FOLLOW THE MONEY…EXCEPT THE GOP DEPT.
Let’s face it. The national political parties run on money. Why do you think there are so many millionaires in both major parties? So let’s see now…Ron Paul has raised more campaign contributions that all the other candidates put together plus he has the support of the rank and file of the Army, Navy and Air Force. If the playing field was level, wouldn’t that make him the superior candidate to unseat Obama? But no. The Republican hierarchy has continually dissed Paul and pulled every trick to try and keep him from being a real contender. To me this proves one of two things — (1) the GOP leadership are idiots (which I don’t think anyone truly believes) or (2) they are totally under the control of masters who are scared to death of the people of this country. Below, Coach Daubenmire coyly calls such masters “political power brokers.” I say they are the same Socialist globalists that run the Democratic Party, or the other leg of the “bug” as the coach states. Ron Paul is the only candidate of either major party that truly offers an alternative to these 1% folks and has a chance to win.
WHY ARE REPUBLICAN ORGAN GRINDERS AGAINST RON PAUL?
By Coach Dave Daubenmire
January 12, 2012
Allow me to state right at the top that I am not endorsing Ron Paul.
Although I am a registered Republican, and ran for Congress in 2010 as a Republican, I am not a Republican. In fact, I am not even sure what that means any more…being a Republican. As I wrote way back in 2008 in reference to the political parties:
“It is like lying under a huge bug. Down on the ground where the bug’s feet are it looks like McCain and Obama are two different feet. But the farther up the legs you allow yourself to look you begin to realize that they really are nothing more than two legs connected to the same body.”
In 2000 I made my mark for GW Bush. After waking up, in 2004 I cast a vote for Michael Peroutka. Dr. Alan Keyes was my choice in 2008. I always vote my conscience.
About ten years ago I came to the realization that the “people” were not the one’s who chose the candidates. When the Republicans gave us John McCain four years ago I lost all doubt that the process was manipulated. The powers-that-be will do all that they can to prevent an outsider from becoming the President. They select and elevate their hand-picked choices and then manipulate us through the power of the media. On election-day they give us the privilege of choosing between a controlled-Republican candidate and a controlled-Democratic candidate.
Either way, their guy wins.
Tuesday night in New Hampshire Mitt Romney achieved an “historic victory” (at least that is the way they are selling it), and it “appears” he is running away with the nomination.
Let me get this straight. Seventy-five percent of Iowa Republicans didn’t vote for him, and nearly sixty-two percent of Republicans in his home state chose another candidate, but he is the “clear frontrunner?” What if the second primary had been in Texas instead of NH?
I would say that the voters in NH are more out of the mainstream than are the voters in Iowa. John Huntsman, who got a total of 745 votes in Iowa, picked up nearly 17% of the vote in NH. Beam me up, Scotty!
But the whole Ron Paul thing fascinates me. Could he REALLY change things? It seems to me, that after Romney, he has the most solid support of any candidate. And a recent CBS poll shows both Romney and Paul are capable of beating Obama. The polls don’t show Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry having a chance to win, but the media still claims that Paul is the only one “unelectable.”
What if Newt, Perry and Santorum dropped out of the race? In a two-man race would the “conservatives” flock to Romney…or Paul? What if they went to Paul? Can Romney get above 50% with only one other candidate in the race? Are Newt, Perry, and Santorum only in the race to keep this scenario from happening?
I’m sorry. That is just the way my mind works.
Last week I wrote about the “Establishment” trying to control the election. Both parties want Mitt or Newt as the nominee. CNN is blasting Ron Paul, for Pete’s sake.
Do you remember in the 2008 Republican Primary how Dr. Paul was ridiculed? They called him “Dr. No” because of his “no” votes against un-constitutional government. They laughed at him when he exposed The Federal Reserve and the danger of printing “fiat currency.” He spoke against the Patriot Act and stood for individual liberty. He was a vocal critic of the wars.
Today, many of those positions have been adopted by the American People. His cut-the-government views area breath of fresh air to those who are sick and tired of government intervention in their lives.
To be honest, there are several of his positions that cause me to scratch my head, but even his critics would have to admit that he has not wavered from his “libertarian” roots in his more than two-decades of government employment.
In this age of acrobatic flip-flopping, Dr. No is still saying “No.” It appears to me that Dr. Paul cannot be bought. Most of the other candidates already have been.
So, why do they hate him so much?
Newt Gingrich recently said that Ron Paul would be a greater threat than another term of Barack Obama. Really? He can’t be serious…
Could it be that he is as close to an outsider as anyone who has made it to the pinnacle of political power could be?
Is it because he dare ask the question as to whether or not our “Israel first” foreign policy is best for America? How can we protect Israel if we don’t have the finances to remain strong at home? Do you really think radical Islam needs Iran to go nuclear so that they can get their hands on a bomb? Couldn’t they get one from Pakistan? Do you want your son to fight in Iran?
Is it because he says that a bankrupt nation cannot continue to be the policeman of the world?
Is it because his desire to return to the boundaries of the Constitution threaten the political forces that are making billions of dollars off of the backs of American citizens yet to be born? Beware the government-industrial-media complex. War is big-business.
Is it because he questions whether invading other countries is the “Christian” thing to do? Except for his foreign policy, most of his positions are in line with main-stream Republican voters. In fact, many of his positions are attractive to Independents and conservative-Democrats who do not trust their party either.
The political pundits are always talking about “big-tent” issues as a way to broaden the appeal to frustrated voters, yet they refuse to let Dr. Paul have a seat under their tent. Is the party made up of people or political power-brokers?
Here is another CBS poll. Ron Paul is capturing 10% among Democrats, and nearly 47% among Independents. When you add in the vote of Republicans it sure seems to me that in a general election those would be some formidable numbers.
But “conservatives” don’t cotton to Ron Paul. I wonder if that has anything to do with the picture that the “conservative” media has painted of him? Rush, Hannity, Levin, and Fox all speak disparagingly of him.
So why are the Republican organ-grinders not interested in his “big tent’ approach if they are so interested in defeating Barack Obama? Could it be that they are looking for a “company man” to be the standard bearer?
I recently saw that Donald Trump has re-registered as an Independent. Could he be trying to block Ron Paul from a third-party run?
Look, I don’t care if the Republican Party wins…I want THE PEOPLE to win. Why are our only two choices establishment-favored Republicans or Obama? What if an amalgamation of voters, Republicans…frustrated Democrats, and Independents…chose the Republican nominee? I thought diversity was a good thing?
With hundreds-of-millions to spend surely the Republican Party could engineer a campaign to take back the White House, with Ron Paul as the “man of the people” breaking the strangle-hold of the politically elite.
But I don’t think that is what the Republican/Democrat political class wants. Conspiring in their under-ground bunkers, the power brokers have determined that they would rather have another four years of Obama, than a Republican that they can’t control.
Does America need a game-changer, like Ron Paul…or another moderate Republican like Mitt Romney? Who is more likely to bring real change to America…Romney or Paul?