Ron Paul for President in 2012

Now, more than ever.  Here’s why.

When Ron Paul accepted the idea that, intended by our forefathers or not, we were a nation locked into a two party system and one had better accept that idea or be hopelessly marginalized, he guaranteed that his neo-libertarian ideas would be heard on a national stage.  In 2008 he shunned the idea of doing the third party thing, entered the Republican Party presidential race and won a whole new generation of devotees.

Oh, there were purist critics to be sure, old friends of his on the paranoid right.  How can you submit to the two party system?  They were outraged at this compromise, this constitutional carnality.  But before they could grieve too long over the loss of Brother Paul, he skyrocketed to incredible, cult like, popularity and things they had been saying and advocating for years were suddenly racing along the wireless highways of Al Gore’s marvelous invention.

By the way, many of those critics were there in Minneapolis, at his Campaign for Liberty convention, (Ron Paul has a big heart,) selling their books, and admitting to Ron Paul groupies at their tables that, “Yes, he is quite a guy.”  And inwardly rolling their eyes and muttering under their breathes to their wives, “I could have done this years ago but I have way too much integrity.”

And their obedient wives were thinking, “Yeah, that’s why we only earned $30,000 last year off your dwindling mailing list of idiots.  Thank God, for Ron Paul.  Now, at least, we are selling some of your 1960’s ‘classics.’  We may actually be able to get all those boxes out of our garage and park the car in there.”

The fact is, by running for the GOP nomination in 2008, Ron Paul compromised nothing.  Unless you think Jesus compromised when he said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”

Sure, he has to be sensitive to sacrificing principle to win when that is the very reason people support him and the very reason they are angry at Democrats and Republicans.  But the fact is that Ron Paul has lifted the whole, aging, stifling, outdated Neanderthal right wing out of the ditch and up onto dry ground and hitched it to a populist, neo-libertine wagon train.  And he has done all of this single handedly, on his broad generous, courageous shoulders.  And he has done it without breaking the China.

Oh, there is much, much more.  He has woven a slender thread through the crimson cloth of Evangelical Christians and the pink cloth of Gay America, making one garment out of a people who have decided that they never really wanted or needed power, just the guarantee that government would stay out of their lives and not intrude.  Who would have thought that this was politically possible?

He has gathered the hurt and wounded families of America who have suffered the extremes of our glorious “War on Crime,” which has become almost Soviet in its unintended consequences.

It is an amazingly diverse and complicated political fabric, with great demographic possibilities.

Still, the question remains, what did it all accomplish?  Were the national debates the high watermark?  What happened to our new Paulista congressmen and school board members and the remaking of the GOP?

The political reality is this, just as Ron Paul accepted the fact that he had to run in a two party system, he now must accept the fact that he cannot oversee the remaking of the GOP as a coach on the sidelines.  Surely the lesson of 2008 made that clear.  He has to get in the game.  He has to play quarterback.  He has to run for president.  Again.

The fact is that a successful run for president is the only way to reform the GOP and the only way to take control of the party and the only way to get new congressmen elected.  People will only get off the ground if they are shooting at the moon.  They need the inspiration of a big dream.

Well, you say, the conditions were right in 2008.  We had an unpopular war in Iraq and an unpopular president.  And Ron Paul’s moment was great theatre.  In one of my earlier blogs I compared it to the little boy who cried, “The Emperor has no clothes.”  Ron Paul’s arguments were breathtaking.  He was reading the collective minds of millions and saying publicly what they were barely able to admit to themselves, let alone to a spouse or a friend.  It came as relief to find that these instinctive feelings, these unconscious worries, rested on a bedrock of principle that someone had been tending and fussing over for years.   And when the debates ended, 32 million, grateful, dollars came pouring into the Ron Paul Campaign.

But to relegate the Ron Paul phenomenon to a lucky confluence of events, to say it cannot happen again, is to say it was only a parlor trick and never was an argument based on principles.  It is to deny ourselves.

Indeed, the one big, frightening collective thought that has come to the Paulista nation in recent months is the reality of all that he and others have been warning us about.  All those things they have been saying about the Federal Reserve and the house of cards of this global world economy are now upon us.  If Ron Paul cannot get a political head of steam going in this environment then who can? And if not now, when the daily news confirms their prescience, then when would they ever be able to do it?

We who believe in the original American idea, or even some remote version of it, or ever believe in a free markeplace, must rally now, or forever resign from public life.  What will we tell our grandchildren?  We didn’t try because we didn’t think we could win?  Shouldn’t the American people be given that choice?  Shouldn’t the media be forced to confront it as well?  Remember, our currently serving lame duck president is a “conservative Republican.”  And he willingly “socialized” the American banking system to buy a few good days on the stock market for the Republican nominee. 

After being warned about all of this for years, it is still chilling to see it all disappear so quickly, like bath water down the drain.  The fact is that Ron Paul must run for president again.  He must.

 Note:  Is he too old?  Hell yes, but I will talk to that on Wednesday.  And how could he possibly win?  I will address that on Thursday or maybe next week.  I just got home from an around the world speaking tour, gotta get a nap in before trying to save America.

41 Responses to Ron Paul for President in 2012

  1. avinkline says:

    and this is why I made the journey to Minneapolis.

  2. raleyb says:

    I’m looking forward to your next two posts about Ron Paul

    I figured I would get on the comment board before a half dozen rants by you know who.

  3. […] Read the entire wonderful can’t miss article here. […]

  4. rogfactor says:

    great thoughts. you think Ron Paul will pull it off over Obama’s second round? i’m also looking forward to Wednesday🙂

  5. Mary Achor says:

    I keep hearing from people, more and more, who declare themselves in sync with libertarian ideals. It really is quite astonishing.

  6. polishprophet says:

    This is a tall order. It has always been difficult to rally a band of rugged individualists. But yoiu are right, Paul will get more of the message out in a Republican party primary than in a third party.

  7. David Black says:

    Amway or Ron Paul, it really doesn’t matter what “brand” you’re pushing at the moment, does it?

    What’s that I hear? A chorus of knuckle dragging toward the altar of St. Paul or even Jesus, it doesn’t really matter when people are too brainless to lead themselves and ensure their own prosperity.

    “Rugged individualists” don’t join crusades led by one person, mortal or immortal, either.

  8. avinkline says:

    What exactly is @David Black saying, I don’t get it?

  9. David Black says:

    “What exactly is @David Black saying, I don’t get it?”

    If you’re Doug Wead, or his son, or one of the many anonymous sock puppets that respond to this blog, you’ll get it.

    Anyone who is a sycophantic follower of any person or being won’t get it, sorry.

  10. vally99 says:

    Hmm. To be honest, I look at this article with humor. Many people who made a comment take it too seriously.

  11. David Black says:

    Doug is adept at masking serious intentions and ideas with humor. That’s part of a born salesman’s schtick, the very same kind that gets you to buy into something without first thinking about it too deeply because your full attention has been diverted.

    Me, on the other hand, represent the antithesis of the salesman. My basic approach would be the jackhammer “if you don’t buy this, you’re an idiot” attack.

  12. blakmira says:

    Excellent article, Doug Wead!
    We need more optimism like yours, especially while too many thick-headed people are envious and/or threatened by Ron Paul’s ever-growing popularity.

  13. Oliver says:

    Ron Paul is too old.
    Ron Paul never wanted to run for president. He ran to spread a message.
    Ron Paul agreed to not run as an Independent if he didn’t get the nomination (again, he didn’t want to be President).
    Ron Paul kept $4 million in donations.
    CampaignForLiberty has been underwhelming, to put it mildly.
    Ron Paul completely underestimates the global threat of jihad and Islam (An Islamic Europe DOES and WILL affect the United States).
    Ron Paul is a messenger, not an executive.

  14. mwarden says:

    @Oliver:

    “Ron Paul agreed to not run as an Independent if he didn’t get the nomination (again, he didn’t want to be President).”

    Nice sound bite, but you make it sound like he had a choice. He didn’t. In many states, you must agree to this in order to run in the Republican Primary.

    Here’s the bottom line: I’d bet you anything that if someone else was willing to take his ideas to the white house, Ron Paul would GET EXCITED about that and support that person.

    Can you say that about any other presidential nominee that was up there in the Republican primaries? It is about the ideas, the principles, not the man. RP is not out for power. He’s out to improve the political discourse and public policy of this country.

    Stop focusing on his age and start paying attention to what he’s saying. Seriously.

  15. davide7 says:

    Ron Paul will be 76 years old in 2012 but MikeHuckabee will be only 56. If there was some way for Paul to unite with Huckabee, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

  16. David Black says:

    “It is about the ideas, the principles, not the man. RP is not out for power. He’s out to improve the political discourse and public policy of this country.”

    Does one require any ore proof that Paul’s campaign is backed by wackos and brain damaged potheads?

    No one ever enters into politics with a thirst for attention, love, approval, or power. The only true altruists in the world are those belonging to religious orders who have taken vows of poverty.

  17. David Black says:

    EDIT: “Does one require any more …”

  18. mtabor1 says:

    Doug,

    Good points.

    “We who believe in the original American idea, or even some remote version of it, or ever believe in a free markeplace, must rally now, or forever resign from public life.”

    But, even a second go-round in 2012 will still be way shy of a single decade’s agitation.
    Our problem is, that we who believe in those things you mention, have been attacked surreptitiously for generations, and those that wage that fight are in it for the long haul.

    That is what we need, the same long-term strategy, that measures success not in 4 or 8 or 12 years, but in decades.
    Take for example the long-term revision of Abe Lincoln. The current cartoon version of history that Lincoln is placed in, the kind of stuff a simpleton such as W. always mouths off, has been slowly built ever since the new academes started in the thirties. Same goes for “American” ideals.

    Our values have been under attack, and have been undermined ever since people like Leo Strauss got their hands on it. They did this by redefining words, rewriting interpretations of history, etc. But they did it with such a long range goal, that we never perceived their effort or effect.

    To cement their reinterpretation of our “national values”, they also helped make sure that opposing thought is marginalized, by flooding the positions in academe, and society, that are thought of as being the “expert” base. Then they made sure that people no longer have the education or knowledge background to evaluate their claptrap and to dismiss it.

    The last straw in this attack of course is a remaking of this country’s make-up via immigration, illegal, and yes, legal. The homogeneity of this country, into one dominant majortiy group, and one dominant minority group, that was extant little as 40 years ago, is no longer. Thus the cultural backbone of a shared value system (with all its many warts) has been undermined, and keeps on being so.
    The only acculturation to any shared values still taking place is to their cartoon-history version, in all its shallowness.

    It is this long term assault that we must fight, and Ron Paul running again is only stepping stone against the long reach of our opponents. It needs to be done, but success is still slight in this short term, let’s not kid anyone here.

    Can it ever be successful, in turning this around? Unless we are willing to point out the root cause not, because any measures taken to cure the problems will be based on a false diagnosis.

    This is as true on the field of endevor that Leo Strauss and his disciples chose, as it is in matters economic, where today still, the followers of Keynes hold as much sway, as Strauss’ disciples do in their sphere.

    Much of what Ron Paul had to say went in one ear, out the other, because most listeners did not have the knowledge needed to comprehend, and their situation was not yet (and is not yet) bad enough to make them willing to pay attention and to start thinking and reevaluating.
    That is what our enemies count on, so far it has worked very well.

  19. David Black says:

    “Our values have been under attack, and have been undermined ever since people like Leo Strauss”

    Yes, it’s always the Jews’ fault, right, you Jew hating creep?

    So where does a 16 year old learn this kind of nonsense? How many of your relatives were in the KKK, kid?

  20. mtabor1 says:

    Schwartz, boy are you a think skinned egocentric. You can not read anything other than through your preconceived notions. And you perceive yourself as an intelligent intellect?

    Leo Strauss (from Wiki):
    “He spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of neoconservatism in the United States.”

    I said nothing about Jews, and did not imply anything of the sort. I suppose you would infer an anti-jewish attitude and motivation, if a truck driver in Crown Heights accidentally ran a red light and hit a member of the Chabad. Egocentric is problably too small a word for you.

    What I said was people like Leo Strauss, and what I was referring to is his role as the “intellectual fathers…” as cited above.

    Not all neo-cons are Jewish, and if you take any and all criticism of neo-cons as being the same as anti-jewish, then you are just using a worn-out argument-killer.
    Or would your immediate offensives in this area signal that there is actually something to it? If so, you are the one making that case by your constant imputation of anti this, anti that, not those never make these points in the first place.

    You sure are a broken record.

