Archive for 05/19/2010

Rand Paul tapped into ‘anger’

Posted: 05/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Tea Party's
Manu Raju Manu Raju Tue May 18, 9:11 pm ET

BOWLING GREEN, Ky. – Rand Paul, the first-time candidate for elective office who has emerged as a symbol of the national tea party’s clout in Republican politics, appears to have clinched the GOP’s nomination for this state’s open Senate seat – in a victory certain to jolt the political order in Kentucky and across the country.

The 47-year-old Bowling Green ophthalmologist – who until last year was best known for being the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whose staunch libertarian views have spawned a national grassroots following – knocked off Trey Grayson, the Kentucky secretary of state who had been the favorite of this state’s political heavyweights, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back,” Paul, with his parents and the rest of his family by his side, declared to roaring supporters at a posh country club here in his hometown.

With his attention-grabbing views railing on Washington and its ballooning budget deficits, the fire-breathing Paul successfully connected with this state’s furious Republican primary voters, something that the more subdued Grayson was unable to accomplish in the fight to replace the retiring two-term Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.).

“The electorate is pissed,” said Mike Shea, a long-time political adviser to McConnell. “Rand did a really good job of tapping into those themes and tapping into that anger. Trey is a nice guy, but in his commercials and everything else, he seemed completely unable to generate any kind of dialogue to indicate he was tapping into that. If you meet him, he didn’t seem like he was angry.”

With 89 percent of the precincts reporting, Paul appeared poised to seize a huge victory – leading Grayson by 59 percent to 35 percent of the vote. The Associated Press projected that Paul would win the race.

A packed crowd here at the Bowling Green Country Club let out a loud cheer when the AP projected the race for Paul, who was expected to address some 100 activists here later Tuesday.

But many of the Paul supporters had expected nothing less than resounding victory.

“I kind of expected it actually,” said Brent Young, a 45-year-old tea party activist who works with a local firm researching swine production. “I’ve really been a big supporter of his dad, and I really hope he can be elected in November. Time will tell but we really do think he’s a different kind of politician – and hopefully send a message to the GOP that we want something different.”

Paul is expected to face either Lt. Gov Daniel Mongiardo or state Attorney General Jack Conway, who are in the middle of a neck-and-neck battle for the Democratic nomination. Conway’s views are more in line with the Democratic base’s positions, and he is seen by national Democrats as a safer choice. But Mongiardo is seen as more unpredictable on the campaign trail, though his conservative views that break with the White House could appeal to rural and right-leaning voters. Conway is leading the race in early returns.

While polls showed Paul building a comfortable lead in the final weeks of the primary campaign, his win is still poised to send a shockwave threw the Republican establishment. It’s the first clear statewide victory by the disparate national tea party movement, which propelled his victory based on his calls for radical reforms to Washington, including imposing term limits on senators, mandating Congress be more sensitive to its constitutional prerogatives, constitutionally mandate Congress to balance its budget and force all legislation to directly apply to lawmakers. Absent from Paul’s campaign was much focus on socially conservative and national security views that have generated enthusiasm among tea party supporters in other states.

Conway was leading the race by just two percentage points with 92 percent of the precincts reporting.

“It’s not a real good time for any individual to be in a political position,” Republican state Sen. Carroll Gibson said simply.

Tuesday’s voting turnout appeared lighter than usual in much of the state, due to inclement weather and a lack of a presidential contest this midterm season. The day was colored by allegations from the Grayson camp that Paul’s supporters had been intimidating voters outside polling stations and had improperly sought to verify that voting machines were properly being used, allegations Paul firmly rejected.

Paul appears to have his work cut out for him uniting a divided GOP electorate here. A Public Policy Polling memo issued Tuesday found that 53 percent of likely Grayson voters had an unfavorable view of Paul, and 43 percent said firmly they would not vote for the tea party-favorite.

In his victory speech Tuesday night, Paul said nothing about Grayson and declined to extend an olive branch to his opponent’s supporters. Instead, he launched a fierce attack on President Barack Obama, accusing him of “apologizing” to the dictators and running the country towards socialism.

Beyond that, he’ll have to face a newly energized Democratic Party, which views his victory as a bright spot in an otherwise dim election year since it puts the Republican-held seat immediately in play. Already, Democrats are planning to pounce on a number of Paul’s more politically controversial views, including his calls to eliminate the Education Department, severely cut agriculture subsidies to farmers here and his advocacy for increasing the age for Social Security eligibility.

“Sometimes people run primaries different than they run general elections,” Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO when asked if he were concerned that Paul’s views would make him unelectable in a general election. “We’ll see what happens.”

But Paul said he will not “weave and dodge” from the tea party’s message, and he insisted that he will not moderate in the general election.

Grayson, 38, had been viewed as a rising star in the state’s Republican Party. Young, telegenic and seen as a pragmatic-minded conservative, he is one of only five living Republicans to win statewide here, where a majority of voters are either Democratic or independent. With the quiet backing of McConnell for months, Grayson was seen as the heir apparent to Bunning’s seat.

But in the final hours of the campaign that slipped away from him, Grayson’s allies began looking back at what went wrong – and the explanations ranged from failing to account for Paul’s rise early enough, a subpar advertising campaign and a failure to effectively communicate fiscal views to the electorate.

“It seemed to me that he got off to a slow start,” said state Sen. Tom Jensen, a Republican who backed Grayson. “We never really picked up the momentum. It seemed like Rand Paul had the momentum from the beginning and just didn’t lose it. They ran a good campaign.”

And several people here said Grayson failed to push back against the notion that he was the establishment choice, a politically toxic label this election year that he could have more forcefully sought to affix to his opponent.

“He accepted the mantle of being the ‘Washington D.C.’ candidate despite Paul’s obvious ties to his father, and he ceded ground on key fiscal arguments,” said Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist based in Louisville. “Grayson wanted this primary to be about national security because that’s where they thought they had the best opposition research. But this race was about spending and fiscal issues from the beginning, and Grayson’s lack of focus on that cost him early momentum which he never regained.”

As late as Monday, Grayson had complained that he couldn’t get traction on what he considered a key Paul gaffe: that a nuclear-free Iran wouldn’t be detrimental to national security. Paul had responded with a television ad calling Iran a threat, and the tit-for-tat never quite resonated with voters.

“We ran an ad and a quote from him saying that – I don’t know what else we could have done,” Grayson said. “On an issues discussion level, I’m not sure what more we could have done.”

In addition, Paul has positions that stray from the conservative line, including his hesitation over building a fence along the southern border with Mexico and for endorsing a federal ban on same-sex marriage; such positions didn’t seem to resonate with GOP primary voters in an election-year with many concerned about the budget deficit.

And Paul seemed to squash any momentum that Grayson seemed to muster. Last month, for instance, Bunning – who has a strong base of support in the conservative northern part of the state – grabbed headlines when he endorsed Paul, just a day after a new poll found the race tightening.

“I was very surprised because he had said to me straight up that he was going to stay out of the race,” Grayson told POLITICO about Bunning’s decision. “I was surprised. Based upon the things he said to me, I couldn’t reconcile that with what his actions were a month or so ago.”

But Paul benefitted greatly from his name identification as result of his father’s quixotic presidential run for the 2008 GOP nomination that spawned a buoyant band of libertarian followers. And he seemed to be doing something Grayson did not: speak directly to the mood of Republican primary voters angry at President Barack Obama’s agenda – and that anger seems to have cost Grayson his bid for the nomination.

“Obama is the best thing to happen the Republicans, but also the worst thing to happen to some Republican [politicians],” said Todd Inman, a Republican Party activist who supported Grayson.

But Paul credited a “nationwide movement” that helped him win his primary.
“What I say to Washington is, ‘Watch out, here we come.”

By Judi McLeod  Tuesday, May 18, 2010

imageNow that Obama Information Czar Cass Sunstein is making spoon-fed government propaganda mandatory on political websites, Canada Free Press (CFP) is introducing balancingtherightmessage.com.

Forcibly including government propaganda on political blogs gave us the idea for balancingtherightmessage.com, a dumping ground for the right to do the same thing to the left.

Balancingtherightmessage.com’s motto? (Are you listening MSNBC?) “Why make up the news when the truth is scary enough?”

We would have called the site balancingtherightnews.com.Canada but as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have proved there is no freedom of speech in the Land of the Maple Leaf.

This could be a lot of fun, Cass.

Although the New York Times and Tingle Man Chris Matthews are already prohibited from posting, the new website would welcome Rush, Mark, Sean and Glenn.

