Dave's Big Brain

I've written an couple of entries about Adam Kokesh, who is a Republican candidate for Congress in NM-3.  Today, David Maass of the Sante Fe Reporter penned an article about Kokesh titled, "Republican Dark Horse Winning Over Some NM Voters," which begins like this:

Adam Kokesh doesn’t believe 9.11 was an inside job, doesn’t question President Barack Obama’s citizenship and argues that insurance companies have already instituted death panels.  He’s for pulling all combat troops from Afghanistan [and Iraq] and opposes government control of whom a citizen—gay or straight—can marry.  In other words, some of Kokesh’s positions are downright liberal. (emphasis added; line-out to correct the original author)

Mr. Maass' article doesn't strike me as biased for or against Kokesh, but I disagree with the way Maass frames Kokesh's platform with the L-word.  Politicians and pundits have redefined the terms liberal and conservative so many times that neither has any absolute meaning anymore.  Everything is relative now.  Whatever the senior elected officials of the Republican Party claim to be true gets labelled as conservative; ditto for the Democratic Party and liberal.

Perhaps what Maass meant to imply is that some of Kokesh's positions diverge sharply from the Republican dogma of the last decade.  That is absolutely true, but it isn't because Kokesh is a closet Democrat; it's because there's absolutely nothing conservative about the GOP anymore.

Classical liberal might be an accurate description for Kokesh.  However one choses to describe him, that fact that he sounds nothing like McConnell, Boehner, McCain (who Kokesh protested during the 2008 RNC), or any of the other Republican "leaders," is to his credit.  The United States of American doesn't need another straight party hack of any variety, and we certainly don't need people trying to destroy civil liberties in the name of "security."  We need problem solvers and people who actually believe in the enlightenment ideals embodied by the U.S. Constitution.

Adam Kokesh impresses me as such a person.

I agree with the Obama administration about something--Fox News is not a legitimate news organization.  White House media director Anita Dunn, whose name sounds like something from Airplane 2 (watch 3:30 to 4:10), had this to say yesterday about Fox:

We're going to treat them the way we treat an opponent.  As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.

You can read more from the New York Times (NYT) article here, although I don't recommend it.  It's just a series of ad hominem attacks volleyed back and forth by administration officials and Fox News executives, who repeatedly mention ratings without mention of accurate reporting.

No argument from me on this one.

In typical "journalism" fashion, the NYT merely prints each side's spin.  If you want something with some meat, I highly recommend this instead:

World Public Opinion: Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War (2 October 2003)

Although the essay stops short of stating the obvious, the clear conclusion is that certain organizations--Fox being the worst among them--clearly contribute to the public being misinformed about critical facts.  Even worse, the more consumers are exposed to some sources, the worse informed they become.

For example, consider the report by the IAEA dated 7 March 2003, thirteen days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq began, titled, "The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update."  Skip to the "Conclusion" section at the end, and read the bullet points.  With that in mind, watch this video of one particular belicose imbecile Fox repeatedly had on air in the last few weeks before the invasion:

This is the Johnnie Cochran defense in action.  The IAEA report contradicted all the propaganda Cheney, Rice, and other warmongers were dolling out to the public at the time, so proponents of the invasion attacked the people calling for peace.  Somebody with an enormous amount of clout to speak on the subject once said this:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

That is exactly what happened in the United States in 2002 and 2003, and Fox News was absolutely vital in making it happen.  When Fox decided to pick a side, it ceased to exist as a legitimate news organization.

The race for U.S. House in NM-3 features a Democratic incumbent and a Republican challenger, who is also an Iraq veteran. One supports the "wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq; the other does not. Can you guess who is the peace candidate?

I won't keep you in suspense.  The answer is that former marine, Fallujah veteran, and IVAW member Adam Kokesh is the only peace candidate in NM-3.  He does not equivocate when he says that all military personnel need to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan now.  According to his campaign manager:

Adam is on record over and over again and has never wavered.  Absolutely no way would he [vote to] continue the funding of the occupations.

That is a pro-peace position.  In fact, that is the only pro-peace position for a member of the legislative branch. Congress is the pocket book.  When members of Congress vote to appropriate funds for something, they support that thing, by definition.  When they vote against funding, they oppose that thing, also by definition.  Kokesh wrote me separately to express the same sentiment:

It's sad that we even have to ask that question [about funding] these days.  "So you believe in something.  Are you going to stand up for what you believe in or just be a typical politician?"

I'm not inclined to go easy on the incumbent, Rep. Ben Lujan, on this issue because he has chosen to be a typical politician.  Frankly, his typical equivocating Democrat routine disgusts me.  In true Pelosi/Obama fashion, he pretends to oppose the occupations (he calls them "wars," even though the wars ended years ago with U.S. military victories) by offering superficial, purely theatrical resistance.  For example, he introduces amendments calling for time lines in Afghanistan (which never pass) to appropriations bills, and he sends symbolic letters to the White House "urging" the President not to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan.

You and I can "urge" the President with letters too.  The only reason that the actions of Rep. Lujan are of any greater consequence than the actions of ordinary citizens is that Lujan also has a vote.  The bottom line is that Lujan consistently uses his vote to appropriate funds to continue the occupations, which results in more death, more wasted money, and more ill will towards the United States of America.

Mr. Lujan owns the occupations as much as Obama, Pelosi, H. Clinton, Dubya, and Cheney.  At least the latter two were somewhat honest about it.

Real peace candidates oppose foreign occupations regardless of the party in power.  Adam Kokesh is a real peace candidate.