When you lie down with dogs...

...sometimes the pooch screws you!

NRCC Says Ex-Treasurer Diverted Up to $1 Million - washingtonpost.com

For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman.

Well of course. The ethics of a war on false pretenses didn't bother anyone much at the NRCC. They have never had an issue with "signing statements," or validating torture, or gerrymandering Texas, or blowing out a whole CIA intelligence network for partisan reasons, rigging national and local elections, well, I could go on. But this, THIS is dishonest!

Gee whiz, when you solicit people whom you know to be unethical enough to participate knowingly and willingly in acts that are variously illegal, immoral, indecent and unethical, doesn't it seem just possible that they might be less than totally trustworthy?

Has NO-one in the Republican Party learned from that simple morality tale called "The Sting?" EG, you can't cheat an honest man?

That, of course, makes the Republican Party (and any registered Republican) target one for every grifter, confidence artist and multi-level marketing scammer out there. Aside from the outright thieves such as this, of course.

And Stupidity. Don't forget the stupidity.

Apparently the New Mexico Secretary of State is baffled. Well, so are we all.

The BRAD BLOG : Exclusive: NM Sec. of State Says Rep. Heather Wilson's Payment for Voters 'Very Odd':

"Cargo said the checks vindicate his allegations and prove that state Republican Party operatives 'are a closed little group who operate on the basis of hate.'"

It's clear from many, many examples of this sort of implosion over the last several years that the mentality and priorities required to be accepted as a bona fide "New(t) Republican" are incompatible with competent administration and leadership, aside from trivial matters such as intelligence, conscience, ethics and a regard for the interests and common sense of one's constituents.

You know how Heather Wilson was forced to admit that she had actually paid the entry fees for delegates to the NM State Party convention?

She cut checks from her campaign fund - instead of reaching in her purse and peeling off tens and twenties.

You know how the state party organization tried to cover up the scandal when former Governor Dave Cargo blew the whistle on the scam? They claimed they had paid his fees in 2004 and forged an invoice to "prove" it.

Oh, but that gets even better.

The forged invoice (or at least an intentionally deceptive one) was produced by a lawyer.

The accusation from Republican lawyer Pat Rogers—who in the past has been the party’s legal counsel—came in the form of an invoice. During the taping of the Eye on New Mexico program at the KOB-TV, Channel 4 studio, Rogers pulled an invoice from a stack of papers and said that four years ago, party operative Lou Melvin paid the $20 registration fee for Cargo to attend and participate in a delegate nominating convention.

It makes me think that there must be special programs that allow persons disadvantaged by congenital partisanship to pass the bar. Because I think that piece of paper with Pat Roger's fingerprints and party operative Lou Melvin's name would probably be enough to justify a serious investigation...

Oh, wait. It was. As any half-decent lawyer could have told you. Unfortunately, they had a REPUBLICAN lawyer.

People just like this; Paul Bremer, Dick Chertoff and "Heckofajob" Brownie are more prominent examples of this sort mystifying combination of hubris and stupidity, and apparently it's an attitude that's much emulated in the rank and file.

If there is a Republican party left after this election, perhaps it will be of so little interest to "the people who matter" that it can be retaken and rebuilt by actual Republicans.

Short of that, it's the way of the Whigs for them.

The Fix Is In - Or is it?

I don't know about you, but I've had a problem with this election for some time, and it's an issue that is not so much with the apparent campaigns and the apparent candidates, but rather a growing suspicion that neither you nor I will be permitted a choice, and that "they" don't much care if we figure it out or not. I feel as if this has become political theater and the masses are requred to attend - in mute affirmation of a decision already made quite outside of any apparent party affiliation.

When it seems more likely that less obvious affiliations - like the Council on Foreign Relations or Skull and Bones - count for as much or more as overt support within a political party earned by hard work and honest passion, I start to wonder.

And I have cause to wonder about all the remaining candidates, in that regard, save Paul, who's been left in as he will provide some appearance of democratic process on the Republican side.

Of course, I've long harbored a jaded view of the actuality of democratic process within the Republican camp - it is very much a top-down group. But now it appears that even being a member of the overt hierarchy, of being in a position of apparent influence and power within a state or national party organization might just be a fond illusion.

Former NM Gov. Dave Cargo seems to be finding out that not only has the rule book been put aside, that many younger members of the NM party are unaware that there are rules, that do apply to them and that violations of these "silly rules" are actual felonies that even WHITE people could go to jail for. My God, even White Republicans!

I'll let Brad of the Brad Blog catch you up on the latest Republican scandal. Suffice it to say that there isn't even any evidence to suggest that those involved - and it involves media, a Senate candidate and high party officials - seem to have any idea that there are ethical lapses here that are serious enough that one should at LEAST be aware of in the breach. But it seems that they really do not think there is anything wrong at all with packing a convention with paid shills in order to come out with the "right" candidates - instead of the candidate that would have been seated by actual grass-roots activists.

They don't see a problem with that; the only comment has been something to the effect that "it's not illegal," although the state AG appears to have a divergent opinion in that regard.

But even if it turns out that a state party can run it's operations any way it chooses and pick candidates any way it likes... well, ethics are not an abstract, feel-good guideline to how to be a nice person. Ethics are a guide to living in a crowd of other humans without causing them to decide that your skin would be of much greater utility as a tasteful handbag.

I don't much care if various republicans and democrats have made willing bargains with The Forces of Evil, thinking they don't really need a soul all that much, and they would have gone to hell anyhow for all that masturbation. Ethics is about consequences in the real, in the here and the now. Surprisingly enough, it doesn't matter all that much whether you think that by controlling law enforcement and the courts that you are immune.

All you do is diffuse the consequences so that they splash about onto everyone around you. And sooner or later, the very people being used to shield you from the consequences of your actions become the agents of consequence. Oh, and since they have been raised up by such ruthless examples, the fall will be harder than an honest acceptance of responsibility would have been. I, Claudius is instructive in this regard.

There is another aspect of human nature that is not well appreciated - at least in this context. Anyone who's had a young child underfoot knows it immediately, though. People, at root, do not like getting away with stuff they should not be able to get away with, much less being put in a position where they have to "look the other way" or even participate in things they know to be wrong just to stay within their peer group or keep their job.

At some point, a constant presumption upon the forgiving nature of others for your efforts "on their behalf" or "for the cause" will backfire, and it's one of those things where a sudden cascade effect may be expected. There are enough whistle blowers and leakers now that they have apperently started their own professional organization!

I was almost surprised that only 7 of 9 core activists left the party. But then, I suppose I shouldn't be; I've been asking myself for years a rhetorical question regarding all the arrant bullshit from the wingnut right - "how stupid do you have to be to believe this?"

I say that as someone who is neurologically biased toward conservatism and who is passionately in favor of a nice, stable, predictable status quo ante. I'm on the Autistic Spectrum, and I hate change.

But on the other hand, that means that just about every other reflexive conservative I've ever met, I LIKE rules. I EXPECT fair play. I assume the rules are there for a good reason unless there's some reason to think they aren't. Finding that only those who write the rules profit from their application - by others - caused me to return to first principles and start evolving my own.

I take a very dim view of folks who think rules are for the other guy and snicker at all the "suckers" who believe that "fairy tale" stuff. It is not without some personal satisfaction that I see the political structure of this nation collapsing around the ears of those who thought themselves entitled to rule us by virtue of their willingness to abandon all standards of decency and all obligations to their constituencies if it led to a moment's advantage or an extra nickel in their political war chest.

It's somewhat disturbing, though, to see what happens when candidates forget themselves - like McCain has done from time to time - and act as if they were the persons of integrity they once aspired to be. It's amusing to see how suddenly and how hard their chains are jerked, how quickly and publicly they are forced to correct the impression that they might just have backbones and thoughts that diverge from the party line. One could almost feel sorry... but...

Sir; once you are a "made man," you are a made man for life.

Those who think I'm only talking about Republicans would be sadly mistaken. Of course, one could observe that the current Democratic Party is more accurately the Clinton Wing of the Republican party. It's snarky on my part to observe that Ms. Clinton is by far the best NeoLiberal in the race.

But now that Murdoch's media start shoving Clinton down my throat when I'd expect lascivious reporting on every "Swift Boat" style attack, I find myself reluctant to accept someone the establishment media wants me to support.

Aside from the politics, aside from the greed, aside from the corruption, the war-mongering, the killing and the lies, all things that I despise as a matter of principle, the thing that really works my last nerve is the sheer arrogance displayed, the amazing contempt this sort of thing shows for the average American voter, and the more they get away with and the longer they get away with it, the more obvious it gets.

And I'm afraid it's a fine bi-partisan contempt in many ways. Everyone in Washington, on either side has more interests in common with each other than they have with the people that supposedly employ them.

I'm starting to feel that it's coming up to one of those moments in history where the great majority are pretty much willing to roll the dice.

Ralph Hall, Revisited

Every once in a while I revisit older pieces to see what developments have presented themselves. I'm particularly fond of the soaring heights of rhetoric I reached in which I sarcastically implied that a vote for Ralph Hall was a vote for the return of slavery in Texas.

Well, it appears they went and re-elected the sonofabitch.

Graphictruth: Teen Sex Slave Called a Liar by Texas Congressman

So it seems quite possible that Hall is accurately and faithfully representing the people he is beholden to and it would be wrong and irresponsible of me to suggest otherwise. The Mariana affair was well publicized at the time, and he apparently was neither investigated for his role in it, nor politically embarrassed by it, so it's quite a reasonable assumption for me to make.

After all, I hold most insistently to my own principles, I’m not about to suggest that others abandon theirs in favor of mine, unless our principles come into direct and practical conflict.

Slavery has deep roots in the former Confederacy, and there have been long, scholarly and highly moral tomes written to explain it in Biblical terms. I shall not presume that such beliefs are held lightly or insincerely when I know for a fact that many believe passionately otherwise; that the darker races both need and deserve the guidance of the more highly evolved White race, as well as the elevation of their racial character via judicious injections of superior genetic materials. No, for many, these are not beliefs of mere convenience; they are deeply, primordially and utterly sincere racists. Are they not also Citizens? Do they not deserve one of their own representing them?

While I cannot state for sure that his constituents would agree with my conclusions, he is still the allegedly human creature representing Texas's Fourth District - and he's STILL the subhuman enabler of child-molestation that took 30 grand from Jack Abramoff to cover up the practice of human trafficking in the Marianas Islands.

Now, given the history and views of the reddish bits of the map regarding persons of brownish hue, I probably should not be all that surprised.

But the idea of being represented by someone so astonishingly, stupidly corrupt that they could be bought off to the extent of covering up really serious felonies for thirty grand and a lap dance should just too fucking embarrassing for words. I really thought Texans would expect more of themselves.

Everything in Texas is big. With the visible exception of the moral high ground in the Texas Tenth.

An Odor of Sanctimony

Romney Drops Out of GOP Race - The Fix:

"'If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win,' he said. 'And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.'"

Don't you just want to slap him until all the phony cracks and falls away?

It's The Ethics, Stupid!

This election is going to turn on ethics and values, and who the voters feel genuinely intends to do the right thing by us as a people and as a nation. Here are two indicators, and what I think they imply.

Paul credits anti-war stance for size of his war-chest

DES MOINES — GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul credited his stance against the war in Iraq for his hefty fund raising haul over the weekend when he raised more than $6 million in a single day.

“I believe the war has been the igniting factor to the campaign from day one,” Paul said.

Paul is drawing support from a demographic no other candidate has seriously tapped, to my knowledge - people who either have never voted, or were not intending to vote.

Paul supporter Jessica Borgnis of Des Moines came to see him Monday. Borgnis voted for George Bush in 2000, but said she became disillusioned after the country went to war.

“I switched my vote to a third-party candidate in 2004, and wasn’t going to vote this election year, and when I heard about Ron Paul, I just regained confidence in the system,” she said.

read more | digg story

But Paul's support does not come from nowhere and nothing. Frankly, "It's Karma, Baby." This story from Burnt Orange Report seems to underline the principle that "Cheaters never Prosper."

What Dan Barrett's Victory Means for Texas by: Matt Glazer

Dan Barrett's victory tonight has implications beyond better representation for Fort Worth residents. To relay its importance, we have to look at what brought us to this point.

In 2001, Republican's drew a map they thought would elect 102 R's and 48 D's. They were wrong as only 88 Republicans and 62 Democrats were elected in 2002. Still, it was a striking blow to Democrats as we had lost our majority, the Speakership, and control of the operation of the Texas House. That was a low point for Democrats in Texas as well as nationally. The result was the rise of the neo-conservative, uber Republican Tom Craddick who slashed the budget and cut social programs like CHIP and education funding. To this day that funding has never been restored even with surpluses in the state budget.

In 2006, Democrats won 6 seats plus Donna Howard's special election. In 2007 we welcomed Kirk England to the Democratic Party and now we have Dan Barrett as member of our caucus as well. We've not even yet had a single vote cast the 2008 primaries, and there are now 71 Democrats in Texas House- a stunning and speedy reversal based on the same map that was drawn to have only 42 Democratic seats.

A number of factors are no doubt at work, but I don't think we can dismiss principled outrage at the behavior of Tom Delay and Texas Republicans in so conspicuously and arrogantly gerrymandering the state. And then, well, there's everything a certain former Texas Governor has been up to since then. At some point, party allegiance becomes an embarrassment rather than a point of pride. I'm guessing that either Republicans have been staying home in droves, or they have been crossing party lines.

Here's something to note in reference to Ron Paul's campaign, and Kucinich's run for the Democratic nomination.)

In addition, Barrett was dramatically out spent. According to the 8 day out reports, Mark Shelton spent over $100,000 and raised (and presumably spent) another $10,000 from TexPAC before the election. Barrett on the other hand spent a little over $45,000 according to his 8 day report. Again, according to his telegram reports, raised an additional $4,000 in the final week of the election from Texas Parent PAC and two individuals.

Breaking it down, that means Barrett spent $9.13 per vote compared to about $23.40 per vote for Shelton.

Money doesn't seem to be talking as loud as it used to. I don't know how well Barrett used the Internet to gather attention, so it's hard to compare that aspect of his campaign to Ron Paul's, but it could well have been a significant passive factor.

Unlike the elections of my youth, where it was next to impossible to gather enough information for an average voter to make a decent choice, today a voter is just a Google away from everything a challenger wants them to know, and everything an incumbent hopes they have forgotten.

Somebody should do some polling on that.

But for the majority party to lose to an under-funded challenger in a district gerrymandered in that party's favor - that should be as close to an impossible as politics allows.

But then, losing at least half of the military vote that Republicans have come to rely on has got to sting. There's this Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll which is dissected here .

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

And then there are rumblings within the ranks of evangelical and conservative Christians. who seem to have finally noticed the wide gap between stated principles and evident actions. This may lead to some internal upheaval as well as a real problem for most Republican candidates except Ron Paul, who's gotten the most military donations of any candidate and is respected for his forthright Christianity, even if he's unwilling to legislate his morality.

All told, it's looking more and more like Paul's campaign has the potential, in terms of both actual and potential supporters, to go all the way to the finish line. Not a "spoiler" - as some would like to portray him - but as the logical, viable and popular choice for the Republican nomination, and win or lose, a far more significant stature within the party.

I'm sure that idea is making certain established Republican figures crap ice cubes. Moreover, imagine the funk sweat on K-Street. Lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door any more. But here's the logical outcome of this; the big money has to go to the more "credible" candidates - that is to say, the ones willing to be bribed to bend the rules.

Clearly the "smart money" of that sort is backing a Guliani/Clinton match; a win/win proposition for K-Street and big business. But as we have seen, money doesn't seem to count for as much as it did, and it may even be that huge campaign chests and slick, triangulated, focus-grouped campaigns might be a net negative.

I personally think it is a negative, or at best a neutral, because neither campaign is going to be saying what voters want to hear. And meanwhile, they may well be doing direct political calculus of their own: Elect a solid Democratic majority to ensure Health Care (You don't need Hillary for that) - and Ron Paul to get us out of Iraq. Because for that, you need someone with the authority to say "wind it up and ship them home."

I'm not one to make bets or give odds, but I'm thinking a bet on a Democratic near-sweep of open seats in the House and Senate is far better than even odds, while the idea of Ron Paul becoming President is, while still a long shot, not at all inconceivable.

It's not so much Paul's race to win as it is for all the others to lose - but they all seem well-positioned for that outcome.

Illustration: It's The Ethics,Stupid!, by webcarve
Get this custom bumpersticker
at Zazzle

Grand Old Perverts : Outed in the Worst Way.

State Representative Richard Curtis says he's not gay, but police reports and court records indicate the Republican lawmaker from southwestern Washington dressed up in women's lingerie and met a Medical Lake man in a local erotic video store which led to consensual sex at a downtown hotel and a threat to expose Curtis' activities publicly. KXLY4's Jeff Humphrey reports.(video)

Cross-Dressing Republican Caught With Male Hooker Resigns, But Still Won't Admit He's Gay: resigned. From "I'm not gay" to "I resign" in 24 hours is pretty good... for a Republican.

"Today I submitted my letter of resignation to Governor Gregoire effective immediately. While I believe we've done some good and helped a lot of people during the time I served in the Legislature, events that have recently come to light have hurt a lot of people. I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused.

"This has been damaging to my family, and I don't want to subject them to any additional pain that might result from carrying out this matter under the scrutiny that comes with holding public office."

It hardly seems worth adding anything to this, but it's my blog and I gotta. But I'll keep it pithy and to the point; is it not remarkable how much "Republican Family Values" seems to represent repression and screaming denial?

And just as a cross reference (ehheh), here's a cogent post linking Dominionist and Evangelical Conservative religious upbringing with tortures at Abu Ghrab. And no, it's not a stretch.

Well, there went the family values voters....

Vittter is mocked in The Hill for attempting to rebrand himself the Republican Party as "Fiscal Conservatives.

TheHill.com - Senate GOP to Vitter: We’ll handle the Republican reputation from here, thanks: "Senate GOP to Vitter: We’ll handle the Republican reputation from here, thanks
By Daphne Retter
July 26, 2007

Oh, how we would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) rose to speak during a Tuesday policy lunch.

Only seven days earlier, he had delivered a heartfelt apology at the same weekly meeting. Fellow Republicans responded with thunderous applause, and most refused to tell reporters how Vitter had addressed his forced public admission that he had committed a “serious sin” and was linked to an alleged prostitution ring.

So just imagine their confusion when Vitter scrambled to his feet a week later. Would he apologize again? Had he committed some new sin?

But no. Instead, he launched into a speech about his thoughts on “rebranding” the party by reclaiming the fiscal conservative mantle.

Yes, that’s right: Vitter, on improving the Republican image.

This time, his colleagues held the applause."

Of course they will all try to fly Vitter's lead kite themselves. Gee, the only topic where they have LESS credibility that on "traditional family values;" fiscal responsibility.

Put on your clenched acceptance face, we're going to Sorrytown!"

Ah, John Stewart, the master of the throwaway one-liner:

"I'm not a fan of personal vendetta gotcha-style politics," said Jon Stewart on Tuesday's Daily Show. "But there can be exceptions. Take Louisiana Senator David Vitter ... who came to prominence in the 90's demanding President Clinton's impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Well, it seems the condom is on the other foot."

"Last week, Vitter became the highest profile john implicated in the DC Madam scandal-gate," Stewart explained. "Kind of reminds you of the old saying, 'The only thing I trust less than a Louisiana senator sleeping with a hooker is one that isn't.'"

The video can also be found here.

Now, I of course would never stoop to mere "gotcha" blog entries either. (What, Never? Well, Hardly Ever..).

In this particular case, I think this is a remarkably apt insight into what Republican values actually are. That is to say, you can pretty much assume that whatever public stance they take will be taken purely for personal political advantage and will have little or nothing to do with personal values or conviction. It's kinda like the Catholic Church in that way. How many folks out there still think it's a good idea to leave their child alone with the parish Priest?

Well, folks, that goes for anyone who seeks a position of unquestionable moral authority and access to either your children, your vote or your wallet.

While that observation may well be true of political figures in general, Republicans in particular have been particularly active in trying to demonize, regulate and restrict YOUR libido, YOUR sexual practices, Your definition of family, and indeed, your reproductive choices, while undermining your right to privacy and your right to access information without trace or record. I don't see very many examples of Republicans living by the values they espouse - so to speak. On the contrary.

So perhaps all these protestation of high moral standing are mere pretexts and postures, not just in exceptional cases, but in general.

Any large group of people will have a few bad apples, a few "isolated incidents." But these are NOT "just a few" and they all share something similar; the overwhelming majority of these sexual crimes involve practicing the opposite of what they preached. That is to say, they violated the law purposefully and deliberately, and in the way that was most vile on the basis of their own public standards to demonstrate to themselves and to one another that they were above that law and could get away with violating it. Indeed, there seems to be the perverse drive to enact laws for the purpose of violating them!

Another disturbing theme of near equal weight is a consistent pattern of abuse - sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and the abuse of power in general - toward those who cannot fight back.

Here's a particularly odious example of such an authoritarian circle-jerk.

Don Haidl, Assistant Sheriff of Orange Country, in violation of California's rape shield law, led a smear campaign against the child his son poisoned and then violently gang-raped on videotape, adding up to 24 felony counts. He said that his son "acted accordingly" because the child was a "slut". The full gruesome story, with many newspaper articles.

And here's one that just reeks of depraved irony:

Earl Kimmerling, from Indiana, sentenced to 40 years in prison after he confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Anderson, IN, Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican State Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson, IN, and Woody Burton of Greenwood, IN, supported him. Source

Then there's the largest and highest reaching sex abuse scandal ever, probably in any nation, since roman times - and you have probably never heard of it. Read it and be amazed by The Franklin Credit Union Child-Sex Ring Scandal.

This sort of thing isn't anything new, in other words; it's actually part of long established Republican political culture. The blackmail operations detailed in the link above may well partially explain the spineless behavior of our current Congress's Democratic majority, and I'm SURE it explains the "dead-ender" behavior of a great many Republicans who can't be so politically tone-deaf as to think the President's lame-duck agendas in any way serve the cause of their own re-election to orifice office. Blackmail is about the only thing that could explain such a sudden and inexplicable altruism on the part of those who's focus has been squarely upon th main chance up to now.

What we need to do is to purge all levels of government of corruption, and we also need to send - as a nation of outraged and unforgiving Citizen-activists - a resounding message. Remember that the Republican majority came out of the so called "Republican Revolution" pledged to END corruption and cronyism - and has turned out to be more than willing to wallow in a system as corrupt and lawless as any Byzantine court and indulging in graft on a level that would embarrass Tammany Hall.

So, if you are a Republican - repent! Register as an Independent, or a Constitution party member. Get your name off their sucker list. This is especially true if you have ever been a "values voter." These are the values your votes supported. So either repudiate the party for it's lack of interest in values when it might affect a Republican in power, or consider yourself complicit in all the crimes that have been committed in the name of pure, unchecked and unaccountable power. Because that's the way ethics works - you are accountable for the choices you make and the messes you contribute to.

As for myself, I'm a registered Libertarian. I have no illusions that it's a party composed of inherently better people - but it is a party of strong essential principles that may work against the accumulation of personal power for a time. It's not a party that attracts as many authoritarians and opportunists, and it will take those folks some time to figure out how to subvert it to their own ends.

Likewise, I'm going to make a choice about where my money goes. My money is going, in terms of consumer goods, toward companies that do not support the Republican cause. Likewise, I will not enter any place of business that has a fish by the door - a device almost exclusively used by Religious Conservatives, unless I see something in the window that indicates they are opposed to the moral choices this government and this party have made.

What can you do?

You can spread this around. You can digg it up, stumble it, email it to your fundy family members. You can blog about it, create fliers to stick in your church's brochure box, you can wear a t-shirt or put a poster in your store window. You can talk to strangers at bus-stops. You can call in to talk radio. Hell, you can slip Air America a few bucks. Grab your video camera and vlog it onto YouTube and Google Video.

I'll tart this post up later with links to the most vicious and apt t-shirts, bumper stickers and any particularly useful and usable photos and graphics I can find.

Together, we can change the world. As long as enough good people refuse to stand by as evil is done, we cannot help but do so.

AP Poll: GOP pick is 'none of the above' - Or maybe Ron Paul,,

AP Poll: GOP pick is 'none of the above' - Yahoo! News: "Among the legions of undecided Republicans is Barbara Skogman, 72, a retired legal assistant from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She isn't at all excited about any of the prospects. At one point, she favored McCain. At another, she was open to Giuliani. Now, she's leaning slightly toward Romney but says she's far from sold on him.

'I'm looking for a strong, honest person. Do you know of any?' she joked. She had an easy time detailing why she was queasy about each of the most serious contenders. 'Isn't that sad?' Then she reached a conclusion: 'I just don't know.'"

Ron Paul.

The only thing that makes him "less credible" is that every other Republican and all the usual suspects within the MSM and the partisan noise machine are unanimous in not talking about him.

That alone is enough of a reason. Send money.

If you can't get a credible candidate for free, there's a free-market solution. BUY one!

Update: Two realy interesting things I stumbled across. First, this article from LewRockwell.com

A recent Gallup poll finds Paul at the head of the so-called second-tier candidates (i.e., the candidates the establishment hasn’t anointed), though still with a ways to go. Yet Justin Ptak recently made the important point that at this stage in the election cycle, national polls reflect only name recognition, not respondents’ assessments of the candidates. Consider the statistics, drawn from the LewRockwell.com blog:

• In early 1975, Jimmy Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the presidency).
• In early 1987, Michael Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).
• In early 1991, Bill Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the presidency).
• In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the New Hampshire primary).
• In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary).

So Paul is doing well and reaching more and more people. But just as interesting is the recent news that fully 50 percent of all the money donated to Republican candidates in the second quarter by employees of the United States military went to – wait for it – Ron Paul!

Now that doesn’t make any sense at all, if the neoconservative crazies who dominate conservative media are to be believed. Since Ron Paul criticizes U.S. foreign policy, and since he has this oddball idea that bombing and starving people can make them angry, he isn’t a "patriot" like them. So resolutely have they bought into the silly fiction that "we are the government," these cheerleaders for the warfare state actually seem to take personal offense at Paul’s criticism of U.S. government policies.

And then there was the MSNBC poll regarding the California Republican Debate. Like Fox viewers, MSNBC viewers thought that he won handily.

California Republican Debate Poll

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18436681

Archived to the WVP Forum on 06 May 07 @ 0830 EDT

-----------------------------------------------------

MSNBC Live Vote

Who stood out from the pack? * 60357 responses

Sam Brownback 2.5%
Jim Gilmore 1.3%
Rudy Giuliani 17%
Mike Huckabee 3.7%
Duncan Hunter 1.9%
John McCain 7.8%
Ron Paul 38%
Mitt Romney 22%
Tom Tancredo 2.8%
Tommy Thompson 3.4%

Who showed the most leadership qualities? * 59573 responses

Sam Brownback 2.4%
Jim Gilmore 1.9%
Rudy Giuliani 17%
Mike Huckabee 3.7%
Duncan Hunter 2.1%
John McCain 12%
Ron Paul 33%
Mitt Romney 21%
Tom Tancredo 2.7%
Tommy Thompson 3.6%

Who was the most convincing candidate? * 59329 responses

Sam Brownback 2.9%
Jim Gilmore 1.8%
Rudy Giuliani 15%
Mike Huckabee 4.5%
Duncan Hunter 2.2%
John McCain 9.9%
Ron Paul 36%
Mitt Romney 21%
Tom Tancredo 3%
Tommy Thompson 3.8%

Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 58168 responses

Sam Brownback 4.3%
Jim Gilmore 1.7%
Rudy Giuliani 22%
Mike Huckabee 2.6%
Duncan Hunter 1.7%
John McCain 31%
Ron Paul 6.4%
Mitt Romney 24%
Tom Tancredo 2.3%
Tommy Thompson 4.2%

Who avoided the questions? * 56611 responses

Sam Brownback 6%
Jim Gilmore 3.2%
Rudy Giuliani 36%
Mike Huckabee 3.4%
Duncan Hunter 3.1%
John McCain 18%
Ron Paul 6.3%
Mitt Romney 13%
Tom Tancredo 4.2%
Tommy Thompson 5.8%

Who had the best one-liner? * 56527 responses

Sam Brownback 3.4%
Jim Gilmore 1.7%
Rudy Giuliani 14%
Mike Huckabee 7.4%
Duncan Hunter 2.4%
John McCain 14%
Ron Paul 31%
Mitt Romney 16%
Tom Tancredo 4.2%
Tommy Thompson 5.5%

But the comments about the debate are very, very interesting. Here's one example - sorry, no permalink to give you...

This fear mongering has unfortunately become the standard trademark of the far right and is EXTREMELY disturbing. According to John Dean's book, about 25% of the human race are known to be just such "authoritarians." We actually see this play out in the blind support for the war as there is always 25% who support it no matter what. Authoritarians (according to EXTENSIVE psychological studies conducted since WWII) are almost always likely to be the far right conservatives. Only 1% are likely to be liberal.

UPDATE 2:

clipped from a.abcnews.com

The 10 Republican candidates running for president jousted over the issues and with each other Tuesday night at the second debate of the primary season.

:


tag: ron paul 2008, credible candidates, republican candidates, election 2008, Constitution

Oh, look, CBS noticed Ron Paul

A Texas Libertarian Starts To Make Waves - Public Eye

Paul, love him or hate him, articulates a coherent ideology better than many of his competitors – as the fact that he seems to inspire near pathological devotion in his followers. Look at the press coverage: The Washington Post profiled Paul's young campaign coordinator in New Hampshire; CNN.com today posted among its top stories a piece about how Paul's fans inundated the site after the recent presidential debate. He's even winning over Jon Stewart, who had Paul on the "Daily Show" and said to him, "[y]ou have accomplished no small feat, which is, you’re running for President, very much as an underdog, yet you’ve created a nice little buzz going about the Ron Paul candidacy."

Praised with faint damns, I see; CBS does not get it. Not the first time; as I recall they were blindsided by both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both who "came out of nowhere." Clearly CBS needs to expand it's definition of "somewhere."

Ron Paul's appeal is really, really simple: Real ideas and real answers for real questions and real issues. Paul does not dodge, deviate or triangulate. He has the same answer for the same question regardless of who's asking. Most importantly, he's a Libertarian, which means that his primary ethic is that government should not mess with other folks, whether they be foreign folk or domestic folk.

He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal, save for the issue of abortion - which he is personally against. However, he figures that whether or not YOU have an abortion is between you and your own conscience.

Frankly - and I think Republicans need to hear this - Ron Paul is the only person running as a republican who has enough broad-spectrum appeal to be honestly electable. Everyone else will be depending upon successful election fraud to win this thing.

tag: ron paul, MSM, CBS, election 2008, election fraud, libertarianism, electable, Republicans