To me the right-wing blogosphere is so filled with venom and nonsense that I simply can't understand it anymore. It's like they live on a different planet. The planet where George Bush is a good president and we haven't started enough wars in the Middle East. But now they've topped themselves. They've come up with one of the most inane and insane boycotts in American history -- and what's crazier is that it worked! Find out about it here:





There are still some sane conservatives left in the country -- Andrew Sullivan, George Will, Charlie Crist (who McCain is considering for a VP spot), Ron Paul, Bob Barr and even Pat Buchanan. You can disagree with these folks, but they haven't lost their minds. For the most part they have valid and interesting opinions that are worthy of debate. But the same cannot be said of the right-wing bloggers. They sound like crazed zealots to me. I guess they probably view me the same way, and that's why it feels like we're not living on the same planet.

I leave it to you to decide who makes sense and who doesn't. I know some of the readers of this blog think the Michelle Malkins of the world are clear headed and the rest of us (progressives, moderates, centrists, etc.) don't understand the existential threat we face from Rachel Ray's scarf. I don't think I'll ever reach those people. But I take some comfort in the fact that it appears about 75% of the country has seen what this brand of conservatism has wrought -- and doesn't want any piece of it.

Watch The Young Turks Here and Check Out Our You Tube Channel Here

The Republican debates have turned into a comedy and a tragedy at the same time. They openly mock anyone who has put any thought into a foreign policy issue (we don't need no stinkin' thought, we just need to go on the offense!). The one who yells for war the loudest wins (or at least gets the loudest applause from the gathered Spartans).

I feel like I'm watching a Saturday Night Live skit of what it would feel like if the Republican candidates were debating to become the leader of Sparta in the movie 300. Except it's a skit, so instead of being cool, it looks f'in ridiculous.

Look at the clip below, Huckabee actually says "gates of hell" and people cheer like crazy ... because they are:




May their God, or any other God, help us if one of these clowns gets elected as the next president.

Watch More TYT Videos Here

I'm done with any talk about how Ron Paul is a legitimate candidate. He is a Class A certifiable kook -- or the worst kind of sleazy opportunist. According to a thoroughly researched article in The New Republic, he printed some of the worst racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic rants I've seen in my lifetime in his newsletters.

Whether he personally wrote these or profited from them for decades is irrelevant. One or two times might have been a mistake that he didn't pick up on. But this amount of overwhelming material over a stretch of decades is inexcusable.

We give you some of the worst quotes in the video below:




The article itself has many more quotes and personal attacks against specific African-American politicians. And his spokesman's explanation is borderline pathetic. Jesse Benton says the material in the newsletters had "various levels of approval." When confronted with the viciously racist quotes, Benton said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no."

Most? So, which part of the incendiary stuff did he see, which did he write? They can't even bring themselves to disown the whole thing. So, was it the part where Ron Paul called New York "Zooville" and "Rapetown" in reference to minorities who lived there or was it was it when he said gay people got AIDS on purpose because they liked the attention and wanted to poison the blood supply of straight people?

Watch More Young Turks Here

Back in December I blogged about the Republican Fox News debate that didn't include Ron Paul. It turns out this has caused such a stir that the New Hampshire Republican Party has quit as a sponsor of the Fox News event.

No, the air time is too important. Ron Paul understands that.

After being "uninvited" to participate in FOX's debate Sunday night at St. Anselm College, Paul decided to purchase an hour-long television slot that evening, because "I can afford it." He raised $20 million in the fourth quarter, more than any other Republican campaign..Read More...

Winner: Barack Obama

He is on his way. Watching his speech after the victory, I am reminded of how smooth a politician he is. Agree or disagree with him (although it's hard to do either since he isn't very clear on some of the issues), you get the sense of watching a world class politician. A nine point win over Hillary is HUGE. He should now be considered the front-runner.

Loser: Hillary Clinton

Three strikes against her: 1) She got killed by nine points. 2) She came in third, behind Edwards as well. 3) She didn't even break 30%.

Now the infighting will begin in her campaign. She is a juggernaut, so she won't be knocked out by this, but it does do serious damage. She just got knocked down; let's see how she responds when she gets back up.

Winner: John McCain

He wins even though he came in fourth. That's because Mitt Romney suffers the most in this and McCain would love a two man race between Huckabee and himself. If McCain can win in New Hampshire, he might get his wish.

Loser: Mitt Romney

Spent a gagillion dollars in Iowa and lost to Huckabee who spent thirteen bucks. In fact, he lost big. Getting your ass handed to you in one of the states that was supposed to propel you forward is not a good sign, to say the least. People just don't like this guy.

Here is a quick synopsis of our live coverage tonight (including an analysis of how Ron Paul might effect the race):




Watch More Young Turks Here

A Presidential candidate who has received 129,000+ donations resulting in more than 18 Million dollars this quarter has been excluded from debating on Fox News in a key television debate January 6th, which is just two days before the New Hampshire Primary.

Although it appears it was the New Hampshire State Republican Party that blocked Paul, we should remember that Fox News doesn't have a kind track record with Ron Paul.

What is interesting is when you consider what brought them to the decision to block Paul. The only reports that I have seen is that Fox News is "scared." But I would like to find a better explanation, USA is the beacon for Democracy in the world, right?

NH Fox News Debate Lineup (According to the AP - 6th story down)
Candidate - NH Polling Percentage (1/2) - Invited or Not
Mitt Romney - 28%/31.4% - Invited!
John McCain - 25%/25.8% - Invited!
Rudy Giuliani - 14%/12.8% - Invited!
Mike Huckabee - 10%/10.6% - Invited!
Ron Paul - 8%/7% - Not Invited!
Fred Thompson - 3%/3.4% - Invited!

In the video below, we prove without a shadow of a doubt that Huckabee's staff intended to have a white window pane in the background appear as a cross in his Christmas ad:




Besides which, his whole ad is about how Christian he is and he says the most important thing is the birth of Christ. This ad is not about subtlety and his real message is: I am the real Christian in this race.

The worst part is that it is wrapped in a sugar-coated, sickeningly saccharine coating (you can watch the whole ad and Ron Paul's fantastic response to it here). Are Americans still this naive that they're going to fall for this cheesy dude in the red sweater pretending he cares more about you because he is with Jesus Christ?

I'm afraid of the answer to that question.

Watch More Young Turks Videos Here

Just in case you Ron Paul Fans haven't seen this video. This documentary will be airing next week on PBS.

The movie is "V for Vendetta." The slogan is "Remember the fifth of November." And it helped Ron Paul raise $4.2 million in one day. We explain below:



I have to be honest, I don't get the Ron Paul obsession. Who are these people? Are they all libertarians? I understand being opposed to the Iraq War and the abuses of the constitution. I understand wanting to go back to a truly limited government. But Cong. Paul goes way beyond that. He talks about abolishing major chunks of our government. I can't believe there are enough people that believe in that radical an idea. Maybe they view it as fun and games, but they can't be serious about disbanding the FBI, the IRS and about half the federal government. It's silly.

I admire their organization, their passion for the cause and what they have been able to accomplish. I'm not just saying that in some annoying, patronizing way. I am being very literal. I am not sure anyone on my side (whatever my side is) has been able to do anything similar. But no one has been able to explain to me how they would seriously carry out these grandiose proposals. Or more importantly, whether that would actually be good for the country. So far, I am definitely not convinced.

Watch More Young Turks Videos Here

Ron Paul fans are trying to break through the media today. Paul has been gaining more financial support and the campaign is rallying around the 5th of November to try and break the single day record for contributions, What that record is, I don't know, but they say if they can raise $10 Million today that will do it. Either way, in the time it took me write that last sentence this graph when from 350K to 375K.

Paul will get blasted by hardcore Rudy and Hillary fans, but watching his web momentum is fun, and there is no doubt that his campaign is starting to make money. So I will leave you with this video, tip to Dag at videosift. That graph is now up to 400K (12:40 PST.) Which reminds me I should go to bed, but first if you want to donate, visit the Ron Paul website.

Interesting reaction from the Oct 21st Republican Presidential Debate.
(from TPM)

Ron Paul gets irate with the always irate Bill O'Reilly. Paul is the only anti-war Republican running for President.

He mentions the word "blowback" a lot; the first time I heard the word was while watching the documentary "Why We Fight." I may have posted this clip in the past, but it's worth seeing again. Here is Chalmers Johnson.

*Editing this in, since I hadn't even seen this clip before I posted this: Fox News moderators in the debate accused Paul of taking "Marching orders from Al Qaeda." Arguably the worst moderating I have seen, as Paul ends up having to debate the moderators?!?

During this debate season, Fox News decided to add "cell phone voting" to the post-debate analysis. After the first debate, Ron Paul won the cell phone vote, much to the displeasure of the Fox News pundits (youtube video from that debate here.)

The second Fox News debate was no different. Pundits Hannity and Colmes assure the audience that Ron Paul is winning the poll simply because people are redialing. What is the point of having a poll if people are able to abuse it? Ron Paul supporters, a bit tired of being beaten down by the media, put together this video to debunk the Hannity and Colmes "redialing theory."

I am curious to know if Fox News viewers would like to see each candidate treated fairly, or if they prefer that the newscasters go as far as lying to make some candidates look worse than others.

At last night's fourth Republican debate, there were several heated moments, most involving Ron Paul, who continues to be the maverick anti-war candidate.

It was interesting to see him tangle with other politicians, particularly Mike Huckabee, and he drew a decent amount of applause, but there was one disconcerting phenomenon: every time he started to talk, one of the other candidates started to laugh.

You can hear some of it on this video montage of Paul's answers (laughter at 6:40, for example, when Chris Wallace is asking about Paul's plan to eliminate American intelligence-gathering enterprises). Who is it? Rudy Giuliani? Whoever it is, it seems disrespectful. I'm not saying this because I have a horse in this race, necessarily, but because it seems tonally so wrong.

Several people responding to my earlier post about the peculiar libertarianism of Ron Paul--the kind that values noninterventionism over freedom--objected to my citing the founders and the Declaration of Independence. My point was that the Declaration doesn't say "all Americans are created equal," it says "all men." This implies that freedom and inalienable rights are not only for Americans; rather they are universal rights "endowed by our Creator."

In response to my argument, some Ron Paul supporters have noted that the American founders warned against foreign entanglements and that they generally kept American troops within the nation's borders. So how can the ideological universalism of the founders be reconciled with their practical caution? Easy: the founders realized that America at the time had very big ideals but very little power. America in the late eighteenth century was what we would today call a "developing nation." It was simply not in a position to promote freedom abroad. The founders had their hands full in trying to secure it at home.

Lincoln once said that the framers declared the rights so that the promotion and implementation of those rights could follow when the circumstances permitted. Today America is the world's sole superpower, and that means that our ideals are backed up with wealth and power. True, we should use that power prudently, but we should not imagine ourselves constrained in the same way that the founders were. Might, it is sometimes said, does not make right. But neither does right by itself make might. Might is sometimes necessary to ensure that right prevails in the world.