By Rick Morris
As promised previously, I'm addressing my earlier report about Ron Paul dropping out of the presidential race. I acted at the time based on information dropped on me exclusively (to others shortly thereafter, but to me first) by a source connected to the congressional race down in Texas. As we get closer to the primary, it has become apparent that the odds of this coming to fruition have plummeted -- plus a review of Paul's late FEC filings shows that he has raised a mountain of money for the congressional race (due, no doubt, in no small part, to my story getting used for fundraising purposes -- you're welcome, Ron!) in the late stages of the campaign, thus removing a key justification for withdrawing from the presidential race (the ability to legally move the caysh to the congressional race). So I will forgo waiting through the weekend to see what happens and simply declare now that the news previously reported by me (not us collectively, only me) will not come to pass -- as I promised that I would if these circumstances materialized.
I make no apologies whatsoever for this matter. I reported news that was provided to me by a source and my decision to accept that information didn't hurt anyone but me (if you don't believe me, you should see how much of my precious time and energy has been taken up by dealing with abusive spamming from the enraged no-life tin-foil hat crowd) -- clearly, it did not hurt the Paul campaign, which used it as a rallying point (and it was not intended to hurt anyone, but you'll never convince the conspiracy nuts of that) to raise big money -- so I see no need to shed crocodile tears when I did nothing immoral. While this blog covers a multiplicity of subjects and is primarily more opinion-oriented as opposed to aspiring to break hard news, we will run with exclusive news items in the future if circumstances dictate. I can say in all humility that I'm going to learn from this going forward in terms of evaluating material from sources. Anyone who wants to gloat at that admission is a fool because we should all be trying to learn from experiences and learn how to operate smarter on a daily basis. My report allowed the Paul campaign to recharge its finances and efforts (unintentionally, as I am not a Paul partisan, but you probably already knew that!), so if anyone still wants to hate on me even after the influx of "Morris money" allows him to come back and win big -- well, that's on them.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Friday, February 29, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
My Hatred Toward Dennis Kucinich Supporters
By Tony Mazur
It's an election year in the United States of America. And in Cleveland, Ohio, many loud, yellow 'Dennis!' signs sprout in front yards across the metropolitan area. Some Kucinich supporters planted their signs as early as October 2007, 13 months before the election.
People LOVE Dennis Kucinich, and I haven't the foggiest idea as to why. And I'm not just talking about the college-aged burnouts who support him because he's all about legalizing marijuana. I'm also not talking about the gays who agree with his stance on same-sex marriage. I'm talking about suburban white couples, roughly between the ages of 45-80.
If you're outside the Cleveland area, Dennis Kucinich represents the 10th District of Ohio in the House of Representatives. His district includes most of the west side of Cleveland, as well as Parma, Cleveland's largest suburb, and Cuyahoga Heights.
Every two years, Cleveland-area citizens continue to vote for this guy. These are the people who forgot about Dennis's early political career. After Kucinich's time in the Cleveland City Council and as the clerk of the municipal court, he was elected Mayor in 1977. As usual in local government, the leader typically appoints friends and acquaintances, particularly around his/her same age. That's what Dennis Kucinich did. However, since Dennis was considered "The Boy Mayor" (he was 31 year old), his entire cabinet was made up of inexperienced peers.
I could rip on his mayoral history for hours, but you can just read it here.
Dennis has been elected to the House five times since his run in 1996, and it appears that he will win yet again.
Just like many Democrats, they rarely show up for their votes. Barack Obama does not. Do you think he has the time to campaign for the presidency AND show up for work? Of course not! The same goes for Dennis. He pretends to care about the needs of the citizens, and they fall for it hook, line, and sinker. If Kucinich really cared, he'd take a break from campaigning and hanging out with Sean Penn and start showing up for his votes. As Joe Cimperman, Dennis's opponent, stated in one of his campaign commercials, "It is not time for a part-time congressman."
I mentioned earlier that Dennis supporters come in different shapes and sizes. Or in this case, from the other side of the spectrum. Gays love him (they think he's adorable), stoners dig him, minority groups think he really cares about those in dire need of help, but most of all, the unions support him. A janitor at Ford will make a ridiculous amount of money, thanks to the Democrats. I believe in capitalism, but the salaries for low-level jobs are too high, causing factories to cease operation or move overseas. And who is there criticizing the outsourcing? The Democrats, of course.
My hatred for Kucinich supporters is comparable to my disdain towards Ron Paul fans. But the outcome is bittersweet. I get a kick out of the fact that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich do not have a shot in Hell at moving into the White House, but instead we'll have some other pea-brain reciting the Oath of Office.
It's an election year in the United States of America. And in Cleveland, Ohio, many loud, yellow 'Dennis!' signs sprout in front yards across the metropolitan area. Some Kucinich supporters planted their signs as early as October 2007, 13 months before the election.
People LOVE Dennis Kucinich, and I haven't the foggiest idea as to why. And I'm not just talking about the college-aged burnouts who support him because he's all about legalizing marijuana. I'm also not talking about the gays who agree with his stance on same-sex marriage. I'm talking about suburban white couples, roughly between the ages of 45-80.
If you're outside the Cleveland area, Dennis Kucinich represents the 10th District of Ohio in the House of Representatives. His district includes most of the west side of Cleveland, as well as Parma, Cleveland's largest suburb, and Cuyahoga Heights.
Every two years, Cleveland-area citizens continue to vote for this guy. These are the people who forgot about Dennis's early political career. After Kucinich's time in the Cleveland City Council and as the clerk of the municipal court, he was elected Mayor in 1977. As usual in local government, the leader typically appoints friends and acquaintances, particularly around his/her same age. That's what Dennis Kucinich did. However, since Dennis was considered "The Boy Mayor" (he was 31 year old), his entire cabinet was made up of inexperienced peers.
I could rip on his mayoral history for hours, but you can just read it here.
Dennis has been elected to the House five times since his run in 1996, and it appears that he will win yet again.