If he promises not to de-populate us, we’d make Mikhail Gorbachev our emeritus editor in chief.  Perhaps he could return the favor by admitting that if he and his sidekick Maurice Strong really cared about the environment, the gilt and sycamore Ark of Hope conveying the Earth Charter would be made of tofu.

“In an audio excerpt of an interview which was posted on the Breitbart.tv website yesterday, Sunstein discusses how conservative websites should provide links to liberal websites and vice versa or even how political blogs should be made to include pop ups that show “a quick argument for a competing view.” (Prison Planet.com, May 17, 2010).

Motor Mouth Momma Cass once wrote a white paper calling for “conspiracy theories” to be banned before wanting to “legally” force Americans to “do what’s best for our society”.

Balancingtherightmessage.com can not only easily prove that we want the Obama regime to “do what’s best for our society”, but can go a long way in showing that our conspiracy theories are better than theirs.

Our new website could have one section on Bureaucracies, for example the Bureaucracy of Hot Air: “Taxing politicians, Taxing sports and Taxing obscene phone calls.”

And just think of what could be done with our Pet Section.  There must be a lot of pets out there who would not want to turn their owners in even though Cass Sunstein supports outlawing hunting, wants meat eating phased out and is giving animals the right to file lawsuits.

Ain’t gonna’ happen even in CzarLand, Cass because unlike Eric Holder, Fido and Fluffy, would actually read 10-page documents before showing up in court.

OMG! Could Cass be the only pet in his own household?

Balancingtherightmessage.com could track down White House Portuguese Water Dog Bo,  as news about him since his adoption has become scarce to none.  Hope Fat Catcher Michelle didn’t put Bo on a permanent diet.

Sunstein himself may have come up with the conspiracy theory of all time: that our dogs, cats, canaries, guppies and hamsters secretly want to sue our butts off in courts of law. This strangest of all Obama Czars (unless you count ballerina Czar Whip Rahm Emanuel) wrote in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions that “animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives….Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”

How the White House Information Czar could keep Rover from impolitely scratching his fleas or barking his opinion in Sonia Sotomayor’s and Elena Kagan’s august courtrooms is more comical than conspirational.

Meanwhile, it’s walking a tightrope and trying to maintain balance as law abiding Americans are portrayed by their own government as terrorists when it should be a ban on Mad Hatters and rabbit holes.

The Balancing Act of Czar Cass Sunstein made room for Balancingtherightmessage.com, already registered and waiting for posts.

Obama “Madoff” with our tax dollars

Posted: 05/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in CFP

By Neil Braithwaite  Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Don’t you just love it when “rich” executives get implicated in corporate scandals and the media starts asking obvious questions like: Didn’t anyone see this coming? Who is responsible for watching these guys? And, why weren’t they caught sooner?

While this scenario seems to play out every several years or so, the tale of Bernie Madoff and his billion-dollar Ponzi scheme seems to have topped them all.

It was reported that when questioned in federal prison by a group of lawyers about his Ponzi scheme, Bernie Madoff said, “I’m surprised I wasn’t caught sooner.” Madoff went on to say that on several occasions when he met with the SEC he thought, “They got me.”

Madoff’s confessions present the best insight of how someone carries-off such an enormous Ponzi scheme right under the noses of family, friends, employees, business associates and state and federal regulators.

It should give every American pause when they consider that Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was enabled not only because a number of highly trained professionals missed so many obvious signs, but also because many of Madoff’s powerful connections actually turned a blind eye to the facts regarding his illegal financial endeavors.

What we had in Bernie Madoff was a well-connected financial guru, who for all intents and purposes could do no wrong. Included among those who believed Madoff could do no wrong were: Madoff’s loyal employees, the financial establishment (including the SEC), the United States Congress (including his buddy Sen. Chuck Schumer), many prominent business executives and a large social network of rich ultra elites.

What we have in Barack Obama, is an American President pushing billion dollar financial policies that exhibit many of the same characteristics of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

Similar to Madoff’s powerful elite and business establishment connections, President Obama has many powerful and loyal connections in both business and government as well, many of who are clearly overlooking obvious signs of trouble, with some even turning a blind eye to the facts regarding the President’s financial policies.

Within President Obama’s sphere of influence he, like Madoff, seems to do no wrong. Included among those who believe President Obama can do no wrong are: The entire liberal media, the Obama administration, 57 Democrat United States Senators, 254 Democrat United States Congress members, 28 Democrat State Governors, and upwards of 53% of the American electorate.

After all, President Obama is young, he’s cool, he’s been called the smartest person on the planet, and he was elected President of the United States. So why would anyone ever suspect this upstanding and well-connected young President of any wrongdoing?

While Madoff took billions of dollars from people and told them he was “investing” it on their behalf, and that the returns would be well above average, President Obama took billions of taxpayer dollars and told people it was an “investment” in jobs and the economy, and that the returns would be well above average.

The problem is, the multi-billion dollar investment and the big payoff President Obama promised the American taxpayers has not paid out—just like Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. And the billions of taxpayer dollars President Obama told America he needed immediately to “fix the economy” have been all but lost on what can only be defined as the “biggest ponzi scheme” since Bernie Madoff.

On the other hand, while Bernie Madoff was a smart enough captain to understand that his ship that would eventually hit an iceberg and go the way of the Titantic, Captain Obama isn’t quite bright enough to figure out that his minimal nautical charting skills are heading America toward the same fate as the SS Madoff.

On the contrary, believing his financial policies are unsinkable, President Obama’s ship of fools has been heading full speed into uncharted iceberg filled waters since his election. Even his most basic nautical charting skills should tell Captain Obama that it’s only a matter time before he runs full speed into an iceberg, sending America down faster than you can say, “man overboard.”

Unfortunately, America will continue on its perilous voyage into those uncharted iceberg filled waters because many of its citizens, business leaders, liberal media members, elected Democrat representatives and the liberal elite at large have been duped into believing President Obama and are willing to turn a blind eye to their savior’s obvious Ponzi scheme.

For the rest of us Americans who have caught on to President Obama’s Ponzi scheme, we need to make darn sure our voices are heard loud and clear this November so we can get America’s ship of state headed back on course and into safer waters.

Working as Designed

Posted: 05/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Land of The Free

by Jim Fedako
by Jim Fedako
Recently by Jim Fedako: Jealousy and Envy: The Christian and the State

Those who support our system of government and complain about the passage of Obamacare need to keep this in mind: The fact that Obamacare passed in spite of the wishes of a majority of Americans is proof that the system works as designed.

Be forewarned: I am not writing to defend the system. I am writing to condemn a system that provides no protection for either person or property – simply, a system that cannot be defended.

Types of Democracy

In a direct democracy, the voters decide, by majority vote, the issues of the day. The problem with this type of system is voters do not have the necessary time and expertise to understand all of the nuisances of proposed laws – the strategically placed comma, etc.

And they do not have the necessary time and expertise to understand all the near- and long-term impacts of those laws. Because of this lack of understanding, those seeking a political advantage can easily manipulate voters. So voters end up voting from positions of ignorance – voting against their own interests.

The solution is for voters to elect a representative, someone who has both the time and expertise to understand the issues. Someone the voters can trust to look out for their (the voters’) own interests.

Our System

We live under a representative democracy. As such, we elect our representatives to vote in our collective best interest, on all issues. They are not to simply vote according to the majority opinion – that would be a direct democracy by proxy. No, they are to vote in the interest of their collective constituents, as they – the politicians – think best.

Here is something to consider: The only time we know our political system works is when the elected representatives go against the majority of voters. If our elected officials vote with the majority of voters on every issue, our representative democracy would be no better than a direct democracy.

The same holds for your local representative. He must vote, at least occasionally, against the majority opinion of his constituents in order for you to know that our system is functioning properly.

That means my congressman was actually acting in accordance with the ideal of our political system when he voted for TARP and the bailout in spite of opposition from an overwhelming majority of his constituents (based on calls to his office before the vote, as reported in the local paper).

There is no reason for anyone in his district to get angry (assuming they support our current political system); his votes proved our system works.

Furthermore, there is no reason for anyone to get angry over Obamacare and the likely passage of other evils in spite of the desires of a majority of voters. These are all indicators of the health of a representative democracy.

The majority in both the House and Senate serve (and will continue to serve) our country well by voting opposite the majority from time to time. To complain about such a vote is to complain about our current system. And we all agree that our system is best. Don’t we?

