So what is it with the candidates I like and their mistreatment by the parties that supposedly represent them? First it was Matt Kelty getting the raw deal from our local "Republican" party leadership and now it seems that Fox News decided NOT to invite Ron Paul to the New Hampshire "Republican" debate. It's not as if he wasn't a valid candidate for he had filled out all the correct paperwork and actually got twice as many votes as Juliani in the Iowa primaries. Could it be because he is actually a conservative and isn't afraid to stand up for what is right? Could it be that the truth of his values shine a line on the other candidates who, fifty years ago, would have been considered left-leaning liberals? Hmmmm, I wonder.
And speaking of liberals and primaries, have you wondered why it seems that the "Republican" party is unable to serve up a decent candidate? By the time the primaries get to Indiana it's pretty much a done deal and in the November elections you're left with choosing the least of two evils.
So why is it, then, that a tiny minority of liberal states get to choose our eventual candidates? If, for instance, Thompson wins both Iowa and New Hampshire then all the sheeple in the following primary states just assume that this is the winner and vote likewise. But when the first primaries are held in predominantly liberal states the candidates they consistently choose are the more liberal ones. As if we needed a huge example of this egotistical bias, two tiny towns in New Hampshire held their primaries starting at midnight, just so they could be the first to cast their votes, have their names in the news, and hopefully have an exceedingly minuscule minority sway the vote of the sheeple. They picked McCain, a liberal in Republican's clothing if ever there was one. I tell ya, until everyone has primaries on the same day it's never going to be a valid candidate for us true conservatives.