  21. David Black says:

    “You sure are a broken record.”

    Look who is talking, kid.

    To bash neo-conservatism is just another pretext to attack Jews, since so many early neo-cons from the 40’s were Jews, such as Bill Kristol’s father, for starters.

    It’s evident that because of your age you don’t yet fully grasp the gravity of your views. You parrot that sick quasi-losertarian John Birch crap because it provides you with something to make you appear as if you can stand toe to toe with your elders. It’s also likely a key of entry with a group of elders in your life you associate with and feel accepted by. I understand that at sixteen years of age, acceptance is everything.

    There is reason why neo-cons and the PNAC and the AEI are blamed for influencing the foreigh policy since 2001. They’ll cite their devotion to Israel as the policy’s downfall. It’s echoed as well in the Losertarian and paleo-con talking whining on this blog and on others.

    It’s just another way to package anti-Semitism, which is as old as the hills but no less tolerable.

  22. David Black says:

    By the way, kid, if you want to read “broken records,” peruse any of the blog entries and follow up responses where televangelists or Ron Paul are discussed.

    Count, for example, the number of people who have to cite passages from a book of ancient Hebrew folk tales as justification for their views.

    Count, for example, the number of people who don’t grasp the reality that as a Presidential candidate, Ron Paul is a cipher. Yet, like the Democrats with B. Hussein Obama, regard Paul with the same pseudo-religious zeal.

  23. David Black says:

    EDIT: no less intolerable.

  24. mtabor1 says:

    ““You sure are a broken record.”

    Look who is talking, kid.”

    Indeed look who’s talking, and what he is saying (again and again and again).

    “To bash neo-conservatism is just another pretext to attack Jews, since so many early neo-cons … were Jews”

    *Because* so many early neo-cons were Jews?

    In other words, if you criticise someone, or a group of people, for anything whatsoever, and they also happen to be Jewish, then that is just anti Jewish, nothing more.

    Thus, better lay off the Secretary of the Treasury, because you are just being anti Jewish.
    Better not criticising Goldman Sachs for its part of the financial melt-down, as that is just anti-Jewish.
    And all those “feminists” who hounded old Larry S. out of the Harvard presidency, they were just mean old anti-Jewish.

    What a wonderful construct you have in your head, and what a great way to argue on any substantive issue.

    Too bad for Bill Clinton, or for that matter for old Tricky Dick, that they weren’t Jewish. Neither would have been impeached (or close to it), for of course all their critics would then just have been evil ant-Jewish.

    “acceptance is everything”.
    As opposed to you, for whom 25 divided by 5 will always be 14!

  25. David Black says:

    Rather convenient to support your case, kid, when you quote out of context.

    Is that what they are teaching you in that substandard public school you’re attending in St. Louis?

    Of course, what 16 year old twerp in America would even begin to understand racial persecution if it didn’t involve American blacks?

    They certainly don’t teach the secular history of the Jewish race in many high school curricula, that’s for sure.

    “In other words, if you criticise someone, or a group of people, for anything whatsoever, and they also happen to be Jewish, then that is just anti Jewish, nothing more.”

    Substitute black for Jewish and you have the stance of Obamaniacs.

  26. David Black says:

    “and what he is saying (again and again and again).”

    How about the 16 year old from St. Louis with zero life experience that simply parrots what he hears from his anti-Israeli paleo-con or Losertarian mentors?

    But that’s OK, right?

  27. “Is he too old … and how could he possibly win?”

    I am glad to see you’re about to address these, Mr Wead, as I think we need a slew of strong, quotable points obliterating these alleged hurdles. So many times over this election we heard people bringing up excuses such as these for not voting for the Gentleman from Texas. Excuses that, apart from having nothing to do with policy, would never be used against any other candidate.

    How twisted, that we should not vote because others may not also vote the same way, or even worse – on the off-chance that the candidate may die of old age. What a strange, anti-political method of reasoning. Perhaps we should forget about policy altogether (if we have not already) and monitor candidate’s jogging regimes more closely. All idealism aside, we certainly know that age has very little to do with death these days, and a man seems just as likely to die of a heart attack at fifty as at eighty.

    And then, in a perfect world, if we were idealists, I would ask: what matters death to a good idea? For good ideas are taken up again and again, not being dependent on the life of one good man, but relying on good men to be born to every generation.

