Republican primary just a circus for the non-Pauls
Big biz commentator Jack Welch and his wife, Suzy, produced a column recently to the effect that Ron Paul will inevitably be ‘fired’ from the Republican Party, and the Party had better do the dismissal properly: “… so it must be with the RNC and Ron Paul. There can be no brush-off. No ‘Phew, he’s gone. Now let’s get down to business.’ No booby prize. Ron Paul needs to be given a role that really means something to him—a role with influence and voice.” Else, Obama wins embarrassingly big. I sent this response to a friend when he sent me the Jack and Suzy link:
IMHO, the media has been controlling the course of the Republican Party nomination from day one of this election cycle. The debates have kept a tight reign on who is allowed to participate by first requiring the speakers to have polled 1% in 5 national polls to join the fun on stage. That allowed Dr. Paul to slip into the debates almost unnoticed but not necessarily to actively participate. Most of the questions asked in the debates were devised to foment division among the Republican Party nominees.
Rather than ask a question and permit the candidate to answer it and allow the audience to decide which nominee had the most credible answer and go on to the next question, the moderator would invite the other candidates to explain why their solution was better than the previous speaker’s, inviting the candidates to criticize their opponent’s answers and create internecine debate among the candidates.
If you recall from the debates the moderators saw to it that the participation usually centered on Romney and one or two of the other participants; Romney vs Gingrich and Cain, Romney vs Santorum and Cain, Romney vs Santorum and Gingrich, Romney vs Huntsman and Perry, Romney vs Perry and Bachmann. Dr. Paul was allowed to answer questions only incidentally. Only Gary Johnson received less air time than Ron Paul. Huntsman, Bachmann and Pawlenty were allowed more on camera time than Ron Paul.
Romney has been the media darling since day one. Why? Because he is an Establishment Republican who, should he win the presidency, will bring plenty of baggage with him that Obama will pick apart. How will Romney be able to debate health care reform with Obama and maintain a straight face? Hypocrisy has never played well with the American voter. Just as Santorum has concealed his real self, the real Romney has been kept out of the debates too. His persona as a ‘conservative’ is wholly contrived. He has never been a ‘conservative’ and he will not govern as president as a ‘conservative.’
Romney has already committed himself to expanding the military with more man power and building more Navy ships. He says, that as president, he will examine government programs in Washington and will reduce or eliminate those that are not ‘working,’ not those that are not necessary or unconstitutional, but not ‘working.’
This all begs the question, why is Romney the favorite Republican with the media? It is because that if he is elected he may begin with a show of battling big government but in the end he will return to his roots of bigger is better and the Establishment still wins, maybe not as big as under Obama, but enough to keep the Establishment in power until a bigger spender gets back into the White House. As you and I know by that time there isn’t going to be anything to spend.
Previously I have, at times, supposed that when there was a Republican change in Washington that things would get better. I have ALWAYS been wrong. Why should I expect anything to change now if Ron Paul is not elected? Unlike Joe Citizen, all of those Establishment guys have the resources to leave the country when it hits the fan. Rush Limbaugh, Wolf Blitzer, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Medved, O’Reilly and Obama all have the resources to survive an economic meltdown and take a plane anywhere they so choose. What, them worry? I don’t think so. That’s why they can blather on regardless of the consequences. They got the bucks.
Don’t ever trust an Establishment Republican. The last great ‘conservative hope,’ Ronald Reagan, talked a good game; but, with all of Karl Hess’s libertarian speech writing rhetoric, he still left Washington with a larger bureaucracy, with more debt and higher spending than when he took office. I was familiar with his California record and expected pretty much the same thing that he allowed to happen in California when he was governor to be repeated when he became president. I wasn’t disappointed. Like serial rapists, politicians don’t change their MOs… ever.
No modern Republican or Democratic president ever favored free markets, individual freedom, smaller, or cheaper government. It ain’t in their genes; but, boy-oh-boy, can they talk the talk. When I listen to Romney, Santorum or Gingrich—even PRESBO—I want to shout, “HALLELUJAH—-I AM SAVED. THERE IS A GOD IN HEAVEN. BROTHERS AND SISTERS I AM SAVED (and if you value your life don’t stand between me and that ballot box come November).
“If indeed a [non-Paul] Republican is elected to replace the Obama administration in 2012, we can only assume that the status quo will remain intact. Spending will hit record highs, the deficit will increase, the debt ceiling will be raised, the Government will expand further into our lives taking away more rights and freedoms in the name of ‘protecting’ the population, more regulation will be embraced further crippling an already diminished manufacturing and production sector etc.”
“Whichever party is in charge the trend is clear: blame the previous administration for the woes of the economy, promise to reign in government control and budgets, promise to change the direction the government has been taking only to continue along the same path of increasing the size, role, and cost of the government.” National Debt Graph by President an indictment of Bush and Reagan’s deficit spending (2012) Check out the blue line of what would have happened if Reagan and Bush had balanced their budgets.
This post has been read 1397 times!