---
they know their warmongering interventionist profits will dwindle
On Dec 21, 8:55 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "The smear campaign against Paul will surely increase in intensity as the only anti-interventionist candidate on the ballot gathers behind him a growing army of activists and voters sick and tired of the War Party's rigged elections. Rigged not by ballot stuffing, although there is enough of that going on, but by a mainstream media that rules antiwar candidates out of order and out of the running before even a single vote has been cast. That's why the smear campaign is bound to fail: because the people are on to it, they're on to the machinations of the War Party and their cronies in government and the "business" community. A recent Pew poll showed that the majority of Americans are in favor of what the elites disdain as "isolationism" – and I have a feeling Lowry and his elitist comrades on both the right and the left are in for a bit of a shock, as Ron not only takes Iowa but moves aggressively into New Hampshire. Not as just as the "Anti-Romney" but as the anti-neocon candidate, a clear alternative to the free-spending war-mongering Big Government conservatism that has driven America to the edge of the abyss."We Shall OvercomeRon Paul's rise has the War Party frothing at the mouthbyJustin Raimondo, December 21, 2011
> The governor of Iowasaysthat if Ron Paul wins the GOP caucus, the best thing to do is to "ignore him" – and, if yougo here, you can see the "mainstream" media agrees. Rich Lowry over at theNational Reviewproclaimsthat if the only anti-interventionist candidate gets the votes of Iowa Republicans, "no one should take them seriously again." The neocon solution to their Ron Paul Problem: exile the voters to Gehenna! "Ron Paul's ascent won't last,"sneersRamesh Ponnuru, "or help his cause." This was doubtless written before theChristian Science Monitormourned, in a headline: "What if Ron Paul wins Iowa – and New Hampshire too?"
> On both theneoconservative "right"and theObama-ite "left,"the spittle is flying: the gate-keepers of the politically permissible are practically frothing at the mouth, letting fly an outburst of political Tourette's Syndrome, with epithets like "geezer," "crank," "crazy old uncle," and "pestilential little locust." There are several themes to these hit-pieces, and they can be broken down accordingly:The "Ron-Paul-can't-win-because-he's-an-'isolationist'" argument– This is thecentral memebeing floated in the MSM about the Paul campaign, and it suffuses a large proportion of the press coverage. It is a pillar of the "red state/blue state" dichotomy that is supposed to define the American political landscape – and, just coincidentally, of course, happens to encompass the marketing strategy of cable giantsFoxandMSNBC.
> The problem with this argument, however, is thatit's being disprovedevery day by the polls, which show Paul steadily gaining strength not only inIowabutnationally. If Paul takes Iowa, expect a meme-shift along the lines of "those-Midwestern hicks areknownfor their isolationism."The "Ron Paul-can't-win-the-nomination" argument– This, of course, ismeantto be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As theChristian Science Monitorheadline cited above indicates, however, his rising poll numbers in Iowa are lifting him to first-tier status in New Hampshire and beyond. For the same reason governments can't pick winners in industry, the self-appointed guardians of the politically possible can't pick winners in elections. They can try to predict the political future, and sometimes they may even be right – but how many remember when these same professional prognosticators were telling us Hillary Clinton's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate was "inevitable"?
> Especially in these troubled times, when the political winds are whipping from unexpected directions, the predictability of the GOP nominating process is highly problematic, and any definitive statements about how it will turn out are not to be trusted.The "Ron-Paul-is-a-racist-loon-and-conspiracy-theorist" argument– This is the last resort of the Republican Establishment, as represented by the punkish Lowry and the oleaginous Ponnuru, one the editor ofNational Reviewand the other an associate editor of that bastion of neoconservative orthodoxy.
> Roger Ailes and his wrecking crew hope to cash in on the "research" of one Jamie Kirchick, at the time a government employee who worked for the misnamed "Radio Free Europe," whosepiecein theNew Republiclast presidential election cycle cited a number of newsletters put out under Paul's name that are supposedly "racist." If you read the actual newsletters, however, rather than the media's interpretation of their content, what you quickly realize is that there is nothing necessarily "racist" about any of it, as I showedhere: four sentences out of thousands might be considered offensive.
> In any case, Paulclearlydid not write these newsletters, and – if I know him, and I do – in all likelihood didn't even read them. He's said so not once butseveraltimesover the years, and that should be the end of it – but not for bottom-feeders like Lowry, and his ilk, who thrive on dirt. After all, these are the same people who appointedJonah Goldbergeditor of their online edition when his only claim to fame was being the son of the woman who first discovered the semen stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress. That's where these people are coming from.
> The same scumbags who put outthe Willie Horton ad, and who havegloriedin describing President Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialist mentality," are now launching an "anti-racist" campaign against Doctor Paul – the one Republican candidate who not onlycalls for endinga "drug war" thattargets blacksbut who alsostood upagainst the Muslim-hating gay-bashing crazies on the stage at those Republican debates. This is the ultimate proof that we have indeed slipped into another dimension – Bizarro World, where up is down, right is left, and agentleandgood-naturedDoctor who has <a...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment