Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Anybody Here Seen my Good Friends Alex, Woody, Tom, and Andy?
I just look 'round,, and they're gone.
(Using Anti-war comments section as my default editor.) Justin was discussing "Paulites" v. "Palinites", in view of Walter Mead's typology of Hamiltonians, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonians. Briefly, Paul is a Jeffersonian and Palin a Jacksonian. A little bit of square peg, round hole, but a good rough fit. Justin discusses it as a schism within the tea party, but I don't consider Ron Paul as a TP at all and most TPrs probably don't consider him a member. It's pretty obvious that, while they have taken some of his essence and momentum and re-branded and adulterated it for their own purposes, they haven't moved him any closer to the spider's web, which is why they are trying to move the web towards him.
The consistency and integrity remain his, however selectively his ideas are cribbed. It's only important because Obama has temporarily captured the H's and W's at a time when only the Jeff's haven't been badly discredited. I predict that the eventual Rep nominee will sound very Jeffersonian, because of Ron Paul, whether he runs or not. I hope he does run, in order to maximize his message, but I wouldn't care to see him run as a sacrificial goat; a set up, without elite support, to lose against Obama and discredit Jeffersonianism as "impractical". It would be nice to think the electorate could see through the bullshit that would be piled against him. It would be nice if Santa had ever given me a dirt bike.*
*Hey, Santa, sorry I implied that you were less real than Elite Support. How about that dirt bike?
Can anyone explain why Judge Napolitano is featuring well-known scoundrels, e.g. Rumsfeld, Judith Miller (twice!), Bolton, Allen West (to be fair, he's not a first-tier warmonger like the others)? My first reaction is that this is somehow a rehabilitation of the neo-con stooges, but Napolitano is respectfully confrontational and their answers are, of course, ambiguous denials and evasions.
Thus my anti-thesis is that rather than making/showing the libertarian right as more accepting of the Jacksonian jackasses, it's rather that the judge is showing them that if they behave we'll not dwell on the past and let their talking points expire. No harm, no foul?
The show itself is awesome and 100% Paulian, which is why it seems strange having these chumps on at all. Any true Scottsman would know they were liars, and we already know the lies, so what is the purpose of making me throw things at my tv? It's particularly strange that the show is even allowed to air except as a trial balloon to get as many libertarians as possible onside against Obama, especially if Obama wins, they can say it's because we were "too extreme". (after 2012, we can go back to packing sand, in any case). Luv the show; can't quite figure the angle.