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.
They don’t know and they don’t care. They are worse than a bunch of jerks. They are the enemy of the people. The people just don’t realize it.
They are, especially, enemies of the poor who must (or at least who do) sign up as soldiers or national guards. Wars always need cannon-fodder. That’s why we have a name for it, “cannon-fodder,” expendable people, beneath notice, tho noticed a bit more than the citizens of the countries that our Establishment chooses to attack (usually illegally by any measure) in wars of aggression fought, as far as I can see it, merely to enrich various BIGs, particularly BIG-ARMs (aka Military-Industrial-Complex) and BIG-KONTRACT (folks like Halliburton and BlackWarter/Xe of whom 5000 are to be left in permanent mode in the city-sized USA “embassy” in Iraq on 1/1/2012.
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.
Yeah I wish Paul came back with a stronger response. The issue of war is neither left or right, and long ago republicans were often antiwar and less interventionist. He should say that to ascribe a sane and peaceful manner of resolving the Iran issue as “left” is absurd. It is clearly not “left” or “right”. It is simply a matter of supreme importance.
But at least Baier clearly admits the modern republican party is more belligerent and warmongering than the dems. It is clear when they go to Paul the goal is to give him loaded questions and smear him…. just hope he gets better at evading their traps, and turning around their BS. Maybe in the end their focus on Paul’s war positions will awaken the portion of republicans who are not fans of unfunded wars that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with empire, oil, Israel, and the MIC.
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.
Great post! I agree with you. And also that reinstating the draft is not the solution. Meanwhile, the MIC is busily hiring contractors with inflated wages.
You’re ignoring another effect of the draft. If our military were drafted, our leaders would think more than twice about turning the military’s guns on American citizens.
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.
link to prisonplanet.com
They snigger because they’re afraid he’s doing better than they think he deserves. The support is out there and growing.
link to prisonplanet.com
link to infowars.com
link to dprogram.net
RE: “Mainstream press sniggers at Ron Paul’s antiwar message” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: If anyone has been considering making a contribution to the Ron Paul campaign, now is the time to do so. He needs to make a good showing next month in Iowa and New Hampshire, so that he can carry forward the antiwar message.
Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website - link to ronpaul2012.com
I’m 61 years old and have never given a penny to any presidential candidate (though maybe my memory is failing). I just gave $50 to Paul’s campaign. I disagree with him on some points, but the least danger to our country is the most hyped – terrorism, and the greatest danger is the loss of our freedoms under cover of the terror hype.
Obama, with hype about hope and a mellifluous, lofty oratory that comes off as one addressing children before proving its emptiness by the contradictory actions that follow, is so infuriating that I want him out of office. He is a fraud who belongs back in the patent medicine era.
The Republicans with the exception of Paul are a cast of cartoon characters. The list from which we must choose our president has never been shallower, nor the amount of financial power interested in a shallow president being elected, greater.
I hope everyone who picked Obama because he is black is now properly educated that any kind of racial selection, for or against – is no good ground for action. Too bad we can’t have the voices of all the candidates first processed through the monotonous Kindle voice reader before we hear them – THEN make a decision on the worth of what we hear based on content and not delivery. Or simpler, read the full text of a debate rather than listening to the candidates. If you don’t believe in the power of delivery, check out any of the many videos done at XtraNormal, where the impact of what a blue bunny says can be profound.
I have a good slogan for these Neocon Republican wingnuts “KILL KILL KILL”.
C’mon Harry Law,what about all the Democrat warmongers?Are they saying live live live?A pox on both criminal traitor orgs.
And Dr.Paul slayed em on Leno,a bravura performance by just being his warm,honest, non phony self.
Just a correction, not that it matters that much but Walter Jones is from North Carolina. He’s my congressman.
However it is worth pointing out that this is a very big military district Jones represents.
Jones is a straighlaced guy who would go by his conscience once he saw the light, but he may also be getting imput and feedback from military high and low.
thanks
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.
Sadly, Iraqi deaths didn’t seem to bother Jones too much. The President signed Walter Jones’ “War Crimes Act” into law on August 21, 1996.
Ironically, Jones came to the defense of his constituent Lt. Pantano who had shot two prisoners to death after ordering them to search their own car. They began speaking Arabic to one another, supposedly arousing Pantano’s suspicion. Tellingly, Pantano left a sign on the car above the corpses that said, “No better friend, No worse enemy”.
Jones introduced House Resolution 167 which expressed the support of the House of Representatives for Pantano and called on President Bush to support Pantano’s actions.
“came to the defense of his constituent Lt. Pantano who had shot two prisoners to death after ordering them to search their own car”
Yeah, I found that disgusting on Jones part.
…is a straighlaced guy who would go by his conscience once he saw the light
As much as I loath congress and their unbreakable loyalty to AIPAC, IMO the same could be said about many of them. The question is how can we show them the light? For once you see it, not even blackmail or death threats will sway an opinion. They can kill us but even death won’t silence us. If you want to change the world you have to be willing to sacrifice your own life. That’s asking a lot. If you can get over that, then you are a hero. Not everybody in congress is a coward, they just haven’t seen the light.
The MSM continues to discredit itself at every twist and turn when it comes to Ron Paul. Andrew Sullivan called for Fox News’ Chris Wallace to recuse himself as a moderator from last week’s debate when he said that Iowa would discredit itself if Ron Paul won the state’s caucus. Does the buffoonery never end?
It’s truly telling that both GOP and Dems badmouth Ron Paul — but since almost no one of any intelligence relies on Fred hyatt’s WaPo or the NY Times or CBS News for what’s happening, the RonPaul groundswell continues continues online, on campus and on the late night shows.
If we support Peace, now is the time to help a man that will bring the troops home, close all 900 plus US military bases throughout the world, and end US aid to Israel. Ron Paul has many years of action to back up his word.
PLEASE take under consideration (the article below)
link to huffingtonpost.com
Ron Paul is a libertarian, which means that he wants to leave the American government up to the bare minimum. This means that he wants to end regulation of the environment (EPA), end public education, and end the funding of American wars and foreign aid.
In this respect, I see him very similar to many of the other candidates – he wants a corporatocracy. Whether the other candidates call for the corporations running a government, and the government being at the helm, or Paul calling for an end to government funding, and then corporations taking the helm, it all sounds the same to me.
I think it’s naive to think that he’s taking a moral stand on any of these issues. He’s taking a capitalistic stand, and letting the money that funds him talk.
Sorry to burst bubbles. You may be angry with me saying this, but you may also think that I’m right.
you’re right, but that’s not to say that a libertarian can’t also be opposed to war on grounds other than capitalism; morality, for example.
I think you’re misconstruing what Paul “wants,” Matthew Graber. He’d like the FEDERAL government out of public education — not to END public education; public education should be up to the locales where children are educated, not Washington bureaucrats.
Yes, he wants to “leave the American government up to the bare minimum.” I don’t have a problem with that. The basis of the US is the promotion of the general welfare of its citizens, not for the citizens to support a government.
Your transition from “minimize government, eliminate [federal] control over public education” to “Paul wants a corporatocracy” is mystifying. How do you make that shift? I don’t see Paul’s positions that way at all, especially if you factor in Paul’s advocacy for ending the Federal Reserve/central bank control of US money, and striking down Obamacare. In my view, the latter amounts to near-fascistic government-corporate demand that all Americans purchase a product –insurance– to provide for medical care, a deeply personal potential need that should have no government compunction related to it at all.
Paul’s libertarian views seem to me to seek to return all possible freedoms and rights to the individual, for example, the right to take those measure to protect his own health that he deems appropriate.
According to Ron Paul we the citizens should be the biggest lobby, and to keep governmental laws and restrictions to a sensible minimum seems to be at the crux of what he believes.
The left and the right can meet at Ron Paul.
What’s this about the complete detachment of the establishment from the true costs of disasterous wars? Beg to differ, but members of the establishment aren’t detached from the true costs. How could they be, since they’re the ones who champion these wars. The editorial (“Taking leave of Iraq”), for example, in today’s LA Times. “It was a war of choice”, goes the editorial, “and the choice was a bad one, because “the costs far outweighed what we achieved.” Sounds a bit like detachment, doesn’t it? Except it’s after the fact. Nothing about the Times, as a so-called newspaper of record, having energetically pounded the war drums that brought on the Iraq war, no apology for the lives lost because of that warmongering, and no promise that it will cease and desist in its effort to bring on another bad choice for a war, this one against Iran. Doesn’t this tell us that invariably efforts at preventing war will be looked upon by the establishment as against its interests? Not detachment but involvement from well before the war’s inception. And not necessarily through its editorials, but in the actual news reporting.
I read that editorial and ask “what’s new?” The establishment only cares about the past and the present. They don’t care about the future. When they look back on bad ‘decisions’ (as if it was our choice, I recall most people IRL against going to war) and say ‘oops’ it is ultimately meaningless. The damage is done, and they were responsible for the damage. Admitting the truth after the fact, that it was a bad choice, is weak.
The entire world was saying it was a bad choice back in 2003. Not listening, going to war, promoting the war, and later concurring it was a bad choice just exposes the hypocrisy and guilt. The MSM should be put on death row (if it was at all possible) for their role in that war. Times they are a changing. You can’t propaganda your way through a war and write a false history anymore thanks to the internet. We can call journalists out on their bigotry and double standards. The establishment is going to fail very soon, coincidentally with this whole 2012 thing. Maybe the Mayans really could predict the future?
BTW, the mentally ill ‘controllers’ appear to completely lack intuition, our suppressed sixth sense. They make judgement based on their own two eyes and also interpretation. Lacking intuition, their interpretation is always wrong. Example, eee and DBG always interpreting things that aren’t there, jealous of our intuition because they don’t have any. I believe this, they don’t have something that we do. It might sound crazy, but it feels right.
The MSM should be put on death row (if it was at all possible) for their role in that war.
agreed
The is a legal precedent for putting propagandists on death row:
Wikipedia: Julius Streicher – Trial and execution
People do often forget that have one Power over them, which they DO NOT use. They can TURN the MSMedia OFF!!!!!!!!!!!
BOYCOTT them. Cancel, do not buy , ignore, laugh at them etc.
WHY the hell they do not use it???
It beats me.
THere should be a MASSIVE boycot of the MSM.
MASSIVE. People should cancel cable TV left and right.
Do not support liers, opportunists, evil helpers, manipulators, war mongers.
Let them stew in their own devilish juice.
Ditto.
I watched the collection of Ron Paul clips that was posted here yesterday. Hearing Ron Paul speak, I found myself nodding and agreeing with his sober assessment. Then came the barrage of nonsense from the Fox ‘News’ …umm…(what do you call those people?) ..I guess bobbing head is a good description. So this bobbing head was asking Ron Paul some question about a ridiculously hypothetical scenario, then Bachmann jumped in with her vitriol and I found myself doing the palms-to-face reaction. These people haven’t a scintilla of brain in their heads. Iran will have the bomb in less than a year, and when they do, they will wipe out our friend and ally Israel..waaaaaaa.
And the audience cheers this idiocy on with such enthusiasm, it’s repulsive.
Feed the people crap long enough so when you finally offer them a nice filet mignon they reject it as though it were poison.
I can’t help but feel sorry for Americans and their banal outlook on the world around them.
“Feed the people crap long enough so when you finally offer them a nice filet mignon they reject it as though it were poison. ”
Very good ,visual description of the brainwashed reality of the average, I-don’t-care-to-think-on-my-own persona.
I’ve read lately a good quote : “If a free, democratic elections would change anything for the better, they would be banned.”
The Matrix ,partially of our own making, becomes more and more our sad reality ,
and I don’t see any way out of it, other than some major miracle.
Do I believe in miracles?? I guess, at this point I must.
What does Iowa’s being a socially conservative state have to do with its views on foreign policy?
“What does Iowa’s being a socially conservative state have to do with its views on foreign policy?”
Phil didn’t mention it, but Mark Shields corrected David Brooks on that–he said that Midwestern conservatives traditionally were isolationist, for better or worse.
When you touch the really important issues like war or banksters, many supposedly independent voices in the media-political complex rather protect the elite than the people. Because ultimately, their high-paying jobs are only made possible by serving the interests of the elite. They are in effect propagandists in waiting, and whenever the status quo is truly challenged, like Occupy does or like Paul does, then they activate their propaganda mode, so to speak, and try to derail the anti-status quo and anti-establishment voices.
Btw, since Phil mentions the detachment of the Establishment from the costs of war – Ron Paul agrees with this. He said (not verbatim) “this should be the litmus test: If you really think a war is such a great idea, or you willing to send your kids or your grandkids over there?”
And a reminder for liberals who view Christian fundamentalism as a potential problem on the Republican side: Please be aware of the fact that Paul is a libertarian first, and a Republican second. He strictly follows the principles that the US government should favor no religion, represent no religion and endanger no religion. No “keep this country Christian”-talk from him.
And even while he would easily win many more votes if he did, he never panders to Evangelical Christians who want a foreign policy that basically turns into an anti-Islamic crusade. No “clash of civilizations” or “god tells us to support Israel”-hogwash from him.
Finally, he, unlike Gingrich, shuns the “marriage is not for homos” crowd. He’s a libertarian after all:
“While Paul says he personally believes in traditional marriage, he has refused to sign our [anti-homo] pledge and, worse, has said that marriage is strictly a private affair and that government has no role in regulating marriage.”
link to rawstory.com
The only issue where Pauls Christianity (along with his occupation as a doctor) has an effect on his policies is abortion. And I really think that we have more important problems than if women should be allowed to put their unborn babies into a trashcan legally.
With all the money saved by stopping the wars and ending the bailouts, you could easily pay childless couples to raise children which are born to parents who don’t want them. Problem more or less solved.
New poll puts Ron Paul out front by three points in Iowa: Paul leads in Iowa:
” 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”? ”
Clearly his own neocon agenda.
Brooks has exposed his complete inability to be fact based on the I/P conflict and Iran over and over again.
—————————————–
Weiss “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.”
And the midwest is moving right around the MSM and backing Paul.