Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page
Kent Sorenson, the one-time chair of Michele Bachmann's Iowa campaign who threw a jolt into the caucuses by switching to Ron Paul tonight, said he only told Paul officials of his decision when he arrived at a Des Moines rally for the congressman tonight
"10 minutes ago," Sorenson, a GOP state senator, told POLITICO about when the Paul campaign found out he was moving to their camp.
In one of the most surprising moments of the 2012 campaign, Sorenson strolled on stage just moments before Paul was set to speak and declared that he had switched his allegiance. Just hours earlier, he had been at a Bachmann campaign event with his former candidate. Sorenson's switch is a major boost to Paul's campaign, which has been dogged by criticism from establishment Republicans that his support here was largely among Democrats and independents.
A furious Bachmann accused her former chair of being bought off.
"Kent Sorenson personally told me he was offered a large sum of money to go to work for the Paul campaign," said the Minnesotan in a statement
Paul campaign chair Jesse Benton flatly denied that they were paying Sorenson.
"No, she doesn't have a clue," Benton told POLITICO.
Asked why Bachmann would make such an accusation, Benton shot back: "Because she just lost her campaign chairman and her campaign is floundering."
The state senator said he called Bachmann on the phone right before he arrived at the Iowa state fairgrounds, where the Paul event is being held.
Sorenson declined to share her reaction, but suggested the GOP contest had become a two-man race and that he wanted to defeat Mitt Romney.
"I adore Michele Bachmann, but the fact of the matter is I believe we have an opportunity to take Romney out here in Iowa and I believe that person is Ron Paul," he said behind the stage while his new candidate addressed about 500 supporters.
One of Michele Bachmann’s top campaign advisers is breaking with his own candidate to defend Kent Sorenson, the Bachmann campaign’s former Iowa chairman who publicly defected to Ron Paul on Wednesday.
Wes Enos, Bachmann’s Iowa political director, released a statement Thursday defending Sorenson from Bachmann’s accusation that Paul offered him money to switch allegiances.
In a statement distributed by Sorenson, Enos stated “unequivocally” that Sorenson’s decision was “in no way financially motivated.”
“His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset,” Enos said in the statement.
“While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ … That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” he added.
Many well-meaning people believe that banning guns would make us safer, but my bleeding heart goes out to people like 11-year-old Alyssa Gutierrez, who used one of her family’s guns to defend herself and her family’s house when three armed burglars attempted to break in while young Alyssa was home alone.
Without a gun to protect herself, Alyssa, who was taught how to fire it just days before her home was attacked, would have been a helpless victim, not a proud and empowered defender of home and self. Those are actually Alyssa’s words, who told a local news channel: “I felt proud of myself.”
As Ron Paul has risen in the polls, so has the frequency of attacks against him. “Any stick will do to beat a dog” goes the old saying, and the whacks against Paul range from reasonable to ridiculous. Expect the attacks to continue. Expect them to get more ridiculous.
And expect the worst attacks to come from Republicans.
Let’s cut the crap. The GOP establishment’s main beef with Ron Paul is his foreign policy. This ideological chasm is the subtext to most attacks on Paul from the right. To their credit, some of Paul’s critics are man (or woman) enough to confront the congressman on this subject directly. Paul welcomes these challenges and wants his fellow Republicans to debate what a true conservative foreign policy should look like. But the members of the Republican establishment do not want any such discussion. In fact, they fear it.
Most of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders subscribe primarily to a neoconservative foreign policy — the reflexively pro-war, world-police dogma that has been the dominant view in the Republican Party for at least a decade. When Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” in October, “Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?” Cain replied: “I’m not sure what you mean by neoconservative … I’m not familiar with the neoconservative movement.” Cain was being honest — he simply knew how most Republicans viewed foreign policy and generally agreed with them. What was this “neoconservatism” Gregory spoke of? Said Cain: “I’m a conservative, yes. Neoconservative — labels sometimes put you in a box.”
“Neoconservative” certainly is a label that puts you in a box. The prefix alone invites curiosity (which is why neoconservatives don’t like it) and the term itself suggests that it represents something different from plain old conservatism (which is why neoconservatives really don’t like it). Neoconservative Max Boot outlined the ideology in 2002: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad … [The] agenda is known as ‘neoconservatism,’ though a more accurate term might be ‘hard Wilsonianism’ …”
Americans probably won’t be seeing a huge ticker-tape parade anytime soon for troops returning from Iraq, and it’s not clear if veterans of the nine-year campaign will ever enjoy the grand, flag-waving, red-white-and-blue homecoming that the nation’s fighting men and women received after World War II and the Gulf War.
Officials in New York and Washington say they would be happy to help stage a big celebration, but Pentagon officials say they haven’t been asked to plan one.
Most welcome-homes have been smaller-scale: hugs from families at military posts across the country, a somber commemoration by President Obama at Fort Bragg, N.C.
With tens of thousands of U.S. troops still fighting a bloody war in Afghanistan, anything that looks like a big victory celebration could be seen as unseemly and premature, some say.
“It’s going to be a bit awkward to be celebrating too much, given how much there is going on and how much there will be going on in Afghanistan,” said Don Mrozek, a military history professor at Kansas State University.
"I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It's safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual."
"Why cover this now? And why so much? You’re not looking at a decades-old story from a different angle, you’re not revealing new information, you’re merely reheating the same embarrassing, racist meal you keep serving us every few years. This is becoming, at this point, the McRib of Embarrassing Political Stories. Why? [bold text mine for emphasis]"
"I am a fan of Stanley Crouch's 'flip it' test as applied to bigotry... let us 'flip it,' and ask what we would think of Barack Obama who, under his own name, published such racism directed at whites and HIV. How seriously would we take the 'He didn't actually write it--he just published it' defense? Would we really be so forgiving?"
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner was overheard loudly complaining on the phone in the Delta Lounge at Reagan National Airport outside Washington about Obama's healthy food initiative.
According to Fishbowl DC, which first reported the lawmaker's remarks, Sensenbrenner was recounting a recent conversation he'd had at church event in Wisconsin.
Obama, Sensenbrenner said loudly, "lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself."
According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Daniel Bice, Sensenbrenner made a similar remark at the Wisconsin church he was referencing in his phone call, telling attendees there that Obama has a "big butt."
The Wisconsin lawmaker—who, it must noted, is a bit rotund--sent a personal note to Obama apologizing for his remarks, his spokeswoman Amanda Infield tells Yahoo News. She declined to go into detail about what the note said.
In a statement to reporters, the lawmaker reiterated his apology. "I regret my inappropriate comment, and I have sent a personal note to the First Lady apologizing," he said.
“Republicans let us glimpse the rift between establishment pragmatists and Tea Party ideologues. There may be hope for the republic after all.”
I worked for the guy for 12 years as his personal assistant/travel aide. I can honestly say I never heard a racist word come out of his mouth in that entire time.
There were only two instances in that entire time that could be categorized as possibly "homophobic." But that's it.
Paul is in no way an Anti-Semite as many charge. He has no problem with Jews in the United States. He is however, passionately opposed to Israel, and wishes the State would not even exist. He sees it as a burden on the US taxpayer and too much of a hassle for our foreign policy.
There's many lies being spread by both sides these days, the diehard Paulists, and the liberal media. Nobody wants to bother to get the facts straight. Doesn't fit either one of their agendas.
Bottom line: Ron Paul is not a racist, or bigot or anti-Semite. But he does personally feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, (as do a huge number of older folks), and he most certainly opposes Israelis, (not Jews!).
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX)
The great words of the year? "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow."
They are the last words of Steve Jobs, reported by his sister, the novelist Mona Simpson, who was at his bedside. In her eulogy, a version of which was published in the New York Times, she spoke of how he looked at his children "as if he couldn't unlock his gaze." He'd said goodbye to her, told her of his sorrow that they wouldn't be able to be old together, "that he was going to a better place." In his final hours his breathing was deep, uneven, as if he were climbing.
"Before embarking, he'd looked at his sister Patty, then for a long time at his children, then at his life's partner, Laurene, and then over their shoulders past them. Steve's final words were: 'OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW.'"
The caps are Simpson's, and if she meant to impart a sense of wonder and mystery she succeeded. "Oh wow" is not a bad way to express the bigness, power and force of life, and death. And of love, by which he was literally surrounded.
I wondered too, after reading the eulogy, if I was right to infer that Jobs saw something, and if so, what did he see? What happened there that he looked away from his family and expressed what sounds like awe? I thought of a story told by a friend, whose grown son had died, at home, in a hospice. The family was ringed around his bed. As Robert breathed his last an infant in the room let out a great baby laugh as if he saw something joyous, wonderful, and gestured toward the area above Robert's head. The infant's mother, startled, moved to shush him but my friend, her mother, said no, maybe he's just reacting to . . . something only babies see.
Ron Paul's supporters are sure of one thing: Their candidate has always been consistent—a point Dr. Paul himself has been making with increasing frequency. It's a thought that comes up with a certain inevitability now in those roundtables on the Republican field. One cable commentator genially instructed us last Friday, "You have to give Paul credit for sticking to his beliefs."
He was speaking, it's hardly necessary to say, of a man who holds some noteworthy views in a candidate for the presidency of the United States. One who is the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.