Skip to main content

                               

Some things are just too painful to read:

“Let’s say Ron Paul is Nirvana,” said Kennedy, the television personality and former MTV host, by way of explaining the sort of politician who excites libertarians like herself. “Like, the coolest, most amazing thing to come along in years, and the songs are nebulous but somehow meaningful, and the lead singer kills himself to preserve the band’s legacy.

“Then Rand Paul — he’s Pearl Jam. Comes from the same place, the songs are really catchy, can really pack the stadiums, though it’s not quite Nirvana.

The musings of an awestruck Republican-turned-Libertarian former MTV Host lead off what amounts to a fairly evenhanded assessment by the New York Times Magazine of that weird, vogueish hybrid of conservative and liberal known as "libertarianism."  The Times describes the allure of Ron and Rand Paul to a younger generation (including Millennials, for whom Kennedy is probably next-to-irrelevant) supposedly disenchanted with the Democratic Party's failure to loudly repudiate the NSA's domestic spying or more enthusiastically embrace marijuana legalization. The article trots out the now-familiar statistics about lack of party identification among the young and the resulting potential pool of voters suddenly "up for grabs."  What it doesn't do (and it admits as much) is put its finger on exactly what libertarianism is, because it can't. The word is slippery and susceptible to multiple interpretations.

The Times cites the marijuana issue, the growth in support for same-sex marriage, the disinclination of the public for foreign interventions (read: wars) as emblematic of a resurgence in what it suggests is a "libertarian moment," but it fails to recognize these are not particularly "libertarian" positions. They are liberal positions, grown and nurtured by liberals, not "freedom-loving" conservatives.   By coupling these liberal-inspired initiatives with the laissez-faire, deregulatory "free-market" theories of the Koch brothers, the media (Times included) perpetuate a mythical "libertarianism" that doesn't in fact exist except as a media contrivance. Conservatives who support same-sex marriage or legal marijuana sales aren't any less "conservative."--they're simply conservatives who latched onto a good liberal idea. Paul opposing the NSA spying is no less a conservative for doing so. He's simply a conservative who opposes domestic spying, much in the same way nearly all liberals do.

This is a nuance that is dangerous if left unchallenged. Because it elevates far-right Republicans like Paul as rock stars or heroes to the young (as evidenced by the quote that leads off this Diary) simply for their seeming novelty-- even though their actions when subjected to close scrutiny are routinely and very unpleasantly right-wing. It's telling that nowhere in the Times article is there any real analysis of Paul's actual voting record in the Senate. The Paul phenomena is the equivalent of the media selling a phony bill of goods, with its target a generation of Millennial voters.

Mr. Paul has shown every inclination to ride this urban myth surrounding his "libertarianism" in a bid to draw younger voters away from the Democratic Party, where they usually and historically end up.  So it's useful to examine his voting record in the context of the demographic he seeks to convert, the young voters, asking in effect: What has Rand Paul done for you in his short Senate career?

It turns out there are some clear answers. The best evidence available--his voting record-- shows that Rand Paul doesn't give a damn about Millennials. Nor, for that matter, does he appear to give much thought to anyone else.

S 2569 - Bring Jobs Home Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.

Mr. Paul voted against (voting "nay" on a Cloture vote means you prevent a final vote by the Senate on the Bill. As Mr. Paul is in the Senate minority, any bill he doesn't want passed can be defeated simply by voting "nay" on cloture) a Bill that would eliminate tax breaks for corporations who offshore their business to avoid paying taxes. So when the state school you go to raises their tuition, because the state government has no money to subsidize it and your federal loans have been cut, you can thank Rand Paul for allowing businesses in your state to shelter their profits overseas. Too bad those businesses don't have a job for you, huh?  Put simply, by voting against this Bill,  Rand Paul bankrolled the outsourcing of your job.  

What a cool guy.

S 2223 - Minimum Wage Fairness Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.

Mr. Paul voted against raising the minimum wage to $10.10 over a two year period. So when the job he made sure you couldn't get fails to materialize, and you're relegated to working in the service industry with your college degree, you can thank Rand Paul for keeping your wage at a level below bare subsistence.

No one ever said so-called Libertarians don't have "principles." Here's a good example of that:

Votes
HR 5021 - Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Passage With Amendment) on this Legislation.

You may have noticed that the roads in your area often need to be repaired, especially if you lived through some severe weather over the past year. Rand Paul's view, as demontsrated in his record, is that rebuilding and repairing the nation's roadways constitutes an infringement on his freedom.  That's Libertarianism in a nutshell and that's fine except when you need to actually, you know, use the road to get somewhere.

The Bill Mr. Paul voted against was to keep the Federal Highway Trust Fund solvent. It's funded primarily by taxes on gasoline, but roads are expensive and Republican folks in Congress exactly like Mr. Paul have blocked any effort to raise the gas tax to keep the Fund afloat. So occasionally the Fund needs more money. That's what Mr Paul voted against--He stops efforts to raise the revenue through the gas tax and won't allow any more revenue to the Fund. The result is that the roads never get fixed.

Welcome to Libertarianism. Sorry if you ever have to drive.

Truth be told, I can't even figure out how someone could vote against this, but there it is.

Let's see how Mr. Paul treats women:

From his website:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Thursday, Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human...[.]

"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward," Sen. Paul said. "The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress."

This "Fetal Personhood" law would effectively outlaw all abortion. From the moment of conception forward. And in case you think he doesn't mean it:
S 2578 - Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014 - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.

This was the Bill designed to ensure that corporations and employers could not refuse to provide contraception to women as mandated under the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). Birth Control enables women to make reproductive decisions on their own, without the interference of corporations whose "views" about birth control are frankly beside point. Rand Paul, supposed champion of individual liberty, voted to deny this basic freedom to women. Not only did he vote to deny it, he voted to deny the full Senate the ability to even vote on it. Because then he would have had to taken a position, which would likely have ended the Pearl Jam comparisons  very, very quickly.

So a woman is first denied birth control by Paul, and then she is denied the right to an abortion. This is his public record.

S 540 - Temporary Debt Limit Extension Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Concurrence Vote) on this Legislation.

Rand Paul voted not to raise the debt ceiling. What this means is that, if it were up to Rand Paul, the U.S. would have defaulted on debts it had already incurred. Nearly all economists agree that if this had occurred the world would have been plunged into a financial catastrophe and you would probably not be employed for the next three-to-five years because the businesses that managed to survive this kind of a downturn would not be hiring. Anyone's stock holdings, 401k's, housing values, would probably have plummeted and flatlined for the same time frame.  It would have been a real pleasure to be paying off student loans in that sort of environment. And Rand Paul voted to make it even worse for you:
S 953 - Student Loan Affordability Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.

This was a Bill introduced by Democrats to keep student loan interest rates down due to the difficulty students were having finding employment. Rand Paul voted against it.

It would also have been a tough haul if you'd been fired and couldn't find another job.  Rand Paul also voted to block the Senate from voting on providing an extension of benefits to the unemployed:

S 1845 - Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Cloture Vote) on this Legislation.

"Libertarianism" means you're on your own.

The "rock star" also voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, in effect, giving his seal of approval to discrimination against LGBT persons:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees.
But he found the time to vote for building a mythical "fence" to seal the border between the U.S. and Mexico, something no one expects to be effective or even actually happen:
S Amdt 1197 - Requires the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Yea (Amendment Vote) on this Amendment.

In the past year Mr. Paul voted against a measure to limit the magazine capacity of certain automatic weapons, against a measure prohibiting the sale of certain assault weapons, against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, against funds for natural disaster relief, against funds for the treating of autistic children, against a Bill requiring the disclosure of corporate sources of political funding, against an International Treaty establishing the rights of the Disabled, against a Bill to require the labelling of genetically modified food, and against the Paycheck Fairness Act (which was designed to make the wages of women equal to men for doing the same job).

In short, despite his image as a libertarian, Rand Paul votes just like any Republican. His votes on the actual issues are as anti-Millennial as the rest of his party.

On the other hand, he voted for cutting Food Stamps to the needy.  He voted for the Keystone pipeline. He was co-sponsor of legislation to end FCC regulation of the Internet, which would have resulted in complete domination of the web by private interests unfettered by any regulatory constraints on their behavior.  Good luck preserving an Internet regulated solely by corporate interests. This from the same guy who makes a lot of noise about how he doesn't like NSA spying.

It's not clear exactly how many young people actually view Mr. Paul as some sort of political "rock star" and the depth of his actual support among the Millennial generation may be overstated.  The article correctly points out, however, the absence to date of any significant overtures by any other political candidate, including Hillary Clinton, towards this generation, so right now Paul is filling that gap. These type of media fixations tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies and if history is any guide there will be almost no attempt by the same media to educate the public about Paul's actual voting record. While I'm years removed from the Millennial generation, I know that in my time if a rock star showed up with that kind of record, I sure as hell wouldn't be buying his music.

I'd be headed for the doors and demanding my money back.

             Rand paul photo: Rand Paul rand-paul.jpg

Originally posted to Dartagnan on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:08 AM PDT.

Also republished by My Old Kentucky Kos.

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

    •  Kennedy is nothing like a Millennial. She's Gen X (14+ / 0-)

      She's over 40 and born when Nixon was still president.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 02:46:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I'm sorry, but Pearl Jam was just terrible (4+ / 0-)

        They are no Nirvana, or Mudhoney. I always thought they sounded like a weird rocked up Natalie Merchant tribute band with a male singer. Yuck.

        Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about. Mark Twain

        by Deathtongue on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:44:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pearl Jam were grunge cock-rock (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deathtongue

          Pearl Jam were like the Cinderella/Poison/Motley Crue of grunge rock.  Once any musical genre establishes itself, the posers start showing up, and that's where we got Pearl Jam, Candlebox, Stone Temple Pilots, and Alice In Chains (I like Alice in Chains alright, but they were still a poser band).  I think Eddie Vedder's a nice guy and all, but I never could stand that band.

          And I always hated Kennedy the VJ back in the day, and now I know why.  Henry Rollins always hated her, too... he'd try to creep her out whenever he was on 120 Minutes, and Henry's usually cool to everybody.

          "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

          by Front Toward Enemy on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:39:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This was so awesome Dartagnan I wrote a pretty ... (5+ / 0-)

      This was so awesome Dartagnan I wrote a pretty long comment (no way long and far down the list) that I was hoping to get feedback on but I'm not sure if anyone will. JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME. This layout was the missing link for me on ideas ill be pitching to my candidates here in Florida. THANKS!!!

    •  If you think Kennedy defines the "young set" (5+ / 0-)

      At danger of being seduced by Rand Paul, I'd suggest doing a bit of research and writing a diary for "infants" in the 18-40 crowd.

      MTV? Is that a political site or something?

      Anyway, if you write that other diary, maybe spend equal time convincing them why they should vote for Hillary Clinton, because the danger is not so much that Paul will motivate them to vote for him, but that Clinton will convince them to stay home.

      To lot of actual millennials, she sounds (and looks) like a crusty old Neocon and throwing Obama under the bus for representing some of the values millennials hold dear ain't going to motivate them a hell of a lot.

      Serious generation gap ahead. Very serious.

      •  Right on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Garthhh

        Kennedy has about as much insight into millennials as Sarah Palin, around the same age and IQ level.

        MTV hasn't been relevant to anyone for 20 years.

        The teenagers I know (I'm a dad of one) think TV itself is for old people. Facebook too.

        And Hillary Clinton's ideas are old too.

        I'm not convinced the libertarian protest vote won't matter in 2016. And I can't blame young people with being fed up with politicians of both parties who stand mostly for endless war and letting bankers do what they want, looking at you too Mr. President, and Secretary Clinton.

      •  So you gotta ask yourself (32+ / 0-)

        Why so many Dems cede this issue to Randy?  Why just a smattering of D's speak out against obscene NSA intrusions, The Perjurer Clapper, Million-A-Month Alexander?

        Are the vast majority of Dems that corrupt or that spineless?

        The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

        by GreatLakeSailor on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:46:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Alternatively (60+ / 0-)

          Why do so many Libertarian leaning leftist Democrats seem to be willing to embrace Rand Paul for his supposed anti-NSA views while ignoring the plethora of other odious positions he embraces.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:05:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because for some... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            notrouble, Cardinal96, Yonit, koNko, METAL TREK

            ...civil liberties minded people the NSA is priority #1 and they are willing to trade quite a lot in other areas to get those people shut down.

            (-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 Aug 10, 2014 at 09:05:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I've asked myself that question.. (42+ / 0-)

            I've seen Bill Maher, Joe Trippi, and others make favorable comments about Rand Paul.

            I've also seen Rand Paul referred to as an anti-corporatist. I disagree. He's an anti-statist. I think it is hard for an anti-statist to be anti-corporatist because who else will reign in corporate power except the state?

            He's anti-union as well and unions are also a counterbalance to corporate power.

            To be an anti-corporatist, you need to do more than just oppose corporate welfare. You need to recognize the need for other institutions (state, unions) to be strong enough to curtail corporate power and abuses.

            When he talks about the war on drugs and the wrongs of mass incarceration, he ties this in with the evils of big government. This issue is a result of the privatization of prisons and creating a new corporate lobby getting harsh minimum sentences all to increase profits. This is a result of crony capitalism, & not big government.

            I think libertarianism needs a big redefinition before they are of much use to the progressive movement. They would have to realize corporate power is a much greater threat to personal freedom than the state is. There may be a few individual issues here and there we can work together on, but libertarianism would need a redefinition to be much use beyond that.

            •  They aren't really anti-statist (17+ / 0-)

              Anarchists, who are anti-capitalist and anti-state, are opposed to central top-down government, even on regional and municipal levels, because they support true freedom, egalitarianism, equality and social solidarity. They want a government from below, a "state" from below, if you will, using federalization of worker associations and participatory communities.

              The self-described right wing "libertarians" are against the over arching federal government because of issues of  regulation, taxation, and interference with business and the "free market", etc., but this doesn't mean they against central control, especially corporate hierarchy, which is a form of private government which even (cough) most dems support.

              Anarchists, the original libertarians, the one's who influenced Jefferson, Paine, etc, would abolish top-down hierarchies in the workplace, and appropriate all "property" used in production to be self-managed by the workers.  Patriarchy, racial inequality, sexism, all forms of systemic social inequality would be opposed in such a system.

              THAT is libertarianism. See my sig line.

              "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

              by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:12:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good explanation. (13+ / 0-)

                The terms often are used very loosely and confuse people.  

                Bakunin and Marx both were part of the First International and had quite a dialogue.  American "libertarians" are creatures of the right with an ethos very far from anarchists and Marxists.  The dialogue on the left continues between positions influenced by either strain of thought.  

                Here's an interesting take on the dispute I found in a quick google search:

                THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.2

                For some, the intensity of the conflict has been puzzling, given that the two authors seem to be struggling for identical goals. Convinced that capitalism is predicated on the exploitation of workers by capitalists, they were equally dedicated to fighting for a socialist society where economic classes would be abolished and all individuals would have the opportunity to develop all of their creative capacities. Hence, both envisioned socialism as eliminating the division of labor, especially between mental and manual work, and between men and women. In other words, the work process was to be transformed so that all workers would take an active role in the organization, design and implementation of it. Moreover, both argued that the oppressed must liberate themselves – one should not expect any benevolent impulses from members of the ruling, capitalist class; and to insure success, the revolution must assume an international scope. Finally, they agreed that the State was an instrument of class oppression, not some neutral organ that equitably represented everyone’s interests, and in the final analysis must be abolished. The 1871 Paris Commune offered, in their opinion, a model to be emulated.

                However, their most profound point of disagreement centered on their conflicting analyses of the State. Most importantly, while Marx envisioned a transitional stage between capitalism and a fully mature communist society, which included a state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., a workers’ state), Bakunin adamantly rejected the establishment of any kind of state, including a workers’ state. In fact, this rejection is the defining principle of the school of anarchism, a term that literally translates as “no government”. For Bakunin, the only consistent, revolutionary option was to move immediately to a fully mature communist society which, both authors agreed, would be distinguished by the absence of a state. As a corollary to this disagreement, Marx supported attempts by independently organized workers to pursue their class interests by pressing for reforms within the bourgeois state – for example, for a reduction in the length of the working day – arguing that such victories would promote class consciousness, whereas Bakunin contested this proposal on the grounds that any political engagement whatsoever would constitute a perversion of the revolutionary movement and instead advocated complete abstention from the bourgeois political arena. The proper form of a revolutionary organization was also a point of dispute. Bakunin enthusiastically created secret societies as catalysts for a revolutionary upsurge while Marx flatly rejected them. Finally, the two contested the proper role of the peasants in a revolutionary movement. Bakunin argued that they might play a leading role while Marx designated the proletariat as the exclusive, leading revolutionary agent.

                snip

                We can now see that when Marxists and anarchists refer to such concepts as “human nature” and “freedom”, they have diametrically opposed definitions in mind and therefore are frequently talking at cross-purposes. Bakunin’s notion of spontaneity stands starkly opposed to Marx’s notion of collective, rational action. Each author, armed with his own definition, could then logically categorize the other as a tyrant. One can understand, therefore, why Bakunin labeled Marx an “authoritarian” when Marx would not concede to Bakunin’s impulsive politics. Marx, on the other hand, viewed Bakunin’s conceptual framework as mired in an antiquated 18th century Enlightenment philosophy, lacking any historical dimension, theoretically inconsistent, and parading metaphysics as if it were materialism. As far as Marx was concerned, Hegel could easily have been speaking of Bakunin when he declared:

                “Since the man of common sense makes his appeal to feeling, to an oracle within his breast, he is finished and done with anyone who does not agree; he only has to explain that he has nothing more to say to anyone who does not find and feel the same in himself. In other words, he tramples underfoot the roots of humanity. For it is in the nature of humanity to press onward to agreement with others; human nature only really exists in an achieved community of minds.”59

                Neither the early nor the later Marx was a figure of the late Enlightenment, a philosophic school which trumpeted the autonomy of the isolated individual, divorced from a human community. And Marx had little to say about socialist alternatives, except by suggesting broad parameters, since socialism, in the final analysis, is to be defined and created by the participants themselves, i.e. by “freely associated men” engaged in “universal intercourse” who in this way achieve “control and conscious mastery” of their lives.

                The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

                Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

                by TomP on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:23:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is decidedly pro-Marxist and slanted (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TomP, AoT, Yonit, tb92, koNko

                  Several inadequacies are presented, and some glossing over of the history. But still worth reading, as an introduction. It is, in fact, a smear.

                  Marxists have a long history of misstating, misreading, misconstruing, and distorting anarchist theory, going back to the days when Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, and Engels were alive, so much so that there is a series of anarchist articles which correct the worst of them:

                  What parts of anarchism do Marxists particularly misrepresent?

                  I'll touch on a few of these here, but the articles would be far better to read.

                  What isn't mentioned in the comment above is the constant mischaracterizing of anarchist theory by Marx and Engels, and Marxist adherents in general during the entire history. Proudhon (the first to name himself an anarchist) preceded Marx in his writings, and was the author of much of what founded Marx's later ideas. Few know today, for example, that it was Proudhon who first came up with the theory of the theft of the full value of labor by the owning class (later called surplus value by Marx), using property as the exploitative lever, and that workers had a clear right to the value of their products of their labor after production. Engels absurdly wrote that Proudhon was in favor of wage-labor, something Proudhon famously argued against before Marx had written his works. Engels also wrongly stated Proudhon was against worker associations (co-ops), which were the basis of Proudhon's philosophy!

                  And so the debate began, back in the 1800's, rife with distortions, which have been continuing ever since. I'll scratch the surface here and briefly touch on a few of these distortions which I've learned from my readings, despite the inadequacy of doing this here on a blog. The bottom line is be very careful of accepting Marxist explanations of anarchism.

                  Bakunin later advanced Proudhon's anarchism into a revolutionary form, (Proudhon tended to be reformist), and modified it to be more strongly collectivist rather than anarcho-mutualist, but both were anti-state, anti-capitalist, in favor of federations of worker associations, and a "government" from below. Both would abolish wage labor, private property used in production.

                  Few realize it was mutualists influenced by Proudhon who were largely responsible for organizing the First International, back in 1862, with Marx being invited by a friend to a meeting in 1864, and that the organization was founded on early anarchist ideas to a degree. Marx wanted to make the organization political, while anarchists felt that would co-opt the autonomy of the various sections of the organization, and wanted to leave political action to individuals rather than force it on them from above, in top-down fashion. Marx and his cohorts "gerrymandered" a vote, took control of the International, eliminated the autonomy of sections, and expelled Bakunin and another anarchist, all changes exhibiting a top-down authoritarian style and approach.

                  The anarchists formed their own international, and continued.

                  Bakunin famously predicted that Marxist statism and "dictatorship of the proletariat" would result in a highly authoritarian system, and was proven correct in the history which followed, with the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and their brutality and suppression of dissent, including the slaughter of thousands of peasant anarchists.

                  As to anarchists having a notion of creating "a fully mature communist" society overnight, that is simply something the author made up out of whole cloth, and is a commonly repeated misconception. Anarchists realize that it takes time to change society in a social revolution, and they view the social revolution as an ongoing process, not an overnight event. But they have observed that states do "not wither away" by themselves (see all Marxist Leninist regimes), and that revolutions which are only political, and not social, tend to fail.

                  The first thing to do in any revolution is feed the people, rather than starve them in the name of the revolution (which the Bolsheviks did). Immediately get society functioning, get the bread flowing, turn on the utilities, turn over self-management to the people so they can see the results of what they fought for. This was done in anarchist Spain with great success, (and to some degree exemplified the Paris Commune, and the Mahknovists in the Ukraine), but alas, the world powers could not let that be, and all sides including Stalin and the Bolsheviks set out to crush them.

                  And this statement, really?

                  One can understand, therefore, why Bakunin labeled Marx an “authoritarian” when Marx would not concede to Bakunin’s impulsive politics.
                  Anarchist conceptions of human nature do not, as that article implies, include impulsivism, irrationality, and implied lack of organization and in fact support careful, responsible self-management. Again, see Spain in the Anarchist Revolution.

                  And as far as Bakunin being "metaphysical" rather than adapting dialectical materialism, that is an accusation both sides exchanged, each labeling the other accordingly. Bakunin, like Marx, had thoroughly studied Hegel, was well aware of the philosophical trends of the times, and found some agreement with Marx, but felt that Marx went too far with his doctrinaire approach, becoming ironically as "metaphysical" in his own doctrines as those he labeled with that epithet. As anarchists had also predicted, Marx's doctrinaire dialecticism as expressed in ideas about the uselessness of the peasantry in revolt, for example, were wrong, as proven in Spain (1936), in the Ukraine (1919), as well as in China, not to mention the Diggers in England (1647?).

                  And despite the article's claims, anarchists have been instrumental in fighting for labor reforms, including famously calling for shorter worker's hours. The ultimate goal of anarchism is not to reform government, but to replace it, but that doesn't exclude using direct action to benefit labor or push for a better standard of living in the meantime. Must I remind that author of the Haymarket affair, which was all about strikers demanding an eight hour day, which resulted in the false conviction and execution of anarchists in the subsequent witch hunt?

                  And lastly, the "secret societies" Bakunin called for during his time reflected his having been imprisoned for his beliefs, something Marx had been spared, and the significant oppression of French socialist movements experienced in Bakunin's time led Bakunin to feel these groups should act in secret, but these groups, contrary to misleading statements by Marxists, were horizontal and democratic in structure, and were proposed to merely exert an influence during popular revolts (which were thought to be imminent), but not using authoritarian or top-down devices of control, as Marx wanted with his "dictatorship of the proletariat".

                  Besides which, most anarchists have never supported Bakunin's "secret organizational" approach, and because anarchism does not support worship of the personalities of anarchism's more renowned theorists (unlike Marxism), they don't feel obliged to support a concept if one of their own theorists goes against the philosophy, if he in fact had actually done that. Anarchists view the movement as deriving from the bottom up, not from Bakunin, or Proudhon, or any other theorist, but from the people. Thus, we aren't "Bakuninist's" (as the Marxists have often called us) and we don't name our philosophy after a personality. No one owns it.

                  It was Marxists who came up with the idea of an elite vanguard that would use a party organization to rule over the masses with top-down central authority, the anathema and antithesis of socialism.  

                  The reason anarchists opposed this scheme is anarchists wanted to abolish all class, to create a classless society, and having an elite, top-down, ruling political party in control (as Bakunin accurately predicted) would result in inequality and oppression, and social coercion that would defeat a revolution. By creating a bottom-up federalized social structure from the beginning, people are much less likely to stage a counter revolution to revolt against over-reaching authority. State control simply fails with socialism, since the entire concept is at once defeated with central control. This doesn't mean anarchists would not defend a revolution, for a counter insurgency would be defended against. But people would immediately begin to self-manage their workplaces, sans bosses and private property, which are seen as violent forms of oppression and a matter of self defense to oppose.

                  Anyway, this is a big, long, historical argument that takes a bit of reading to fully comprehend, and the side of Marxists has been often told, so I urge people to explore the anarchist side which has been much distorted by capitalists as well as Marxists.

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 12:19:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  thanks for the reply... (5+ / 0-)

                I haven't studied the different forms of government as you have so I am asking a couple questions.

                My understanding is the only effective difference between Marxism and Capitalism is the oppressor is the state versus corporations or private power?  In both, people suffer. I don't know of any country that successfully implemented Marxism.

                You are saying true libertarians would have workers own all the means of production? Like an employee owned company?

                Is this consistent with what economist Richard Wolff talks about?

                •  Think of a "state" from the bottom up (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joedemocrat, AoT, tb92, koNko

                  The power flows from the base, not the top. The irony is Prouhon at first described his ideas of federation of worker associations as a state, but this so confused people that anarchists adopted the anti-state term.

                  It is NOT lack of organization, but it is not central authority, favoring instead local authority in participatory democracies which flows upward into wider and wider organizations, spreading to international scale, in a federation of federations.

                  There would be assemblies that deal with issues that go beyond the local, and which overlap regions, based on elected delegates, but all delegates are easily re-callable if they do not fulfill their mandates from below.

                  This idea goes back to Proudhon (pre-Marxian), and even earlier. There is a social structure, but all power comes from the people. There would be checks and balances in such a society that naturally come from the interrelationships of worker associations. Agreements would be made, which if broken, can end relationships. All would come from the bottom, and thus instills a high degree of participation in the democracy, and a high degree of satisfaction since everyone is part of decision making.

                  It takes a bit of thinking to get a sense of how this works...

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 12:35:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joedemocrat, AoT, koNko
                  My understanding is the only effective difference between Marxism and Capitalism is the oppressor is the state versus corporations or private power?
                  That isn't far from what anarchist criticism has been over the decades, going back to Bakunin, who warned of Marxist authoritarianism.

                  There are many ways to set up an anarchist society, and not just one fixed structure that would be imposed from on high. Workers would "own" or possess the workplace, not the state. Workers would delegate responsibilities to people trained to do the work. Worker associations or councils would democratically self-manage the workplace.

                  Depending on the structure, there would be worker vouchers, with amounts set by the workers themselves, or in some forms, no money at all. Workers would decide how they want to proceed. No socialist party official would breath down their necks telling them how to manage their own workplace. Benefits would be decided by the communities of workers, which would involve federations of worker and community associations.

                  I'm not intimately familiar with Wolf, but I understand he is a bit of a libertarian Marxist, but as far as I know he still favors a state, and representational forms of government.

                  Anarchism is socialism with a great deal of community and individual autonomy, but yet very organized, from local to international organizations.

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:54:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  well said Joe (6+ / 0-)

              KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

              by fcvaguy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:15:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  He's a 100% pro-corportist (5+ / 0-)

              The issue that drives him is that corporate power should be unlimited and there should be NO government regulations or checks on the ability of corporate interests to do whatever they want, even if they are harming the health or welfare of the citizenry or committing fraud.

              "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

              by dcg2 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:23:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is not strictly correct (7+ / 0-)

                Rand loves the government when it does things like kick people out of their houses because they can't pay the bank. Rand loves drones when they're used against someone who has robbed a liquor store. Rand loves government when it's used for shitty ends, like oppression of women, or oppression of poor people. Corporatism requires government support, without it corporations have no power. Corporations only exist because of government.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:26:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Not being a supporter of Roadkill Randy myself... (7+ / 0-)

            I can only speculate.  But I'll offer a few possibilities:

            --Rand is good at what he does - emphasize the one or two issues that resonate with a particular audience, then run with them while pretending the other issues don't exist.*

            Like:
            --People are really pissed off at the whole NSA thing - REALLY PISSED OFF.  And frightened - stuff like this can spin out of control very quickly.  I have of both of those concerns...and several more.
            --Cannabis Prohibition is insane and everyone knows it.  It's as crazy, socially & economically dysfunctional and crippling as Trickle-Down economics (which The Paul avoids addressing like a plague - in certain company, of course) and everyone knows it.  Even proponents of Cannabis Prohibition know its dysfunctional.
            --War, Empire, Droning American Citizens (+his kid - that was a real kicker), NDAA/Habeas, NDAA/Legal to Lie.  Same thing - everyone knows that's fucked up, you ain't gotta convince the audience of it, you just have to say it out loud.

            *Our current administration is rather good at this too, just uses a different set of issues.  Party-over-Policy Right Wing Dems have even developed a canned argument to counter criticism by any wayward Lefties.  First they invoke the "Purity" frame, then follow with the "Better than the R's" frame.  I have yet to see one of these Party-over-Policy types address the real issue: the ethics of deceptive advocacy (sayin' you're for something, then advocating for the opposite through policy, appointments and/or votes - ie "This will be the most transparent Administration in history," or "I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes and join them on the picket line," or "We need to revisit NAFTA and make trade fair.").

            The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

            by GreatLakeSailor on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:40:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't Agree At All (11+ / 0-)

              Rand Paul's high profile can be reduced down to these core elements-

              -he's actually under 55.

              -he openly talks about legalizing pot and not going to war, which leads to

              -the Beltway's fascination of his "breaking with" the standard GOP line on those two issues as he sets to run for president.  The Villagers can't get enough of intra-party conflict, even if it's fairly superficial.  As any examination of Paul's record (like this diary) shows, the guy hardly has a foot off the reservation.

              That's all it takes, and the media is happy to indulge him.

              I disagree on your take.  Because-

              - Paul has gotten the attention (though not necessarily the support) of a bunch of superficial types who hardly vote.  Of course, if you can round them up, like Obama did in 2008 (and to a lesser extent in 2012), it can defy the expectations of you from those that only see a universe with "likely voters."  And it comes from the pot angle, and perhaps the no-war (ha!) one.  I can imagine a bunch of potheads thinking of supporting Paul just for the first issue, before they get hit over the head with the list presented here.

              -sorry, I don't see the NSA as a "big issue."   I know people that are highly informed and follow politics that are aware of it, and somewhat concerned.  But, and this could be because it's my view, it simply isn't a big driving issue.  And that is because we're dealing with an unelected part of the national security machine, and while some people are upset with what is going on, it takes nothing to get even more people scared of whatever boogeyman you like (terrorist, right wing militia) and argue you need the "tools" to keep everyone safe.  Hey, I want the NSA to not spy on me....but I'm more worried about climate change, media consolidation, and Wall Street banks even more.

              -Your notion of "purity" arguments is totally wrong.  As in, I'm one of those people that knows the flawed Democrats are better than the Republicans, and I'm one of those arguing for voting all the time and for Democrats over pretty much any Republican.  And no, I'm not on anyone's payroll to do so.  Because of the Supreme Court.  Because of the judicial appointments below the Supreme Court.  Because of the people appointed to run the agencies.

              And the "ethics of deceptive advocacy"?  That's because of the millions and billions of dollars on the OTHER side, that not just run ad campaigns and buy influence, but lobby away real progressive change AFTER the elections.  You  know what helped that process?  The Citizens United decision.  In which all 5 votes came from Justices appointed by....Republicans.  Get it now?

              In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

              by Bring the Lions on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:05:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He doesn't talk about legalizing pot (4+ / 0-)

                He talks at most about reducing penalties. This is a common misconception. However, the fact that he talks about reducing how illegal it is at all is rather different  than most politicians.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:07:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  We clearly have differing definitions of "it". (0+ / 0-)

                First let's put this out of the way.  You write
                “Rand Paul's high profile can be reduced down to these core elements-...”

                I didn't address the height of Paul's profile.  I answered a question by fcvaguy – roll up-thread to see it.

                Your discussion of my framing comments demonstrates quite nicely these particular frames' primary use: to supplant discussion of less noble acts with "it could be worse."  Thanks for that – I couldn't have come up with a better example.

                The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

                by GreatLakeSailor on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:20:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It Can Be Worse. It Has Been Worse. (0+ / 0-)

                  Um, you're the one sidestepping.

                  Don't agree at all with your take on any possible appeal of Rand Paul with anyone outside of the GOP base.  As I've said.

                  Don't agree with your notion of "frames" to supplant the discussion of "less noble acts."

                  Give me the choice of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  Oh.....NOT a choice.

                  Out of two choices in 2016, one might be Rand Paul.  Or Ted Cruz.  Or who knows what right wing hairball the GOP coughs up.

                  Compared to THAT choice, any number of people become preferable, even though they are not the choice I would make if I had any choice, or more choices.

                  I'm talking about the choices we HAVE.  A notion I keep referring to as "reality."  Which is not a frame I use to change the discussion or any of the other reasons you seem satisfied to list..... it's only because it's only productive to discuss probable choices and outcomes.  Otherwise we could also have a wonderful discussion about the careers as pro athletes we're going to have (even though we may both be in our 40s) that would be equally as constructive.

                  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

                  by Bring the Lions on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:32:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  because beggars can't be choosers (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laurak, RainyDay, Yonit

            When the only people agreeing with you on an issue are libertarian crackpots, the usual psychological response is to see things in them that aren't there - and to fail or refuse to see what is there - rather than to re-evaluate your own position.  That the Pauls are good politicians who are able to sound good when they talk in general terms, but you have to really think through to see how they're actually bad, only makes them more seductive.

            The Democratic party's weak stances and poor delivery on surveillance and interventionism are only going to strengthen the Pauls.  Take the issues away from the Pauls and add them to the rest of the progressive platform rather than scolding young people for being unrealistic, self-absorbed, etc.

            Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

            by Visceral on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:24:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Who are these people? (5+ / 0-)

            I've seen people on the left agree with him on some specific positions, which he often goes back on later, but I haven't seen any of these people who are supposedly supporting Rand. I'm sure there are some, but the polls don't bear out the idea that there are any significant numbers of Dems support Paul.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:28:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bro (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, cardboardurinal

            Not sure very many "Dems" are hot and bothered for Paul, the threat there seems to be more hype on blogs than real numbers.

            But millennials as a group, many of whom could be swing voters, are likely to identify more with the non-interventionist and anti-NSA rhetoric Paul is cultivating than the recycled Necon bullshit Clinton is already pedaling.

            Not giving them much of a choice.

            At least Rand has wavy hair, LOL.

            Grim choice if it comes down to those two, better hope whomever Clinton faces is a whole lot worse than Rand.

            Just saying.

        •  A few weeks ago I posted a diary to ask about the (3+ / 0-)

          lack of real debate on the issue. There were zero comments and zero recs.  Post a diary about some detail of Ed Snowden's persona and you'll get hundreds of comments and recs, not to mention the inevitable HRs that will be passed around.

        •  No, but what's the point of speaking out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreatLakeSailor

          when no-one listens? How could anyone know who has spoken up - mainstream media ignore them as do Democrats.

          Please note that lamps in the Magic Lamp Emporium are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

          by Mopshell on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 02:15:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Cede what issue to Rand Paul? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aimeehs

          You mean the issue of how there was an NSA mole who had worked for the CIA and two NSA contractors for years, who had admin privileges on NSA computers, who was trained as a real spy (and real spies know how to steal important things), who had patiently stole as much classified material as he could for months, and who has proved exactly 0 intentional violations of the Constitution by the Government?

          I think millennials would appreciate hearing the truth. By the way, Clapper committing perjury is another myth. Congress was briefed on the metadata collection program in 2009, 2010 and 2011. A majority of them voted to re-authorize the program multiple times. Four Congressional Committees received reports on the metadata collection program every six months. There is no way in hell Clapper committed perjury. It startles me that so many people claiming to be for civil liberties want to put Clapper in jail when he is 100% innocent of the charges and was only doing his duty to keep secrets.

          Are you suggesting that we lie to young people?

          My dog likes me because I'm salty. Not salty like a pirate. Salty like a pretzel.

          by Tortmaster on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:09:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Right (0+ / 0-)

          Unless HRC campaigns forcefully against NSA abuses, she doesn't have my vote.

          •  Right now, today.... (0+ / 0-)

            I don't see how HRC could get my primary vote.  NSA is one factor in my calculus but others include Economic Royalism & Empire (both broad issues).  It's a complex calculus.

            In the general election, should she be the Dem candidate, I'd be forced to recalculate.  HRC & the Right Wing DNC are crafty politicians and can likely engineer one of those choices between shitty(her) and worse(any R).  Analogy: motivation by stick, not carrot.  That would be terribly demoralizing.

            Unless HRC remade herself and somehow backed that make-over with credibility (something I just don't see happening, but I'm willing to stay tuned), she won't get my money (not that I have enough to get on the VIP list anyway), she won't get signs in my front yard, she won't get my boots on the ground and I can not see me arguing with a chum over a beer that s/he should go out and vote HRC.

            The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

            by GreatLakeSailor on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:04:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  "Let's say Ron Paul is Nirvana" - Kennedy (10+ / 0-)

        Yeah, let's do that......oh wait.......Nevermind.

        Kurt Cobain on Republicans-Right Wingers:

        "When I hear the term Right wing I think of Hitler, Satan, and civil war. When I think of Right wingers I think of terrorists who plot to kill and terrorize the lives of Planned Parenthood practionists."

        "These people are terrorists and also have the same beliefs as white supremacists, who also claim to act and embrace their ideals on the grounds of GAWD."

        "Right wing is the foulest, dirtiest insult a person could be called. These people hate minorities of all color. They will perform mass extermination on everything that is not white. '

        "God fearing and Right wing -R- is for Republican."

        http://thegrungescene.tumblr.com/...

        “I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our audience. I know they're out there and it really bothers me.” ― Kurt Cobain

        by Jeff Y on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:19:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's certainly plenty of room (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        White Buffalo, JVolvo

        To Hillary's left on some issues, and Paul is less of a hawk.

        "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

        by jfern on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:29:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On SOME issues, yes (5+ / 0-)

          you're right.

          And those issues are important enough to me to not vote for HRC in the primaries. However, I could never bring myself to vote for Rand Paul in any election and still be able to sleep at night.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 02:09:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I absolutely despise Hillary. But I would crawl (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ParkRanger, jplanner, tb92, Tortmaster, aimeehs

          over broken glass to vote for her if Rand were running against her.

          Any dem that supports Rand isn't a dem at all. Period.

          The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

          by cany on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:04:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You think Paul is 'less of a hawk', (0+ / 0-)

          he's been the junior Senator from Kentucky for less then four years, and he changes what and who he is whenever it's expedient.  He's 'policy decisions' change depending on what audience he speaks to.  He also has a great capacity to lie and he does it stupidly.  He will say he did not say the say the thing that he said where recorded video exists that says he said the thing he claims not say.  

          In another word, he'll lie straight to anyone's face without a flinch.  He's duplicitous and dangerous.  He's the worst sort of person to attain any power above being a Senator from Kentucky and I'll bank that right there is to much power.

          Charlie Crist for Florida Primary date: August 26, 2014, Election Date: November 4, 2014

          by aimeehs on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 04:48:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  All I can see (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tortmaster

        is the Christie campaign using that video with Steve King(R-Insaniowa).....Or any other R candidate.

        What do we want? Universal health care! When do we want it? Now!

        by cagernant on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 05:01:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "wormy" perfect description. n/t (18+ / 0-)

      ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

      by denig on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:27:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's a bratty weenie, a plagiarist and he (24+ / 0-)

      always looks unwashed.  I don't sense much support for him either, and my son is a millennial.

      the woman who is easily irritated

      by chicago minx on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:09:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He has support from non voters (12+ / 0-)

      That is, those who are already low information voters, when they do vote, and who are so disenchanted with government in general that they claim to hate both Dems and Republicans because "they are the same."

      The difference is that when Nader came out in 2000, the people who switched to him were people in the likely voter pool to begin with.

      Ron Paul supporters were by and large people who didn't even have a current voter registration because they'd opted out of the process so many times before.

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:35:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good points! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catwho, Yonit

        Are there reliable demographic analyses of subgroups?  18-24 year old "objectivists," evangelical "prosperity gospel," dominionists, ... do these ally with "center right rural voters."

        Who turns out is key.

        A great serious discussion of libertarians flows from this jumpstation: critiques.us

        I aim to live in agreement with Benjamin Franklin's admonition to "Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty."

        by delonix on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:09:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have any support for this? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx

        In the form of polls I mean, and I also mean in regards to Nader as well as Paul.

        I haven't seen any evidence that Dem leaning youth have any desire to vote for Paul, which is the supposition this diary is based on. I see no support for that claim.

        No War but Class War

        by AoT on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:09:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They are socially liberal (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          koNko, AoT

          and fiscally more centrist/libertarian.

          They don't have a party affiliation other than "don't label me" but Dems would normally count them among their own for the social issues.

          No poll, just a personal anecdote of several of my friends who, bizarrely, like Ron Paul.  But I don't because because they haven't ever voted despite my badgering for them to.

          Note that support for Ron Paul doesn't automatically translate into support for Rand, of course.

