Neocons Luck Out With Terrorist Distraction From Their Des Moines Disaster

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 01 July 2007 03:17.

Neocon Nightmare, Ron Paul filled his 1000 seat room to capacity in Des Moines as the other GOP presidential candidates at the “conservative” forum from which Paul was excluded drew just 600 leaving 200 seats empty.

The only thing they can really do now is try to rely on media silence—a task aided immensely by the terrorist attacks across the pond—and the Des Moines Register did everything it could to help the necons there, refusing to mention Paul’s capacity crowd but reporting on the flopped forum of “conservatives” next door…

Here’s the Des Moines Register “reporting” for your laughter:

GOP candidates court Iowa conservatives
THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

June 30, 2007
2 Comments

Six Republican candidates for president appealed to a key group of Iowa GOP activists in the leadoff caucus state today, each trying to position himself as the right combination of fiscal and social conservative.

Participants in a Des Moines forum included several of the crowded field’s lesser-known candidates, some of whom took subtle jabs at former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Iowa leader in recent polls of GOP caucusgoers.

“I did not become pro-life because of politics,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told the more than 600 GOP stalwarts at the forum put on by Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance.

The comment echoed former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson’s comment earlier: “I didn’t become right-to-life on the road to Des Moines.”

Romney, who also attended the forum, has faced doubts from some conservative voters and criticism from opponents for changing his position from supporting abortion rights to opposing them.

Strong opposition to abortion rights is vital for some socially conservative Republicans, an influential bloc of Iowa’s GOP caucusgoers.

“Conservatism doesn’t need an adjective. It needs a leader,” U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo said. “It needs a leader who will oppose abortions, not just because Iowa caucusgoers oppose abortions.”

Also participating in the forum were Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain were absent from the forum.

Romney has said an awakening in 2004 cemented his opposition to abortion rights.
Romney has told anti-abortion audiences that it is less important when he arrived at the position than the position itself. But he made no mention of the change during his remarks to the forum.

Instead, Romney was one of the few candidates today who brought up President Bush’s name, specifically praising the embattled president for his terrorism-fighting strategy and appointment of Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts.
“This president has done some great things,” he said. “I know it’s very popular these days to criticize him.”

In referring to Bush’s high court picks, Romney made only passing reference to his own position on abortion.

“It is essential that we have a Republican president who is pro-life and pro-family and pro-strong military,” he said.

Alina Severs of Clarksville said she thought Huckabee and Tancredo were more impressive than the others, “because of their strong commitment to God’s principles.”
The 23-year-old lobbyist said Romney was “impressive,” but did not seem as convincing as some of the others.

“He’s a good speaker, but he didn’t come across as committed to conservative standards as I had hoped,” she said.

The event was the 2008 campaign’s second multi-candidate event in Iowa.
The candidates had 20 minutes to speak and were asked to answer specific questions about gay marriage, immigration, stem cell research, as well as taxes and spending.

The mood at the event was polite and reserved. More than 100 of the roughly 800 seats stayed empty throughout the forum, and more than 100 emptied after Romney finished speaking, two-thirds of the way through the event.

Those who stayed cheered loudest, giving the forum’s most exuberant ovations to Tancredo and Hunter after their comments criticizing the recently defeated attempt in Congress to allow illegal immigrants to attain legal status.

“I’m going to build that fence in six months,” Hunter said about improving security on the U.S. border, to a standing ovation.

Giuliani was campaigning in California and Louisiana, aides said. McCain was in his home state.

Both rank near the top of national polls and have emphasized spending restraint in their campaigns, but their positions on some issues give some conservatives pause.
Giuliani supports abortion rights and gay rights, while McCain backs legislation providing a means for illegal immigrants to become citizens.

Giuliani and McCain decided last month not to participate in Ames straw poll, a traditionally important first test of organizing strength for the caucuses.

Brownback drew the distinction with the politically active audience.

“I’m not going to skip Iowa and I’m going to fully participate in the straw poll in Iowa,” Brownback said.

— Reporter Jason Clayworth contributed reports to this article.

