January 21, 2012 § Leave a comment
So who of the wannabees will drop out first? How long will Santorum’s fishy victory in Iowa boost his ego enough that he remains preaching the gospel of the heavy handed state on the national scene? When will Santorum realize that his brand of Republicanism has been stale since Bush left office, and probably before then? When will the nineties throwback Newt Gingrich come to the inevitable realization that parachute pants stand a better chance at a comeback than he does at winning the nomination in 2012?
Most importantly, when will Ron Paul have the opportunity to tear Romney to shreds once the rest of the shih tzu’s are done nipping at his heels?
I wish I had the answers to these questions, because nothing excites me more than the thought of Ron Paul finally taking the gloves off when it comes to Mitt Romney. I don’t know if he will get the chance, but it would be a wonderful sight. Could you imagine that debate? How awesome would that be? What would CNN‘s subtitle be for the debate? How about: 2012 Republican Debates: 30 years of Princple versus The Porcelain Man. Could you imagine Fox News’ headline? Decision 2012: America versus A new breed of Terrorism. Regardless of how the corporate media spins it, the debate would be just down right amazing.
Perhaps even better, would it not be sweet to see Ron Paul go head to head with Obama in a debate? Matter of fact, nothing would piss me off more than watching Mitt Romney waffle his way around Obama. There’s no way in hell Romney stands a chance at beating Obama.
In related news, Bill “magic ball” Kristol said on CSPAN that Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party. Talk about harsh words. I guess that settles it, right? Ron should just quietly go away and run as a Libertarian, right?
Look, Kristol and his ilk are nothing more than political opportunists who have some pretty interesting philosophical and political influences that I would imagine most Republican voters would find disagreeable. But then again, the Republican party has essentially been diluted to nothing more than Evangelicals and fascists, so what more do you expect? What you’re seeing here are two things: First, outright rejection of a candidate that would greatly expand the party base by a combination of disingenuous intellectuals, big money donors with a lot to lose from a RP presidency, and a media dead set on providing covers for both of these groups. Second, these same groups would much rather have a continuation of Obama’s presidency. Don’t believe me? Why do you think Kristol is even encouraging Ron Paul in such a fashion? He’d love to see Barack Obama get reelected. And as for those big money donors, it should be pretty obvious that the military industrial complex as well as Israel is more than happy with an Obama presidency. For these people, Obama is the first choice, and Mitt Romney is nothing more than a solid back-up plan in case of an emergency.
And just so you know this, Bill, it was hard not to hear the desperation in your voice during your CSPAN interview. I can tell you’re worried. We all can.
January 21, 2012 § Leave a comment
As Obama’s first term in office comes winding down to a close, it’s become painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that his calls to end the wars were a farce. Granted, anyone who believed that the same candidate whose largest donor in 2008 was Goldman Sachs would represent “the people” was probably kidding themselves. Then again, we can’t expect much less from Americans these days, where sweet talking politicians can be swept into office on the backs of banks, corporations, and just about every other organization that most Americans claim to despise. That irony isn’t lost on some of us, but with your typical Obama supporter, irony is apparently a forgotten phenomena. Or at least it must, because otherwise, I can’t understand how these people live with themselves.
What kills me the most about liberals is how easily they contradict themselves without even trying. At least with most of the conservatives on Fox News, you basically know right away that they’re full of shit. There isn’t really any pretenses about it. Sean Hannity’s television show is like a half-hour of in your face bullshit. Outside of a slim majority of the American populace, I’m pretty sure this is well known. The difference with liberals is that, somehow, their incessant bitching about the same old fallacies time and time again goes completely unquestioned. Indeed, most of the supposedly “unbiased” media like CNN would agree with much of what is said by people like Rachel Maddow. More importantly, much of Washington, DC(regardless of party) would agree with much of it.
This is in some ways related to the ways in which liberal operate. By and large, they expect government to do a lot, which is easily witnessed by Americans. When the government builds a bridge, well, there it is. Look at how marvelous the bridge is! It’s what isn’t seen that no one hears about, and it’s also hard to explain ‘what isn’t seen’ in 30 second sound bites. Sometimes, Ron Paul does a pretty damn good job, but I’m afraid Bill Mahr is much better at making smug, bullshit remarks, and in many ways, he’s batting for the ‘other team’.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter, and expose one of the biggest hypocrisies the left is currently undertaking: namely, their dismissal of Ron Paul. Just the other day, I got into a short back and forth with someone on the ‘Occupy Cleveland’ facebook page. I mentioned something about civil liberties and Ron Paul 2012. In typical leftist fashion, the first response was a smug comment referring to Ron Paul as an ‘asshat’ and citing claims he made twenty years ago about homosexuals with HIV. Essentially, he said he wasn’t voting for Ron Paul because he made a statement he disagrees with. As I tried to explain, even if Ron Paul believed those statements he mad twenty years ago, it wouldn’t matter! He doesn’t want social issues decided at the federal government. His campaign is running on the platform of state’s rights. You know, the same idea that brought California and New York legalized gay marriage.
Of course, I never received a response. His comment garnered a few likes, but absolutely no one tried responding to my post. Most likely because they couldn’t. That is, without seriously looking into what I said, which would take time. And as we have established so far, repeating catchphrases and dishing out smug remarks is way easier than actually doing research. Not to mention, it makes you look smart.
At any rate, as I typed my response, I really started thinking about it, and it kind of cracks me up how stupid that guys comment was. He’s essentially saying “Yes, it’s perfectly okay if we keep bombing and killing hundreds and thousands of Brown people. Also, forget civil liberties, who needs them. Matter of fact, let’s just outright repeal the 4th and 6th amendement. The NDAA and the Patriot Act are just beating around the bush. Let’s get serious about this whole tyranny ordeal.” Which would followed up with “Oh, granted, all of this is only okay so long as you say nice things about homosexuals.”
Essentially, a vote for Obama over Ron Paul is essentially a vote in favor of wars, death, destruction, and the minimization of our rights. Oh, but Obama ended the war in Iraq! True, but he ended it on Bush’s deadline. Look, I don’t know about you, but I set my standards for peace a little bit higher than “Hey, if it’s good enough for GW, than it’s good enough for me!”. Even still, Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq LONGER. That’s right, his thirst for war even surpasses that of George Bush.
But hey, at leas he once said something good about gay people, right? Right?
Damn that Ron Paul, he doesn’t support gay marriage. Just look at what he has to say about it! Psh! State’s rights?! What has that ever accomplished for gay marriage? Oh, wait..
I’ll update soon. Maybe this weekend. I’m pretty swamped with homework, so we will see what happens.
January 6, 2012 § Leave a comment
Can anyone tell me why Jon Huntsman continues to linger in the presidential race? Is he holding out for a decent showing in New Hampshire?
Drop out, Jon. You seem like a nice guy, but you’re toast, bro. Just admit it.
January 5, 2012 § Leave a comment
First, I want to take a moment to reference the post that motivated this one. It was posted on Lew Rockwell’s blog, which I have been reading with increasing frequency over the past few months. Despite the fact that I’m almost 100% positive that Lew played a role in the small fraction of Ron Paul’s newsletters that were racist in content, I’m still appreciative of Lew and the part that he plays in the liberty movement. Reading his blog has helped me progress in my “transition” from a Faux News Republican teenager to a libertarian twenty something with anarchist tendencies. Sometimes I feel like Lew has spent such a long time in the fringes that he relishes in it a bit too much, but ideas are important, and Mr. Rockwell sure promotes the right ones.
Anyhow, the post linked above could be easily summarized with the last line, which reads
Ultimately, conservatism is pro-war socialism.
And although those words would make most avid Sean Hannity viewers cringe, they are the truth. As much as Hannity would like to distance himself as well as the Republican party from Obama and the Democrats, the truth is that they don’t offer a real alternative. As Anthony Gregory points out in the above link, the conservative movement…
…comprising the liberventionists, the Tea Party usurpers in DC, the theocons, neocons, Reaganites, the rightwing think tanks, almost everyone on Fox News, and the National Review crowd– is peddling a lie: the mirage of small government coupled with militarism and the national security state.
Here’s where it gets weird. The Republican party(which, sadly, is a good representation of the conservative movement), and it’s media henchmen refuse to accept Ron Paul and the influx of young voters he would bring with him. By merely accepting Ron’s movement, the party could “expand it’s base” and become a force to be reckoned with in the future. Not to mention, Republicans would no longer be decimated by the Democrats in the 18-30 year old age group. But no, the Republican establishment refuses to accept the “Ron Paul Revolution”. Why?
This is isn’t political gamesmanship. This isn’t strategy. This is flat out rejection. And for what? Aren’t political parties all about expanding their “base” in an effort to reach more voters and in the process gain more political power? That’s how this whole democratic process works, no? Then what about Ron Paul’s following makes it so damned despicable that it can’t be welcomed to the party?
More importantly, who the hell is pulling the strings within the party, and why do they find Paul so “dangerous”? As Ron points out, he’s merely preaching constitutional values. What’s so dangerous about that?
Personally, I’m not so convinced that this is just a case of “shock” as some others might say. If this were merely a matter of Ron Paul’s ideas being so far outside the status quo of Washington DC, it wouldn’t change the fact that Ron Paul brings votes. The party would still accept the man, even if they reject his ideas. No, that isn’t a valid explanation, because these slimy political parties don’t care about anythign except votes. If a candidate brings votes, then what objection could there be?
Enter the lobbyists.
As we often hear, the biggest objection to Ron Paul is his foreign policy. It isn’t his small government, constitutional values that Republicans fear– it’s his foreign policy. Once again, the simple fact that Ron’s foreign policy is outside the status quo is not enough to explain his(effective) exclusion from the party. Something else has to be at work, something with a lot of money riding on further American intervention abroad.
Why, hello AIPAC.
I’m sure there are a number of interests that want to make sure Ron’s foreign policy is kept at the fringes of Republican thought, but no other groups seems quite as prominent.
Unfortunately, I’m going to leave it there for now. I’m too tired to go any further.
But interestingly enough, a quick google search brought up the inevitable:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain and former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman will attend a policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, Ari Goldberg, a spokesman for the group, confirmed to CNN.
Obama will be making his first appearance as president before an AIPAC event when he addresses the conference Sunday morning. Several leading members of Congress are also scheduled to speak at the event.
AIPAC said this year’s conference will be the largest in its history with over 10,000 participants expected to attend.
Well, what do you know. It’s a bipartisan thing.
I hope this post doesn’t put me on some sort of weird watch list.
On second thought, who cares. I’ll see the rest of you in the detention centers!
January 3, 2012 § Leave a comment
Well, it was a matter of time.
The establishment witnessed the inevitable demise of Gingrich’s campaign, and have managed to scrounge up another scrub from the increasingly empty bucket of Republican candidates not named ‘Ron Paul’. Indeed, they’ve had to dig pretty deep, reaching all the way down to the washed up Jesus-freak and Bush era flashback, Rick Santorum. Surely, this will siphon votes away from Ron Paul and bring Mitt ‘Goldman Sachs’ Romney one step closer to his eventual Republican nomination. Right?
To be honest, I have no idea. Perhaps the fickle, undecided masses of the Republican party will swarm to the Santorum campaign because CNN and Fox News told them to. Who can be sure until voting wraps up tomorrow? More importantly, would a Santorum rise even affect Ron Paul’s campaign?
One thing that we can be sure of is the fact that neither the media establishment nor the Republican establishment wants a Ron Paul victory in Iowa. Rick Santorum is the newest(and probably not the last) in a long line of supposed front runners who fits two key requirements:
1) Is not named Mitt Romney.
2)Is not named Ron Paul.
It’s blatantly obvious that the Republican establishment wants Romney, but they’re having trouble finding an ‘anti-Romney’ candidate that can create a sense of competitiveness without giving any life to the Ron Paul campaign, which numerous Republicrat(yes, that was intentional) operatives find ‘dangerous’ (gasp).
But something does seem different this time around. Santorum’s rise in the polls certainly feels dubious, at best. I have trouble figuring out where in the hell he came from. By comparison, when Gingrich and Perry were anointed to the sacred ‘anti-Romney’ role, their rise(and ensuing fall) in the polls was directly correlated to their debate performances. Sure, it isn’t hard to get increased support when the entire debate is basically a conversation between two candidates, but Santorum wasn’t even given the “1 on 1” treatment that virtually every other “Anti-Romney” candidate received(the notable exception, of course, being Ron Paul).
I’m having trouble with the media’s push for Santorum. Usually, the mainstream media will grab on to some scintilla of truth(a few random polls with results that confirm their bias) and run with it. The incessant promotion of one candidate turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s true, the more they shove a candidate down the voters throat, the more votes that candidate will receive. That seems to be the case with Santorum.
Despite all that, I’m not really seeing how the media can even tout Santorum with a straight face. According to Real Clear Politics, Santorum’s numbers are still way down compared to Romney and even Paul. Sure, it takes a while for the media’s promotion to take effect, but the underlying question is, what about Santorum’s numbers suggests that he is a front runner in the first place?
It’s all smoke and mirrors, and that should be obvious to anyone who is seriously paying attention. Sadly, I’m not sure what percentage of Republican voters in Iowa could be described as “paying attention”. Frankly, I’m not sure how many Americans could be described in such a way.
From the perspective of a supporter of the Campaign For Liberty, the ultimate question is as follows: Will the media blitz in favor of Rick “pork barrel” Santorum be enough to overcome the grassroots support for Ron Paul?
I say no chance. Ron Paul’s support is solid, and it seems to be steadily growing, if the Real Clear Politics average is any indicator. As Ron Paul often says, people who come to his campaign will not leave. The Rick Santorum’s of the world are numerous–we’ve already him in the form of Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and most recently, Newt Gingrich. As far as I can tell, Santorum’s rise will hurt Romney more than it helps him, and only hurt Paul in the evangelical vote(which, by the way, Ron seems to be doing pretty well with). The Santorum craze is an obvious ploy to help divide the evangelical vote and decrease Paul’s support from that base. What the Republican establishment may not yet realize, is that the evangelical vote is most likely going to make up a smaller percentage of the vote in Iowa this year. Paul is attracting the type of voter that Republicans, especially in Iowa, are not used to seeing at the ballot box. Indeed, Santorum will only gain what Romney loses, as more Republican voters search for an “anti-Romney” who won’t tell them what they don’t want to hear about the wars overseas. The Republican establishment probably realizes this, but they must believe that it’s worth the risk if it means fracturing the evangelical vote.
With any luck, they’re dead wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time, that’s for sure.