« "Christmas Ball Blues" Leon Redbone | Main | "What are the odds on Bhutto?" Redux »

23 December 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

bob randolph

I watched a 15 minute MSNBC program recently on the Republican campaign in Iowa which went the full 15 minutes without mentioning Ron Paul and with only one mention for Mike Huckaby, and that about his supposedly anathemic Merry Christmas "subliminal cross ad." The Washington Post has flipped out over the prospect of Huckaby's becoming a serious contender for the nomination.

It will soon be hard to ignore the fact Paul is creeping slowly up the ladder as his views become more widely disseminated, and that Hope's second coming is the most gifted politician since Bill Clinton. What do those fellows drink in Arkansas.

Merry Christmas to all (and thanks to the Huck fo making it permissible to bring that greeting out of the closet)


And let's not forget how Cheney used Russert as an accomplice in the VP's disinformation campaign regarding Iraqi WMD programs.

Anyone who has suffered through "Meet the Press" readily appreciates that Russert is a propagandist, not a journalist. And during the Scooter Libby trial, Cheney's communication director testified under oath to the ease with which the VP manipulated Russert to get the neocon story out with the administration's chosen spin.

Why such so-called journalists deserve First-Amendment protections is something I will never understand.


Have faith that the huddled masses will overcome the bombastic duo and friends and elect an individual who will learn to lead us as President of the United States.

Problem though is the bombastic duo will still be around with friends. Now if we all turn the boob tube off during their times we may all win.


It is holiday time. This is for the self-indulgent.



These may be the last elections where these particular pundits have any influence. Anyone <30 hasn't the faintest clue who the Sunday morning oligarchy are nor do they have faintest desire to find out.

As the geriatrics push on towards increasing insignificance those favoured by this <30 crowd (ie. Ron Paul, Obama, Kucinich) will continue to be ignored by these bombasts. The younger generation (if they participate at all) will choose based on the Stewart/Colbert, blog/youtube/facebook campaigning rather than than the lumbering whistle stop Sunday morning dinosaurs.

In short, the days of relevance for the insufferable Russerts, McGlaughlins, Mathews et al. are frighteningly numbered, and your essay only helps to point this out.

(p.s. lets hope there is a grand return of stewart/colbert before in time to return the political fire to this <30 crowd before its too late to have an effect on the primaries/election. Colbert's abortive run should be evidence enough of the weight this Comedy Central institution wields in American politics - one greater in numbers than all of Sunday morning (but much less in terms of wealth or political clout)).


I disagree with Ron Paul on, well, most issues, actually, yet I think it's sad that there aren't more Republicans like him. If there were, we might not have to worry about becoming a police state, and just maybe we wouldn't have to wonder if we're ever going to get out of Iraq.

Kevin K

Chris Matthews did a nice, but short segment with Ron Paul in October.


That intro clip from the debate is great.

Farmer Don

Hello to all, and Merry Christmas from Canada.

We flew down to phoenix a couple weeks ago for the warm weather, and while there saw a group of people with "Join the Ron Paul Revolution" signs getting the attention of passers by. Also so lots of "Google Ron Paul" signs on lawns, (or the gravel that passes for lawns in Phoenix).
Anyway, when this weeks TIME magazine came. the frount cover's theme was, Job still open for Republican Pres. Candidate. In five pages, I didn't see Ron Paul mentioned once. The next article was about trailing candidates who would probably be quitting. He wasn't mentioned there either.
I guess he must fit some where in between!

Michael Murry

The corporate oligarchy for whom the likes of Russert and Matthews shamelessly shill has more to fear in the "resonance" evoked by Republican Mike Huckabee than anything long-shot Republican Ron Paul represents. As Chris Hedges points out over on Robert Scheer's "Truthdig" website:

"The Christian right is the most potent and dangerous mass movement in American history. It has been controlled and led, until now, by those who submit to the demands of the corporate state. But the grass roots are tired of being taken for rubes. They are tired of candidates, like Bush or Bill Clinton, who roll out the same clichés about working men and women every four years and then spend their terms enriching their corporate backers. The majority of American citizens have spent the last two decades watching their government services and benefits vanish. They have seen their jobs go overseas and are watching as their communities crumble and their houses are foreclosed. It is their kids who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old guard in the Christian right, the Pat Robertsons, who used their pulpits to deliver the votes of naive followers to the corporatists, is a spent force. Huckabee’s Christian populism represents the maturation of the movement. It signals the rise of a truly radical, even revolutionary force in American politics, of which Huckabee may be one of the tamer and less frightening examples."

Personally, I've had more than enough of my fellow Americans "resonating" to the choreographed, subliminal gesticulations cynically beamed at them out of glowing television screens. I'd really like to hear of -- and from -- a few who can read, write, and think.

I don't have anything against those Americans like Ron Paul who reside along Americas' third, or "bottom," coast any more than I resent Americans who live on the other two coastal seaboards. Neither do I see any reason to exalt the resentful American villagers of the so-called "heartland" who avidly embrace religious superstion and ignorance and then feel abused when those with real wealth and education divide and exploit them using their own "faith" as the handiest and cheapest tool for the job.

Whatever Ron Paul claims to represent, he won't get anywhere near the Presidency of the United States as long as he has an "R" for "Republican Party" next to his name on any national ballot. That reactionary brand name has discredited itself among the general populace for a generation, at least. This salutary development probably comes too late to save the late Republic from utter ruin, but perhaps some slim hope still remains. Not while America remains stupidly mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, though.


Chris Matthews "Tweety Bird" is infuriating as host w/ his constant interruptoins, asking questions and supplying his own answers, not giving guests the opportunity to reply, but he has his endearing qualities.

he was against the iraq misadventure from the start, has hinted that cheney should be tried for waging agressive wars. he is not a guiliani man, but has criticized the NYT for burying its retraction of the the Guiliani Judith police detail fund story on page 35 while the original was on page 1. He was merciless on Irvin Lewis "Scooter" Libby during his trial.

It was the Russert question that torpedoed Clinton during the Philadelphia debate. Ron Paul acquitted himself well on Meet the Press. The questions presented to him were no less penetrating than the ones thrown to the other candidates. Guliani, the week before was sent reeling. Russert was the star witness in the "Scooter" case- deflating Scooters' concocted version of events.

Both Paul and Huckabee talk about doing away with the income tax. they are derided as kooks. Yet Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax and he was taken seriously. Quite unfair.


Nevertheless, the Col. core criticism of MTP and HB is devastating. The TV programs do not advance any policy discussions. They are not PBS or NPR caliber, or that matter SST :).


Paul was priceless I thought. He had the termidity to stand by his previous statements. At least the one's correctly attributed to him. This strategy (for strategy read 'integrity and intellectual honesty')of Paul's threw Big Tim off his normal game. He did not know, nor does he know, what to do with a person who will reject, or disagree with, the false implications drawn from previous quotes, that Tim hurls like so many thunderbolts from on high, to the guests on his show. Tim is used to hurling the thunderbolts and watching the guest begin to tap dance. Paul refused to dance. You could almost see big Tim saying to himself, 'but this line of attack ALWAYS works!...What the hell is going on here?'. For those boxing aficionados, Big Tim had a look on his face that, somewhat, reminded me of the look Mike Tyson had on his face by the end of the third round or so of his fight with Buster Douglas.

Steve French

From what I've seen Paul is much more popular in the city than outside. Granted Atlanta (where I live) is an extreme case of a small urban core with a large metro area, but I would imagine that most of his eventual vote will come from more urban areas.

Cold War Zoomie

It's obvious why Paul is raking in the money. His delivery wasn't very good, though. Case in point was how he handled the earmarks issue. His position is clear as a bell: the money is flowing in anyway, because that's the system we're working under today, so might as well get some of it for his constituency! Gee, he's a Congressman trying to get things for his constituency...pass the smelling salts! But he fumbled while trying to explain it. He could have done better.

I understand his positions, and agree with a lot of them, but I didn't think his delivery was as strong as some of my fellow SST readers think.

The Katrina quote hit a nerve for me, though. I understand where he's coming from concerning those who have the money to purchase beachfront ocean properties and then complain when the hurricanes wash them away. The poor residents of New Orleans weren't in the same situation.

Most importantly, any one of us could have an honest-to-goodness DEBATE with Ron Paul about what the role of government should be. I suspect he slips and slides around on the issues a little depending on the current political climate. He is a politician, after all. For the most part, though, I think he's about as honest a politician as anyone can expect. And all I ask for is enough honesty to allow a real debate.

Speaking of bloated foreign policy debacles Ron Paul is against...got an offer for Iraq but it's not looking worth the trouble. I thought of our discussions here at SST about DoD contractors during the interview. This position is direct field support of the Marines in "Western Iraq." (They wouldn't get any more specific about the locations). The company is providing operators/maintainers for a Marine Corps tactical comms system it developed. I would be embedded with a Marine unit sleeping, eating and working along side them. Here's the point that stuck out to me: we contractors would provide the continuity of technical proficiency between rotating Marine units. The Marines come to Iraq for six months at a time, but the contractors are there for at least a year. So my job would be to help the Marines learn to operate and maintain their own system, while keeping it running myself, across multiple MC rotations.

We could talk for hours about the problems with that. In fact, the guy interviewing me was retired Navy and we both agreed that there are major, major problems with how the support forces (REMFs) are being trained today. More specifically - not trained sufficiently.

I could go on for hours, but will stop here.

Happy Holidays.

David J

Another example of guiding the American voter was the incessant replaying of the "Dean Scream" by the press.




The powers that be will shift the Stewart's and Colbert's, whomever,to Sun to replace the "lumbering whistle stop Sunday morning dinosaurs". And then the former can go about their business becoming the later.

Michael Murry,

Is the 'corporate oligarchy" really concerned about Huckabee? Or is Huckabee their latest beard?

By the way...did anyone catch the Obama 'foreign policy spokesperson on C0-SAPN this AM? His name was Greg Craig? God, he was terrible. I heard nothing new or enligthning from him. Same old AIPAC bromides.


I could not find that Jon Stewart Chris Matthews interview on either YouTube or the Comedy Central Daily Show.

Cold War Zoomie

And he decried the Civil War, calling it a needless effort for which hundreds of thousands of Americans paid with their lives. He rejected that the war spelled the end to slavery in the United States, saying that the U.S. government could have simply bought the slaves from the Confederate States of America and freed them.

Wash Post Article

Hmmm. I didn't see this portion on NBC's website. I've been reading that he said some off the wall things. The clips I watched were pretty straight forward policy issues - Social Security, foreign intervention, taxation, etc.

The article above says he is not ruling out running as an independent. Now that will be interesting.


My perusing around the hamlets of NH indicate that Ron Paul has a pretty significant rural following too.




"The powers that be will shift the Stewart's and Colbert's...to Sun...And then the former can go about their business becoming the later."

Highly, highly unlikely. Stewart/Colbert are top earners for comedy central, and thus neither the audience, the talent, nor the network would want this to happen. In fact, they have a good degree of creative liberty and financial clout at the network. Can you imagine Meet the Press putting all their shows online a la Comedy Central putting the entire Daily Show archive online for free? this is a whole new beast (for the most part). If anything, these two main streams of broadcast political discourse will only diverge further as time goes on. For example, see Stewarts' progression over the last 5 years - he has become more trenchant in his criticism and conviction. He was almost timid and fawning of the adminstration post-911 to 2004ish, but since then has turned the show into a viable vector of attack against the foolish media and corrupt partisanship.


Chris Matthews being highly offended on the Daily Show (see link below with video included). Matthews has also appeared on the Colbert Report on a few, less memorable, occasions.


J.T. Davis


I would be very interested in your serious critique of Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas, now that we are in the mess we are in, can they get us out? We can only guess how it might have played out if he had been in office on 2001 instead of Bush, I'm not interested in that, but your serious take on his FoPo. And Merry Christmas, Colonel.

W. Patrick Lang

"And he decried the Civil War, calling it a needless effort for which hundreds of thousands of Americans paid with their lives. He rejected that the war spelled the end to slavery in the United States, saying that the U.S. government could have simply bought the slaves from the Confederate States of America and freed them."

Actually, that is not what he said. He said that the federal government could have bought all the slaves they wanted in the commerical markets and freed them. The context would be, I suppose, that if this had been the policy (compensated emancipation)BEFORE the war then there might not have been a war.

Now, unless you are in sympathy with Thaddeus Stephens, Senators Wade, Sumner et al who believed that the South was simply evil and should be scourged to expunge sin, then Paul's argument would seem to have some weight when put in the scales against the awful devastation of the war.

If you are on the side of the Republican radicals in this matter then you should deal with the fact that the northern states had permitted slaveholding until they decided that industrial "slaves" were better found in Ireland. pl


Sorry for the second post, Colonel, but didn't the fact that he Dr. Paul had no idea of the number of troops we have deployed overseas trouble you? And he pretty much said Iran has no army to speak of. That's not quite true, is it? I think I undesrtand the point of your post and second it, and I enjoy the biting sarcasm immensely, but many of us do look to you for guidance in this area and I am one of those folks. I have read your assessments of Hill's and Barack's FoPo. I am very interested in a critique of Paul's. We can all make fun of Pumpkinhead (Russert). He's got it coming.

And a Happy New Year to you and yours, Colonel.

W. Patrick Lang


I am generally a non-interventionist in other peoples' affairs. Mostly I hold this position because of the practical difficulties involved in trying to re-route history in the interventionist way. As someone has observed, I, also, do not think the US is a suitable platform for imperialism. We lack the instinct for it. I tried to explain that to Khalilzad once and he ended by shouting at me in public that I, like so many other "native Americans" lacked an understanding of our responsibilities. He was correct. pl

W. Patrick Lang


I don't think Dr. Paul is much of a "detail" man. I am inclined to think that he has a good heart but would be a bit adrift when he actually had to run things.

I have always wanted Marcus Aurelius to run for president. I am still waiting. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad