If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Monday, November 28, 2011

As expected

As expected, the Ron Paul supporters went bonkers when I said that while I like Ron Paul and many of his ideas, I did not think he could win the general election and gave my reasons. I had about 90 comments and only a few did not follow the protocol for publication. Keep it clean, respectful and on topic next time and your comments will go up.

It was interesting reading some of the comments and links here and on my Facebook. Most said why they think Ron Paul is great. Hey, that's cool. But again, I never said I disagree with his ideas. Just that he can not win the general. Few tried to disprove any of my points on that. While some brought up good points, others proved the points I made and probably even made them stronger.

Several said that they knew Democrats that planned on crossing over and voting for Ron Paul in the primary but as expected (and as I predicted) they said they will cross back over and probably vote Obama in the general.

One person said Ron Paul would win and the reason was because he was going to pardon all the drug dealers in prison. They even provided a link to the video where he said it. While we can argue the pros and cons of legalizing some drugs, the thought that America is going to rally around the plan to turn loose thousands of crack and heroin dealers to sell drugs to little children is delusional. Obama could beat Ron Paul on that video alone.

Others reinforced my predictions that they would not vote for anyone else even after the primary and yet somehow they absolutely sure and somehow expected everyone else who they had been ripping to shreds for months to fall in line and vote for Ron Paul if he were to win the primary. It was funny in that they were usually the most absolute ardent people who would not do the same were the shoe on the other foot. The disconnect from the reality of human politics was saddening.


  1. Thanks Citizen Kang. Mission Accomplished.

    "How many of you don't have a car because you will only accept a new Ferrari? None I am sure because you realize that would be crazy.

    You may say "The Ferrari has everything I want and need! It fits me perfectly! That Chevy is no where close to what I want! It is second rate! How could I accept less?"

    I see it as Paul supporters only want the Chevy (follow the government-limiting Constitution, remember the law of the land?) instead of being forced to put a Ferrari in every drive way. We don't need a Ferrari. We can't afford a Ferrari (or lease payments on one).

    The GOP "compromise" offers us a new, coal-powered Chevy Volt for "only" $45k (with a $4500 federal subsidy and $2500 coal-charging station at your house) in every driveway. It's a Chevy - just one you can't afford either. A kinder, gentler tyranny.

    Is it really totally impossible for the GOP to find a candidate in their ranks that actually believes in their constitutional oath? Should GOP voters settle for that - the constant disappointment of GOP candidates that actually don't believe in the "party platform" of the brand name they wear (except at campaign season of course)? Is it really unreasonable to ask the GOP to provide just ONE candidate capable of keeping the law of the land?

    It's like saying we can't find a single person who isn't a convicted felon doing prison time to be sheriff. So the GOP keeps asking us to "be loyal" and pick the convicted felon guilty of only non-violent crimes because they are the only ones that can win.

    We need a Chevy pickup. Right there is one on the lot. All you have to do is vote for it. I'll be "throwing my vote away" for principle again.

    Let me know how the payments on that Chevy Volt work out.

  2. Stacey -

    I'm only going to speak for myself, not for anyone else.

    I am supporting Ron Paul and do not plan on supporting anyone else in the general election.


    I'm done with compromise. Newt is the embodiment of compromise and flip-flopping. His record doesn't lie. I've heard many times that he's the smartest one running, but instead of sophistication I only see sophistry.

    But even those willing to compromise should take another look at the economy and at the plans of each candidate to restore it. Ron Paul is the only one running with a serious plan to get us back on track. None of the others will do much about the Fed, which is the monster eating out our substance.

    I admit I like Dr. Paul personally, but I would also consider someone else with a very similar platform (e.g. his son Rand, or Andrew Napolitano). You can call me crazy if you want to, but if someone doesn't do something -- NOW -- about the spending and the debt and the Fed and the entitlements ... we may have economic collapse before 2016. Many people much smarter than me are saying the same thing.

    Nominating a RINO with a lot of skeletons in the closet did not energize voters in 2008, and it will not in 2012. Someone with a rock-solid record of integrity and consistent support of freedom WILL.

    One other note: Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. Crucial difference.

    I hope you don't think this is a "hate screed". I don't hate you. I'm just disappointed. Deeply disappointed.

  3. Stacey,
    You reasoning for why RP can't win makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it's in line with the status quo. I know many Dems that are not willing to change party for the primary but would vote RP in the general. But your right... not enough. Just like the men in Lexington and Concord (the ones in MA, not NH) who stood against the worlds most powerful army. Not a chance in Hell, right? If RP is not the pick and runs 3rd party I will vote RP probably helping assure an Obama win. If RP is not on the ticket at all I will vote Obama. Four more years of an evil we know versus eight of "tinkering around the edges". Perhaps what we need is a faster decline to a deeper hole. None of the others running will change any of the root problems this country has. None. And you know it.
    Thank you for the good work you do. The people of TN have it better than most with you.

  4. Senator,

    Below is an excerpt taken from "Creating a New Civilization" -- an anti-American book written by "ex-"Marxists and close friends to Newt Gingrich, Alvin and Heidi Tofler.

    Gingrich not only endorsed the book, but wrote the following forward:


    "The time has come for the next great step forward in American politics. It is not a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, or of left and right...but something more significant...a clear distinction between rear-guard politicians who wish to preserve or restore an unworkable past and those who are ready to transition to what we call a “Third Wave” information-age society…

    A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it. This new civilization brings with it new family styles, changed ways...a new economy, new political conflicts, and...altered consciousness... Humanity faces a quantum leap forward. This is the meaning of the Third Wave…

    Our argument is based on what we call the “revolutionary premise”... The revolutionary premise liberates our intellect and will.

    Nationalism is...First Wave. The globalization of business and finance required by advancing Third Wave economies routinely punctures the national “sovereignty” the nationalists hold so dear...

    As economies are transformed by the Third Wave, they are compelled to surrender part of their sovereignty... Poets and intellectuals of Third Wave states sing the virtues of a “borderless” world and “planetary consciousness.”

    The Third Wave...demassifies culture, values, and morality... There are more diverse religious belief systems.

    The Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered...to create a whole new structure of government... Building a Third Wave civilization on the wreckage of Second Wave institutions involves the design of new, more appropriate political structures... The system that served us so well must, in its turn, die and be replaced"

    (end Gingrich quote)

    Basically, Senator, Gingrich calls for the death and replacement of our Constitutional Republic and the erosion of US sovereignty in the interest of big, globalist corporations.

    Would you care to comment on the shocking excerpt I just quoted, and also, do you agree with any aspect of it?

    If not, then why do you support Gingrich’s primary campaign? Why align yourself with someone with such anti-American views?

    From where a lot of us (Ron Paul supporters) stand, given his statements and actions, Gingrich would actually be worse than Obama, if elected president.

    Thank you.

  5. I too (respectfully) disagree with Senator's reasoning for why RP can't win, simply because Gingrich has more skeletons in his closet than Ron Paul.

    Come the general election these skeletons will come flying out, scaring the daylights out of conservatives voters -- particularly the stuff about his extramarital affairs, the flip-flopping, and his far-left leaning liberal positions on many issues.

    I think Ron Paul would hold up to media scrutiny a lot better than Gingrich, and he could captivate more conservative voters (and maintain their support) much better.

    Despite the media's failed attempts to do so, they haven't been able to sink Paul's campaign yet, while all of the other GOP candidates have faltered. I have a feeling Newt Gingrich will soon begin to lose momentum, too.

    Time will tell.

  6. They really aren't skeletons - not hidden in a closet anyway. They are meant to be found, like the high-school grade photoshop work on Obama's (second) "birth certificate". It's meant to be found. Cain, Perry and Newt are posers. Designed to crash and burn, but talk constitution/school choice/flat tax white noise and allow the GOP chosen one to stay "above the fray". Huntsman is solely there to single out and attack Ron Paul about 911 and Islam (watch any debate), because "foreign policy" (aka undeclared acts of war by the US) is the one issue that still is a problem for Paul with the remaining "Patriot" Act believers out there. Huntsman's Appeal To Fear of the boogieman alone will keep them from voting for Paul.

    These things are to give you an impression that the GOP "party platform" is about these ideas (constitution/school choice/kill all the islamists/tax reform) when in reality none of them espouse all of these - usually one or two at most. If in doubt, see the GOP's 1994 Contract With America. But you are to have the impression that the GOP primary winner embodies the best ideas of all these candidates for the "R" brand name and **bonus** they are not Obama! So the choice is obvious right? The other reality is that the President can't make most of these things they espouse happen. For the sitting legislators, it should be things they are working on right now when they can bring legislation. Ron is about the only one that consistently does that.

    Ron is either the real deal or he is controlled opposition. Either way, he is out of the GOP picture after this election cycle if he doesn't win. An establishment GOP win coupled with a repeat performance of 1994 Contract With America will mean the end of the Republican party. I see their best hope in an Obama re-election in 2012 and then 2016 with no effort needed to pretend to be constitutional since Ron is gone.


Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.