Iowa Primary

[lanugo]

umm, actually...oh never mind.

Run out of NYT-sponsored commonplaces and platitutes that redeem your darling Obama as some kind of authentic political hero, huh?

You brought up a couple of points in order to back up your claim that there are significant differences in the foreign and security policy between the Neo-Cons and Obama, and I responded to them.

Now why won't you engage with the issues that I have raised?

Specifically, in what way do you perceive the military campaign against Libya to be different from the wars of aggression that took place under Bush? Do you believe the intervention to have been genuinely guided by humanitarian motives?

What is your opinion about the curtailment and violation of civil rights and liberties actively pursued by the Obama administration, namely targeted assassinations of US citizens and legislation such as the NDAA that is an even greater step toward an authoritarian police state than the Patriot Act?

What do you say about the collateral damage rate of the drone warfare drastically expanded under Obama, which according to official figures costs about 30 non-combatants' lives in every strike? Is that justifiable?

And lastly, what about the sanctions against Iran imposed by Obama that under international law constitute an act of war? Do you believe the hype about the alleged secret Iranian nuclear weapons programme? Are we to believe the reports in this matter brought forth by the same intelligence services that manufactured false evidence of WMD's in Iraq?

 

[luka]

For all I know, the social engineers behind the scenes may consider a "democratic" or "liberal" face to a continued US war agenda beneficial in terms of perception management of public opinion.

this is david harveys (marxist geographer) opinion.

 

[Leo]

i've just given up on arguing with people who make wildly sweeping, borderline (or not) conspiracy theory generalizations, don't genuinely consider alternate opinions, come off as if anyone with another view is a naive sucker, and do it all with a snide tone. but everyone's entitled to their own opinion, so by all means have at it.

 

[lanugo]

Alternate opinions? So far you haven't even formulated an opinion of your own on our point of contention. All you've done is listing a couple of recent news items that you seem to take at face value to mean that foreign policy under Obama was somehow less interventionist and militaristic. Then you simply denounce my attempts to actually interpret and incorporate these facts into a broader geopolitical context as "wildly sweeping, borderline (or not) conspiracy theory generalizations" - which, quite frankly, is probably the cheapest excuse of all to dodge a discussion and avoid having to make up your mind on your own.

Unless you actually make the effort to address and try to plausibly refute the issues I've raised your silence can only mean that either out of laziness or igorance or denial you choose to outright dismiss any position outside of Timesspeak official political discourse and label them in derogatory terms so as to be able to return to a closed-off bubble where preconceived and unquestioned mass media catchphrases define reality.

 

[trza]

Obama's foreign policy and security decisions are based more on "positioning" for the general election. Along with handling the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are the highest issue-based poll numbers he has. He has positioned himself near the center of public opinion, whether his liberal supporters like it or not.

Team Romney had been planning to make confrontation with Iran the centerpiece of its foreign policy argument. It was his first point in Romney's post-caucus speech, aimed at both Ron Paul and Obama. His campaign was the first to blast out an angry press release when Obama announced the final withdrawal of troops from Iraq (a popular decision). Romney's stump speech includes numerous references to a "strong military" and plans to build huge numbers of new naval ships. His "positioning" isn't in the high popularity area on this.

 

[lanugo]

Feeling more than a little embarrassed, I hereby recant my endorsement of Ron Paul.

My brother nudged me toward this truly astonishing blog called The Secret Sun and reading the two recent articles on Ron Paul (here and here) has been as much of a epiphany to me as one could possibly have sitting in front of a computer screen.

But let me quote some especially enlightening passages from the first of the two articles titled Ron Paul: Race, Ritual and the Scottish Rite:

Well, the Clownshow's back in town and from the looks of things it going to be clownier than ever before. We have a Wall Street underling in the White House who is attacked regularly by his opposition party as a "socialist," even though intelligent (read: non-racist) conservatives acknowledge he's governing as a classic Rockefeller Republican (with all that implies for parapolitics watchers, I might add).

[...]

Paul's mystique is built on being the supposed champion of the Silent Majority and coming in a weak third to the two of the lamest candidates in living memory-- and in a caucus where Independents and Democrats could register as Republicans and vote-- doesn't exactly bolster that image.

[...]

Even so, I'm not going to try to argue with Paul's Deadheads anymore. Why? Because I now understand the very sophisticated coded messages he's sending out there (more than they do, perhaps) and I think I better understand the powerful emotional response they instill now.

I was actually hoping he'd win so he could do maximum damage to the duopoly and expose the Clownshow for what it really is. Maybe he still will, but I feel a corner has turned. The soda's lost its fizz.

For all his talk of reason, Paul is hitting a bruised and disoriented Middle America -- particularly the white working class-- with a powerful, symbolically-charged emotional stew promising a return to antebellum Southern folkways and an America better described in the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution.

I certainly understand why this is so seductive in these days of Globalism and multiculturalism, even if I don't agree with it. But the fact remains that he's sending a different coded message to his fellow initiates.

Even so, with the fanatical support Paul has in the White Nationalist community the question has been raised if Paul himself is racist. I think this is the wrong question. What people are really asking if Paul himself is a bigot or a hater. I don't think he is.

I think Paul sees himself in a long tradition of paternalist Southern conservatives who understand the way the world really works, son, and think everything will return to its idyllic, antebellum state once that pesky, outside-agitatin' Federal Government with its sissy talk about "civil rights" is done away with for good.

In this, Paul falls smack dab into the old/new (Masonic) hierarchy of the South, which believes passionately in natural orders, natural laws and especially, natural hierarchies. Unfortunately, working class whites don't figure much higher than blacks in this natural order.

But of course the Masons-- Scottish Rite Masons, to be precise-- were at the top of the plantation Pyramid.

What Northern liberals never understood is that the Masonic Dixiecrats (who enriched themselves with New Deal millions and then turned around and shattered the New Deal coalition) were not drooling, foaming, bloviating racists as you might see in a Hollywood movie.

What they really hated were do-gooders and busybody outsiders who don't understand "the natural order of things."

Scottish Rite Freemasons like Albert Pike, Strom Thurmond (who kept a black lover who bore his child), Jesse Helms and Trent Lott invented the language of "state's rights" and "limited government" that Paul peddles everywhere he goes. Northerners might be totally baffled by this language but it strikes a deep and powerful chord for a lot of conservative Southerners (and now Tea Party rightists everywhere).

If this spiked your interest, read the full post and have your mind blown by the freakier, mind-boggling bits on Paul's Masonic connections and the ritualistic meaning of the specifics of his campaign trail.

This site is far-out fringe and yet it feels absolutely genuine and truthful compared to the slick and sanitised consensus media reality. Who'd have guessed how deep the rabbit hole goes...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

What are the chances of him standing as an independent?

not good, moreso for the GOP than for him, given that he can't expect to actually win. it is the worst nightmare of GOP policymakers I reckon. 3rd party/indie candidates only accomplish two things here. one obviously is splitting the vote of whichever major party they've broken off from (Nader, Perot, George Wallace*). the other, less hyped but maybe more important, is to change the tenor of the campaign + shift it closer to their own views, in the way that more radical views always shift the center of a debate. i.e. having a Wallace made it easier for Nixon to play on white racial fears while simultaneously denouncing extremism, a tactic many GOP campaigns of the last 40 years have since borrowed. smart guys like Paul - whatever else he is, he's a sharp guy, much sharper than any other GOP runner except maybe Newt - are fully aware of this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he sees this run as essentially a strategic move to both further libertarian views in the GOP (+ American) mainstream + to possibly set up his son, who unlike him is young enough to be a viable candidate, for a legitimate run in the future. if it wasn't Ron Paul we were talking about I would say he was also gunning for a cabinet spot in a Republican admin. tho can you imagine the hilarity of him replacing, say, Tim Geithner?

either way tho I reckon there will be some kind of eventual reconciliation - or at least understanding - between Paul + GOP leadership, circle-the-wagons to beat Obama. the question is how much of Romney's blood will have been spilled by that point (tho more by Newt + Santorum than Paul). cos Obama + his people, unlike most liberals, are sharks + if they catch a scent of blood they'll be all over it. put it this way: this campaign ain't going to feature much will.i.am + Scarjo singing Yes We Can.

*tho he was a really weird case for a bunch of reasons

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I hereby recant my endorsement of Ron Paul.

it is hilarious but also absolutely fitting that the reason you're disavowing Ron Paul is his Masonic connections rather than any of his actual politics.

tho, that said the blog you linked is absolutely great. a lot of the politics stuff is surprisingly on-point (like the bit about Obama being, or at least governing as essentially an old-school Rockefeller liberal Republican) + I reckon the whole Masonic/NWO/esoteric is more than a bit tongue-in-cheek I reckon, or rather in the sense that say Alan Moore would talk about that stuff. but more importantly anything that has separate categories devoted to Killing Joke + the X-Files (there is in fact a recent highly entertaining post on the relation of the X-Files to the current GOP primary) has my vote. not to mention the rest of it. Masonic Manhattan!

so thanks for that.

 

[IdleRich]

Huntsman out now. That was a bit of a damp squib.

 

[Bangpuss]

I don't understand why the candidates whose sole candidacy was mostly to throw themselves in the way of a Romney nomination endorse him as soon as they drop out. It's not as though they believe there's a potential job in a 'Romney administration' on the line. Or maybe they are as deluded as they show themselves to be, and they really think, a) Romney can win. And b) Their endorsement counts for anything when it comes to getting out the vote against Obama. I mean, the few people who actively support the likes of Gingrich and Perry will vote for anyone who isn't Obama anyway, regardless of whom their man endorses. I mean, when you think about a guy like Huntsman, he should have endorsed Obama. He was appointed by him as Chinese ambassador and appears to be in favour of more of Obama's policies than Romney's.

Since the remaining candidates are all careerist party hacks, I wouldn't be surprised if even Gingrich goes on to endorse Romney when his campaign finally wheezes out.

I suppose it just shows that all the hot air during their campaigns, where they vehemently disagree with each other, is just a big fake performance. They actually agree with about 90% of each other's policies -- like Obama and Hillary Clinton did -- but want to make it appear that voters have more of a choice than they do.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I don't understand why the candidates whose sole candidacy was mostly to throw themselves in the way of a Romney nomination endorse him as soon as they drop out

first a lot of the bad blood is just grandstanding. that's how primaries (+ elections) work here, where you're voting for a person, not just for a party.

everyone wants to beat Obama so badly that ultimately they'll grin and bear it when it comes to endorsing a man most of them personally despise for good reason. there's also their own political position after the primary. if Huntsman endorsed OB he could forget about ever winning any major office, especially the presidency, as a Republican. and he sure ain't gonna win anything as a Democrat. Joe Lieberman in 2008 was old + didn't really care what bridges he burned (he's retiring next year at the end of his fourth Senate term). it also depends on their motivations for running in the first place. I doubt that Newt, for example, ever expected to win or even seriously contend past the initial stages. otoh running is a great way to revitalize your career as an author/talking head. Mike Huckabee got a show on Fox out of 2008. Sarah Palin got her entire raison d'etre out of it. Newt is also nearly 70, he's not worrying about 2016.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

here's an article in this week's NYT magazine about how divided South Carolina Tea Party types are over who they should back to oppose Romney, or if they should even back anyone at all. as well as some nice tidbits about how the GOP establishment is co-opting Tea Party activists to its own ends.

 

[luka]

Gingrich to Juan Williams: 'I Know Among the Politically Correct You Are Not Supposed to Use Facts That Are Uncomfortable'

By Noel Sheppard | January 17, 2012 | 00:34
Change font size: A | A
Noel Sheppard's picture

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich had a rather testy exchange with Fox News's Juan Williams during Monday's debate in South Carolina.

After Williams accused the former Speaker of the House of being racially insensitive when referring to Barack Obama as "The Food Stamp President," Gingrich said, "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. Now, I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS: Speaker Gingrich, the suggestion you made was about a lack of work ethic, and I gotta tell you my email account, my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races, who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities. You saw some of this reaction during your visit to a black church in South Carolina.

[Audience boos]

We saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as The Food Stamp President. It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.

[Audience boos]

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. Now, I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.

[Audience applause]

Second, you are the one who earlier raised a key point. There's a, the area on I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven't built the road, they haven't helped the people, they haven't done anything.

[Audience applause]

So, one last thing. So here's my point. I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn some day to own the job.

[Audience applause]
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Despite his likely respect for his former Fox colleague, it was nice to see Gingrich do this.

As NewsBusters has been reporting for months the media are going to constantly bring race into the discussion to assist Obama's reelection.

The folks on MSNBC immediately following this debate basically said all the contestants lost because of racism.

As this is going to be a consistent media theme the next ten months, it is incumbent upon on the candidates to smack this blatant dishonesty down whenever it surfaces.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...litically-correct-you-are-not-s#ixzz1jhBBsye4

 

[luka]

Ha Ha..

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 01/17/2012 - 1:11am.

Why even on FOX do they present the most liberal scumbag moderators they have for these 'debates'? Obama sits there with no challenge. GOP stop kicking your own asses. The Dumbocrats dont do that. What is wrong with you dipshits.?
Peace at any price..
Why bureaucracy will likely destroy America... http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira50.html

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...litically-correct-you-are-not-s#ixzz1jhBaVyfL

 

[Bangpuss]

Thanks for that article, Padraig. I'd like to hear what Romney supporters like about their man, and if there are any such people who aren't also connected to large corporations. It's as though his electoral campaign, much like the Conservatives and Labour in the past, is to present himself as the only viable alternative to the status quo. If you say it enough, and if you get enough other people in the media to say it, people start to say to themselves, "Mitt Romney is the only solution we have to a second Obama term."

Of course, there are much better candidates, even in the Republican party. But they haven't been able to portray themselves as capable of winning an election. Much like the Liberal Democrats, I suppose, who suffer from tactical voting.

 

[Leo]

some people support romney because they like the idea of a successful businessperson, and believe he can create jobs based on his business experience (even though bain often slashed workforces once they bought a company). he also hasn't expressed some of the far-right views on social issues that repel moderate/independent voters. and let's face it, he looks the part: a politician straight out of central casting.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

it really just boils down to him being the only GOP candidate (aside from Huntsman, who is Romney Lite minus the funding or organization) with a realistic chance of beating Obama in the general election. everything else is just syrup to make the bitter medicine of that fact go down easier. all his "strengths" are also weaknesses in some way or other. his successful businessman image is undercut by the even stronger image of him as a completely out of touch millionaire. it also screams Establishment, like everything else about him. his previous record on social issues (+ health care) alienates him from swathes of the GOP base but his current pandering to that same base doesn't win him many new supporters b/c everyone knows he'll just turn around and say the opposite to run against Obama. say what you will about Gingrich or Santorum - the former a bombastic hypocrite, the latter a deranged bigot - both of those guys have some actual principles, however much I personally disagree with them. Mitt has absolutely no principles aside from the principle of getting Mitt elected. he's like a wax statue of a politician brought to life by a focus committee of Republican Geppettos.

or in other words there is no proactive Romney case. just a least terrible option case.

 

[vimothy]

 

[Leo]

turns out romney didn't win in iowa after all, a recount has santorum up by 34 votes. the republican establishment now calling it a "split decision", i'm sure that will get some tea party knickers in a twist.

and then there's this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...d-like-palin-in-my-administration-111341.html

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Newt Gingrich described Sarah Palin's comments about how she would vote for him if she lived in South Carolina as an "endorsement," and said he'd ask her to join a Gingrich administration:

"Gov. Palin is somebody who I think was a very good reform governor. She was extraordinarily effective negotiating with big oil. She did a good job in the state of Alaska. I think she’s a very articulate leader of the tea party conservative movement. I was honored and delighted last night when she said if she were in South Carolina, she’d vote for Newt Gingrich. I hope everybody who likes her decides she’s right. And I hope they vote for me.

"Certainly, she’s one of the people I’d call on for advice. I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I’m president, but nothing has been discussed of any kind. And it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss it at this time.

"I’m just delighted that she and Todd have been both of them so supportive of my candidacy. And they recognize that, you know, I’m a tea party Reform conservative. I’m not part of the Washington establishment. And I think that’s the signal that her endorsement last night really sends."

 

[IdleRich]

But she didn't endorse him did she? She just said that if she were in South Carolina she would vote for him to ensure that the selection process went on longer and gave everyone a better chance to evaluate all the candidates. Plus he's obviously using "articulate" to mean something different from what I thought it meant.