A lengthy article by Matthew Scully published on May 16 by the conservative magazine National Review, argues that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is turning into such a threat to the liberal Establishment’s choice of presidential candidates that he is getting “the LaRouche treatment.” Scully describes RFK Jr. as “tough and talented,” whose campaign for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency has gotten off to a good start. That has earned him attacks from both the Washington Post and New York Times. “The `why,’ in case you haven’t heard, is that RFK Jr. has in recent years been airing `controversial,’ `dangerous’ views, and this makes him, says the Post, a `fringe figure’ you needn’t take seriously.”
Scully limits his discussion of RFK Jr.’s policies largely to issues around vaccines and the pandemic lockdown—no mention whatsoever of his remarks about the role of the CIA in the assassination of his uncle JFK. Scully then writes:
“A well-established, scientifically tested, and empirically proven phenomenon known as liberal groupthink has set in, preempting even the most obvious conclusions. So, even if Kennedy’s presidential bid is off to an impressive start, in the Post’s analysis he is still relegated to the same category as `fringe figure Lyndon LaRouche,’ who—trivia time for Post readers—`in 1996 managed to pull double digits in some primary states.’
“The New York Times, in its version of the LaRouche treatment, likewise left the impression of a candidate’s announcement speech strangely and single-mindedly focused on `shaking Americans’ faith in science,’ no matter that the candidate himself had said nothing at all along those lines, and no matter that in all of his scientific arguments he cites scientific methods and scientific evidence.”
At the end of the article, Scully does turn to the war issue, noting that RFK Jr. has argued that “the Ukrainians are being used `as pawns in a proxy war between two great powers,’ `to essentially sacrifice the flower of Ukrainian youth in an abattoir of death and destruction for the geopolitical ambition of the neocons, oft-stated, of regime change for Vladimir Putin and exhausting the Russian military so that they can’t fight anywhere else in the world.’ `Every step that we’ve taken has been to enlarge the conflict and to maximize bloodshed,’ destroying Ukraine while `driving the Russians closer to the Chinese, which is the worst thing for us.’”
