3. Thanks A Lot, Ron Paul—My House is Now a Campaign Headquarters

THANKS A LOT RON PAUL—MY HOUSE IS NOW A CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS

THANKS A LOT, RON PAUL-YOU’VE MADE MY HOME A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS

My wife said, “Look, Blumert, you’ll have to whip up your own dinner tonight. Ron Paul is on CNN with Larry King and later, PBS is showing their terrific, ‘Now’ documentary featuring Ron for almost the full hour. I can’t miss that, and then, according to LRC’s ‘Breaking News’ blog, O’Bnoxious O’Riley has a segment discussing Ron’s foreign policy. So you’re on your own this evening, and it wouldn’t kill you to miss a meal once in awhile anyway.”

There are times when negotiating with my beautiful wife is pointless. This was one of those times, and I was ready to nuke the popcorn.

Ron Paul’s amazing political odyssey has turned the lives of many people topsy-turvy. It could not be more so than in my own home. My life companion had never been that interested in the political process and she certainly wasn’t much of a television fan. Her interest in TV diminished as the size of the sets increased.

After “Best Buy” covered our living room wall with a 73” HDTV, her viewing was rare. The only time the giant box won her attention was when she was dusting the furniture, and that only occurred during the summer solstice. (This revelation will insure many popcorn dinners in my future.)

But, that was then.

Now, since Ron Paul’s heroic mission, my dear wife is never more than six feet from the giant Hitachi. Her daily schedule breaks down as follows; fourteen hours for essentials like sleep, meals, shopping, and ministering to me, three hours at her blog, three hours of intense internet search on anything Ron Paul (I must say that LewRockwell.com has made that aspect of her life easier).

The excitement begins when the TV political shows take over the tube. That’s where she spends the remaining four hours of her day. She switches from CNN to MSNBC to CNBC, to FOX to PBS with an occasional visit to NBC, CBS, and ABC, the old-fashioned channels.

There are days when the phones ring off the hook as she compares notes with other Paulian junkies. Supporters of Ron from the neighborhood are invited to join in the viewing, and the 73” screen is very attractive on debate nights. Last night, we had a full house for the New Hampshire debate. One fellow actually arrived clutching a Ron Paul for President sign.

My wife is a gentle person, but nowadays, I’ll often hear her snarling at a talking head and on one occasion she came close to hurling a shoe at the screen. That was before we bought the new 73-incher. She’s now required to wear soft slippers during TV time.

The entire rotten establishment is terrorized by Ron’s campaign, and they have employed every strategy to derail him. Initially, they pretended that he wasn’t there. If he isn’t there, they reasoned, maybe he’ll go away. Next, they decided to marginalize Ron. During the earlier debates, while Ron was making a point, the cameras would scan the faces of the sorry crop of contenders as they smirked, rolled their eyes, and did everything but stick out their tongues to show disdain.

Then they initiated frontal attacks to pound Ron down. Rudy did it in South Carolina and Huckaboob tried it during a later debate. Not only did every one of these strategies fail, the Paul campaign seemed to feed on and grow with each failure.

A TV reporter pal in San Francisco analyzed it as follows:

“In the war against Ron, the establishment has the five following areas in which to attack him:

1.THE DEBATES. Attacking him here hasn’t worked out too well and is fraught with risk. When someone hits Ron, the moderators are compelled to allow him to respond. This is where Dr. Paul shines. (As I point out above.)

2.THE PRINT MEDIA. Ron is well-received by local newspapers when he hits town and since nobody pays attention to the national opinion mags these days, any hit pieces from them are futile.

3.THE INTERNET. Ron wins every skirmish on the net. (His dazzling array of supporters make sure of that.)

4.TV. As with the hometown newspapers, Ron does very well with local TV coverage. It is only through the national networks and cable that Ron’s enemies can effectively try to destroy his remarkable run.

5.THE REPUBLICAN APPARATUS. In most instances, a single word from an upper-level Party functionary can stop a candidate in his tracks. Ron Paul has never been part of their “club,” and thus is immune to their dictates.

My TV reporter pal’s logic is irrefutable. National TV is the only effective weapon they can use against Ron. The “talking heads” continue to ridicule and marginalize him, and it will get worse. Future elections may be decided otherwise, but this presidential election will, unfortunately, be affected by the images transmitted by the networks and cable.

“TV is where the people live,” my wife says. “I don’t know how we can neutralize their venom, but we have to watch them every minute and expose every evil thing they do.”

She has been meticulous in monitoring the “heads” and I couldn’t help peeking at her scribbled notes from last week. Included below are some cogent observations about the media “stars.”

George Stephanopoulos—He will one day choke on his own words—definitely a drone without an original thought. He is not as dangerous as some of the others.

Tim Russert—A slick performer, but not slick enough to conceal the strings that control him. He should be considered deadly dangerous.

Chris Matthews—Constantly playing the “choir boy” while seeking “truth and justice.” He has been assigned to promote Obama and will most likely be his Press Secretary. Matthews is an embarrassment to his profession.

The Fox Boys—Combined brainpower would barely light a bulb. They are bullies, have no sense of morality and are simply “hit-men.”

Frank Luntz—Probably once had a brain, but he sold it along with his soul. It’s a wonder he can sleep at night.

Wolf “the Blitzer”—Although fully bought and paid for, on rare occasion he displays some reportorial integrity.

Pat Buchanan—Of course, he should endorse Ron, but he does have to make a living hanging around the NBC studios. This is no excuse, but it’s difficult not to like Pat and wife Shelly, so Pat gets a partial pass.

Tucker Carlson—Tucker is top of the short list for Ron’s running mate. He’s smart, young, and would lend balance to the ticket.

