Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Rep. Kurt Bills Is A Ron Paul Republican

Hand picked by Ron Paul's lead representative in Minnesota to run for senate against incumbent Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Kurt Bills was always dishonest in denying his ideological association with this fringe, unserious crackpot. Pushed at one point in the endorsement battle to describe his kind of republicanism, Bills bleated that he was a Kurt Bills republican, a heretofore unknown sort of republican, notable, apparently, for its shape shifting capabilities and breathtaking insincerity. Ciphers now had their own kind of republican.

Bills handily won the endorsement of a Paul dominated MN GOP state convention on the second ballot. Both challengers--Dan Severson & Pete Hegseth--declined to appear with him on stage as he accepted the endorsement. Even for the slow of thought in the Minnesota republican party (and various sundry elected officials who endorsed him) this refusal to be tainted by a Ron Paul sock puppet should have served as a profound and disturbing warning.

But no.

In the ten days or so since Hennepin County Commissioner & RNC man Jeff Johnson grossly misjudged the current state of affairs and lectured those at the convention who reject Paulism to "get over it," (the phrase has taken on a mocking life of its own on Twitter) a few things have become increasingly clear. Far from this simply being another endorsement battle with differing wings of the party needing to come together, the 35% of the delegates who were not members of the cult (or their enablers: well known republicans who fawned to get their picture taken with Paul and lost the respect others had for them) saw clearly this development was different in kind, not degree. That people as bright as Johnson could otherwise be so comprehensively obtuse in their assessment only added to the general discouragement.

Perhaps this could get their attention:

"If there’s one thing that the 2012 campaign has taught us about Ron Paul, it’s that he is a bald-faced liar. Not just a run-of-the-mill liar like most politicians, but a liar so shameless that only the most slavish of devotees could maintain respect for him."

Well yes and some of us were unfortunate enough to see the slavishness up close and personal for two days which, Inception-like, felt like a month.

The quote is from James Kirchik who has written extensively on the liar Ron Paul. Could any of our so called leaders in and out of the party be bothered to read his work? MC has already provided many links to his work at The New Republic (which Paul zombie Terry McCall emailed was a washed out and discredited magazine).  The quote above comes from a review by Kirchik of a recently published fatuous and myopic book on the so called Ron Paul revolution (the very definition of preposterous). MC understands why dullards like McCall can't be bothered with the truth but what's the excuse for so many others? Political malpractice? Kirchik is deadly in his assessment:

"The lies [the author] can’t bring himself to acknowledge, let alone criticize, concern the notorious newsletters that the libertarian guru Paul published from the late 1970s through 1996, the bulk of which I uncovered and exposed in a 2008 article for The New Republic. The full contents of these “bigot-grams,” as the Dallas Morning News referred to them, need not be fully rehearsed here, but needless to say they are replete with ugly statements about gays, blacks, and Jews, not to mention endorsements of a variety of quack scientific claims, support for the right-wing militia movement, and defenses of such loathsome individuals as David Duke, Marge Schott, and Bobby Fischer.

Paul’s acknowledgment of his involvement, or lack thereof, in the newsletters, evolved from a defense of their contents in 1996 to telling CNN in December of last year, “I’ve never read that stuff.” A former secretary of Paul’s told The Washington Post, however, that Paul “would proof” the newsletters, a claim seconded by another erstwhile aide. It is frankly inconceivable that Paul was unaware of what was being produced in his own name and to his massive personal enrichment."

The entire review can be read by clicking here.  But why re-raise what MC has raised previously?

Because in recent days the mask has slipped and what those with a functioning cerebral cortex knew all along was revealed for all to see: Kurt Bills is a Ron Paul republican. In fact, MC isn't sure Ron Paul himself is a republican; he's more of a cult-based cottage industry preying upon the paranoid and the conspiracy minded. He suggested his followers could well vote for Cynthia McKinney for president in 2008 although ultimately he himself endorsed the Constitution Party candidate. Only by the most dishonest--that word again--use of republican could one claim Paul to be.

Bills has endorsed son of the great leader Rand Paul's budget blue print. Really? Not the respected and deeply serious Paul Ryan's? Of course not: you're dealing with a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ron Paul movement. Bills won't have an original idea of his own this election because the borg will not let him. This is so banal, so underwhelming and tawdry that calling it a Faustian bargain would be an upgrade. Kabuki doesn't deserve to be denigrated by employing it as a metaphor either. Don't bother to raise the obvious creepy nepotism: all is well within the cult. The secret knowledge possessed of the laughable "liberty" types is by nature not available to the masses and so passage of it from father to son is in the order of things if Americans are eventually to take the red pill and see the matrix for what it is. MC does not exaggerate.

Bills also announced, in a tip-credit sort of dis-associative moment, that foreign aid should be capped and four federal agencies should be eliminated altogether. Who can doubt this is what Minnesotans have been clamoring for? Who can doubt that these positions have radically changed the senate race in Minnesota and has Amy Klobuchar on the run? Pretty much everyone outside the Bills Borg.™ But no matter.

Rather than ascertain what an underfunded candidate can do to maximize his appeal to the voters of Minnesota, and raise desperately needed money, Kurt Bills has mocked even his supporters of last resort by clearly signaling he's a willing tool in the programmatic Paul movement. Winning is not of the slightest concern to them. When both parties are the same, how could winning matter in any fundamental sense? Bills will be told to run, and consequently will run, a campaign to highlight the many ludicrous positions espoused by Ron Paul. Think of it as the largest state based infomercial in the history of modern politics.

Don't think of it as anything that can help Minnesota republicans keep either of their majorities in the House or Senate. Something new to help in that effort is being born currently and will be announced in greater detail soon. But it's in spite of Bills, not because of him.

The usual suspects on Twitter are trying to fall in behind Bills, to castigate in a friendly manner those who see what's truly going on and to pretend they've seen this movie and how, with a bit of extra effort, the ending can be the same as before. But they haven't seen it and the ending won't be as hoped.

The only real question is whether Bills will lose to Klobuchar by less or more than twenty points and how much damage to what's left of the party is done by those who hold it in contempt.


AlterGnat said...

Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008? I thought he endorsed conservative Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party.

John Hugh Gilmore said...

Correct: He endorsed Baldwin, as well as McKinney, Bob Barr & Ralph Nader. Each of them were preferable to McCain and Obama said Ron Paul.

AlterGnat said...

Mr. Gilmore, that statement is a complete fallacy. Ron Paul's initial endorsement went to no one. However, he did encourage voters to consider voting for any of the third party candidates but never made an endorsement. His actual official endorsement went solely to conservative Chuck Baldwin. You are being disingenuous by implying that at anytime his endorsement ever went to Cynthia McKinney.

MikeWBL said...

John, you must stop beating around the bush and start giving your real thoughts on Kurt Bills & Ron Paul ! :-)

Anonymous said...

You and Ron Paul are a lot alike. He makes a great speech, and you pile on the clever palaver at length. He arrives at the wrong conclusions for all the right reasons, and so do you.

If you really want Klobuchar to win, keep doing what you are doing. Otherwise, get over it, and find something to like about Mr. Bills. Rand Paul's budget (with others) is a good start-- better than Mr. Ryan's in many ways.

J. Ewing

John Hugh Gilmore said...

AlterGnat is correct and I thank him or her for bringing that fact to my attention. I have revised that portion of the blog, indicating that Paul suggested McKinney would be an acceptable choice by his followers but that ultimately he himself endorsed Mr. Baldwin.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore, for an excellent assessment of the Bills/Ron Paul connection. I believe you are correct in that Bills will not have an original idea of his own this year. Please, do not "get over it". We need your voice of reason!

Anonymous said...

Reagarding the "Get Over It" meme some are invoking, in order to shame the so-called Old Guard into supporting Kurt Bills: Why didn't the Ron Paul supporters "Get Over it" when Mitt Romney's name was mentioned at the Convention but instead boo'ed him?

It seems as if their stubborn insistence on Libertarian notions should be considered "principled" but the old guards insistence on pragmatism and viability is somehow disloyal.

Many are avoiding the heart of the problem and that's whether Kurt Bills can raise the funds and has the qualities of statesmanship needed to effectively run against Klobuchar. Granted, defeating Klobuchar was uncertain to begin with but the Ron Paul supporters didn't really care about winning us over or winning in general as much as they did about their vacuous principles and incessant organising.

Being high-minded and principled are generally noble traits, but there's not much nobility in acting like adolescants at a State Convention and booing the presumptive Presidential candidate.

Compromise isn't always about fudging principles. Often, compromise is about achieving results. Had the Ron Paul supporters wanted results, maybe they should have behaved more like adults.

I have other Republican candidates I'll be helping in the upcoming elections and I see no reason to associate myself with those who view me as their enemy. I didn't choose or want to be their enemy. They made it clear that it was what they wanted, on principle, of course.


Anonymous said...

You are not accepting comments on the later post, for some reason. Oh, well. My question is to ask what purpose is served by antagonizing the Ron Paul folks, other than the self-satisfaction? Worse yet, why would you concede the US Senate race 5 months out? Surely Kurt Bills would be a better Senator than "Moms"? Why not figure out how to help the State Party and the Bills campaign and every Republican up and down the ticket, like we always have? When the RP folks finally here their speech at the RNC, they will disappear into the woodwork and we'll be left to pick up the pieces. Best we have a few baskets and pails on hand to do it with, rather than taking our ball and going home.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

the main issues that bond Kurt Bills and Ron Paul along with their liberty supporters are the government following the Constitution that created it and allows for its continued existence. Respecting the rights of individuals and sound monetary policy are what they want to see.
The most striking thing about the GOP State Convention was neither Michelle Bachmann nor Tim Pawlenty showing their faces.

Anonymous said...

We know where the lying is coming from. Elect this guy and let's get rid of the lying corrupt dishonest self serving good old boy system.