This prompted Alex Jones to declare that Dr. Ron Paul, admittedly a rare political figure well known as an expert on foreign policy, finance and medicine; was the only choice for President that would fix everything. That was not exactly what he said, but it was effectively what was said. Pretty soon, virtually every important alternative internet website and political weblog was clamoring and begging people to vote for Dr. Paul. I never took the bait. How I saw it; if a Presidential candidate is going to offer you every wish your heart desires, nothing will ever be delivered. If a candidate does not promise anything, yet offers realistic solutions; that candidate is who you need to vote for. It also seemed patently absurd that the voting public would replace a Cheney-Bush Republican Presidency with a Paul Presidency from the same political party. The only reason Dr Paul was anti-war, I deduced, was due to the knowledge of America's finances being in a collapsing stage. Dr. Paul not once has ever, to my knowledge, opposed many of these Middle East conflagrations on a moral merit solely. As well, Dr. Paul's libertarian viewpoint on economic policy is equivalent to an old polemic on political ideologies:
A liberal will see a homeless person and provide him money, food, a coat, and/or a gift to alleviate his plight.
A conservative will see a homeless person and give him a book and/or pamphlet of religious and conservative writings. That is if the conservative does anything about the plight. of the homeless person.
A libertarian will see a homeless person and will ask that a wall be built in front of and in back of the homeless population so that he does not have to see them when he next walks down the street. In short, out of sight out of mind.
Not surprisingly, it turns out that nearly the bulk of the internet media were libertarian minded. And lo and behold, they found Dr. Ron Paul as their champion. The internet was awash with incessant pandering to the Paul family and their advancement in our political world. Dr. Paul and Sen. Rand Paul have taken this hero worship and ran with it unabashedly. However, their policies can be debunked and ridiculed if one takes the time to actually do it. In 2007, I believe Dr. Paul's campaign cratered when he appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert and Mr Russert was quite proficient in poking holes at Dr. Paul's policies. In 2012, Dr. Paul's campaign began to fail yet again when this time prominent Democrats like Mayor Ed Koch forcefully examined the perceived Anti-Semitism inherent in the Paul family; which then got other Democrats to publicly give Dr. Paul the same scrutiny as any other Republican.
However, it was in the 2012 Presidential Campaign that the internet media lost any and all sense of objectivity in effectively forcing Dr. Ron Paul into the Republican nomination at any price. It started with the contested results at the Iowa Caucus, which I will admit had been won by Sen. Rick Santorum in a rather dubious manner. Any momentum the Paul campaign had was neutered the next week in New Hampshire. Dr. Paul came in third at best, and Mitt Romney began his ascension to winning the GOP Nomination in states won, delegates and the national popular vote. In a related matter, the Paul family could deal with Mr. Romney as the Republican nominee as opposed to all the others; even Sen. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney. But of course, the internet media, so much in the tank for Dr Paul for over 5 years by that point, would have none of it. When the primaries were completed and before the RNC convention, numerous YouTube figures led by Matt Larson and similar bloggers led campaigns to have Dr. Paul become the nominee by packing the delegates with Paul supporters. The theory of this being that the delegates to each state would be those that voted and campaigned for Dr. Paul; and thus, in their own accord, would unilaterally place Dr. Paul as the candidate and not the rightful winner of the primary in former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. This was a complete fantasy, one in which I and many other political science people knew would never work. It would have been a brokered convention by any other name; and voters would defect from the GOP in droves.
But even then they were still not done. Days after the convention, Michael Rivero of What Really Happened led a call for Dr. Ron Paul to declare an Independent Presidential run and announce it on his Labor Day week appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I remember the calls and theories presented by these internet media types like Mr. Rivero throughout 2012; and was both amused and concerned over the more fantastical theories and hopes that had accumulated during the course of the year. Well, by that point I had enough of at least Mike Rivero's tomfoolery. Just before Dr. Paul's appearance on Leno, I wrote Mr. Rivero an e-mail telling him to effectively grow up and accept the loss. I clearly asked him a question which no answer was needed: did Rivero and co. want to have the Paul family in a rather volatile and bitter Holiday season if Dr. Ron Paul ran as an Independent while Sen. Rand Paul already endorsed Mitt Romney? I would like to think that email helped in stopping Mr. Rivero's absurd thinking on these matters. Neither WRH or other websites continued to drink the spiked punch afterwards, barring Ryan Dawson who has become rather embittered over the years.
Four years alter, and I am seeing this happen again. Yet surprisingly this time, it is not the Republicans that are in this pickle. It sadly is the Democrats. For the past 16 years, if not more than that, the heir to the throne of the Democratic party and by extension the heir to leadership has been Sec. Of State Hillary Clinton. I am one that believes Hillary Clinton should have run for President in 2000 rather than get elected to the US Senate: that way, everything that has happened in these past 16 years would not have happened. After the 2012 election, which involved both Pres Obama and Mitt Romney resorting to e-vote fraud and resulted in a 50%-48% Obama victory; the immediate reaction should have been to allow Sec. of State Clinton to obtain the Presidency by Election Day 2016. And for a while there in late 2012 and early 2013, that narrative was being utilized. In fact, one YouTube poster projected that there would be two-term Democratic Presidents through at least 2048. It would start with Sen. and Sec. Of state Hillary Clinton, then Sen. Cory Booker, then Chelsea Clinton and finally Malaia Obama. That seems about right, and I would be accepting of this lineage.
However, the current President, Barack Obama, is not pleased. For one, it it meant that two Clintons and Sen. Booker would get elected before the next Obama was elected. Secondly, Hillary Clinton works in a different outlook than Democrats coming from Obama's coattails. So what has followed, I think, has been for three years now a purging from within the Democratic Party of continuity. Starting with the Boston Bombing inside job, the Democrats have been loosing the social political and economic narrative; resulting in net losses for Democrats in elections. This accumulated in 2014 when the Senate went to a 54-46 Senate Majority. By the way, the Senate elections in 2016 are projecting a 52-48 Republican majority, a far cry from last year when it was assumed the Democrats could easily regain the Senate and perhaps even reach 60 Democratic Senators.
Knowing this, the Democratic Party would gain momentum and relevance with a Clinton Presidency. And yet, it has not been the typical GOP gawkers that have been problem for the Clinton campaign, as it would be expected. No, this time it is an insurrection of Democrats not ever having engaged in realpolitik. For instance, there is Sen. Bernie Sanders running for the nomination and putting forth votes that are a mirage of ideas at best. There is former Sen. Jim Webb running an Independent bid which, while not going that far, will put a dent in Election Day votes. There is Vice President Joe Biden, who based on what Clinton insider Larry Nichols has recently been saying, is running a shadow campaign for the Presidency just on the off chance that an indictment is handed out to Hillary Clinton over the fake e-mail scandals. There is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has not endorsed anyone yet precisely because Sen. Warren believes she is best qualified to be President. There is Gov. Jerry Brown from California whom has never been a Clinton ally. And yes, there is Pres. Obama, who has not endorsed anyone yet.
The immediate focus, and by all means the Paul family for the Democrats this year, is Sen. Bernie Sanders. As I type this on the day of the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Sanders lost Iowa by only a tenth of a percent and is looking to win New Hampshire. Now, as I said before, President Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire but went on to winning the Presidency in 1992; in 2016 I would suspect Hillary Cinton to easily win New York, California, South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina and many other states; enough to effectively seal the deal by early May when New York has its primaries. Yet, I am not entirely seeing it this year. Instead, I am seeing a second attempt at dismantling the rightful heir to the throne in Sec. of State Clinton by fellow Democrats. It is known that the Republican Party could theoretically be content with a Clinton Presidency, as they were under Bill Clinton's time in office. We all know hat a Sanders Presidency will involve complete political gridlock. If you think nothing is being done now, wait until a four year long standstill reminiscent of The Zax.
Now that I finish this, I am noticing that Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders have won their respective primaries in New Hampshire. Both of them have them won by landslides, which is more than 10% of the difference between first and second. While I still think these outcomes will be corrected next week, I am not pleased with these results. As well, when the tide does turn, we will be seeing Sanders supporters getting even more obtuse and wanting their candidate at all costs. I am telling you all: Sen. Bernie Sanders being the nominee will mean Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent. And when that happens, you will have Trump, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or even (gasp!) Jeb Bush as our President come election day. We will be in ruins before this year is out.
We simply cannot afford another 9 11 or worse to occur. We also cannot be the one developed nation to treat their women as fourth class citizens. This needs to change soon.
I will have more to say in the days to come,
Robert
No comments:
Post a Comment