Talk Radio:
Bill Bennett
Mike Gallagher
Dennis Prager
Michael Medved
Hugh Hewitt
BREAKING NEWS
Register
|
Sign In
Search
SIGN UP NOW!
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login
|
What's Hot
Townhall Daily Alert
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
White House & Capitol Report
Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
Daily Conservative Cartoon
Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Columnists
|
News
|
Video
|
Podcasts
|
Photos
|
Cartoons
|
Blog
|
Your Blogs
|
Issues
|
Get Magazine
|
Finance
What’s Hot
|
Your Blogs Directory
|
Create Your Own Blog
|
Featured Talk Radio Calls
Comment on:
TheWayWeAre
Ron Paul: The Sword of Damocles?
132 Comments
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 1:48 PM
Jimmy Carter
writes:
Very interesting..
...I especially like that last line.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 2:07 PM
BrianR
writes:
I fully concur, Phil
I'm actually debating on the Towery column today -- Happy Thanksgiving, btw.
Next year has the potential to be absolutely historic. A new paradigm, maybe.
Here's one of my comments:
Paul's candidacy is symptomatic of the deep fissures in the GOP caused by its own capitulation to liberalism.
If the GOP were still attuned to its roots and core principles, there wouldn't be a level of disaffection as high as it is, which is what gives Paul's candidacy such traction.
If the GOP were still the party of Reagan or the 1994 Contract With America, instead of the party of northeastern liberalism as typified by Giuliani, Paul would simply be another candidate in the field whose ideas (other than on foreign policy) weren't that unusual.
The very notion that a third-party run by Paul could by itself result in a Hillary presidency speaks volumes.
When GOP Apologists try to rationalize their lack of principle by talking about Reagan's "big tent conservatism", they always miss the word "conservatism" and try to reinterpret it as meaning some kind of philosophy that appeals to liberals as well as Republicans. Nothing's further from the truth.
He was talking about a form of sheer and pure conservatism based on traditional American values that would draw in other CONSERVATIVES, such as Blue Dog Democrats, who are natural conservative allies, not yielding conservative values to chase some mythical and non-existent uncommitted ideological demographic, and particularly not liberals.
He had no use for liberalism. As he said, he "didn't leave the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party left me".
Let's stop chasing the Dems.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 2:14 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Thanks guys
Jimmy's back to form again.
BrianR: I can't wait for next February. It's going to be fun listening to the Gooeys blaming us for "Hillary's victory" which, as we all know, will usher in the end of times.
And happy Thanksgiving to all. I'm on my way out for the rest of the day but feel free to comment without me.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 3:00 PM
BrianR
writes:
Doc
Your idea is predicated on the idea that Baldy doesn't get the nomination; Phil's is a "what if" scenario that only happens if Baldy gets the nomination.
There's no conflict or crow involved there.
It's Baldy's nomination that triggers all the following events.
The fact that you are in denial about the possibility in fact speaks volumes about YOU.
I hope you're right, and Baldy doesn't get the nomination, but that's by no means any kind of surety. You may WISH it so, but a very splintered GOP coupled with the rescheduling and compression of the primary schedule gives him a pretty decent shot, at the least.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 3:24 PM
xpressit
writes:
PasPhil
Good write-up, Phil. Little can be added. Brian's comments are pertinent as usual. Its about the if factor to an extent, but hey that is just handicapping an election. All those hats in the ring hope for a "big mo" factor. At this point, and for a while, there has been a certain momentum against both parties to some degree - "big" or not. It all has some relevance to the equation.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 3:49 PM
BrianR
writes:
A reconsideration
After having spent some time today at the Towery column "debating" with some of the Paulbots, I've changed my mind as to Paul's potential impact as an independant candidate.
I think he's a fringe extremist who'll only attract the kook vote. I don't think it'll be significant at all, especially based on what I saw today.
I have to admit this is the first time I've spent time with those people -- I usually tend to ignore their posts as inconsequential and basically irrelevant to any meaningful dialoge -- but if what I saw today was at all indicative of what they bring to the table, the guy's nothing more than an oddity in an obscure footnote in political history.
That having been said, an independant run by Hunter or Tancredo would be something else again. I don't see that with McCain/Lieberman. I don;t see that ticket ever happening, and even if it did, it wouldn't appeal to ANYBODY.
Two party rejects running as a team.
The Loser Party - You could put an (LP) behind their names.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 4:11 PM
xpressit
writes:
Pespective
Polls illustrate dissatisfaction with both parties. It seems the main thing going for incumbent candidates is the dissatisfaction in general is toward all, so far, while voters opt to “tolerate” or accept the shortcomings of their own. 'Evil is greater in everyone else’s backyard - factor (regarding pork and spending at least). It seems to me that is the greatest asset of many incumbents, until people are disgruntled enough to change them all including their own. I wonder how close we are? – closer. I see party becoming less the qualifier, and “status quo” as the predominant enemy. As far as conservative, you hit it on the head, why call big-tent-ism conservatism? Who gains?
Phil maybe election 08 won’t be a KO but a TKO. What happens post election, if either is elected (baldy or hill), could be the tipping point -- or last straw for one. Conservatives would have a right to feel homeless, its just an illusion of some big mansion. For those of liberal persuasion that really wanted “change” may not settle for a ruse of queen Hill.\\
As you said here, Sept. 9, “There is something curiously satisfying in watching both parties crater in the polls once you've made the jump to independent. Once you get over the withdrawal, it is liberating. You are hurting the party that spurned you where it hurts the most: declining membership.”
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 6:19 PM
xpressit
writes:
At this point
whether its Rudy or Mitt seems to make little difference - except maybe hair style.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 7:18 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
2nd Party
I sincerely hope the primary voters do not follow the RNC gameplan and nominate Rudy. I am still optimistic that Doc is right about Rudy tanking once actual voters start voting. My first choice is Hunter, who will do better than anyone is expecting. I could live with a nomination of Thompson or Romney. I'm not voting for McCain, Rudy, or Huckabee. No amnesty candidates.
It is unfortunate the way the primaries have all gotten jammed together so early. I think the calender helps Rudy. If it is Rudy vs Hillary by Feb., if there isn't a credible third party option, I'll tune out with the 40% who have given up voting.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 7:46 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
2nd Party
If the Rudy gets the nomination, the party of Lincoln is dead(to paraphrase Duncan Hunter). The GOP will keep the name, but the voters will be leaving. I'd look for the lowest turnout in history. Those voters (like me) will either quit voting or a new party will form that represents traditional American values. The current parties have rigged the system to make it as difficult as possible to start a new party. With all that is happening in our country and the world, I don't really think we have enough time left to pin much hope on a new party. We need to make every effort to make the GOP that 2nd party. We have to clean house at the RNC. All the open border, anti-sovereignty guys have to go.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 8:16 PM
anti-socialist
writes:
We need the parties to return
to what they initially represented.
The "Democrats" (once soft-socialists) are now "social-fascists" - a combination of the sects of communism & nazism.
The "Republicans" (once true constitutionalists) are now mostly RINOs - in most cases attempting to blend constitutionalism with "soft" socialism, in other cases communism & nazism like "Democrats" (mainly seeking "power and wealth").
With our "200 years" of success long behind us, no doubt the end results in this election will be another step closer to social-fascism which may result in the complete collapse of our constitutional republic.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 10:54 PM
xpressit
writes:
Sam
Interesting (to say the least): If GOP elites hold, I suspect any Party "nomination" will bring a ‘passing of the baton’ on the whole agenda.( backroom style) Bad enough when people are ousted from their party, but when its the base they're giving the ultimatum to (verses a fringe group) it's telling. Its not necessarily Lincoln's or Reagan's party we're talking about, K-Street will have its say.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 22, 2007 11:16 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Phil (off topic)
I found this on a thread I had not been on, Black Helicopter pundits:
Joe writes: Thursday, November, 22, 2007 5:41 PM
one hot minute
You said my comment about Romney supporters overreacting was "dishonest" and made some point about religion. When I pointed out how I have never attacked Mitt's faith (and have actively defended it), you accuse me of overreacting and behaving like a liberal.
Trust me, a quite a few TH Mitt supporters have freaked out because I had the temerity to challenge Mitt's record and immediately attack McCain, Giuliani and Thompson (which prompts me to strike back). I may disagree with Virginia Patriot in a matter of degree on immigration (although he has definitely moved me in his direction on enforcement)--but when dealing with Mitt supporters either you a true believer or you are not.
I have not been hitting this liquor this T-day, but a few more posts like this and I probably will start.
Joe writes: Thursday, November, 22, 2007 7:43 PM
benner
Thanks. I agree with everything you said.
Frankly I moved from some of the immigration arguments, mostly from Virginia Patriot. I am still very pro immigration but it should be legal (and expanded) with strict enforcment to stop illegal immigration. A fence on the southern border (and yes there are problems doing that such as cutting off people from water, environmental issues, etc.) but it is still doable to help curb the flow. But the key is strict enforcement against employers and until that happens illegal immigration will continue.
And with all that said, most who want to control immigration do so in good faith. A few just do not like foriegners and Latinos.
-----------------------------------------
Gee, I have actually had a small impact, .....cool. As a slightly famous influential blogger, you know how that feels, but this is a first for me.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:13 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
Ok, I'm back. My mission to eat until I almost get a heart attack was successful.
Congratulations on your first foray into paulbot mania. I have had my bouts with them too but quickly learned that the game is to poke them until they work themselves into a froth and see if you can make their heads explode. As with most people who comment in the senior circuit, you are never going to win an argument with them. But that doesn't change where I was going with this post. However it occur, there will be enough independents running to attract 25% of the vote or more. And I see McCain running, he was hinting at it earlier this week. And I still think it will end up being Romney/Duncan on the GOP ticket. It's just that there seems to be a concerted effort to undermine Romney lately with the phony McCain surge in NH and Huckabee in IA. And all the so-called conservative pundits (except Mark Levin) have come out and endorsed Rudy. It just feels like the fix is in. It won't matter who wins if the winner gets less than 38%. That would be a conservative victory in my book.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:17 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
Excellent points. Naturally, this is all pure conjecture but it is plausible and a Rasmussen poll about 2 weeks ago predicted that registrations will surge because of a palpable "throw the bums out" wave building in the country. It will be interesting to see if this gets reported. If there is a surge and people choose to register mostly independent, I suspect that it won't get reported. Next year is building up to being an election like no other.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:23 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
anti-socialist
I'm not as pessimistic as you are. I place my confidence in the knowledge that the polls are showing voters continue moving to being more conservative, relocating away from blue states and expressing great dismay with government in general. Like I said in the essay, last year at this time, McCain was the prohibitive favorite, amnesty was a done deal and the Iraq war was lost. I expect that by this time next year, a similar reversal of "consensus opinion" will take place regarding who gets elected. Even if Ron Paul were to win the general election as an independent, it is doubtful the electoral college would certify the vote. The chaos would be a victory for conservatives. There is no way we could have a repeat in 2012. Something big would have to change.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:29 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat
Congratulations but don't put too much stock in Joe's conversions. He is a McCain guy who is determined in undermining Romney. He still keeps using legal and illegal immigration interchangeably. What surprises my is that the paulbots have ignored this post. Knowing how they identify targets to swarm and attack, they surely saw the post.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:38 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam
You are painting a very gloomy economic picture. I just spent Thanksgiving with the family of one of the biggest bond managers in the world and it is not that clear how big the problem is. There is just a widespread lack of confidence in banks, regulators, credit rating firms, insurance companies and corporate management in general. My own feeling is that the Fed needs to stop cutting interest rates and send the world the signal that we will defend the dollar. That could trigger a short-lived recession but it would also attract a ton of money that is anxious to take advantage of a cheap but strengthening dollar. This would trigger a huge market rally that would lift us out of recession. There is a lot of nervous money in China and other inflated emerging markets looking for safer environs. What I would like hear coming from Congress at this point is: Glass-Stegall. I believe we should re-institute those restrictions. Bringing it up might just be what the banks need to hear to get them to cooperate over the sub-prime debt fiasco. This is a complicated situation but I am not ready to conclude that we are heading for a depression.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:45 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam
Mayor Bloomberg has also pledged to spend up to a billion dollars on his run for president if Rudy is the nominee. He could easily garner 5-10% with that kind of money. The DC gun law case before SCOTUS is also bad for Rudy AND Hillary. And Dobbs running would keep the amnesty issue alive which is also bad for Rudy and Hillary. That is fertile territory and could tempt several 5% candidates to run. I think Ron Paul could get 20% or more under the right conditions.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:53 AM
xpressit
writes:
Scaring ... tactics
Sam, Although Dobbs did not rule it out -- and few do -- he has laughed at the prospect since *he does not trust/like politics.(*something like that). Ron Paul raising money, hmmm. Move over is raising alot of money against the war, or has. Meaning? Maybe its easier to raise money against something than for something. Still converting monry to more votes is the goal.
Paul has said he would not run independent. No matter what percentage he gets, he'll paint it as a win. Media will gladly echo that as a great canyon in the Republican Party. I don't know if he broke 10% nationally. (I don't mean New Hampshire.)
"Another Prediction: Democrats loose house seats in 2008."
I'm from Missouri, I'd have to see that. Indications are that Democrats gain. The only one I hear saying Republicans will gain is Jeb Bush.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 1:00 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam, expressit
Ron Paul has been getting lots of free publicity lately and that is worth something. I think he would be an unqualified disaster as president but he appeals to enough people to wreck any hopes of a mandate for the ultimate winner. I don't recall Paul saying he wouldn't run as an independent but then again, he needs to say that to be credible as a Republican candidate. At his age, I doubt he ran only to quit with momentum building. I say he will run independent. And I believe that Rasmussen poll predicting a big turnout in 2008 to "rage against the machine". I also think it is more than plausible for Democrats to lose House seats. Harry Reid himself is not looking so good.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 4:14 AM
xpressit
writes:
Pas Phil
Free publicity, I’d agree – anyway they can. I guess you can’t knock that. So much that it counters that banned or excluded spiel, as in some conspiracy. I’ve heard them both, that he is excluded and he is ultra-popular in demand. An article illustrates the fundraising side of him. http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2007/jb_11121.shtml
They claim to be taking in big money. I hear the charge “scare tactics” against those mentioning Hill and Dems’ chances. Yet I see that tactic by his people to drum up the support.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 9:59 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam
I agree with most of what you said. I see the value of Ron Paul, besides being the monkey wrench in a bad machine, as being a catalyst for a discussion this country really needs. Regardless of what I believe to be a catastrophic view of how the world works, I think the adults in this country need to step up and lead a sensible discussion of why we do what we do around the world. It's not about spreading democracy or "Israel controlling US foreign policy". We spread democracy where possible and control our own foreign policy and it is based on OUR national interests. That is a discussion we need to have. We are in the ME because we have vita interests their and we need to say so. People can understand that if our leaders would stop condescending to us. We also need to re-examine exactly what the Federal Reserve's role is. It ISN'T to bail out the arbitrage crowd everytime they take huge risks with public money and walk away with fortunes. The threat of abolishing the Fed could be just what we need. We also need to get serious about shrinking government but that won't happen if the Bush/Clinton crowd stays entrenched. While I agree Bush has been a disaster, I don't think Iraq is a lost cause and WE CAN'T WALK AWAY FROM IT. If our choice is between Hillary and Rudy, we need to wreck the election and running a few 5% candidates with a 15-20% candidate as independents would do it. But if the Ron Paul acolytes are going to continue spreading their vitriolic and anti-semitic nonsense, Ron Paul's campaign will fizzle quickly and he will go down in history as a kook. If you want a sample of it, just look at the comments to the article I linked to on this post. Ugly and offensive. The Gooeys are doing the same thing for Rudy. That is not how to make friends and influence people.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 10:28 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
It's the transparency of it all that makes it so galling. It's like watching a pickpocket in slow motion while everyone is looking and noticing but saying nothing. A bad dream.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 10:36 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Doc Steech
I don't know how I skipped your last comment. This isn't about "winning" arguments. None of us "know" much of anything. We are all trying to influence an outcome by influencing discussions. Most people who comment have already a very copped rigid and unpenetrable mindset. If I fail, so what? Life will go on (and I DO have one). I don't live and breathe this stuff. I care but in the end, this is mainly a useful and entertaining diversion. And a famous person once said something to the effect that you can never state the obvious too often. At some point, I am hoping that someone who actually knows what the true numbers on voter registration are will step in and reveal them. There are people who read this blog who know people who know people. I am hoping that somehow this question will make it up the channel and someone will respond.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 11:13 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
I'm about 2/3s through reading that thread at Towery's column and so far, that is the best discussion I have seen involving the paulbots. It may be that we are witnessing a separation between the thinkers and the barking dogs. I think Paul's achilles heel is his claim to not being isolationist and strong on defense while at the same time calling for the immediate closing of all 700+ U.S. military bases around the world. We would be hamstrung in projecting our power and influence and perpetually at war (or outright surrender to world problems) because of our disengagement in local troubles.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 11:46 AM
BrianR
writes:
Well, Phil
I have to say, if there was any head-exploding going on, it was probably mine.
There was absolutely no clarity or rationality at all in the discussion from these drones. They reminded me of the worst of liberal dogmatics, with their talking points that make absolutely no sense but yet from which they will not deviate. It was really absurd, but for me very enlightening.
I don't see Paul as any kind of viable third-party issue; all he'll do is drain votes away from Buchanan, who is perpetually running. If Buchanan doesn't run this time, his demographic will simply vote for Paul.
As to funding: again, no big deal. Buchanan always got funded, too. So what? Another freakshow, of no relevance.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 11:51 AM
BrianR
writes:
BTW, Phil
If you continue down that thread you'll reach a point just before I leave (I wrote "sayonara" when I left for good) where they blame every economic ill in the country on the Iraq war, as if nothing else of any economic import has happened anywhere else in the world since 9/11.
Truly absurd.
Sample of Paulbot logic: Gas was $25/bbl before 9/11, now it's $100/bbl. Only possible cause: Iraq war.
?????????????????????????????
I mentioned the massive economic, industrial and construction boom in China as just one event.... to these guys that's meaningless. I may as well have been whispering into my pillow.
If brains were dynamite, these guys wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 11:55 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Brian
I just left comments on your blog and at Towery's column calling chrismathews a fraud or a whore. But on the positive side, we are seeing more Sams' stepping up to engage in rational discussion but the paulbots always swarm in and take it over with their Larouche tactics. I just can't see Ron Paul making any headway beyond 15-20% once he falls under intense scrutiny. There is just no hiding the anti-semitism and isolationism. A Ron Paul foreign policy would lead to the collapse of the Western world. They just don't understand how frail this house of cards that is our negotiated presence around the world. To close all those bases would throw the current world peace (little known fact: we are living in the most peaceful times in the history of mankind) into a tailspin. This country has always been strong on national defense and that has not changed. I'm just hoping Ron Paul runs to wreck any possible claim to a mandate by whoever ends up winning in 2008. The American voter is just not yet nutty enough to vote for a Ron Paul.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:17 PM
BrianR
writes:
Phil, Sam
Phil, I think your projected 15% is waaaay too high for Paul.
Sam, would that your co-supporters were more rational people like you. I've never before been one to ridicule Paul or his supporters. I've always written that he has many good ideas, but my biggest issue with him was his foreign/defense stance, which I think is rooted in an incorrect interpretaion of the Constitution and is dangerously naive in this day and age.
I've also always written that I actually admired the ardor of his supporters.
Yesterday's experience changed my mind, I have to tell you.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 12:56 PM
xpressit
writes:
Safaris
It sort of does leave a bad taste - the tenor of discussion - and impression of RP. The webies I ran across send that out loud and clear. The other problem is a good deal of what he says I see written by the anti-western/anti-American spokesman and likely echoed in Mosques. For instance, two events occur at the same time must prove they're connected, type stuff.
So much can be healthy about the independent voters, but he seems to absorb all the oxygen in the room. Many have noted the tactics of the various Paul groupies and their effect on sites. If you even raise that issue, you get lambasted as anti-Ron Paul -- likely synonomous with Hillary's vast right-wing conspiracy. Exhibit A: that article was not an attack on Paul, but was interpreted as one.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 1:07 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
One of the things I learned at Blogworld was how the paulbots, and others, affect their swarms. Just like big corporations who scour the blogosphere looking for all comments made about their company and products, the paulbots scour for any references to Ron Paul. It is not as innocent as it seems and the paulbots basically end up stomping on their very own when they crush sensible dialogue. It all comes off as thuggery and is self-defeating. You just can't persuade others by shouting them down.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 1:12 PM
xpressit
writes:
Just thinking
How many times they've told me "the" answer is agressive trade policy. Sounds good. OPEC et al would call theirs aggressive trade policy.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 1:21 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
What exactly is "aggressive trade policy" with guns? We just "mean it" more? They should keep in mind the Atlantic convoys we sent to England in early WWII. Without the armed escort, how exactly would that aggressive trade have worked?
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 1:54 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Doc
The "throw the bums out" movement is accelerating! That is what a Rasmussen poll clearly demonstrated two weeks ago. When some political wag presents statistics, be careful to establish what base he is using. Most, if not all, of the stats I see presented are based on what registered Republicans and Democrats think. That now represents a little more than half of all registered voters and probably represents the least engaged of voters. The disenfranchised of both parties continue to vote with their feet. It may be that both parties will still be around, but they will not be "parties" so much as labels for a small group of monied and connected people. That is not traditional party politics. Something will step in and fill the void. A Hillary/Rudy match-up will trigger something big. Count on it. This thing hasn't even started yet and I'm afraid a lot of people will vote before they think and suffer buyers' remorse after February. So both parties get their desired candidate but they are assuming too much to think that this will guarantee the desired result. They will be spending upwards of a billion dollars to end up with the lamest duck president ever.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 2:36 PM
xpressit
writes:
Phil
Valid comparison on biz and political tactics, and neither is completely innocent. I wonder how much biz gains. And nice ”aggressive” point, warm and fuzzy. We shall not think trade could be on the terrorists’ list. No. Next, the only way we’ll be able to secure trade is some compact/contract where we the infidels will be allowed “fair trade” - pending revocation of course.
Yes, the movement is accelerating not decelerating. Right now the whole field is trying to stem that, dissatifaction. The reason I give an edge to Dems on in roads in 08 is lockstep mentality and the pressure in the end wins. If they know its for all the marbles, then “just buck up, vote D”. And where else are most of them going to go?
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 2:48 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
There is an important difference between how corporations are using the blogosphere to listen versus how the paulbots are using it. Corporations are just surrendering to the reality that people are going to complain and they would rather have them complain directly and publicly where they can learn why and do something about it. That is what my first Blogworld post was about two weeks ago. The paulbots, on the other hand, use it to find their critics and stomp on them. It is a typical government/politician response. This is not a democratic trait but reveals a disturbing underlying reality about these guys.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 2:58 PM
xpressit
writes:
Doc Steech
You seem to be making your own case against. The well-greased machine etcetera is all part of what people find repugnant. Lest we remember the Dems campaign against the culture of corruption (which covers much of that territory). People seem no more pleased now with those results of 06. Danged if you do and danged if you don’t but I’d classify much of the dissatisfaction under the heading “fed up”. That would also include party politics that shoves much of that sludge under our feet. No easy solution like Federalist ten that embodies similar thinking.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 4:20 PM
xpressit
writes:
Phil
“…people are going to complain and [corps] would rather have them complain … where they can learn why and do something about it.
Well I can't argue with the sensible differences -- or difference in motivation.(nuances often overlooked to Paulbots) Listening: reminds me how Hill kicked off her Senate campaign, on a listening tour. I wonder what she heard, but at least she attempted the approach.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 9:05 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam
Jim Rodgers is George Soros' partner/portfolio manager who moved out of NY to China because of the Fed's refusal to defend the dollar. I am very leery of international speculators who advocate that countries abandon their militaries in defending their national interests. After all, those are also corporate interests. The Quantum fund is a hedge fund that invests mostly in currencies and derivatives. They don't actually own hard assets. Those are among the very international interests who are destroying our economy with their globalism. What a strange set of bedfellows for Ron Paul.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Friday, November, 23, 2007 11:09 PM
Cindy Joffrion
writes:
Interesting
This is all interesting information.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 12:01 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam
Hard to say. Bernanke and has talked openly about the "Greenspan put" and "moral hazard" so I believe he's in a very tough spot. I was very disappointed when he cut rates the first time. He was signaling that he wouldn't. Turns out he took a call from CitiGroup's Robert Rubin the night before. Who knows what was said and whether a deal was cut but if there was a deal, it doesn't look to me like the banks delivered on their end. The banks have refused to cooperate from the beginning. Regulators, the Fed and shareholders need to know exactly how exposed they are to the subprime debt problem and how they got there. The Fed needs to stem the decline of the dollar NOW. We are subsidizing the rest of the world's oil.
It was no accident that two Fed directors announced that the Fed would not be cutting interest rates just two hours before the news came out that the Saudis were overheard openly discussing unpegging oil prices from the dollar. That would be a catastophe. I believe fear runs deep at the Fed and that they will not cut interest rates next time. Congress needs to start issuing subpoenas to the top bank management to get to the bottom of this. I also think we need to re-instate Glass-Steagall and that these banks need to be broken up. We cannot have our central banks holding Main Street hostage to Wall Street.
A little sunshine would go far to cure what ails our financial markets and threatens to throw us into a deep recession.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 12:03 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Cindy
Welcome aboard. Always good to see new "faces" around here. Feel free to leap into the fray. I try hard to not make this an echo chamber.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:32 AM
BrianR
writes:
LOL, Doc
"Ole Foot in the Grave", huh?
Thanks, Doc, you really know how to make a guy feel good. I figure any day you're looking down at the daisies instead of up is a good one.
And my hair may have turned silver, bit at least it's still there. So I've got nooooooooooo complaints.
I agree with you that there's no danger of the Democrat Party dissolving, at all. They may have their internecine squabbles, but they have one overarching philosophy that unites them: a belief in Big Government. At the end of the day, that will keep them together, no matter what. They're blind party-lever pullers.
The GOP's always had the problem that it owes its successes to the support of people who believe in small government. That makes coalition-building very difficult, because people who believe in individualism are by their very nature going to be more freactious and hard to unite. There are, of course, the bobble-heads, but they're not enough to comprise a solid election-winning majority; they need the people who vote their principles.
That's the mistake the GOP keeps making in refusing to learn from history. The bobble-heads won't win elections, and they keep forgetting that.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 12:09 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR, Doc
I think you are both ignoring that voters are abandoning both parties in droves. They are shrinking and according to this Zogby poll I blogged about a couple of weeks ago,
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN162462072007101 7?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
voters are itching to make a broad anti-government statement. Whether one or both parties survive is irrelevant. They are not thriving and losing influence fast. They are committed to "herding cats" while new media like the blogosphere continues to gain traction in frustrating them. Hugh has a post today about how these spin factories are finding it increasingly difficult to spin their message. We are heading into a new world where "the world that doesn't work" will either be changed radically or they will perish. I believe the GOP is really tempting fate in 2008 and may very well become a minor party like in CA and MA, still around but serving only as a backdoor entry for self-financed candidates like Arnold and Romney.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 1:15 PM
xpressit
writes:
P-Phil
26% believe the country’s headed in the right direction. There is room, I’m sure, for Demos to pull some mandate out of their hats about that. You know, like “what people really want is us (though approvals don’t show it) to take over” and run this show.... into the ground. 18% - or one in five Repubs - were undecided. There is plenty of room for Democrat demagoguery, it would seem. It could work.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 1:27 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
That is exactly what they did after last November when they claimed voters wanted an immediate surrender in Iraq. And they continue to operate on that false mandate. People are fed up with both parties right now. I don't see Hillary demagoguing herself past her huge negatives. Voters know what she represents and don't like it. As voters come to realize that Rudy represents the same thing, he will also weaken. It is very hard to erase facts, especially when independent candidates keep pointing them out. This may very well be a 2-person race in the GOP, but it is wide-open in the broader race.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 1:31 PM
xpressit
writes:
Phil
I do question one point if his piece. the voter turnout will be high. That seems hard to predict. Epecially if "They are "giving up on this government".
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 1:43 PM
xpressit
writes:
Correction:
he said voter turnout [could] still be high... to clarify.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 1:53 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
That is the big wild card. If we could get some numbers as to whether the surge in registrations is already happening and whether people are registering independent, that would help. Don't hold your breath. The only pol who even mentioned it was Lieberman last year. It is not happening in CA where the number of eligible voters is up slightly but registrations are down sharply. On the other hand, registrations for both parties, in absolute numbers and by percentage, are both down while "decline to state" are up sharply. That is according to the Bi-annual Report of Registration released 2/10/07. I have found it impossible to get national numbers and attribute that to the reluctance of the establishment to report disturbing numbers. Surely, Michael Barone must have good numbers.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 1:54 PM
BrianR
writes:
Flip side, Phil
Typically, conservatives tend to stay away from the polls if there's no candidate running whom they can support.
Now, if Dem-inclined voters do the same, then what you end up with is an election with a really loooooow turnout.
Where I'm having reservations is in the idea that Dem-inclined voters will actually do that.
I'm speaking generally about the "independants" to whom you refer, of course.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:05 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
It is impossible to assess without better numbers. I don't know anyone who is happy, and that includes liberals (and I know lots of them). If there is one consensus in this country, it is that this government is not responsive. How that gets expressed given that both parties are determined to cram two offensive candidates down our throats is anyone's guess. That is why I keep hammering away at declining party registrations. The establishment keeps arguing that "people" are divided 50/50. Not true. They are mostly polling Democrats and Republicans who aren't even thinking about the election yet. You would think that there would be lots of columns about "disappearing parties" but I can't even get a single person on my own blog to address the issue. We are plodding away is a marsh trying to avoid the quicksand of what we don't know.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:10 PM
xpressit
writes:
Phil
I hate to mention, but am told Republican registrations grew as a result of Paulites influence. (not that it means anything in the general)But yes, by the time we can see the numbers, why we'll be told that they mean something else.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:15 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
Do you think they will remain when Paul runs independent? There may be a surge of people registering to vote for Paul, but I doubt they outnumber the number of people abandoning the GOP. But then again, we don't know.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:15 PM
BrianR
writes:
You know lots of libs, Phil?
My condolences.
Is there anything I can do?
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:20 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
Here's another problem I have with what you were told. It is probably being told by the Paul people themselves and we already know that a significant number of his following are college kids too young to vote.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:21 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
Unlike you, I don't live on an island. I have to work and socialize with these people. They are everywhere.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:27 PM
xpressit
writes:
a-b-c..that's the one
Phil,I just envision Dem team-votebots dragging any senior citizen out they can. I realize its conjecture at this point, but I know alot of them don't see past the big "D".
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:31 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
xpressit
Registrations are not declining because of the "automatics". There is something going on even if we can't get our hands on the numbers. There is a reason this election started so early and I believe it is because the money knew they would have a tough job selling their anointed candidates.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:32 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Without Alternatives
The pent up frustrations with both parties has no outlet at this point. If it turns out to be Hillary vs Rudy without any alternative, I predict the lowest turnout ever. That would be the only way for people to register their disgust with business as usual. If GOP primary voters can somehow defy the RNC and nominate a real conservative (Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo) I think Hillary loses in a landslide with turnout soaring. We want to save our country, both parties don't want us to have that choice. Rudy and Hillary would both continue down the globalist path to SPP and eventual abandonment of American sovereignty. A Rudy vs Hillary matchup almost guarantees a third party run by someone IMHO. I could even see the 4 or 5 way race that Phil has laid out. Hillary benefits from all those scenarios.
Romney remains an enigma to me. He has evolved on so many issues, it's hard for me to know whether what he says now is what he really believes or if he's just saying what he thinks he needs to for the nomination. I did hear him say on Glenn Beck that he would scrap SPP. That's a plus in my book. He has come around on illegal aliens, but will he stick to it if elected? As I recall W. said "no amnesty" before he was elected, in fact he was still saying that while pushing "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", all the while decreasing border and internal enforcement.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:35 PM
xpressit
writes:
and
You are correctomundo on who sez. The other problem I hear is that Dems are regisering (R)to vote for Paul. I guess its like selling vaccuums, they are everywhere, or so they say.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:44 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
BTW
I didn't go to West VA this weekend, major cold front moved in. Like you, I don't enjoy freezing my noches off. I did go out to a friends farm shooting yesterday, had the oppotunity to shoot a Harrington and Richardson .223 single shot. Beautiful gun, has a scope on it almost as big as the gun. Everyone shooting was able to put it inside 4" at 100 yards.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:46 PM
BrianR
writes:
Amen, VPat
I agree with what you wrote.
On Romney, I'm starting to look aty him more closely. My take: he's the polar opposite of Baldy. Baldy's lying now, and showed his true colors as Mayor. Romeny's now showing his true colors, and was governing against his ideology as Governor. Also not admirable, but it is what it is.
My Congressman, Buck McKeon, a true conservative (ACU 94%) likes Romney, and that means something to me. Buck's a good man; I know him personally.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:48 PM
xpressit
writes:
Your on to
While you have a better eye on the money, I think you are partly correct. If money has built the sub-system, they won't go down without a fight. One problem is to patronize Party now means to condone status quo -- as Doc has said, money is up to its eyebrows. So there seems to be no breaking it until its a matter of winning or loosing. In that case, money can switch to the winning side.(but does it?) I keep remembering they have the money but the votes don't come from the same place. Money without vote(voters)....
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:48 PM
BrianR
writes:
Excellent, man.
I was going to head up to the range today, but there's waaaaay too much wind. Gusts are forecast up to 50-60 mph.
Shoot at the target, and the bullet lands in another county.
Tomorrow I pick up the new babies.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 2:59 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Phil
I am not as well versed in the machinations of the financial markets as you are. Some of what Sam is saying about the Fed and the dollar does ring true to me. The major banks have been taking extraordinary risks with not only the subprime market, but derivatives and other semi-shady dealings. Combine that with the huge amount of debt China holds and the Saudis threat to decouple the price of oil from the dollar and we could be facing a real catastrophe. We have put ourselves in a very precarious position. If the Chinese were to follow through on their threats to dump dollars, the bottom would fall out. I keep hoping that they know it would negatively impact them. At some point, though, it may not matter as much as their domestic markets grow.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 3:20 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Brian
I am watching the fires in CA on TV again today, nowhere near you this time from what I gather. I know you're anxious to get your new purchases, sucks that you have to wait so long. In VA we have instant background checks, walk out with your purchase after a computer check. I can sympathize, though, I'm still waiting for my Super Match. Had my Winchester 94 and my Marlin 45 out yesterday. Fun guns to shoot, but couldn't hold a candle to that sniper rifle my friend had. I had not fired a .223 before, more kick than I expected, then again, this guy loads his own and everything he loads is "hot". He gave me some of his .45 shells to try in my Sig P220st, 185g XTP bullet, smaller than the factory 230g, but way more pop when you pulled the trigger.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 3:45 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat
I don't disagree with Sam and I do believe we are facing a catastrophe. But the nature of the problem is beyond the Fed's scope. Investment banks should never have been allowed to own commercial banks and insurance companies. That is why Glass-Stegall was enacted in 1938. Rescinding that in 1998 in the middle of the Long-Term Capital fiasco is unforgivable. The abandonment of corporate accountability has also contributed to the problem as has a government at all levels that is looting at the public trough. No one is minding the store. The world community has lost confidence in our banking system because we have a Fed and government that would rather bail out the crooks (like Soros and Rodgers) than protect our national sovereignty of which our currency is a big part. Where Sam and I part ways is that he believes that Ron Paul is the solution. I think that would make the problem worse. It is a revelation to me that a Paul supporter would be boasting that a Soros associate is financing Paul's campaign. Something wrong there.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 3:54 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat Part I
The threat from China or anyone else to dump US treasuries is not serious. China owns about $900 billion of treasures which amounts to less than one day's average trading volume. Were they to dump it, it would lose a great deal of value and trigger a collapse of the Chinese economy. Bush called their bluff months ago when the subprime crisis was spreading into Europe. The world WANTS to trust us but we are currently being governed by criminals. We should never put up with the investment banks (Wall Street)holding the commercial banks (Main Street) hostage in negotiating a bailout. The corruption is so widespread that no one believes anyone anymore. The accounting firms, credit rating agencies (S&P, AMBAC, etc..), mortgage lenders are all under investigation. It's time for Congress to step up and do their duty. Merrill's O'Neal orchestrated on of the biggest corporate disasters of all time and walks away with $160 million. What does it take? Bear Stearns escaped by liquidating their hedge funds in Grand Cayman to avoid the scrutiny of the New York Stock Exchange which is what signaled to everyone that something was horribly wrong in the subprime markets.
I don't expect that we will have a catastrophe. I believe we have been in recession for at least the past 6 months and that the dollar will bottom out by early next year. That will bring in alot of money from overseas and trigger a major rally. But if we don't fix the system, we may not survive the next calamity.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 3:59 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat: Part II
If we learned anything from the excessive 1920's and the Great Depression, it is that Karl Marx was right about one thing. Unfettered capitalism leads to market oscillations that get worse and worse until the system inevitably collapses. That is why we adopted a system of regulations to ensure integrity and confidence in the system. That is why Keynesian economics saved us. It went too far but we are once again going through a similar period of unfettered cleptocracy but this time, we cannot afford to go into a depression. People confuse democracy with capitalism.
Capitalism is a tool, not an all-encompassing ideology like communism. It needs to be regulated. So long as the elite levels of society are populated by crooks, the level of regulation will have to increase. We need to become better people at all levels or we will lose all of our freedoms eventually.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 4:08 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Wise Words
That's why I come here, thanks Phil. I am a tiny bit less worried about a collapse. Cleptocracy is an apt description. I am less than sanguine that the criminal class currently populating Congress can get their heads out of the posteriors of their donors long enough to do what's right for the country. We really do need a throw the bums out election.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 4:29 PM
Jimmy Carter
writes:
Hey Doc,
did You read Cindy's biography?
By the way, excellent reply to her post.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 4:31 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Doc
I checked out her post from yesterday and it was a simple question on who is going to make up the education funding being cut out of the federal budget. Not much to go with.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 4:36 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Doc, VPat
Doc; That's why we hold elections and why we should refrain from making too many assumptions, like a vote for candidate "x" is a vote for Hillary. We just don't know. But it is safe to assume that party registrations are sinking otherwise one or both parties would be crowing about it. And I don't know any of the 26% find the status quo acceptable. There is only one other possibility and that is what I'm going with.
VPat: keep in mind that the economy is strong despite all of this nonsense. The banks can really screw things up but it hasn't yet reached the point, like it did in 1929, that it can take down this economy. We are, after all, living in the most peaceful and prosperous times in history. Hard to believe but it's true.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 4:49 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Doc
I saw your comment at Cindy's blog. That is why it's hard to be angry at you.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 5:03 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Interesting Times
A wacked out theory: George Soros is attempting to rig the whole election, including funding the third party alternative that he knows is doomed to fail. We know he's funding Hillary, is some of his money finding its way to Rudy?
We know who the media favorites are.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 5:22 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Doc
I saw your comment at Cindy's blog. That is why it's hard to be angry at you.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 5:29 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat
Now THAT would be news. The main money I see for Rudy is the same Bush money that is directed by the Texas oil interests (Richard Kinder etal, the Enron crowd). The international speculators like George Soros HATE Bush. So do the mutual fund companies and Wall Street generally. The Republican money comes mostly from banks and global corporations who have the corporate one-world business plan. Dems are a combination of super elites like hedge funds and those who want to rebuild the party around poor Mexicans. It is hard to tell if this money ever bleeds over. They both want the same end result.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 7:17 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam: Part I
First of all, I addressed the China bluff of dumping the dollar above. And America DOES still have plenty of industry, including manufacturing, left. It's just that economic growth in the service, government and other sectors has outpaced the growth in manufacturing. We have exported much of our economically sensitive industry enabling us to weather recessions better. When we go into recession, it is the emerging economies that have to deal with the unemployment. We are also not as sensitive to inflation as we use to be because the cost of the basic necessities has declined so dramatically over the past 30 years.
Stabilizing the dollar has little if anything to do with Iraq. We are already well on our way to reducing our dependency on foreign oil by 75% by 2025 and can accelerate that if necessary. The entire world is facing the problem of expensive oil and depleting supplies. There has not been a major oil discovery in more than 40 years. All of the oil left is expensive to get at.
Contrary to the doom and gloom scenario Ron Paul likes to paint, the entire world is in bed with us and has more to lose than we do were things to go bad. The Saudi threat of moving away from the dollar peg would have dire consequences in the short term for the US but it would ripple throughout the world economy and no one would gain.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 7:26 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam: Part II
There are plenty of dangers to be sure but that's life in the fast lane. We are always "on the brink" of something. We were "on the brink" of nuclear annihilation for fifty years and narrowly avoided nuclear war at least three times along the way. We are facing nothing like that today. We are facing a crisis of ideas and systemic integrity. We WILL succeed in securing our borders and will eventually overcome the current crisis in confidence in our institutions. If we can't do it be election, our markets will do it for us. Private equity firms have been actively taking out publicly traded companies because of the opportunity presented by great companies being looted by management. By them out and kick out management, voila! profitable company again! Now they can be spun off again by IPO.
Ron Paul's solution of shutting down government and turning isolationist would be the biggest catastrophe of all. We live in a real world with real enemies who want to destroy us. We can't simply pack up and go home.
We are in trouble to be sure, but we have overcome much worse and are better prepared than usual to overcome this.
And please don't refer me to Lew Rockwell.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 7:30 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam: finally
Currency exposures are easily hedged. Corporations, countries and speculators do it all the time. For China and OPEC to move away from the dollar near its bottom would be suicidal. They are not that stupid. It's another case of driving down the mountain and projecting one's path to inevitably drive over the edge. That's why they put steering wheels on cars. Trends and market directions can be extended to absurd conclusions. That is what politicians do when they are out of power. Ron Paul is a bigger threat to prosperity were he to attain power than Hillary.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:01 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Phil
I had to go look at Doc's comment after you mentioned it. Does he ever play well with others? Funny, but caustic at Cindy's, and here he's got Brian with one foot in the grave. I liked his last blog entry, in case you missed it, take a look.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:06 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat
If you mean his blog entry at Cindy's, yes I saw it and I thought it was very funny. Cindy hadn't responded last I checked. Doc and I have differences but that's why we have these discussions. At least we know where and why we differ. I don't require that everyone agree with me. I'm trying to figure it out myself.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:07 PM
BrianR
writes:
Vpat, Doc
VPat, I've shot those XTPs, and they're pretty hot; that's why they're so loud. That, actually, is the defense load I keep in one of my home defense guns.
Must be the same for your friend's .223; I can't imagine anyone considering its recoil as any kind of kick, especially if you're shooting a Win 94, or frankly any caliber .270 and up. The first time I shot .223 was in Basic, when we shot familiarity with the M-16. The M14 was our Basic Training rifle, and that's what I qualified on. The day we shot the 16s, it felt like a popgun. At first, I thought I had a bunch of squib loads, until I saw the holes in the target.
Doc, I agree with you on the revolver as a defense weapon for anyone who's not a very experienced shooter. As you said, point and pull the trigger. No safeties, no racking the slide, no magazines.
When you're more experienced, the options are wider, and I choose autos. I always prefer single action to double action, and in combat a revolver is essentially double-action. With some exceptions -- none of which I'd own -- an auto is at worst a first shot double action, and it's single action from there on out.
That's also why almost no one chooses revolvers for competition or serious carry.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:08 PM
BrianR
writes:
BTW, guys, who's Cindy?
.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:15 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
Scroll up a few dozen comments. Doc left a classic comment at her site.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:23 PM
BrianR
writes:
Oooooooookaaaaaayyyyy....
Impressive blog. One three-line essay, with three comments, two of which are her own.
Uh, why would anyone go there, read it (which must have taken all of 2 seconds) and waste time talking about it?
Am I missing something here?
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:32 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
It's not the blog, it's Doc's comment. And she did leave a comment here and just like you, I always return the complement if they have a blog.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:53 PM
BrianR
writes:
Heh heh heh, Phil
Yep. She left a helluva comment.
About as meaty as her blog.
One line, six words including the header, that said absolutely nothing.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 8:55 PM
BrianR
writes:
But, hey, you're right!
As the host you have to be polite and respond. I truly do agree with that.
A polite host makes all who enter their place feel part of the gathering.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 9:07 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Brian
I was thinking it would be like a .22, it feels more like my model 94 in .357 magnum, at least the way my friend loads his shells. As I said, everything he loads is "hot". All I ever use is factory loads, there is a big difference to his loads. The .45 bullets were XTP, but the shells were not factory loads. If you have a mixed mag, it goes bang, bang, boom, boom, boom. I don't think I'd use them frequently. He tells me he has already replaced the bushings in his Kimber a couple of times.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 9:30 PM
BrianR
writes:
On his Kimber
he should be using Shok-Buffs. That'd cushion the recoil impact against the frame, and save on his bushings, too.
He's working himself toward a cracked or loosened frame, IMO. Could even bend the slide rails over time.
He mixes his ammo????????
VERY bad idea.
From what you describe, I wouldn't shoot his handloads in my own gun if I were you.
.223 in recoil energy, in my experience, is along the lines of .30 Carbine, so it's more than .22 Mag, and I guess along the lines of .357 Mag.
Then only gun I use it in is my Mini-14, but I seldom shoot that small a rifle caliber. Mine are .308, .30-06, and .45-70. Other than my Mini-14 and Marlin .22, of course.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 9:31 PM
BrianR
writes:
Forgot my Model 94
That's .44 Mag, but I use a load equivalent to .44 Spec.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 9:40 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
If you didn't have a Mini-14, would you buy one?
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:10 PM
BrianR
writes:
Yeah, Phil, I would
I'll preface by saying I think that .223 is an overrated round in the gun community. It has a great application in certain situations: varmint hunting, combat rifles in urban or close-quarters environments. Plinking. Fun.
That having been said, I think the Mini-14's a very fun rifle, though "plinking" has taken on a whole new meaning with the current cost of ammo.
But it's a lot cheaper than an AR-15, and is about as accurate for stock models.
Basically, it's a carbine, the modern equivalent of the M1 Carbine of WW2.
I do NOT consider any 5.56 weapon or M16 a serious Battle Rifle. Note that all the modern versions that are lauded in the gun magazines all have tons of add-ons, like under-barrel grenade launchers or slide rails to mount battery-powered sights, and things like that.
IMO, a serious Battle Rifle is of a caliber sufficient to stop and kill your enemy at mid-to-long range (which the 5.56 can't do; the Army redefined requirements to adopt the 5.56), can do so reliably with open sights, and is compatible with the Squad Automatic Weapon, which used to be the M-60, but is now a less-effective 5.56 SAW.
I NEVER want my sights in actual combat dependant on battery power. No way, no how. I want a purely mechanical and dependable device as close to a powerful rock in a sling as I can get. Far less to go wrong.
Note that the elite branch units (SEALS, Green Berets) still use the M-14 for serious work.
ALL that having been said... Yeah, I really like my Mini-14, and am glad I have it.
But when my score counts.... it stays in the gun cabinet.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:18 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Brian
I loved my b-in-law's 94 with .44 special so much I decided to get one, but wanted it in .38/.357 specifically because the .44 mag kicked too much for my comfort level. Same reason I won't be getting a 12 gauge shotgun.
I like mine with .357, I got to try that this weekend, someone had a .357 S&W revolver and I used a couple of his rounds. I had only shot .38 special in it. Not much more than a .22 feel to it with that round.
I agree, I don't think I'll be using that guy's ammo in my guns. I'd like to keep them a long time.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:20 PM
BrianR
writes:
Yeah, VPat
Good decision!
LOL
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:30 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam
It's not that I disagree that we have very big problems but many of the issues are solvable. We can secure the border (it will happen even if Hillary gets elected which won't happen), we actually fix social security by raising the minimum age for full benefits to 72 (or higher)where it belongs. We can re-introduce TARIFFS and DUTIES on imports from countries that subsidize their exports to us (like China). We can suspend the fulfillment of any pending terms of the NAFTA agreements pending evaluation and kill the CAFTA agreement. We can re-institute Glass-Steagall. We can pass an actual energy policy that subsidizes alternative energy, EVEN IF the oil companies benefit. All of the things that are looming over our heads are fixable. Things can change fast in this country and I happen to believe that the amnesty battle was a landmark sea change that has put the government on notice that there is a new movement afoot and they are running out of time to cram their globalist, open-borders agenda down our throats. It's more than an American pushback, it's global. France, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Holland... They are all facing anti-illegal immigrant movements. We can also start laying off bureaucrats and taking back many of their bloated benefits packages and I'm including firemen and police here but particularly municipal employees. All of this can happen. We are not going to witness the collapse you are forecasting. At worst, we will have a severe recession. I expect we will slog along for a few more months and then witness a rally after which the government will declare that we had a recession but it's over. Like in 2002 when the Bush folks revised the numbers and declare the recession started in 1998. This is not 1929 nor is it 1973. We just need new leadership across the board and it will come. We just can't go isolationist and gut our government like Ron Paul advocates.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:30 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Brian
Have you ever tried Fiocchi(sp?) in .45 ACP? Tried some at the range last time, it seemed hotter than the CCI and Winchester, cleaner, too.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:38 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat
Those are my standard ammo for my Glock but I can't help you. I don't consider myself competent with that gun yet.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:41 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Pasedena Phil for President!
Your last response to Sam was inspirational. I hope we can elect people who would do as you suggest. These things are correctable with the right leadership. Without that leadership, I see partisan gridlock as we fight over, well,.... everything.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 10:51 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Phil
Was your choice of ammo recommended by Glock? My Sig book did not mention ammo other than correct caliber. I just started buying .45ACP and have only used CCI Blazer Brass, Winchester and Fiocchi. So far Fiocchi seems like the best for both accuracy and cleanliness.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:00 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat
All that Glock recommended was to use quality ammo from a reputable name manufacturer and stay away from reloads and "hot" ammo. That would invalidate my warranty. My limited knowledge of guns tells me that these guns were designed to be used with specific ammo. Why "cheat" with hot loads? From what I've read and heard from friends and others is that they don't increase accuracy. I'm trying to be the most accurate shooter at the range, not the loudest or the one who makes the biggest holes.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:05 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Sam
Dean Barnett got me in the race months ago as a benchmark against Ron Paul. The two standard jokes were that Paul's polling results were lower than the margin of error and that he was running neck and neck with Pasadena Phil. I don't know what happened to that now that Dean is gone. Anne mentions it once in a while but the paulbots positively hated it. If I were to run, I wouldn't last an hour. Look what they're doing to Romney and he's squeaky clean. They could make up anything they want about me and I could never defend myself. I think BrianR is a better candidate.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:17 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
O.K. BrianR-Pasadena Phil as a ticket
How about that? Sounds a whole lot better than Giuliani-Huckabee.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:24 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
I've got a slogan already
Peace through superior firepower!
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:25 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Accuracy is the name of the game
That's exactly what I'm after as well. At longer distances than most people are shooting also. I'm usually the only one sliding the targets past 10 yards. I usually shoot 20-25 yards with the Browning and 15 yards with the larger calibers until I get better with them. My goal is to be able to hit the steel plates at 50 yards up at my wife's cousin's place in WV.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:27 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Love That Slogan
I have it on a T-shirt already!
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:31 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
VPat
I seem to be pretty accurate up to 15 yds but beyond, I need work.
BTW, I just read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article29370 68.ece
The Archbishop of Canterbury being interviewed by a British Muslim newspaper and calling the US the worst imperialist in history. Talk about dhimitude. I'm glad I'm Catholic. At least the pope stated that America is Christianity's and the West's last hope.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:41 PM
BrianR
writes:
I've shot Fiocchi
"Name" brand discount ammo; comes in a variety of loadings. It's okay.
A step or three above the Russian crapola like Bear.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:46 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
Maybe that's why I can't shoot my Glock. Crap ammo.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:48 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
good info, thx
It does seem as though our ally Britain is submitting to the will of Allah. I've been watching reports coming out of the U.K. and they are not encouraging. The radical Muslims have essentially shouted down any moderate voices who seek accomodation with the West. The government has done little to curb the radicals. This article is particularly worrisome as it is from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The propaganda value for Al Jazeera is inestimable.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:52 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
BrianR
You're our resident expert, what's the preferred .45 ACP round? The Fiocchi is actually more expensive than CCI Blazer Brass and Winchester here, I thought it shot slightly better, cleaner anyway.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 24, 2007 11:53 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Never thought I'd say this
but thank God France is on our side.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:05 AM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
HA!
That's a good one, and true, too. Look at what they are doing by contrast. Cracking down on illegal aliens and radical muslims. Never thought I would think they had more spine than the Brits, but lately......
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 8:40 AM
Gunny "knuckles" G©
writes:
Virginia Patriot
I shoot Wolf and reload it afterwards. It's a little dirty to shoot but I like cleaning my weapons! It's cheap and I have never had a misfire in well over 5000 rds. I also get Milsurplus from CMP for the Garand/03.
Purplegimp,
D*MN GOOD essay. Kudos. What we need is a candidate with balls to call it like they see it.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 10:24 AM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Doc
The key part of your comment is "Which ain't gonna happen anyway"
What will make that true is that people like me made it clear that we would NEVER EVER vote for Rudy. Like Brian, I would just as soon vote for Hillary and see that as a marginally better alternative. No temporary dropping of defenses.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 11:23 AM
BrianR
writes:
Gunny, Doc, VPat
Gunny, that Wolf stuff is steel case. No way do I run that stuff through my guns.
Doc, that's great. As I said, experienced shooters have broader choices. My point was that inexperienced shooters are beter served, IMO, with revolvers. I was agreeing with you, and expanding.
VPat, my favorite .45ACP is Lancer ammo. I use 200 gr semi-wadcutters and 200 gr round nose, and both are tack drivers. They used to sell directly, but not anymore. It's good stuff and inexpensive, too.
Of course, nothing can really beat a tailored load if you're into reloading, but I don't really have much interest in that anymore; sitting in my garage is boring. But when I do, it's a 200 gr semi-wad over 5.5 gr Unique.
Here's a link for y'all:
http://www.outdoormarksman.com/index.php?warehouse=west
Outdoor Marksman has an East and West Coast warehouse, and they're the sole distributors for Miwall. Miwall has really good prices on ammo, and they also manufacture their own.
I've shot a lot of Miwall's .45ACP, .45LC, .223, .308, .45-70, and swear by the stuff. Great ammo at VERY reasonable prices.
For .308 shooters, Australian milsurp's the best, IMO, and there's once again inventory in the US -- it's been a year or two since the last time there was. Grab it while you can. There's also a lot of S. African stuff, and it's excellent fodder.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:01 PM
BrianR
writes:
PS
Outdoor Marksman carries brands other than Miwall, too.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
BrianR
Miwall 200 gr .45 ACP at under $13 per 50 rds? How can that be?
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:38 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Doc, Gunny, Brian
Doc, I am one of those heartless conservatives who do not read anywhere in the Constitution the outlay of federal funds for charitable purposes(like Mr. Madison). Your comment at cindy's was funny. A little more subtle than Gunny generally is. Being married to a liberal makes me a little more sensitive to hurting their feelings over their wrongheadedness. I sincerely hope you are correct that GOP voters will not nominate a liberal. I don't vote for liberals. Not even in the general.
Gunny, thanks for the info, I finally decided on a .45, got a Sig P220st. Really good shooter.
Brian, I don't have the time or interest in reloading, so I'll be sticking to factory ammo. Thanks for the tip on Lancer.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:49 PM
BrianR
writes:
Yeah, Phil
I told you their prices were good. That's why I posted the link.
I now expect all of you to show your gratitude at Christmas.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:57 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Phil
Best price on .45 that I have found is CCI Blazer Brass at Walmart, $11.97 a box of 50. 230g FMJ. Also, Winchester 9mm in 100 round value pack, $15.72. Not the best ammo maybe, but easily the best prices.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:57 PM
BrianR
writes:
Here are some other links
http://www.natchezss.com/
http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/handgunamm o.html
http://www.midwayusa.com/
http://catalog.ammodepot.com/index.php?classid=WSTA&groupid =AMMO
http://www.kitterytradingpost.com/product.php/pid/31/sid/16 7/tid/1726/prodid/131
http://www.surplusammo.com/
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/
http://www.cabelas.com/prod-1/0037471214956a.shtml
http://www.championshooters.com/store/home.php?cat=295
http://www.gzanders.com/
Ballistics charts:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ballistics/?url=%2Fballistics %2F30_06.html&x=14&y=7
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 12:58 PM
BrianR
writes:
VPat, the problem with Blazer
is it's aluminum case, and can't be reloaded.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 1:03 PM
BrianR
writes:
Self-correct
I didn't see the "Brass" part of your Blazer comment.
Is that Winchester the 100 round box of 115 gr FMJ labeled "Value Pack" and "Target/Range"?
I've got a couple boxes left of the 5 boxes I bought. It shoots okay through my Hi-Power, but the best I've found is the 147gr sub-sonic. That stuff's as accurate as my .45s.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 1:17 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Brian
Yeah, that's the Winchester I've been buying. Target/range, works well in my Ruger, at $.16 a round it's hard to beat. I did shoot a box of the 147g at the range once. As much as I shoot up at the range, I kind of need to keep price in mind. I have bought self defense rounds in each caliber that cost considerably more, but those stay in the spare mags at home, then back in the gun and in the pistol safe, just in case.
I have used aluminum case once, other than not being able to reload, which I don't do, is there a problem with them? Why is steel case bad for the gun?
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 1:31 PM
BrianR
writes:
VPat
No, aluminum cases are okay other than not being reloadable.
Steel cases are bad for a couple of reasons. Not being as malleable and ductile as brass, under the pressure of the ignition they don't go through the expansion and contraction cycle as readily, and may lead to higher gas pressure in the barrel, which in a gas-operated firearm can cycle the action harder.
More importantly, a steel case mouth can score the chamber of the gun as it cycles. This is the biggie. Brass cases can't because the case is softer metal than the gun's chamber. Not so with steel cases.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 25, 2007 2:21 PM
Virginia Patriot
writes:
Brian
Thanks, I suspected the steel was problematic for exactly the reasons you described. I have avoided it for the same reasons. Thanks for confirming.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Monday, November, 26, 2007 12:59 AM
BrianR
writes:
Guys
Time for a shameless plug for my new essay "Murder and Roe", and also for a great new fiction series started by Phoenix Lady at her blog, here:
http://phoenix-rising.townhall.com/
I really recommend it.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Monday, November, 26, 2007 2:19 PM
Pasadena Phil
writes:
Hunh? Someone mention guns?
I'm there!
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Monday, November, 26, 2007 8:06 PM
Peppermint2
writes:
Geesh
I sure did miss the boat here. Had a completely wacky week last week and didn't get around much.
I agree, Phil, this is going to be one crazy year with what is going on. It does one thing. It makes it somewhat more interesting.
Email It
|
Print It
|
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered,
click here
.
Need an account?
Login
Login
Your Email:
Password:
Get Your Password
|
Register
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (
*
) are required.
Salutation:
Mr.
Mrs.
Ms.
Miss.
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
AE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
*
Zip:
*
Townhall Daily Alert
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
Townhall.com Spotlight
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.