Word to Paul-Bots

Stop. And. Think.

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Dueling delegations pitting Ron Paul's Nevada supporters against those of John McCain vow to take their fight to the Republican National Convention.

That's just one sign that the outsider, Internet-fueled movement led by the feisty Republican congressman from Texas remains afloat in the wake of McCain's victory in the GOP primaries.

In the libertarian-leaning West, where Paul's message of distrust of the federal government and ardent individualism played particularly well, there is talk of Republicans straying from McCain. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr has emerged as a favorite alternative for Paul activists, followed by Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Even if the numbers of such dissenters are small, in tight contests in key Western states they could spoil McCain's chances, experts say.

"In Nevada, there's absolutely enough to have an effect on the election," said Chuck Muth, a leading conservative activist in a state in which early polls show McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama in a statistical tie.

"I think that you will see not just Libertarians who always vote for the Libertarian candidate but conservative Republicans saying we've had it, we've had enough and they're going to go ahead and vote Libertarian," Muth said.

Paul — or "Dr. Paul," as his followers reverently refer to the obstetrician-turned-politician — ran as the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. But this year he carved out a following as an antiestablishment Republican. His campaign won more than 1 million votes and became a catchall for anti-war, anti-government voters and disaffected Republicans.

Truth be told (as can be seen in myriad posts on this blog), Senator McCain was not on my short list for favorites for POTUS. Hell; he wasn't on my list at all.

2008-2012 may be transitional years. Either Obama wins, FUBARs the nation, serves a one-term presidency, and loses in 2012; or McCain wins, FU the nation (but not beyond all recognition); he gets old, and we get another shot at 2012. So, you say, either way it's all good.

But there will be three reasons why I will be voting for, and yes, even working to help elect John McCain this go-round: and those reasons are, to put it simply, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, and, oh, did I mention Supreme Court?

John Paul Stevens, 88

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75

Antonin Scalia, 72

Anthony Kennedy, 71

Stephen Breyer, 69

David Souter, 68

Clarence Thomas, 60

Samuel Alito, 58

John Roberts, 53

There's no way that Stevens is going to last til 2012, and Ruth Vader Ginsberg will no doubt follow him out the door. Hell, Scalia ain't getting any younger, either.

That leaves two or more openings before 2012.

To put it simply, a Barack Obama presidency (not to mention a continuing dem majority in both Houses) will most certainly poison an already-precariously balanced Supreme Court for years to come. An Obama presidency will be the catalyst in a perfect storm that will leave this nation saddled not with liberalism, but with out-and-out socialism for the foreseeable future.

Scorched earth. Is that what you really want? In the process of "sticking it" to the Republican party, you'll be able to kiss conservatism, and yes, libertarianism goodbye. Put those ideals into a storm shelter, and perhaps take them out in a couple of decades. If we're still around by then.

So, Paulbots-- you still want to "stick it" to the Republicans?

Think hard. Think long and hard before you answer.

Ron Paul Supporter?

(click for full size)

Could be...

The Ron Paul "non-factor" factor...

Elephant Biz points us to this post, claiming Fred Thompson's potential candidacy is "...a desperate move by Republican leaders to offer what they consider a viable contender."

A desperate move? By Republican leaders? First of all, if "Republican Leaders" were pushing for Fred, they'd have to think long and hard before doing so, since it just so happens that, unlike "Republican leaders" Mr. Thompson is against the so-called "bipartisan" immigration reform bill. The article goes on to say,

Yet Ron Paul (R-Tex), congressman and republican candidate for president has been seen by Internet observers as doing well both in debates and in terms of public sentiment. His message is one of minimalist government, low taxes and a non-aggressive military policy.

Not to mention that the guy is absolute loony-toons and a truther:

Face it, the only place where Ron Paul could effectively lead a nation is within the expanse of his more-than-vivid imagination.

It's as simple as this: Give me a guy who wants to be President, who believes that 9/11 was our fault, that President Bush had something to do with the towers coming down, that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, that we need to cut and run from Iraq, and that we need to listen to terrorists' concerns--and I'll give you Ron Paul.

Give me a guy who wants to be President, who believes that the government is too big, that we need to stand up to terrorists, that we need to prevail over them in Iraq, and that we need to secure our borders, and I'll give you Fred Thompson.

Given their stances on things, just who do you think is the more "desperate" candidate?

Given their stances on things, just who do you thing should be the more "desperate" candidate?

I thought so.

Ron Paul: "Truther" Dare?

(bumped)

Ron Paul at a Truther Party.





He is so whacked...

Presidential Timbre?

I beg to differ.


For those who think that he can be a serious contender for the '08 nomination, I have only two words for you:

Get serious!

h/t Pirate's Cove

****UPDATE****

A commenter states that the above didn't take place at a "Truther Party" but at a fundraiser. Fine.

But that doesn't take away from the fact, as William Teach put it, that

"...he distrusts what happened on 9/11, goes in for conspiracy theories on the Kennedy assassination, and blames the United States, for which he is an elected Congressman, for the world’s ills. Gee, great f’ing candidate for President. Total wackjob."