Good news, bad news....

The good news is that the Hillary Clinton Inevitable Juggernaut ran aground in Iowa. Third place, behind Obama (convincingly) and Edwards (just barely). It's always nice to see the establishment's anointed dashed on the rocks.

And it's even better when it happens to someone like Mrs. Clinton, who claims to be the most accomplished and experienced of candidate, but can't seem to point to any "accomplishment" in her adult life that wasn't really something that was given to her because she was married to Mr. Clinton. And, of course, her claim to "experience" is based entirely on her having shared a residence with Bill.

But much as I enjoy seeing Mrs. Clinton get thumped, I'm afraid it's bad news for the only candidate I actually like. And the reason I think that is because I think there are a lot of voters in New Hampshire who'd just love to pile on. And a lot who would like vote for Obama, but only if he demonstrated in Iowa that he actually had a shot. But I can't really complain. Maybe if enough of them kick her when she's down, she won't be able to get back up. And that would be a good thing.

But, unfortunately, a lot of those folks who would only vote for Obama if it looked like he had a chance would have been voting for Ron Paul (or possibly McCain) if they weren't voting in the Democratic primary. In short, I think Obama's thumping of the former First Lady is going to shift a lot of the independent vote over to the Democratic primary, and that's bad news for the anti-establishment Republican candidate. (Probably bad news for McCain too, but I don't care about him.)

And speaking of McCain, the polls have him first in New Hampshire, followed by Romney. I'm guessing that'll be reversed by next Tuesday. But I wouldn't put any money on it. If Mrs. Clinton had won in Iowa, I'd have been willing to bet real money on McCain, Romney, Paul to win, place, and show in Hew Hampshire.

On the other hand, Ron Paul got a lot more more votes than the polls said he should have gotten in Iowa. Although most polls show Giuliani and the Rev. Huckabee 2.5-3% points above Paul, if he beats the spread by the same margin in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa, he'd still be very close to a third place finish in New Hampshire. I'd be happy with that. I'm still hopeful, but I'm expecting another fifth place finish.

And while a fifth place finish would be disappointing, it's really the message and not the man that counts. And as long as he's getting the message out, that's all we can really expect. The Ron Paul Revolution might not bear fruit in 2008 but we might have at least planted the seed that will ripen in 2012 or 2016. I just hope my fellow Americans wise up before Fred Thompson's dream of a mushroom cloud over an American city is realized.

But if he can just beat Giuliani again, it'll all have been worth it. I don't think Il Duce can recover from two consecutive losses to a "kooky" "fringe candidate" like Dr. No. Too bad he won't get almost three times Giuliani's total in Hew Hampshire like he did in Iowa.

-------------------------------------

And since I wouldn't want to appear sexist in singling out Hillary for criticism on her over-hyping of her supposed resume-- What's the deal with Rudy's supposed foreign policy / terrorism expertise? Did he anticipate or prevent the 9/11 attacks? Did he prepare for such an eventuality by providing the firefighters with the necessary equipment to respond to such a situation? Because I though I heard that a whole lot of firemen died because they didn't have working radios. And locating the anti-terrorism command center in the World Trade Center complex was a stroke of genius. Did Rudy actually do anything other than pose for pictures and make speeches?

And how 'bout the Rev. Huckabee claiming to have some sort of special understanding of "Islamofascism" because he took a few Bible classes in college. Isn't it enough to know that they hate us for our freedom and they'll follows us home and all that?

-------------------------------------

Speaking of polls-- The polls say that, of the Republican candidates tested (which naturally does not include Ron Paul), McCain is the only one who stands a chance. Any Democrat beats any Republican except McCain. But the polls say McCain would beat Hillary, that it's a toss-up against Obama, and that he'd lose to Edwards. Edwards. Can you believe that?

I don't know who's going to be on top, but I have a feeling the Democratic ticket is going to have Obama and Edwards on it. And that doesn't scare me nearly as much as the prospect of a Republican ticket featuring Giuliani and Huckabee.

--------------------------------------

Update: It seems my punditry-fu may have been weak that day. The latest Rasmussen poll from New Hampshire has McCain (31%) with a commanding lead over Romney (26%), and Ron Paul (13%) comfortably in third place. Bring up the rear are Huckabee (11%), Giuliani (8%), and Thompson (5%).

One other interesting tidbit:

The Republican race remains fluid as nearly a third of GOP voters say they could still change their mind. Sixty-four percent (64%) of McCain’s voters say they are “certain” they will vote for him. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Romney supporters are that certain along with 83% of Ron Paul voters and 66% for Mike Huckabee.

Only 17% of Ron Paul supporters think they might change their mind, while the figure is about twice that for any other candidate list.

In other news, the Rasmussen poll of the other side shows Obama with a ten point lead over Clinton in Hew Hampshire.

IT'S ON!

The Ron Paul blimp is a go. It was just pledges before, now it's real money.

They needed to raise $200,000 by midnight tonight to have it in Boston in time for the Tea Party, and they just went over.


Update: Reuters has picked up the story.

This is just too funny....

Some wacky Ron Paul supporters thought it would be a good idea to get him a blimp. All they needed to do was raise $350,000 to rent the blimp for a month. They were at around $25,000 when I first stumbled on it a week or so ago.

Well, it seems that word has gotten out, and as I write this their website says:

$383,500 pledged as of 11:18 pm 11/27/07


I sure hope they're able to collect on enough of those pledges. It's got to be about the best campaign gimmick ever.

Support Ron. It's Important.

It's not often that we get a chance to vote for someone who might actually make a difference. Vote "NO" to the status quo, and give 'till it hurts. That money won't be worth anything in a couple years anyway.

Remember Remember the Fifth of November....

It has been reported that on January 8th, Mitt Romney raised just over $3.1 million. That was the single biggest day for any Republican candidate in 2008, and the largest online haul for any candidate ever. Today, Ron Paul, an unserious candidate relying entirely on spam contributions from geeks, nerds, and hackers, all of whom live in their parents' basements, beat that record by a substantial margin.

As of 9:00 p.m., EST, he's a bit over $3.3 million for the day.

While Hillary Clinton reportedly holds the all-time record for single day find raising with $6.something million, Mr. Paul has the distinction with raising his money without the benefit of questionable fundraisers like Mr. Hsu.

I wonder how Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the MSM will explain this away.

Complete Ron Paul Interview, Parts 1 through 4

How could anyone not love a candidate for President who'll appear for an interview in some guy's dorm room?

Part 1




Part 2



Part 3



Part 4

Ron Paul on Colbert Report 6/13/07

Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero

Ron Paul on the Daily Show

How 'bout that Ron Paul?

Seems like he touched a nerve in that last debate. Poor old Rudy nearly had a seizure when Ron suggested that the 9/11 attacks might have been in response to U.S. foreign policy:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

MR. GIULIANI: Can I have 30 seconds, please?

MR. : No, no, no, wait a second. Let's -- we'll all get 30 seconds.

(Cross talk.)

MR. GIULIANI: They are coming --

(Cross talk.)

MR. : We all want 30 seconds of time --

[Rudy didn't get his 30 seconds. Instead, they moved on to talk about the really important issue of the day: Whether South Carolina should be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings.]

I really find it odd that Giuliani thinks he's never hear that before. And I find that funny because, as you may recall, right after the attacks, Rudy turned down a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks. You'd think he'd remember something that angered him so much that he refused $10 million for the widows and orphans.

Anyway, an ABC News poll has Ron Paul down as the winner of the debate by more than 10 to 1 over all the other candidates combined. And he also beat the second place choice (which wasn't a candidate) by more than 10 to 1. Take Ron Paul out, and the entire Republican field combined couldn't beat the second place finisher: "It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands." As of this writing, the results are these:

Ron Paul: 21,799

It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands: 1,828

Mitt Romney: 376

Rudy Guiliani: 362

None of them. I'm interested in the possibility of new candidates like Fred Thompson: 345

John McCain: 169

Tom Tancredo: 86

Mike Huckabee: 51

Tommy Thompson: 36

Duncan Hunter: 33

Sam Brownback: 25

James Gilmore: 16

Since you asked....

In a comment to the last post, Laurie said:

Off we go. I had at least heard of Kinky Friedman. I am blissfully ignorant when it comes to politics. I'm sure you'll get me up to speed on Ron Paul in no time.

You can read the official bio on the House website, but as a real introduction, I'd recommend Thomas Wood's article, The Revolutionary Candidate. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman (whose district now includes Galveston) that the party establishment loves to hate because he just won't play ball. And, of course, that makes him a crank, so the media ignores him. But he has a lot of support among the politically disaffected libertarian types. So much support, in fact, that when the neo-con Pajamas Media ran their presidential straw poll, he trounced all the other Republican candidates, pulling in almost as many votes as Giuliani, Romney, and Gingrich, combined. You won't see that on the Pajamas Media website though, because those results were unacceptable. Since he's not a "serious" candidate, he could not be allowed to win, and he was purged from the poll.

Political News: Ron Paul has made it official.

My favorite politician, Ron Paul, has announced that he's running for President. He's the only person running (or likely to run) that: (1) I actually like, and (2) I don't actively despise.

He's the only one in the race on the Republican side who doesn't think war is a good idea, and, so far as I know, the only candidate from either major party who voted against it before the troops were sent over. That means that, unlike most candidates running, he's smart enough to recognize that any "victory" we might win will be Phyrric, and among the rest, he's the only one who had the backbone to oppose the war when the rest of them were too stupid, spineless, or politically calculating to do what was best for the country. (When I hear Democrats talking about how Bush played on their fears and fooled them into voting for the war, I can't help but wonder why such self-described cowardly fools think they're competent to be President.)

If you have a few bucks sitting around that you don't know what to do with, send 'em here.




Edited to add: Dennis Kucinich voted against the war too. I suppose I overlooked him because I have a hard time taking him seriously.

I pledge a Legion....

I distinctly remember that, as a child, I was tricked and/or coerced into pledging a legion to the flag of the United States. Do you have any idea what that entails? A legion was 5000-6000 men, fully equipped. And in modern terms, that wouldn't just be infantry; it would include armor and air cavalry units. Do you have any idea what that would cost? We're talking at least hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

Yes, folks, tonight's rant is about the Pledge of Allegiance. I hate it. I will not say it. I don't even like to be in the same room with it. It gives me the screaming willies.

And it's not because of the "under God" part that seems to get liberal panties in such a bunch. That's about the only part of it that I find inoffensive.

Let's look at exactly what this abomination is.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag." Idolatry, pure and simple. Can you imagine, pledging allegiance to a flag? A piece of cloth? Or even to the Republic for which it stands (that hasn't existed since 1865, but that exceeds the parameters of this post)? What would God say if he knew that his people were doing such things?

But again I get ahead of myself. It's presumptuous to presume that these are God's people, much as they'd like to be.

And what about this "one nation... indivisible" stuff? Says who? Abraham Lincoln? Certainly not the authors or ratifiers of the Constitution. When New York and Virginia (and possibly others) ratified the Constitution, it was with the express reservation that the Union could be dissolved if the States decided that it no longer suited them to remain in the partnership.

It seems to me that once upon a time, a group of true patriots observed that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This 'indivisible' nonsense is just a ratification of Mr. Lincoln's war against the founding principles of the Republic.

And then there's "with liberty and justice for all." Irony? Comic relief? I dunno. A worthy goal? Maybe. The truth? Yeah, right.

So why the hell is the Pledge so revered? Did George Washington or Thomas Jefferson say the pledge? Hell no. They would have choked on it. George because it's blasphemous and Tom because it's statist. It was a turn-of-the-century state-worshiping socialist thing. It is a prayer to the gods of big government and centralization. It is an offense to all that is true and good and right.



(In case my previous posts didn't disqualify me from my long-coveted judicial appointment, I'm sure this will do it. Unless Ron Paul gets elected President. He'd understand.)

My new favorite periodical

Sorta bein' from Texas and all, I'm naturally suspicious of anything from New York. But the New York Press is about the best thing I read in years. Their reviews of John Kerry's convention speech and of George W. in general are spot on priceless.

I can understand how someone could base his (or her) vote on the "devil you know" principle. I can also understand how someone could base a vote on the "fool me once shame on you" principle. And, of course, the "lesser evil" goes without saying. I can even understand the "our side versus your side" thing. But I am mystified, dumbfounded, even, that anyone could actually support either candidate. I never thought I'd long for the days of Dole and Clinton....

But anyway....

I've always thought of Georgie-boy as a Lesser Evil, but I think I'll probably vote for Nader as a protest vote. Maybe I'll write on Carter. Or maybe RWR. Does the 22nd Amendment reset on death? Not that it matters, given the fact that I live in Texas and the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

Call it a hunch, but I don't think I'll be getting that federal judicial appointment that I've been wanting. Not anytime soon anyway. Maybe Ron Paul will run for President again. Maybe monkeys will fly....