Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Redstate bans new users from talking about Ron Paul; Huckabee coming on strong

By

And no, I’m not kidding.  Thanks to alert commenter Howland Lew Natick, who noticed this astonishing post at one of the right’s largest blogs:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I’m guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be….

P.S. Comments to this post are closed. Complaints may be directed to the contact form.

Absolutely hilarious.  They must be really petrified over there that Paul is starting to garner enough interest to put Rudy McRomney in some serious jeopardy.  Maybe we should add Paul to our ActBlue page!  đŸ˜‰

Relatedly, and perhaps more seriously, Rudy McRomney faces a growing threat from Mike Huckabee.  He, not Mitt Romney, was the real winner of the “Values Voters Summit” straw poll recently concluded in DC (Romney scammed the system via online voting, but Huckabee trounced all comers among those who were actually in attendance).  The punditocracy is starting to pay attention.  And with Fred Thompson’s ongoing and increasingly embarrassing flame-out, and Sam Brownback’s withdrawal from the race, Huckabee suddenly has the true religious conservative brand pretty much to himself.  Furthermore, Huckabee is a genuinely charismatic guy, unlike Romney, whose alleged good looks really don’t translate into charisma — Romney is actually quite boring on the stump.

If Huckabee starts making serious noise in Iowa, things could get really interesting really fast.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. and as much as I love Ron Paul’s visions on personal freedoms and liberties and on the war in Iraq, the man is ka ka ka ka ka-razy.  Worse yet, his fans seem to be the right’s equivalent to Lyndon LaRouche.

    <

    p>
    So, eliminate RP discussion?  Stupid.  RP discussions?  Also stupid.  Kind of a dilemma.

    • Or maybe more of their Gravel. I could almost even imagine Gravel and Rep. Paul campaigning together. That’d be an amusing ticket. Someone go get Unity08 on that. đŸ˜‰

      <

      p>
      (I saw Ron Paul talk in person a few months ago. He’s not all bad, he’s only mostly crazy. He lost me on the point where he thinks a Free Market and pure capitalism is the natural antidote to child labor.)

      • People look at the present administration and beyond the wholesale looting and depravity, see the loss of American freedoms. They look at things like forced confessions that are now standard procedures and think that “if things are this bad now, what will it be like in 10-20 years?”

        <

        p>
        What other candidate is running on a freedom platform?  What other candidate debates issues rather than personalities? 

        <

        p>
        Although I don’t agree with Dr. Paul’s philosophy, at least he has one.  The others seem to want to continue down the path of the present administration.

        • What other candidate is running on a freedom platform?  Chris Dodd.

          <

          p>
          Chris Dodd is making the restoration of Constitutional liberties a centerpiece of his campaign.

        • I wish the poor man well in his suit.  My guess is the FBI will have him and his family tortured anyway.  (Remember, this is an organization famous for mooonlighting for the mob and foreign intelligence services.  They can’t seem to tell the difference between good and bad guys.  Another agency above the law.) 

          <

          p>
          As for a lot of the petty citizen abuse by police, I think a lot of it comes from hiring the wrong people.  In this case, maybe a dope slap the side of the arresting officer’s head by the shift commander would have prevented what is a pitifully embarrassing incident.  Imagine being a prosecutor of this case?  Is there no shame?

          <

          p>

  2. …(before I registered here) I tried to register on Red State.  They ignored several registration requests.  It was that experience that confirmed to me that they were nothing more than horse manure.  (Is someone allowed to say “bullshit” here?)

    • You are not allowed to say bullshit here.  Unless you do it in German.

      <

      p>
      A select group of users and editors are given permission to say bullshit on BlueMassGroup.  Why, if I used the word bullshit in a post or comment, I’m sure I’d get into trouble, receiving a reprimand or some bullshitcrap like that.

  3. So tempting ….. Mmmmm ..
    Check out that site though. Funny thing I noticed was that most of the threads degenerate right back into discussions about RP. They might have to update their posting policies and ban everyone who first doesnt sign the standard loyalty pledge …lol

  4. “I was ready to take the Pajamas Media widget off my blog, when Ron Paul won week after week, supported by his people in the basement of mommy’s house. Hats off to RedState. RonBots – he will NOT win the nomination, due in no small part to his decision to campaign while off his medication. It isn’t that we haven’t heard him speak – it’s that we HAVE.”

    <

    p>
    And please note, it isn’t a BLANKET ban – anyone with an older registration can still be a RonBot.

    • What is up with those loyalty pledges anyhow? You are probably the authority on this subject. I had never heard of such a thing until I went out to protest visits of our fearless leader and his sidekick Darth Cheney a few years back. Used to be that in America if a politician came to town you could just go and hear them speak if you felt the urge but I guess those days are gone huh? Sad.

  5. I still think it will come down to one or the other.

    <

    p>
    With Romney for veep (and heir apparent in ’12) either way.

      • And an awful lot of government, too.

        <

        p>
        Me, I could tolerate the Jesus if there was less government.

        <

        p>
        More government, more Jesus is a non-starter.

        <

        p>
        I guess that ticket would make sense if the libertarian faction of the GOP is deceased.

        • If the MSM could find anything about Mitt to talk about OTHER than religion (think it’s an accident that ‘HOUSE’ has a black Mormon doctor this season?), and looked at Huckabee’s gubernatorial record instead of him being ordained (he’s actually much more interested in combating obesity than conversions), I think you’d find religion is actually a more minor factor than is generally recognized.  It’s OBAMA that’s appearing with choirs – what is THAT all about?

          • Your guy Romney is making a play for the right wing culture warrior Christianist wing of the Republican Party, which, over the last decade or so have come to dominate the party.  That is why he has made such a big play about gay marriage: in order to exercise people who only get excited about gays, abortion, and prayer in public schools.

            <

            p>
            Huckabee has a nice manner about him, but his play is for the same demographic.

            <

            p>
            So, I say again, that is an awful lot of Jesus–the Christianist Jesus–in your ticket.

        • and since when do you care a bit about giuliani or gingrich?  i think perhaps i struck a chord.  are you 2-timing myth, peter? đŸ˜‰

            • then i treat it as such.  i’m sorry peter, but i cannot trust your smileygigs to do more than front for hidden barbs.  in all honesty, i don’t trust much coming from a woman who says she is pro-choice but falls at the feet of a womb-control cretin like romney. 

                • you prove my point.  you pretend that you were just playing.  but you rated my typo’d post a 4.  the smileygig is the cloak, and 4 is the attempted dagger.  you betray yourself.

                • any other bull wool you’d like to try to pull?  show me all the other posts you gave 4s to for funny typos.  the ole slap & tickle just doesn’t fool anyone, especially when you already have no credibility.

                • you say that the only funny typo posts you’ve down-rated since august was this one by me, and one other.  as i said above, you pretend to be playful with your bloodhounding for any potential slight against a repub, but you’re really, well, bloodhounding.  but for whatever reason, you apparently don’t want your purpose to be recognized for what it is, so you plaster on a fake wry smile.

                  <

                  p>
                  give it up.

                • (Good phrase. I like it.)

                  <

                  p>
                  Actually, one thing I admire in a perverse way is PP’s monitoring us for any possible unfair slight against a Republican. I don’t admire it because I agree with it, or because I don’t find it annoying (I do find it annoying), or because I think PP is always right.

                  <

                  p>
                  I admire it because Democrats have never learned to do this. Could we? Could we learn from PP? For example, I am very tired of hearing, on the slenderest of evidence, theatrical “facts” about Hillary Clinton’s personality.  I’d prefer if our first impulse would be to defend our own. Of course, I want that tempered by a fealty to the facts but Gore was hounded in 2000 for things he never said. Liberals seemed to spend 2000 wondering whether there was “anything to it” when it was all just bullshit.

                  <

                  p>
                  Perhaps it’s a lack of liberal pride that makes us lack confidence in our prominent leaders.

                  <

                  p>
                  Conservatives display no such shyness — and, I believe, for less reason.

                • we’ve seen a lot of truth-telling/bloodhounding aimed at repubs (or faux neutrals) on this blog.  most recently on Og and Keller.  and i’ve also seen a lot of criticism of dems when they do stupid things too. i don’t see much of the blind hillary-bashing sort of thing that you’re talking about.  so i guess i just am not seeing the problem that you see is out there.

                  <

                  p>
                  and btw, i do not think the repubs have any corner on a good thing by only relentlessly criticizing dems and never criticizing their own.  i do NOT want us to start doing that too.  why?  because then we get more emperors with no clothes.  no thanks.

                  <

                  p>
                  ‘lack of liberal pride’ is a funny thing to mention on a blog where most participants are proud enough to talk about and participate in liberal ideas and activism.  i think maybe your message needs to be taken to a different forum.  like the ‘democrats for nice lawns society’.  bu i think it is largely misplaced here.

                • Hey, Laurel I’m not advocating idiocy or blind partisanship. After all, I love chewing on inconvenient stuff.

                  <

                  p>
                  2000 was lost, in part, because Gore’s character was defended too anemically if at all.

                • was a matter for Gore to attend to.  he let the FL matter drop all too quickly in my book.  call that an error in judgment or a character flaw, i don’t see how our defense of the character we thought he had could change his mind for him.

                • The structure: The media narrative, based on innuendo more than fact, was harshly tilted against Gore. (NBC even had a policy against Gore.) Yet, the issues about the National Guard service, Arbusto Energy stock, and substance abuse never achieved prominence, in part, because Republicans screamed “UNFAIR!” whenever they were broached.

                  <

                  p>
                  This is highly unsymmetrical.

                  <

                  p>
                  Contrast too, the deferential manner in which that mavericky maverick John McCain is treated by the press. They expected him all these years to say what he really means. On the other hand, everything Hillary Clinton says is treated as a maneuver, a script, or a means of hiding what she’s really thinking. What we’re getting is not Hillary’s character, but rather the media’s projection of it.

                • that the press is lopsided.  hasn’t it always been?  but you mentioned gore in 2000.  the press didnt make him ask daintily for only a few select recounts, he did that all by himself.

                • (There’s an interesting discussion of the four kinds of cause in Aristotle’s Metaphysics.)

                  <

                  p>
                  I wasn’t thinking about Florida. Gore would have also won if his margin were less narrow so that hanging chads and Jews for Buchanan were non-issues.

                  <

                  p>
                  Look at it this way. Gore sighed in the debate. This was taken as a sign of bad character. However, why didn’t the press ask whether Bush was lying or being misleading or being boneheaded at the stuff Gore was sighing about. Isn’t it worse — even in a character sense — to lie, mislead, or be foolish? There was such an environment of acceptance of attacks on this man’s character that the clearly worse character of the future worst President ever never got emphasis.

                • what you said and what i said differ very little if at all.  the difference is that you’re saying, in effect, that if the press had been moretherer fairer to gore, he would have won by a large enough margin that his poor judgment concerning recounts would not have had to come into play.

                  <

                  p>
                  maybe we should do this:  stop using gore2000 as a proxy for a discussion on The Press being slanted. 

                • is the press slanted when it comes to political races?  often it is, yes. 
                • sometimes devestatingly so?  yes. 
                • is this at all related to the original opine of yours that dems hold their candidates to higher stnadards than do the repubs their candidates?  i don’t see how.  if you do, please explain.

                • Yes, our differences are narrow. And besides — I like reading you! You write witty posts (hair) and useful ones (ENDA + Southwick). You even forgave me one ad hominem.

                  I think the difference is that if the Democratic Party had more PP-partisans (or even PP-partisans who are more factual than you think the actual PP is), then the Press would meet more of an uproar about its slant and would be less inclined to do slant against us. And yes, I think there are more Angry Men in the GOP column and that demographic can only help in preventing bias against one’s candidate.

                  <

                  p>
                  I use Gore 2000 because it’s the best documented.

                • you may be right.  the trouble is that i gather that there are basic personality differences that make one lean GOPish (angry white men conservatives, and the women and minorities who love them) or Dem-ish (just really nice folks).  so in essence you’re asking people to act against their own character. 

                  <

                  p>
                  this is all of course the worst sort of armchair phychologizing.  maybe i’m wrong and you can drum up a small and effective corps of coulter-like obnoxious liberals to harangue away and tilt the press back.  but if i’m right, my guess is that you;ll have more success hiring actual non-liberals to do the job.  there are plenty of ron paul types out there who believe in free-trade social darwinism something or other.  if you can pay them well enough, they’ll act the part convincingly.  the next question is, then, can liberals be convinced to donate money to pay others to do our dirty work?  i’ll just leave that unanswered for now, lest i be accused of aiding the GOP in being critical of Us. đŸ˜‰

                • Everybody reported these kinds of “facts”– all of which turned out to be true!– about Clinton in 1992 and 1996.  You need a guy who this stuff rolls off of.  Neither Gore nore Kerry were.

                • What I SAID was that I eliminated all ratings for you back through the beginning of August.

                  <

                  p>
                  All but one of them was either a 5 or a 6, making your moue of distaste at being constantly downrated a bit hard to take.

                  <

                  p>
                  I did NOT look at ratings given to others.  Only you.

                • for throwing a ratings tantrum instead of providing me with evidence that you generally rate all typos you make fun of with 4s.  i guess you can’t and that’s why you threw the tantrum?  well, it’s a moot point now, now that you’ve admitted to us that you’ll change old ratings to suit present ends.  so, researching your ratings of past posts won’t necessarily tell us anything about how you rated them originally. 

                  <

                  p>
                  going back an re-writing our little corner of history – and here i thought you couldn’t get any less credible.

        • i’m finding i kinda like it.  i may amend it a bit though.  gouliani/gingrinch sounds better.  it’s only fair that myth romney has proper company.

          • shouldn’t it be “Ghouliani”? Especially given how he’s based just about his entire campaign persona as the Hero of 9/11? The widows of the first responders he doomed with his negligence have had a lot to say about his “heroism,” yeah, you betcha.

            <

            p>
            Yes, “Ghouliani” sounds about right. But carry on.

        • before you get high and might over my typo, better look at the apparently deliberate mashup your mitty did with Obama’s name.  but thanks for the misplaced outrage!

          “Actually, just look at what Osam – Barack Obama – said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. . . . It’s almost as if the Democratic contenders for president are living in fantasyland. Their idea for jihad is to retreat, and their idea for the economy is to also retreat. And in my view, both efforts are wrong-headed.”

          Romney, who was speaking at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Greenwood, S.C., was referring to an audiotape broadcast Monday on Al Jazeera, purportedly of bin Laden, calling for insurgents in Iraq to unite.

          • I’ll tell ya, I had some pi**ed off students on my hands today asking me about that (we were constructing a simulation of the Hunt for OBL in my simulations and game theory elective).  The GOP is like CBS used to be — petrified at the idea that someone under 40 could be interested in them.

        • On Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me they make fun of everyone, including themselves; that’s what makes them seem liberal in today’s climate.  Unlike the NPR news operation, the White House Thought Police hasn’t yet waterboarded them into swearing fealty to the Fatherland (Oops, was that out loud?).

          • …I was a contestant on WBGH’s one and only game show!  It ran one season, and involved word play like Wait, Wait.  I won a CD player and a gift card to Borders back when I had to drive to CT to spend it (because there were none here yet)!

            <

            p>
            I wish WGBH would get over that failure, and have a College Bowl type show.  Sometimes, Wait, Wait gets a little too…twee…and insiderish for me.

            • They’re at the top of their game when Charlie Pierce is out and PJ O’Rourke is in.

        • PBS isn’t a liberal bastion – it belongs to ALL of us, supported with the tax dollars of all

          <

          p>
          From what I have read, PBS receives very little in the way of tax dollars.

          <

          p>
          Irrespective of that, you have made an assertion of fact, and it is up to you to cite to sources.  Unlike Jon Keller.

              • However, it is NOT a blank page, as it does take you to Thomas and its search engine.

                <

                p>
                Here is the text of the FIRST paragraph –

                <

                p>

                H.R.3043
                Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (Reported in House)

                Corporation for Public Broadcasting

                For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , as authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which shall be available within limitations specified by that Act, for the fiscal year 2010, $420,000,000: Provided, That no funds made available to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions, parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used to aid or support any program or activity from which any person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex: Provided further, That no funds made available to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to apply any political test or qualification in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking any other personnel action with respect to officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation : Provided further, That for fiscal year 2008, in addition to the amounts provided above, $29,700,000 shall be for costs related to digital program production, development, and distribution, associated with the transition of public broadcasting to digital broadcasting , to be awarded as determined by the Corporation in consultation with public radio and television licensees or permittees, or their designated representatives: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2008, in addition to the amounts provided above, $26,750,000 is available pursuant to section 396(k)(10) of the Communications Act of 1934 for replacement and upgrade of the public radio interconnection system: Provided further, That none of the funds made available to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by this Act, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110-5), or the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-149), shall be used to support the Television Future Fund or any similar purpose.

                <

                p>
                Anyone interested in getting the FULL funding for public broadcasting can visit thomas.gov

            • I wonder why Jon Keller found it so difficult to get citations to source published in his book.

              <

              p>
              Now, let me understand something.  From what I have read, the CPB appropriation is theoretically for a two year time period.  If that’s true, the US$420m is for a two-year time period.  I wonder, can you tell us what percentage of public television’s funding US$420m over two years amounts to in relation to public television’s overall funding.

              <

              p>
              I recognize that public television loves getting at least some funding from the federal government–it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy (they want us! when actually more than a few of us don’t).  Now, just how much does CPB fund in comparison to their advertisers–uh, underwriters?

                • PBS isn’t a liberal bastion – it belongs to ALL of us, supported with the tax dollars of all

                  <

                  p>
                  Apart from the fact that your citation (which I missed) was not to PBS which is one of the public radio consortiums (the other being PRI), it was to a budget allocation to CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the TV side, your citation to WGBH is laughable.  Those of us who were raised in the hinterlands know that WGBH isn’t the be-all and end-all of public broadcasting.  I grew up in Cincinnati, the public television station there was WCET (“Cincinnati educational television”).

                  <

                  p>
                  Now, tell us again, what percentage of “public TV broadcasting’s” is taxpayer supported.

                  <

                  p>
                  I can suggest to you that CPB’s taxpayer funding does little more than slant the programming–developed by companies like WGBH–to the parties managing the purse-strings.  I noticed that a long time ago.  Even with Nova.

                  <

                  p>
                  Regarding …it belongs to ALL of us… am I correct in presuming that you would suggest that Kansas Public Television should broadcast science programs that purport to support creationism?  At some point, your argument turns nonsensical.

            • There’s a trick to getting permanent links out of Thomas. I don’t know why they use these ridiculous temporary links when permanent ones are much better (and, from a programming point of view, I’d think permanent ones would be easier to program, so I really don’t understand the technical reasoning).

              <

              p>
              If you do a search and come up with a bill and a search page like the one you cited, you’ll see at the top a “Link to the Bill Summary & Status file“. Follow that link, and then look for “Text of Legislation” on that page, and you’ll come up with a link like H.R. 3043, which is permanent.

              <

              p>
              Now anybody can click on this link and get to the text of the bill you were citing.

  7. In an abstract sense, there are just two contenders Ron Paul and Bush III.  Everyone other than Paul is trying very hard to prove that he is the best jingoistic, authoritarian, tax-cutting social conservative.

  9. has the full endorsement of the anti-Illuminati crowd.

    <

    p>
    He won’t come close and even if he should by some miraculous event “win” they would just kill him off anyway.

    • Like many vets I wasnt surprised to discover that Ron Paul is the candiate of choice amongst active military.

      <

      p>
      http://www.dailypaul…

      <

      p>
      The They you refer to would have to tred lightly

      • Why, his introduction of HR 3835 means he’s doing something about dictatorship, rather than just talking about it. 

        <

        p>
        He might be on to something.

        • In the House. Or maybe the Senate — I wouldn’t be opposed to that. But President??

          <

          p>
          The guy is a nut, a genuine nut. A nut with some good ideas, like HR 3835, but still a nut.

          <

          p>
          I mean, for instance, this is the guy who filed a bill to withdraw the US from the UN. Yes, he’s filed the same bill (same bill number, even!) in six consecutive Congresses.

          <

          p>
          Having him in Congress means we can cherry-pick his good ideas. Having him in the White House would be a disaster for us (and the world, since you know what his first act would be)…

          • I must have missed something.
            You said he filed bills to have us withdraw from the UN and the you said he was a nut. I missed the connection. Could you elaborate please? đŸ™‚

            • As I sit here pondering the scores of credits that we can attribute to UN memebrship, I focus on its most recent triumph … months of squabling trying to get a meaningless resolution passed condemning Israel for the summer 2006 obliteration of Lebanon … only to have it vetoed by the BushCo stooge appointee.
              The same works in reverse. When something is debated that is in the US interest it is vetoed by Russia or some EU memeber … bickering and expense with a touch of flashy buildings and fine clothes and colorful flags … and whats the pricetag for this menageree of beurocracy at its worst?

              <

              p>
              Paul seems to have a handle on it here …

              <

              p>
              http://www.house.gov…

            • Without US participation, the UN would became very much a toothless organization that rogue nations would feel free to completely ignore. True, some ignore it now, but at least pay it lip service. Others take the UN seriously. If nobody took the UN seriously and didn’t even have to pay lip service, I think the numbers and scale of conflicts around the world would escalate dramatically.

              <

              p>
              So, withdrawing from the UN? Nuts. Completely nuts.

              <

              p>
              BTW, don’t misunderstand — the UN is not perfect. Far from it. But it’s better than the alternative Paul proposes, which works out to nothing.

              • We could buy BlackWater with the change in Kofi Annan’s ashtray and let him use those forces to ensure the proper distribution of this weeks bribes.
                With the hundreds of billions that would be saved from this PRIVITAZATION we could do something more useful, like pave the highways in gold or make that last minute trip to mars.

Archives