Former Jack Metcalf staffer and 1999 Republican candidate for Snohomish County Executive Lew Moore is working for Ron Paul's Presidential campaign. Moore has some pretty good street cred in certain political circles, but this is an odd move. I'm sure Ron Paul is a nice, decent fellow and all, but his politics have long since jumped the shark.
Now, send me your spam Ron Paul-ites! I'll see you in the comments no doubt.
UPDATE: Wow. The Ron Paul Internet warriors are a treat. It's like an Internet version of the zoo. I'm half tempted to put up another post titled "Ron Paul Sucks!" (just to trigger whatever Internet feeds they subsist off of) with a couple choice links, then to watch them come crawling. Speaking of which, for fun I played around with this online tool to translate Sound Politics into other languages. For some reason I found the comments of the Ron Paul-ites more entertaining in Dutch than in the original. And no, I don't actually know any Dutch.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 22, 2007 07:53 AM | Email This:)
well at least your not participating in the media blackout so thanks for that :)
GO RON PAUL
Posted by: Gabe Harris on May 22, 2007 08:10 AMOther than that, thanks for your coverage of this interesting campaign news.... I can't wait to see what happens.
Posted by: Dick Clark on May 22, 2007 08:14 AMIt certainly is amazing Lew took the job on. Good hand. Ron Paul is going to need more than a 'good hand'.
Because of all the front loading, can't we all agree we should winnow/cull the size of the candidates in future debates.
It is like a three ring circus, but the Rs at least looked more presidential. Cut down the size of the debate.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2007 08:16 AMThat seems like a lone man of sound judgment and not a jump the shark character. What am I missing?
Posted by: E Metzver on May 22, 2007 08:16 AMwww.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Posted by: Robert Smith on May 22, 2007 08:20 AMwww.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Posted by: Robert on May 22, 2007 08:22 AMSounds like anyone who wears armani silk cravats and drives a BMW.
IOW, any westside Democrat yuppie or yuppie larvae.
Posted by: Rey Smith on May 22, 2007 08:34 AMMy guess is that Lew is trying to help build a national movement in the Republican party that challenges the orthodoxy of neo-conservatism. A check that many of us who don't agree with a lot of Dr. Paul's or Lew's thinking would still find to be a healthy development for the GOP!
Posted by: Bill on May 22, 2007 08:39 AMIf this nation goes on with its current course and ends up bankrupt (or with tax rates double what they are today to meet our debt/entitlement obligations), then will you be arguing that big spending/interventionist politics have "jumped the shark?"
And leave us "spammers" alone. We're just people who care. :)
Posted by: Jack on May 22, 2007 08:41 AMRon Paul finally gives us a politician worth voting for, too bad he's not enough fire & brimstone for the masses.
why don't we cull the masses instead of the candidates. wiping out the welfare staters in DC would be a good start :) i kid, i kid. without them how would i know what laws i'm breaking by thinking for myself??
Posted by: million on May 22, 2007 08:42 AMRasmussen reported that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew something about 9/11. They're probably WRONG, but does that disqualify every Democrat who TALKS TO someone in that 35% from the presidency.
This guilt by association nonsense is despicable and everyone spreading it should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Jack on May 22, 2007 08:45 AMPolls show the race is definitely shifting, and is not how the media portray it.
On the Republican side, Guiliani is leading nationally, but is trailing Romney and McCain in Iowa and NH. On the D side Edwards has had a consistent lead in Iowa. What happens to these two races if the supposed front runners lose the early states?
More importantly, for months McCain and/or Guiliani lead Clinton and/or Obama. Now the ONLY matchup Republicans win - barely - is Guiliani v. Clinton. In every other scenario the Ds lead, and the trend lines aren't encouraging.
Take two candidates the public doesn't know that well, Romney and Edwards; a somewhat generic R and a somewhat generic D. Edwards wins by 27%!
There is a long way to go, but RIGHT NOW the only thing keeping us competitive is the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 22, 2007 08:48 AMGoogle Video: Ron Paul
Posted by: JJ on May 22, 2007 08:48 AMStudent: So I just wanted to say, you know, we've talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he's willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.
Paul: Into 9/11?
Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there'd be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn't be the only one.
Paul: It'd be bipartisan, too. And I've worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.
Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?
Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 22, 2007 08:53 AMI like Paul, always have. I like that he is saying what he is saying, even when I disagree with it, because he represents the views of many people, and I like to see that brought into the debate. But I wouldn't want him to be President, and he doesn't have any chance to win, either.
Feel free to like Ron Paul, but don't be deluded into thinking he can possibly win.
Chris Vance: those polls don't worry me at all. They are certain to change significantly when we actually have two candidates running against each other. Bush was killing Gore in May 1999 (by about 20 points), and Kerry in May 2003; Gore ended up with more "popular votes" and Kerry closed the gap significantly. And Bush was killing Clinton in May 1991, for that matter, and ended up losing by quite a bit. A lot will happen between now and then. Certainly it's an uphill battle, but politics usually is, as you well know.
Immigration is exacerbating the already deep split in the Party. More importantly, Iraq is driving American politics. Unless things get much better on the ground over there we are going to have a very steep hill to climb.
Go, Hillary, Go!
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 22, 2007 09:06 AMHe is the *only* candidate from either party who has a clearly never sold-out his political position to win votes or to bend with popular opinion. His is the *only* candidate who has a principled platform focused on liberty and backed by the Constitution.
I can understand why the republican party wants him out of the debates. He makes it plainly obvious to the casual observers out there that the other candidates have no integrity.
Rudy with his ambiguous position on abortion and terrorism. McCain with his hypocritical position on free speech. Romney with his dubious claim on being a small government conservative.
For the casual Republican who still believes in liberty, lower taxes and smaller government, voting for any of the other candidates is risky. With Ron Paul, you know he'll keep his word.
Posted by: Dave on May 22, 2007 09:09 AMI am not paid to be worry like you are :-), and I am not saying we should kick back and relax, but I see 2008 as a complete toss-up at this point.
The Democrats lack a coherent position on Iraq, but at this point it isn't hurting them. The situation in Iraq must change in order to shake up the fundamentals of this race.
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 22, 2007 09:16 AMIf you read Article II of the U.S. Constitution you will see that none of the executive powers enumerated there require a "party" to get done.
Sure, Section 2 does require the advice and consent of the Senate to accomplish various things but Ron Paul, who has common cause on some issues with both parties, would probably be more effective than another Statist candidate from either party.
If Ron Paul makes a good showing, I think we'll see candidates from both parties, who lack Ron's integrity, suddenly finding their libertarian roots to win more votes.
Posted by: Dave on May 22, 2007 09:21 AMHe is a worthless P.O.S, and this is coming from a libertarian Republican
Posted by: GB on May 22, 2007 09:29 AMIf the Republicans work it well enough, even with a bad situation in Iraq, the Democrats will be seen as a fractured party with no clear message or credibility. They got elected in 2006 in large part because they convinced voters that the "grownups" were back. If they don't actually act like grownups, the electorate's going to be pretty ticked off.
We'll see!
That's enough to keep me away from his lever.
and to John Bailo....Ron Paul doesn't blame America for terrorism, he blames American foreign policy for hostilities towards America.
Posted by: Danny on May 22, 2007 10:08 AMNo deep conspiracy here.
I will suggest that people with lots of time & ready access to the internet may not be a representative sampling of the American public or people generally.
They probably lean a little geeky & to the intellectually [hyper?] active. Ron Paul's independence & intellectual articulateness are very appealing to them. Make that to me.
Of course we must keep in mind that Howard Dean got a lot of internet support, probably for some of the same reasons.
But we got the gigolo Kerry rather than Dr. Dean.
*shrug*
Posted by: george on May 22, 2007 10:10 AMAnd you wonder why a lot of us don't take Ron Paul supporters seriously.
This is what happens when the far left hooks up with the far right on the backside of the political spectrum.
I could support Paul for a lot of his positions - small government, Constitution - but his stance on 9/11 and foreign policy is pure nuttery.
He's got no chance, no matter how many internet sites you guys flock to and 'spam' the comment threads.
Posted by: jimg on May 22, 2007 10:14 AM
Its to bad you and your pals in the establishment
crowd think you know better than the rest of us.
Apparently you still think you do as I haven't
heard one word from any of you saying you screwed
up. Its typical of you and your friends, never take
responsibility for anything. Someone else is
always to blame.
Liberals and conservatives have taken the freedom vote for granted for too long, but only paid us lip service. We are going to jump ship and vote for the one candidate we KNOW will fight for Liberty. And that aint Hillary, or Obama, McCain or Guiliani.
Posted by: rob on May 22, 2007 10:55 AMReally?
Really?
Really?
And as for "pushing McGavick down out throats," that never actually happened. McGavick was selected by the party as a whole, not by any one man, or even by the party leadership.
What's next? supposedly has a clue?
Posted by: juandos on May 22, 2007 11:07 AMBeen hearing this for over 2 years now. Glad U teamed up with Ron Paul and the Flat Earth Society.
Posted by: John425 on May 22, 2007 11:17 AMThe fact that ALL of the media is marginalizing him says more than anything. Big media and big business are afraid this guy could win.
Posted by: mr rcguy on May 22, 2007 11:31 AM I am not about to cover old ground again.
Its true the state committee did in fact
select McGavick.But your deluding yourself
if you think that's how McGavick got to
that point. I know for a fact(because I was
there) that Chris Vance tried multiple times
to convince Diane Tebelius and Susan Hutchison
to not run for the senate.There was not one bit
of encouragement or support from the state Gop
for either of them. Most of the names ie
gorton,evans,munro and John Carlson among
others were supporting McGAVICK long before
the state convention took place.
John425,
Susan had polling numbers that put her in a
dead heat with Cantwell.The State Gop knew
this and instead of supporting her run. They
did everything they could to prevent it from
happening. Chris Vance if you come on here
and try and deny anything I have said I will
bury you.On your best day you cant come
close to touching me.
For the record I do not now nor will I ever
support Ron Paul.
And again: there is simply NO WAY anyone could have beat Cantwell last year. Period, end of story.
You can't question if 911 was a conspiracy and get ellected. The man can have 99 or of 100 score on conservatism, protection of the constitution, small government and every last ounce of it is pizsed away with one truther moment. No reasonable, educated adult can look at a truther and conclude that they are equipped to run this country.
He's the republican version of the green party. Very loud, very narrowly issue driven and willing to forgive any deficiency and believe any conspiracy. His candidacy is moot and only marginally entertaining.
Posted by: Cecil on May 22, 2007 11:59 AMTravis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on May 22, 2007 12:16 PMTravis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on May 22, 2007 12:18 PMTravis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on May 22, 2007 12:20 PMTravis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on May 22, 2007 12:21 PMHe said:
"The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way."
Then he goes on to say in response to being asked if he thinks that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government which is what the neocon spinmeisters are trying to paint:
"I'd say there's no evidence of that."
You gotta understand that Ron is attacking the 'one-worlders' and this must not be done. Since both sides are party to this, he will get attacked by both sides. THAT is the tipping point. We must never educate the public about this, let them think it's all right/left and let them fight amongst themselves about it to keep them busy and off track! But it should be pretty obvious after this last president, that they are all working for the same thing. I mean Clinton and Bush are traveling together on a speaking tour for gosh sakes! There were just here at UNH and they are the best of friends.
Posted by: NH on May 22, 2007 12:30 PMHe says our policies are at the heart of this. Yet fails to draw a thousand year line from muslim extremism and terror attacks to the US. The activities of muslim extremism based in producing a caliphate was not created nor is it exacerbated by the US's dealings in the ME. We are being used for cover as way to provide a modern and non islam based smoke screen that their cause is a just and politically appropriate one because the US is bad. Paul assists this by appologizing rather than calling out the charade for what it is.
Posted by: Cecil on May 22, 2007 12:31 PMRight. He blames the US - or as you say, 'the actions of the USA' - for the attacks. There's no other way to split that hair, so stop trying to. USA did this + Islamic fundamentalists responded = USA caused it.
Personally, I blame the actions of, oh, I don't know, the jihadi f*cks who flew jetliners into office towers. And I blame the jihadis for all the other Islam-inspired terror around the world ... which have and had very little to do with U.S. policy in the Middle East, Iraq or the fact that I like bacon on my BLT.
And that's why I don't take Ron Paul or Ron Paul supporters seriously. You're simply on the backside of the political spectrum hooking up with the insane left.
But keep talking. The louder you shout, the more your message will get out ... and the more people will hear it. And I don't think the response will be what you think it will be.
Posted by: jimg on May 22, 2007 12:34 PM- Andrew Sullivan 5/22/2007
Posted by: Robert on May 22, 2007 12:38 PMRoger, Paul isn't being smeared. I've seen reasoned arguments about why he is A. misguided and wrong and B. unelectable. Perot was a "breath of fresh air" and wasn't electable either. Calling the majority of republicans "degenerate" because they are in disbelief of Paul's 911 nuttiness is a good sign that his following is more cult like than based in a deep political/scholarly analysis.
Posted by: Cecil on May 22, 2007 12:49 PMYou mean like that time the USA sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq so they could continue to go to war with each other? Or how about that time the USA went to Afghanistan and trained rebels to defeat the USSR. The same rebels whom later came back to try and kill us?
Oh no, the US would never meddle in the policies and affairs of other countries for their own gain. God forbid those actions would someday come back and haunt us.
(Iran, Syria and Iraq and others in the middle east have done it as well though to a much smaller extent.)
Want to know the dirty little secret that our major media won't tell you about why radical moslems want to kill us? (And I guarantee you won't ever hear this on ABC, CBS, NBC or any of the rest.)
They hate us because they find our way of life disgusting and disrespectful to God.
The U.S. media likes to play up the "involvement" angle because it lets them off the hook, but the imams preach that they need to destroy the west because it allows open homosexuality, women without burkas, pornography, free speech and all those things that our modern media embraces.
When the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs shortly before they left on their suicide mission, they weren't there to oogle girls, they were there to re-enforce in their own minds "This is what we are fighting against. We don't want our wives, sisters and daughters to wind up here."
Get past the media filter and actually read the suicide notes written by the hijackers and the translations of the messages that Al Queda sends it's own people. They cheer the the idea of pushing the U.S. out of Iraq because it would be a victory, but they hate us and want to kill us because they see the decadence of the west in the movies and tv shows we export overseas.
If we left Iraq tomorrow, Al Queda would simply say "look we won here. Now lets go there." They have no intention of stopping at the borders.
As OBL said himself, the only way to stop the war is if we all convert to islam. That wasn't just hyperbole. That's his conditions for ending this and those conditions won't change. Not if we quit Iraq. Not if we let them drive the Isrealis into the sea. Not if we lay down our arms.
I kind of like seeing girls without burkas. I think my wife and daughters would be very grumpy if they had to wear them.
I have gay friends I'd hate to see thrown off the roof of a tall building simply because they love other men.
I like to have a beer once in a while and would hate to get beaten within an inch of my life for it.
I like tv, radio and movies and would hate to see those things shut off the way they were in Afghanistan when he taliban controlled it.
In short, I kind of like America including all those things that Al Queda doesn't approve of and won't stop killing us for unless we give up.
It's time people on the left realized that the battle is to preserve your way of life too and our "permissive morals" are a big part of what is fueling the hatred of the islamofascists.
Losing Iraq would be a good way to see our way of life come to an end sooner rather than later.
Posted by: johnny on May 22, 2007 01:31 PMPAKISTAN: THEY HAVE THE BOMB, THEY HAVE BIN LADEN, AND THEY HAVE A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. ASK WHO WIRED MONEY TO MOHAMED ATTA DAYS BEFORE 9/11 AND YOU'LL FIND OUT IT WAS PAKISTAN ISI
WHAT ARE WE BOMBING CHILDREN FOR IN IRAQ? WHY DID WE TAKE THE ONE CONTROL THAT KEPT A FUNCTIONAL SOCIETY IN IRAQ FROM DECENDING INTO SECTARIAN CHAOS AND HUNG HIM FROM A ROPE? I'LL TELL YOU WHY IT'S BECAUSE OF THE PRECIOUS PETRODOLLAR THAT IRAQ WAS ABOUT TO FLUSH DOWN THE TOILET. SADDAM WAS LOOKING TO DIVERSIFY CURRENCY HOLDINGS AND SELL HIS OIL IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE DOLLAR. DO YOU GUYS READ THE FACTS OR WHAT? IT WAS AN EMERGENCY MISSION TO TAKE OUT THE THREAT TO THE PETRODOLLAR AND NOW THAT IRAN JUMPED ON TO THAT IDEA OF DIVERSIFICATION ALL OF THE SUDDEN THEIR QUEST FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY JUST LIKE ANY DEVELOPED COUNTRY HAS IS AL QUADA IN ORIGIN? IF WE WERE SERIOUS ABOUT STARTING ANOTHER WAR IT WOULD BE IN PAKISTAN BUT CATCHING BIN LADEN MUST NOT BE THAT IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE FBI DOESN'T HAVE HIM LISTED FOR 9/11 ON THEIR WANTED LIST, THE CIA DISBANDED THE TASK FORCE TO FIND HIM BUT WAIT PROPAGANDA... IS CONFUSING ME... WE HAVE THE 9/11 MASTERMIND EUREKA! KSM!
WE NOT AT WAR WITH EURASIA ANYMORE IT'S EAST ASIA YEAH BIN LADEN WHO? IRAQI FREEDOM OR WMD?
pretty please wake up America's depending on it
Posted by: Robert on May 22, 2007 01:32 PMSorry, I can't wake up to what you are saying because you typed it in all caps and I don't have the patience to slog through it.
Ron Paul is not a truther - do some research and read the posts above.
Then he goes on to say in response to being asked if he thinks that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government which is what the neocon spinmeisters are trying to paint:
"I'd say there's no evidence of that."
Ron Paul is not a truther - do some research and read the posts above.
Then he goes on to say in response to being asked if he thinks that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government which is what the neocon spinmeisters are trying to paint:
"I'd say there's no evidence of that."
All I ever here on FOX News, CNN, etc. is that they hate our freedom. That is a contributing factor but it is not the only factor and it is a cope-out to our own crap foreign policy to say it.
Believer in the Constitution---How can people claim to be ANY type of American and not be appalled by the trampling of the constitution by the past administrations? Gonzales think Habeus Corpus is a privelege not a right, and Rudy LAUGHS when Dr. Paul brings it up in a debate.
Gun Control---Tied to my first point. When I look at the people on the stage I become very aware that if most of them win we'll have more worthless non-enforceable gun laws making it harder for honest citizens to buy and own firearms.
Less spending--Has anyone looked at the deficit lately? The Dems. aren't doing so hot a job of getting it under control.
Smaller Government--This one is tied to #1. Too much psuedo government, and too many agencies with absolutely no oversight.
Iraq War---We're done, period, end of statement. The original authorization had stated goals and those have been achieved. If we want to declare war on somebody and make an honest effort then let's do it, no more half attempts. I can't help but think of Princess Leia's line in Star Wars "the more you tighten your grasp the more planets will slip through your fingers".
A thought, have any of the naysayers looked at his voting record? He voted against raising taxes, congressional raises, the Patriot Act, internet regulation, and many other things that I would think are a boon to his platform.
By the way, I'm not some fringe lunatic as I'm sure I'll be made out to be. I've worked on several local, state, and national campaigns, and did my internship in a Republican Senator's office. All while I was Vice Chair or Chair of my branch of the College Republicans. So maginalizing or trying to label people is particularly offensive to this conservative. If you want to label people as being liberal collaborators start by looking on the debate stage.
Posted by: Lucas on May 22, 2007 01:51 PMNo, they would say hey lets make a great holy war in the middle east and destroy ourselves over petty religious differences.
In short, I kind of like America including all those things that Al Queda doesn't approve of and won't stop killing us for unless we give up.
What sorts of things are those? What do we have that say the Netherlands/France/Canada/New Zealand/Australia don't have that makes us prime targets for Al Queda? This is the dumbest comments I've heard today (and there have been a lot of them).
I have gay friends I'd hate to see thrown off the roof of a tall building simply because they love other men.
If you like your gay friends so much why don't you let them get married like normal people?
If you think that the 137,000 vote margin in Ohio in '04 and the 537 vote margin in Florida in 2000 is still there - Get real!
What are the reasons for the US troops being deployed around the world? Any terrorist camp around the world can be hit and assaulted from US bases alone. If the bases are there to confront China, that is pure insanity. If we were ever stupid enough to go into a conventional war against China, you had better start learning Chinese. The only deterrent against a future aggressive China is our nuclear weapons. At this point in history, in a conventional war, we could walk over Russia. But no way could this happen because they are the second largest owner of nuclear warheads. If we are not in the Middle East, the radical governments will have no target to rally their people and the people will turn against their own governments. The fanatic in Iran lost out in their last election because they are tired of not having freedom.
If you think the Iraq war is serving our national defense - just how? Do you think it has made us highly respected in the Middle East and made them all want to be like us? Do you think it has put the fear of God in them to see the power of the US military? Maybe at first they feared the US military but now they are gaining confidence and shooting down that fearful Apache Helicopter.
If you think that this is fighting the terrorists on their own ground rather than ours, I would say this is more like if we dropped the 101th airborne division into Berlin during WWII and tried to hold the city.
Billions have been spent on homeland defense. Was it all the bloated "protect us agencies" that found out about the Ft Dix plot? No, it was the alertness of a private US citizen. Was it the bloated "protect us agencies" that stopped the shoe bomber? No, it was the crew and passengers. Only us as individuals have a chance to stop terrorism.
Am I one of those "Plot upon plot upon plot" freaks? Am I one of those liberals that believe no matter what the horror in the world, "it is America's fault"? Or maybe I am a drug using hemp voter? Or better yet, am I one of those "black helicopters are coming to get me" nuts? Probably not because I served in the National Guard 20 years and crewed helicopters for 14 years and kind of knew that black paint is called CARC paint (a radar absorbing coating).
My first active duty callup was during Desert Storm to back fill with my company in Texas and Honduras. Three of us would never come back from that deployment as a nighttime medevac mission went terribly wrong and two of our pilots and a flight medic would be burned beyond recognition on a Honduran hillside. My next deployment was in a place called Bosnia, and while we all came back, most of us will never forget the long awaited day of departure when an air war started in a place called Kosovo and the plane to take us home couldn't fly into the closed airspace. So since the politicians didn't want us to be too heavily armed in this police action, we had to give all our ammo to our replacements and make a bus trip through the worst area of the country, absolutely defenseless.
I was 14 years old, typing up my own Reagan posters in 1976, and raged as Nelson Rockefeller yanked a Reagan poster out of the hands of a Reagan delegate. I raged when establishment Republicans ridiculed the Reagan delegates for blowing their horns for Reagan for forty straight minutes at the '76 convention. I ranted every time I heard statements that the phony baloney actor cowboy from California would never win a general election. When the impossible happened and he was elected, I watched a good portion of Reagan's agenda go down to defeat against a Democratic Congress. I dreamed if only we could get the presidency and the congress, we could really lower the deficit, cut back on the government's size and intrusiveness, and make sure that US troops were never sent to a war that wasn't in direct defense of our nation, with their hands tied and given a mission they could never win. In the year 2000, by 537 votes, my dream came true. And how well I have been rewarded;
Mark Foley preaching of neocon morality while attempting to have a homosexual affair with a page and being covered up by those in power.
Finding out Newt Gingrich was having an affair at the same time as Clinton.
Listening to Rush Limbaugh from the day he started his talk radio on KFBK ridiculing people of the libertarian beliefs on drugs and then finding out he was smuggling and using illegal drugs himself.
Finding out that the great moralistic inspiring articles from the Hillsdale college were written by a man who had been sleeping with his son's wife for 10 years.
Watching Bush and the Republican congress give us a huge deficit with every kind of pork barreling you can imagine and growing the power of the federal government in every area.
Disregard for the Bill of Rights.
Young men and women fighting and dying in a war with no clear objective, being sent on multiple deployments, and then being hit with a stop loss when their enlistments were up and sent again.
All the while I am choking out excuses against critics.
I voted for Bush in '04 because how could I vote for a guy that openly admitted to committing atrocities in Vietnam while he was an officer and should have had the leadership and moral courage to stop it? I supported the war because I was told of the WMD by both Clinton and Bush. God help our civil liberties if Saddam drops one of those on a US city, I thought. I served my tour after it was decided the WMDs would never be found and stood by my helicopter and saluted with tears in my eyes as the body bags containing the remains of US GI's (some weighting less than 30 pounds) were loaded on my helicopter. Coming home from one of these missions, I read the string of increasingly frantic emails from my wife about the SuperStallion helicopter that had gone down in the western desert. She was reading the partial list of fatalities and recognized the names of our son's Marine buddies he had talked about in emails from Falujah. But God spared our son as him and a buddy were moved to Chock 2 at the last minute, sparing him the fate of 33 of his company comrades.
As far as my opinion of legalizing drugs, I have always been anti- drug despite growing up in the 70s and have no use for drug dealers. I don't use drugs, including alcohol which I consider the same. It was with this attitude that I volunteered for a mission to take out this horrible high producing meth lab hidden deep in the woods. After briefing for this full-on ground and air assault mission, we flew nap of the earth with release points and check points like any I flew in Iraq. As our flight of helicopters made precision landings around this lonely little house in the middle of nowhere to unload 16 heavily armed law enforcement officers, I could see a convoy of law enforcement vehicles approaching down the single dusty road. And down a hillside behind the house, a squad of officers rushed. I recall a horrible sinking feeling in my stomach as I realized I was part of this firepower directed at US citizens - and it only grew worse as the officers searched in vain for the meth lab that was never there. And it was with near grief that I watched the 3 year old asking her young mother, handcuffed on the ground, why she couldn't get up. For a wild turkey shot out of season and a few other small charges. we hauled them to the county jail. Needless to say that was the last time I ever volunteered for one of those missions.
So, when I hear about the kooky, liberal, left, fringe, anti-American Ron Paul supporters, I guess I must have miscategorized myself
Posted by: Joel on May 22, 2007 03:09 PMOn my farm I have to spray to kill worms before they ruin the fruit. The best way that I have figured out how to do that is to add a tiny bit of a second pesticide that doesn't hurt the bugs at all but in fact excites them just enough to leave what they are doing and come out so that they will get hit with the sprays and die.
If I don't do that many of the bugs will spread about and make the infestation worst and a few years from now, without prior warning half of my farm would be destroyed - happens to my neighbors.
We are dealing with a burrowing insect in radical Islam that will spread all over the world (and has) putting larvae here and there that will pupate and turn to adults in large groups, making the insect hatch in the midwest this week appear to be child's play.
Start counting up the nations that are starting to eradicate the eggs and larvae before they reach that point. Egypt, Jordan, Spain, Italy, G.B. Lebannon, Israel, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, France, Netherlands.....goes on and on, and will get more and more inclusive as those little bugs are encited more and more.
Posted by: Doug on May 22, 2007 03:40 PMDo the world a favor, go organic. =)
"I'd say there's no evidence of that."
Good gawd. It's like arguing with a friggin' wall. He BLAMES the actions of the US as being the cause of 9/11 - not the Bush MIHOP or LIHOP garbage. Yet somehow his casting of blame is supposed to be better? That we caused it and now if we were to only pull everything back, pull out of everywhere and just paint our fences white, that Islamic terrorism will leave us alone?
Not gonna happen. And your actions, by teaming up with the insane left, is going to get more innocent people killed. Fortunately, there's still plenty of people who aren't about to let that happen.
Man, I've seen this stuff in other forums and it's the same there - don't try to pass yourself off as some sort of common sense conservative - you're simply a bunch of paleocons in the Pat Buchanan mode and I've got no use for you or your ideological brethren on the left. You're the same type of black helicopter/freeman nutters I had to deal with in the mid-90s.
You are on the margins, and so is your candidate. Done with you.
Posted by: jimg on May 22, 2007 04:12 PMNow for the rest of you: the most interesting thread on this discussion is the Spackleman - Vance match up. Spackleman says he's going to "bury" Vance...is that in the same way Kruschev threatened to "bury" the west? I hear someone's shoe pounding on a podium...
Vance --- no reply? Aren't you a bit curious about the hour and method of your "buriel?"
Posted by: seanod100 on May 22, 2007 08:14 PMHe's the only candidate I could vote for rather than just "against the other guy".
Posted by: Grunt, gab. and growl. on May 22, 2007 08:27 PMI think we've found the solution to our energy problems, we just need a way to harness it.
I could vote for someone like him if I knew he believed in sovereignity and borders, language and culture - unlike the McCainaics and probably Guillianites.
Posted by: KS on May 22, 2007 10:06 PMRon paul supporter are the only real patriots because they are the only ones who care about defending the principles of freedom and liberty that our country was founded upon. I recommend reading the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution since it is these documents that represent the philosophy of America and the philosophy of Ron paul.
Posted by: Timothy Boyle on May 23, 2007 07:44 AMPointing to places like France and Australia and saying "If the muslims just hate the west, how come these places aren't getting terrorism." (That is admittedly a summary of your argument.)
Do you read the news? Have you heard about the bombing of the disco in Indonesia that targeted Australians? Read about the Scandanavian painter that was stabbed in the street? How about the problems with moslems going on in Thailand? (Thailand can hardly be described as interventionist.) Did you note the rioting last year in France? (Not the recent rioting when the French came to their senses and voted in a conservative President, but the earlier ones.)
How about the bombings in Spain, Turkey, etc. Are Spain and Turkey interventionists too?
Also, if you were a regular participant to this board, you'd know that I actually support gay marriage. Frankly, I don't think the government belongs in anyones bedroom.
Before you post and call people names, please check the facts.
Posted by: johnny on May 23, 2007 09:07 AM Are you really that naive? First of all its
inappropriate for a State Party to support anyone
prior to the primary.If you don't think that
was happening with McGavick then your one of
the few.Yeah your right nobody put a gun to
there head but when you know your not going to get
the support of your own party's leadership.
Its makes it pretty difficult to undertake that
kind of race.
As for Cantwell there was and is no doubt that
Susan would have defeated her. Her numbers were
much stronger than McGavick's.Further more you
don't know Susan like I do, She has broad
appeal across the aisle. Some may not agree
with her positions on everything but they would
have liked her enough to vote for her.
As good as Susan is at raising money Cantwell
would have had no chance against her.Enough
said about this.
Seanod100
Chris Vance doesn't have the guts to take
me on because he knows he can't win. The fact
that he didn't even try should tell you that.
Indonesia is 88% Muslim according to the CIA Factbook. Indonesia is not Australia.
Read about the Scandanavian painter that was stabbed in the street?
Wow, a crazy looney kills a man for making a film that insults his religion. Looney people killing each other over religion....that could never happen here...NEVER!!
Did you note the rioting last year in France?
Yes I did...riots happen here too.
How about the bombings in Spain, Turkey, etc.
Spain, yes...but the majority of bombings in Spain are conducted by Basque separatists. A Majority of bombings in England were conducted by the IRA. Neither of which are Muslim groups.
Looks like you are the one who should get their facts straight.
You think it is inappropriate for the State Party to support someone that early, but that is merely your opinion, not a fact. And it's one I disagree with. I've voted to support candidates before primaries (indeed, I voted in the SnoCo Executive Committee to support Doug Roulstone just last month, and that primary is nearly a year away).
I understand all the issues. But at the end of the day, if someone wants to get in the race, they can. I fully supported Reed Davis' bid to speak at state convention, and was angry he wasn't allowed. I supported Ross Perot and Ralph Nader participating at the Presidential debates.
So I am obviously not trying to block people out, but if you want to participate, then you need to start early. It's the way it is now. I don't like it, and I want it to change, but for now, it's the way it goes.
And no, Cantwell would have beat anyone. Period. You're delusional. It does not matter how much you know her or what her appeal was. I called and doorbelled last year and ran into an extremely high number of people who said they would not, this year, under any circumstances, vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name. No incumbent Democrat in this ENTIRE COUNTRY lost re-election, and you really want me to think that Cantwell could have been defeated?
Sorry, not buying it.
Finally, no, the fact that Chris Vance "doesn't even try" to engage you means only that he thinks you're like talking to a brick wall and that there's no point in bothering. "Silence is Consent" is a logical fallacy.
Talk about being blind. Yes, I know Indonesia is heavily moslem. (I actually lived there for a short while.) I also know the bombing targeted Australian tourists. (Heck it was in all the papers and since it was the Australians that actually died it was kind of obvious.)
If you don't recognize the reference to the bombing in Spain I referred to, you are out of the loop. Yes, they have Basque seperatists there. No, the bombing that changed their government structure (and a few terrorist incidents since) were not the work of those seperatists. Again, it's been in the news. Look it up.
Referencing the old IRA bombings in England is clearly a sidestep of the major issue.
As for the rest of your post - what does the fact that those things happen here have to do with your position? You attacked me when I said that this was an attack on the west and that islamic fascists were behind it. The fact that they aren't the only ones who do those things shouldn't confuse the issue that they islamic fascists do it and do it in an organized fashion.
Why yes it did, and this bomb was targeting the Westboro Baptist Church idiots. Both bombers were attacking people they disagreed with on religious principles.
Yes, they have Basque separatists there.
Yes, and they blow people up and kill people too. They were the original suspects in the Madrid Train Bombing. It was only later they found out it was carried out by Muslim extremists. The Basque Separatists have supposedly killed over 800 people over the course of 40 years. That's a lot more than the Madrid bombing.
I took issue with the fact that what you pasted looked like it was copied from some right wing propaganda chain mail. While it looks great on the surface when you start digging deeper it fails to hold water.
Yes Muslim extremists have killed lots of people, yet a lot of European separatist groups have killed more people. Yet they get labeled as freedom fighters and not terrorists. Amazing what a difference the color of your skin makes.