2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

so i see sully's a paultard now. which makes perfect sense, really.

I have v. little love for ron paul, but ron paul >>> people who use the term "paultard" imo

like, if Ron Paul has jock itch, his pained scratchings at his undersac are still wittier than affixing "tard" to a dude's last name

fair enough. not trying to be witty at all, just a common dumb thing people say but i obviously wasn't thinking it through. anyways sorry!

I have v. little love for ron paul, but ron paul >>> people who use the term "paultard" imo

― undervalued aerosmith tchotchkes sold in bulk, Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

OTM

Andy Borowitz @BorowitzReport -- Romney campaign unveils new slogan: "You're Out of Other Options"

lol

Uh, love my dog.

more Gingrich lolz

Uh, love my dog.

― Nicole, Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:10 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

times infinity

Love this poat so much I want to strap it to the top of my car.

"Uh," he said. "Love my dog."

Cain speaks to the NRO. Remember him?

“I’m not bitter but I am disappointed and angry at times,” he says. “That’s different from being bitter.”

NRO can afford to be kind and gentle with Cain now that he's irrelevant. No mention of his gaffes, like his not knowing that China has nuclear weapons.

that whole interview is kinda sad imo

This is what happens when someone who has never won an election to public office at any level runs for president. He'd never been scrutinized in this way before and he chose to be picked apart on a national stage in front of the entire country. His naivete was breathtaking and his fall was inevitable. The only thing strange about the entire episode was that he succeeded to the extent he did.

btw, he still has never won a single election. not even a primary contest.

once a fake pizzaman, always a fake pizzaman

also: he didn't know anything about any major issues.

9!9!9!

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/is-romney-stronger-than-he-appears.html

We've kicked around variations of this before, but if the White House is counting on Romney's time at Bain as their "devastating" ace in the hole (based on an election that took place 18 years ago), wow.

Hahah lord, they're not dumb enough to make that the centerpiece.

Meantime:

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

weird how much this is dogging Paul lately, I was kinda under the impression everybody that cared already knew about this stuff

a lot of his fans have claimed that the newsletters don't exist, or are blown out of proportion -- i don't think (or haven't seen) a lot of hard evidence + quotes (until now of course)

alfred linked to this atlantic piece from a kinda-sorta-paul fan who sorts through the wreckage of the newsletters

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/

between his defense of ron paul's racist newsletter, his long bizarre promotion of the bell curve, etc, sullivan is pretty much out as a racist imho (not to mention his fascination with israel/neocon/aipac conspiracy theories)

The comments on Mr Destructo's blog are genuinely lol-worthy

between his defense of ron paul's racist newsletter, his long bizarre promotion of the bell curve, etc, sullivan is pretty much out as a racist imho

Interesting.

TNC's response.

sullivan is trying this tact of saying "well, maybe he's racist, but who running for the republican nomination isn't?" of course, the answer to that is: "if it's a party full of racist ppl maybe refuse to endorse any of them?"

Newsletters or no newsletters, it should be common sense to anyone who's paid any attention to Paul that he's a bit of a crank and doesn't belong anywhere near the Oval Office.

Nate otm. I have decided from my position of white, male privilege to overlook the tedious culture-war racism and homophobia and just focus on the fact that Mr Avuncular is also an out-and-out crank and should by no means be anywhere near the levers of power.

I do find Sullivan's endorsement of Paul kind of odd, but he seems to be offering it with the disclaimer that he really supports Obama and he's just endorsing Paul because he would spark a useful conversation within the conservative movement.

I think he is genuinely interested in re-invigorating the libertarian side of the Republican party, particularly in the non-evangelical side but I'm not really sure that Paul, everything considered, is a great standard-bearer for it looking forward.

If you're going to argue against tyrannical state interference in society, I think you're going to have to be a LOT more strident in condemning racism and homophobia if you want to capture the future (i.e. Millenials) and I have yet to hear any cogent arguments from states' rights libertarians which either acknowledge that local tyranny can be every bit as onerous as national tyranny or prescribe anything both effective and possibly progressive as the Brown vs Board and Civil Rights Acts of the 60's, all of which were decried as horribly intrusive on the fringe right.

The quintessential spokesman for the Libertarian side of the Republican Party was Barry Goldwater, who cast many a vote for "state's rights" when that was clearly a position in favor of segregation and Jim Crow. Unlike Paul, he later made conciliatory remarks about his sad record against civil rights. Paul just dodges around it.

Like, I'm the kind of dick who would drop a gotcha question on Paul wrt Arpaio as much to see how he's dealt with the contradiction ideologically/politically as to trip him up.

Goldwater was also forthcoming about the silliness of DADT.

I guess my beef with that wing is the basically unexamined notion that the best democracy is local democracy. I think that may be 18th century romanticism rearing up or some misplaced idolatry of Jefferson or whomever. Surely a corollary might be that local tyranny is about as bad as it gets, too.

There was that Loyalist during the Revolution who said, "Better to live under one tyrant a thousand miles away, than a thousand tyrants one mile away."

I'm not a racist but I think Ron Paul has some interesting ideas for cutting down on government. At least he's not some Big Government photocopy, rubber-stamping wars like Obama and Congless. But I am concerned about these racist allegations. I don't think I would vote for him.

If you put that corollary to a modern libertarian, they'd probably answer that given an adequate number of guns in the hands of patriots, no local tyranny would stand for long, which is pure moonshine, but still they would believe it.

most patriots can only hold two guns in their hands at a time and be useful

I'm not a racist but

always a good way to start your posts

they'd probably answer that given an adequate number of guns in the hands of patriots, no local tyranny would stand for long

This is (a) sweetly and foolishly romantic in manly way or (b) failing to notice that in that case, they are the tyranny.

Lol, Shakey...

I'm waiting for the "I'm only racist against x group" as an intrductory disclaimer.

lol friedersdorf seems like a nice guy but hes such a goofball, that post hoos links to is like 9,000 words long and it has headers and shit

Sorry but yesterday someone said I was a racist!

can you imagine? a long article