 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 1, 2008 at 15:22:45
David Brooks Almost Said Something Smart by Joel S. Hirschhorn Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
For a brief moment I thought that the worst columnist for the New York Times and professional panderer for the status quo almost said something smart. He explained why Mitt Romney would lose the general election if selected as the Republican nominee. Brooks said: “The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.” What I first thought smart was the statement that “some would rather remain in control of a party that losses than lose control of a party that wins.” The words flowed like melting ice cream, ready to lick up and savor. But then I started thinking. What both major parties really fear is a nominee for president that would actually work to overturn the political establishment by eliminating the two-party stranglehold on our political system. As partners in the criminal conspiracy both parties accept election losses.
Romney is NOT a threat to the two-party system. He is a perfect status quo protectionist. In that sense, he is just one of several ideal Republicans running for president. Wait, now that I think about it, ALL the Republican candidates fit that category, including Ron Paul. ALL the Republicans would not cause the loss of control by those now controlling the party nor pose a threat to the two-party mafia.
Just look at Ron Paul’s record in the House. He was never a threat to the party or their leaders in the House. By accepting Paul’s idealistic policy positions the Republican leadership placated the Libertarian crowd. Meanwhile, Paul traded votes (and non-votes) to get piles of earmarks and billions of dollars for his district. Paul never even got close to passing any legislation or cutting anything Republicans wanted. Even in his current run for the nomination he has not used clear, hard, explicit language in condemning either his party or the Bush administration for their foreign policies that Paul supposedly finds abominations.
Turn to the Democrats. Those in control of that party would surely prefer Hillary Clinton and any of the others would be acceptable, except Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, neither of which ever stood a chance of getting the nomination. All the others would pose no threat to the political establishment. Even John Edwards would sell his principles to party leaders and would focus on evil forces in the private sector but not their influence on the political system. And anyone who sees Obama as a true rebel, ready to overthrow the two-party stranglehold is delusional. At best, he would only work within the current system to achieve some modest compromises, but not have the guts to disassemble it. I still maintain that the power elites want and will get a Clinton-Obama ticket.
This corrupt two-party world that I see is hopeless unless New York City Mayor Bloomberg decides to use some of his wealth to run as a third party candidate for president. Every American that sees the current two-party political establishment as the key root problem should embrace his candidacy. But only if he has the courage to vociferously speak out against the two-party establishment.
www.delusionaldemocracy.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 5 comments |
|
Liar
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Inappropriate Content) Inappropriate Content
This guy is a pathetic liar. He has been pumping out propaganda all year. Just do a google search on his name. Meanwhile, Paul traded votes (and non-votes) to get piles of earmarks and billions of dollars for his district. NAME ONE VOTE HE TRADED YOU LIAR. by Tom Davis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 4:27:03 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Shame on Paul's supporters
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Slanderous) Slanderous What a disgrace are all those many cult-like followers of Paul that flood the web with nastiness, ugly threats, and insults. Paul always conducts himself with dignity and it is his granfatherly demeanor that is very attractive. But the ugliness of his supporters says something very, very negative about the type of people he has attracted. Not the brightest, not courteous people, not people who have sincerely dug into his total background, not people to be proud of. We are sick of all you nuts invading our good-spirited websites. by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 4:48:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Wrong
Tell me that comment doesn't reek of propaganda. I'm an Obama supporter. But if Clinton wins, I want Paul to beat her. I don't mind an Obama/Paul race. Name one vote Paul "traded for earmarks". If you can't, you are a liar. Plain and simple. And liars should be ridiculed. Show you aren't a liar and tell us. by Tom Davis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 6:34:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Oh, I get it
You're MAD because Dr. Paul is actually DOING what you write in your novels about. Isn't that CUTE! I can understand jealousy of such a great man (hey aren't we all) but your energies would be better spent SUPPORTING Dr. Paul. He is going to bring about just syuch a change as you envision by reducing the number of federal laws that favor corporations. by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 7:23:08 PM (0+)
|
|
some thoughts
Joel: Meanwhile, Paul traded votes (and non-votes) to get piles of earmarks and billions of dollars for his district. by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 6:10:33 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