CONVERSATION STANDARDS
The Register’s standards: What we’ll allow, what we won’t

From the editor: Inviting robust conversation, but spelling out a few rules

Add Comment | View All Comments

Ron Paul Posted by: goshen
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:07 pm
Why wasn’t Ron Paul mentioned in the Iowa Presidential Candidate forum article? His rally had more people than the forum. If there is nothing mentioned in another article this is an example of poor journalism on the part of the Register.
What a joke. Posted by: Spirit of ‘76
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:56 pm
OK, so you’ve published a story about this forum that drew about 600 people.

I sure hope you give equal treatment to the Ron Paul rally next door that drew TWICE as many.

Thanks!

An update:

After an outpouring of sardonic comments from the online community, the Des Moines Register finally decided to cover the Ron Paul coup. I guess they were getting the idea that, as one reader put it, “this is why newspapers are losing circulation”. The DMR did what it could to downplay the event—drastically underestimating the number attending and calling them a “flock”—implying they’re “sheep”. Meanwhile, WHO radio, the main broadcast radio station for the Des Moines area, claimed that Paul was able to draw so many because he offered them “free food”. All of this merely enrages the “sheep” under Machiavelli’s Rule. The humor never stops.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by OuterPartyMember on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:29 | #

James, when you write posts that mention Ron Paul, it brings new visitors to the site because the find the posts on blog search.

Posted by Rudy Gee on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:30 | #

Sorry I missed the forum. Lots of EVIL TERRORIST to fight today. Rough day at the office. Hey, I’m glad they didn’t mention that Ron Paul had more people than all the other candidates combined. I HATE when they do that. Oh, and the Clickz.com report that in May Ron Paul’s website, http://www.RonPaul2008.com got t,he most traffic (27%) of ALL the GOP websites (even beating out Rudy?). Well, that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, and I’ve heard alot of ridiculous things about…well never mind. Oh, I simply can’t stomach that Ron Paul’s going to go over 20,000 subscribers in the next day or two, and 1.4 Million views on his YOUTUBE channel, http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom (that’s more than 12,000 subscribers more than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE, from ANY PARTY). Sound to me like this is a case of….INTERNET TERRORISM! The mainstream media and politicians HATE Ron Paul…what is it that they HATE. I know this for sure… http://www.IHateRonPaul.com - “...they hate us for our FREEDOM!”

Posted by Matra on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:52 | #

Ron Paul appears to be a paleolibertarian. I used to read the Rothbard/Rockwell Report back in the early 90s. I eventually rejected the paleolib argument because all they are interested in is the state. They’ll happily embrace race replacement as long as the state isn’t the driving force behind it.

At lewrockwell.com they purged Bob Wallace for mentioning the JQ and black IQ levels. Just read the pro-race replacement articles at that site by the likes of Ryan McMakin - part Mexican - and Anthony Gregory - most definitely not a Mayflower descendant and they’ve printed Tibor Machan’s pro-immigrant nonsense.

Even during the recent anti-immigration uprising in the conservative ranks (ie. GOP primary voters) Ron Paul seemed to go out of his way not to talk about the issue. In the last debate he even whined that the illegals were scapegoats. Wrong. They are foreign colonist invaders who deserve no sympathy.

To the paleolibertarians white solidarity is just another form of collectivism. And since collectivism leads to statism WNism is just as bad as neoconservatism in their eyes.

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:42 | #

Well done, Matra. You win this week’s “we can’t have everything at once, so let’s sit on our fannies feeling above it all and grumbling about those non-purists” award for blogging wankers.

Go Ron! Death to RINOs!

Posted by Matra on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:15 | #

Lurker (Mk II):

Well done, Matra. You win this week’s “we can’t have everything at once, so let’s sit on our fannies feeling above it all and grumbling about those non-purists” award for blogging wankers.

Go Ron! Death to RINOs!

Vote for libertarianism all you like. Perhaps you’d like to explain why Ron Paul rarely talks about immigration even on weeks when it is the single biggest issue in US politics! I could have told you why back in 1994 but I’ll let you discover for yourself that libertarians and all other members of the Capitalist First lobbies are neutral, at best, on the survival of the white race.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:43 | #

You idea of “libertarian” does not provide any real room for national sovereignty. This is not real libertarianism but pseudolibertarianism promoted by Jews who want open borders for the tired old reasons they always want open borders.

Territory is a property right—the most essential one of all.

Tancredo has been taking the hits on immigration that will always injure people on the Republican side. This has let Paul escape relatively unscathed. Once Tancredo goes down, Paul will take the immigration hits that were being taken by Tancredo.

