Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Sling Stones at Paul

By its nature, the IA caucus measures a candidate’s ability to enthuse and organize. It is small-scale, retail politics. As various Republican aspirants have seen hopes expire, Ron Paul stays at a constant level of support. The corporatist ‘establishment’ candidate Romney remains unable to break through a ceiling that indicates a solid cap his support. The social fundamentalists and Tea Partiers flock from one clown to another, only to find themselves in a funhouse hall of mirrors, with each failed clown candidate reflecting their hypocrisy right back at them.

Enter the giant.

Of course, Ron Paul is not actually a giant. He's a small man in stature, but huge in his philosophical consistency, with principles that actually are conservative in nature and tightly bound to his interpretation of the Constitution. Whether it involves economic, social issues or foreign policy, Paul applies conservative principles in accordance with the Libertarian strain of thinking- and make no mistake, somtimes it is a strain- and this consistency infuriates the establishment corporatists, the social fundamentalists, and the Tea Partiers.

Paul could actually win Iowa.

Paul stands for the ultimate repudiation of Republican politics. He stands for the rejection of the GOP, in favor of a new way of thinking about issues, a way that offers hope for a new and regenerated party. A new direction is there, for those with foresight and the motivation to follow their bliss. But today, that repudiation threatens to gore the ox of the Tea Partiers, social fundamentalists, and corporatists. And out come the knives of the Republican attack machine.

For example, in his editorial "Will Iowa Votes Overlook Racist Newsletter," nationally syndicated conservative columnist Rich Lowry launches a particularly ugly attack. He slings stones of nastiest sorts, culminating in a suggestion that Paul owes an explanation for racist tracts in the 80's and 90's.

Understand- the conservative Republicans hate this guy, at least right now. They are still clinging to the conservatism of the Bush administration, and boy, is it not working.

There is virtually no chance of Paul winning any states after IA. However, a Paul win in IA will send shock waves throughout the GOP for the following weeks, and they don't want those shock waves, not at all; it will rightly be seen as a crisis of confidence, a final collapse of a failed, corrupt philosophy. The Republican attack machine is being geared up. The stones are being slung, Ron Paul.

Duck.

P

Posted by phx8 at December 21, 2011 1:57 PM
Comments
Comment #333381

I note that you did not say Lowry was incorrect, just vehement. Pual may be more of a giant killer than giant. He is, to the GOP, the exact opposite of the Tea Party. TeaPublicans don’t quite know where to niche him yet. But, if he can take the stinger out of the Tea part of the Republican Party and then slink off into the wilderness he’s made for himself, things political may get back a little normalcy.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2011 4:15 PM
Comment #333384

Aha! Here is the link for the Lowry article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/the_ron_paul_question_will_iow.html

Lowry will repeat the most ridiculous GOP talking points if they come from the establishment corporatists. However, the minute a Republican goes off the talking points AND threatens to defeat establishment, out come the knives.

I’m not attacking or defending Paul, so much as pointing out what is happening to him at the hands of the GOP, and what a Paul victory would mean for that party. Conservatives routinely attribute attacks agains Republicans, NOT to other Republicans, but to the MSM and Democrats. Conservatives simply cannot recognize there might be anything wrong with their message or their candidate. They invariably attack the messenger.

Posted by: phx8 at December 21, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #333395

Ron Paul has been candidating in IA for the past 4 years. Many of his policies fall in line with what the Conservatives believe, except for one thing; his foreign policy. If you think he is being attacked (and I would call it vetted) by conservatives on his foreign policy; if he were to become the Republican candidate, what do you think Obama and the liberal press would do to him in the general election? He would be presented as a conspiracy wacko. He may have some good ideas, but he is not presidential material.

I found nothing in Rich Lowry’s article that could be called personal attacks. In fact Lowry, in his opening remarks said of Paul:

“This year, the Texas libertarian stands much closer to the emotional center of gravity of the party in his condemnations of government spending, crony capitalism, the Federal Reserve and foreign intervention. He brings 100-proof moonshine to the GOP cocktail party.”

These points resonate with conservatives. I don’t know about the rest of you, who commented on the last debate, but I watched the whole debate and sided with Paul on many things; until he started dealing with foreign policy. He certainly does not represent the beliefs of conservatives and many Democrats. He began to sound like a 911 conspiracy theorist, and Lowry simply pointed out what I witnessed.

I am just curious why it is ok for Democrats to vett their own candidates in a primary; but somehow it is wrong for Republicans to question or condemn primary candidates? It is simply part of the process.

I agree that there is too much attacking of the messenger and not the message; but this happens on both sides of the isle. The Democratic Party has cornered the market on personal attacks; all one has to do is look at history. Even Clinton and Reid were accused of racism in the last Democratic primary:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/808485-bill-clinton-accused-of-racist-slur-against-obama

“Biden’s description of Obama draws scrutiny

Senators Joseph Biden, left, and Barack Obama talk during the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq on Wednesday.
Sen. Joe Biden planned to spend Wednesday focusing on his official announcement that he was running for president, but the Delaware Democrat instead found himself defending remarks he made to the New York Observer about his Democratic opponents.

In the article published Wednesday, Biden is quoted evaluating presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: “I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama.”

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS

As usual, Biden is guilty of “foot in mouth disease”; he then goes on to try to explain what he meant, but it doesn’t matter. This was a Democratic Primary, and the Democrats were guilty of the same personal attacks that you are accusing the Republicans of doing.

Posted by: Steve at December 22, 2011 10:51 AM
Comment #333398

Steve,
Vetting is a normal part of the political process, for sure. That is true. But when a nationally syndicated columnist titles an article using the words “racist” then, in my book, that’s getting pretty aggressive.

I think a lot of Paul’s foreign policy resonates with Americans a lot more than most people realize. Most Americans do not see any benefit to maintaining an overseas empire. To most Americans, it looks like a system that uses the military to support corporate interests.

Paul’s well organized campaign in IA may be seen as more of a handle to protest the GOP and express dissatisfaction with their policies. After, what, ten debates?- a refusal by Iowans to back the Republican candidates and their agenda would be quite a blow.

We’re seeing another form of this dissatisfaction in the very public fight between McConnell and Boehner.

Posted by: phx8 at December 22, 2011 12:06 PM
Comment #333399

phx8, I notice you didn’t comment on Biden’s and Clinton’s remarks about racism.

So do you support Ron Paul and would you be willing to vote for him?

Paul’s campaign may be organized in IA, but that is the only state. As I said, he has been campaigning here ever since the last presidential election.

“Public fight between McConnell and Beohner”, simply proves the Republicans don’t walk in lockstep. Is there a point to your comment that the Republican voters in IA have not yet voted for a candidate; since the vote is a couple of weeks away? If you are referring to IA polls, we all know the only poll that counts is the one on election day. In the 2010 election there were many Democrats who were shocked at their losses nationwide, even after the polls showed Democrats winning. So, point is, polls don’t mean squat.

Why don’t we wait until the IA primary before we jump to conclusions about who the Republicans support?

Posted by: Steve at December 22, 2011 12:24 PM
Comment #333402


“simply proves Republicans don’t walk in lockstep.”

No, it proves that the Republicans are having trouble maintaining the lockstep position they have taken since Obama’s election. The stop Obama at all cost BS is wearing real thin, even with some Republican voters, and especially the independents. The people are tired of this philosophical war being waged at their expense and they want action.

“So, do you support Ron Paul and would you vote for him?”

No, Ron Paul also has a domestic agenda.

Steve, you forgot Hillary and Obama’s birth certificate.

Democrats attack Democrats when they are competing for the same job. It is the same with Republicans. This years Republican on Republican attacks have been exceptionally entertaining.

Democrats didn’t turn Palin into a flake Republican. They didn’t produce the gaffs that hurt Bachmann. They didn’t cause Perry to fall into a coma every time he hears the word debate. They didn’t out Cain. They didn’t call Gingrich the F-candidate. They haven’t written any of the Republican candidates attack adds. And, they don’t control Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck.

What the Democrats have been doing is rebroadcasting, to America, what the Republicans have been saying, doing to eachother, and to themselves, over and over and over and over.

Posted by: jlw at December 22, 2011 5:01 PM
Comment #333407

phx8,

I think it seems valid to talk about Ron Paul’s newsletters — because Paul was raising money off of them. Money which he eventually used to run for public office. Also, let’s face it, Paul hasn’t dealt properly or well with this issue at all — and for a very long time.
Despite the fact that what was written in those newsletters has been raised over and over through the years, Paul has simply been denying he knew who wrote those disgustingly racist and homophobic comments that appeared under his own name, in his own newsletter. But the thing is, at the time he only had about six or eight people working for him to help him put out that newsletter. So… he could have easily gotten to the bottom of who did write those things. A long time ago. Yet hasn’t ever bothered?
Seems pretty weird, no?

And now, a C-Span clip has emerged with Paul mentioning his newsletter — and this was right around the same time frame when the really bad stuff was going into that newletter:

Ron Paul Touted His Controversial Newsletters In 1995 C-SPAN Interview

Posted by: Adrienne at December 22, 2011 7:17 PM
Comment #333416

Steve,
I did not comment on Biden or Clinton because I did not write an article about them.

I do not support Ron Paul and I will definitely not vote for him. On most issues, I disagree with the guy. However, I like his stand on foreign policy. Paul may dominate headlines between now and February, but after that, he will be long gone. As you note, he is well organized in IA, but nowhere else.

In one sense, polls means nothing. Not one vote has been cast as of yet. Most people don’t even bother to pay attention to politics until the weeks before the general election. In another sense, polls mean everything. Organizations go to great lengths to assess… well, just about anything you can assess through polling, and some of those pollsters are pretty darn good.

Adrienne,
Thanks for the link!

Posted by: phx8 at December 22, 2011 9:41 PM
Comment #333417

The trouble for Republicans is that in the search for high-energy political activists who will still push the party line unquestioned despite a decade of punishing policy failures, They’ve made themselves increasingly dependent on folks who have been out of the political mainstream for decades, and who consequently haven’t had enough time to realize that they have to clean up their act for a broader audience.

The reality is, the folks the Republicans and Conservatives are associating with have a history, and that history is bound to come out as folks do their research.

Apparently, the argument out there right now is that Ron Paul was an absentee landlord with these newsletters, simply putting his name to a publication whose content he had only vague awareness of.

Among the gems in those newsletters are second-hand innuendo that the 1993 WTC bombing was done by the Mossad, That Martin Luther King was Commie child molestor (of both gender), and… Well, just read this one for yourself:

“A mob of black protestors, led by the ‘Rev.’ Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City ‘to reclaim it for our people.’ Hmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis? But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

There’s worse where that came from.

If we leave aside the questions of just how he could not know what was being printed there, we still have to grapple with the fact that he put his name to such an outrageously radical, often racist and homophobic publication.

I mean, one quote basically says that gays enjoy the attention they get for getting sick with AIDs. No, actually, it’s worse than that:

They enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you’ve got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for.

It talks about carjacking like it’s the new, in-style pastime for black youths. Yeah, that gets worse, too.

Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob. What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

This is not the kind of story, I fear, that gets better for the target the more people find out. If Ron Paul did not know what was in the newsletter, why? If he did know, but did not agree, why let it go on like this, uncorrected?

We’re dealing with either somebody willing to let others trade on his name to sell extremely crackpot, truly atrocious ideas, who would prostitute his good name, and not examine what was being published, or we have somebody who was playing either his supporters, or his potential converts for fools, encouraging the worst in them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 22, 2011 10:05 PM
Comment #333418

jlw-
You’re right about what Democrats have been doing to the Republicans. I mean, it’s almost enough to make you feel bad for letting them self-inflict such trouble on themselves.

Almost. Really, I think it’s time that conservative and Republican voters realize just how out of hand things have gotten in their party, and how much having an apologist media set up to minimize and whitewash their problems keeps them from getting confronted with the problems with their candidates early enough to do them some good.

Republicans have traded a media that kept their people honest for one that keeps them happy about candidates who, on the substance, they should be getting alarmed about instead. I mean, you get figures like Palin, Paul, and others, because these people are sold as a brand, and presented in glorified, vague terms as the next big thing. Their policies are presented as the only sensible ones, and their ideas, even if patently offensive to others, are rationalized within an inch of their lives.

Republican voters need and frankly deserve better. They don’t need folks marketing the Republican Party. They need people keeping them aware when their politicians are running off the rails. That is the basic problem of a political news system that is basically designed to be an antidote to negative coverage of their people- sooner or later, you want to know the bad as well as the good. How else can you deal with it, resolve the problems?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 22, 2011 10:13 PM
Comment #333438

“The trouble for Republicans is that in the search for high-energy political activists who will still push the party line unquestioned despite a decade of punishing policy failures, They’ve made themselves increasingly dependent on folks who have been out of the political mainstream for decades, and who consequently haven’t had enough time to realize that they have to clean up their act for a broader audience.”

—-Stephen Daugherty

I would not consider Romney to be a conservative and if he wins the Republican primary, your theory is debunked. I consider myself a conservative, but would have no problem voting for Romney.

He comes from the north-east, and is supported by a very popular NJ governor as well as a TP governor from SC. Do you have secret garbage on him as well, or is he squeeky clean?

Stephen, you talk as if the Anmerican people are totally happy with what Obama has done. I don’t think so.

Posted by: Steve at December 23, 2011 10:33 AM
Comment #333442

Steve:

He comes from the north-east, and is supported by a very popular NJ governor as well as a TP governor from SC. Do you have secret garbage on him as well, or is he squeeky clean?


There’s no way Romney is clean. The man is too busy trying to hide the garbage for clean to be a remote possibility.

What’s Mitt Romney Hiding?

Romney Says He Won’t Release Tax Returns

Posted by: Adrienne at December 23, 2011 12:39 PM
Comment #333444

Another thing to add to the list of what Ron Paul can’t seem to answer for: An eight page direct-mail solicitation with Paul’s signature at the end of it for his newsletter subscription — warning of a “coming race war” and a “federal-homosexual cover-up” regarding AIDS.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 23, 2011 1:59 PM
Comment #333445

Adrienne, the things you accuse Romney of not releasing are from a conspiricy blog site. This is not facts… Is he breaking the law by not releasing these documents?

Did you have the same problem whith th documents not released by Obama? Here is a list and by the way, they ame from a conservative conspiracy web site, mush like your links:

“Here is a list of documents which Obama refuses to release. Why?
This is very disturbing since it appears Obama does not want us to know who he really is or how radical he might be.

1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — “not available”
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — “not available”
8. Law practice client list — Not release
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published – None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles – None
13. Your Record of baptism— Not released or “not available”
14. Your Illinois State Senate records—“not available”

Tell me Adrienne, do you have one standard for Republicans and another for Democrats? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Steve at December 23, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #333447

Steve:

Adrienne, the things you accuse Romney of not releasing are from a conspiricy blog site. This is not facts…

You consider the non-profit Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington a conspiracy blog site? Uh…okay. Well, here’s the article where they got the FACTS they were writing about there:
Romney staff spent nearly $100,000 to hide records
Shall we assume you consider The Washington Post a conspiracy website too, Steve?
Personally, I think spending $100,000 in state funds is hell of lot of money to have been spent trying to cover up your dirt — and that there must have been an enormous mountain of it — otherwise, why bother?

Is he breaking the law by not releasing these documents?

The article claims he didn’t break state law — but the fact of the matter is, any public official who would do what Romney did automatically destroys all their credibility.
Well, at least they do with me.

Did you have the same problem whith th documents not released by Obama?

No, the things on your list that haven’t been released on Obama don’t bother me all that much, and I wouldn’t be overly worried if Romney doesn’t release those things either.
However, I would have had a serious problem if Obama had done what Romney did after holding a public office. I would have also had a problem if he had been unwilling to release his tax returns. Most especially if Obama had made his money by laying off workers and closing businesses his company acquired and amassed 200-250 million dollars doing so, with an additional 100 million held in a blind trust for his children, as Romney does.
However, Obama did release his tax returns — just as the vast majority of presidential candidates running for office do.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 23, 2011 3:02 PM
Comment #333449


Steve, double standard? You could have said yes, I want both Romney and Obama to release their documents.

Posted by: jlw at December 23, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #333450

jlw, I have no proble with both parties releasing everything. I actually believe in what Obama promised, “a transparent government”.

Adrienne, the opening remarks of your latest link:

“Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor of Massachusetts in 2007 as part of an unprecedented effort to keep his records secret.

The move was legal but unusual for a departing governor, Massachusetts officials say.”

Adrienne, you are just looking for something to complain about; you admit Obama did the same things, yet have no problem with it; then you go on the complain about laying off workers when Romney was working in the private sector. This can’t be compared to Obama, because he has never run a company or business, but if he had, he would have had to make decisions to lay people off. That is the nature of the beast. Jeff Imelt, appointed by Obama to create jobs, was the head of GE and was responsible for thousands of jobs being lost and sent overseas. What do we do about that? Did Obama approve of Imelt’s decisions?

How many rich politicians, on both sides, have trust funds for their children? This isn’t something new. There are many old money Democrats (Kennedy’s) who live on trust funds from one generation to another.

Adrienne, you are concerned about the $100k of taxpayer’s money spent on new computers, but are you concerned that the president’s 17 day vacation cost the American taxpayers $4 million?

You complain that Romney has not revealed certain facts, even though it’s not illegal, but do you have the same problem with Obama redacting material sought by US citizens about the spending of dollars for elitist Washingtonians?

“Watchdog Sues Pentagon for Records on Obama Entourage’s 2009 Copenhagen Trip”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/28/watchdog-sues-pentagon-for-records-on-obama-entourages-200-copenhagen-trip/

Or are you concerned that documents requested by the Congress, concerning “Fast and Furious”, were delayed and redacted by Obama? Not allowing the truth of what happened to be seen by the American people. Again, I ask you, do you have one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans?

Posted by: Steve at December 23, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #333459
Adrienne, you are just looking for something to complain about;

You asked whether Romney was clean. I gave proof that he’s obviously not or he wouldn’t be trying to hide his actions as a public official. You’re now complaining that this is the case, but that’s just too bad. People who run for office have to be scrutinized.

you admit Obama did the same things, yet have no problem with it

This makes no sense. What same things am I supposedly admitting that I have no problem with? Obama didn’t wipe out the records of his actions, and he released his tax info. Unlike Romney.

then you go on the complain about laying off workers when Romney was working in the private sector.

Romney’s “business” was comprised of laying off workers and closing businesses. I’m not impressed with that kind of businessman, no matter how rich they get as a result.

This can’t be compared to Obama, because he has never run a company or business, but if he had, he would have had to make decisions to lay people off.

Romney is the kind of corporatist that hurts Americans. I don’t think his “business” is the kind that qualifies him to run the country.


That is the nature of the beast.

I’m sick of Wall Street Corporatist Beasts running this country.

Jeff Imelt, appointed by Obama to create jobs, was the head of GE and was responsible for thousands of jobs being lost and sent overseas. What do we do about that? Did Obama approve of Imelt’s decisions?

Obama appointing so many Big Corporate and Wall Street people has not been “change I can believe in” — and I’ve always admitted as much.

How many rich politicians, on both sides, have trust funds for their children?

Too many.

This isn’t something new.

No, but it is the reason politicians can’t understand, or don’t care about our problems and struggles.

Adrienne, you are concerned about the $100k of taxpayer’s money spent on new computers,

Yes, and that the public official in charge is hiding what he did while in office.

but are you concerned that the president’s 17 day vacation cost the American taxpayers $4 million?

Got a link?

You complain that Romney has not revealed certain facts, even though it’s not illegal,

Wiping one’s record should be illegal for governors and other public office holders.

but do you have the same problem with Obama redacting material sought by US citizens about the spending of dollars for elitist Washingtonians?

Link to proof of redaction? Other than Fox News? I’m sorry but I don’t believe a word that comes from Murdoch’s Corporate Propaganda Machine.

Or are you concerned that documents requested by the Congress, concerning “Fast and Furious”, were delayed and redacted by Obama? Not allowing the truth of what happened to be seen by the American people. Again, I ask you,

Again I must ask for a link — other than Fox.

do you have one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans?

No, I don’t. I think they both parties cater to Wall Street and Big Corporate and I’m fed up with it.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 23, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #333503

adrienne

Why do you have a problem with people who can afford to do so, setting up trusts for thier children? What business is that of yours, mine or anyone elses for that matter? Seems like class envy to me. If I could afford to do so, I would do it myself. Trusts do not avoid estate taxes, they merely avoid probate, and protect privacy.

Posted by: dbs at December 24, 2011 7:58 AM
Comment #333505


dbs, for the most part the people don’t have a problem with how much the wealthy make, how many trust funds they set up, etc. The exception, when the people feel the system is becoming tilted in favor of wealth to the detriment of the rest of the country. That sentiment is growing and will continue to grow for as long as the government continues to follow the course that has been charted for the country and continues to ignore the peoples concerns.

If it weren’t for the fact that these two political parties prop eachother up, both would be out of business.

Posted by: jlw at December 24, 2011 5:02 PM
Comment #333508

Steve-
My theory isn’t quite so exacting as to require that kind of precision. It’s just a general statement of affairs. How many things has Romney taken a hard-right tack on for the sake of his political survival? Does it disrupt my theory much if the so-called RINO is fighting like hell to convince you guys that he’s to the right of Attila the Hun?

That, and the fact that if he wins, it will only be because the Republican Party basically went with every possible alternative other than him?

Even then, the only reason why your folks will come out on election day, if he gets the nomination to be the Republican candidate for President, is to oppose Obama?

In many ways, ironically enough, your find yourself in the Democrat’s position in the 2004 election, only worse.

I think the basic problem for you is that your party needs people to see your enemies as theirs, in order for your hyped up vilification to work. Otherwise, they end up caught in the crossfire of your hatred, and not liking it one bit. How many dissenting pundits have your people more or less permanently alienated from the movement? How many people have woken up to find themselves, on account of political expedience, the new bogeyman for the right.

Ultimately, your problem is that with every political distinction you make in order to distinguish true Americans or true Republicans/Conservatives from false ones, you have excluded more and more people from being a part of your coalition. It hasn’t gotten better since your people started kicking people out for saying that the party wasn’t in the greatest of condition, or doing the smartest of things. You’ve encouraged the cowards, zealots, and fools who aren’t capable or willing to admit the shortcomings of the party to become its leaders, because unfortunately, you’re looking for victory through sheer application of political will and willpower, rather than trying to gain power by making yourself popular through successful policy.

Not saying the Democrats always do much better, but at least we haven’t painted ourselves into so many corners, and cast out so many potential supporters. Republicans haver spent too long learning to be gleefully offensive, and have forgotten the value of give and take, of being charming and thoughtful.

They’ve also cut themselves off from as many outside sources of critigues and assessments as possible, creating an “Emperor’s New Clothes” kind of media that the Democrats sometimes wish for, but are really better off not having. Everybody’s human, and when your media outlets are too interested in elevating the party to the status of untouchable divinity, they fail to catch and deal with the problems of the party’s policies while it’s useful to do so.

Look at Obama. You may lambast him for answering to his constituents and following their lead, but what he’s done has paid off. What the Republicans have tried hasn’t. His numbers go up, and stay up against theirs. Obama doesn’t always get it right, but he comes off better, because he knows its not his job simply to wield power and fend off attempts from people to alter his purist vision of policy. He knows that part of the job description of a politician in a Democracy is to respond to people when they have concerns.

You can sway people, of course, put the hard sell on them, but in the end, it’s their choice whether they go with you or not. Those who forget that, who act like people simply must do things their way, put themselves on the path to defeat, and it doesn’t matter what party they belong to.

Or, put another way, if you don’t give people what they want one way, they’ll try and get it from the system the other way. You can be the conduit of change, or you can be its victim. If you are its conduit, you can lead it to some degree, so long as you are careful to acknowledge people’s needs. You don’t have to shape everything up to original specs. You just have to convince people that things have gotten better, faster under you than they would have otherwise. I think Obama can prove that in a way that Republicans can’t.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 24, 2011 8:44 PM
Comment #333512

Paul may be able to pull off a victory in the VA primary, simply by virtue of being able to run an organization and handle the nuts and bolts of being a competition. His only real competition in VA will be Romney. Gingrich and Perry failed to make the ballot. Gingrich stated he would wage a write-in campaign. Wrong. VA does not allow write-ins for its primary.

Posted by: phx8 at December 25, 2011 11:49 AM
Comment #333535

Ron Paul represents the true meaning of the United States of America. Ron Pual has defended the Constitution of the United States of America continously for 30 years!

Ron Paul is a defender of the Constitution. There is no way anyone can deny or discredit that fact!


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #333536
Gingrich stated he would wage a write-in campaign. Wrong. VA does not allow write-ins for its primary.

Posted by: phx8 at December 25, 2011 11:49 AM

All the more reason we should submit to our local government our wages and profits. Our federal government is incompetent! Our federal government does not deserve our money!

We can take care of our mother and father much better than our federal government can. Why do we think our federal government can take care of our family better than we can?

We have given up! We have given our lives over to the federal government.

Just like in 1913, we have given up!

What’s next?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2011 8:25 PM
Comment #333538

I believe Ron Paul has the interest of the Unitied States Constitution at heart.

I want to ask Senator Jay Rockefeller if he holds the same views!

I’m sure he doesn’t, so there is no point in asking if Jay Rockefeller believes in a sound currency, or limited government, or a non-interventionist foriegn policy.

The people may disagree with Jay Rockefeller and the ruling class, but the ruling class doesn’t care.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 25, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #333550

Weary Willie-
The problem for the right is that their good intentions are not exactly translating into good results. You may say you and Paul believe in a sound currency, but if we had followed your advice, our currency would have gone down in flames.

As for limiting government? I won’t say we need full government intrushion everywhere, but the free-form, un-thought out response of simply rejecting government intervention as a rule has not worked. People can maladapt, even and especially to systems where private give and take are the main means of moderating things. Folks can be deceptive, unconscionable to their fellow human beings.

As for a non-inteventionalist foreign policy? Again, moderation is the key. The question should be, what do we have to gain from this? Is it worth what we lose for it?. The same question should be asked of not intervening.

As for the Constitution, let me ask you a simple thing: is it out of the question that you have internalized your particular opinion of what the constitution means and says, and internalized that in defining the defense and support of the document? See, the framers never intended the system to be a substitute for people thinking and figuring things out for themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 25, 2011 11:08 PM
Comment #333554


Willie, you are right, there is no way anyone can deny or discredit the fact that Ron Paul defends the Constitution in accordance with his interpretation of the document and his beliefs as to the intentions of the Founders.

Posted by: jlw at December 26, 2011 1:01 AM
Comment #333584

jlw-
And that’s the weakness of that particular argument. There are quite a few people on American soil who celebrate the Confederacy, even while they claim to be more loyal Americans than those who consider the Confederacy an unjustified rebellion.

I think it’s important to understand that there is an element of consensus not only desired but absolutely required in our form of government, and while there are always people who want to force things to one side or another, the truth of our system is that it was built to frustrate those people, and it does.

Unfortunately, some folks take that frustration as a challenge, rather than a fairly strong hint that they need to be more sociable and persuasive.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2011 11:05 AM
Comment #333593


Stephen, Trying to make facts conform to beliefs is not unique to conservatives. it is just more prevalent among them and sometimes obviously so.

Those who keep the Confederacy alive believe that it was right and the Union wrong. They believe that the Confederacy were the defenders of the Constitution and the intent.

IMO, the North made a big mistake in not letting the South succeed. That would have given the landless crackers time to think about the situation.

Today, the EU is much like the Confederacy and we know what Confederates think of the EU.

Many on the right tend vote for what they believe is right and good.

Many on the left tend to vote for what they believe to be the lesser of two evils.

Many others believe their vote doesn’t count and they don’t bother.

I tend to believe, in these times, the latter are most correct in their beliefs.

There is more than ample political rhetoric to sow the seeds and harvest the benefits of confusion.

Posted by: jlw at December 27, 2011 2:18 PM
Comment #333596

It appears to me that some here on WatchBlog are living in la-la-land. Many shout out their belief in the constitution, except when a 9 yo. student says his teacher is “cute”. They hold the first amendment in respect, unless someone says something bad about their employer. Then it’s out the window with the first amendment and out the door with the employee/student.

Some here at WatchBlog have even said a cop can “UNLAWFULLY” enter a home regardless of the curcumstance, and support judges who make that ruling. A ruling that goes against the earliest forms of documented citizen’s rights. Perhaps it is because they don’t believe it will happen to them. It certainly shows they don’t care about the core beliefs that were founded, and followed for many successfull years, in our constitution.

An artist makes a sculpture a thing of beauty by chipping away one small piece at a time. A mountain is reduced to a sandpile by many countless rainfalls and windstorms. A forest is decimated by a single species of bug.

The artist is content with his work. The wind, rain, and mountain are fine with what they are doing. The bug is in total agreement with what it’s doing to the forest because it’s only calling is to eat trees. The forest just stands there and does what it does naturally, also. The bug is fat and content, the forest is large and strong. Everything is hunky-dory for both the bug and the forest.

There are those here on WatchBlog who consider it a patriotic duty to stand up for the forest and resist what the bugs are doing to it. They are much like the bird that has made a home and a family in one of the trees in that forest. The bird sees what the bugs are doing to it’s home and recognizes the danger, and turns the bugs into a food source. The forest is protected and the bird thrives. Of course the bug will survive, but will forever be held in check by it’s own selfish and destructive nature.


Ron Paul, the tea party participants, and many uncounted Americans we can’t even begin to count, have taken the position of the bird. They recognize a symbionic relationship with our constitution and our surroundings and they see the disruptions and the possible ramifications of those disruptions. They have begun to eat the bug. They have begun to cure the disease. They have begun to stop the erosion by taking a firm stand for a common sense interpretation of the constitution.

The bug sees the writing on the wall and is eating as fast as it can.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2011 4:15 PM
Comment #333599

Weary Willie-
Your problem is, you think you’re the hero of this story, or Paul at least. You talk about a bird knowing the bug is a threat. You talk of us like we’re those bugs. But really, we aren’t bugs, and the birds in real life have no such conception of the bugs they go after. They don’t go after them because they think they’re evil, they mostly go after them because they think they’re lunch.

Creatures in this world, human or otherwise, are built to try and take care of themselves, in one way or another. That simple. The creatures that couldn’t or wouldn’t do that don’t survive.

You look at the average liberal, and what they want isn’t that terribly different at its root. You think you’re the only one who wants government properly constrained? That’s a common liberal desire, too. You think you’re the only one interested in having a good job, a good economy, or whatever else?

Or, put another way, why do you buy these rhetorical claims that Liberals want to wreck the economy? Who would really want to do that to their own country? Buying that absurdity lets you imagine liberals as your great enemy, but on the other side of that conversation, you have a liberal who thinks the conservative or libertarian is spouting vicious lies at them.

Competition between political parties and factions is an intended part of our system. That competition, though, should not discourage us from actually thinking about whether the edge in our rhetoric is there to confront something real, or merely a product of previous rhetoric that has lead us to see an enemy where we really should see a neighbor with some degree of agreement with us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #333601

We’re all bugs, Stephen Daugherty!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #333602

Your problem is you think you know what I think.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #333604

I think the liberal progressive movement in this country is just a parisite attached to these United States of America.

I believe our current government will not grant, or even consider, statehood for the four northern states of Mexico. A shame, yes?


The lack of consideration for these states defies Manifest Destiny and undermines Our Manifest Destiny in this hemisphere!

Why are we defending asian teritory and not defending our own?


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #333606

Weary Willie-
Well, I don’t really care what you think, because you’re absolutely wrong about my motivations. Which means your statement about me not knowing what you think is equally applicable.

To tell you the truth, your logic and language are confusing, so I answer the best I can. Nobody’s psychic here, so if we want to be understood, we better MAKE ourselves understood.

The idea of making states out of parts of the territory of another sovereign nation doesn’t appeal to me. Unless they would be happy enough to give them to us of their own free will (unlikely), it would take, more or less, a war with our nearest neighbor. Now you can claim that some kind of war is going on, but that’s an irresponsible exaggeration. Border crime, as it is, is nowhere near what crime is in other parts of our own country.

Or, put another way, half the reason we’ve got such an economically underdeveloped nation to our south is that we invaded them early in the 1800’s (before the Civil War), and meddled in their affairs for years after that.

Wars often get treated like they’re the easy way to solve problems when they’re really just the easy way to imagine solving a problem. Nothing says “cut the Gordian Knot” like an invasion. But all too often, the resolution of a war becomes the next knot for us to untie.

It’s a lazy way of looking at the world, and if you really think about it, you’ll realize that the world, and the people in it, are just too complicated for every problem to be solved in that way.

So you can go on calling us parasites, and talk like you’re going to war with us, but maybe at some point you’re going to realize that despite years of discouraging it, a lot of liberal ideas still thrive, despite everything, and so do a lot of liberals. In fact, if you haven’t noticed, since your people started escalating the political fight, liberals have only responded more intensely, even fighting to get more power where they were once willing or resigned to being second bananas.

Maybe what you need are fewer notions of us that involve the idea of trying to get rid of us, and more that acknowledge that liberalism is a part of the political fabric, just like conservatism is. You’ll be better off at the end of the day if you’re not shooting for futile efforts to exclude us, and instead try to drive the best bargains and compete for the greatest influence.

That’s what you’ll really win anyways, if you win. You might as well aim for the result, rather than blunder into it trying to force us out of the equation and failing just about every time. At least your movement wouldn’t be constantly beating the crap out of itself for not defeating liberals each and every time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2011 9:00 PM
Comment #333613

It’s not clear that Ron Paul is really any champion of the Constitution. After all, there hasn’t been a peep from him about certain constitutional violations, including Article V.

Unfortunately, too many people like to pick and choose only the parts of the constitution that they agree with, and ignore the parts they don’t agree with, or resort to creative circular gobbledygook, obfuscation, and hypocrisy to try to invent new interpretations that clearly defeat the mischief that the constitution was designed to oppose.

While I agree with some of Ron Paul’s positions, and disagree with some of his positions, he alone can not cure what ails this nation.
None of the candidates or incumbents can cure what ails this nation.

The voters are culpable too, and as long as the majority of voters cling to these two destructive extremes …

  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, little (if any) government regulations, and freedom to explore and wallow in almost every manifestation of unchecked greed.
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government (by design); with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged and plundered) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; tries to disguise envy and jealousy as demands for equality; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

Fortunately, there is possibly a built-in self-correction mechanism.
Too much greed will eventually lead to enough pain and misery that may eventually lead to real reforms, less corruption, and more justice.
Actually, enough pain and misery will most likely bring an end to the moral and fiscal bankruptcy, one way or another, whether we like it or not.

And the majority of people in the nation only have themselves to thank for it.
The majority of voters can blame corrupt politicians, wallow in the circular partisan warfare, wallow in their blind partisan loyalties, and blame everyone but themselves, but in a voting nation, the voters only have themselves to thank for it, and the painful consequences of their very own making.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 27, 2011 9:52 PM
Comment #333614

d.a.n

There are many people who think this will work out, that our country will correct itself.

Are you a pessimist or an optimist when it comes to describing the longevity of the United States Consititution?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 27, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #333617

FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters

Posted by: Adrienne at December 27, 2011 11:30 PM
Comment #333640

I am neither pessimist or optimist, but closer to a realist.
Realists are often labeled pessimits, despite the supporting realities (such as the effects of growing debt of nightmare proportions).

I like many of Ron Paul’s positions, and I may vote for him.

However, none of the candidates are very impressive.

And real reforms are not likely until enough voters finally understand that they are culpable too.

There is some evidence that voters are slowly starting to understand that.
Unfortunately, increasing levels of pain and misery are the primary motivation.
But, that is a good thing, so that there is some potential built-in self-correction mechanism (as long as we can still vote and still obtain an accurate vote-count).

Anyway, re-election rates for Congress have been falling since the NOV-2008 and NOV-2010 elections:

  • Start _ End _ Congress _ Re-Election Rate
  • Year __ Year __ # ______ Rate
  • 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st __ 83.6% (87 incumbents ousted)
  • 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st __ 79.7% (108 incumbents ousted)
  • 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd __ 76.8% (123 incumbents ousted)
  • 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd __ 61.2% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)
  • … … … … … … . .
  • 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st __ 90.1%
  • 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd __ 87.7%
  • 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd __ 73.5% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
  • 1995 __ 1997 __ 104th __ 79.8%
  • 1997 __ 1999 __ 105th __ 77.4%
  • 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th __ 89.2%
  • 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th __ 89.2%
  • 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th __ 87.9% (65 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th __ 88.6% (61 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th __ 84.9% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out/replaced)
  • 2009 __ 2011 __ 111th __ 86.9% (70 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2011 __ 2013 __ 112th __ 77.0% (123 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2013 __ 2015 __ 113th __ ??.?% (??? ousted perhaps? I am predicting it falls to 72%)

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 28, 2011 2:59 PM
Comment #333658

Adrienne, thanks for the link.

I’m having some trouble finding other links to Ron Paul’s transgressions. Chould you help me find the links that describe when Ron Paul:

Was unfaithfull to his wife.
Abused his help.
Had sex in his office with the help.
Lied to a grand jury under oath.
Dodged the draft.

I can’t seem to find them anywhere! Help, Adrienne!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2011 1:34 AM
Comment #333660

d.a.n

How would you describe a senerio that is “Painful” to the American people?

et al, please respond.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2011 2:18 AM
Comment #333680
I’m having some trouble finding other links to Ron Paul’s transgressions.

Well Weary, you’re probably not going to care at all about these particular transgressions, but since you’re in the Lefty Column and because other people might actually want to think about these things, here’s a link listing why voting for Ron Paul is a truly terrible idea:

5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution — ‘Cuddly’ Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics
He’s anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that’s just the start.

A quote from the link:

“The anti-war Republican,” people say, as if that’s good enough.

But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He’s the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He’s an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He’s a gay-demonizing Republican. He’s an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican. He’s the John Birch Society’s favorite congressman. And he’s a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you’re a member of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I can see how he’d be your guy.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 29, 2011 3:07 PM
Comment #333686
Weary Willie wrote: How would you describe a senerio that is “Painful” to the American people?
These current conditions are painful for about 50 million American citizens. Perhaps worse, if these unemployment, GDP, debt, and inflation numbers are accurate (i.e. meaning that things are actually worse than what is being reported). The misery index is probably actually one of the worse ever: 33 !!!

Average Misery Index:

  • Harry Truman: 1948–1952: 7.88
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1953–1960: 6.26
  • John F. Kennedy: 1961–1962: 7.14
  • Lyndon B. Johnson: 1963–1968: 6.77
  • Richard Nixon: 1969–1973: 10.57
  • Gerald Ford: 1974–1976: 16.00
  • Jimmy Carter: 1977–1980: 16.26
  • Ronald Reagan: 1981–1988: 12.19
  • George H. W. Bush: 1989–1992: 10.68
  • Bill Clinton: 1993–2000: 7.80
  • George W. Bush: 2001–2008: 8.11
  • Barack Obama: 2009–Present: 10.72 (actually of 33 ?)

