Tag Archives: iowa caucus

The Cult of Ron Paul: single-issue denialists and apologists

Posted on by


image: ryking

RON PAUL’S RECORD on terrorism — he’s no saint:

Primarily, Paul voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). This law granted unprecedented power to the president including, as some have argued, the right to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, the right to torture terrorism suspects and the right to wiretap and eavesdrop on American citizens.

Secondly, Paul introduced a bill which would have allowed the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal — hire bounty hunters to apprehend “dead or alive” members of al-Qaeda. As I wrote yesterday, we can only presume this would have included al-Qaeda member and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

10 REASONS NOT to vote for Ron Paul: (see link for details)

  1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
  2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
  3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
  4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
  5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
  6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
  7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
  8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
  9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
  10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.

But LEGAL DRUGS and NO WARS EVAH! lol, right.

“Ron Paul is the perfect candidate for the bigots in this country. He is not like the racists who paraded in white sheets or the David Dukes who stated their allegiance to the ideas of Hitler. No, he is the affable avuncular relative with a twinkle in his eye and voice that doesn’t ever sound shrill, but more like that of your kindly and occasionally crotchety uncle. He doesn’t have to wear an armband or use a stretched arm salute, and you can be sure he regrets the revelation of the earlier hate writings in his newsletters.” — Ed Koch (via ronpaulsucks)

Rick Santorum considers birth control “dangerous”

Posted on by

He thinks states should be able to outlaw birth control — even for married couples. Yesterday, Jake Tapper brought up this issue with Santorum — beginning in the video below at 1:54:

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”


…

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” — Rick Santorum, October 18, 2011 (via: ilyagerner)

“A license to do things in a sexual realm…” wtf does that mean?!

Mitt Romney, with regard to lobbyists running your campaign, will you please define “running”

Posted on by

(Dec/2011): Mitt Romney gets testy with a reporter, what bothers me most about this is the attitude from the staffer telling him not to be argumentative with the candidate and for him to “save his opinions” – the reporter is doing his job, this is exactly what reporters are supposed to do.

He seems pretty testy that he actually got called out on his bullshit, we need more of this. — via: abaldwin360


…

From the video: Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist for Dutko Worldwide. His clients have included FedEx, Sprint Nextel, Union Pacific, and United Health Care.

Mitt Romney, who once hit John McCain for lobbyists, gets advice from one of them | 01/02/2012: Romney has also getting campaign advice anew from two Washington lobbying figures who also counseled his 2008 campaign. Ron Kaufman, former chairman of the Dutko Group Worldwide and now senior adviser to Dutko Grayling, has been traveling across the country with Romney, providing advice and conducting strategic meetings. Meanwhile, Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman who now works as managing director of Clark & Weinstock, is reprising his role as a campaign policy adviser. It was the roles of Kaufman, as well as Weber, that sparked a January 2008 confrontation between Romney and a reporter.

Mitt Romney Raised More Campaign Cash From Lobbyists Than All Other 2012 GOP Candidates Combined  | 08/10/2011: Another major lobbying firm providing prominent support to Romney’s bid is Dutko Worldwide. Seven currently registered Dutko lobbyists are supporting Romney’s campaign and have contributed $14,750 so far this year. Dutko Chairman Ron Kaufman, who has not registered to lobby in 2011 despite registering every year for the past twelve years, contributed $2,500 to Romney’s campaign. In 2008, Kaufman’s work as an unpaid advisor to Romney’s campaign became a point of controversy after Romney declared, “I don’t have lobbyists running my campaign.”

Boston.com | 11/29/2011: One of Mitt Romney’s top advisers [Ron Kaufman] works for a lobbying firm that once represented Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar energy firm that has come under scrutiny for the federal loans it received – and has been criticized by Romney himself.

WaPo | 08/04/2011: Mitt Romney has dispatched three senior campaign officials to hold strategy briefings with Republican National Committee members at the RNC’s summer meeting here, as Romney tries to consolidate the party establishment around his 2012 candidacy. [...] Ron Kaufman, a longtime RNC member from Massachusetts and a close adviser and fundraiser for Romney, is also another co-host.

Are the Koch Brothers Trying to Put Mitt Romney in the White House?: But here is where it begins to get really interesting: What do William  Koch, Donald Trump, Andrew Card, a Chief of Staff for George W. Bush and a former Transportation Secretary, and Ron Kaufman, Card’s brother-in-law (who is also Mitt Romney’s closest lobbying buddy, (the one who got him in deep water in 2008 when he fibbingly claimed he wasn’t beholden to lobbyists) all have in common?

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for 30 years of unapologetic contradictions and conspiracy theories

Posted on by


source: manilaryce

Source: Ron Paul’s book via: liberalsarecool — This from a doctor.

REMINDER via gop-circus:

The Federal Government can’t violate the rights of its citizens-only state governments have that right

Ron Paul’s positions on civil liberties issues aren’t actually about civil liberties as we understand them- they’re about his opposition to Federal authority.

For example, with the  death penalty, he makes clear that he opposes it only at the Federal level. His opposition to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Drugs, and domestic surveillance come from the same root as his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He has no real objection to states violating the rights of their citizens; it’s only a problem if the Feds do it.

Do we see the warped logic in this yet, people?

If you want a new war, vote Santorum

Posted on by


…

THIS IS SANTORUM’S CRITICISM OF THE U.S. RESPONSE to the 2009 Iranian protests and Daniel Larison’s response:

Iran’s mullahcracy has been at war with us for over 30 years. And in 2009 there was a chance to end that. There was a chance for freedom in Iran. I have been a believer and an advocate for that possibility since my service in the Senate. I authored the Iran Freedom Support Act which, among other things, provided millions of dollars for the pro-democracy movement in Iran. At first my bill was opposed by both President Bush and Senator Obama. Both eventually relented, but neither implemented that provision while president.

As a result we were not ready when the spark struck. So, rather than supporting the dissidents there-dissidents asking for our help-the president continued his policy of engaging (and effectively supporting) the mullahcracy. The result? The dissidents were brutally crushed. Now, instead of being able to face a leadership in Iran that would be grateful to us today, we still have the same leadership in Iran that wants to destroy us and our allies in the region.

Let us make no mistake about what happened there: We sided with evil because our president believes our enemies are legitimately aggrieved and thus we have no standing to intervene.

Let’s count up the false and misleading statements. Contrary to what Santorum said, the Green movement did not represent an opportunity to overthrow the regime. That was not the Green movement’s purpose or its goal. There was nothing that the U.S. could have constructively done that would have aided them, so the charge of being unprepared is rather silly. It is a matter of record that Iranian NGOs found U.S. funding to be more of a detriment than an advantage, and it is also the case that the Green movement generally did not want U.S. or other foreign assistance. So it has nothing to do with believing that enemies are “legitimately aggrieved,” and a lot to do with the recognition that the Iranian opposition didn’t want and couldn’t use our help.

Oddly enough, one reason that the Green movement didn’t want U.S. assistance was exactly the reason Santorum gave for why the U.S. should have provided it: to make a new Iranian leadership indebted to us. The second half of their slogan, which was “na menat’e Amrika,” meant that the Green movement did not want to owe anyone outside their country.

There’s more…

AND HERE’S A GREAT OBSERVATION about military-industrial complex and a war with Iran, via: mohandasgandhi:

P.S. Halliburton sold Iran nuclear technology something like 4 years ago. So, we’re sanctioning a country we sold nuclear technology to because we don’t want them to have it, which could potentially lead to a war that Halliburton would profit from.

This is how the military industrial complex works.

The Iowa Caucus: did you know…

Posted on by


image: theamericanprospect

Did you know Iowa caucuses are open? Meaning:

[I]ndependents and Democrats can choose to go to cast their vote in the GOP race.

Also:

  • Only 46 percent said they were evangelical or fundamentalist Christians.
  • A majority, 54 percent, said they were definitely not.
  • 7 percent of Republican primary voters view themselves a supporter of the Tea Party. But NBC/Marist data from Iowa shows a 46 – 47 split against support of the conservative movement.
  • nearly 30 percent of GOP caucus-goers say they’re in the “moderate” or even “liberal” category.

Read more

This chart / brain scan of a seizure is beginning to make a little more sense now:

This means Michele Bachmann may very well get her miracle after all! : )

Related:

Who’s ahead in Iowa?

Posted on by

According to the TPM Poll Average as of Saturday afternoon: Romney 22.4%, Paul 17.2%, Santorum 16%, Gingrich 13.7%. Gingrich is (now) only a couple points ahead of Perry and Bachmann. And Santorum is SURGING:

If this chart looks to you, as it does to me, like a brain scan charting a seizure… well, I don’t think that’s an unfair analogy to make regarding the Iowa conservative voters.

Romney and Paul neck and neck in Iowa

Posted on by

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul are running neck-and-neck in Iowa, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is surging (ick!) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich collapsing just four days before the state’s Jan. 3 caucuses, according to a new NBC News-Marist poll. Romney drew the support of 23 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa – identified based on interest, chance of voting and past participation – ahead of Paul, at 21 percent. — MSNBC

Real talk:

via

Grand Old Party (of hypocrites): voter fraud and ID requirements edition

Posted on by

Proving, again and again, that Republicans are not only hypocritical, but don’t really believe there’s ‘massive’ voter fraud happening — they just want to suppress the vote of people they disagree with:

“For all of their years of claims that massive voter fraud is going on at the polling place, such that photo ID restrictions are required to ensure the integrity of the vote, you’d think that when Republicans have a chance to run their own elections, they’d be sure to want it to be as “fraud”-free as possible.

Nonetheless, despite onerous polling place photo ID requirements now passed into law in about a dozen states where the GOP controls both the legislative and executive branches, voters will be able to cast their ballot in next Tuesday’s “First-in-the-Nation” Republican Iowa caucuses without bothering to show a photo ID — even though the Republican Party itself sets their own rules for voting there.”

Republicans Require No Photo ID to Vote in Republican Iowa Caucus

We didn’t need any more proof that the GOP’s voter ID efforts were aimed at suppressing the votes of Democratic constituencies, but it’s always nice to have. (via ryking)

And in case you think YOUR vote DOESN’T matter, why do you think the GOP goes to such lengths to suppress it?