0 votes

Nice Ron Paul Defense Article

I don't know if this was already posted, but:



Christopher Hitchens wannabe James Kirchick, a kid who looks like a blowfish (watch his pathetic interview with Tucker Carlson, linked to below), has gotten himself a mess of undeserved attention lately by digging up some old quotes from newsletters published under Ron Paul's name. None of this should have passed as news of course, as these quotes have been used against Paul in the past, and have already been explained...

But nevertheless we are told by Kirchick's "friend" and Pajamas Media sidekick Michael Weiss that Kirchick's infamous TNR piece is "conversation-stopping" and additionally informed by Kirchick's other Pajamas Media bed buddy Daniel Koffler that Kirchick's piece is "devastating" and that "the defense of Paul is now, itself, indefensible."

These rich boy fascists won't even let people weigh the evidence and decide for themselves. Instead, they just tell us that the case is closed, rather than actually closing the case with evidence and reason. Weiss's post "The End of Ron Paul" reveals this sort of dictatorial, wishful thinking.

The larger question is, why is all of this being brought up now? Ron Paul stands absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

The simplest explanation is that neocons like Kirchick just really hate Paul's guts for speaking out so eloquently against US wars. And they despise his grass roots campaign and ability to attract support from both Left and Right.

But there may be something else going on here. The establishment, and its apologists and suck-ups like Kirchick and Weiss (not to mention their leader Hitchens), fear a Ron Paul third party run in the general election. Which could, after all, take votes away from the war-crazed McCain (the likely GOP nominee). So the smear campaign, the attempt to destroy Ron Paul, is already well underway.

Ultimately, this is all about the War on Terror. Hitchens has said that he is a "single-issue" voter, and he means that he decides who to support based solely on who is "serious" about waging his glorious wars. Many of us are "single-issue" voters but in the opposite direction: we are most inclined to support whomever we think is most seriously interested in ending US war and occupation.

The neocon attack on Ron Paul is obviously motivated by Paul's opposition to war, and not by any genuine concern for race issues. Paul is seen as a potential 'threat' and so willing clowns like Kirchick are dispatched to write dishonest hit pieces about Paul in order to try to kill the threat.

I wrote on another thread that one of the reasons why I came to like Ron Paul was because all of the ugly neoconservatives were trashing him. I still think there's something to this. Paul must be doing something right in order to attract so much hatred from the neocon establishment.