Ron Paul Pro Secession, Anti U.S. Entering WWI, Anti Wording of Pledge of Allegiance

Below is a clip of Ron Paul defending the idea of secession and Gov. Perry:

Ron Paul defends secession as American and at least at one time grounded in constitutional principles. I'll disagree with Ron Paul when he says that secessionist talk isn't treasonous. There was a Civil War about it. When we revolted from England the only reason it wasn't considered treason was because we won. But, because the U.S. won the Revolutionary War it was historic and brilliant. Had we lost, it would have been treasonous, at least according to Britain. In other words, history is written by the victors and thankfully the U.S. won both the Revolutionary War and Civil War. Revolting because of lack of representation is one thing. States seceding in defense of the states' right to allow slavery is another. Threatening secession and defending secessionist talk because you disagree with tax policies, tax policies elected officials from each state voted on, is ridiculous. Of course these are just my thoughts on the subject.

Please note however that I may not be alone in my thinking, polling suggests that the vast majority of Texans are not in favor of seceding. The fact that we have polling on the issue is sad. Furthermore, over 60% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing.

Of course let's put Ron Paul's comments into perspective. Ron Paul gripes about the Pledge of Allegiance's wording regarding the United States being "indivisible", and implies Woodrow Wilson should not have entered World War I.

So lets add Ron Paul to the list of Texas politicians that our great state has supported and given to the nation:

1. Tom Delay

2. Dick Armey

3. Dick Cheney

4. W.

5. Gov. Rick Perry

6. Betty Brown (more on her later)

7. Karl Rove

and now....

8. Ron Paul

Chuck Norris Throws Hat in Ring for President of Texas

Chuck Norris, the mustachioed martial arts actor, has announced that he's ready to be president. President of Texas that is, after Texas secedes from the the Union. Mainstream news outlets have picked up the story thankfully. I write "thankfully" because now maybe Norris will finally be revealed to be the weirdo, extremist, non-mainstream, dangerous publicity hound that he is. Maybe Norris is starting to believe the jokes made about him (click here and look at the right side for the Chuck Norris jokes I'm referring to). Maybe Norris is starting believe his roles in "Delta Force" and "Walker Texas Ranger" were real and not fiction, and bad fiction at that. Is it "American" or patriotic to advocate, hint or even joke about the idea of Texas and other states seceding from the Union because certain people, like Norris, disagree with what our leaders in Washington, D.C. are doing, leaders that were elected in fair elections? Norris seems to think it is. Scary.

Also, I hesitantly put this question forward, is it not treason to call for armed revolution against the USA and/or the secession of a state? This question needs to at least be asked. Norris seems to believe that there are right wing cells poised for armed revolution. What would the response have been had a left wing extremist advocated armed revolution/secession during George W. Bush's presidency?

Lastly, as a Texan this is embarrassing to say the least. Not all Texans are extremist, ultra-conservative, secessionist, "if-things-don't-go-our-way-in-an-election-we-threaten-armed-revolution" inciters. I'd also like to point out that Norris was born in Oklahoma not Texas. So if he wants to spout nonsensical drivel about leading a state in seceding from the USA he should go back to and talk about his home state of Oklahoma.

But, we can add him to the list of political types that unfortunately claim an association/allegiance to Texas:

Tom Delay

Dick Armey

Karl Rove

Dick Cheney*

George H.W. Bush*

George W. Bush*

and now...

Chuck Norris*

(*off the top of my head not born in Texas)

DICK Armey Is, Well, You Know, A...

Sexist. He's a sexist. What did you think I was going to write? At the very least he made an incredibly sexist remark. What did you think I was going to write?

In the clip below former Representative and Republican majority leader Dick Armey from Texas gives a great demonstration of techniques that some Republicans/conservatives employ when debating a Democrat/liberal on a talking head show:

Dick Armey in this one relatively short clip exhibits all the classic Republican/conservative talking head characteristics. Whether it's Rush, Ann Coulter, Hannity or apparently Dick Armey they all employ some classic, juvenile, disrespectful traits when they have a camera pointed on them and they have to listen to a Democrat/liberal speak. Namely, they will:

1) Smile weirdly or laugh while the other is speaking

2) They will interrupt (numerous times) or make exclamations like, "give me a break!" while the other is speaking.

3) They will generally talk louder or flat out yell down the other speaker.

4) They will refer to themselves in the third person.

5) They will get off issue or topic and attack the other speaker personally or about other issues unrelated to the topic being discussed.

In this case Dick Armey exhibits many of the above traits and ends it by making a sexist remark. Oh, and of course he's from Texas, way to make Texas look good on a national stage. We already gave the nation such notable Republican politicians such as Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and W. Anyway, Dick Armey did a good job of exhibiting the above described Republican/conservative talking-head-show-characteristics.

A Terrible Campaign (for McCain)

Or, alternate title: Post Mortem

In 2000 I thought McCain was going to win the Republican nomination after New Hampshire. Then, McCain fell victim to Rove's, "dark arts," tactics (see this blog, post # 8) and lost the 2000 nomination to W. In 2008 he won the nomination and was leading in the polls immediately after his convention. But, after the economic crisis hit McCain and his camp never had an overall theme to his campaign or consistent talking points. Whereas, Senator Obama had his theme down, namely, "Change" and talking points such as "middle class tax cuts," "McCain equals Bush," "McCain is out of touch".

Why McCain lost can be summed up with the below talking points/attacks/missteps by McCain, Palin and Republicans generally, in no particular order. Keep in mind that all of these points/attacks/missteps were made after the Republican convention.

1)elite(s)

2) Ayers

3) Joe six-pack

4) Joe the Plumber

5) liberal

6) socialist

7) communist

8) inexperienced

9) we're for change

10) Bridge to Nowhere

11) Alaska Independence Party

12) reform

13) pork barrel spending

14) Barack Hussein Obama

15) country first

16) un-American

17) real America

18) Khalidi

19) national security

20) for the bailout

21) McCain got the first version of the bailout passed

22) the first version of the bailout is voted down

23) the bailout was a bad idea

24) maverick

25) fundamentals of the economy are strong

26) suspend the campaign

27) postpone the debate

28) economy in crisis

29) Obama will raise taxes

30) how many houses does McCain own

31) Palin/Couric interview

32) Gibson interview

33) Palin's clothes

34) the prank call

35) "that one"

36) air quotes regarding a mother's health

37) Reverend Wright

38) "my fellow prisoners"

40) at a rally McCain asks Joe the Plumber to stand up, Joe's not there

41) Palin is a "diva" (from a source in the McCain campaign)

42) Palin is a "whack job" (from a source in the McCain campaign)

43) Palin is going rouge

44) Palin 2012

45) Palin

46) Cheney endorsement the weekend before the election

That's alot. There are more but, that's all I could think of off the top of my head, please, let me know if you think of any others. A campaign cannot win with even a handful of the above much less all of them. Obama could essentially sit back and let McCain's campaign implode, each day was seemingly a different talking point/attack/misstep resulting in a disjointed, muddled and rudderless campaign.

Oh, and by the way, Obama ran an almost gaffe-less campaign after the Dem convention (with two big expceptions, Obama "spreading the wealth" and Biden's assurance of an "international crisis" to test Obama's mettle). And the economy (stupid) hurt McCain (especially the way he handled it) and helped Obama.

Sidenotes: Why didn't McCain learn from Hillary

How Hillary Clinton lost:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

And McCain didn't learn from Hillary

What if McCain had hit hard on Wright?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15191.html

McCain's pastors would have been talked about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/mccain-rejects-hagee-endo_n_103143.html

McCain Seduced By Dark Arts

That McCain is using fear and half-truths against his opponent is surprising since it was these same Rovian tactics that derailed his campaign in South Carolina in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries. One of the articles below was written by Richard ("Rick") H. Davis, McCain's 2000 and current campaign manager, who therein bemoans the use of such tactics, tactics described by him as specifically smearing a person's reputation. Davis even describes it as, "the blackest of the dark arts." Perhaps, Davis and McCain, now the Rove apprentices, have truly embraced the "dark arts," the very same "dark arts" they both combated first hand in 2000.

Maybe McCain and Davis think that since it worked for Bush in 2000 against McCain and 2004 against Kerry it will work for them. But 2000 is a vastly different world than 2008. In 2000 there weren't two wars and we had a budget surplus and the dot com bubble had not quite burst. In 2000 we weren't, according to McCain, facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In 2004 Kerry's campaign was run almost as poorly as McCain's current campaign. Keep in mind Obama and his staff have run a solid campaign. Remember, Obama and his staff beat Hillary Clinton. Unlike Kerry, Obama addresses the smears and dismisses them as assertions made by a desperate campaign that is out of touch and cannot run on the issues. And let's be honest, Obama is a better candidate than Kerry. And this time the issues really matter, especially at home given our economic outlook.

My belief (and that's all it is, my own thoughts on this subject) is that half-truths and fear mongering/pandering won't work this time, like it did against McCain in 2000. It won't work because there are more important things at stake than personal feelings and reputations. In 2000 as between W. and McCain (and then Gore) all there was to really differentiate candidates was a question of who did you like better. Who would you rather have a beer with? It really was a popularity contest. Now is more reminiscent of 1992. H.W. Bush couldn't get any traction out of the attacks against Bill Clinton in 1992, that he was pot smoking draft dodger, because the economy was bad. Well the economy is worse now than it was in 1992, by a mile. The world has changed. The strategy of a presidential campaign and the tactics employed should have changed when the changed world.

Unfortunately, Rick Davis and McCain have not yet grasped that the landscape has changed. Potentially, their overall campaign strategy (fear) and tactics (such as asking questions like "who is the real Obama," and asserting that he, "pals around with terrorists", present tense plural) used to carry out that strategy are outdated relics, not applicable to our current political landscape. Maybe they've been blinded by the fear of losing another election. Again, the "dark arts" worked against them in 2000. Too bad for McCain the "blackest of the dark arts" is not working for him, like it did against him in 2000, at least according to the polls. No matter the outcome of the election, it seems apparent that McCain really has been seduced by the "dark arts".

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks