The very definition of a fixed horserace is when the same interests own both horses in that race. Such is the growing neocon push behind Texas Governor Rick Perry who has been cleaned up after his 2012 GOP primary season embarrassment to emerge as the Mexican bashing, American exceptionist promoting ringer in the upcoming race against neocon Democratic party candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. They even gave him Barry Goldwater style horn-rimmed glasses for his coming out party.

The neocon central transmission beacon The Washington Post prominently featured an op ed allegedly penned by Perry entitled “Isolationist policies make the threat of terrorism even greater” in a broadside against the growing libertarian element in the party led by Senator Rand Paul. Make no mistake about it, the REAL enemy in the 2016 presidential and congressional elections are Americans who are fed up with our costly meddling in the world and the ongoing hatred that it generates – which is entirely justified when you consider that the military grade murder brought by the USA! USA! USA! – in foreign lands in which we murder innocent civilians for corporate profits and the spreading of “democracy” as a carpet bombing of enduring horseshit.

Dig the following from the Texas Governor’s WAPO propaganda spiel:

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.

[First off Perry’s vaunted military service was not combat service, while not a draft dodger like the last Texas Governor to run for president Rambo Rick flew transport planes, like the line from Top Gun about “flying a cargo plane of rubber dogshit out of Hong Kong”. Even in a time where the cult of the uniform and the worship of all things military here in The Homeland Perry’s will be hard pressed to sell his military duties as something of valor – at least to those with any sense.]

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.

[Rand Paul supports the “terrorists” and if you vote for him so do you]

In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.

[Is the anti-Muslim fear-mongering EVER going to jump the shark? When you have right-wing media promoting alarmist tales of a southern border invasion based on a “Muslim prayer rug” that was found in Arizona that was really just a fucking soccer jersey isn’t it time to just call all of the anti-Muslim bigots out as being crazy and moving on to real issues?]

This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels

[Reference to the Jewish Museum shooting is a thinly veiled plea for Sheldon Adelson’s millions come campaign season]

Yet Paul still advocates inaction, going so far as to claim in an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that President Ronald Reagan’s own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion.

But his analysis is wrong. Paul conveniently omitted Reagan’s long internationalist record of leading the world with moral and strategic clarity.

Unlike the noninterventionists of today, Reagan believed that our security and economic prosperity require persistent engagement and leadership abroad. He, like Eisenhower before him, refused to heed “the false prophets of living alone.”

Reagan identified Soviet communism as an existential threat to our national security and Western values, and he confronted this threat in every theater. Today, we count his many actions as critical to the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union and the freeing of hundreds of millions from tyranny.

At the time, though, there were those who said that Reagan’s policies would push the Soviets to war. These voices instead promoted accommodation and timidity in the face of Soviet advancement as the surest path to peace. This, sadly, is the same policy of inaction that Paul advocates today.

In the face of the advancement of the Islamic State, Paul and others suggest the best approach to this 21st-century threat is to do next to nothing. I personally don’t believe in a wait-and-see foreign policy for the United States. Neither would Reagan.

Reagan led proudly from the front, not from behind, and when he drew a “red line,” the world knew exactly what that meant.

[Just like Pleasantville, there are no roads leading out of REAGANGRAD for the Republicans who have yet to find a successful ideology with widespread appeal – such as the one that Rand Paul and a new national policy of minding our own damned business would equivocate. Were this embraced then the GOP just might win another general election in the next fifty years instead of babbling Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan and clicking their heels together in the hope of a different result than another embarssing ass-whipping by incompetents like Obama]

The neocons have made no secret that they would be ecstatic at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton regime, they can finally return to the Democratic party from which they left in disgust back when the unwashed rabble who were protesting the Vietnam War chose George McGovern as their candidate. Nothing will facilitate that becoming a reality than a Rick Perry Republican candidacy, if this is the matchup then Adelson can just pocket his filthy blood money and go to his grave knowing that heads he wins and tails we lose – just like the casino business.