Just like many Democrats, they rarely show up for their votes. Barack Obama does not. Do you think he has the time to campaign for the presidency AND show up for work? Of course not! The same goes for Dennis. He pretends to care about the needs of the citizens, and they fall for it hook, line, and sinker. If Kucinich really cared, he'd take a break from campaigning and hanging out with Sean Penn and start showing up for his votes. As Joe Cimperman, Dennis's opponent, stated in one of his campaign commercials, "It is not time for a part-time congressman."
I mentioned earlier that Dennis supporters come in different shapes and sizes. Or in this case, from the other side of the spectrum. Gays love him (they think he's adorable), stoners dig him, minority groups think he really cares about those in dire need of help, but most of all, the unions support him. A janitor at Ford will make a ridiculous amount of money, thanks to the Democrats. I believe in capitalism, but the salaries for low-level jobs are too high, causing factories to cease operation or move overseas. And who is there criticizing the outsourcing? The Democrats, of course.
My hatred for Kucinich supporters is comparable to my disdain towards Ron Paul fans. But the outcome is bittersweet. I get a kick out of the fact that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich do not have a shot in Hell at moving into the White House, but instead we'll have some other pea-brain reciting the Oath of Office.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Ron Paul withdrawal story FAQ
By Rick Morris
Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.
Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.
Without any further ado, the questions and answers:
Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...
A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...
Q: Did not!
A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.
Q: Did not!!!!!
A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.
Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!
A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.
Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?
A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.
Q: Still convinced?
A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.
Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?
A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!
Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.
A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.
Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.
A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.
Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.
A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.
Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!
A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.
Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!
A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).
Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?
A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."
Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.
A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.
Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.
Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.
Without any further ado, the questions and answers:
Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...
A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...
Q: Did not!
A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.
Q: Did not!!!!!
A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.
Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!
A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.
Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?
A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.
Q: Still convinced?
A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.
Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?
A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!
Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.
A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.
Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.
A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.
Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.
A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.
Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!
A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.
Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!
A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).
Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?
A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."
Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.
A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
My Hatred Toward Ron Paul Supporters
By Tony Mazur
As Rick Morris stated in the post below, Ron Paul will withdraw from the presidential race. I know, I know, it's sad for us all, but I guess he didn't appeal to the majority of the people.
Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist, libertarian, and, although I don't believe it, a conservative. Personally, I think he's a goof. There is no redeeming quality about Ron Paul.
However, I do not know what's more annoying, Ron Paul's political positions, or his idiotic supporters. When referring to the 2008 presidential race, I heard someone say that "Ron Paul is the only true conservative". As a fellow conservative, I am offended to be classified with this numskull. I support the War in Iraq. I greatly support the Patriot Act. How can you not support the Patriot Act? There are savages who want to kill us, and these dummies think our rights are being infringed upon.
Ron Paul backers are all the same, no matter what age they may be. He's quite popular among college students and ex-hippies. The typical supporter is usually a liberal or libertarian. He/she probably smokes a lot of pot, and believes in ridiculous conspiracies, like UFOs and the "bombing" of the World Trade Center on September 11th. That's kind of why there actually is a chunk of people who follow Dennis Kucinich. Chances are, they do a lot of internet blogging. Also, they are usually offended by anything remotely resembling criticism against Ron Paul. These are the people who shout to the world that they are moving to Canada if [insert Republican candidate] wins the election, but never follows through.
I'm already hearing phony conspiracies about how the government is keeping Ron Paul out of the public eye. He's not Ross Perot. Ron Paul cannot affect the outcome of this coming election, even if he ran as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately, it's going to be either McCain or Obama, two candidates I'm dreading to see in the White House. I wish a viable candidate can go up against them, but it won't be the case. And Ron Paul isn't the guy.
As Rick Morris stated in the post below, Ron Paul will withdraw from the presidential race. I know, I know, it's sad for us all, but I guess he didn't appeal to the majority of the people.
Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist, libertarian, and, although I don't believe it, a conservative. Personally, I think he's a goof. There is no redeeming quality about Ron Paul.
However, I do not know what's more annoying, Ron Paul's political positions, or his idiotic supporters. When referring to the 2008 presidential race, I heard someone say that "Ron Paul is the only true conservative". As a fellow conservative, I am offended to be classified with this numskull. I support the War in Iraq. I greatly support the Patriot Act. How can you not support the Patriot Act? There are savages who want to kill us, and these dummies think our rights are being infringed upon.
Ron Paul backers are all the same, no matter what age they may be. He's quite popular among college students and ex-hippies. The typical supporter is usually a liberal or libertarian. He/she probably smokes a lot of pot, and believes in ridiculous conspiracies, like UFOs and the "bombing" of the World Trade Center on September 11th. That's kind of why there actually is a chunk of people who follow Dennis Kucinich. Chances are, they do a lot of internet blogging. Also, they are usually offended by anything remotely resembling criticism against Ron Paul. These are the people who shout to the world that they are moving to Canada if [insert Republican candidate] wins the election, but never follows through.
I'm already hearing phony conspiracies about how the government is keeping Ron Paul out of the public eye. He's not Ross Perot. Ron Paul cannot affect the outcome of this coming election, even if he ran as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately, it's going to be either McCain or Obama, two candidates I'm dreading to see in the White House. I wish a viable candidate can go up against them, but it won't be the case. And Ron Paul isn't the guy.
Ron Paul to withdraw from presidential race
By Rick Morris
UPDATE: This was published as a straight news story, devoid of any editorializing. However, in response to many of the know-nothing reactions that this story has engendered in many quarters, we have created an FAQ section so that people may at least choose to avail themselves of basic facts and not embarrass themselves with baseless assertions.
Troubled by internal polls showing insurgent challenger Chris Peden having pulled ahead shockingly in the Texas 14th congressional district, Congressman Ron Paul will be pulling out of the Republican presidential race in advance of his home state's March 4 primary, The FDH Lounge blog has learned. This news comes from a source with access to Paul's congressional campaign and it parallels a recent move on the Democratic side of the White House run as fellow party establishment irritant Dennis Kucinich was forced to abandon his efforts in order to focus on a threat to his congressional seat. The key difference? Longtime Kucinich ally North Olmsted mayor Thomas O'Grady entered the race to split the vote, while Paul's refusal to engage in such tactics has backfired on him.
Peden's lead is extremely surprising given the vast disparity in resources between the campaigns, a divide that will only grow as Paul is able to divert funds contributed by his large base of small contributors to his presidential race back into the House of Representatives campaign. Over the past year, Paul's libertarian-based platform struck the most fiscally conservative note of any of the Republican aspirants, but it also contained an isolationist streak that put him at odds with the party base -- and those foreign policy views are currently the biggest problem for Paul in an extraordinarily conservative district. The irony is that Paul positioned himself as a determined upstart out to topple the powerful national establishment, but he himself has been the Goliath of the Texas 14th until very recently -- when the district's David, Chris Peden, amazed the world by forcing an end to his crusade for the White House, dubbed by his followers The Ron Paul Revolution.
UPDATE: This was published as a straight news story, devoid of any editorializing. However, in response to many of the know-nothing reactions that this story has engendered in many quarters, we have created an FAQ section so that people may at least choose to avail themselves of basic facts and not embarrass themselves with baseless assertions.
Troubled by internal polls showing insurgent challenger Chris Peden having pulled ahead shockingly in the Texas 14th congressional district, Congressman Ron Paul will be pulling out of the Republican presidential race in advance of his home state's March 4 primary, The FDH Lounge blog has learned. This news comes from a source with access to Paul's congressional campaign and it parallels a recent move on the Democratic side of the White House run as fellow party establishment irritant Dennis Kucinich was forced to abandon his efforts in order to focus on a threat to his congressional seat. The key difference? Longtime Kucinich ally North Olmsted mayor Thomas O'Grady entered the race to split the vote, while Paul's refusal to engage in such tactics has backfired on him.
Peden's lead is extremely surprising given the vast disparity in resources between the campaigns, a divide that will only grow as Paul is able to divert funds contributed by his large base of small contributors to his presidential race back into the House of Representatives campaign. Over the past year, Paul's libertarian-based platform struck the most fiscally conservative note of any of the Republican aspirants, but it also contained an isolationist streak that put him at odds with the party base -- and those foreign policy views are currently the biggest problem for Paul in an extraordinarily conservative district. The irony is that Paul positioned himself as a determined upstart out to topple the powerful national establishment, but he himself has been the Goliath of the Texas 14th until very recently -- when the district's David, Chris Peden, amazed the world by forcing an end to his crusade for the White House, dubbed by his followers The Ron Paul Revolution.
Friday, January 11, 2008
I Really Hope These Focus Groups Are Not Representative of the Rest of Us
Shortly after wrapping up the Fantasy Draft Help Insider show, I decided to jump over to Fox News and see what the reactions to tonight’s debate were. It is not my place to tell you or anyone else what’s going to happen or what should happen, however I had to chime in on the responses and point out how stupid
Q: A word or phrase that stood out to you regarding Fred Thompson’s performance?
A1: Nice awakening, but too little too late.
I don’t want to hear “too late.”
A2: The “Big Bear” in Fred Thompson awoke.
He was always here, you just weren’t listening.
A3: Entertaining but not convincing (that woman is really STUPID).
Again, not listening…you’ve already decided and are a drain on the process.
A4: Very prepared and it showed.
He’s been very prepared since the day he got in.
A5: His charisma finally surfaced.
Again, since Day One. Where have you been?
A6: Showed his intelligence, he was organized and prepared.
…Day one…
A7: Sarcastic and curt with no substance.
You are probably one of the Jackasses who has been waiting for a sound bite.
A8: Surprising, a little too late.
You’re an idiot, there’s not one thing surprising about anything he said.
A9: Began to contrast himself.
The answers are the same, he just had to turn up the volume for those of you that ride the short bus.
A10: Believed he was very strong and passionate, he was ready to go.
Since when does “sounds passionate” mean squat? Is he the right man for the job?
A11: Very dynamic and great, but late.
What’s with this late crap? We haven’t even gotten to the S.Carolina primary yet?
A12: Very strong on conservative issues, very strong on immigration.
Again, no change. He’s been here since the beginning.
A13: Presidential and very convincing.
Now there’s one I cannot disagree with.
Don’t tell me he’s too late. That is complete bull@#$%. Sure every candidate and the voters who vote for him/her would love to start fast and end fast. In politics, it's rare like in NFL football that one is the ’72 Dolphins. Remember when McCain was getting his ass kicked routinely in the fall? How about when Mitt Romney was afraid to really mix it up, then he began the attack on Hillary? Where was Huckabee 2 months ago? I also think I remember everyone thinking for a large chunk of time leading up to now that this was a 2-pony race between Romney and Guiliani. Where’s Guiliani now? Holding every one else’s jock strap. And Ron Paul. For about 3 and a half weeks, people believed that Ron Paul was for real. No one is now where they started at the beginning. No one. That is clearly a cop-out for those who have put up a mental block on Fred Thompson. Those people who said, shades of Doc Brown in Back to the Future, …The actor!?!?! Get over yourselves. If you just open your minds to what’s really going on, you’ll see that tonight proves that Fred Thompson deserves to be in this race just as much as anyone else. Seriously, if you quit waiting for soundbites and personal attacks you’d see that Thompson should have
Q: How many of you switched your vote to Fred Thompson (show of hands-less than ½)?
Q: I want to know specifically, why?
A1: He’s shown us a turnaround. He has shown us his voice. He has shown us a seriousness on a lot of the issues that were wavering.
First off, I don’t want to scare anyone who’s now jumping on the bandwagon. He’s always been here. His voice hasn’t changed. He is the Tom Landry of this race. He should not be discredited because he is stoic and steadfast on everything, he should be rewarded for it. Since when has he wavered on anything? He just had to speak loud enough so that the Springer-Minded People could hear what he was saying. I really don’t think a man should have to call out another and get personal before you start listening.
A2: I believe he was sincere and showed real wisdom and candor.
That’s what he is. Sincere, no nonsense, stoic, educated, and everything we should be looking for in a candidate.
A3: I finally found out where he really stands.
THAT’S BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T LISTENING BEFORE, YOU IDIOT!!!
Q: So what was it? Why do you think he waited this long? You complained he was too late, what was going on?
A1: He chose the perfect state to do this in,
Need I say “Rope-A-Dope?”
A2:
…Yeah, I got nothing.
A3: (the stupid woman) I simply think he had a good day, and it actually concerns me that he has not been this consistent throughout the campaign. (You know what concerns me? Why you deliver your stupid comments with that lame-ass Jodie Foster “I need to spit it out” manner of speaking).
The only thing he has not been consistent on is the stuff that doesn’t matter. Since you’re not listening, you don’t see that. The only thing that has changed is the volume and inflection of his voice, him singling out particular candidates to tear apart, and providing some soundbites so that you could remember tomorrow what happened tonight. This is why people should have to pass an aptitude and political current events test in order to vote. (that’s a little harsh, but am I the only one listening to the answers?). Short of saying, I don’t care if the candidate looks like a he’s high on Quaaludes, if he has the right answers, Volume and Passion should have no relevance. Some of these people are acting like, Fred thought he’d take up a hobby for a couple of months. Like some colorblind kid trying his hand a putting together a puzzle. C’mon
A4: I mean, he made it clear when he brought everyone from his campaign down here to
A5: He came to
A6: Nice candor and wit but I don’t think he has the dynamism to be the long-term leader of this country. (you’re ignorant and clearly haven’t been paying attention).
DYNAMISM????? Wow, you shouldn’t talk…As is in having a dynamic characteristic, within the context of this race…He has exactly the DYNAMISM that we are all looking for.
A7: Fred Thompson is smarter than anyone thinks, earlier in the beginning of this whole talk said, “no one who’s ever become president has lost
Even the stoner in the back gets it. How come the woman and the uninformed men in this focus group cannot see their head for their ass. I’m not generalized with gender, it's just an observation from this particular focus group.
A8: (some elderly woman making some comment on sacrificing his
Anyone who brings up the “sacrifice
A9: That’s funny, I never thought he was passionate at all. It seems to me, that up until tonight, when he was forceful, he was only in it because other people forced him in to it.
WHAT THE F@#% DOES PASSION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?My chiropractor is not passionate about his job, but I know there is no one else I'd rather have doing the job. And forced him into it? You couldn’t force me to spend $1 on anything if I didn’t want to do it. You really think Fred Thompson is going to waste time and money on this because someone else told him to do it, while he opposed running? You, ma’am, are dumb as paint.
A10: I agree, I don’t think he had enough passion, he came off tonight wonderfully, I think he was very aggressive, but he is just too little too late. We also have to think of who’s electable. Who is going to put up a fight against the Democrats?
Listen stupid, as unbiased as I can be, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani are all electable. The only one who isn’t is Ron Paul. On top of that, I think that Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee could defeat Hillary without over extending themselves too much. Same could be said for Obama, unless minorities and the youth vote come out in ridiculous numbers.
Q: Does electability matter?
A: (in unison) YES!
Q: More of you think the Democratic candidate will be Barack Obama, so should be the republican candidate?
A: (jumbled mess of all the candidates)
Q: (Colmes) I am fascinated by what is going on there, specifically with Fred Thompson, and his showing here, but for those that thought he won the debate, but then would be reluctant to vote for him. Why if you thought he was so strong would you be reluctant to vote for him?
A1: Let’s start here in
Q: (interjected followup) Why?
A1: Let’s show the rest of the country that we are not afraid to elect the best candidate.
This may be the best sentence uttered all night. Forget the frills. Forget the sound bites and the inflection in each candidate’s voice. Can we just listen to the questions, then listen to the answers and formulate a solid opinion on what was said and not how it was said. I could say, “the chicken ate poopie-cahcah for brunch with the
A2: I don’t think that any of the previous campaign’s (primaries/caucuses) matter. We are an independent state and we’ve shown that before.
Then secede from the nation, hillbilly boy.
Q: You said too little too late, I want to know why?
A1: Too little experience, he’s just been in the government in the legislature.
Go off yourself. Or at least Google him. Lack of experience my tookus. Lack of experience, we have a governor and a mayor running. A first lady who’s only been a senator for a short while, and what seems to be a freshman who’s only held his office for 2 years. I should slap you in the face with your own experience comment.
A2: (stupid Jodie Foster woman again) He’s an entertaining man, by all means. The consistency has not been there and that makes me nervous. I don’t know that he will handle things consistently in a forthright manner.
The consistency has been there, you are too naïve and dumb to see. Its like people have a Jerry Springer filter on. If it isn’t loud, personal, or abusive, then it's not worth listening to.
A3: I want the candidate to start strong and end strong, and he hasn’t had a strong start.
When was the last time the person who was elected President held the pole position throughout the duration of the entire process, beginning to end? It’s a lot like a basketball game. One team can win convincingly or even dominate, but it is foolish to think the other team didn’t at least go on a run from time to time. Look, I hope Fred Thompson is the San Antonio Spurs of this process. No flash, no glamour, but when the dust clears, whether you like him or not, you will recognize that he is the most complete well-rounded candidate from top to bottom and in 360 degrees. Even if his performance doesn’t come with the high-flying sparkle you’d wished it had.
A4: And I also think that with all of these situations around the world we need someone who is used to thinking about it before just jumping in and reacting to it. (you should not procreate, it might bring down the national average).
Q5: (by a show of hands) Was it right to include Ron Paul in this debate?
A: (5 to 1 in unison) YES
NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron Paul should go away. At least go as a tertiary party member. Ron Paul is not a Republican. It may be too harsh to call him a Democrat. When your answer to
SOUNDBITES:
Fred Thompson-Mike Huckabee would be a Christian leader. But he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies. He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy, and in the tradition of “Blame America First." He believes that Guantanamo should be shut down and those enemy combatants should be brought here.
Mike Huckabee-The Air Force has a saying, “If you’re not catching flack, then your not over the target," well I’m catching the flack so I must be over the target. Fred, I appreciate the analysis of my record.
Mike Huckabee-If you think you are going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle, be prepared first to put your sites on the American vessel…and then be prepared for the next thing you see will be the gates of HELL, for that is exactly what you will see.
Fred Thompson-You know how you can tell the news is good coming out of
Fred Thompson-You cannot take the judgment out of the hands of the forces on the ground, I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins they are looking forward to seeing…Iran was clearly testing us, they took British hostages under similar circumstances. They are testing our resolve, they know they are dealing with a nation that will not put up with that sort of thing.
Let’s talk about the word change. Change to me is just a buzz word. Change is the transitional word that becomes a catalyst for a candidate to say “hey, look at me over here, if you don’t like the current situation, vote for me because I will change things." Change is just a word. This is an election process. Despite popular, and yet naïve, belief, you will never see change. You won’t see it because this is AN ELECTION PROCESS. All we have to go on is words. If you are a more stringent follower of political news and events maybe you can rely on voting record. It's an election, you will not see change, see change proven, feel change, visualize change. And the reason is, words are pretty much all we have to go on. Once we’ve listened to all of the words and we as a nation have made our decision, then maybe you will see some change. That’s how our political system works. Obama or McCain, Clinton or Huckabee cannot
THEY
Here is another comment from the dumb Jodie Foster woman:
“I don’t even pay attention to the word change. Because I can sit here all the live long day, guess what? If you elect me I am going to change Global Warming. It won’t happen anymore. PROVE IT. No one does”.
I wish I could have 2 minutes with this woman. Have her feeling like an infant who just slammed its head into the corner of a coffee table…Lost and confused in a pool of her own disillusioned tears. I wonder if she would feel better if the candidates would close their responses with “Q.E.D.” This is not a mathematical equation or the proof of a scientific theory. These are candidates trying to say what they need to within there own belief structure (unless we’re talking about Mittens, he says whatever he has to regardless of the integrity of his true beliefs. No one should take anything he says seriously.) to convince you WITH THEIR WORDS that they are the right candidate for the job.
Some other major thoughts on tonight’s debate.
-Fred Thompson finally showed up.
-Mitt Romney was somewhere between unimpressive and detrimental to himself.
-McCain, Huckabee did not hurt themselves and held their own.
-Ron Paul officially has no shot to win.
-If these results translate to
Keep in mind, Ron Paul not only looked like a senile old fish out of water, but also registered the worst singular response to a question since the campaigns began for 2008. Ron Paul is as I said he was, he is a Democrat in Republican clothing trying to hide his true tendencies. In a time when Republican voters want their candidate to stop apologizing for being conservative and take back the party to the ideals that drew each individual to that side, you have Ron Paul. Party affiliation aside, issues aside, personality and appearance aside, Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of this election process except Ron Paul doesn’t have the money to buy his way into the nomination of this party just so he can stick his head into the camera and say, “Look I matter," because Ron, you don’t.
With all that was said about the debate. All of the opinions uttered both by experts and random voters, here are the results of the Hannity and Colmes Text Message Poll…
Tonight Winner? (of the debate)
1 Ron Paul 32%
2 Fred Thompson 22%
3 Mike Huckabee 18%
4 Mitt Romney 13%
5 John McCain 6%
6 Rudy Guiliani 5%
This proves either, Ron Paul supporters are hackers and rigged the poll or
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
New Hampshire primary predictions
By Rick Morris
On the Democratic side, Hillary's Monday tearfest is going to add to the snowball effect against her. Obama wins by about 12 points, with Edwards back of her by a decent margin.
For the Republicans, McCain will hold on, but has been hurt by Romney's momentum in recent days. Notwithstanding a mediocre debate performance on Sunday night, Mittens has received credit for appearing brilliant for some unknown reason. He'll close to within 2 points or so of McCain. Huck will be a distant third, with Rudy, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson trailing him in that order.
If these results come in as I anticipate, Edwards will be finished and Hillary gravely, although certainly not mortally, wounded. Romney will hang on in hopes of a win in Michigan as the GOP race becomes a full-fledged free-for-all. That should give an opportunity for my man Fred Thompson, but he'd need to win or finish at least a close second in South Carolina.
On the Democratic side, Hillary's Monday tearfest is going to add to the snowball effect against her. Obama wins by about 12 points, with Edwards back of her by a decent margin.
For the Republicans, McCain will hold on, but has been hurt by Romney's momentum in recent days. Notwithstanding a mediocre debate performance on Sunday night, Mittens has received credit for appearing brilliant for some unknown reason. He'll close to within 2 points or so of McCain. Huck will be a distant third, with Rudy, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson trailing him in that order.
If these results come in as I anticipate, Edwards will be finished and Hillary gravely, although certainly not mortally, wounded. Romney will hang on in hopes of a win in Michigan as the GOP race becomes a full-fledged free-for-all. That should give an opportunity for my man Fred Thompson, but he'd need to win or finish at least a close second in South Carolina.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Iowa caucus predictions
By Rick Morris
Proving that any bitter, impassioned rants that I may make have no bearing on my capacity for rational judgment, I am agreeing with Bob Novak's assessment that Mitt Romney will pander his way to first place in the Iowa caucuses. I am predicting a narrow win based on the fact that he has built a conventional machine there (perfectly appropriate, given his politics-as-usual theme for the campaign) as opposed to Huck's strategy of assembling many evangelicals who are not political regulars. Huck should finish about 2% back of Romney, with the battle for third place as a virtual dead heat. Months of battering from Hugh Hewitt and his fellow-traveling sellouts in the Conservative Establishment will also end up mattering, as will Rush Limbaugh's last-minute kidney punch for good measure. Who saw El Rushbo's cheap pile-on coming a mile away? Oh, that's right, it was me!
Ultimately, I believe that my candidate Fred Thompson does have enough support from influential conservatives on the ground to eke out a narrow third-place finish. I had thought that Ron Paul would be in the top three or four, but with John McCain supposedly surging, I think he'll nip out Paul just barely for fourth. With all three of these candidates likely to finish in the low teens, however, there won't be much room for any of them to brag.
On the Democratic side, I agree again with Novak, albeit to a limited extent. I think Barack Hussein Obama will complete a victory that the polls are suggesting right now, but will nonetheless shock the world. I do think Hillary Clinton will finish a close second, and that's where I disagree with Novak. I understand his rationale that John Edwards will benefit from being the second pick of far more people whose candidates don't make the 15% cutoff to proceed, but I think the Clinton machine will carry her just a hair past Edwards for second.
