[Peace-discuss] Real divisions within Democrat & Republican parties

[ewj at pigsqq.org]

I don't quite trust the Paul the Younger to possess the principles of his 
old man, and I indeed consider Rand Who? quite capable of pulling a Bait-
and-Switch like the famous "W" one, and others you recount.

Nevertheless, Rand Who? is not an insider with the 1% and could ask some 
hard questions and will certainly polarize some insiders against him and 
will have some interesting things to say.

The GOP insiders can't hate Rand Who? the way they hated Ron Paul.  Ron 
Paul could see right through them.  Rand Who? is enough more like the Neo-
cons that the GOP doesn't hate him entirely.  He's not exactly anti-war.
I dont think I will be putting any "Rand" stickers on my Great Wall Sai-
Ying (it's a kind of quasi-Jeep that I drive).

But If I could find them stickers as says "Run, Hillary. Run!"... Hey, I'd 
put two or 3 on the Front.


>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
>  To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>  Cc: sftalk at yahoogroups.com <sftalk at yahoogroups.com> 
<sftalk at yahoogroups.com>, occupycu <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
>  Subject: [Peace-discuss] Real divisions within Democrat & Republican 
parties
>  Sent: Jan 27 '14 23:11
>  
>  From the Politico article below: "The divisions are far starker in the 
GOP,
>  with competing libertarian [=anti-war] and national security [=pro-war]
>  wings battling for the future direction of the Republican Party."
>  
>  The Democrats' anti-war wing [e.g. Dennis Kucinich] was effectively 
purged
>  by Obama's mendacious co-option of the anti-war movement, and the
>  Republicans were almost as successful in suppressing their anti-war 
wing,
>  the Ron Paulists - but not quite.
>  
>  So the 2016 presidential election may pit a pro-war Democrat [Hillary
>  Clinton? - the most bellicose member of the Obama administration] 
against
>  an anti-war Republican [Rand Paul? - not so consistently anti-war as his
>  father]. But that may not make much difference in whom our government 
kills
>  (in our name, for the profit of the 1%).
>  
>  Remember that the Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 in 
order
>  to bring the Mideast war to an end (as they recognized), and 
Congressional
>  Democrats had to pretend that they were doing it - while continuing to 
vote
>  for war in our name, for the profit of the 1%...
>  
>  Many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 thought they were voting 
for
>  an anti-war candidate against the pro-war McCain. Obama was lying, but 
many
>  Americans refused to believe that, even after he expanded the war - and
>  made it even more vicious with drones and US death squads (SOCOM - see
>  Jeremy Scahill's 'Dirty Wars').
>  
>  Defense Secretary Robert Gates' new book shows both Clinton and Obama
>  pretending to be anti-war during the 2008 primaries (specifically, 
opposing
>  the Bush/Petraeus "surge" of killing in Iraq) because they knew the 
public
>  was becoming increasingly anti-war. Gates makes clear that they were 
both
>  lying (or, as he says, "being political").
>  
>  We forget that Republican candidates have frequently run (and won) by
>  opposing the wars of an incumbent Democratic administration - always a
>  popular position, which they then betrayed:
>  
>  ~2000: GWBush runs against the Clinton/Gore war in Serbia, saying he
>  opposed foreign 'nation building';
>  
>  ~1968: Richard Nixon runs against the Johnson/Humphrey war in Vietnam,
>  saying that he had a 'secret plan' to end the war;
>  
>  ~1952: Dwight Eisenhower runs against Truman's war in Korea, saying, "I
>  will go to Korea!"
>  
>  Still, the possible emergence of an anti-war, anti-Wall Street 
Republican
>  party has got to worry the Democrats - pro-war and pro-Wall Street as 
they
>  are - because they know that Obama and Clinton, minions of the 1%, are 
on
>  the wrong side of popular sentiment. They may have trouble lying their 
way
>  out of it.
>  
>  
>  --CGE
>  
>  
>  Candidates of both parties run vs. NSA
>  
>  
>  ·
>  
>  By [LINK: http://www.politico.com/reporters/ManuRaju.html] MANU RAJU |
>  1/26/14 11:22 PM EST  				 Updated: 1/27/14 
6:56 AM EST
>  
>  
>  Edward Snowden’s leaks didn’t just cause turmoil in the U.S.
>  intelligence community, prompt international backlash toward President
>  Barack Obama and revive a debate in Congress over civil liberties.
>  
>  They spawned a whole new breed on the 2014 campaign trail: The
>  anti-National Security Agency candidate...
>  Read more: [LINK:
>  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/candidates-of-both-parties-run-vs-
nsa-102628.html]
>  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/candidates-of-both-parties-run-vs-
nsa-102628.html#ixzz2rbhtBlNf
>  
>  
>  --------------------
>  _______________________________________________
>  Peace-discuss mailing list
>  [LINK: compose.php?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
>  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>  [LINK: https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
>  https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss