According to PA Republican delegate Anthony Antonello of Pittston, Tom Corbett lied when announcing the delegates choices. There were 72 total delegates and 67 supported Romney. When announcing the allegiance of the remaining five delegates on the Convention floor, Corbett lied saying they supported "Paul Ryan", when in fact they supported Ron Paul! Antonello, Tom Boggia, Brian Dougherty, Tom Martin, and Thomas Brown all supported Ron Paul but had their positions misrepresented by the soulless Pennsylvania governor.
Lemmings in the GOP have said that Tom Corbett is "a good Christian man". I wish I could ask them whether they think he told a "good Christian lie".
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
2012 Pennsylvania Election Endorsements
Federal Candidates
President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
US Senate: Rayburn Douglas Smith (Libertarian)
CD 10: Phil Scollo (D)
CD 11: Lou Barletta (R)
CD 17: Laureen Cummings (R)
State Candidates
Attorney General: Marakay Rogers (Libertarian)
Auditor General: Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
State Treasurer: Patricia M. Fryman (Libertarian)
PA 120 Aaron Kaufer (R)
PA 119 Rick Arnold (R)
PA 12 Daryl Metcalfe (R)
US Congressional Candidate Endorsements Outside Pennsylvania
Kesha Rogers (D) TX -22
Kurt Haskell (D) MI -7
Justin Amash (R) MI -3
Kerry Bentivolio (R) MI -11
Art Robinson (R) OR -4
Thomas Massie (R) KY -4
Randy Weber (R) TX -14
Explanations
Gary Johnson, President -Why not choose the lesser of two evils in Romney? We believe Romney will be very similar to George W. Bush or fusion of Bush and Obama. We expect from him: unnecessary wars with Iran and Syria, retention of a significant amount of Obamacare, and increased overall spending largely due to increases in "defense" spending. Romney will expand TSA molestations, drones spying on Americans, NDAA 2012, and many other anti-freedom trends. Such incremental increases in tyranny and fiscal irresponsibility are the very things people are mad at Obama for. Romney has already shown a liking for strong arm tactics in his maneuvers to prevent Ron Paul from being considered for a vote at the GOP convention, and God knows what he'll be like once elected. Finally, for every neo-con warmonger such GW Bush, there follows a left-wing despot like Obama. Although Romney may be slightly better for the business climate today, in the long run he represents a temporary slowing down and not a reversal of detrimental policies.
Every four years, sages clamber for the American people to stop compromising and vote against a candidate who represents the establishment coterie of a political party which has had 150 years to be corrupted. And every year the mindless masses, due to a prisoner's dilemma mentality and fear, vote to keep out the major party candidate they dislike most. A lot of this is due to brainwashing in the media that accentuates differences between Republicans like Romney and Democrats like Obama, when functionally they are nearly identical. Obama maintained Bush's increases in spending, and George W Bush increased the benchmark of annual federal spending by more in his last four years than Obama has in his first four years.
Those voting for Gary Johnson know that they are voting for an honest man. Johnson is actually more qualified to run for president than Romney, having served two terms as governor instead of one, and having been named one of the most popular governors during his tenure unlike Romney.
Prior to becoming governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson started a business from the ground up which would eventually employ over one thousand people, and unlike Romney, he never received a bailout.
Johnson aims to solve all the problems of the day. He favors sustainable, sane levels of defense spending, and has a track record as governor of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Johnson knows how to say no, and has the backbone to veto all forms of excessive spending. His libertarian philosophy is conducive to a small government that permits maximum freedom for all. Thus, Gary Johnson is actually different from Obama in his preferred policies. Until the GOP and their talk-radio brainwashers allow the people a candidate such as Gary Johnson, they will not receive votes from anyone who is honest and fully informed, who also cares about fiscal well-being and personal freedom.
Libertarian Party candidate Rayburn Smith understands liberty and is a fiscal conservative. He will vote to curtail waste in the "defense" budget, and will oppose the burgeoning police state mentality and draconian measures such as NDAA2012.
Rayburn Smith's Republican opponent, Tom Smith (no relation), is an idiot who does not think for himself and believes the consensus among the Republican establishment is the only standard of truth. Case in point, Tom Smith deferred to Pat Toomey and Allen West on the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA 2012, without ever developing an opinion of his own on the subject. His only opinion seems to be conformity with the establishment. Tom Smith also stated that we must have a "balance" between liberty and security. Politicians only say that when they want to take away liberty, never when they want to allow more of it. It is clear that Tom Smith will not stand up for your freedom as long as he can use that ridiculous rationale for backing down. On the other hand, Rayburn Smith makes liberty a priority will protect us from tyrannical legislation.
The video below displays Tom the moron Smith's answer to a question on NDAA.
President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
US Senate: Rayburn Douglas Smith (Libertarian)
CD 10: Phil Scollo (D)
CD 11: Lou Barletta (R)
CD 17: Laureen Cummings (R)
State Candidates
Attorney General: Marakay Rogers (Libertarian)
Auditor General: Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
State Treasurer: Patricia M. Fryman (Libertarian)
PA 120 Aaron Kaufer (R)
PA 119 Rick Arnold (R)
PA 12 Daryl Metcalfe (R)
US Congressional Candidate Endorsements Outside Pennsylvania
Kesha Rogers (D) TX -22
Kurt Haskell (D) MI -7
Justin Amash (R) MI -3
Kerry Bentivolio (R) MI -11
Art Robinson (R) OR -4
Thomas Massie (R) KY -4
Randy Weber (R) TX -14
Explanations
Gary Johnson, President -Why not choose the lesser of two evils in Romney? We believe Romney will be very similar to George W. Bush or fusion of Bush and Obama. We expect from him: unnecessary wars with Iran and Syria, retention of a significant amount of Obamacare, and increased overall spending largely due to increases in "defense" spending. Romney will expand TSA molestations, drones spying on Americans, NDAA 2012, and many other anti-freedom trends. Such incremental increases in tyranny and fiscal irresponsibility are the very things people are mad at Obama for. Romney has already shown a liking for strong arm tactics in his maneuvers to prevent Ron Paul from being considered for a vote at the GOP convention, and God knows what he'll be like once elected. Finally, for every neo-con warmonger such GW Bush, there follows a left-wing despot like Obama. Although Romney may be slightly better for the business climate today, in the long run he represents a temporary slowing down and not a reversal of detrimental policies.
Every four years, sages clamber for the American people to stop compromising and vote against a candidate who represents the establishment coterie of a political party which has had 150 years to be corrupted. And every year the mindless masses, due to a prisoner's dilemma mentality and fear, vote to keep out the major party candidate they dislike most. A lot of this is due to brainwashing in the media that accentuates differences between Republicans like Romney and Democrats like Obama, when functionally they are nearly identical. Obama maintained Bush's increases in spending, and George W Bush increased the benchmark of annual federal spending by more in his last four years than Obama has in his first four years.
Those voting for Gary Johnson know that they are voting for an honest man. Johnson is actually more qualified to run for president than Romney, having served two terms as governor instead of one, and having been named one of the most popular governors during his tenure unlike Romney.
Prior to becoming governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson started a business from the ground up which would eventually employ over one thousand people, and unlike Romney, he never received a bailout.
Johnson aims to solve all the problems of the day. He favors sustainable, sane levels of defense spending, and has a track record as governor of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Johnson knows how to say no, and has the backbone to veto all forms of excessive spending. His libertarian philosophy is conducive to a small government that permits maximum freedom for all. Thus, Gary Johnson is actually different from Obama in his preferred policies. Until the GOP and their talk-radio brainwashers allow the people a candidate such as Gary Johnson, they will not receive votes from anyone who is honest and fully informed, who also cares about fiscal well-being and personal freedom.
Libertarian Party candidate Rayburn Smith understands liberty and is a fiscal conservative. He will vote to curtail waste in the "defense" budget, and will oppose the burgeoning police state mentality and draconian measures such as NDAA2012.
Rayburn Smith's Republican opponent, Tom Smith (no relation), is an idiot who does not think for himself and believes the consensus among the Republican establishment is the only standard of truth. Case in point, Tom Smith deferred to Pat Toomey and Allen West on the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA 2012, without ever developing an opinion of his own on the subject. His only opinion seems to be conformity with the establishment. Tom Smith also stated that we must have a "balance" between liberty and security. Politicians only say that when they want to take away liberty, never when they want to allow more of it. It is clear that Tom Smith will not stand up for your freedom as long as he can use that ridiculous rationale for backing down. On the other hand, Rayburn Smith makes liberty a priority will protect us from tyrannical legislation.
The video below displays Tom the moron Smith's answer to a question on NDAA.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Letter to NuPo: Wilkes-Barre Walmart has Unbearably Long Lines
Many people are complaining about the excessively long lines at the Wilkes-Barre Walmart. One commenter reports "They have like 20 cash registers and only put on 3 cashiers."
Each line is at least five customers long on any given day. It almost feels like a welfare line, and to a degree it is, since many of the people pay with food stamps.
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart store manager ought to be replaced with someone who will not force customers wait a half hour in line. There ought to be a protest and a public awareness campaign to stop the idiot manager from making our citizens' lives miserable.
Hiring more cashiers would mean more local jobs and would probably encourage more people to shop at Walmart since they would not have to suffer the inconvenience of long lines. But the miserly manager probably cares more about pinching a few extra pennies by not scheduling an adequate number of cashiers, just to give a little more money to the Walmart corporation.
But if all Walmarts were similarly understaffed, it could mean lower prices across the board in addition to more profits. Thus, the cost of a lower price would not only be felt in sweatshops in Asia but also in the long breadlines at Walmarts.
However, other Walmarts, such as the one in Pittston, reportedly get by fine without such long lines, so the Wilkes-Barre one should be able to do so as well. Moreover, the Wilkes-Barre Target and Kmart always seem to have plenty of cashiers, and they seem to be able to turn profits.*
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart's scandalously long lines must be hard on cashiers too, because if there were more of them, they would conceivably get a break instead of having to constantly scan and bag items for impatient, grumpy customers.
The goal should be NEVER a longer than three minutes waiting time per customer: about the length of time it would take to wait behind a shopping cart packed with stuff that is paid for with a slowly-validated welfare card.
_______________________________
More Complaints about Wilkes-Barre Walmart's lines:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/walmart-wilkes-barre
https://foursquare.com/v/walmart-supercenter/4b4632f2f964a520d01926e3
*We do not know how much additional profit could be generated by under-staffing cashiers, and how much this additional profit would be used to lower prices nor the degree to which it would affect the overall price of items. However, if one Walmart has long lines due to insufficient cashiers and another has plenty cashiers, then the one with long lines is effectively subsidizing, to a degree, the low prices of the one with sufficient cashiers. This is not fair, and there should be a uniform sufficiency of cashiers among all Walmarts.
Each line is at least five customers long on any given day. It almost feels like a welfare line, and to a degree it is, since many of the people pay with food stamps.
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart store manager ought to be replaced with someone who will not force customers wait a half hour in line. There ought to be a protest and a public awareness campaign to stop the idiot manager from making our citizens' lives miserable.
Hiring more cashiers would mean more local jobs and would probably encourage more people to shop at Walmart since they would not have to suffer the inconvenience of long lines. But the miserly manager probably cares more about pinching a few extra pennies by not scheduling an adequate number of cashiers, just to give a little more money to the Walmart corporation.
But if all Walmarts were similarly understaffed, it could mean lower prices across the board in addition to more profits. Thus, the cost of a lower price would not only be felt in sweatshops in Asia but also in the long breadlines at Walmarts.
However, other Walmarts, such as the one in Pittston, reportedly get by fine without such long lines, so the Wilkes-Barre one should be able to do so as well. Moreover, the Wilkes-Barre Target and Kmart always seem to have plenty of cashiers, and they seem to be able to turn profits.*
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart's scandalously long lines must be hard on cashiers too, because if there were more of them, they would conceivably get a break instead of having to constantly scan and bag items for impatient, grumpy customers.
The goal should be NEVER a longer than three minutes waiting time per customer: about the length of time it would take to wait behind a shopping cart packed with stuff that is paid for with a slowly-validated welfare card.
_______________________________
More Complaints about Wilkes-Barre Walmart's lines:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/walmart-wilkes-barre
https://foursquare.com/v/walmart-supercenter/4b4632f2f964a520d01926e3
*We do not know how much additional profit could be generated by under-staffing cashiers, and how much this additional profit would be used to lower prices nor the degree to which it would affect the overall price of items. However, if one Walmart has long lines due to insufficient cashiers and another has plenty cashiers, then the one with long lines is effectively subsidizing, to a degree, the low prices of the one with sufficient cashiers. This is not fair, and there should be a uniform sufficiency of cashiers among all Walmarts.
Monday, August 27, 2012
The Associated Press's Puff Piece for Romney
AP "reporters" Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams portray Ron Paul delegates as the lawless ones and Romney as the sophisticated peacemaker.
They do not bother to find out whether the Maine GOP actually violated parliamentary rules or whether complete removal of its delegates was justified, nor do they ask why the GOP has broken its own bylaws to depose rightful Ron Paul delegates.
After Romney lawyers got Ron Paul delegates unlawfully thrown off the ballot in Massachusetts, the rotten AP reporters, Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams, portray Romney as the compassionate peacemaker in their puff piece.
How could Bakst and Adams be so wrong accidentally? They must have been either biased toward Romney or paid to be so. Here is their ridiculous AP article:
Ben Swann tells the real story:
They do not bother to find out whether the Maine GOP actually violated parliamentary rules or whether complete removal of its delegates was justified, nor do they ask why the GOP has broken its own bylaws to depose rightful Ron Paul delegates.
After Romney lawyers got Ron Paul delegates unlawfully thrown off the ballot in Massachusetts, the rotten AP reporters, Brian Bakst and Glenn Adams, portray Romney as the compassionate peacemaker in their puff piece.
How could Bakst and Adams be so wrong accidentally? They must have been either biased toward Romney or paid to be so. Here is their ridiculous AP article:
A group of Maine Republicans supportive of Texas congressman Ron Paul for president have been ejected from the state's national convention delegation.
The Republican National Convention's credentials committee voted Friday to replace 10 of the 20 delegates after determining their election as delegates violated party and parliamentary rules.
In a peace offering [?!], Mitt Romney's campaign has announced plans to air a tribute to the libertarian-leaning Paul during the convention.
Ben Swann tells the real story:
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Aaron Kaufer releases Economic Plan
Candidate in the Pennsylvania State House in the 120th district, Aaron Kaufer, has released his economic called PA First. It advocates various tax breaks to draw small businesses to come to Pennsylvania and create jobs. These jobs would bring relief to an area with extremely high unemployment. Additionally, in order to protect the many seniors struggling to pay property taxes, Kaufer has proposed eliminating the property tax. A severance tax on gas drillers would serve to bring revenue to the region.
A Republican, Kaufer is endorsed by former opponents of Democrat Phyllis Mundy: Tim Mullen (Libertarian '10), Bill Goldsworthy (R '10), and John Cordora (R '06). Sources close to the NuPo say he is drawing support from many former Mundy supporters as well.
Kaufer hails from Kingston, and probably has the most support there. Some speculate that this is the reason Phyllis Mundy has recently allocated extra grant funds to that locality.
A Republican, Kaufer is endorsed by former opponents of Democrat Phyllis Mundy: Tim Mullen (Libertarian '10), Bill Goldsworthy (R '10), and John Cordora (R '06). Sources close to the NuPo say he is drawing support from many former Mundy supporters as well.
Kaufer hails from Kingston, and probably has the most support there. Some speculate that this is the reason Phyllis Mundy has recently allocated extra grant funds to that locality.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
'Hollywood Berater' Reviews Dark Knight Rises
"Too much in one film" might adequately sum up the plot of "Dark Knight Rises", which involves an apocalyptic scenario, a political coup, the dark knight rising, and a plethora of new characters, including a tougher, post millennial catwoman and a new police sergeant who looks up to batman despite in spite of what others say. Besides all the typical faults one finds in a modern action movie, "The Dark Knight Rises" has some redeeming qualities, yet is not the masterpiece people say it is.
Good News First
The film addresses some loose ends left by the Dark Knight, the previous film, the primary one being the lionizing of Harvey Dent and vilification of the batman.
It also represents a major shift from previous films. Non-superhero characters play a much larger role, which is actually refreshing. Superheroes and villains from most modern films seem as though they are the only forces that can steer the plot, as if they are omnipotent, and this gets old. But regular people have sort of a complementary role this film.
However, the superheroes retain their absurdly elevated Kung Fu powers and infinitely superior intellects from previous Christian Bale batman films. Bane and the bad guys seem to be a little too overwhelming, and makes the viewer feel helpless.
But the film portrays to a greater extent the human side of the batman and is perhaps more focused on Bruce Wayne.
Catwoman
The same could not be said of the catwoman; as we don't get to see much of her human side. She plays much more of a minor role than Michelle Pfeiffer's catwoman of Batman Returns. She also lacks that "indefinable charm of weakness" that Pfeiffer's character had, and we don't get to know much about what makes her tick--or hiss. Anyway, one of the redundant action scenes could have been cut to make more room for her.
Speaking of the ceaseless action, the suspense was too prolonged, and the audience could have used a few more opportunities to catch their breath via comic relief or breaks in the action.
Why so Serious?
It is interesting how Batman went from being a POW-BAM comedy of the sixties, to an artful Tim Burton film of the early '90s, to being a collection of brooding super-ninjas of the post millennial period.
Regardless, the NuPo movie critics tire of super-serious super hero movies. The whole point of superheroes is that they're supposed to be theatrical, since we all know full well that superheroes aren't real. In a theatrical atmosphere, we can suspend our usual scrutiny and live in their fantasy world. But the modern batman series tried too hard to be realistic, and as stated before, left a bad taste of superheroes who were not human enough.
Speaking of 'why so serious?', the villain Bane is far less flamboyant or charismatic as was the Joker. We probably won't see anybody imitating Bane or dressing up like him. Bane resembles a hideous real-life action figure of a pro-wrestler and speaks with an irritating voice.
Political Implications (or lack thereof)
Rumor had it that the film had a politically conservative message. The movie mentions that the laws of Gotham had significantly reduced crime because they had "teeth" in them, which bespeaks of the modern "conservative" trend of taking away freedoms in order to further alleged security. Aside from that, no real political bias could be found. The villains were not similar to the Occupy crowd for many reasons, the foremost of which was that some of them were corrupt rich people, the very sorts Occupy opposes. Moreover, there were good cops who showed bravery, and cowardly cops too; Good rich people and bad ones, etc. No political agenda was evident.
Rated PG 13?
The movie should have had an R rating because of its excessive action and suspense which literally causes a pounding heart. There are some dark, disturbing concepts in the film, and a sort of concise, morose opining that the characters do which rubs off on the viewer in a weird psychological way. This film is definitely not recommended for anyone under 18, perhaps even under 21. Those with sensitive hearing may want to wear earplugs, especially when Bane speaks.
Conclusion
If you liked Christian Bale's previous Batman movies, you'll likely find this one fulfilling. Wait for it to come out on video, since it's a little much for a movie theater visit.
Good News First
The film addresses some loose ends left by the Dark Knight, the previous film, the primary one being the lionizing of Harvey Dent and vilification of the batman.
It also represents a major shift from previous films. Non-superhero characters play a much larger role, which is actually refreshing. Superheroes and villains from most modern films seem as though they are the only forces that can steer the plot, as if they are omnipotent, and this gets old. But regular people have sort of a complementary role this film.
However, the superheroes retain their absurdly elevated Kung Fu powers and infinitely superior intellects from previous Christian Bale batman films. Bane and the bad guys seem to be a little too overwhelming, and makes the viewer feel helpless.
But the film portrays to a greater extent the human side of the batman and is perhaps more focused on Bruce Wayne.
Catwoman
The same could not be said of the catwoman; as we don't get to see much of her human side. She plays much more of a minor role than Michelle Pfeiffer's catwoman of Batman Returns. She also lacks that "indefinable charm of weakness" that Pfeiffer's character had, and we don't get to know much about what makes her tick--or hiss. Anyway, one of the redundant action scenes could have been cut to make more room for her.
Speaking of the ceaseless action, the suspense was too prolonged, and the audience could have used a few more opportunities to catch their breath via comic relief or breaks in the action.
Why so Serious?
It is interesting how Batman went from being a POW-BAM comedy of the sixties, to an artful Tim Burton film of the early '90s, to being a collection of brooding super-ninjas of the post millennial period.
Interestingly enough, a bat just whizzed by my head as I finished the prior sentence. We've had problems with bats in the attic here at NuPo headquarters, so today the exterminators came and implemented a contraption that makes a high-pitched sound that bats can't stand. Being roused by the sound, three bats came out of nowhere and were bounding about the air. Just like batman, they were drawn to darkness, seemed to pop out of nowhere, and performed aerial dive bomb attacks (at your writer).These bat-like behaviors must have been the inspiration for the combat manoeuvers of Christian Bale's batman. I wonder how the next generation's batman will fight?
Regardless, the NuPo movie critics tire of super-serious super hero movies. The whole point of superheroes is that they're supposed to be theatrical, since we all know full well that superheroes aren't real. In a theatrical atmosphere, we can suspend our usual scrutiny and live in their fantasy world. But the modern batman series tried too hard to be realistic, and as stated before, left a bad taste of superheroes who were not human enough.
Speaking of 'why so serious?', the villain Bane is far less flamboyant or charismatic as was the Joker. We probably won't see anybody imitating Bane or dressing up like him. Bane resembles a hideous real-life action figure of a pro-wrestler and speaks with an irritating voice.
Political Implications (or lack thereof)
Rumor had it that the film had a politically conservative message. The movie mentions that the laws of Gotham had significantly reduced crime because they had "teeth" in them, which bespeaks of the modern "conservative" trend of taking away freedoms in order to further alleged security. Aside from that, no real political bias could be found. The villains were not similar to the Occupy crowd for many reasons, the foremost of which was that some of them were corrupt rich people, the very sorts Occupy opposes. Moreover, there were good cops who showed bravery, and cowardly cops too; Good rich people and bad ones, etc. No political agenda was evident.
Rated PG 13?
The movie should have had an R rating because of its excessive action and suspense which literally causes a pounding heart. There are some dark, disturbing concepts in the film, and a sort of concise, morose opining that the characters do which rubs off on the viewer in a weird psychological way. This film is definitely not recommended for anyone under 18, perhaps even under 21. Those with sensitive hearing may want to wear earplugs, especially when Bane speaks.
Conclusion
If you liked Christian Bale's previous Batman movies, you'll likely find this one fulfilling. Wait for it to come out on video, since it's a little much for a movie theater visit.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Rand Paul's Endorsement of Romney was a Tactical Error
Many contend that Rand Paul's Endorsement of Romney was bad because it went against the principles of liberty. Given Romney's record and platform, this seems true.
But Jack Hunter and others say that although the endorsement may have violated Rand's principles, it was a practical decision that will help Rand Paul in 2016. This is far from being the case. Rand Paul will not have a chance in 2016 as long as the media remains populated by its current cast of characters.
Rush Limbaugh is a de-facto hired gun of the Republican establishment. He attempts to appear like a grassroots conservative, but when it comes to endorsing candidates, he often chooses liberal Republicans over constitutionalists. Limbaugh endorsed Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan in 1996. He favored the neo-con husks over Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. He used the carbon tax-supporting pseudo conservative Sarah Palin as a proxy to drum up support of the more obviously liberal John McCain. Even Christine O'Donnell, a so-called conservative favorite of Limbaugh, endorsed Romney in December of 2011 before any primaries took place. Although Limbaugh endorsed O'Donnell, he totally ignored constitutionalists Debra Medina, Peg Luksik, Sam Rohrer, and many others who ran against liberal Republicans in the primaries of 2010. And of course, Limbaugh admitted to carrying water for George W. Bush, who many consider a to be liberal.
Limbaugh stated this when the TSA assaulted Rand Paul:
The rest of conservative talk radio was also against Rand's father. Laura Ingraham's thing was to never mention him. Sean Hannity said Ron Paul was the only candidate he couldn't vote for. Mark Levin, who already disliked Ron Paul, became hysterically angry with him after getting in an argument with supporter Tom Woods over the constitutionality of the Libya war. Michael Savage appeared to like Ron Paul at first, even having him on his show, but eventually reverted to calling him an anti-semite.
FOX News anchormen Bret Baier, Carl Cameron, and Chris Wallace all disdain Ron Paul as borne out by how they ignore him when listing candidates, roll their eyes at him when he speaks, and ridicule him for running. Ron Paul supporter Andrew Napolitano lost his show with the FOX Business network in spite of its high ratings. Newscorp is the parent company of FOX News along with the Wall Street Journal, which had a very strong pro-Romney bias and participated in the black-out of Ron Paul.
The National Review has put Marco Rubio on its cover and portrayed him as a conservative leader. Rubio is a firm supporter of the TSA and strong advocate for tyranny. The NR already has their man for 2016. (NR did put Ron Paul on its cover but only to ridicule him.) They will either ignore or ridicule Rand Paul. After all, the stark raving warmonger John Bolton writes for them.
Therefore, the most influential conservative media didn't favor Ron Paul and supported other candidates. For the same reasons they opposed Ron, namely his support of peace, non-interventionism abroad, and ending the Fed and drug prohibition, they will also oppose Rand. Even if Rand makes some political votes to appear like the tyranny-loving Rubio, the establishment would prefer to go with a solid supporter of tyranny in Rubio and not take a chance on Rand who may revert back to supporting freedom.
The so-called conservative media controls what the majority of conservative Republican primary voters think, because they control the information. Voters will seldom hear about Rand, and thus will suspect that he is obscure, unelectable, or "out there", much as they did with Ron. So even if Rand tries to win over Republican voters by endorsing Romney, Rush Limbaugh will nevertheless ignore Rand in 2016, and most of his listeners will only consider seriously the candidates Rush talks about, which will probably include Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio and not Rand.
Moderate Republicans will not want anything to do with someone like Rand to begin with, since their values lie elsewhere.
The primary thing Rand's endorsement has succeeded in doing is alienating would-be and former supporters who are anti-war, anti-Fed, and against the political establishment. This will probably not affect the liberty movement as a whole to a significant degree, but it will hurt Rand. Therefore, Jack Hunter, who has made some really good points in the past, is totally wrong that the endorsement of Romney will help Rand since Rand has alienated many who would have been his base...unless Hunter becomes more popular than Rush Limbaugh in media and can influence more conservatives to like Rand Paul. In that sense, we hope Hunter will do so and prove the thesis of this article wrong.
________________
Resources
Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment, Jamieson & Capella, Oxford University Press, 2008
A good book for those interested in techniques Limbaugh uses to manipulate his listeners. It actually proves that those who listened to him were influenced to believe George W. Bush was more conservative than people in the same demographic who didn't listen to him.
But Jack Hunter and others say that although the endorsement may have violated Rand's principles, it was a practical decision that will help Rand Paul in 2016. This is far from being the case. Rand Paul will not have a chance in 2016 as long as the media remains populated by its current cast of characters.
Rush Limbaugh is a de-facto hired gun of the Republican establishment. He attempts to appear like a grassroots conservative, but when it comes to endorsing candidates, he often chooses liberal Republicans over constitutionalists. Limbaugh endorsed Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan in 1996. He favored the neo-con husks over Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. He used the carbon tax-supporting pseudo conservative Sarah Palin as a proxy to drum up support of the more obviously liberal John McCain. Even Christine O'Donnell, a so-called conservative favorite of Limbaugh, endorsed Romney in December of 2011 before any primaries took place. Although Limbaugh endorsed O'Donnell, he totally ignored constitutionalists Debra Medina, Peg Luksik, Sam Rohrer, and many others who ran against liberal Republicans in the primaries of 2010. And of course, Limbaugh admitted to carrying water for George W. Bush, who many consider a to be liberal.
Limbaugh stated this when the TSA assaulted Rand Paul:
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has been detained by the TSA at the Nashville airport. He set off the alarms and refused a pat-down, so they detained him. He sent his dad a note about it and it’s become a big story out there. Now, if this had been Ron Paul, you couldn’t really blame the TSA. You have to admit, Ron Paul almost sounds like an Islamic terrorist sometimes. ha-ha-ha Gotcha.This is the kind of treatment Rand can expect to receive from Limbaugh in 2016. In the quote above, Limbaugh doesn't place Rand in same category as his father Ron--"terrorist"; however, he achieves an important psychological objective. He associates Rand Paul with mockery. He trivializes discontentment with the TSA and trivializes Rand Paul. Limbaugh has been known to use the same joking technique to associate Obama with the DC Snowstorm and earthquakes. In other words, the listener will have a subconscious negative association created from Limbaugh's calculated jest. Every time they think of Rand, they'll remember the TSA joke.
The rest of conservative talk radio was also against Rand's father. Laura Ingraham's thing was to never mention him. Sean Hannity said Ron Paul was the only candidate he couldn't vote for. Mark Levin, who already disliked Ron Paul, became hysterically angry with him after getting in an argument with supporter Tom Woods over the constitutionality of the Libya war. Michael Savage appeared to like Ron Paul at first, even having him on his show, but eventually reverted to calling him an anti-semite.
FOX News anchormen Bret Baier, Carl Cameron, and Chris Wallace all disdain Ron Paul as borne out by how they ignore him when listing candidates, roll their eyes at him when he speaks, and ridicule him for running. Ron Paul supporter Andrew Napolitano lost his show with the FOX Business network in spite of its high ratings. Newscorp is the parent company of FOX News along with the Wall Street Journal, which had a very strong pro-Romney bias and participated in the black-out of Ron Paul.
The National Review has put Marco Rubio on its cover and portrayed him as a conservative leader. Rubio is a firm supporter of the TSA and strong advocate for tyranny. The NR already has their man for 2016. (NR did put Ron Paul on its cover but only to ridicule him.) They will either ignore or ridicule Rand Paul. After all, the stark raving warmonger John Bolton writes for them.
Therefore, the most influential conservative media didn't favor Ron Paul and supported other candidates. For the same reasons they opposed Ron, namely his support of peace, non-interventionism abroad, and ending the Fed and drug prohibition, they will also oppose Rand. Even if Rand makes some political votes to appear like the tyranny-loving Rubio, the establishment would prefer to go with a solid supporter of tyranny in Rubio and not take a chance on Rand who may revert back to supporting freedom.
The so-called conservative media controls what the majority of conservative Republican primary voters think, because they control the information. Voters will seldom hear about Rand, and thus will suspect that he is obscure, unelectable, or "out there", much as they did with Ron. So even if Rand tries to win over Republican voters by endorsing Romney, Rush Limbaugh will nevertheless ignore Rand in 2016, and most of his listeners will only consider seriously the candidates Rush talks about, which will probably include Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio and not Rand.
Moderate Republicans will not want anything to do with someone like Rand to begin with, since their values lie elsewhere.
The primary thing Rand's endorsement has succeeded in doing is alienating would-be and former supporters who are anti-war, anti-Fed, and against the political establishment. This will probably not affect the liberty movement as a whole to a significant degree, but it will hurt Rand. Therefore, Jack Hunter, who has made some really good points in the past, is totally wrong that the endorsement of Romney will help Rand since Rand has alienated many who would have been his base...unless Hunter becomes more popular than Rush Limbaugh in media and can influence more conservatives to like Rand Paul. In that sense, we hope Hunter will do so and prove the thesis of this article wrong.
________________
Resources
Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment, Jamieson & Capella, Oxford University Press, 2008
A good book for those interested in techniques Limbaugh uses to manipulate his listeners. It actually proves that those who listened to him were influenced to believe George W. Bush was more conservative than people in the same demographic who didn't listen to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)