ampdead

Perjury just isn't sexy

But confessing your sexual adventurism from a church via video to the newly ordained public while your wife holds your hand is.

We really don't give a damn about how difficult it was to explain your mindless behavior to your sons.  We don't care that your wife hasn't kicked your bum ass out.  We'd much rather take your suggestion about respecting your family's privacy.

Rather, we shouldn't care and we should leave your victims alone, but sex sells and we love misery.  Even better for you:  This whole fiasco you've caused, the $9 million you've let slip away can be spun as being about sex.  Wives and kids make good shields afterall, and betrayal becomes easier and easier the more you practice.

You may have to forsake the Hip Hop Mayor persona though and convert to the Metrosexual Mayor.  Hell, you've used a church and the faith it represents.  A few agonized, theatrically held back tears couldn't hurt.  Besides, aren't you supposed to be bangin' the bitches as the Hip Hop Mayor?

So much like the hyped Super Bowl in Detroit.  Just another one night stand.

Posted by: Jason at 11:59 PM in Michigan | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Predictions

I once thought the GOP nomination would end at the convention.  Depending on how Super Tuesday goes I guess that could still be the case; however, it seems unlikely now.  Giuliani is out, and will endorse McCain - which is as absurd as Hunter endorsing Huckabee or the prediction that Huckabee supporters would break for Romney if Huckabee dropped out.  I still can't wrap my head around that last one.  Huckabee supporters breaking for McCain seems more likely to me.  Even so, the reverse is certainly not true - Romney supporters wouldn't break for Huckabee if Romney dropped out - I think.  I wouldn't anyway.  Yet, I'm told Huckabee is taking votes away from Romney.  Crazy.

I once thought the 2008 presidential election would be thrown into the House of Representatives.  If the country is as divided as advertised and if the candidates can rally their voters, this may still happen.  Even if voter turnout is the lowest in American history it could still happen and that would be all kind of stupid. 

That brings me to my brand new prediction.

If Hillary and McCain are the candidates, voter turnout will hit a record low.  Both have high negatives with the base of their respective parties.  In effect, we'd be voting against one or the other, and that's no way to cast a ballot.  Despite what the national polls say at the moment McCain simply cannot win that sort of election.  The momentum would clearly be on the side of the Democrats.  Blame Bush, blame the war, blame McCain's Maverickism, blame whatever.  The fact is, Democrats and Conservatives would be voting against McCain.  Or staying home.

So, McCain is now the likely Republican candidate - that's what I'm being told.  We'll see if Limbaugh unloads in a few minutes - more so than he has already.  Then we'll see if that even matters.  I tend to agree with Allah at HotAir:  Limbaugh doesn't have much left except to explicitly endorse Romney, but he's already done that by the process of elimination.  If that fails, if McCain wins, if Medved is correct in saying talk radio is pretty much irrelevant then why is Medved still doing talk radio?  There can't be any satisfaction in doing something you know to be meaningless.

Limbaugh's show is starting now.  He starts it in his usual upbeat style.  "This is no time to quit."  Indeed.  Even if we lose the primaries, and then the general there's always the next one.  There's always time to reassert what we know to be true.  We lick our wounds, find our voices, and jump back into the fray.  As we've always done.

To steal a thought from Bryan at HotAir, a little pick-me-up - using the quote on his post though.



This does prove one thing - yet again.  Limbaugh, and the rest don't need a Democrat in the White House to make a living.

Posted by: Jason at 01:14 PM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

+1 Romney

It's over.  Finally.  This part of the Endless Election anyway. 

I have no idea how Michigan will go.  I have no special insights into the minds of Michiganders.  And I live here.  I'm a Michigander.  But that's OK seeing as the people who are paid to know don't seem to be earning their pay.  Michigan has many problems.  Everyone knows that.  The rhetoric of populism, then, should be persuasive to Michigan voters.  Then again, maybe we've finally woken up.

This vote should have been for Thompson.  I couldn't bring myself to throw this ballot at a candidate who doesn't seem to want to do anything with it.  That, afterall, would only help McCain or Huckabee - both of whom have no business, along with Paul, of being on the Republican ballot. 

Romney, at least, strikes me as more of the same - which isn't all that bad.  Though most of Michigan may go for Dianne's choice:  Skip the whole damn thing.

Posted by: Jason at 02:07 PM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Teh Neo-Conzis r stealin mah kookies!

I think I've become addicted to that Lew Rockwell blog. I just can't get enough of it now. You have to love this stuff.

I'm not surprised to see the Neo-cons (emphasis on "cons") pull out all stops here.

All the stops for what? Paul's chances of winning?

Here, listen to the lyrics.

Posted by: Jason at 07:35 PM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Uh, guys...

The New Republic's James Kirchick wrote a piece about the darker side of Ron Paul:  Angry White Man.  Read the whole thing, or excerpts at Hot Air (also with a link to Kirchick being interviewed by John Gibson) or Pajamas Media if you want, but all of this stuff could have been easily figured out without Kirchick's expose of Paul's past newsletters.  This is merely icing on the cake for Paul's detractors - making TNR's (yes, that TNR) involvement irrelevant.

The thing I don't get are comments like this from Ace at AoSHQ:

Ron Paul lives in a strange, dark, demon-haunted world. If this stuff is true -- and I assume it is -- it's about time for supposedly-sane Ron Paul boosters like the crew at Reason to admit what this man really is and what he represents. If this is "libertarianism," I want no part of it.

Where have you been?  You obviously haven't spent any time in Michigan.  Back in high school I played a bit in libertarian circles - went to a Gun Stock rally, occasionally listened to Mark Scott (an obituary on Lew Rockwell's blog), went to some LP meetings, got Jon Coon to talk to my high school political science class, and got all hopped up on this "freedom" rhetoric.  But freedom of or from what?  No one knew.  It was just freedom - which is why Ron Paul has, as Andrew Walden writes, an "odd alliance" of supporters.  Communists, Fascists, racists, anti-Semites, and believers of any sort of conspiracy theory*.  Walden's listing of Paulinistas mirrors my own experiences with "libertarians" in the mid-90's when the frenzied talk was of the United Nations invading and taking over the United States - amongst other things.  Nevermind that sort of inane talk was between overweight, middle-aged men in orange camo tramping through the woods with Bud Light and high-powered rifles trying to read The Turner Diaries.

Freedom, man.  Unqualified, unconditional.  Anyone who preaches that is as dangerous as someone preaching populism.

Kirchick's article is nothing new and not surprising, but hopefully it will help put Ron Paul into the same category as Lyndon LaRouche.

Update:  Seeing as I linked Rockwell's blog above I figured I'd read a bit.  Seems the posters over there are a bit upset about Kirchick's "hit piece."  So, naturally, they attack TNR itself. 

The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly, a "Progressive" who believed that the Constitution should be abolished in favor of the will of governing elites.

In the context of knowing where TNR is coming from it makes sense to point this out.  It explains why TNR might go after a Republican candidate; however, it doesn't explain why it would go after Ron Paul.  Paul is clearly anti-war - ostensibly one of the most important issues on TNR's roster.  Plus, Paul is helping to tear the Republican Party apart - something I'm guessing TNR has some interest in doing.  Taking down Paul, then, isn't in their own interests.  Boosting Paul would be.

It also neglects the fact that the Paulinistas, as described above, are from all over the political field.  As seen in the Andrew Walden piece and at the biography page of Karen De Coster - who Rockwell quotes in the Mark Scott obituary I linked above.

I am a CPA and freelance writer who is devoted to the causes of liberty, individualism, and the free market. I embrace the right to keep and bear arms; recognize the superiority of the Articles of Confederation; subscribe to a motley assortment of minor conspiracy theories; and believe that government is evil, immoral, corrupt, and unnecessary in a free society.

I wonder, what exactly is a minor conspiracy theory?  Your neighbors tossing their leaves into your yard?  Nevertheless, these are the people who populate Ron Paul Land where shadows take physical form and goblins steal your cookies.  Excelsior!

(By the way, just how can you believe government is unnecessary in a free society and believe in the Articles of Confederation - a type of government?)

Also, the post at Rockwell just before the attack on TNR:  "Pimply-Faced Youth" Admits He's a Liar.  Apparently, Kirchick first claimed Paul was a homophobe then said Paul wasn't a homophobe in an email to a blogger at Gays & Lesbians for Ron Paul.

This episode illustrates the lack self libertarianism has that I noted in my original post.  While the Rockwell blog describes TNR as having "a view that the political elite need to tell everyone else what to do, and use lethal force against people who resist" it links to a blog, in order to attack Kirchick, that described TNR as having a "history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse."

Anything to anyone.  And they wonder why they're not taken seriously.

Update2:  To expand on that "government is evil, immoral, corrupt, and unnecessary in a free society" and the "anything to anyone" insanity.  How about:  Government, despite its inevitable faults, is necessary for a free society and in order to create a government as free as possible of flaws we must use concretely defined terms.

Case in point:  Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO gets a not-so-vague death threat from a, er, freedom-loving goon.

There's gotta be consequences to what you people are doing. Hannity got chased off the streets... he's lucky that's all that happens. Rudy got locked in a bathroom in a boat in MI. The revolution is real, not symbolic... I wouldn't smack at a hornets nest.

The media is generating hate and their own version of blowback. In America, blowback lead to 9/11. What will your blowback lead to? We're really starting to hate you folks.

Freedom!

*I don't think all of Paul's supporters are creeps.  Some - maybe most - might just be the "leave me alone" types without any ulterior motives.  I don't even think libertarianism is necessarily a bad thing.  I do think it's pretty much undefined and so may mean anything anyone wants it to mean - just like unconditional freedom.  Communists, Fascists, and racists all believe in freedom from or of something afterall.

Posted by: Jason at 05:04 PM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1019 words, total size 8 kb.