• The Addition of Alan Keyes

    Email Print
    Share


    DIGG THIS

    The Ron Paul
    campaign has the establishment running scared.

    For the latest
    proof, witness the addition to the race of yet another pro-war neocon
    — Alan Keyes.

    Many people
    find it unsettling to ask questions about the reality of democracy,
    especially when the answers may contradict the bromides drummed
    into them for years in their government school civics classes.

    But let's
    leave aside fundamental questions about the legitimacy of democracy
    for another day — even though such inquiries are extremely important.
    For now, let's assume that democracy in principle is the panacea
    it's supposed to be, and examine how it works in the United States
    in practice.

    This may be
    discomforting for some to consider, but elections are mostly scams
    perpetrated by the ruling elite to con average, unsophisticated
    people into thinking that they control the government. This is best
    evidenced by the farcical presidential elections held every four
    years, where the establishment fields two interchangeable candidates
    as your "choice."

    It's not necessarily
    that vote counts are being rigged (although such fraud undoubtedly
    occurs in some cases); it's that, regardless of who receives the
    most votes, the government is re-elected. Whether the voters chose
    interchangeable Socialist-Fascist Candidate A or B is mostly irrelevant.

    Going back
    over the last generation, what was the urgent difference between
    George W. Bush and John Kerry, George W. Bush and Al Gore, Bill
    Clinton and Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, or George
    H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis?

    In reconsidering
    these races, don't look back on them in terms of relatively trivial
    distractions like gay marriage, stem cell research or medical marijuana;
    think in terms of fundamental questions about the legitimacy and
    nature of the state:

    For example,
    by what right does the state presume to tax your income at any level?
    Are you still a free person when you have a portion of your income
    confiscated as the price of making a living? If you believe you
    are still free now, at what level of (arbitrarily determined — but,
    of course, not by you) confiscation would you no longer consider
    yourself to be free?

    By what right
    does the state presume to steal another 15% of your income, supposedly
    on the assumption that you're too inept to save for your own retirement?

    By what right
    does the state presume to tell you what you can put in your own
    body? Does the state have the right to protect you from harming
    yourself? If so, should it also prevent you from drinking too much
    alcohol, smoking cigarettes, eating fast food, or not exercising?
    If not, why should it try to stop you from ruining your life with
    heroin, but not with gambling, bourbon or cheeseburgers?

    By what right
    does the state presume to tell you whom you can hire to perform
    a service for you, through things like licensing laws? If an unlicensed
    professional offers cheaper services and can provide evidence to
    reassure your doubts, what business is it of the state’s?

    Etc.

    Think back
    again to the presidential races of the past generation. Based on
    such fundamental questions, should you have had a preference between
    either of the two major candidates in those elections — even if
    you personally choose not to vote or to even endorse the political
    process or the state? Would your life have been significantly better
    or worse by any of these fundamental criteria if one candidate had
    been elected over the other? If so, how? Even if one seemed preferable,
    did that candidate do what he promised, or not do what he promised
    not to do?

    Even the "lesser
    of two evils" argument is deceptive. For example, a fairly
    strong case could've been made for a libertarian in 2000 that Bush
    was at least the lesser of two evils compared to Gore. Many who
    were aware of third-party candidates Harry Browne, Howard Phillips
    or Pat Buchanan preferred them, but voted for Bush anyway to keep
    Gore out of office, and because none of those other candidates had
    a chance to win.

    But look how
    that turned out — "lesser evil" Bush has enlarged the
    budget roughly three times faster than did Clinton; has invaded
    two countries, one of which was clearly a criminal violation of
    international law, totally based on lies; has enacted the largest
    increase in entitlement spending since LBJ's "Great Society";
    has shredded civil liberties, including issuing a series of Executive
    Orders that lay the groundwork for martial law and allow the government
    to detain American citizens indefinitely without the habeas corpus
    protection that is a basic right of civilized society going back
    over 700 years to the Magna Carta, and helping to create a massive,
    monstrous new federal bureaucracy, all in the name of fighting "terrorism";
    and has allowed the real inflation rate to climb as high as 15%
    on his watch; among other atrocities.

    What could
    Gore have done that would've been worse than all of that?

    The nature
    of this farce and the illusion of choice is further evidenced by
    the fact that third-party candidates who might disrupt the establishment's
    script are not allowed into the debates (Perot was invited in 1992
    only after he spent enough of his own money to make himself so visible
    that the establishment was embarrassed into including him. He got
    19% of the vote, which is why they didn't make the same mistake
    with him in 1996, or with anyone else in 1996 or since) and are
    crippled from raising, and effectively spending, money through campaign
    finance and ballot access laws.

    Even one year
    ago, 2008 promised to be yet another farce.

    It was obvious
    on Election Night 2006 that the media had already anointed the "viable"
    candidates for 2008: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards
    on the Democrat side; John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney
    on the Republican side.

    While these
    things can never be certain until the primaries, things appear to
    have basically gone according to plan on the Democrat side.

    Anointed front-runner
    Hillary Clinton has been polling around 40% all year, likely in
    large part because the establishment has been pushing her as the
    "anti-war" alternative against the Republicans, even though
    she has made it obvious that she intends to keep their Iraq War,
    and their military-industrial complex, going throughout her term
    (not to mention the war she intends to make on American citizens
    through her social programs).

    Anointed contenders
    Obama and Edwards are still in contention, making the foregone conclusion
    less obvious.

    And the establishment
    even made it look like the voters were controlling things by placing
    Bill Richardson into that gray area between the anointed "top
    tier" and the rest, which is a hint at whom they might choose
    for the other half of the ticket as the vice-presidential candidate.

    But, on the
    Republican side, something odd is happening: No matter how much
    the establishment media recites the script, the voters keep losing
    the plot.

    The establishment
    didn't foresee when they anointed their front-runners in November
    2006 that Ron Paul would enter the race.

    Dr. Paul noticed
    the growing disdain for Bush; the fact that none of the anointed
    front-runners were even attempting fake, libertarian-sounding rhetoric;
    and the miraculous rise of the Internet and its ability to sidestep
    the establishment’s gatekeepers. He decided that this might be an
    opportunity to be a contender, so he reluctantly agreed to pursue
    a campaign if the grassroots, bottom-up support was there.

    To his astonishment
    (and the establishment's horror), there was more support for his
    message than he ever dreamed.

    The candidacy
    of Ron Paul wasn't in the script. And, as a sitting Congressman
    running for a major party nomination, the establishment was unable
    to keep him out of the debates, even though they tried to otherwise
    ignore him. That, combined with the open gate of the Internet, has
    made him a real threat to the whole scam.

    In Ron Paul,
    liberty-loving voters — even those who totally reject the state
    — have a clearly preferable, major party choice: A candidate who
    is promising to drastically cut spending, end all foreign entanglements,
    end the theft of inflation, and repeal the income and Social Security
    taxes, bust the medical cartel, plus much more.

    Among the
    anointed GOP front-runners, McCain crashed and burned, largely due
    to his stubborn, overt support for continuing — and even escalating
    — the Iraq debacle. He budgeted his campaign expenses at the beginning
    of the year based on his plans to raise $100 million this year.
    His voluntary donations have been nowhere near that, and he was
    nearly broke at the end of the second quarter. He has even had to
    resort to accepting federal matching funds to keep his campaign
    alive. In other words, he's stealing money from the taxpayers to
    keep his campaign alive until January, when he can steal even more
    to pay off his campaign debt. But, as a contender, he's finished.

    That left
    the establishment scrambling to anoint a new front-runner to head
    off the Paul threat, when in any other year they could just calmly
    anoint interchangeable Candidate B.

    Rudy Giuliani
    was chosen in an attempt to further exploit his 9/11 fame and lingering
    fears about terrorism. While he has polled at 25–30% for most of
    the year, that's still a softer lead than Hillary enjoys against
    her opponents.

    Maybe the
    average person sees through Il Duce for what he is: a fascist low-life
    who made a career out of ruining the lives of innocent people and
    who just had the dumb luck of being mayor of New York on 9/11, and
    who has squeezed every last penny and every last drop of fame from
    that dumb luck that he possibly could.

    A President
    Giuliani promises to make libertarians pine for the days of Bush.

    When Giuliani
    failed to catch on as well as they'd hoped, the establishment began
    promoting Mitt Romney harder, the handsome, oily-slick, multi-millionaire
    former CEO and left-liberal governor of Massachusetts.

    As governor,
    Romney's dubious "accomplishments" included forcing all
    of the state's citizens to obtain health insurance under the penalty
    of a $2,000 fine; a fine of $295 per employee for any company with
    11 or more employees that does not provide their employees with
    health insurance; raising $560 million by increasing hundreds of
    fees, including for things like court filings, professional regulations,
    driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses; and
    raising other taxes by $309 million.

    Somehow, such
    stellar accomplishments and his phony, used car salesman demeanor
    failed to translate into much support; on average, Romney is still
    polling at 10% or less and he has had to loan his campaign over
    $10 million to keep it afloat.

    With their
    anointed front-runners failing to capture the public's enthusiastic
    imagination, the establishment frantically searched for something
    else they could throw at the wall to see if it would stick.

    So they recruited
    Fred Thompson, former movie and TV star and former Senator from
    Tennessee. Tall, silver-haired and with a slow, folksy Southern
    drawl, Thompson entered the race spouting rhetoric about the Constitution,
    limited government and states' rights that belies his voting record
    in the Senate, making it highly likely that he was recruited into
    the race by the establishment in some sort of back-door deal specifically
    to head off the growing threat of Ron Paul.

    However, despite
    incessant coverage by the establishment media, his poll numbers,
    while roughly tied with Il Duce at about 20–25%, are still
    soft compared to Hillary's; and his fund-raising totals are rumored
    to be anemic.

    So where can
    the GOP establishment turn now?

    With only
    four months until the primary season begins, the only possible front-runner
    who's not already in the race is Newt Gingrich. He promises to make
    a decision by next month, but it's too late for him to build enough
    momentum and raise enough money now, and his poll numbers have been
    steadily eroding all year, to about 6% currently.

    Besides, what
    does he have to offer that the other anointed front-runners don't?
    He's another pro-war neocon, and Ron Paul would rip him to shreds
    in the debates about his miserable failure to enact even the most
    modest proposals of his "Contract with America" upon taking
    control of Congress in 1995.

    Plus his scandal-ridden
    personal life doesn't help, although that's yet another category
    in which he can impressively compete with Il Duce.

    To show how
    desperate the establishment is getting, after his second-place showing
    at the Iowa Straw Poll, which was bolstered by his months of campaigning
    in Iowa and his latching on to the prominently-represented "Fair
    Tax" faction, the mainstream media informed the public that
    Mike Huckabee was now in the "first tier." This despite
    the fact that Huckabee has little money, little or no visible grassroots
    support, is still (over a month after Iowa) polling at 3–4%,
    and has done horribly in every other straw poll. Huckabee isn't
    really in the first-tier; he's in the gray area of lobbying to be
    chosen for VP, similar to Richardson on the other side. (Even so,
    Huckabee did best Brownback in Iowa as they were competing for the
    same pro-war evangelical vote. Now Brownback is toast.)

    The desperation
    over the growing Ron Paul threat was no longer hidden at this month's
    Fox News debate, when the establishment moderators and candidates
    were heard numerous times openly, rudely laughing at Ron Paul's
    calm, rational, sensible answers.

    Of course,
    if Ron Paul were really the nut the establishment assures the public
    he is, they wouldn't have to laugh or do anything; they could just
    let Paul speak and expose himself. But they can't do that, because
    when Paul exposes himself, it's as being the best-educated, most
    honest, most sane person in the race. What we're seeing is the establishment's
    hysterical reaction to someone successfully disrupting their script.

    Things got
    worse for them when, during the debate, Paul successfully goaded
    "first-tier" Huckabee into a lengthy exchange, much as
    he had Giuliani in May. And, as he had with Giuliani, Paul clearly
    got the better of it, as he asked intelligent, specific, relevant
    questions about the Iraq debacle, such as what its proponents hope
    to accomplish, how "success" is defined, how much longer
    it will go on, and at what financial and human cost. Typical of
    a politician, Huckabee responded with vague, mindless platitudes
    about "honor."

    Of course,
    the establishment media informed the public that Huckabee made a
    fool of Paul. When the public, as usual, indicated otherwise by
    voting Paul the winner of the text-messaging poll, establishment
    gatekeepers Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes lied about the result,
    claiming Paul's (few) supporters were "dialing and re-dialing"
    to obtain a phony result. Of course, re-dialing in a phone poll
    from the same phone is impossible. So, unless Paul has only a few
    supporters who each own thousands of phones, the result was real.

    Dr. Paul further
    exposed the lie a few days later in his campaign journal, when he
    wrote:

    "After
    the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss
    our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their
    badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments,
    u2018security' ordered me off the stage."

    Don't think
    the anointed front-runners and their handlers don't notice things
    like this.

    This embarrassment
    is likely why Alan Keyes has just entered the race, because Keyes
    appeals to the same pro-war, neocon Evangelicals as does Huckabee,
    but Keyes is smarter, better-educated and much better-spoken.

    But why would
    Keyes, a former Harvard roommate of ber-neocon Bill Kristol, enter
    the race, especially this late, when he surely has no campaign money
    and little chance (or time) to raise any, and when he's never won
    even one of the numerous elections in which he's run, including
    for president in 1996 and 2000 and for U.S. Senate from Illinois
    against Obama in 2004?

    Very likely,
    the establishment has decided to replace (or at least augment) Huckabee
    with Keyes as the prime Evangelical pro-war candidate, because it
    further muddles the line-up of candidates and because they want
    to avoid Paul distinguishing himself during any more debates if
    they can (which, of course, they can't).

    So what's
    in it for Keyes? While, of course, he won't be the nominee, or even
    the VP nominee, he may have been promised a cabinet post or another
    ambassadorship. And, even if he hasn't, even a failed presidential
    run can be lucrative; it bolsters his celebrity, which he can parlay
    into speaking fees, book contracts, and possibly talk radio or TV
    gigs. Besides, a man with an ego the size of Keyes' can't resist
    the attention.

    That
    the establishment is now turning to an also-ran like Keyes to help
    deflect attention from Ron Paul shows how scared and desperate they
    are — and it shows they're about out of options.

    What fun!

    September
    17, 2007

    Johnny Kramer
    [send him mail]
    writes from Wichita, KS.

    Email Print
    Share
  • Political Theatre

  • LRC Blog

    LRC Podcasts