The GOP establishment, and the dishonest hypocritesof teh media, keep talking about how Ron Puaul is not really a member of teh Grand, Outdated Party, but is a DISLOYAL litertarian who may pick up his marbles and run AGAINST the GOP nominee. That is, the media is saying that when they are not talking aobut the GOP establishment TAKING OUT RON PAUL, because they cannot stand for him to be the GOP nominee. Have I told you that the GOP establishment is BONE-DEEP STUPID? I know I have. Ron Paul will not be the nominee. WHY would the GOPput out the message that they are going to SABOTABE Paul--make sure he is not the nominee-while at the same time saying that a thrid party would merely elect Barack Obama? The GOP estalbishment is doing its best to CREATE a thrid party--especially one led by Ron Paul. Why should Pual be "loyal" to them, when they are saying they will SABOTAGE him? BOE-DEEP STUPID. That is especailly true when it is unnecessary. to sabotage Paul. He has no eralistic chance for the nominatiioni, without this hystericala GOP reaction, but the GOP establishment is so stlupid that they cannot help themselves. And it is not just Pual. The GOP establishment cannot really bring itself to support ANY cnservative or libertarian (Paul being more libertarian than conservative), and the GOP tries to SABOTAGE all such people (or undermine them, if they try to push, say, a Tea Party agenda in Congress). This blog has told you that I will support the GOP, as an INSTITUTION, wkhen Hell freezes over. As Roma;d Reagam pmce saod: "The Democrat Paerty left me; I did not leave it." Well, the GOP left me, and is direclty telling people that it has left Ron Paul. WHY should Ron Paul, or any Ron Paul suppoerter (of whom I d ONOT count myuself, although I would vote for Paul against Obama), support the GOP nominee, when the GOP has definitely signalled that it will NOT support Ron Paul--in fact, will SABOTAGE Ron Paul.? The GOP, by the way, has already done the same thing to Herlman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and even Newt Gingrich . Rick Perry, who they probably would have SABOTAGED, and were beginning to (especially the Bush machine), did so much to himself that the full smear macine never had to go into operation. No, Herman Cain did NOT "do it to himsel". That was a racist SMEAR campaign, despiteCain's obviuos flaws as a candidate.
That brings us to Newt Gingrich. One of Newt's big problems is that he KNOWS what not to say. Yet, you can almost SEE him saying to himself: "I know I should not say this, but I am going to do it anyway." You may bet the same feeling reading this blog, but I am not running ofor the GOP nomination for President.........................................................................This puse was to let the creeping chills stop running up and down your spine at the last thought, or for you to get back up off of the floor after your laughing fit at the horrifying thought of me running for President. If I were running for President,I would not let my mouth shoot myself in the foot, the way Gingrich consistently does. Yep. I am talking about Gingrich saying that the would not even VOTE for Ron Paul if Ron Paul were nominated for President. You culd tel taht Gingrich KNEW this ws stupid, and said it anyway--because he could not stop himself.
We are talking aoub the interview with Wolf Blitzer. Newt was fine when he said that Ron Paul would NOT be the GOP nominee. But Gingrich then needed to say something like: "I understand peole who want to vote for Ron Paul. They are frstrated with both Barack Obama and the politicians in Washington. And Ron Paul has lots of good ideas, especially on domestic policy. But many of his ideas, especially on foreign policy, are so far out, and even dangerous, that he could never be electged President. He has been making vicious attacks on me in Iowa, and those do not make me happpy. But I understnd why voters like a lot of what he says. I just want them to take a good look at me, and consider whether I would ot be a better person to do what they want done. I am offering BOOD solutions, wihout being so far out there that I could not win either the nomination or the general election." And here is how it should have gone from there:
Woolf: "Since you believe many of Ron Paul's positioins are way out there, which I take to mean that thyou think that they are dangerous and maybe slightly nuts, would you suport Ron Paul if he is the GOP nominee."
Gingrich: "Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee. That is an absurd hypothetical question. I will not even think about it unless some miracle occurs, and it happens. I am running for the GOP nomination, and I expect to support the GOP nominee.'
Wolf: "But would you support Ron Paul IF he is that nominee?"
Gingrich: "Wolf, is there some problem with our hearing, or are you so far in the tank for BarackObama that your only agenda is to ter apart the GOP? Don't answer that,Wolf,. I know the answer. But i just told you that I have no interest in thinking about hypothetical things that will not happen"
Wolf: "Look. I am jsut tlrying to get an answer to my quesiton. Don't voters have a right to know whehter you would suport Ron Paul ,if you think he is so dangerous."
Gingrich: "Wolf, you just won't give up on your agenda, will you. I have told lyou that I expect to support the GOP nominee. But let us take another hypothetical. Say that Mitt Romney says something unforgivable about me or my wife--especially my wife, as I can take anything thrown against me. Will I then support Romney? Possibly not. But that is entirely HYPOTHETICAL, and there is no way for me to say for sure NOW. I expet to support the GOP nominee. This country cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. That nominee will not be Ron Paul. Those are the FACTS as I see them. What the facts will be when the nominee is chosen can only be considered then. Rno Paul has many good ideas, and has done the country a serivce by essentially proving that we should AUDIT the Federal Reserve, and bring uit under control. He also has some positons that are not defensible. That is why I believe that those considering voting for him should consider voiting for me instead. If you can't accept this answer, Wolf, then you should simply quitt CNN and go workdirectly for Barack Obama. Sorrry, Wolf, I forgot that you and CNN are alread doing that."
