Mike Huckabee, the jovial and fun-loving acoustic guitar playing ex-governor who had the power to say horrifically ignorant things about homosexuality and science yet still make you chuckle, declared he has no intention of running for the 2012 Republican nomination. Meanwhile, perennial losing presidential candidate Ron Paul (the republican Ralph Nader) and Newt “I love the 90s” Gingrich officially announced their respective candidacies. In a painfully obvious (and fruitless) attempt to sway young voters, Newt Gingrich announced his candidacy via social media, which is probably the most exciting thing he has ever done or will do.
Perhaps Mike Huckabee reached the same conclusion as America did: the GOP presidential field is lamer than Osama Bin Laden’s erections. It seems a week’s old meatloaf would infer more credibility as a candidate to defeat the man that just help kill the world’s most wanted terrorist. Lord knows it would be less moldier than Newt Gingrich. In fact, the GOP itself has taken a look at the the sideshow of horror running for president and felt less and less happy about the choices.
According to a recentAssociated Press-GfK poll, approximately 45 percent now say they’re dissatisfied with the GOP candidates who have declared or are thought to be serious about running, up from 33 percent two months ago. More troublesome, only 41 percent are satisfied with the likely Republican field, down from 52 percent. Really, GOP?
It would seem all the enthusiasm from the 2010 midterm election Republican victories has all but evaporated, as the race to topple the radical Kenyan socialist has proven to be a little more tricky. We’ve all come to know who’s pretending to run, but let’s take a look at who’s actually running.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich have declared their intentions and are in it to win….sorta. Many consider Ron Paul to be unelectable, which has always bothered me. Many may disagree with some of Mr. Paul’s economic solutions and monetary policies, including a desire to return to the gold standard, but the Texas Congressmen does something that most campaigning Democrats and Republicans absolutely refuse to do: he prefers principle and the historical philosophical underpinnings of his party over party talking points, scripted partisanship, focus groups, and all the nauseatingly simplistic ans superficial elements that make up US elections.
Ron Paul had a stellar moment of clarity in the first Republican debate when he said those who spread the lie that it was all Muslims throughout the world who attacked America on that September morning are also those who seem to favor the most wars in the most places, usually so long as other Americans fight them. Kudos! Like thinking republicans before him (way before George Bush and weather girl Sarah Palin), Ron Paul vehemently believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Moreover, one that is humble and does not exploit one of our greatest assets, the military, to pursue its own petty vendettas or adventurism. Mr. Paul is famed for schooling Rudy “I appeared on television the most on 9/11″ Giuliani on foreign policy during a 2008 Republican presidential debate. Paul has now said, those who spread the lie that it was all Muslims throughout the world who attacked America on that September morning are also those who seem to favor the most wars in the most places, usually so long as other Americans fight them.Ron Paul used the 1953 US backed CIA coup of then democratically-elected president Mohammad Mossadegh to explain the damage that an interventionist policy can have when it comes to violent blowback
“The tired assertion that America ‘supports democracy’ in the Middle East is incrasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today”
But while Ron Paul displays a refreshing and audacious ability to speak from the gut, he also displays a dangerous mindset that reflects some of the more severe libertarian propensities. Case in point, Ron Paul recently compared social security and medicare to slavery. During an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, Ron Paul compared abolishing medicare and social security similar to the abolition of slavery:
“You talk a lot about the Constitution,” Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted Sunday. “You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.”
“Technically they are,” Paul insisted. “There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution — liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause.”
Firstly, discussing matters pertaining to the Constitution on Fox News is like discussing matters pertaining to cannibalism on the Food Network. But even Chris Wallace seemed to be stunned by Mr. Paul’s assertion that Social Security is somehow a liberal invention.
“Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It’s the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,” Wallace explained.
“The Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. We had to reverse that. So, I tell you. Just because a court in ’37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government, no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea,” Paul opined.
Ron Paul does have the remarkable gift of politely invoking thought while simultaneously causing immediate aversion and bewilderment–unlike Trump and Bachmann–who just invoke setups for my stand-up comedy routine and fodder for the American Psychological Association.
What’s left is a pizza guy, a serial adulterist who claims to have cheated out of ”patriotism,” a total cipher and Ex-governor of Minnesota, a flip-flopping Mormon/Macy’s mannequin and, of course, Ron Paul. I would love nothing more than to go right ahead and declare Barack Obama’s reelection a success, but I truly look forward to seeing Mitt Romney criticize his own healthcare mandate policy as Governor of Massachusetts. You know, the one that was used as a template in the creation of the Affordable Health Act. It will be the apex of Irony. Better yet, it will be like an orgy of irony.
Related posts:
Sky Masterson, in Guys and Dolls, notably said that if a man wants to bet you that a jack will jump out of the deck and spit cider in your ear, don’t bet against him, or you’ll wind up with an ear full of cider. Well, I keep feeling llike that Jack of Cider is around here someplace.
right, wrong or indifferent, Ron Paul does have something that none of the other candidates have and that’s integrity. In fact, that’s probably something none of them will ever have. While I am in complete agreement was not sending our military overseas unless it’s required, there are many many other things that I do not agree with Mr. Paul on. And I noticed that many of the Paul supporters are just like the Sarah Palin supporters. They repeat his every word as if it’s gospel whether it’s right or not.
Unfortunately, where the Ron Paul, tea party and Republican adventures come together is in the fact that they don’t mind seeing the poor and lower classes of America living in the streets.
I believe the Republicans are handing this election to Obama. Unless as I noted earlier someone is coming out of the wings at the last moment, they have absolutely nobody. Romney is the first person that comes to mind who could get the nomination, but how many people would follow him and fully support him. Given that he couldn’t get anyplace at the last run for the presidency.
it’s hard to fathom when you put it all together. Congressional Republicans doing their best to cut the legs out from under Americans and then the Republican Party not having a single candidate that you could do anything but sneer at
The difference between Ron Paul and all of the other candidates is the constitution applies equally to all Americans all of the time. Every other candidate would have the constitution as long as it furthers their agenda. All you have to do is watch the recent debate in SC for all the examples.
I do not believe Ron Paul is about putting people in the street or outlined a policy that would have such a result.
Really? But then he would have to sign bills like SS and other nice non total self responsibility. Demand taxes to help others. If what you say is true, then he is not the man you think he is
Social services are best handled by the state. As it collects revenue, it takes care of the citizens of that state. This forces the states to do a good job of helping people and making it a good place to live. If they don’t, the people will leave. Now, instead of the fed gov’t being the sole provider, there would be competition and all would benefit. If the federal gov’t was so good, then why has trillions of dollars been spent and we have many more poor people? I submit the federal gov’t that has evolved is not about helping, it is about control. They control everything.
Ron Paul is about returning the power to the states who are best able to help their own people.
Sorry, the states, as proven by Wisconsin are far too easily corrupted.
You are making the assumption that the states would be better than the Fed which is not true in any case. You would have the same amount of poor people no matter who spends the trillions. You are asking for the states of America instead of the United states of America. Also, nothing would be cheaper. The state will still need to tax you for the money the fed used to send to it in assistance
Some states will do it better and some will not. People will vote with their feet.
It is not an assumption. It is a simple law of economics.
Do you shop where you are not taken care of? Of course not. If there is only one store, you have to buy what is on the shelf. With 50 stores there would be 50 choices.
With all the money that has been spent, the problem is worse with the one store. I vote for 50 stores.
You vote for 50 separate states. Different laws, different rewards, different punishments all based on a line on the map. The fed is not one state, it IS 50 states. Without it we still will have 50 totally separate states which is not what the constitution is for. You still have 50 states to buy from
Sorry, just have to ask it: Doesn’t anyone proofread or edit copy there? The story above is a prime example of someone’s lack of oversight. However, that said, it’s important to get the progressive point-of-view out to as many Americans as possible. Poor editing and puerile comments weaken the message. (Bin Laden’s erections? Really?)
The reference is to Bin ladens large collection of porn found among his property. Keep up
no matter who runs, the house wins.
Yeah, where is that Jack of Cider? I keep smelling sour apples someplace.
He did not compare slavery to medicare. He pointed out that the supreme court does not always follow the constitution. In fact very seldom does the court.
Hey everyone, somewhat off topic, but here’s more proof (as if we need any) that Palin supporters are clinically insane:
I’m still boggling… I can’t believe I actually read this (I’m betting they’ll change it, so look fast!)
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/gallup-palin-thus-must-be-considered-one-of-the-gop-leaders-at-this-pointopen-thread.html
The gist is this:
“I’ll go ahead and predict that Michele Bachmann will not run for the presidency and that she’s only trying to scam people for money. Otherwise, she would have jumped in already as there was no good reason for her to delay an announcement considering how she’s polling in the race.”
So… they’re saying that because Bachmann hasn’t yet declared, but is still collecting money, she is clearly just scamming people out of their money.
Meanwhile, Sarah also hasn’t declared and is still collecting money (in fact, she just sent out a mailer to 400,000 supporters asking for donations to SarahPAC over the weekend)… and so… whuh?
When you read the comments on various articles on this site, what you see again and again is endless praise for Palin’s “brilliant political instincts” SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE she hasn’t declared yet!
So, in a Palinbot’s twisted brain:
Bachmann still hasn’t declared but is raising money = SCAM ARTIST!
Palin still hasn’t declared but is raising money = BRILLIANT STRATEGY!
Please… someone make the hurting stop…
LOL they are eating Romney alive over there. There they are with the polls again
I cant take it over there(Im still banned lol). Those people are hilarious!
They’re eating EVERYONE WHO ISN’T PALIN alive over there! It’s like a piranha tank!
)
Oh man… the hilarity just keeps coming… here’s what another “bright point of light” on the Sea o’ Pee just said about Bachmann:
“…her opportunism after 2008 points to a self-interested pol she constantly tries to find her spot in the debate to call attention to herself.
She’s shown she is only fed information which explains her unforced errors (Lexington)…”
Seriously… these people clearly have NO sense of irony whatsoever…
Boscoe I want you to promise us you will shower after being over there
LOL with bleach!
Looky, I posted the same comment over at the Immoral minority and it inspired an actual post! To quote Trump: “I’m very, very proud of myself…”
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2011/05/sea-opee-is-apparently-irony-free-zone.html
Sarah Palin is a scam artist of the first order,and a totally ridiculous person.What does that say for anyone who would give her a dime of their money,while she jets around and they probably have little or nothing compared!?
Shiva, Ron Paul does not have integrity, sorry.
He is a known anti-Semite and rascist. People try to argue and say that’s not so but if you dig out newsletters he used to write in the old days there isn’t a doubt. And the arguments that he just doesn’t want to fund Israel and he just wants to do away with the civil right act because of the constitution are BS. Ask people who really know him and you’ll find out the truth. He has no integrity.
While I agree with you, integrity and being a racist are two different things. By integrity I mean that he sticks to his beliefs which is something that very very few of our representatives do. I never said he was a good person.
That’s true, the guy sticks to his guns even when it scuttles his presidential ambitions, which is pretty much every time he opens his mouth.
I occasionally like what he says, but everything else he says combined with the Ayn Rand fetishism will prevent me from ever voting for him.
It actually makes me mad that I’m “forced” to vote for Obama. I’d like to at least have to make a choice, but it’s just not real when there’s only one reasonable option.
@Catherine.
Please post a link to a newsletter.
Palin/Bachmann 2012!!