Finally facing the political reality of John McCain's presidential nomination, Republican Ron Paul has bowed out of the race. Paul tellingly didn't back the presumptive GOP nominee.
And that could spell trouble for McCain and company:
Asked recently by Newsweek what his relationship was with Sen. McCain, Rep. Paul responded: “It pretty much doesn’t exist. He has his beliefs and I have mine, and they just don’t come together very well.”
….
That lack of a relationship – if it persists - could cost Sen. McCain dearly in the fall. In Iowa, Rep. Paul drew nearly 12,000 votes in this year’s Republican caucuses, almost 2,000 more than President Bush’s margin of victory in the state in 2004. In New Mexico, the roughly 15,500 Republican primary votes cast for Rep. Paul this month were more than double Mr. Bush’s margin of victory four years ago. Together, the two states have 12 electoral votes – Iowa seven; New Mexico five – that could be in jeopardy of deserting the GOP column.
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, a former Republican, may also draw votes away from McCain. What a shame…
|
» Facing Facts
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finally accepted reality this week when he acknowledged he's not going to win the GOP's nomination. [NY Times]
|
A billion-bazillion voters are headed to the booths today, including the lavender set such as yourselves. If you're not planning to vote today, well, you should just stop reading because this doesn't concern you. Those of you who plan on voting, wish you could vote or get off on Democracy should continue on.
CONTINUED »
|
|
|
Libertarian Ron Paul isn't being very liberal with the truth.
CONTINUED »
|
"Not In My Name!"
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has distanced himself from recently unearthed and exceedingly offensive letters:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
…
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
Paul says he takes "moral responsibility" for not monitoring articles published under his name, whatever that means.
|
Presidential candidate Ron Paul is not as friendly as he looks, but his gay politics are just as old…
CONTINUED »
|
|
|
 
• Aussie fag rag DNA currently features a well lubed Ryan Barry.
• Ron Paul refuses to give up presidential fight. Until February, at least.
• Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor to play gay in adaptation of Steve Mcvicker's I Love You Phillip Morris.
CONTINUED »
|
Will Gay Journalist's Heart Be Broken? Probably.
Homo-journo Andrew Sullivan let the world know that he prefers Ron Paul to the other GOP candidates. John McCain nearly won the British-born Sullivan's political heart, but Paul's tried and true libertarian conservatism brought back memories of right wing bliss:
The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place.
Poor Sullivan. His dreams are probably going to be shattered: Rasmussen Reports reports that Paul only has 6% of the likely Republican votes. Sullivan's Democratic favorite Barack Obama, however, holds 27% of likely Democratic voters.
|
State Should Stay Out Of People's Romantic Affairs
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's libertarian roots came out full force during an interview with ABC's 20/20. Rather than taking a direct stand against gay marriage, the Texan expressed tacit approval of state-based marriages, but insisted he thinks the traditional institution should stay in the church:
John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?
Ron Paul: Sure.
Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?
Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function. I think it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that.
If only we could invent a time machine and stop the state's marital hijacking. Or, better yet, if we only people could accept the fact that the state's now part of marriage and should treat everyone equally.
We've included the video after the jump. Paul's queer comments come around the 2:20 mark.
CONTINUED »
|
Will GOP Learn An Evolutionary Lesson?
The Republicans' actions and words at this weekend's Values Voter Summit prove one thing: the party simply refuses to evolve. Editor Andrew Belonsky explains why the Grand Old Party needs to embrace change, look beyond the walls of social conservatism and expand its definition of family values.
CONTINUED »
|
