Antiwar “Lefts” embrace ultra-right Republican candidate Ron Paul By Jerry White and Jeff Lincoln 22 January 2008
Over the last several months, a section of the antiwar protest movement in the US has turned with increasing enthusiasm towards the candidacy of Ron Paul, the long-time Republican Congressman from Texas, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination. With a stable of leading Democratic and Republican candidates committed to the continued occupation of Iraq and extension of US military power around the world, Paul’s promotion of a “non- interventionist” US foreign policy and his criticisms of the Patriot Act and other attacks on civil liberties have won him support from a section of politically inexperienced students looking for a means to oppose the war. The Texas congressman’s maverick image has been further enhanced by the vitriol with which his fellow Republican candidates responded to comments Paul made during a debate in Iowa, when he said terrorism was chiefly a response to US meddling in the Middle East. This was followed by the decision of Fox News to exclude him from the debate on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. That Paul can be construed as an “antiwar candidate,” is a measure of how far to the right the American political and media establishment has moved. It is one thing, however, for the politically naïve to be fooled by his demagogy; it is quite another for ostensibly “left” commentators to deliberately conceal his reactionary politics and perpetuate the fraud that the former Libertarian Party candidate for president can be a catalyst for building a powerful antiwar movement. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/paul-j22.shtml On Sep 9, 7:14 pm, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The path of the lesser evil is evil. Obama represents more of the > same, he represents no hope, no future. > *He hasn't condemned the patriot act and the abrogation of habeas > corpus > *He hasn't condemned the use of torture > *He didn't even condemn the arrest of journalists at the RNC. > > The economic conditions the US are in are to be found in all > industrialized countries, the Bush administration cannot be > responsible for the a world economic crisis, this is systemic, it is > not the result of policy of any single government. > > Forget about my socialist beliefs, these do not enter into the > equation. Objective reality is what is important. The objective > reality is neither party represents a way forward for the American > people, what is to be done is a separate question. Will McCain , Obama > or Ron Paul for that matter act for and on behalf of the people of the > US? No they will not. They will act on behalf of capital over labor > always, but couch it in the terms of unity while it is the workers > that will make the sacrifices, die in the wars. > > On Sep 9, 5:27 pm, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > because at this time he is the only hope our country has for a future > > we must at all costs remove the bush free trade at all cost > > republicans from power if America is to survive ! in a perfect world i > > would have voted for Ron Paul and in fact did vote for him the > > primary . but this isn't a perfect world ! > > > On Sep 8, 7:22 pm, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If that be the case, how can you give your support to Obama? > > > > On Sep 9, 1:52 am, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > i am a critic of government both republican and democrat > > > > > On Sep 8, 11:04 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Mikey, > > > > > > You are very outspoken critic of the Bush administration, and with > > > > > good cause. The Bush administration is nothing more than a criminal > > > > > cabal of gangster’s thugs and war criminals. However you fail to apply > > > > > the same standards and objectivity when it comes to the Democrats and > > > > > Obama. > > > > > > Without listing a litany of transgressions, Obama supports the war on > > > > > terror. The war on terror is central to the Bush administrations > > > > > waging of preemptive imperialist wars in the Middle East. It is a > > > > > bogus, opened ended war that can be invoked indefinitely to justify > > > > > further military aggression by the US without provocation. > > > > > > Obama supports the breeching of Pakistani Sovereignty resulting in the > > > > > deaths of innocent civilians. Obama has supported the funding of the > > > > > war on the pretense of supporting the troops, when any rational person > > > > > knows bringing the troops home is the best support that can be > > > > > bestowed upon them. > > > > > > This alone makes Obama complicit in the heinous war crimes committed > > > > > by the Bush administration, along with most of his reprehensible > > > > > colleagues. > > > > > > Obama promises social reforms when he knows very well he cannot make > > > > > good these promises. The US is ostensibly bankrupt, surviving on the > > > > > influx of overseas investment that is rapidly drying up due to the > > > > > global economic crisis. The Fed cannot continue to bail out failing > > > > > banking institutions; it does not have infinite resources. > > > > > > This scenario is repeated in every industrialized country, as all so- > > > > > called workers parties due to economic conditions can NO longer grant > > > > > concessions to the working class and have swung sharply to the right > > > > > clawing back all the hard won concessions won by workers after WW2, > > > > > including the Dems. It was Clinton that lead the assault on the US > > > > > health care system. > > > > > > Economics and the demands of capital (big business) drive policy, not > > > > > the will of the masses. Ideology is just that, an ideal that needs the > > > > > right environment to be realized. This environment does not exist in > > > > > the current socio-economic set up. > > > > > > Regards Frank > > > > > > On Sep 8, 8:16 pm, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Sep. 07 > > > > > > electoral vote count > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Obama 301 McCain 224 Ties 13 > > > > > > Senate Dem 56 GOP 43 Ties 1 > > > > > > House Dem 243 GOP 192 > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:48 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Obama’s lead in the polls crumbles as he turns sharply to the > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > 6th September > > > > > > > > Well before the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s > > > > > > > Presidential running mate, the Obama campaign had suffered a > > > > > > > palpable > > > > > > > loss of political momentum which elaborate attempts at media > > > > > > > stagecraft > > > > > > > —the candidate’s trip to the Middle East and Europe, the hype > > > > > > > over the > > > > > > > vice-presidential selection process, the convention itself—have > > > > > > > failed > > > > > > > to reverse. Polls show a tight race between Obama and his > > > > > > > Republican > > > > > > > rival Senator John McCain, despite overwhelming popular hostility > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the Bush administration and the Republican Party. > > > > > > > > There has been complete silence in both the media and the > > > > > > > Democratic > > > > > > > Party over the real source of this decline, which has little to do > > > > > > > with negative advertising or the supposed prowess of the > > > > > > > Republican > > > > > > > “attack machine” or the effect of "wild card" Sarah Palin. In > > > > > > > fact, > > > > > > > the falloff in backing for Obama is sharpest among those > > > > > > > layers—the > > > > > > > young, self-described liberals, and those most hostile to the > > > > > > > Iraq war > > > > > > > and the Bush administration—who were among his most enthusiastic > > > > > > > supporters in the primary campaign. > > > > > > > > Obama’s lead in the polls has crumbled as he turned sharply to the > > > > > > > right following his primary victory over Hillary Clinton. His > > > > > > > campaign > > > > > > > faltered not because of a Republican media blitz—Obama continues > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > greatly outspend McCain—but because of the Democratic candidate’s > > > > > > > demonstrative efforts to disassociate his campaign and prospective > > > > > > > presidency from any semblance of progressive change. > > > > > > > > The Democratic presidential nominee voted in the Senate for > > > > > > > increased > > > > > > > wiretapping powers for the FBI and NSA, downplayed his past > > > > > > > criticism > > > > > > > of the war in Iraq, positioned himself as the most fervent > > > > > > > advocate of > > > > > > > military escalation in Afghanistan, and echoed the Bush > > > > > > > administration’s saber-rattling over the conflict between Russia > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > Georgia. He said little about the continued deterioration of the > > > > > > > US > > > > > > > economy, reiterated his support for fiscal austerity policies that > > > > > > > effectively rule out any significant program of social reform, and > > > > > > > prostrated himself before the religious right in a joint > > > > > > > appearance > > > > > > > with McCain at a fundamentalist church. > > > > > > > > None of these positions came as a surprise to his most important > > > > > > > backers, billionaires like Warren Buffett and the Pritzker family > > > > > > > (Hyatt Hotels), other sections of the financial aristocracy and > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Democratic Party establishment. But Obama’s emergence as an > > > > > > > utterly > > > > > > > conventional and conservative bourgeois politician—culminating in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > selection of Senator Joseph Biden, a 35-year veteran of > > > > > > > Washington, as > > > > > > > his running mate—has deflated whatever there was of a popular > > > > > > > mobilization, however manipulated and misguided, behind his > > > > > > > campaign. > > > > > > > > Obama was never the candidate of a genuine oppositional movement > > > > > > > against the political establishment. On the contrary, his > > > > > > > candidacy > > > > > > > was carefully planned by a section of that establishment, > > > > > > > disaffected > > > > > > > from the foreign policy of the Bush administration, particularly > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > Iraq, and the support for it from Democratic congressional leaders > > > > > > > like Clinton and Biden. > > > > > > > > The Obama camp had no fundamental or principled differences with > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > use of war as an instrument to secure the interests of US > > > > > > > imperialism. > > > > > > > Its criticism of Bush was that he had waged war ineffectively and > > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > certain extent needlessly, and that the administration’s obsessive > > > > > > > focus on Iraq had become a diversion from broader global concerns. > > > > > > > Equally important, by defining his principal difference with > > > > > > > Clinton > > > > > > > in terms of her original vote to authorize the war in 2002, Obama > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > able to make at least a limited appeal to antiwar sentiment, and > > > > > > > channel the mass opposition to the war back into the straitjacket > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the Democratic Party. > > > > > > > > The divisions over Iraq were of a tactical character. In the past > > > > > > > several months, however, a bipartisan consensus has emerged, > > > > > > > embracing > > > > > > > virtually the entire political establishment, Democrat and > > > > > > > Republican, > > > > > > > that the Bush administration escalation in Iraq has been a > > > > > > > “success,” > > > > > > > and that the US occupation has been at least temporarily > > > > > > > stabilized at > > > > > > > a level of violence acceptable to Washington (if not to the Iraqi > > > > > > > people themselves). > > > > > > > > Now that the positions of Obama and Clinton on Iraq have largely > > > > > > > converged with those of Bush and McCain, what accounts for the > > > > > > > seemingly intractable divisions in the Democratic Party itself? > > > > > > > As the > > > > > > > WSWS explained during the primary voting, while political > > > > > > > differences > > > > > > > over foreign policy provided the initial impetus for > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
