2012 GOP Primary Like Democrats in 2008?

A guest on Piers Morgan’s show in CNN last night made a very interesting comparison: the guest equated the current Republican primary to the Democratic primary in 2008, in terms of two candidates competing all the way to the convention.

However, there’s one big difference in the two primaries that, I believe, makes them not so comparable. In 2008, Democrats, progressives, and liberals were divided into two camps: pro-Clinton and pro-Obama.

Today, the GOP is also divided, but, into anti-Romney and anti-Santorum camps. Also, anti-Gingrich, because he’s still in the race, and unlike the analysts, I don’t believe he’s going to drop out anytime soon. If you want to get a little wild, you have Ron Paul’s fan club to spice things up a bit (but mostly just to annoy the shit out of you).

In 2008, you had two groups of the Democratic electorate that were wildly passionate about their candidates. Today, the Republicans don’t have that passion. Some do–but not nearly enough to maintain the energy the party is going to need for a primary that’s going to last all the way to the convention.

The longer this primary lasts, the more conservatives that are going to lose patience with this dog and pony show put on by a bunch of dudes they don’t even really like, and they’re going to stop paying attention, stop caring, and perhaps even stop donating and stop voting.

That’s a huge contrast from the excitement of the 2008 Democratic primary.

(Note: I can’t find a video online of the discussion. If I find it later, I’ll edit in the link.)


Ron Paul: Trying to Take Away Constitutional Protections since 2004.

It’s no secret that Ron Paul is no friend to human rights (except perhaps to Ron Paul fans) but Paul’s We The People Act is mind-blowing in its blatant hostility to the rights of women and LGBT people.

From Mother Jones:

“Paul’s “We the People Act,” which he introduced in 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2011, explicitly forbids federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States from ruling on the constitutionality of a variety of state and local laws. That includes, among other things, “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction.” The bill would let states write laws forbidding abortion, the use of contraceptives, or consensual gay sex, for example.”

After some blathering about Congress’ authority to limit the jurisdiction on the Judicial branch, and how everyone agrees with the notion that the Judicial branch has exceeded its power, the legislation says this:

“The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

      (1) shall not adjudicate–
        (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
        (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
        (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).”

The notion of “state’s rights” has long been code for “the right of states to discrimination freely against large segments of their population” but this legislation is abhorrent. Apparently, the concept of “checks and balances” is far beyond this man.

With this legislation, the states would become separate, autonomous entities, protected from reproach, and its people exempted from the protections of the Constitution when it comes to:

1. Women’s rights to reproductive freedom–explicitly when it comes to birth control and abortion.

2. LGBT rights to exist, let alone the freedom to have sex with or marry whomever they want.

3. The establishment of a theocracy.

Paul truly wants to take us back to the days when the Constitution only applied to straight (white) Christian men.

This man has the nerve to continually accuse President Obama of over-stepping the boundaries of his Constitutional authority.

Mind blowing.

Note: This bill was introduced nearly a year ago, has no cosponsors, and hasn’t gone anywhere since. To which I say: good riddance, but I thought it important to highlight, especially for those who claim Paul is a lover of freedom.

Ron Paul Memes

There are a couple of Ron Paul memes making the rounds on facebook–basically photos of Paul with captions numerating his veteran status, his advocacy for peace, and his love of FREEDOM!™

The more I see the “Ron Paul loves FREEDOM!™ Unlike all those other commie socialist FREEDOM HATERS WHO HATE FREEDOM!™” trope, the angrier I get.

Everyone knows Ron Paul is anti-choice.

I’m sure everyone is sick of women pointing out that Mr. FREEDOM!™ is anti-choice.

It counters the freedom-loving narrative! It’s a buzzkill! Ron Paul fans LOVE RON PAUL, DAMMIT, stop saying bad things about him! Haterz! You hate freedom, too!

If FREEDOM!™ means the freedom for rich-white-straight-men to dictate to others how to live, what medications to take, and take away control of others’ own bodies? Then, yep, I hate FREEDOM!™

The very idea that a Presidential candidate can trot out the freedom trope, and millions of people buy it, when that same candidate has stated over and over again that a woman should have no right to decide what happens to her own body, to decide whether or not to risk her own fucking life for another potential life, is utterly flabbergasting.

Ron Paul does not love freedom. He loves freedom for himself, and others exactly like him–and no one else.

Ron Paul fans are quick to jump on anyone who points these facts out. But otherwise? They completely ignore this issue. Here’s one of the memes: Read more of this post

LOL of the Day: Paulites

I came upon this brilliant post by Ashley F. Miller via Clarissa’s weekly blogaround, a summation of reasons to dislike Ron Paul.

Better, though, were the cohorts of Paul that flocked to Miller’s post to defend Paul and debase her. Anyone else notice that Paulites always use the same strategies to defend Paul? Every time. The same. Perhaps I’ll write a separate post about that in the future.

But what amused me most of all about the commenters were these responses here, to Ashley asserting that most of Paul’s defenders came from a Ron Paul fan site.

How does she know? they wonder. She must be making it up, they say. Incredulity, all around. Not to mention quick jumps to accusations of lying and conspiracies.

Really, have none of these trolls ever heard of statistics pages that most major blogging hosts have nowadays? It’s true. Not only can you see how many people are viewing specific posts and pages, but you can also see where these viewers came from, and gasp! What links they clicked on!

Such a little thing to pick out, but it amused me nonetheless. Ah, Ron Paul fans. Please, keep it up–it’s Monday, I could use some entertainment.