The caucus was a madhouse. The Republicans severely underestimated the number of people attending, and it was crowded beyond belief.
I met a bunch of Ron Paul supporters there, and for the most part they seemed like a bunch of childishly aggressive twerps that couldn't spell politics, much less capably vote for someone deserving. I would have voted for Fred, but then I actually met Ron Paul, who was in attendance, and got my picture with him. I told him that my father was a flight surgeon like he was, and we talked for a couple of minutes. He got my vote in the end. My friend Tony voted for Fred Thompson. Huckabee was there, but I didn't get to see him.
I knew about six people who swore they were going to support Ron Paul. One of them had to work, one of them spent the caucus at some bar in a drunken stupdor, another slept on my couch, another bluntly copped out, and the rest just didn't show. The first case aside, it takes a lot of character to blow off democracy.
There was a man named Hugh Cort at the caucucs who spoke for a while, a Republican presidential candidate I'd never heard of. After the caucus, Tony and I went to Perkins and were seated right next to him, and we talked for a couple of minutes, which I enjoyed.
And that was that.
4 comments:
I would have gone with you to support Ron Paul. I just couldn't make the commute, sorry.
Huckabee? Oh please. Again the religious (the evangelicals) are taking over the republican party, and thats exactly what people are getting sick of. I don't necessarily think Huckabee would be a bad president. But I would venture a guess that Huckabee can't win the national election.
Hey, you are forgiven.
I'm not too big on Huckabee, but I'm willing to give him a chance. The thing about the evangelicals and the Republicans is that the GOP wants their votes but doesn't want their voice to be heard. No longer will that work, methinks.
James, I'm disappointed that you've joined the scads of lunatics who want Ron Paul in office. These are the sort of people who run around yelling that 9/11 was an inside job. Disgusting.
While I understand why you support him (he is something of a libertarian, or at least as much so as you and I are[maybe more so since he ran on the libertarian ticket in 1988]) I myself could never find the intestinal fortitude to be lumped along with his other supporters.
The guy must know that he has pretty much no chance of being president, why keep up the facade? I suppose it's a ridiculous question. I mean, looking at the democrats one realizes that Mike Gravel is still campaigning.
Paul even has some right ideas for the GOP, such as steering it back to it's less taxes-smaller government routes. That having been said I don't think that's a place most republicans want to go. Legislators from both parties want more money, they just want it for different things.
Good call on the evangelicals. The Republicans are trying to split from them ideologically and it's going to hurt them big time, much like the Green Party has done to Democratic hopefuls in the past.
Ryan: In all fairness, what about the scads of lunatics that support any candidate? Nick told me that he was at the Dem caucus and he thought the Obama people were all a bunch of blithering idiots, and he likes Obama. Zach Moser voted for Obama without being able to pronounce his name.
A lot of Ron Paul detractors use guilt by association against him. Some 9/11 conspiracy people like him, so he supports their theories. On and on. Well, the Communist Party endorsed John Kerry a few years ago, but I didn't hear many people calling him a Communist. Rest assured if NAMBLA had to endorse a party, it wouldn't be the Republican party, but that doesn't mean that Democrats should be associated with them.
But I'm rambling. What I find mostly disappointing is that I always hear people complain that politicians are all crooked, yet when a remotely honest politician like Ron Paul (I'd perhaps also argue Fred Thompson) runs, the media just ridiclues them.
Post a Comment