Media on the left and right, actual crowd in the middle.
Ron Paul becomes the first presidential candidate to identify with the Occupy Movement:
“I identify with both groups,” Paul said, responding to a question at a campaign appearance at GuideOne Insurance in West Des Moines Wednesday about the effectiveness of the Occupy the Caucuses movement that has pledged to occupy candidate headquarters and perhaps disrupt events this week.
“Both groups are unhappy about what’s happening around the country,” he said “The Tea Party thinks the debt is too big and government should shrink; the Occupation addresses the subject of the very rich.”
Paul was careful not to appear in lockstep with the Occupy demonstrators, saying their opposition to the Wall Street bank bailout dovetails with his own criticism of the issue, while at the same time calling the movement “a mixed blessing.”
“We should address that,” Paul said. “But the people who have gotten very wealthy in a free market by producing an honest product are different and shouldn’t be lumped togehter.”
Paul said both the Tea Party and Occupy movements are healthy. “I think some people like to paint Occupy as on the left and the Tea Party as on the right, but it just makes my point that people are unhappy. They are just tired of it all.”
This is refreshing to hear from someone who is both an active occupier and a previous tea party sympathizer. Paul gets it: there is an undercurrent of extreme dissatisfaction in 99 percent that is beginning to reject this corrupt, corporatist-controlled two-party establishment.
The question is: are they dissatisfied enough to upend the status quo?
SAN ANTONIO — Ron Paul wants to legalize pot and shut down the Federal Reserve. He thinks the federal government has no authority to outlaw abortion, no business bombing Iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and no justification to print money unless it’s backed up by gold bars.
And he might win the Iowa caucuses.
And once that happens, the Iowa Caucuses will become instantly irrelevant.
It is not just Ron Paul that will be attacked in this election cycle. It seems that the corporate media has shifted its efforts to smearing the liberty activists of Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty.
These fresh attacks lends further credence to my point that it is not merely Paul the corporate media and the partisan hacks are after: it is everyone associated with his brand of fiercely antiwar and anti-racist libertarian movement.
At one point during his speech, Paul said: “The American people are waking up….They’re tired of what they heard from the two parties and get promises.”
“If the Democrats promise one thing, then they get in and act like Republicans. Republicans promise something, they get in and act like Democrats. But the people are upset. They are getting angry. They are speaking out and I think it’s very healthy.”
“We have a tea party movement, we have an Occupy movement and people are saying, ‘We’ve had enough. We don’t want to be ripped off anymore. We want to do away with this crony corporatism and we want to restore individual liberty for each and every American citizen,’” Paul added.
This is why Ron Paul is being attacked by partisans from both parties: he perfectly personifies and taps into the anti-establishment sentiment that has gripped this country. When an establishment Republican like Newt Gingrich repeats the same charges partisan hacks from the Democratic Party are levying against someone, you know this target poses a threat to the moneymaking and horrifically profitable status quo.
What does Paul represent? A truly populist uprising that will strip away power from the corporatists and war profiteers that establishment Republicans and Democrats, including Barack Obama, are beholden to.
If 2008 was the rebellion, then 2012 is the revolution.
Another serious blow to Rick Perry’s viability and electability:
Rick Perry has been knocked off the Virginia GOP primary ballot, a key bar for candidate credibility past the early states – and a surprising state of affairs for the only campaign other than Mitt Romney that has had the resources with which to organize.
And there is this:
The only two candidates certified so far for the ballot are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman failed to submit the signatures.
The 10,000 signatures that Paul garnered must be all spambots. Fringe!
Welcome to the Supervillain or Newt Game, where you have to decide whether an idea comes from an indestructible megalomaniac hell-bent on ruling the world, or from a fictional supervillain.
It bothers me that I did very poorly in this. More for the fact that the entire time I was going, “Nah, Newt Gingrich is not this insane.” Surprise!
This is what i learned from this New York Times piece by Ross Douthat:
So Iowa Tea Partiers face a choice. If the town hall crashers and Washington Mall marchers of 2009 settle on a Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider as their not-Romney standard bearer in 2012, then every liberal who ever sneered at the Tea Party will get to say “I told you so.” If Paul wins the caucuses, on the other hand, the movement will keep its honor – but also deliver the Republican nomination gift-wrapped to Mitt Romney.
Headline predictions if Ron Paul does win Iowa: “Santorum beats Romney for second place!” or “Huntsman surges to epic fourth place win!”
There is a definite cognitive dissonance from the corporate media that sees a Republican electorate waking up to Ron Paul as an endorsement of Mitt Romney’s candidacy.
If Paul were to become the Republican presidential nominee and faces Barack Obama in the general election, I am willing to bet $10,000 that the approved corporate media narrative will be that a vote for Paul is really a vote for Obama.
Last year, when then-candidate Rand Paul was running for senate, I wrote this about him (in full):
The clarity and the consistency of Ron Paul’s ideology was what convinced me that he is worth listening to. His credibility in my eyes was bolstered by his principled, ethical, and educated positions in everything from abortion to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to his defense of the writ of habeas corpus for even “terrorists.”
Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s intelligent reasoning and ethical defense of individual rights did not rub off on his son, Rand Paul, who is currently seeking the Republican nomination for Kentucky’s senatorial race.
What I am experiencing with Rand Paul is similar to what I experienced with Barack Obama during the early days of his campaign. I gravitated to Obama initially because of what I thought his views were on perpetual, unethical, and illegal wars then and still taking the lives of American service members and innocent farmers and children abroad. As I paid more attention to Obama’s often tepid, vague, and substance-deficient speeches, the more I realize that he was just as bad as any other war-mongering neoconservative out there. He was not against illegal and unethical wars; he was just against the Iraq War for politically convenient reasons.
Rand Paul suffers from the same deficiencies of character and ideology.
I have yet to hear anything definitive about his stance on the war, except on his website where he states that he believes “that defending this country is the primary and most important Constitutional function of our federal government.” His YouTube video titled “National Defense/Foreign Policy” was just as vague. He basically said that he would have pushed for a vote for a declaration of war in Iraq, but would have voted against it. And then says he would have supported the war in Afghanistan! It all sounds very convenient and very much in line what Obama has publicly stated regarding both wars.
And there is this deal-breaker of a quote:
“With regard to: is there ever a time when we can go into war without a declaration? I think most pundit have agreed that in a nuclear age that there certain things that a president can do with either secrecy or immediately in retaliation or prevention of a nuclear attack? So, I think that it is acknowledged.”
And regarding his position on what the president could have done after September 11 attacks:
“There might have been a reason why a president could have sent Special Forces in secretly within a few days and I think that could have been something that would have been justified.”
So Rand Paul’s position is that the president is justified in invading other countries at will and in secret and without a declaration of war and assassinate people to not only prevent nuclear attacks, but also in retaliation for non-nuclear attacks. Sounds familiar? It is called Bush’s Doctrine of Preemptive War.
Maybe I mishearing what I am hearing directly from his mouth. Maybe he misspoke. Yet the Houston Chronicle labels him as being an “interventionist” with “more mainstream conservative on national defense” unlike his “quirky” father.
I remain suspicious of Rand Paul. He does not seem to be cut from the same cloth as his father. How can I throw my support behind a candidate that advocates the continued murder of innocent farmers and children in foreign lands? And it is that simple. There is not such a thing as degrees of non-interventionism. He is either for the deployment of armed troops to foreign countries and for the violence, the drain on the nation’s wealth, and abridgment of liberties and freedom that inevitably follows that intervention; or he is for non-intervention, peace, and liberty.
Through his own words, it seems that Rand Paul is set to disappoint those who value the latter.
It was a scathing rebuke, but I am not one to mince words.
Sen. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. He is not even in the same realm as his father. Let us be honest, Ron Paul’s ideas are changing the Republican Party from within and without. Ron Paul Republicans are moving up the ranks in local party committees throughout the country and their presence will soon be felt in as little as six years. From outside the party structure, organizations like Campaign for Liberty and a whole host of websites are spreading his ideas and affecting the country’s political discourse. Young people galvanized by his message are proudly propelling the liberty movement forward through such organizations like Young Americans for Liberty. Ron Paul’s populist message has even influenced movements like the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street movement.
But what can we say about Sen. Paul? Well, he won an election.
However, credit must now be given where it is due. The new senator from Kentucky is unlike the candidate that originally filled me with suspicion. In this past year, Sen. Paul has averted a future war with Russia, opposed the intervention in Libya, and defended due process rights in opposing the horrific provisions contained within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He also proved to be a very articulate political surrogate for his father who is currently campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination. Actions speak louder than words and thus far, Sen. Paul has proven to be a consistent defender of liberty.
Yes, the son is unlike the father. In fact, not once was the “unelectable” charge ever levied against the younger Paul as he is that mainstream enough. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the savvy senator from Kentucky is not only as principled as Ron Paul, but might prove to be a more effective standard-bearer for his father’s ideas. Coupled with the rise of the new liberty movement, the face of American politics will not remain the same.
Now, that is real hope and change.
Jerry Paul on his brother Ron Paul:
His brother Jerry says Ronnie was no goodie two-shoes. In fact, he was kicked out of school — twice. The first time was for allegedly bribing a grade school chum “two bits” to throw a baseball through a window. The second was for bringing firecrackers to Dormont High — and that time he ratted on himself.
“He couldn’t stand the principals who were dictatorial,” Jerry says. “He would call them fascists.”
Even then, Paul would not mince words.
Flavor-of-the-week and current joke front-runner Newt Gingrich’s campaign has failed to get on the ballot of two key primary states, Ohio and Missouri.
According to the equally loathsome Karl Rove:
Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn’t file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn’t qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. Redistricting squabbles may lead the legislature to move the primary to a later date and re-open filing, but it’s still embarrassing to be so poorly organized.
It is embarrassing that Republicans would even give Gingrich a second look just months after his campaign spectacularly collapsed. Not to mention Gingrich’s sordid personal baggage and unethical political career. Does the Republican Party really want Gingrich’s undisciplined brand of chaos and disorganization?
If this keeps up, the Republican Party might soon have to switch their party symbol from an elephant to a goldfish: to represent the mass amnesia and unforgivable memory loss that has afflicted its membership.
This is considered a flip-flop, right?
Oh wait. Ron Paul’s position on DADT was a principled change of stance versus to Newt Gingrich’s shameless pursuit of lobbyist money.
Words of wisdom from the likes of Pikachu and Ash Ketchum? Why not?
“I believe these words came from the Pokemon movie,” Cain said. “Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It’s never easy when there’s so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There’s a mission just for you and me.”
In other news, embarrassing and clown-like reality television star to moderate the next Republican debates.
Newt Gingrich will fit perfectly right in, according to Charles Burris:
Endorsing the arrogant warmongering neocon Newt Gingrich is perfectly consistent for the Manchester Union-Leader, the biggest embarrassment of the Granite State… No one will forget his scurrilous front page editorials, “Kissinger the Kike,” attacking Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, or “Jerry the Jerk,” slandering President Gerald Ford. The paper hasn’t changed its tabloid attack journalism under publisher Joseph McQuaid. Newt will fit in perfectly with this crew of Muslim-hating, un-American fascists.
Though, honestly, this just further proves that partisan Republicans fear Muslims more than they fear the country-collapsing debt spurred by this country’s obsession with freedom-destroying, death-spreading “War on Everything.”
In which case, you could argue that partisan Republicans hate Muslims more than they love America.