Skip to main content

Ron Paul: to be kept at arm's length.
Without the why, you are powerless. -- The Merovingian, The Matrix Reloaded

Political positions do not exist in a vacuum, independent of a larger context. An individual's political ideology cannot be determined simply by asking where that person stands on a series of hot-button issues and then throwing those positions onto an inflexible scorecard to determine if someone leans closer to "liberal" or "conservative." Instead, each individual point of data on a hypothetical test of ideology is, to at least some degree, predicted by an underlying narrative of values and beliefs.

Let's take, for the sake of example, the issue of pornography. In the 1980s, radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin led a movement against pornography on the grounds that it promoted the subjugation of women by men. Leaders of her ideological movement even formed alliances with the Christian right wing, who despised pornography not because they had any problem with men subjugating women—something that their ideology is in fact somewhat dependent on—but because of their repressive perspective toward anything having to do with human sexuality. Other feminist activists like Margaret Atwood criticized such alliances as ultimately counterproductive and dangerous: while there was a short-term opportunity for mutual gain on one area of interest, playing with that kind of fire could, in their view, provide undue empowerment to the enemies of the broader feminist movement. What mattered to them, after all, was not whether the Christian right had some superficial common ground on one issue: what mattered was why they held that perspective, and the ramifications of promoting people who despised just about everything else their movement stood for in the hopes of short-term gain on one issue.

So it is with the progressive movement's relationship to Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has policy prescriptions that seem on a superficial level to align closely with progressive values: most significantly, he opposes the continuing military presence in Afghanistan, and he opposes the current war on drugs—both of which are regarded by many progressives as total policy failures that should be ended as soon as possible. To "single-issue" progressives for whom either of these two issues, or perhaps the indefinite military detention provisions of the NDAA, are key concerns above all else, Paul's candidacy may initially prove attractive because he seems at first glance to be promoting issues of common cause. Paul-touting progressives are no doubt just as aware of Ron Paul's positions on women's rights, the Voting Rights Act, health care, and our country's entire macroeconomic structure; but they likely view Paul's candidacy as an opportunity not only to promote their own favorite issue, but also perhaps to stick a proverbial finger in the eye of President Obama, who they feel has not met their expectations.

The most obvious folly of progressives who promote Paul as a challenge to traditional orthodoxy lies in the simple fact that most of Paul's superficial positions, as described above, are absolute anathema to progressive policy prescriptions. But there is an even larger concern: supporting Paul for the one or two issues on which there is overlap assumes those particular positions arise out of a sense of progressivism. But they don't, any more than the Christian right's opposition to pornography could be considered part of Dworkin's feminist ideology. It is, rather, completely antithetical, even if the policy output happens to coincide despite a drastically different ideological input. In other words, it doesn't matter if the "what" happens to be the same if the "why" is radically different.

Progressives and Ron Paul may agree on how to handle Afghanistan. What they don't agree on is whether they care about other people dying. On the campaign trail, President Obama said that he's not opposed to all wars; he's opposed to dumb wars. That is an inherently progressive ideology. Intervention—peacekeeping at best, outright war at worst—is a strongly founded progressive value and always has been. For progressives, the question of whether or not to intervene hinges not on whether interventionism is inherently good or bad; rather, the question is whether on balance, the intervention will bring about a net positive result. Progressives now often oppose our intervention in Afghanistan because we are spending fortunes doing more harm than good for an objective that is poorly understood, even if it is obtainable. However, few sensible progressives would argue, for instance, that fighting the Nazis was a bad idea. Ron Paul, does not have anywhere close to that level of progressive humanist values: he simply does not want any of his time and resources spent on preventing others from dying, no matter whether that intervention seems to be a good idea from a progressive perspective or not. Consequently, he opposes our continued presence in Afghanistan, but also thinks that saving the Jews from extermination at the hands of the Nazis was none of our business.

Ron Paul's position on the drug war is exactly the same. Progressives oppose the drug war because it is drastically failing in its objective of keeping communities safer and keeping drugs off the street, and is instead spending large amounts of money to create a destructive shadow economy. Ron Paul happens to take the same position, in keeping with anti-interventionist ideology. Progressives don't oppose the drug war because it is inherently interventionist; they oppose it because it is a failed intervention that is doing more harm than good. But they would not say the same about other federal interventions like the Voting Rights Act, the EPA, Keynesian intervention in the economy, regulations on Wall Street, or a whole other host of interventionist measures progressives love but Ron Paul would oppose.

While it may be tempting for some to promote Ron Paul as a proxy for highlighting their dissatisfactions with the current administration, those who do must understand that in the longer term, they are promoting an underlying ideology that seeks to destroy everything they actually represent. Those who are looking for opportunities to push mainstream Democrats should look elsewhere. This one's not worth it.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What is This Obsession About Imaginging (61+ / 0-)

    hoards of progressives being for Paul?

    I have in my hand a list of 100 progressives who are fellow travellers of Ron Paul.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:03:39 PM PST

    •  I highy doubt there are many... (44+ / 0-)

      ...self identifying "progressives for Paul".  It's like the PUMAs from 2008 elections, they got far more press than their numbers should warrant.

      But the fact that they are getting press at all warrants some kind of rebuttal.

      I started a blog. It's still a work in progress but if you're interested, come on by. Dawn of Ambivalence

      by DawnG on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:06:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Current shiny object. (14+ / 0-)

      I'm wondering if you earn a badge of honor if you write one of these diaries.
      That would account for it.
      A badge is easier to earn than the real thing.

      Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

      by Burned on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:06:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  some of them are coke-snorting McCarthyites (7+ / 0-)

      Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare."

      by annieli on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:09:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sadly it's drifted to the FP. Oy fucking weh. nt (7+ / 0-)
    •  There are several who say Paul (23+ / 0-)

      has good things to say about afghanistan or drugs, but he doesnt.  He has topic sentences, but "policy" exists in the details. Obama might be mistaken (though strategy contemplates a 2014 complete drawdown of combat troops), but he's still reality based.  Calling for Paul in this regard and not just an Obama who might make a few decisions differently (feingold?) is more like arguing for anarchism.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:27:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's not that they're FOR paul (11+ / 0-)

      there are indeed hoards of progressives that want to punish democrats for continuing the racist war on minorities, aka the war on drugs, because it's politically convenient.  indeed many progressives stayed at home in 2010 for this reason alone.  

      just like might happen this year if they don't back the fuck off.

      there are hoards of progressives that are fucking furious at mainstream politicians of both parties for propping up the banksters ....such progressives mock mainstream democrats like barack obama and harry reid by toying with ron paul like a cat plays with a mouse.

      it's the corruption stupid.  (not you gooserock).  in the end, the abhorrence of the republicans, their rank fascism brings such voters back to the democrats holding their noses.

      not that i'm one of those people. :)

      Stop Prohibition, Start Harm Reduction

      by gnostradamus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:29:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But as the diarist said... (7+ / 0-)
        Ron Paul's position on the drug war is exactly the same. Progressives oppose the drug war because it is drastically failing in its objective of keeping communities safer and keeping drugs off the street, and is instead spending large amounts of money to create a destructive shadow economy. Ron Paul happens to take the same position, in keeping with anti-interventionist ideology. Progressives don't oppose the drug war because it is inherently interventionist; they oppose it because it is a failed intervention that is doing more harm than good. But they would not say the same about other federal interventions like the Voting Rights Act, the EPA, Keynesian intervention in the economy, regulations on Wall Street, or a whole other host of interventionist measures progressives love but Ron Paul would oppose.

        This says it all.

      •  I'm sorry. (4+ / 0-)

        But I'm not so frustrated with the status quo that I need to search for just anybody who believes in the things I believe in.

        "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

        by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:55:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  To young, politically naives, RP sound idealistic (11+ / 0-)

      ...rather than the right wing ideologue that he really is. It is a common phenomenon on college campuses for young, progressive, but politically naive people to fall for the lie that Ron Paul is somehow progressive. So, it is useful to point out the truth about how nutty he really is.

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:37:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Strange to be both naive and cynical at once (13+ / 0-)

        They're angry at Obama for not being able to singlehandedly turn things around in one term and having to make compromises, but they're willing to take Ron Paul at his word and believe that he'll somehow be the savior who turns things around all by himself.

        •  cause they are looking for an authority figure (9+ / 0-)

          to swoop in and put everything in good order

          basically, they haven't gotten used to being an adult yet

          i think my cat is possessed by dick cheney

          by Anton Bursch on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:32:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes or the next shiny object, the next movement (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tekno2600, Onomastic, Amber6541

            the next new thing.

          •  This. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tekno2600, Matt Z, Onomastic

            Actually some folk who has long since been adults haven't got used to it either.

            "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

            by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:56:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nah they just (6+ / 0-)

            are sick and tired of endless war, a police state, being broke and lying pols who dangle hope and change. Just because they think Paul is right on the immoral,illegal Orwellian war, or on the destruction of our Bill of Rights does not mean they love or support Paul. They just aren't buying the lies and double speak the Democrat's are offering and their new slogan, We're not as Nuts. Geeze this is some really lame deflection from some pretty obvious insanity that the Democrat's and the Republicans both call 'the way forward'.

            Adult my ass what's adult about 'lock up everybody' and 'terrist's want to kill yer family' so give up your rights and let the adult sociopaths crooks and bankster's run the inevitable world as we find it. It's this or an even more insane version.

            Shorter version what choice do you have sucker? The dude is nor a threat, he's simply a symptom of no where to run no where to hide. Why get crazy about the crazy who poses no threat other then pointing out the futility of our current electoral system. Might be a bad move to give this totally creepy dude so much bogus traction.  

            •  I can name you dozens of good Democrats. Few if (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Greenfinches, Matt Z

              any Republicans are even marginally sane, or they would be kicked straight out of their party.

              If you don't think the Democrats are progressive enough for you, run as a progressive Democrat. You won't make it as a Republican, or fringe party candidate, but Progressives have a real chance of taking over the Democratic Party, as long as they don't join the Pity Party instead.

              Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

              by tekno2600 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:17:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  heh? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Diebold Hacker, splashoil

                Did I say the Republicans were marginally sane? They are nuts,including Ron Paul who is what we are discussing here.  No doubt about it, anybody with a brain in their head knows this. I'm an active Democratic party member of  my county party. I have spent the last decade and more working for Democratic  would not vote for RP even if he was a Dem.

                Are you telling me that because I do not support this administrations policy and Third Way trajectory I'm a member of the pity party? How does supporting right wing ideology and meme's like keeping you safe by killing your rights or trickle down wealth creation even equate with being progressive. I'm not a 'progressive' I'm a liberal Democrat from the democratic end of the party.  

                Your barking up the wrong tree by giving me shit. I was taking about the people who actually might find RP 's message appealing and believe me these people are not progressive Democrat"s. They are people who find no relief from either party. That is tragic as in order for democracy to work we do need a vehicle that allows us representation and a voice in the process of governance.

                The only way progressiveness's stand a chance of taking back their party is to get a spine and stop supporting policy and agenda that is right wing and passed off as  by-partisan, pragmatic or Democratic. Screaming hysterically about RP's danger to the Democrat's is just as nut's as anything the right does.
                     

                •  Don't be so sensitive. I just said there are lots (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Patate, Matt Z, foufou

                  of good Democrats and if you don't like others or the policies of the President, go ahead and run as a Progressive. You made things sound a bit negative. I agree that we have to show that bi-partisanship with right wing nuts does not work. I also think we should let people know not to be fooled by Ron Paul.

                  Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                  by tekno2600 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:33:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I know no one here or in (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    splashoil

                    my democratic off line community who is fooled by RP. Negative my ass what others are you talking about?  I care about more then whether a corrupt pol has a D after his or her name. Things are negative just look around at what is going on. . Who should people trust the so called Democratic alternative that offers a saner? version of the wing nuts, neo cons  and bankster's 'way forward'?  Instead of telling me about how scary and evil RP is tell me about what the Democrat's are offering? nothing I want.

                     Endless war, my civil rights gone, an economy that tells me top sacrifice and suffer to pay off bankster's and evil war debts? From Democratic pols?  That's messed up and is not only negative but pisses me off. Like anyone who's a progressive gets to run in our party which is owned and run by Third Way'ers and neocon war criminals and  profiteers. Where my habeas corpus? Where's some democracy? Where's a progressive no where in sight in this bogus version of Democrat's. I know what democracy looks likle and this isn't it.    

                    •  Let me put it this way. I am not going to write (0+ / 0-)

                      you an essay or keep responding to your bullcrap little essays. You claim generic Democrats are basically as bad as Republicans and then you claim that you are deeply involved with the Democratic party, which seems quite strange and a bit hard to believe. You talk a lot about loss of civil liberties, but I it seems to be mainly based on misinformation, like failure to understand that the NDAA specifically says that detention provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens. You seem to take issue with me saying you sounded negative, and then you lay a bunch of negative crap down, proving my point. If you like negative, uninformed BS, then Ron Paul is your man. I have nothing more to say to you.

                      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                      by tekno2600 on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 10:07:56 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What's a generic Democrat? (0+ / 0-)

                        Ron Paul is not my man no way! You find it hard to believe that someone who doesn't like what is going on in DC with our party is a member of their liberal district's county party? Get a grip grassroots liberal activists in the party are still there still fighting.

                        We got Merkely elected and my state house rep not only a Dem but a Working Families Party candidate won in 2010 with a whopping 80% vote. I worked hard to get rid of the Bushies for 10 years. I also worked hard via OFA to get Obama elected in the primary. I am now working locally to elect Democrat's and progressives who really are democratic really do work for people and the principles of democracy.  

                        There are plenty of liberals who are Democrat's don't buy this New Democratic, corporate, Third Way, bs. Don't worry we will vote for Obama as what choice do we have which is precisely my point. Take a look at the reality your insisting is democratic. Uniformed my ass. I just am not delusional enough to accept the War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength line you are pedaling. Once again where my habeas corpus?    

                        •  It sounds like you are doing good work. I guess (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          shaharazade

                          I was a little mean and probably shouldn't have been. I have done much of the same kind of work. I still do feel that you sometimes come across as a bit negative, even if you don't mean to. I always try to focus on solutions.

                          Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                          by tekno2600 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:48:00 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Guess what? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Patate, Onomastic, gramofsam1, Sylv

              There have been endless wars since man learned to make weapons if the truth be really told.  So suddenly in 2008 folk are sick of endless wars?  Where the hell have they been all of this time?

              If the truth be told, if this were really a police state, we wouldn't be able to travel across the street from our homes without papers.  Does the potential always exist that we can devolve into that?  Sure.  But the truth is, unless you are a survivor of Nazi Germany or any similar situation, you don't really know what a police state is.

              With respect to these 'immoral, illegal Orwellian war[s]', President Obama always supported the continuance of the war in Afghanistan.  If you thought that it was so immoral or illegal, then maybe you should have voiced your objections to his candidacy then.  

              The fact is that the actual immoral, illegal war that was fought on the false premise that the nation state had something to do with 9/11 was officially ENDED by President Obama in 2011.

              But of course, for all of the huffing and puffing about being so anti-war, I find it interesting that these same people cannot bring themselves to acknowledge an action that actually fit in with such anti-war stances.

              Whatever you choose to buy, you certainly have a narrow view of reality.  You say you don't buy that Democrats aren't nuts, yet you fail to take into account that the reason why we are still having to deal with a lot of the collateral damage from the Bush Administration is the mistaken impression that all one had to do was to vote for a President and not vote to usher in substantial majorities of those 'pseudo-nutty' Democrats and maybe some true Progressives to help with getting rid of the 'lobbyist revolving door' that has infected all of Congress and maybe clean up the laws that Bush signed that started our civil liberties on this slippery slope in the first damn place.

              Lastly, Ron Paul is NOT pointing out the futility of our current electorial system.  He is taking people for a ride in his Frankinstein machine of what a country under Paul would look like.  

              You think it's futile now?  You would crying for these days under a Paul Administration.  His being able to win is clearly not the point; it's thinking that anything he has to say is credible.

              It's thinking that Ron Paul is being honest about the intent behind the things that he claims to stand for.

              "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

              by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:30:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  That's a bit disingenuous. (12+ / 0-)

        A great deal of Ron Paul support comes from people who are fully aware of how destructive Ron Paul's policies are, but consider that a "good" thing.

        It goes against everything we understand to be good and true, but some people idealize and romanticize the cleansing power of destruction.  And why shouldn't they?  They think THEY are the John Galts that are exceptional and will rise above the destruction of society.

        People who advocate for social darwinism never think THEY will be the ones culled from society.  Contrast that with progressives who either assume they will suffer from such policies or find it unacceptable that others should suffer.

        I started a blog. It's still a work in progress but if you're interested, come on by. Dawn of Ambivalence

        by DawnG on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:09:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There may be some who are fully aware of how (0+ / 0-)

          destructive Ron Paul's policies are, but I'd certainly hope that few people on the Left romanticize the cleansing power of destruction. I know there are plenty on the Right and the MushyMiddle(TM), who think "let it all crash and burn" sounds like a pretty good substitute for a real plan. But, I was pointing out that I see many people on college campuses who have very progressive views that would be greatly at odds with Ron Paul, but somehow they have been duped into supporting him because they mistakenly think he agrees with them on one or two issues.

          Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

          by tekno2600 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:24:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wish I could still hope that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic

            I've seen far to many comments that reflect otherwise.

            Far too many "They (a red state) voted republican so screw them" comments or "Let Texas Secceed, we don't need them" comments or, especially during the 2008 elections comments that what this party REALLY needed was for John McCain to win and cause a complete catastrophe that would ensure democratic majorities for decades.

            Shocking stuff really.  Not in any way a majority, but enough to make one really rethink whether the PEOPLE on the left are better than the people on the right.  Oh sure our positions are better, but that doesn't mean the people themselves are.

            I started a blog. It's still a work in progress but if you're interested, come on by. Dawn of Ambivalence

            by DawnG on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:59:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dubya proved that just because a president is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miggles

              catastrophically and criminally incompetent does not mean that people will reject his stupid ideas. I think Ralph Nader was one of the first people to suggest that we should let Bush win because then things would then "get so bad" that everyone would see the error of the Republicans. But, tell that to all the crazy Tea Pariers. Unfortunately, bringing on a disaster is no guarantee people will know how to fix it. For every FDR who emerged out of the chaos of the Great Depression, there were also a-holes like Hitler and Stalin. So, we have to show the way to a better future, not just hasten the collapse of system in hopes that a leader will emerge.

              But, we don't have to be morally superior to our opponents to offer better alternatives to them. Liberals are generally smarter, nicer, cooler, and way better in bed than right wingers! But, in some ways, we may not be quite mean enough. We try to be so morally superior, we forget that some of our opponents need a good, ruthless ass kicking. If we are too moral to give that to them, they certainly won't hesitate to give it to us.

              Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

              by tekno2600 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:19:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  So far I haven't heard anyone voice "support" for (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, fayea, JesseCW, AoT

      Paul. He's getting attention for some of his messaging by people who are seriously (or fanatically) opposed to the war, the war on drugs, indefinite detention, etc.
      Most of them seem to know of the background that disqualifies him as a Presidential candidate.
      I hope he runs 3rd party, and contributes to the evisceration of the gop, but I think we need to make sure he doesn't peel off any new voters who would normally vote Democratic.
      The blood is very bad between the gop establishment and Paul and his Paulians as it is.
      That's the best thing about him.

      •  I have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv

        in comments here, from people at my local Occupy, and from older progressives, often fellow pagans, who are just that upset over the NDAA.

        But if you want to poke at Obama, why not Rocky Anderson?

        -7.75, -6.05 And these wars; they can't be won Does anyone know or care how they begun?-Matt Bellamy

        by nicolemm on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:20:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I personally don't want to poke Obama. I have my (10+ / 0-)

          gripes but I'm a supporter. I think he's been a pretty good President. I'm enjoying seeing the gop come apart at the seams. I don't want to see the progressive movement do the same. .

          •  Too late. And voting for Obama helps tear (0+ / 0-)

            it apart, by the way, because it reinforces that a right-wing, would-be-Republican like Obama is a progressive or is doing anything but working to impede progressive goals.

            You need to actually take some time to genuinely reflect on your political beliefs and priorities. If you think Obama has been "a pretty good President," then you probably aren't interested in anything but advancing the agenda of the 1%, or else you haven't done the reflection I suggested.

            •  I don't think Obama is the apotheosis of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou, Sylv

              progressive policies. I do think he's as progressive as we could have hoped for at this stage, given the more or less evenly divided nature of the country.

              I understand why he's taken most of the positions he's taken. I don't agree with all of them. I didn't expect to from the get go. He's wise enough to know the difference between running for office and governing the entire country.

              I've written this comment over and over so many times I've worn the letters off my keyboard.
              I don't have a problem with critics of the President, and I think people should push the admin. towards more progressive policies. I think that whenever the Pres has been given the opportunity to move in a progressive direction he's done so.

              Consider the electorate to be a continuum. Far right, middle, left. The Pres. has tried to compromise and bipartisanship (to my perennial chagrin) with the gop at what he perceives to be the center of gravity of the electorate, at the center right. In reaction, the gop have all moved further rightward in an effort to create a bright line between themselves and the Pres. They're a bunch of overweight pigeons way out on the limb. They've painted themselves into a corner. They're  a bunch of heavies crowded out on thin ice. etc.
              In the meantime, the Pres. has jumped on the opportunity provided by OWS to discuss income inequality and the decline of the middle class.
              So he has free range from the center right, to the center left, and they're stuck with the far right.

              I see this continuum as a lever, with the fulcrum at the  center right, with the President, and in my mind that gives us a lot of leverage. WE have this leverage because we have a moderate President and a finally resurgent progressive movement.  

              I  think if the President  had simply tried to make the far left happy he would have been long ago rendered irrelevant and the progressive movement would be on the ropes.

              I think most of the things I hear people griping about the President over are mainly a responsibility of the Congress.
              I could go on and on in detail about this, but I'm tired.

      •  MSNBC was saying last week, they cannot see (6+ / 0-)

        Ron Paul running as 3rd party as that scares the RNC the most and they can hold Rand hostage as member of Senate and threaten Ron with Rand's future and funding and support when he runs again or if he wants to get ahead in the party or in the Senate or run for President.

        They make a good point, Rand being a Senator can hold Ron back from running third party as Republicans are nasty enough to threaten they will diss and bash Rand and destroy Rands future, I can see Rove doing that...and his cohorts.

      •  Friends liberals progressives... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foufou
        I come not  to support Ron Paul
        but to praise his bravery to stand strong against a corrupt System and President that no one else, especially democrats,  dares stand up against
        but remember I do not support ron Paul

        now doesn't that sound a bit disingenuous

        "Orwell was an optimist"

        by KnotIookin on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:13:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Have we actually identified (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, AoT, joanneleon

      one yet?

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:22:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  check out any of Glenn (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foufou

        Greenwald's most recent posts.  Maybe they aren't Kossacks (or maybe they are) but many, if not most, claim to have supported Obama and become disenchanted.

        Why is it that a 3% tax increase for the wealthy is considered "socialism" and an 8% wage cut for the middle class is "doing your part"? MartyM

        by delphine on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:30:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Greenwald is not "For Paul" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Diebold Hacker

          How you could get that from his writing is beyond my comprehension.

          We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

          by denise b on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:48:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, I wasn't clear. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou

            I was referring to the comments to his posts, not his posts.

            That's where the "many, if not most" comes from.

            Why is it that a 3% tax increase for the wealthy is considered "socialism" and an 8% wage cut for the middle class is "doing your part"? MartyM

            by delphine on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:13:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Well, there's things like this - (11+ / 0-)

      http://www.facebook.com/...

      And this -

      Democrats and independents showed up in large numbers for Tuesday’s Republican Iowa caucuses — a 179 percent increase from 2008 — with nearly half of independents throwing their support behind Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who came in third place. (RELATED: Romney wins Iowa caucuses, Santorum places close second)

      Paul, a libertarian Republican, has garnered large amounts of support from disaffected leftists attracted to his radical anti-war, pro-drug legalization stances.

      http://dailycaller.com/...

      Oh, and this -

      The Nation: Progressive Man-Crushes On Ron Paul

      by Katha Pollitt

      Katha Pollitt is a columnist for The Nation.

      What is it with progressive mancrushes on right-wing Republicans? For years, until he actually got nominated, John McCain was the recipient of lefty smooches equaled only by those bestowed upon Barack Obama before he had to start governing. You might disagree with what McCain stood for, went the argument, but he had integrity, and charisma, and some shiny mavericky positions — on campaign finance reform and gun control and... well, those two anyway.

      Now Ron Paul is getting the love. At Truthdig, Robert Scheer calls him "a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power." In The Nation, John Nichols praises his "pure conservatism," "values" and "principle." Salon's Glenn Greenwald is so outraged that progressives haven't abandoned the warmongering, drone-sending, indefinite-detention-supporting Obama for Paul that he accuses them of supporting the murder of Muslim children. There's a Paul fan base in the Occupy movement and at Counterpunch, where Alexander Cockburn is a longtime admirer. Paul is a regular guest of Jon Stewart, who has yet to ask him a tough question. And yes, these are all white men; if there are leftish white women and people of color who admire Paul, they're keeping pretty quiet.

      http://www.npr.org/...

      Just when would you suggest we start calling attention to Paul's fallacies, including his ties with Christian Reconstructionists, who'd like to reshape this country into one based on the Old Testament?

      You know, things like stoning adulterers, burning witches, and god knows what would happen to our LGBT sisters, and brothers. I guess it's only the killing of civilians over seas that apparently matters. But at home? No problem.

      I personally have huge issues with anyone exhibiting Theocratic tendencies. But that's just me.

      If corporations are people, then I want to see some birth certificates and talk to their parents.

      by Onomastic on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:42:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most of those I know personally (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      do reject Paul for the reasons outlined in this diary, even if they will not vote for Obama in 2012 (they either will not vote or will vote for Rocky Andersen instead or some other third party option).  There is only one exception to this I know who is a progressive at all (and is a flake).  The others Paul supporters I can think of were never Progressives anyway.  I think the histrionic fear that any significant numbers of progressives supporting Paul vs. the numbers of disenchanted right-leaners he would draw is unwarranted and overblown.

  •  Shorter version: (28+ / 0-)

    The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

    If we have learned anything in the history of U.S. politics it should be that.  Not just in foreign policy vis a vie Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien, but also in domestic policy.

    I started a blog. It's still a work in progress but if you're interested, come on by. Dawn of Ambivalence

    by DawnG on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:04:21 PM PST

  •  So where is this massive movement of (37+ / 0-)

    progressives for Paul, anyway? Just curious, because there has been a scattering of unknown diarists here who have posted in favour of him, an occasional comment shows up, but otherwise, I haven't seen very much at all. The wreck list is clogged up today with anti-Paul diaries. Where are all the pro-Paul progressives? Do they have websites? Mailing lists?

    Just curious, because Daily Kos has created quite an anti-Paul front, which I find curious, as he will not be the Republican nominee and will only stay on through the primary because of his own vanity.

    "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

    by Lost Left Coaster on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:04:37 PM PST

    •  And just because somoene posts... (15+ / 0-)

      ...a diary here supporting Paul, does not mean they are progressive.

      I have also seen a few diaries from VERY new folk, probably for the sole purpose of posting pro-Paul diaries.

      I started a blog. It's still a work in progress but if you're interested, come on by. Dawn of Ambivalence

      by DawnG on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:08:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the movment is on Glenn Greenwald's blog where (28+ / 0-)

      Greenwald pretends not to be endorsing Paul but since 2008 has been bashing Obama non stop and praising Paul non-stop.  Greenwald, the pretend progressive,  has a following that mostly supports Ron Paul and his son Rand.

      There is another site where you will see Paul supporters from the far right, that is Blaze.com, Glenn Becks site. Greenwald's supporters and Becks supporters who support Ron Paul  are not much i different when it comes to Paul. They do not look at the totality of Paul's positions, but only on the narrow ones they support: anti war, legalization of drugs and and not paying taxes. They are people who never believe in compromise unless  benefits the  narrow policies they support.

      The author is right on his analysis of progressives who support Paul.

      •  Glenn Beck's site? (8+ / 0-)

        I asked about progressives. I don't give a damn about what they're saying on Glenn Beck's site.

        And I don't care about Greenwald. He's not a movement. He's one guy. He's been clear that he is not endorsing Paul. He's said more positive things than I can stand, personally, about Paul, but it's still not an endorsement.

        My question was, where is the pro-Paul progressive movement? I still have the impression that it is a phantom.

        "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

        by Lost Left Coaster on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:30:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Greenwald is more of a progressive on his worst (9+ / 0-)

        day than you EVER were on your best.

        Obama's actions of detention, drone attacks and the escalation of the nationals security state are the antithesis of progressive and Greenwald is right to criticize them.

        The fact that you chose to slander Greenwald by calling him a "pretend progressive" (as if YOU get to decide who's a real progressive and the deciding factor in that judgement is how much one supports Obama) and insinuating that he's a supporter of Paul, rather than refute his criticism of the president (which you can't because you know that on the drug war, preventative detention, surveillance and more - Obama's actions are indefensible) really demonstrates the fallacy at the heart of your argument as well as others like Carpentier.

        "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

        by Shane Hensinger on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:56:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So Greenwald supporting (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, Matt Z, foufou, Sylv

          GWB's 'indefinite detention' because he was giving him the benefit of doubt (he since changed his mind on that score) makes him a progressive?

          The fact that he would support GWB on anything gives me great pause.  I don't care if he changed his mind.

          I think he's pulling some folk tails...

          "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

          by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:05:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oddly enough Obama was against Iraq from day 1 (5+ / 0-)

          unlike Greenwald.  So you are wrong.  Obama is more of a progressive than Greenwald on his worst day.  LOL.

          •  Greenwald was NEVER in favor of the Iraq (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Scott Wooledge

            war. FAIL.

            But I was - so I guess that makes me less of a progressive.

            "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

            by Shane Hensinger on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:41:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  re: Greenwald was NEVER in favor of the Iraq war (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sylv, dirk41

              Link

              ...I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president's ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president's approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance...

              ...During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country...

              •  I still don't see it there (0+ / 0-)
                The next significant item on the president's agenda was the invasion of Iraq. While the administration recited the standard and obligatory clichés about war being a last resort, by mid-2002 it appeared, at least to me, that the only unresolved issue was not whether we would invade but when the invasion would begin.

                He said he believed the president should be deferred to - does that mean he supported the war?

                And regardless - does supporting the war a decade ago, then spending the intervening decade denouncing the war and all of its attendant evils, mean one is no longer considered a progressive?

                I supported the war in 2002 as well. My decision to attend the Josef Korbel School and get my MA in International Security was partly in response to my deep regret at supporting the war and a desire to educate myself to make sure I never made a mistake like that again.

                "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

                by Shane Hensinger on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:19:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just wanted to set the record straight. (0+ / 0-)
                  ...I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country...
                  •  Glenn sent this response to me this morning: (0+ / 0-)

                    I'd suggest you read it.

                    The point of that Preface is to describe my political evolution - how I was basically indifferent to the partisan wars back then and focused instead only on constitutional battles, and how I derived my understanding of the world from mass media outlets (the NYT, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc.).

                    In 2002, I was a private citizen not working at all on political issues. Given how widely it was being affirmed by so many different sources - both political parties, major media outlets - I assumed that there must be some truth to the case against Saddam.

                    I was not "for" the war in any sense. I didn't write articles in favor of it, try to persuade others to support it, speak out in favor of it or do anything else. I had serious doubts about its wisdom, but basically did nothing because I just wasn't political in that sense.

                    To try to depict me as some sort of supporter of the war when it began is nothing short of a lie. The Preface makes that clear: the whole point is that I was apolitical on these questions until I started realizing the full extent of the radicalization of the political class, and came to realize how false were the narratives being disseminated even by The Liberal Media once I began focusing on politics full-time.

                    "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

                    by Shane Hensinger on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:48:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  LOL, do you honestly have faith (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annieli, joanneleon, Shane Hensinger

            If Obama had been in the Senate at the time he wouldn't have fallen in line and voted for the Iraq war?

            It would have been like FISA, or indefinite detention.

            He would have been against it until the rubber hit the road.

  •  Nicely put. It is in the warlord's interest to (14+ / 0-)

    operate on superficially popular issues that obscure his true ambition, power. In Paul's case there are some millennialist  thoughts as well including his shibboleth of controlling the monetary system and the Fed which is as essentialist on gold as Dworkin was with women.

    The most obvious folly of progressives who promote Paul as a challenge to traditional orthodoxy lies in the simple fact that most of Paul's superficial positions, as described above, are absolute anathema to progressive policy prescriptions. But there is an even larger concern: supporting Paul for the one or two issues on which there is overlap assumes those particular positions arise out of a sense of progressivism. But they don't, any more than the Christian right's opposition to pornography could be considered part of Dworkin's feminist ideology. It is, rather, completely antithetical, even if the policy output happens to coincide despite a drastically different ideological input. In other words, it doesn't matter if the "what" happens to be the same if the "why" is radically different.

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare."

    by annieli on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:06:01 PM PST

  •  "This one's not worth it." (22+ / 0-)

    Amen.

    Excellent diary on the subject of a miserable public servant, the danger he represents, and his failed career.

  •  Besides which (23+ / 0-)

    Paul really isn't consistent in his desire for small government when it comes to one issue which should be near and dear to Liberals.  He does not believe in a womans right to choose and would use regulation to make it illegal.    How does that fit with his one note obsession for smaller government?  

    I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

    by bhfrik on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:06:27 PM PST

  •  His economics and social policies are terrible... (22+ / 0-)

    ...and "other wordly". The notion of a gold standard and getting rid of the Fed smack of bizarre fantasy. Not interventionist except when it comes to women's health. Then he will intervene except to hamper women's freedom of choice.

    •  On the gold standard (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, Dragon5616, wsexson, Miggles

      I've always wondered how in the hell a libertarian could square their "no government" drumbeat with the gold standard.  Isn't the gold standard, by definition, government intervention in the economy?  I mean, tying a currency to a precious metal hoarded by the government strikes me as almost a form of price controls.  Howe can Paul say he's against government control and then advocate even stricter gov't control of currency?

      Oh, the contradictions...

      All your vote are belong to us.

      by Harkov311 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:23:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think, at least as far as those... (5+ / 0-)

        ...who support the gold standard go, they believe the current U.S. currency is "faith based" (i.e. our currency is based on the "full faith and credit of the United States).  Instead of having a real value (like gold), it's completely arbitrary depending on the level of faith applied to it.

        It's not a completely wrong assessment, our entire economy is more or less "faith based", but Paul's proposed solution is an instance of the cure being worse than the disease.

        We can't find solutions from centuries past, we need to think up new solutions to modern problems.

        I started a blog. It's still a work in progress but if you're interested, come on by. Dawn of Ambivalence

        by DawnG on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:32:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. How can you value the total economic (0+ / 0-)

        output of all human economic activity equivalent to a few hundred or thousand tons of gold?  It simply doesn't compute.

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:31:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (12+ / 0-)

    It is a terrible thing to see and have no vision. ~ Helen Keller

    by Pam from Calif on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:07:17 PM PST

  •  Paul fatigue... (16+ / 0-)

    Photobucket

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

    by Radical def on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:08:42 PM PST

  •  Dante, thank you very much for writing this (38+ / 0-)

    Everyone needs to read it. You're dead on with this and given the climate of this site at present, it needs to be expressed by the FP; particular those with the kind of voice with you have.

    I appreciate your adumbration of Progressivism here. It's too often ill-defined, but you've done a stellar job here.

    For the nitpicks of Ron Paul's really heinous personal issues with racists, I would recommend readers to this diary which lays that out well: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Ideologically, Paul is a regressive, ideologically, and not Progressive, not Democratic, and frankly dangerous. He does have the strong ability to bottom feed off of low-info voters on the Left, at least here in California where he is popular in certain circles (particularly the very young... which alarms me).

    Ends and means. You have to know what you stand for, but more so, why you stand for it and where you draw the line as well. Otherwise, it's a bad game to play with politics and really life in general.

  •  The truth is the truth... (15+ / 0-)

    even when it comes from the mouth of an idiot.

    When are you going to deal with the issues ?

  •  Actually , I think Paul is having a 'last hurrah' (24+ / 0-)

    before turning the 'franchise' over to his son, who is, if anything, worse. A corporate, wealth loving friend of the plutocracy, and booster for corporate feudalism, like his father, but socially much more reactionary (if that's possible).

    May you live in interesting times--Chinese curse

    by oldcrow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:11:21 PM PST

  •  Alan Grayson didn't let this stop him, did he? (12+ / 0-)
    In other words, it doesn't matter if the "what" happens to be the same if the "why" is radically different.

    Alan Grayson didn't let any of this stop HIM from standing up with Ron Paul on Afghan war pushback, and you're not going to question Grayson's progressive credentials, are you?

    Ron Paul is scaring the beejeesus out of some Democrats, leave out the racist and gold bug bs, but because he appeals to those who want to end cancerous wars that are Democratically led and Democratically funded.

    The solution is for Democrats to stop supporting and enabling this misuse and abuse of our Armed Forces, then, Democrats will have nothing to politically fear from Republicans/Libertarians who beat them to the punch.  If Democrats won't push back against this misuse and abuse of our Armed Forces, then don't be surprised or offended when independents and some Democrats find someone else for whom to vote, ya see?

    If you want to push back against this More! War! In Afghanistan! horseshit, Dante Atkins, purely for political expedience, by all means go for it.  I'll forget that you're not doing it for the right reasons, namely, that it's misuse and abuse of our troops, and should not be tolerated by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, liberals, or conservatives.

    A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

    by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:12:49 PM PST

    •  Alan Grayson was kicked out of office too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foufou, Matt Z

      Why the hell would anybody emulate him?

      If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, then Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

      by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:31:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You sound anti-progressive, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Blue Wind

        it seems.  What are you?  A Washington-Money-And-Business-As-Usual Corporatist Demorepublicrat?

        A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

        by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:35:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I deal with the world as it exists. (0+ / 0-)

          Not as I'd like it to be.

          You should try reality sometime.

          If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, then Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

          by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:41:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You should try (3+ / 0-)

            reading the title of the diary and note it concerns progressives.

            Now, go enlist in the Armed Services, request duty on the AfPak border, start an initiative to institute the draft and another to implement a war tax to actually pay for it all.

            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

            by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:45:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's about misguided progressives and their folly. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou

              I guess that's why you feel so personally involved with it.

              If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, then Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

              by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:47:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you don't like progressives, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Blue Wind, happymisanthropy

                then you should get the hell out of the Democratic party, form your own lunatic fringe group, and call it Former Democrats Who Are Corporatist Whores.

                A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:50:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, I'm center-left. (0+ / 0-)

                  You're the fringe character.

                  If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, then Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

                  by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:52:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Try a substantive reply (2+ / 3-)

                    to my original comment, or go jump in the nearest lake.

                    A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                    by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:54:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK, you've been telling me to go... (3+ / 0-)

                      ...to Afghanistan, get the hell out of the party, and to jump in a lake, and you're accusing me of not being substantive?

                      If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, then Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

                      by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:01:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Hmmm, seems to be some HR abuse, here (0+ / 0-)

                      and I'll let it reflect on those who are responsible.

                      A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                      by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:24:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually telling someone (0+ / 0-)

                        to go jump in the lake could be viewed as a personal attack, although I would not HR it.

                        I would just kinda recognize that you don't want to engage in a substanent discussion.

                        "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

                        by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:43:52 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  You're both going back and forth (0+ / 0-)

                      and I am far, far more inclined to agree with the other posters' position (I think -- I'd have to review it more closely), however, "go jump in a lake" is not worthy of a HR. I would frankly be annoyed to be HR'd if I said something that tepid and I think so would most people. It's not polite, but you two have been having a decent back and forth and at this point, well... that's not HR worthy, I don't think. It's an insult literally in the vaguest sense.

                      So I am going to uprate it. I apologize to the other poster and hope he understands that I just find this to be a misuse of HR's and wish to be fair here.

                      Hound Dog, knock off the hostility, or I'll take my uprate off. Thank you.

                      •  I'll own up to being a tad hostile. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ladyjames, kingdave

                        I'm sick of paying the price and bearing the burden for constant, endless war based on flawed and specious reasoning.

                        Democrats would not be so wracked with anxiety about Ron Paul (and they are!) if Democrats themselves were pushing back against, and backing away from, this misuse and abuse of our Armed Forces.  Ron Paul would be getting far less traction.  I hope Democrats will take the lead away from Ron Paul.  

                        The president himself could accelerate and expedite redeployment of the troops, as a bunch of senators urged him to do in the Merkeley Amendment.  The president could use it as an opportunity to provide the public with some teachable moments.  He's a good communicator, that is, when he really wants to be and really tries.  I'd like to see some leadership.  He's smart enough to beat these Repubs to the punch, so I'd like to see some action.  Bring the troops home, and save some lives.  Spare their families.

                        A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

                        by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:24:37 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's interesting for me to watch that anxiety (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sylv

                          as a Socialist; I have no particular allegiance per se to partisanship, although the fact that Democrats are vastly better than Republicans is not lost on me. Perhaps because I am outside of the partisanship, and yet am not here due to disenchantment (I've always been a radical, politically, as an adult), perhaps for that reason it is easier to see this. This conversation about war and atrocity has been going on for most of my life. Raised as a pacifist, I never saw anything but horror in it. But I also know that my thoughts never strayed toward anything but improvement; I feel that the Democrats continue to be our best shot for that in many ways, as imperfect as they can be. When it comes to foreign affairs, sadly, our nation is aggressive and that has always been its national character: one of imperialism. It follows thousands of years of flawed imperialism on that account. Every President is always designated to be "Commander-in-Chief," which is, by the design of the station, destined to be contrapoise to the ideals which some of us do uphold. Nonetheless, there is no way around that. It's well beyond any partisanship and a vast problem with global capitalism and a legacy of Western dominant empire. No one person is a panacea; we need a paradigm shift. And that is something that happens within each of us. When we cast our ballots, we look at the broad range of what any candidate can realistically offer. War will always be included in that package, even for those of us sickened by the notion of drones or cluster bombs or whatever the order of the day is. War has been waged in this Nation, by this Nation since its inception. Our best shot is to personally oppose it, find candidates who will do their best to avoid excessive hawkishness, and vote for bigger picture ideals. On this account, I support what the Democratic Party stands for and does often deliver (although they've been hamstrung as of late and that is clear as day): social justice and better use of tax monies toward decent social programs, more concerns for civil rights and fairness, including for veterans who return from abroad. These are off the table with any Libertarians or Republicans by definition, since they oppose Governmental "interference" and seek isolation, isolation and small Government which leads to the strangulation of our own people domestically. Additionally, what havoc they wreak economically and on the environment, on women's rights and social justice can already be readily seen in their legacy. We sit, at present, in that shadow.

                          These are the basic tenets of Democrats and what they are worth pursuing no matter what differences we may, at times, have, what frustrations, and if we have anxieties, perhaps the issue is an existential one since America as a governing system itself is flawed along with all other world Governments from what I can discern. There is no perfect nation. Only different apportionment of problems. We won't find what we want in this system and must continue to find ways to simultaneously work within it to correct it while also pressing for change and reform by accurately addressing the nature of the problems which arise within it. That Republicans have badly botched the sytem, an already flawed system in my view, and that Libertarians are also a kind of Republican who would not fix it must not be overlooked... no matter what anxieties some Democrats may feel.

                          Personally I still have hope. In a lifetime of longstanding war, there are some nominal improvements. I also appreciate that OWS has contributed to changing so much of the focus, and that we've seen some advances in our basic social equality... things which have taken decades to even put on the table for discussion.

              •  You dont sound like a progressive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hound Dog

                Sorry.  You sound like  a Lieberman- democrat.

            •  Oh, and go bury your gold. n/t (0+ / 0-)

              If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, then Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

              by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:49:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  it depends on the nature of the alliance (6+ / 0-)

      temporary alliances can be useful to achieve certain goals, for instance, Grayson and Paul collaborated on a bill to audit the Fed.

      But after the goal is achieved, then the alliance could fall apart, and the former allies could become enemies.

      The US and the USSR teamed up to defeat the Axis powers during WWII. But after the war, the US and USSR, being diametrically opposed in economic philosophy, fought a Cold War for fifty years.

      Those on the left tend to believe that just because someone is your ally for the moment, he's your friend. I don't think that's how the libertarians see it, and that's certainly not how any intelligent politician sees it.

      So you can't team up with the libertarians indiscriminately. You don't want the libertarians to come out ahead in the deal, at the expense of your own priorities and causes. You have to consider self-preservation.

      And I'm telling you precisely what will be achieved by the left encouraging Ron Paul's advocacy and giving him airtime: their crazy batshit ideas will be the big winners, and the anti-war, pro-civil liberties crowd will be the big losers.

      Many more people will hear the "big government is the problem!" and nod, than will care about his anti-war positions.

      In 2008 Ron Paul's candidacy did not make any of the other candidates change their positions on war or civil liberties. It won't do any better now.

      But it did serve to make anti-government, crackpot, extremely reactionary ideas more popular and respectable.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:09:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My contention is that (0+ / 0-)

        Democrats would have nothing to politically fear from someone like Paul if Democrats were not on a wasteful and destructive war path.  Ron Paul would not get traction.

        The solution, once again, is for Democrats to back away from misuse and abuse of the Armed Forces.  Ideally this would be because Democrats should have the moral high ground to not misuse and abuse the Armed Forces, if others don't.  If Democrats want to push back against constant war, purely for political expediency, it won't hurt my feelings a bit.

        A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

        by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:16:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ron Paul gets traction (7+ / 0-)

          because he's a lunatic who appeals to adolescent passions: nihilistic rage against the system, and belief in one's overweening self-superiority.

          That's the reason for his popularity. Not because there is a massive but dormant anti-war, pro-civil liberties movement to which he gives voice.

          He's a demagogue giving easy answers to our problems, in a time when the system is falling apart. He's a fanatic who believes in the righteousness of his cause, he speaks decisively and with total certainty while mainstream politicians waffle and hedge. This is why people follow him.

          His supporters are, in the main, fanatics who want to destroy the government and turn the clock back to the 19th century.

          If there were significant political capital to be made from a primarily left-wing anti-war critique, such a critique would surely have been made, and it would have won votes.

          Most of this country is not pacifist. Obama's slogan, "I'm not against all wars, just dumb ones," pretty much typifies how most people think.

          For the most part, wars only impinge on the consciousness of Americans when they have to sacrifice for them--when it's Americans dying. Otherwise, it's not a priority. If brown people die in a firestorm thousands of miles off, it only vaguely registers with most Americans.

          Plus there is always the thrill of patriotic righteousness in war, that America is using its military power to advance the cause of justice, and that can be intoxicating.

          That might be sad, but it appears to be how things are. Ron Paul's advocacy won't change any of that, but it will promote other ideas, like deregulating everything, which should not gain traction.

          "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

          by limpidglass on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:42:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sad, agreed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ladyjames, wsexson
            For the most part, wars only impinge on the consciousness of Americans when they have to sacrifice for them--when it's Americans dying. Otherwise, it's not a priority. If brown people die in a firestorm thousands of miles off, it only vaguely registers with most Americans.

            Plus there is always the thrill of patriotic righteousness in war, that America is using its military power to advance the cause of justice, and that can be intoxicating.

            That might be sad, but it appears to be how things are.

            Of course anyone with a brain is revolted by Paul's racist statements, gold bug nuttiness, etc.  That stuff would be getting only so much traction, were it not for the added traction which comes from revulsion of some to constant endless war that is based on specious, flawed reasoning.  Democrats will surely play a political cost for supporting and enabling this Afghan mission and the misuse and abuse of our Armed Forces.  It's my contention that that is exactly why Ron Paul is causing so much anxiety here at DKos.

            The solution is for Democrats to push back against this misuse of our Armed forces.  Someone like Ron Paul will not get the same traction when Democrats themselves do not cede it to them.  And, it's never too late to do the right thing.

            A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

            by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:04:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Ron Paul is a jackass. (9+ / 0-)

      He's the CATO Institute's version of libertarian. The old guard libertarians back 35-45+ years ago were pretty much live and let live. The CATO crowd came in and corrupted their group. The original libertarians left en masse. I know this for a fact cos one of my oldest and dearest friends was one. He is now a die-hard progressive. I'm a futuristic progressive/socialist. Ron Paul's big claim to fame is his so-called 'honesty.' Right on. Just look at his spawn named Rand Paul and that should tell you everything you want to know. Who cares how honest he is? Hopefully, this will be his last gasp cos he sure as hell's bells ain't no spring chicken. Which is worse with this honesty BS? Ron Paul or that sick jerk Santorium bringing a poor little dead baby home to show his living kids that he hates abortion? My God,  I never thought I would live long enough to see my country sink this low!

      Since when have greed, stupidity, and downright lying become virtues? Since Reagan, that's when!

      by orlbucfan on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:22:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No disagreement. (0+ / 0-)

        Once Democrats push back against constant needless war, then jackasses like Paul will not be able to get traction.  'Course, constant endless war based on specious reasoning should be pushed back against by Americans, not for political comfort, but because it's the right thing to do.  If Democrats want to do it for political expedience, I'll forgive and forget that its not because they're doing it for the "right reasons", ya dig?  Mahalo.

        A few give much, a few give all, and most Americans give....NOTHING! ~~~ Support our troops - Bring them home

        by Hound Dog on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:30:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Grayson was standing up with Ron Paul? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      Say it ani't so!

      "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

      by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:13:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul likes cheeseburgers. (31+ / 0-)

    I like cheeseburgers.

    Michelle Obama is leading a campaign against some fast food cheeseburgers.

    I'm not saying I support Ron Paul, but he is bringing the "The Cheeseburger -- Good or Bad?" discussion to the fore.

    So even thought I disagree with him on almost everything else, I think he is serving a worthy purpose in forcing Michelle Obama to face the other side of the cheeseburger argument.

    Thank you, Ron Paul! I'll have mine medium well!

  •  One thing I learned (27+ / 0-)

    about Paul yesterday is that his "opposition" to the drug war is only related to the federal drug war. He wants to leave drug laws up to the states.

    Of course not only would drug laws be worse in the states but seeing what happens with our prison systems in certain states (not to mention the drive to "privatize" them) I don't think many people would stay out of jail for very long.

    Read my stuff at burn after writing and The Huffington Post @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by indiemcemopants on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:13:51 PM PST

    •  It wouldn't be worse (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, socal altvibe

      The federal government can deficit spend all day (for now). States are unable to do that and are generally forced to be more rational because it is too expensive to do otherwise. In a cash strapped state, nonviolent drug users are going to be low priorities.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:22:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Utter nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, jmcgrew

      Short of the death penalty, the states are free right now to punish pot smokers as strictly as they like.  Ending the federal drug war would generally have no effect on state drug laws, but it certainly wouldn't make them worse.

      I want to limit the power of government. Specifically, I want to limit the power of government to create artificial superpeople and give them the same rights as human beings.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:27:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say it would (0+ / 0-)

        "make them worse"... that's kind of not even logical. I said they would make worse laws.

        It'd be like if Roe v. Wade were reversed. Some states would allow abortion and others would totally ban it but only with minor penalties and still others would jail doctors.

        Read my stuff at burn after writing and The Huffington Post @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by indiemcemopants on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:12:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jmcgrew

          Roe vs. Wade, right now, puts limits on what states can do.  Repealing Roe would allow states to pass stricter laws.  Right now there is nothing in federal law preventing states from passing much tougher drug laws than they currently have.

          The situations are not remotely comparable.

          States can't ban abortions.
          States can pass anti-drug laws as strict as they like, short of actually executing people.

          I want to limit the power of government. Specifically, I want to limit the power of government to create artificial superpeople and give them the same rights as human beings.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:24:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  more to the point (0+ / 0-)

          I'm of the "legalize, tax, and regulate" persuasion.  The only way that could work is if the federal government gets out of the way and lets states do what they think is best.

          I want to limit the power of government. Specifically, I want to limit the power of government to create artificial superpeople and give them the same rights as human beings.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:47:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  mentioning the guy doesn't mean supporting him (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, happymisanthropy

    "oh look! there's that kook who, among other things, is against NDAA"

    That does not in any way imply support and imagining that it does is a mistake that's being made over and over again.

    •  Opposing bigotry is a healthy reflex (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Onomastic

      in American public life.  

      Would that there were more of it.

      You must surely admit that there is a suspiciously high number of diaries referencing Ron Paul as caucus/primary season begins.

      •  I think there are very few pro-Paul diaries (0+ / 0-)

        as I see it the guy got mentioned and some noted it. Then this place went crazy.

        Any true pro-Paul diary gets the treatment from...well I was going to say "both sides" but when a pro-Paul diary appears we get unified pretty quickly.

        •  There have to be reference points (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shahryar, doroma, Onomastic

          for political ideology.  

          They have both the ideological function and the practical fund-raising function.  

          There is room for the most minor of footnotes which cites Paul's apparent opposition to empire as definitional to his campaign relative to his influence in the Republican nominating process.  

          After that, and that isn't much, there's no need at all for him to be referenced on that subject.  

          The subject is really many subjects, and it should suggest a global dialogue for world peace-making.  

          With Paul, it most certainly does not.  His argument for anti-empire morphs quickly into two likely realities.  One is that the money spent on global empire-building would be used selfishly in a Paul administration for god knows what.  The other is that his insistence on isolationism would actually undermine global peace-making.  

          There were a couple of actors who commented on the McCarthy hearings.  Humphrey Bogart said, "The House Committee on Un-American Activities will nail anybody who ever scratched his ass during the national anthem."

          It's a healthy response to untenable circumstances.

    •  It doesn't? (2+ / 0-)

      Anyone needing to mention an extremist like Paul in order to make their points about indefinite detention and war -- well, I just don't see the difference at this point.

      "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

      by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:17:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But mentioning the guy will put your argument on (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator, Matt Z, Sylv

      extremely bad footing.  Nothing rings true about the guy.  Even his positions that look good at first blush end up collapsing after being looked at more closely.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:53:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Paul 2012 - I Got Mine, Go F#@k Yourself! (12+ / 0-)

    It's The SCOTUS, Stupid!

    by kitebro on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:14:31 PM PST

  •  This highlights something the American people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, Marie, ladyjames

    need to deal with. Ok take the Sanders/Paul alliance to find out what the Fed has been up to. To polar opposite political figures line up interest to obtain one object that each will use for totally different goals. That used to happen more frequently in Congress.

    Does the end goal mean more than how you obtain the objective? Is this a trap where purity standards that are wrecking the GOP will do the same thing to the Dems? Is this a cautionary tale of making sure you know what you are fighting for?

    I do know that we cannot continue with this kind of dysfunctional Congress. It sure would be nice if the American people wised up and started electing people on accomplishments and efforts instead of the usual  political partisanship.

  •  Excellent diary, Dante (11+ / 0-)

    I really liked the Andrea Dworkin analogy -- when someone is so committed to something she doesn't care who she attracts to her side has to expect to find herself in alliance with people who scare other people who might support her.

    Too bad you nearly had the comments hijacked by some of the DKos nitpickers.

    All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:18:12 PM PST

    •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

      Fortunately President Obama has never praised any Republicans or validated their worldview.  He's too pure for that.

      Oh, wait.  Never mind.

      Saying good things about a Republican, no matter how many caveats and disclaimers, is suicidal insanity.  But working with them and repeating their talking points is just simple pragmatism.

      I want to limit the power of government. Specifically, I want to limit the power of government to create artificial superpeople and give them the same rights as human beings.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:35:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan had ideas (0+ / 0-)

        Frankly, Obama lost me with that remark during the 2008 campaign, and Rick Warren at the inauguration completed it, not to mention Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff (and don't scream anti-semite at me, I'm Jewish) completing the hamstringing.  Yes, I voted for him then and I intend to vote for him and actually work for his reelection., because he's made good appointments to the Supreme Court.

        All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:39:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul wants to keep the government out (4+ / 0-)

    of our business.

    Unless our business involves a womb and then he inserts himself into the anti-abortion debate with the worst of them.

    "Don't dream it, be it" - Brad, Janet and Frank

    by captainlaser on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:19:07 PM PST

  •  Ron Paul is, at the end of the day... (11+ / 0-)

    ...a bullshit artist. He has a dismal record in Congress, and his screwy ideas crowd out anything good. Happily, this is his last hurrah.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:20:08 PM PST

  •  you know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, ozsea1, Matt Z

    It kind of reminds me of medieval French serfdom.

  •  The caveat to what you say is within Congress. (9+ / 0-)

    I have no interest in forging alliances with people like Ron Paul in general.
    However, the way Congress works, sometimes you work with someone whose views you usually despise because on one issue you agree and that may mean getting a bill passed.
    Ted Kennedy worked with Orrin Hatch to get the Children's Health Insurance Program passed.
    Mental health issues were promoted by Democrats in concert with Pete Dominici.
    My organization successfully fought a co-pay for pregnant women on Medicaid working with Henry Hyde.

    Outside of Congress, however:
    when I saw the Anti-Defamation League promoting Ralph Reed in newspaper ads, that was the end of my support for the ADL for the exact reasons you state. (though actually I didn't support the ADL's position either! but the idea that they would publicly align themselves with him was disgusting).

    If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

    by Tamar on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:20:55 PM PST

  •  Why not just fight common battles with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LuvSet

    ...people and groups with which we disagree on broader ideology, and let them go their own way for the most part? I think that's how you get things done in a democracy where a majority of people can't agree on one ideology.

    So promoting RP's ideology taken as whole would be misguided for liberals, but acknowledging that he's right on certain issues and trying to exploit commonalities between libertarians and liberals to rachet up the pressure to get policies we like through Congress is just smart politics.

    •  It's smart politics? (0+ / 0-)

      Ummm... naw.

      I don't think so.  Not with extremists who are willing to destroy your way of life if given a chance to run it.

      Now it's smart politics to reach common consensus with people who may not agree with your politics if their overriding objective is to work for the people, not against them.

      "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

      by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:21:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He rattles the GOP's cage. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, happymisanthropy, nicta

    He does it not because of his racism. He does it because of his opposition to the military industrial complex.

    And the more he rises, the more the MSN and Republicans rail against him. What perplexes me is why the drumbeat against him from the Left. If you're an ardent Obama supporter, an ascendant Paul is good news. Why the strawman argument that Paul appeals to the Left? Because a couple of his ideas dovetail with ours?

    You know, a lot of people here support Obama's healthcare legislation. But I don't get on their case just because it's nearly identical to Romney's effort in Massachusetts.

  •  ...and thank you also for the reference to (8+ / 0-)

    Margaret Atwood.

    She was absolutely correct in the Dworkin alliance with the religiously insane.

    If any here have not had the extreme pleasue of reading Margaret Atwood, get to the bookshop at the crack of dawn.

    She's an amazing talent.

  •  Libertarians = Conservatives who smoke pot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    nm

  •  You have something fundemental wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    Intervention IS NOT a progressive value, it is a liberal value.  They are not the same thing. At the beginning of the 20th century they hated each other.  The issue of intervention was fought out between Randolph Bourne and Jane Addams and Eugene Debs and John Dewey over World War I.  The most important work on this issue was Bourne's Twilight of the Gods.  Until you read that you should probably not discuss the progressive view of war, even intervention that seems good.  All intervention seems good in the beginning.

  •  Ron Paul is a tall glass of saltwater (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, limpidglass, nicolemm, Miggles, Matt Z

    He does more harm than good. Basically he was most useful during Bush, when he helped expose neocon hypocrisy and it was a WTF moment for the MSM to hear a Republican criticize American imperialism. He was a pain in their ass.

    Today is an entirely different climate. The overwhelming majority of Americans are tired of wars and the rah-rah flag waving isn't a rallying cry and the Republican propagandists know it and aren't pushing it so much. But Paul is most focused on spreading the extremist anti-reform anti-progress ideology that does have a receptive ear in a dangerous number of the public. And thanks to the teabaggers there really isn't much difference in what mainstream GOP are saying and Ron Paul. The only way Paul ups the ante is with his NWO federal reserve gold standard crap.  

  •  the epidemic of suicides (0+ / 0-)

    I just watched a clip of Ron Paul at one of the debates - one of the last two? He was asked if he would continue to call Newt Gingrich a Chickenhawk for taking advantage of deferments as a young man, choosing not to fight in a war he supported and then once in a position to start new wars - he would do so enthusiastically. Ron Paul said, essentially, Yup, Newt's a chickenhawk.

    I can't watch Republican debates. The only reason I watched this clip was because it was featured on a liberal blog.

    I liked that Ron Paul addressed the epidemic of suicides among veterans. Does any other Republican ever mention the subject? How many Dems do?

    Rick Santorum condemned Iran for executing gay people.

    I don't mind hearing Republicans say non-evil things. I've never voted for a Republican yet. Why? Because when it comes to choosing between two evils Republicans have, in my lifetime, consistently been to the greater.

  •  "Libertarianism" As Slavery (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, happymisanthropy, annieli

    Libertarianism has always been a toy of the rich who want to abolish the income tax. The alternatives are always severely regressive tax plans.  

    Like the craziest conservatives, they favor severe social Darwinism.

    By eliminating consumer protections and creating a power vacuum, they create a corporatate tyranny where the individual has no legal protections.

    Libertarianism has alwys been about the looming collapse of society. Some decades that is more topical than others, but they look forward to this collapse. The thing that I see in the libertarian/survivalist types who  Ron Paul attracts is that it's all a revenge fantasy. they are the ones that are smart enough to stockpile bullets and MREs, and the world ends you'll come crawling on your belly for food, and they'll just laugh and laugh. I think that's the fantasy.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:35:32 PM PST

  •  This has probably been covered, but Paul's (0+ / 0-)

    views on some subjects seem so rational in their context,
    namely, a batshit right-wing gaggle of extreme teabaggery,
    that they can compel assent in their sheer difference and
    ballsiness.

    But always pull that camera back: He named his son
    after Ayn Rand, for Chrissakes, who in some contexts
    looked very "rational" herself.

    "...be still, and cry not aloud; for it is an unholy thing to boast over slain men." Odysseus, in Homer's Odyssey

    by Wildthumb on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:36:02 PM PST

  •  I would love to see Dr Paul win the nomination (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    I was so looking forward to all the Republican't establishment heads exploding.

    I believe hemp should be grown as a normal commodity crop all over America and with a Paul nomination win the corporate owned media would no longer be able to ignore the debate around the failed war on drugs and the value of hemp.

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:36:55 PM PST

    •  that is quite a leap of faith (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Denise Oliver Velez, KnotIookin

      at best Paul would let the decision as to growing hemp become a state issue.

      •  You completely misunderstand my point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv

        There is no real reason for the continued prohibition of hemp cultivation in America. It would revitalize our manufacturing sector and create millions of new living wage manufacturing jobs all across the nation. It's the corporate owned media that has not allowed this issue to even be debated. The media has generally been ignoring this important issue because hemp would compete with established powerful interests that want to keep this issue out of the public conversation.
        The only connection to Dr Paul would be the fact that his bill that would have separated hemp from marijuana in the Controlled Substance Act would likely get media attention if he were the nominee. This would elevate the issue into the Presidential Debate. This would be a good thing for the American People and for a greener less centralized domestic economy.  

        Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

        by RMForbes on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:14:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  There are racists on the left (5+ / 0-)

    This is the proof. Anybody who supports a white supremacist like Paul is a racist, in their heart. That's just a fact.

    Obama derangement syndrome, whether it be from radical religious fanatics for Israel, whether it be from Southerners or rust belt factory workers... it exists in all of the political spheres unfortunately. Sure, there are far more of them on the right, far far more, but we now have proof they exist on the left as well.

  •  So youre for censoring porn, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmcgrew

    for the right reasons? I thought censorship was bad and liberals are against censorship. I thought we're for free speech and free expression.

    Shouldn't you have picked something that liberals agree with a conservative about, like the drug war. William Buckley opposed the drug war, but held other odious positions.

    I do not agree with Andrea Dworkin or the religious right about censorship. So I don't think your diary makes sense; I don't know why people are praising it.

    •  Dworkin's position was not universally (0+ / 0-)

      held among feminists and pro-feminist males.  This is not to say she didn't have points worth listening to, only that by the time the religious far Right aligned with her impulse to end pornographic images of women on the basis that it objectified them, the combined force of their focus contradicted itself because Dworkin, an impressive intellectual, was suddenly in bed with some of the most blunted and stupid people who ever walked the planet.  

      The diarist, IMO, seeks to make the distinction between agreement based on supposed final outcome versus original motivation and context for that motivation.  

      And in any case, the final and most persuasive observations on that topic belong to Margaret Atwood.  She is absolutely an amazing splicer and dicer of reality.  She is a gifted, core mind.  If you want to dive in to that dispute, I recommend Atwood as a starting point and not Dworkin.

  •  Paul Panders Shamelessly To Fundamentalists (5+ / 0-)

    He's not pushing to the front of the line at "personhood" events attended by Perry and Santorum, but he's there.  

    In some ways, his pandering is more offensive because it's so cynical.

    This is stuff that would sink Paul very quickly if he actually got much attecntion.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:39:58 PM PST

  •  RON PAUL? (0+ / 0-)

    We're resigned to our collective fate because we've been conditioned to believe that this is as good as it gets.

    by Richard Cranium on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:40:48 PM PST

  •  You've fallen into the trap (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rollotomasi, ladyjames, nicta

    It's not a question of voting for Ron Paul.

    It is the fact that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party establishment is far to the right of Ron Paul on certain issues liberals/progressives/leftists typically claim as hugely important.

    This is the issue that these types of diaries and articles continue to ignore.

    An inconvenient truth, if you will.

    You may not like that a potentially racist, homophobe has a more progressive position on indefinite detention or eternal "war on terror" than Barack Obama.  But you liking it isn't relevant.

    "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

    by gila on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:42:37 PM PST

    •  What issues is Obama to the right of Paul? (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, askew, anim8sit, Miggles, Matt Z, missLotus
      •  Highly prioritized use of military action and (0+ / 0-)

        violence to accomplish foreign policy objectives, codifiication of indefinite detention, and ratification of enhanced surveillance state, for starters.

        •  So if states wanted to perform (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anim8sit, Matt Z, mahakali overdrive

          some of these actions (like indefinite detention) he would use his authority as President of the federal government to stop it?

          And Paul's only foreign policy objective is to not have one.

          •  Paul wouldn't have signed a bill to codify it, (0+ / 0-)

            and, in doing so, up an opportunity to stop this abomination from occurring under a future President Gingrich or some such.

            •  Would he let state authorities detain (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Onomastic, Matt Z, mahakali overdrive

              people indefinitely?

              •  Would Obama? (0+ / 0-)

                I mean, what is this, best two out of three?  Obama signed NDAA into law for crying out loud; he could have vetoed.  Now you go, "But ... but, what if the states detained people?"

                Also, in contrast to your glib brush-off of Paul's foreign policy, he believes our military force is spread too thin with all these wars of aggression, and believes in decreasing our bloated military budget, which is unsustainable, and employing more diplomatic means of accomplishing our objectives, which has worked for us in the past.

                And, no, I'm not a huge Paul fan (as I am not a fan of Obama), but, like Greenwald, I focus on the issue not the man and do not feel it compelled to prove one man's superiority or inferiority on every issue.

                •  Ron Paul is against all wars (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Matt Z

                  including WWII and the Civil War.  The guy is nuts.

                  And yes Obama would.  Now answer my question, which you are very conspicuously avoiding.

                  •  Answer my very relevant questions (0+ / 0-)

                    from the thread for your diary, and I will answer your irrelevant hypothetical question above.   I can't believe you actually said that after avoiding mine.

                    Why are you focusing on wars we are not currently in and state indefinite detentions that are not occurring rather than wars we are currently in and indefinite detentions that are actually occurring?

                    You've been consistent only in trying to change the subject from the issues at hand here and in your diary.  This is my last response;  I've got to go.  Hopefully I'll read your truthful answers to my questions in the morning.  Cheers!

                    •  I am a new user (2+ / 0-)

                      and today was the first opportunity I had to write a diary.

                      Now that I held up my end of the bargain.  Please answer my very relevant question.

                      This is my last response;  I've got to go.  Hopefully I'll read your truthful answers to my questions in the morning.  

                      Wow you are a coward.  I'm not sure why I even bothered to put up with you.  You are probably never going to answer my question.  You Paulbots are all the same.  You don't want to accept the truth about Paul, so you run away.

                      •  Before heading for bed I thought I'd check the (0+ / 0-)

                        comments in hopes of finding a truthful response from you, and, lo and behold, I'm being called a coward.  Pretty brave yourself thinking I wouldn't be responding.  Seems to be a pattern - the same thing happened in the last diary I wrote a few months ago.  Like the other brave soul who pulled this, I won't be wasting a troll rating on you; I'll just leave it for others to see who the coward is.

                        You are also lying about Paul's positions regarding war.  He stated that he would have supported World War II and did vote to go to Afghanistan.  It is shameful that you need to resort to outright lying in your zest to defame Paul, but based on your specious commentary to date and the "bravery" you exhibited above, I guess I should have expected nothing more from you.  I'm out.

                •  Ron Paul is also against giving aid to (3+ / 0-)

                  victims of natural disasters and AIDS and malaria prevention.

                  That is what an isolationist foreign policy is: caring nothing for the suffering of other humans.

                  Congrats you are defending a cold hearted asshole.

            •  That would be, "pass up an opportunity" (0+ / 0-)
        •  Not true. Ron Paul would just contract the work (2+ / 0-)

          out to mercenaries.  Let them fight the wars, indefinitely detain, and torture to boot!

          Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

          by Miggles on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:06:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gila

        gila mentioned them in her post.  Please go back and reread it.

      •  "Defense" spending, habeas corpus, imperialism nt (0+ / 0-)

        A "centrist" is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.

        by nicta on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:45:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's also not relevant... (0+ / 0-)

      why on one issue it matters?  Especially when I think a lot of people know that but are having to confront the totality of the candidates.  

      If you want to truly understand something, try to change it. - Kurt Lewin

      by anim8sit on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:12:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not a big fan of Paul myself, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gila, nicta

      and think a lot of his positions are terrible, but this seeming obsession that Paul has to be seen as horrible on every issue makes one wonder.

      •  Exactly right (0+ / 0-)

        The Democratic Party establishment would have you not think about these issues, outside of the framing they provide.

        That is the point many are making about Ron Paul.  And a point that these types of diaries deliberately ignore.

        Ron Paul being to the left of/more progressive than Barack Obama on issues like indefinite detention and eternal "war on terrorism" is an inconvenient truth the powers that be within the Dem Party would rather have you not consider.

        This place and these people made a point over the past few years of priding ourselves on being the "reality-based community" in the face of Republican insanity and lies.  Still, that's one hell of a claim and takes an enormous effort to back up.

        I, for one, intend to honor it.

        "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

        by gila on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:43:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No what's relevant is that it isn't true. (4+ / 0-)

      Unless 1800s-era isolationism is now "progressive".

  •  one argument that is often made (18+ / 0-)

    is the following: Ron Paul has achieved prominence by articulating an anti-war, pro civil-liberties critique.

    If the left wants to have greater success in promoting an anti-war, pro civil-liberties stance, they should study and emulate his methods and/or support his advocacy (if not necessarily his candidacy).

    This seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse and mistaking cause for effect.

    His popularity doesn't arise from his anti-war positions. It arises from the fact that he preaches the destruction of the current system, in a time when everyone sees that that system is on the verge of failure.

    He appeals to the adolescent nihilist in all of us, the desire to smash it all up and watch it burn. He's a fanatic, and in tough times, fanatics become much more attractive than all the usual run of weaselly politicians who hedge and qualify everything they say. People start longing for easy answers and black-and-white morality, which Ron Paul provides in abundance.

    Plus he preaches to each of his listeners that he/she is so important that any infringement on his/her liberty, no matter how small or necessary for the common good, is a monstrous injustice. You'll never lose friends by telling your audience that they are ineffably, unquestioningly superior to everyone else.

    This is why he's popular, and this progressives cannot and ought not emulate.

    His positions on war and civil liberties are an effect, not a cause: they are a corollary of his fanatical adherence to his narrow reading of the Constitution.

    His anti-war positions are of secondary importance to his most fanatical supporters. You'll rarely hear them emphasize those positions unless they are in the hearing of progressives whom they wish to win over to their cause. They spend the vast majority of their time raving against the Federal Reserve and insisting that government is too big and must be destroyed.

    That's what fires their passion.

    For liberals to promote Ron Paul's advocacy is just giving free airtime to a movement that is profoundly anti-democratic and reactionary. In the end, it's self defeating.

    Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008 did not materially alter the positions of the other candidates, nor the policies of the Obama administration. Nobody in Washington became more anti-war or pro civil-liberties as a result of the Paul candidacy.

    But it did inject into the mainstream fringe ideas, like the restoration of the gold standard, and the notion that government is tyranny. And those will have a lot longer provenance in the public mind--precisely because they are simple, crazy, and offer fake solutions to real problems.

    Let's not make the same mistake twice.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:43:54 PM PST

    •  Bingo (6+ / 0-)

      Paul helped pave the road for Beck and the teabaggers. That's the reason why he's doing better this time round than last. I think during Bush it gave some antiwar liberals comfort that a Republican was criticizing American imperialism and he hassled Republican hypocrisy on the war when the war was the main issue.

      It's important to understand that Paul's "antiwar" positions are entirely based on his ideology that the government can't do anything right and he shouldn't have to pay precious money on behalf of anyone else. That doesn't mean he's a man of peace.

      Mitt Romney said he would vote for Paul for Christ sake. He wouldn't do that if he didn't think Paul's libertarian positions were bullshit smoke, and that Paul's ends are pretty much the same as the rest: rich man protection, Christian state USA, fuck everything else.

      Rand Paul is the dry run for a Paul in real power. He fits in just fine with the rest of the GOP.

  •  "Ron Paul thee in the dunnest smoke of hell." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    See, even Lady McBeth is sick of all the Paulbots.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:46:23 PM PST

  •  Excellent, and thank you. (5+ / 0-)

    Precisely what I was hoping for.  Thank you again.

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:46:31 PM PST

  •  Tenthers, Strict Constructionists, Originalists (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, citizenx, anim8sit, Matt Z, Sylv

    The other thing about Libertarianism that attracts a lot of saps (patsies, rubes, marks, stooges what have you) who like the sound of "constitutional originalism."  But this the strategy of the Federalist Society radicals (Scalia, Alito etc) who can claim that there really is not right of privacy in the Constitution, and (technically speaking) habeas corpus isn't there either.

    For this reason, the people yelling the loudest about the "Constitution" are often the ones pushing a severely limited vision of civil liberties. We've seen that with Santorum, and we've seen Ron Paul pandering to the same crowds as Santorum.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:48:37 PM PST

    •  I think that (0+ / 0-)

      the people who claim there's no right to privacy in the Constitution need to go read it again. Like the 9th amendment, which they seem to not remember except when it's convenient for them.

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:18:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why are the people on this website always so (4+ / 0-)

    concerned with spurning the left.

    How many fucking progressives do you think support Paul?

    I bet the vast majority of his support comes from Republicans or Libertarians, like 99.9%.

    Yet, you haul this straw man out as an opportunity to bash on the left, and all of the faithful are here to join you.

    Hey, it's almost election time. Maybe it's time to start trying to get the left to commit to your cause rather than bash them some more.

    How many condescending false characterizations and accusations are you all gonna throw out here before the left finally gets sick of you and just gives up?

    I don't know, but I bet you all are going to continue to see just how far you all can go.

    "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

    by ranger995 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:49:44 PM PST

  •  Thank you Dante for this... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicolemm, Sixty Something

    And if there are a bunch of pissed of progressives for Paul out there, how about at least supporting the Green Party?  When is the last time Greenwald or the like talked about the Greens?  Nope, instead we are supposed understand that a far right Austrian libertarian actually has something to tell us.  Personally, I would rather stick with Cynthia McKinney and Noam Chomsky.  What Paul has to tell me about the world is crap

    If you want to truly understand something, try to change it. - Kurt Lewin

    by anim8sit on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 04:58:08 PM PST

    •  Probably before (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizenx, anim8sit, nicolemm, Miggles

      the Greens let themselves be bought by other parties (like the GOP in Pennsylvania). They haven't done much useful in the last ten or so years, to the point where my formerly-Green family members are currently Ds and looking for a left-wing party to join.

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:20:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's also about what Paul *can* implement (6+ / 0-)

    It we get absolutely real about what a Paul presidency could realistically implement, does any of us really think Paul would be allowed to put much of a dent in the military or prison industrial complexes, or in the power of the Fed, or in corporate welfare schemes? I mean, worthy fights for certain, but would a Paul presidency prioritize these things? Probably not, because the rest of the GOP would put up too much of a fight.

    Same as women's rights, gay rights, and the rights of people of color. Paul isn't going to try to roll back the Civil Rights Act, or Roe vs. Wade, or the accomplishments states have made in legalizing gay marriage. (The most damage he could do here is appointing freaks to SCOTUS. Which is no small thing.)

    A Paul presidency would prioritize what it could accomplish with GOP blessings, and with enough DINO assistance. And that would be a complete corporatocracy, and the dissolution of Medicare, SS, Food Stamps, Affirmative Action, the Department of Education and Interior, and the EPA.

    In other words, the dude would do us some serious fucking damage.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:01:28 PM PST

  •  Paul's ideology has nothing to do with progressive (8+ / 0-)

    rational thinking. Nothing.

  •  It's funny, how hard "liberal" democrats are (0+ / 0-)

    working to marginalize and ridicule Paul. I am no fan of Ron Paul, but I will say that he is the only republican in the field who might stand a chance of threatening a second Obama term. If he were to get the nod, republicans would, in republican fashion, go into lockstep behind him. He would pick up enough swing voters and crossovers to be dangerous. Everybody better thank their lucky stars he's neither pure enough nor crazy enough to get the nomination. A lot of progressives like some of his positions on war...it is bad policy, bring our troops home. It doesn't mean we're Paul supporters. A lot of people like Volkswagens, too.

  •  I agree with oldcrow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, Sylv

    and have been saying it all along ... Rand has shown up for daddy's  events ... and said he was thinking of running in 2016 if his dad didn't win.  So now it's fact rather than conjecture.

    He is as unlikeable as his father, and without the adoring masses ... it just means another 50 yrs of warmed over John Birch garbage.  

    Baby Paul.

    http://cultureid.com

    by debk on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:12:07 PM PST

  •  Well stated Both the flaws in the logic of those (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic

    who support Paul and the danger of that support.

    Thank you, diarist.

    There has never been a dictator yet who didn't get some things right....but the danger signal is why they got them right.

    Hitler "led" Germany out of a post-war, near-total economic collapse.  But anyone really paying attention would have seen the the potential for that helping hand becoming an iron fist.

    Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

    by Sirenus on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:13:00 PM PST

  •  As a Ron Paul supporter (0+ / 0-)

    I am an Independent voter and supporter of Ron Paul, even back in 2008 I donated to his campaign. I also voted for Obama in 2008. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on everything but I agree with him on a lot. I think there are many departments of the government that should be eliminated (especially the TSA, and Dept. of Education), I also think it is telling that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who (a) will fight for the protection of our civil liberties which are slowly being chipped away (indefinite detention, assassinations of Americans without due process) and (b) will end all the wars and not start any new ones. He will also reign in the office of the president so as not to over-reach executive powers in the ways of the current and previous administrations. He is also the only presidential candidate who is addressing our monetary policy and how it is a serious cause for concern. To me these are the things that matter the most right now and are the reason I back Paul and other progressive-minded individuals should not be afraid of backing him even if there are ideological differences on the role of the federal government.

  •  Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/...

    is an alien  who has landed on Earth - member of a militant culture of planet invaders on an offensive take-over operation; these aliens have no mercy their policy is 'take no prisoners'  their prime directive is  'Live And Let Die'; they have mind control powers and can create the illusion of appearing as 'people' with a passion for Anarchy i.e. that is Liberty with NO Justice;

    Ugly Americans: Republican-Tea-Libertarian party of "I've got mine and you are on your own" - - NEVER ELECT REPUBLICANS

    by anyname on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:20:08 PM PST

  •  Friendless and powerless. Welcome to the Left. (2+ / 0-)

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:20:54 PM PST

  •  Like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, happymisanthropy

    Ron Paul is going to matter or even be mentioned in 4 months.

  •  As a Ron Paul supporter... (0+ / 0-)

    ...who is not a spammer, just an avid reader of political blogs that cover the entire spectrum from the right to the left, I agree with the substance of this post.

    Ideologically Paul and progressives have nothing in common. It is common for political enemies to overlap on some issues.

    I don't have any illusions that Paul will ever be elected, nor do I agree with all of Paul's positions. I do, however, believe that he has done a good job of making certain issues more mainstream and able to be discussed. He is more of a movement than a candidacy.

    •  he just bases his largest platform on a lie (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizenx, Miggles, Matt Z, missLotus

      the lie that he's seriously running for president

      there are a whole lot of people who believe that running for president should at least be respected enough that you run for the job and not just for a free megaphone for your political ideology

      and that is all that Paul cares about.  not the issues.  his ideology.  just like religious extremists.

      i think my cat is possessed by dick cheney

      by Anton Bursch on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:36:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is a free country (0+ / 0-)

        There's nothing wrong with running when the odds are stacked against you. He may not be electable at this point in American history and he may never be electable. He's not eloquent and he's outside the mainstream, plus the GOP media marginalizes him.

        Does that mean he should bow down to the powers that be and step aside, refusing to exercise his right to run?

        I'm a religious person and Paul is a religious person but I'm not sure you can call Paul's political philosophy a product of religious extremism.

        •  Heh. (0+ / 0-)

          He also houses racist, sexist, anti-gay and anti-jewish viewpoints.

          Can't be too religious.

          "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

          by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:54:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  How do you reconcile (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Miggles, Matt Z

      your Libertarianism with your Catholicism?

      •  Libertarian Catholicism (0+ / 0-)

        fcva,

        An interesting question and one I've given much thought to. Law is traditionally seen as a legitimate external force that ought to direct men to virtue, per Church teaching on the state.

        However, I would argue that the modern state has become so far removed from a natural law ethics that endowing the government with more power becomes counterproductive in the fight for the dignity of the human person.

        I do believe abortion should be banned (you can't have liberty without the protection of life) but in choices that do not affect other people I simply do not trust the government (which is undoubtedly corrupted by crony capitalism, etc) to look out for the interests of the individual or the family.

    •  You lost me with (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, Matt Z, Sylv

      Ron Paul supporter.  I don't care.  This is not Daily Kos for Libertarians.

      "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

      by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:53:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What an outstanding post (8+ / 0-)

    and this post demonstrates why we didn't need to prematurely end the discussion on the siren song from Paulbots.


    Bridge Closed: Republican Tax CUTS At Work

    You just gonna stand there and bleed
    Or you gonna do something about it?

    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:30:37 PM PST

  •  What an embarrassment (4+ / 0-)

    to find this insanity on the FP. It's also insulting to most people, here who do have enough sense to know exactly what Ron Paul is. As nuts as this hysteria is I'm not letting it deter me from working for a Democratic Party that actually stand for something that isn't, were not as nuts as the Republicans. Does this mean I support or advocate for him? NO.

    What is the matter with this site? Why get hysterical because people don't want endless immoral wars and are freaked out about the fact that a Democratic administration has followed the anti-democratic path as far as our civil and human rights go (not to mention our bankster owned government). So enough with this deflection and witch hunting. All your doing is disgusting people of good spirit as this is not what democracy looks like.    

  •  Progressives have the right to be wrong.. (0+ / 0-)

    It should not be only for the right.

  •  "single-issue" progressives (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManhattanMan, richardak, DSPS owl, Miggles

    I would argue that there is in reality no such thing...being a progressive is inherently incompatible with being "single issue".

  •  Paul Is Like The Pied Piper (7+ / 0-)

    He is leading the young people down the wrong road.  He is is a Randist who believes that government is bad and people should fend for themselves.  What that means is we would be working in the mines for 48 hours at a time and buying our groceries at the company store on credit with 100 percent interest that you could never pay off.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:33:59 PM PST

  •  Oh, for fuck's sake. (6+ / 0-)

    Yet another offering from the Daily Paul.

    Get a grip, my friends.

    There is no way in hell Ron Paul is going to secure the Republican nomination.

    And Ron Paul is not Ralph Nader. If Ron Paul WERE to launch a third party bid, he would siphon off a lot more votes from Romney than he would from Obama.

    But, for as long as Paul polls well enough to be included in the Republican debates, millions of Americans are being exposed to policy issues that should be part of the national narrative:

    The war in AfPak is a tremendous waste of scarce resources that is radicalizing a generation of Islamic youth. I don't give a shit that Paul's isolationism makes no allowance for just intervention for humanitarian purposes.

    The War on Drugs is yet another absurd waste of resources that is enriching those who profit from illegal drugs and destroying the futures of countless young non-violent offenders, the disproportionate share of whom are people of color. I don't give a shit that Paul would be just as happy to have individual states prosecuting this travesty.

    The Patriot Act (and similar measures) are anathema to a free people and are a far greater danger to the Republic than a thousand hapless shoe bombers. I don't give a shit that Paul would welcome the destruction of the social safety net along with the national security state.

    In short, I don't give a shit what this odious little cretin's motivations are. What matters to me is that millions of Foxbots are getting exposed to arguments against the War in AfPak, the War on Drugs and the War on Civil Liberties that they otherwise would never hear discussed in the corporate media. And they sure as fuck won't hear these issues discussed in the general election debates between Obama and Romney.

    •  This is why nothing gets done! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jmcgrew

      We spend too much time worrying about who  proposed a policy instead of how to enact the policy.

      "Politics makes strange bedfellows", it's PolySci 101. The Front Page has forgotten that basic rule.

      If we want to fight the Fed, end the War on Drugs, and have fewer wars, we will need some right-wing Libertarian help to get it done.

      This does not mean "write in Ron Paul". It means we need to support him when he's Good and knock him when he's Bad. Just like we should any other politician.

      •  While I understand your point, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladyjames, tardis10

        I would stop short of "supporting" him. His overarching ideology makes me throw up in my mouth.

        But, I do see his continued presence on the national stage in the Republican debates as useful in terms of exposing the people to arguments against the wars.

      •  Umm.. hell naw. (0+ / 0-)

        The 'who' most certainly do matter.  You can't parse 2 policies that has dubious reasons not like what Progressives stand for from the whole of his offending nature.

        Please.

        "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

        by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:57:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I for one (0+ / 0-)

      Never thought that he would.

      Mitt Romney is going to do that.

      However that's not the real point.

      The point is using this guy to argue against what some Progressive feel is Obama's capitulation on civil liberties and the war in Afghanistan.

      "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

      by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:25:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I only advocate "using" Paul (0+ / 0-)

        in the sense that we should hold our fire against him for as long as he's being given the opportunity to inject anti-war rhetoric into the Republican debates.

        If Ron Paul were ever to ascend to the level of threatening Obama's reelection, THEN would be the time to let loose on him.

        In the meantime, I'm loving the fact that he's the turd in the GOP punch bowl.

  •  The US DIDN'T make stopping Holocaust its business (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe wobblie, nicta

    That was a side effect of invading Germany.  Diarist appears to be inventing history...

    •  Furthermore... (0+ / 0-)

      Paul would probably argue that a policy of interventionism helped create the conditions that led to the Holocaust. That's not determinism, just a reasonable possibility. Besides, it's not as though our high and mighty policies were rooted in a concern for the dignity of the human person, otherwise we wouldn't have tolerated half of Europe falling to the Iron Curtain.

      •  If preventing genocide was a US priority (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe wobblie, Shane Hensinger

        we could talk about the heroic role the US had in places like Darfur, Rwanda, and East Timor.

        But that's beside the point, since progressives have wanted to stop those disasters.

        If there are any progressives who think Paul is one of them, they are a fool and should be roundly mocked.  I support Paul on very, very specific grounds, and don't want him to be President, and I certainly don't think he's a progressive.

      •  What the FUCK???? History suggests that it was (2+ / 0-)

        rabid isolationism of the US during the 1930's that delayed the US entry into the war and thus allowed that much more genocide to go unchecked.  Before calling something a reasonable possibly, maybe take a look at what the political conditions (like rampant isolationism) were at the time.  And then, oh look, Ron Paul supports those very same ideas today and even goes so far as to say that no, he would not have fought Germany to prevent the Holocaust.  That is reprehensible.

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:28:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Uh-oh, you put a picture of Ron Paul on (0+ / 0-)

    the front page.  

    We delivered. They failed us. We have moved on. (h/t to my good friend)

    by gooderservice on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:47:27 PM PST

  •  Ron Paul is just a front for the real Kos enemy - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    Jane Hamsher.

    And I'm out of tinfoil.

    The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

    by raboof on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:50:08 PM PST

  •  These Paul diaries become more absurd, more (6+ / 0-)

    ridiculous,  more infantile, and more disingenuous by the minute.

    The amount of intellectual/political dishonesty in these diaries is reaching new heights, and that's saying something given the depths that some diarists will go to deflect any and all criticisms of the neoliberal, corporatist, Third Way agenda of the politically opportunistic faux populism of the current administration.

    There's not one Democrat, progressive, moderate, conservative, liberal, neoliberal, etc., who doesn't understand most if not all of the incoherence, in the reactionary, contradictory dogmas of Paul's libertarian ideology. The fact that Paul's doctrinaire, formulaic political ideology happens to correctly identify some of the current problems endemic to American economic and political life, such as the unbridled power of the TBTF banks, supported by their wholly owned personal piggy bank, the Fed, by no stretch of the imagination means that Paul has any solutions to these problems. Au contraire, the Great Recession that we still find ourselves in due to allowing, and deregulating, an orgy of speculative, casino-like greed in the financial sector is hardly going to be solved by an even more all-encompassing libertarian deregulation. Allowing the private financial sector to be even less regulated than they are now under an already pathetic, inadequate, "captured," regulatory structure is only going to make our economic/financial situation worse not better.

    But by being one small part in identifying the problems in the financial sector, Paul, among may others (Stiglitz, Krugman, e.g.), also helps us to realize that what purports to be financial reform under the Dodd-Frank bill, is hardly the solution either. Maintaining TBTF "zombie" banks that continue to be bailed out by the Fed under the guise of, e.g., QEI, II, III, ad infinitum, or continuing to allow a basically unregulated quadrillion-dollar derivatives market to continue their same unbridled, speculative, gambling mentality, at the same time that Geithner and Co. allow many the implementing regs of Dodd-Frank to be written by the same Wall-Street financial oligarchs that brought us the economic depression to begin with, is just as likely to make our economic situation worse not better as Paul's mythological nonsolutions.

    The Paul diaries, and the deliberately distorted critiques within them, are the real proxies being used to obsessionally, frantically avoid having to talk about, and critique the neoliberal agenda that has been unsuccessfully pushed for the last three years. Rest assured, talking about, and critiquing the bankruptcy of neoliberalism will in no way take away from talking about and critiquing the even more pernicious nonsolutions being peddled by the rest of the Rethug presidential gang and their extreme conservative, reactionary economic and political ideology.

    •  Can't recommend this post enough (0+ / 0-)

      Examine the issues being raised...  if you dare...

      "Reality-Based Community".

      "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

      by gila on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:31:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting analysis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladyjames, DSPS owl

    The point is well taken that why a person holds a particular position is worth considering.

    However, politics is not really linear; it only seems that way because two parties dominate politics in this country. Thus, a continuum from "left" to "right" has become the only means for categorizing political views.

    There are, in fact, many aspects that cannot be positioned anywhere on that continuum.  Corruption is one.  Corruption is a third dimension, being neither right nor left, conservative nor progressive, Republican nor Democrat. Corruption affects both major parties and is the root cause of the nation's severe financial woes and increasing militarism.

    At this point many people, across the two-party continuum, are desperate to stop the nation's relentless slide toward financial and/or physical destruction. Any candidate who promises to stop that slide is likely to draw support. When floodwaters are lapping at the front door, and a potential rescuer arrives with a boat, people don't ordinarily consider other issues until they are safe, on dry land.

    On that basis, I believe your conclusion about their motivations may be incorrect.

    While it may be tempting for some to promote Ron Paul as a proxy for highlighting their dissatisfactions with the current administration, those who do must understand that in the longer term, they are promoting an underlying ideology that seeks to destroy everything they actually represent.

    I suspect Ron Paul supporters hate the idea of voting for a candidate who offends them on many other issues. But, the dilemma is not their fault.  Blame properly lies with the two parties that neither represent the interests of the majority nor permit alternatives to exist.

