Ron Paul
Last night I heard several more mainstream voices trashing Ron Paul for his spectacular anti-war comments in Iowa the other night–when he said the runup to war with Iran was reckless and could lead to another million dead, and Iran has good reason to want nukes– and a couple of those voices were liberal! First neoconservative David Brooks on All Things Considered last night:
And then, Ron Paul really had a bad debate. People like the fact that he’s forthright, but the Iran foreign policy, which is a more Libertarian foreign policy, is really unpopular in a socially conservative state like Iowa.
Is David Brooks really reflecting the attitudes of Iowans? Or is he reflecting his own neocon agenda, his desire for an Establishment candidate, and yes, his attachment to Israel: a place he has visited many times, about which he is “gooey-eyed”?
Then on Hardball last night, host Chuck Todd scoffed that if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, this will alarm the Washington “elites” to the point that they’ll get rid of this long-complained-about nominating system. John Heilemann of New York and USA Today’s Susan Page laughed along with him.
Not one of these people said a respectful word about the antiwar agenda of Ron Paul. And this is a demonstration of the moral wanting of the left. Occupy Wall Street has done very little to push the antiwar issue; and here comes a politician with populist charm raging against the Patriot Act and drones and saying Muslims are angry at us because we’re bombing their countries, and the liberal Establishment won’t go near him. For the same reason that the Republican Jewish Coalition didn’t invite him to its forum: he is considered out of the mainstream on the Israel issue.
When this is actually a matter of life and death for some people. North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones went from a warmonger to a war-opposer during the Iraq war because of the condolence letters he was signing to soldiers’ families. Again, this story is about the complete detachment of the Establishment from the true costs of a disastrous war. During Vietnam the privileged young were at risk of being dragged off to Vietnam and they occupied university presidents’ offices. This time they don’t care.
Steve Walt has picked up on studies of the draft: the composition of the military affects the power structure’s willingness to launch a war. I have long cited Milton Friedman’s position (can’t find the book this morning) post-Vietnam uprising– that we had to get rid of the draft because it hamstrings the ability of our leaders to prosecute a war.
My daughter has a friend who is the oldest of four children. Her mom has to take care of them while her husband goes on these ridiculously long tours in Iraq. Know how hard that is? Not seeing your husband for 15 months? Raising four kids by yourself in the interim?
None of these Establishment types know.
What a bunch of jerks.
I found it instructive as how Bret Baier, especially, went after Ron Paul three times and added ‘you’ll be running to the left of Obama on this issue’, in order to smear him on live TV as a leftie and a hippie to the republican base.
Paul responded by saying that ‘yes, but it’s in the tradition of America, which is all that matters’ or something of the sort.
Fox News have tried hard to be less partisan and Baier especially have had praised heaped upon him. And for most issues, this has been true. As a sign how deeply entrenched the status quo is concerning the militarism, their doubling down on neocon policies didn’t cause anybody to say ‘wait a minute’.
If they would, they would be attacked as a naive (or self-hating/America-despising) isolationist. Maybe they’ll pull up Charles Lindbergh and imply his anti-Semitism in the process too just for effect.
I also noticed as Huntsman has become increasingly radical in his support for Iranian invasions, he has been described more and more as a ‘serious’ candidate for no apparent reason in the media, as if he was seen as something of lighter version of Ron Paul before(which was true in many ways).
Romney understood what positions you need to make the Establishment accept you.
Huntsman is coming to the same conclusion.
I agree that the elite – conservative, liberal and whatever – is doing it’s best to discredit Ron Paul with all dirty means they have. I also agree that this is because he is antiwar and non-zionist – and what is overlooked here: a sharp critic of the FED.
But I completely disagree, that drafts could bring the US on an anti-war course. It’s not the drafts which bring the US on an anti-war course, but the loss of US life and funds. That drafts would bring the US on an antiwar course is not going to happen, because nowadays the US fights it’s war from a distance without the loss of life. The US way of choice for waging war is paying and brainwashing some other nationals to wage the wars the US wants to wage. The US provides logistics, popaganda, diplomatic support, satellite intelligence, funding, training, weapons, drones, missiles, and sometimes special forces commandos, but that’s it. It’s cheap way of war, and no – or very few – loss of US life happens. Nevertheless it’s war, and lot’s of people die.
Barack Obama is proud that his wars were cheap and without loss of US life. He took pride in waging war against Libya – tens of thousends of people dead, he took pride in waging war against Somalia with drone strikes from Seychelles and missile strikes from the sea, whie using cheap ground troops from Uganda, Burundi, Kenya and Ethiopia, but paid for and coordinated by the US. The same is on in Yemen: the US organized a campaign for regime change done by locals and secures the desired outcome by drone striking the opponents of the US clients. And now the US is propping up some “opponents” in Syria, which caused several thousand deads.
It’s a very deadly, but cheap strategy to wage wars to dominate the world. The only thing what brings opposition in the US, is larger losses of US life and US funds like it happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s why Obama wants to change tactics there: let the llocals pay the price in blood and the US be the guardian running affairs in the background – or as Obama calls it: leading from behind. Draft would change nothing to this murderous policy – as there were no conscipts loosing their life. Conscripts would just be used as cheap hands far behind the front lines, like in the US, in Germany, in the Seychelles, in Kyrgystan and so on.
Ron Paul made it clear that he opposes all US participation in wars and regime change ops abroad, be there loss of US life or not. His argument: they will backfire i the long run. When the US attacked Gaddafi after he got a got a non-attack-promise from the US and gave up all his dangerous weapons, Ron Paul says it makes the world more dangerous.
He asks: Who else will believe the US that it won’t attack their country if he gives up al dangerous weapons of mass destruction? The result of the regime change operation is, that other rulers will acquire more and more dangerous weapons – and will not trust the US that they won’t be attacked if they have no such weapons.
The mainstream press hates Ron Paul. That much is clear. But, what of the American people?
If last night’s Leno show was anything to go by, a large segment of Americans are solidly behind him. It has been said that “The Tonight Show” has always reflected what America was thinking – even back to Carson’s days. We already know from the MSM’s own polls that the majority of Americans are anti-war.
The MSM has chosen a strategy of painting Ron Paul as unelectable, which leaves the population with having to choose the lesser of all the other evils. Now that it looks like he is going to win Iowa, the new tactic is to declare that Iowa will no longer mean much if Ron Paul wins! Well you can only do that with one or two states before it doesn’t hold water anymore.
The challenge for Ron Paul is not whether he can beat Obama – I think that is all but guaranteed at this time. The challenge is whether he can be nominated by the Republican party. Their biggest fear is whether he will choose to run as a 3rd party candidate or independent if he is denied the nomination. This is the question most asked of him – and he has wisely refused to give them a definitive answer, leaving himself leverage for a brokered convention should it come to that.
If Ron Paul can convince people that he is indeed electable, there will be a landslide, and I can promise you that if that happens, it will be curtains for the entire neocon establishment.
As others have noted here, a President Paul may not be able to achieve much without cooperation from congress, however, as commander-in-chief, he can stop all wars immediately and bring the troops home. The impact of that one move alone would be Earth-shaking.
The challenge for those of us who want to see this outcome is to convince the rest of America that this outcome is worth more than whatever other deal-breakers that you hold as a priority. Certainly, I expect the denizens of MW, who are far more educated and far better informed than the masses, to “get” that.
Ron Paul on the Jay Leno show.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-on-the-tonight-show-with-jay-leno.html