Category: Ron Paul

EXCLUSIVE: Election Day in Hell, Michigan: Does Romney Have a Snowball’s Chance of Winning?

Posted on Comments

Election Day reporting from Hell, Michigan, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012

THREE MILES FROM HELL, Michigan
On my way from Troy to Grand Rapids — site of Rick Santorum’s Michigan primary victory party tonight — I got a late start and realized I wouldn’t make it in time for Senator Santorum’s 3 p.m. event at his campaign office there. That’s when it hit me: I should go back to Hell.

Saturday night’s trip was fun, but I hadn’t done much actual political reporting during that visit, so clearly I needed a return trip to answer the question, “How is the turnout in Hell?”

You might think Hell would be full of Democrats, but an informal Saturday night survey of patrons at the Dam Site Inn revealed that there were a lot of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul supporters there, and so I reset the GPS and made my way back through Pinckney and hooked a left on the road to Hell.

Arriving at the general store and post office — Hell in a Handbasket — the place was empty except for the manager, who was working in Hell’s Kitchen, preparing the cilantro dijon garlic mayo for their Hellacious Cuban Sandwich. This sounded tempting, and when the manager asked if I would like one, I said, “Oh, Hell, yes!”

The general store, Hell in a Handbasket

While she prepared my sandwich, I asked the manager (who refused to give her name) if she was a Republican, and she was. Did she have a favorite candidate? Had she voted yet? No, she hadn’t voted, and she was kind of struggling with her choices.

It figured: An undecided voter in Hell. Continue reading EXCLUSIVE: Election Day in Hell, Michigan: Does Romney Have a Snowball’s Chance of Winning? →

BREAKING: ROMNEY WINS CPAC STRAW POLL, SANTORUM A CLOSE SECOND

Posted on Comments

–by Wombat-socho


“It’s A Two-Man Race Now,” Stacy McCain declares


Earthquake Thursday in Vanuatu: A sign and a portent?


Just announced at CPAC: Mitt Romney wins 38% of the straw poll vote at CPAC, followed by Rick Santorum at 31%. Newt Gingrich placed third with 15% and perennial CPAC straw poll winner Ron Paul a distant fourth with 13%. More details in this article at the Washington Times.

Mitt Romney Wins Nevada Caucuses; Gingrich Blames Mormons for His Loss

Posted on Comments

The questions now become very serious: “Can he be stopped? And if so, by whom?” But first, the news:

Mitt Romney won Nevada’s GOP caucuses by a wide margin Saturday, a victory that was long expected and helps further his campaign’s argument that he is the inevitable nominee.
Romney held a big lead in early voting results, and The Associated Press and TV networks projected him to win when the last caucus locations closed.

Results of the caucuses were ridiculously slow. As of 2:30 a.m. ET, only 45% of precincts had reported and the results were:

Romney ……………. 43%
Gingrich …………… 26%
Paul …………………. 18%
Santorum …………. 13%

We will have to wait and see what the final numbers are, but at this stage it appears once again — as in Florida — that the combined votes of Gingrich and Santorum are not equal to Romney’s total. And this undermines Gingrich’s oft-repeated claim that his problem is that Santorum won’t quit and “coalesce” with him.

Instead, it could be argued that the problem is so many conservatives were persuaded to put all their eggs into Newt’s flawed basket. Ginger Gibson of Politico reported Friday on the hapless “mess” of Gingrich’s campaign in Nevada. This was an embarrassment for a candidate whose “super PAC” has received millions of dollars from Vegas kingpin Sheldon Adelson. It wasn’t merely that Gingrich lost, but that he ran such a conspicuously shoddy campaign in Adelson’s home state. But Newt seems immune to shame:

Following a second lopsided defeat to Mitt Romney in a week, Newt Gingrich on Saturday night again pledged to go on the Republican nomination fight all the way to the Republican convention this summer in Tampa.
“I will be a candidate for president of the United States,” Gingrich told reporters at a Las Vegas hotel following projections from CBS News and others that Romney would handily win the caucuses. “And we will continue to campaign all the way to Tampa.” . . .
In anticipation of a Romney victory in Nevada, Gingrich scheduled a press conference rather than the traditional election night rally. Gingrich spent much of the news conference attacking Romney, and in particular blasted him over comments the former Massachusetts governor made earlier this week when he said he was “not concerned about the very poor.”

The Lonely Conservative:

Newt Gingrich gave an angry speech. He even brought up Mormons. At this point, I’m all for anyone but Newt. The guy is nuts.

Aaron Blake of the Washington Post:

Newt Gingrich predicted during a press conference following Saturday’s Nevada caucuses that he would emerge as the GOP front-runner again by the Texas primary.
Gingrich’s remarks about regaining his front-runner status by Texas — which he repeated — capped a bizarre press conference held Saturday in Las Vegas. . . .
Gingrich seemed to dismiss his performance in Nevada’s caucuses, noting Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) emphasis on caucus states and Romney’s inherent advantages in the state.
“It is a very heavily Mormon state,” Gingrich said, referring to Romney’s religion.

Gingrich is neither helping himself nor hurting Romney with these attacks, and Romney is ignoring Newt the nuisance: “In three campaign appearances Friday, Romney did not even mention Newt Gingrich.” Meanwhile, campaigning in Colorado, Rick Santorum ratcheted up his attacks on both Romney and Gingrich:

“We are not going to win this election if either of these two guys is nominated,” Santorum declared. “Let me assure you. We will not win.”
Santorum claims neither candidate can compete with President Obama, saying both are simply too flawed and will be “destroyed” and “picked apart” by the Democratic incumbent. . . .
“On Tuesday I think we are going to do well in Missouri,” [Santorum later told Fox News]. “It’s going to be interesting because it’s a head-to-head between Governor Romney and myself. Speaker Gingrich is not on the ballot. We will see the idea that one conservative can go up against Mitt Romney head-to-head and win.”

That kind of rhetorical escalation in a GOP primary is unfortunate, even if what Santorum says is true — and who doubts that he is expressing his own sincere belief? Every candidate believes he is best qualified to defeat Obama, or else he wouldn’t be running. There are surely Republicans out there who believe that the GOP lost its best chance to beat Obama when Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry dropped out. But public doomsaying by candidates during the primary campaign is best avoided.

UPDATE: Also best avoided, “a highly delicate campaign by Mr. Romney and his top Jewish financial supporters to dissuade Mr. Adelson from adding to the $10 million that he and his wife have given to a pro-Gingrich ‘super PAC,’ Winning Our Future, that has been tearing into Mr. Romney through television advertising.” (Hat-tip: William Jacobson.)

This kind of thing — one candidate’s “top Jewish financial supporters” putting pressure on a rival’s top Jewish financial supporter — could lead to some very ugly accusations. Just imagine what Ron Paul’s people must be saying after reading a story like that. Or course, they were saying that stuff before reading the story, but still . . .

Palin Giving Lessons In How To Give Appropriate Criticism

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Love her or no (and I do), the little FaceBook page that rocked Obama continues to harry his Ruling Class ilk:

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.
I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward.

Romney went on about the Olympics in the Jacksonville debate. Does he view the Presidency as the ultimate sporting competition, his own personal gold medal? Is this something he feels he needs to do to prove something to somebody?

With Barack, one doesn’t feel there are any motives at work other than love of power and disdain for American exceptionalism.

With Bush, Newt, Santorum, or even, yes, Paul, one feels some genuine American spirit at work. With Romney, it’s not quite clear. He doesn’t seem diabolical like Barack, but, then, what?  Sarah brings that unease forward deftly, but not insultingly. Read the whole thing.

In any case, all of the back-and-forth is truly a feature, not a bug. If conservatives put forth a candidate that inspires, everyone gets behind him. If Romney prevails, everyone still gets behind him, except a tiny fringe of total goofballs, and Romney understands where the will of the people is. If Mitt is indeed a well-oiled weather vane, then what matters is ensuring the wind blows all conservative, all the time.

via Gateway Pundit

Also, via American Glob, Sarah Palin applauds the election-year rectal sunshine that #OccupyResoluteDesk offered during the SOTU on Stossel. A great exchange. Sarah Palin offers some qualified support to Ron Paul.

Stacy McCain hates him some what-ifs. But what if Ron Paul were to bring in Sarah as a VP candidate? She also takes a swipe at Peggy Noonan for calling Newt an ‘attack muffin’. Sadly missing from the exchange: Rick Santorum. I’m not sure how the NotMittRomney statue of Legos is constructed, but I hope Santorum has a place in there.

Between Newt’s national greatness vision, Santorum’s social conservative character, and Paul’s fiscal sanity, you have the ingredients that Reagan was able to bring together.  One hopes those three can get together, have coffee, and forge some sort of positive alliance, for the good of the country.

Or not. I’m just a voice in the chorus, and have  a strong record of predicting the future through advocating what won’t occur.

On a related note, via Lucianne, the Politico seems to think Sarah is a ‘secret’ weapon. That’s about as secret as #OccupyResoluteDesk’s socialism, isn’t it?

Update: Daily Pundit is on record as being totally anti-Mitt:

Although I likely won’t end up doing that, because that tiny fringe of total goofballs is probably going to be large enough to see Mittens Romneycare lose to the worst President in modern times, in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression. Impossible though that may seem to you, although the Gentry GOP who are busily cramming this particular crap sandwich down your throat would rather see four more years of Obama than a win by Newt.
And before anybody starts blubbering that I’m betraying the Republican Party, keep in mind that I’m not a Republican. I’m a registered Libertarian. I’m one of those independents the GOP Ruling Class keeps on raving that they have to nominate Mitt in order to attract. Except I’m the sort of independent who isn’t attracted by the likes of Mitt Romney, I’m repulsed.

In response, I care that people vote, but not for whom they vote. Political parties are a necessary evil, but not terribly interesting in and of themselves. Increasing GOP control over Congress is more important, anyway.

Update II: linked at The Conservatory:

There are lots of reasons not to like Newt. Whether those reasons add up to preferring Romney as ‘the only candidate with a chance to defeat Obama’ is a matter for your judgments. But the bases on which some Romney supporters have attacked Gingrich are so patently false that they’re as insulting as the country-club Republicans’ refusal to acknowledge that the TEA Party folks deserve a place at the table. Newt’s an “attack muffin”? Well, that’s a funny line, but Romney’s Hamburger Helper by proxy, and we’re tired of being hamburger handjobbed.

TAMPA, FLORIDA NBC DEBATE

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Thoughts:

  • These debates are great. The GOP is going to the gym, and going to be very muscular, assuming it doesn’t have a heart attack and die from it all. The Dems for all their bluster, have got to understand that they are losing the mindshare.
  • The various pleadings to Florida were interesting. I won’t even embarrass myself by hazarding a guess as to the winner, except to say that it probably won’t be Ron Paul.
  • Rick Santorum continues to improve. Whether that improvement will have enough impact to keep his campaign afloat is the harder question.
  • I didn’t find Romney’s lobbying attack on Newt terribly compelling. In fact, it raised more concerns about Romney’s ability to trade verbal barbs with Obama than it raised doubts about Newt. Newt may not have lobbied, by some technical definition, but anyone who doubts that Newt schmoozed to the fullest capacity of English- and body-language is a knob. “Methinks the laddie doth protest too much,” to tweak Lady MacBeth. The question for everyone to consider is whether BHO would make more adroit use of the lobbying card against Newt in the general. I am confident BHO would be more rutheless than Mitt. Mitt should see Dan Riehl for lessons in verbal deconstruction of an opponent.
  • I must now get some beauty sleep.

22:41 EST Mitt: If elected, I will institute the Seven Habits of Highly Effective Countries Not Named Greece.
22:40 EST Williams: Has America seen better days?
22:39 EST Newt: Yeah, we’re toast. I don’t want people for me, I want people with me.
22:38 EST Mitt: I have an inflatable record that is sufficiently buoyant to float the albatross and the galoshes.
22:37 EST Williams: RomneyCare; albatross, or cement galoshes for you?
22:36 EST Paul: Yeah, if want liberty and small government, you need to gaff these RINOs on the stage with me right off.
22:36 EST Williams: Paul, can you wreck the other three gentlemen for me?
22:34 EST Rick: RomneyCare and Newt’s individual mandate support. I am the clear conservative. OK, I can’t out-conservative Ron Paul.
22:33 EST Newt: I have been a really big, nearly Christie-sized, historical figure for the last 40 years. Master debater? Yeah, that’s me.
22:32 EST Mitt: I did what capitalists do.
22:31 EST Williams: They say Republicans are zombies. Does that mean the GOP has no soul? How do you nurture a soul in an undead organization?

So far:
Rick Santorum is having his strongest outing yet.
Mitt and Newt have had a jolly plowing contest; unclear whose ox was more gored.
Ron Paul’s Cuba ideas neglect a lot of the rogue state interactions that plague global stability.

22:25 EST Newt: Well, they helped us not crater so bad. But Dodd-Frank is killing us.
22:25 EST NBC: If tax cuts are the magic jobs pixie dust, why didn’t the Bush tax cuts work?
22:24 EST Newt: We should offer prizes. Permanent Moon bases, Mars, space stations. Do it.
22:23 EST NBC: Will you commit to putting a man on Mars?
22:22 EST Mitt: Why, yes: NASA, and also private sector. I will bring $ to the space coast, if you bring me votes.
22:22 EST NBC: Should we have a space program?
22:21 EST Paul: This underscored the issue of having living wills.
22:21 EST NBC: We’re not doing well painting Rick and Newt as fools. Can we lure you in with Schiavo?
22:21 EST Newt: Look at the efforts spent on death row inmates.
22:20 EST NBC: Can we throw you under the Schiavo bus?
22:19 EST Rick: I stand by my actions and would do it all again.
22:18 EST NBC: Hey, can we throw Terry Schiavo at you?
22:12 EST Mitt: I hate subsidies, and I hate what BHO has done to the economy.
22:11 EST Newt: Even Herman Cain can’t beat beet and cane sugar, and don’t attack my Chris Christie figure.
21:10 EST Adam Smith: The wealth of nations is diminished by subsidies. Newt, are you sub-sized?
22:09 EST Rick: We should quit rewarding illegal aliens for breaking the immigration laws.
22:07 EST Newt: They can serve in the military, but I don’t support the Dream Act otherwise.
22:07 EST NBC: Do you like Dream Theater?
22:06 EST Paul: That 10th Amendment should let a state have a bi-lingual ballot if Florida chooses.
22:05 EST Mitt: You FRICKIN’ Commie! We Do Not Support You Fragmenting This Country! [No, he doesn’t say anything that forceful: I’m kidding.]
22:04 EST Newt: English is a unifier. There are hundreds of languages.
22:04 EST NBC: You all want English as the official language, yet you’re courting Hispanics in Spanish. Hypocrisy?
22:03 EST Rick: Oil and energy will give you an economy. You might like it.
22:01 EST NBC: If we have offshore drilling, there will be a spill and Florida will die, die, die.
22:00 EST Rick: Iran is a pack of thugs. Tehran having a nuke would be tantamount to al-Qaeda having a bomb.
21:59 EST Williams: Iranian nukes. Why the h8?

break
Dear Representative Paul,
The United States is not blockading Iran. The United Nations (generally useless though it be) has issued sanctions against Iran. You can argue that the U.S. calls the U.N. tune to a large degree, but at least argue the case accurately.
Also, the Golden Rule is an inter-personal statement, not a political science statement. Peace through both superior firepower and the merest hint of a twitchy trigger finger is the empirically proven approach.
Thanks,
Smitty

21:53 EST Paul: We’re already blockading Iran. How would we respond to a blockade of the Gulf of Mexico?
21:52 EST Mitt: BHO is screwing up in Afghanistan.
21:51 EST Newt: President Milquetoast cancelled the Israeli bilateral operation. Apparently too busy at the YMCA to make the right decision.
21:50 EST Mitt: I will muster the Village People to sing “In the Navy” until Ahmadinejad sues for peace and quiet.
21:49 EST Williams: Straights of Hormuz. Is the term ‘Straight’ vaguely homophobic? If the Iranians force straights into the closet, is that an act of war?
21:47 EST Rick: The sanctions should continue until the Castros are both room temperature, and then we should make the Cubans an offer they can’t refuse to enjoy normal relations with us. And, Paul, the global thug club is working with Cuba against us.
21:46 EST Paul: I don’t like isolationism. I think the sanctions propped up Castro. And no, I don’t think we need to overthrow the Cuban government.
21:45 EST Newt: I would forget the Arab Spring and bring the sting of a Cuban Spring.
21:45 EST Mitt: I don’t smoke.
21:44 EST Williams: 3 A.M. call. Castro done. Can you smoke a couple hundred cubans for sheer joy?
21:43 EST Mitt: They were poorly regulated.
21:42 EST Williams: Were markets over-regulated?
21:42 EST Newt: Repeal Dodd-Frank, and the housing market will get better overnight.
21:41 EST Mitt: What Paul said.
21:39 EST Paul: Washington has really screwed it up. The Community Reinvestment Act screwed it up. The bubble was as obvious as corruption on Congress. Liquidate the debt. Plus another 1,000 words.
21:37 EST Santorum: Yeah, we tried to work on it back on ’06, but Reid, Biden, and Obama filibustered the legislation.
21:36 EST Williams: 40% of FL homeowners are underwater. Did the government tube it?

break
Dear Governor Romney:
You have got to publish some specific details of precisely where you think Newt lobbied/peddled influence/behaved unethically. Such a case may exist, but the handwaving isn’t convincing.
In fact, it makes you look like Marianne Gingrich.
This is not meant to sound like a Newt apologist. The concern about the October surprise is real.
Also real: specific facts.
Cheers,
Smitty

21:32 EST Mitt: You got paid, and you walked around peddling influence.
21:32 EST Newt: I advocated good policy as a private citizen.
21:30 EST Mitt: Did so.
21:30 EST Newt: Did not.
21:30 EST Mitt: You lobbied.
21:29 EST Newt: Oh come on. You’ve run a business. You know where the loot goes to offices &c.
21:28 EST Mitt: You’ve admitted that your wallet was penetrated, however slightly, by far more money than anyone would pay an historian.
21:27 EST Newt: I’ve got the contract online, and there is no evidence of peddling influence?
21:26 EST Williams: Newt, why is your Freddie lobbying not lobbying?
21:24 EST Rick: I have not attacked Mitt on the Bain damage. I’d like to ask Mitt and Newt why they supported the Wall Street bailouts, if you’re such heap big capitalists. GOOD POINT!!!
21:23 EST Mitt: I expect that on from the front, from the Left, not in the back from the Right.
21:22 EST Williams: I must stoke the fires of class warfare.
21:21 EST Newt: I can bury you on tax details.
21:19 EST Mitt: You think I’d admit to owning this kind of syphilitic camel? But the real issue is, of course, my tax plan. “I’m proud of the fact I pay a lot of taxes.” Patriotically, one presumes.
21:18 EST Williams: Mitt, will you admit that the taxes you’re to reveal tomorrow reflect ownership of the entire GOP?
21:17 EST Paul: Why do you want to take away my favorite knife?
21:16 EST Williams: Ron Paul, will you admit to intending a third party run?
21:14 EST Rick: “Once in a while we can finish in style,” sticking to conservative principles.
21:14 EST Williams: You got crushed when you ran for the Senate last time.
21:13 EST Rick: Why, yes: yes, I am. I’m here to be a consistent conservative, not wreck Republicans, and put the heat back on the opposition, #OccupyResoluteDesk.
21:12 EST Williams: Senator Santorum, are you still in the race?
21:11 EST Newt: How about some facts, Mitt?
21:08 EST Mitt: Yeah, Newt is that Doomsday Machine, all right. And so the GOP had to kick Newt out. That makes him a bad man.
21:07 EST Newt: I am, in fact, a Star Trek alien, not from Star Wars. And we’ll refute Mitt on the web tomorrow.
21:06 EST Mitt: I am Zog’s Sex Wax, and Newt is really Jabba the Hut.
21:05 EST Williams: Mitt, do you think Americans will elect a wax figure like you?
21:04 EST Newt: I know balanced budgets are controversial, but I kicked a lot of butt.
21:04 EST Williams: Have you had a road to Damascus moment, so people can have a shred of confidence in you?
21:03 EST Newt: Yeah, Reagan was down, too. But I’m here to put the hurt on DC. Big hurt.
21:02 EST Williams: Newt, Mitt says you are Jabba the Hut. Feedback?

The NBC Tampa debate starts off in half an hour. The house is swept; the World’s Youngest Blogger Bathed, and I am ready for some WWF-level GOP action. Probably erroneous predictions:

Newt Gingrich Stuns the crowd by not being overly self-congratulatory over South Carolina.
Mitt Romney Stuns the crowd by producing a hard copy of the famous tax returns for Brian Williams, who pronounces them boring.
Rick Santorum Stuns the crowd by confessing he was on the road with the Grateful Dead one summer during college.
Ron Paul Stuns the crowd by speaking slowly, in brief, coherent statements.

Ron Paul and the ‘Not Romneys’

Posted on Comments

“There are many mysteries to the phenomenon that is Ron Paul. How is it, for example, that a 76-year-old with a reedy voice — his appearance and manner not remotely “presidential” by the usual standards of the TV age — is an idol to so many youth? Polls in Iowa showed that Paul got 48 percent among caucus voters under 30, which might suggest that his libertarian-tinged anti-war message represents the future of the Republican Party. But that youth vote was only good enough for 21.4 percent of the total, because fully 60 percent of Iowa GOP caucus-goers were 50 or older. So the oldest candidate in the race, dismissed as a crackpot by most mainstream Republicans, is almost uniquely capable of attracting young voters to a party dominated by the gray-hair-and-bifocals set. However one attempts to explain this situation, it does not bode well for the GOP. And perhaps it doesn’t bode well for America, either.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “Ron Paul Haunts New Hampshire,” The American Spectator, Jan.  10, 2012″

HOLLIS, N.H.
After spending a couple of hours among the Paulistas yesterday, I felt obligated to write my Spectator column about this phenomenon, and I think that difficult experience explains a lot of my bleak mood today.

It wasn’t just that I was distracted by the Alabama football game or trying to file a story in a hotel bar. No, I kept thinking about what the Ron Paul phenomenon, and what “the abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys,” signifies for the future of the GOP and the future of the country.

Contrast the pathetic joke that is the Rick Perry campaign — which now has exactly as many supporters as it can afford to hire — with the amazing grassroots enthusiasm exhibited by the young supporterfs of Ron Paul. Just to remind you, here is the video of them packed inside an aircraft hanger in Nashua on Friday:

Are we ever going to see any such display of genuine excitement for Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman or Perry? I still dare hope that Santorum’s underdog crusade might eventually inspire something similar, although there have been only glimmers of it so far.

Where are the Christian youth who say they believe in the right to life? Why aren’t conservative Christians showing up at Santorum’s campaign headquarters in such overwhelming numbers that the campaign staff is shocked by the influx of volunteers? Why aren’t pro-life, pro-family evangelical ministers and Catholic clergy urging their congregations to board the next flight to South Carolina and start doing everything they can to help Rick Santorum win on Jan. 21?

“Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh?”

Many of my conservative friends are so busy denouncing Ron Paul and his supporters that they can’t be bothered to ask themselves, “Why don’t we have that kind of wild-eyed fanaticism among our supporters?”

And I fear that the answer would be, selfishness.

But I don’t have time or patience to explain that remark now, and I suspect any attempt to explain it would annoy and offend people. So I’ll leave it there for the time being, rather that bother you with my depressing contemplations. A few discouraging headlines may suffice:

Majority of Conservatives
See Romney as “Acceptable”
— Gallup

New Hampshire polls open
in Dixville Notch — with nine votes
— Washington Post

Perry: Mitt’s company ‘just vultures’
who ‘eat the carcass’ of companies
— Politico

And as the final insult, there’s this:

Crowd boos mentioning
of McCain’s name at Santorum event
— The Hill

Oh, wait, they weren’t booing the mention of my name. It was that other guy. But it’s still depressing to think about how Cousin Maverick has disgraced the family name. Hit the freaking tip jar.

RECENTLY:


Among the Paulistas in New Hampshire

Posted on Comments

HOLLIS, N.H.
The Only Man Who Can Save American Liberty™ — as he is regarded by his famously fanatical supporters — appeared today at the Lawrence Barn here, and I was pleased to discover that one of Lisa Graas‘s Twitter friends, “TradiCatholic,” was among the Paulistas in attendance. And I explained to her that, unlike some other conservatives in the blogosphere, I have sought to avoid the “urge to purge” attitude toward Ron Paul’s supporters.

We ought to distinguish, I believe, between the sincere, serious and well-meaning Paulistas, who will gladly close ranks with conservatives in opposition to Obama’s liberal agenda, and the relatively small number of insane hate-filled monsters who infest the dark corners of the Internet.

The scene inside the Lawrence Barn. This was an “invitation only” event that was originally planned for someone’s living room, but which outgrew the venue and had to be moved to a public facility. Among those on hand to support Ron Paul was this homeschooling family:

One of the highlights of the event for me was the performance of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” by these home-schooled girls:

Let those who wish to banish the Paulistas from the “Big Tent” explain: How is it in the interests of the conservative movement and/or the Republican Party to tell young people like this that their support and influence — their commitment, their energy, their enthusiasm — are unwelcome within our ranks? Here is Ron Paul being introduced at the Lawrence Barn:

Here is Paul answering a supporter’s question about the American “empire” during his appearance in Hollis:

Now, you may disagree with the congressman about these matters, and that’s OK. And certainly the vast majority of Republican voters (more than 80 percent, according to the Iowa caucus results) do not support Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. But why do so many conservatives go beyond mere opposition to Paul, and engage in demonization of him and his supporters?

Here is a brief interview with Dr. Lee Button of the National Heritage Center for Constitutional Studies, a New Hampshire home-schooling leader:

Perhaps I am exceptionally sensitive to the need for conservatives to include Paulistas in their ranks because I am an ex-Democrat. Unlike so many of my peers in conservative New Media, I was born and raised a Democrat and did not wise up to that inherited folly until I was in my 30s. Whatever errors of ideology or rhetoric you may attribute to Ron Paul’s supporters, I doubt many of them were ever so foolish as I was in 1984, when I voted for Walter Mondale.

Mea culpa. Mea magna culpa.

Therefore, my conservative friends, let us be civil and reasonable, and seek common ground with those of Ron Paul’s supporters who are also civil and reasonable, striving together to form a common front among those patriotic Americans who seek an end to the dreadful misrule of the Obama administration. And really, how can you not love this kind of enthusiasm for liberty?

This Paulista apparently drove all the way from Pennsylvania.


Ron Paul Campaign Flyer Emphasizes Opposition to Gay Marriage, Abortion

Posted on Comments

HOLLIS, N.H.
Ron Paul has won many converts in New Hampshire with his libertarian-influenced anti-war message, but a flyer circulated by the Texas congressman’s campaign here emphasizes Paul’s Christian faith, pro-life position and opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I believe marriage is between one man and one woman,” the flyer quotes Paul as saying, expressing his support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that would “ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a ‘same sex’ marriage license issued in another state.” The flyer also reminds voters that Paul “was an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to [DOMA] from federal courts’ jurisdiction.”

The Paul flyer (full image below) describes him as having “worked tirelessly to defend and restore” pro-life protections: “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty.” Evidently aimed at wooing social conservative support for the congressman’s campaign, the flyer also includes these quotes from Paul:

  • “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”
  • “We must recognize that true national defense means defending our own borders and coastlines. … Borders should be the number one national priority, plain and simple.”

You can click on the image below to see it full-size:

UPDATE: What struck me about this flyer is that so many of Paul’s young supporters I’ve spoken with are in favor of gay marriage and they seem to assume that Paul is as well. Yet the Paul campaign is distributing this flyer to emphasize the candidate’s social conservatism. Meanwhile, another candidate has a slightly different problem here:

Mitt Romney Campaign Disavows
Pro-Gay Rights Flyer From 2002
— Huffington Post

On this issue, as on so many issues, Romney goes both ways. NTTAWWT.