« Going To BlogWorld? | Main | Will You Answer What Congress Won't? The Top 20 Questions pt 8 »

Judas Goat

It seems to me that a good chunk of the people backing Ron Paul aren't doing so because they want him to win, but because of the potential mischief he could cause the Republicans running for president. I think that's a bit dishonest, and it bugs me.

But I see its appeal.

And its potential effectiveness.

So I'm going to try it myself. I'm going to be a bit more forthright about it, though, and be absolutely honest about my insincerity.

I hereby hope that John Edwards stays in the race as long as possible, and might even vote for him in New Hampshire's primary, as long as he keeps running ads like this:

And this:

For the record, there's no way in HELL I'd ever vote for Edwards in the general election, and view a potential Edwards administration as an unmitigated disaster for this country. Likewise, I hope he does NOT win the nomination, because 1) I believe in rigorous elections, and want the best-qualified people to win the nominations, and B) it would make an Edwards presidency a possibility.

But as long as he's focusing on taking down Hillary Clinton (with that most devious and dishonest and dishonorable and deceptive and disgusting tactic, using her own words), I hope all Americans put their money on Silky Pony to WIN -- or at least, place or show.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judas Goat:

Comments (41)

"Dishonest" -- come on now,... (Below threshold)

"Dishonest" -- come on now, Paul's win must have hit a nerve. Relax, when the time comes I know you will slip out and vote for Paul. In that way you can continue to call the Paul people "dishonest" and yet pretend you are honest! Hey, a "win-win" situation!

Jay, I agree completely abo... (Below threshold)

Jay, I agree completely about Ron Paul. I describe him as a political suicide bomber. Not too different from Ross Perot, except that Perot actually was competitive. Perot proved he was a suicide bomber when he withdrew during the Democrat convention at a time when the three candidates each had about 30%, and the leader was only 4% ahead of the lowest of the three.

That JE would run an anti-P... (Below threshold)

That JE would run an anti-PAC ad, in light of the obscene money he raises from the plaintiff's trial bar, is just shameless.

Go John go!

I think Edwards wrecked his... (Below threshold)

I think Edwards wrecked his own campaign when he let his wife do all his attacking for him.

Oh man... Can we use the fi... (Below threshold)

Oh man... Can we use the first still frame from the first add as a caption contest?

I got the winning entry already!

This little piggy said yes, this little piggy said no, this little piggy said she didn't know... And this little piggy laughed "Bwahahaha" all the way to the White House.

Once again JT belies his cl... (Below threshold)

Once again JT belies his claim to be an "independent" and a "libertarian".

Ron Paul's "isolationist" v... (Below threshold)

Ron Paul's "isolationist" views and his cut n run policies will not hurt Republicans in a "third party ticket". He will be another Nadar and recieve a larger portion of the democratic vote that would otherwise go to Clinton.

You "dreamers" on the left need to get off the Kool-aid and taste some reality.

This campaign will still be about national secuity as the #1 issue, and the democrat party simply cannot be trusted to protect this nation. Also, when every dem presidential candidate would endorse Gov. Spitzer's plan to issue DL's to illegals (which 80% of the country thinks is suicidal) the party of socialism is doomed again.

I think most posters here h... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

I think most posters here have voted for George Bush twice. It's like political acumen from the group home.

correction: national secur... (Below threshold)

correction: national security (not secuity)

I think most posters here have voted for George Bush twice. It's like political acumen from the group home.

So, if we're using labels lava, does this make other posters herb smokin' "McGovernites"? Warning: When in the fog----turn lights on low beam for the sight-impaired.

In the same vein; Bloomberg... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

In the same vein; Bloomberg for president!

I did not get what you mean... (Below threshold)

I did not get what you meant to say. RP supporters want to change the conversation. They want the media to be talking about individual rights and the Constitution.

Now I want to see more specific examples of our rights being taken away (eg IMBRA and VAWA taking men's rights).

There is nothing dishonest about wanting to change the conversation. I am tired of hearing how Giuliani will protect us. Even if I agree with Giuliani's take on the war, I don't need to hear that boring message all the time. I get it Mr. Giuliani, now please explain what you meant by "I am not for Internet Regulation unless it is reasonable".

I think most posters her... (Below threshold)

I think most posters here have voted for George Bush twice. It's like political acumen from the group home.

And voting for Kerry or Gore would have demonstrated greater acumen? Bawhahahahaha!!

The silky pony deserves kud... (Below threshold)

The silky pony deserves kudo's for whipping out ads like those, truth hurts even more when its your own words that hit you.

Ron Paul has the potential to draw off far more Democratic voters because his stands are more closely aligned with the Democratic talking points than some of the Democratic candidates currently running.

RP is an isolationist/populist and as such is seen as a loon by a significant portion of the voting populace.

RON PAUL is the better cana... (Below threshold)
Spurwing Plover:

RON PAUL is the better canadate for the whitehouse i mean HILLARY and OBAMA are the very worse of what you can get

Ron Paul is the General Sto... (Below threshold)

Ron Paul is the General Stockdale of this campaign.. way better then the dem's candidates for sure!

Good for Jon boy though!

Do we want Ron Paul to caus... (Below threshold)
Jason The Saj:

Do we want Ron Paul to cause mischief for the Republican party? No, not really...

Do we want Ron Paul to cause mischief for Congress...ABSOLUTELY!!!

Congress has repeatedly grown more and more bloated. Would Ron Paul be able to reverse several decades of bloat. Not likely, but it might stir up a trend.

In truth, I support Ron Paul on most policies except his isolationist stance. That said, his idea of bringing back "Letters of Marque" for capture of terrorists did intrigue me. But I think our government is in desperate need to have the pot stirred big time. Or it is destined to become a collapsing socialist regime that reaches a point akin to some European nations where you can't even pick the names to name your child except from a select list of politically correct approved names.

I don't want to live in such a world where the government takes 90% of my income and gives me what it thinks I need and want and tells me what I can and can't do on all aspects of life.

And if Ron Paul can stir up the hornets nest and set that back a bit. I'm all for it - especially as there is not a single other candidate that interests me.

Ron Paul is really the Republicans "Barack Obama". The pot stirrer.

It seems to me that a go... (Below threshold)

It seems to me that a good chunk of the people backing Ron Paul aren't doing so because they want him to win, but because of the potential mischief he could cause the Republicans running for president.

I think a good chunk of the people backing Ron Paul, from both sides of the aisle, are doing so because they are sick of the ridiculous phonies both parties have to offer. It's hard not to get caught up in the Paul wave when confronted with the Kang and Kodos frontrunners currently on display.

Clinton, Romney, Obama, Giuliani. I don't believe a word that comes out of any of their mouths. But with Paul, while I strongly disagree with him on a number of issues, I have to respect him for his coherent and consistent political philosophy, his willingness to challenge conventional wisdom (unlike guys like McCain and Obama, who only pretend to do so), and the fact that he is the only candidate who seems to value the Constitution in any meaningful way.

I don't believe many Paul supporters are such because they want him to torpedo the Republican candidates, I think many of them are just energized by a candidate who doesn't sound like he's constantly lying, and his commitment to limited government is quite attractive to those who are rightfully concerned about the policies of the current administration. I'm not as energized as they are, but he's certainly refreshing.

Ron Paul is objectionable a... (Below threshold)

Ron Paul is objectionable as candidate for any party.

His so-called 'Isolationist' policy is based off a low self-esteem approach to foreign policy. "Everything bad that happens to the US is the US's fault and if we lock ourselves in our apartment and don't go outside, we'll be safe".

The motive behind Isolationism, of Paul's kind or any other, in large part is to ensure our automony. You don't have autonomy when you act like a shut-in and are afraid to step on anyone's toes.

I can't believe the number ... (Below threshold)

I can't believe the number of times I've seen Ron Paul labeled an 'isolationist'! I fail to see how his message that we should stop policing the world, stop nation-building, and start talking and trading with countries can be construed in any way as 'isolationist'.

The real isolationists are the neo-cons in power right now who think it's their obligation to tell other countries how to behave, regardless of how many we piss off. Our current foreign policy is alienating us from the rest of the world; our supporters around the globe are dropping like flies because we insist on bringing peace and democracy from behind a gun.

Did I just hear "Ron Paul' ... (Below threshold)

Did I just hear "Ron Paul' and "Coherant' in the same sentence? Couldn't be, must be hearing things.

Ron Paul hauled in more tha... (Below threshold)
Civil behavior:

Ron Paul hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.

Paul stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. 2007 has just passed all other years in deaths of American soldiers. Sixty percent of Americans favor withdrawing U.S. forces.

He opposes Bush's security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.

Ron Paul is not a miracle candidate who bridges the political divide. He's a run-of-the-mill inconsistent libertarian Republican who only stands out because the rest of his party is so rotten.

He is garnering more press than Freddy or Mitt or the lost soul McCain.

You righties are more confused than ever. The nuclei of the republican party have become cross dressers.

Good luck with that.

Ron Paul hauled in more ... (Below threshold)

Ron Paul hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.
I guess what I would like to see is how much of that came from conservatives and how much came from Truthers and Hillary supporters?

He's gathering press, and m... (Below threshold)

He's gathering press, and money. . but no votes. Now why could THAT be?

60% do NOT favor withdrawl, the oppose how things are being handled, which is a different thing entirely. SOme want withrdrawl> SOme want a 'doubling down'.

Clinton supporters would be... (Below threshold)

Clinton supporters would be unwise to support Paul. As much as Jay and others think that Paul is some sort of Nader for the Republicans, the reality is that he is getting a lot of support from anti-war lefties who are tired of the Democrats' constant caving on the Iraq War, which no one really believes Hillary wants to end (do you?). What the ratio of fed-up libertarians (shouldn't that be you, Jay?) to anti-war lefties supporting Paul is, I don't know, but his support is a mix from both parties, as well as the previously un-engaged. He's not a Nader or a Perot. He's something else entirely.

He's gathering press, an... (Below threshold)

He's gathering press, and money. . but no votes. Now why could THAT be?

How could he get votes? The primaries haven't even started yet.

60% do NOT favor withdrawl,

Care to cite that number? The Pew poll shows that 54% want withdrawal to start "as soon as possible," as opposed to keeping "military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized," and that number hasn't changed since July.

For one, there is a signifi... (Below threshold)

For one, there is a significant fdifference between 54% and 60%. .for another, its really irrelevant ANYWAY, as doing foreign policy by opinion poll is about the most idiotic thing imaginable. L:ets take a bunch of people who know little about the situation, ask them a few vapid ill - worded questions - to a skewed sample - and use that as a measuring stick of what ought to be done.

We have a representative government, not a "Mobocracy"

For one, there is a sign... (Below threshold)

For one, there is a significant fdifference between 54% and 60%.

The difference is between 60% and 42%, as that is what percentage told Pew we should "keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized." Can we assume you made up the 60% number, since you fail to cite it?

.for another, its really irrelevant ANYWAY, as doing foreign policy by opinion poll is about the most idiotic thing imaginable.

Oh, I see, opinion polls are no longer relevant when they don't support your position. Or did you think they were irrelevant when you invented your 60% number?

Btw Ryan, here's a tip: when you're done typing your comment, look below it at the preview. You notice all the spelling and punctuation errors (not to mention logical errors)? Maybe you should work on those.

I gotta stick up for Ryan. ... (Below threshold)

I gotta stick up for Ryan.
First off, giving him problems for spelling errors? That's pretty sad.
As for when he said this
60% do NOT favor withdrawl,
if you had the great reading comprehension you claim, you would know that was in response to this
Sixty percent of Americans favor withdrawing U.S. forces. which was written (link free as usual) by Civil behavior.
So that's like one person saying, "Everybody wants a Coke" and someone else saying, "No everybody doesn't want a Coke".
You see, that second sentence there means that not everybody wants a Coke, it doesn't mean that nobody wants a Coke. Just like when Ryan wrote, "60% do NOT favor withdrawl, he was saying that not all 60% who have a problem with the war want to withdraw.
Which you might have figured out by reading this SOme want withrdrawl SOme want a 'doubling down'. instead of making yourself look even more like a fool when you wrote this
Or did you think they were irrelevant when you invented your 60% number?

But then, you wouldn't get to snark without actually giving an opinion if you had actually read and understood what he said.

Aw crap, you're right Veesh... (Below threshold)

Aw crap, you're right Veeshir. I didn't bother to read civil behavior's comment, as I usually just ignore what he writes. Thus I didn't realize Ryan was responding to that (he didn't quote it and didn't mention it when he responded to my response).

Sorry for being a jackass, Ryan. I agree that foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by popular opinion. And I should read all the comments before I respond to someone else's.

As for spelling and punctuation, normally I don't mention it, but when someone has errors all through their writing they tend to be, to borrow Malkin's word, unhinged. Just sayin...

<a href="http://abcnews.go.... (Below threshold)
Civil behavior:



Of course the polls are worthless.

What kind of leader would pay attention to a large percentage of their constituents routinely answering questions that oppose their policies. That would require a much more democratic principal be acted upon.

Depends, CB. You want a we... (Below threshold)

Depends, CB. You want a weathervane as President? Or someone who can decide a policy and stick to it longer than the average voter's attention span?

I really don't mind. Not t... (Below threshold)

I really don't mind. Not that thin skinned.

And Mantis - I am not entirely sure why, but on my computer there is a strange reaction to the preview box on WIzbang: It makes what I type appear on the screen abysmally slow, so going back to edit the comment is a real pain. As in: If I type a paragraph it takes about as long as it took to type it again, at least, for it to appear on the screen. Its like typing on time-delay. Really crimps my style, especially when I am typing a comment at the last minute or on the way out of the door. I am considering using word and cat-and-pasting.

And Civil. . . .

We are not in a democracy. Are you saying, now, that we should adopt EVERY policy that a majority of people favor? All of them? I think that would make Ron Paul severely disappointed - because he holds many, many positions that are in a distinct minority - many of those opinions I would also agree with -. So, answer - do you think that a majority being in favor of something means that it should defacto be implemented?

To put it another way: Say... (Below threshold)

To put it another way: Saying "Alot of people agree with me!" Is a rather poor way to try to win an argument that does absolutely nothing to advance the particulars of your case.

Kudos to you Mantis for ski... (Below threshold)

Kudos to you Mantis for skipping CB's verbosity. But I always read his comments. It never fails to amaze me how someone who is intelligent enough to write with such clarity and such a strong command of the language can be so stupid.

The inability of a h... (Below threshold)
Civil behavior:

The inability of a heaping helping of humility overiding ego in all cases right wing Bushpeak is what is at issue. When force and secrecy is repeatedly used as a answer/subtitute for morality it becomes apparent that the throne is being sat on by a fool.

The biggest mistake Bushies make repeatedly is mistaking intransigence for resolve. Of course I learned all this by refilling coffee cups at Stuckey's.

Me bad, so stupid.

P.S. And Ryan, it has nothing to do with policies being implemented because of a "poll". You purposefully twist the essence of what I was getting at. But then you knew that.

Good answer mantis. <... (Below threshold)

Good answer mantis.

As for polls showing we should leave Iraq. It's too late.
We had the only poll that counted in 2004 and Bush was re-elected.

Somewhere above 60% of the people wanted us to invade Iraq in early 2003 so we did.
You can't just change your mind on something like war.

What all these polls show is that a large percentage of Americans think that decisions don't have consequences and that rights are divorced from responsibilities.

But then, we already knew that.

Funny Veshir, wh... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Funny Veshir, when a child is born into a family and all "looks" fine until a majority of the neighbors notice broken arms and bruises appearing among the children frequently and they report it we certainly don't anticipate keeping the children in the violent situation. In your scenario you seem to want to discount the preponderance of opinion, given that one doesn't want to change one's mind on breaking up a family or in the case you cite, in the middle of a war. People's opinions are valuable and changing circumstances as evidenced in the foolish occupation must be addressed And no, the analogy is not specious.

Unless of course you do Bushspeak. Then of course we stay the course, keep the fool on the throne or the children in the home and wait for the results to be different. As I already pointed out, intransigence is not to be mistaken for resolve.

But then again a large percentage of Americans in your esteemed view cannot calculate nor should they interfere or make judgements while ongoing, incalculable damage is being done in their name as a result of foolish decision making by those "in charge"

You "misunderestimate" the common sense of humanity. Your "dissassembling" is shockingly obvious and dangerous. There are those of us who will stop the madness as best we can, legally, peacefully and legitmately, on that you can depend.

No. We invaded Iraq AND 60... (Below threshold)

No. We invaded Iraq AND 60% + supported it. THat was not cause and effect. We didn't invade Iraq 'Because it was polling well'

Ryan,No, we were ... (Below threshold)
Civil behavior:


No, we were lied to, period.

And they are STILL lying.

I have been out of the coun... (Below threshold)

I have been out of the country for 2 months, and thus, thankfully, away from this site. I have forgotten how many right wing idiots STILL try to justify what is going on, as if it was a smart move or is actually accomplishing anything of any value for the United States. We are an international laughing stock. If you don`t think that matters, observe a military dictatorship in pakistan, where islamists essentisally control the military and have nuclear weapons, and the leading economic indicators, especially with regard to our currency.

Those of you who still identify as conservative republicans, in the Bush style, are IDIOTS. Period. there is nothing more to say on this topic, nothing to debate. It is, in fact, pointless to debate this topic. I have tried to be open minded to your views, but at a certain point, being open minded to extreme and incessant stupidity is simply not productive.

You will all not be sad to hear that I will not be returning to this cesspool of idiocy. Good luck with your lives and your future endeavours. Do yourself a favor, try to educate yourselves, through reading books not on the Limbaugh reading list, or at least go abroad for even a week and talk to some people who are not comepletely brainwashed with american right wing bullshit.

I salute you, my fellow americans. good luck with your crusades against abortion, homosexuality, communism, the boogeymen under your beds, rational thinking, and the cold, hard and utterly obvious facts. thank you for ruining a once great country. thank you for The Decider, you STUPID, STUPID, STUPID MORONS.

good night and god bless. all of you. because that is all you will have left.

A Former Reader

Editor's Note: Then you won't mind if I shut the door behind you...

Tell me the lie. A lie bei... (Below threshold)

Tell me the lie. A lie being "A falsehood which was KNOWN to be false when uttered.

You can't use "There weren't WMD's" Because, even if there weren't, Even FRANCE believed there were.

You also can't use "Saddam and 9-11 weren't connected' - because noone really claimed they were.

Also, what does your paranoid little rant have to do with the topic of discussion at hand which is either A: Ron Paul and his supposed Foreign Policy acumen or B: Why you think the nation's foreign policy should be run through polls.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy