TOP

Why Doesn’t Iowa Pick The Winners?

If you’re following the Presidential primary on the GOP side, you’ve probably heard that Iowa has failed to pick the eventual nominee 3 of the last 5 times. It surprises people a lot of times, but it really shouldn’t.

The difference between Iowa and, let’s say South Carolina, is not the Republican voter (they are actually pretty similar, except that farm issues play a more important role in Iowa). The difference is time.

In 2008, some candidates had been running for OVER A YEAR before the Iowa Caucuses (late 2006). This year too, most of the candidates officially got in the race several months ago. In other words, the candidates have months to prepare for the Iowa Caucuses. But things move very fast after that.

After Iowa, there are only 7 days until New Hampshire.

After New Hampshire, there are only 10 days until South Carolina.

After South Carolina, there are only 10 days until Florida.

After Florida, there are only 4 days until Nevada and Maine.

After Nevada and Maine, there are only 3 days until Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota.

And we’re only a week into February at this point. Perhaps you’re beginning to see what I’m getting at here.

With six months or more, it’s possible for even the most incompetent and understaffed campaign team to lay the groundwork for victory providing they have a damn good candidate. For argument’s sake, let’s say Rick Santorum wins Iowa because he’s the most conservative candidate. He now has to move his entire campaign team to South Carolina (he’s smart enough to skip New Hampshire) and try laying the same winning ground work they had in a matter of only 15 days (1 for travel, 1 for the primary). That’s pretty much impossible.

Mike Huckabee had much the same problem in 2008. Only after Iowa, instead of going to South Carolina, Huckabee campaigned in New Hampshire. And after that, he went to Michigan; which moved their primary up really far. Huckabee lost both those states (one might say that was inevitable). By the time he got to South Carolina, he had moved his entire campaign team THREE times, had more losses than victories, and ignored South Carolina while Fred Thompson was in the state assailing him mercilessly with nobody in the state to respond. Huckabee eventually lost South Carolina, too.

Granted, in hindsight, I’m glad he lost. However, that doesn’t mean what happened shouldn’t be examined and studied by those of us who have since defected.

Ultimately, it seems as though anybody can win Iowa if they have the right politics for the Republican voters in that state because time isn’t an issue. However, the lack of time after Iowa forces us to conclude that only the candidates with the most elite and well funded campaign teams will be able to win the nomination.

That’s not necessarily a good or bad thing.

Read More
TOP

Goodnight Sweet Prince: An Obituary for Kim Jong-il

20111220-073018.jpgLast weekend, the world lost a precious gem when Kim Jong-il, the supreme and dear leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, passed away at the age of 69. According to North Korean television, Kim Jong-il died from overwork and exhaustion associated with maintaining the amazing standard of living known in North Korea. However, we are slowly learning that Kim Jong Il may have died from his exhaustion and wounds after defeating Chuck Norris, who has not been seen or heard from in several weeks. If this is true, we can all rest assured knowing that Kim Jong-il died so that our sins may not be punished by Chick Norris.

Kim Jong-il, a trendsetter in fashion and a man of impeccable class, was survived by his loving wife Kim Young-sook; three loving mistresses; his three sons Kim Jong-nam, Kim Jong-chul, and the most loyal Kim Jong-un; and his daughter Kim Sul-song. These were not his only children, however, as he regarded himself as the father of every North Korean citizen.

The legacy of Kim Jong-il will live on forever as the man who created a nuclear weapon for the North Korean people and the mastermind who invented the hamburger.

Now, it will be up to the young Kim Jong-un to continue the incredible and inspiring work done by his father and grandfather before him.

Goodnight, sweet prince. Your children are in good hands.

Read More
TOP

Food Shortages in Venezuela

One characteristic of countries living with communist economies is the presence of food shortages. Venezuela is no exception. Beef, a cornerstone of the Venezuelan winter diet, is nowhere to be found. If you’re lucky, you’ll find pork, but even supplies of that are running low. Making matters worse, it’s getting harder for the Venezuelan people to find fresh fruit at reasonable prices.

The reason for this is pretty obvious. The communist government is going out of its way to record and regulate all economic activity in their country in order to tax those evil, sulfur-scented people trying to make money by selling necessities like food to the proletariat and cap prices to control their profits, all while inflation is up nearly 30% in Venezuela. As a result, there’s a lot less incentive and a lot less capital to make the investments necessary to produce enough food for the people.

Where is it going to end? Isn’t it obvious? The people are going to get really hungry and, educated or not, they’re going to know it’s their government and not the United States that’s responsible for their misfortune. In large part, their going to see their neighbors in Columbia maintaining the standard of life Venezuelans once had prior to Chavez. More and more, the people are going to turn against Hugo Chavez and his pawns and want them out of office. Coincidentally, more and more, the people are going to realize their “free and fair elections” aren’t so free or fair.

Like with most Latin-American dictatorships, the Chavez regime will eventually cave when it can no longer keep its obligations to its military. Whether the military no longer attacks protesters or just overthrows the regime, I have no idea, but Chavez will eventually fall. Of course, getting an entire country back on its feet is going to take a really long time and it’s going to probably lead to more violence and mayhem that will probably spread through the region.

The United States, and the Nixon administration in particular, received a lot of flak for installing US-friendly dictators in Latin-American countries during the Cold War. The objective, of course, was to contain communism and that led to some really shady partnerships around the world. Our shared goal of containing communism was actually how our previously friendly relationships with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were started.

However horrible these dictators might have been, they did provide a level of economic and international security for the people in those countries relative to what they would know under neo-Leninist communism and its inevitable aftermath.

Now, I’m not advocating a renewal of the policies that led to these dictatorships around the world. The fact that we’ve supported these dictatorships in the past (and the present in oil-rich Arab nations) plays an undeniable role in why we’re so despised in the underdeveloped world. However, that doesn’t mean – as one Presidential idiot with a lot of tin foil hat supporters would argue – that we should just walk away because it doesn’t concern us.

IT DOES CONCERN US! The more turmoil there is in Latin America, the more that turmoil will spill over our southern border. The more economic instability that exists in the region, the more farmers will turn to drug cartels to feed their families and the more readily available illegal drugs will be here in the United States. Of course, Ron Paul’s fix to this is to simply legalize drugs like heroin and cocaine. Here in Porter County, every two or three years, drug fiends will rob a gas station in the dead of night and killing the clerks in the process. Sure, the process of dealing the drugs might be safer, but how the addicts get their fix will be bloodier than ever when even more Americans tragically get hooked on these dangerous narcotics.

While installing dictatorships in Latin America is certainly the wrong thing to do, we shouldn’t turn our backs on our neighbors. As we’ve heard during some of these debates, we need to make it beneficial to be a democratic ally of the United States. That means providing trading incentives and military support when appropriate. In some cases, providing a US military presence would be beneficial, too. Believe it or not, our foreign bases actually provide some of the best ambassadors our country can send out: men and women who love the United States so much that they volunteered to serve our nation. And just like our domestic military bases, foreign bases provide enormous economic boosts to the communities surrounding them.

Unfortunately, where we often lose our way is expecting a government to provide tactical or strategic support for an immediate mission rather than expecting the preservation of certain constitutional liberties for the people in those countries.

For the good of the people in these countries and the stability of our western hemisphere, we need to stay actively involved in the troubles of our American neighbors.

Read More
TOP

Very Early Post-Iowa Dropout Predictions

Earlier this morning, I wrote a post containing my early predictions for the 2012 Iowa Caucuses. Now, as I promised, an equally early prediction of who will drop out after the Caucuses.

Ready? Here are my drop-out picks.

1. Rick Santorum

And…?

And nothing. That’s my list. Let’s first discuss Rick Santorum before going into why the others aren’t on the list. Rick Santorum has had a hell of a tough time convincing people he can be President. I’m not sure what it is, but he doesn’t look Presidential. When you look at and listen to him, you think of the kids who got their lunch money stolen from them in grade school… and possibly into college. You don’t see the powerful and inspirational leader the people want to have at the helm. On paper, Rick Santorum should be a top tier candidate and the damage he would cause President Obama in Pennsylvania and the mid-west would be catastrophic for Democrats.

Rick Santorum’s shortcoming was his failure to convince people he would make a strong leader… Which is sad because Santorum was (and likely still is) a very strong conservative leader.

Rick Santorum said in a recent radio interview with Sean Hannity (I hate Sean Hannity – I caught this flipping through radio stations looking for the debate last night) that he would consider a second place finish in Iowa a victory. I think if he places 3rd, it would be a victory. And if he placed third, I think he would be inclined to stay in the race. The problem is that he’s more likely to finish in 7th than 3rd (or 4th, for that matter). To Santorum’s credit, he knows when he’s licked and I suspect he’ll get out after a 4th or lower place finish.

Contrast former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum with novice Congress woman Michele Bachmann, who will stay in the race unless she finishes dead last. Bachmann has the ego it takes to be President; but not the brain cells, experience, or leadership talents. Unfortunately for us AND herself, Bachmann doesn’t know when to throw in the towel because she’s too busy listening to herself make stupid noise to look at poll numbers. Coming in last place might get the message across, but I think last place is going to be Jon Huntsman’s trophy in Iowa. Bachmann will give up after she loses in South Carolina.

Jon Huntsman will stay in only because Iowa isn’t important to him. Even before the Governor began campaigning, Huntsman was spending all of his time and energy in New Hampshire. He’s not winning there either, but his staff and supporters at least deserve the chance to vote for him. He’ll give them that much, but he’ll drop out of he doesn’t finish in the top two or three there. If that somehow happens, he’ll drop out after losing in Florida.

Rick Perry is in so many ways the Fred Thompson of 2011/2012. He rode in on a giant wave of support that he utterly destroyed by stumbling every chance he got. He’s also going to hang around until after South Carolina to do as much damage as he can to Mitt Romney or whoever else he doesn’t like.

Ron Paul is about as stupid as Michele Bachmann. The only difference is that he at least has a base of support, albeit an unbathed and socially dysfunctional base of support. He’s not going to win anything, either.

Newt Gingrich will stay in unless he places 4th or lower because of his New Hampshire momentum and popularity in South Carolina. Mitt Romney will stay in until at least Florida.

A lot can happen in two weeks. Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin my play kingmaker, Newt might ditch his wife, Mitt Romney might stop using hair products… Okay, maybe I’m pushing it with that last one. My point is that a lot can still happen and these predictions assume that none of it will.

Read More
TOP

Very Early Iowa Prediction

I’m proud of myself. I didn’t get sucked into any of the GOP candidates’ campaigns. Granted, it can be fun helping to make a candidate, but none of the GOP field really deserved any support (let alone mine). Still, people get crazy this time of year; and the Iowa contest is right around the corner.

Well, I missed last night’s debate with the exception of a few minutes on the radio where Bachmann was doing her damnedest to make Ron Paul look smart during their argument over Iran. I also heard Newt’s comments about rebalancing power by subpoenaing judges who make controversial decisions. That’s an interesting idea, but it works both ways. What happens when a Democrat-controlled Congress subpoena a conservative judge for an anti-abortion decision? I think there are better ways to reign in the courts.

Anyway, my point is that I don’t know how the last debate will affect the turnout in Iowa. However, I’ve been asked for an early prediction, so here it goes.

1. Mitt Romney
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Ron Paul
4. Rick Perry
5. Michele Bachmann
6. Rick Santorum
7. Jon Huntsman

Here’s why.

Very recent polling has suggested Gingrich’s numbers are slipping in the Hawkeye state. That’s in large part to everyone else attacking the candidate leading the anti-Romney bandwagon with the most momentum. The result of which is that Newt Gingrich is vulnerable in Iowa. Mitt Romney knows that if Newt wins Iowa, Newts strong poll numbers in New Hampshire and South Carolina will propel him to the nomination.

For Mitt Romney to win the nomination, Gingrich has to lose Iowa. It doesn’t have to be Romney that wins Iowa, as long as its anybody but Newt. The problem is that the only candidate in position to beat him is Mitt Romney. Not only does he have the support, but Mitt Romney also has the aged infrastructure he built four years ago.

Aged or not, however, it doesn’t matter. Newt, not having spent enough time campaigning, lacks the infrastructure all together. That’s a tactical advantage for Romney, who hasn’t spent much time in Iowa this time around, either.

That will change. Knowing he can’t let Newt win this first contest, Mitt will probably spend much of the next three weeks in Iowa. Unless there are any enormous events; such as a Huckabee, Palin, or Cain endorsement; I predict Mitt will win Iowa.

Newt will come in second. In the polls, Ron Paul is in a close third place. That tells me one of two things: either Iowans are really stupid or the participation in this year’s contest is really low. I suspect the latter. Ron Paul’s strong showing at the Iowa Straw Poll was in large part because so few people cared enough about the candidates to travel to Ames.

However, low turnout and a close third or not, Ron Paul will come in a distant third (maybe even fourth). There are two major reasons for this. The first is that Iowa is a caucus state. If you don’t know how it works, I’ll make it easy to understand. A room of Iowans gather from the same precinct (1,874 of them). They listen to pitches from the campaigns, make pitches themselves, and then vote. Each room elects a delegate from their county to the state convention, which determines who to send to the GOP National Convention. In other words, unless you win a room, you’re not going to win a delegate. This has a way of separating top tier candidates from bottom tier candidates. Ron Paul’s idiot brigade in Iowa isn’t going to have the majority in many of the precincts, which will deflate his numbers.

THE SECOND REASON why Ron Paul will under preform is because he just does. Ron Paul’s demographic is very vocal and very annoying, but a lot of them are too lazy to register to vote; and if they are registered, they are either too apathetic or stoned to get themselves out to do it. You remember that smelly kid who wore the same two hoodies everyday in school? He still smells and now he supports Ron Paul.

When Iowans Caucus, a few libertarian-minded conservatives considering Ron Paul despite of his wackiness will see the quality (or lack thereof) of the people making a pitch for Ron Paul and decide they don’t want anything to do with these losers. In addition to have never showered in the past year, Ron Paul’s supporters are exceptionally rude, inconsiderate, and just unagreeable “people” in general. Civilized people just don’t like them.

Rick Perry will probably come in fourth, but his traditional conservative message and recent faith-based messages may play well enough to put him over Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann are going to be in a battle for 5th place. Rick Santorum probably has the highest “favorable” rating of any candidate, which may make him a lot of people’s second choice if they are convinced not to vote for Romney, Gingrich, or Perry. Bachmann is just riding the Sarah Palin wave. She’s a woman with a big mouth but inferior brain. I still like Elizabeth Dole, so I don’t have a problem with women. It just do happens that these two (Palin and Bachmann) are obnoxious. Luckily for them, obnoxious seems to be the new black (or red?) in the Republican Party. I think Bachmann will win only because her support early in the campaign have her a networking connection Rick Santorum never managed to build for himself.

Jon Huntsman will probably come in last since he’s focused his efforts in New Hampshire.

Tonight, I’ll give my predictions for who will drop out after Iowa.

Read More
TOP

China’s First Aircraft Carrier and Why It’s A Big Deal

20111215-065303.jpgThe world is getting one of its first unclassified looks at the Aircraft Carrier Varyag. What kind of name is Varyag for an aircraft carrier, you wonder? It’s a Chinese name. And no, this they aren’t selling to us. It’s China’s first aircraft carrier and its size rivals the largest counterparts in the US fleet.

Officially, China says the aircraft carrier Varyag will be used for research and training purposes. Perhaps they want to research how they as the world’s largest polluter are damaging the world ecosystem? And perhaps they want to do military training for blowing it up.

Of course, China shouldn’t be trusted at its word on this one.

Now, many of you may think the era of Naval power is long over. Therefore, this aircraft carrier was a colossal waste of money and time, but is otherwise no big deal. That’s not entirely true.

That misconception is probably rooted in the fact that all of the United States’ conflicts since WWII, and all of the world’s conflicts for that matter, have featured third world countries with land access (except the Falklands). The overwhelming majority of these conflicts have involved asymmetric warfare, too. If Osama bin Laden had access to carriers, stealth bombers, and other modern weapons, he wouldn’t have been a terrorist, but a respected world leader in the Arab world.

China is not quite as inadequate to fight a traditional conflict. Just ask the bruised and battered people of occupied Tibet. Since then, the People’s Liberation Army of China has literally copied the plans for many high-tech Soviet and Russian weapon systems and begun producing their own versions of them. They still aren’t more capable than the United States systems, but the gap is slowly closing.

So why is this a big deal, again? Two words: Force Projection.

No, that’s not what happens when a Jedi throws something with the Force. We’d be totally screwed if China had that.

Force projection is a nation’s geographic ability to create a show of force. China’s capabilities with its troops behind their own borders and no significant international bases is limited to its immediate neighbors.

By contrast, the global system of US military installations gives us the ability to create a show of force almost anywhere in the world. Coincidentally, this is why Russia was so upset over US bases north of Afghanistan. Even though our force was aimed south, an aggressive military force on the border of the Russian Federation was totally unwelcome.

The importance of responding to a global conflict anywhere in the world from all direction is critically important and proof that Ron Paul is an idiot. Our international bases play an important role in force projection.

But just as significantly are our Aircraft Carriers. Within days (or less), US Airpower can be at full strength anywhere in the world. It sends a VERY strong message to whoever receives it: STAND DOWN OR ELSE!

Well, pretty soon, China is going to have that ability.

Jon Huntsman and other politicians think China is simply an economic threat to the United States. In fact, they are in the verge of becoming a military threat to our allies and our interests, too.

Read More
TOP

Occupy Moscow?

Protests illustrate that communism still survives in fringe radical corners of Russian society.

Not quite, but anywhere between 25,000 to 50,000 nationalist, liberal, and communist protesters gathered in Moscow earlier today… now yesterday over there… to protest recent parliamentary elections; which they argue were rigged. Smaller protests like it were held in other cities across the Russian Federation, including St. Petersberg (about 7,000 showed up there). The protests were peaceful and when the people dispersed, police (which were obviously out in force) had arrested nobody. I suspect the people knew Moscow was too freaking cold to occupy, so they wouldn’t have been able to do it without killing themselves.

However, the political leaders using this protest promised that an even larger crowd of protesters would return on December 24th. That very likely will happen, since today’s protest was completely peaceful and people won’t be afraid of getting hit by a rubber bullet when the communists start their usual behavior against authorities.

I want you to think about this, however. In a country that is supposedly entirely controlled by Vladimir Putin and his United Russia Party, why are dissident movements like this allowed? Freedom of Assembly in an authoritarian dictatorship isn’t generally permitted. Even the Russian news networks; which are largely controlled by the state; reported on the protests. And the bloggers who helped incite the protest in Moscow and tell people about the protest? Well, even though some of the bloggers have been arrested, their Russian-hosted websites are still online. The police, while present, made no aggressive moves to shut down the protests… something that was common during the eras of the Soviet Union and the Czar before then.

The real problem these people have is that Vladimir Putin wants to be President again and the people of Russia like him enough to elect him back into the Presidency. Vladimir Putin, regardless of what we may think of the man and his relations with the outside world, is ENORMOUSLY popular in his country and he’s going to be re-elected legitimately.

Read More
TOP

A Question to Mitt Romney Supporters

20111206-075903.jpgIt’s no secret that I haven’t been a fan of Mitt Romney. I find the man as unlikable as that stubborn growth on the inside of my left middle toe that you don’t want to know about. However, like that disgusting growth, there’s a very real possibility that I may be stuck with him.

I was talking to a friend about this last night (Mitt Romney, not my toe growth), and the topic of Romney’s Plan for America came up. The truth of the matter is that Mitt Romney’s platform is a very strong one that any conservative could get behind. (Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t conservatives, they’re inbred descendants of French Anarchists)

So what’s the problem with Mitt Romney? He used to be a liberal.

But, as my friend pointed out, Rick Perry used to be a Democrat, going as far as playing an important role in Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Heck, Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. The difference is that Perry and Reagan both governed their states as conservatives. They won some battles, they lost others, but we’re all in agreement that they at least governed as conservatives.

Mitt Romney governed as a liberal, but came over to the right towards the end of his term, while considering a run for President. While this has always been suspicious to me, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his conservative conversion was sincere.

The question I pose to Romney supporters is this: What evidence do you have that Mitt Romney would be a good conservative leader?

He’s proven he’s an effective progressive leader, but we’re yet to see him lead as a conservative any more than the growth on my toe.

Read More
TOP

Cain’s Character Assassination Conspiracy

20111202-075116.jpgHerman Cain is in trouble, and I’m not talking about his presidential campaign. Up until now, Cain’s wife has heard of most of the accusers, supposedly because Cain was honest about her concerning possible upcoming lawsuits. Well, Mrs. Cain has never heard of this latest accuser. DESPITE the fact that Herman Cain admits to befriending her 13 years ago and giving her money to “help pay the bills.”

If nothing for nothing else, Cain should be credited for secretly supporting his secret mistresses, unlike Jesse Jackson.

Cain still denies having a sexual affair with his secret friend. That seems like a long shot. I’m not even married and my fiancée has been briefed on all of my friends, former friends, and ex-girlfriends.

Now, I have helped friends out with their bills before, including helping them make a security deposit on an apartment or getting a ticket to fly home for Christmas. I’m guessing about half of those friends were female. All but one has paid me back.

The difference between Cain and myself is that Cain kept this person a secret from his wife for 13 to 14 years. Therefore, one must conclude, he was keeping the fact that he was giving this woman money a secret, as well. That’s the problem. He was taking from his marriage, if not sexually then financially; and spending it on a secret friend.

Cain’s response to this is that his critics are engaging in “character assassination.” That smells like a conspiracy theory to me… either that, or the guy who just sat in front of me on the train is another Ron Paul supporter who believes deodorant would eventually kill him.

Look, there have been several women from various social, economic, and political (including TEA Party) circles that have come out and claimed sexual harassment. A couple have filed lawsuits. Now we find out that Cain has had a woman he paid money to over the course of 13+ years… WHICH HE NEVER MENTIONED TO HIS WIFE!

Now, am I expected to believe that the liberal media has been planning for the demise of Herman Cain since 1998 when they planted a needy woman for Cain to give money to (but not a job). That the Democratic political machine always created a distraction when Cain meant to tell his wife about this friend he was giving money to? Am I expected to believe that Obama has enough pull with the TEA Party crowd that a huge supporter of Cain’s own political views would step forward in front of the national media and claim to have been harassed by Cain?

It seems to me that the “Character Assassination” conspiracy being put forward by Cain just about as reasonable as the rhetoric put forward by Ron Paul, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, and the guy sitting in front of me on the train, who reeks like rotting flesh.

Cain seriously needs to drop out of this race. At this time, all he is doing is taking away votes and support from whoever will be the Republican’s anti-Romney candidate in Iowa.

I sincerely hope Cain does have at least an ounce of character (you can’t assassinate the character of a man who lacks character) and decides to do the right thing by fixing his marriage and undoing the damage he has caused his family.

Blaming others for your own mistakes isn’t a trait we want to see in our leaders. It isn’t a trait we like to see in anyone. When you screw up, fess up to it and try to make things right. That’s character. That’s manliness. That’s leadership.

Read More
TOP

Mourdock is “Too Goofy For Words”

Earlier today, Senator Lugar released an ad featuring clips from the Indiana Week In Review.  Obviously, that’s the video above.

Now, before all you Ron Paul supporters start crying about Senator Lugar’s negative ad, Treasurer Mourdock and his shameless advocates have spent the past months slandering the reputation of our good Senator and falsely representing his record on occasions too numerous to count.  If you can’t take what you dish out, go back to painting each other’s toe-nails purple and stay out of the way of the Republican Party and conservative statesmen like Dick Lugar.

With that said, let’s do an honest review of the ad.

First of all, I don’t like it.  With the kind of budget the Lugar campaign has, I would have expected a little higher production value.  This is something that could have just as easily been pieced together by any pro-Lugar blogger… the only problem is that none of us have ever heard of the Indiana Week In Review, let alone program our computer DVRs to capture video of it.

I also personally despise ads that use the “Head-On” tactic.  In other words, ads that say the same thing the same way a few times.

The flip side to that, I SUPPOSE, is the “Head-On” strategy.  Sure, everyone finds it really freaking annoying; but it really freaking works, too.  Even if I don’t like the ad, “Too Goofy For Words” is stuck in my head.  More importantly, several months from now, I’m sure I’ll remember the phrase and describe Mourdock or whatever other foolish, half-crazed ideas he comes up with as “Too Goofy For Words.”

Furthermore, it’s an awesome phrase from the propaganda standpoint.  Not only does it instantly discredit Mourdock, but it gives the common person an easy out when a Ron Paul Mourdock nut-case tries to press them for more informatio

n.  It also gives those of us who stay on top of these things an easy out when we don’t want to smell their week-old body odor anymore.

Anyway, as much as I dislike it, it’s a good ad.

Read More