We've Got Him Right Where We Want Him!

By -
In yesterday's delegate counts as of this moment, Romney is up 65-3 on Paul. That lead will widen significantly, probably to something like 200 up for Romney. In the popular vote, Romney is beating Paul by four or five to one.

Perhaps Paul is just trying to make him overconfident?

Comments

  1. traumerei2:32 AM

    Is there a reason for the continual sarcasm regarding the Paul campaign?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:41 AM

      Yes, it is that, as recently as a month ago, I was still seeing pieces claiming that Paul was even with Romney in delegates and had a "good shot" at the nomination. I am hoping certain people will look back and ask themselves, "What was I thinking?"

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more