Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAfter Hillary Clinton wraps up her campaign and Barack Obama stakes his uncontested claim on the Democratic presidential nomination -- something that could happen as soon as next week -- John McCain will still have a race on his hands for the Republican nod.
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is running an anti-war, libertarian-themed challenge to the GOP establishment,refuses to quit.
Indeed, Paul is running better now than when the media was paying attention to the race for the GOP nod.
In Idaho, which held its primary Tuesday, Paul won almost a quarter of the vote -- his best percentage so far this year.
Final returns give Arizona Senator McCain just 70 percent support from Idaho Republicans -- not a very impressive figure for a man who has been the presumptive party nominee since February.
Paul, who has made it clear that he does not intend to endorse McCain, took 24 percent.
Six percent picked "uncommitted" -- in other words, nobody -- over McCain.
Paul gains five delegates from Idaho, adding to the base his campaign hopes to use to force platform debates at this summer's Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
And Paul's not done yet.
He's been to Montana, where he has attracted big-name endorsements and substantial support for his effort to finish strong in the state's "beauty contest" primary on June 3. Paul's also got a campaign going in South Dakota, which votes the same day. And his supporters are packing state conventions in other states, still seeking to win delegates -- and, with them, to make the GOP convention a whole lot more interesting than the Democratic gathering.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
So between Barr, Paul, and the McBush/McSame label, saying Grandpa suddenly has major problems is being rather kind I think.
Posted by yutsano at 05/29/2008 @ 11:12pm
See, the thing to consider is...those Repubs....could have just not voted AT ALL.
But TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT of them made a deliberate effort to go the polling place and vote AGAINST McCain (or for Paul if you like...same diff).
If it was an indifference to McCain...they'd just have skipped the vote and let him win by whatever those who cared was.
But ....they didn't.
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 11:16pm
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Good point.
Even better...
7,792 Republicans made a special trip to the polls to vote for...
NOBODY
...over McCain.
Posted by Lillian at 05/29/2008 @ 11:26pm
Lillian: ***7,792 Republicans made a special trip to the polls to vote for... NOBODY
Nobody will be able to achieve victory in Iraq, lower gas prices, and restore America's prestige throughout the world. Nobody.
Posted by Balrog at 05/29/2008 @ 11:32pm
Happy: ***I would like to see the Libertarian Party grow to the point of a real 3rd Party
It would be the best thing for this country, but the other two parties won't stand for it.
Posted by Balrog at 05/29/2008 @ 11:35pm
Ron Paul for VP!
for Obama!
Posted by winyahn at 05/30/2008 @ 12:35am
Breaking the party duopoly would be wonderful but in the current political climate highly unlikely. It will take a major groundswell and paradigm shift in the minds of the American people, so good luck with that!
Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008 @ 12:36am
Yeah, black is already a mega giant huge barrier
Posted by winyahn at 05/30/2008 @ 12:58am
If RP chooses to run in the fall as an independent, the GOP can hang it up, their donors will zip up the wallets, and the Dems will be handed a blank check. What they do with it is another story.
Posted by sloper at 05/30/2008 @ 02:02am
I refuse to buy the cakewalk story. The Reps won't go down without a nasty streetfight. After all, they have crminal elements with deep roots in the monied interests to still protect. And with Obama promising to investigate the happenings well....
Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008 @ 02:22am
The Reps won't go down without a nasty streetfight.
Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
That's almost assuredly so. Among the far-right extreme, it's already practically a 'de-facto' given that Obama is a closet Muslim.
By the general election, they'll be claiming it is common knowledge he's always been a 'radical jihadist'.
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 03:15am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
Darin, nobody said McCain was "in trouble"....just that he's not that "well liked" (to paraphrase "Death of a Salesman").
Ron Paul is an OUTSPOKEN opponent of the war in Iraq....and he's pulling TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT of the Republican vote.
You and HAPP can plug your ears, close your eyes, and hum real loud....but it can't be ignored.
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 09:02am
The fault of this age, dear baby boomers, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
Speak for yourself, Horatio. You voted for Bush, I didn't.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/30/2008 @ 10:24am
BTW, surprised nobody brought up Ron Paul's "95% of blacks are criminal" post in his newsletter. Not enough time has elapsed for redemption on that one.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/30/2008 @ 10:29am
Libertarians are never going to be more than 5% - 10% because they are the party of the cognitive elite, which, by definition can never be more than 5%.....Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
Most of the Libertarians I've known were really stalwart individualists until a medical or legal problem confronted them. Then a big-time rush to the public trough, huh?
Posted by Sorelish at 05/30/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by Sorelish
yeah
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 11:31am
The love for one's child is the most selfless love a person can experience. Who has more children, Dems or Reps?
Polosi's district (Dem) has the distinction of having the fewest children (90,000 or so). The district with the most children is in Utah (440,000) and it's Republican.
Posted by marybretbrad
so what you're saying is that the parents of ONE child loves he/she less than the parents of more than one do?
you are certifiably INSANE
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 11:35am
No, I'm saying the parent of ONE child love themselves much more than the parents of 5 children. The parents of 5 children are more selfless than the parents of one child
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
That is a broad generalization that can be picked apart in so many ways. You ever seen Kim Peek's dad? Try making that statement to him.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/30/2008 @ 11:53am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
First on the 25% who voted for Paul.....you didn't answer. WHY are they showing up to vote for Paul, in a nomination already decided?
And by the way, remember, the "they" we're talking about...are not Democrats...they're REPUBLICANS.
Second...
"No, I'm saying the parent of ONE child love themselves much more than the parents of 5 children. The parents of 5 children are more selfless than the parents of one child."
fuck you, Darin.
My wife and I have one child and we love him more than anything in this world and would sacrifice ANYTHING for him.
And what POSSIBLE "facts" can you provide that "People who have 5 kids love them more than the people who only have 1 kid"....any?
And does that mean that you and your wife love your two children LESS than the couple with three?
Emile is right...if you really believe that crap...you're insane.
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 11:56am
No, I'm saying the parent of ONE child love themselves much more than the parents of 5 children. The parents of 5 children are more selfless than the parents of one child.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
you are a nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 12:10pm
marybretbrad
only two? why you selfish cow. why don't you have half a dozen?
I live in an increasingly hasidic hood, we have large prewar apartments. they generally have four and up. I am not prepared to judge their self love. and neither are you.
what this nonsense has to do with ANYTHING is beyond me.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
First....so the Dems pulled an "Operation: Chaos" on poor McCain and voted for Paul just to make it SEEM like there were Idaho Republicans who didn't like Maverick John????
Not quite as dopey as your other theory....but close.
Second, onto that....So again YOU and YOUR wife love yourselves more than the couple with THREE kids do, huh?
I mean, you're having SOME fun, aren't you? Or do you drive a beat-up station wagon and vacation in your backyard?
Or is your car relatively new and you've actually been to the mountains, a lake, the beach, or Disney in the recent past (after the two kids)?
Huh?....come on, Darin. Tell us.
Cuz if you have then OBVIOUSLY you should have spent that dough on a THIRD kid and proven you and your wife were selfish bastards, limiting your procreation for your RECreation?
Where's the third kid, Darin? Or the fourth? Lost on that trip to Myrtle Beach or Catalina or on that new SUV?
(BTW...Here's where you profess poverty to try to weasel out of your own hypocrisy)
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 12:20pm
MBB-The republicans that you mentioned that live in Utah that have all these extra kids believe in a religion that that says it's good to have old men raping your young daughter which negates your claim of love of child.No parent who loves their child allows them to be raped nor would they stay in such a religion if they loved their daughters.Your views of people who only have one child are ignorant and not reality based.The world is over populated and having too many kids shows lack of love for them and lack of concern for their future.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2008 @ 12:21pm
MBB-Mormons did not change that because they figured out that it was wrong.They were forced to change,but still honor their pedophiles by naming cities and universities after them and continue to hold these pedophiles in high esteem.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2008 @ 12:36pm
I stopped at two because I selfishly love sleep.
Posted by marybretbrad
and you have the gall to post this crap?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 12:40pm
marybretbrad
you are a child. grow up.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 12:42pm
MCBUSH is not a conservative, he is another neocon....he does not favor private rights, and favors big govt....he is the antithesis of ron paul, which tells fed govt. to get lost.....and who would restore citizen's rights....any candidate who is willing to think outside the box is an improvement over our dumbed-down political pandering which benefits the already wealthy...
I personally have always supported Obama and think Clintons have exceeded their five minutes of fame, and their negatives are now weighing down the Dems.....if the party cannot get this right....I really honestly don't know what to do....I hope Obama picks a centrist VP such as Hagel...to appease everybody.....and who also has been outspoken against the war from the beginning, let bush/mcbush call hagel a coward, etc...and see what happens.....
Why can bush call mcbush crazy in 2000 when he is running against him, but the conservative media does a cover-up job about it now?????
Posted by jrs112 at 05/30/2008 @ 12:42pm
My wife and I spend far too much on our comfort and we spoil our boys in the process, which isn't doing them any favors. ----Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
Then you are a big fat hypocrite, for attacking people like me and my wife....all just to try and score some UN-FOUNDED political point about Pelosi and Salt Lake City.
And you've really proven that (like HAPPY), anything you EVER post should be taken as disengenuous and likely false.
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 12:51pm
Not a chance. I'm the guy who bragged about paying $75,000 in federal taxes in 2006.Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
So who's raising your children?Aliens? Shirt-tail relatives? The local kid-warehouse? Nanny McPhee?
Posted by Sorelish at 05/30/2008 @ 12:55pm
Posted by Sorelish at 05/30/2008
It's the SAME worn-out SOP of Darin that we've seen over and over again...
he makes some charge or accusation or "point" (usually outrageous, almost all un-provable)...
then he gets called on it, starts to say he didn't mean what it "seemed" like he meant....
then if about Democrats, he tries to sound "bipartisan" and says "Oh, of course Republicans do it too...of course" (though no mention of them in the original attack, nor 2-3 subsequent defenses of it)...
or in this case, he "admits his own failings"....and tries to make it seem as if he was "including myself in my criticism" ...which he wasn't (read the original post and subsequent ones)...
all in an attempt to keep up some air of credibility through self-deprecation.
It'll happen again...bet on it.
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
No...it's an UNPROVEN broad generalization....which you have YET to offer any proof of.
How about this? Conservatives who attack others for being selfish...are usually EVEN MORE selfish themselves?
I can't prove it...but I "think" it's a "blindingly obvious truth"....so there!
Oh, but of course, "I'm no better; I don't claim to be perfect" (there, that should buy me some CYA for nutty comments, huh?)
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 1:07pm
Geez, I sure struck a nerve.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
By the way, don't try THAT ol' bullshit.
If I posted "I think conservatives' wifes are usually pretty slutty" and you get incensed at the obvious attack on your wife....you think I could just say
"Ooooh, must have touched a nerve...haha" and try to laugh it off?
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 1:09pm
MBB-Your "truth" about people being more or less selfless depending upon how many kids they have does not play out in the real world.There are abusive parents with many children.There are religious people who sacrifice having families in order to serve people.I have a bunch of kids,but I have not noticed that I am different from those with one or two and I did not have all those kids because I'm selfless.I had them because I like having sex with different women up until recently where I've given that up.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2008 @ 1:13pm
It's disturbing that Nation readers are supportive of Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. The big Libertarians all originally supported the Iraq invasion; the Libertarian Party supports building a wall on the Mexican border; and Ron Paul is antigay rights, one of a number of his bigoted views. Libertarians place the American dollar and the economy above all else--they believe in the what Ayn Rand called the "Virtue of Selfishness," i.e., the right to blow smoke in your face.
Posted by mdt187 at 05/30/2008 @ 1:18pm
Who Do you support?
The results are shocking!
http://www.votenic.com
Posted by votenic at 05/30/2008 @ 1:23pm
My (3) children have an aunt who loves them more than her own life. Yet she has no children (by choice) due to concerns of passing along a certain genetic problem. Guess she is a selfish, dog worshipping liberal. Oh and by the way, she lives in California, and we know what THAT means about her priorities!
Posted by tkill430 at 05/30/2008 @ 1:25pm
It's time for people to get off the R. Paul bandwagon and think about how we're actually going to defeat McCain and put an end to the war. Obama is a much better anti-war candidate, not just because he's actually electable.
R. Paul Libertarians out there, think about this just for a second. Progressives, like Obama, also want freedom. We don't want government controlling our lives. Let's stop talking about "Big Government" and start talking about who/what government is for. Here are some of the programs stemming from this dangerous "big govt": Social Security, unemployment insurance, the public works programs, the minimum wage, the subsidies for the arts, G.l. Bill of Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and loans to small business, not to mention shrinking the ozone hole, cleaning the air and water we drink, protecting forest/parklands, rescuing endangered species, etc.
Are those such bad things? Where would we be without them?
Like Howard Zinn says, the concern shouldn't be fear over "big govt" rather "the only question is: Whom will it (the government) serve?"
How can we have liberty and equality? Obama, I believe, holds both of these principles tight in his vision.
Posted by dMartinS at 05/30/2008 @ 1:29pm
Emile is a masculine French name. while I am not French, I am a man.
Mbb you post complete asinine nonsense, get smacked down and your proud of that?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 1:32pm
It's the SAME worn-out SOP of Darin that we've seen over and ever again..Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008
Really. Proving that even border-line phychosis can be monotonous.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/30/2008 @ 1:33pm
but I finally got it write.
god are you dumb.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/29/2008
Except for the fact that Bobby Jindel isn't libertarian.
I'd take Ron Paul over McCain - and I'm definitely not a moderate Repubs, conservative Demos Indies or the young.
I could even see voting Libertarian if Barr - Mr. Defense of Marriage Act - wasn't heading the ticket. How he has become the standard bearer for libertarianism...is beyond me. And probably beyond the left wing gays, Wiccans and other folks that make up the left and more radical wings of the Libertarian party.
Still, if you want more limited federal government, libertarians are practically the only game in town.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2008 @ 1:36pm
one more about my nom de plume.
Emile Dubois is the French expression for John Doe, an everyman.
I took is from a French dance company
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 1:36pm
MBB-I never even implied that people who have many children are pedophiles and rapists and you know that I never said that..In fact,I said that I have many children and I know that I'm not a rapist or pedophile.I stated facts about a particular religion because you brought them up and were trying to hold them as examples of selflessness when that is hardly the case as their religious beliefs clearly show.I'm not responsible for their beliefs nor am I to blame because they choose to stay in a religion that honors rapists and pedophiles.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2008 @ 1:37pm
marybretbrad
the spell check would not have caught that mistake. and you're still dumb
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 1:40pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
As if an IQ test actually measured intelligence. As if intelligence is the appropriate metric to evaluate people. Why not just make stuff up, it would sound better. Opps, scratch that, it must be my intelligence telling me that not only aren't IQ tests relevant nor intelligence, but your supposedly scientific mind is pulling these numbers straight from fantasy land.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2008 @ 1:42pm
marybretbrad : ***As a broad generalization, people who have more kids are more selfless than people who have fewer kids, who are more selfless than people who have no kids.
There are plenty of people, many of whom are on welfare, who continue to have children depsite the fact that they cannot afford to raise them. How selfish is that?
To limit the family to a number that can be reasonably managed, to conciously decide upon the quality of life one wishes to provide to one's children, is the more selfless act. And the more responsible one.
Posted by Balrog at 05/30/2008 @ 1:42pm
"I had them because I like having sex with different women up until recently where I've given that up."
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/30/2008
Ohhhh!! You didn't use protection!!
Posted by ACook at 05/30/2008 @ 1:43pm
>>>The social Darwinism of Ayn Rand's brand of Libertarianism was based on the moral imparative that the strong/smart should be able to take advantage of the weak/stupid.
Bottom line: Libertarians will struggle to even reach spoiler status.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008<<<
This Ayn Rand Objectivism has failed! Selfishness has serious limitations as as a public policy outcome because even if we had a meritocracy (which we don't), market failures persist making the overall quality of life much less than social-capitalist model like Sweden.
It is great to turn loose the intelligence, creativity and innovation of the entrepreneur, but if the monopoly power of "yesterday's" innovators are able to stifle new innovation that threatens their businesses (so-called "barriers to competition" in business theory), the benefits of capitalism are short-circuited leaving you with the corporatist model we now find.
A true Libertarian should have just as much trouble with corporatism as socialism, so if they really were able to use the high IQ that you ascribe to them, they would push for a social-capitalist model to protect entrepreneurs and others from being oppressed by corporate barriers to competition, and favor protecting others from market failures by these corporations so that the overall quality of life is much better.
What Ayn Rand and her followers failed to consider is that Adam Smith's original capitalist theory in his flagship work "The Wealth of Nations" was all about small entrepreneurial firms. He never envisioned large multi-national corporations erecting barriers to competition to protect their profits.
The monopolist is the dirty secret that no "capitalist" wants to talk about!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/30/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008
"I am expressing my belief about how the world is in the absence of any data to back it up"...making it up, isn't science. I'm expressing my opinion that you are an IQ elitist who doesn't understand the metric you are using in your arguments.
I refer you to the following paper, with the following quote:
"It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity; there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we know very little about them: how they develop, what factors influence that development, how they are related to more traditional measures."
In other words, IQ is flawed in measuring intelligence, and your repeated harping on IQ shows you haven't yet grasped this fact.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/30/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/200
Hey Darin, how's it going? I do get the meaning of what you were trying to convey. I grew up in a family of 12 children (even dozen for some you). My parents finished high school and never got the opportunity to experience college, but they did everything in their power to make sure we got our basic needs met.
Many of my siblings are successful today because of their sacrifices, in spite of losing two boys. The only sadness I have in telling this story is that the hard work my parents put in finally took it's toll on my father. He passed away unexpectantly before my 21st birthday and 2 months before my wedding. Since then, my mom has carried that burden by herself until we were able to take care of ourselves.
Committment, sacrifice, love, honor, and respect...for none of these can never be bought with money alone, but together they can make one far more richer than any wealthly man.
Posted by ACook at 05/30/2008 @ 2:11pm
No time-stamping, so go back 3-4 posts from MBB and see the duplicitious nature of the guy....
He makes a blanket statement with no proof, to try to score a cheap political point "Look, fewer children in Dem districts, more in Repubs, that means Repubs are better people than Dems, cuz 'people who have few children are more selfish'"
Then when called on that idiocy, he feigns "Well, that's not what I MEANT"....Then "I'm no better" self-deprecation as a dodge...
and finally "I'm a victim of my poor communication skills, and YOU guys are the mean ones for attacking ME just because I made a lame-ass generalization that besmirches THOUSANDS of families...to try to score political points....you guys should be ashamed!"
Seriously, this is more b.s. that I've seen in a long time...and I'm including wackadoodles like RESE, who's nuts, but not a DISHONEST nut...or CONSHAME/LIBSWARN who is too, but she's not a lily-livered coward who thinks he can shoot off a few rounds and then immediately say "Okay, 'everybody' stop firing...let's talk civilized now!"
Geez louise.
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 2:37pm
what darin was really trying to say was that repubs are better people than dems. that's all.
whattajerk.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 3:05pm
No time-stamping, so go back 3-4 posts from MBB and see the duplicitious nature of the guy....
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008
Mask I read them and I don't think he meant it like that. After reading what he wrote, I thought he made a very generalized statement (although, not necessarily correct in its assessment) and yet I don't feel he was intentionally targeting you or anyone else on this particular thread. Everyone who blogs on this thread has made some wayout statement at some point or another. I mean, look at my posts, they can range from the mundane and silly to the most outragous. And there are plenty of times you've caught me off guard with your statesments and rebuttals, but I don't take them personally. I just think it's parr for the course when one takes their "pseudo-intellectual" chances at this liberal site.
BTW, how old is your little one now?
Posted by ACook at 05/30/2008 @ 3:09pm
The media will absolutely make sure that this is a footrace until the end. The "news" must be entertainment because the networks force news programs to generate profit, which wasn't always the case. I sincerely hope that Obama wins. Furthermore, I can't wait for Hillary Clinton to GO AWAY. Her actions and blind, selfish ambition are reprehensible. Finally, Ron Paul has one good idea (Iraq). I listened to him in the debates and I've read his opinions. He's an idiot.
Posted by scooby at 05/30/2008 @ 3:37pm
Happy,
Why are you so unhappy with what our troops have done? To me, they have been admirable and heroic. Indeed, they have done everything the President asked them to do. They have every reason to come home proud of their successes.
It is the President and his policies that we should all be ashamed of. Supporting McCain is just going make things worse. He has the delusion that he can take those same policies and just make them better. We should all be afraid of what he is going to do.
I for one will always be extremely grateful for our troop's sacrifice. I look forward to welcoming them home as soon as possible.
Posted by jbfromBigD at 05/30/2008 @ 3:44pm
Fortunately after about 50 entries on this post ( a useless majority devoted to the mindless ramblings of "marywhitebread") there are now finally a few people that have attempted to unmask the horrible policies of the Ron Paul platform.
He is a severe reactionary "wolf" hiding in "anti war" sheep's clothing. Despite his anti war position, he is just as dangerous as McCain, just as dangerous as Bush. Too bad that Alexander Cockburn and many others just can't seem to understand this.
Posted by ornette! at 05/30/2008 @ 3:54pm
Posted by ACook at 05/30/2008
He's fine...and let's leave it at that (Internet you know).
BTW, no. What MBB wanted to do was make one of his "Dems are bad people, Repubs are good people" statements...have it out there...and then try to "walk it back" when the heat got too much for him....and THEN tried to act like HE was the "victim".
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by ornette! at 05/30/2008
The reason for the "off-topic" posts is...
Ron Paul is a minor issue at best.
He IS showing that McCain has a weakness in his own party of some significance (25% in Idaho isn't to be sneezed at).
But he's not going to get any Party backing (the Libertarians have already picked Barr and no Repub or Dem will pick him for Veep).
So who cares?
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 4:29pm
"What MBB wanted to do was make one of his 'Dems are bad people, Repubs are good people" statements...have it out there...and then try to "walk it back" when the heat got too much for him....and THEN tried to act like HE was the "victim' ".
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008
Mask, I understand, but just about every liberal blogger here has made overarching statements in reverse about conservatives. Neither are right.
Posted by ACook at 05/30/2008 @ 4:49pm
Aside from the bickering and fighting. I would like to say a couple of things about Dr. Paul. I haven't had time to read through all of these (mainly because the back and forth name-calling gets real annoying), but I noticed that several people were not aware of some basic facts.
About the comments that RP made in his newletter, these comments were taken completely out of context and if you actually read the letters, they make sense and are sempathetic to the stuggles of many minorities. Also, he didn't even write those letters, his signature was simply at the bottom of everything in those newsletters. These were exposed and taken out of context by one of his enemies.
Also, people are still voting for Ron Paul because they agree with what he says and support him in his ideas. Unlike many of you, his followers do not look at winnability, but instead the idea of supporting a candidate that is actually worth supporting in their minds. This is the first time I have been able to do this. This guy makes sense. Read his book if you are still not convinced, but please don't just jump to conclusions about him being crazy because someone told you he was.
Oh yeah, someone also said he is against gay rights. This is funny because he and his followers shoot down any resolutions that would allow the Federal Government to regulate marriage or single out someone based on sexual preference. There was actually a resolution that the great and wonderful GOP followers, at the Senatorial District convention that I was at, were willing to pass a resolution that wanted to make homosexuality a federal crime. Guess which GOP delegates nayed that and guess which ones yayed it.
We simply follow the guidelines of the constitution. We are not interested in the government taking care of people from cradle to grave. So, please, don't bash people because they beleive in personal responsibility, sound money, and our great country's constitution.
Posted by JeremyJay at 05/30/2008 @ 5:57pm
** Democrats and Liberals are more selfish than Republicans and Conservatives. **
This ranks as one of the 'all-time dumbest' things you've ever posted Darin.
** ...there a numerous studies showing Republicans give far more to charity than Democrats do. **
Actually, there aren't. A fairly recent George Will column tried to make this point by citing a book by Arthur Brooks that itself misrepresented a very poor study comparing 'charitable giving' between conservatives and liberals (which, of course, you've lamely morphed into 'Republicans and Democrats'.)
The study at the base of this bizarre claim was RIFE with problems. Chief among them was the rather loose and subjective definition of the two groups - conservative and liberal.
