WE'RE AT CAMP! Read all about it
The World's Most Popular Independently-Owned Website for Lesbian, Bisexual and Queer Women
Leave a Comment

//

91 Comments

Michele Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul Places Second – Should We Panic?

Rose

Posted by

As most of you have probably heard, Michele Bachmann won a poll in Iowa to determine their favorite Republican presidential candidates, with Ron Paul coming in second. It was apparently a big enough deal to cause Tim Pawlenty, at one point considered one of the frontrunners, to drop out of the race. But is a straw poll driven by money really the best way to determine who will win the Iowa caucus? Is it really time to start panicking about a potential President Bachmann (words I can barely stand to type)?

There are a lot of reasons to take the Ames Straw Poll with a pinch of salt. For one, it's hardly an accurate cross-section of Iowa voters, considering how much of it is determined by money. It costs $30 just to get into the event, and in the past, candidates have often bought the tickets for their most ardent supporters and bussed them in from around the state. (It used to be that they'd bus them in from around the country, but the event now requires attendees to present proof of Iowa residency.) In addition, it is also frequently dependent upon the candidates' willingness to cough up money. A minimum of $15,000 (to go toward the Iowa Republican Party) is required for candidates to set up a table outside the event, with the closer and flashier spaces going for higher amounts. This year, the highest bid was $31,000 from Ron Paul, whose booth featured everything from a classic rock band to a "Ben Bernanke lookalike in a dunk tank."

via Reuters

In addition, two rather big names in the Republican presidential race sat out the Iowa straw poll: Mitt Romney, who decided to focus his resources elsewhere, and Rick Perry, who announced his candidacy too late to be included on the ballot. Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich also didn't participate (Gingrich sent a representative, but did not bid for a booth).

According to FiveThirtyEight, in all the years the Ames Straw Poll has been around, the winner of the Iowa caucus -- a historically loaded victory -- has always placed first or second in the poll. However, this is only the sixth time the poll has been held; it's too small of a sample size to determine if the pattern will continue.

And of course, winning Iowa does not mean winning the nomination. Yes, Obama got Iowa in '08 -- but the Republicans picked Mike Huckabee, who went on to lose the nomination to John McCain, who garnered an unimpressive fourth place in Iowa and did not win a single county. Iowa Republicans tend to favor strong social conservatives, who often go on to fail in the more liberal East Coast states. After all, the first stop after the Iowa caucus is libertarian New Hampshire, where McCain triumphed over both Romney and Huckabee in '08. At the time, McCain was still seen as one of the more "moderate" Republicans, a reputation not tarnished until his choice of Palin as running-mate.

So just because Iowa Republicans like Bachmann, that does not mean that the rest of the country will -- and gay rights could be the issue that dooms her in more liberal states, where even Republicans are uncomfortable with her degree of homophobia. Despite her recent attempts to dodge the issue or make herself sound more moderate, the evidence is clear that Bachmann is holding fast to her anti-gay beliefs while the country is rapidly moving in the opposite direction. For example, she has recently claimed that she would reinstate DADT.

Moreover, there is the fact that gay activists aren't buying her backtracking. She's been a favorite target of pro-gay-rights crusaders, who've done everything from glitterbombing Michele to dressing up as "barbarians" and glitterbombing her husband Marcus's clinic. Most recently, Bachmann's speech at the Iowa state fair was interrupted by Gabe Aderhold, a 17-year-old gay Minnesotan who shouted that she treated him "like a second-class citizen" and "shame on you!" It's no wonder, really; as Bachmann's profile rises, more and more comes out about her connections to ex-gay movements and anti-gay extremist and "heavy metal minister" Bradlee Dean, not to mention the fact that Marcus Bachmann is probably in the "pray away the gay" business himself. Her backtracking may appease her true-blue supporters, but it's unlikely to convince anyone else.

via The Des Moines Register

It's important to also keep in mind Iowa's recent gay rights history; in 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state ban on same-sex marriage, surprising many who expected such a middle-of-the-road Midwestern state to trail the coasts on marriage equality. A year later, Iowa was the only state with same-sex marriage that had less than 50% of the public in favor, and in 2010, Iowa voters responded by ousting three of the judges who voted for marriage equality. Choosing someone like Bachmann could just be a continuation of this backlash, and may not play out in other states where the anti-gay movement is less inflamed.

Ron Paul's second-place finish is perhaps more surprising, though it's easy to explain away: Paul was the highest bidder for the Ames straw poll, guaranteeing him a strong finish. In addition, Paul's followers are among the most fiercely loyal of any candidate's (although still relatively small in number), and thus would be overrepresented in a contest that's largely about enthusiasm (to pay the money and to drive long distances to show up). And as with Bachmann, he's buoyed by the fact that two of the likely frontrunners, Romney and Perry, were not included in the straw poll. That said, a lot of liberals see his finish as encouraging. Personally, though, I've read a little too much about Ron Paul to still see him as the "least of all evils." There is, for starters, his rather disturbing record on race. Back in 1992, his newsletter The Ron Paul Political Report published some extremely racist statements around the time of the Los Angeles race riots. Some choice excerpts courtesy of Daily Kos's series on Ron Paul:

"Our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, unavoidable…Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95% of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."

You can read more at the link above; The Houston Chronicle also dug up more troubling statements during Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign. The New Republic also did a feature on Paul's racism during the 2008 election (which, unfortunately, isn't available in its full version online) plus a recent follow-up (which, thankfully, is). Needless to say, these kinds of statements have earned Ron Paul many fans among white supremacists, from whom he hasn't done quite enough to distance himself. He even accepted a donation from Don Black, head of notorious white supremacist forum Stormfront.org.

via AP Photo

There is also the fact that Ron Paul is so extreme in terms of his distrust of any sort of federal government funding for anything (he wants to abolish the Department of Education, for example) and that, despite his reputation as a "rational libertarian," he doesn't believe in evolution and is very anti-choice, which make it hard for me to understand why liberals should be optimistic about his chances, especially in a race that also includes Fred Karger.

A kernel of hope, perhaps, can be taken in terms of the fact that Ron Paul is still billed as an alternative to socially-conservative Republicans like Bachmann, whatever his record suggests to the contrary. So his strong showing could perhaps indicate that even in Iowa, some Republicans would prefer somebody who is less virulently homophobic (Ron Paul's position that gay marriage should be decided by the states isn't great but better than most Republicans, and he voted to oust DADT, though he also opposes ENDA). Hopefully, Paul's second-place win in the Ames poll will garner his less-savory views more news coverage.

However you want to interpret the Ames straw poll results, it's up to you. But personally, I'm not panicking yet. On top of everything else, the Iowa caucus is still five months away. A lot can happen in five months. And a lot more can happen in the 15 months before the final 2012 presidential election. Time is still on our side.

91 responses to “Michele Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul Places Second – Should We Panic?”

  1. Becca

    To your excellent, well-researched rundown I wanted to add this link about the integrity of the straw poll:

    http://www.unelected.org/how-michele-bachmann-bought-the-ames-straw-poll

    great post!

    Thumb up 0
  2. jifener25

    i think we need a post on countries that are safe for us to move to if bachmann or perry or any of the rest of them win :( i’m kinda uber scared for the future right now.

    Thumb up 0
    1. novastar

      I agree! A countries-that-love-queers post would be awesome, as well as the assorted pros and cons of living in those places.

      Thumb up 0
    2. Meer

      Agreed!

      ALSO my gf and I have a plan to learn a second language together, and I want to choose this language based on what country I want to keep options open for moving to if the US becomes a republican dystopia.

      So a queer-friendly country post would be great, though it would possibly dispel my hopes about how certain countries like Canada being perfect, and filled with unicorns.

      Thumb up 0
      1. Paper0Flowers

        Unicorns are still pretty rare here in Canada, but the moose seem to leave them alone for the most part.

        Thumb up 0
  3. Qisfor...

    While I agree that a post on countries-that-love-queers would be quite nice, I don’t think the Ames, IA straw poll is cause for concern. The every-lovely Rachel Maddow explains why here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#44153532. (Especially notable is that Ames is predictive for Democratic candidates, but not Republican ones.) The most interesting fact, I think, and one I’m surprised Maddow didn’t do more with, is that Michele Bachmann’s campaign bought and handed out 6,000 tickets. (Each ticket cost $30, and one had to have a ticket to vote.) Despite that, she only received 4,823 votes. That means 1,177 people took a ticket from Bachmann’s campaign AND THEN VOTED FOR SOMEONE ELSE. That kind of failure to inspire loyalty, on Bachmann’s part, suggests to me that she is not a serious threat. Here’s hoping my optimism is not misplaced.

    Thumb up 0
    1. Qisfor...

      Oops — that’s just the link to yesterday’s Rachel Maddow Show. It is the first piece in the show, so that still works. Sorry, I’m too technologically inept to embed the link to the clip in this comment in any sort of neat and tidy way. Also, my totally original point about the disloyalty of people who took tickets from Michele Bachmann? Yeah, totally made in the post Becca linked above. Read, THEN post. *sigh*

      Thumb up 0
    2. Celeste

      that is actually hilarious.

      Thumb up 0
  4. Celeste

    how the hell is a libertarian anti-choice? isn’t like the fundamental idea of libertarianism “fuck the government. it should let you do what you want”? and choice is, you know, doing what you want. so i’m super confused/FURIOUS.

    Thumb up 0
    1. Meer

      PREACH

      Thumb up 0
    2. magiclovemuffin

      Well, I am pro-choice. But this argument always gets me — “You say you hate big government but want to tell women what to do with their bodies!” or some variation. The thing is, the disagreement isn’t about the choice at all (at least if I am giving pro-lifers the benefit of the doubt). The difference of perspective, I suspect, is this: If someone believes that a human embryo does constitute a human being, then it’s entirely consistent to say human beings aren’t allowed to be murdered. I mean, I personally think it’s silly — it’s obviously not a person. It’s a clump of cells that aren’t anything YET and couldn’t possibly thrive on their own. But I get some people may believe it’s a human. Personally, I think that occurs somewhere during pregnancy which is why I’m against late term abortions, but accepting of terminating a pregnancy before that. YMMV.

      Thumb up 0
    3. Angela

      If you have read the book Liberty Defined by Ron Paul you’d understand why he’s pro-choice. From what I gathered, he never said anything about making abortion illegal. He was simply stating that he is pro-choice because [quote chapter on his personal experience on abortion].

      Like Rose said, it should be up to the individuals. This is a morality issue, not a government issue.

      Thumb up 0
      1. duchessofdykedom

        Yes,you’re right, his personal views are often conflated with things he wouldn’t legislate. People aren’t use to candidates who are actually honest. He’s an OB-GYN, so it’s natural to think he would be pro-life.

        And while I’m here, the racism charge is unfounded. The Jamie Kirchick TNR article was a political hit piece. We learned back in ’08 that Ron Paul didn’t write that newsletter. Check his record. There’s thirty years to look at and you’ll see he’s never said anything remotely racist. This is nothing more than political character assassination attempts.

        And lastly, Ron Paul wants government OUT of everyone’s marriage, gay, straight or otherwise. He understands that it’s not the proper role of government to be involved in this matter. I tend to agree with him and think that’s the direction we should be taking. Why do people feel the need to have the government’s camel nose in our tents anyway? He also believes that people shouldn’t be required to get a marriage license. It’s a private contractual agreement and the state has no business being involved with that. If you remove the state from the equation, all of this marriage animosity will eventually go away.

        Thumb up 0
        1. Angela

          Yea. Camel toes not camel nose!

          *high fives*

          Thumb up 0
  5. radiogirl

    Gabe Aderhold, I would like your autograph. What a bamf.

    Thumb up 0
  6. Claire

    Rachel Maddow told me not to panic, so I’m not panicking.

    Thumb up 0
    1. missy

      whew *deep breath*

      Thumb up 0
  7. magiclovemuffin

    Everyone ignored Ron Paul’s second place finish, yes, but who can take him seriously? I mean, didn’t he win the straw poll at CPAC too? He has a very dedicated, fervent group of supporters, but it’s small. I don’t think you win the nomination or the presidency without those middle-of-the-roaders, which I can’t see Ron Paul getting. He’s too liberal for hardcore conservatives and too conservative for liberals. Plus, he comes off as nerdy professor, not a president.

    I don’t know what to make of this crop of Repubs with Pawlenty gone, who I thought actually had mainstream appeal. Rick Perry may be a bit too much like George W. Bush and Bachmann is ultra conservative and intense. (Whenever I need a pick-me-up, I watch that clip of Marcus Bachmann gayly talking about how we are barbarians that need discipline — kinky!) Mitt Romney is the only one I think really has a chance to beat Obama, but can a Mormon from a liberal, homo, universal healthcare state like Massachusetts win his party’s nomination? I shudder to think of Bachmann, Paul, Perry (or gasp, Rick Santorum) being our new president, where Romney seems like he’d be more tolerable, kind of the way McCain was the most tolerable one last time around.

    Anyway, if you look at Ames poll results by cycle and then compare it with what actually happened, you wonder why anyone gives a shit about the Ames poll at all. Pawlenty dropping out over it is suspect. Maybe he had a change of heart about the whole being president thing.

    Thumb up 0
    1. duchessofdykedom

      Remember this, of *all* the candidates running, Dem or GOP, Ron Paul is the *only* one who is pro-civil liberties, pro-individual liberty, anti-drug prohibition, anti-corporatism, anti-war, anti-establishment, and who believes that government has no role in anyone’s marriage. In this 2012 election cycle, there are Democrats, liberals, progressives and Independents registering as Republicans to vote in the primary to help get Ron Paul the GOP nomination.
      Obama has made it very clear where he stands on gay marriage, war, civil liberties and corporatism…

      Thumb up 0
      1. magiclovemuffin

        @duchessofdykedom I hate to burst your bubble, but for every great thing I agree with Ron Paul on, like getting out of wars, there are things I think are crazy. Pulling out of the U.N. and amending the 14th amendment to keep dirty illegals out of the U.S.? Hmm, I’ll pass. I will admit I am not an expert on Ron Paul, but I promise you, I am an absolute expert on Rand Paul and if they agree even a little bit, we have a huge problem. The apple doesn’t fall far from the crazy. And going back to my original post which started this discussion, that’s exactly why Ron Paul will never win over mainstream voters. Practicality is not a consideration with him. His views are taken to the most strict extreme to the point where what is mostly good starts to veer off into dangerous territory. Now, I’m pretty sure every politician holds some views that won’t be popular and may hurt some people. The difference is, with Ron Paul, some of them are just so unusual, it’s hard to take him seriously. Whatever his campaign does, it will be very difficult to turn Ron Paul into a serious candidate.

        Thumb up 0
        1. duchessofdykedom

          Please, feel free to burst away. So what exactly is crazy? The way I understand it is that you just can read things into (or out of) the law or the constitution because they don’t fit your particular views or that it ‘feels good’. I mean, there’s a process and a way to remedy that. Especially if you say you believe in the rule of law to begin with. So what is crazy, again?

          I was never a fan of Rand, if fact, I thought he would end up being the New Scott Brown, lol.

          The UN undermines US sovereignty and gets us entangled in wars. Just look how well the UN “Peacekeeping forces” (oxymoron) worked out for Korea, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Haiti, Bahrain, Libya etc., etc., etc.

          Thumb up 0
          1. magiclovemuffin

            So you agree with Ron and Rand that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should’ve been voted down because of the part related to private property? In other words, we should’ve let lunch counters refuse to serve black people? If you want me to keep coming up with views I think are crazy, I can. Would you like me to do that? The thing is, we clearly define crazy differently. I know, I get it: liberty requires that we tolerate boorish behavior. It’s my favorite Rand Paul paraphrase. I consider myself a capitalist and I believe a free market will mostly take care of itself, but I can’t support a candidate with such an excessive and extreme view of free market capitalism.

            Thumb up 0
            1. duchessofdykedom

              You do understand that the entire segregation scenario was created by government laws, right? I mean what’s not clear about the fact that these ‘laws’ created the problem and this environment in the first place? Had the unconstitutionality of “legalized” state-sanctioned discrimination been held in check in the beginning we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, which I’m enjoying, btw. :)

              I don’t know about you, but I’ve sworn that oath to uphold the constitution. I held an elected seat on our town’s Charter Enforcement Commission, basically to interpret/enforce our town’s constitution. So I get it. Ron (or Rand) isn’t going to violate that oath if a bill is unconstitutional. It’s as simple as that. It may be one sentence or even part of a sentence in a bill. But if your bill fails because it’s unconstitutional, which has certainly happened to me before, then write a better bill. Tons of bills are unconstitutional and it’s why Ron Paul will be the single man out on a 434-1 house vote. He won’t lie. And he would probably rather die than to break an oath. That’s called principle. Swearing an oath used to actually *mean* something to people. Is that passe now? Are people not as good as their word? Or is it okay to bend the rules a little here, a little there? The proper role of government is to exactly protect life, liberty and property. No more, no less. And if we truly believed in the integrity of oaths and individual liberty, all of this bs unconstitutional state-sanctioned discrimination might not have been as devastating as it has been. Granted, this country got off to a really, really bad start with the unfortunate advent of slavery. And we’ve suffered some ugly racial history. On that, I think we agree.

              I just watched that PBS documentary, oh what’s the name? Freedom Riders? Yeah, it’s hard to watch things that eff’ed up socially. I grew up in the south, so I’ve witness some of it first-hand when I was young. Plus I was a baby dyke when Jesse Helms (if you know who that a-hole was) was in office during the height of the AIDS epidemic. I’ve seen my fair share of death and discriminatory crap. It’s truly sad that people are so hateful to each other. So even with all the bad laws that allowed discrimination, it was the product of government force. Laws are the power to restrict (not necessarily equalize or liberate) and with every law comes a punishment. We haven’t realized that government *is* force. Washington warned us about that in his farewell address and as far as I’m concerned, he was absolutely right.

              I can’t defend capitalism in it’s current incarnation, but I am pro-freed markets. I am a voluntaryist and mostly left-libertarian. I can share an article if you want to see where I’m coming from. You might be pleasantly surprised that we could have a lot more in common than you realize. Or not. I’m a little bit of a policy wonk.

              Thumb up 0
            2. magiclovemuffin

              Well of course. We had racist laws. Laws create culture and morality in a society. So when we did away with Jim Crow laws, we’re we supposed to just hope people stopped being racist? I think eventually racism would fade out, but without the Civil Rights Act, I firmly believe we would still have whites-only businesses all around the U.S. (well, let’s be honest, mostly the south). If you want to wait 100 years for businesses to stop discriminating against minorities, that is a personal value I don’t share. I think immediate action was necessary. Society’s attitudes follow the law. When Loving V. Virginia was decided, 15 states still banned interracial marriage. That was in 1967, just 44 years ago. Without Loving V. Virginia, how many states would still be banning interracial marriage?

              The thing about the constitution is, it was written in a different time with different circumstances. We can be a strict constitutionalist, or interpret it loosely. What may appear constitutional in 1940 may not appear constitutional in 2011. Tea Party people, and the Pauls, talk about the constitution as if it’s this entirely clear, obvious set of rules and it isn’t. (And one thing that always baffled me: How can Rand Paul and Ron Paul proclaim themselves to be constitutionalists, but want to repeal the 14th amendment simply because they disagree with it? I thought the constitution was the end-all and be-all document for them?)

              If defending the constitution is your goal, have it. I can’t say my loyalty to the constitution supercedes any other values I hold. We just won’t agree on this. I appreciate your responses though. I just don’t think there’s any debate left to have.

              Thumb up 0
            3. duchessofdykedom

              Okay. So I’ll leave you with this. Remember the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It’s disproportionate amongst blacks, especially. Most of those incarcerated are non-violent drug offenders. Ron Paul recognizes this and wants the decriminalization of all substances. Obama, not so much. It might be something you might take a closer look at, at some point.

              “I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement.” -Ron Paul

              In contrast, here’s Obama on the same issue:
              “Just to make sure that I’m actually answering your question, am I willing to pursue a decriminalization strategy as an approach? No.” -Barack Obama

              Thumb up 0
            4. magiclovemuffin

              I think you’ve shifted topics entirely, but Obama isn’t perfect. On that we can agree. Thanks for the discussion!

              Thumb up 0
            5. duchessofdykedom

              Same here.

              I always keep this in mind when considering the motives of politicians:

              “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.” ~John Adams

              :)

              Thumb up 0
  8. Paper0Flowers

    I have a question: why is the “Iowa vote” so important? Like, why that state? Do other states not have the caucus? I’m confused, could someone explain this to me?

    Thumb up 0
  9. Lora

    Okay, this seems like the best place to ask this question… so no one is running against President Obama as a Democrat? Like, is that even allowed? Or does he just automatically get the Democratic vote? (I’m pretty sure that’s not the case because, if I remember correctly, McCain ran against Bush in the ’04 elections.)

    This is a huge, embarrassing gap in my political knowledge, I know.

    Thumb up 0
    1. magiclovemuffin

      Well someone could run, but it’s extremely rare. Incumbents in general, not just for the White House, win re-election the vast majority of the time. So a party is not going to want to give up an incumbent and start fresh. Incumbents have huge advantages in fundraising, staffing, organization and visibility. The challenger would need to force primaries and win delegates that way and then (if it’s close) somehow convince superdelegates at the party’s convention to vote against the incumbent. In 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged President Ford and made it all the way to the convention, but lost. Ford lost to Jimmy Carter. In 1980, President Carter then faced a challenge from Ted Kennedy, but Kennedy failed. Carter then lost re-election to Reagan and we got stuck with hearing conservatives invoke Ronald Reagan constantly for the next 30 years.

      Thumb up 0
    2. magiclovemuffin

      Bush did not face any opposition in 2004. Sen. McCain ran in 2000 against then-Gov. Bush when President Clinton was term-limited.

      Thumb up 0
      1. Lora

        You’re right. I thought I just remembered seeing McCain’s hangdog face an especially large amount during 2004. And thanks for clarifying!

        Thumb up 0
    3. kd15

      There was some talk in liberal circles about primarying Obama to try and get him to move left on some issues, but no one (or hardly anyone) was really serious about it and that talk has pretty much died out.

      You can challenge an incumbent, but it’s hard to do and generally only happens if the President is really unpopular or for some reason has decided not to run for a second term. In this case there’s virtually no chance that anyone would beat Obama in a primary.

      Thumb up 0
      1. Lora

        That makes sense. Honestly I was asking for that very reason – thinking that maybe someone more liberal would run and I could vote for them instead. OH WELL.

        Thumb up 0
  10. Lindsay Jill

    Thanks for summarizing Rachel :]

    Also, here is a super scary mini-bio of Michele Bachmann that goes way in-depth on her history with politics/religion and all of the crazy people she’s connected to.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

    Thumb up 0
  11. Angela

    I could spend all day and debate this but then I’ll never sleep. But I’m still going to throw in my two cents and disagree with a lot of this article’s opinion on Ron Paul.

    First of all, Daily Kos looks to me like a communist website. So I’m not surprised why they would bash on Ron Paul. And TNR was another inaccurate attempt to distract people from what the major issues Ron stand for, which is to end the federal-reserve, the IRS, the war, and decriminalize drug offenses.

    When he said “race” he doesn’t mean every minority in the world. He was associating race with its history.

    On abortion: “You have to understand where that liberty and that life comes from. It does not come from the government. It comes from our creators.” – Ron Paul

    I’m fairly certain he was just stating his opinion and wants the state (instead of the feds) to decide whether abortion should be legalized or not..

    On him being anti-evolution: again, personal matter.

    If his plan to abolish public education is extreme and that sort of extremity is bad. Then please re-read that link you posted on that subject.

    I could be wrong about all this. But I’ve met Ron Paul in person and–at least so far–I really think he’s legitimate.

    What I’m saying is.. read his book (or at least watch videos with him in it that’s not a remix), then watch what the media says, and then make an educated judgment.

    Oh and I’d highly recommend the video of the Corn Polled Edition of the Daily Show, Jon Stewart did a good piece about Ron.

    Thumb up 0
    1. duchessofdykedom

      Agreed. It’s important to hear what Ron Paul actually says himself vs. what someone in the media says *about* him. At least Jon Stewart got the memo… Rachel Maddow? Not so much.

      Rachel has admonished Ron Paul’s views completely out of context because even she hasn’t grasped the concept of individual rights. Maddow, who is ever advocating for “more government”, hasn’t deduced the fact that it is *because of government* there were slavery laws, *because of government* there were Jim Crow laws, *because of government* there was segregation and laws restricting women, blacks, LGBT’s, (etc.) freedom and equality under the guise of “law”. These things all happened because of government laws. Government ‘laws’ are the power to restrict, not to equalize. And it’s quite refreshing that Ron Paul “gets” that.

      Thumb up 0
  12. Angela

    “Second of all, this idea that abortion is a “states’ rights” issue, rather than an essential right for women that should be protected at the federal level – that’s NOT okay. Women should not be second-class citizens in certain states. ”

    You’re saying that it’s not okay for the state to decide on the legalization of abortion and it should be the federal government’s job because in certain states women would be second-class citizens.. Well if there is such a state, then don’t move there. If no women move there, the men will eventually die out? No?

    I’m a darwinist, and speaking of that:

    Though many of us may think the proof on evolution is overwhelming, but in the end of the day, evolution is still a theory and a fact..but still a theory. Science has been proven wrong countless time in history. I mean we used to think the earth was flat. What makes us think we’re so right this time? All we can do is continue to grow and learn and progress as a society. Who is to say creationism isn’t a fact also?

    Brb. To that I share with you this quote I found today:

    “Have you heard about the libertarian conspiracy? We want to take the government and then… leave you alone.”

    Thumb up 0
  13. magiclovemuffin

    Ron Paul supporters love useless forms of campaigning, including but not limited to: -Flooding internet forums and -Posting Ron Paul signs/stickers every-fucking-where and on every stretch of road. So, watch out.

    Thumb up 0
    1. duchessofdykedom

      Freedom is popular. So is anti-war and anti-corporatism. If you don’t think Obama’s base is leaving him, you’d might want to reconsider that… who else are you going to get that’s not pro-war?
      :)

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

      Thumb up 0
      1. Kyla

        hey, just glad to see that you’re here, duchessofdykedom, I start to get a little worried when the queer/feminist sites I visit imply that I’m an evil racist for being a libertarian :)

        Thumb up 0
        1. duchessofdykedom

          Kyla, Wendy McElroy (dotcom) is my kind of feminist. ;)

          It’s fairly common than when folks run out of argument, they start up with the ad hominem. I surprised they didn’t throw a “paultard” jab in there, lol. It humors me the great lengths and verbal contortions used to admonish the “other side”, but yet they can see no wrong with “their guy”. Forest for the trees, I guess. What they haven’t figured out yet is that it’s not about left vs. right. It’s about you vs. the establishment. They don’t understand they’re siding with establishment. I reject this team red/team blue notion of a “one-side-or-the-other” dichotomy altogether. I recognize it as the divisive tool that it is. It would be a mistake to think that because I removed myself from the ideological left that I automatically ‘went over’ to the ideological right. Just the opposite. I reject both the right and left because it’s just that repugnant.

          Now I’ve admitted to the things I don’t like about RP, but it seems they’re willing to defend their guy “no matter what”. That is very telling, especially in the face of Obama’s human rights violations, domestic and international law violations and flat out genocide. And they’re proud to support that???
          Cognitive dissonance much?
          There is nothing more de-humanizing and racist than war. And they can’t respond to that.

          They feign concern about the economy and they have legitimate reason to be concerned, yet support a guy ‘no matter what’ based solely because he has a “D” behind his name. I highly doubt they can admit that it’s their guy’s policies and his giant pink elephant in the room that are the very catalysts perpetuating all of these problems they seem so concerned with. It’s very clear to the rest of us where their guy’s priorities lie. The nice folks at National Priorities Project did all the hard work and thinking for them. But they won’t look at it. They’ve already admitted their thought process has shut down. (I can’t post the link here because doing so seems to block my posts. I’ll try to follow up with the link.) Suffice it so say that 59% of the federal budget is spent on war. Yeah, like $0.59 of every single tax dollar goes to warmaking today.

          They can ignore it, deny it all they want, and reason it away however they like, but facts are stubborn little things. War itself doesn’t affect them personally, but to think it doesn’t affect them economically would be terribly naive.

          Having an open mind is having the ability for fluid thought, even when truths are uncomfortable. When your thought process is not fluid, then it has become stagnant and static which will prevent any sort of in-depth critical thinking. One becomes rigid in this state and resorts to parroting lines spoon-fed to them. But the simple truth is this: If you can’t change your mind, forget about changing your life.

          Steady as she goes…

          Thumb up 0
  14. Brianna

    Just FYI: if you try to comment and it doesn’t show up, it means the comment is caught in the spam filter. It’s best if you just leave a simple comment saying your comments aren’t appearing so that someone knows to check the spam filter.

    Thumb up 0
    1. duchessofdykedom

      TY! :)

      Thumb up 0
  15. Jessica Marie

    Personally I think that if Michelle got so far in the race as to run for the presidency it would be a God send. I come from a very conservative family of republicans and I know that if it came down to Bachmann and Obama they would choose Obama. I believe that is the case with most republicans. Even they have a limit on how much crazy is too much.
    At the same time she will push those voters that are sometimes republican, sometimes democrat to vote for the more liberal candidate.
    Unfortunately, I don’t think she will get that far and I believe that Julliani is going to pull a lot of weight.
    All that being said, I know nothing of politics. :)

    ———-({*})———-
    For Women.
    For the Love of Women.
    http://www.VulvaLoveLovely.com

    Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Site Meter