Douchebag Vs. Turd Sandwich

On the Jay Leno show, Ron Paul accused Michele Bachmann of hating Muslims during yet another Republican presidential debate. Here’s why:

“Bachmann pointed to the Iranian constitution, saying the Islamic republic’s ‘mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate.’

She added: ‘We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.’

Paul quickly fired back, saying he, too, didn’t want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon. But he said that Bachmann was portraying a skewed view of the Muslim world.

‘To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk,’ Paul said. ‘Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous.'”

Of course.

Bachmann’s claims are completely groundless, rooted in anti-Muslim fear mongering and hysteria that the far right has utilized in recent years. She has an impressive track record for making stuff up; her statements about Iran trying to take over the world is just one more lie. Nowhere in the Islamic Republic’s constitution does it say that Iran is trying to take over the world or install a global caliphate. The only people the Islamic Republic poses a threat to is … other Iranians.

Even if they were bent on taking over the world, the Shi’a are a minority of the world’s Muslims and are divided into numerous sects. Not a good way to start global domination – especially since there’s evidence that the Islamic Republic exports anti-Sunni sectarianism to places like Iraq. The hysteria over a nuclear Iran is rooted in irrational fears of Islamic domination; Bachmann’s words not only reflect this worldview, but also that of the Republican party as well.

So Ron Paul is right; Michele Bachmann hates Muslims. The problem here, however, isn’t Bachmann’s words – or should I say not the only problem – but Paul’s words. While it’s true Bachmann is a bigot, she’s at least honest and consistent, which is more that I can say for Paul.

Consider this: One of the driving ideological forces within the Republican Party – the Tea Party – which utilizes anti-Muslim bigotry into its broader reactionary worldview, was founded by Ron Paul and his supporters. (He claims it’s been “hijacked by the neo-cons,” as if that’s what makes the group problematic, and not the fact that it’s a right-wing phenomenon to begin with. But then again he is right-wing, so he’s incapable of coming to that conclusion, just as Leon Trotsky was incapable of coming to the conclusion that it was Bolshevism itself – and not the Stalinist clique – that was to be blamed for the failure of Soviet communism.) He also inspires other far right extremists, as the One Peoples Project has documented.

Despite these facts, there’s a stratum of leftist/antiwar voices that support Paul because of his stance on occupation and neocolonialism (among other issues), even though his support for letting uninsured people die and his anti-Civil Rights positions are well-documented, among others. For those on the left that do support Paul despite these discrepancies, they may want to take a look at the other kinds of people that support him, like this shithead:

“On Sunday, many Facebook users were greeted by the shocking spectacle of a California libertarian and Ron Paul supporter by the name of Jules Manson advocating for the assassination of President Barack Obama. Manson, a failed politician, recently ran for and lost a seat on the City of Carson’s City Council last March.

The following is the text of Manson’s racist, treasonous, deplorable post:
 Assassinate the f—– n—– and his monkey children‘”

And while Paul denounces Bachmann for her anti-Muslim attitudes, he served as an economic adviser for then-1992 presidential candidate – and white supremacist – Pat Buchanan. They are still presumably close since Buchanan endorses Paul as the 2012 Republican candidate; he also endorsed Anders Breivick, the right-wing Norwegian mass murderer, mainly because he shares some of Breivick’s views on Muslims, which aren’t that different from Bachmann.

So, even though Ron Paul is right to criticize Bachmann, he’s doing so as a hypocrite; because he in fact, shares much in common with Bachmann. Paul is as much a Christianist as Bachmann is, since he has reaffirmed a non-secular belief that religion has a role to play in American governance.
Additionally, both are free market fundamentalists influenced by Austrian economics and, it goes without saying, both are right-wing Republicans. They may differ on Muslims and neocolonialism, but at the end of the day, they are only slight variations of the same thing – careerist politicians seeking to unseat another careerist politician for the highest office in order to secure the power and prestige that office has to offer.
It’s the difference between a douchebag and a turd sandwich.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Douchebag Vs. Turd Sandwich

  1. Pingback: The Fall Of Ron Paul « After The Massacre

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s