    •  With respect, it is their fault. They (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, Miggles, foufou

      can affirm or reject Paul's entire voting record and history of public remarks.

      They can do this, and they should do this, as individual citizens.

      The two major political parties are not the cause of Paul's dramatic regression into a by-gone time.  And if I want anti-war voices, there are thousands to choose from better than Ron Paul.

      Paul should take responsibility for his public career.  In significant aspects, he has not.

  •  Interventionist Failure (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladyjames, Shane Hensinger, DSPS owl

    If interventionism is a 'strongly founded progressive value' then progressives need to rethink this.  It is precisely this view which has led to the foreign policy disasters of the last decades.  This view makes progressives inherently allied with the reactionary right when it comes to foreign policy.  If your description is accurate then progressives have no serious alternative to offer Americans.

  •  Excerpts from fifty of Paul's newsletters... (6+ / 0-)
  •  Thank God and finally. Dante put the game exactly (3+ / 0-)

    within the rules of play: WHY MATTERS:

    But there is an even larger concern: supporting Paul for the one or two issues on which there is overlap assumes those particular positions arise out of a sense of progressivism. But they don't, any more than the Christian right's opposition to pornography could be considered part of Dworkin's feminist ideology. It is, rather, completely antithetical, even if the policy output happens to coincide despite a drastically different ideological input. In other words, it doesn't matter if the "what" happens to be the same if the "why" is radically different.

    Please remember that, in the case of feminism, the folks that aligned with some in the feminist movement on pornography later went on to effectively STOP the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment for women. This is just ONE example of WHY coalitions should/shouldn't exist.

    This is exactly why, imho, the OWS and Tea Party should remain separate. Surely I needn't clarify WHY.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:24:46 PM PST

  •  Nader interview touted Paul alliance (5+ / 0-)

    BLechhhh! Nader's wrong on this one.
    Paul's anti-choice  position on reproductive rights alone would keep me away. In fact, why does so called Libertarian leaning Paul  claim he wants the U.S to get out of foreign nations and get out of every bit of our lives except the part inside a woman's body. WTF? and how could any human rights, civil rights progressive even get near that?

  •  What an absurd diary. Rahm was right. (5+ / 0-)

    Please review these statements, and tell me what you think is the more "Progressive."
    1. "I am uncomfortable with homosexuality and homosexuals but I will defend their constitutional rights to the utmost, because I put the Constitution first" or
    2. "Personally, I think the treatment of homosexuals is unfair but the political reality is that I cannot support across-the-board rights for homosexuals as it may alienate some social conservatives whose support we need on other issues."
    How about the infinite and endless "War On Drugs." There  are a million people in prison on drug charges.
    1. "I am against the "War on Drugs" because it impinges on the civil rights of Americans."
    2. "There will be a continue to be a drug czar (a cop, not a physician), there will be closure and arrests of legal medical marijuana dispensaries, irrespective of campaign promises. The will be no slacking and no discussion about drugs and police in our society. But I am a compassionate person and feel your pain."
    I wonder, if I was behind bars, which I thought was the more compassionate.
    Rahm was right, Obama can just "fuck the liberals," because obviously we can rationalize the policy into "who's really the nice guy and cares more about you." Irrespective of the laws and policies.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:33:11 PM PST

    •  shmuel.. tell ya what (0+ / 0-)

      I will give you 100,000$ when the next full moon happens

      in reality, I will probably only have a few bucks I can give you BUT until I have to actually make good on what I say I can say ANYTHING cause it's just werds

      same diff between what a President can do and what a candidate can say

      peace

      "Orwell was an optimist"

      by KnotIookin on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:18:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I absolutely and utterly refuse to judge (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SlowX

        politicians - any of them - on the image they project. That not only includes GW Bush, but Obama as well. Call me cynical, but the argument that Obama is a "nice guy" and "he's coming from a good place" is no  different to me than "what candidate would you rather have a beer with?"
        Obama has as bad a record on civil liberties as ANY president, and I don't like being dismissed as a "single issue voter" like this diarist accused. Moving the US to absolute executive privilege and police state fascism is a big deal to me, and Obama, as a professor of Constitutional law knows better - he certainly has had the power to do something, anything, other than pushing the radical agenda we see today.
        If he is powerless, then what's the difference if he or Rick Santorum becomes POTUS?

        "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

        by shmuelman on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:32:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Stopped reading at the "Matrix Reloaded" quote n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose, Matt Z
  •  Hey, as long as there are progressives or (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, Mecadalphia, Onomastic, foufou

    Democrats stupid enough to get caught up in Paulitis, the diarist has every right to counter the argument to ward off the disease.

    The diary was totally appropriate.

  •  The hypocrisy lately around here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shane Hensinger, nicta

    is stinking the place up.

     So what time we burning Greenwald at?

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:41:48 PM PST

  •  refreshing candor (0+ / 0-)

    i know, but it's just refreshing to hear someone speaking with candor and saying things that the other repubs are afraid to touch.

  •  you know... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kingdave

    ...the whole issue of progressives or democrats looking to Paul for solutions would be a moot point if the current batch of Democrats were actually representing the needs and wishes of thier constiuants.  The only reason people, in my opinion, consider Paul as acctable is the unactability of many of the current Democrats including the current administration as a whole or on specific issues.

    it is not a failure of people who support Paul it is a failure of the Democratic party that people have to look to Paul for stands they support.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:39:56 PM PST

  •  OK I'm through with the GG/Paul debate; (0+ / 0-)

    I have nothing more to say concerning the debate per se.

    Came across this video tonight. On its own merits, and outside the context of the current debate, would like other people's comments about what Paul's saying about American involvement in undeclared wars. Again,for me, it now has absolutely nothing to do with GG.

  •  Who is supporting Ron Paul? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, gila, kingdave, jmcgrew

    I have not seen any person who I would consider to be "left", "progressive", "liberal" or any other term actively promote or endorse the candidacy of Ron Paul.

    What I have seen some people say is that the policies of NDAA, denial of Palestinian rights, an interventionist foreign policy, the war on drugs do an immense amount of harm. But Obama is not just a passive respondent "forced" to go along with these policies. He embraces them and therefore legitimizes them, even if he is somewhat less extreme than John Bolton.

    Pop quiz: what is Obama's stance on war with Iran? Has he in any way, size, shape or form supported (since his camapaign) a policy of engagement and detente with Iran? Or has he legitimized some of the worst of the war mongering?

    If someone points out that Ron Paul's views on some issues deserve to be discussed and seriously considered, that does not mean they are endorsing Ron Paul or any of Ron Paul's other views.

    I will add that I am not particularly enamored of your opening example either. Not all feminists and certainly not all progressives (or whatever term you want to use) view pornography in the same light as do people like Dworkin and McKinnon. That said, if someone does happen to find themselves in agreement with someone who they otherwise disagree with on every other issue, why is it necessarily bad per se to attempt to work with people on that one issue, while recognizing that down the road, you may part ways.

    I used to participate in coalitions where there were people far to my left of whom I was wary. Was I not supposed to participate? Or is our slogan "no enemies to the left"?

    What we should be discussing is why it is that people like Ron Paul are the only ones (at present) with significant national exposure addressing the deeply flawed foreign policy that has guided us for decades and the destructiveness of the drug war. Why has Obama utterly failed on these issues?

    Furthermore, why is John Huntsman the only person out there who is at least talking about breaking up the banks. Yes, I know Huntsman has no chance and that Huntsman is actually truth be told, quite conservative.

    So where are the Democratic leaders arguing to actually break up the banks?

    There isn't any doubt that when the election comes, I will vote for Obama over any Republican. But that's not the issue.

  •  He's the same loser he was 4 years ago. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, tardis10, fcvaguy, Matt Z, missLotus

    Seems everyone has short term memory issues here.

    It's the same 10 percenters as 2008, the same "army of enthusiastic supporters on the ground" as 2008,  same sort of hysteria about progressives supporting Paul, same chance of him doing anything.

    Nada. Zip. Zero.

    Even if he keeps increasing his national support by 5% an election, he wouldn't have a chance until he's 106 years old.

    Don't see why all of a sudden all the DLCers are frothing at the mouth about him. They might as well be writing OMG Sarah Palin diaries for all the import these have.

    Zombie Cheerleaders ate my brain!

    by Razorblade on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:10:03 PM PST

  •  Well, well well. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    Didn't have the courage to come in this thread early.

    Waited until the bottom of the diary to spew the pro-Paul thing and you wonder why this diary had to be written?

    "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

    by smoothnmellow on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:59:00 PM PST

  •  Thanks for writing this article, Dante. There are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, Matt Z, Sylv

    a lot of people who don't know what Paul and the Libertarians are all about, and it's important for people to know.  (I had the misfortune to be dating a Libertarian, Paul-fan for three years, so I got to hear all about it.)

  •  Dante, the site software only gives us (0+ / 0-)

    one shot to recommend a diary, but I'm recommending it again.  

    So there.

  •  Not USian but could explain what I like (0+ / 0-)

    about Ron Paul.

    Sure I support gay rights, rights to abortion, protection against discrimination, a good social safety net, environmental protection and well funded education, and I also think that there should be strong limits on the influence of money in politics. All those things, Ron Paul doesn't support.

    But there is one thing that the government does that is more important than all of the above — war. To paraphrase loosely both Judge Jackson and Smedley Butler, war is the supreme crime. It's murder, it's rape, it's torture, it's theft and it's injustice.

    Today the US government spends more than the rest of the world combined on war. (And please, don't insult me and call that shit "defense"). As Eisenhower pointed out, it's a self-perpetuating funding nightmare. Defense contractors make shitloads of money with which they hire buttloads of lobbyists through whom they get shitloads more defense appropriations.

    Gay rights and healthcare are good things. They also happen to be rather trivial concerns compared to peace.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that promises to do something about the insane US war machine.

    A "centrist" is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.

    by nicta on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:35:15 AM PST

  •  Progressives has made so much progress... (0+ / 0-)

    ...in dismantling American imperialism, it's not wonder they are so dismissive of Paul's critique.  

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 03:44:29 AM PST

  •  So the end justifies the means? (0+ / 0-)
    For progressives, the question of whether or not to intervene hinges not on whether interventionism is inherently good or bad; rather, the question is whether on balance, the intervention will bring about a net positive result.

    That is pragmatism, not progressivism.   You may say all things are fair in war, as long as they net out ok for us in the end, but I say there are some things we shouldn't do even in war because of the damage to our honor and cultural values.  Like Abu Ghraib - if there is an American who isn't at least a little ashamed of that, I call sociopath.

    Anyway, War isn't progress - it's failure.  It's a last resort.  Being all cavalier and cowboy about intervening in someone else's conflict hasn't really worked out that well for us so far - how about we stop it for a while?

    You are right the Republican, wealthy elite Teddy's Roosevelt's style of progressivism celebrated war.  The later progressives, like LaFollette and Wallace, not so much.  So the Progressive Party progressed.

    Progressives have always been, but apparently lately not so much, concerned with the economic costs of war at home and abroad, conscious of whose interests are being served, and respectful of other cultures and beliefs.

    Which side are you on?

    by wiseacre on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:30:45 AM PST

  •  seeing Paul for prz signs with sparkly peace signs (0+ / 0-)

    nailed to poles at tucson intersections.   a vote for Paul is a vote for world peace. really?

Superskepticalman, Trix, fcvaguy, jennybravo, nicolemm, mimi, its simple IF you ignore the complexity, alicia, Shockwave, LynChi, Birdman, bronte17, CoolOnion, sviscusi, figbash, Lawrence, JackMcCullough, CarbonFiberBoy, ohiolibrarian, Sychotic1, parryander, The Gryffin, eztempo, Sybil Liberty, vcmvo2, snewman, KnotIookin, citizenx, Pam from Calif, rb608, JanF, Reality Bites Back, forbodyandmind, dopper0189, smokeymonkey, fou, gpoutney, Libby Shaw, MBNYC, kurious, tegrat, Habitat Vic, Mgleaf, stcroix cheesehead, A Person, JeffW, Sixty Something, bythesea, alnep, CitizenJoe, qm1pooh, Karl Rover, fayea, cadfile, lostinamerica, jennylind, Remediator, Jyrki, Rick in Oz, Denise Oliver Velez, paintitblue, kevinpdx, jimmylutherking, mahakali overdrive, French Imp, Larsstephens, Railfan, Amber6541, BigVegan, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, smileycreek, jdsnebraska, hillgiant, RhymesWithUrple, Laurilei, politik, michelewln, ordy, manyamile, anonevent, NYWheeler, sharonsz, Sirenus, nickrud, rja, orlbucfan, Patate, cany, Onomastic, annieli, kerflooey, ozsea1, jm214, Buckeye Nation, kirbybruno, OhioNatureMom, griffin459, BarackStarObama, smoothnmellow, RMForbes, TRPChicago, Marihilda, rlk, Mets102, ratcityreprobate, Miggles, weinerschnauzer, DRo, Chitown Kev, ParkRanger, Mindful Nature, We Won, ahumbleopinion, David54, oldcrow, tb92, AnnieR, AreDeutz, hann1bal, Lorinda Pike, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, doroma, Vote4Obamain2012, bigrivergal, Dolboeb, Marjmar, Near Miss, Greenfinches, Setsuna Mudo, Tony Greco, SquirrelQueen, dirk41

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site