  28. mtabor1 says:

    To David “I must have the last word” Schwartz:

    “Rather convenient to support your case, kid, when you quote out of context.”

    Oh really? Omitting “…from the 40’s…” removes the context? You would make any argument, just so long as you have something to reply.

    “To bash neo-conservatism is just another pretext to attack Jews”

    So let’s use that statement of yours, and because you seem to like to substitute words, lets replace “bash” with “criticize”.
    No matter what, to you it just becomes an attack on Jews. Point made, debate over, case closed. Dare to criticize someone, if he is Jewish, you are just another anti-Semite. Great. Intelligent argument.

    “They certainly don’t teach the secular history of the Jewish race in many high school curricula”

    Even one high school is too many.
    But of course, not true. Ever hear of mandatory holocaust education? What other “race” as you call it gets a part of its non-American history taught via mandatory curriculum in our schools, when that history has nothing to do with the US at all? Just because survivors came to the US after the fact, and some of their relatives live here.
    Those events happened in another part of the world, they were not caused by the US, but it has to be taught here.
    Mandatory Armenian holocaust education?
    Mandatory Ukrainian holocaust education?
    Mandatory Cambodian holocaust education?
    We can of course exclude the part of that history that predates Christ, as that is not history, but just scribblings in an old text of superstition, as you like to say.

    And when some attempts are made to teach something about Jewish history other than the victim thing, such as the involvment in the slave trade, those people are silenced, using the old tactics you like to use here so much.

    “that simply parrots what he hears …”

    No worse than parroting yourself ad-nauseam.

  29. cbsure says:

    Dear mtabor1,

    Try not to take offense to what I have to say…but it’s time to bring in Scott McClellan. At times like these, we should take a step back & look at the big picture…& remind ourselves that People like DB are important to have on the side. Every moral & intellectual enterprise, be it political or otherwise, needs their resident Devil’s Advocate.

    The Greatest adversary to any human being is our OWN need to hide with the like-minded. We are All searching for confirmation of our biases. Only those that truly believe in Freedom from Ignorance & Liberty for All understand the value of Freedom of Speech & Religion & Media…because we need all the help we can get to gather & verify whether our information is accurate & comprehensive to make an effective & moral decision. Let alone to interpret data from all viewpoints to guard against contradictions.

    Every once in a while, even an idiot will say something wise…albeit…inadvertent.

    & I’m NOT saying DB is worthy to be our resident DA. All I’m saying is…to believe Ron Paul can win a Presidency requires everyone to be focused. There is real work to be done. More knowledge to be shared. More minds to be won.

    I think you’ve correctly identified the dilemma of Ronpaulicans. Socialism didn’t happen yesterday. It has been growing since the days of Woodrow Wilson…if not earlier. Therefore, the People of this nation should sway back to the path of Liberty at the same pace we diverged. The People deserve time to adjust.

    If People lack knowledge then our goal is to share what we know. I understand that time is of the essence. Our fiat currency is under attack with each day that our Budget & National Debt grows. Our housing crisis will not be going away anytime soon. On the other hand, our foreign creditors will soon figure out another reserve currency…other than our Trusted Almighty Dollar. Inflation is in the air. & It has potential to be Big…as in Great Depression Big.

    The Campaign of Ron Paul will be more than just persuading People to ‘new’ political beliefs…it will encompass understanding of Economic principles….knowing the pros & cons of Capitalism & Socialism…learning the intentions of our Founding Fathers…for domestic & abroad…& most importantly…wanting Liberty NOT just for certain groups of People…BUT for All Individuals & Citizens of America.

    So let DB speak his mind. We need NOT convince him that he is ‘wrong’…for how can he know if he lives in a box? & Yet, withOUT his voice we TOO would be living in that same box! Plus, I’m willing to bet that he will incite People to the cause of Liberty than even he can imagine. Such is the Law…of Unintended Consequences.

    Moreover, to do justice towards our current predicament & future endeavors…let’s remember what we need more than ever…is a cogent platform free from contradictions…waiting for All to understand…God willing.

    Sincerely,

    cbsure

  30. David Black says:

    “…but it’s time to bring in Scott McClellan.”

    I see, so you serve up a back stabbing ingrate as a champion mediator.

    You fail yet again, kid.

    hey mtabor1, those blacks you seem to adore so much accuse critics of being racist, so what’s the difference?

    You say nothing about them? Why is that?

    Could it have something to do with the fact that you draw pictures of black men? What’s THAT all about?

    So ‘fess up, are you black or not? Why not be honest for once in your life?

  31. David Black says:

    “We are All searching for confirmation of our biases. ”

    Speak for yourself, cbsure. I could care less if no one agreed with me. If I did, I’d be on a Freeper-type site.

  32. charlier1955 says:

    Great Idea Doug!

    To lay the foundation for this win will require that the Ron Paul people rebuild the republican party as a whole, and win a large number of Iowa legislative seats in 2010.

    We must also create our own media system by then. Break te Matrix is a great start, but it is only a start.

    I believe the age problem can largely be covered by a Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin ticket.

  33. spkrman says:

    Anyone who has been reading any Paul blogs will immediately recognize the Marxist troll, he spends a lot of time denigrating Dr. Paul’s (and Doug Wead’s) ideas without committing to any of his own.

  34. David Black says:

    By “no ideas” of my own, you really mean that I purposely do not seek any agreement or common ground with you deluded dolts.

    The best thing I can do is to impugn your populist idealism and silly hopes for a paleo-con led GOP revitalization led by a Texas kook who doesn’t want to kill street criminal scumbags and who hates Israel.

    Marxist? I guess anyone to the left of you is automatically a Marxist.

    How can you call yourself a conservative if you back Ron Paul? He wants illegal drug using vermin to run free among law abiding citizens who lead clean lives free of vice and addiction.

    He also doesn’t want to fry convicted street criminals, either. He is not for order and discipline, but a society overrun by people who refuse to be kept in line by strict laws on personal behavior.

    He is too cowardly to want to kill Islamo-fascist scum who want to kill innocent Israeli women and children.

    He’s just like the rest of you hillbilly losers … a Jew hater. I’ve never known any redneck who wasn’t a Jew hater.

    And by the way, just because you have a freedom, doesn’t mean that you have to use it whenever your heart desires. Freedoms should be used sparingly.

    Whatever happened to the idea of denying yourself? Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you have to.

    I can tell you idiots weren’t raised in strict old world styled European immigrant households.

    Spoiled and over-indulged, all of you. You wouldn’t know real suffering if it batted you on your bulbous noses.

  35. rmsdn says:

    “He has woven a slender thread through the crimson cloth of Evangelical Christians and the pink cloth of Gay America, making one garment out of a people who have decided that they never really wanted or needed power, just the guarantee that government would stay out of their lives and not intrude.”

    Huh?
    The EC have more historical credibility and influence on govt. and I am not just talking about the “Religious Right”, but GA doesn’t want power or the govt. in our lives? Give me a break.

  36. selectsmart says:

    Mr. Wead,
    As you know, prospective presidential candidates are already indicating and telegraphing their intentions. Accordingly, SelectSmart.com has just released the 2012 Presidential Candidate Selector, which is earlier in the election cycle than ever before. See http://selectsmart.com/president/2012.html This matching quiz asks users for their opinions on various political issues. The users then get results which show how ideologically compatible they are with 20 prominent political figures–including RON PAUL. The site also features an online tool to research the politicos’ past votes, quotes and interest group ratings which can be compared side-by-side at http://selectsmart.com/president/2012/comparethem.html/.
    Given your political acumen, we certainly welcome your comments and critiques. After you answer the questions and get your results you will have the chance to rate the selector quiz and then submit your review.
    The LA Times quoted Jan Schaffer, executive director of the Institute for Interactive Journalism at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, as saying about an earlier edition of our candidate matching quiz that it is ”another entry point to help citizens get involved, get engaged in the election. And for many, it’s fun.” She also said, ”Sometimes, people realize they don’t really agree with the candidate they thought they liked.”
    In 1999, SelectSmart.com introduced what was then the very first presidential candidate selector and has made them for every subsequent presidential election. The Chicago Sun Times reported that ”it’s a crash course in American politics and not nearly as painful as watching a debate or a Sunday morning talk show.” Eonline.com said, ”SelectSmart seems as sincere as eHarmony in wanting to find you the commander in chief of your dreams.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: