I’m Rubber, and You’re the Weekly Standard
Dean Barnett says irony is for suckers:
Everything [Ron Paul] sees is a threat of biblical proportions.
Can I get an “Awesome!” Hugh Hewitt’s fluffer, in the club newsletter of ZOMG the New Hitler! Society of America, aghast at the speck in Brother Paul’s eye. Suggestion for Dr. Ron: Tell everyone the gold standard is like Munich 1938. Remember, it doesn’t have to make sense.
Comment by Doc Nebula —
November 7, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
What does the ‘z’ in ZOMG stand for?
Actually, if the OMG is anything but ‘Oh My God’ I don’t know what any of the letters stand for.
Sometimes you just have to let art flow over you.
Comment by Underpants Gnome —
November 7, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
The the Z ups the implied shrillness level.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
November 7, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
The “z” is because you hit the Z key while reaching to hold down the shift key so you could type OMG in all-caps.
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 7, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Now see, I didn’t know that. Thanks, Tom!
Comment by r€nato —
November 7, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
the things you learn when you hang with blog nerds.
Comment by Karen —
November 7, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Thanks to all of your for explaining that one.
Now, why do some people type the number 1 in the middle of a line of exclamation points?
Comment by Karen —
November 7, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Oh, and even the lamest of discussions about blog and texting conventions beats pretty much anything the Weekly Standard ever prints.
Comment by sglover —
November 7, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Beautiful!
And here’s what makes it even better. I was trying to figure out, what’s that make good ol’ Alan Greenspan, Churchill or Chamberlain? And then I realized — it simply depends on what snake oil you’re pushing at the moment!
Comment by mds —
November 7, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Shift key slippage again.
Also, apparently ZOMG would occur with a Dvorak keyboard as well, only with the hands reversed. What a crazy world we live in.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 7, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
This may have been a subtle joke, but it can happen if you are a poor typist and let go of the shift key. It’s been parodied by people doing streams of 1s or even spelling out “oneoneeleven” at the end of a sarcastic burst of exclamation points.
Comment by Thers —
November 8, 2007 @ 1:02 am
You know, I’m a proud lefty, & all, but I was wondering:
Why is Ron Paul considered more nuts than Rudy Giuliani?
I honestly don’t get it. The things I think Paul is wrong about, at least won’t get anyone killed. The things I know Rudy is wrong about, will create horribly stupid wars. And torture. Lots of torture.
I mean, if it’s a question of who to trust with the nuclear trigger, Ron or Rudy, it’s not even close.
Comment by ajay —
November 8, 2007 @ 5:39 am
11: seriously? It’s because the nuts ideas that Paul has are shared with no one except manifest nuts. The nuts ideas that Rudy has are shared with lots of people who are regarded, rightly or wrongly, as “sane” and treated as such by the political and media communities.
Analogy: it’s as if Paul is saying “The Freemasons are poisoning the wells” while Rudy is saying “the Communists have infiltrated the State Department”. Both ideas are nuts, but only people who are obviously completely nuts believe the former, while lots of people who are otherwise apparently sane believe the latter.
Comment by Pug —
November 8, 2007 @ 9:23 am
The nuts ideas that Rudy has are shared with lots of people who are regarded, rightly or wrongly, as “sane 
Actually, these people consider themselves “serious”. I’m talking about Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes (who is the ultimate Bush butt-kisser) and various other “Fox All-Stars”.
If someone disagrees with their lunacy, they sniff petulantly and point our that they are “not serious”. It’s the ultimate put down. At least that’s what they think.
Personally, when I listen to William Kristol all I can think is, “Are you serious?”
Paul is an old school nut. We’ve had his kind of nut around for generations and they really aren’t that dangerous. They are more like kooks, really, than nuts.
Comment by bbartlog —
November 8, 2007 @ 11:20 am
An old school nut, eh? I’ve heard him voice some peculiar concerns that seem unfounded (e.g. ‘the UN wants to confiscate our guns’). But basically, the question is whether he’s right about this:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
If his analysis there is correct, then his minor ventures into paranoia fade into insignificance when compared with this. If his analysis is wrong, then he is indeed a loon, albeit one with a more consistent internal worldview than most.
Personally, I’m betting on Paul being right about monetary policy. He’s spent a lot of his life studying it. He’s also been right about a few other things (like the housing bubble).
Comment by Joe Strummer —
November 8, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Paul is an old school nut. We’ve had his kind of nut around for generations and they really aren’t that dangerous. They are more like kooks, really, than nuts.
Bush’s real power doesn’t come from holding the office of the president – that’s just so he can convey honors to Gary Becker. The real power comes from the people around him who have captured the bureaucratic levers of power – cf. Richard Cheney.
Kooks are the best of all possible worlds. Their kookier ideas are going to be thwarted by the federal government’s bureaucracy. The less kooky ideas – like ending the Iraq war – are more likely to effect some change for the good.
That’s why I would support a Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg, Dennis Kucinich, or, more enthusiastically, Ron Paul over any “mainstream” candidate.
Comment by ajay —
November 8, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Their kookier ideas are going to be thwarted by the federal government’s bureaucracy.
If the bureaucracy were an effective check on kooky ideas, we probably wouldn’t have an Iraq War to end.
Comment by Timothy —
November 8, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
You know, I’m against a return to specie currency, but it’s not a particularly insane idea. And compared to “Let’s just bomb the shit out of Iran and whoever else while we torture American citizens for looking askance at the government” it seems down right logical.
Comment by bbartlog —
November 8, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Paul believes that the proposed attack on Iran and our use of fiat currency are linked. See: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
I think if you agree with his viewpoint here (which I do), his other minor excursions into paranoia (’The UN want to take our guns’) fade into insignificance. On the other hand, if you think he’s totally out to lunch here and that our foreign policy is not motivated by monetary concerns, you really can’t support him, since he’s living in a totally different reality.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 8, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
To echo Timothy, I don’t buy into it either, but really don’t get the pants-wetting over the gold standard. Sure, there are crazies who are big on it, but so what?
A theoretical President Paul isn’t going to switch us off of fiat currency currency on an executive order any more than President Clinton could impose Hillarycare on us the same way. If Paul even got around to pursuing that issue, there’d have be a big Congressional debate, the public would get involved, etc. If it were then really that obviously crazy to everyone, it’d never happen.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 8, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
That doesn’t really follow. It actually is possible for people to not entirely agree on something or have outright differences of opinion without one or more of them “living in a totally different reality”.
I’m not sure how seriously I take any of the Euro stuff, but I wouldn’t utterly rule it out as a potential factor. (I certainly wouldn’t buy it as a dominant factor, but hey.) I don’t think Paul is right on the point, but that doesn’t make him nuts.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
November 8, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
but it can happen if you are a poor typist
Half-Bee: I used to use a lot of text message abbreviations a year or two ago, but then one of the Steve’s (I think it was Mr. Steven Crane) said that I was using too many abbreviations and it was making ppl think I was some kind of troll, so I stopped.
Comment by Anon —
November 8, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Off-topic for post, but not for the thread:
As I believe Thoreau pointed out a few days ago, Paul isn’t the only anti-war, anti-torture, pro-Bill of Rights candidate in the race. If these are your key issues, you can have a toss-up between Kucinich and Paul (I’ll set aside Dodd and Gravel for the moment). But I get the sense (maybe it is the blogs I read) that there isn’t any particular libertarianish love for Kucinich. And I’m just wondering: Is this only because Paul is in the race? I mean, if it was only Kucinich out there hammering his support of the three positions listed above, would the fact that he also wants to give the US its own national health service be a dealbreaker? I can understand this reticence — I myself share Knappster’s opinion of Paul — but I haven’t seen anyone address it.
(For the purposes of this question ignore the issue of libertarianish leaning voters not supporting the Libertarian candidate.)
Anon
Comment by bbartlog —
November 8, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
There are other issues with Kucinich: he’s anti-gun and a bit of a protectionist, and I get the feeling he wouldn’t bend over backwards like Paul to allow people to live their own weirdness (here I’m thinking of raw milk, vaccine refusal, homeschooling, and alternative medicine). Also (and maybe this is just because I haven’t looked enough at Kucinich), the best of Paul’s writing (on things like fear, war and the state, patriotism and dissent) is pretty damn good. Kucinich doesn’t have as inspirational a body of written work. Further, when it comes to the War on Drugs: while I give Kucinich a lot of credit for opposing it, he hasn’t to my knowledge stood on a stage and said he’ll pardon convicted drug offenders. Paul’s stone cold radicalism on causes he believes in place him in a class by himself (by comparison to the other R/D contenders, not necessarily the Libertarians).
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 8, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Interesting question re Kucinich. (Why Kucinich, though? Why not Gravel? I think, from a libertarian perspective, Gravel is a more congenial left-wing crank than even Kucinich.) I think I can say that, national health insurance aside, I’d be happy to throw primary-campaign love at Kucinich if Paul weren’t around being, in many ways, what Kucinich might have been. Kucinich is awesome on war, torture and drug prohibition. As to national healthcare, let’s face it: keeping Dennis Kucinich out of the White House ain’t going to stop that. So it’s not really a reason not to “support” the Hobbit.
In Paul’s favor is that he’s standing on stage with Republicans saying these things to their faces. That’s more satisfying than Kucinich trying to pepper the mush we get from the Dem campaign. Plus, there is a Paul buzz in the way there isn’t a Kucinich one. At this point, rolling up with Paul makes a bigger snowball than throwing in with Kucinich. Since none of Paul, Kucinich and Gravel – or Dodd – are going to actually be President, right now the smart thing to do is boost whoever can make the most noise. Dodd and Paul stand above the other two in noisemaking potential. If a Democrat would rather throw her weight behind Dodd than Paul, because on topics beyond the Corruptions of Empire, Dodd’s position and temperament are more congenial to her, I can only say, “Bless you, Sister!”
Comment by Timothy —
November 9, 2007 @ 12:15 am
I was using too many abbreviations and it was making ppl think I was some kind of troll, so I stopped.
Not nearly as much as being some kind of troll makes us think you’re some kind of troll.
Comment by Anon —
November 9, 2007 @ 12:27 am
bbartlog/Jim,
I didn’t mean to suggest universal health care was the single dealbreaker — just an example of a possible deal breaker.
And Jim, I chose Kucinich because (to me) he occupies a similar space as Paul. Even if you’re not a political junkie, you probably know where Kucinich stands on the three issues above and, if you find those stances congenial, you’ve probably heard about his opinions on a few other issues: health care or gun control or the drug war, for example. The same is true of Paul — say with the gold standard, illegal immigration, and the drug war again. And those ancillary issues may give pause: Paul on gay rights, illegal immigration, or abortion; Kucinich on gun control, the fairness doctrine, or animal rights. I’m talking here of superficial gut responses, not a careful analysis of the candidates’ position.
And I guess my question is, given that both candidates are in sync on the “big three”, and both trumpet this fact loudly, and neither of them has a chance in hell of winning, do the ancillary issues _really_ matter? Or is Paul’s support actually rooted in these (relatively speaking) secondary issues — people who are heartened by the portrait of Hayek on Paul’s office and stuff like that.
I can go along with the notion that there’s a bandwagon effect behind Paul, but do you think if Paul dropped out that bandwagon would really reorganize behind any of the Dem fringe candidates? My impression is that they wouldn’t, because despite everything many still believe the Republicans can be “saved” or “taught a lesson” through the Paul campaign and will be better on these issues after losing big in ‘08 — whereas I feel that if you believe the Dems are going to win big in ‘08 then you might as well raise some noise among the Dems. Because the issue is not reforming the Republican party, but rather nudging political discourse towards sanity.
But this is all just half-baked late night theorizing — The Notion that Crank Support Still Falls Along Party Lines or, The Expectation of Low Cross Pollination among Paul and Dodd Supporters.
Anon
Comment by Anon —
November 9, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Rereading the comments above, I guess I’m proposing that freewheeling kook supporters like commentator 15 are atypical even among fringe candidate partisans. Which is not surprising, since we’re talking about Joe Strummer after all.
Anon
Comment by Glaivester —
November 9, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Kucinich is more the Tancredo of the Democrats than the Paul. Or maybe the Duncan Hunter – he doesn’t have a single issue that people associate him with the way Tancredo does (immigration).
Kucinich is essentially a more purified version of what the other Democrats are or claim to be. Paul, on the other hand, takes a stance on the issue of war that is diametrically opposite the other Republicans.
It is a lot easier to convince possible Kucinich voters that another Democrat would advance their agenda and have a bettter chance of winning than to convince Republicans who hate the war of the same thing about any of the other Republicans.
A lot of Paul supporters are ideologically opposed to the Democrats, but cannot see any other Republican who even pretends to pander to their views. So what do they have to lose, they feel. Support the guy who actually represents you.