Immediately (of course) several Ronulans popped up in my twitter stream to sing some variation of “That’s a lie! Ron Paul isn’t racist!” in B-flat major.
One person in particular went above and beyond. Said person was so kind as to tweet a link to a website called “Above the Secrets.” As soon as I clicked the link, I spewed water onto my computer monitor***:
In news unsurprising to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, The Washington Post reports that Ron Paul knew about those newsletters and that he’s been lying about it for years. SURPRISE!
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
The hypocrisy of libertarians like Rand Paul and Ron “Pepaw” Paul amuses me greatly. You see, they speak of liberty, and freedom, but they don’t mean liberty and freedom for everyone. They mean it for themselves and for other (white) men.
In their minds, women aren’t entitled to drink the sweet nectar of freedom from the Free Market Fountain. I’m not exactly sure why this is — maybe it’s because they don’t trust anything that bleeds once a month but won’t die.
In any event, there’s something seriously wrong with a person who cries about being detained by the TSA because he doesn’t want some union worker in plastic gloves all up in his personal space patting him down for oversized lotions and anal bombs, and then is outraged that he missed his flight to Washington, D.C. where, according to his Facebook page, he was scheduled to give a speech at the March for Life Candlelight Vigil for Unfertilized Eggs and Zygotes: “Today I will speak to the March for Life in Washington DC. A nation cannot long endure without respect for the fundamental right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it.”
It amuses me to no end when white folks laud the Declaration of Independence — with all of its lofty rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — all the while stoically ignoring that all that happy-happy-joy-joy talk didn’t apply to the Africans whites dragged to this country and enslaved.
So when I see the tiny wizened messiah talking about the Civil War and lamenting all the liberty that was lost as a result of the war, I laugh bitterly. When I hear him talking about goooooold! and ending the Fed, I begin banging my head against the closest wall.
Dude is so out of touch with the 21st century, I’m starting to wonder if he’s some sort of time traveler who crawled through the Rift and has managed somehow to amass Paul-lovers and the Paul-curious from each end of the political spectrum, and everything in between. Everyone from Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald to David Duke and Stormfront are singing this guy’s praises, in some fashion or another (but not necessarily endorsing him. *wink wink*)
Noam Chomsky has endorsed President Obama in 2012, albeit a lukewarm endorsement. This clip has Noam pointing out what is obvious to anyone with any sense, that Ron Paul is not a friend of liberals or progressives. Chomsky says of libertarianism, “It might sound nice on the surface, but if you think it through, it’s just a call for corporate tyranny.”
I have one question for the Salon.com blogger who repeatedly states that he does not endorse Ron Paul, and who coyly demurs that his vociferous statements of Ron Paul’s sheer awesome are not endorsement but simply a wistful desire to see certain issues discussed during the campaign: Why the fuck isn’t he endorsing Ron Paul?
He obviously thinks that Ron Paul is the bee’s knees and that Obama is some sort of Muslim baby-killing, drone-happy dictator. There’s a reason the Salon.com blogger refers to Obama as “Dear Leader” and to Obama supporters (85 percent of Democrats, mind you) as cultists (as well as depraved individuals who would defend anything, including Obama raping a nun.) So if he is spending thousands upon thousands of words touting the “really important shit” that Ron Paul brings to the 2012 election while also writing screed after screed (after screed after screed) about all the ways in which President Obama is the worst, and how Obama is a centrist Republican whose fault it is that the current Republican candidates are in a state of sheer clusterfuckery, it seems to me that the Salon.com blogger should saddle up and endorse Ron Paul.
It’s getting ridiculous — really. His non-endorsement endorsement nonsense is positively Clintonian: “It depends on what the definition of ‘endorsement’ is.” Render unto me a break. The Salon.com blogger is fooling no one but his rabid supporters and the feckless media which invites him to speak for progressives, even though he is about as progressive as Gary Johnson, which is not at all. Oh, and don’t you dare mention the Salon.com blogger’s Cato Institute affiliation. He’ll go berserk and deny it (even though, apparently, his ties to Koch/Cato are not as tenuous as he would have you believe.)***
But people are starting to get it. The Greenwald sweater of polemical deceit is unraveling, and I like it. I like it because I find his sort of polemical discourse and rhetorical bomb-throwing to be a reckless distraction from the serious problems that confront us.
Barack Obama is running unopposed for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Admittedly, that may be the single most obvious observation made thus far in the 2012 presidential election cycle.
Sadly, it’s one that deserves some attention—particularly for politically plugged-in progressives who’ve willingly subjected themselves to the broken record of purely ideological, unabashedly partisan, and intellectually vacuous sound bites that comprise the score of torturous GOP debates held over last eight agonizing months.
The blindly faithful Obamabots who initially cursed the bleeding hearts for even suggestingthat another Democrat should challenge Obama for the presidency are now regretting that someone didn’t step in. At least it would have elevated the national dialogue above the monotonous (and backward) calls for further deregulation, even lower tax rates, and the end of “Obamacare” that all of the GOP candidates have used as the foundation of their presidential platforms.
In the absence of a Democratic primary, the party of sanity has been drowned out by the angry slurs of anti-government Republicans who’ve held a monopoly on the past year’s mainstream political news coverage with more than 20 debates held so far—and eight more scheduled before a GOP nominee is chosen and a Democrat is finally allowed to jump into the ring.
In the mean time, we can’t allow the intellectual deprivation of 24/7 GOP primary news to turn us into conservatives.
[A week ago, I read this post from friend of ABLC, @smartypants32 and thought it was too good not to be widely shared. So read it, love it, share it. And then bookmark Smartypants's eponymous blog. You won't regret it. -ABLxx]
I had a very strong reaction to reading Glenn Greenwald’s latest article titled Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies. But if you’d like a raging post about the evils of Greenwald, I’m afraid you’re going to have to look elsewhere. My plan is to try to respond reasonably – whether or not he would be inclined to do so in return. I’ll also fall short of tackling everything Greenwald said that I disagree with. Instead, I have a particular point to make and for today, I’ll stick with that.
It was when I got to the part in Greenwald’s article where he extolled a piece written about Ron Paul by Matt Stoller that I thought of Reinhold Niebuhr.