[Quality4Qty]

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122...-fear-ron-paul

December 22, 2011 John Nichols is the author of several books that examine the legacy of old-right conservatives such as Taft and Buffett, including: Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books).
Ron Paul represents the ideology that Republican insiders most fear: conservatism.
Not the corrupt, inside-the-beltway construct that goes by that name, but actual conservatism.

And if he wins the Iowa Republican Caucus vote on January 3—a real, though far from certain, prospect—the party bosses will have to do everything in their power to prevent Paul from reasserting the values of the "old-right" Republicans who once stood, steadily and without apology, in opposition to wars of whim and assaults on individual liberty.

Make no mistake, the party bosses are horrified at the notion that a genuine conservative might grab the Iowa headlines from the false prophets. Already, they are claiming a Paul win won't mean anything. If Paul prevails, says Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, "People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states."

The party's amen corner in the media is doing its part. Republican-insider radio and television programs have begun to go after Paul, the veteran congressman from Texas who is either leading or near the top in recent polls of likely caucus goers. Rush Limbaugh ridicules Paul on his radio show, while Sean Hannity's Fox show has become a nightly Paul-bashing fest, with guests like former Education Secretary Bill Bennett trashing the congressman with lines like: "his notion of foreign policy is impossible."

Actually, Paul's notion of foreign policy is in line with that of conservatives used to believe. The congressman is often referred to as a libertarian, and he has certainly toiled some in that ideological vineyard. But the truth is that his politics descend directly from those of former Ohio Senator Robert "Mr. Republican" Taft and former Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett—old-right opponents of war and empire who served in the Congress in the 1940s and 1950s and who, in Taft's case, mounted credible bids for the party's presidential nomination in 1940, 1948 and finally in 1952. In all three campaigns, Taft opposed what he described as the "Eastern establishment" of the party—the Wall Streeters who, he pointedly noted, had little in common with Main Streeters.

Taft was a steady foe of American interventionism abroad, arguing very much as Paul does today that it threatens domestic liberty. Indeed, just as Paul joined US Senator Russ Feingold in opposing the Patriot Act, spying on Americans and threats to freedom of speech and assembly in the first days of what would become an open-ended "war on terror," so Taft warned during the cold war that "criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government."
"The maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country...more good than it will do the enemy," explained Taft, who challenged President Truman's attempts to use war powers as an excuse to seize domestic industries and otherwise expand what Dwight Eisenhower would eventually define as the military-industrial complex.

Buffett, the father of billionaire Warren, opposed military interventionism during the cold war era, declaring on the floor of the House: "Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics."

When the threat of increased US involvement in Vietnam arose in the early 1960s, the elder Buffett wrote in William F. Buckley's National Review: "When the American government conscripts a boy to go 10,000 miles to the jungles of Asia without a declaration of war by Congress (as required by the Constitution) what freedom is safe at home? Surely, profits of U.S. Steel or your private property are not more sacred than a young man's right to life."
Just as Ron Paul has consistently opposed free-trade deals and schemes to enrich government contractors, the elder Buffett railed against the crony capitalism of his day. "There are businesses that are being enriched by national defense spending and foreign handouts," Buffett warned in 1948. "These firms, because of the money they can spend on propaganda, may be the most dangerous of all. If the Marshall Plan meant $100 million worth of profitable business for your firm, wouldn't you Invest a few thousands or so to successfully propagandize for the Marshall Plan? And if you were a foreign government, getting billions, perhaps you could persuade your prospective suppliers here to lend a hand in putting that deal through Congress."

Buffett campaigned in 1952 to nominate Taft as the Republican candidate for president. That effort was opposed by the Wall Street speculators and banksters of the day, and it failed—although not without a serious fight that went all the way to the GOP convention.

After his defeat, Taft griped, "Every Republican candidate for President since 1936 has been nominated by the Chase National Bank."
That was the pure voice of old-right conservatism speaking.
It is echoed now by Ron Paul, who makes no secret of his high regard for Taft, Buffett and the old-right Republicans of the past, and of his disregard for the neocons and crony capitalists of today. Paul is running ads that propose to "drain the swamp," a reference to the insider-driven politics of a Washington where Republicans such as Gingrich maintain the sort of pay-to-play politics that empties the federal treasury into the accounts of campaign donors and sleazy government contractors.

Paul's ideological clarity scares the wits out of the Republican mandarins who peddle the fantasy that the interventionism, the assaults on civil liberties and the partnerships that they have forged with multinational corporations and foreign dictators represent anything akin to true conservatism.

The problem that Limbaugh, Hannity and other GOP establishment types have with Paul is that the Texan really is a conservative, rather than a neoconservative or a crony capitalist who would use the state to maintain monopolies at home and via corrupt international trade deals.

Paul's pure conservatism puts him at odds with a party establishment that has sold out to Wall Street and multinational corporations. But it has mad an increasingly iconic Republican with a good many of the grassroots activists who will attend the caucuss.

The disconnect between the disdain the establishment expresses with regard to Paul and his appeal to the base is easily explained.
The GOP establishment chooses partisanship over principle. The base does not necessarily do so.

In other words, while the party establishment and its media echo chamber reject the Main Street conservatism of the Taft's and Buffetts, there are many grassroots Republicans in Iowa towns like Independence and Liberty Center (where Paul campaign signs are very much in evidence) who find Paul's old-right conservatism quite appealing.

That is what frightens Republican party leaders. The notion that the Grand Old Party might actually base its politics on values, as opposd to pay-to-play deal-making, unsettles the Republican leaders who back only contenders who have been pre-approved by the Wall Street speculators, banksters and corporate CEOs who pay the party's tab—and kindly pick up some of the bills for the Democrats, as well.

What do the party insiders fear about genuine conservatism? Above all, they fear that a politics of principle might expose the fact that the Republican Party has for decades been at odds with the conservative values and ideals of Americans who do not want theirs to be a warrior nation that disregards civil liberties and domestic economics in order to promote Wall Street's globalization agenda.

Ron Paul is not a progressive. He takes stands on abortion rights and a number of other issues that disqualify him from consideration by social moderates and liberals, and his stances on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and labor rights (like those of the author of the Taft-Hartley Act) are anathema to economic justice advocates. But Paul cannot be dismissed as just another robotic Republican. Indeed, he is more inclined to challenge Republican orthodoxy on a host of foreign and fiscal policy issues than Barack Obama. He does so as something that is rare indeed at the highest levels of American politics: a conservative.
And if he wins Iowa, he could begin a process of transforming the Republican Party into a conservative party.

That scares the Republican bosses who currently maintain the party concession on behalf of the Wall Streeters. But it, if the polls are to be believed, it quite intrigues the folks on Main Street who may be waking up to the fact that the "conservatism" of a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney is a sham argument designed to make the rich richer and to make the rest of us pay for wars of whim and crony-capitalist corruption.

[Nubtoubrem]

Paul winning even just Iowa is a game changer.

[Kilaoksrsa]

they dont fear him....their jewish handlers fear him.

[shinesw]

They can be as dismissive all they want but a 1st place in Iowa and a strong showing in NH will snowball Rons already growing base and there's not a damn thing they can do about it, short of offing him and turning him into the martyr of the Liberty Movement. That is what they really fear IMHO.

[amehoubFomo]

This is turning out to be the most exciting election in US history! At least in my life.

This GOP label is really outdated...there is nothing grand about this old party of Zionints.

[ViagraFeller]

This is turning out to be the most exciting election in US history! At least in my life.

Actually the most exciting in the modern era by far would be Perot's run in '92 - THAT was something to see as it brought in both the left and the right, both Dems and GOPers. Perot had it NAILED by late spring, which is why they 'sent him a message' which caused him to pull out - meanwhile he kept the Perot Petition Committee fully staffed and running at full speed to complete the petition process in all states.

Perot had 'critical mass' by late May, something which Ron Paul and his 'army of activists' (lol) haven't been able to achieve thus far. A win in Iowa will go a long way toward critical mass, but it will take more. There's still a long hard slog ahead. In '92 Perot blasted past the competition and due to his popularity the media largely stood down in their opposition, but then it was 'too late' for them to mount a massive smear campaign. Let's all pray that folks are able to see the smear campaign against Dr. Paul for what it is.

[hitaEtela]

Those were some exciting days.. "I'm mad too, Eddie!" was almost a mantra.

[Ferrotoral]

Actually the most exciting in the modern era by far would be Perot's run in '92 - THAT was something to see as it brought in both the left and the right, both Dems and GOPers. Perot had it NAILED by late spring, which is why they 'sent him a message' which caused him to pull out - meanwhile he kept the Perot Petition Committee fully staffed and running at full speed to complete the petition process in all states.

Perot had 'critical mass' by late May, something which Ron Paul and his 'army of activists' (lol) haven't been able to achieve thus far. A win in Iowa will go a long way toward critical mass, but it will take more. There's still a long hard slog ahead. In '92 Perot blasted past the competition and due to his popularity the media largely stood down in their opposition, but then it was 'too late' for them to mount a massive smear campaign. Let's all pray that folks are able to see the smear campaign against Dr. Paul for what it is.

I remember it, but I thought Perot killed his campaign when he started talking like a nutcase.
There just might be some interesting twists and turns coming in this one that will make Perot's run pale by comparison.

[ppaelkos]

I remember it, but I thought Perot killed his campaign when he started talking like a nutcase.
There just might be some interesting twists and turns coming in this one that will make Perot's run pale by comparison.

You are probably right, the opposition is digging into history's and sharpening all of their tools. This election will be with out a doubt, the dirtiest slime dragging , shit slinging, election in our history. Perot's run was exciting and had the momentum. Now the reason he pulled out, maybe in time the truth will be known, or not.

This upcoming election and reelections of all of the other Washington critters, has the earmarks of being the most critical and probably entertaining cycle in remembered history or even all of our history as a nation.

[effebrala]

I remember it, but I thought Perot killed his campaign when he started talking like a nutcase.
There just might be some interesting twists and turns coming in this one that will make Perot's run pale by comparison.

Dude, I was there, and a major player in the very beginning. My actions were instrumental in launching the PPC (like in less than 72 hours), and a buddy and I opened the very first PPC office which Perot funded for us - a fully furnished turnkey 3,000 s.f. office with 30 phone lines, a week after the formation of the PPC. The only office which Perot opened prior to ours was the Dallas HQ in his office building (and that was on March 11th, the day of the formation of the Perot Petition Committee). So I know what really happened, 'they' threatened him and his family. His explanation for pulling out was, "They intend to disrupt my daughter's wedding* and I won't allow that."

This part you're referring to as "talking like a nutcase" is where Perot was addressing the NAACP convention and he said, "You people..." and the media had a field day with that.

So no, Ron Paul and his supporters have LONG way to go to reach the level that Perot had in mid-'92. Don't kid yourself.

*you can take that to mean whatever you want, but the way I read it is something like this, "It'd be such a shame to have a funeral overshadow your daughter's wedding." - or some variation of that.

[DuesTyr]

I just hope the typical American will just ignore the slime ball media types on Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is a bad guy, then Mit Romney is a mass murderer and Obama is worse. I think most Americans realize this is below the belt nonsense.

[Ztcgtqvb]

Unlike his fellow presidential wannabes, Ron Paul hasn't been seduced by fascism.

Fascism, if you are unaware, is 'getting things done by force'.

So far, RP is the only robust challenge to fascism on the political scene. He reminds us that Americans do not come from an authoritarian tradition. That scares TPTB--the idea that the masses would reject the direction they are leading us in. (Sorry for the dangling participle)

Hatha

[deermealec]

$4,370,902.58 ............... people around here are starting to talk about the freedom there losing this maybe the biggest wake up call to help mr paul . when they talk about the rights there losing i tell them there only one man that can an will chance what the other turds have done

[euylvaygdq]

Why Ron Paul Can Win ... http://www.thedailybell.com/3396/Jam...n-Paul-Can-Win ...
If you have been watching the news, you know that Ron Paul is now beating both Gingrich and Romney in the polls and could walk away with a win in Iowa.
Some say he could also walk away with a win in New Hampshire, and possibly even win the Republican (GOP) nomination.
For the Republican National Committee (RNC), this must be uncomfortable − the idea that they would be forced to nominate a principled, Constitutionalist just because WE THE PEOPLE demanded it.
But here's what really terrifies them: Ron Paul is in a position to hand the election of 2012 over to Barack Obama and the Democrats because he would be a "spoiler." But even more terrifying is the fact that Dr. Paul is in a position to be much more than a "spoiler" − he's in a position to be a "winner."
Etymology of the term SPOILER:
The term "spoiler" is a derogatory term that was dreamt up by statists in the Democratic and Republican parties in order to sucker the public into continuously voting for no one outside the Establishment. In other words, if you vote your conscience, YOU are a "spoiler." If you run on principles of your conscience and take votes away from an Establishment candidate, YOU are also a "spoiler."
Thus, since Ron Paul votes his conscience, since he rejects certain aspects of the Establishment − such as the Federal Reserve's abuse of the monetary system and its financing of the welfare-warfare empire we have now become − there is no way apparatchiks in the GOP will nominate Dr. Paul no matter what WE THE PEOPLE want.
And to this end, lackey pundits in the CFR-dominated, mainstream media continuously chant that Ron Paul has "no chance to get the Republican nomination." They spew this so often, it's obvious they don't believe their own lies.
But here's the joker: Ron Paul does not even need the GOP to win the general election. If he were to walk away for a third party, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% − enough of the vote to win the Presidency in a three-man race.
GOP strategists know all this and this is why you will never hear them utter these statistics in the mainstream media. If the public were to become too "hopeful" − if they were to understand the mathematics of the situation − even more people would vote for Ron Paul if for no other reason than to be on the winner's bandwagon.
So, the GOP has some serious choices to make.
Either they morph into a small-government party and support the Ron Paul Revolution of "getting back to the Constitution," or they risk losing their power to a new political party. And a new political party would not only mean the demise of the Republican party, but the Democratic party as well.
Since the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party are BOTH the parties of BIG government, a new political party of SMALL government would reveal to the public − more than ever − what the two mainstream parties have become.
The two mainstream parties − the Democrats and Republicans − have become, in essence, two departments of the same police state. They are the same political party, in effect: growing the government ever larger and ever more militaristic, both domestically and internationally. The PATRIOT Act expands the police state domestically, and the UN, IMF, WTO, NAFTA, GATT and NATO −which they BOTH continuously and blindly support − expand the police state internationally.
Due to serious abridgments of the US Constitution and principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the United States are now run by a dictating oligarchy known as the UNITED STATES. And this dictating oligarchy is dominated by cultural Marxists and corporate fascists who have hijacked the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.
The "DemoPublicans" have established the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of administering their police state and the PATRIOT Act has become their new Constitution.
If you accept the idea that the Democrats and Republicans (again the "DemoPublicans") have become two departments of the same police state − two wings of the same ugly bird − you will have to accept that ultimately it does not matter whether a Democrat or Republican is elected to the presidency. It does not matter if Obama or Romney is elected president. Establishment politicians in either of these "two" parties will continue to use the Federal Reserve System to monetize debt (print money out of thin air) and use this fraudulent "fiat" currency to build their welfare-warfare state.
It could be said that Republicans specialize in printing money to build weapons and wage wars − Democrats specialize in printing money to address the sick and the poor. The Republicans thus CREATE the sick and the poor with their WAR-fare policies and the Democrats HEAL the sick and the poor with their WELL-fare policies.
Thus when an entity controls the HEALING and HURTING of Humankind, doesn't that entity, in essence, CONTROL Humankind? Well, welcome to the DemoPublican control mechanism − something you might think about the next time you vote or mindlessly scream out for your Clinton-, Bush-, Obama-, Gingrich- or Romney-candidate.
Taken as a whole, the Demopublican machine − now assembled more by supra-national, international banking families than American citizens − has destroyed US politics that used to center on constitutional principles. Controllers in this CFR-led embryonic world government have created a well-oiled machine to maximize the plunder of millions, if not billions of people, through the mechanism of central banking, debt and the hurting-healing cycle. Would it not be reasonable to posit that the Democratic and Republican Parties are thus primary tools in what seems to be a master plan of globalization?
Ron Paul − a strict limited-government Constitutionalist with an appreciation for ethnonationalism − does not fit in with the New World Order's management plans. Therefore, if he wins the popular vote not only in Iowa and New Hampshire but across the nation, the DemoPublican controllers have a serious problem.
They can either rig the elections so it looks like Dr. Paul did "not" win, or they can blackmail him by threatening his family, like they did when Ross Perot was getting too popular.
If Dr. Paul walks away from the GOP to go Indy, in reality he will "spoil" nothing, for as discussed above, the Democrats and Republicans are the same political party in effect, so there is nothing that CAN be "spoiled".
Also, since the DemoPublicans must continue the cockfight between them − so the illusion that they are "different" parties can be maintained − this fighting has been, of necessity, escalating into a GRIDLOCK. Note the endless fighting about extending payroll tax cuts, Obamacare and illegal immigration. Thus, even if Ron Paul is labeled a "spoiler" − for thwarting the Establishment Controller's plan to get one of their puppets nominated or elected − he will spoil nothing.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR RON PAUL TO BE A SPOILER, BECAUSE:
A) THE DEMS AND GOP ARE THE SAME PARTY IN EFFECT, AND;
B) EVEN IF OBAMA GETS REELECTED, THE DEMS AND GOP WILL BE GRIDLOCKED AND THUS NOTHING WILL GET DONE.
Summary:
The term "spoiler" is used by two groups of people:
1) the ignorant or IQ-challenged person who knows little or nothing about politics or the art of war, and
2) the statist propaganda-merchant who is trying to give the public the illusion that there is a "difference" between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
The reason the statist propaganda-merchant is trying to perpetuate the meme that there is a difference between the two major parties is so the general public will not look elsewhere for the solution to their problems. If one can get the Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other, it gives the illusion that they are "different" to the degree they "fight." Indeed they DO have "differences"; however, the differences are over trivial issues. On all the major issues the Democrats and Republicans are identical, overtly and covertly, thus they are the same political party in effect. You saw how many of Bush's policies Obama kept in place when he came into office ostensibly to "change" things. The same thing will happen if the Republicans take back the White House, ad infinitum.
So this is why Ron Paul is such a threat to the Establishment. He's running on the GOP ticket basically so he can get mainstream media exposure. The mainstream tried to ignore him in the last election. Remember how Hannity practically spat on Dr. Paul in the 2008 election? Remember how all the other pundits treated him? Then, when he suddenly raised millions of dollars with his "money bombs" and millions of voters started joining the grassroots Ron Paul Revolution − which kicked off the Tea Party Revolution − it wasn't "politically correct" to spit on him any longer. Worse, they couldn't ignore him into oblivion like they ignored all other dissenting candidates. Third-party candidate Ross Perot was only able to get mainstream media exposure because he purchased it with his personal wealth. Neither Ralph Nader nor Harry Brown, on the other hand, have been able to purchase such exposure; thus they have never been able to get an alternative vision into the public domain.
Thus, if Ron Paul continues to get support from the rest of the nation he's currently getting in Iowa, the GOP should technically nominate him, but it's a long-shot they will.
After all, for Ron Paul to win and use the vote to destroy the cultural Marxist-infested, totalitarian fiat empire, being built by controllers of the "liberal world order" is incomprehensible to them even though Pat Buchanan details in his new book, Suicide of a Superpower, the reasons why the moment of globalism and "free" trade has passed.
But such is the power of the zeitgeist for the world is in revolt, from the Middle East to Wall Street. The 99-percent don't know exactly HOW they have been screwed, but they do know that they HAVE been screwed − at least for the past 100 years. From the Tea Partiers to the Wall Street Occupiers in America, WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with:
1) a Congress that has been bought and sold by corporate fascists,
2) Presidents that start wars and act like Marxist dictators,
3) an activist Supreme Court that legislates from the bench making one-size-fits-all laws that ignore the original intent of the Founders.
WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with many other things, but both the "Right" and the "Left" can agree with much of what Ron Paul offers, because his principles are American principles, and American principles are Constitutional Principles which accommodate both liberals and conservatives, Left or Right.
So don't let CFR-infested, Establishment propaganda spewed through the mainstream media or the DemoPublican police state dissuade you from voting for Ron Paul, whether he stays on the GOP ticket, goes Independent or starts a new party.
It is vital that all Americans stay true to their conscience, NOT their political parties. Remember, the US Constitution does not even mention political parties. In fact, many of the Founders warned us against them; they called them "factions" and said that membership in them is dangerous to a democratic form of government. They warned us to stay away from entrenched political parties − such as the Democrats and Republicans − because entrenched political parties are only one step away from dictatorships.
It is not too late to act. Vote out the incumbent congressmen and vote in Ron Paul no matter what scare tactics the pundits on CNN, FOX News or MSNBC attempt to use on you. Ron Paul CAN get 38% of the vote and win the presidency. This is not an opinion; it's mathematical fact.

[leahjhburton]

Dude, I was there, and a major player in the very beginning. My actions were instrumental in launching the PPC (like in less than 72 hours), and a buddy and I opened the very first PPC office which Perot funded for us - a fully furnished turnkey 3,000 s.f. office with 30 phone lines, a week after the formation of the PPC. The only office which Perot opened prior to ours was the Dallas HQ in his office building (and that was on March 11th, the day of the formation of the Perot Petition Committee). So I know what really happened, 'they' threatened him and his family. His explanation for pulling out was, "They intend to disrupt my daughter's wedding* and I won't allow that."

This part you're referring to as "talking like a nutcase" is where Perot was addressing the NAACP convention and he said, "You people..." and the media had a field day with that.

So no, Ron Paul and his supporters have LONG way to go to reach the level that Perot had in mid-'92. Don't kid yourself.

*you can take that to mean whatever you want, but the way I read it is something like this, "It'd be such a shame to have a funeral overshadow your daughter's wedding." - or some variation of that.

We didn't have the internet during the Perot run, so we relied solely on the idiot box for information.
I never got the full story.