Caucuses Are Stupid

Look. If Professor Boing-Boing manages to win the Iowa caucuses it proves only this. Caucuses are stupid. But didn't we already know that?
Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses. …

Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party.

“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach,
No doubt about it. Professor Boing-Boing has loyal followers and they are organized, which in a caucus is a good thing. But the caucus process is no way to choose anything. Although they look like they might be fun if you and the boys got loaded at the local roadhouse before hand.

The fact that caucuses serve to give candidates like Pat Robertson and Professor Boing-Boing their moment in the sun only proves the point. I like caucuses less than Israel should like Prof. B-B, if that were possible.

Comments

  1. Man Patrick, you are just begging for a comment box brewhaha. Out before the, err, Professor Boing-Boing bots get in. Have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  2. C'mon...Ron Paul is the most conservative and most Christian of the candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Patrick,

    How fruitful is labeling professor Boing-Boing supporters "bots"? It's like calling Catholics "cannibals" or something…

    I've followed you for years, and not only I am extremely disappointed by the tack you take, I also fear for your immortal soul. Why risk it over calling your brother "Raca" over some fleeting, flawed political process. 'Tis a crying shame, really.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In 2008, Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade, who later became a pro-life activist) endorsed Ron Paul, in part because he re-introduced and co-sponsored an act that would declare that life begins at conception.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can you call yourself pro-life if you are ok with Israel getting nuked because we looked the other way on Iran?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aristotle,
    Not sure what you mean? Calling my brother "Raca"?

    My post is about caucuses but with a little elbow to the ribs of Ron Paul ('cause I think he crazy). Why would that jeopardize my soul?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Considering that our drone warfare policies have led to the deaths of many innocent civilians in the Middle East (including teenagers), and our own executive branch has decided to abandon the rule of law and use extrajudicial assassinations, I do not think it is very pro-life for us to be pursuing a policy of warfare in the Middle East. Israel has its own nukes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am really offended by your complete disrespect for Ron Paul. He, unlike ALL the others, has a consistant and conservative history. While no candidate is perfect, he is far better than the rest. If memory serves correctly, your blog has rejected Newt, Romney and others. The best choice for any real change in DC is Ron Paul. Do your homework.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Pat,

    This is the first time I've ever posted on your blog. You guys run one of the best blogs, not just on the planet, but in the entire universe. As long as we agree that Pope Benedict is awesome...we're cool.

    I became interested in Paul's campaign after I grew to respect Tom Woods (who wrote, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization). After listening to his ideas in other books I became a Paul supporter. So I don't know if I can post videos on here, but this one addresses the position that he holds on Israel.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zkhnSCKz6U&feature=player_embedded

    Its worth a watch, and I think Paul is worth giving a second look to. God bless you guys, I appreciate what ya'll do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You may want to have another look at the Just War theory. I find it interesting how you can crawl up one side and down the other of Nancy Peloci (rightly so) on her stance on Abortion, but then blissfully ignore Rick Santorum's stance on preventative wars of aggression.

    The Church is neither right nor left, but the center around which all sides are drawn.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A good article for anyone to read who is supporting Ron Paul (R.Pluto)

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?page=1

    ReplyDelete
  12. So you're still supporting Santorum over Paul? The same Santorum who is pro-torture, pro foreign expansionary war, and who last week voted along with most of the rest of congress (except Ron Paul) to remove what was left of your right not to be detained indefinitely by the army? Yeah, good choice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. McClarey,

    We meet again. Weekly Standard is known as a neo-conservative establishment magazine. Certainly there have to be other credible sources not happy with the rise of Dr. Paul.

    I hope you do not call me racist and anti-Semite (or ban me as you did from American Catholic) for laughing at the link you posted above.

    I can understand if some legitimate people had serious concerns over some views held by Dr. Paul, but it seems that those who would like to do a hatchet job on him (not you Mr. Archbold)have other agendas, and one of them is not really seeking the truth.

    I discredit Senator Santorum for credible reasons, which I can state were unequivocally his actions or words.

    I discredit Newt Gingrich for the same reasons, and I discredit Governor Romney for the same reasons.

    I could see myself supporting Bachmann, in the absence of Dr. Paul, but not any of the other candidates. I will not be voting for any other candidates based on a Thomistic understanding (not mine, but of a number of scholars--all of whom are traditional Catholic in union with Rome) of their positions which are skewed in other garner Christian support.

    In a nutshell, not understanding history (since Dr. Paul has to keep reminding us that Iran was the victim of a CIA coup in 1953) could lead to dangerous and unchristian ideas.

    You can throw stones all you want--they won't damage the fortified walls of the character of Dr. Paul.

    However, when you raise questions, be prepared to defend them or you will end up losing the argument.

    In closing, take a look at the link you attached and get to work on actually presenting a case laden with facts and historical proof that a good Catholic cannot vote for Dr. Paul.

    I'll give you a tip. The Mossad created Hamas. On the floor of the house, Ron Paul said it, and I don't recall an uproar against it from the media. They would rather avoid it all together, because they know it to be true.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et7qhnt-xeg

    For your information, respected thinkers like Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano. These distinguished men are all featured on youtube.

    We who support Dr. Paul are not robots, but we are all former neo-conservatives who decided one day to stop taking the pills we had been told to take.

    Phil O.
    leoxiii@me.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh..and one more point. I do not see any other Republicans up in arms on the NDAA bill that was passed with the language calling for the indefinite detention of American Citizens that are deemed a threat to national security. No due process. That is, no lawyer, no courts. You could literally be pulled off the street and disappear into a black hole--worse than Guantanamo Bay, and the police and the other feds cannot be prosecuted because they would have been acting under the law.

    Only Ron Paul has said this law is unconstitutional and very dangerous.

    Senator Santorum probably supports it because it means as President, he would have powers even our Kings and Queens didn't have.

    And Why does Senator Santorum endorse 'enhanced interrogation technique"? If we can rightfully rebuke pro-choicers for the term "blob of tissues" then we should call out the establishment as torturers. Semantics has no place in matter that undermine the dignity of human beings--even terrorist.

    An honest question would be:

    If you knew a mother was about to give birth to a baby who would undeniably commit heinous crimes involving terrorism or murder in the womb i.e. become an abortionist, and cause the death of millions of women, children and men, should this baby be killed in the womb because of evidence of what he or she will turn into? No!

    We do not fully understand freewill and even a movie like Minority Report will not help us to. With freewill, we as human beings are always given a chance to act--to change our minds in response to God's Love.

    No matter how we look at it, torture is wrong no matter if the form is tickling, loud music, sleeplessness, water boarding, pulling out fingernails or shocking.

    The subject is always greater than the object. What intimidates me (as the subject) into giving any information, against my will is torture, no matter what form it takes (the object).

    Phil O.
    leoxiii@me.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. "We meet again. Weekly Standard is known as a neo-conservative establishment magazine."

    Nice way to dodge the necessity of responding to the facts in the article Phil. Typical of most Ron Paul supporters.

    "I hope you do not call me racist and anti-Semite (or ban me as you did from American Catholic) for laughing at the link you posted above."

    The applicable term Phil would be close-minded. For those curious as to why I banned Phil from The American Catholic, here is the link to the thread in which it happened.




    http://the-american-catholic.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=+ron+paul&comment_status=all&pagegen_timestamp=2011-12-20+20%3A53%3A19&_total=0&_per_page=20&_page=1&paged=1&_ajax_fetch_list_nonce=c210cb1783&action=-1&comment_type&action2=-1
    "but it seems that those who would like to do a hatchet job on him"

    The truth is never a hatchet job Phil.


    "could lead to dangerous and unchristian ideas."

    Yeah, Phil like Ron Paul's idea that the Civil War could have been avoided by Lincoln giving compensated emancipation to the slave holders, an idea that Lincoln proposed throughout his career and that the slave holders rejected. Paul's ignorance in regard to history is a wonder to behold:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-civil-war/

    "they won't damage the fortified walls of the character of Dr. Paul."

    The same character that causes him to submit earmarks for pork for his district, or the same character that causes him to lie about not knowing what is in his newsletters that he made a million bucks on in 1993 alone?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The New Republic and Weekly Standard hand in hand. 'Taint that cute!

    See? See how these Trotskyites love one another?

    All are welcomed, all are welcomed, all are wel-wel-welcomed in the collective...!

    JOB

    ReplyDelete
  17. "However, when you raise questions, be prepared to defend them or you will end up losing the argument."

    Sound advice Phil.

    "In closing, take a look at the link you attached and get to work on actually presenting a case laden with facts and historical proof that a good Catholic cannot vote for Dr. Paul."

    Sure Phil. Ron Paul is a racist and an anti-semite as established by his newsletters. When confronted with what was in his newsletters he made the incredible claim that he did not know what is in his newsletters. Considering the fact that he was making millions on his newsletters, I think we can safely assume this was a lie.


    "The Mossad created Hamas."
    Actually no Phil. Hamas started out as a peaceful charity in Gaza. It became militant in 1987. Israel has been fighting against Hamas since 1989.

    "For your information, respected thinkers like Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano."

    In regard to Thomas Sowell, I do not believe he is supporting Ron Paul. You probably have him confused with another black economist Walter Williams. Pat Buchanan is an isolationist and polite anti-semite. Paul Craig Roberts is a crazy anti-semite. Thomas Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano both view Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant. That these gentlemen support Ron Paul is no surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Oh..and one more point. I do not see any other Republicans up in arms on the NDAA bill that was passed with the language calling for the indefinite detention of American Citizens that are deemed a threat to national security."

    Perhaps because it doesn't Phil:

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/new-ndaa-loopholes

    "And Why does Senator Santorum endorse 'enhanced interrogation technique"? If we can rightfully rebuke pro-choicers for the term "blob of tissues" then we should call out the establishment as torturers."

    Comparing abortion and torture Phil is obscene. Do you seriously equate in your moral calculus the waterboarding of a handful of terrorists with the abortion of a million unborn children a year? Of course Ron Paul, although personally opposed to abortion, also opposes a constitutional amendment to ban it, and, at most, would leave it up to the States, assuming he could ever get the Supreme Court to reverse Roe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Paul opposed killing of bin Laden.
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324907.php

    Paul calls Wiileaker Bradley Manning a "hero."
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324905.php

    Oh, and Paul is kind of a truther.
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/20/yes-virginia-ron-paul-is-a-911-truther-and-a-coddler-of-racists/

    Yeah, why would anyone consider this guy to be a kook?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow, McClaren, you have a smear for anyone who happens to support Ron Paul, don't you? You sure love your mass murdering for Isrul, I'll give you that!
    ***
    "Prof. Boing Boing"?? What's up with that? Are you referring to Dr Ron Paul? Medical doctor and 12 term congressman? Receives more donations from active military than any other GOP candidate? Declines to participate in the obscene congressional pension plan? Plans on working for the average American wage if elected? Not involved in "lobbying" and getting loot from the same outfits he rants about like Gingrich? The ONLY candidate against attacking and occupying third world countries that did nothing to us? The only candidate not selling out the American people to the Rockefeller-Rothschild New World Order?

    There is some SERIOUSLY poor judgment on this blog. Bradley Manning leaked video of civilians being murdered, yes that is heroic. There is nothing racist in Ron Pauls newsletters, although there is some politically incorrect comments about how rioting blacks stopped rioting when the welfare checks were distributed. How "racist" to notice that. Bin Laden deserved trial just like anyone. Sorry that I don't have absolute faith in the goodness of government agents to tell the truth...but then I'm not a state worshipper.

    And now for more name calling and smears....because none of you can refute the righteousness or Ron Pauls positions. Your positions require murder, theft, lies and oppression. Ron Pauls doesn't. No names or smears can change that.
    And blather on about how "pro-life" you are, what a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Wow, McClaren, you have a smear for anyone who happens to support Ron Paul, don't you? You sure love your mass murdering for Isrul, I'll give you that!"

    It is one thing to be a paranoid ranter. At least be a paranoid ranter who can spell.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What, don't like it when YOUR name isn't correct??What an ego! LOL! Distract, smear, ad hominem. That is your complete debate repertoire.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mr. McClarey,

    Thank you for pointing out the error I made in attributing the support for Dr. Ron Paul to Dr. Thomas Sowell, rather than to Dr. Walter Williams--the other black gentleman.

    In regards to the confusion over Dr. Ron Paul's view of Israel, it would be appropriate at this time to remind you of the appearance of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the floor of the House, where he gave a speech, stating Israel does not need our help in defending her sovereignty.

    Here is an excerpt:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51-KA-Nc3_k

    In response to your motherjones link, I have heard that argument, but just as how Democrats said there was not abortion funding in the Healthcare bill, made our good Bishops into lobbyists for the very bill that did include provisions for abortions. Sure, we could argue that in the end, the Bishops did not support the bill, but we cannot argue that it caused more confusion and even a split in the votes as evidenced by Sister Keehan's support for it. We were also told that the bill had a provision that excluded one from acting against their conscience.

    Well, one year later and for time to come, we will still be suffering from the overreach of our government into the matters of life where abortion is promoted as healthcare.

    This brings me to my point. Just because certain officials say the bill does not say this or that, does not mean we should't read it for ourselves to see what is in it. Do you have the text or language from the bill that proves your point?

    What I do have readily available is a dialogue from the house floor between Senator Levin (who said that the language to detain citizens was in the bill, and when it was going to be taken out, Obama said--no, leave it in) and an unknown Senator:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA

    And in response to the abortion concern,
    Ron Paul sees abortion as an act of violence and should be put in the hands of the states by first removing the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on such an issue.

    Having to bring in a Supreme Court majority vote is a dangerous idea, because it could last for a very long time (as it has done since 1973). It is more dangerous to put our hopes in a pro-life majority vote by the Supreme Court.

    Rather, we take it to congress and tell them that when the Supreme Court ruled on abortion, it did so unconstitutionally, and so the law provision made is illegal.

    Sure, we can try to change the justices heart, but it should not be the only goal. We should also get congress to do it's job, by removing jurisdiction from the Supreme Court in matters that do not concern it.

    Just because the statists use the tactics of bombarding the courts with bought justices or even just left-leaning justices does not mean we do the same.

    I shouldn't write this much because perhaps it will be clearer to listen to this short clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS2mViZPPKA

    That's all for now.

    Phil O.
    leoxiii@me.com

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr Archbold,

    This video below is for you to watch. It explains why Dr. Ron Paul's foreign policy is the right foreign policy approach.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo

    Phil O.
    leoxiii@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  25. Full disclosure, I am an Iowan who will of course defend the caucus process. And I take a little issue with how you protray the process - it is not accurate. Come and see - be our guest!

    Don't forget: The Iowa Caucuses made Obama. All candidates have the power to do what he did (and what you are asserting Paul is doing now). And maybe that's your larger point here. But there are 49 states who can correct any errors we as Iowans collectively make. Please don't blame the caucus.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "What, don't like it when YOUR name isn't correct??What an ego! LOL! Distract, smear, ad hominem. That is your complete debate repertoire."

    Actually it was more your inability to spell Israel correctly that raised my amused ire. That you were unable to spell my name correctly is only to be expected of a sloppy paranoid ranter.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Having to bring in a Supreme Court majority vote is a dangerous idea, because it could last for a very long time (as it has done since 1973). It is more dangerous to put our hopes in a pro-life majority vote by the Supreme Court.

    Rather, we take it to congress and tell them that when the Supreme Court ruled on abortion, it did so unconstitutionally, and so the law provision made is illegal."

    Our laws do not work that way Phil. The only way to reverse a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution is to have the Supreme Court reverse itself or to amend the Constituion. Congress cannot simply declare a Supreme Court ruling to be illegal. Congress lacks that power. Any such attempt would quickly be challenged in federal court and the result would be a foregone conclusion. There is no short cut here.

    People arguing that Congress can simply remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court simply lack any understanding of the law in this area and the constitution.

    Here is a good article detailing some of the problems with the approach of jurisdiction stripping:

    http://www8.georgetown.edu/centers/cndls/applications/postertool/index.cfm?fuseaction=poster.display&posterID=1714

    ReplyDelete
  28. "In regards to the confusion over Dr. Ron Paul's view of Israel, it would be appropriate at this time to remind you of the appearance of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the floor of the House, where he gave a speech, stating Israel does not need our help in defending her sovereignty."

    The problem Phil is that if Israel were left to her own devices, we would doubtless have a huge Middle Eastern war. Let's think this through. Ron Paul is elected President and announces that the US will no longer give any financial or military aid to Israel. He withdraws all US troops from bases in the Middle East. He announces that the US will no longer have any involvement in conflicts in the Middle East. This would send a message to Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, that it is time to move against Israel. The Iranian regime readies a nuclear weapon to be smuggled into Israel, or to be delivered by missile. Israel responds with conventional attacks initially, that will quickly go nuclear if Iran is viewed as having a credible nuclear strike weapon. Do you think the US and its interests would not be harmed by such a conflict?

    The main problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy is that he views US intervention abroad as the cause of wars. Precisely the opposite is the truth. US influence is almost always deployed to avoid conflicts, keep them small if they occur, and attempt to end them as swiftly as possible. That is the main reason that the Middle East hasn't experience a full scale Israel v. Arab states war since the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Ron Paul seems to think that the absence of US intervention would lead to peace. In the Middle East I am certain that US retreat would lead to the biggest war in our lifetimes.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's blog posts like this that make me realize how much of a joke this blog is these days.

    Lessons in logic: If "no-traction-in-the-polls" Santorum were to win the caucus, you would say the caucuses were a great platform for launching an underdog to the presidency. If Ron Paul wins it, the caucus is a horrible part of an already deteriorating electoral process. Your double standard reveals your obvious bias, because you are not reasoning logically.

    Furthermore, if Romney or Gingrich had an army of supporters half as loyal as the ones who suppport Paul, you would say, "See, he's the man to get behind." But when Paul has them, it's because they are activist and he's organized. Did you ever stop and ask, "Well wait a minute, why is it that so many people support Ron Paul? Maybe I haven't given him a fair look."

    I mean, do you really believe that a bunch of pot-smokers donated over 4 million to his campaign in an online money bomb last weekend?

    The problem with bloggers is that, after a while, they think that everything they have to say has value.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Actually it was more your inability to spell Israel correctly that raised my amused ire."

    Yes. I'm sure that is what raised your "amused ire".
    Predictably pompous response.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment