From what I have seen from the conservative popular establishment since the 2010 elections, I doubt if most conservative Americans are smart enough to know that most of their conservative idols are big corporate or religious right lackeys who do not want to solve America’s problems
Note: Rocky Boschert takes a timely swing at presidential politics. East Texas Congressman Ron Paul announced his run for the presidency on Friday, his "third time's a charm" attempt, Newt Gingrich officially threw his hat in the ring last week, Mike Huckabee decided not to run, and Donald "The Apprentice and Big Mouth" Trump has managed to slide to the bottom of the favorable ratings in a matter of just a few weeks. The Republican establishment has virtually conceded the 2012 election to Obama knowing that it has a terminally weak and uninspiring field of candidates and is now focusing its attention on capturing a majority in the U. S. Senate. Good luck.Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Rocky at arrowbiz@texasorp.com or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story
By Rocky Boschert
Financial Editor
The 2012 GOP presidential primary voters now have a field of candidates willing to bash the White House for basically doing the same things these candidates once defended a Republican president or governor for doing in the past. In fact, most potential 2012 candidates will be as guilty of contributing to as much big government as the president they’ll be criticizing.Mitt Romney gave us the ObamaCare blueprint for government-run healthcare in Massachusetts; boring Tim Pawlenty and compulsive wife changer Newt Gingrich gave Republican support for cap and trade; social conservative loudmouth Rick Santorum ran cover for Bush’s entire social agenda by touting the president’s right wing big government Christian conservatism. And media whores (pun intended) like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann will exploit any issue they can, without even knowing why.
Adding ideological insult to injury, most of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates still promote an astronomically expensive foreign policy and an out of touch big government social conservatism - while they simultaneously and contradictorily claim we must cut government spending. By and large, these candidates are conservative in rhetoric & media glory - and not with their voting records, as has been the case with most Republican presidential candidates for decades.
On the other hand, during the periods when conservatives find themselves not defending big government Republicans - and instead choose to stress the need for their base philosophy of limited government, constitutional fidelity, and the need to eliminate debt and deficits, they echo the sentiments of Ron Paul.The difference between Paul and most Republicans, however, is Paul never changes his story. One thing conservatives can rely on with Ron Paul is his philosophical consistency, even when his fellow conservatives disagree with him (or attack him like at the 2008 Republican presidential debates). When hypocritical conservatives attack Paul for his non-interventionist foreign policy views, Congressman Paul is quick to remind them that it is mathematically impossible to reduce the national debt and deficits without seriously addressing Pentagon spending and overseas military misadventures.
Paul also has the courage and integrity to say that big government efforts such as anti-abortion legislation and cutting NPR, Planned Parenthood and local money earmarks will do nothing to effectively reduce the debt, no matter how much each concern might excite conservatives emotionally. Likewise, Paul chastises the neocons for ignoring the need for military spending cuts that will continue to sustain and grow the national debt, especially when most neoconservatives are economically dependent on their military-industrial complex corporate masters.
In addition, Ron Paul’s political integrity really shines through when he declares that obsessing over Obama’s birth certificate only distracts us from the US economy’s impending death certificate. And Paul knows that drooling over the self-serving media flatulence of a reality TV star with a bad comb-over may get some neocons excited, but it doesn’t address our collapsing dollar and our stagnant high unemployment economy.Of course simple thinking conservatives tend to draw meaningless battle lines between Republicans and Democrats. Paul, on the other hand, establishes a sensible battle line with those in both parties who consider big government power to be absolute. This includes abusive big government power, such as the nonsense of the Texas mandatory abortion sonograms that bogus conservatives – from Jason Isaac all the way up to Rick Perry – believe is their domain to do their God-complex bidding.
As a statement of the state of national politics, Ron Paul seems to be one of the very few conservative constants in popular US politics (although Paul seems to now have a true conservative compadre in the presidential aspirations of the New Mexico libertarian ex-Governor).
To the extent that the American Right gets so easily distracted from true conservative principles, typically in the name of mindless Republican partisanship or some emotional attachment to a particular big government social agenda, they usually find themselves at odds with Paul.
This brings me now to the almost guaranteed entrenched Republican Party “establishment” distaste for Ron Paul. Generally speaking, there are two reasons for Paul’s unattractiveness to the Republican money monopoly. First, he is not a puppet of big government Christian extremists who now control the Republican Party in the southern United States. And second, Paul is not a political puppet of the US Republican Party corporate war machine (which is now only slightly more aggressive than the US Democratic Party corporate war machine).
As a reluctant fiscal conservative (not someone who supports corporate monopolies but someone that supports decentralized economic ownership) and a progressive social liberal, I just hope Ron Paul or someone of his conservative political consistency will be selected as the 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate. Regardless of whether you are left or right, we all need consistency and integrity more than ever in US politics.
But unfortunately, from what I have seen from the conservative popular establishment since the 2010 elections, I doubt if most conservative Americans are smart enough to know that most of their conservative idols are big corporate or religious right lackeys who do not want to solve America’s problems. They have the same motives as some TV contracted aging civil rights leaders: They are disingenuous faux leaders who pander to the outdated and unproductive emotional buttons of (right wing) anger and divisiveness – all too often in the name of God. Want proof?
We have just seen such unintelligent behavior by the Texas Legislature regarding the mandatory sonogram law that pretty boy mass manipulator Rick Perry will no doubt sign.
23 comments:
I agree with you, Rocky. I have always respected and supported Ron Paul.
Even though Paul is indeed a character, I agree with him on the issues usually 94 percent of the time. That's pretty darn good these days.
A lot of people tell tales about Ron Paul being a racist and that he is a pro-abortionist and so on, but I have never seen any real truth in these rumors.
I think he is the best candidate thus far, including President Obama. I just heard today that Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump are not running in 2011. Thank God!
I will be voting for Paul in 2012.
While I share some of Rep. Paul's views, while he was my Representative he never once responded to either letters or emails, and I would love to see his views on the Constitution move into the latter part of the 20th century.
You have my interest, Anonymous, re: "and I would love to see his views on the Constitution move into the latter part of the 20th century."
Please what does that mean?
Currently our reps have no comprehension of what the Constitution is. Every special interest whim gets a proposal for amendment.
Is that the 21st Century view of the Constitution? Changing it? and NOT for the better?
Funny. Peter, I was thinking of responding to the Ron Paul Constitution question in a very similar manner. But you beat me to it.
From what I can tell, most neo-conservative Republicans have no idea what "conservative" really means anymore.
In the unfolding GOP presidential batch, Ron Paul and the New Mexico ex-Governor are the only ones who are really conservatives.
I have worked with and for Ron Paul over many years. He is a good and decent man who values the constitution and supports it fully.
I never saw any racist tendency's or heard him make any pro abortion statements. In face most of his campaign workers were openly anti abortion.
I think Richard S., in one of his "senior moments", mis-posted this comment on another article's comments section:
"You know Peter, I was thinking that Ron Paul was my candidate. Now that you and Rocky have signed on, I'll have to go back and study him a little more to see what I may have missed, wink."
Personally, I think Richard's misplaced comment works better here. Hence, I will respond seriously as such to Richard S. and his wink tease:
Richard, I have not signed on to Ron Paul. I just think he is the best and most well known true conservative Republican out there.
In the rare chance that he would get the Republican nomination - and the equally rare chance that he would beat Obama - at least I could take some comfort in Paul's true fiscal and Constitutionally based social conservative credentials.
In other words, he is likely to eschew corporate welfare and individual freedom hating & fearful right wing Christian extremist big government nonsense.
All of which is why Paul will not get anywhere with his own party - since he would probably not sell out to the lifestyle control freaks or the Wall Street oligarchs who steal our tax dollars to bail themselves out when they screw up.
Of course if Ron Paul were nominated and he does what McCain desperately did with the Alaska bimbo (or some other weird version of it), all bets are off.
It should be an interesting show, now that Obama got Osama.
Merry M., I don't know anyone - and I know a lot of liberals and women from all political sides, who are pro-abortion (the way you seem to put it).
Conservatives need to stop using erroneous and misguiding talking points to falsify the attitude of Americans who loathe some bozo self-righteous neoconservative social conservative ass telling me and my wife how we must plan our family.
If my wife and I choose to abort a precious child's life, we must live with that decision. It is our moral choice and our moral pain that we must endure.
So, I am not pro-abortion, but when the government comes in and tells a woman how to use her body -or that she must have a child no matter what, that is no better than the Third Reich wanting to only propogate blond haired, blue eyed children. Or China telling parents they can have only one or two children, preferably boys.
Or how about the Taliban stoning a woman because she gets pregnant? Is Isaac's mandatory abortion sonogram where they insert a dildo like scan tool in the women's body really that different?
If Ron Paul is anti-abortion, but strongly believes the government should never get involved in such personal matters, that is very much like me.
But if he ever goes the big goverment white male Taliban route, he will be on my manure list immediately.
As Rocky stated, more or less, Ron Paul will never get the support of his own GOP, since most see Paul as some leftist wing-nut. Many also see Paul as some rightist wing-nut. I even heard one person title Paul as a former Birch-er.
Personally, believe it or not, I see Paul more as a centrist or at least more grounded in reality on various issues than most Republicans and Democrats.
I also agree that to be blatantly pro- or anti- abortion is NOT based in reality. In other words, abortion (as most issues)is NOT a "black and white" "yes or no" issue as too many Republicans and Democrats opt to believe.
Furthermore, government has no right interfering in and directing the lives of men and women on such personal and private issues as abortion. Texas legislators often overstep their power over and responsibility to the people.
I wonder sometimes how "an anti-abortionist" would feel if a daughter or sister was raped and became pregnant, or how one would feel if a fetus was diagnosed with a critical malady or disease, perhaps one that would place the prospective mother in danger of dying when giving birth.
Is "an anti-abortionist" ALWAYS "an anti-abortionist" or is one 2-faced about it? Does the "playing field" change when it directly hits home?
The real problem with government at all levels is the massive amounts of money spent every year by special interests and/or lobbyists to get the people's representatives to do their bidding. The community good is generally thrown-out the window.
If any law is truly needed and should be approved, it is the elimination of campaign dollars and special perks provided by wealthy contributors. It would level the field for the people and may re-direct government to function as our forefathers had wanted.
Rocky, I am surprised that you [especially] have not mentioned Ron Paul's stance on the Federal Reserve.
As a financial analyst you must have some perspective on the issue.
Paul wants to significantly limit or even eliminate the Federal Reserve, since it is not actually part of the U.S. Government, but is a collection of private wealthy and worldly members / bankers who dictate our monetary policy and determine when and how much of our currency to print.
I know that many fairly knowledgeable voters will NOT opt to vote for Paul because they believe an outside central bank or collection of bankers is needed, that our government cannot function properly on its own and could fail without the Federal Reserve.
Personally, I think the Federal Reserve, as it currently stands, does more harm than good and is special interest directed.
The responsibilities of the Federal Reserve look good on paper, but those in charge are often mis-directed and special interest motivated.
"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."
Ron Paul
When Ron Paul first entered the race, PPP (one of the major polling firms) warned that while he was polling a ways behind Romney etc, his favorability numbers were near the top. In Iowa, he is only behind Huckabee, who is not running, and in NH he is only behind Romney. His problem is the disconnect between people who like him, and people who will vote for him. If he can bridge that gap in the next few months, he could be a real threat.
Nice article, I may be biased since I thought it was fair and balanced.
Peter, to quote myself:
"... the Wall Street oligarchs who steal our tax dollars to bail themselves out when they screw up."
This generality is how I refer to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). So I do address Paul's dislike of the entity.
Unfortunately, the FRB has overstayed its welcome. They no longer see themselves only as an "inflation monitor."
They print money and act as unilateral corporate welfare guardians for the Wall Street bankers. If not abolished, they need to be as least seriously castrated.
The funny thing about the FRB board is that as an investment advisor, I can simply put money in the market when they are doing their thing and pull it out when they are inactive. Hence the truism about the rigged market.
What the conservatives don't see, however, is that the FRB is a private entity, not a government one, and a perfect example of why their "free markets" mantra is a sad joke on them.
It is corporate socialism, not government socialism (to use right wing terms),
Rep. Paul has a few strikes going against him. He's older than most would prefer their candidate. He's not photogenic And while I find his consistency charming, many view it as him being an ideolog, and not in a good way.
"Paul, on the other hand, establishes a sensible battle line with those in both parties who consider big government power to be ABSOLUTE."
That's the money quote. Well said, Mr. Boschert. (And thanks for being so on point about the R and D wings of the War Party.)
The real divide in American politics is not left versus right, but statists (of whichever party, politicians and regular people) against individualists. Peek under all the self-righteous PR and euphemisms covering the statists' lawfare on individual human beings, and you will find the ugly fact. The statists believe they have the RIGHT to control how you live, to steal your property, and if you resist such slavery and theft, to kill you. Statists may differ in degree: exactly how much or precisely which ways they'd like to enslave, steal or kill, or the particulars of what they want to buy with their ill-gotten plunder, but they are united on the premise that such slavery, theft and murder is *morally acceptable* to bring about what they want. They recognize NO natural right of yours or mine to our own lives, our liberty or our property.
Against all this war-mongering, thievery and regulo-slavery has stood one man. His convictions are not for sale. He has been mocked, misunderstood and demonized for telling us the truth but has never swerved from his stand for your liberty and mine. He is one of a kind. This sterling integrity is why statists--both professional politicians and Boobus Americanus--just don't “get” Ron Paul, but why he delights individuals of every kind, age, persuasion.
(Oh, and re: Boobus. There's plenty of that to go around on all sides. Think of the people you know who are constantly saying, "there oughtta be a law." I think government schools are working precisely as John Dewey designed them to work.)
I was part of Ron Paul's grassroots in his 2008 campaign. I saw the marvelous diversity at his events, tatooed belly-dancers, pro-life homeschoolers with 7 kids in tow, pro-choice stalwarts, conservative business types, funky youngsters with colored hair, urbane academics, wild-eyed truthers, recovering neo-cons, genteel Goldwater Repubs, HUMAN BEINGS tired of the aggression of one side against the other, ready to live at peace, in prosperity and liberty with one another. I canvassed for Ron Paul in my neighborhood, at events, at the polling place. I helped take his candidacy to the 2008 Hays County Rethuglican convention: yep, they hate him. And they love war and the police state (defending freedom, don'tcha know), regulating and controlling, and despite all their protests to the contrary, stealing anything not tied down and hidden to help fund the first two plus help out the bankers, lawyers and big bidnessmen who keep the whole d**m mess going. I've never been privy to the innards of the Demo-rat party but see enough of their own flavor of controlling, stealing and killing to know they're only different in degree and direction, not in kind.
Pretty simple choice, much the same as it has always been. The Treaders-all over-You or Ron Paul.
Until the American people get moral clarity that their neighbors are NOT their property and STOP trying to use GovThugs to boss them around and shake them down for goodies, we will be a people at war with one another and the world at large.
Well done, Rocky.
Paul is the only option for those of us who would like to see the plutarchy broken. This nation has become ruled "by the Big Money, for the Big Money", and they're eating our lunch everyday. If there's a chance to bring the people together and break the choke hold they have on us at the presidential level, Paul is it.
You'll again see both parties and most all news media alternately attack and ignore him. THAT's how you know how dangerous he is to the system.
God bless Paul for being the same guy since we've known him, and fighting the good fight long before most folks even understood the problem.
Now... to break the hold at the Congressional level... check this out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0uss0poMc&feature=related
www.goooh.com
One man, even a president who really wants to, cannot change the corporate, union and lobbyist systems ruling Washington D.C. --- but it's a start.
Many had thought that man was Obama, but the lesson has been learned.
Peter... One man is one man, so you're right. But if 70 million or so people cast a ballot his way, then the people are back on offense again.
Sam, I'll quote Bill Hicks, 'back and to the left'
Sam, that's what many Americans thought when they voted for Obama.
However, we are not on the offense at this time. We are playing heavy defense still.
Did you mean paying for heavy defense spending?
Obama is stuck in Afghanistan due to his own Prez pre-election pandering and his post-election pandering to Nascar dads and the Wall Street war machine.
He'll keep the war rhetoric up until he is re-elected, assuming he can convince voters the economy has gotten better by 2012.
People with enough money to do it use the law of supply and demand (and fear) to manipulate us. They create a seeming or real shortage of a much-wanted product (Middle East oil; hybrid Prius; chocolate & other foodstuffs) to justify raising prices of their products. They divert our anger at price gouging to straw men targets -- Arab oil owners, shifty Japanese, slaveholders in Ivory Coast, etc. We fall for it.
I can't imagine any other supposedly democratic country where such machinations wouldn't be met by citizens banging on pots and pans in the street. I suspect it's because we feel like helpless cogs in the grinding machine of oligarchy.
Post a Comment