The Club for Growth's official report on Ron Paul.
These Neo-Con cretins, who spew their so-called fiscally conservative rhetoric on many of their reports, really have it in for Ron. They don't mind beaming about the other Big Government, Big Empire, Big Military whackjobs posing as GOP contenders being different from the Democrats, but they sure do have a problem with Ron and his consistent voting record and his principled constitutionalist positions.
But then, what do you expect from former CATO-ite Stephen Moore and his cronies in the CFG?
(Thanks to Max Raskin at Lew's blog.)
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Club for Growth's official report on Ron Paul.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 8:26 PM
Neo-Con Extraordinare Glenn Beck, in an October 8th airing of his CNN show, certainly has an axe to grind with Ron Paul in his show titled "The Ron Paul Effect." First, within the first three minutes of his segment on Paul, he appears to wax enthusiastic about Ron's position on the issues when he plasters Ron's statements on the TV screen during his "Name That Candidate" segment. Then he goes on a moronic rant about how Ron is the "same Ron Paul who pulls in a whopping 2 percent in the polls of likely Republican voters." He, in an arrogant fashion, asks, "How does that happen, even though this guy raised over $5 million in the third quarter? Only two percent. Why is that?" He goes on to talk a good game with his Big Government viewer base by saying that, for him, at least "the breaking point are the policies that I don't agree with like pulling out of Iraq and legalizing drugs. But, on the whole, I probably agree with his libertarian, Founding Father, Constitution-focus values more than other candidates. Why then doesn't America consider voting for him?"
Then Beck, in a demagogue-esque fashion, says the following: "Real story is: Maybe, just maybe, because you can certainly judge a book by its cover. And Ron Paul's cover? Not exactly looking like a bestseller, ya know? Uh, I mean, if you're going to tell me you're going to abolish the FBI? Okay, you better do it, ya know? You better wrap that up in a nice, slick wrapper, ya know? You gotta look like you actually can do that. He's got some pretty sane proposals, um, and, and, and if his fundraising is of any indication, he has tapped into the frustation every American feels right now towards the dummies in Washington. But, unfortunately, no matter what he's selling for good or for ill, he's looking like the Mayor of Crazy Town. And that seems to be a little problem." As soon as he says the last sentence, he cuts to some video excerpts of Ron in the debates, in his interviews, etc.
Then Beck levels smears at Ron Paul supporters by saying the following: "Okay, there's one other problem that I see with, uh, the Ron Paul Revolution, and I say this with due respect but the revolutionaries? You kinda scare me a little bit. I mean it's the little sheets that are the banners that you put over the freeways, you know what I mean? And then you crash the web polls so the candidate gets 95 percent of the vote. And then you complain when you're excluded from future polls. Whenever I talk politics on the radio, half the phone calls I get are from people who want to talk about Ron Paul, and I take them. And then the other half of the calls are asking me why I'm part of some media conspiracy to not talk about Ron Paul."
Then he laments more on the Ron Paul supporters: "They also love to say that the mainstream media refuses to interview their candidate. I'll be completely honest with you: I've asked Ron Paul repeatedly to come on this program, never really agreed. I'll offer you fair, I'll give you fair questions, Ron, I really will. He, I should say, he never has agreed except for one time, and then, at the last minute, he bailed on us and stiffed us, which is good on national television to do."
And then Beck, in a hilariously ridiculous and pathetic move on his part, throws in his "I'm-a-libertarian" rhetoric: "I guess my question to all true libertarians is this: your platform has reawakened a disgruntled electorate. I am more libertarian than anything else. Voters are begging for common sense Founding Father types values, and you've got 'em. But you can't sell steak without sizzle. The question is: 'Libertarians, is Ron Paul really the best guy you've got?'" [Emphasis added]
Of course, at that point, David Boaz, Executive Director of the CATO Institute and Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist and a former Al Gore Campaign advisor, joined him for a discussion on Paul. Fenn gushes about how impressive and amazing Ron has been doing with his campaign. He is amazed about the fact that Paul raised $5 million for his campaign and waxed glowingly about his campaign website, even though he says Ron didn't know what the Internet was (which isn't true). Fenn poignantly notes at one point, "I think part of it, Glenn, that, you know, there is a none-of-the-above quality that's out there by a lot of people. And he kinda, he brings it in. And you remem -- in '88, this guy was on the ballot in 46 states in the District of Columbia. He got 500, a little less than 500,000 votes, not that many, but no one knew who he was then. If he's a libertarian candidate for President of the United States with an cynical, angry electorate, you know, who knows what could happen out there?"
Beck then asks Boaz about if there is a libertarian candidate while paying lip service to a true-blue libertarian candidate. The conversation went this like:
"David, do you know any good -- I mean, good quality -- I mean, our founding fathers were more libertarian than anything else.
DAVID BOAZ, THE CATO INSTITUTE: Well...
BECK: And they were scientists and preachers and everything. They were great. What happened?
BOAZ: Well, that`s right, and I think one thing that happened is that people like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson probably would have trouble in today`s media market, today`s special interest-dominated politics.
BECK: ... a reason to pull for a libertarian then.
BOAZ: Ron Paul is not necessarily the ideal libertarian candidate, but he`s the one who`s out there running. And it`s interesting. You named a lot of his positions, and I think you like all the ones I don`t. But maybe he can appeal to both of us in different ways."
Interestingly enough, all three of them veer off-topic from Ron, with Beck lamenting on the fact that there is no "moderate" candidate in the race from either side of the aisle. Soon enough, they all talk about their discontent with no candidate out there besides Ron Paul who is "socially liberal and fiscally conservative."
At the end of the blabfest, Beck finally says, "Why can`t we find anyone on either side that`s fiscally responsible? That`s my question. David, Peter, I`ve got to run. Thanks a lot."
In a nutshell, Beck is a fool if he thinks that Ron Paul needs to wrap up his message in "a nice, slick wrapper," as if Ron needs to tone down his anti-war, anti-Drug War message. Beck, a bottom-feeding Bush brownnoser who talks the pro-liberty talk but doesn't walk the walk, is so wishy-washy that he makes Ron look like a true saint, compared to faux saints like Mother Theresa and Princess Diana.
If anything, Ron Paul is the real deal and the best libertarian candidate for freedom. Not only that, he's an eloquent messenger for human liberty. It's not surprising that Glenn Beck doesn't understand that.
As for Boaz, he notes on the air that Beck "likes all of his [Paul's] positions that I [Boaz] don't." Could it be that Ron is far more libertarian on the issues, whereas Boaz and his shady group the CATO Institute is a Big Government, corporatist-supporting Republican front since Bush's first term in office?
Minds with serious inquiries only want to know.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 5:59 PM
Monday, October 1, 2007
Granholm and her collectivistic thugs have finally won their battle to raise the flat income tax and extend the sales tax on services. The shut-down was "averted," although it hasn't really been averted; it's been postponed to a later date, in actuality. What Granholm and her collectivistic thugs in Lansing have done is that they have merely delayed the inevitable -- the impending financial and economic implosion that will eventually engulf Michigan and every obedient, sheeple we call citizens to go with it.
Of course, it's not a surprise that Granholm and her collectivistic stooges are going along with this, but it is troublesome. With the taxes going up and no changes in state government spending and the state's regulatory code, this state will continue to sink further and further into economic ruination.
It's bad enough that it's a one-state depression; it's going to be worse in the months to come.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 12:37 AM