Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Ron Paul Gets Important Endorsement: The New York Times

The New York Times, viewed in Paul-friendly racist white supremacist, anti-Semitic and homophobic circles as the 'Great Satan' of the American press, has fiercely repudiated Ron Paul's candidacy, calling on him to "immediately" give "a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication." Right. Nice try, Times editorial writers. Paul supporters are celebrating your anti-endorsement.

You read it here, first. Repeatedly. Especially after NBC News President Steve Capus's tongue lashing of MSNBC news reporters and anchors for accurately reporting Mitt Romney's use in a speech and campaign ad of a KKK slogan in the state with the nation's highest per capita number of KKK groups. This Sunday the 'newspaper of record' finally got on this blog's bandwagon, reporting that "dozens of members of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront are volunteering for the Paul campaign, along with far-right militias, survivalists and anti-Zionist groups. Don Black, the Stormfront director, said his members were drawn to Mr. Paul by the newsletters and his positions against immigration and the Fed (run by Jews, Mr. Black said), even if Mr. Paul were not himself a white nationalist."

Can y'all fake progressive channel's fake 'political analysts' say 'racist vote'... anyone? It should be noted that our friend Chris Matthews deserves honorable mention, cited in the Times article, for extracting from Paul the admission he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act. More often than not, Chris breaks out in journalism before taking a step back for playing Steve Capus bagman. Two lean forwards, one lean back.

Presumably, if a white supremacist group is sufficiently energized to volunteer jack boots on the ground, they'll be taking dozens upon dozens more like-minded Paul voters to the caucuses. Will they be making a fashion statement by wearing brown shirts, too? The Times concludes with an ominous, but rather foolish 'as if' warning. (Don't you know this train's left the station, Times editorial writers?):
"Mr. Paul, saying he still hopes to “convert” these supporters to his views, has refused to disavow them or to chase them out of his campaign. If he does not do so, he will leave a lasting stain on his candidacy, on the libertarian movement and, very possibly, on the Iowa caucuses."
The so-called 'paleoconservatives' and 'paleolibertarians' supporting Ron Paul are theoretically an insult to legitimate conservatives and non-Randian libertarians. The fact remains, though, that these fringe elements have never been categorically disowned by conservative movement elites. How many years was it before Bill Buckley publicly repudiated the John Birch Society?

Yet these extremist far-right fringe elements keep coming back to populate the activist and policy wings of the Republican Party. Has it ever occurred to the Beltway Media that there's less than six degrees of separation between these so-called 'paleo'-FREAKS and conservative movement elites; that the schism may be more a class thing than politics or policy? Seriously, can anyone see Stormfront director Don Black rubbing shoulders with Bill Kristol at a Georgetown cocktail party? Really.

No comments: