The Ron Paul Smear Campaign

http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=7166 ^ | Doug Kendall

[tpaine]

The Ron Paul Smear Campaign

Doug Kendall

By now, it is painfully obvious to most people in the freedom movement that Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, has been targeted for elimination—by his own Party. The politically-connected elite within the Republican Party, along with allied organizations and operatives, are working overtime to make sure that Ron Paul is burned at the stake for daring to speak the truth and defy the Good Ol' Boy system.

In all honesty, Dr. Paul should have known that he would be set up in the second debate—after he scored so high in poll after poll, following the first debate—and after he made it clear that he would not tow the neo-con, police-state, Giuliani-style "war" on terror line. Everyone from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, so-called "conservative" news websites and columnists, and even local talk radio shows have done everything in their power to define Ron Paul as a "nut-job," "dope," and "moron," calling for his removal from the debates because his views are supposedly "dangerous" for the country.

Glenn Beck even went so far as to repeatedly label Ron Paul a "libertarian"—because there is always some kind of negativity associated with it, when Beck uses it—and then used that as a vehicle to beat up on Libertarians, in general, masterfully trying to kill two birds with one stone.

It's very telling, and very sad, watching these elitists attempt to exterminate those who favor increasing freedom by reducing the size and scope of government. The latest and most sickeningly obvious attempt to discredit Ron Paul, called "Big Outrage," is coming from Fox News.

Fox News anchor, John Gibson, recently stated that the second presidential debate got a little "spicy" after "Paul suggested that the US actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks." He even went so far as to attempt to link Paul to the 911 Truth crowd and Rosie O'Donnell—whose picture they flashed, twice, during the five-minute segment, along with the tagline, "ROSIE O'DONNELL STRONGLY BELIEVES IN 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES." Gibson said that the 911 Truth movement has "infected people like Rosie O'Donnell, and one in three Democrats, and many other Americans—evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul." To make matters worse, he brought columnist and Fox News contributor, Michele Malkin, into the segment and said he would have expected to hear something like this from the Democrat debates. In perfect neo-con newsperson style, Malkin stated, "Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a representative of Republicans," apparently because of the 911 Truth "virus." She then went on to further drive the point about 911 Truthers being mainly democrats, and mentioning something about a mental illness that typically affects people on the Left, called "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

I have lost no love on Democrats, either, but anyone who is even remotely familiar with Ron Paul knows that Malkin's attempt to link Paul to Democrats is laughable. If you look closely, you will see that Ron Paul's statements had nothing to do with the 911 Truth movement, but Fox News is spinning it in that fashion.

In so many words, Paul stated the obvious and basically repeated the findings of the 911 Commission's report:

Meddling in the affairs of others often fosters animosity and a desire for retaliation, and we would never allow other countries to do to us some of the same things that the US is doing to them—and it amazes me to see the scores of people who cannot seem to grasp those facts. The 911 Truth movement seeks to discover whether or not the Bush Administration had foreknowledge about, or actually had a hand in, the September 11th attacks—and that has nothing to do with Ron Paul's statements. 911 Truth deals with conspiracy, but Ron Paul spoke of consequences from our brand of foreign policy—two very different things.

Being an anarcho-capitalist, I do not care for government—small or otherwise—but Ron Paul is a step in the right direction, and he is certainly the most freedom-oriented and fiscally responsible candidate in the Republican stable—and it says a lot about the Republican elites who are using character assassination techniques to discredit and silence him, instead of debating the issue.

Karl Marx would be proud.

During a radio interview, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) once said, "The hallmark of the Republican Party has always been freedom," but everything I've seen lately further confirms that his statement couldn't be further from the truth. I've always known, but this is just icing on the cake.

I've heard Republicans invite Libertarians to join the Republican Party, to work within a bigger, established Party, but this situation should serve as a warning to Libertarians, and any other freedom-loving types, that you should resist the temptation. Freedom has no place within the Republican Party (or the Democrat Party).

Doug Kendall is the host, scheduler & Webmaster of The Dangerous Doug Kendall Show. Listen to live streaming of the show at www.DangerousDoug.net.

[Zon]

It is increasingly obvious that the only thing that the pseudo-Conservatives attacking Dr. Paul have to offer is aspersions and insult. In the past two days, there has been a virtual absence of any intellectual content in the attacks. Generally, they misrepresent what he says, then oversimplify the issues involved, and hurl sloganized rant in response to the straw man created.

Ironically, or maybe not, the general public, call them Joe six-pack, sheeple or  whatever, the general populace understands the difference of what you said -- enough to side with Ron Paul and shun the pseudo-conservatives. Why? See tag line?

[tpaine]

-- he wouldn't stand in a debate and say we needed to "understand" the "Soviet Anger."

Get rational.
Paul didn't stand in the debate and say we needed to appease the terrorists. -- That was Rudy's spin.

[Zon]

I gave Ron Paul my ears until I heard him say we should ask Al Qaeda why they are angry at us

If it's so obvious then almost everyone should know why they're angry at us. So why are the angry at us? Or, is it that they aren't angry at us? Who is us?

[Pelham]

Yep, and it’s likely they haven’t heard of the bishop of Smyrna either.

Conservatives, being great patriots, fall prey to a belligerent nationalism that has its roots on the Left. A Jacobin leader waving the flag and eager for war gets hailed as a great leader. I can recall when National Review objected to utopian foreign policy fantasies, now they promote them.

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Harry Truman get reborn as ‘conservatives’. Hannity has been one of the louder proponents of this nonsense.

[haircutter]

Ron Paul is NOT Presidential material...

he should retire and remember his good, old days, plant a garden,read a book, take a walk, enjoy what years are still left, but lead the Greatest Nation in the world??? NO WAY.

[Ohioan]

Jefferson would have put a bullet through Paul’s head.

Your comment suggests sociopathic tendencies, but in the interests of trying to bring you back to some appreciation for reality: Can you name one stand, which Ron Paul has taken, which conflicts with something Jefferson wrote or said? One stand?

[Ohioan]

You make a good point. When I was more directly involved in politics, years back, I found that plain and ordinary blue collar types were easier to persuade, with a traditional Conservative message, than many of the pseudo-intellectuals with a degree; people who had a need to sound trendy. It is the psychology of the crowd, fawning over the Emperor's New Clothes, that drives most of the talking heads in the media; as it does much of the political crowd in Washington.

It does not take a super genius to understand that if your Government was created by a written Constitution--that it had no existence, as such, before that Constitution;--that you had better look to that Constitution to understand the functions and duties of that Government. Nor does it take a genius to understand how political office holders may grasp for power they do not have.

The history of the earth is replete with the history of the overreaching, the grasping. It was with that history in mind, that the Founding Fathers sought to strictly limit the Government that they were creating. Ron Paul has become their voice in the 21st Century.

William Flax

[Sam Gamgee]

He made himself clear in the debates. From the jackasses mouth.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yeah, that the US brought 911 on itself for messing in Arabic affairs.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yes he did - he said we should dialogue with Al Queda.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yup - Paul is anti-war. Jefferson was not.

[Ohioan]

I would suggest that you read Jefferson's first State of the Union message, where he reports to Congress on how the Frigate with Marines, which he sent to protect our shipping in the Mediterranean, seized the cruiser of the Barbary Pirates, inflicting heavy casualties on them, with none of our own. He then reported, that since Congress had not authorized the retention of such spoils, we had returned their bloody ship to them--bloody with their blood, not the British slang.

I would suggest that this is the same way that Rep. Paul would have handled the matter. (You will recall that Paul, immediately after September 11th, proposed a bill to authorize the destruction of bin Laden and his assistants.)

To suggest that Wars should be declared, is Jeffersonian. To suggest that you do not wage war to change other people's cultures, is thoroughly Jeffersonian. On the other hand, you punish the "first insult," as Jefferson advised President Washington.

To understand traditional American foreign policy, and why it is superior to what we have had since under the guidance of Internationalists like Dean Rusk (Kennedy/Johnson) and Condi Rice, see An American Foreign Policy.

William Flax

[Zack Nguyen]

There is no doubt that Osama Bin Ladin was furious at our sanctions in Iraq, and out bombings. But that really isn't the point - unless you want to start formulating our foreign policy around the opinions of Islamic terrorists. And I'm not saying that Ron Paul wants to do this - but the fact is that he and the rest of the anti-war right needs to start telling us what he would do differently.

The lewrockwell.com crowd is very good at criticizing the Bush Administration in the most vitriolic of terms. But what would Ron Paul have done? Not sanctioned Iraq? What about Hussein's violation of ther terms of the ceasefire? What about his fanatical hatred of the Kurds? Would he instead, after our invasion of Kuwait in 1991, have allowed Hussein to rebuild, rearm, reinstitute his WMD program, and take over the northern part of the country, possibly killing lots more Kurds?

Foreign policy is often about trade-offs, and I never hear the anti-war right (or for that matter the anti-war left, it's close cousin) acknowledge this or present a comprehensive alternative vision. It is always Bush is abhorrent, American foreign policy is systemically evil, and of course Iraq was destined to go bad.

This is not a vision. It is carping from the sidelines, really no better than Nancy Pelosi.

[Zack Nguyen]

There is no doubt that Osama Bin Ladin was furious at our sanctions in Iraq, and our bombings. But that really isn't the point - unless you want to start formulating our foreign policy around the opinions of Islamic terrorists.

And I'm not saying that Ron Paul wants to do this - but the fact is that he and the rest of the anti-war right needs to start telling us what he would do differently.

The lewrockwell.com crowd is very good at criticizing the Bush Administration in the most vitriolic of terms. But what would Ron Paul have done? Not sanctioned Iraq? What about Hussein's violation of ther terms of the ceasefire? What about his fanatical hatred of the Kurds? Would he instead, after our invasion of Kuwait in 1991, have allowed Hussein to rebuild, rearm, reinstitute his WMD program, and take over the northern part of the country, possibly killing lots more Kurds?

Foreign policy is often about trade-offs, and I never hear the anti-war right (or the anti-war left, it's close cousin) acknowledge this or present a comprehensive alternative vision. It is always Bush is abhorrent, American foreign policy is systemically evil, and of course Iraq was destined to go bad. Bush never receives the benefit of the doubt - he is simply the embodiment of evil. I reject this simplistic characterization.

It is not vision. It is carping from the sidelines, really no better than Nancy Pelosi. And until (or unless) the anti-war right can present a comprehensive vision for defending America and our allies from terrorism (beyond "sealing our borders") they will remain a fringe political movement.

[Sam Gamgee]

I am no fan of internationalists - but is your objection that Congress did not officially sanction the war? They could have, but chose not to put their reputations on the line, correct? The problem is how would have Reagan contained the Sandinistas without the use of secret ops outside the scope of Congress? How would we have fought the Cold War at all?

My contention with Paul is that he does take sides. He took Hezbullah’s side for instance in the war last summer.

[Sam Gamgee]

Von Mises would be ashamed by people like Lew Rockwell using his name. Objectivists can’t stand him - just like Rand could not suffer Libertarians.

[tpaine]

I not only watched the debate, I was able to understand what Paul said, and what Rudy claimed he said.

Yeah, that the US brought 911 on itself for messing in Arabic affairs.

Yep, thats Rudys spin.
Actually, Paul is an isolationist of the old Geo Washington school; and they don't want us messing in ~anybodies~ affairs.
-- Which is impossible in todays world.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

An explanation is not the same thing as assigning blame “Einstein.” My God, do you not even have a LITTLE bit of embarrassment at being so obtuse?

[x]

I’m not a Paul supporter, but he’s a thoughtful man who deserves not to be mau maued.

Ron may be right, but "thoughtful" isn't the best adjective to describe him. He comes across as pretty knee-jerk.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

You did a VERY good job Ohioan. However, to put it in parlance Mr Gamgee can understand, what you want to do, is when the Arabs see the Marines/Army/USAF/Navy pulling out,after they have killed everyone they can find in leadership, and they see the piles of smoking rubble around them, Mahmoud turns to Emir and says "by Allah, we will NOT try that shit again!" Even religious fanatics eventually get that message. What is more, the LEADERS of the crazies have the guns and money and the desire to keep both. They will exterminate their own vermin if they fear for their own lives.

Bush's plan is simple. Our alternative is also simple. He (Bush, and the rest of his neocon enablers) want to make it (Iraq) a place where they LIKE us. I personally don't give a rip whether Iraq, or England, or Germany, or Ecuador, or Zaire or Micronesia or anwhere else, LIKES us. I just want them to FEAR us. The second is way cheaper than the first, and way more effective. Ron Paul would have us strike with a MURDEROUS RAGE (I think he called it a "spasm") at those who harm or seek to harm us.

GET THIS STRAIGHT, YOU BUSHBOTS!!! THE DIFFERENCE IS, AFTER WE KILL THE ONES RESPONSIBLE, WE COME HOME. We do not hang around trying to build a nation that is friendly to us. That is what we have against this so called "war." I am literally sick of the lies, distortions, and boneheaded thickness of the goobs here who either lie or are so pathetically ignorant they think that not supporting the Muslim nation building exercise we have undertaken is being "soft on terror."

Bush won't simply do the job AND GET OUT because we are a petrojunkie, with an oil syringe hanging out of our arm. He wants a friendly nation in the ME, and is convinced he can make it happen. It is a fool's errand, and the clowns who blindly bleat along with him are fools with him.