Anecdotal evidence

I'm driving back today from Wilmington, N.C., to America's Glans™, at the end of an emotional, exhausting, and sometimes tumultuous journey. I even have another Tale from a Wingnut Family to share, but that will have to wait ...

In the meantime, I should mention my unscientific-but-nevertheless-enlightening observations regarding campaign paraphernalia on this trip.

Granted, I don't have an exact tally, but I've seen probably six to eight Obama bumper stickers, around three "Hillary" stickers, maybe five Ron Paul bumper stickers and yard signs (!) ... and exactly zero stickers or signs for Huggy Bear. And this has been a trip through Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas.

I think it's safe to conclude that Huggy has his work cut out for him. At least that's true using classic wingnut logic -- you know, where the plural of "anecdote" is "data."

UPDATE (3:50 pm 6/12/08): Just spotted my first McCain bumper sticker a few minutes ago, outside of Savannah, Ga., on a pickup truck with South Carolina plates.

Well, there's one, anyway. I was beginning to wonder if Huggy's campaign even had bumper stickers.

Ron Paul: Nepotism is his middle name

I'd forgotten, frankly, that Ron Paul was still running for president. Most of his batshit-crazy supporters (which of course includes all of them) seem to have quieted down, which is terrific, since they are all pretty much unglued in one way or another -- or, in many cases, more than one.

Anyway, the campaign continues, and now I think I know why: it's a great way to enrich Paul's own family!

Stick with your own kind, says [Paul,] the maverick presidential candidate.

And that's more or less what he has been doing over the past few months, putting relatives in a slew of key positions and paying them a total of $169,063, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting.

Campaign aides said they discussed the possibility that involving so many family members could create the impression that nepotism was driving hiring decisions, but ultimately they saw no problem with the practice.

"You always think about those kinds of things," said Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman and, it just so happens, the fiance of one of the candidate's granddaughters (he has been paid $54,573). "But his family is very important to him. There is something important about having a family element involved in a campaign. Having people around you that you can unconditionally trust."

Nice going, Paulistas. You keep pouring money into your racist whackjob hero's campaign, and he just passes it right on to his relatives. In fact, here's a handy chart (right) of the family money tree.

I mean, over $3,000 just to maintain a MySpace profile? Hey, I'm not on MySpace, but I'm on Facebook, so if ol' Ron wants to write me a $3,000 check, I'll happily keep track of him on Facebook.

I've been laughing at Ron Paul on this sucky blog for almost a year now. But now it appears the joke actually is on his supporters.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: the Republican Party

You know, it's funny to hear the "pundits" and blowhards in the mainstream media talk about how the Democratic Party is disintegrating as the Clinton-Obama battle continues (needlessly, I say, but what the hell do I know? I'm just a lousy DFH ...). In actuality, the Democratic Party will coalesce soon around Sen. Obama, while the Republicans are facing mutiny.

[Q]uietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul [(right, with his magic 8-ball)] have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.

Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.

But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated a month ago in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.

[...]

The last three months Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upwards of one million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced federal government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a longterm revolution for control of the Republican Party.

So eager are they to follow their leader's words, that Paul's supporters have driven his new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," to the top of several bestseller lists.

Oh, this is too funny. The Paulistas, who are even less willing to quit when they're behind than is Hillary Clinton, are going to force their radical agenda into the Republican convention. I'd like to quote a prominent Republican by saying: Bring it on.

Hey, Paulistas -- you got about a million total votes. A million. Nice work, I suppose, but still a pittance when compared with the less-batshit-crazy Republican candidates like Huggy Bear and Mitt Romney. I admire and respect your tenacity, Paulistas, but face it: you lost. Not only did you lose, but you continue to hitch your wagon to a batshit crazy racist fuck who wants to return the country to the rollicking days of the 19th Century.

So, Paulistas, go ahead and disrupt the GOP convention all you want ... but when that's done, please just go away. Your villages need their idiots back. Until then, all glory goes to the Republican Party, because today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Republicans

What a day. Republicans across America awoke to discover that their worst nightmare had come true: Huggy Bear had won the presidential nomination. Granted, there must be some Republicans who like the guy, or else he wouldn't have won the nomination in the first place. But who are they? Who are the big fans of Huggy?

Fundie Christianists? Nope. Their guy, Mike Huckabee, hung on as long as he could, and Huggy has done his best to align himself with that wing of the party. But they can't stand him for being too "liberal" (hardly) and for not vowing to bring the Constitution more in line with God's will, or something like that.

Social Conservatives? Not a chance. They hung their collective hats (and, presumably, landed their 737s) on Mitt Romney, but there was no there there, to coin a phrase.

Fiscal Conservatives? Maybe, but their vision of the GOP died with Barry Goldwater. The Republican Party of Reagan and the Bushes has been anything but fiscally conservative, as Reagan and Drunky McStagger each gave us historic budget deficits and spent money like Rush Limbaugh on an oxy bender in the Dominican.

Bigots and racists? They think Huggy is too weak on immigration and on compartmentalizing brown people, so no go here, either.

Warmongers? This really seems to be the only source of support for Huggy Bear, and even that support is tepid at best. He's been burnishing his creds with them for the whole campaign, turning his former opposition to Drunky's management of the war into rousing support for another century of killing the dirty, dirty Muslims who presumably occupy his every waking moment and haunt his dreams with threats of horrible things they'd do to him if, you know, they cared. These really are the 19-percenters, the poor saps who still love Drunky no matter what, the ones who, well, would give him a hug if they had a chance.

So, really, there's plenty of schadenfreude to go around.

To Rush Limbaugh, who encouraged his listeners in Ohio to cross party lines and vote for Hillary Clinton: be careful what you wish for, pal -- you've got a resurgent, energized Clinton who still will beat McCain (whom you can't stand anyway) in the general, and you've managed to get Obama focused on winning the nomination himself, which can only be good news for honing the Democratic message.

To Mike Huckabee, who finally withdrew from the race when Huggy clinched the nomination, you and your crazed Christianist supporters have to pick up the pieces and figure out how you lost control of the Republican Party in the first place. Hey, I thought you still had it, too, so don't ask me. But here's a hint: quit telling people what to do and how to act. That might be a good start.

To Ron Paul, who seems to have hung on to his House seat despite a solid challenge, maybe you and your crazed ... well, just crazed supporters can crawl back into the holes whence you came and fade back into obscurity. Please, leave government and political philosophy for the grown-ups, okay? Or, if you prefer, run a futile third-party campaign for president. That actually wouldn't suck as far as I'm concerned. Just quit telling me how your racist, archaic philosophy somehow stands for "freedom," 'cause it doesn't.

And to Republicans everywhere, you've got to get behind a guy who thinks the last seven years have been just peachy. Another Bush term of office? Figure out a way to spin that, because you're about to be hoist on your own petard.

In the meantime, congratulations, you ridiculous lunatics of the GOP -- today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Poking the beehive

Excuse me, but I have a simple request:

Would Ron Paul please end his Pyrrhic campaign for the GOP presidential nomination? His support roughly equals the approval rating for head lice and pus, and he needs to fade back into obscurity so his batshit crazy supporters* will shut the hell up.

Thanks in advance.

---

* Honestly, I haven't decided whether it's his supporters who are batshit crazy, or the candidate himself, or both. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

The honorable thing to do

On Monday, one particularly moronic MSNBC talking head said that John Edwards should drop out of the presidential campaign if he does poorly tomorrow in South Carolina because "it would be the honorable thing to do." Obviously, this "pundit" lacks brain function beyond only those basic requirements for life, because he clearly has no higher brain activity of any kind.

You want to talk about hypocrisy of the press? Where are the pundits saying that Rudy Giuliani should drop out because he has yet to reach double digits in any state? What about the Candidate for the Insane, Ron Paul? He's far less of a factor in his race than Edwards is in his ... so why's he still taken seriously? Just because Paul can persuade a bunch of too-clever-by-half college students and disaffected fringe political junkies and anti-war advocates* to follow him off the cliff doesn't mean that he deserves a seat at the table anymore.

On behalf of all sentient Americans everywhere (and "pundits," too), I hereby call on Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani to drop out of the presidential campaign. It would be the honorable thing to do.

---

* Yeah, I'm anti-war, too but, by way of clarification, I'm not a racist insane douchebag like Ron Paul.

How to win friends and influence people ... NOT

Way to go, Democrats.

Rather than taking advantage of the grossly dysfunctional Republican Party, which is disintegrating under the weight of seven years of reckless and criminal behavior by the Bush crime syndicate, the Democratic Party is finding new ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Here in America's Glans™, they're doing an especially good job of alienating young voters.

Florida Atlantic University's student Democrats have been on top for a long time at the Boca Raton campus, where the consensus is that liberals outnumber conservatives.

But this year, with primary debates coming to FAU and students more aware than ever of presidential politics, it's the Republicans who may have the upper hand.

Some students are taking the Democrats' likely snub of the FAU debates more personally because it's their school that's being stood up.

The Democrats' absence would be punishment for Florida for holding an earlier primary than national party rules allow, although the candidates will continue to attend fund-raisers here.

"I work really hard on promoting these candidates and their ideals and then they don't come," said Sapna Talati, 19, who won a debate ticket for her essay on student apathy. "I put a lot of effort into the essay and now I feel like it was just a wasted effort."

Republican candidates are scheduled to debate Thursday. FAU is still hoping the Democrats will debate as scheduled Jan. 27.

The events will air live on MSNBC starting at 9 p.m.

Talati, president of the FAU College Democrats, is unlikely to change her vote, but she attained her position in the club when former president Marcus Nielson, 19, jumped ship to support U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican candidate from Texas.

"It gives people the impression that the candidates don't care enough to stand up to their own party," Nielson said of the Democratic snub. "Someone told me today she changed her affiliation so she could vote for Ron Paul because the Democrats weren't coming and her vote wouldn't count."

Look, Howard Dean, I love you, man, really I do. I firmly believe your Fifty-State Strategy won Congress for the Democrats in '06. But, seriously, can you back down already on the party's threats to punish candidates for campaigning in Florida? Do you see what's happening? Students are abandoning the party to support some insane goofball who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and screw the lower and middle classes worse than even Drunky McStagger has! Ron Paul, for FSM's sake?! Is that really what you want?

I get the reason you wanted Florida to have a later primary. You wanted to preserve the early primaries -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina -- out of a sense of history and obligation. Fine. So Florida came in ahead of the February 5 window. We're still later than those four states!! The spirit of the rule is intact, if not the letter of it.

I'm all for taking a stand on principle, Dr. Dean. Hell, I do it all the time myself, and yeah, sometimes to my detriment. But please ... please ... in the name of all that is good and decent about progressive thought and politics, just back off and let the candidates come here. If you don't, the Democrats might lose a lot more than just face.

Whistling past the graveyard

Unbelievable.

Just arriving at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa. And what to my wondering eyes does appear but ... the Ron Paul blimp.

You'd think that a guy who can't get onto a Fox News debate and whose poll numbers are lower than his shoe size would have bigger fish to fry than spending money on a blimp over the NFL playoffs.

But what do I know? I'm just a DFH with, you know, sense and intelligence. Unlike certain faux libertarians I know ...

Ron Paul takes donation from south Florida white supremacist

I keep saying Ron Paul is batshit crazy, and I keep hearing that no, he's not, you just don't understand his positions, he just wants freedom, yadda yadda fuckin' yadda.

Now hear this: Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

[...]

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing America's borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

On his Web site, Black says he has been involved in "the White patriot movement for 30 years."

Paul's spokesman says the candidate will keep the money "and try to spread the message of freedom." Good luck with that. How much freedom will $500 buy these days, anyway?

Now, the obvious question: can you imagine if a Democratic candidate had taken such a contribution and vowed to keep it?

Actually, you don't have to imagine it. Remember Norman Hsu? Hillary Clinton gave her Hsu contributions to charity, under relentless pressure from the MWM ("mainstream wingnut media") and others in the brain-free community. Can we expect the same relentless pressure to force Ron Paul similarly to divest himself of racist money?

No, I didn't think so. After all, like Drunky McStagger and his haves and have-mores, Stormfront and that deplorable ilk are Paul's loyal base.

Struggling with electability

Four years ago, I worked tirelessly for Howard Dean's presidential campaign as a Meetup leader, organizer, and canvasser in Michigan. Probably the biggest obstacle we faced -- pre-scream, anyway -- was the notion of "electability." I remember being so frustrated because I never could understand why so many people believed Gov. Dean was "unelectable," when I knew full well that not only was he "electable," but in fact he was the best person for the job of president.

Now as we approach 2008, presumably four years older, four years wiser, and four years more disgusted with the unconscionably destructive behavior of the Bush crime syndicate, we are encountering the "electability" meme again. And it's just as vague and inscrutable as ever.

What does it mean for a candidate to be, or not to be, electable? And, more to the point, how does one get to be electable, and can a candidate overcome the perception that he or she is not electable?

My personal struggle with the concept of electability arises as I try to determine whom, if anyone, I will endorse for the Democratic presidential nomination and, specifically, for the Florida Democratic primary. Ultimately, my beliefs and ideals are probably most closely aligned with those of Dennis Kucinich, but I have been most outspoken in my support of positions taken by John Edwards. Try as I might, I have found it difficult to overcome the feeling that Kucinich is not "electable." And I'm upset with myself when I think that way. I mean, in theory, isn't every candidate electable? Well, yes, by definition ... if you use a literal definition of the word as "capable of being elected," that is, of garnering enough votes to win.

But I think "electability" has taken on a meaning rife with subtext these days. To be "electable" means more than the ability to get the most votes. In short, it means having the charisma to draw regular positive (or at least neutral) media coverage. It means avoiding the label of "crazy" or "fringe" or "radical." And, most of all, it means having that je ne sais quoi that says, yes, I can see this person as president.

I admit that I have an easier time envisioning John Edwards in the Oval Office than Dennis Kucinich, but I can't really articulate why that is. I have been loath to say that Kucinich is unelectable, but at the same time, I have no problem describing Ron Paul with the same word.

Sadly, I do believe the media, particularly television, plays a disproportionately significant role in establishing whether or not a candidate is electable. I have little doubt that, for example, television would have helped the charismatic and mellifluous (albeit quite short) Stephen Douglas win the 1860 presidential election over Abraham Lincoln, whose shy demeanor, reedy speaking voice, gangly and awkward appearance, and deranged wife would not have played well on TV, to say the least. But would anyone today say Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, wasn't "electable?" Indeed, American history is full of such examples, from "confirmed bachelor" James Buchanan versus dashing trailblazer John C. Fremont in 1856 to morbidly obese bureaucrat William Howard Taft versus oratorical genius (and two-time loser) William Jennings Bryan in 1908 and wheelchair-bound Franklin D. Roosevelt in declining health defeating popular, handsome Republican Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

I don't think the concept of "electability" is healthy for America, but unfortunately I think it's here to stay. And so, while I battle my own feelings about the electability of candidates I truly admire, we will continue to get the most telegenic candidates and not necessarily the most qualified ones.

When Paulistas attack

Forget the batshit crazy fundamentalists. Those people can't hold a candle to the Ron Paul supporters when it comes to irrational thought.

Somehow my post last month (which, frankly, I really liked at the time), about how Ron Paul supporters are like the fable of the blind men and the elephant, got ranked highly on Reddit today, and many of the Paulistas are finding their way to this humble yet, um, opinionated corner of the blogosphere.

And yet, they're just as crazy as ever. Okay, because this batch is being civil (so far), I shouldn't say "crazy," but irrational. Do these people realize what they are saying?

Here's a representative sample of today's comments on that post ... see what I mean?

I think it comes down to a few things for liberals who are supporting Ron Paul despite disagree with a lot of his ideas

#1 we just don't think Dennis Kucinich has any chance. it takes a perfect storm for anyone but a corporate candidate to have a shot and ... it seems like it may be happening with Ron Paul. it's just not happening with Dennis K...

#2 we're disgusted with the mainstream democrat candidates. i certainly am. i'm just sick of these people. i cannot get excited about supporting clinton, edwards, or obama... while i may agree with them on more issues than paul - paul is _so_ much stronger than they are on foreign policy and civil liberties (my top 2 issues) that i cannot in good faith support them over paul when i think paul has a real shot at winning. the fact is the mainstream dems are *almost* as bought and sold as the republicans. they are not willing to speak the truth about the war. they are not willing to stand up for our civil liberties. to hell with them. that's how i feel right now...

~~~

certainly november '08 if it comes down to Rudy G vs. Hillary C. i'll certainly vote for Clinton but i won't feel that great about it.
The Presidential Candidates

Do you hear what you're saying? You're saying you'd vote for a racist, anti-choice fuckwit just becuase he's allegedly "stronger on foreign policy and civil liberties ..." What makes him stronger on foreign policy? And civil liberties? He basically wants to abolish government -- if he wins, you can forget about "civil liberties" as we've known them. Ron Paul is the worst of the "I've got mine, fuck you" Republicans. Apparently you just don't realize that yet.

For that matter, although I'm not a Kucinich supporter per sé (I'm still officially undecided), why is everyone so convinced that Kucinich has no chance, when Paul's poll numbers (save for a recent outlier in South Carolina that has Paul in double digits for the first time ... but still sixth among GOP candidates) keep him barely able to participate in debates? There's no massive numerical support for Paul -- it's just a very vocal, very small minority. The difference between Paul and Kucinich is in the volume (i.e., loudness), not the numbers.

I'm a life long democrat and consider myself a liberal. I am neither young, nor idealistic. What I am is scared of what the country is becoming. I support Ron Paul, to the extent I do, because I want to diminish the power of the federal government. I support Ron Paul because he seems to have a consistent, principled position. I don't agree with many of his positions. However, on the things that matter most to me, there is no other Republican I can agree with at all. When it comes down to it, I will probably vote for John Edwards, but if Ron Paul's candidacy pushes the dialog toward an anti-war, small government, protecting privacy direction, I'm all for it.
Tony

This one really, really pisses me off. A self-proclaimed "lifelong liberal Democrat" supports Paul for his "consistent, principled position." I can show you a dozen dictators who had "consistent, principled" positions ... but their principles, such as they were, just happen(ed) to be loony, inhumane, or just grotesque.

If you want to "diminish the power of the federal government," you're not a liberal, in the sense of liberal as progressive (which I know may not be an accurate comparison). And saying "on the things that matter most to me, there is no other Republican I can agree with at all" ... what true Democrat would say that? I don't agree with any Republican on the things that matter most to me, including abortion rights, equality for all Americans, the economy, and the war (except, yes, arguably Ron Paul). If you're going to claim to be a Democrat, don't support a Republican. It's that simple.

Perhaps Dennis Kucinich won't win the Democratic nomination for president. But Ron Paul's not going to win, either, not when the media darling and the fundies' choice happen to be the same person (Mike Huckabee). So you "Democrats" and "liberals" who are trying to rationalize your support of Paul while ignoring his more appalling positions are only fooling yourself. And remember, as an great American once said, "fool me once — shame on — shame on you. You fool me, you can't get fooled again."

More batshit crazy Ron Paul shit

There's really no other way to describe it.



To me, the chief difference between the Howard Dean campaign in 2003 and the Ron Paul campaign in 2007 is that the Dean supporters were thoughtful, engaged in the political process, and understood a wide range of the candidate's policy positions, whereas most of the Paulistas are goofy, enraged at the political process, and pay attention to only a small fraction of what their Stormfront-endorsed candidate says and does.

The good news is that we're probably weeks away from not having to deal with Ron Paul anymore. That's the real "Hope for America."

The Huckabee Proxy

Probably no one remembers The Hudsucker Proxy, my inspiration for the title of this post. But I was trying to think of something clever, yet descriptive, and, well, it's Monday morning, so get off my back already! Sheesh ...

Point is, I've been saying for months now that Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) was my prediction for the GOP presidential nomination (a/k/a the Sacrificial Candidate to lose next year), although I thought I said it here. A lot. Turns out I hadn't. Must have been in comments on Eschaton. Anyway, the Huckabee bandwagon is picking up passengers, as the cover story in USA Today this morning attests.

However, I have said repeatedly here, as far back as nearly a year ago, that Huckabee is batshit crazy, and I'm definitely sure about that. I don't mean Ron Paul-crazy, in that he wants to, you know, dismantle government and declare himself Emperor* or anything like that. But he's fundie-crazy -- as in: ordained Baptist minister, as in: reads Proverbs every day for inspiration, as in: quotes the Bible on national TV, as he did this morning on CBS' The Early Show.

Look, I don't have a problem with people practicing their chosen religion, or none at all, for that matter. But it strikes me as singularly inappropriate, if not dangerous, for the chief executive of this country to be so blatant about his faith. When I was a practicing Christian, as I was for some 20 years, one of the Biblical instructions that appealed most to me was the one about guarding your faith and not worshiping openly. People with more time or inclination than I may want to search for the exact verse(s) in question, but the gist of it is that one should not pray loudly and openly, broadcasting one's supposed piety all over the place. I see Huckabee doing this, and I question his motives. I only hope the voters of Iowa and elsewhere can see through the ruse, too.

---

* Back off, Paulista-whackjobs. I'm using hyperbole here. Look it up.

They really are everywhere

Well, I have to hand it to the Paulistas. They certainly cover a lot of ground.

Just saw five of them (notably, all white men) on an embankment along the US 231 bypass in Dothan, Ala. It's a highly-trafficked area, near Northside Mall, and they surely were visible with their large blue Ron Paul signs (and, at least in a couple of cases, their generous girth).

I'm not sure how popular Ron Paul is, or will be, in Alabama. I'm trying to stay away from the obvious stereotype of the racist gun-loving God-fearing redneck ... but after seeing this fivesome, I'll just say it's mighty difficult ...

For Ron Paul, the fundraising starts here

By "here," I mean America's Wang™. Yes, the online fundraising frenzy for Ron Paul's narrow-minded campaign to win the hearts and minds of Americans unable to think for themselves has its roots in south Florida, specifically South Beach. (And don't tell me you didn't see that coming ...)

37-year-old music promoter Trevor Lyman of Miami Beach has spearheaded multi-million-dollar Internet fundraising drives for Paul, motivated largely by his feeling that the Democrats in Congress "betrayed" him by failing to get our troops out of Iraq.

"Nobody took him seriously until we brought money to the campaign. It's a sad state of affairs," Lyman said in a telephone interview from New Hampshire, where he's rounding up support for his candidate before the first-in-the-nation primary (Iowa holds a caucus before New Hampshire votes.). "This [fundraising drive] was pretty spur of the moment, so we'll see how it goes."

If it fails, Paul runs the risk of being dismissed as a one-hit wonder, especially since his online popularity has barely surfaced in the polls. On the eve of Wednesday's debate in St. Petersburg, his support in Florida was smaller than the CNN poll's margin of error.

GOP donor Mark Guzzetta, who helped organize a $2,300-per-person reception in Coral Gables on Thursday for the more-established candidate Mitt Romney, said the Internet can't and won't replace traditional fundraisers.

"People want to meet the candidate -- shake his or her hand, test his mettle, watch his speech," Guzzetta said. "Having said that, I do think all of us can learn a thing or two from someone who has maximized the Internet."

It all started when Lyman was noodling online in October and came across speeches by Paul, an anti-tax, pro-gun, non-interventionalist who touts home schooling and above all, the Constitution.

"It was a betrayal," Lyman said of the promises by Democrats in Congress to bring the troops home. "So in the midst of a betrayal, when you find someone who's been consistent, you know that's your guy."

Consistent? Yeah, consistently crazy, maybe ...

Here's what I still don't understand about the Ron Paul phenomenon (and I use that term loosely, given his paper-thin, albeit vocal, support): There are, you know, other consistently anti-war candidates -- like Dennis Kucinich, for example -- whose other positions aren't noxious, as Paul's are. Even John Edwards may not have been consistent if you go back to his vote in favor of the AUMF, but as a candidate he's been consistent in his retraction of that vote.

Why are Paul supporters, especially those who are or have been disaffected Democrats, so quick to rush to a candidate whose campaign is based entirely on the "I've got mine, screw you" mentality and who rejects the basic tenets of what progressives believe? Have these people suddenly become anti-choice (as Paul is) and anti-health care (among other things), or worse yet, are they willing to ignore Paul's crazier positions in order to celebrate the single issue of his opposition to the war in Iraq?

See, that's what has caused me to decide that Ron Paul supporters, by and large, are just goofy. They are hypocritical at worst, inconsistent at best, even while trumpeting the alleged "consistency" of their knight in shining armor. The only comfort I take in watching the Paul phenomenon run its course is the knowledge that his candidacy will be over soon, probably after Iowa and New Hampshire.

UPDATE (1:13 pm 11/30/07): Of course, among the batshit crazy Paul supporters are the Stormfront neo-Nazi gang of racist brownshirt fucks. I almost forgot about them.

Yeah, go ahead and sign on with Ron Paul, kids. That swastika will look great on your Hollister and Abercrombie gear.

Who needs dead presidents when you have Ron Paul?

File this one under "U," for "You have got to be fucking kidding me."

Federal agents raided the Evansville, Ind., headquarters of an organization producing allegedly legal tender, some of which are coins featuring the likeness of Ron Paul on them. These "Liberty Dollars" are the brainchild (and I use that term extremely loosely) of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act & Internal Revenue Code, which has been manufacturing illegal gold, silver, and copper coins and trying to get them into circulation.

I'm sort of wondering whether this whole story is a farce ... not only is the entire premise pretty weird, but get a load of the name of the organization's leader:

Agents also took records, computers and froze the bank accounts at the "Liberty Dollar" headquarters during the Thursday raid, Bernard von NotHaus, founder of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act & Internal Revenue Code, said in a posting on the group's Web site.

The organization, which is critical of the Federal Reserve, has repeatedly clashed with the federal government, which contends that the gold, silver and copper coins it produces are illegal. NORFED claims its Liberty Dollars are [inflation] free and can restore stability to financial markets by allowing commerce based on a currency that does not fluctuate in value like the U.S. dollar.

"They're running scared right now and they had to do something," von NotHaus told The Associated Press Friday. "I'm volunteering to meet the agents and get arrested so we can thrash this out in court."

Wendy Osborne, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Indianapolis office, declined to comment and referred all questions to the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of North Carolina. Suellen Pierce, a spokeswoman for that office, also declined to comment.

The raid comes eight months after von NotHaus filed a lawsuit in federal court in Evansville seeking a permanent injunction to stop the federal government from labeling the Liberty Dollar an illegal currency.

I'm sorry, but von NotHaus? That's perilously close to "from the Nuthouse," which seems to describe this dude pretty well.

I've read and heard all the arguments of late about how Ron Paul is a legitimate candidate and how his positions represent a breath of fresh air and how he's the only candidate who will stand up to the warmongering Right. But you're not going to convince me that Paul and his supporters aren't at least borderline batshit crazy, especially when they are represented by von NotHaus and other such individuals from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Look, Paulistas, I'll make it simple for you: you're not going to dismantle the government, you look like fools trying to do so, and your positions are racist, sexist, and yes, batshit crazy. Now, please, take your unpopular candidate away and let the adults have the presidential election, okay? Thanks in advance.

UPDATE (2:25 pm 11/16/07): Upon closer inspection, this looks like nothing more than a giant scam. Check out the notice von NotHaus posted on the website yesterday. An excerpt:

Government requires participation. The problems we have today are because our parents did not participate. Please keep using the Liberty Dollar. Keep the ideals and benefits of real money alive. Gold and silver is going to be very rewarding as the US dollar disintegrates. Please join the Class Action Lawsuit and give something to the Legal Defense Fund when it is established.

But you don't have to wait. Donations can be sent to the old address as the mail is now being forwarded. Of course we will still accept Liberty Dollars, but unfortunately due to the current situation, the attorneys require those dreaded depreciating US dollars.

Please make your check or money order out to me as there is no other bank account and mail it to: Liberty Dollar ....

Sure, let me pull out my check book and send you some of those depreciating dollars, Bernie. No problem. Check made out directly to you, right? Uh huh ...

There's a sucker born every minute ...

A perfect analogy for Ron Paul supporters

Well, this ought to bring the Paulistas out of the woodwork ...

Catching up on life over at Eschaton this morning, I suddenly thought of the analogy that I believe perfectly describes the supporters -- mostly young, in my experience, mostly idealistic, and generally unwilling to see the whole picture -- of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, whom I've described a number of times as a "faux libertarian."

In a comment thread yesterday afternoon on a post about Paul's remarkable fundraising day, the Paulistas arrived late but argued vehemently on behalf of Their Guy. There were comments like this:

What I see in Paul's position on abortion is that it is an issue for the states to determine, not the feds. If a state wants euthanasia or medical marijuana or abortion, it is not for the Federal govt to interfere. Better than 85% of Americans are pro-choice, so making abortion illegal is just not going to happen on a state level anyhow. Paul's position on a lot of issues has nothing to do with personal feelings but rather the Constitutional basis that the Federal govt is not authorized to get involved in these items. As for being anti-abortion, I know lots of people who are pro-choice but still personally consider abortion a horrible solution except under the most extreme condtions. But they also believe in an individual's right to make their own medical decisions about their own body, which is exactly what an abortion is -- a private medical decision.

He is also for the Social Security lockbox so the govt can't borrow the money to blow on wars and other shenanigans.
Ensley | 11.05.07 - 4:21 pm

[...]

It is not Iraq alone that explain the Ron Paul phenom. It is his promise to disembowel the federal government and all its corruption, which includes Iraq as a larrge subelement. DC needs to tumble hard, including the MSM which suckles to the corporate power that is entrenched there along with the marionette whore politician class. The press will never adequately cover Ron Paul because his success means less DC money and GE loses contracts.
improper | 11.05.07 - 4:37 pm

[...]

you don't get it.

ron paul's constituency is those citizens who recognize that the bushit invasion of iraq is a war crime...and it doesn't deserve the support of the usa.

our support for ron paul is saying that we denounce the usg for invading iraq,afghanistan,and planning the invasion of iran.

and then there is that little issue of the secret police[irs, dea, et alia] that ron paul professes to disable[if not eliminate]. don't you want that to happen? if not, why not?

are you one of those who wants to continue to incarcerate those who use cannabis? if so, doesn't that make you just another fascist bastid?

and then, for another day, let us discuss the legal basis for individual income taxation. and the powers that the irs has invested upon itself to incarcerate opponents of the fiction that the state has any claim to any percentage of an individual's income.
albertchampion | Homepage | 11.05.07 - 10:29 pm

[...]

Ron Paul's popularity is an outpouring of rage towards all the Democrats and Republicans and the mass media who support this endless, murderous war.

It is shameful that no Democratic frontrunner is saying: this war is illegal, illegitimate, immoral. It's taken a Republican to do that. That's why I support Ron Paul, although I disagree with almost every one of his other positions. Ending this mass murder is more important than putting a Democrat in office.
frizzled | 11.06.07 - 12:38 am

It's that last one in particular that really gets me. The commenter believes that Ron Paul -- who is not a frontrunner, although the Paulistas would love to will it so -- is the only candidate advocating an end to the illegal war, and so "although [the commenter disagrees] with almost every one of his other positions," the commenter supports Paul. Talk about short-sighted!

Dennis Kucinich has been vocal about his opposition to the war. Why would anyone who purports to be a Democrat, or who disagrees with Ron Paul on everything except the war, support Paul rather than Kucinich? Clearly each, objectively speaking, has about the same chance at winning his party's nomination, so why not sign on with the candidate who shares your views on the war and then some?

But I digress ... for the analogy that best describes the Paul supporters is the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

I was a Howard Dean supporter in 2003 and 2004. I understand the viral marketing and "netroots" feel of the Paul campaign. But Paul supporters see only the thing that turns them on: anti-war, pro-drug legalization, anti-government, whatever it may be. And they ignore the rest of Paul's positions because they are, in short, inconvenient truths.

Paulistas, wake up: Ron Paul is, politically, the worst kind of deceiver. He tries to be all things to all people, but ultimately, he's a Republican. Indeed, he truly is ... an elephant.

(h/t to Chicago Dyke, whose comment got me thinking ...)

UPDATE (9:46 am 11/6/07): Well, that didn't take long.

They write e-mails:

I am not young, not idealistic and not narrow-minded. But I do recognized foolishness when I see it. Your piece is just that--oh and totally irrelevant. Work harder; write something worth reading.

I responded:

Ah, the Paulistas come out of the woodwork. I knew it would happen.

I didn't say all supporters were young, idealistic, and narrow-minded. Just most. But maybe I should have mentioned something about reading comprehension.

If you don't like what I wrote, then don't read any more. More people agree with me than with you, that's all I'm saying. Also, continue to stick to ad hominem attacks and avoid facts - that way, you can believe you win every argument.

Good luck with your Pyrrhic victories.

Sheesh.

UPDATE (12:16 pm 12/15/07): Okay, it took a month, but today the Paulistas finally are finding this post, thanks to Reddit. So, welcome!

Hey, Paulistas, you might like to see my response to your responses. It's new today.

Have fun stormin' the castle!

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Ron Paul

I've never been able to understand this Ron Paul phenomenon. College students in particular seem unusually smitten by his candidacy, I suppose because of his permissive stance (wide or otherwise) on drug use and his opposition to the war in Iraq. Of course, his emphatic opposition to abortion rights and his other batshit crazy positions seem to escape his supporters, or else they agree or, more likely, just don't care.

At any rate, I doubt we'll have Ron Paul to kick around for long. A recent poll by the Des Moines Register reveals that in Iowa, Paul has been voted Most Likely To Be Kicked To The Curb:

That's right: more Iowans have eliminated Ron Paul from consideration than they have any other Republican candidate. Couldn't happen to a nicer batshit nutjob.

Sure, Paul opposes the war and his rhetoric is all about keeping government out of people's lives. But his proposals end up being racist, homophobic, intolerant, and unduly burdensome to the underprivileged in society, and of course his position on abortion rights is a deal-breaker for me right off the bat.

So, congratulations to Ron Paul, the least-liked Republican candidate in Iowa. Today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Better enjoy it while you can, Ron, because you'll be relegated to the dustbin of obscurity very, very soon ...

The Paulistas have invaded America's Glans™

This time, I'm not referring to Paulistas as residents of São Paulo, Brazil ...

If you've driven I-95 lately in Palm Beach County, you've probably seen a sudden proliferation of Ron Paul banners strung up on the highway signs. Proclaiming the "RON PAUL RUTION" and touting his presidential campaign, the signs almost supernaturally seem to resist the stresses of nearby traffic and the recent wind and rain ... I mean, I'll give the Paulistas credit for pushing their message, but it seems to have resonated surprisingly well with college students particularly, and for no apparent reason whatsoever.

What exactly is up with this RON PAUL RUTION stuff anyway? What exactly do Paul's positions have to do with "love" or "revolution" at all? He touts himself or, more accurately, his supporters portray him as basically a "true libertarian," one who evidently wants to minimize or eliminate the federal government and give nearly all powers, save perhaps for national defense, currency, and such, to the states.

From Wikipedia:

Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, has been described as a constitutionalist, libertarian, classic liberal, and a classic conservative. He opposes presidential autonomy and judicial activism, and rejects a welfare state or nanny state role for the federal government. Paul says that the Republican Party has lost its commitment to limited government and has instead become the party of big government. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes. His unwillingness to vote for proposals not expressly authorized by the Constitution, along with his medical degree, have earned him the nickname “Dr. No.”

Paul supports free trade, states' rights, tighter border security, gun ownership, unofficial and voluntary school prayer, changing the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy to only discipline heterosexual or homosexual behavior if it is disruptive, and expanding the free market in health care. He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security. He is also an advocate of private property rights for pollution prevention, habeas corpus for political detainees, greater ballot access, and jury nullification rights. Paul supports elimination of most federal government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, the IRS, and the Department of Education.

Paul opposes the Iraq war, the income tax, socialized health care, the federal War on Drugs, federal regulation of marriage, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, and foreign interventionism, advocating withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. Paul describes himself as an "unshakable foe of abortion", but states that its regulation should be handled at the state level and not by the federal government. He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption.

Seems to me all Paul does is take the "drown the government in the bathtub" attitude of neo-conservative freaks like Grover Norquist and take it to its logical extreme, consequences be damned.

Indeed, I guess Paul does seem pretty revolutionary to the college student who sees only his advocacy for more lenient drug laws and his opposition to the war in Iraq. However, you have to drill down farther to uncover his more batshit crazy positions, including but not limited to:

• permitting all weapons, including assault weapons, for self-defense;
• a return to the gold standard;
• elimination of all taxes, save for a national sales tax if absolutely necessary;
• being a self-described "unshakeable foe of abortion;"
• opposition to affirmative action, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and
• repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would return the election of U.S. senators to the state legislatures.

I know Paul has no chance of earning the GOP presidential nomination, let alone winning the White House; indeed, I hope he mounts an independent run once he's eliminated from the nomination competition. But I think it's a shame that so many people have been deluded by Paul's positions on one or two highly visible issues while his true agenda remains largely hidden by rhetoric and flights of ideological fancy.

Ron Paul eats brains!

No, not really.

But it's interesting to see how his supporters think.

I found a link back to my Political Compass post from a libertarian message board, where the poster said (in yellow, so it's kind of hard to read):

The left/right may be accurate [although as i have mentioned before, there is no such thing as left and right as it is a fabrication of elites who use it to create polarization], the authoritarian/libertarian notion is total BS, especially when gravel supports a carbon tax and kucinich has not called for a repeal of the IRS.

Elite? Who the fuck is that person to call me "elite?" Yes, all I want to do is create polarization and make sure no one agrees. Right. And are you saying that unless Kucinich calls for a repeal of the IRS (oh, yeah, right, no taxes, no government), then he's authoritarian? Whatever the fuck you say, d00d.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need another glass of very expensive pinot grigio, and I have to make sure that Fritz is buffing the Aston-Martin to a mirror-like shine* ...

---

* Not a euphemism.