Why anyone would throw their support behind the hildabeast is beyond me. Acting like Britany Spears does not enhance your credibility.

The MSM would devote an inordinate amount of time towards certain candidates while outright ignoring others. The only exception to this being C-Span.

Call it what you will, but the media's job is to report the news, not stack the odds towards the candidates they favor.

As for the "Britney" moment (which was strictly directed only at Coulter), as far as I'm concerned, anyone who claims to be for limited government, then turns around and supports a megalomanic like HRH HRC isn't firing on all cylinders!

Regarding Paul's record.

Say what you want about the man, he has been consistent with his positions throughout his time in office. Not a record that other candidates claim.

We've had 8 years of a moderate Republican. That's fine - we're supposed to be a big tent. But let's keep in mind that the GOP doesn't have a good record of supporting truly free-market conservatives for office. Most of those who win their races actually find themselves in future races battling against moderate Republicans who are trying to unseat them.

My hope is that Huckabee will drop out in the next few days, and in the remaining states, the GOP electorate sit down and decide the direction of the GOP for the coming years. Will they back a moderately liberal Republican like McCain, or a Conservative like Ron Paul?

If they go with McCain, then we may as well kiss the "Goldwater" wing of the GOP goodbye. We'll have nowhere else to go except to either the Libertarians (which I've already done), or take the revolution to the most grass roots level we can, by running for public office on the local level as conservatives, yet staying in the McCain GOP.

Six delegates in all, and he's "lit a fire".  Come on.  

The fact you guys can't even comprehend (or accept) why he hasn't gotten more delegates is just hillarious.  Shouting at the moon that everyone else is wrong, while simultaneously circle-jerking each other with "we lit a fire!  we have massive support".  And then claiming that there's conspiracies to keep Ron Paul down.

I really liked the part about how the MSM "picked" candidates.  What lunacy.  But I'm sure Ron Paul would change freedom of speech and mandate all news sources cover EVERY piece of news, every day of the week... even if they have to go out of business because they can't afford the newspaper and airtime.  Oh wait, that's not exactly free-market or libertarian.

Maybe in his next term he can make term-limits constitutional.

"We made a difference, we changed things, there's a next time..."  Am I missing anything?  Oh yeah, "it was big media's fault, and rush limbaugh's fault, and hannity..."

Who said I was voting for a liberal?  Silly Ed Burley, you think you know me so well.  You make awfully awkward assumptions about me.  If you were really a conservative I might take a look at where I've gone wrong... but I hardly care what a libertarian-who-calls-himself-conservative things.

Keep up your delusions, as you join the ranks of the Libertarian party.  It really doesn't matter.  Kinda like Ron Paul, who never really mattered in this race.

So, who's it going to be John? McCain, Clinton or Obama? Which liberal, John?

And you are correct, I don't know you at all, since you exist only under a pseudonym, you could be John McCain for all we know.

In fact, that would be a more proper moniker for you. Ayn Rand would have sat out this election, not stumped for the GOP.

And before you jump on your next idiotic bandwagon, Rand wouldn't have voted for Ron Paul either. She would have advocated for total war - wiping the Islamic horde (religious fanatics) off the planet.

What happened in that election? Do you remember? Clinton, who should have lost (after losing his majority in Congress mid-term - just like Bush) should have lost. Alas, he won again. It wasn't Perot, he had gotten 19% the first time, and only 8% that time. Nope, it was the Buchanan crowd. It was their going to Perot, OR possibly staying home, OR possibly voting for Clinton (one liberal is as good as another).

You mock, you ridicule. We'll see come November who wins. Care to make a prediction?

But you forget to mention that Buchanan had a fuckton more delegates than Ron Paul has now.  I'm not worried about six delegates not handing over their vote to anyone.  

But the problem in 96 is that Dole didn't motivate people, he was a moderate, and just didn't really give anyone a reason to vote for him over Clinton.

But yeah, I was too young back then.  

I think it's funny how you get tracked into such a behavior that you can't break out, Ed.  You seem to come to a decision about someone, without any facts, and keep using that prejudiced image.  You keep insisting I'm going to vote for McCain/Obama/Clinton.  And like I said in my previous post, you have no proof to offer for your continued allegations.  But I suppose it's likewise, right?  Your vote for a Libertarian means a liberal gets into office anyways, so aren't you just as culpible?  Maybe I sit this election out.  Maybe I pull an Ed Burley and vote "Other Party".  Who knows, I haven't made up my mind yet.  

But the things I do know:

•  Ron Paul was a libertarian, not a conservative
  
•  Ron Paul never had a chance at the nomination, no matter how much you guys pretend he did
  
•  Ron Paul affected the future of the party about as much as Dennis Kucinich affected Democrats with his UFO sitings.  Republican platform is not being directed by a gold-standard or getting out of Iraq.
  
•  Ron Paul is still a Republican, even though many Paultards have said they won't stay in the GOP
  
•  The further you let something slide to the left, the harder it is to come back to the status quo - let alone move it to the right.  Corrolary, a Hillary/Obama presidency would be more destructive than a McCain presidency.  

I find it hard to stomach voting for McCain.

Despite Bill Bennet, Newt Gingrich, and anyone else, I think McCain will lead us deeper into liberal dogma.  It's not that i don't trust the words that come out of his mouth - it's that his words are narrowly tailored, and I'm afraid of what he's NOT saying.

And besides.  If we're going to keep being hit over the head on shit like No Child Left Behind and Prescription Medicare Coverage... I'd rather it be a Democrat we can beat, than someone keep saying "Republicans are supposed to be".

But whether we vote or not, we're getting a Liberal.  Like I said in many previous posts.  Your vote for Libertarian still votes for Hillary.  And Ann Coulter is admitting she'll do the same.  But I agree, I can't see myself voting for McCain.  And whether anyone likes it or not, Ron Paul wasn't going to get the nod.  

So the question is, what's the best strategy moving forward?  Do we fsck ourselves now so we can recover a few years from now?  Or do we fsck ourselves a little bit, take the continued lumps from liberals about liberal policies... and hope we can reverse less liberalization in the future.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24921

62% said they would vote for McCain pre Romney drop, post Romney drop 70% said that they would vote for him.

See the complete straw poll results at http://cpac.org/

I could be wrong, but it looks to me as if we'll continue on the downward spiral with Juan McAmnesty in '08, then after his first term the 76-year-old Juan will be pushed aside by B. Hussein or the Hildabeast in 2012.

But your comment about wanting everyone to stop making wise-ass remarks instead of talking about the issues... I'll continue to be an ass to anyone whose going to continue to troll about him.  I'm sorry you don't understand what the terms "troll" and "spam" mean.  It takes two to tango, and it's funny to me the Ron Paul crowd here is telling me i'm splintering the GOP.  Because I'm deriding the equivalent of 16 delegates worth of voters.

I'm not too worried about splintering off folks like rdww and dogster, and any of the other wackos out there.  It's sad that you get caught up into the mix, but you've also had your wackoness in the past (dealing with your party affiliation, and quitting/not quitting whichever party at the time).  

I'll be glad to discuss the issues, but I'm not going to sit by while folks spam and troll about Obi-won-paul-nobi being the only one who can save us.  He isn't the solution, and as of this date he is irrelevant in this election or any other election.  So talking about Ron Paul isn't talking about the issues, and isn't talking about the solutions.  You ask that I speak about the issues - I ask that you Ron Paul supporters simply drop it.  I'm one guy, there are seven of you Ron Paul supporters on here, and I'm not going to ignore being poked with a stick by rdww any more than you guys ignore my comments about Ron Paul.