However, what I found particularly dishonest was the way the study classified 'charitable giving'. It included things like the HUGE donations to private colleges that are so prominent among the wealthy elite who end up 'endowing chairs' in order to get junior into a good school despite his poor academic performance. It also includes giving to ones church, which quite often includes a stadium-sized structure which is run by a chaufer-driven pastor living a lavish lifestyle.
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 6:59pm
BTW, I have known many, many families with a lot of kids. Invariably and without exception, in every such family, the older kids end up taking on child care duties for their younger siblings.
Many times, both older and younger siblings feel resentment...like they were somehow...cheated.
It stikes me as pretty damned stupid to try to claim that as de-facto 'proof' that parents with lots of kids (Republicans) have a greater capacity for loving others over themselves.
Almost as stupid as these statements...
** Liberals are more arrogant than Conservatives **
** Democrats are more selfish than Republicans **
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 7:44pm
Back on topic...
7,792 Republicans made a special trip to the polls to vote for...
NOBODY
...over McCain.
Hello? Nearly 8,000 Republicans, so disheartened by a McCain candidacy that they chose to make the effort to register their preference for...
NOBODY
...over McSame.
Why can't the cons here honestly admit that this is of concern?
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 7:48pm
I still think that, generally, Democrats are more selfish than Republicans? I've given a couple or reasons why I believe that.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
OK, let's play that game...
** How many times has someone posted the opinion here that Republicans are stupid? **
I'll make that claim now...and use your posts as evidence.
Your 'reasons' amount to 'because Republicans have more kids'. That's it. The number of kids.
To you, that is 'evidence' that Democrats are more selfish? Hello? This is what passes for 'logic' in your mind?
Or how about this doosie...
** But just because I'm not perfect doesn't mean DINKs aren't selfish. **
Does that make any sense to you?!?!?
Here's another one...
** Yes, I did make up those numbers because I am expressing my belief about how the world is in the absence of any data to back it up. **
So now, just making crap up, to back your pre-conceived notion, is OK? That passes as 'valid' to you?
And here is my all-time favorite (on this thread anyway)...proof positive that 'Republicans are stupid'...(at least using MBB logic)...
** I was making a broad generalization for which there are millions of exceptions. **
A broad generalization...with MILLIONS of exceptions.
Wow!
Can you say...
...duh?
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 8:04pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
"a group of 300 million"?
Your generalization was about
Republicans and Democrats.
What's the population of the US Darin?
Are children somehow included in your group Darin?
The first rule of holes Darin...when you find yourself in one...
...stop digging.
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 9:50pm
BTW Darin, we all noticed how you made this claim...
** ...there a numerous studies showing Republicans give far more to charity than Democrats do. **
...then failed to name or post links to any of these studies.
Why?
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 9:53pm
Turns out that statement is kinda' like your claim that only Democrats steal elections...with the so-called 3 examples.
The historical facts simply don't support your claims...and all 3 of your examples turned out to be bogus...
..just like your lame statements on this thread, Darin.
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008 @ 9:58pm
NOBODY/ANYBODY '08 -- Somebody's Got To Do It!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/30/2008 @ 11:27pm
The love for one's child is the most selfless love a person can experience. Who has more children, Dems or Reps?
Polosi's district (Dem) has the distinction of having the fewest children (90,000 or so). The district with the most children is in Utah (440,000) and it's Republican.
Posted by marybretbrad
this is asinine.
god bless them for not having kids.
each of us is a village in india.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/30/2008 @ 11:34pm
The love for one's child is the most selfless love a person can experience.
.
This is beyond asinine. It is pure BS.
I live in a solid Republican county (San Diego), in a strongly Republican congressional district (50th), in an almost exculsively Republican neighborhood development.
My son has a friend who's parents are both die-hard Republicans. The father makes $350K/year, is committed to his job, spends 25% of his traveling on business, and tries to make up for his absence by showering the son with expensive toys. The mother makes $85k/year and spends EVERY penny on pampering herself with frivolous crap. Never a penny to charity, never a moment devoted to spending with her son.
This is the ABSOLUTE norm for this area. Nearly every Republican family has a hispanic gardener and/or maid, even as they decry the 'illegal immigrant' problem. (My son is the ONLY kid in the neighborhood who mows the lawn at his house!) Every Republican dollar and every Republican moment, is devoted to the neighborhood school, the neighborhood ballpark, the neighborhood swimming pool and tennis courts...always for the benefit of THEIR kids...even as they spend their every waking moment pursuing the dollars required to meet their million dollar mortagages and maintain their 'upscale' lifestyles...in lieu of spending their time and efforts WITH their children.
Having children is NOT evidence of 'selfless love'. I see eveidence every day that for many of the well-to-do, having children is a status symbol...like a 'trophy wife'.
The most selfless love a person can experience, is the love that leads one to 'the ultimate sacrifice'...for a squadmate, for a friend, for a complete stranger, or even for someone who is potentially an enemy.
Consider...
falling on a grenade that suddenly appears in a crowded market or fox hole
running TOWARD a fire with an extinguisher, while everyone else is running away
entering a burning building because of the sound of a baby crying
jumping off a pier into the freezing waters after witnessing an elderly stranger stumble and slip off the edge
surrendering to a brutal execution to atone for the sins of others
These actions are NOT divisible into Republican or Democrat.
Posted by Lillian at 05/31/2008 @ 12:52am
I can't believe some of the above comments are from "Nation" readers; don't you know Libertarians, and esp. Ron Paul, come from the same roots as the militias and white supremacist movements... no wonder he did well in Idaho. Dianne in Bellingham
Posted by diafos at 05/31/2008 @ 01:36am
These actions are NOT divisible into Republican or Democrat.
Posted by Lillian
nor into christian, muslim or pastafarian.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 01:51am
•~~~~~god bless them for not having kids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/30/2008
Amen....and I hope one GIANT requirement to be a GW Cultist is "not having kids". The earth (& I) will thank them!
It's evolution and all........
Posted by HAPPY3~~~~~•
no,
i prefer to look at it as unselfishness.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 01:53am
Posted by diafos
don't no about that......
dr. paul seems like a good dude.
and his monetary ideas are very important.
however, the lorax sure would have to work overtime if he were elected.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 01:54am
Doc Paul would want us to pay for his services with Double Eagles. Do you think he'd carry a black bag & make house calls?
Posted by Sorelish at 05/31/2008 @ 02:47am
So who's view of "the other side" is more representative?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/31/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Absolutely neither actually. And I didn't claim it did. That would be YOUR moronic brand of 'logic' Darin (which you've once again tried to enagage.)
And actually, what I said is that I have MANY witnessed the behaviour I noted THROUGHOUT the nearly exclusively Republican neighborhood in which I live.
further, your use of economic data chucks logic..hell, rationality,...out the window. You can't extrapolate econimic data from a single region of the country (one which has some of the highest housing rates, highest cost of living, and highest per capita income in the nation) and compare it to the economic data for the nation as a whole. Well...I take that back...YOU pbviously can (and erroneously did)...and it shows either a profound lack of understanding of the use of statistical data or a deliberate attempt at suterfuge. Either way, it doesn't pass the 'smell' test.
Posted by Lillian at 05/31/2008 @ 1:13pm
Final word on both topics...
1. Unless Ron Paul runs as an Indy or gets some Veep slot (Bob Barr only one I can think that would take him)....who cares? All the Idaho primary shows is that McCain has a weakness in his own base, that the right wingers HERE have had to admit on occasion. (Ex- Ask HAPPY what his friend Rush Limbaugh says about McCain!)
2. MARYBRETBRAD/Darin is a partisan exaggerator at best, bald faced liar and hypocrite at worst.
He constantly tries these little "gotcha" throwaway lines like "Democrats are more likely to put their mothers in a rotten nursing home than Republicans"....can't back it up, just "believes it"....
then we find out that Newt, Rush, Hannity, or Ann Coulter put their mom in an under-funded home and he does his "Oh, sure. BOTH sides are bad" dodge, completely undercutting his original assertion....
OR he himself gets caught admitting that HIS parents put HIS grandma in the "Sleazy Arms Rest Home" and has to do one of his "Oh, sure, I'm no better"....again undercutting his original unsubstantiated charge.
And the thing is...he does it over and over and over and over.
Look for these in the future with McCain....
1. attacking Dems for "believing in phoney science like man-made global warming"...then being shown comments from McCain, even BUSH supporting the idea.
2. closing Gitmo and how "Dems just don't understand the need for that facility"...and then a quote from McCain about how HE is going to close it.
or many others....and the same playbook from Darin....attack the Dems...be called on it....claim "no, no, I meant this"...then "oh sure, both sides are equally bad"....then "I'm the victim here!"
Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 @ 2:18pm
And the thing is...he does it over and over and over and over.
Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
For some reason, up until fairly recently (past several months) I had Darin pegged in the 'somewhat reasonable' camp. But now it seems like every post starts off with some REALLY lame, almost idoitic, comment. And rather than simply admit that he got a bit carried away, he falls into the same routine (just as you described) to try to rationalize it...because he CAN'T prove it.
I have only a select few on ignore, mostly because they seem to only enagage in spewing unsupported (and unsupportable) stupidity motivated soley by a desire to insult 'the libs'.
Lately, I've been wondering why I ever thought Darin resaonable...
...and exactly how he is different from those I've placed on ignore.
Posted by Lillian at 05/31/2008 @ 3:52pm
And here are my final thoughts on Darin's lame diversion...
You brought up divorce, welfare, spousal abuse, etc. and tried to link them (statistcally, no less) to being 'Democrat'. Really pretty pathetic.
Instead try doing some actual research and looking at actual statistics.
In which states (Republican or Democrat) do we find the highest rates of divorce? (Here, I already did the research for you.) The top 10, in order...
Nevada, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming, Indiana, Alabama, Idaho, New Mexico, Florida. (Next in line are Arizona, Kentucky, and Mississippi)
Now tell us again about how Republicans 'love' more.
How about teen pregnancy? Which states have the highest rates, Republican or Democrat?
Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Arkansas, Luisiana, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee. (Next up are Nevada, S. Carolina, n. Carolina, Kentucky, and Colorado.)
Which states receive the most Federal aide (you know - you guys like to call it welfare...a handout...feeding at the government trough on other people's money). Do think th etop 10 will be Republican or Democrat? (Here, I already did the research for you again) The top 10, in order...
New Mexico, Mississippi, N. Dakota, W. Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, Alabama, Virginia, Hawaii, S. Dakota. (Next up are Oklahoma and Luisiana).
You see Darin. I could go on like this all day. Poverty rates? Spousal abuse? Sexually transmitted deseases? Unemplolyment? Low vs higher education rates?
REAL statistics Darin. And the completely REFUTE your 'lame claim'.
Next time, try educating yourself BEFORE you open your mouth and say something really...
...STUPID!
Posted by Lillian at 05/31/2008 @ 8:09pm
"Actually, there aren't. A fairly recent George Will column tried to make this point by citing a book by Arthur Brooks that itself misrepresented a very poor study comparing 'charitable giving' between conservatives and liberals (which, of course, you've lamely morphed into 'Republicans and Democrats'.)
The study at the base of this bizarre claim was RIFE with problems. Chief among them was the rather loose and subjective definition of the two groups - conservative and liberal."
Posted by Lillian at 05/30/2008
I think you might have George F. Will mistakened for a chronicle written by Ben Gose.
"Much religious giving is akin to paying dues at a club; it goes for such things as paying salaries and keeping the lights on. And in their secular giving, Mr. Abramson says, it is conceivable that conservative and religious people may be more likely than liberal donors to give to charities like colleges and hospitals, which do not focus mainly on serving the poor. "Even if conservatives or religious people are more generous in that they give more, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're giving redistributively," Mr. Abramson says."
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Below is the link that directs you to the site of George F. Will's column.
"In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/03/27/conservatives_r eally_are_more_compassionate?page=2
But as Ben Gose's column summarizes Brooks recommendations, Democratic parties and Liberals are used in a sense of helping each other as opposed to Conservatives and Republicans. He writes:
"In his book Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, recommends numerous ways to increase charitable giving in the United States. Following is a summary of his recommendations:
Liberals should:
Ignore comments from people on the left wing of the Democratic Party who belittle the importance of charity.
Be wary of the idea that government offers the best solution to social issues, since such a viewpoint may weaken one's own resolve to take action or give away money.
Work to make the Democratic Party friendlier to religion, since religious people give more to charity than secular people do."
So would it be presumptuous to lump one group with a party when Republicans are not seen as Liberals?
"The love for one's child is the most selfless love a person can experience."
Posted by marybretbrad
"Having children is NOT evidence of 'selfless love'. I see eveidence every day that for many of the well-to-do, having children is a status symbol...like a 'trophy wife'.
The most selfless love a person can experience, is the love that leads one to 'the ultimate sacrifice'...for a squadmate, for a friend, for a complete stranger, or even for someone who is potentially an enemy."
Posted by Lilian
I don't agree. Your definition of the most selfless love is the 'ultimate sacrifice' for another person, albeit even a stranger, falls in the line of altruism. And altruistic act is done so not by personal benefit, but out of selfless concern for the welfare of others. But as marybretbrad pointed out, he states "love for one's own child is the most selfless love you can "experience", which I find true.
Because by 'ultimate sacrifice' we're speaking about laying down one's life here correct? Although you may choose to risk or lose your life for someone other than your child, in the end you don't "experience" that love because your either injured or dead. Hardly a state for "experiencing" the most selfless type of love.
Posted by sayiTainTs0 at 06/02/2008 @ 2:52pm
marybretbrad : ***As a broad generalization, people who have more kids are more selfless than people who have fewer kids, who are more selfless than people who have no kids.
There are plenty of people, many of whom are on welfare, who continue to have children depsite the fact that they cannot afford to raise them. How selfish is that?
To limit the family to a number that can be reasonably managed, to conciously decide upon the quality of life one wishes to provide to one's children, is the more selfless act. And the more responsible one.
Posted by Balrog at 05/30/2008
Good point. I'm related to someone who has more kids than responsibilities and hasn't had a job for I don't know how long. In this case it seems, more kids equal more of a paycheck when welfare checks is the only means to pay the bills. And that to me, isn't right. Because there's actually some people who don't exploit government spending at every chance. Anyhow, to diffuse the controversy by a statement made by marybretbrad, I read it and felt no offense that he "might've" meant that my sister is more selfless mother than I am because she has 5 kids and I have 2. I took it to mean that a parent with 5 children would have to spread themselves equally thin to benefit all those in the family.
But to keep this posting somewhat relevant to the thread, I'll say this. Ron Paul is the favorable Republican in my opinion. :-D
Posted by sayiTainTs0 at 06/02/2008 @ 3:08pm