PETER'S NEW YORK, Wednesday, November 16, 2011--I first entertained the suspicion that our elections were scripted during the 2000 election cycle. At that time, the Republican primary candidates engaged in several debates, and after one of these, political commentator Dick Morris conducted an online poll. The winner of the debate, according to the poll, was not George W. Bush, one of the participants in the debate. It was, rather, Alan Keyes (62%), the African-American economist. Bush (20%) complained about the poll, and it disappeared from the mainstream media's radar. When I saw this happen, it occurred to me that the elections were scripted, and that as a Keyes victory was not written into the script, evidence of Keyes' popularity with voters would be suppressed. It startled and amazed me, but there it was, in plain sight.
During the 2004 election cycle, we had Bush running against Sen. John Kerry. Kerry shouted that he would kill terrorists, and trotted out his disheveled, and reportedly heavy drinking wife, who compared unfavorably with the perfectly coiffured Laura Bush. My conclusion after this presentation was as follows.
1. The two political parties have a power-sharing agreement: two consecutive presidential terms for one party, followed by two for the other. This agreement allows them each to maintain power and eliminates much uncertainty.
2. The primary method of pulling off the power-sharing agreement is the creation of the flawed ticket.
Do the American people really believe they will be allowed a role in selecting the chief executive of the nation sporting more nuclear warheads than any other?
Some time after 2004, we began hearing a lot about Sen. Barack Obama and his trip to Kenya, the land of his ancestors, as if it were a pilgrimage made by a messianic figure. The media attention was profuse, which is what alerted me to the probability that Obama had backing in high places, and was probably the heir apparent of the establishment.
Obama eventually won the Democratic primary for the 2008 election cycle, and his running mate was none other than foreign policy heavyweight Joe Biden, a long-term senator with deep connections to the Washington establishment.
On the other side of the aisle was John McCain, who somehow managed to magically float to the top of the Republican pack after languishing as the back runner. His running mate was the brash Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, of whom it was announced that her daughter was pregnant without a husband to be seen anywhere. McCain was pitched to the public as a man who could fly off the handle due to war injuries, adding to the potential liabilities of his advanced age. The flawed platform had been crafted. Obama, a man who Americans had heard little of, and who was a first-term senator with minimal experience in politics and foreign policy, but who also cut a clean, unblemished figure, especially with the support of his very mainstream running mate, was smoothly guided into office. After all, if something ever happened to the president, an eventuality more likely to be endured by a McCain presidency, who would one prefer to take the reins of the American government: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?
Of two apples presented, one is normal, the other has a worm hole on one side, a chunk bitten out of the other. Which is likely to be chosen by the consumer? The choice is not so much about the normal apple as it is about the sub-par product.
According to this working hypothesis of mine (I do not claim originality if others have already suggested the same), Obama is once again the heir apparent. The biggest challenge for the two major parties is the crafting of the flawed Republican ticket. And this is where it becomes obvious that Ron Paul is the proverbial fly in the ointment.
If the powers that be could trot out equally anemic figures, each lacking in political traction, the crafting of the flawed ticket would be a simple matter. People like George Romney and Rick Perry have negligible traction nationally. If you happen to notice the online polls during a Republican presidential debate, you will find that Ron Paul is generally at the top of the heap, followed not very closely by the other candidates, most of them languishing far below Paul, many of them embarrassingly so. Let's examine for a moment the last two televised debates among the Republican contenders.
CNBC hosted a debate over a week ago, and had an online poll running on who was the most popular candidate. Ron Paul was winning by an embarrassing margin. The poll was taken down. According to a blog entry by Brandon Smith of Alt.net, CNBC defended itself with the following response:
"We had a poll up from our Republican Presidential Debate asking readers who they thought won. One candidate was leading by such a margin that it became obvious the polling wasn't so much a reading of our audience, but of the Internet prowess of this particular candidate's political organization. We have therefore taken the poll down."
As many commentators have mentioned, no evidence whatsoever is given to support CNBC's conclusion that a magical form of internet savvy won the day for the Paul campaign.
At any rate, Paul is not written into the script, so any occurrence bucking the script must be explained away, however lamely.
Likewise, a few days ago the most recent CBS/National Journal/Wofford College debate also sported a poll, this one on a CBS web page. I managed to save some of the results. Early on, they were: Michele Bachmann, 1,879; Herman Cain, 4,953; Newt Gingrich, 1,973; Jon Huntsman, 1,043; Ron Paul, 4,817; Rick Perry, 1,169; Mitt Romney, 645; and Rick Santorum, 904. The pathetic results ascribed to Mitt Romney are as telling as the high results for Cain and Paul. But later, Paul's results exceeded 29,000, whereas second runner up Cain posted about half that much. The others were, of course, much lower. Unfortunately I was not savvy enough to save those late results, and the network took the poll down.
Surely these polls are telling us something, not just about Paul, but about the cardboard cutouts that are part of the three-card monte game being played with the American public. The ideal slate is one in which none of the candidates have any real traction with voters. With a slate of inert dolls, it is easy to craft the losing ticket. When people like Paul appear who have some real traction with voters, things start to become challenging for the conspiracy. (Now the word conspiracy has been linked by media barrage with paranoia, but I leave it up to the reader to unwrap his mind from that piece of mediathink.)
Much has been done to marginalize Paul, but during this election cycle, the manipulations became so obvious that commentators had at least to trot out lame excuses about why Paul had been so blatantly slighted. These explanations proved unconvincing, and a counter-media blitz defending Paul against the slights brought the issue to the fore for the first time. The more Paul is slighted these days, the better his poll results become, as the slighters' game becomes more evident.
To sum up, why would the media bother to put the screws on the Paul campaign in the first place? Because the election cycle is scripted, the script being to promote the crafting of the flawed ticket, which in turn secures an Obama victory, thus perpetuating the program of power sharing by the two major political parties.