The decreasing re-election rates for Congress is probably a better measurement of pain than the official misery index (inflation rate + unemployment rate), since the data and statistics are probably false.

To avoid public outrage, and to retain power, politicians and their minions within the government often provide statistics that everything is going well, despite the fact that things are actually worse.
For example, the current measurement of inflation is questionable since the CPI calculations were modified in year 1983 and 1998 to increase the CPI weighting for items falling in price, but decreased the CPI weighting for items increasing in price (to make the inflation today look much smaller than it really is).

Unfortunately, too many voters are unaware of the numerous ways they are fooled, cheated, used, and abused.

Hopefully, as pain levels rise, the voters will become more aware of what is really happening.
Pain and misery is a fairly effective educator.
Real reforms must start with Education (not merely reading, writing, and arithmetic), but more awareness of all things in general, to bring about more awareness via Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Responsibility.

  • Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
  • Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
However, fortunately, there is possibly a built-in self-correction mechanism, such that the majority of voters will most likely receive their education, one way or another.
Too bad it has to be the hard and painful way, instead of the smart way.

One thing is for certain:

  • Repeatedly rewarding arrogant, irresponsible, incompetent, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election is not working.
  • Irresponsible Voters = Bad Politicians = Bad Government
  • The majority of voters are culpable too.
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 29, 2011 5:59 PM
Comment #333731

Is that all you’ve got, Adrienne? Did I miss where he is perjuring himself in front of a grand jury? There was no mention of infidelity either!

Perhaps I should introduce another factor and call it “the double-standard”, or perhaps “hypocracy”. Where are Ron Paul’s quotes demonstrating a double-standard or hypocracy, Adrienne?

d.a.n, on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the loss of the free cell phone, and ten being plagued bodies stacked up in the streets, what scale of misery are we talking here?


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 30, 2011 12:50 AM
Comment #333862

Do you know what I learned when Bill Clinton was running for President?

Never trust someone who starts a sentence with, “Trust me, ..”.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 30, 2011 4:58 AM
Comment #333881

Weary:

Perhaps I should introduce another factor and call it “the double-standard”, or perhaps “hypocracy”. Where are Ron Paul’s quotes demonstrating a double-standard or hypocracy, Adrienne?

Perhaps I should first introduce you to the correct spelling of hypocrisy? Secondly, regarding Paul’s quotes demonstrating hypocrisy, I’ve already given them above in a link entitled:
Fact Check: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters.

Ron Paul once showed he had a clear understanding of what was written in the newsletters and defended them, now he doesn’t defend the newsletters, claims he knew nothing about the disgusting things they contained, and says that they were “ghost written” — even though he was using them to raise money to run for Congress.

It’s a serious problem when a presidential candidate’s statements about newsletters he used to raise cash to get elected have done nothing but change over time. Especially when they are literally filled with support for things like far right-wing militia movements, and all kinds of nutty conspiracy theories, and blatant bigotry against Blacks, and Jews, and Gays.

Hypocrite. Liar. Bigot. Nutjob.
Now maybe the people of Texas didn’t mind electing someone like that to be their Representative in Congress, but I strongly doubt a majority of Americans really want to elect that type of person to be the President of the United States.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 30, 2011 2:06 PM
Comment #333902

Article outlining Ron Paul’s stances in his book: Paul once criticized equal pay, AIDS patients, sexual harassment victims.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 30, 2011 7:13 PM
Comment #333921

Nice try, Adrienne.

Why isn’t your logic based in the constitution?

Your links provided point to groups, groupthinks!

The minute you kick back and expect someone else to do it for you is a mark in history that demonstrates how a nation looses it’s own soverenty.

Adrienne, could you spell check this for me? Thanks, Hun!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 31, 2011 6:12 AM
Comment #333928

Here you go, Weary — this will undoubtedly make perfect sense to you.

Btw, I’m not your Hun, Atilla.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 31, 2011 1:04 PM
Comment #333969
Weary Willie wrote: d.a.n, on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the loss of the free cell phone, and ten being plagued bodies stacked up in the streets, what scale of misery are we talking here?
Good question.

Let’s assume the following scale based on the following scale:

  • LEVEL #01: Unemployment less than 1%, poverty rate below 3%; 99% re-election rates;
    LEVEL #02: Unemployment about 2%, poverty rate about 6%; 97% re-election rates;
    LEVEL #03: Unemployment about 4%, poverty rate about 9%; 93% re-election rates;
    LEVEL #04: Unemployment about 6%, poverty rate about 12%; 85% re-election rates;
    LEVEL #05: Unemployment about 9%; poverty rate about 15%; 77% re-election rates; (TODAY)
    LEVEL #06: Unemployment about 12%; poverty rate about 20%; 70% re-election rates;
    LEVEL #07: Unemployment about 16%; poverty rate about 28%; 63% re-election rates; rising crime rates;
    LEVEL #08: Unemployment about 24%; poverty rate about 39%; 55% re-election rates; rising crime rates;
    LEVEL #09: Unemployment about 40%; poverty rate about 50%; 48% re-election rates; rising crime rates;
    LEVEL #10: civil War, anarchy, chaos, deaths in the millions per year; widespread poverty; Unemployment over 40%, poverty rates over 50%; re-election rates below 48%; rampant crime;

QUESTION: When will enough voters finally choose real reforms, justice, and more fiscal and moral integrity?

ANSWER: When failing to do so finally becomes too painful?

It is difficult to predict at which of the levels above that will occur, but if I had to guess, it would probably be LEVEL #08, possibly starting between years 2016 and 2024, and lasting 12-to-18 years, before things start getting better (if ever; there are no guarantees, and things could continue to decline for a very long time as has occurred in many other nations).

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election for these abuses finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 2, 2012 2:46 PM
Post a comment