Ron Paul, as we predicted, is overtaking the rest of the GOP candidates. After months of ignoring his sensible, level headed policies, the media are forced to take note and in the last two weeks there has been a plethora or pieces written on him. In mid-December, Katharine Q. Seelye in the New York Times noted "After Mr. Cain suspended his campaign on Dec. 3, many non-Romney, non-Paul voters coalesced around Mr. Gingrich....A November poll by the Des Moines Register placed him second in Iowa behind Mr. Gingrich, with the support of 18 percent of likely caucusgoers."
Note the words "behind Mr Gingrich." Then fast forward a week to Christmas day when the same reporter, talking about Gingrich's failure to even get on the ballot in Virginia, has this to say of Newt: "The misstep is bad news for Mr. Gingrich on several levels. Virginia is his adopted home state. Failing to gather enough signatures in one's backyard creates an image problem, at the very least." The state is one of 10 that vote on 6 March, known as Super Tuesday.
Some of the reporting on Paul was negative, as the press scramble to give its readers some idea of who he was, they turned to some old newsletters and found some articles that he had not written that they used to put him in a bad light - Jim Rutenberg and Richard A. Oppel Jr., on the 20th of December published an article titled "New Focus On Bias In Articles Paul Printed." Then it all disappeared as quickly as it came. Someone else tried to imply he was anti-Israel, conveniently forgetting that he was the only GOP congressman to defend Israel in 1981. Paul may be said to be neutral in Israel and more concerned with US interests than what other countries are doing. Aliyah Shahid of the New York Daily News on Christmas Eve weighed in with a distraction to all this when he talked about the Donald dumping the GOP - as if that made any difference to anyone.
That same day, in the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal, David Yepsen, a longtime political correspondent for the Des Moines Register, noted that the one candidate attracting hordes of new people is Ron Paul. He follows with criticism of the GOP for their stance on immigration, which is alienating people of Latino ancestry and driving them into the Democratic Party. Prescient this was as Romney was to take a hard line stance on immigration during the holiday season, which saw most GOP candidates busy as beavers in Iowa. The NYT on the 27th went into detail about all of this, their poor reporters forced to spend their holidays far from 8th Avenue; some went even further and ventured yet further, going far afield of the main activitiy in Des Moines, where they noted that Ron Paul was operating in small towns like Maquoketa, a three-hour drive from the Iowa capital.
Wherever the canvassing was taking place, the fight was getting rough, and the NYT reported on the 30th that a wealthy Republican called up two servicemen to fly his private jet around Iowa and attack Ron Paul for his foreign policy. This never happened, and in the same article (by Richard A. Oppel Jr.) it is reported that "Mr Paul's national security positions drew raves from many veterans, students and others..." Quoting Ret USArmy Sgt 1st Class Tony Snook, the article showed strong support for Paul from the service. Snook noted: "He would get us out of our difficulties overseas. You should choose your fights wisely." Snook, it mentioned, was wounded in Iraq in 2007. Oppel went on to note that active-duty and retired service members overwhelmingly lean to Mr. Paul, who received almost double the amount of contributions that all the other GOP candidates together received in September. He is certainly gaining strength, and his opponents senseless attacks are not working. What is working is his common sense; Bill Watson, a former GOP central committeeman, summed it up for the article: "If you listen to him long enough, he makes more sense."
And people are now listening long enough, not being dissuaded by wealthy GOP members with private jets or ignorant journalists.
One person listening is Kelly Clarkson, the first ever "American Idol" winner, whose popularity shot up just after she tweeted her support for Paul; her new song, "Stronger", shot up on Amazon from #38 to #2 and is on Apple's iTunes charts at #10.
That's all for now folks, I am going out to buy a copy of "Stronger" and hope you will too...and of course, vote for Ron Paul - so this nation can be stronger.
Showing posts with label Jim Rutenberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Rutenberg. Show all posts
Monday, January 2, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Ron Paul takes the lead
For months now we have been getting press about this or that GOP candidate who was going to be the big winner. Bachmann started it off when she came in #1 in the Iowa straws, then fell fast; Rick Perry, who did
not even bother to attend the Iowa caucus, suddenly started off like a Texas messiah; he too fell fast after people questioned the sagacity of having a leader who could not finish a sentence; then Romney appeared to take the lead, but was hit hard with the fact that he does not stay true to issues; Newt Gingrich crawled out of a swamp and in some reptilian way started to outrun the hare, only to be undone by his own infidelities and inconsistencies. So yesterday's New York Post and New York Times were weighing the possibility, as we put forth here, that Ron Paul would wait and pace himself and despite the lack of press, emerge in the fore. Geoff Earle in the Murdoch owned Post, writing in an article titled "Newt's lead evaporates", was forced to note that a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Paul seizing the top spot, with 23%, Romney getting back up to 20%, and Gingrich falling to 14%. But leave it to Murdoch accolyte Rich Lowry to bash Mr. Paul; he writes that in 2008 the surest way to get applause in the GOP was to excoriate him. So what? Then he tries to dig up some material that Paul did not write that appeared in a newsletter years ago. And leave it to Murdoch to bash his opponents with anti-Israel views, which Paul does not have. Paul's warning about the CIA taking over the US military are then brought up, and if Lowry had a brain he would have given Paul much credit for this. Let us look at reality here, let us examine history...the CIA has ties to companies like Bechtel, which in WWII was instrumental in undermining the military in the Pacific by getting milions of tax dollars spent on useless projects in Alaska when money was needed for Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, etc. Tens of thousands died or were wounded while Bechtel used the war as an excuse to make money. And look at its relationship today to the Bushes, Halliburton, etc. Look at how in Vietnam Philip Habib suppressed genuine intel reports about Hanoi and US soldiers, left unprepared, were slaughtered. Habib, in an account by former DIA intel agent Mark Philipps, was more powerful at the White House than was Reagan in the Reagan years; third he was, according to Philipps and his co-author Cathy O-Brien, to George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Anyone who is well versed in the history of the CIA would see the pattern of it using the troops for rich idiots and failing to gather real intelligence; in yesterday's NYT there was also the story about the total lack of intelligence about Korea, which goes about building nuclear weapons and destablising the region - where is the CIA when you need it?
One answer could be - in the newsroom, trying to bring America to its knees by supporting stupid, hapless candidates who will do their bidding while trying to suppress an honest and experienced one who knows what is really going on...and another answer might be Dallas, shooting a president who tried to keep Operation Northwoods from going forward. Long would be this post if I were to explain such a stupid and evil plot that involved killing US military men and civilians to start another war-for-profit, so I will leave the reader to exercise their fingers on the google machine.
But getting back to Ron Paul and yesterday's coverage of him - Lowry belittles his fellow Americans when he closes his piece with this: "Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their pre-eminent place in the nominting process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again."
That from a man who works for a corporation known for aiding and abetting murderers and child molesters, and suspected of hacking into 9/11 victims' families' phones.
So not surprising the Murdoch press should attack Ron Paul. Nor does it surprise that the NYT follows, somewhat lightheartedly, by trying to associate him with racists in an article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard A. Oppel Jr. The New York Daily Mail did not cover this issue much, with its attention focused on the funeral of a policeman gunned down in the line of duty by a career criminal who was let out by some liberal judge, and then the man who set fire to a woman who had tried to help him; both of which atrocities show us the lack of leadership in America today and why, if we care, we need to get Ron Paul in and the clowns out.
So we watch the debates and see how the press will react, and hope that Ron Paul wins.
not even bother to attend the Iowa caucus, suddenly started off like a Texas messiah; he too fell fast after people questioned the sagacity of having a leader who could not finish a sentence; then Romney appeared to take the lead, but was hit hard with the fact that he does not stay true to issues; Newt Gingrich crawled out of a swamp and in some reptilian way started to outrun the hare, only to be undone by his own infidelities and inconsistencies. So yesterday's New York Post and New York Times were weighing the possibility, as we put forth here, that Ron Paul would wait and pace himself and despite the lack of press, emerge in the fore. Geoff Earle in the Murdoch owned Post, writing in an article titled "Newt's lead evaporates", was forced to note that a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Paul seizing the top spot, with 23%, Romney getting back up to 20%, and Gingrich falling to 14%. But leave it to Murdoch accolyte Rich Lowry to bash Mr. Paul; he writes that in 2008 the surest way to get applause in the GOP was to excoriate him. So what? Then he tries to dig up some material that Paul did not write that appeared in a newsletter years ago. And leave it to Murdoch to bash his opponents with anti-Israel views, which Paul does not have. Paul's warning about the CIA taking over the US military are then brought up, and if Lowry had a brain he would have given Paul much credit for this. Let us look at reality here, let us examine history...the CIA has ties to companies like Bechtel, which in WWII was instrumental in undermining the military in the Pacific by getting milions of tax dollars spent on useless projects in Alaska when money was needed for Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, etc. Tens of thousands died or were wounded while Bechtel used the war as an excuse to make money. And look at its relationship today to the Bushes, Halliburton, etc. Look at how in Vietnam Philip Habib suppressed genuine intel reports about Hanoi and US soldiers, left unprepared, were slaughtered. Habib, in an account by former DIA intel agent Mark Philipps, was more powerful at the White House than was Reagan in the Reagan years; third he was, according to Philipps and his co-author Cathy O-Brien, to George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Anyone who is well versed in the history of the CIA would see the pattern of it using the troops for rich idiots and failing to gather real intelligence; in yesterday's NYT there was also the story about the total lack of intelligence about Korea, which goes about building nuclear weapons and destablising the region - where is the CIA when you need it?
One answer could be - in the newsroom, trying to bring America to its knees by supporting stupid, hapless candidates who will do their bidding while trying to suppress an honest and experienced one who knows what is really going on...and another answer might be Dallas, shooting a president who tried to keep Operation Northwoods from going forward. Long would be this post if I were to explain such a stupid and evil plot that involved killing US military men and civilians to start another war-for-profit, so I will leave the reader to exercise their fingers on the google machine.
But getting back to Ron Paul and yesterday's coverage of him - Lowry belittles his fellow Americans when he closes his piece with this: "Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their pre-eminent place in the nominting process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again."
That from a man who works for a corporation known for aiding and abetting murderers and child molesters, and suspected of hacking into 9/11 victims' families' phones.
So not surprising the Murdoch press should attack Ron Paul. Nor does it surprise that the NYT follows, somewhat lightheartedly, by trying to associate him with racists in an article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard A. Oppel Jr. The New York Daily Mail did not cover this issue much, with its attention focused on the funeral of a policeman gunned down in the line of duty by a career criminal who was let out by some liberal judge, and then the man who set fire to a woman who had tried to help him; both of which atrocities show us the lack of leadership in America today and why, if we care, we need to get Ron Paul in and the clowns out.
So we watch the debates and see how the press will react, and hope that Ron Paul wins.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Debate in New Hampshire
This week started with seven GOP candidates hashing it out in New Hampshire, where next year they will return to be picked or set aside. The debate was not much to watch, Gingrich avoided all mention of
his aides quitting, and Pawlenty avoided attacking Romney's health care; and Palin avoided being there at all.
Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, writing about it yesterday in the New York Times (pp. A1/A12) noted that she was praised by Pawlenty, who noted she was a remarkable leader...will he pick her as a VP? Just saying....
Michele Bachmann made an appearance for the gentler sex, using the occasion to announce her run, and taking a poke at US involvement in Libya - which is now past the sell-by-date, and well past the time it can be allowed to go on without Congressional approval - a strong point with Ron Paul; who was not much mentioned by the Grey Lady, but who, in my opinion, came off the best in the debate, simply by being rational and showing political experience; of which Herman Cain, who runs a pizza chain, had none - but that does not stop him from aspiring to run the US. He came under fire for some of his remarks about Moslems being 'not totally dedicated to this country'.
Sadly, the paper gave more attention to people who had problems, or who did not even show up. So my only regret about Dr Paul's performance was that it did not get its share of attention, but as to his policies, I am sure they will persuade more people than any of the others. We shall see. We're off to a slow start and things will get more intense in the months to come.
his aides quitting, and Pawlenty avoided attacking Romney's health care; and Palin avoided being there at all.
Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, writing about it yesterday in the New York Times (pp. A1/A12) noted that she was praised by Pawlenty, who noted she was a remarkable leader...will he pick her as a VP? Just saying....
Michele Bachmann made an appearance for the gentler sex, using the occasion to announce her run, and taking a poke at US involvement in Libya - which is now past the sell-by-date, and well past the time it can be allowed to go on without Congressional approval - a strong point with Ron Paul; who was not much mentioned by the Grey Lady, but who, in my opinion, came off the best in the debate, simply by being rational and showing political experience; of which Herman Cain, who runs a pizza chain, had none - but that does not stop him from aspiring to run the US. He came under fire for some of his remarks about Moslems being 'not totally dedicated to this country'.
Sadly, the paper gave more attention to people who had problems, or who did not even show up. So my only regret about Dr Paul's performance was that it did not get its share of attention, but as to his policies, I am sure they will persuade more people than any of the others. We shall see. We're off to a slow start and things will get more intense in the months to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)