22 January 2012

Are You Kidding Me?

So Chuck Norris has endorsed a presidential candidate.  Here are his criteria:
In the past few editions of my weekly column, I detailed 10 questions to find our next president, in no particular order of importance. I proposed that the name of the candidate that fills the majority of the answers deserves readers' votes.
          1) Who is most committed to follow and lead by the U.S. Constitution?
          2) Who has the greatest ability to rally, unify and mobilize citizens across political and societal spectrums?
          3) Who has the best working comprehension of America?
          4) Who has the best ability to influence a volatile world away from the brink of destruction?
          5) Who has clear and present moral fortitude?
          6) Who has the best chance of beating President Obama, in and outside of debates?
          7) Who has the best abilities to lead Washington politics and politicians?
          8) Who has the best plan and leadership ability to restore America's economy?
          9) Who is the most fiscally prudent?
          10) Who has demonstrated the highest regard for human life?

And the candidate Chuck Norris has endorsed is (drumroll please):
My wife, Gena, and I sincerely believe that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the answer to most of those questions and deserves our endorsement and votes
Are you kidding me?!  Ron Paul has amply demonstrated, time and again that he not only understand the constitution, but he is willing to submit to it.  And how does anyone think that Gingrich is better than Paul at attracting and mobilizing citizens across a variety of spectrums?  And how does Norris come to the conclusion that the man who claimed that the founding fathers would oppose the cultivation of marijuana has the best working knowledge of America even though Ron Paul has generally done a better and more consistent job of citing and explain the founding fathers, and consistently displays an impressive working knowledge of American history?

And Gingrich’s imperialistic war-hawk stance is more likely to influence a volatile world away from the brink of destruction than Paul’s non-interventionism (aka the Monroe doctrine)?  Come on!

And anyone who’s watched the debates knows that Ron Paul can hold his own.  Gingrich may be slightly better at debating, but he’s not polling close enough to Obama to even stand a chance at beating him (FWIW, Ron Paul is).

And if Gingrich’s record is any indication, he is definitely incapable of leading Washington politics and politicians.  Anyone remember how the contract with America turned out?

As for a plan to restore America’s economy, how does $1 trillion in budget cuts grab you?  Guess who proposed that?  (Hint: not Newt Gingrich.)  And since we’re on the subject of fiscal prudence, guess who’s career has not shown a tendency to milk the taxpayers for money?  (Hint:  it’s the guy who voted against hurricane relief measures even though it would directly benefit his congressional district, not the guy who made over $1 million from Freddie Mac.)

Who has more regard for human life?  Probably the doctor who helped deliver thousands of babies and signed the Planned Parenthood funding ban.  His name is Ron Paul.  And if Chuck Norris actually believed in his principles, that’s who he would endorse.


  1. Norris' endorsement is hardly suprising when you consider that the words "Chuck Norris" and "Think Tank" have never appeared in the same sentence.

    The man is a drooling idiot. Mystery solved.

  2. @ZorroPrimo- It's true that Norris is no genius, but the sad thing is that you could ask any conservative if they agreed with the ten questions asked by Norris and most conservatives would say yes. but if you ask them who they support, the majority would say Gingrich or Santorum.