In 2002, not only did Ron Paul predict the recent future of American politics but he presented his prediction in nearly perfect chronological order:
Hat tip to The Council for the National Interest Foundation.
Newt Gingrich always seemed like nothing but a loud mouth to me. Now, I know why he is not worth taking seriously:
“We have had a strain of hostility to free enterprise – and frankly, a strain of hostility to classic America – starting in our academic institutions and spreading across this country,” said Gingrich, who is also seeking the Republican nomination.
Herman Cain does not seem any brighter:
For his part, Cain also dubbed the protests anti-capitalist and said demonstrators would be better served targeting the White House.
“I don’t have a lot of patience for people who want to protest the success of somebody else,” Cain said.
Both clowns need basic lessons in economics and politics.
First of all, the Western economies are not free enterprise. If the economies were free enterprise, the parasitic 1% elite would be working with the rest of the 99% of the population instead of living off of government privilege. It is precisely the non-free enterprise machinations which are the cause of the economic instability and the unfair distribution of wealth. It is not “the success of somebody else” that is being targeted but rather it is the unfair success and the special privileges afforded to crony-capitalists that are being targeted.
Second, targeting the White House is probably the single most arrogant recommendation that any American politician can make. How the hell is anybody supposed do that? while going to work everyday to survive? and pay the taxes to fund the parasitic elite? That is the problem: nobody can make any positive change in the White House. Those two old birds could not do it themselves and they have a hell of a lot more time on their hands than the average person!
So, Obama wants Americans to believe that printing more money is going to solve the problem created by printing money. I wonder how that is going to go over.
I predict a Hollywood re-appearance of Snake Plissken is imminent.
Earlier today, Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul, the recently elected Senator from Kentucky, told Politico he believes his father will run. “I get every indication from looking at his schedule and hearing what he’s doing that I think he probably will,” Rand said. “But that’s his decision to make.”
In April of 2010, a Rasmussen poll found that Paul was in a statistical dead heat with Obama. The current president edged out Paul by 42 points to 41 in a hypothetical 2012 matchup, according to the survey. Irate Democrats accused the polling organization of gaming its results.
In February, Ron Paul won the CPAC presidential straw poll for a second year. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in second.
I can see it happening.
Wise words from Morton Kondracke at Cagle Blogs:
At a forum on health care reform’s role in the campaign, Republican pollster Whit Ayres said, “this election is a rejection of Democratic governance, just like 2006 and 2008 were a rejection of Republican governance.
“Independents are particularly upset. It’s not just health care. It’s the auto bailout. It’s the stimulus bill. It’s the $1.3 trillion deficit … The problem is not marketing. It is what (the Democrats) did. It’s taking the country in a direction people didn’t want it to go.”
At the same event, sponsored by the journal Health Affairs, even Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said the Obama administration and Congress seemed to get “diverted from the public’s No. 1 concern, the economy,” to health care.
“They made the big mistake in 2009 of thinking that the stimulus was going to bring back the economy. They didn’t appreciate how difficult it would be. People thought the stimulus was just a one-shot and not a strategy.”
There is no question about it, Obama and the Democrats are going to lose and lose big tonight – the next question becomes, are the Republicans going to continue to pore salt into the wounds of Democrats or are they going to take their majority in the House (and possible a majority in the Senate) and attempt to work with Obama to correct a pretty bad situation?
[Here] is the paradox about the fate awaiting the Democratic Party in November: President Barack Obama actually wins if congressional Democrats lose. The President will find himself in a stronger position to face reelection in 2012 if his Democratic Party loses its congressional majority in the 2010 midterm elections.
Knowing this, what are the Republicans going to do next? Put the screws to Obama and their Democratic opponents, or build an opposing (and positive) policy agenda for the next two years?