrevocably biased against third party candidates. Everyone running as a Democrat is a socialist. Paul is the only candidate consistently supporting a move towards minarchism in government. If in 2012 there is a similarly libertarian-minded candidate who is younger and less battle-worn than Paul, I’ll support that candidate in an instant. It is most definitely not about Ron Paul. And he’s the first one to admit it. He is, forgive my callousness, expendable. The ideas of limited government and maximal protection of human rights are the main attraction. Whether or not the energy will continue after he’s gone (from the race or otherwise) is uncertain, but I know that I, for one, am done voting for “electable” war-mongering big-government “conservatives.”
Mark Jaquith on January 15, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Bullsh*t. He gets attention because he talks like a conservative. Which ought to have people like you re-evaluate when they claim to be conservative.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 4:04 PM
And it’s great to see that you can read minds through the television. Can you read them through the internet as well? Tell me, am I a socialist?
I’d say you LEAN to socialism if you don’t strike out against what WILL be a socialist takeover of the medical system. If you support a candidate that supports a state sponsored approach to the medical insurance problem in America, you are supporting a socialist. You can’t tell me that you think that any of the candidates with “a shot” will stand against the coming state takeover of the medical system. At least you can’t tell me that with a straight face.
RWLA on January 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM
No, he worships a detached from reality idealistic view of the “role of the state” instead.
No, he’s crying “peace, peace, when there is no peace” Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11
actually, its the exact opposite of this. The US is not the “world’s police” in regards to the Middle East. We are there because its in our National Interest and they declared war on us long ago. They export two things that are vitally important to Western Liberty, Oil and Jihad.
if we were the “world’s police”, we’d be in Tibet, Darfur…
jp on January 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Who declared war on us? Iraq? The children of Iraq? The mothers and fathers of Iraq? Who, jp, who?
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
And how long ago was it? Months, years, decades, centuries?
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 4:10 PM
You people are NOT conservatives, so stop with the false advertising and “racist!” screaming. You are sheep, fawing like over your candidates like a teenage girl at a Beatles concert, circa 1964.
McCain does not like “gooks,” and Obama hangs with racist black nationalist muslims, but look at where your attention is. You have zero credibility in the blogosphere, and are as irrelevant to the election as the Dems themselves.
You support east coast liberals, and always have. You are not fooling anyone with your attack upon a conservative cut from the Goldwater/Reagan cloth.
petit bourgeois on January 15, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Heh.
For your information I don’t support any Republican candidate. And I see the problems you probably see in Romney, I just don’t label him socialist because I know what socialist means.
You’re still throwing that word around like Vizzini ranting about how everything is Inconceivable.
No, I don’t believe all of the candidates would jump to socialized medicine. If they are pressured by the left it would be like something in Massachusetts. Why do I say that? Because the base is against it, and the base will rally. Much like during the shamnesty debacle.
But then again, Massachusetts has socialized medicine don’t they?
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 4:11 PM
WHAT!?
I’m almost tempted to respond.
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Favoring a strong military and pro-American foreign policy have always been conservative principles. Racism, conspiracy theories and a Blame America First attitude are not. Ron Paul is not and never has been a conservative, even if he holds some conservative views.
Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Saddam signed a cease fire agreement with the US led Coalition from the first Gulf War. He then proceeded to violate it often, for over a decade. Each time being an Act of War and a case to resume hostilities. He fired at American planes, tried to assassinate our POTUS, killed Americans via the Suicide bombers he paid in Israel($20k), Harbored various terrorist groups, including 1993 WTC bombers. Offeres bin laden Assylum in 1999……among other things.
Iran declared war on us in 1979, the Taliban on 9/11. Though you could make a case for well before then.
jp on January 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Paul is the exact opposite of Reagan and Goldwater, best highlighted by his Foreign Policy but also by his domestic policy absolutism.
the hilarious thing is Paul was a critic of Reagan, which is why he broke off from the party and into the Libertarian Party he ran on in 1988. Funny how Reagan endorsed Bush Sr. and not Paul..
jp on January 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Whether or not Ron Paul actually wrote this racism diary with his name all over it in 120 pt font remains to be seen, but it doesn’t really matter because there is no end in sight as far as nerd rage is concerned.
Classic.
Gerard on January 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Im sorry but I dont accept your definition of what a conservative is.
Paul is not a conservative. A Conservative backs his country from forreign enemies. Paul refuses to see anyone but other americans as enemies. For that he has more in common with socialist democrats than Conservatives. Because the democratic party demonizes other americans for racism or sexism or being richer or for wearing the uniform. And Ron Paul and his supporters accept enemy propaganda as fact and blames fellow americans for being in some secret sonspiracy.
For that Ron Paul is neither a good Conservative nor a good American. He doesnt fight for the American people he fights for his own crackpot rheories and uses them to attack and ridicule fellow americans who hold a different veiwpoint.
Ron Paul is simply a joke candidate.
William Amos on January 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM
How can you call destroying a nation (Iraq) and selling out our economy to other nations (China, Japan, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) a “strong foreign policy”?
Our military is hands down the most formidable and genius the world has ever seen. Why we use it for such nefarious ends, such as Bush’s quest for spreading democracy and ridding the world of evil, is a question every patriot needs to ask.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Fine. You show me where Bush’s foreign and domestic policy are in general, conservative. First of all, being a conservative implies a fair amount of education so that one might understand what it is one deigns to conserve. Bush is an illiterate. So there goes that one. A man who can’t speak a coherent sentence is usually a man who doesn’t think coherently.
He hasn’t a conservative bone in his body. He couldn’t care less for America’s interests.
If I sound like a lefty, so be it. I call it as I see it.
Drum on January 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM
jp on January 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM
jp on January 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Who are you gonna believe?
Paul the Great, or those lyin’ eyes of yours?
Gerard on January 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Goldwater too moved away from the Reagan coalition by the late 80’s. Goldwater’s son has endorsed Paul.
dedalus on January 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM
DKos and HuffPo callled. They want their talking points back.
Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Which is almost like Goldwater doing it himself!
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Ron Paul is the only hope to stop neocons and uncover 9/11 conspiracies and do anti-jew stuff and blah blah blah
Drunk Report on January 15, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Ron Paul doesn’t talk like a conservative. He talks like a raving lunatic with isolationist leanings that believes that America is the cause of all of the ills of the world. Which ought to have people like you re-evaluate when they claim to be conservative.
Texas Gal on January 15, 2008 at 5:37 PM
and Fredo, err ROn Reagan Jr, is a Socialist tool
jp on January 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
…and Fredo, err ROn Reagan Jr, is a Socialist tool.
Don’t you mean Non-Reagan?
Gerard on January 15, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Paul is the exact opposite of Reagan and Goldwater, best highlighted by his Foreign Policy but also by his domestic policy absolutism.
the hilarious thing is Paul was a critic of Reagan, which is why he broke off from the party and into the Libertarian Party he ran on in 1988. Funny how Reagan endorsed Bush Sr. and not Paul..
petit bourgeois on January 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM
You have zero clue what you are talking about don’t you?
Ron Paul comes from the libertarian wing. Which is derived somewhat from the Old Right. This wing engaged in quite a it of revisionist history and are proud of it.
And it seems you are engaging in a bit of revisionist history yourself. Ronald Reagan was DENOUNCED by the JBS for not being conservative enough.
Our public schools these days I swear. Best argument against a growing state.
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Was that parody?
Seriously. I honestly can’t tell. I think it was parody. Pretty funny parody, too. But at this point, the reality and the satire are so close – I have trouble telling which is which.
It counts for everything, my friend. Everything. When a man has a prizefighter in his corner, a “Dr.” in front of his name (repeated endlessly), and a by-God-BLIMP … all things are possible.
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 6:24 PM
So out of curiosity … do you think you’re gaining Ron Paul votes?
As for Bush’s edumakasion … where are your MBA and BA from, out of curiosity?
Yeah. That’s what I thought.
And as for the rest of your brilliance … you might want to actually read the site that they unwisely chose to let you join. You just echoed points that Michelle, Bryan, AP, and most of the commenters here have made for years. We all recognize the President’s less-than-conservative choices.
That doesn’t, however, mean we think electing a clearly mentally unstable garden gnome is a wise alternative.
That doesn’t fit your programming though, does it, my Kult of Kool-Aid Kompadre?
Professor Blather on January 15, 2008 at 6:28 PM
The John Birch Society jumped the shark sometime around The Vietnam War.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Birchers were well-represented among the small chunk of the voting population that supports his presidential campaign.
Someone should tell Dr. No that Troofers, potheads, and invalids don’t constitute a majority of the electorate.
Gerard on January 15, 2008 at 6:30 PM
No, but Barry Goldwater Jr. was a U.S. congressman and is a director of the Goldwater Institute, which is focused on small government. Presumably he has some desire to promote his father’s legacy. Here’s a quote from their mission statement:
Ron Paul might have less traction in the GOP if Bush had governed more as a fiscal conservative.
dedalus on January 15, 2008 at 6:50 PM
like Jonah goldberg exposed in his column about the ideology behind paul and his lying about history. He is following the Murray Rothbard tradition, which he beleived the Cold War was a Hoax to expand govt., paul is applying this to the war on terror.
crackpots.
jp on January 15, 2008 at 6:55 PM
My point is that Barry Goldwater Jr., as great of a man he may be, is not Barry Goldwater.
And in your post you made it sound like Barry Goldwater would support Ron Paul simply because his son does. Goldwater is an interesting indivdual, honestly I have no idea what he’d do in that situation.
On one hand Goldwater had a strong foreign policy, and did not mingle with Ron Paul’s branch of the party. On the other hand he was getting sick of government encroachments when he died.
Any idea what he thought of Pat Buchanan?
Keljeck on January 15, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Ron Paul might have less traction in the GOP.
The only way Paul could have less traction in the GOP is if he divorced Carol and married Cynthia McKinney.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but Senile McLooneyberg isn’t doing too hot in those reality-based, spam-proof things we call “primaries.”
Gerard on January 15, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Didn’t mean to imply that. I was responding to the notion that Ron Paul is the opposite of Goldwater. The son cannot speak for his dead father, but it would seem an interesting datapoint when considering whether there are some similarities between Paul’s belief in a small federal government and Goldwater Sr. Obviously, Paul wouldn’t have been the Cold Warrior that Goldwater was.
dedalus on January 15, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Goldwater wanted to NUKE the North Vietnamese
Paul quotes Ghandi
jp on January 15, 2008 at 7:45 PM
It looks like he’s received more votes so far than some others in the campaign–Rudy for one. He won’t get the nomination but if the Reagan coalition is coming apart, it might be a good idea for one of the electable candidates to appeal to the laizzes faire Republicans.
dedalus on January 15, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »