Mark Rose, true-blue University of Memphis fan, is not much daunted by the Tigers loss to UT, but he still hates ‘the media‘:

Congratulations to UT. You can be #1 now, hang that bull’s eye around your neck, and let the media hound you relentlessly for as long as you can stay #1. We were #1 for five weeks. It was an honor. But the sports media does not let you enjoy it. Because of this, being #1 is more of a burden than a blessing.

……Note to media: We Memphis fans didn’t harbor any dreams of an undefeated season….That dream is very much alive, perhaps even more so now that the sports media can no longer hold the Sword of Damocles of going undefeated over our heads. It’s over. We’ve lost a game — a very close down-to-the-wire game — to the new #1 team in the nation.

…..The sports media do not like Memphis. They never have — not when we were in the Metro Conference, not when we were in the Great Midwest Conference, not when Conference USA was a powerhouse, and not now. If you don’t believe me, listen to the CBS announcers during a Memphis game during the NCAA tournament. No, I’m not claiming victim-hood here. I actually relish being despised by the media.

You could take the Memphis team as it is, put them in Duke jerseys, change John Calipari’s name to Mike Krzyzewski, and you would have an instant media darling. But that’s not the way it is. And it’s fine by me. As I often remind my son, who is frustrated to no end by the sports media, words don’t win basketball games, predictions don’t put any points on the board, and the prophets on ESPN and CBS don’t know any more about who is going to win than we do.

Memphis did play an incredibly difficult pre-conference schedule, but is this a case of a Rose by any other name calling wolf? No doubt, Conference USA gets little respect, but is the media the problem here, or is it a case of a mostly great team that needs to learn how to shoot free throws? I haven’t watched a lot of Memphis U basketball this year, but it seems to me that at least the game announcers were pretty dang complimentary of the Calipar-ians.

In conversations with bloggers, I’ve heard more than once, blogging being compared to high school. This has always bothered me some since I really didn’t enjoy high school, well, at the least the being in school part of it! (And I’ve always said that I married the best part of my high school experience!) But I do enjoy blogging and think it’s absolutely fabulous! How can blogging be anything like high school?

However, If I’m really honest with myself about how blogging has turned out for me, it is eerily similar to high school. I wasn’t “popular” in high school but I wasn’t unknown either. I didn’t get invited to all the cool parties but I still had an active social life. I wasn’t a one of the smart kids, I just hung around them enough to be a fairly good poseur. See what I mean?

That being said, Michelle is really cracking me up (and making me cringe a bit) with her post about the top 10 reasons blogging is like high school. She really hits the proverbial nail on the head with all of them but here’s a sampling to get the ball rolling:

10. When we are new to blogging, it is much like the first day at a new school. We are standing there in the cafeteria with our tray looking for a friendly table where we can sit. We don’t dare sit at the cool table (read: commenting on a Big Blogger’s site) so we find a corner that seems friendly and start there.

9. It is best to show up every day. Yes, you can blog sporadically but if you want to have readers, they expect content.

8. Cliques are alive and well. We all have our best blogging friends and we stick together. It is difficult to enter a new corner of blogland and feel welcome.

I’m sure #8 will hit some nerves as I’ve seen that very argument come up here on this site. You’ll have to go check out her list out to see the #1 reason why blogging is like high school, which is spot on in light of several comment threads I’ve witnessed and been a part of over the last several months.

So, is she right? Do you feel as though you’ve stepped back in time? (Assuming you’re not still high school. I think we have at least one blogger that comes around here that still is.) Or has your online experience been “night and day” compared to to your high school experience? Come sign my yearbook and let me know!

“Come out, come out wherever you are!” could be the title of a lawsuit filed in Davidson County on Monday wherein a couple living in Old Hickory Village are suing an anonymous blogger(s) for libel and invasion of privacy.  According to The Tennessean,

The lawsuit would be difficult to win because of free speech protection under the First Amendment, according to Robert Cox, president of the New Rochelle, N.Y-based Media Bloggers Association.

The Swartzes would have to prove that the postings are malicious because the couple is in the *public eye, said Cox, who is not involved in the case. Don Swartz is a town engineer in Nolensville, and both Swartzes have been part of the Old Hickory Village Neighborhood Association.

I’ve often been concerned yet grateful for the anonymity of the Internet… very much a mixed reaction for sure.  I believe that Big Brother is watching our sites (scary enough), but there are also about a kazillion “little brothers” also watching who are ready to plunge a knife in your back.   To those trolls I can only say, “Bite me, you anonymous coward.” 

However there are times when anonymity is important.  Perhaps in a case where someone fears for his or her job if they were to become a whistleblower, and yet information has to get out in order to right a wrong.  For example, and this happened to a friend of mine, you work at a nursing home and know the head nutritionist/dietary technician is being forced to buy substandard food by the administrator.  If you go public, you get fired.   If you don’t, patients with no families to watch over them continue to eat food on the verge of rotting.  Anonymous can work in this situation

Going back to the * in the newspaper pull-quote, the next issue that begs to be addressed is whether we are “public figures.”  If someone started writing anonymous nasty posts about us, we may not have recourse because we’ve crossed over from private citizen to being in the public eye (therefore public figure) by virtue of writing here, commenting there, and writing on other sites that are easily accessible with one Google click.  For example, I’ve written about my hometown in Kentucky where extensive members of my family still live.  Bear with me on this… a good friend of mine called the other night to tell me a parent in another Girl Scout troop called her leader asking who I am because she’d done a Google search looking for a troop in this small town (my hometown) they are moving to.  Their search looped back to me - it was ironic we both live in middle Tennessee - and in an instant I became a spokesperson for the small town and that Girl Scout community.  If it’s something more nefarious than a Girl Scout parent - a troll for instance - we could be stuck.

Thre big issues, no easy answers:  Anonymity good?  Anonymity bad?  And are we bloggers public figures.  What do you think? And do we even have a choice?

The former General Manager of WKRN writes:

I’m constantly asked if I miss being a GM.  My answer is I miss the people but not the job.  My last three years at the station were a time of tumultuous change. 

Michael Rosenblum introduced the VJ concept to the newsroom, we invited local bloggers into the station to peek behind the curtains and offered them classes on shooting and editing video.  We created

Nashville is Talking, and hired a local blogger to run it.  This was followed by the creation of a Volunteer Voters our political blog and another talented blogger hired. All in all there were some 23 station blogs at WKRN. 

My days are in the web now.  That sense of wonder, creativity and making it up as we go along that was once a staple of local broadcasting has departed for the internet and I decided to tag along.    

Read the rest here.

 H/T: Brittney Gilbert

The latest cut by the Feds to the interest rate isn’t exactly being met with open arms and glee. CurrencyTrading.net posted a list of reasons we should be critical of the Federal Reserve including several that are fairly obvious:

• Warning signs ignored The argument: Early subprime whistleblowers, including a senior Fed official, tried in vain to elicit a reaction from the Fed. It’s true that the Fed should never act as a regulator, but it could have easily called for lending reform. … and …
• Reward for bad behavior The argument: …Fed policy in the wake of the economic slowdown seems to reward it [bad behavior]. Financial stocks have been justifiably hammered in recent months, but the Fed’s recent economic interventions are tailored to bailing them out first.

My personal mortgage lender appeared last night and this morning on Channel 2 News talking about how the rate cut doesn’t necessarily equate to a rate cut on home loans - that there are a lot of factors that come in to play (credit score! type of loan!) when financing a home.

Mortgage rates fell Thursday, in the wake of another federal rate cut, but not necessarily because of it. “People automatically think that because there is a federal rate cut there is a mortgage rate cut. Quite honestly they don’t correspond to each other,” Scott Matuk, broker with First Community Mortgage, clarified Thursday.

Finally, Miranda at the Loan Shak found a parody of what the rate cut means to “everyday” people.

Here’s a link to the vid! (Note, Ginger the techno-savvy one has embeded this video below for your viewing pleasure).

I’d love to save a thousand a month on my four million dollar properties. Ha.

Yesterday, Aunt B. wrote a post citing that she was on Twitter but she didn’t really get it.

I’m just going to admit it. I don’t get Twitter. To me, it’s like standing in Central Station shouting. Everyone hears you but… I don’t know. I keep doing it, waiting to understand what the big deal is and feeling kind of stupid because I don’t.

She makes a good point. Twitter is different.

It started a thread where people debated the good, the bad and the ugly of the social networking platform. The conversation basically was how can a Twitterite (my word) use 140 characters to convey a message.

Chris at My Quiet Life responded in a post about it as did Christian at Nashville is Talking.

If you are interested in Twitter, all three of these posts go into the pros and cons pretty well about it.

This morning, Nate wrote a breakdown about the advantages and disadvantages of his personal experience with social networking which I think also added to the conversation.

Like it. Hate it. It’s not going away. It may evolve into something else as technology often does but it’s here to stay.

Cartoon from here

Lindsay Ferrier (at Suburban Turmoil) is opining about Jamie Lynn Spears and her decision to “have her baby” (or not abort her pregnancy). Lindsay commends Spears, but chides Americans for how we treat pregnant, unwed mothers. Oh, and she is careful to make her own political views clear:

I’m pro choice, simply because I don’t think the government should have any say over a woman’s right to decide whether to grow and give birth to a baby in her own body. But personally, I take abortion very, very seriously. I worry about the emotional toll abortion will take on a young woman’s life down the road. I feel sad thinking that so many potentially wonderful human beings never get a chance to exist. I feel sad thinking that our treatment of pregnant, unwed mothers has a lot to do with many women’s decisions to have abortions.

The fact that someone is uncomfortable with abortion makes perfect sense to me, but that doesn’t seem to square with an objectification of the “baby” or “potentially wonderful human being()” so as to be flatly inferior to society’s obligation to protect innocent human life or to a woman’s right to autonomy for autonomy’s sake. The way our culture treats pregnant, unwed mothers surely motivates some to choose abortions, but surely Ferrier’s conflicted views on the issue of abortion aren’t helping them choose otherwise.

BTW, I was intrigued by Lindsay’s “story.” I suspect many bloggers have similar tales. Good stuff.

Hat tip: Nashville is Talking.

I want some snow. Just a little bit that will fall gently on my face and where I can smell it.

I love the smell of snow.

If you are following Twitter, which I suggest you do if you don’t, there is quite a bit of talk about wishing for snow, or making wards to hang around the state of Tennessee to keep it out. I like Twitter although I was initially a huge skeptic about it. I know more about traffic in Knoxville and Nashville each and every morning. And, in some respects, it’s more accurate on weather reports than Doppler radar.

Big Stupid Tommy has a theory:

Maybe I’m weird. I’d like a little snow.

That might make me especially weird, since most of you know I work in the grocery business. And, in most places, and in this place especially, the mere whisper of the word will send the world scurrying to the grocery store to buy the milk and the bread (and the Little Debbies and the Cokes and the Cigarettes…). We like to make the joke that Jimmy Joe Cottonbottom’s not bought a gallon of milk nor drank a glass of the stuff since before the turn of the millennium, but upon the grumbling of the word by the guys on Channel 3, he’s gotta speed over to the Stop n’ Shop to buy two gallons.

Maybe milk wards off snow. That’s a thought….

Brittney is watching from San Francisco … and writing about the local media.

Matt Pulle’s column “Desperately Seeking the News” in the Nashville Scene this week may reek of petty sparring between former colleagues, but if you can wade through all the posturing about how much money each paper makes, there is some surprising news located within it. The free daily newspaper in Nashville known as The City Paper is moving to a web-only presence …

See what she has to say about the Scene’s column, and The City Paper.

Aunt B. waxes philosophical on a Saturday night with this:

Who, America, is your friend?  Who is the person who loves you enough to throw his arm around you and tell you your best things to you?  Who is it that can reach you when you are so damn lost from yourself?

I just don’t know.

You’ve never been easy to love, punching your way across the continent, landing devistating blow after blow, even as you also so carefully raised your petticoats to keep them out of the mud.

Broad-shouldered and practical, deeply superstitious and rash.

A dreamer, though.  A dreamer, always able to be better than the men and women who dreamed of what you might be.

How long do we have to wait for you to come back to that?

It’s a good post and I find that a lot of us are asking the same question. But, of course, we aren’t as eloquent as B is on how to say it.

Tortillas: Corn or flour?
Popcorn: Butter or plain?
Peanut butter: Crunchy or smooth?

Also, go check out the Vol Abroad’s new look and tell her what you think…

Music City Oracle has posted a very nice entry into the debate that started here about whether or not the United States Constitution explicitly contains the right to vote. In his post, he links to AC Kleinheider, and R Neal. It should be noted that SayUncle has also posted on this subject.

To MCO’s credit, his post is very informative. Here is an excerpt.

As it happens, the question of whether one has a right to vote is tied to who is being elected and is largely left to the states, with amendments to the Constitution protecting certain groups against discrimination.

Voting is not administered by the federal government, but by state and local authorities. In fact, there really is no such thing as a national election in this country since the President is elected by the electoral college. The Constitution does however restrict states from discriminating on the basis of sex and race, and it does define the legal voting age. But other than that, states are allowed to disenfranchise for a number of reasons.

FairVote, an organizations that supports a “right to vote” amendment, would like to change that.

Because there is no right to vote clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures in areas such as ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.

How do you feel about that? Should voting and elections be taken over by the Federal Government? Would that really be a good thing? Being one who is not fond of power being centralized in Washington, you can pretty easily guess how I feel about the issue.

Heather is musing over at the monkeebook about some guidelines she calls the Homewreckers’ Handbook.

An excerpt:

Whenever something starts to get you irritated with your most recent baby daddy’s ex-wife, remember that he hasn’t paid her a damn dime in months and that she has brought over food for you and your kids when you didn’t have money for any…..all of this after you ****ED HER HUSBAND.

Katie and I both want to know something.

While pouring my bowl of cereal, I suddenly had a flashback to my younger years…which left me with this question…

Why aren’t there toys in cereal boxes anymore?

Progressive Nashville on the subject of voter ID’s:

It’s a bad idea and one that is likely to disenfranchise voters, particularly those most likely to vote Democratic.

Doesn’t it seem that voter ID requirements only disenfranchise those who are attempting to commit voter fraud? Putting two and two together, isn’t he saying that Democrats are trying to commit voter fraud?

Of course the writer goes on to define the disenfranchised group as really poor people (surprise, surprise!), something Bill Hobbs refutes.

Get real folks. Anybody can get an ID, and if you can’t get a ride to the ID place, I’m sure the DNC will gladly give you one.

John is enjoying a little holiday spirits, while catching up on some movie watching. He has offered his opinion on one of those movies, “The Pursuit of Happyness“.

Great film, but what’s bugging me is I’m seem to remember some mumblings about it being a good pro-conservative-values film.

Perhaps John is referring to posts like this one from Mark Rose last May.

After asking us if we are intercoursing kidding him, he goes on to say.

OK, so an extraordinary person graced with extraordinary intelligence and extraordinary perseverance can beat the odds in a game extraordinarily stacked against him — and this somehow justifies the game, and its odds?Please.

Well John, I appreciate your optimism and faith in human beings, but let me explain to you why this movie is loved by conservatives. Read the rest of this entry »

The Recovering Baptist wonders about why the holiday must bring family together:

Why do people who really don’t particularly like each other force themselves to have together time for the holidays, just because they share DNA? Is it really that important? Really? Blood relation? Why are you ruining a perfectly lovely time of year because of some bizarrely held feelings of obligation to people with whom you just really don’t connect at all? And do you ever look at your blood relations and think, “how in the hell did I come from this?” Not necessarily in a holier-than-thou way. Just in a way that comments upon how utterly and incredibly weird and unlikely it is that you have not one single thing in common, yet your background is so similar.

Family relationships are tough. I get that. Most of the family I have in this area and the family that we’ve just celebrated Christmas with is the family that I married into. I love them very much. They mean the world to me but some of the dynamics that exist within the family sometimes cause more stress than joy. Which is why I’m here today, at home, reading blogs.

A few weeks back, Glen Dean made a fuss about feeling like an outsider at Starbucks. Here’s a sampling:

Upon entering, my stereotype was quickly verified. Right there on a piece of living room furniture was “pony-tail guy” reading a book. At one table were these two thin, neat looking, young men. They looked like they were really close friends, really close. A few of the people in there actually had textbooks. Some were wearing those really small eyeglasses, the kind Brittney Gilbert, wears. Some people were reading and some were having discussions, but I don’t think any of them were talking about who they were going to vote for in the Republican Primary.

His point, I guess, was that Starbucks caters only to left-wing intellectual hippie-types. This, of course, is ridiculous, for two reasons:

1. You don’t become a corporate powerhouse by catering to such a small segment of the population and

2. Authentic left-wing intellectual hippie-types wouldn’t be caught dead in a Starbucks.

Anyway, I’m here to help. If Glen would feel like to feel a little more comfortable, I recommend he take his wife to the Starbucks on Royal Oaks Boulevard in Franklin. This morning, on the “Barista of the Day,” chalkboard, the Barista of the Day listed the “Bible” as her “Favorite Book.” Yep, the Bible. How did she slip that past her secular corporate masters?!

Bonus: Voice of the Titans Mike Keith was behind me in line. He drinks half-caf, for the record.

Sarah Moore posts about the coarseness of some teens in her neighborhood here. The post was fairly free of hand-wringing, and basically inspired assent, but the comment from lcreekmo got me to thinking. Lcreekmo wrote:

I know what you mean, but I think you should not be so alarmed. These days, I have a similar reaction when I hear kids talking like that, but I have to remind myself that it’s developmentally appropriate for teenagers to do things designed to shock. Now with you, it wasn’t language. But there was something.Think about this: In the 50s and 60s, it would be shocking for adults to see kids hanging around in blue jeans. How inappropriate! How coarse! How common! Today we have the sagging pants and the exposed navels. At least 50% of the value of such things must be in the way they figuratively flip off the older generation.

Myself, I went through a ridiculous phase in 7th grade where I found it necessary to say “the s word,” as you put it, repeatedly. About anything. Preferably with a disgusted tone, as if I could not believe the situation I found myself in. In college, I worked on the newspaper with a bunch of guys. In the newsroom, you stand out if you don’t curse.

With the exception of those two times in my life, I really haven’t ever cursed much, and in fact now, I rarely curse at all. The words I used then were situational….and probably for most kids, that’s all it is. The words may be stronger today than when we were kids — I’m 36 — but heck, they have to be for us to be shocked. And that’s probably what it’s about.

I would say, you’ll be disappointing the kids if you DON’T act shocked, so go right ahead!!

Reading that comment I thought, “Now that’s someone who is comfortable in their skin, not uptight, hip.” But then I started to line it up against my own experience with children (and with myself) and I had to disagree.

“Developmentally predictable” perhaps, but not “developmentally appropriate,” in my humble opinion.

I don’t believe–and have never observed, that character is learned “the hard way” or through experience. Unlike in Hollywood, one of the hoods in the Moore neighborhood isn’t likely to have a change of heart after watching A Christmas Carol. So, it will take a decision by said hoods to turn from said behavior . . . why unnecessarily endure any length of time or entertain any purported “phases” for them to start making those choices? That’s the beauty of discipline . . . when correctly applied it expedites the process of maturing (a process that hardly ever happens on its own, frankly).

I’m sure that there will be significant difference of opinion on this point. If you have time on this busy day to opine a bit (and share it), please do.

Sean Braisted links to this very interesting Maureen Dowd column.

Sean writes:

While many people support Hillary Clinton because of Bill, it will be interesting to see if his inflated ego will diminish the former President in the eyes of supporters, and whether or not that will turn people away from Hillary.

That is definitely something to consider. I have always admired Bill’s political skills. But lately, he seems to be off his game. Although I still think he is more of a plus than a minus for Hillary, he just doesn’t seem to be as smooth as he once was. Do you agree?

“We’re not electing a theologian-in-chief, but a commander-in-chief.”- Richard Land

Sarah Moore admits to initially being sucked into the Huckabee hype. Thankfully though, she has come to her senses and taken a second look.

The Huckster’s message seems to be “I am a Christian, a Baptist minister, so vote for me.” Sarah, like most of us horrible evangelicals, doesn’t buy into that nonsense.

I am not going to vote for a candidate because he is a Christian, and I’m not going to exclude a person who professes no faith at all. Same goes for the labels of black, white, man, woman, gay, straight, young, old, etc. I agree with Rush … playing identity politics is no way to determine the best person for the job.

Amen to that! The very idea that Huckabee would use religion to manipulate Republicans to support his liberalism is appalling. As for that Christmas ad, it’s not very Christian to lie Brother Huckster.

If you are a Republican and thinking about voting for Mike Huckabee, ask yourself this question, “Was Jimmy Carter a good president?”

More from Ned Williams, who doesn’t seem to question the Dick Morris article stating that Huckabee really is a fiscal conservative.

Lesley has an interesting viewpoint on Jamie Lynn Spears and her pregnancy:

Why in the world is Jamie Lynn Spears announcing to the world that she is pregnant? Why wouldn’t she just do what your average over-privileged 16-year-old pregnant girl do and get an abortion? I’m not going to go around telling anyone they should terminate a pregnancy, but come on.

I mean, aren’t people still doing that? You’d think from the recent movies “Knocked Up” (hello, perfect candidate for an abortion) and “Juno” (hello, ditto), that abortion was already illegal in this country or something. And that birth control was expensive and difficult to get. Oh, wait.

I feel really bad for Jamie Lynn Spears. Not only because her big sister is Brittney Spears, but also because I think she’s keeping this baby to prove to the world that she’s better than her older, crazier, more famous-er sister.

I also worry about how Nickelodeon is going to handle this. On one hand, I hope they drop her show because I think it might be easy for pre-teens to make the leap in logic and think it’s cool to have a baby. On the other hand, I hate to see someone punished because they decided to go ahead and have a baby instead of having an abortion. Ah, I feel so conflicted about this. Am I the only one conflicted here?

Kathy T, posting at This Is La Vergne writes:

The petition developed by Joshua Osborne to change state law is now online. We prefer residents of Tennessee to sign it, but support from other parts of the country would also be appreciated.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION.

Joshua Osborne asks you to sign the petition below to urge the State of Tennessee to change its child abuse laws:

1. Eliminate the statute of limitations for child abuse crimes to allow children time to recall and courts or care-takers time to document said crimes.
2. Allow children to testify about abuse against the accused in private (not in front of the accused).
3. Eliminate “first-time offenders” category in cases of child abuse.

While cases of child abuse definitely tug at my heart strings, I think we must consider potential ramifications. How might this bill hurt people in ugly child custody cases?
Can we assure that children will not be manipulated to punish others? Children’s memories are malleable. My brother and I don’t remember events in our childhood the same way. I just don’t know. What do you think, Nashville?

Not to turn this into Music City Baptists or anything, but Jesus said something like, “The poor will always be with us.” And I’m down with that. But I think in a land of plenty, the poor shouldn’t have to starve. They shouldn’t be without shelter. They shouldn’t have to face so many roadblocks to get out of the cycle of poverty.

Seems Josh Tinley’s right there with me:

Christians should care about everyone who is suffering. (This is the only faith-specific item on the list.) Followers of Christ shouldn’t dismiss someone’s pain because that person made poor decisions (we all have) or because someone is not an American citizen or legal resident. The Gospel message is one of grace and one that desires the redemption and well-being of all people, regardless of who they are or what they have done. Jesus healed people without asking why they were sick. As a Christian, I think that this message of grace and redemption is one that even non-Christians can embrace.

How hard one works is not directly related to how wealthy one is. Wealth is sometimes the result of hard work, but is also determined by the value that our society ascribes to certain gifts and vocations (apparently, Vanna White’s work is very valuable) and a person’s priorities. To quote Princess Leia, “If money is all you love, then that’s what you’ll receive.” A lot of people work extremely hard and don’t make much money, either because their work is not valued by society or because they realize that a lot of things are more important than making money.

There is so much more at Josh’s place. He isn’t calling for the government to hand out every single thing every person might want or need. And neither, I think, are most of us big pansy liberals, and neither are most of the poor people I know, either.

I think there’s a great misunderstanding between conservative types and liberal types. The liberals perceive the conservatives to be uncaring, and the conservatives are under the impression that  liberals want to spend all the tax money making sure every poor person has a big screen TV and a Wii. I don’t think either is true- I think most of us are somewhere in the middle of that. Is there a common ground? Is there something almost all of us could agree on?

I refer to myself as conservative, rather than libertarian, even though my definition of the word conservative doesn’t seem to match the modern perception. One reason I steer away from the small “L” word, is that regardless of how many principles you agree with libertarian purists on, there will always be at least one wackjob to let you know that you aren’t a “real” libertarian, usually doing so in an angry rant. The other reason also has to do with the the crazies. You see, I don’t want to be lumped with those guys.

One of “those guys” is Ron Paul. Up until he decided to run for President as a Republican, I had a lot of respect for Congressman Paul. And to a certain extent, I still do respect him. But lately, the idea that he just might have a chance in this election, has caused Dr. Paul to alter his message a little. Take this interview discussed by AC on Volunteer Voters.

Think about what the “libertarian” Paul did in that video. HE QUOTED A SOCIALIST. Not only did he quote a socialist, but he purposefully picked a sound bite meant to pander to the wackjob anti-war left. No he didn’t attack Huckabee’s liberalism, something the average Republican voter might be interested in hearing. Instead he called him a fascist and used a well known quote of a socialist. Yes, he called the guy who wrote this Kerry-esque article on foreign policy, a fascist.

JB, in a comment at Volunteer Voters, said it best:

Paul’s use of that Sinclair Lewis quote seems suspect. It’s a sort of stock bumpersticker slogan of the lefty Bush haters in this country. Paul’s use of it seems to be a wink and nod to the nuts his campaign seems to have attracted.

For that reason, I have lost respect for Congressman Paul. I once thought that he was different, above the thirst for power. I guess I was wrong. He is no different than the rest. He has identified his insane constituency and he seems willing to say just about anything to please them.