0 votes

National Catholic Weekly Article

The Wanderer Press 11/15/2007, Page 5

D.C. Establishment Can’t Get A Grip On Ron Paul
WASHINGTON, D. C. — Tongues were wagging on both sides of the aisle in Washington last week, as Dr. Ron Paul, the prolife, pro- Constitution obstetrician who has represented his Texas congressional district for 20 years, pulled off what even the liberal Washington Post called a “ stunning achievement.”
Dr. Paul, who has long been treated by the major media either as an inconsequential minor candidate, a “ flake,” or an outright pariah, broke an Internet record for contributions in a single day when he raised more than $4.2 million in online donations from 40,000 contributors on November 5. The historic news made it impossible for the major media to ignore Dr. Paul’s accomplishment, even though they have studiously ignored him for months. The Washington Post’s story appeared only online. Its politics blogger went for comment to Ed Rollins, a longtime conservative operative who worked in the Reagan White House and later became Ross Perot’s campaign manager in 1992.
“ What he’s done — what his supporters have done — is astonishing,” said Rollins. “ You can’t dismiss his antiwar vote. You can’t dismiss the power of one man standing up with a powerful message. I’ll tell you, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I’ve learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there’s this uncontrollable thing like the Internet. Washington insiders don’t know what to make of it.”
In fact, the Internet has been the dominant ingredient in Paul’s campaign precisely because it is “uncontrollable.” Ever since Dr. Paul came on the scene, he has been largely ignored by the prestige press; he is a “ nonperson” on the left, and intensely resented by his fellow GOP presidential candidates.
The reason is fairly simple: In the past few years, the two major parties have become increasingly undistinguishable. They are virtually mirror images of one another in corruption. Their defiance of fiscal and constitutional discipline has brought about a widespread collapse of public trust in our national government. They are all what Rollins calls “ Washington insiders.” One cannot expect that crowd to acknowledge, much less to applaud, the only pro- Constitution, anti- establishment candidate who stands up and yells “ stop.” Normally, the tree would fall in the forest and nobody would hear because the prestige press would not report it. But Internet content is not controlled by the establishment. There, untold thousands of web sites and blogs hum with news and opinion that is totally unfiltered and uncensored.
With the Internet, there is no such thing as the “ cutting- room floor.” Quite the contrary: Many influential web sites were set up to challenge the prestige press and to provide a more attractive, less “ establishment” alternative. Rollins is right: The Internet is indeed “ uncontrollable.” People write whatever they want to and read whatever web sites they want to. When they find something they like, they send it to their entire e- mail list. If it catches on, it can spread like wildfire, virtually without cost. And that accounts for the stunning success of Dr. Paul’s “ powerful message” there.
Rollins’ admission is telling: “I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I’ve learned about politics is totally irrelevant.” He is not kidding, and he is not alone. For the past 40 years, the entire Washington establishment — the politicians, the bureaucracy, the media, the lobbyists, the contractors, the agencies — have all been wallowing in one big special- interest hot tub, simply printing more money when they can’t bill the taxpayer. This is a closely controlled dance that “ Washington insiders” have perfected and perpetuated, taking every precaution that no outsider will rock the boat. Even George Bush, a self- styled reformer in 2000, became a big spender before long. In fact, in the 27 years since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the national debt has risen from below one trillion dollars to ten trillion dollars. For 19 of those 27 years, there was a Republican in the White House — and surprisingly, most of the rise has taken place during President Bush’s two terms in office. One recent study indicates that Bush is “ the biggest spender since LBJ” — the “ guns and butter” author of the “ Great Society” who was president back when Rollins began his political career 40 years ago.
Why haven’t more of the “ conservative” candidates competing for the GOP nomination raised this issue? The fact is, they don’t mention Bush at all. A recent analysis indicates that, while Democratic debaters have mentioned the president 72 times, the Republicans have mentioned him only twice ( and one was Dr. Paul). And therein lies the dirty little secret of the primary campaign: They can’t attack him, not yet.
David Broder, the “pundit dean” who has long been the weathervane for liberal editorial writers across the country, pointed to the elephant in the living room a few weeks back when he recalled Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 campaign. Humphrey waited too long, Broder says, before he would attack LBJ’s record and distance himself from the unpopular president. Had he turned a few months earlier, Broder surmises, he would have done much better in November. Now, Broder teases, when will the Republicans turn on the unpopular Bush? We know they will, he taunts. But when will they?
The answer is simple, of course: Every GOP candidate except Dr. Paul is trying to woo the “ GOP base.” And what is the “ base”? It is the 30% or so of the electorate that still supports Bush. Yes, it is a minority of the country, but it is a majority of the GOP, especially among likely primary voters. Broder’s unspoken message is, once the GOP has a clear winner in the primaries, that candidate will have much more freedom to criticize the president’s record. His target audience will now be the general electorate, not primary voters.
Of course, Broder ( and the rest of the gang at the Post) wouldn’t give Ron Paul the time of day, so he assumes that the GOP will nominate an establishment candidate — who will have to woo Bush voters now, but turn on Bush eventually. The prospect of such a candidate advocating “change” and still keeping the Bush “base” on board will require a world- class balancing act, and this GOP field is definitely not world class.
And then there’s Ron Paul. He has been very consistent and clear ( two rare ingredients in this campaign season). Should he win the nomination, he would not have to change his message at all — in fact, he would only strengthen it as he got more opportunities to explain it to a wider audience.
So far, Paul’s audience has been Internet- based, and his campaign success reflects the coming of age of that medium in the political world. In the early 1960s, liberals referred to the grassroots conservatives that won Goldwater the 1964 GOP nomination as “ little old ladies in tennis shoes.” Well, move over ladies, and meet the new grassroots powers that the establishment both fears and belittles — the Internet. And meet the sleeping giant — the millions of Americans who are fed up with the lock that the major party establishments have placed on our national political life.
It is interesting to observe that the most strenuous opposition to Dr. Paul’s candidacy is not from liberal Democrats, but from the neocons who are currently running the Bush administration’s foreign policy. David Frum, a contributing editor to both The Weekly Standard and National Review Online, is one of those “ conservatives of convenience” whose approach to pro- lifers seldom rises above thinly disguised contempt. Like the GOP establishment candidates, the Frum faction needs the votes of the pro- life “ religious right,” of course, but it does nothing to further the pro- life cause.
In fact, like many neocons, Frum supports pro- abortion, pro- homosexual Rudy Giuliani. He dismisses Dr. Paul as a fringe candidate along the lines of Howard Dean and Ralph Nader — but he realizes that Ralph Nader made it possible for Gov. George Bush to carry Florida in the 2000 election.
Frum assumes, naturally, that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination: “ Rudy is in no danger of losing Republican primary voters to Ron Paul,” he insists. “ And if ( as I have speculated) Paul mounts an independent candidacy in the general election, he will draw votes from disaffected Democrats, disappointed in Hillary Clinton’s failure to articulate a more radical antiwar message. As third-party candidates go, Ron Paul is Nader, not Perot.”
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol recently commented that all of the “major” GOP candidates (minus Dr. Paul, of course) suited him fine, because they are all falling over each other to capture the votes of the Americans who still support President Bush and the Iraq War.
In other words, the neocons think that Ron Paul is more a danger to the Democrats than the Republicans in the 2008 elections. It brings back memories of 1952, when Eisenhower’s supporters trumpeted that “ Taft can’t win” — and then they had to steal the votes of the pro- Taft Texas delegation to deliver the nomination to Eisenhower.
“ Ron Paul can’t win.” “ Ron Paul is on a roll.” Take your pick, and stay tuned.

Powered by TECNAVIA All contents © Copyright 2007 The Wanderer Press



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


article, I know that a lot of Catholics will be supporting Dr.Paul they just need to hear his message.

The hierarchy of the church is so pro-amnesty on the immigration issue that the Catholic voter as myself will be looking at the candidate who will end this nightmare in a humble way through the Constitution.


"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

As a life long Catholic, I

As a life long Catholic, I am proud such an unbiased and thoughtful article came from the National Catholic Weekly. I also hope other churches across America will write similar articles that tell the truth about our politics today. Thank you for the post.

Powerful stuff!

This is one powerful article..

Now if they really want to take back the White House with a solid conservative, they could start pushing Ron now to get the people who watch the 'press' to accept him. He's already got the swing vote (See the latest Donklephant article on that: http://donklephant.com/2007/11/11/why-ron-paul-matters-as-a-... You will love the graphic depicting Frum) and added to the GOP vote, it would be a sure win against Hitlery. But, the sad truth is, Rudy, Hitlery, etc... both Rockefellerian candidates so does it matter to them? NO. They knew Buchanan could win against Clinton (Bill) and Pat won the NH primary. Yet they nominated the snore candidate, Dole and we lost.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Wishful "thinking" from Frum

Wishful "thinking" from Frum and Kristol, two ugly faces in scribe-dom.

Terrific article... got to join the Catholic Church

It quotes these neo-cons, but in a way that would embarrass them. I forces one to think about the issues, so different from the norm. We have independent journalism on display here. Well done, especially a I am so disappointed at Pat Buchanan for withholding his outright endorsement. I'd take a Catholic endorsement over a Pat Robertson one any day of the week. I bet Giuliani was embarrassed when they first notified him of the religious profiteer's endorsement. No doubt, his staff reminded him that the evangelicals are easily duped. They are pro-life on the one hand and pro-war on the other hand; walking contradictions. If Pat says you're OK, they swallow it hook, line ans sinker. I mean Gary Bauer endorses Fred Thompson. What a bunch of religious hucksters the Bauers and the Robertsons.

Plano TX

What a great article must read

This is such a positive article now if we could get a every church paper print something positive about Dr. Paul how wonderful that would be.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.


Thought this was such positive press that it needed a bump!

That article is really good,

That article is really good, it gives a lot of insight into the republican's politics.

"You don't gain much by being angry. I see this more as an intellectual, philosophical fight than a political, personality fight." - Ron Paul

"You don't gain much by being angry. I see this more as an intellectual, philosophical fight than a political, personality fight." - Ron Paul

This clearly points out the established GOP strategy

They (Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Huckibee) will have to turn on Bush eventually! Their strategy is unsound and deceitful. More than likely, they are afraid, but they really have no choice but to continue their charade.

Ron Paul is my HERO!!!

"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com

Where as RP has been

Where as RP has been speaking against all of Bush's actions this whole time. Once again not losing face or changing stances. Our Hero RP.

great statement

This is a great statement on the value of internet freedom. Thanks for the post.

Post original links with

Post original links with these!