The mainstream media is in a bind. Presidential contender Ron Paul is more popular than ever, and it's beyond their pay grade to understand how his message of liberty fits into their narrow left/right statist narrative. So, the newsreaders simply do their best to ignore him. For the Republican Party however, Ron Paul's growing popularity is much more troublesome.

In my 42 years, Republicans have never had to back up their rhetoric. They campaign like libertarians, govern like statists, and "conservatives" will line-up in droves to "support" the party anyway. But living in constant economic decline, with the purchasing power of their dollar eroding, the public has grown tired of the empty rhetoric of Republican politicians, the unsustainable federal debt, and spending trillions of dollars fighting perpetual wars ... only to be rewarded by government agents literally molesting them at the airport.

Ron Paul's growing popularity is shining a bright light on the inconsistencies and lies of the Republican Party establishment, who continue to insist there's such a thing as "compassionate" statism. So they connive their media cronies to ignore Paul, label him as "crazy," and otherwise pretend he's invisible.

Yeah, "crazy." As if printing money out of thin air, spending trillions of dollars that don't exist, and nation-building is somehow "sane."

But regardless of the very real problems facing our country (not to mention a long-term relationship with the party filled with deceit and abuse), the Republican faithful have taken the mainstream media's cue, and are stepping up their attacks on Ron Paul.

Why? I guess to "conserve" the status quo.

But times have changed and the stakes are too high ... have you seen the debt?

Whatever is left of the old conservative/libertarian "fusion," may never be anymore. "About 14% of American voters are libertarian in the sense of broadly opposing government regulation in both the economic and social realms." That means conservatives better start trying to figure out how to make friends instead of pushing arbitrary wedges, and debate topics head-on.

Ted says it better than I ever could below. Please read it. The political landscape in America is changing ...

Why Republicans Will (Probably) Lose to Obama

by Country Thinker

And I should vote for this…why?

Dear Edi­tor of the Wall Street Jour­nal:

If the Iowa straw poll had not been held in the state where Michele Bach­mann was born and raised, Ron Paul would likely have won. Nonethe­less, Dr. Paul's strong show­ing was largely ignored by the main­stream con­ser­v­a­tive media. Although this paper acknowl­edged his suc­cess, it did so in a one sen­tence par­en­thet­i­cal — a par­en­thet­i­cal! — that simul­ta­ne­ously dis­missed the legit­i­macy of his can­di­dacy. Let me guess that the savants of the edi­to­r­ial board said the same of Barack Obama in August of 2007.

Silence, dis­missal, and con­de­scen­sion of lib­er­tar­i­ans is stan­dard oper­at­ing pro­ce­dure for many con­ser­v­a­tives. In his "Open Line Fri­day" pro­gram last Fri­day, Rush Lim­baugh let lis­ten­ers opine on any sub­ject in the world — except Ron Paul. What a bril­liant strategy — kick sand in the face of a core con­stituency! All of this is done under the guise of "elec­tabil­ity," but last I checked, Rand Paul won a Sen­ate seat in 2010. So much for that myth.

What Ron Paul sup­port­ers and lib­er­tar­i­ans want is a fair, issue-​​by-​​issue debate, such as the heated exchange between Paul and Rick San­to­rum on Iran pol­icy dur­ing the last debate. Con­ser­v­a­tives loathe open debate because all too often unde­cided and inde­pen­dents are per­suaded by the lib­er­tar­ian view. So Repub­li­cans, like their fel­low sta­tists of the Demo­c­ra­tic Party, opt for sup­pres­sion of polit­i­cal speech.

The bot­tom line is that the GOP can­not win the White House in 2012 with­out the lib­er­tar­ian vote, but many libertar­i­ans are real­iz­ing that sup­port­ing the Repub­li­can Party is tan­ta­mount to abused spouse syn­drome. Many lib­er­tar­i­ans might have held their noses and pulled the lever for a Rom­ney or a Perry, but not with the mistreatment of our pre­ferred can­di­date. To the con­ser­v­a­tive media and the GOP estab­lish­ment: treat­ing libertarians as bad (or worse) than lib­er­als is your pre­rog­a­tive, but don't you dare ask for our vote.

Con­grat­u­la­tions, you prob­a­bly just handed Obama four more years.

End Note: Although I arrived at my obser­va­tions inde­pen­dently, there are many oth­ers who have made sim­i­lar obser­va­tions. Examples:

- Roger Simon of Politico — no Paul sup­porter — agrees here.

- On CNN I heard Stephanie Miller say the fol­low­ing regard­ing the Santorum-​​Paul exchange I ref­er­enced above:

Rick San­to­rum broke the golden rule of Repub­li­can debate which is to pre­tend Ron Paul is invisible.

- Bob Mur­phy shares a pair of videos here that show how the GOP changed the way the results of the straw poll were announced. In 2007 they went from last to first to build sus­pense. This year they announced Bach­mann the win­ner, and ended. This obvi­ously avoided announc­ing Paul as the runner-​​up and near-winner.

If the GOP was a respectable polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tion (which it is not), they would tackle the "moon bat" Ron Paul head-​​on. They would take him out issue-​​by-​​issue. (I actu­ally give credit to the whiny San­to­rum for his aggressive response; he was crav­ing atten­tion and got it, and in the process we heard two diver­gent views on Iran policy.)

The bot­tom line is do you really think that a polit­i­cal behe­moth that behaves this way can be trusted to gov­ern respon­si­bly? If so, vote for best avail­able RINO and good luck.

Ted Lacksonen (aka Country Thinker) is a husband, father, recovering attorney, editor of The Country Thinker Blog and author of The Eagle Has Crashed. Make sure to add Ted to your regular reading list. You'll be glad you did!

There are no comments for this post.

Comments are closed.

Leave a Comment