Tag: lunacy

I love me some North Carolina loonie politicians

This is what I enjoy about living in NC: when the politicians are loonies, they are real loonies. The genuine article, madder than General Jack D. Ripper, madder than “Mad Jack” McMad, winner of last year’s Mister Madman competition.

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

First offering for your delectation: George Hutchins, who’s running against David Price for his congressional seat (which covers Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, etc). Note well the flamboyant and unrestrained use of color and, well, just “stuff” that gives his web site that certain je ne sais quoi that just screams “he’s mad as a balloon!” Looks like the web page designer got his mitts on the Big Boy box of Crayolas when mommy’s back was turned. The guy’s politics don’t matter; all sane people are morally obligated to vote against him on purely esthetic grounds.

http://mediamattersaction.org/…

And in this corner, we have long-time Uber-loonie Rep Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who states — with nary a hint of  irony (or goldy or bronzey, for that matter) — “I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing  than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.”  If she doesn’t get mad loonie props for that, then she should definitely get some for using the word “tarbaby” in an earlier public speech on the floor of Congress.

This is the kind of stuff that makes it worth dragging my butt out of bed in the morning.

Ron Paul is not a racist! Or something.

Because he is against the war, even some Democrats and liberals support Ron Paul’s candidacy for the White House. That’s because they’re not taking a close look at Paul. Unfortunately, it is necessary to help some do that. Fortunately, Paul makes it easy.

Talking Points Memo provides the video:

At Edge of the West, Ari Kelman says:

There are so many things wrong with this line of argument that I don’t even know where to start. Oh wait, yes I do. Let’s begin with: Lincoln didn’t go to war to “get rid of the original intent of the republic.” You have to know even less about history than Tim Russert – I wouldn’t have thought it possible – to say such a ridiculous thing. Or you have to be a bit too willing, eager even, to marry libertarian political ideology with neo-Confederate historical revisionism. Just to be clear: Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. That’s it. End of story. Full stop.

Also: Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. To clarify his position throughout the 1860 campaign and well into 1861, long after he was elected president without his name having appeared on a single Southern ballot, Lincoln said that slavery shoudn’t be allowed to expand into the West – a position that was part of the Republican Party (Paul’s party) platform.

(more)