John Kerry is an opportunistic oaf.

Let's see. John Edwards was good enough to be your vice president, but he's not good enough to be President. What happened? Was there a big bitchfight?



So, okay, you can't support your ex-bf, Senator.

So how about a fellow Massachusetts flip-flopper such as Mitt Romney?

Nope.

Looks like that one chick's not the only one who's got a crush on Obama.

The elitist sneer never truly leaves Kerry's face. He thinks we commonfolk are too stupid to see this for the tactic that it is, when it's as transparent as the crocodile tears running down Hillary's face. Kerry has joined People For What (He Thinks) Is About To Happen, and he's angling for the V.P. slot.

Not gonna work. Even if Obama gets the nomination, he's too smart to partner with one of the apple trees from the Wizard of Oz.



ASIDE: Why does the apple tree talk like Sling Blade?

New Hampshire Notes.

1. Any state that prefers a big-government neosocialist and a big-government pseudoconservative ought to have a restraining order issued against them, barring them from using the slogan "Live Free Or Die." I do believe in truth in advertising, after all.

2. When will men finally get a clue and stop rewarding women for turning on the waterworks whenever they're losing? It is a ploy, a strategy, a manipulation. Crying doesn't make you right. It just makes you wet.

3. Proof yet again that polls are useless.

4. How many of the "independents" that voted for Hillary are really Republicans who would rather not face Obama in the fall?

5. Damn that Obama guy can preach! Jesse and Nannny Huckabee and Reverend Al should take lessons from him.

6. Ron Paul's still got twice as many delegates as Rudy.

7. What was the point of that whole Free State Project thing again?

8. There's something about Romney. The next time you see him, ask yourself -- doesn't his body language and cadence bring to mind how a space alien would act if he was trying to impersonate a human being?

Don't take it from me; take it from THEM.

Click pic to enlarge.

I *hate* the Ted Fonda Liberal Opinion Network.

All night last night, I watched on CNN pie charts showing Nanny Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain-Feingold, Fred Thompson, and "Others."

The pie charts would lead you to believe the 15% of caucus goers in the "Others" category were fairly evenly divided between Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, and Duncan Hunter.

It was only when you read the scrunched up tallies at the bottom of the screen that you saw that Ron Paul spent much of the night 1% or less behind Fred Thompson or John McCain-Feingold.

It seems 11% gets you your own slice of the pie chart, while 10% gets you lumped in with the "others."

I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from the Ted Fonda Liberal Opinion Network. After all, they must be products of Outcomes-Based Education, because they seem to believe Ron Paul is a Democrat.

Gummint Cheese: Damn Paulinoids!

Click pic to embiggen.

Why the disparity?

Multiblogger Kevin wonders over at Ten Second News why the disparity exists between Ron Paul's Internet popularity and real-world poll numbers, and partially explains it.

A couple of other reasons I can think of include the undeniable fact that many of the "real-world" polls don't even include Ron Paul. They artificially limit your choices in the primary to Romney, Giuliani, sometimes McCain and/or Thompson, and once in awhile Huckabee. Dr. Paul can't have a very high poll showing if he's not included in the polls, now can he? The "real-world" polls don't seem to be any realer than the virtual polls.

Another reason is that many of Ron Paul's supporters are technogeeks who don't have landlines. Surveys don't call cellphones, so it's not surprising that candidates with less technosavvy supporters are over-represented.

Apparently, I am uncharacteristically verbose today.

I tried to add this comment to a Kippy post, but it bounced back at me with an automated bitch that I used too many damn words. :) So I'm posting it here instead.

I have for the most part been spared any meaningful bombardment by the Paulbearers, despite my several unflattering blogposts about their icon.

Part of the reason for that might be that your posts confuse us. Your arguments against Ron Paul seem to be directed at a face-to-face matchup in the general election of Ron Paul versus the Libertarian winner.

In short, you're fighting a fight that it's not time to fight yet.

Dr. Paul and the Libertarian nominee (whoever that might be) are still in the primaries and are not competing against each other yet. And yet your arguments go along the lines of "You shouldn't vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because he's not as consistently Libertarian as the Libertarian candidate . . ."

Those arguments would have some OOMPH in the general election, but Dr. Paul has to win the primaries first for those arguments to be relevant.

What does voting in the Libertarian primary get us? Another Libertarian, any of whom many of us will vote for in the fall should Dr. Paul lose the Republican primary.

So the question becomes, why not vote for Dr. Paul in the primary?

Beatdown.

Ron Paul has his best day since the release of Ron Paul Conquers The Martians.

[H/T 2 memeorandum.]

One of the Thompson Twins drops out; other not in yet.

Tommy go bye-bye.

I wonder where his dozens of supporters will go now. Come, my friends, you will be welcomed into the Ron Paul Revolution.

Think of how good it will feel to be in a campaign that's not disoriented and as confused as E.T. was that time he tried to give Pac-Man a prostate exam.

McCain, Campaignus Interruptus?

McCain could pull out of race by autumn.

We can only hope.

[H/T 2 memeorandum.]

Ron Paul Revolution.

This is better than any campaign ad from '00 or '04, nearly all current television programs, and 90% of the music videos ever shown on MTV.

RonPaulRevolution.com