See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Get Ready for a Major, Major Disappointment (Ron Paul's Built-In Loss)
Source:
Meself
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 24, 2007
Author: Me, Me, Me
Post Date: 2007-12-24 10:19:48 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 7912
Comments: 264
Merry Xmas everyone and may your grandest wishes come true, for as long as they don't come into conflict with my own :). I haven't done a vanity in a long, long, long time but I felt that it's important to discuss the reality of where RP is currently heading. Disclaimer: I stand for just about everything RP stands for. 'Just about' stands for his continuing membership in the stupid, evil, dangerous GOP party. Now, on the topic of Ron Paul. I just watched a clip of him on the Tim Russert show where RP re-stated in the most forceful way that he has no intention whatsoever to run for US Prez outside of the GOP reservation. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that RP is really running for the GOP nomination and, of course, he is NOT going to get it. He is not even going to be a close third or fourth. In the end, you will find RP trailing Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani and just about everyone else who stands for Bush, War and the fat State way because this is what the GOP membership is standing for these days. I am fully aware of the 'hijacking' theory. Its exponents believe that, somehow, the RP activists are going to show up all 100% of them to vote in primaries and everyone else's supporters are going to stay home and we will see RP winning state after state after state. This is, of course, nonsense. Reality is coming on Jan 3, I believe, and Jan 2 will be the last time you are going to hear about the hijacking theory. Then, I heard someone here stating that 'the 2 parties' are nothing but tools for whomever is seeking the presidency to get the presidency. This, my friends, is as naive as it gets. The parties are Mafia-like organizations whose aim is to seek, get and exercise political power for the benefit of the inner circles who own them and they as much a 'free' tool for the people the parties put forward for the voters to vote on as the Mafia is a tool for the Mafia bosses. The inner circle has no use for RP, he does not support the type of 'leadership' they are paying for. Now, RP is going to lose. He took millions of dollars from supporters who refused to accept that he can NOT win the US presidency under the stinky and filthy flag of the GOP. He was asked repeatedly whether he would consider running as an independent, OPPOSING the 2 monstrous political Mafias and, every time he answered the question, the answer was a strong 'NO'. THE FUTURE: the next US Prez is going to be Hillary, O'Bama, Giuliani, Romney or, maybe, Huckabee. Ron Paul will win ZERO primaries/caucuses and, if he is true to his words, he will get back to delivering babies and representing his Texas district. I suspect that RP is going to be very much at peace with himself but, what are his supporters going to feel about it? What are they going to do? They supported a campaign for the US presidency that was built from the ground up to lose the race - and they refused to see it because they liked the excitement. Are they going to be sad? Angry? What would be the consequences of RP's campaign? The main consequence that I see is that of legitimizing the 2-party system. RP is a saint among politicians. He says and does all the right things and, yet, he insists in staying inside the GOP party and he retreats when the GOP, as predicted and as expected, deals him a humiliating defeat in his attempt to represent the political Cosa Nostra - because he is not a made made and he is not from the families. However, staying as an 'unmade' member of the organization, he adds credibility to it. It would be something close to Jesus joining the Pharisees and seeking Caiafa's job. I will be watching with interest how the RP fantasy gets itself crushed by the inevitable political reality. Just you all keep in mind that, while 'the media' and 'the corrupt politicians' can be blamed for RP's inability to win the GOP nomination, the main problem is RP's seeking the GOP nomination instead of running for the US presidency and seeking the support of the people, not the nod of the GOP party bosses.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: buckeye (#56)
The overwhelming advantage to genuine Constitutional Government is that it isn't biased in favor of anyone or any group. I think Ron Paul already enjoys a good deal of "democrat" support. This country hasn't had an open, honest leader in a hundred years or more. It's time we did.
"We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do." --- Francis Bacon
Join a Ron Paul Meetup Group.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! I am so olde that I remember when the Federal Government was a bunch of squirrels that lived in a swamp somewhere down South in MD and VA. And then FDR and the fellow travelers found out the way to eternal power was via the US Treasury. Having lived that part of history, it is indeed difficult to get the younger people to understand that his monster of a government has not always been so. We lived just fine without it.
Your musings about squirrels reminded me of Pogo's famous quote. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
You would have loved Rutherford B. Hayes. No, I was not olde enough to vote for him. Hayes promised two things, he would serve one term and go away and there would be no corruption. He delivered on both. His wife promised no booze in the Whitehouse and she delivered on that.
How can we broadcast that meme? I think it's correct, it's honest, and it's why we need Ron Paul the most. On our own and in our respective "groups" (whatever those are from moment to moment) we would do so much better on our own. When "groups" get control, we all lose. The individual has rights given by the Creator. The rest are dealing with the devil when they put their collective controls on our government.
I am a Green and support Dr. Paul. Sounds like your neighbor doesn't understand that under the sheep skin of most Democratic leaders is a 'Republicrat' wolf. There is no real two party system anymore in Bush's America where the Constitution is treated like a "God damn piece of paper."
I understand you labeling yourself a green. I have been so sick of labels that I am just an American, nothing else. I use to be a conservative but that has fallen into disgrace so I am just an olde bald headed American. Everything else no longer matters to me.
This country hasn't had an open, honest leader in a hundred years or more. It's time we did. Justin Raimondo agrees. The sheer breadth of the anti-Paul Popular Front is an astonishing sight to behold, extending all the way from avowed Nazis to radical Zionists, from Noam Chomsky to Glenn Beck. Both Fox News and the International Socialist Organization are out for Paul's scalp – and you can tell an awful lot about people by their enemies. What this tells me about Ron Paul is that he's just what many people on both sides of the political spectrum have been waiting and hoping for. Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The thing I personally think is imperative as a country consisting of free peoples is to comprehend and obtain an understanding that the collective cannot vote themselves a superior position to that of the individual with respect to fundamental rights.
"We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do." --- Francis Bacon
No shit, when you see those that should be for him instead villifying him at every opportunity ... the hypocrisy becomes nauseating. (Glenn Beck immediately comes to mind notwithstanding his pretty fair interview).
"We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do." --- Francis Bacon
hehehe..teasin' ya...i do believe that's the first time i've ever seen you misspell a word!
Communist coward Kristol called Paul a crackpot and said he hated everything American.
Heh, I am registered as a Pacific Green. But I consider myself an American first. I was a Democrat for a long time. I even was a Precinct Committee person where I vote and always worked deeply in the local party structure to get Democrats elected. Clinton cured me of that, I learned through him the lie the two party system is. My actual registration denotes the fact I am very committed to the environment and opposed to how society on a fundamental level destroys and damages it foolishly and to their detriment. I wouldn't read my registration as being the same thing as that affiliation of your neighbor to his precious Democratic Party. It like the Republican party has become facades for corporate fascism.
oops ... vultures ... That's funny ... must've been excited !
"We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do." --- Francis Bacon
Sorry, friend, but I don't take these things personally and I make no effort to remember who said what about me because online identities matter little. If you said something and you were wrong, I don't really care. Some day you will be aware of your wrongness or... not. It doesn't mean a thing to me. Now, on this particular situation, reality is going to hit you in the face in about 2 weeks so, enjoy your fantasy while it lasts. By the way, it's funny that you state the 'one-party' situation in this country, something about which I agree but, illogically, you advocate that RP stays confined within the one-party system and play by the rules that are written so that they take him nowhere. Oh, well. Good luck and enjoy the Xmas.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
According to President Rutherford Hayes, who issued no formally designated “executive orders”: The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution. The real test has never come, because the Presidents have down to the present been conservative, or what might be called conscientious men, and have kept within limited range. And there is an unwritten law of usage that has come to regulate an average administration. But if a Napoleon ever became President, he could make the executive almost what he wished to make it. The war power of President Lincoln went to lengths which could scarcely be surpassed in despotic principle. The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
From Washington on, men did not desire to be president for life. Had Lincoln lived there might have been a different turn of events. Hayes has been my hero for a long time. A man that serves one term and then walks away has my greatest respect. Few men ever display a spurning of power, indeed we have seen the opposite embodied in FDR.
The original post analysis is correct. But I would encourage a look at the RP phenomenon from a different perspective. The only reason we have the Bill of Rights at all is because of those RP type supporters from 1787 who took one look at the new constitution and said "that's well and good for all you rich bastards, but what about the freedoms from an oppressive government we fought for?" That small contingent of loud mouthed activists is the ONLY reason we have a Bill of Rights. Throughout our history, the movements on the fringe do affect the main body of politics. Traditionally, this happens as third party issues typically promoted by a figure running for president under said banner. Even though the third parties fail in getting a president, they impact the body politic and influence the direction of the country. Therefore I ask that people see what is really taking place with the RP phenomenon. Millions of Americans are moved by the things RP is saying. They are rallying around his banner that our constitution matters, that it's not just a piece of paper, it's how we define who we are as a people. This core group of people are proving that they will be heard, that they are savvy at getting media exposure, and that they can and will spend vast sums of money to get the message out there. The people who have been inspired by RP are a force inside the political landscape, and I will not be surprised to see many of them appearing again as issue advocates down the road. Let's put it this way: Without the Ron Paul candidacy, there would be no discussion in this presidential election about the limitations of government under the constitution. And as long as he has money and support, he's in the primaries all the way to the convention, unlike all but a couple of other Republican candidates. As guys like Tancredo and Hunter fall away, the Ron Paul message will become more important. Winning is not the point. Being heard is the point.
The people who have been inspired by RP are a force inside the political landscape, and I will not be surprised to see many of them appearing again as issue advocates down the road Well said. Regarding Paul winning or losing, 'duty is mine, consequences are God's'. We can do what our conscience dictates as to promoting a decent man and his righteous message of freedom. Let the chips fall where they may. Even if the masses embraced Ron Paul's message, which in murika 2007 is debatable, I'm still concerned about the voting machines. Also, i think paul makes a good point- we need more of the Ron Paul folks to make a run for congress in their own districts! take the country back one district at a time. It will be interesting to see where this momentum leads after the elections. It is also great to see the mainstream press being forced to discuss issues such as the fed reserve, pre-emptive undeclared wars and defense of individual liberties. nearly unheard of in recent years. Whatever the outcome, Paul's campaign has been a great boost to libertarianism., and brought these issues into the public's minds eye. I salute Ron Paul for making the run.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" They are. So why the push to change to 3rd party.
Are you related to Palo Verde?
God is always good!
They might not do that. But we can encourage them to do that and if that fails, we can do something for them in exchange for their vote for Ron Paul. I know it sucks to have to buy votes, but we need Ron Paul as President now really bad and the other candidates have no problem whatsoever buying votes. It may already be too late to save this nation, but if it isn't, then Ron Paul must be elected now or it will be too late for sure.
God is always good!
Are you?
Do you know Palo Verde?
God is always good!
Do you?
Yeah I know her in cyberspace, not personally. Your post I replied to kind of reminded me of some of her posts.
God is always good!
Okay.
I am in general agreement with your entire post. What I would like to explore is the current political reality, with RP running to a certain defeat in his quest for the GOP nomination and a couple of other possible scenarios. Let's just outlines the pro/cons, advantages/disadvantages to individual freedom. - RP running for GOP nomination: it legitimizes the 2-party system, it legitimizes the GOP as a viable political vehicle for carrying the banner of freedom, it legitimizes a Giuliani or some other enemy of freedom as a 'winner fair and square', it enforces the impression that 'the consumers' do have 'a choice.' On the positive side, SOME good ideas do get SOME exposure but, what I am seeing recently, a lot of the talk, and, sadly, even talk coming from RP himself and his campaign is talk about the insanely huge (LOL) amounts of moneys the campaign is able to raise. Once RP is defeated, nothing happens. The media is likely to stop talking about him shortly after the first 2-3 nomination contests. - RP not running at all (a world without RP): an election cycle of 'malaise'. As 'the 2 parties' designate their uninspiring, repulsive, Tweedledee/Dumb nominees, their is increased awareness of the reality behind the 2-party democracy facade. The lack of choice is exposed and, to some extent, even discussed in the 'mainstream media'. There is increased talk of the need of 'a third party'. Currently, the parties activists/propagandists keep telling the masses that this is 'the most important election since... (enter some date in the past)' and they are unchallenged. Unless the phoniness of these statements is exposed, the consumers will have no choice but believe it and feel themselves proud for being free, democratic and 'kept safe' by their leaders. - RP running as an independent: could he win if he ran against Hillary/Rudy and he ran the perfect campaign? Maybe he could if he could get 34% of the votes and they were properly distributed. Like I said, I give him about 10% odds to winning which, by the way, is way better than the 0% he has now. I also tend to agree that, if he won, his days in office might not be too many. It's important that he takes a freedom leaning VP running mate rather than do that stupid 'ticket balancing' thing and bring along a Cheney-like ogre. If he does not win, at least we have an election with a choice and the choice will be clearly not for 'one of the three' but it will be a "freedom vs. the establishment provided Faustian offering of 'safety'". If RP went indie, expect Bloomberg to jump in so that he can pose as 'the center' and give the impression that Hillary would be the 'legitimate left', Rudy playing 'the mainstream right' and RP could be painted as 'the extremist'. Regardless of whether he wins or not, RP's message will be heard through November 2008 and, hopefully, beyond 2008, rather than stop being heard by the end of January, 2008.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Of course it is relevant. The goals do not justify the means. It's Morality 101. Running as a Republican is immoral? The party may be run by thugs now, but I see no immorality in trying to change for the better. Besides, he's been elected as a Republican several times. It's only logical that he run as a Republican.
someone(s) erred, big time, with that.
Same here in AL. The only signs I've seen anywhere are Ron Paul signs. I could definitely happen here, especially if people realize he has the best shot at beating Hillary.
very well said...my hope is that his candidacy is a building towards the awareness of the critical mass needed for revolution.
I suspect vast does not realize that Pauls perceived "immorality" would also include all of the other republican candidates that have held office under the republican banner. It is very difficult for me to accept that in this day of readily available information that there are intelligent people that seem to believe there are two "moral" parties in this political system. To attach some degree of "immorality" to one candidate out of more than a dozen for attempting to become president via the only system available seems to be rather disingenuous.
The only non-Paul sticker I've seen was on an old Malibu creeping along piloted by a q-tip head supporting Edwards. To me, the power behind Dr.Paul's campaign is that he is giving us something to vote for, instead of something to be against.
The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution. someone(s) erred, big time, with that. It was not an err, christine. To understand, study the establishment of the First Bank of the United States, and Washington's.... as in President Washington's, role in the charade. Or, as I have posted before, study the order made by President Washington that established what has come to be known as the Federal Zone, which overlays the states of the union. Or, read the book, The CONstitution That Never Was, but, well, perhaps you get the picture.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
George Washington's choice for secretary of the treasury was our first clue.
i can see the logic in that. i'm still hoping RP will make the decision to go independent if/when he doesn't get the GOP nomination.
They barely even try to hide it any more.
i do, richard. in fact, i started to write in my post to Deacon that it was purposeful. Lysander Spooner: The Constitution of No Authority The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc. Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form: We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion. This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement. When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it. So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them. So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers. It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality. Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it. Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it. If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes. ---snip---
The Constitution spells out the limits on federal responsibilities well enough for me. Our problems lie not in the words of the Constitution but in the fact that it has become irrelevant. The "my bad" goes on the American sheeple, not the founders.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Comments (99 - 264) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#59. To: buckeye (#47)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#60. To: buckeye (#56)
(Edited)
a big federal welfare state requires an empire to pay for its excesses. They can't be unlinked.
#61. To: Cynicom (#60)
(Edited)
#62. To: noone222 (#58)
This country hasn't had an open, honest leader in a hundred years or more. It's time we did.
#63. To: noone222, Cynicom, robin (#58)
The overwhelming advantage to genuine Constitutional Government is that it isn't biased in favor of anyone or any group.
#64. To: Cynicom (#57)
#65. To: Ferret Mike (#64)
#66. To: noone222 (#58)
I think Ron Paul already enjoys a good deal of "democrat" support.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#67. To: buckeye (#63)
#68. To: robin (#66)
#69. To: noone222 (#55)
vulchers ?
#70. To: noone222 (#68)
villifying him at every opportunity
#71. To: Cynicom (#65)
#72. To: christine (#69)
(Edited)
#73. To: Cynicom (#39)
Dont be cowardly, name names...
#74. To: Cynicom (#62)
#75. To: DeaconBenjamin (#74)
what might be called conscientious men,
#76. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, all (#0)
(Edited)
#77. To: Paul Revere, a vast rightwing conspirator (#76)
Therefore I ask that people see what is really taking place with the RP phenomenon. Millions of Americans are moved by the things RP is saying. They are rallying around his banner that our constitution matters, that it's not just a piece of paper, it's how we define who we are as a people. This core group of people are proving that they will be heard, that they are savvy at getting media exposure, and that they can and will spend vast sums of money to get the message out there.
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#78. To: Paul Revere (#76)
Therefore I ask that people see what is really taking place with the RP phenomenon.
#79. To: Peppa (#42)
#80. To: DeaconBenjamin (#52)
People will start to look and think for themselves.
#81. To: RickyJ (#79)
Are you related to Palo Verde?
#82. To: Peppa (#81)
#83. To: RickyJ (#82)
Do you know Palo Verde?
#84. To: Peppa (#83)
#85. To: RickyJ (#84)
Yeah I know her in cyberspace, not personally. Your post I replied to kind of reminded me of some of her posts.
#86. To: Paul Revere (#76)
Throughout our history, the movements on the fringe do affect the main body of politics. Traditionally, this happens as third party issues typically promoted by a figure running for president under said banner. Even though the third parties fail in getting a president, they impact the body politic and influence the direction of the country.
#87. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#8)
The object is to give Paul a run for the presidency, what path he takes is not relevant.
#88. To: DeaconBenjamin (#74)
The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution.
#89. To: lodwick (#21)
You may want to check and see if your state has 'open' or 'closed' primaries - luckily, TX is of the open persuasion, so anyone can vote for whom they choose without any more paperwork hassle.
#90. To: Paul Revere (#76)
Let's put it this way: Without the Ron Paul candidacy, there would be no discussion in this presidential election about the limitations of government under the constitution.
#91. To: duckhunter (#87)
#92. To: duckhunter. RP friends (#89)
The only signs I've seen anywhere are Ron Paul signs. It could definitely happen here, especially if people realize he has the best shot at beating Hillary.
#93. To: christine, DeaconBenjamin (#88)
#94. To: richard9151 (#93)
#95. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#86)
RP running as an independent: could he win if he ran against Hillary/Rudy and he ran the perfect campaign? Maybe he could if he could get 34% of the votes and they were properly distributed. Like I said, I give him about 10% odds to winning which, by the way, is way better than the 0% he has now. I also tend to agree that, if he won, his days in office might not be too many. It's important that he takes a freedom leaning VP running mate rather than do that stupid 'ticket balancing' thing and bring along a Cheney-like ogre. If he does not win, at least we have an election with a choice and the choice will be clearly not for 'one of the three' but it will be a "freedom vs. the establishment provided Faustian offering of 'safety'". If RP went indie, expect Bloomberg to jump in so that he can pose as 'the center' and give the impression that Hillary would be the 'legitimate left', Rudy playing 'the mainstream right' and RP could be painted as 'the extremist'. Regardless of whether he wins or not, RP's message will be heard through November 2008 and, hopefully, beyond 2008, rather than stop being heard by the end of January, 2008.
#96. To: Cynicom (#91)
It is very difficult for me to accept that in this day of readily available information that there are intelligent people that seem to believe there are two "moral" parties in this political system.
#97. To: richard9151 (#93)
Or, read the book, The CONstitution That Never Was, but, well, perhaps you get the picture.
#98. To: christine, DeaconBenjamin (#88)
The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution.
.
.
.