Posted 05 March 2012 - 07:11 PM
Only 1/2 way through, but I say defending himself from a media attack dog.
Question: Did he self destruct, or was he passionate in defending himself?
When I read the title I thought I'd see Rick turn into some kind of raving lunatic foaming at the mouth.
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:38 PM
"Let me be clear, I am not running to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, I am running to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama," Santorum wrote in a fundraising email to supporters just ahead of voting on Super Tuesday. "I am running to be your voice in Washington, committed to fighting against the corruption, the bloated government and the reckless spending that is holding us back."
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:53 PM
If they continue to malign and ignore the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, GOP elders will be slamming the door on their future.
For most of this campaign season, an unassuming septuagenarian has been striking terror in the hearts of the Republican establishment. Much as he did in 2008, Ron Paul has exposed a rift within the Republican Party between small-government, anti-war libertarians and big-government, pro-war neoconservatives. Although Paul has yet to win a plurality in any state, he more than doubled his 2008 vote percentage in Iowa and tripled it in New Hampshire.
He retains an enthusiastic following, particularly among younger voters. And he will make a lasting mark on the Republican Party, and the United States, if his followers remain active in politics after he leaves the scene. Whether they will do so, as well as which party they will call home, remains very much in doubt.
In the face of this resistance, Paul is not only doing better this year than four years ago, but also better than in any of his other nationwide campaigns, including his run on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. Unlike with some politicians, the shift in interest is not attributable to a late conversion on the part of the candidate. Paul's views haven't changed much over his nearly four-decade political career. His railing against the Federal Reserve and warnings about the perils of government power long attracted a following, but never a very large one.
So, what changed? In short, people's attitudes toward the country's wars and their concerns about the country's debt, which the wars have exacerbated. When the Iraq war went south and the counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan morphed into a quixotic nation-building crusade, Paul's bold stance against both wars earned him plaudits from those on the left who do not share his libertarian philosophy. Now, some on the right have begun to embrace Paul's views as well. In addition to his strong performances in several recent primaries and caucuses, he has done well in various straw polls, including last year's Values Voter Summit and the 2010 and 2011 meetings of the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Which brought me to another article by this author:
Koch v. Cato – Some Further Thoughts
When I learned that the Kochs were suing Cato, I’m sorry to say that one of the first things I felt was vindication. I’d been saying for years that Cato was essentially an independent shop. The suit makes no sense unless I was right all along.
I’ve worked at Cato for five and a half years. In that time I have never seen a single decision made in consideration of the Koch brothers’ wishes. Cato has always appeared to be run by two people: its president, Ed Crane, and its executive vice president, David Boaz. It was like that when I was hired, and it’s like that now.
Even they don’t call all the shots, either; plenty of things get published that they actually disagree with, including some of my stuff. The people who spin elaborate fantasies about the Kochs acting as our puppet masters were, and are, dead wrong. They’ve been wrong since at least the early 90s, if not earlier. I’ve been saying so for years. Now the whole Cato Institute is in open revolt against the Kochs, a revolt that grew up with astonishing speed.
Why? And why do the Kochs want control?
Time to shut off Twitter for the day.
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:53 PM
I was surprised to find that I was still undecided. I thought about voting for Romney. I considered his business experience and his experience with money.
Then I compared his actual record in office to Newt's.
I voted for Newt.
This upset Dad, but I made a good case. Mom wishes that she had talked to me before she had voted.
Posted 06 March 2012 - 05:00 PM
3.6.12 @ 4:13PM
From a friend in Alexandria, VA:
I voted this morning, and I felt like I was in the Virginia Soviet Socialist Republic.
For starters, not a single yard sign anywhere. Not in people's yards. Not on Route 7 between Old Town and Falls Church, one of the busiest corridors in the entire region. Not on Quaker Lane. Not even at the polling place. I understand saving money, but I thought that there would be at least one sign at the precinct exhorting me to "Believe in America" with Comrade Mitt. No. For that matter, there was only one small "Vote Here" sign on the street, instead of the usual series of them.
In addition to the usual signs required by the Virginia Election Code, they also posted a sign on the door to the polling place informing voters that the law prohibits write-ins in primary elections (yes, actively forbids, even in areas that still use paper ballots). The sign said that votes for anyone other than official candidates would not be counted and that ballots should not be defaced. (Only Romney and Paul are on the ballot.)
Posted 06 March 2012 - 06:14 PM
KUDLOW: All right. And… I’m not going to light my hair on fire.’ That’s you. I don’t have it up here. But you say, `I’m not going to light my hair on fire.’ Was that your way of saying that the economic issues have to be preeminent relative to the social issues? Was that your message?
Gov. ROMNEY: Well, my message is I’m not going to say outrageous things about the president or about my opponents. It gets headlines and a lot of excitement, and it gets you, by the way, a number of days in the polls to get a nice little bump. But I’m going to talk about the real issues Americans face and talk with respect about people who have differing views. I’m not going to attack them personally. I mean, I know that’s fun, but it’s just not productive. And we need, as a nation, to come together to recognize that even though we have differing views about the country and about where we should go, we all love the country. And I recognize that among Democrats and among Republicans. I want to lead the country. I don’t want to castigate half of Americans. I want to bring us together and finally get the job done of having a stronger economy with a–with a government that’s been kept in the—in the–into the box it ought to be kept into.
What else has Willard Whitebread been doing but attacking his opponents!
It's he knows how to do.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users