I think Kucinich "can't win" because people (mostly unfairly) think he's "unelectable" for the wrong reasons:
-He's short and funny looking
-He's new agey. And by the way, I think Tim Russert is guilty of character assasination. I wrote a letter to the editor about that, FWIW.
-He's to the left of most people.

That's part of what I mean when I say the Dems need to remind the upper middle class that the operative word is "middle" not "upper" vis-a-vis their socioeconomic status.
Many of the things that the "crazy lefty," Dennis K, wants are in their best interest. They are convinced they are Rockefellers in their quarter acre mansions and vote as if they are social climbing, however.

I'd argue that a lot of the reason the middle class thinks they are upper, and the upper think they are rich is due to GOP bullshit propaganda. As if the "death tax," or similar other examples, actually affect them.

I have no problem with Kucinich. If he ever had a chance, it's now, even though it's still a very small one. People want to "fire" the Republicans.
However, the early caucus voters are in more moderate states, AND they tend to be more moderate to begin with, as people. So, they set the tone, and I don't think they are going to give a boost to Dennis the "lefty." My hope is that they see something in Edwards, because I think he's a fairly good guy. He's told the truth about the war, and about Hillary. That's a good start.

Regarding your question, I already answered it:
I think Defense is giving money to Clinton because she is their best bet for keeping a Republican in office. She spends that money, runs hard, gets the nomination, and gets trounced by nearly any Republican who runs against her. Same with Murdoch's plan.
Of course if she wins the POTUS, the consolation prize is that they gave to the right person. I don't think that's the reason they are doing it though. As little as I like her, I don't think she's as hawkish as Romney or Giulliani. If one of them gets their party's nomination, we'll see where the Defense money goes. No bets, but that's what my gut tells me is going on.

The funny thing would be if the Republican nominee were Huckabee, who is as close to a pacifist as the GOP has. Paul wants us out of Iraq for traditional isolationist reasons. That's fine - the end justifies the means in this example. Huckabee actually believes what his Good Book tells him - all of that crazy stuff about loving thy neighbor and not killing them. Radical shit like that. Or so he says. I'm inclined to believe him.

-A

alex maiolo wrote:I'd argue that a lot of the reason the middle class thinks they are upper, and the upper think they are rich is due to GOP bullshit propaganda. As if the "death tax," or similar other examples, actually affect them.

This pretty much accounts for the majority conservative support in the UK, with the grassroots tories being the nationalists, racists, libertarians, ulster unionists and other questionables called to wave the flag/trounce the foreigners if the party ever needs a surge of support. In the UK, the working class right tend not to vote at all. At the risk of sounding a bit condescending and Bobbish about it, they're all too busy deep frying marsbars, watching Little Britain and reading the Daily Mail.

I would be suprised if a similiar deluded slice of the pretend rich didn't represent at least half of the GOP's support and around 90% of libertarian support in the states. The insanely rich tend to know that libertarianism doesn't work because they rely on the state/private interface to manage their finances, they tend to back the free-trade horse that wins while holding neo-liberalism up as an ideal.

Whether or not the UK or the US leads this trend is up for debate, but where ever it comes from it is definitely a case of the blind leading the blind.

I think that young people are supporting Ron Paul because they realize that our system in Washington is broken. They are yearning for some meaningful change. I couldn't agree more, but this is not the way to go about it.

I don't fault all of these people for supporting Paul, because he has carefully crafted his campaign image so that the public isn't confronted with his nutjob tendencies. It's a sneaky tactic, and he's proving that it can work.

Rick Reuben wrote:punks 4 ron paul on myspace.com

Every single thing about that sucks. Every word of it, even "on" was ill-chosen.

I wonder how many Ron Paul blogs are currently sporting links to this : http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/f ... eal-p.html

Rick Reuben wrote:Crushed by groupthink, crushed by the parties, crushed by the media, crushed by the establishment. Punk rock? Yes. Ron Paul? Yes.

Well, you do have a point.
When I think of "punk rock," I think of an old, white, gynecologist, who wears a suit, loves the home schoolin', and thinks abortion should be illegal.

That's where John Cooper Clarke is these days, right?

-A

Rick Reuben wrote:Have Hillary, Barack or John Edwards ever been punk rock?

I doubt it, but Huckabee still is.



Has Ron Paul ever pardoned Keith Richards for reckless driving?

Rick Reuben wrote:Brief interview with Ron Paul in Rolling Stone:
read it here.

The Bush administration says Iran is supporting the Iraqi insurgency. How much can we trust that assessment?

Paul: About as much as what we heard about Iraq before the war. What was true about that? Very, very little, if anything. They're capable of telling us anything if they want to go to war. And that's what they want.

I posted about that a week and a half ago before there was any link online.
Get with the times.

Anyone catch the youtube debate? Link to the whole thing on youtube on the front page.

Ron Paul directly addressed the North American Union ->
Here

Jeez, whenever Ron Paul talks and everyone boos him about Iraq, it feels like that movie Idiocracy. I also LOL'ed when McCain was telling him that pulling out was the wrong idea, and Paul just shook his head no with a big smile on his face.

See it here

He also stated that hes not running as an independent. He has a nice ending to the debate here speaking about his whole campaign and the greater overall theme of change in America.

See it here

Hes not the best of public speakers sometimes, and can fumble up his words, but it was good to see him speak. There are more parts of the debate with him; check out youtube for more.

Rick Reuben wrote:If the Heritage Foundation had stated that 'most wealthy Americans vote Democratic', you could probably prove them wrong.

I wouldn't have to prove them wrong, it's an open lie.

But they didn't say that- they said that 84 out of the wealthiest 167 districts have Democratic reps- a 100% truthful statement.

Nope

They didn't say that - they avoided saying it because it runs counter to their attempts to claim that the Democrats are the party of the wealthy. I didn't see that stat in the original HF article on the subject, only in the Washington Post coverage of the study.

See, the 84/167 stat demonstrates conclusively that the Democratic Party is weaker in wealthier districts, because they take home a larger proportion of the representation in the middle third and the bottom third.

The only way you are able to argue that the HF did not misrepresent their statistics is by pretending that they didn't claim the 58% figure that they did, and didn't arrive at that figure through fraudulently manipulating the sample to provide a result that was directly disproven by a simple look at public voting records.

Since acknowledging the deception of the HF study would require you to admit both your own gullibility and undermine your preconceptions, you retort, ironically enough, by misrepresenting the HF's misrepresentation of the data, through constant denial, and through a failure to grasp basic math that is seriously not making you look any better.

Everyone knows you lost.

Rick Reuben wrote:Plus, my post didn't mention that douche Taibbi.

Have you not read his books?
He shits on every Democratic candidate from the 2004 election except Kucinich in Spanking The Donkey and exposes them for being the fakes that they are.
Smells Like Dead Elephants is even more cynical, but not funny in the least bit.
It's frighteningly serious.
When you have the balls to go stay a weekend in a prison like Abu Ghraib, then and only then can you talk shit about someone's character.