UNDERMINING THE CANDIDACY OF RON PAULSubmitted by the strangerr on Mon, 02/26/2007 - 19:57
The article below is reprinted with permission, from Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief; from the February 23, 2007 edition World Affairs Brief.
First there was the deliberate omission of Ron Paul from the showcasing of "all" Republican candidates for president on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It would have been different if Ron Paul was a nobody from the hinterland, but he is a nine-term Congressman from Texas who also ran for President on the Libertarian ticket. He is so popular that he ran unopposed in 2004 and won by a whopping 20 percent margin in 2006. The establishment Republican Party is his real enemy. They have even fielded "former" Democrats to try and defeat Paul.
However, his reputation for honesty is so unimpeachable that his constituents revere him almost unconditionally. Conservatives who honor his stand for constitutional limitations on government revere him even more. Now comes this week's special Newsweek edition featuring the top three contenders for the Republican nomination: Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney (who garnered most of the discussion due to his many policy flip flops--trying to win the election as Governor in liberal Massachusetts and now reversing course to appeal to the religious Republican right). Naturally, Newsweek can easily justify not mentioning the Paul candidacy in the major article, but the magazine did take special pains to attack Paul on the back page.
Pseudo-conservative George Will took up the task for this subtle hatchet job. He couldn't very well be caught saying anything obviously negative against Paul, lest he look bad himself, so Will concentrated on disparaging Paul as an "anachronism,"--a throw back to the days when people actually believed in limited government (as if that were some kind of pejorative!).
As Dan Phillips commented, "The article is superficially flattering. It portrays Rep. Paul as a man of firm convictions. But on close reading, Will is clearly making a point at Rep. Paul's expense. The dual nature of Will's intent is reflected in the title of the article 'Cheerful Anachronism.' Notice it is not 'Cheerful Man of Principle.'"
Will's most egregious slam against Paul comes with the statement: "[Paul] believes, with more stubbornness than evidence, that the federal government is a government of strictly enumerated powers." This would be laughable if it were not so evil. Will openly brags about the ample and "practical" powers the federal government has today and can't imagine how it could operate otherwise. But that's not really the point. Will is making the claim that Paul is somehow demanding something without any scholarly justification.
What does Will mean by the claim there is little evidence for "strictly enumerated powers?" It doesn't take evidence at all. It is literally part of the Constitution itself. According to the US Senate website, Article I, Section 8 is the "enumerated powers" section. And the Tenth Amendment clearly restates the enumerated powers doctrine: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Stubbornness indeed!
It is clear that the Powers That Be (PTB) know there is a growing dissatisfaction among the conservative base in the Republican Party and that Ron Paul is hands-down the most popular and trusted elected official conservatives, Libertarians, and some Independents look to for leadership. He is a threat because he will sound a clarion call that none of the other pseudo Bush opposition can match--and the establishment does not want that message to get out.
Yes, the PTB have total control of the executive branch, and effective control of the media, Congress, and the judiciary. But these powerful insiders still have to work hard at manipulating the people into supporting the wide variety of controllable official candidates. They will drum hard the message to conservatives that a vote for Ron Paul will throw the election to the Democrats (Hillary). Horror of Horrors! As if we would be any better or worse off with a Democrat in office than with Bush. They can manipulate about 10 to 20 percent of the votes either way to determine who wins, but they risk discovery of the sophisticated computer voting manipulation process if they have to manipulate more than 15 or 20 percent. That is why they still have to work hard to dissuade people from voting for Paul.
Meanwhile, it hardly made a ripple in the press that Hillary Clinton traded the endorsement of South Carolina's Democratic Senator Darrell Jackson in exchange for a lucrative $10,000 per month contract with Jackson's media consulting firm. Now that is politics as usual.