Frankly, it’s not easy to watch inferior people degrading Ron Paul from one TV channel to the next. Except for that one time when she almost hurled her shoe at the screen, my beautiful wife has remained stoic under the avalanche of innuendo and lies.

That was until yesterday. I don’t know whether it was Russert’s mean-spirited interview on Meet the Press, or David Shuster’s smug effort to assassinate Ron on MSNBC, but she finally lost it. “How dare these pygmies malign a man like Ron Paul,” she said with disgust.

“Look,” I tried to explain, “as Ron brings the message of freedom from one state to the next, the attacks will intensify. They will call him a racist, a Nazi, a neo-Confederate, and Lord knows what else. I’m not talking about crazed fringe websites. It will be the MSM leading the charge.”

These evildoers have at least one serious problem. The guy they are trying to destroy is a giant. Bigotry is not in Ron’s makeup, and those who make such charges know it. The hundreds of thousands (soon to be millions?) of young people who listen to Ron’s words know the real thing when they encounter it.

Here’s a vignette I’ve recounted before; Please don’t hold me to precise dates, but I think it was the summer of 1988, at the California LP Convention, and Ron announced his decision to run for President as the Libertarian Party candidate. Those of us close to Ron celebrated. We saw it as an incredible opportunity to spread the message of freedom.

Former Congressman Paul “Pete” McCloskey, a maverick Republican and Korean War hero, came to the hotel to congratulate Ron and wish him well. McCloskey was no libertarian, but he was a true patriot and told me that Ron Paul was the most principled man he had served with in the US Congress.

I later learned that McCloskey carried some advice for Ron and his campaign. He knew that Ron’s noninterventionist foreign policy views precluded US foreign aid for ANY country. Lew warned Ron that this would ire the Israeli lobby in the US, and he suggested that Ron have some Jews represented in his campaign to demonstrate that he was not anti-Semitic.

Ron mentioned McCloskey’s warning to Lew Rockwell. He laughed and told Ron, “Well you have nothing to worry about. Blumert is your campaign chairman and Murray Rothbard is your economic advisor.” “Oh, OK,” said Ron.

Yes, this was twenty years ago and we were all a bit more innocent, but it does say something about Ron and the way his mind works.

Well, here it is Sunday after the New Hampshire debates. McCain is on Meet The Press and Romney will be on with Stephanopoulos. I don’t know how my dear wife will be able to stomach all of it, but she will persevere.

One day they will tell the truth about Ron Paul. The United States will be a better place when that happens.

January 7, 2008

I HATE RUDY GIULIANI—YOU SHOULD TOO

I’ve always hated Rudy Giuliani—but never more than now.

His face fills the screen on every TV channel. Even watching the World Series on the tube provides no sanctuary. Between every inning, there he was, grinning, wearing his silly Yankee baseball cap, seated next to one of my other favorites, warmonger Senator John McCain.

The soon-to-be ex-mayor raises the temperature and gets a standing ovation every time he enters a room. Cameras pass over presidents and governors to focus on Rudy when he comes on stage. He seems ready for sainthood. It’s enough to make you sick.

How did all this happen?

On that horrid day in September, Giuliani was trapped in a corridor in one of the World Trade Center buildings and was almost a casualty. This close brush with death energized him, propelling him tirelessly from every newly discovered horror to the next. Rudy was everywhere. The media, impressed, anointed him the icon of the disaster: the brash, bona fide New Yorker with his bona fide New York accent became a stand-in symbol for the city’s courage and resolution.

The shell-shocked Gothamites were easy to persuade. Here was an untested, verbally bumbling president in the White House and a fast-talking New Yorker, both doing terrific jobs, weren’t they? With each passing day, the mythology fed upon itself, and King Rudy reigned supreme.

Actually, Rudy Giuliani doesn’t represent the spirit of New York City. Sanctified by the media, the only thing Giuliani represents is the government itself. To listen to the media, one would think that the only casualty of September 11 was the government. Giuliani filled the role of a functionary who roamed from one funeral to the next, a sort of toastmaster general helping bury New York’s uniformed dignitaries.

It was a top-down event. The mayor represented the upper echelons of the city’s apparatus, with an occasional moment of grieving for the hardworking, tragic victims from the real world of commerce.

Politically, Giuliani is like the horror film monster who refuses to stay dead. His prostate surgery forced him to drop out of the much anticipated senate race against Hillary. Pundits have little doubt, however, that Rudy would have fared no better against La Clinton than poor Lazio. (Clinton garnered 55 percent to Lazio’s 44 percent.)

Even term limits—ordinarily a stake in the political heart—were almost side-stepped by Rudy. For a brief moment there was serious consideration to change the constitution of New York state allowing him to run again for mayor of the Big Apple. Fortunately, the New York pols were not ready for dictator Rudy.

Murray Rothbard used to say whenever a name suddenly becomes household, that he or she didn’t drop down from the sky.

Rudolph Giuliani certainly didn’t drop down from the sky. He came from Brooklyn.

Rudy was an ambitious lad who once considered entering the priesthood. His father, Harold, had a criminal record before Rudy was born.

In author Wayne Barrett’s book, Rudy!: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, he says, “The father he celebrated so often was a pathological predator. His extended family harbored a junkie, a crooked cop, and a murky mob wing. He dissolved his first marriage with a lie so he could appear Catholic when he remarried. The very personal jewelry his first wife found in her bedroom wasn’t hers.” (Read the book for the answer to that and a lot more.)

In 1983 Rudy was appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. His record 4,152 convictions with a mere 25 reversals is a testament to his zeal for the job.

Giuliani did not accumulate this glittering record on behalf of the citizens of the Southern District. He was motivated purely by political ambition.

As a prosecutor he employed ruthless tactics such as seizing prominent stockbrokers and traders from the floor of the exchanges and dragging them away in handcuffs with the television cameras already in place and rolling.

In his most famous case, against stock market innovator Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, Giuliani used the threat of the Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) statutes—which were so draconian that Milken had no choice but to make a deal with the federal government.

Prosecuting attorneys are never lovable, but Rudy Giuliani was despicable.

We all hope you recover from your recent surgery and that your personal life stays out of the gossip column on Page Six of the New York Post.

As far as I’m concerned, Rudy, I’d be relieved to see you relegated to that insignificant never-never land occupied by ex-New York city mayors.

November 5, 2001

I STILL HATE RUDY. BUT AT LEAST I’M NOT ALONE

Criticizing Rudy Giuliani is dangerous, and I have the “hate-mail” to prove it.

My “I Hate Rudy Giuliani” piece was posted on LRC on November 5, 2001, Most of the initial e-mails shared my disgust with the aura of sainthood which glowed around the power-mad ex-NYC Mayor. “Benito” Giuliani didn’t fool many of our crowd.

Several weeks went by, and the e-mails turned ugly. I was a “hater,” an “ingrate.” A few even compared me to the “terrorists.” How dare I attack this great American?

Who were these people? Lew Rockwell explained that they were not LRC regulars and that the article was being sucked up by search engines employed by Giulianiites seeking out infidels. Well, they found me.

Rudy had accumulated hordes of political enemies, but they were all muffled by the events of September 11. Every time he appeared on TV he became more self-assured. A first-rate actor growing into his role. Sure, Giuliani was arrogant, but the grim events which created him permitted the swagger.

When his term as Mayor of New York City neared its end, Rudy faced the prospect of being unemployed. There was a flurry of ill-conceived plans to: (1) eliminate the term limit restriction and allow him to run for Mayor again (it failed); (2) make Rudy the Czar in cleaning up and restoring the devastated area in lower Manhattan (it never happened); (3) find Rudy an important, cushy post in the Bush administration (not a chance). To hard-core GOP operatives, New York City Republicans, when the veneer is stripped away, are actually disaffected Democrats and this brash Giuliani fellow was too ambitious to be trusted.

His last chance for political glory was the much anticipated race against Hillary for the US Senate seat. Rudy’s bout with cancer made him drop out, but he never had a chance against la Clinton.

And that was the end of elective politics for Rudy Giuliani.

I’m sure there were many nights when Rudy dozed off amidst pleasant images of being the first Italian American in the White House. It was a shame that didn’t work out. Well, maybe someday, but for now, it was time to get rich.

Giuliani Partners, a consulting firm, was born out of the tragedy and debris of the World Trade Center. Guess who’s chairman and CEO? Rudy’s corporate team includes many cronies from his corrupt administration. The company provides “preparedness and leadership” during crisis. Huh?

I wouldn’t trust that crowd to wash my car.

The “Commodities Page” in the Wall Street Journal is usually as far as I get, but I do recall reading that Giuliani Partners had established alliances with Nextel and Ernst & Young and they have attracted major corporations as clients.

Maybe one of our Wall Street mavens could tell me exactly what it is these folks do for their clients. Whatever it is, I suspect the bucks are rolling in.

In the meanwhile, Rudy the Icon was collecting a glittering array of trophies:

•In 2001, Rudy Giuliani was Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year.”

•In 2002, “Sir” Rudy was knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

•In 2003, a crowning glory. A made for TV movie. “Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story” starring actor James Woods as Rudy was viewed by millions. It met with mixed reviews.

•Rudy became one of the hottest and most expensive speakers on “the tour.” Reportedly, his fee was $75,000.

There may be other instances in the nation’s history when a relatively obscure figure skyrockets to fame and fortune almost overnight. Charles Lindbergh comes to mind, but there had never been anything quite like Rudy Giuliani.

In recent days, Rudy sort of faded from view. I don’t know if he still rates invitations to the best parties, but if you look at Vanity Fair or New York magazine you’ll probably find photos of Rudy and his new wife.

As far as I’m concerned, Rudy’s revered status is just another unpleasant fact of life I’ve learned to live with. As usual, I’m on the wrong side of the issue.

And then it happened. Giuliani and his aides were called to testify before the Independent Commission investigating the September 11 attacks. The hearings were held on Rudy’s turf, at the New School, just blocks from the site of the Twin Towers.

Rudy’s former commissioners of the police, fire, and emergency management departments appeared before the panel on the first day. They didn’t fare too well. Rudy was scheduled for the next day.

Many instances of neglect on the part of the Mayor’s team were revealed in the questioning of Giuliani’s department heads, but one tragic issue dominated the proceeding.

Had faulty communications been responsible for the horrible death of at least 121 firemen?

The doomed firemen were following orders, trekking up the North Tower’s stairways in full gear. Exhausted, they stopped to rest between the 19th and 37th floors. Their last communication was the “order to evacuate.”

Police helicopters were blaring the news that the North Tower was ready to collapse and for all to flee the building immediately. The police in the North Tower escaped just in time. The firefighters couldn’t hear the bull-horns and they NEVER got that urgent message from their own superiors.

Every inch of the auditorium at the New School was occupied as Giuliani sat to face the panel. The only sound was the clicking of cameras. It was soon evident that there were some angry folks in the room. Initially they were silent, and their presence was known only because they occasionally flashed signs which read, “Lies.”

The panel members were a dismal bunch. They are tired, used-up functionaries. Any integrity they might have once displayed was pounded out years ago.

Typically, everybody had to make an opening statement. Each exceeded the previous in extolling “America’s Mayor.” Rudy has become so accustomed to the adulation that he has learned to bask in low key.

Next, it was Rudy’s turn. His recounting of that horrible day and his own survival is theatre at its best. Laurence Olivier could not do better. As Rudy concluded, the audience was barely breathing and the panel sat mesmerized.

God gave us Rudy Giuliani to direct us through that desperate time.

Watching C-Span at 3AM reveals much about a person’s life style. The cats are usually frisky at that hour, but even they nod off when C-Span is on. Only the knowledge that Rudy was soon to be answering questions kept me conscious.

Finally, finally, the questions. More compliments, more adulation. Would somebody please ask a tough one? Then, I dozed and missed the question, but Rudy was in the middle of a response and I was wide awake. He said, “—those firefighters heard an evacuation order, but still did not leave the building. They were standing their ground to make sure civilians got out.”

What did he say?

It was about that point in the hearings that the small group of dissenters started to shout their complaints. “You murdered my son,” shrieked one woman. Everybody squirmed. As they pushed him out of the room, one bearded young man said,

“Remember, your government taught them how to fly.” Nobody listened. With such views he would have been better off on the Internet.

Rudy and entourage briskly exited the room shortly after that outburst.

Rudy, Rudy, witnesses say that there were few civilians left to rescue at that point. Those poor firefighters should have walked down to safety. They didn’t know. They hadn’t been told. It was the negligence of your Fire Department that cost them their lives. This was confirmed by the oral testimony of over one-hundred witnesses.

Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, May 20 commented, “For all the power of his voice and stature, however, Mr. Giuliani’s account must compete with a substantial and diverse body of evidence that flatly contradicts much of what he and his aides say happened that day, particularly on matters that could be seen as reflecting on the performance of his administration.”

Is the Giuliani mythology near being punctured? I think so.

In his May 20 Newsday column, “Camera hog, not a hero,” inveterate New Yorker Jimmy Breslin writes:

“He was a nowhere guy until the planes hit the World Trade Center buildings. He was a failed mayor, was Rudy Giuliani.”

“He went on the television. He was good. What was he supposed to be, bad? He was talking to the world from a city of catastrophe. He went on television five or six times that day. He went on more the next day, and the day after that, and for all the days of the fall of 2001 and the television made him an international hero.”

Nice prose, Jimmy, but where have you been for the past twenty-six months?

Breslin is a good guy and I’m confident that he will keep the heat on reminding New Yorkers that Giuliani is a creep through and through.

Once the Giuliani myth is shattered in New York, the rest of the world will fall in line.

May 24, 2004

WHO GETS THE CREDIT FOR AL GORE’S AGONY?

Everyone wants to take credit for, or put the blame on someone for Al Gore’s agony.

“It was Nader, he was responsible,” say some diehards. “He should be in the back seat of a Corvair.”

Even Pat Buchanan brags that it was his 17,000 votes in Florida that did Gore in. Pat doesn’t know that his name appeared on the ballot in southern Florida as Buchananberg, and the elderly voters in the area thought they were voting for a nice Jewish boy.

In Bruce Shapiro’s article, “How the Drug War Cost Al Gore the Afro-American Votes in Florida” (Salon.com: November 9, 2000), he makes his case. My first reaction was that Shapiro was being satiric. I was wrong.

Let me save you the trouble of reading the piece. It seems that Florida law prohibits convicted felons from voting in elections. Since one-third of Florida’s Afro-American males have suffered from “felony disenfranchisement,” and are legally prohibited from voting, candidate Al Gore was the victim.

Truth be known, I, me, Burt, personally, was responsible for Gore’s woes in Florida. On election eve, I called a friend in Boca Raton, and although I don’t quite remember the message, every member of his poker group was so persuaded by my argument they switched their votes from Gore to Howard Phillips and his Constitution Party. Those votes tipped the scale.

Paul Gigot, upper echelon talking head, on the razor-thin difference in vote total, pronounced on Jim Lehrer’s show on November 8: “The next time someone tells you that your vote doesn’t count, remember the election in the year 2000,” blah, blah, blah.

Former President Jimmy Carter, at a press conference on November 9, repeated the mantra, and we will hear it ad nauseam.

What garbage. How does the closeness of a political race add importance to the individual’s vote? If we can find him, let’s award a lottery prize to the fellow whose single vote determined the result of the election.

American elections are a referendum on indifference.

The remarkable dead-heat distribution of the one hundred million votes indicates how difficult it is to distinguish between the two parties.

Voting is like being part of “the wave” at a sporting event. No one will ever notice if you don’t participate. But if more than 50 percent don’t partake, the whole futile exercise disintegrates.

Third parties that truly threaten the two-party system are unacceptable. They are tolerated only when they are irrelevant. (The Libertarian Party’s Harry Browne received 381,000 votes, typical of the parties’ vote totals in presidential elections since 1984.)

When Ross Perot was spearheading the Reform Party, he exceeded the amount of influence that could be tolerated. That party has now been marginalized, and Perot has found peace, presumably back in the fold as a Republican supporting George W. Bush. (The Reform Party’s Pat Buchanan received 441,000 votes.)

The Green Party is on the cusp of being regarded as either a mounting threat or irrelevant. We will know in the next two to four years. (The Green Party’s Ralph Nader received about two-and-a-half million votes.)

When a third-party movement becomes a potential dagger in the heart of the established political order, all niceties are forgotten, and “contracts” are let out to solve the problem.

In 1968 American Independent Party candidate George Wallace won 14 percent of the vote and almost elected Hubert Humphrey over Richard Nixon.

Wallace’s performance in the 1972 Democrat presidential primaries stunned the established order. He won the primaries in Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Maryland, and Michigan and was a close second in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Wallace was no longer winning just the southern states; he was a national candidate.

On May 15, 1972, George Wallace was gunned down and almost killed while campaigning in Maryland.

The sober leaders of the present two-party regime will not allow the “shock of voter irregularities” to exist too long. At this moment the Democrats are presenting two faces, one strident and aggressive, implying they will go all out to contest the vote in Florida. The other face, represented by Warren Christopher, is committed to order, continuity, “respect for the Constitution,” and reassuring the world that this is an example of American democracy at its best. Translation: We are scared to death that our house of cards will be seen by all. Let’s get back to business as usual as quickly as possible.

When the power elite decide on the identity of the next president, that will be it. Any lawsuits will fizzle and hysterical minority voices eventually muffled (see Waco). The losers will be reminded that, okay, you lost this time, but you’ll be back in two or four years, so cool it. And here’s some pocket money to tide you over until then.

The power elite message continues:

And to any of you rogue states that may be watching and listening, you had better know that American internal squabbling never diminishes our ability to unlease our military might. So, if you are considering any mischief, don’t even think about it.

Sadly, neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush would dissent from this position.

November 10, 2000

WHO’S THE NEXT PRESIDENT? DEPENDS ON WHICH COURT YOU ASK

President “As Of Now” Bush has asked Attorney General Alan Dershowitz to look into reversing the pardons issued by Bill Clinton at the end of his presidency. Dershowitz, selected by Bush as an early gesture toward bipartisanship, growled that some of his best friends were among the pardoned.

Dershowitz was angered by Bush’s recent Thanksgiving message to the American public.

The fiery Dershowitz said, “Those Indians at the first Thanksgiving dinner were forced to sit at the children’s table and reparations are in order.” He threatens to take the case all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Another first: The Sixth US Federal District Court in Richmond, Virginia, will now be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, holidays included. A court spokesman said, “Justice cannot be blind only during business hours.”

Some of the Bush-Gore lawyers seemed puzzled by the statement. Others admitted not knowing what the Hell the guy was talking about, but opinions were unanimous that all day and night court proceedings are definitely a step in the right direction. (Sure, and Arthur Murray dance instructors would vote “yes” for all night ballrooms at taxpayer expense.)

One senior Gore barrister commented: “Midnight basketball has been a terrific success, so why not . . .” A noisy truck obliterated his last words so fill in the blank yourself.

Relations between Republicans and Democrats reached all-time lows again in the District of Colombia when young suit-and-tie conservatives held a massive sit-in at the Smithsonian Institute. This was clearly a retaliation for the skirmishes at Dulles Airport when a group of lads described as “Democrat thugs” occupied the Control Tower.

In the US Congress things are no better. There has been no civil exchange between the Demos and the Repubs since last year’s riot, which ended only when high-pressure water hoses were aimed at the legislators. No future meetings are even planned.

It is rumored that patriot Bo Gritz has offered himself as an intermediary between the warring parties. A reporter reminded Bo that the Democrats kept H. Ross Perot hostage for seven days while he was attempting to intercede. Since then H. Ross has been followed by bands of demonstrators chanting “Perot must go.”

The Swiss ambassador to the US has graciously offered to act as a buffer between the feuding parties. In addition, he will facilitate prisoner exchanges.

One problem that won’t go away is how to address the 43rd president. In overturning a Washington, DC, Municipal Court opinion which required George W. Bush to be addressed as “President ‘As of Now’ Bush,” the Appellate Court changed that to “President ‘Certified By The Florida Secretary of State’ Bush.”

Both the Washington, DC, Municipal Court and the US Supreme Court were of the view that the term, “Grande Cojones” was undignified and they rejected the use of the expression when applied to either president.

Notwithstanding these momentous legal decisions, ex-Vice President Gore will only respond to staff and family when addressed as “President ‘With More Popular Votes’ Gore’.”

The drive to lower the voting age to fourteen is gaining momentum. New York Senator Hillary Clinton suggested that if they are old enough to say “no” to drugs, they are old enough to vote. If they don’t say “no,” they are probably using drugs, and drug users must not be excluded from the voter rolls.

One Republican responded: “It won’t be long before they’ll be demanding prescription drug relief for teens, and we will all be paying for their anti-pimple medication.”

All the while the lawyers keep on truckin’. Attorney David Boies is seeking a court order based on a GSA regulation that would evict the Bush family from the White House. Boies cited as precedent a similar directive two years earlier that dispossessed President Strom Thurmond. (As per the US Constitution, Thurmond served as president for twenty days back in 2001, and US Marshals reported that the old fella refused to leave the White House, and put up quite a struggle, claiming the presidency as his birthright since 1948.)

DC GOSSIP

Friends report that Warren Christopher and James Baker have taken their three-year-old road show to eighty-seven different nations, and their next stop is Kabul, Afghanistan.

The Chrisotpher-Baker debate is identical to their early exchanges back in the election of 2000, and immediately puts the audience into a deep sleep.

The performance closes with the grotesque vision of two “alte kackers” wrestling over a butterfly ballot. Claims that the pair broke all tour attendance records set by the Harlem Globetrotters are viewed with some suspicion.

Bill O’Reilly from Fox TV’s O’Reilly Factor has never approached his old grand style since a heroic guest calmly—as though performing a valued public service—stuffed a microphone into the talk show host’s mouth.

From their headquarters in Washington, DC, C-SPAN announced the birth of C-SPAN 8. The new channel will devote its entire schedule to criminal court cases featuring defendants who are government officials. (Brian Lamb did not rule out the possibility of C-SPAN 9 in the future.)

Americans love Hollywood disaster movies about earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes. This summer’s smash hit is a different type of disaster picture and it’s a candidate for the 2003 Oscars. The Devastating Destruction of the Process Whereby America’s Leadership is Selected or Come See the Naked Power of Second-Rate People as They Lie and Cheat All in the Name of Democracy. Superbly edited from hundreds of hours of tape from the 2000 presidential election, the film is 185 minutes in length.

Fans of the epic movie with the long title lovingly refer to it as “The Process is Dead, Fred.”

“Dead, Fred II” is already in the works by these same prizewinning producers whose “Disaster at Waco” won wide acclaim.

December 13, 2000

I’M MAD AS HELL

When Patrick J. Buchanan finally decides he’s had enough of presidential campaigning, he will surely be primed for a career as a master of public relations.

Since the release of his new book, A Republic, Not An Empire, Buchanan has had more exposure on cable TV than Lanny Davis, Arianna Huffington, and Alan Dershowitz put together. For Pat, every TV appearance was like walking through an oft-visited minefield, but he always emerged unscathed and one wag noted that Buchanan has no reverse gear.

Typical was an appearance on the Geraldo Rivera show. Pat and Dershowitz had equal time, separately, to present their case. Dershowitz, on first, predictably, spewed a stream of invective. The charges were familiar: Buchanan is an anti-Semite, a Hitler apologist, and a Holocaust denier. The always-venomous Dershowitz became especially agitated and shrill when he spoke of Buchanan’s book and WWII revisionism.

“Moderator” Rivera could hardly conceal his blackjack when it was Pat’s turn before the camera. The small group in my living room dug in awaiting Buchanan’s retaliation—it never came. Suppressing a smile, Pat expressed wonder at the professor’s apoplectic hate. He proceeded to control the balance of the show, answering those questions he chose to, deflecting the transparent barbs, making all his points, and only occasionally finding it necessary to defang Geraldo.

Even veteran Buchanan watchers, however, are surprised by the width and breadth of the present assault upon him. The cast of characters was much the same in 1990–91. Their hate campaign was ignited by Pat’s passionate opposition to US involvement in the Persian Gulf. They lobbied CNN to dump Pat. They also exerted pressure to get newspapers to drop his syndicated column. Pat fought back, and although he had few public figures as allies, he survived.

Another anti-Buchanan skirmish occurred a year later when Pat challenged an incumbent Republican president. A mythology evolved over Buchanan’s speech at the Republican convention in Houston. In addition to the usual charges, Pat was portrayed as a scowling and angry man. But he prevailed again, in 1996 scaring the hell out of the establishment by winning the New Hampshire primary. For a few days their worst nightmare was the possibility that Pat could beat Dole and win the presidency.

Now his charm and wit are grudgingly acknowledged. But they charge that he uses these skills to devious ends, seducing colleagues and concealing his anti-Semitism.

In 1990–91, the campaign against Buchanan was a coordinated effort by the ADL, and I am convinced that a similar orchestration exists today. All the usual suspects get regular press packets and memos, but they really aren’t necessary. Each player knows the party line, and his obligation to advance it.

Aside from the usual villains—the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the TV networks—the hitmen now launch their missiles from such Internet sites as Salon and Slate.

Editorial piles on editorial, and feature columnists, including the alleged conservatives, vilify Pat. “He’s soft on Hitler,” is the central theme, except for those who call him a second Hitler.

It isn’t important to actually read Pat’s book. You only have to read your instructions and repeat the lies.

In a huge op-ed in the October 25 Wall Street Journal, Norman Podhoretz made what was supposed to be the definitive attack on Pat. Podhoretz, editor-at-large of Commentary magazine, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, and godfather of the neocon wing of the warfare-welfare party makes the same tired old charges against Pat, adding the specious accusations drawn from Pat’s book (which he apparently did not read).

But Podhoretz’s piece is important because it provides a clue to the strategy Pat’s enemies will employ in the days ahead. First, however, I want to expose some of Podhoretz’s most glaring distortions:

To support his position that Pat is soft on Hitler, Podhoretz extracts a quote from an old column of Pat’s describing the “Fuehrer as an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War.” Grudgingly, Podhoretz quotes Pat’s following statement that Hitler was also “a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide.”

There you have it. The evidence that Pat is soft on Hitler. Here, by the way, is more of the quote, from 1977:

Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature. . . . Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.

Podhoretz’s hit piece then moves on to the case of John Demjanjuk. Pat almost single-handedly held that it was a case of mistaken identity, and that Demjanjuk was not “Ivan the Terrible” from the Treblinka death camp. Finally, the Israeli Supreme Court exonerated this working-class Catholic grandfather, and Pat was proven right in pursuing a noble cause.

But Podhoretz had a different view. He says, “But it turned out that if Mr. Demjanjuk had not been a guard at Treblinka, he had served in the same capacity at Sobibor, another death camp.”

Sure he did, Poddy, but this smear couldn’t be proven in court either.

Finally, Mr. Podhoretz cites John Muravchik, a contributor to Commentary magazine, and one of the pack-dogs constantly snipping at Buchanan. Muravchik wonders if “Buchanan was a dove on the Gulf Crisis just because of his animus against Israel.”

Knowing Pat’s fervent dislike of foreign wars renders Muravchik’s musings ridiculous.

The bulk of Podhoretz’s piece is a rambling tirade accusing Buchanan of anti-Semitism. I will not use this space to refute him, but respectfully refer readers to “Pat Buchanan and the Menace of Anti-Anti-Semitism” by Murray N. Rothbard (Rothbard-Rockwell Report 1, no. 8 [December 1990]).

Now, to the party line according to Norm: most Republican Party hacks recognize that Pat Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket could cause certain doom for George W. Bush. That’s not the way Norm sees it. With some help from William Kristol they submit the following wisdom:

Mr. Buchanan’s defection may help Mr. Bush. . . . Without the Buchanan albatross around his neck, Mr. Bush will be protected against the Democratic accusation that he is a moderate fronting for the worst elements of the radical Right.

The word is out, and I predict they will be selling this mantra using the usual suspects as their pitchmen (the wholly owned Rush Limbaugh claimed this on his radio show on October 26).

These neocons are smart. The ugly campaign they orchestrate against Pat simply reveals how much they fear him. But that is no excuse. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Pat Buchanan, but these scurrilous charges against him should not go unchallenged.

June 13, 2000

I HATE 3RD PARTIES,BUT I’M INFECTED WITH 3RD PARTYITIS

I bragged to a friend, “I personally know most of the people running for president: Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, Howard Phillips, and Joe Sobran, before he quit.”

“Yeah, and you probably know most of the people voting for them,” he observed.

Very funny.

Although hardly a card-carrying member of the Buchanan Brigade, Pat has been a pal ever since 1990. It’s been a bumpy decade. The 1996 primaries provided the high point. Pat had swept the Republican New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and was on a roll. Things were so hot that a friend seriously confided he wanted the US ambassadorship to the Vatican in the Buchanan administration.

Take your pick on low points but the press conference with the commie Fulani scraped the bottom.

Which leads to my present condition. One morning last winter I awakened to the dull pain of a disease long in remission. The dreaded virus was back: Third Party Itis (TPI).

Pat Buchanan was superbly cast as the Republican outsider. His intelligence, wit, and commitment to principle exposed the rotten Stupid Party for what it was. Rotten and stupid. But that is all changed now. Pat has entered the world of third party politics, and I am having a relapse.

Pat’s decision to go third party released a flood of images I thought I had suppressed. My initial exposure to fringe and third party candidates was as a victim of direct-mail solicitations during the 1970s and 80s. In those days it was a ten-dollar check if the fundraiser pushed at least one appropriate conservative button.

It never occurred to me at the time, but never ever has one of my chosen candidates ever come close to winning.

In the early 1980s I received an emergency phone call on election eve. The Council candidate in a Southern California city had a “real chance.” All that was needed was a last minute media blitz. This was before Fed-Ex, and my $100 went Western Union. “We can win it” was the last thing the caller said. The candidate received 8 percent of the vote. Were these people crooked or dumb? No, it is pure self-delusion. Roger MacBride the brilliant, flamboyant Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1976 used his own DC-3 aircraft to campaign, hopping from airport to airport. As the crowds grew from a hand-full of well wishers to one hundred or more, MacBride actually believed there was a remote chance of victory.

Thus, what started as my innocent interest in third-party candidates led to years of third-party politics. Gradually and inexorably TPI sets in; reality becomes blurred, quality and shoddiness become indiscernible, and critical judgment is lost.

On Saturday, May 20, 2000, elections for Reform Party presidential delegates were held all over the state of California. The Buchanan campaign was well prepared, but it was unknown how much opposition the anti-Buchanan forces were going to mount.

I was on my way to San Jose. The drive to San Jose was California freeway at its worst. “Why am I doing this?” I implored the heavens. (Have you noticed how many solitary drivers hector to imaginary passengers?) I’m running as a Buchanan delegate, that’s why I’m doing it. With full knowledge of my Third Party Itis medical history, and impaired judgment, the Buchanan campaign asked me to run and there I was.

All the major hotel chains are represented in San Jose, and there are several outstanding upscale sites the Reform Party might have used for the event. Guess where our meeting, followed by lunch, was scheduled? You’ve got it: Denny’s. Its safe to say that in the realm of two-party politics so important an event would be at the Ritz-Carlton or the Marriott at least.

The Reform Party regulars at the San Jose elections were split into two groups. Some were neutral about Buchanan, others were for “anybody but Pat.” Not only did we outnumber them, we “out-passioned” them as well. Victory was almost complete. Districts 14 through 17 were Buchanan’s.

As for lunch, my hunger overcame the wisdom of delaying gratification, and I still shudder at the memory of the overcooked burger swimming in some sort of mayonnaise derivative. See what I mean about loss of judgment?

The Buchanan campaign still has big problems in California. Winning the delegates to the Reform Party national convention was one thing, but it was important that the state party, if not friendly to Pat, at least not be hostile to his candidacy.

The Reform Party state convention took place early this month, and it was a dismal event. The hotel in Los Angeles was a dump. Can you believe that my room’s TV only received four channels? A bellman told me that the hotel had a disagreement with the cable company. Sounds to me like they didn’t pay their bill.

The outcome of the weekend’s agony was mixed. The Buchanan campaign lost several key votes, but survived a bit of treachery from the Fulani group when the convention voted down their insidious motion to essentially gag the Party’s presidential candidate from dealing with “social issues.” It’s my guess that we won’t have anything but hostility from the Fulani group from here on in and that is most likely a plus.

The really bad news was that the virulently anti-Pat elements of the party were emboldened by the results of the convention. We will learn more about all of this in the days ahead.

I’ve been to a dozen or so political conventions, several of the third-party variety, but the Reform Party’s California state convention was as amateurish as anything I’ve ever encountered. The parliamentarian wasn’t quite comfortable with Robert’s Rules and on almost every vote the delegates were unsure if “Yes” really meant “No.”

Years ago I was invited to address a third-party Central Committee group. I had difficulty locating the meeting room in the large downtown hotel. I found it, eased my way in, and sat in the rear listening to the rituals and procedures for fifteen minutes before I realized it was a Teamsters’ local meeting. So much for the distinction between form and substance.

I must confess that when Pat finally left the Republicans for the Reform Party I had grave reservations. The GOP had returned Pat’s loyalty, principle and grace with betrayal, lies, and plain old bad manners. They made it clear there was no place for him.

Pat is no third-party-type loser. He brings intellect, wit, and toughness to the debate. Pat Buchanan has no reverse gear. With luck, he can be included in the presidential debates. He may also expose the two-party stranglehold on ballot access, thereby making the electoral process more equitable.

Wait a second. The point of this essay was to discredit the third-party movement in this country. That is no giant task. But when all the evidence is weighed what third parties represent may be infinitely better than the corruption we presently live under.

June 13, 2000

---

Burt served on the Libertarian Party National Committee 1987–89, was treasurer of the Libertarian Party Presidential campaign in 1984, and chairman of the Ron Paul Presidential campaign, Libertarian Party 1988.

CONVENTIONS,DELEGATES, AND LIFE IN THE SWAMP

Delegates to political conventions rank amongst the lower forms of animal life. They are mindless adherents who fit Lenin’s description of movement followers as “the swamp.” They know nothing of the struggles around them, and are never part of the true decision process. They are viewed with contempt by the real party operatives, who keep them at arm’s length except when soliciting their labor.

In real-world political conventions, the delegates, aside from the prestige they feel at winning the assignment, are rewarded with gifts, favors, celebrities, and—best of all—sumptuous parties.

All that is required of the delegate is that they follow orders and bring an ample supply of adulation to the combination revival meeting and rock concert they call a convention. In this environment, the delegate, like a moth to flame, seeks out every TV camera. Unfortunately, they are generally uglier than the population at large.

All of the above was true for the Reform Party delegates at the recent presidential nominating convention in Long Beach except that gifts, favors, celebrities, and sumptuous parties were missing. Still, the Buchanan delegates brought plenty of adulation for the candidate.

With hardly a whimper, the patient Buchanan delegates endured the entire first day of the convention jammed together, first in the vestibule outside the main hall and then in different rooms awaiting delegate certification. The air was foul as the air conditioner succumbed to the torrid heat outside. Without full comprehension, these worthies knew that their suffering was related to the presence of the “rival faction.”

One sad soul described the ten hours as being in one of “Dante’s lower circles of Hell.”

As a Buchanan delegate from California, I marched in lockstep understanding the need for the painstaking care as the courts or the FEC were likely to review the proceedings.

Much of day two was devoted to the one-sided parliamentary struggle between the Buchananites and their triangle of enemies. Finally, with all secure, it was time for the convention program.

SNAPSHOTS AND SOUNDBITES

Prior to Buchanan’s nomination, and the four “keynote” endorsers, the program could not have been more dismal. My personal low point was the appearance of “Granny D.” Granny is the nonagenarian who trekked across the country promoting campaign finance reform.

That seemed safe enough, but she used her seventy minutes of prime time to harangue us all with a commie interpretation of the history of the reform and progressive movements in the US.

After forty-five minutes she began to extol the greatness of the evil Teddy Roosevelt, and how he smashed uncontrolled corporate power. I broke ranks.

“Put the commie back on the highway,” I mumbled.

It got worse. She was mouthing every socialist platitude. By now, out of control, I rose, fist in the air, shouting: “Throw this old windbag out.”

Just as I seemed to be gaining support from the California delegation, other delegates physically subdued me as the California state chairman muttered through clenched teeth, “Don’t create a scene. The C-SPAN cameras are covering everything.”

As they pinned me to the ground, I relished the headline that might have been: “Buchanan delegate beats up 90-year-old woman.”

Overheard in the Pennsylvania delegation:

“Which one is Justin Raimondo?”

“He’s standing to the right of the podium.”

“Good lord, he looks like Madeline Albright.”

“No, no, that’s a convention clerk. Justin is the nice looking, slim fellow next to her.”

Poor Justin. His anti-war, pro-Pat speech was a barnburner. As he neared the crescendo that would have pushed the delegates to frenzy, convention chairman Gerry Moan frog-marched him from the podium.

Why was Justin yanked? Theories abound, but my insider says that a KLA operative disguised as an ex-journalist issued the order.

In the hotel elevator, I found myself with a fellow delegate laden with “Go Pat Go” buttons and pitchfork.

Cowering in the elevator’s corner was a Natural Law Party devotee clearly attempting to put the pitchfork in transcendental terms.

“Hah!” I shouted to the miserable, terrorized clump. “What do you say about Pat’s bold move in selecting a black woman as his VP?”

“Your Buchanan is a repressed slave master,” he hissed. “Huh?” was my best response.

“He covets our black women. First Lenora Fulani, now Ezola Foster, and maybe Maxine Waters next.”

And from the Buchanan Brigadier, the burning question: “If Pat dies, and she’s president, where will her loyalties be if we have a crisis with an African country?”

“This is my floor fellas,” I said, “See you later.”

Kudos to Gerry Moan. He remained affable throughout the most difficult circumstances, and his impersonation of Jackie Gleason was the best I’d ever seen.

Two out of every three delegates seem to have a cellular phone. This explained how they stay informed, in contact with someone watching C-SPAN.

Finally, I am pleased to report that Pat was sensational. He looked rested and tanned (after all, he wasn’t in the hall with us!). And he was never more eloquent. Ezola and her husband, both beautifully attired, will return elegance to Washington.

I am certain of these final snapshots, as I left the swamp on Saturday and watched the convention’s last day on C-SPAN.

August 17, 2000