CHEYNEY BOOED AT CPAC!!!

[AZGrizFan]

Coming from you, that's just fucking comical.

Is it

Yes, IT is.

[kalm]

Good point. Politics should be the exclusive realm of old, white land-owners.

i agree with IT... CPAC has never told us anything important about the political landscape - it's a dog and pony show - and not a good one at that.

any place where ron paul can "win" anything is a place divorced from reality.

If the GOP embraced Ron Paul, Obama would be in trouble.

[Skjellyfetti]

If the GOP embraced Ron Paul, Obama would be in trouble.

um. how do you figure? ron paul would get absolutely waxed in a national election.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

i agree with IT... CPAC has never told us anything important about the political landscape - it's a dog and pony show - and not a good one at that.

any place where ron paul can "win" anything is a place divorced from reality.

If the GOP embraced Ron Paul, Obama would be in trouble.

get real... the Paultards delusions that they have huge numbers is perhaps the most absurd thing they believe... and considering what they believe, that really is saying something.

[BDKJMU]

If you love liberty, your hatred of Cheney is misguided.

Perhaps he is a political opponent, but he is not an enemy.

He's a draft-dodging piece of **** and his boss was an undesirably discharged piece of ****.

Sounds like you're referring to Clinton.

[eagleskins]

As bad a president a Chimpy was, this guy was an even worse VP, if that is possible.

Why are you talking about Biden?

Biden would 2 hole Chaney in front of his ugly wife and dyke daughter.

[youngterrier]

If Ron Paul could win the nomination, he would destroy Obama. Too bad he won't

[Pwns]

If the GOP embraced Ron Paul, Obama would be in trouble.

um. how do you figure? ron paul would get absolutely waxed in a national election.

Depends on who he was up against. He wouldn't beat Obama but he would wipe the floor with a Howard Dean or Nanci Pelosi, I can promise you that.

[kalm]

If the GOP embraced Ron Paul, Obama would be in trouble.

get real... the Paultards delusions that they have huge numbers is perhaps the most absurd thing they believe... and considering what they believe, that really is saying something.

His numbers would be huge by virtue of simply being nominated. So if you're saying he's a longshot because not enough conks are smart enough to get behind him in the primary, fine. What's more likely is the establishment and monied interests would squash him like a bug in either the primary or the general.

But people are increasingly fed up with both parties and there are strong populist undertones just waiting to back an anti establishment candidate that isn't completely full of shit. Paul is an R, but has shown a tendency to break with the party on important issues so he might fit that bill.

I'm not saying he has much of a chance, but if he were nominated, Obama would be representing the establishment and having to explain why conditions haven't improved that much for the working class to a bunch of voters who are now more educated about the economy and how both parties are responsible for it.

[89Hen]

No hypocrisy... it pisses me off that Obama won't repeal it... but I understand why he won't... it's pure politics... and I don't blame him for making that calculation...

OIC. It's bad to pass it because of national security, but it's OK to extend it for political reasons. Gotcha.

[Appaholic]

No hypocrisy... it pisses me off that Obama won't repeal it... but I understand why he won't... it's pure politics... and I don't blame him for making that calculation...

OIC. It's bad to pass it because of national security, but it's OK to extend it for political reasons. Gotcha.

No shit. I mean, I can understand why the government does alot of the things they do that I don't like....I'm just not so beholden to a party dogma to give "my guy" a pass for going against his campaign promises to whore himself out for a lack of political courage....

[Appaholic]

get real... the Paultards delusions that they have huge numbers is perhaps the most absurd thing they believe... and considering what they believe, that really is saying something.

His numbers would be huge by virtue of simply being nominated. So if you're saying he's a longshot because not enough conks are smart enough to get behind him in the primary, fine. What's more likely is the establishment and monied interests would squash him like a bug in either the primary or the general.

But people are increasingly fed up with both parties and there are strong populist undertones just waiting to back an anti establishment candidate that isn't completely full of shit. Paul is an R, but has shown a tendency to break with the party on important issues so he might fit that bill.

I'm not saying he has much of a chance, but if he were nominated, Obama would be representing the establishment and having to explain why conditions haven't improved that much for the working class to a bunch of voters who are now more educated about the economy and how both parties are responsible for it.

Agree. The biggest problem RP would have would be within his own party. The fence-sitters like myself would view him as a breath of fresh air on the national scene. Hard-line partisans like TTBF & Bronco should be scared of an honest politician who doesn't care if he gets elected or stays elected (see Chris Christie....also see the reason Obama was elected to begin with...."Hope & Change" ring a bell?)...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

get real... the Paultards delusions that they have huge numbers is perhaps the most absurd thing they believe... and considering what they believe, that really is saying something.

His numbers would be huge by virtue of simply being nominated. So if you're saying he's a longshot because not enough conks are smart enough to get behind him in the primary, fine. What's more likely is the establishment and monied interests would squash him like a bug in either the primary or the general.

But people are increasingly fed up with both parties and there are strong populist undertones just waiting to back an anti establishment candidate that isn't completely full of shit. Paul is an R, but has shown a tendency to break with the party on important issues so he might fit that bill.

I'm not saying he has much of a chance, but if he were nominated, Obama would be representing the establishment and having to explain why conditions haven't improved that much for the working class to a bunch of voters who are now more educated about the economy and how both parties are responsible for it.

No - his numbers would be decent with a major party stamp... but head to head, with the GOP endorsement, Ron Paul heads toward McGovern/Dukakis country if he's lucky.

Libertarians have convinced themselves that huge numbers of Americans secretly love their agenda and if they ever "just got a chance" they'd win in a tidal wave... bull. shit.

problem 1) most Americans find libertarianism disturbingly draconian
problem 2) even if they ever managed to win - they'd be a lame duck (like ventura was in mn) because they have no real support in congress
problem 3) when exposed to the light of day, and full investigating, the LP's (and RP's) "klan problem" would kill them instantly
problem 4) it isn't the fault of "the system" or "monied interests" keeping RP and the libertarians down... it's the fact that not nearly so many people as they think support their agenda. Paul was on the ballot in 08... all the libertarians had to do was show up... they didn't. he got waxed, over and over again...

I recognize there is a massive disconnect between the intense passion of Paul's limited supporters and their numbers... it manifests itself every time he runs... and, when he loses - his supporters, who want to believe so badly that America agrees with what they see as so obviously correct - that they grasp for anything to explain it... this isn't unique to them... for four years you ran in to plenty of Democrats who would rage about "vote rigging" and "Diebold boxes" in Ohio because they just couldn't believe Bush won... they were deluding themselves too.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

His numbers would be huge by virtue of simply being nominated. So if you're saying he's a longshot because not enough conks are smart enough to get behind him in the primary, fine. What's more likely is the establishment and monied interests would squash him like a bug in either the primary or the general.

But people are increasingly fed up with both parties and there are strong populist undertones just waiting to back an anti establishment candidate that isn't completely full of shit. Paul is an R, but has shown a tendency to break with the party on important issues so he might fit that bill.

I'm not saying he has much of a chance, but if he were nominated, Obama would be representing the establishment and having to explain why conditions haven't improved that much for the working class to a bunch of voters who are now more educated about the economy and how both parties are responsible for it.

Agree. The biggest problem RP would have would be within his own party. The fence-sitters like myself would view him as a breath of fresh air on the national scene. Hard-line partisans like TTBF & Bronco should be scared of an honest politician who doesn't care if he gets elected or stays elected (see Chris Christie....also see the reason Obama was elected to begin with...."Hope & Change" ring a bell?)...

all they had to do was show up and vote in the primaries... if the numbers of people who believe in his message are as big as you seem to think... they should be able to win primaries... and yet they never do.

[Skjellyfetti]

all they had to do was show up and vote in the primaries... if the numbers of people who believe in his message are as big as you seem to think... they should be able to win primaries... and yet they never do.

Ron Paul got 1.6% of the vote in the 2008 primaries, TTBF. That's some HUGE support right there.



"Oh no. Please, suh. Wudevah you do... please don't nahmnate Ron Paul."

[Skjellyfetti]

an honest politician who doesn't care if he gets elected or stays elected

Seriously?! Ron Paul has been a politician for 35 years. He's a textbook definition of a career politician. He cares if he gets reelected. He panders to his constituents just like the rest of them. He brings in billions of pork for his district just like the rest of them.

[Wedgebuster]

Reminds me of the year Ross Perot jumped into the Presidential race as a third party candidate because he had a strong, but not strong enough following inside the GOP.

These guys are nothing alike, but the situation looks familar. Strange little guys.

[kalm]

No - his numbers would be decent with a major party stamp... but head to head, with the GOP endorsement, Ron Paul heads toward McGovern/Dukakis country if he's lucky.

Libertarians have convinced themselves that huge numbers of Americans secretly love their agenda and if they ever "just got a chance" they'd win in a tidal wave... bull. shit.

Wow, that's mighty arrogant coming from a party who just got their asses handed to them. I'm not a Paul supporter, I'm a progressive small business guy and theoretically the sweetspot for the new Democratic Party.

problem 1) most Americans find libertarianism disturbingly draconian

No, most Americans have no fricking clue what libertarianism is about. I do, and disregard most of it, but the notion of competitive fairness is appealing.

problem 2) even if they ever managed to win - they'd be a lame duck (like ventura was in mn) because they have no real support in congress

Way to support the corporatocracy. This is why the Democratic base is eroding.

problem 3) when exposed to the light of day, and full investigating, the LP's (and RP's) "klan problem" would kill them instantly

I'll guarantee you I'm more politcally aware than the average joe, and these type of accusations are barely on my periphery - which means they won't stick during an election.

problem 4) it isn't the fault of "the system" or "monied interests" keeping RP and the libertarians down... it's the fact that not nearly so many people as they think support their agenda. Paul was on the ballot in 08... all the libertarians had to do was show up... they didn't. he got waxed, over and over again...

Similar to Perot (who got 20% of the vote), and to a lesser extent, Nader, this meme is a complete reflection of what's fucked up about the monopoly the two parties have. Paul can push an economic agenda that at it's core is anti-establishment. It has the potential to resonate - especially as the fundamentals of our mixed economy continue to be neglected and the middle class continues to suffer. And this to a point where a completely social liberal like myself might hold his nose and vote economically.

I recognize there is a massive disconnect between the intense passion of Paul's limited supporters and their numbers... it manifests itself every time he runs... and, when he loses - his supporters, who want to believe so badly that America agrees with what they see as so obviously correct - that they grasp for anything to explain it... this isn't unique to them... for four years you ran in to plenty of Democrats who would rage about "vote rigging" and "Diebold boxes" in Ohio because they just couldn't believe Bush won... they were deluding themselves too.

Again, I think you're underestimating the populism out there. Democrats can continue to ignore it and play the corporatist game at their own risk.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

1. it's not arrogance - he can't get shit for votes... '08 should have been a good year for him... but he got 1.8%
2. you're right - most don't know... and when they find out, the general response is that it's akin to anarchism with business suits... the notion of that limited of government died for most people in 1929 (when it failed absolutely)
3. it's not about "the corporatocracy" it's fact. i watched it happen in MN... fact is, when you have no coalition, when you have no support in congress... you are a lame duck.
4. they aren't on your radar... yet. they also haven't been shown to the country in a multi-million dollar tv and mail campaign. it's damning stuff, and you put it out there early, and with enough money behind it to really let it sink in... and it will be the first and only thing most people know about him. (don't believe me? ask your average mn voter about Tom Emmer - the GOP gov candidate... you know what most voters know... 2 DUI's and he fought for reduced DUI penalties... killed him)
5. my point is this about Paul, and I said the same thing about Nader in 2000... get your shit together, get organized, and turn your people out to vote for you... if you can't accomplish that simple feat... you aren't ready to run the damn country.

people can bemoan the two party system all they'd like - but we have winner-take-all elections, and in a system like that... the natural evolution of things is to have it come down to two sides. third parties will rise, usually on the strength of one issue, and then will proceed to get co-opted by one of the major parties if they get enough followers... been happening like that for decades... just the nature of the beast.

our system of government is designed to prevent the kind of extreme and radical change that the paultards are pushing for... it keeps our country from lurching this way and that every four years. it's designed to promote stability and some responsiveness... but it's not built for radicals.

[kalm]

1. it's not arrogance - he can't get shit for votes... '08 should have been a good year for him... but he got 1.8%
2. you're right - most don't know... and when they find out, the general response is that it's akin to anarchism with business suits... the notion of that limited of government died for most people in 1929 (when it failed absolutely)
3. it's not about "the corporatocracy" it's fact. i watched it happen in MN... fact is, when you have no coalition, when you have no support in congress... you are a lame duck.
4. they aren't on your radar... yet. they also haven't been shown to the country in a multi-million dollar tv and mail campaign. it's damning stuff, and you put it out there early, and with enough money behind it to really let it sink in... and it will be the first and only thing most people know about him. (don't believe me? ask your average mn voter about Tom Emmer - the GOP gov candidate... you know what most voters know... 2 DUI's and he fought for reduced DUI penalties... killed him)
5. my point is this about Paul, and I said the same thing about Nader in 2000... get your shit together, get organized, and turn your people out to vote for you... if you can't accomplish that simple feat... you aren't ready to run the damn country.

people can bemoan the two party system all they'd like - but we have winner-take-all elections, and in a system like that... the natural evolution of things is to have it come down to two sides. third parties will rise, usually on the strength of one issue, and then will proceed to get co-opted by one of the major parties if they get enough followers... been happening like that for decades... just the nature of the beast.

our system of government is designed to prevent the kind of extreme and radical change that the paultards are pushing for... it keeps our country from lurching this way and that every four years. it's designed to promote stability and some responsiveness... but it's not built for radicals.

Somtimes dramatic change is needed. I listened to a Dylan Ratigan podcast the other day about the economy where the guest cited a statistic that 3800 people were convicted and jailed by 1995 as a result of the S&L crisis. To date there's something like zero people convicted as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Democrats have learned to play the game quite well and will continue to lose the likes of me as a result.

[Grizalltheway]

1. it's not arrogance - he can't get shit for votes... '08 should have been a good year for him... but he got 1.8%
2. you're right - most don't know... and when they find out, the general response is that it's akin to anarchism with business suits... the notion of that limited of government died for most people in 1929 (when it failed absolutely)
3. it's not about "the corporatocracy" it's fact. i watched it happen in MN... fact is, when you have no coalition, when you have no support in congress... you are a lame duck.
4. they aren't on your radar... yet. they also haven't been shown to the country in a multi-million dollar tv and mail campaign. it's damning stuff, and you put it out there early, and with enough money behind it to really let it sink in... and it will be the first and only thing most people know about him. (don't believe me? ask your average mn voter about Tom Emmer - the GOP gov candidate... you know what most voters know... 2 DUI's and he fought for reduced DUI penalties... killed him)
5. my point is this about Paul, and I said the same thing about Nader in 2000... get your shit together, get organized, and turn your people out to vote for you... if you can't accomplish that simple feat... you aren't ready to run the damn country.

people can bemoan the two party system all they'd like - but we have winner-take-all elections, and in a system like that... the natural evolution of things is to have it come down to two sides. third parties will rise, usually on the strength of one issue, and then will proceed to get co-opted by one of the major parties if they get enough followers... been happening like that for decades... just the nature of the beast.

our system of government is designed to prevent the kind of extreme and radical change that the paultards are pushing for... it keeps our country from lurching this way and that every four years. it's designed to promote stability and some responsiveness... but it's not built for radicals.

Somtimes dramatic change is needed. I listened to a Dylan Ratigan podcast the other day about the economy where the guest cited a statistic that 3800 people were convicted and jailed by 1995 as a result of the S&L crisis. To date there's something like zero people convicted as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Democrats have learned to play the game quite well and will continue to lose the likes of me as a result.

Dude knows his shit.

[Appaholic]

Agree. The biggest problem RP would have would be within his own party. The fence-sitters like myself would view him as a breath of fresh air on the national scene. Hard-line partisans like TTBF & Bronco should be scared of an honest politician who doesn't care if he gets elected or stays elected (see Chris Christie....also see the reason Obama was elected to begin with...."Hope & Change" ring a bell?)...

all they had to do was show up and vote in the primaries... if the numbers of people who believe in his message are as big as you seem to think... they should be able to win primaries... and yet they never do.

That's just it, TTBF. His message doesn't get out there. He isn't one of the "chosen" house negores like Bush / Clinton / et al. So he doesn't get the airtime other candaidates get...period (just like Nader). And he never will which is why he won't get elected. Regardless of his message which, if Dems listened to without the static from spin doctors, might actually resonate with some of their populist leanings. But instead, there are political operative fucktards who make a living from character assasination in this culture of fear and who's only advantage being they know how to work the media better & how to suck the proper corporate dik for funding to accomplish this task.

But I concede. You are right. He has no chance for the same reason a documentary on the financial collapse of 2008 wouldn't stand a chance opposite of the Survivor season finale. Congratulations....you've maintained your power base with the idiot crowd until the Rep's Beck crowd / Birthers gain control on the requisite election cycle. We get the government we deserve.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

all they had to do was show up and vote in the primaries... if the numbers of people who believe in his message are as big as you seem to think... they should be able to win primaries... and yet they never do.

That's just it, TTBF. His message doesn't get out there. He isn't one of the "chosen" house negores like Bush / Clinton / et al. So he doesn't get the airtime other candaidates get...period (just like Nader). And he never will which is why he won't get elected. Regardless of his message which, if Dems listened to without the static from spin doctors, might actually resonate with some of their populist leanings. But instead, there are political operative fucktards who make a living from character assasination in this culture of fear and who's only advantage being they know how to work the media better & how to suck the proper corporate dik for funding to accomplish this task.

But I concede. You are right. He has no chance for the same reason a documentary on the financial collapse of 2008 wouldn't stand a chance opposite of the Survivor season finale. Congratulations....you've maintained your power base with the idiot crowd until the Rep's Beck crowd / Birthers gain control on the requisite election cycle. We get the government we deserve.

bitter much? don't kid yourself, there are plenty of Paultards well versed in the same "character assassination" techniques you attribute to my profession. the problem for them is not "the media" or "the system" or even "the money"... it's inept campaign managers who haven't figured out how to get his message out.

Running a guy like RP wouldn't be hard for a decent operative with half a clue... part of the problem is the libertarian ethic that undermines a serious campaign effort. it's the same problem that plagues the greens... an innate dislike and distrust of top-down management means the troops never march in a straight line, clear objectives are never attained, and professionalism is non-existent.

the other problem for these guys is that they flat lose in the marketplace of ideas with most voters... i know that's hard for libertarians to comprehend... same as it is for the greens... but the vast majority find their agendas too extreme...

[Appaholic]

That's just it, TTBF. His message doesn't get out there. He isn't one of the "chosen" house negores like Bush / Clinton / et al. So he doesn't get the airtime other candaidates get...period (just like Nader). And he never will which is why he won't get elected. Regardless of his message which, if Dems listened to without the static from spin doctors, might actually resonate with some of their populist leanings. But instead, there are political operative fucktards who make a living from character assasination in this culture of fear and who's only advantage being they know how to work the media better & how to suck the proper corporate dik for funding to accomplish this task.

But I concede. You are right. He has no chance for the same reason a documentary on the financial collapse of 2008 wouldn't stand a chance opposite of the Survivor season finale. Congratulations....you've maintained your power base with the idiot crowd until the Rep's Beck crowd / Birthers gain control on the requisite election cycle. We get the government we deserve.

bitter much? don't kid yourself, there are plenty of Paultards well versed in the same "character assassination" techniques you attribute to my profession. the problem for them is not "the media" or "the system" or even "the money"... it's inept campaign managers who haven't figured out how to get his message out.

Running a guy like RP wouldn't be hard for a decent operative with half a clue... part of the problem is the libertarian ethic that undermines a serious campaign effort. it's the same problem that plagues the greens... an innate dislike and distrust of top-down management means the troops never march in a straight line, clear objectives are never attained, and professionalism is non-existent.

the other problem for these guys is that they flat lose in the marketplace of ideas with most voters... i know that's hard for libertarians to comprehend... same as it is for the greens... but the vast majority find their agendas too extreme...

Yeah...no shit....sorry.. ..just re-read my earlier post....I was a bitter fok.... ...thanks for the mature response in spite of my "tantrum".... ...On a lighter note, those reasons are valid....I imagine trying to run a liberterian campaign might be akin to herding cats.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

bitter much? don't kid yourself, there are plenty of Paultards well versed in the same "character assassination" techniques you attribute to my profession. the problem for them is not "the media" or "the system" or even "the money"... it's inept campaign managers who haven't figured out how to get his message out.

Running a guy like RP wouldn't be hard for a decent operative with half a clue... part of the problem is the libertarian ethic that undermines a serious campaign effort. it's the same problem that plagues the greens... an innate dislike and distrust of top-down management means the troops never march in a straight line, clear objectives are never attained, and professionalism is non-existent.

the other problem for these guys is that they flat lose in the marketplace of ideas with most voters... i know that's hard for libertarians to comprehend... same as it is for the greens... but the vast majority find their agendas too extreme...

Yeah...no shit....sorry.. ..just re-read my earlier post....I was a bitter fok.... ...thanks for the mature response in spite of my "tantrum".... ...On a lighter note, those reasons are valid....I imagine trying to run a liberterian campaign might be akin to herding cats.

fair enough...

and yes - herding cats is about right. part of what makes mainstream campaigns work is that the staffers are willing to accept a rigid organizational structure and "swim in their lane" as it were. it's the same reason that most of the time a professional army will defeat a guerrilla insurgency... training and discipline go a long way.