You can see that I threw in a few digs at Wolf Blitzer and CNN (correct digs). However, they are the kind of things--my "throw in" gigs--that caused Gingrich to SURGE in the race. He needed to get this HEADLINES that way, and not by the DESTRUCTIVE method of answering that ridiculous hypothetical lquestion on Ron Paul. You may or may not like MY method of handling the question, but you cannot have any doubt that GINGRICH was capable of both avoiding the question and atttacking Wolf Bliitzer at the same time as he did in the debate, where he said; "I know you ant us to fight among urselves, but the real problem here is Brarack Obama.").
No, Newt Gingrich did not help himself with this "Wath the Hell" moment--just like the GOP is not helping itself by SABOTAGING every person who does not fit their mold of a COWARDLY GOP politician.
Me? I have told you that Ron Paul is "nuts'--especailly on foreign policy, although he is the ONLY person I have ever seen who would dismantel MORE of the Federal Government that I would. Ron Paul's isolationist "conservatism" was DISCREDITED at Pearl Harbor--not to mention 9/11. He would be a risky choice for President. KHe even has basically said that it is none of our business whether Iran gets nuclear weapons. This would be a dangerous Preisdent. yet, I have said that Ron Paul is one of ony 3 GOP candidates who I could vote for as President, against Brack Obama (who I could nnever vote for, but who I could refuse to vote AGAINST if teh GOP "alternative" is one of these GOP estalbishment cowards and saboteurs: Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. The reason Ron Paul is one of the three, despite his dangeous foreign policy, is that Ron Paul is NOT "politics as usual". He would shake things up, and actually TRY TO DISMANTLE THE FEDEAL GOVERNMENT. Further, he would do it NOW, and not ten years from now. To me, this is worht the risk of the rest of Rohn Paul. That means, obviusly, that I hink we are in MORE DANGER from "politics as usual" on domestic policy tahn we are from an foreign threat. Yep. I jsut said that Mitt Romney is MORE DSANGEROUS to this country that Ron Paul. I stand behind that statement. Thus, I can support Ron Paul, reluctantly, even though I cannot support Mitt Romney (somewhat reluctantly, although I am more comfortable with that decision everyday). My 89 year onld mother thinks Romney is "best of the lesser evilsl'. Romney BOUGHT her with his pandering on China, and his statements on ilegal immmigration that everyone knows he does not really mean. But I have gone downhill on Romney ever since 2008, when I supported him against the even worse Joh McCin (who I REFUSED to support for President, after momentarily wavering when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate).
To get back to the main question: WHY should Ron Paul support the GOP, if the GOP makes it clear that they are SABOTAGING him? I see no reason, and the GOP has only itself to blame if Ron Paul goes the third party route. Even apart from Ron Paul, this blog has come out FOR the formation of a totally new third party, as the gOP has shown itself incapable of being a vehicle for "real change"in this country.
At my barber shop yesterday (see yesterday's article), by the way, one of the people said that he was "undecided" between Ron Paul and Romney. I regard that as a strange choice, but one that indicates how many people out there who are TORN between voting AGAINST THE POLITICS AS USUAL that they know is destroying this country, as they are betrayed by theGOP, and the desire to DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA. These peole are being tOLD that Romney is the best hope of defeating Obama. That is why they consider Ropmney, and not because they like or trust Romney. That is not a very comfortable way to vote.
IF yoiu have suddenly decided that you will vote againt Ron Paul because of those "newsletters" that someone dug up from the 1990s, then I am sorry for you. That is a typical establishment SMEAR. No, I am not defending what was said in those newsletters under Rno Paul's name. I am just sorry for you if yo consider a MAIN reason to vote against Paul that newsletters more than a decade ago carrried offensive and anti-Semitic material under his name. There are jsut so many BETTER reasons to vote against Ron Paul than thouse meaningless newsletters. If you don't understand that, then you are too open to these SMEARS that are ruining our politics. As stated, President Ron Paul would SHAKE THIS COUNTRY UP--for good or for bad. Obscure newsletters written by someone else under his name really have LITTLE or NOTHING to say about what kind of President Ron Paul would be, or even what kind of a man he is. Ignore theem. But don't ingore that Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was our own fault, or that he thinks Iran has a "right' to nuclear weapons. Ifl ou vote for RonnPau, you should do so with your eyes open, but not with our eyes clouded with meaningless SMEARS.
CNN has virtually come out and ENDORSED "negative campaigning" (as long as it is against members of the GOP). CNN remains a collection of the worst hlypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. The hypocrisy here is that CN will be back to CONDEMNING "negative ads" once Brack Obama and l;eftist Democrats are the targets. In a way, however, this new NN embrace of the "value' of negative ads is mroe honest than usual. CNN is nothing but continuous NEGATIVE ADS in its corage of politics; continuous negative ads against the GOP, conservatives, and groups like the Twa Party--not to mentin the Christian religion. CNN AGREES with negative ads on its targeted groups, and puts that same material on CNN everyday. The only negative ads CNN dilikes are those with which it DISAGREES. Otherwise, CNN itself is one continuous negative ad in favor of its leftist agenda.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).