WHY RON PAUL CAN'T WIN Rebuttal to Kimberley Strassel's 'Wall Street Journal' Article
by James Jaeger
I recently wrote an article entitled, WHY RON PAUL CAN WIN. See article in The Daily Bell at http://thedailybell.com/3396/James-Jaeger-Why-Ron-Paul-Can-Win
Unbeknownst to me, Kimberly Strassel wrote an article in the Wall Street Journel entitled, WHY RON PAUL CAN'T WIN. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577100730656321606.html
Because I found factual errors and misrepresentations of Dr. Paul and his views, I have reproduced the full and exact text of Ms. Strassel's article below and commented upon it.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 16, 2011
WHY RON PAUL CAN'T WIN
The candidate's problem isn't better-funded opponent or media bias-it's his own views on foreign policy.
by KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
STRASSEL WROTE: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the ideal candidate for a conservative electorate hungry for a principled GOP nominee. Ron Paul will never be the GOP nominee. For this, Mr. Paul has himself to blame.
JAEGER WROTE: So just after stating that Ron Paul is "principled," you imply that this is a liability?!
STRASSEL WROTE: In his third run for president, and only a few weeks out from the 2012 Iowa caucuses, the Texas congressman has become the sleeper news of this nomination fight. Polls show him with real strength in Iowa, and stories are brimming with speculation about how the ardent libertarian might pull off a victory there, or how he might command crucial support in Western states, or how all this might upend the Romney-Gingrich narrative.
JAEGER WROTE: True.
STRASSEL WROTE:It's fun as far as it goes, but it misses the world. Or, rather, it misses Mr. Paul's unpopular foreign-policy views, which make him the ultimate self-limiting candidate. And what makes those views more notable is the candidate's stubborn refusal to modulate them-an obstinacy at odds with the rest of his 2012 campaign.
JAEGER WROTE: So again, after stating that Ron Paul is "principled," you imply Ron Paul should "modulate" his views in order to become more "popular" with a wayward electorate?!
STRASSEL WROTE: Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard,...
JAEGER WROTE: Did it ever occur to you that it is the critics of Dr. Paul who are the ideological cranks? The country -- lead by the youth -- is actually moving towards Ron Paul's libertarian views, so how long will it be before it is the entrenched-party view that is the crank view? Lastly, Ron Paul does not run "just" to have his views heard. The conspiracy between the Democrats and Republican -- as Pat Buchanan refers to it in my recent movie, SPOILER: How a Third Political Party Could Win - is what forces any and all non-Establishment, non-CFR candidates to run on one of the major party platforms if they are to get ANY coverage from the state-apologist media.
STRASSEL WROTE: ...and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul's new seriousness about winning the nomination.
JAEGER WROTE: Not new at all. He has always been serious about his runs and about restoring a Constitutional nation with limited government. NOT The 3-trillion-dollar-per-year, welfare-warfare monstrosity we currently have thanks to BOTH the Dems and GOP.
STRASSEL WROTE: The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign.
JAEGER WROTE: Again, I maintain it's NOT Ron Paul that's becoming more "mainstream," it's the fact that the mainstream -- to the horror of your superiors -- is becoming more "Ron Paul." And, again, the youth of the nation, AND the military, are leading this revolution: The Ron Paul Revolution, which kicked off the Tea Party Movement.
STRASSEL WROTE: Not that he's flipped on any major positions.
JAEGER WROTE: That's right. Even acid-spewing pundits can't find any inconsistencies in Dr. Paul's philosophical positions based on the Founding documents and Austrian economics. No offense, but I bet you don't even know what Austrian economics is - neither do most at the Journal.
STRASSEL WROTE: The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners' policy timidity or lack of consistency.
JAEGER WROTE: Well gee, with an approval rating of Congress of 20% or lower, I wonder if there's anyone out there that can "honestly" vote for a Democrat or Republican. Of course, this is what the election is all about, just HOW honest ARE the voters and how many of them are of the "SPOILER MENTALITY." See http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/spoiler_mentality.htm
STRASSEL WROTE: Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star.
JAEGER WROTE: "Mr. Paul" is a medical doctor, thus he deserves to be called "Dr. Paul." How much do you, and your editors there at the Wall Street Journal really know about Ron Paul? Not much I am willing to bet, because not many - other than Ron Paul fans -- seem to know much about the U.S. Constitution or Austrian economics these days thanks to the cultural Marxist indoctrination the "mainstream" media has subjected WE THE PEOPLE to the past 50 years. You know, 25 years ago there were 50 major media companies a cross the U.S.; today, due to rampant and irresponsible greed-consolidation, there are only 5 media corporations. And you work for one of the 5, so how could your reporting on whether Ron Paul can win or not, POSSIBLY be unbiased OR responsible? Think about that, and then quit your job if you have any integrity.
STRASSEL WROTE: Nicknamed the "intellectual godfather" of the tea party movement, he's held the same views about limited government since before his first election in 1976.
JAEGER WROTE: True.
STRASSEL WROTE: Those views are behind his platform today to slash $1 trillion from the federal government, to eliminate five federal cabinet agencies, to cut the corporate tax rate and get rid of taxes on capital gains and dividends, and to repeal everything from ObamaCare to Sarbanes-Oxley.
JAEGER WROTE: Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution grants no authority for the establishment of most of the departments and agencies now in our bloated, ridiculously over-extended government. The 3 trillion annual budget must be cut back by AT LEAST a trillion a year, and I maintain even more, to maybe a half trillion or less per year.
STRASSEL WROTE: The difference in the 2012 Paul campaign is instead one of a maturing tone and emphasis.
JAEGER WROTE: Dr. Paul's message is exactly the same. All that's happened is he's perfected his communication skills, and so has his son Rand and many of the others in the Ron Paul Revolution as we DO realize that the ignorant and mentally-challenged are quick to write off anything that they can't be easily spoon-fed. You can thank the government school system and the cultural Marxist-infested mass media for this intellectual infirmity that spans the land.
STRASSEL WROTE: Consider: The Ron Paul who in 1988 ran for president as a Libertarian spoke pugnaciously of abolishing "unconstitutional" entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.
JAEGER WROTE: Sure, where in the Constitution are these authorized? Maybe Ron Paul doesn't push this in everyone's face as much, but you can bet there are millions of Ron Paul supporters out there just like me with the exact view. In case you don't understand why Social Security and Medicare are unhealthy for a nation, watch my treatise on government hand outs and special privileges in both my movies: ORIGINAL INTENT - How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Destroying the American Dream and SPOILER - How a Third Political Party Could Win. These films will fill you in on the material you have obviously not been exposed to as a result of your mainstream "indoctrination" and especially as a result of the professional and philosophical compromises you probably had to make -- Stockholm Syndrome-style -- in order to even be employed at the Journal.
STRASSEL WROTE: The Ron Paul of 2008 acknowledged these entitlements could not go away overnight and argued for an opt-out. The Ron Paul of today still holds those positions but is now at great pains to stress that his budget plan is in fact the only one that would "save" entitlements like Social Security and Medicare for current retirees.
JAEGER WROTE: True.
STRASSEL WROTE: He's toned down his calls to legalize drugs.
JAEGER WROTE: The Drug War is total insanity and is only supported by proponents of the prison-industrial complex and people that only drool.
STRASSEL WROTE: He wrote an October USA Today op-ed reassuring parents they'd retain (in the near term) student loans.
JAEGER WROTE: Student loans are also insane -- totally perverting the education market -- and driving prices through the roof thus placing the youth of the nation in debt before they have even begun their lives. Only a monster, banker or someone dumb in math would support student loans.
STRASSEL WROTE: Whereas Mr. Paul still despises income taxes and wants to kill off the IRS,
JAEGER WROTE: The IRS is a Gestapo organization that rapes and pillages American citizens. So you wanna keep it, or is it too UNPOPULAR to say this when Dr. Paul states the obvious?
STRASSEL WROTE: he now concedes this might require reform of the existing system, and he promises to extend the Bush tax cuts.
JAEGER WROTE: There is no more reform of the "System" -- tax system and monetary system -- than there would have been for Nazi Germany. The progressive tax system must go and none of Ron Paul's fans will allow it to stay over the longer term. I emphasize: the PROGRESSIVENESS of the income tax must go as this is an unproportioned Constitutional tax. A flat tax - that grants NO exemptions for either poor or rich - must be instituted. You can't have 49% of the nation paying ZERO taxes and the top percentages paying most of the taxes. Also corporate taxes must be reduced to zero as corporations are NOT people. Only PEOPLE pay taxes.
STRASSEL WROTE: Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists.
JAEGER WROTE: I hope he doesn't get co-opted. If starts feeling like he's getting co-opted he can drop out of the GOP and get elected on a third party platform. As I state in my article -- WHY RON PAUL CAN WIN -- and what you WOULD NEVER STATE IN YOUR WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE -- Ron Paul does not even need the GOP to win a general election. If he were to walk away for a third party, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% ? enough of the vote to win the Presidency in a three-man race. Hey, how come you didn't mention this in your article?
STRASSEL WROTE: These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House.
JAEGER WROTE: Sounds like you are trying to placate Dr. Paul because you know if he dropped out he could hand the election to Obama or win a third party race as outlined above.
STRASSEL WROTE: Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in.
JAEGER WROTE: No he doesn't. We can't have our military all over the planet waging wars. And we can't have a military all over just to support Israel and placate AIPAC, the Israel lobby. You don't mention any of this, of course, nor do you mention that a book entitled, THE ISRAEL LOBBY is out and it is an academic-quality book written by two mainstream sociologists.
STRASSEL WROTE: In discrete areas, Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid.
JAEGER WROTE: Thank you for not calling him an "isolationist" as most of the apologist pundits for the Establishment usually use this term in an attempt to invalidate Dr. Paul's foreign policy. Let me again make it clear, isolationism is VERY healthy for a nation. What isolationism is NOT healthy for is globalists and people who are attempting to consolidate the world into a one-world government expanded by debt-driven, fiat currency and war. Also I might add: DIVERSITY IS OUR WEAKNESS. The national motto is E Pluribus Unum. E Pluribus Unum is Latin for, "from many, one." This means that DIVERSE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO COME TOGETHER AS ONE. It does NOT mean that DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH, because this would imply that people should NOT come together. The fact that our nation is divided and people are endlessly arguing and gridlocked in congress proves that a certain mentality has infested the think of the nation with false and unconstitutional slogans, such as "diversity is our strength" when just the opposite is true. It's also disgusting that several of our presidents have even spewed this fallacy, that diversity is our strength.
STRASSEL WROTE: And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.
JAEGER WROTE: Andů?
STRASSEL WROTE: But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.
JAEGER WROTE: What a crock! Cut it with the Paul philosophy. Paul's philosophy is the U.S. Constitution and surrounding docs. What's so difficult to GET about that Madam? And he denies American exceptionalism (an elitist term) - another crock. You and your cronies think America is "exceptional" because it can clod-hop all over the planet maiming and killing people in undeclared wars? And then you dare commingle this idea with the idea of protecting the U.S. "homeland." Please, such language would have pleased Adolph Hitler. The War of Terror is a disgrace to WE THE PEOPLE and the PATRIOT Act is an abortion-of-nature, and enemy of freedom, only an insecure, neo-con mentality could have possibly dreamt up. The phony, unexceptional Americans that want all this crap are so far removed from an understanding of the U.S. Constitution it makes true patriots cry.
STRASSEL WROTE: Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East."
JAEGER WROTE: Yeah. The phrase, "they are over here because we are over there" was first proposed by Pat Buchanan in his book, WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG. So you gonna argue with Pat Buchanan, a scholar far beyond anything hack journalists at the Wall Street Journal could ever hope to be?
STRASSEL WROTE: Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage,
JAEGER WROTE: Great. For all we know 9-11 was a False Flag Operation. See 9/11 EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE - Experts Speak Out on YouTube and "you decide."
STRASSEL WROTE: claiming this year that 9/11 prompted "glee" in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to "invade Iraq."
JAEGER WROTE: Of course. Apologists of the Iraq war want to feed the military-industrial complex. But you can't mention any of that in the Wall Street Journal because many of your advertisers and readers are corporations that depend on military contracts and suck off the military-industrial complex tit.
STRASSEL WROTE: He's condemned the Obama administration's killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is "provoking" Iran.
JAEGER WROTE: Of course. Since when does the U.S. Constitution allow the president to be an international hit man?
STRASSEL WROTE: For foreign-policy hawks, this is a disqualifier.
JAEGER WROTE: Hawks that justify war -- many of your readers -- are mental.
STRASSEL WROTE: It explains why a Washington Post-ABC poll in late September showed that Mr. Paul drew some of his weakest numbers from his own base.
JAEGER WROTE: False.
STRASSEL WROTE: Of the 25% of voters who viewed him favorably, nearly two-thirds did not identify themselves as Republicans. Among self-identified "conservative Republicans," only 8% gave him a "strongly favorable" rating. You don't win a GOP nomination with figures like this.
JAEGER WROTE: False. The correct stats are as follows:
INDEPENDENTS = 38% of the electorate
DEMOCRATS = 36% of the electorate
REPUBLICANS = 26% of the electorate
JAEGER WROTE: As we discuss in my article HOW RON PAUL CAN WIN -- if Dr. Paul dropped out of the Republican party he would easily take 12% - 20% with him. Judging from Ed Rollins face when he was telling everyone to "respect Ron Paul, this skinny little fact must horrify the CFR-infested Establishment and the Federal Reserve System -- your boss's bosses.
STRASSEL WROTE: Even mainstream Democrats and independents have no time for Mr. Paul's brand of isolationism, which is why his national numbers remain stuck around 10%.
JAEGER WROTE: You disappoint me. You finally stooped to using the "I" word to characterize Dr. Paul. Well if you disparage "isolationism" then you also disparage the advice of one of the most senior of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who said that the only way a nation can build up a strong manufacturing base is to impose tariffs so that domestic manufacturing can be encouraged and income taxes offset. The "free" trade ushered in by your greedy corporate fascist friends, friends that comprise much of your readership no doubt, are responsible for the loss of 50,000 factories in just the past 10 years and tens of millions of American jobs. So you have a gall attempting to paint isolationism as negative, when in fact it's the only thing that will restore the U.S. manufacturing base, hence America's middle class.
LACK OF ISOLATION - AKA "FREE" TRADE -- IS WHAT HAS FUELED THE WEALTH DISPARITY THAT THE MILLIONS OF 99 PERCENTERS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.
"FREE" TRADE IS NOT FREE. GLOBALIZATION IS THE TROJAN HORSE OF WORLD GOVERNMENT according to Pat Buchanan.
WAKE UP. Actually, go to sleep, as you and your cohorts at the Journal know exactly what I am talking about.
STRASSEL WROTE: Mr. Paul's new strategy has been to assail opponents like Mr. Gingrich, hoping to remind voters of his rivals' flaws.
JAEGER WROTE: Horse. Dr. Paul doesn't have ANY "strategy" other than getting us back to the Constitutional principles. Stop trying to drag him into your mindless cockfight between the Democrats and Republicans. This cockfight is nothing more than obfuscation to keep the public's attention off the major issues like the Federal Reserve System's constant printing of "money" and the liberties lost over the fascist PATRIOT Act.
STRASSEL WROTE: But the bar to Mr. Paul's campaign is not his opponents, or their money, or (a frequent Paul complaint) media bias.
JAEGER WROTE: What a crock!
STRASSEL WROTE: Because he can't, or won't, accommodate his own foreign policy views to those of the nation,
JAEGER WROTE: This may be totally ALIEN to you due to heavy indoctrination from your 1 percenter buddies -- but great thinkers don't "accommodate" others "views." Have you ever read any John Locke, Immanuel Kant or F.A. Hayek? I seriously doubt it, the way your are writing. Check out my five movies, four of the them featuring Ron Paul, five of them featuring the nation's top Constitutional attorney, Edwin Vieira, and four of them featuring Pat Buchanan. All are at http://www.MoviePubs.Net/singles
STRASSEL WROTE: there is only one bar to a Ron Paul victory: Mr. Paul.
JAEGER WROTE: What horse! Ron Paul may be the only way this nation will get back to Constitutional principles, and that scares tyrants and anti-constitutionalists. People and media that proclaim that Ron Paul is doing anything wrong are seriously mistaken.(1)
(1) If you now wish to know WHY RON PAUL CAN WIN, read my article at either http://thedailybell.com/3396/James-Jaeger-Why-Ron-Paul-Can-Win or on the Jaeger Research site at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/ronpaul.htm. Write to Kimberly Strassel at firstname.lastname@example.org or James Jaeger at email@example.com.
o7 January 2012
Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.
Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.
Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.
Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/spamaphobia.htm
| FIAT EMPIRE | ORIGINAL INTENT | CULTURAL MARXISM | CORPORATE FASCISM | SPOiLER |
Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute