Mitt’s Magic Ear (piece)

A strange thing happened at last night’s Republican Debate in Boca Raton, Florida.

 

Tim Russert asked Mitt Romney whether or not he would raise payroll taxes to solidify the Social Security program, standard fair for a Republican debate. As Romney pauses for just a moment, a muffled, scratchy voice says “I wouldn’t raise taxes“.

 

 

A millisecond later, Mitt repeats the phrase on cue.

 

So the question on all of our minds – does that alter the consensus opinion that Mitt knocked it out of the park? If this gets picked up by the big media, this should be enough to knock Mitt from the race.

 

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

 


Conventional Wisdom: Unconventionally Stupid

The conventional wisdom making the rounds in the last 24 hours is that we’ll be down to 3 candidates by Super Tuesday, with expectations running high that both Huckabee and Giuliani will be relegated to the sidelines after Florida. Both candidates are seeing their numbers slip as they struggle with an inability to come up with new money to power their floundering campaigns. I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom on this point. It will be down to the well-funded Ron Paul, the self-funded Romney and the un-funded McCain.

 

And to listen to the neo-conservative emmanations from the Ministry of Truth, you’d get the idea that they’re all liberal flip-floppers who don’t know what conservative means. Here, the CW is two-thirds correct.

 

On the sidelines

 

From there, I can’t follow what passes for wisdom from the conventional crowd. Mike Reagan posits that this is just the right scenario for Newt Gingerich, but Mike never really has been one to use his head for much besides sitting. You can forgive him for being a dunce, as he really is no blood relation to the Gipper, and intelligence is a genetic trait. While he might have picked up a little rhetoric spending some time with RR, he certainly missed the fundamental premise about what makes one a conservative. Here’s a news flash for you, Mike: a proclivity for bombing third world nations doesn’t make one conservative, and in light of a historical understanding of conservatism, it is actually a contra-indicator.

 

As much as I dislike Limbaugh’s inability to name the one conservative in the race, at least he is holding the line against redefining conservative so that he can avoid the indisputable fact that not only is Ron Paul the only conservative in this race, he is decidedly the most authentic conservative to vie for the Republican nomination since Barry Goldwater.

 

 

And I won’t do more than mention Glenn Beck, for whom it is all about the war. Strike that. I will make one comment for Mr. Beck: If you sell out everything that is important to conservatives to be able to kill more people in the middle east, you are not a conservative. You are a liberal hawk. That’s where you’re living, and you’ll have a hell of a time convincing the conservatives who have tuned you out of anything else.

 

 

If wanting to expand our war footprint (in opposition to the traditional conservative position) is a deal breaker for the self-appointed neo-conservative opinion-shapers, grow a set and say so. Stop trying to act as if Paul isn’t an authentic conservative – it doesn’t make your own abandonment of conservatism any less cynical. Fine – you’ve drank the ‘Islamo-fascist’ koolaide. That doesn’t mean that anyone unwilling to join you in the militaristic liturgy is not a conservative. As for your own conservatism – it died when you threw your weight behind increasing the power of the state over individual liberties in the name of security. What an indictment of you gentlemen – Mr Beck, Mr Limbaugh, and of the rest of the second tier of opinion gate-keepers.

 

You can get it back. I know you’re afraid of losing your seat at the table, but haven’t you been a spineless genuflector to the establishment long enough? You can recapture your conservative credentials, and do the nation a solid in the process. Learn to say the name of the only conservative left standing. It will hurt a little at first, but you’ll get the hang of it. Just two little one syllable words.

 

 

Test it out at home, try it with your significant other, or another close friend. After a little practice, you can gain the strength to say it in the presence of your respective audiences. And after you spend a while trying to rememeber what conservatism really is (hint – it doesn’t mean you want to kill more towelheads), you just might start to be conservative once again.

 

Just Who Is Cozy With The Nazis?

