‹ The History of the Anti-Interventionist Right •
CNN crunched the exit poll data from yesterday’s New Hampshire primary and found that “among the 34 percent [of Republican primary voters] who said they disapproved of the war, McCain had a wide advantage over the GOP field — even over Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the sole advocate of a U.S. withdrawal in the Republican field.” (hat tip to Think Progress).
Perhaps such voters did not realize the temporal difference between exiting Iraq ”now” (in Ron Paul’s case) versus 10,000 years from now (in McCain’s case, according to his comment on CBS’s Face the Nation last week).
McCain has rarely missed a chance to grovel at Bush’s feet to support the Iraq war.
Why were so many voters who claimed to oppose the war so ignorant?
amen, bruthren….anyone not voting for Ron Paul is either uninformed
misinformed
disinformed
stupid
sadistic
or delusional
Or Corrupt with defense contracts,,,
It because the American population are a Nation of complete dumb-as**, who watch too much TV and have there heads up their-own ass**- What other nation terms a national sports event “The World Series”????-: this goes a long way to explaining how ignorant the US population is.
No we’re just not a bunch of racists.
So, jf, do you fall into the “misinformed”, “disinformed” or “corrupt” category? Ron Paul is no rascist, but that doesn’t keep the Dark Ones from spreading their lies.
Wow Jimmy, what a reasonable thing to say.
Maybe the ignorance and xenophobia is because Fox is the most impacting of all US news sources, and 60% of American voters watch it. The 60% also includes most of the US middle classes.
Our bodies are what we eat, and our mindset is what we learn day by day through our ears and eyes. Eat Fox, think like Fox. Go figure.
Only 2 million watch Faux, that’s a tiny fraction of the middle class
I saw this too while looking at the exit polls.
WTF?!?
oh did you?
and yes, isn’t it amazing to wonder if highly educated people in Iowa and New Hampshire erroneously concluded, after the appropriate amount of lies and propaganda and irrational jingoism (of course), that the billary group is a peace loving pack of angels.
There is very serious evidence of vote fraud. We’re in huge trouble if our next election is decided by the men behind the vote counting. Look at the evidence:
Pre Election polls put Obama ahead by 8.3%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html
USA Today Exit Polls predict Obama win
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/exit-poll-obama.html
Guardian Exit Polls predict Obama win
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/exit_polls_obama_and_mccain_ah.html
By Machine Count
Clinton: 39.595%
Obama: 36.386%
By Hand Count
Obama: 38.785%
Clinton: 34.703%
Vote Fraud Confirmed in Sutton, New Hampshire
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=655
One man programs 81% of New Hampshire voting machines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Pre Election polls put Obama ahead by 8.3%
USA Today Exit Polls predict Obama win
Guardian Exit Polls predict Obama win
By Machine
Clinton: 39.595%
Obama: 36.386%
By Hand
Obama: 38.785%
Clinton: 34.703%
Vote Fraud Confirmed in Sutton, New Hampshire
One man programs 81% of New Hampshire voting machines
Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire:
http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/boston911truthorg/2008/01/09/major-allegations-of-vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire
Maybe there really is something to the election fraud rumors. How does an anti-war state vote FOR the leading war monger in the Republican party?
I don’t get it.
Was Ron Paul in the NH primary? You wouldn’t know it from the papers and TV.
What’s going on?
It’s not fraud. It’s stupidity.
Your average New Hampshire Republican is so stupid that the last data point they remember about John McCain is that he ran against Bush in the 2000 primary. They still consider McCain the anti-Bush. Bush is inextricably tied to the war. These morons ASSUME McCain is anti-war, because they still consider him anti-Bush.
I’m afraid that may as close to the truth as anything, mainly because very little else makes any sense.
Based on what exactly? I’m sorry to inform you, Fluffy, but you are exactly the kind of stupid American we’re talking about here. You say it’s not fraud. Based on what, exactly? The fact that the votes are tabulated on easily manipulated machines, and that the integrity of the entire elections rests on the integrity of one man, John Silvestro, a private contractor? The surpirse, come from behind, unprecedented win by the establishment candidate? The way the exit polls and hand counts match the pre-election polls, but contradict the Diebold machines?
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
It can happen here, it has happened here, it just happened here again, and it will continue to happen here until more people WAKE UP!
It’s a mix of both actually.
Vote fraud alone cannot put someone from 0% to 30%, or from 40% to 0%. If exit polls had Ron Paul at 90% and McCain at the 0% he deserves, even the most hardcore “there are no government conspiracies” type would have to see something went wrong if the result is what they claim it was.
Vote fraud can and does shift results by up to around 10%. The rest of the vote for the bad guys is largely misinformation (which, of course, is at least in parts the result of fraud as well — fraudulent and holey reporting by the mainstream media), and evildoing (”I can make a profit of nuking Iran, why would I care about Iranians?”).
Stan? Are you serious? Have you actually talked to people about who they support in the 2008 Presidential race? Dude, almost nobody I know (outside of my Ron Paul meet-up group) have even heard of Ron Paul. People vote for who they’re told to vote for, and right now FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are the ones with the loudest voices. It doesn’t matter if the bastards cheat 5 or 10 percent of the votes tallied. That’s been going on forever. Trust me, it’s nothing new. Vote fraud in America is as old as America. The only way for a non-establishment nominee to become President is by landslide. Right now Ron Paul isn’t a landslide, but there’s still a lot of hope. He’s gaining ground every day, as long as his supporters don’t start nit-picking and in-fighting. We gotta stand together.
David Weigel has a nice article on the many missteps of the Ron Paul campaign and the rEVOLution in NH. Add this to the top of the list. How does Ron Paul lose this antiwar voting bloc to McCain of all people? Obviously, this key voting bloc was mishandled by the Ron Paul campaign people. With a few hard hitting commercials on the Iraq war disaster, Ron Paul could have easily moved into third place (and gained alot of media attention) while John McCain probably falls to second (probably dropping out of the race).
How do you know he didn’t get third place? Honestly, I’m asking, how do you, personally, know that Ron Paul did not in fact get third place in New Hampshire? I don’t THINK he did, but I don’t KNOW if he didn’t, because I have no reason to have any faith in the process by which these votes are counted.
I absolutely agree. The Paul campaign doesn’t seem up to the task of informing the people. They need to run 60 second radio ads that say something. All his political life the Doc has spoken the truth, and has been right on. Now, he needs to put this wisdom to the people. He needs to talk about the dollar drop, the stock mkt meltdown, why oil is at $100 a barrel. Why the US has over 750 bases around the world while our own bridges crumple. How both parties have conspired to take our civil liberties. The campaign needs to appeal to dems and independents who are mad as hell at the dems they elected in ‘06. Like a good college football coach, the campaign needs to put Ron in a position to win. Play to his strengths. The US is entering the new dark ages and only Ron Paul has the answers to prevent it. And they need to watch the vote fraud and make a lot of noise about it. This is it, folks. I don’t think we get a another chance to stop tyranny.
There are only 2 possible explanations for this phenomenon. The first is that the people are stupid. The second is that the election was rigged.
As for the first explanation, there are alot of stupid people in the United States of America. They vote based on emotion, the candidate’s looks, how he dresses, the sound of his voice, and many other irrelevant things. They do not vote based on knowledge and objective analysis.
As for the second explanation, I just wonder if we had paper ballots what the results would be. I have a sneaky suspicion they would be different. Needless to say, voting machines can be manipulated.
In any event, the American political system is a joke.
There are only 2 possible explanations for this phenomenon. The first is that the people are stupid. The second is that the election was rigged.
Looks like it might be the latter,,Sutton County 0 votes Ron Paul. Votersfrom Sutton who voted for him called and oh,,,he had 31 sorry, typo
is it not possible that the best way to analyze a candidate is to, first of all, go to his website and find out what he actually believes in and who he/she has picked to be among his staff??? the best way to judge the character of a candidate is to look at his history of voting, his staff and many other relevant aspects of judging character and common decency. why is it that paul supporters are the only people in this country that can make such critical assessments??? we are doomed to be always right.
the.corp.isn’t.going.to.let.Ron.Paul.win.they.are.afaird.of
Paul,its.up.to.the.people.to.get.his.message.out.call.radio
stations.newspapers.your.friends.gas.staions.stores.people
on.the.street,get.off.your.ass.and.get.to.work.you.wontJhon.Mcain.in.By.hell.lets.kick.some.as,we.can.do.it
People are surprised by this revelation? Of course, a large portion of the American people are extremely stupid. Many of us have known about the stupidity of the American people for a long time. This is not news!
Has it ever occurred to anyone besides me that many people (especially with regard to politics) want to be lied to and manipulated? Has it ever occurred to anyone that these people don’t think by choice?
Has it ever occurred to anyone besides me that many people (especially with regard to politics) want to be lied to and manipulated? Has it ever occurred to anyone that these people don’t think by choice?
Yep, and it’s a fact that I’ve attempted to explain to various “American democracy” enthusiasts for a while now. I’m now simultaneously experiencing profound despair and profound vindication. I’ve abandoned all hope in humanity. If people are this easily indoctrinated then “democracy” and “liberty” are meaningless. A democracy can only function when the majority of its members are intellectually as well as politically autonomous and have some sense of social cohesion. Democracy on the American model, based as it is on myopia, patronage, and jingoism, is the outgrowth of a thoroughly corrupt society that teaches its subjects that anything done in the service of Pax Americana is permissible and that “freedom” includes freedom from the obligation to use one’s rational faculties for anything beyond the procurement of basic needs. Democracy, in its plenary sense, can never take hold in America as long as the country is dominated by a culture of conformity that rewards the suspension of critical thought and belittles and ostracizes all those who think differently. The Empire is rotten to the core, and one good kick should send the whole fetid edifice crashing down.
It may be that the responsibility to be an informed critically thinking citizen in a democracy is too intellectually challenging for most people. In that case, except for brief periods of freedom, not only America, but the rest of the world is doomed to perpetual servitude under the heel of a dictator.
I wonder if it crossed those so called “anti-war” McCain supporter’s minds that if McCain has his way those same people that voted for him will soon be joining those troops in Iraq. I they haven’t thought of that then they could be in for a big surprise!
Two things:
1) Most Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, so it’s easy to believe they are also ill-informed about McCain’s pro-eternal-warfare position. Even if they believe they are anti-Bush/anti-war now, most Americans are anti-citizens. They are so anti-intellectual and no-nothingist that they seem to actively avoid learning anything new.
2) Ron Paul’s people are fighting against this mentality, so one can’t expect much progress, it would seem. On the other hand, spending their time running after Fox hosts is a waste of energy and doesn’t do anything politically to educate and recruit people. Smart community organizing means finding leaders at the neighborhood level, identifying and educating those who are sympathetic to the cause, and getting them involved in educating those who look up to them. This takes time, organization, and commitment at an interpersonal level. Saul Alinsky did it decades ago. It works in union organizing; it’s what Barack Obama learned in Chicago. Until people get up from behind their computers and start doing this work, the current crop of Republican and Democratic candidates will continue to win. Learn something from the traditional left.
You have got it so right, Ted. Also, it is not so much that my fellow Americans, especially Republicans, are against war, they just don’t like LOSING a war, like they perceive is Bush’s doing. Maybe, a lot of McCain voters buy into McCain as a war winner.
There is a recent video showing how easy it is to tamper with the votingbox, and throw an election. NH election officials know this, and know how shady is their private contractor, and yet…. If there is to be a future for young Americans, they have got to fight back.
Don’t forget that about half of the population is more stupid than the average person :) Moreover, the average US person is not a genius either..
Isn’t that kind-of what makes it an average?
Two answers. Ignorance and lack of money.
Most Americans are surprisingly stupid. I have read a number of times that at the height of the Vietnam war, most Americans couldn’t even find the country on a map or globe. In contrast to Europeans who are often, bilingual or even multilingual and have studied other countries histories, and travelled to them the average American is ignorant of geography, history and geopolitics. How many American soldiers in Iraq can speak Arabic and understand the culture there? Americans tend to be unilingual, less travelled and self-absorbed. A frat-party beer guzzling weekend in Tijuana doesn’t make you a world traveller I’m afraid.
The other reason is money. Ron Paul hasn’t got it like the establishment candidates do and can’t get out his message as easily or frequently or as far. He is swimming against the tide in a game that is already stacked against him.
In Iraq? Well, let’s put it this way, the US forces thought they were making extensive use of Israeli Arabic language “translators”.
Indeed, how many Israelis in sanitized uniforms were at Abu Gharaib?
Meanwhile, I have it from a very reliable source that the Army language schools had already shifted emphasis to Farsi at least two years ago.
Today my glass is half full.
In New Hampshire, Ron Paul won 18,303 votes.
Granted, I wish he won, but it’s not too bad.
Well its quite simply why New Hampshire residents missed that simple fact, they are all geriatrics, probably are all Alzheimer patients with comprehension, vision, speech and other motor impairments. Its probably not very wise to entrust raving homocidal lunatics such as the Jesus Loonies or dithering old farts who can’t remember their names let alone understand what the damn politician is saying then, with the power to determine the destiny of the US.
How strange, the fate of the country, nay indeed the world, lies in the hands of racist rednecks, barely alive retarded pensioners and insane blood thirsty kill-them-all Evangelists. Wow!
The results of events in both Iowa and New Hampshire validate my long-held cynicism about Ron Paul’s prospects. It comes as no surprise that he has done so poorly and we can expect more of the same before he finally drops out of the race. As a majority here have stated, Americans are both zoologically stupid and congenitally lazy and belligerent. That said, I can honestly say that there was nothing wrong with either Ron’s message or the way he conducted his campaign. The simple (and for us libertarians, painful) truth is that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe in the limited government, non-interventionist, constitutionally- based philosophy centered on natural law and private property rights that is the nation’s foundational philosophy and that is at the core of Ron’s ethos. The majority of Americans are jingoistic, xenophobic, belligerent, and dependent on some element of the State for a significant share of their basic needs, Republican (that’s with a capital “R”) rhetoric to the contrary. It’s past time that libertarians face up to this fact and abandon any notion of electing one of their fellows to a significant public office, especially the presidency. It’s NOT going to happen.
Meanwhile, fasten your seat belts for a very bumpy ride for the foreseeable future. The Chinese curse is in full force: We are indeed all going to live through some very interesting times in the near future.
I don’t blame them. They don’t get news they get infotainment in sound byte form. This is another sign that the world needs Antiwar.com, especially Antiwar Republican voters ;)
Probably the “opposed to the war” question was interpreted, as someone has mentioned, as “opposed to the disaster of the war.” McCain is associated with “really fighting the war” and right now the mainstreammedia says very definitely that the surge is working - that Bush in ditching Rumsfeld and implementing the surge finally woke up and now things are better mililtarily. So it makes sense by this interpretation for the Republicans “opposed” to the bad policies to back McCain.
In other words, we may disagree with them, but they aren’t stupid.
As to succeeding with the electorate. It is quite likely that a majority of Americans don’t favor a libertarian policy or going back to the gold standard, minimal government, etc. So if the only way you can oppose the outrageous current militarism and empire-building is to go for pure libertarianism, you have a hard sell. What does make sense is to ask voters to oppose the extreme empire mililtarism - it would be a great improvement to roll back to say Reagan, or as far back as is feasible - but certainly to reverse the recent trend. It would really be a good thing. It wouldn’t be ideal from say a libertarian point of view but what is happening now is bad not just because a libertarian would oppose it but because almost any decent American should be able to oppose it.
The situation is very bad and very dangerous right now - as antiwar.com does a good job of pointing out. We need to persuade a wide range of Americans that this isn’t a good thing that has been happening. We shouldn’t take an approach which says if you don’t buy “libertarianism” then we don’t want your support for getting us out of this militarism. Libertarians may feel that only their analysis is right but right now, the situation is bad and we need to encourage a wide spread recognition of that.
So what kind of electronic ballot system is being used in NH?
…and what’s with the Siebel Edmonds story continued to be ignored?
…and what’s with that weird Ron Paul Newsletter flap?
(and where’s Paris Hilton at? will she survive without the billions?)
Bovard,
“Why were so many voters who claimed to oppose the war so ignorant?”
Oh, that’s only because you haven’t had an opportunity as yet to teach them what your specialty, liberty, is all about by censoring them at your blog. Its right after that that they’ll start thinking straight, trust me.
Why do the voters make such stupid choices? Or, in other words why do the best people not win? I remember once running for a city council seat. My opponent (who won) did some clever things - like going to the nursing homes and assisted living centers in town and helping the seniors with their absentee ballots. The average libertarian wouldn’t think of doing that -too much morality. Unfortuneately that is Ron Paul’s problem.
The bottom line is that the successful politician prostitutes themselve to get elected. Would Paul turn on the water works (ala Hillary), jabber endlessly like a parrot over 9-11 and global fear (ala Rudy), or get all emotional about “CHANGE” without telling you what “change” he had in mind (ala Obama)? No way - Ron Paul is a rational man of integrity who would rather be right than President. The system rewards those who fulfill some role or need of the crowd and are willing to be molded for that role by clever handlers. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson getting elected today?
Now that you mention it the British Empire and King George aren’t really that bad. Things could be a lot worse, we could be left to the mercy of the Barbarian Heathen heretics that inhabit the wild forests of our frontier. And we can’t let them take this land our Lord blessed us with. In fact the British Army and the fine lads in their Red Coats keep us safe from those barbarians and the thieving back stabbing Spaniards to the south. Imagine if the blood thirsty cannibals that live on the Mexican peninsula came to rip out the hearts of our wives and children, they worship the Devil you know. Or the French, you can’t trust them either, our mighty British Army keeps us Secure from those scoundrels. Do you really want to listen to some fool ramble on about the Tea tax calling us to Rebellion against our King? This is madness! Without taxation who would provide funds for the Army and Navy? We would have no trade with Europe without ships. We need taxation, and the Magna Carta and Parliament give us all the Representation we could possibly need!
Why the results in New Hampshire? Easy, just read the book, “Attention Deficit Democracy”. It explains so much of this.
There are many uninformed people in any society.
However there are many informed people as well.
Most of the informed people who are antiwar do not support Ron Paul.
For the most part, this is because they are neither Libertarians nor paleocons.
The paleocons are not worth discussing.
With regard to the Libertarians:
I was once a socialist, and I am now a middle-aged antiwar Democrat.
Regardless of the ideas I held at any given time, I always entertained the possibility that my core ideas might be wrong.
Do Libertarians ever entertain the possibility their core ideas might be, in any way, wrong?
“There are many uninformed people in any society.
However there are many informed people as well.
Most of the informed people who are antiwar do not support Ron Paul.”
Who do they support then?
“Do Libertarians ever entertain the possibility their core ideas might be, in any way, wrong?”
How can opposing the INITIATION of FORCE be considered wrong once one recognizes that it is wrong, both morally and as a counterproductive policy?
Opposition to the initiation of force or fraud, coupled in a belief that every individual owns their own body are the core beliefs of Libertarians. If you ever came to this conclusion, it would be difficult to ever go back to socialism. You claim to be an ex-socialist, but are you really?
Finally what bothers me are those who are willing to sell-out on opposing the war, because maintaining this or that government benefit is a higher priority with them. That’s why the Democrats shafted their constituents on the war issue in 2006 — because the voters were willing to suspended their disbelief that the Democrats would fail to heed their mandate (ending the war) in exchange for this or that social policy.
Anyone who has followed the Democratic Party frontrunner candidates closely knows that none of them will initiate a fundamental change in America’s foreign policy. You think Hillary or Obama will end the war? C’mon Charlie Brown, you can trust Lucy, she WON’T pull the football away THIS time!
Individuals should be at the core of every human philosophy.
Individuals create social/economic/political institutions. They also create machines.
Neither institutions nor machines should “have a life of their own”. They are either useful to individuals or they are not. If they are useful they should be protected.
I opposed the Iraq war from the start. The Democrats do not emphasize the war enough, but on the whole they are more opposed to the war than the Republicans. The war was started by the Republicans.
The war is a major issue; it is simply not the only issue. I am aware enough of the core anarchist ideas of Rothbard to know I would never support his descendants. I am not in favor of privatized police and fire departments. Anarchy would be the worst possible society.
The consumer, not the state should be the one who decides what is useful and what is not. They are the ones who pay for it after all. You seem content in letting others decide what is done with your own taxes. I think you should be allowed to decide.
True Rothbardian anarchy may never be attainable in our lifetimes, even if Ron Paul became president. That would be something the individual states will have to work out. But how much Federal government do you desire? Ron Paul would cut the size of the Fed first and foremost — a direct and inescapebable effect of ending the policy of interventionism.
Foreign Policy is THE number one domain the President (whoever it is) has influence over, much more so than any perceived needed social programs. If the war isn’t important enough to the Democrats in their campaign, you can bet your bottom dollar it won’t be of any consequence to them when they are elected — when they will have the most power over that very issue!
You want to believe the Democrats will change things. But the only thing they will change is the image of the same beast. If a Democrat is elected and the war continues or worsens (along with loss of civil liberties) what will you say or do then? “Oh yeah just wait in 2/4 years we’ll fix that.” Or for that matter will you say this if a Republican other than Ron Paul is elected? Either way, 4 more years of war will doom America, let alone 6, 8, or 100.
Good grief, you don’t want to vote for Paul because you are afraid of one day seeing privatized municipal services? Ron Paul will have virtually NO influence over something so local!
And who cares about following the Constitution anyways?
This comment sounds exactly like your average Democratic message: It says absolutely nothing.
What are your “core ideas”? The Democrats have seemed to have only one core idea for quite some time: Get elected. They jump on every bandwagon political fad (e.g. global warming, etc.) without ever standing for anything except continued expansion of the federal government.
Um, also reducing poverty through progressive taxation, regulating the businesses and the market, and defending the traditional list of liberal rights, especially freedoms of conscience and speech. Boiling all of that down to the “continued expansion of the federal government” is a little simplistic–the equivalent of saying that all libertarians stand for is letting the poor starve and the rich get richer.
If you have always entertained that your core beliefs may have been wrong, why can’t “paleocons” even be discussed? Antiwar Democrat is an oxymoron. The same crusading faith in government that gives us the welfare state naturally seeks, inevitibly by arms, to create a “democratic” utopia around the world. In that sense neocons never stopped being liberals. Except for Kucinich and Gravel, the democratic candidates are lying about their antiwar credentials. Edwards and Clinton are neck deep in military industrial complex money. Barack is surrounded by war-mongers. They all will maintain a presence in the permanent bases already built in Iraq, they all say they leave nothing off the table against Iran (except Obama, for which the rest attacked him for naivete). Bill Clinton bombed Iraq throughout the 90’s and based on total lies bombed Serbia for 78 days in complete violation of American and international law. Unless you are supporting Kucinich or Gravel you are a dupe if you think you are an antiwar Democrat. The Who were wrong. We will be fooled again and again and again.
Bill, it’s true in one sense that neoconservatives are the logical extension of liberal principles (the emphasis on a certain kind of freedom) to the international sphere. But that caveat, “in one sense,” is important because liberalism embodies a few core principles that are sometimes in conflict. At rock bottom the neoconservatives want to ‘liberate’ people from authoritarianism (which they conflate with the absence of democracy).
Democrats–especially the anti-war Democrats in whom you do not believe–generally want to limit the the promotion of their brand of freedom in two ways. First, toleration: they believe in respect for other reasonable ideas about justice. Second, realism: they have an appreciation for the practical difficulties involved in military intervention. Neoconservatives deny both of these limiting principles, which is what distinguishes them from Democrats.
You never stated who the,”informed anti-war people who do not support Ron Paul” are supporting John Smith.
2008 New Hampshire state motto: “Live Free or vote for John McCain”
I would’ve supported Kuninich if he had raised the money Paul had. Some Democrats just don’t seem to realize there isn’t a viable peace candidate on the Democratic side. I see Independents in NH failed to realize this as well as Paul came in third among Independents for Republicans. So much for change.
Hillary McCain 08. Might as well run on the same ticket.
“Hillary McCain 08. Might as well run on the same ticket.”
Amen.
Over here in central Europe where constitutional “democracy” arrived with conquering armies, folks simply love Obama. They keep asking me whether my countrymen will elect him president. I tell them: No, because Obama is actually a vice presidential candidate. To quote an astute analysis by a famous paleoconservative insider, the War Party plan for next November is to run a dead horse against Hillary. Yes, indeed, the incredible, opinion-defying, digitalized dual “comebacks” of machine products Hillary and McCain in the “Live Free or Die” state probably tell us all we need to know about the democratic selection process. Two cheers for President-to-be Hillary, brought to you by Diebold & friends.
It’s time to face facts. Very few Americans are truly anti-war. They are only against LOSING wars. Furthermore, if the American casualties in Iraq continue to decline, the American people will start viewing it as a “success”. They will have no clue what an unmitigated disaster it has been. This war has already been lost several times over. No future outcome can ever justify the 4,000 American dead, tens of thousands of wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars in debt our children must pay off, let alone the 1.3 million excess Iraqi deaths. But if things settle down to a quiet occupation, media pundits and government officials will declare the effort “worth it” and the American people will believe it.
Indeed, the lesson of this primary season is that Americans will continue to believe in war even without the prompting of these pundits and government officials. That’s why Ron Paul gets only 10% and Dennis Kucinich even less. McCain won NH because the 30% of Republicans ostensibly against the War in Iraq are no so much against the war as losing it, and they believe McCain will win it. Likewise, Democrats vote for Clinton and Obama precisely BECAUSE they hate losing even more than continuing a futile war indefinitely. It’s not so much the Clinton “knows how to get us out” as that they hope she’ll get us out without a humiliating defeat. They agree 100% with Obama in that they’re not against all wars, only against DUMB wars (meaning LOSING wars).
This madness will not end until the pain becomes too great. I fear Stan Goff is correct, that the game must be played through to the end, which will be final economic collapse resulting from our attempt to fight the entire Islamic world on THEIR soil.
Maybe the anti-war-in-Iraq Republicans who backed McCain over Paul did so because they preferred McCain on *other* issues?
Even among Republicans, not everyone opposed to the war is a libertarian!
“Disapprove of the war” can mean one of two things:
1). You really don’t like the war period.
2). You like the war but you don’t like the way its being fought.
Most New Hampshireites chose the latter. They support the war, they just don’t like the way the Administration is handling it. In McCain, they see someone who’s beeing upfront with them in saying that we’ll be in Iraq for 100 years and they believe he was a strategy to win it.
Most GOP voters beleive in the war and have tied themselves to it. Fine then. They can die with it as well. They deserve it.