Ok, tonight is the big night. With Ron Paul pretty much becoming the favorite in Iowa right now, the guns will come out blazing tonight. Fox News is hosting the debate, so it will almost surely become a hit job. I don't think they can ignore him any longer.
My predition tonight is that someone (Newt most likely) will bring up the fact that he has ties to "anarchists". in fact, this smearing of Ron Paul is so easy I'm stunned nobody has done it yet. Santorum is the only one who has gone head to head with Paul because most of the candidates don't touch Paul. Paul is radioactive and they don't want to give any more attention to him. But now he is gaining steam, they have to attack him.
Also, expect Chris Wallace to question Ron Paul on his adoption of "conspiracy theories" regarding 9/11. The memo has been sent out to the neocons that Paul is a conspiracy theorist on 9/11 when he has never supported any such theory.
Nah, not anarchists. But there is a 30% chance he will be asked about the racism issue (which has thoroughly been debunked even on Fox News before).
I'd love for him to be asked about NDAA.
He will not get asked about the FED. Maybe something useless like abortion or border security/immigration. Throw in a Dept of Education question. Perhaps something about which of the other candidates he would support (which he has recently been asked a lot). Maybe something controversial on family values. Even a question about his age?
Overall, useless stuff. The debates are 100% pointless (alright, maybe 99%, as they weeded out Perry :P ) because the candidates have no time to explain ideology. The best one can do is repeat old platitudes. I'd love Ron Paul to sit down with Mitt Romney and have 6 debates lasting 2 hours each on issues like monetary issues, social safety net, immigration, foreign policy, etc. But ah well. At least the debates are slightly entertaining.
I think your specific predictions are a little off. I think you answered your own question about why they haven't gone after the anarchist thing...part of it is that any attention they give to Ron Paul would be good for him, and another part is the "he's associated with anarchists" angle is probably one of the worst I can think of. They'd be better off going back to the 15 year old "racist" newsletters dead horse. But you're also right in that the time is coming when they're switching from ignoring and ridiculing to attacking. (And of course we all know what happens after that.)
As for the 9/11 and conspiracy theories, they already tried that 4 years ago. It didn't go so well (for them, of course)...
Yep, I was wrong on both accounts. I don't know much I guess
I'm still wondering though why they haven't done that, John. Why do you think that is a bad attack strategy? Most people would be startled by the things they would see on Mises.org and/or LewRockwell.com. Paul wouldn't lose much, if any, support among his most steady base (since they are mostly familiar with such web sites and their viewpoints), but it could hurt his appeal for those who aren't dyed-in-the-wool libertarians. For Paul to win he has to expand his base among conservatives and if he gets tarred by association (again, in my opinion not an association to be dreaded but it is to the conservatives he is trying to win over), it could hurt his short-term appeal, would it not?
I'd love Ron Paul to sit down with Mitt Romney and have 6 debates lasting 2 hours each on issues like monetary issues, social safety net, immigration, foreign policy, etc. But ah well. At least the debates are slightly entertaining.
Well, that's what we're going to come down to eventually. Paul, even if he doesn't wind up winning, will be in it all the way so he can get on those debates. Santorum will drop out after Iowa. Bachmann and Perry will last longer than New Hampshire, but not much longer after that. Huntsman will stop after a poor showing in New Hampshire. So the last few debates will most likely be between Paul, Gingrich, and Romney.
The fucktaded comment by Gingrich on Palastinians makes me glade I don't take this stuff too seriously. Either way from what I can gather this may be all you need on the debate tonight.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/10/in-iowa-debate-ron-paul-says-palestinians-are-not-an-invented-people/
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Eric080:Why do you think [accusing ties to anarchists] is a bad attack strategy? Most people would be startled by the things they would see on Mises.org and/or LewRockwell.com. Paul wouldn't lose much, if any, support among his most steady base (since they are mostly familiar with such web sites and their viewpoints), but it could hurt his appeal for those who aren't dyed-in-the-wool libertarians.
You know why? Because sad as it is, people don't care very much. Think about what it would take to get people to where you're talking about. First of all, someone would have to find a "journalistically honest" way of accusing him. This would actually be a little hard to do. The best they might come up with is Rockwell, and the best link they could provide is that he was Paul's congressional chief of staff literally 30 years ago. Then they would have to get some kind of soundbyte or writing of Lew's that says unequivocally that he's an anarchist. (Again, you'd think that might be easy, but finding something good enough to make the case in 3 lines, for a debate question, I don't think so.) Then they'd have to find a way to paint this in such a way that it in any way reflects on Paul. Again, this would be nearly impossible.
Then you've got the fact that we're talking about one single guy. Who else are they going to name? Who else could they substantially tie to him? Again, they have to have a substantial enough relationship for news (which generally means something with a title), and a substantial enough proof that the person warrants the term "anarchist". There's really no one near that criteria.
But let's continue. Suppose they did take two guys, name them by name, quote them, and manage to craft some kind of question that sounds even remotely relevant. Paul's not a bad speaker, but he's no Christopher Hitchens either. And he would still have no trouble brushing that off like snow off a pleather jacket. More than likely it would just be a wasted question, and possibly even backfire on them...almost like giving Paul a softball.
But let's continue. You say most people would be startled things on Mises.org and LRC. But you know what...the funny thing about seeing something is, they'd actually have to look at it first. And the truth of it is, not many people are going to bother doing that kind of research. And you know what else? Those who care enough to do that, are probably a bit sharper and more aware anyway...and odds are, they're much more likely to pick up ideas before they find enough to scare them off.
I mean think about it. Why do you think you haven't had bloggers and low-level editorial anchors or columnists saying "Hey have you guys seen this Mises.org site? This is the kind of stuff Ron Paul is into. Get a load of this." You don't hear that because (a) they don't know anything about it, or (b) they know enough about the nature of media coverage to know that mentioning it would only bring it more attention...and the only thing you can call attention to and still have it be a total negative affect is some kind of brutal or violent crime. You know all this "no such thing as bad press/ Good press, bad press, doesn't matter as long as they get your name right" stuff? It's true. I guarantee you, these people do not want more people finding out about Mises.org.
The only person I've ever heard come close is Squeak Levin. You know him. He's this bald moron who sounds like an elf with a Napoleon complex, but only more annoying. He loves ad hominem, and hates pretty much everything else. Except for neoconservatism. (Well, his version, anyway). Just listen to him for 5 minutes and you'll realize he'll use anything he can possibly think of to attack whomever he's focused on at the time. You'll hear in that link how he tries to assassinate Michael Savage by oh-so damning tidbits like "he used to push these supplements". (Savage holds master's degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology, and a PhD in nutritional ethnomedicine, and has written books on herbal medicine and homeopathy. Yes, I'm sure he's "pushed supplements".)
If you'd like more on Levin, see Tom Woods. If you look through some of the debate Woods mentions there (also covered on the forum here and here), you'll find a typical fashion in which Levin brings up Rockwell...basically just saying he's a kook.
This is the kind of person it takes to try to perform the attack you're talking about. Basically, it's desperate, it looks desperate, it isn't effective, and in fact may very well backfire to a point at which you actually end up ginning up more support for the guy you're trying to assassinate. That's why you don't see it happening.
If you notice, in the post debate interview, Hannity did bring up the newsletters, just like I implied they would.
vive la insurrection:The fucktaded comment by Gingrich on Palastinians makes me glade I don't take this stuff too seriously. Either way from what I can gather this may be all you need on the debate tonight.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. That article was published 5 days ago. It was talking about the previous debate.
I mean I don't pay too much attention to this stuff - as shown by the fact that I thought that was an edited clip from today's debate.
Which begs the question:
does anyone have a link to todays debate. Preferably mecifully filtered from other candidates BS?
That's an interesting take. The main reason I did think it was effective was that I have been paying a lot of attention to the Levin/Woods debate and was reading Levin's Facebook posts. His fans seemed to associate Paul with "kooks" like Rockwell fairly easily. I don't think it's that hard to see that Lew supports having no state, as do people like Tom Woods. You are right that people have to investigate a little to find this out, but I don't think it's really hard.
I may underestimate the laziness of the electorate and I agree that Paul could shake off the question. I'm just surprised it hasn't been attempted. And I agree that pointing people towards Mises.org would give Mises.org a boost in influence, something the establishment types would rather avoid. It's easier to smear Ron as a racist or a truther or a monetary crank or an "isolationist."
"Either way from what I can gather this may be all you need on the debate tonight" means "I mean I don't pay too much attention to this stuff".?
I don't understand why people cannot just say what they mean. It would lead to a lot less confusion if people weren't expected to decode sentences that mean completely different things.
It's anecdotes like this that support the notion that things like the hypothetical at the end of this post aren't so far fetched.
deleted
Do please help to spread this around (vindication of RP's answer to Bachmann's Iran claim):
http://www.dailypaul.com/193487/msnbc-fact-checks-bachmann-paul-exchange-on-iran-nukes
Eric080:That's an interesting take. The main reason I did think it was effective was that I have been paying a lot of attention to the Levin/Woods debate and was reading Levin's Facebook posts. His fans seemed to associate Paul with "kooks" like Rockwell fairly easily.
Well of course they could easily make that association. They're fans of Mark Levin. They're idiots. And not only that, but they're the kind of fans of Mark Levin who actually follow him on Facebook. They're drone idiots. He could tell them Jewish lawyers from Pennsylvania who have radio shows have been scientifically proven to be impotent retards and they'd flood his comments with "YEA! Wat a buncha retrds!". It's like Pavlov's dog. And what's worse, it's an army of trolls commanded by a troll.
Again, seriously, just look up his name on youtube. Listen to what his show consists of. Yes most of the time his childish namecalling and elementary ad hominem is directed at leftists, but that doesn't change the classlessness and ultimately uselessness of his MO. He does little to help liberty and plenty to hurt it. He promotes statism that's essentially just as bad as the statism he rails against. He gins up fear and anger and hatred that are the fire for more militarism, more police state regulations, and more fascist-directed movement along the political spectrum. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who turned to smaller government ideals because of this guy. His audience is older codgers like himself who already held the same pro-state beliefs. He's not like Ron Paul...he's not about persuading people and building coalitions and relationships that increase the number of people supporting his cause (and ultimately his philosophy). Levin is about bitching.
He's about screaming about things that he doesn't like and calling people names so that he might feel at least a little bit better about the world and his place in it. And that's why he has an audience. He gives a voice to the frustrations of people who are too ignorant and inarticulate to voice them themselves. He comes up with the insults and squawks them out in a nasally screech, so they don't have to. He gets the researchers to watch the news and read the papers so that he can talk bitch about what's going on in the world so his audience (who doesn't do any of this "reading" stuff) can have something to bitch about other than their own pathetic lives—because of course you can only complain about your own problems for so long before people think you're self-centered. You need something political or worldly to bitch about to make others think you have some culture. And Levin provides that for them. He gives them the news highlights in a format they prefer need...complete with the opinion they are supposed to hold on the issue, and the insults they can use express it at the watercooler the next day, without any of that pesky "thinking" or "logic" or "consistency" involved.
Levin provides the service of giving a (seemingly) sharp, reasoned, and authoritative support to the idiotic beliefs his audience mostly already has, so as to help reassure them in their uneducated, ill-formed opinions on things they have barely taken 2 seconds to think about. He's the preacher who makes god-fearing faithfuls feel better about waking up early on their day off to get all dressed up and spend their morning-afternoon getting lectured to, by telling them how much better they are than all the ungrateful heathens who don't subject themselves to the same routine. He offers a reminder of how smart, good, right and righteous his audience is, and how stupid, evil, and idiotic everyone else is. (Which, I guess is what all these types do. It's the same reason Bill Maher has an audience, it's the same reason Rush Limbaugh can afford to buy a footbal team. There will always be a market in making people feel better about themselves than they realistically should.)
That is the reason Mark Levin fans have no problem associating anyone with anything...he told them to.
More good points on Levin. I've heard his radio show numerous times over the years, somewhat before his rise to stardom riding on the backs of Hannity and Rush. I've never liked him all that much. He needs to look up the definition of an ad hominem.
One more thing I forgot is the effect he does have on the rest of the people who aren't already in the choir he preaches to... He creates more distaste and animosity. He creates a completely negative impression in the eyes of anyone who doesn't agree with what he's saying. Actually, I know for a fact there are plenty who even agree with him and still hate him for the way he presents himself, but of course it's even worse among those who lean more left.
And as if it weren't bad enough with his pro-war, pro-police state nonsense, he creates more work for libertarians because in the middle of all his insult-laden rambling, he's attacking virtually all the same people libertarians do (with a few more added in, of course). And so because he promotes himself as a "conservative" and supports people of the Republican Party, it is assumed that people who criticize the Obamas, Reids, and Pelosis, are just like him. In other words, he criticizes those people, and he's a "conservative", so if you criticize them, you must be a conservative too. And you're probably just as much of an asshole.
It's a big part of the longevity of this false dichotomy perpetuated in American politics: there's only two teams, so if you're against the guys on one side, you must belong to (and support) the other side.
This makes it more difficult than it otherwise would be for people who actually believe in liberty to reach those of a Democrat persuasion...because the minute you say something critical of a Democrat, you're a partisan jerkwad. So there's that working against us, and then on top of that, on the other side of the fence you've got "conservatives" who are already in line with fiscal restraint and small-government rhetoric, but who are lured into ever-more statist ideals through Levin's mindless ranting that is sprinkled with things they already agree with. They feel like: "hey, this dude's a smart guy. And he's obviously not some pinko liberal, so even if he's talking about something I don't know much about, he's probably right, and I should probably agree with him."
Again, he's bad for liberty, he's bad for discourse...he's bad for America and he's bad for humanity.
John, what do you think about Glenn Beck? I kind off like him, even though he also bitches a lot.
I don't think accusing Ron Paul of being an anarchist would be very convincing. I mean, he's running for president...
Eugene:John, what do you think about Glenn Beck? I kind off like him, even though he also bitches a lot.
I honestly can't tell if he does more good than harm. You have things like this where he shoved Hayek to the top of Google and Amazon. And you have things like this where he dedicated an entire show to G. Edward Griffin and the Federal Reserve. And you have shows where he informs about the Fabian socialists and George Soros and the like.
But then there's this. And things like this. And instances like this when he mentions the FEMA detention camps on Fox & Friends, and then by the afternoon on his own show he's backing off.
Ultimately he strikes me as a opportunist who happens to lean politically conservative. You can see how he gets caught in trying to play both sides in instances like this. He's trying to cash in any way he can. He'll say things that appeal to libertarians, then he'll say things that appeal to warmongering "conservatives." Then he'll go on a tear-tirade to appeal to Christians and women. Then he'll make ridiculous presentations reaching for the conspiracy crowd...such that Jon Stewart sees it profitable to dedicate what amounted to at least a full show and a half to mocking him.
I think it's this kind of reaching, and back and forth on what he was really preaching, that made his opportunism a little too visible, (again, largely thanks to people who would call him out on it like Stewart) which is why his ratings declined, and he ultimately got kicked off Fox.
He's even gone back and forth on Ron Paul...
Glenn Beck implies Ron Paul supporters are terrorists
Glenn Beck agrees with Ron Paul
Glenn Beck Unofficially Endorses Ron Paul For President In 2012
Glenn Beck "tough choice between Santorum and Bachmann"
Glenn Beck: I'll Support Ron Paul Over Newt Gingrich (12-13-11)
(There's a couple of really great things in that last one. At the back and forth questions/answers right after 6:11, I got this image of this woman being bent over Beck's knee. And then at 6:42 there's probably one of the scariest things I've ever heard in my entire life.)
So yeah. That's Glenn Beck: Better than Hitler. I think.
Glenn Beck is a shill. Orwellian disinfo in its most naked form. He got kicked off Fox because he's really not that talented and just doesn't generate the ratings he sold himself as being able to generate.
Clayton -
It sounds like you're saying Glenn Beck tricked the #1 cable news network into giving him his own show for two and half years.
I don't think you are right about him. He strikes me as a very genuine and honest person. Yes he is not a libertarian and has all kind of weird and inconsistent positions on many issues, but that's what most people have. But I do think he is a genuine person.
@FoolOnTheHill, I don't think people would think he is an anarchist per se. It's the association thing that will make numb-skulls in the Republican party be turned off. That's what I'm afraid of. "Look, he recommends LewRockwell.com. They are a bunch of conspiracy nuts and anarchists! Anarchism = bad! Therefore they are bad! He goes on Alex Jones' show! He has a disfavorable opinion of Abraham Lincoln! Only Neo-Confederates criticize Lincoln!" I think it could be a solid smear campaign, but John has brought up some good points as to why it may not be effective.
But Ron Paul is probably an anarchist, at least in theory.
Perhaps more likely he is sympathetic to voluntaryism and would allow voluntary society had he the support in Congress.
Isn't that the same?