Karen Kwiatkowsky at LRC:

“Tomasky refers repeatedly to hipsters. I remain confused as to who or what these “hipsters” are, this purported class of people in America who have been sucked in by Ron Paul’s rhetoric or slick and polished delivery. That may be because Tomasky is specifically aiming his ire at droves of defecting young democrats who are attracted to Paul’s small government and no nation-building message. Could it be the young statist clinging to the outdated and self-destructive liberalism of Clinton-Obama nanny state is upset to find himself in the political wilderness, increasingly abandoned by his peers and pals? The very trees and shrubs in the forest seem to be singing, “Come down from that socialist tree, Tom-fraidy-cat, and join the Ron Paul revolution!”

I’m just saying.

It’s worthwhile to explain one last spear weakly tossed by the clearly exhausted Tomasky in his [somewhat entertaining] hit piece. He writes, “The idea of virtually no state is just silly,” and he seems to think Ron Paul advocates this concept. The Paul proposal to save a trillion dollars in one year and his “Restore the Republic” economic plan are nowhere near no-state, or even small state. With $15 trillion in debt, and over $70 Trillion in unfunded state liabilities – Ron Paul seems to be saying cut some unneeded federal spending in order to SAVE the state and allow it to make good on its promises to the old, the middle aged, and the young. Frankly, many young people are about ready to expatriate, and give up on saving the republic. In this way, Dr Paul is pro-state. I have to admit, I’m on the fence as to what to advise my own children – stay and take a chance the American republic can survive, or leave and start anew much as my great-great-great-great-great grandparents did.

Tomasky longs for the day when he no longer has to think about “this pestilential little locust.” This particular statement comes on the heels of a mini-tirade about the nature of the free market, capitalism, and how government would be just fine if it wasn’t corrupted by …uh.. well… people. The great unwashed, the gritty competitive and living world of humanity – always so hard to rule from the central planner’s roost, the serfs and knaves always so ungrateful for their naked king. Tomasky is a sliver of intelligentsia, that as Hayek once observed, “need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas.”

Yes, Tomasky is exactly that kind of functionary – limited in knowledge, not particularly intelligent, performing his role. And if I may be so bold, he’s shaking in his boots because Obama will be the last American socialist dictator-in-chief if Ron Paul and his great and growing army of patriotic, passionate, small-government constitutionalists get their way.”

Comment:

Karen Kwiatkowski hits back at Michael Tomasky’s bizarre anti-Paul rant.

Look, I have my doubts about voting for Ron Paul….or, rather, about voting at all. I think a bigger message would be sent if no one voted.  But my worries about Paul are entirely different from Tomasky’s or even Wendy McElroy’s. They worry, from a left-liberal perspective, that Paul is too much a Republican and not enough a libertarian.

I worry that he’s too much a libertarian and not enough a Republican (on certain issues). I wish he’d take a stronger stance on corruption, corporatism,  Zionist fanaticism and an irresponsible public culture (a stonger rhetorical stance, I mean. I don’t advocate legislating those issues). 

In short, I respect the very things most people hate about Ron Paul (his “Republican” and traditionalist positions)….

And fear the very things that make him popular (his “libertarian” anti-police state/antiwar positions).

This is not because I am pro-war or pro-police state. Of course not. I abhor both.

But while Tomasky and McElroy worry that he’s anti-Semitic and racist, I worry that he’s an ardent Zonist  whose peacenik positions make him the right man for the moment when the American globalist phase of empire folds and the Israeli globalist phase begins.

The king (in DC) is dead, long live the king (in Tel Aviv..,,,,or Jerusalem).

They worry that he’s too cozy with corporations. I fear he’s too cozy with the financial sector and middlemen, many of whom are anti-capitalist technocrats and managers who’ve manipulated the gold community and the gold price itself in pursuit of their globalist ambitions. 

They fear he’s stupid.  I fear he’s too clever by half.

They think he’s a rube. I think he plays dumb like a fox.

They call him a batty uncle.

I fear he’s a pragmatist under the rhetoric of an ideologue and that his anti-imperial positions conceal the long-term agenda of the globalists.

Or, that he’s willing to let himself be used by more pragmatic people, because he believes that is the only role he can play. Maybe it is the only role any one can play.

For what other reason would Forbes write so glowingly about Ron Paul? Steve Forbes is a signatory of the Project for a New American Century and on the board of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, both strongly neo-conservative outfits. 

For what other reason would Ron Paul embrace a former AEI ideologue and documented foreign agent-lobbyist, Bruce Fein?

Has Fein seen the light and renounced his career greasing the palms of Congressmen? Has Forbes changed his mind about hitching American empire to the Israeli cockpit?

I don’t see it. But then it’s hard to to know what really goes on behind the public rhetoric of politicians.

One thing I do know though is that Ron Paul has made a lot of the right enemies.  And they’re coming at him from every direction. For me, that’s a good sign. So I wait, hopefully, to see the statesman emerge from behind libertarian absolutism.

Ron Paul might be the wrong man for the job, but, on the merits, he is still a better man than anyone else in the running and doesn’t deserve the public sliming.

But then he probably doesn’t deserve thoughtless adulation either..