“Strange Bedfellows” Edition

Written by  //  November 8, 2007  //  Fucked-Update  //  5 Comments

Oh, How I Love/Hate Ron Paul
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul broke fundraising records this week when he raised 4.2 million dollars in 24 hours.  That’s some serious cash.  What is, perhaps, more impressive is that the money came from more than 37,000 donors.  That’s a lot of supporters for someone who seemed like a long-shot a few months ago–and those are supporters who put their money where their loyalties are.  I’m always encouraged by mass political action, whether or not I agree with the intent of the action in question.  In this day and age, it’s just nice to see that many people caring about something.  These contributions will make it possible for Paul to stay in the race, but it’s still unlikely he’ll end up in the top 3. 

I developed a big fat political crush on Ron Paul several months ago when he stood up at a Republican debate and said that he thinks 9/11 was the result of America’s mid-east policy.  I was impressed that he would make such a bold statement in a Republican forum, but he did it, and he did so fearlessly.  In almost every Republican debate since then, he has shown up at least one of the candidates with his unabashed honesty.  It’s refreshing.

The problem is, for all of his talk about defending civil liberties,
he remains firmly anti-choice and voted to ban gay adoption.  He voted
against a federal gay-marriage ban, but believes that the states should
decide for themselves whether or not to legalize same-sex marriages and
civil unions.  He also wants to abolish all government agencies, like
the IRS and the Department of Education, and  he opposes universal
health care.   He is, in many ways, a classic Republican, which I found
both appealing and repulsive. The fascinating thing is,  many
progressives are being  drawn in by his  anti-war platform. Sure,
he’ll end the war, but what will we lose in return?

So, I know I won’t vote for him, and I strongly challenge
progressives who are willing to compromise women’s rights, gay rights,
and universal health care for the sake of ending the war to re-think
their position on Paul.  He’s one of the only candidates that I think
is a truly decent guy (in spite of some of his more offensive political
views), but in the end it just doesn’t sit right for me.   However, in
our current political climate,  how many voters will make their
decision based on one issue rather than looking at the bigger picture?

Pat Robertson Hearts Rudy "9/11" Giuliani

The resemblance is uncanny.

In late September, Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson announced he would support a 3rd party
candidate if Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.  Why would
he do that?  Why, because Giuliani’s pro-choice. Apparently that
doesn’t bother 700 Club fruitcake Pat Robertson who has recently announced his support
for Giuliani. Yes, this is the same Pat Robertson who called for the
assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.  The same Robertson
who  said , "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a
socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to
leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
capitalism, and become lesbians."

Yes, even the same Robertson who agreed with the late Rev. Jerry
Falwell that the 9/11 attacks were brought on by Americans who support
feminism, homosexuality and abortion.  What. A. Guy.

So why would Robertson, a major figure in the "values voter"
movement, support a pro-gay, pro-choice, candidate with multiple
divorces and a history of cross-dressing?  Because Giuliani loves
war–he’s just chomping at the bit to have the opportunity to bomb the
fuck out of the Middle East (no seriously…read his Foreign Affairs article). And Fundamentalist Christians love that shit.  Why?  Because it fits into their apocalyptic non-prophesies. 

I’m sort of hoping that Robertson’s inflammatory comments about 9/11
come to haunt Giuliani.  I mean, since Mayor Rudy’s entire presidential
platform rests on a single tragic event, I’d think it would be bad to
associate with someone who blamed the attack on…you know…lesbians,
of all things.

What Mainstream Media Will Never Tell You….
So, every year, Project Censored releases a list of the top 25 censored stories of the year.  The new list is up and it contains articles on the following  topics:

# 1 No Habeas Corpus for "Any Person"
# 2 Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

# 3 AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa’s Resources
# 4 Frenzy of Increasingly Destructive Trade Agreements
# 5 Human Traffic Builds US Embassy in Iraq
# 6 Operation FALCON Raids
# 7 Behind Blackwater Inc.

# 8 KIA: The US Neoliberal Invasion of India
# 9 Privatization of America’s Infrastructure
# 10 Vulture Funds Threaten Poor Nations’ Debt Relief
# 11 The Scam of "Reconstruction" in Afghanistan
# 12 Another Massacre in Haiti by UN Troops

# 13 Immigrant Roundups to Gain Cheap Labor for US Corporate Giants
# 14 Impunity for US War Criminals
# 15 Toxic Exposure Can Be Transmitted to Future Generations on a "Second Genetic Code"
# 16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

# 17 Drinking Water Contaminated by Military and Corporations
# 18 Mexico’s Stolen Election
# 19 People’s Movement Challenges Neoliberal Agenda (Free Trade through Central and South America)
# 20 Terror Act Against Animal Activists

# 21 US Seeks WTO Immunity for Illegal Farm Payments
# 22 North Invades Mexico
# 23 Feinstein’s Conflict of Interest in Iraq
# 24 Media Misquotes Threat From Iran’s President
# 25 Who Will Profit from Native Energy?

Go read it.  It’s awesome.

About the Author

Team Donnybrook

In Snob we trust.

View all posts by

5 Comments on "“Strange Bedfellows” Edition"

  1. Cassie November 8, 2007 at 4:50 pm · Reply

    “Go read it. It’s awesome.”

    if awesome is what the kids are saying when they mean “wrist-slittingly disillusioning” then yeah. awesome.

    sigh.

  2. Nina November 8, 2007 at 4:51 pm · Reply

    Love him or hate him, his support group sure does have a big internet presence. Check out this haiku/illustration on just this phenomena: http://ourstereo.com/haikuforyou/2007/10/31/0071-the-ron-paul-army/

  3. Toastface Killa November 9, 2007 at 10:03 am · Reply

    Ron Paul is a more terrifying candidate to me than any other Republican nominee because of the fact that he holds one tiny position that those disgusted with the war will agree with. The only reason his anti-war stance even draws attention is because the rest of the GOP have become interventionist Democrats for the sake of “Homeland security.”

    The fact is Paul is a Libertarian at heart and wants to dispose of most governmental institutions. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s pretty neat that we have things like public schools, social security for those who can no longer work, etc. Paul is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    Robertson doesn’t care about Guiliani’s positions–he wants to go with a winner and he sees Rudy as the most likely nominee. For all of Pat’s hateful, close-minded rhetoric, he still wants to be on the winning team when all is said and done. That and he’s a self-hating closeted homosexual, right? His winning ‘team’ undoubtedly includes Senator Craig.

    Bottom line: most pundits believe this is Clinton’s election to lose. Guiliani’s 9/11 quips won’t be enough to get him into the White House, provided that Hillary doesn’t shoot herself in the foot first.

  4. Cap'n Colleen November 9, 2007 at 10:14 am · Reply

    I agree that Paul is scary. I think part of the reason why he scares me so much is because when I listen to what he says about the war–especially when he’s standing on a stage with all the Republican candidates–I agree with him. Then I realize that I’m half-heartedly supporting someone based on one issue, when everything he says about all the other issues scares the shit out of me. And I think as people jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon he could prove to be an actual threat, because die-hard progressives, like me, have gotten so sick of the war that he seems appealing if you ignore his position on all the other issues. Single-issue voting is always a bad idea…even if the single issue is an important one.

    As for Robertson and Giuliani, I think it’s a power thing. I tend to see Robertson, not as a religious leader but as a demagogue. He wants the power. If he thinks kissing Giuliani’s ass will give him more power, then he’ll be happy to do it. I also think that Giuliani’s frightening foreign policy positions are more important to him than any social issue could be so in the end he’ll probably sell out any potential liberal views of women’s rights or gay rights in order to be granted the authority to bomb the fuck out of the middle east.

  5. Irving J. Silvertoad November 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm · Reply

    I didn’t realize RuPaul was running for anythinga at all. She looks very different without her makeup on.

Leave a Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

comm comm comm