My early guess for New Hampshire is that if these results come in as predicted, Mittens is in very good shape. Independents who might have crossed over to vote for McCain if Obama were severely damaged in Iowa might not do so under these circumstances. If this occurs, the stampede towards the nomination that Hewitt and his cohorts have long been trying to engineer under the guise of "sober analysis" could be well underway.
Proving that any bitter, impassioned rants that I may make have no bearing on my capacity for rational judgment, I am agreeing with Bob Novak's assessment that Mitt Romney will pander his way to first place in the Iowa caucuses. I am predicting a narrow win based on the fact that he has built a conventional machine there (perfectly appropriate, given his politics-as-usual theme for the campaign) as opposed to Huck's strategy of assembling many evangelicals who are not political regulars. Huck should finish about 2% back of Romney, with the battle for third place as a virtual dead heat. Months of battering from Hugh Hewitt and his fellow-traveling sellouts in the Conservative Establishment will also end up mattering, as will Rush Limbaugh's last-minute kidney punch for good measure. Who saw El Rushbo's cheap pile-on coming a mile away? Oh, that's right, it was me!
Ultimately, I believe that my candidate Fred Thompson does have enough support from influential conservatives on the ground to eke out a narrow third-place finish. I had thought that Ron Paul would be in the top three or four, but with John McCain supposedly surging, I think he'll nip out Paul just barely for fourth. With all three of these candidates likely to finish in the low teens, however, there won't be much room for any of them to brag.
On the Democratic side, I agree again with Novak, albeit to a limited extent. I think Barack Hussein Obama will complete a victory that the polls are suggesting right now, but will nonetheless shock the world. I do think Hillary Clinton will finish a close second, and that's where I disagree with Novak. I understand his rationale that John Edwards will benefit from being the second pick of far more people whose candidates don't make the 15% cutoff to proceed, but I think the Clinton machine will carry her just a hair past Edwards for second.
My early guess for New Hampshire is that if these results come in as predicted, Mittens is in very good shape. Independents who might have crossed over to vote for McCain if Obama were severely damaged in Iowa might not do so under these circumstances. If this occurs, the stampede towards the nomination that Hewitt and his cohorts have long been trying to engineer under the guise of "sober analysis" could be well underway.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
FDH Lounge Show #22: December 30, 2007
By Rick Morris
Tonight's 22nd edition of THE FDH LOUNGE (8-11 PM EST) on SportsTalkNetwork.com will feature our first-ever Presidential Fantasy Draft based on the game design and draft board on FantasyDrafthelp.com. This will be the focus for most of our first two hours of the program as we select various candidates for president based on point tallies for various levels of campaign achievement and then argue vigorously over the state of the race!
After our presidential focus is done towards the end of Hour Two, we turn our attention to a thorn in the side of one of the candidates: dark-horse folk hero Ron Paul, congressman from Texas who like his Democrat equivalent Dennis Kucinich is threatened by a tough primary challenge for his House seat. We'll talk to Chris Peden, who hopes to take down 2008's trendiest presidential candidate on his home turf.
In Hour Three, we deliver our takes on the Mitchell Report fallout before turning to The FDH Lounge Pigskin Report for an early preview of the NFL playoff picture and an assessment of the major bowl games in college.
As always when you join us, it's the widest array of talk anywhere on God's Green Earth: The FDH Lounge, only on SportsTalkNetwork.com!
Tonight's 22nd edition of THE FDH LOUNGE (8-11 PM EST) on SportsTalkNetwork.com will feature our first-ever Presidential Fantasy Draft based on the game design and draft board on FantasyDrafthelp.com. This will be the focus for most of our first two hours of the program as we select various candidates for president based on point tallies for various levels of campaign achievement and then argue vigorously over the state of the race!
After our presidential focus is done towards the end of Hour Two, we turn our attention to a thorn in the side of one of the candidates: dark-horse folk hero Ron Paul, congressman from Texas who like his Democrat equivalent Dennis Kucinich is threatened by a tough primary challenge for his House seat. We'll talk to Chris Peden, who hopes to take down 2008's trendiest presidential candidate on his home turf.
In Hour Three, we deliver our takes on the Mitchell Report fallout before turning to The FDH Lounge Pigskin Report for an early preview of the NFL playoff picture and an assessment of the major bowl games in college.
As always when you join us, it's the widest array of talk anywhere on God's Green Earth: The FDH Lounge, only on SportsTalkNetwork.com!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Ron Paul trumps Huckabee on rasslers
By Rick Morris
Forget Nature Boy Ric Flair's endorsement of Mike Huckabee for president. I'm far more impressed with Ron Paul's procurement of the blessing of pro wrestler and onetime horror film star Glen Jacobs (aka Kane). After all, if there's one thing that could trump the comedic value of Naitch doing his "kiss-stealing, wheeling and dealing" schtick in the form of a Huck commercial, it would be the sight of a bald seven-foot guy doing a monster gimmick preaching the gold standard, Austrian economics, the Tenth Amendment and international isolationism -- in a menacing growl, of course!
Forget Nature Boy Ric Flair's endorsement of Mike Huckabee for president. I'm far more impressed with Ron Paul's procurement of the blessing of pro wrestler and onetime horror film star Glen Jacobs (aka Kane). After all, if there's one thing that could trump the comedic value of Naitch doing his "kiss-stealing, wheeling and dealing" schtick in the form of a Huck commercial, it would be the sight of a bald seven-foot guy doing a monster gimmick preaching the gold standard, Austrian economics, the Tenth Amendment and international isolationism -- in a menacing growl, of course!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Government stealing from us again
By Rick Morris
While Texas Congressman Ron Paul attracts the lion's share of attention for his presidential campaign because of his quasi-isolationist foreign policy positions, it must be remembered that he is also tapping effectively into the public's inherent distrust of politicians of both parties who treat our hard-earned money as their own private treasury. His libertarian positions, although extreme, serve as a pure and refreshing counterpoint to the rampant corruption of both political parties in D.C.
Witness the latest outrages chronicled at EarmarkWatch.org, a new and outstanding website dedicated to shining the light of truth on blatant wastes of federal cash coming out of the swamp on the Potomac. The latest porky delight to be exposed? A handout to a Washington-state glove company inserted into the federal budget by congressmen of both parties from, you guessed it, Washington state! Interestingly, one of the offenders was Jim McDermott, a far-left nutcase who probably doesn't think that anyone in the military deserves a warm pair of gloves or anything else decent in life -- but hey, if there's a chance to placate a potential contributor back home ...
This great new site will have a ton of user-generated content, meaning that it is dependent on citizens to utilize their tools to unearth corrupt earmarks in federal legislation. May I suggest right now that the website owners reserve copious server solely for the excreble Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia? This braying jackass, who is probably the biggest pork abuser in the history of the federal government, proudly waves around a copy of the Constitution wherever he goes while somehow remaining ignorant of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Apparently Bobby Byrd bought his copy of the Constitution at the same place he got his white sheets.
While Texas Congressman Ron Paul attracts the lion's share of attention for his presidential campaign because of his quasi-isolationist foreign policy positions, it must be remembered that he is also tapping effectively into the public's inherent distrust of politicians of both parties who treat our hard-earned money as their own private treasury. His libertarian positions, although extreme, serve as a pure and refreshing counterpoint to the rampant corruption of both political parties in D.C.
Witness the latest outrages chronicled at EarmarkWatch.org, a new and outstanding website dedicated to shining the light of truth on blatant wastes of federal cash coming out of the swamp on the Potomac. The latest porky delight to be exposed? A handout to a Washington-state glove company inserted into the federal budget by congressmen of both parties from, you guessed it, Washington state! Interestingly, one of the offenders was Jim McDermott, a far-left nutcase who probably doesn't think that anyone in the military deserves a warm pair of gloves or anything else decent in life -- but hey, if there's a chance to placate a potential contributor back home ...
This great new site will have a ton of user-generated content, meaning that it is dependent on citizens to utilize their tools to unearth corrupt earmarks in federal legislation. May I suggest right now that the website owners reserve copious server solely for the excreble Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia? This braying jackass, who is probably the biggest pork abuser in the history of the federal government, proudly waves around a copy of the Constitution wherever he goes while somehow remaining ignorant of the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Apparently Bobby Byrd bought his copy of the Constitution at the same place he got his white sheets.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The Presidential Race / NFL Playoff Push
by Jason Jones
Imagine for a moment, if you will, the Presidential nominees in an NFL style playoff run. Mind you, not in the playoffs, but a playoff run. As the landscape of the NFL begins to take shape, we start to realize not every team is worthy of a spot based on the competition ahead of them. The same can be said about the presidential nominees that have no place in this race (namely Ron Paul).
If we are to fairly examine both sides we must create a depth chart or power ranking of both the NFL and the presidential nominees. These are the rankings as I see them:
(Note my opinion does not reflect that of the FDH Lounge, FantasyDraftHelp.com or any of its subsidiaries)
NFL ------ Nominees
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Now for some explanations. Starting with the Nominees side, I am sure most of you are wondering why my power rankings in almost no way mimic that of the American public. Well, in short, people can be very smart, but groups of people are F@#!ing retarded!!! We will revisit this idea later.
- Starting at the top, Fred Thompson is the most well rounded perfect candidate on the docket. Consequently, this is where the first tier ends. If you do not agree you are entitled to your opinion like the stupid people are entitled to reproduce. This piece is not a debate over the candidates, maybe as we get closer we will do just that.
- Second is Rudy Guiliani, I am not especially riveted by this guy; especially when he mentions being in charge during 9-11. I do get the impression that he could do the job. He would be popular. Whether you like it or not, the average American doesn’t really care about the specific nature of the issues, it’s a feel thing. For some strange reason Rudy rubs people the right way.
- Third is John McCain, for those that know me, this one is probably a shock. There is on doubt, saying he has been underwhelming in the debates is a vast a polite understatement. Nixon looked more calm and collected versus JFK in the debate forum. Bottom line, John McCain knows how to play the game. I do not agree with even the vast majority of candidacy to this point, but he could do the job with a veteran savvy. This ends the second tier.
- Fourth is Barack Obama, the first Democrat on the list and believe me if I considered my party bias the first Democrat would probably come in around 9. He is very very green. This is where my confidence that the candidate is competent enough to do the job waivers. Obama is like a great top shelf minor league baseball player. He looks like he can play the part, his record looks good, and he’s confident that he can play with the big boys. Then he gets there and everyone wonders why his .385 batting average doesn’t translate literally to the majors. Some day Obama might be a great politician, but today is not that day. We need to send him back to the senate and let him work out the kinks for a while.
- Fifth is Mike Huckabee. Lets be honest, he just seems like a good guy. Do you remember that story about conservation? The one where he ride his bicycle to the grocery store to conserve on the gas he uses in his environmentally friendly car and his kids laugh at him for it? Do you remember that? I thought, “aw that’s sweet, what nice guy, a little HIPPY-ish for me, but a nice guy”. News flash, it should take more than
- Sixth is Tom Tancredo. First and foremost, Tom we get it. You don’t like foreigners. Maybe its just illegals from
- Seventh is Dennis Kucinich. Not a popular guy. In the Presidential Election ’08 made for tv movie, Kucinich would be played by D.J. Qualls (the skinny kid from Road Trip). Nobody likes creepy to greet you when you’re expecting another spine tingling episode of 24 and get D.J. Qualls addressing the nation. I cannot see Kucinich running the country, but I want to believe he is a good honest man when all is said and done. This concludes the third tier.
- Eighth is Bill Richardson. Let’s not sugar coat it. This is where the bottom falls out. I do not claim to know much about the rest of these with three exceptions. The truth is aside from hearing
- Ninth is Duncan Hunter. At least he is a Republican. He has no chance, which is a major part of this exercise.
- Tenth is Joe Biden. Again, I could see him doing the job. He has said a great deal of things that I do not agree with, but aside from Fred Thompson, there is not going to be a candidate I will agree with 95% of the time.
- Eleventh is Mike Gravel. Again, I have nothing. I have not heard much one way or the other. What I have heard has forced me to change the channel. While watching presidential debates, one must have an alternate channel to click to when the responses get unbearable. I recommend ESPN Classic or the Discovery Channel. Anything that resides on the other end of the spectrum from Politics.
- Twelfth is Chris Dodd. Insert previous statement here. Conclude tier four
- Thirteenth is Ron Paul. Strap in ladies and gentleman this one begins the tri-fecta of doom. Ron Paul is a hack! A phony, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I know he has somewhat of following, but so did Ross Perot. Ron Paul is not only bad for president, he’s bad for politics in general. He doesn’t play by the rules. I get it, Libertarian, Liberal Republican, Left Wing Republican, or whatever you want to call him. He should be running as an independent. At least that way the lobe of the American Human brain that tells us to almost disregard Independents because the math precludes them from winning, he would finally get the attention he deserves. Next to none. He’s is a hippie claiming to be the image that the Republican party should be. Believe me, I am not one to say that a single former President embodies every iota that oozes “Republican”. It just seems to me, if the entire party thinks Ronald Reagan is the Republican party, then Ron Paul is as far away from that as one can be without literally being a Democrat.
- Fourteenth is John Edwards. C’mon, are we serious. John Freaking Edwards. Has there ever been a Nominee that more exemplified the smelly kid who wanted to be cool? He’s the kid at the park who wants to be picked to play in the game and keeps getting passed over for kids who are busy doing other things (like 30 yards away on another part of the park). I also get the impression that if he were to be the next president, he is the kind of guy who would have the angle of, “fine, I’m taking my ball and going home, you guys suck!” Which is not really the attitude you want your president to have when dealing with foreign policy and cabinet meetings.
- Fifteenth is Mitt Romney. I really hope you have your seatbelt on for the next two. Plain and simple. Do not believe this devilish swindler. I bet that if I had a 60 inch High Definition television with all of the HD channels and watched a Republican Debate, I would clearly see the horns poke out through the skin on his forehead. Politically, Mitt Romney is the ANTI-CHRIST. The guy has one general thought process when he wants to get elected in
- Sixteenth is Hillary “Holy F#@K You Can’t Be Serious”
Now that we have addressed all of the candidates, it is time to bring the NFL into this discussion. The problem here is the
So, what does it all mean. All of the previous comes down to one concept. Who belongs and who doesn’t. In the NFL, just because 12 teams make the playoffs, doesn’t mean 12 teams are worthy of being in the playoffs. In the Presidential Race, 16 nominees is unacceptable. If
All in all, just be smart. Just because someone is literally in the race, doesn’t mean they have a legitimate shot at winning or have earned the right to waste your valuable time and energy listening to their s#@t.
Romney = Apocolypse
Ron Paul =
Fred Thompson = Top 10 President in History
Rudy Guiliani = Competent Politician
John McCain = Great Candidate 3, 5, 8 years ago
Pittsburgh Steelers, SuperBowl Champs = The books are cooked in Vegas
Green Bay Packers, SuperBowl Champs = I saw this movie before, it was more realistic in the 1990’s
Just be careful, and remember to think for yourselves. They are politicians after all.
Monday, November 5, 2007
(Qualified) sympathy for Ron Paul
By Rick Morris
Every presidential election cycle features an unlikely breakthrough candidate who captivates the mainstream with eccentricities that set him apart from the pack. Unlike Howard Dean in 2004 or John McCain in 2000, however, this year’s refugee from obscurity has no chance of even coming close to the nomination. But Texas Congressman Ron Paul has separated himself from the rest of the Republican candidates by taking positions radically different from the rest – and in so doing, he has angered members of this royalist political party whose idea of responsibility is to sit down, shut up, and swallow the pabulum being pushed by the leadership.
Make no mistake – I am not a Paul supporter. Like other members of The FDH Lounge program, I am backing Fred Thompson and see him as the only viable candidate to save our country from further doom. But I harbor some sympathies for some of the Paul positions and certainly for the spirit that animates his candidacy.
Recently the RedState.com website made headlines by taking the extraordinary approach of prohibiting any new Ron Paul supporters from establishing a presence in the community. They are well within their legal rights to do so. Moreover, in light of the annoying tendencies of Paul supporters to spam and perform various Internet acts of harassment on behalf of their candidate, I understand the unwillingness that RedState may have to deal with the antics of a candidate almost universally regarded as “fringe.”
But the RedState folks were incredibly ill-advised in defending their decision by labeling the Ron Paul movement as “liberal.” Ron Paul is a self-described libertarian who takes paleoconservative positions on many foreign policy matters. Now, I must admit, as a self-identified paleoconservative, that Paul seems to go beyond where I and other paleos are at and does seem to advocate liberal foreign policy positions (such as the nature of the disengagement he seeks from the Middle East). My disagreements with him about this are such that they would preclude my support of him for the Republican nomination for president.
However, even if you grant some matters of foreign policy to those questioning Paul, he’s one of the least liberal candidates ever to run for public office. The man is a radical libertarian. Name any aspect of the modern welfare state and he’s against it. He speaks fondly of the gold standard and the reintroduction of principles from the Austrian economic school of thought. The aspects of complete individualism he preaches run so counter to liberal philosophies that the RedState justification stands as one of the more asinine explanations of any decision in this election cycle.
For a Republican Party that sold its soul this decade to try to buy more votes by embracing a boondoggle Medicare prescription drug program, the heinous, dollar-sucking No Child Left Behind, amnesty for illegal immigrants and all forms of corrupt pork barreling, a moral watchdog like Ron Paul serves a vital purpose – even if he does offend the Powers That Be in the GOP who want everyone to sit down and shut up as our Old American Republic yields to the New World Order, piece by piece. When the guardians of conservative purity have more sympathy for the blow-dried power brokers at the RNC than they do the pursuit of sound domestic public policy, they have nobody to blame but themselves for a world ready to embrace Hillary Clinton and empower the wackos at DailyKos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)