The Ideal

Our system of government is based on the ideal – and this is utopian – of representatives going to DC and doing what is right. These folks educate themselves on all issues to the point of omniscience. And they vote, not based on the uniformed, fleeting opinions of their constituents, but on their (the representatives) understanding of the nuances of proposed laws, as well as an understanding of the current and future impacts of those laws.

Of course, this is pure fantasy. But it is the party line – the public school version of our current political system. In reality, we live according to the whims of the majority of elected representatives – which is to say that we live according the whims of the state

Individual Interests

We (you and I) do not share interests. You have an interest in an issue, as do I. But those interests are never the same. Sure, our individual interests may be similar, and we may even use some of the same words and phrases. But you and I never see things exactly the same. Because of that, melding our various and individual interests into a common set of interests that we share is impossible. Furthermore, it follows that it is impossible to aggregate all the various and individual interests across a congressional district (or some other local, state, or national political boundary) into a single set of interests that we all share.

So it is nonsensical to believe that an elected representative can vote in our (yours and mine) individual best interests, just as it is nonsensical to believe that he can vote in our (whether local, state or national) collective best interest. He cannot. And neither will he. He can and will vote in his own interest, only. We should expect nothing else.

A State without Bounds

Some will claim that we have a safeguard – a piece of faded, 200-year old parchment. They claim that we live in a republic, not a democracy. They claim that those words drafted in deceit, behind closed doors, protect their person and property.

While it is true that we have nominal protections, a document has no power, whatsoever. Don’t believe it? Test those assumed rights sometime, in a real, open way. Really challenge the state. You will be gambling your person and property on an interpretation of someone who represents the interests of the state – not your interests, and certainly not the ideals of person and property.

We have no safeguard other than ideas. And when the majority desires the safety of the wolves, our fate is obvious.

Conclusion

Those who desire to live in a representative democracy, a state without bounds, should be proud that their government has passed nonsense over their objections. And they should be proud that liberty is giving way to slavery, since even this is a product of their beloved political system.

For those of you who still hold onto the god of democracy yet see Obamacare as an omen, a harbinger of greater evils to come, may I suggest taking a harder look at the system of government you support. It is working as designed. Always.

May 19, 2010

Jim Fedako [send him mail] is a business analyst and homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


The Case Against the Fed Book Review

Posted: 05/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Feds

by: Randy Radic
The Case Against the FedThe Case Against the Fed

The Case Against the Fed
By Murray N. Rothbard
Ludwig von Mises Institute  2007
158 pages.

In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler wrote, “With money-traffic there appears between producer and consumer, as though between two separate worlds, the third party, the middleman, whose thought is dominated a priori by the business side of life.  He elevates mediation to a monopoly and thereafter to economic primacy, and forces the other two to be ‘in form’ in his interest …  He who commands this mode of thinking is the master of money.”

And no, Spengler was not referring to the Fed.  But he very well could have been, for the Fed certainly fits the definition of a monopolistic middleman, who is the master of money.  Which is the subject of Murray Rothbard’s book – The Case Against the Fed.

Like many books, The Case Against the Fed starts out with an introduction.  But that’s where the similarity ends.  For Rothbard’s introduction is a real humdinger.  He gets right to his thesis, which is that the Fed is super-secretive, accountable to no one, has no budget, and is subject to no audit.  And whenever anyone broaches changing this situation, the “standard reply of the Fed and its partisans is that any such measures, however marginal, would encroach on the Fed’s ‘independence from politics,’ which is invoked as a kind of self-evident absolute.”

In other words, only by means of absolute power and no accountability can the Fed wage its holy war “against inflation.”   According to the Fed’s line of reasoning, the public is responsible for inflating the money supply.  Which means the Fed is all that stands between the public and the temptation of inflation.  In Rothbard’s opinion, “this mythology is the very reverse of the truth.”

Rothbard’s analysis and explanation of the real truth is wonderfully wrought.  “If,” says Rothbard, “chronic inflation is caused by the continuing creation of new money, and if [the Central Banking System] is the sole monopoly source and creator of all money, who then is responsible for the blight of inflation?”  The answer of course is “the Fed itself.”

This fact, according to Rothbard, explains why the Fed requires secrecy.  “If the public knew what was going on,” it would know that the Fed is “itself the heart and cause of the problem.”

After this blistering opening, Rothbard moves on to discuss how money and banking developed.  This discussion segues naturally into the ‘optimum amount of money.’  And as Rothbard demonstrates, “any quantity of money in society is ‘optimal.’”  Increasing the supply of money in a society is unnecessary and not beneficial.  Any increase that occurs is purely and simply inflation, which, in Rothbard’s opinion, is tantamount to counterfeiting.

Counterfeiting increases the money supply, which simultaneously pushes up the cost of goods and services and decreases the buying power of money.  The other thing counterfeiting does – and this is an important point – is put more money into the “hands of the counterfeiters.”  In other words, the people printing the counterfeit money get richer.

Rothbard points out that historically, there “have been two kinds of legalized counterfeiting.”  The first is government printed paper money.  The second is “fractional-reserve banking.”  And Rothbard’s explanation of fractional-reserve banking is one of the best around.  For it is simple and clear, eschewing technical jargon and convoluted models.

From there, Rothbard moves on to Central Banking, providing a brief history of how and where the concept came from.  Modern Central Banking came into existence with the Peel Act of 1844, which gave the Bank of England an “absolute monopoly on the issue of all bank notes in England.”  Rothbard illustrates how the Central Bank increases its reserves and those of its cartel members – by buying assets which are paid for by money pulled out of the air.  This fiat money expands many times, making all the banks rich.

As the reader makes his way through Rothbard’s explanation, he is torn between admiration and shock.  On the one hand, such audacity has to be admired.  What a simple and effective way to get rich – by making something (money) out of nothing.  On the other hand, it is shocking that such trickery is condoned.

Rothbard then proceeds to relate how the Central Bank concept came into being in America.  The primary factor – says Rothbard – was Wall Street bankers, who became disgruntled with the National Banking System.  Essentially, the National Banking System “was not centralized enough.”  Which meant that the money supply “couldn’t be increased fast enough to suit the banks.”

The Morgan and Rockefeller groups began manipulating the situation politically, and – eventually – the Federal Reserve System came into being “at the plush Jekyll Island retreat.”  The year was 1911.  In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed.  The big bankers got their way.  They had a “lender of last resort,” which was code for a Sugar Daddy who would allow them to inflate the money supply.  In effect, the Morgan banking group was now running the monetary system of the U.S.  Later, as a result of the New Deal, the Rockefellers took over, according to Rothbard.

In the final section of The Case Against the Fed, Rothbard describes how the Federal Reserve System methodically pyramids “credits and deposits on top of their initial burst of reserves.”  And anyone who bothers to read Rothbard’s lucid explanation is forced to conclude that the Fed does as it pleases.  And what it pleases to do is inflate the money supply.

Rothbard’s answer to the whole fiasco is simple:  “return to gold and to abolish the Federal Reserve, and to do so at one stroke.”  All that is lacking is the will to do so.

The Case Against the Fed makes a cogent and irrefutable argument for the dissolution of the Federal Reserve System.  Rothbard’s writing style is contemporary and easy-to-digest.  His mastery of the subject matter is obvious.  His illustrations are logical and rational.  His recommendations are sensible.  One can only hope his words do not fall upon deaf ears.

By Brent Budowsky – 05/17/10 01:18 PM ET

Behind the scenes the insider Republican establishment is now in an uproar as the odds are high that Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for senator from Kentucky. This would be a major embarrassment to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and raises a big question about 2012: Why is Sarah Palin getting so much attention, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) so little, from the national media and pundit classes?

Certain pundits appear strangely infatuated with Palin, but it seems to me that if Ron Paul runs for president in 2012, he could win a plurality of delegates in a multi-candidate field. My guess is that Ron Paul does run for president and Sarah Palin does not, but who knows? Why is it that major media are so unwilling to take a close and serious look at Ron Paul as a potential candidate for president, while they pant with excitement at every breath Palin takes?

If Rand Paul wins, it sends cold chills up the spines of Washington Republicans, and it may well force the media to take a close look at what happens if Ron Paul runs for president.

Do the math, folks. If there are three, four, five or more Republicans running for the nomination in 2012, Ron Paul suddenly has a shot at doing very well in the delegate count, possibly winning a plurality of delegates, depending on how many Republicans run and who they are.

If Republican power brokers try to lock him out, what happens if Paul runs as an Independent?

And why don’t Republican or Democratic pundits give Ron Paul his due? After Election Day, they just might have no choice, right?