Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chairman Kent Sorenson tonight endorsed Ron Paul, one of her rivals in the Iowa caucus race.
“I believe we’re at a turning point in this campaign,” Sorenson said during his surprise announcement this evening at a Ron Paul rally in Des Moines. “… I thought it was my duty to come to his aid, just like he came to my aid during my Senate race, which was a very nasty race.”
The state senator from Indianola was greeted with a round of applause from the roughly 500 people gathered at the Iowa fairgrounds for the event.
Many rose to their feet and hoisted Paul campaign signs above their heads when Sorenson added: “We’re going to take Ron Paul all the way to the White House.”
Sorenson told The Register he had been thinking about supporting Paul for a couple of days, but that he didn’t make the decision to switch campaigns until this evening.
Sorenson said he drove to Paul’s 7 p.m. event, called a Paul staffer and asked: “Do you guys want me on board?”
“(The staffer) walked out to the parking lot and then I walked in with him,” Sorenson said.
Sorenson declined to talk about the Bachmann campaign, instead saying he was basing his decision on the strength of Paul’s efforts in Iowa.
“The fact of the matter is that I believe we have a clear, top-tier race between Romney and Ron Paul,” said Sorenson, who also noted he believed the “Republican establishment” was unfairly biased against the congressman’s bid for office.
“We have a choice where we can elect more of the same like what we’re having in Romney, or we can elect someone who’s going to transform this country to get it back to what our founding fathers wanted, and I believe that’s Ron Paul,” he said.
The turnabout is a major surprise with just six days remaining before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. Sorenson, in fact, appeared at a Bachmann event just this afternoon — a stop at the Pizza Ranch in his hometown of Indianola.
Sorenson said little at the event, but appeared with Bachmann and clearly offered indications of support for her candidacy.
Fellow Bachmann campaign co-chairman Brad Zaun told reporters Sorenson had just returned from the dentist, and Sorenson himself said he was saying little because he was still numb and afraid he would drool on himself.
Sorenson has been with the Bachmann campaign for months, traveling by her side throughout Iowa and acting as a surrogate at campaign events and in the press.
He is serving his first term in the Iowa Senate and previously served one term in the state House. A Paul press release lauds him as a leader in the fight in defense of traditional family values, the sanctity of life, and a restoration of Second Amendment rights.
So shitty, her own campaign manager jumped ship.
"I'm just reading through your formspring here, and your responses to many questions seem to indicate that you are ready and willing to sacrifice realism/believability for the sake of (sometimes) marginal increases in gameplay quality. Why is this?"
"Because until I see gamers sincerely demanding that if they get winged in the gut with a bullet that they spend the next three hours bleeding out on the ground before permanently dying, they probably are too." - J.E. Sawyer
Can you say quid pro quo? "“… I thought it was my duty to come to his aid, just like he came to my aid during my Senate race, which was a very nasty race.” Bachmann got blindsided by yet another political whore. Quelle suprise.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Count Chocula wrote:Can you say quid pro quo? "“… I thought it was my duty to come to his aid, just like he came to my aid during my Senate race, which was a very nasty race.” Bachmann got blindsided by yet another political whore. Quelle suprise.
Someone doing something nice in return for something nice done in the past. What a political whore! He should clearly have said whatever the person signing his paychecks wants him to say, that's far more ethical.
Not more ethical, but kinda his job as her campaign manager.
Then again, Bachman is a disaster in the making, so it might be more ethical to stop it now, but I doubt that is what he was thinking.....
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Not that either is likely to happen, but I wonder what would be worse for the USA: President Ron Paul or President Michelle Bachmann? Both of them are crazy in their special little way, but one would probably be more harmful overall. Thoughts?
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
SCRawl wrote:Not that either is likely to happen, but I wonder what would be worse for the USA: President Ron Paul or President Michelle Bachmann? Both of them are crazy in their special little way, but one would probably be more harmful overall. Thoughts?
The difference between Ron Paul and Bachmann is that most of what Paul wants (Eliminating entire departments, killing the income tax and social security) are things that are frankly impossible and his own party would fight him on while the positive things (Ending our overseas wars, getting troops home, ending the drug wars) are things he can do on his own as commander and chief. Compared to Bachmann who wants to do things that are mostly in line with her party. She's not off a normal conservative except she adds on a layer of conspiracy theory crazy, oh and she wants to go to war with Iran and as soon as possible thank you very much.
So Bachmann would be a second GW Bush with an added layer of crazy and smarter chief executive who's got all sorts of fundamentalist ideas on the roll of women in society while Paul would be a whole new ballgame which has no easy or direct parrell considering how many radically positive and radically negative changes he wants to make.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Ron Paul's version of crazy is more likely to fall afoul of checks and balances, while driving him to act as a check on and a balance against the abuses of power committed by other parts of the government.
There are political offices I would want Ron Paul to hold, actually; I think he has a legitimate place in certain kinds of political systems. The US system doesn't have the job description I'd want him for, though. Imagine something like... ah.
Suppose the US had a council whose responsibility was, more or less, to veto laws and state activities they deemed to be contrary to the interest of the common citizen- something like the original veto power held by the plebeian tribunes of ancient Rome. If this authority were held jointly by the committee, I think Ron Paul would be a good man to put on the committee. Although were I a Roman, I doubt I would want him as an actual plebeian tribune, as the tribunes' authority was too unlimited to trust to someone as immoderate as Paul.
The point being that even though I disagree with him on a huge number of issues, I think having him around as a political voice when issues of individual liberties are being discussed is probably a good thing. And I'm reasonably certain that his views aren't being set by corporate-whoring, which makes him worth keeping in the political system even when other mainstream politicians are so many wastes of oxygen.
SCRawl wrote:Not that either is likely to happen, but I wonder what would be worse for the USA: President Ron Paul or President Michelle Bachmann? Both of them are crazy in their special little way, but one would probably be more harmful overall. Thoughts?
The difference between Ron Paul and Bachmann is that most of what Paul wants (Eliminating entire departments, killing the income tax and social security) are things that are frankly impossible and his own party would fight him on while the positive things (Ending our overseas wars, getting troops home, ending the drug wars) are things he can do on his own as commander and chief. Compared to Bachmann who wants to do things that are mostly in line with her party. She's not off a normal conservative except she adds on a layer of conspiracy theory crazy, oh and she wants to go to war with Iran and as soon as possible thank you very much.
So Bachmann would be a second GW Bush with an added layer of crazy and smarter chief executive who's got all sorts of fundamentalist ideas on the roll of women in society while Paul would be a whole new ballgame which has no easy or direct parrell considering how many radically positive and radically negative changes he wants to make.
Except at least with Bachmann the Government somewhat still runs. Ron Paul would basically veto every bill that doesn't pass his standards. Imagine the debt ceiling fiasco happening every year, unless of course we got 2/3 of Congress to go against him, but with the way the House is set up, that's doubtful.
Terralthra wrote:Someone doing something nice in return for something nice done in the past. What a political whore! He should clearly have said whatever the person signing his paychecks wants him to say, that's far more ethical.
If you really think people in politics think other people do nice things for them just because it's the right thing to do then I have some prime beachfront property in Arizona for you! Sorenson timed his endorsement of Paul six days before the Iowa caucus. Of course that's just coincidence. And he had also just come from the dentist so he couldn't talk without sounding like a stroke victim. Funny how he couldn't say anything at the Bachmann rally but was totally on board at the evening Paul rally.
Sorenson. Is. A. Whore. If this is representative of the types of supporters Ron Paul attracts, then fuck him.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
I think it's hilarious how normal human behavior is suddenly "whorish" when it comes to politicians. This is standard procedure. I ask one of my fellow adjuncts to write me a letter of recommendation when I apply for a teaching position, he or she does. The next semester, he or she asks me for a recommendation letter for a position he or she applies for, I return the favor. Where's the whorishness?
And what the shit is this about the "timing"? Of course he endorsed him before a caucus. When the hell else would you ask for an endorsement?
Zinegata wrote:Ron Paul wants to return to the barter system (in effect) by allowing everyone and their mom to issue their own currency.
Bachman believes in nuking Iran.
This disqualifies them both from the presidency.
I concur.
The list of stupid things that Ron Paul wants to do includes:
A return to the gold standard
The elimination of the central bank
Allowing numerous currencies.
Getting rid of the EPA (because polluted air and rivers is awesome)
Certification of doctors and other professionals
The Civil Rights Act
Removing the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on matters of Civil Rights and Sexuality
Medicare and Social Security (Not reform to make it sustainable, but complete elimination)
And the list goes on. Bachmann is actually worse.
...but since he's for legalising drugs, a whole heap of clueless college 'progressives' are for Ron Paul. Unbelievably retarded.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
Bachmann campaign loses second key staffer in Ron Paul flap
By NBC's Jamie Novogrod and Alex Moe
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann's campaign lost another high-ranking staff member on Thursday after that staffer defended another former Bachmann official's defection to a rival campaign.
Wes Enos, Bachmann's political director, has left the campaign, spokeswoman Alice Stewart confirmed to NBC News on Thursday evening.
The resignation comes on the heels of last night's announcement by Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, who had served as Bachmann's Iowa chairman, that he had stepped down from that position to support Texas Rep. Ron Paul's campaign instead.
Yesterday, Enos publicly defended Sorenson, an Iowa state Senator, against charges voiced by Bachmann that Sorenson had accepted money from the Paul campaign, in violation of state law. (This narrative is disputed by Sorenson himself.)
"I can't in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a sell-out," Enos told NBC News on Wednesday night, insisting that Sorenson felt personal loyalty to colleagues in the state legislature backing Paul.
A similar statement from Enos was released via the Ron Paul campaign shortly after midnight today.
Reached via text message today, Enos told NBC News, of his departure from the Bachmann campaign: "It was a mutual thing. I knew when I undermined [Bachmann's] statement last night that I effectively was tendering my resignation."
Enos adds he has no "ill will" toward Bachmann.
That hasn't stalled the emerging feud between the Bachmann and Paul campaigns.
Bachmann re-iterated her charge against Sorenson at a campaign stop on Thursday, saying that Sorenson had told her he had been "offered a great deal of money" to support Ron Paul, but had given her campaign assurances he would stay.
"He said that he would be staying. He was with me at our campaign stop in Indianola," Bachmann said.
Sorenson joined Bachmann at a Pizza Ranch in Indianola yesterday, where he spoke with voters as he stood by Bachmann's side. Later, he declined to speak on her behalf, citing dental work he had received earlier in the day.
“I’m numb, so I’m afraid I’ll start drooling," Sorenson told the crowd, to laughs.
Today, Bachmann told reporters that, "He told all of our campaign that he was definitely on board and then he got in his car and he went and announced that he was going with the Ron Paul campaign."
The visit to the Indianola event followed a discussion over the phone Tuesday, Bachmann said, in which Sorenson told her he had been offered a "great deal of money" to defect to the Paul campaign.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
bobalot wrote:
...but since he's for legalising drugs, a whole heap of clueless college 'progressives' are for Ron Paul. Unbelievably retarded.
Ron Paul is a wonderful example of a creating a cult following based on hype vs substance.
As an example of just how little his deepest supports seem to know abouth im, observe this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQZR-Ps4xC0
In which the reasons given for "progressives" to support him include:
*Supporting Civil Liberties
*Supporting Gay Rights
*Help stop scocial conservatives
and my favorite
*Ron Paul does NOT want to end Social Security.
Again, examples of how much they do NOT really understand his views, but have simply swallowed his sound bites.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan Read "Tales From The Crossroads"! Read "One Wrong Turn"!
bobalot wrote:...but since he's for legalising drugs, a whole heap of clueless college 'progressives' are for Ron Paul. Unbelievably retarded.
You forgot (deliberately omitted?) the important ones.
He's anti-war. He's against the PATRIOT Act. He's against torture. He's for the closure of Guantanamo Bay and return of habeas corpus rights to its victims.
Characterising support for a candidate who doesn't want the power to shout "Terrorist!" and have you locked up until the end of an unending conflict as "Lol, you just want drugs!" is absurd.
bobalot wrote:...but since he's for legalising drugs, a whole heap of clueless college 'progressives' are for Ron Paul. Unbelievably retarded.
You forgot (deliberately omitted?) the important ones.
He's anti-war. He's against the PATRIOT Act. He's against torture. He's for the closure of Guantanamo Bay and return of habeas corpus rights to its victims.
Characterising support for a candidate who doesn't want the power to shout "Terrorist!" and have you locked up until the end of an unending conflict as "Lol, you just want drugs!" is absurd.
I concede that. I was trying to be a bit humorous, but you are correct, it was a misrepresentation. However, the substance of my argument is unchanged. Most of his positions are completely anti-progressive, they are so repugnant they should turn off any progressive but many swarm to him flies to a pile of shit. I have borrowed the following summary from a reddit post, but it succinctly sums up his anti-progressive positions.
claims he would not let his religious beliefs influence his public policy. But he has twice introduced "The Sanctity of Life Act" which federalizes abortion as murder and says, "life begins at conception" which is clearly based on his evangelical christian ideology.
and believe it or not, there is actually more (His imbecilic economic policies for example)
Why the fuck would any real 'progressive' vote for this?
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
I can honestly understand if a Conservative such as Count Chocula* agreed with parts of this platform (if not most) and decided to vote for Ron Paul. Any 'progressive' voting for this these extreme right-wing positions because they think that Ron Paul can deliver on winding down the war on terror and closing Guantanamo Bay against the wishes of his own party is a fucking retard.
*who does not appear to be supporting Ron Paul.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
I think it's because, especially in comparison to the current crop of Republicans, his consistency means he puts up a good front of appearing to be wrong, but rational, and they think that if he can be shown his ideas will work he won't use them, damage done in the meantime not withstanding that's a far better result than Bachmann getting anywhere near the presidency. It just falls down because it's really just wishful thinking.
Related to that, he comes across as being basically honorable- he's shown his willingness to say and do things that displease his party orthodoxy, that cannot possibly do anything but hurt his chances for re-election, because he considers them the right things to do.
That makes a man stand out in 2012 American politics. And it's a quality that American progressives have been wishing they could find a leader with for a long time. So there's a small percentage who, inevitably, underestimate how bad it could be with Ron Paul.
Well, it is hardly possible to get a worse record than Obama on civil liberties....
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
bobalot wrote:Why the fuck would any real 'progressive' vote for this?
Despair over the conduct of the Democrats, mostly. And it's also a question of which weighs more heavily on people's minds: civil rights abuses by increased government power, especially executive power, or the protections federal government offers against state and local abuses. I can see why people would be more concerned about the former. Also, Ron Paul is not a corporatist, unlike most of the Republican and Democratic parties.
bobalot wrote:I can honestly understand if a Conservative such as Count Chocula* agreed with parts of this platform (if not most) and decided to vote for Ron Paul. Any 'progressive' voting for this these extreme right-wing positions because they think that Ron Paul can deliver on winding down the war on terror and closing Guantanamo Bay against the wishes of his own party is a fucking retard.
That depends on the extent to which anti-war people get elected into Congress. If the balance of Congress doesn't significantly change in 2012, having Ron Paul in the white house is pretty much irrelevant.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Alkaloid wrote:I think it's because, especially in comparison to the current crop of Republicans, his consistency means he puts up a good front of appearing to be wrong, but rational, and they think that if he can be shown his ideas will work he won't use them, damage done in the meantime not withstanding that's a far better result than Bachmann getting anywhere near the presidency. It just falls down because it's really just wishful thinking.
So he is honourably consistent with his insanity? I honestly don't see this as a good attribute. Although, I agree he is marginally better than Bachmann.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
So shitty, her own campaign manager jumped ship.
-- Asuka