Posted by
Charles Lewis on Sunday, February 10, 2008 12:01:25 PM
by Charles R Lewis
This Saturday wasn't all that "Super" for the McCainchurian McCaindidate.
John McCain was fresh off his virtual coronation week. "Super Tuesday" had given him a little over 700 of the required 1200 delegates he needs for the GOP presidential nomination, which, according to the fuzzy math of the evidently government-schooled "pundits," left him 1 short of clinching. He'd also garnered the fear-factor-based, hold-your-nose "endorsements" of folks some of us had been gullible enough to think were genuine conservatives - from G Gordon Liddy to Mike Gallagher to Jim DeMint to Tom Coburn to John Bolton to (ambiguously, anyway) Pat Buchanan. And two of his three GOP opponents (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul) had thrown in the virtual towel.
Armed with this momentum, how did John fare in the three states deciding "Super" Saturday? Well, Mike Huckabee beat his posterior all up and down the field in the Kansas "cauci" like Mike was the New England Patriots taking out their Super Bowl frustrations on the New York Football Giants. And Huck conjured images of his native south's NCAA victory (LSU's), as well, defeating McCain in that college's state's primary as well.
McCain's consolation prize was the Washington state caucus, which he "won" with all of 26% - in what amounted to a 2-man race. (Ron Paul - who'd pretty much conceded the day before - got 21%.)
Ever notice that when the venue has the transparency of a caucus (as opposed to the bathed-in-darkness questionability of one form of mechanical count or other), Paul's tallies always seem to go up by a factor of 4 or 5, while McCain's (the ultimate socialist in a supposedly conservative party) are generally cut in half? Even after the self-fulfilling polls have (doubtless, to an extent, at least) depressed the former and augmented that latter?
Some of you out there probably believe there's nothing fishy about that. Then again some of you wouldn't find anything fishy about the Baltimore Aquarium. I, you see, am the designated aluminum hat model in this election cycle; you McCoolAid drinkers get a pass.
Any time I hold forth like this on how Ron Paul's vote totals are evidently being suppressed, I have a fetish about making the following clear:
I don't agree with Jane Fonda on 'Nam, Ward Churchill on 9/11, or Al Sadr on Iraq. I don't channel Neville Chamberlain on Taiwan, I'd never get 67% ratings from the ACLU & NEA. Nor do I think Dennis Kucinich was a better candidate than Tom Tancredo, want to legalize dope and
prostitution, oppose the marriage amendment, favor gays in the military,
advocate a virtual fence, like drivers licenses for invaders, oppose punishing invader employers, or accept the idea of in-state tuition for them. Plus my feelings on the border agent political imprisonments go far beyond simply thinking "a year is
enough" punishment for having dared to do jobs well. And, no, I don't reel off
shopworn communist propaganda phrases to describe our kowtowing, teetering country
("imperialist") and our troops and arms industry which have been the only things
keeping us free all these years ("military industrial complex").
There, I got it off my chest. (I often say the Paul phenomenon is like meeting a hot woman, hitting it off with her and falling head over heels, then discovering "she's" a drag queen.)
The fact that Ron Paul's pronouncements indicate he differs diametrically from mine on the matters referenced above are why the 20-25% of conservative support he in reality enjoys would never have grown much larger. And the fact that his positions on these issues are pretty much identical to those of B Hussein Obama mean they wouldn't help him much (in some hypothetical 3rd party bid) with libs, either (they'd generally much prefer Obama's complete hardcore socialist agenda over Paul's bizarre amalgam).
But, then again, Paul's also the only candidate (among those still getting substantial votes) who (in theory, at least) would get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US, stop the US-Canada-Mexico merger (and its ubiquitous manifestations), reject the devastating Law of the Seas Treaty, restore the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, allow domestic oil production, shut down the IRS (I know what you're thinking, but who trusts a Huckster?), preserve access to vitamins, minerals, and herbs, allow parents to opt their kids out of "mental health screening" (and mandatory drugging), put an end to "anchor baby" amnesty, end social programs for illegals, gut the welfare state, introduce a "personhood from conception" bill, or appoint Roy Moore types to the Supreme Court.
Certainly any establishment type gaming the countless eminently and demonstrably hackable Diebolds (or otherwise miscounting primary votes) wouldn't cotton to any of that.
The Save America Summit - which seeks to rally the various rightist 3rd parties (along with the countless disaffected conservatives in the GOP, and whatever similarly disgusted counterparts they may have among independents and Democrats) behind a single ticket (we have a pretty attractive pool of suggested names) in this urgent, and likely terminal, election cycle in America.
We'll need to get to the bottom of this possible election fraud issue (and intend to try), but an educated electorate will know that "McHillabama" consists of 3 dyed-in-the-wool socialists. We're willing to wager that a plurality of Americans - in a 3-way race and a fairly administered election - wouldn't want to plunge America (already socialist in so many ways) into the nightmare of abject Marxism.
The end is in God's hands. Meanwhile, we should not just sit on ours.