:popcorn:




The Greatest Conspiracy (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/08/the-greatest-conspiracy/)



Please stop and read this post at Hot Air right now. [quoted part of the article below]

Go on. I’ll wait for you to come back. It is required reading this morning.

Go on . . . . .

Welcome back.

As you can see, it is a flat out lie that the left was outspent 7 to 1 in Wisconsin. In fact, considering the money unions spent on things like “voter education”, which are not even tabulated as political activity, the unions probably outspent everyone. We don’t know because they don’t exactly have to disclose it all right now.

But the more important question is “why?” Why did the left immediately seize on this idea that they lost because they were outspent.

They did so for the same reason people are protesting the Bilderbergers this week. They did it for the same reason Ron Paul fanatics blame the media for Ron Paul’s lack of success. They did it for the reason most everyone in the world concocts conspiracy theories to explain their defeats.

They did it because if they did not they would have to admit that the American public has rejected them and their ideas.

Ron Paul’s supporters say that if only the media would cover Ron Paul, he would be winning. But when the media covers Ron Paul, they claim the media is biased against him. In reality, Ron Paul comes off sounding like your loony uncle you keep in the attic. You and your “Who is John Galt?” bumper sticker don’t come off much better.

It’s not that politics is lost in Ron Paul. It’s that Ron Paul is lost in politics.










No, Dems were not outspent 7 to 1 in Wisconsin (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/07/no-dems-were-not-outspent-7-to-1-in-wisconsin/)


Politico’s Glenn Thrush is the poster boy for hackery rationalizing Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in the WI recall election:

There’s really only one story in Wisconsin, though you wouldn’t know it from the high paragraphs of most news analyses. It’s M-O-N-E-Y.

Cash doesn’t talk in 2012, it shouts, and Wisconsin was a sonic boom that’s breaking glass in Chicago.

Conservative groups outspent unions and progs in Wisconsin by an estimated SEVEN-TO-ONE.

You’ll find less shouty, but still misleading, versions of this all over the media, e.g., Reuters, NPR, and the WaPo’s Greg Sargent (who is shockingly more accurate at the margin on this one). They are all following the lead of Obama campaign flack Jim Messina, who is trying to raise money off the claim that conservative groups “were willing to spend nearly EIGHT times as much money as the Democratic candidate and his allies raised.”

These claims, depending on the phraseology, range from misleading to flatly false, even based on the sources from which the claims are made.

The spending story stems from a release by the liberal Center for Public Integrity, which took based its analysis on data from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (ostensibly nonpartisan, but a past recipient of Soros money and the sort of group whose director told CPI the spending was “outrageous and wrong”). However, according to that data, when you combine the spending of the candidates and their supporting groups, the gap shrinks to 2-to-1.

Newsflash - when you're message sucks and nobody wants you, you're not gonna get any money. That's why you lost. :gossip:

O'Reilly had a better argument --

Assuming it's true - why WERE they outspent 7 to 1? They're perfectly able to get the money from the Democratic Party. Certainly there were interested parties?

*Probably* for the same reason Obama didn't help them out - probably why, when he was in the area just before the election, he made zero effort to appear, when it would have been easy to do so ----

BECAUSE the issue was on its face, a loser. A losing proposition. Even as public opinion began to turn against the unions, the campaign became less and less about Walker and collective bargaining and more about him, personally.

So even if it's true - this would be like Buddy Roemer claiming that Romney won the nomination because he was outspent. Yeah, for good reason - no one wanted to give Buddy money.

Democrats did NOT contribute to saving the campaign, because they didn't want to.

1. The media DID ignore Ron Paul...
2. I thought Chris Matthews was going to blow a gasket last night. He's so far left it's crazy...
Matthews on dirty, angry money: 'Wisconsin was a bad precedent' - Hardball Blog (http://hardballblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/07/12110485-matthews-on-dirty-angry-money-wisconsin-was-a-bad-precedent)

It's an outrage when an opposing politican gets large donations, and WINS, but it's perfectly ok that Obama had record setting campaign funds raised in 2008.

I hate Matthews, left idiot

I hate Matthews, left idiot

But Matthews needs to be seen to continue to publicly demonstrate his stupidity and how insane and off track the left really is.

I hate Matthews, left idiot

But Matthews needs to be seen to continue to publicly demonstrate his stupidity and how insane and off track the left really is.

I watch him for comedic value....I can't stand him for long, and his lips move like it's 10* outside.

John Stossel is my go-to political "news anchor"

O'Reilly had a better argument --

Assuming it's true - why WERE they outspent 7 to 1? They're perfectly able to get the money from the Democratic Party. Certainly there were interested parties?

*Probably* for the same reason Obama didn't help them out - probably why, when he was in the area just before the election, he made zero effort to appear, when it would have been easy to do so ----

BECAUSE the issue was on its face, a loser. A losing proposition. Even as public opinion began to turn against the unions, the campaign became less and less about Walker and collective bargaining and more about him, personally.

So even if it's true - this would be like Buddy Roemer claiming that Romney won the nomination because he was outspent. Yeah, for good reason - no one wanted to give Buddy money.

Democrats did NOT contribute to saving the campaign, because they didn't want to.

Socialists like unions - in other people's countries. If you'll notice, they're not so keen on unions in their own countries.

That little bit of history ought to instruct us all.

John Stossel is my go-to political "news anchor"





John Stossel is Awesome .........

I wonder if this guy is a relative of Chris "tingly leg"

Don Mathews

Didn't the exit polling show that people had made up their minds even before the ads were shown? Seems to me money was not the issue. At least not in this election. I am not convinced yet that money does anything other than help tell one side of the story. You still have to convince people to vote your way and a slick ad is not enough. At least not for me. If the other side of the story is not being told because they do not have enough money that is where your show comes in to help educate us and help us become better citizens.

This is key;

Ron Paul’s supporters say that if only the media would cover Ron Paul, he would be winning. But when the media covers Ron Paul, they claim the media is biased against him. In reality, Ron Paul comes off sounding like your loony uncle you keep in the attic...

It’s not that politics is lost in Ron Paul. It’s that Ron Paul is lost in politics.

Ron Paul doesn't get coverage because he is not one of the gang. If Obama is going to lose, the media would MUCH prefer Mitt Romney win rather than Paul because, at the end of the day, there is so little difference between Mitt or Dubbya or Clinton or Obama. They are all part of the team; more gummint. THAT is the politics Paul loses; actually stopping the inexorable growth and power of government. That's why he sounds 'kooky' because, left or right, he sticks out like a sore thumb;

ACTUALLY cut spending??? My god, man! Are you CRAZY??!!

Walker, to his credit, did something rather Paul-esque and the establishment right is celebrating. It's no pork off their plates on the national level. Would they celebrate if he went after the military industrial complex? Actually reigned in entitlements? Actually didn't support bailouts of favored groups? Actually ended ethanol and other subsidies? Actually shut down Fanny and Freddy? Actually audited the Fed or eve ended it? Or, would he suddenly become a kook, too?

Every one of those issues are just like the unions Walker has gone after; wired in, too big to fail institutions that have solid support from both left and right. Seeings how they are running America into the grave, perhaps THAT is kooky?

Or, do any of you actually believe federal scope, power and cost will be less when Mitt is done? It won't even stay the same and you know it. It WILL go up and, most likely, a good bit.

I find it fascinating the desire to take a swipe at Paul when government actually gets reduced.

This is key;

Ron Paul doesn't get coverage because he is not one of the gang. If Obama is going to lose, the media would MUCH prefer Mitt Romney win rather than Paul because, at the end of the day, there is so little difference between Mitt or Dubbya or Clinton or Obama. They are all part of the team; more gummint. THAT is the politics Paul loses; actually stopping the inexorable growth and power of government. That's why he sounds 'kooky' because, left or right, he sticks out like a sore thumb;

ACTUALLY cut spending??? My god, man! Are you CRAZY??!!

Walker, to his credit, did something rather Paul-esque and the establishment right is celebrating. It's no pork off their plates on the national level. Would they celebrate if he went after the military industrial complex? Actually reigned in entitlements? Actually didn't support bailouts of favored groups? Actually ended ethanol and other subsidies? Actually shut down Fanny and Freddy? Actually audited the Fed or eve ended it? Or, would he suddenly become a kook, too?

Every one of those issues are just like the unions Walker has gone after; wired in, too big to fail institutions that have solid support from both left and right. Seeings how they are running America into the grave, perhaps THAT is kooky?

Or, do any of you actually believe federal scope, power and cost will be less when Mitt is done? It won't even stay the same and you know it. It WILL go up and, most likely, a good bit.

I find it fascinating the desire to take a swipe at Paul when government actually gets reduced.

Ron Paul gets sparse and unfair (only by Paul's supporters) coverage because he is just like JPC. Only 1-2% of what he says makes any sense and it is always buried in bloviation that nobody wants to hear.

O'Reilly had a better argument --

Assuming it's true - why WERE they outspent 7 to 1? They're perfectly able to get the money from the Democratic Party. Certainly there were interested parties?

*Probably* for the same reason Obama didn't help them out - probably why, when he was in the area just before the election, he made zero effort to appear, when it would have been easy to do so ----

BECAUSE the issue was on its face, a loser. A losing proposition. Even as public opinion began to turn against the unions, the campaign became less and less about Walker and collective bargaining and more about him, personally.

So even if it's true - this would be like Buddy Roemer claiming that Romney won the nomination because he was outspent. Yeah, for good reason - no one wanted to give Buddy money.

Democrats did NOT contribute to saving the campaign, because they didn't want to.

The Democrats blew this one and they knew it from the get-go. They had some compelling facts. Instead of making it about Scott Walker wanting to punish teachers, they made it about the loathed unions. When you look at the fact that Walker did not go after conservative unions that supported him and you look at the fact that the teacher's unions agreed to 100% of his requests, you have a winning message. There's also a lot of stuff in economic journals about how the pension system is different in Wisconsin than in every other state, stuff that was only rebutted with "but they're public sector employees" in conservative-leaning journals. But the Democrats hid behind msnbc.

Democrats banked on the unions, which, no matter how right or wrong they are, the only thing people hate more than greedy corporations is teachers union. Asking why only traditionally liberal people should make a greater pension contribution (take a paycut) to balance the budget and not all public sector employees is a compelling argument. Democrats failed to make it. Instead, they hid behind Ed Schultz. And they deserved this loss.

I wouldn't have donated a cent to this campaign either.

Also, a lot of people think teachers are overpaid. Want proof of this, come out to the Charles County Board of Commissioners meeting on Tuesday night and listen to how many people say teachers are overpaid and should take pension and pay cuts.

..... did not go after conservative unions that supported him and you look at the fact that the teacher's unions agreed to 100% of his requests,




Conservative UNIONS ? WTF are you talking about ... this is no such animal


Teachers UNIONS Agree 100% - you sir are out of your ####ing tree ....

.... the TEACHERS were one of the Largest groups OCCUPYING the State House for Weeks ....

.... doctors writing fake sick slips for these protesting teachers protesting ...

..... teachers dragging their classes down in to the mayhem ...........

1. The media DID ignore Ron Paul...
2. I thought Chris Matthews was going to blow a gasket last night. He's so far left it's crazy...
Matthews on dirty, angry money: 'Wisconsin was a bad precedent' - Hardball Blog (http://hardballblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/07/12110485-matthews-on-dirty-angry-money-wisconsin-was-a-bad-precedent)

It's an outrage when an opposing politican gets large donations, and WINS, but it's perfectly ok that Obama had record setting campaign funds raised in 2008.

This is key;

Ron Paul doesn't get coverage because he is not one of the gang. If Obama is going to lose, the media would MUCH prefer Mitt Romney win rather than Paul because, at the end of the day, there is so little difference between Mitt or Dubbya or Clinton or Obama. They are all part of the team; more gummint. THAT is the politics Paul loses; actually stopping the inexorable growth and power of government. That's why he sounds 'kooky' because, left or right, he sticks out like a sore thumb;

ACTUALLY cut spending??? My god, man! Are you CRAZY??!!

Walker, to his credit, did something rather Paul-esque and the establishment right is celebrating. It's no pork off their plates on the national level. Would they celebrate if he went after the military industrial complex? Actually reigned in entitlements? Actually didn't support bailouts of favored groups? Actually ended ethanol and other subsidies? Actually shut down Fanny and Freddy? Actually audited the Fed or eve ended it? Or, would he suddenly become a kook, too?

Every one of those issues are just like the unions Walker has gone after; wired in, too big to fail institutions that have solid support from both left and right. Seeings how they are running America into the grave, perhaps THAT is kooky?

Or, do any of you actually believe federal scope, power and cost will be less when Mitt is done? It won't even stay the same and you know it. It WILL go up and, most likely, a good bit.

I find it fascinating the desire to take a swipe at Paul when government actually gets reduced.:lmao: I give y'all credit. Just like a diehard Redskin fan, you carry the torch even when there isn't a snowball's chance in hell.

Ron Paul didn't get any coverage because he's irrelevant and a kook. While I'm all for the constitution and cutting spending, anyone who would let the goat fukkers in the mid east run amok is a kook and will never get elected.

Ron Paul doesn't get coverage because he is not one of the gang.

Well, that's the same reason Thaddeus McCotter didn't get any, either.

Or even my man, Buddy Roemer.

Who? Who, you say? A man who got more votes than Herman Cain, Fred Karger and Gary Johnson - COMBINED?

In several races, he placed ahead of Bachmann, Perry or Huntsman. In Puerto Rico, he even beat Newt and (gasp) Ron Paul.

(sigh)

Yeah, I forget. The only wallflower, the only person wronged in the entire press conspiracy was the righteous Ron Paul. All of the others were so much whale dreck.

Look, the press is about viewers and readers. If Paul resonated with enough people, he would have gotten the coverage. I don't care if he was sent on a mission from God, if people aren't interested, you can't make them interested. And frankly, to me the biggest turn-off for Paul had to be the single-minded fanaticism of his converts.

Conservative UNIONS ? WTF are you talking about ... this is no such animal


Teachers UNIONS Agree 100% - you sir are out of your ####ing tree ....

.... the TEACHERS were one of the Largest groups OCCUPYING the State House for Weeks ....

.... doctors writing fake sick slips for these protesting teachers protesting ...

..... teachers dragging their classes down in to the mayhem ...........

The "conservative unions" meaning the unions of public sector employees that tend to vote Republican.

The teachers realized they needed to do their part for the deficit and agreed. Then, Walker decided to strip collective barganing, likely because they do not want the unions to come back when the deficit problem is solved. And I completely agree with that argument. But, when you have a negotiation and you get everything you want (as Walker did), you should walk away with your winning hand instead of trying to get more.

Then, there's this: tax.com: Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin: Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions? (http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument)

This was something that, at the time it was published, I searched for a rebuttal for from a moderate or right-leaning economic journal and just couldn't find one.

Who ‘Contributes’ to Public Workers’ Pensions? (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/who-contributes-to-public-workers-pensions/)


David Cay Johnston of the progressive Tax.com argues that Wisconsin’s public sector workers are already paying for their benefits and therefore asking them to “contribute” more amounts to a pay cut.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans.

Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, created the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not.

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the “contributions” consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply “contribute more” to Wisconsin’ s retirement system (or as the argument goes, “pay their fair share” of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin’ s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: “The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee.” This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

This is really a semantic argument. Wisconsin’s taxpayers are, as Walker suggests, paying 100 percent of the cost of the benefits programs for state employees. But, yes, as Johnston argues, the benefits amount to a payment in kind: They’re part of an overall package that people evaluate when deciding whether to work for the state.

If my employer pays for my parking and then announces that they’ll no longer do that, this policy change amounts to a pay cut. But I’ll likely get very little sympathy from those who’ve paid for their own parking to begin with.

Regardless, treating the current arrangement as a permanent baseline makes little sense. States, like any other employer, have to constantly evaluate their compensation packages in light of the market and their own ability to pay. Pension and other liabilities to retired employees are a more-or-less fixed cost. Pay and benefits of current and future employees are variable.



:gossip:

:gossip:

The "rebuttal" is weak.

Aside from the fact that it is all for nothing because, all this aside, the teachers union gave Walker everything he wanted. Walker walked away from negotiations with a winning hand. He wanted 100% and, instead of being negotiated down to 50%, he walked away with 100%. If he would've stopped at that, he'd have an 80% approval rating.

W

Yeah, I forget. The only wallflower, the only person wronged in the entire press conspiracy was the righteous Ron Paul. All of the others were so much whale dreck.

.

Allow me to clarify; Ron Paul is not one of the gang. He doesn't have the support. Not enough people support him. He does not have the following of enough people to carry out his kooky agenda of reducing the size and scope and cost of gummint. People don't like him for higher office because not very many agree with him. Most people, contrary to what they say, like the way things are going and do NOT like the idea of real cuts in spending.

You are correct the dems were not outspent 7-1, It was 9-1.

You are correct the dems were not outspent 7-1, It was 9-1.

Without a link, the statement reads like an opinion (and everyone has one, especially here).

The "rebuttal" is weak.

Your Challange is Weak Andrew ............. Tax.com a progressive website, who's message is repeated far and wide buy other Progressive Websites ..........


find the story accurately reported somewhere else and we can have a further discussion

Huff Po, DU ......... really


at least The Blaze pulls NEWS From AP and other sources ...........

You are correct the dems were not outspent 7-1, It was 9-1.



Yeah Sparky can you back that statement up .......... :nomoney:

Your Challange is Weak Andrew ............. Tax.com a progressive website, who's message is repeated far and wide buy other Progressive Websites ..........


find the story accurately reported somewhere else and we can have a further discussion

Huff Po, DU ......... really


at least The Blaze pulls NEWS From AP and other sources ...........

So a "Progressive Website" (which is your definition for anything to the left of FOX Nation) is an unacceptable source.... coming from the person who posts links from Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, Breitbart.com, Glenn Beck's The Blaze and Rush Limbaugh on an hourly basis? :killingme:killingme:killingme:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Most people, contrary to what they say, like the way things are going and do NOT like the idea of real cuts in spending.

Because "most people" are all delusional and lying to themselves.

OR

They don't think Ron Paul can do a darned thing he says, because in 20-30 years in and out of Congress, he hasn't really done anything in that vein.


Hmmmm.....*EVERYONE* else is messed up - or they just don't think he can do it.

Because "most people" are all delusional and lying to themselves.

OR

They don't think Ron Paul can do a darned thing he says, because in 20-30 years in and out of Congress, he hasn't really done anything in that vein.


Hmmmm.....*EVERYONE* else is messed up - or they just don't think he can do it.

Well, given the folks who are getting all the support aren't going to actually cut government, unless you are correct and folks are delusional and lying to themselves, you may have a point. I mean, think about it. Would our politics be this messed up if only one person was 'messed up'?

Well, given the folks who are getting all the support aren't going to actually cut government, unless you are correct and folks are delusional and lying to themselves, you may have a point. I mean, think about it. Would our politics be this messed up if only one person was 'messed up'?

I'm just applying Occam's Razor.

Which is more likely - they don't believe the promises of a man who's spent decades in Congress but hasn't distinguished himself in any way except to open his mouth, or similarly, don't think he can do any of it

OR

Almost the entire voting population is self-deluded because they say one thing, want another and refuse to come to the sane and the single rational conclusion that Ron Paul is the only person they have any reason in the world to vote for?

Seriously, Ron Paul fanatics are entirely of the same cloth as Obama fanatics. They believe completely in a bunch of words with absolutely no deeds to sustain them.

And I thought only die-hard liberals believed that only people who don't have all the facts or otherwise have serious character flaws don't agree with their views.

I'm just applying Occam's Razor.

Which is more likely - they don't believe the promises of a man who's spent decades in Congress but hasn't distinguished himself in any way except to open his mouth, or similarly, don't think he can do any of it

OR

Almost the entire voting population is self-deluded because they say one thing, want another and refuse to come to the sane and the single rational conclusion that Ron Paul is the only person they have any reason in the world to vote for?

Seriously, Ron Paul fanatics are entirely of the same cloth as Obama fanatics. They believe completely in a bunch of words with absolutely no deeds to sustain them.

And I thought only die-hard liberals believed that only people who don't have all the facts or otherwise have serious character flaws don't agree with their views.

Ron Paul's voting record is not a hypothesis, contrary to your opinion. Nor is the political career of Mitt. Or the Rick's. We know what they've said and how they've acted. A member of congress, in my view, is best judged on how they vote and compare it to what they say. People like Cain, on the other hand, that would be where Occam would apply; there is no record, a political record, to compare it to so, it's a hypothesis.

It's fascinating watching to what lengths you'll go to discredit Paul and his 'followers', like it's a cult, whereas people who simply vote GOP, what, are rational, thoughtful people who believe in limited government, never mind what the party actually does?

Sam, it's OK to just say you, and most people who claim to be fiscally conservative, only mean that in so far as it affects other people's government spending. I have no problem with self interest.

Self delusion, on the other hand...

Here. I assume you are voting Mitt. Do you believe government spending will, assuming he wins, have been, four years from when he takes office, more than now, less than now or more or less on the same trajectory is has been the last 12 years? Compare that answer to what you think it should be.

The notion that the Democrats were outspent 7 to 1 in Wisconsin is ridiculous and, in large part, the product of intellectual hypocrisy. It comes from partisans choosing only to count what they want to count - not for propriety's sake, not because it's what paints a fair and fairly representative picture, but because it fits the narrative they desperately want to believe or want to convince others of.

How much money did MSNBC, the NY Times, Fox News, the Huffington Post, and other such homes of political commenters spend 'covering' the situation in Wisconsin? Any measurement that doesn't take such spending or such influence into account is near meaningless - at the very least, it is misleading. The Democrats didn't lose in Wisconsin because they were outspent, because someone bought the election - they lost because what they stood for (or their candidate himself) was less popular than what the other side stood for (or their candidate himself), at least among those people that bothered to vote. That's as it should be. I'd guess that, with the unions' on-the-ground activities and the widespread media coverage / influence, the 'Democrats' got more ear with the electorate than the 'Republicans' did. Not being on the ground there myself, my guess could of course be off base.

To the Ron Paul discussion that this thread evolved into: It seems to me that Mr. Paul got lots of media coverage. I saw more from him than I did from most of the other Republican candidates, and probably more from him (over time) than from anyone other than Mr. Romney. You don't just automatically get all the media coverage because you decide to run for President. You get it by making yourself a viable candidate. Mr. Romney got the most coverage because he was always the front runner. Mr. Paul got considerable coverage himself even though he was never a real threat to win.

Mr. Paul's inability to get more support wasn't because nobody knew who he was, particularly among Republican primary voters. He didn't get more support because he's not what most of those voters want. He stands for what they claim in the abstract to want, not what they actually want in specific. His positions are quite antithetical to what they actually want. His positions have been rejected (by the majority, though not by a passionate minority) because they are known and disliked, not because they are unknown. He's trying to appeal to hypocrites with straight-talk - by and large, that doesn't work.

It's fascinating watching to what lengths you'll go to discredit Paul and his 'followers', like it's a cult, whereas people who simply vote GOP, what, are rational, thoughtful people who believe in limited government, never mind what the party actually does?


We've been through this - barring significant change in the way our political system is run, we've always known it was going to be a choice between the GOP candidate, and Obama. And, per discussions we've had before, it was clear enough early on that Mitt was going to be the favorite. And for reasons I've outlined - dollars spent on campaigns usually translate into wins.

It was also more or less a foregone conclusion that Paul was not going to be the GOP candidate. For one thing, his own statements show him to be more libertarian in GOP clothing. He's basically another kind of RINO; just not the liberal kind. In the past, he's stated he has no intention of supporting the GOP candidate, if it isn't him. So he's not a party supporter. And for better or worse, he really doesn't fit in the GOP, although he's had no problem using it as a means to get into Congress.

He's not a guy who can broker deals and forge alliances. He doesn't play well with others. That works FINE as a Representative in Congress, especially if you really think their only value is casting votes. Many other representatives have distinguished themselves as national leaders, because they've taken the opportunity to do more than show up.

He has red flag issues, for me - and they cancel out all the others. I think some of his fiscal ideas are good. Some are naive.

I think he'd make a lousy executive. But like Donald Trump, he makes great political theater.

I just don't buy into the idea that somehow, his candidacy never really gained ground because he was either unwilling to compromise his much vaunted principles because he's saying the real thing to an entire population that are all hypocrites. Dear God - if the people of the United States are the persistent problem with who gets elected, then it seriously doesn't matter about getting a good candidate up there, does it? But maybe there's a simpler answer - maybe there's just something wrong with the candidate.

I just get this sense from Ron Paul supporters of "no prophet is accepted in his own country" - that somehow, he's some kind of Messiah with a Cassandra complex - he tells the truth and NO ONE WILL BELIEVE HIM. Just the faithful. I'm more inclined to believe he's just nutty.

Lastly, I kind of like pulling your chain regarding him, because for the last several years, you've become like a comedian who knows only one joke, and doesn't understand why people aren't laughing, so you keep telling it. It's not funny, and it's not even funny to WATCH any more.

It comes from partisans choosing only to count what they want to count - not for propriety's sake, not because it's what paints a fair and fairly representative picture, but because it fits the narrative they desperately want to believe or want to convince others of.



That. The best fair estimate I've seen, using a consistent measure of what an expenditure consisted of, put the "GOP side" at a spend of around 25 million and the "Dem/Union side" at roughly 23.5 million for that contest. That said, the actual totals remain arguable..but remain close nonetheless.

And that did not include any factor or fudge for the disparate media coverage that favored the Dem/Union side by and large.

Looks like an even contest financially..and the win was based on the message alone.

That. The best fair estimate I've seen, using a consistent measure of what an expenditure consisted of, put the "GOP side" at a spend of around 25 million and the "Dem/Union side" at roughly 23.5 million for that contest.

And that did not include any factor or fudge for the disparate media coverage that favored the Dem/Union side by and large.

Looks like an even contest financially..and the win was based on the message alone.

If there was a "Larry Show" when a lib guest argued that 'they spent more money!' I'd ask the next logical question; so, what does that mean? They bought voters off? Told lies with it? The voters are dumb? Is that why Obama beat McCain?"

No one, not many, have actual conversations about points people make.

Lastly, I kind of like pulling your chain regarding him, because for the last several years, you've become like a comedian who knows only one joke, and doesn't understand why people aren't laughing, so you keep telling it. It's not funny, and it's not even funny to WATCH any more.

:dingding:

We've been through this - barring significant change in the way our political system is run, we've always known it was going to be a choice between the GOP candidate, and Obama. And, per discussions we've had before, it was clear enough early on that Mitt was going to be the favorite. And for reasons I've outlined - dollars spent on campaigns usually translate into wins. .

And Mitt got more dollars and had more approval, more people like him, than Paul. I concede that. What I don't concede is that Paul is a 'kook' in any sense other than he hasn't said and done the things Mitt has done to win the nomination. To equate stating that the IRS was created in violation of the constitution is not a 'kook' statement. It's true. To call for $1 trillion in spending cuts in a government that is spending $1.3 trillion or so more than it takes in is not 'kooky' to me. To want to audit and perhaps get rid of the fed is not kooky to me. To declare that our crusades do not take into account, at all, our role in destroying fundamental Islam is not kookery. To have a reserved foreign policy is in keeping with the founders view, not Bush or Obama's. Bush and Obama are in keeping with the views of enough American's to support the wars they are 'leading'.

I have no problem with people not liking Paul. What is annoying is this quest that he is a kook when, far more than most major candidates, including his voting record, the ONE thing, for sure, a politician ought to be judged by, he represents more of what most of us say we are for; limited government.

That is not Rick Perry. That is not Rick Santorum. That is not Newt Gingrich. That is not Mitt Romney.

Most of us are, I think, kooks when we keep voting for the same things and expecting different results. It is predictable. It is Occum; the simpler explanation is better. Most of us do NOT want less government.

Not really.

Lastly, I kind of like pulling your chain regarding him, because for the last several years, you've become like a comedian who knows only one joke, and doesn't understand why people aren't laughing, so you keep telling it. It's not funny, and it's not even funny to WATCH any more.

I have no chain to pull. I have no emotional investment in Paul. I don't give $ to him. He does, however, make a lot of sense to me. Even more sense when you compare him to what we claim we think is wrong in our governance and we look at his voting record. Even more when we compare him to the folks he ran, and lost, against.

I have long come to grips with the fact that most of us have zero interest in limited government. We only want it limited on what other people want. One of the key tenets of being a true conservative is that you expect things to go wrong, expect people to make poor choices, expect less and then, most of the time, you are not disappointed and when things go better, when people do actually do what they say, like a president, then all the better.

Ron Paul tends to defer to his understanding of the constitution when talking policy and government. Most of us say we like that but, as a true conservative, I've learned not to count on that and I accept that. It makes perfect sense to me that the GOP, the party of 'less government' has nominated an ex governor of, of all places, Massachusetts and who will most likely be, this fall, the one guy on stage that made a government run program in health care a working reality.

That no longer surprises me about the GOP. I don't like it and I don't agree with it but, I've learned to expect that sort of thing. George Bush cured me of my optimism when it comes to folks who claim to be right wing. When people call Paul a kook, they may as well be a lib screaming "Nazi!".

Michael McConnell: Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452500665661454.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)

Without a link, the statement reads like an opinion (and everyone has one, especially here).

I can do maths and adds good.

I can do maths and adds good.

Unions spent around 14 million - but since they can pay "volunteers", it doesn't get reported as campaign money. The number used the most was a grand total of 63 million on both sides. If they were outspent 34-4 - where's the rest of the money?

Moreover, the dollars spent to recall everyone else isn't included, either.

The Democrats are trying to claim that after two years, they were only able to raise 4 million dollars to do this. All of the unions, all of the political groups, all of the donations - just 4 million dollars. Not George Soros, not the Democratic Governor's Asssociation, not the DNC, not the SEIU, the Tides Foundation, the Center for American Progress, not the AFL-CIO - that's it?

I'm inclined to believe only two possibilities -

1. A lot of money isn't being used to compute the ratio - that is, it's a lie or -

2. The issue was so utterly irrelevant and unimportant to the Democratic Party that they didn't bother to do a damned thing.

4 million? Please. Obama can raise that much in his sleep. They had a year and a half.