Look. If Professor Boing-Boing manages to win the Iowa caucuses it proves only this. Caucuses are stupid. But didn’t we already know that?
Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses. …
Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party.
“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach,
No doubt about it. Professor Boing-Boing has loyal followers and they are organized, which in a caucus is a good thing. But the caucus process is no way to choose anything. Although they look like they might be fun if you and the boys got loaded at the local roadhouse before hand.
The fact that caucuses serve to give candidates like Pat Robertson and Professor Boing-Boing their moment in the sun only proves the point. I like caucuses less than Israel should like Prof. B-B, if that were possible.
December 21, 2011 at 3:13 am
"Wow, McClaren, you have a smear for anyone who happens to support Ron Paul, don't you? You sure love your mass murdering for Isrul, I'll give you that!"
It is one thing to be a paranoid ranter. At least be a paranoid ranter who can spell.
December 21, 2011 at 10:55 am
What, don't like it when YOUR name isn't correct??What an ego! LOL! Distract, smear, ad hominem. That is your complete debate repertoire.
December 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Mr. McClarey,
Thank you for pointing out the error I made in attributing the support for Dr. Ron Paul to Dr. Thomas Sowell, rather than to Dr. Walter Williams–the other black gentleman.
In regards to the confusion over Dr. Ron Paul's view of Israel, it would be appropriate at this time to remind you of the appearance of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the floor of the House, where he gave a speech, stating Israel does not need our help in defending her sovereignty.
Here is an excerpt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51-KA-Nc3_k
In response to your motherjones link, I have heard that argument, but just as how Democrats said there was not abortion funding in the Healthcare bill, made our good Bishops into lobbyists for the very bill that did include provisions for abortions. Sure, we could argue that in the end, the Bishops did not support the bill, but we cannot argue that it caused more confusion and even a split in the votes as evidenced by Sister Keehan's support for it. We were also told that the bill had a provision that excluded one from acting against their conscience.
Well, one year later and for time to come, we will still be suffering from the overreach of our government into the matters of life where abortion is promoted as healthcare.
This brings me to my point. Just because certain officials say the bill does not say this or that, does not mean we should't read it for ourselves to see what is in it. Do you have the text or language from the bill that proves your point?
What I do have readily available is a dialogue from the house floor between Senator Levin (who said that the language to detain citizens was in the bill, and when it was going to be taken out, Obama said–no, leave it in) and an unknown Senator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA
And in response to the abortion concern,
Ron Paul sees abortion as an act of violence and should be put in the hands of the states by first removing the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on such an issue.
Having to bring in a Supreme Court majority vote is a dangerous idea, because it could last for a very long time (as it has done since 1973). It is more dangerous to put our hopes in a pro-life majority vote by the Supreme Court.
Rather, we take it to congress and tell them that when the Supreme Court ruled on abortion, it did so unconstitutionally, and so the law provision made is illegal.
Sure, we can try to change the justices heart, but it should not be the only goal. We should also get congress to do it's job, by removing jurisdiction from the Supreme Court in matters that do not concern it.
Just because the statists use the tactics of bombarding the courts with bought justices or even just left-leaning justices does not mean we do the same.
I shouldn't write this much because perhaps it will be clearer to listen to this short clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS2mViZPPKA
That's all for now.
Phil O.
leoxiii@me.com
December 21, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Mr Archbold,
This video below is for you to watch. It explains why Dr. Ron Paul's foreign policy is the right foreign policy approach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo
Phil O.
leoxiii@gmail.com
December 21, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Full disclosure, I am an Iowan who will of course defend the caucus process. And I take a little issue with how you protray the process – it is not accurate. Come and see – be our guest!
Don't forget: The Iowa Caucuses made Obama. All candidates have the power to do what he did (and what you are asserting Paul is doing now). And maybe that's your larger point here. But there are 49 states who can correct any errors we as Iowans collectively make. Please don't blame the caucus.
December 21, 2011 at 9:14 pm
"What, don't like it when YOUR name isn't correct??What an ego! LOL! Distract, smear, ad hominem. That is your complete debate repertoire."
Actually it was more your inability to spell Israel correctly that raised my amused ire. That you were unable to spell my name correctly is only to be expected of a sloppy paranoid ranter.
December 21, 2011 at 9:26 pm
"Having to bring in a Supreme Court majority vote is a dangerous idea, because it could last for a very long time (as it has done since 1973). It is more dangerous to put our hopes in a pro-life majority vote by the Supreme Court.
Rather, we take it to congress and tell them that when the Supreme Court ruled on abortion, it did so unconstitutionally, and so the law provision made is illegal."
Our laws do not work that way Phil. The only way to reverse a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution is to have the Supreme Court reverse itself or to amend the Constituion. Congress cannot simply declare a Supreme Court ruling to be illegal. Congress lacks that power. Any such attempt would quickly be challenged in federal court and the result would be a foregone conclusion. There is no short cut here.
People arguing that Congress can simply remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court simply lack any understanding of the law in this area and the constitution.
Here is a good article detailing some of the problems with the approach of jurisdiction stripping:
http://www8.georgetown.edu/centers/cndls/applications/postertool/index.cfm?fuseaction=poster.display&posterID=1714
December 22, 2011 at 12:23 am
"In regards to the confusion over Dr. Ron Paul's view of Israel, it would be appropriate at this time to remind you of the appearance of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the floor of the House, where he gave a speech, stating Israel does not need our help in defending her sovereignty."
The problem Phil is that if Israel were left to her own devices, we would doubtless have a huge Middle Eastern war. Let's think this through. Ron Paul is elected President and announces that the US will no longer give any financial or military aid to Israel. He withdraws all US troops from bases in the Middle East. He announces that the US will no longer have any involvement in conflicts in the Middle East. This would send a message to Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, that it is time to move against Israel. The Iranian regime readies a nuclear weapon to be smuggled into Israel, or to be delivered by missile. Israel responds with conventional attacks initially, that will quickly go nuclear if Iran is viewed as having a credible nuclear strike weapon. Do you think the US and its interests would not be harmed by such a conflict?
The main problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy is that he views US intervention abroad as the cause of wars. Precisely the opposite is the truth. US influence is almost always deployed to avoid conflicts, keep them small if they occur, and attempt to end them as swiftly as possible. That is the main reason that the Middle East hasn't experience a full scale Israel v. Arab states war since the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Ron Paul seems to think that the absence of US intervention would lead to peace. In the Middle East I am certain that US retreat would lead to the biggest war in our lifetimes.
December 22, 2011 at 6:00 pm
It's blog posts like this that make me realize how much of a joke this blog is these days.
Lessons in logic: If "no-traction-in-the-polls" Santorum were to win the caucus, you would say the caucuses were a great platform for launching an underdog to the presidency. If Ron Paul wins it, the caucus is a horrible part of an already deteriorating electoral process. Your double standard reveals your obvious bias, because you are not reasoning logically.
Furthermore, if Romney or Gingrich had an army of supporters half as loyal as the ones who suppport Paul, you would say, "See, he's the man to get behind." But when Paul has them, it's because they are activist and he's organized. Did you ever stop and ask, "Well wait a minute, why is it that so many people support Ron Paul? Maybe I haven't given him a fair look."
I mean, do you really believe that a bunch of pot-smokers donated over 4 million to his campaign in an online money bomb last weekend?
The problem with bloggers is that, after a while, they think that everything they have to say has value.
December 23, 2011 at 12:21 am
"Actually it was more your inability to spell Israel correctly that raised my amused ire."
Yes. I'm sure that is what raised your "amused ire".
Predictably pompous response.