Posted by Salopian on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:02 | #

Ron Paul unites us all from Sailer to Stormfront.

Well, all except Matra…

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:24 | #

Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo for president is nonsense. The corporations would wreck the economy thereby discrediting third,fourth,fifth parties for a long time.

What is a very viable idea is: many more people like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo and others in congress. This is where we need legitimate immigration reformers.

Even better would be to put a lot more people in the congress and state legislatures who are pro-white, anti-interventionist and anti-legalization of homosexual marriage.(where does Ron Paul stand on this issue).

I don’t like single issue politics. For example, Tom Tancredo is very good on illegal immigration(is he in favor of shutting off all non-white legal immigration?) But he s a major supporter of killing Euro-Christian teenagers to further Isareli Kike bastard interests..

It really is shocking to see people who are White Nationalist cut Tom Tancredo slack on the Isareli kike issue. Killing Euro-American teenagers on behalf of Israeli kies should be unacceptable to every White American nationalist.

Posted by Amalek on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:33 | #

Ron Paul is by far the optimal choice for conservatives.

‘Libertarian’ is a label stuck on him by RINO-fans to scare off the dopey and uncommitted. Paul’s line on immigration, border control and nationality is like Hoppe’s, soundly based on citizenship as a property right.

It troubles me little that Paul might not want to use the bludgeon of the State and Federal courts to enforce social conservatism. The USA was a damn sight less libertine when its citizens had more economic responsibility for themselves and their families. Decadence and economic helotry go together.

Waiting for a candidate with the ghost of a chance who can punch every one of your million and one white nationalist buttons? You’ll wait for ever.

Ron Paul in the White House: a start.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:04 | #

Waiting for a candidate with the ghost of a chance who can punch every one of your million and one white nationalist buttons?

I’m not asking for that. I’m asking that he talk about immigration when it is the hottest topic and a vote-winner. Instead he uses his debate opportunity to talk about the scapegoating of illegals.

Neither Paul nor Tancredo will win. But as there’s no light between Tancredo and the others on the main issues except one a vote for him will be seen as a vote on immigration. On the positive side Paul’s votes will be considered opposition to the neocon foreign policy. Unfortunately they’ll also be seen as a vote for so-called freedom - individualism and opposition to government.

I hope Paul does well as he’s one of only two candidates I’d even consider voting for. But reading WNist sites of late one could be forgiven for thinking Paul was about to ride in on a white horse and save the white race.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:13 | #

But reading WNist sites of late one could be forgiven for thinking Paul was about to ride in on a white horse and save the white race.

All the white race needs is a fair chance. Genuine libertarian principles could provide that fair chance—not that I think Ron Paul is radical enough to qualify as a genuine libertarian, but he’s at least better than the majority of the so-called “libertarian” activists and “objectivists”.

None of them get the importance of economic rents as the sum of all externalities and how civilization gradually centralizes these rents in the wrong hands.

Posted by wjg on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:17 | #

The political fight we need to win, and soon, is not the election of candidate X or Y but the ascendancy of an idea: the righteousness/fairness of Whites acting in our own interests.

For the idea to win candidates who don’t explicitly rally to it (including both Tancredo and Paul) must lose. If not, in the very unlikely event that they win, one of the first things any of these jokers will do is denounce us. Randy Graf’s words the day after he won his primary in Arizona should never be forgotten. Our votes are good until the cork is popped and then we are racist scum. As non-existent as a “White vote” now is we must keep striving to change that otherwise the cycle of false friends will never be broken.

Crypto white racialism, as most recently discredited by American conservatism, is no longer trustworthy since it is clear now that it was always a lie. Ron Paul seems a decent and sincere man worthy of much respect as compared to the typical traitor in DC but he disowns us with his own words.

We should not wonder at the complete disrespect we receive. We have earned none by selling ourselves too cheaply. Support the White Race or gain nothing from us but enmity.

Posted by Top on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:57 | #

WJG is right. It’s the idea which is more important right now and not who wins elections. There will be no progress until more of the smart faction identifies with what we are saying here. The challenge at this time is to convince those that matter that:
(a) Our enemies are on track to replace the white race
(b) That (a) is a bad idea

Our main arguments should consist of future demographic projections and pointing out the centralization of power (especially the media) in the hands of those that hate us. WN politics are still an illusion at this time.