In a telling display of just what a cesspool the anti-Paul coalition has become, news breaks today that Jamie Kirchick, the current hero of the smearbund, collaborated with at least one neo-nazi in his quest to smear Dr. Paul.

 

The incomparable Justin Raimondo has done all of the heavy lifting on this issue, exposing the motive for the Reason/Cato libertine crowd’s crusade and cogently laying out the damning fact that they are deeply engaged in some heavy-petting with the same racists they have put forward as props to smear Dr. Paul.

 

Here is the infamous Don Black photo – the one that whipped the haters into a frenzy:

 

Behold Kirchick's bitch - Don Black

 

As has been well documented, this photo of the infamous ‘Storm Front’ fuhrer was snapped at an event where hundreds of people attended and got their own candidate photos. Of course, it didn’t stop the assembled cretins from thinking it was the nail in the coffin for Paul. They even found out about a donation from a neo-nazi, and got the big media to carry their smear-water. And again, it was Don Black at the epicenter.

 

Flash forward to the most recent attempt to push the ‘Ron Paul is a racist’ premise, and who do you think Kirchick’s neo-nazi pal is….. you get one guess.

 

Don Black.

 

So here we have it, folks. There is no chance that the three separate surfacings of Black are coincidental. This is the best the braniacs can come up with, and if I say so myself, they make great bed-buddies. Who would have guessed that Kirchick and his partisans would end up in this metaphorical incestuous orgy of their own – with big, bad Stormfront! It gives the whole sordid mess a redeeming sort of closure.

 

I’m glad this episode has played out this way, for now the objective bystanders can get a real glimpse into the soul of these “aging hipsters and would-be “cool kids””, and make sure we steer clear.

 

almost a journalist

 

I’ll be waiting for the fourth offering resulting from the buggery between Kirchick and Black. One would have thought such intercourse unthinkable for both parties. It is true that politics makes for strange bed-fellows.

 

Ron Paul is nicer than me, too

Reason covered the Norma McColvey endorsement from Arizona, and picked up a very interesting little glimpse into Dr. Paul. I think they might have encapsulated why there are men who are good at the game, and very rarely, a man who is just good.

 

Asked about Mitt Romney’s change of position on the subject of abortion, the Congressman offered:

 

I can’t read into anyone’s mind and heart but what he said is very similar [to McColvey's experience]. If we take him at his word, that is absolutely the case. I don’t think I’d put it at the same level of what Norma’s had to go through, but no, he says that he has had a changed attitude, and some people have challenged him on his sincerity, but I do not. I’m going to take his word for it unless something changes.

 

Those three sentences magnify for me the reason that Ron Paul probably will not be our next President; ironically, it is the same reason that he is a much wiser and better human being than I’ll ever hope to be.

 

I would have slugged Governor Romney between the eyes (metaphorically). I would have noted that abortion wasn’t the only thing the Governor had flip-flopped on, and spouted the requisite “his religion doesn’t matter” qualifier before I back-handedly asked if the Mormon Church’s death ritual had anything to do with his changes on the subject of abortion. (A clear non-sequitur – but as a presidential candidate, my primary goal isn’t to make sense. I just need to get the subject out there. Ask Mike Huckabee what I mean.)

 

I can’t verbalize this at the moment, but I’d try and get this video across in an easily understood soundbite (for those who would get on me for linking to the video above on some ludicrous sensitivity-based grounds…… this one is much worse…..).

 

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

 

I’m a bible-believing Christian, so I know something about putting up with a little ridicule. The LDS gestapo and the professional outrage squad can get a sense of humor….

 

Of course, his religion isn’t particularly relevant, but we’re not having a contest to see who can construct the most cogent argument. Politics is a contact sport, and impressions mean everything. They’ve tried to paint Paul as a ‘kook’, while his policies are the most sane thing within the blast radius of Washington DC. In that same way, the most bizarre rituals of the Mormon Church don’t make Mitt Romney a fruitcake. Does anyone wanna argue that you can’t make him look like a fruitcake by linking him to death rituals and heavenly orgies?

 

It’s certainly a tactic that Lenin would have approved of, but hey – this ain’t patty-cake. Did Mitt ever have a Mormon newsletter?

Paul’s Cash Haul

A Third Way for Paul?

He's off

[Parenthetical - I was working on a post about this subject to post here, when I got a comment at the Daily Dose (Ron Paul's Official Blog) that prompted me to alter it to post in response. Rather than hack it up to post here, I am posting it (nearly) verbatim. Here is the link to the original comment from Aubrey, to which I responded.]

 

I agree Aubrey. I don’t believe a third party run is a tactic to win the Presidency. For that, we have to win the GOP nod. The third party run is about moving liberty back to the forefront. Can you imagine Dr. Paul in a three-way debate with Hillary & Romney? It is about the message. If we can get respect for our position by eschewing a third party run, then great. If we get the same treatment we’ve gotten thus far – we are sneered at and marginalized if we are acknowledged – then a third party run should happen.

 

In a nutshell – If we don’t win the nomination outright, my feeling is that Dr. Paul can do the most to promote the liberty movement by not just packing up and going home.

 

If it is a brokered convention scenario, and we are not in a position to be calling shots – I think a third party break is a good tactical move. If we are in a position to have influence with delegates, then demand a seat at the table one way or the other.

 

I could live with a VP Paul. Unfortunately, none of the GOP candidates could. Just having him on the stage with them diminishes their stature. Again, I think a third party run would be a reasonable response to being denied a voice in shaping things.

 

Maybe Dr. Paul as the head of the RNC? It worked for Dean. I almost fell out of my chair thinking about that one! Can you imagine the discussions about the platform???

 

Can we still win the GOP nod? You betcha. But we aren’t exactly the odds-on favorite. The good news – we’re about the only one’s who haven’t been the odds-on favorite in the last 3 weeks. We’re just sitting back and collecting a few delegates here and there. Who else has the money to guarantee they’ll be in it till the end?

 

Mitt has his own money, but what if something comes along to knock him out of the race? There’s a diminutive doctor from Texas with $20,000,000 cash on hand and a few hundred thousand rabid volunteers, hanging out toward the back of the pack. Some might even say pacing himself. Like the tortoise who knew it was a long race, and that to win the day he had to keep something in the tank.

 

Did I hear that Dr. Paul was an avid runner? Possibly competitively (in his younger days)? Hmmm…. maybe he is pacing himself.

 

Just 9 more minutes till I can help gas up the tank. I hope everyone who reads this will do the same.

It takes a tyrant…..

So it turns out that our fearless leader isn’t the only one who’s gone gaga over the doctrine of preemption.

Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian general staff, said should Russia or any of its allies be substantially threatened, nuclear weapons could be part of a Russian armed response, RIA Novosti reported.

 

“We do not intend to attack anyone, but consider it necessary that all our partners clearly understand, and that no one has any doubts, that the armed forces will be used to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, including preventative action, and including the use of nuclear weapons,” the general said.

So while we’re busy threatening preemptive nuclear attack on Iran, it seems the Russians have really taken a shine to the concept.

there goes the neighborhood

If you’re a fan of the ‘War on Terror’, then this should be great news for you. Oh, wait – the Russians don’t see eye to eye with us on what constitutes a terrorist. They wouldn’t preemptively nuke us, or our allies, would they?

 

We hope not, of course. But this is more of the unintended consequences that Ron Paul has been talking about. We’ve pulled our finger out of the dike, and now preemptive nuclear strikes are on the table. What moral high ground do we claim to deny the Russians the same prerogatives we claim for ourselves?

 

The answer: There is none. We gave up any moral authority on the subject of invading countries who haven’t attacked us, and we’re on record claiming a right to use nukes in just such a scenario.

 

Congratulations, King George. You’ve unleashed the ‘Bush Doctrine – Russian style’, on the world.

 

Are we safer yet?