          The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

          by catwho on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:49:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I knew a few people who supported Ron (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            catwho

            I know none who support Rand. The main places I've seen the trope about Rand having support from Millennials are actually about how he has support of Republican Millennials, not Millennials in general.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 06:23:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I hear dislike, but (0+ / 0-)

      my feeling is I have a bad sample.  Disgust with political self-interest, "win no matter what values are sacrificed," and insincerity create hungry desire for change.

      Democrats are fossilized in out-propagandizing the Republicans, an impossibility.

      Realistic, rational, values-based politics sells to these hungry few, but realpolitik wins elections.  Politics works through tension, which is at its core anathema to religion, which seeks Blessed Assurance.

      I aim to live in agreement with Benjamin Franklin's admonition to "Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty."

      by delonix on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:02:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought that about Richard Nixon. (0+ / 0-)

      Also I thought the same about W.

    •  Actually, there was huge millenial support (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tortmaster

      on reddit a while back of Ron Paul and Rand Paul by exactly this sort of clueless millennial, and I've seen it personally too in my daughters friends who are politically innocent marijuana users - who think Obama refused to release gitmo prisoners, that Sen, Feinstein invented the NSA, and that voting for the NDAA was a one time vote by Democrats to allow spying on Americans.

      Thanks Democrats! My Obamacare is permanent coverage no one can take away - and saving $3,000 is nice too

      by sotiredofusernames on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:41:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ughh... my millennial cousins are similar (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sotiredofusernames

        They post the wrongest things on FB. Just today someone posted that white baby murdered in Black neighborhood by Black teen  thing (picture of Black teen and adorable blond white baby) With text that argues, with superficial apparent rationale comparing the two crimes as equivalent, that Obama wouldn't empathize with the white kid but did with Trayvon Martin...why was the white baby's murder not deemed a hate crime?
        Basically implies Obama is inhuman to not even care a (white) baby died. He can only care about Blacks.

        My cousin isn't a flaming racist. I believe she just saw the picture and skimmed the text and thought "hey that's not fair!". And he has a baby the age of that baby.

        Ugh I had to explain why the crimes weren't comparable and why their deductions were misleading. She "liked" my comment.

        I've alienated a cousin I wanted to have a relationship with because she posted other (not racist) "libertarian" and some right wing drivel that was just like the above. It sets out issues and gives the "facts". Reasonably bright but clueless young people then think they "deduce" the injustice(!) of what is going on but have no clue that they don't know all the facts.

        I find them insufferable. I hate that quality in people-not knowing when you are not qualified to draw any conclusions because you may not have all the data.

      •  They are at least half-correct (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, Archie2227

        At least about Feinstein.

        But if you speak to them in person the same way you speak about them here, why the fuck would they listen to anything you have to say?

        clueless millennial
        Hope your daughter isn't reading over your shoulder.

        Yes, they are under 40 and inexperienced, but not idiots.

        But then, calling them idiots is a sure-fire strategy to get them to vote for that not-Neocon Hilary Clinton, right?

        Wow, this discussion has taken a depressing turn

        •  I didn't mean all millenials are clueless, just (0+ / 0-)

          these ones.

          And it seems to come from getting all their news synopsized via reddit on the iphone, no in-depth fact checking other than wikipedia

          Thanks Democrats! My Obamacare is permanent coverage no one can take away - and saving $3,000 is nice too

          by sotiredofusernames on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 06:46:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah... (0+ / 0-)

        because millennials are an largely ignorant, homogenous group.  People here would go crazy if we made broad generalizations about any other generation.

        "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

        by cardboardurinal on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:25:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Jeeeez. (6+ / 0-)

    What a dick.

    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

    by rocksout on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:24:03 AM PDT

  •  Please add, sponsored "personhood" law (82+ / 0-)

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Friday introduced so-called “fetal personhood” legislation that would completely outlaw abortion in the United States.

    The Life at Conception Act would declare that human life began at conception, providing fertilized eggs with the same legal status as born persons.

    Thanks for your diary but I assume you are male? The non-start for Paul no matter his other ideas, is his opposition to MY LIBERTY to control my own body, that should be the disqualifier for any woman and men who care about the women in their lives.

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:26:14 AM PDT

  •  One of the more dangerous people in the US (76+ / 0-)

    I come across a number of students (high school) who think Ron and Rand Paul are great.  They like the legal marijuana bit, and a few other things that would be decriminalized.

    I go after them with a 16 ton battering ram to the head:

    1) You want to see the minimum wage done away with?
    2) You want your, your parents', your grandparents' Social Security done away with?
    3) You want the financial industry completely deregulated?
    4) You want environmental regulation done away with?
    5) You want voting rights and civil right legislation done away with?

    And the list goes on... and I don't give them a chance to reply until they are appropriately pummeled.  

    By the time all is quiet, the Pauls are seen for what they are:  racist, anti-Semitic, anti-woman, lunatic, fringe, assholes who couldn't give  a rat's ass about anyone but themselves.

    ======================================================== Those who can, teach. Those who can't teach, make rules about teaching.

    by oxfdblue on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:27:26 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't be interested in Rand Paul (27+ / 0-)

    for an eye checkup and even less do I want him in charge of my Constitutional republic.  

    He's a hack.  So's his old man.  

    "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

    by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:31:04 AM PDT

  •  In the big picture, Kentucky owes (17+ / 0-)

    the country a decent U.S. Senator.  

    They've had two cracks at it recently and have sent a devious obstructionist and a reactionary kook.  

    Some other states have lousy Senators, too, but Kentucky is a top-tier contender for the state with the two worst Senators.  

    "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

    by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:42:27 AM PDT

  •  No, no, not quite Nirvana...not Pearl Jam... (16+ / 0-)

    What was Courtney Love's band called?

    Hole.

    Yeah, that's it!

    Paul père et fils are both Holes.

    And Kennedy still draws a paycheck to be on TV? That's almost more amazing than the fact that young voters actually fall for "libertarian" nonsense.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:48:26 AM PDT

  •  The Millenials for the most part don't read (19+ / 0-)

    I see it all the time at the University where I am a Doctoral student and teach.  They're all about the sound-bite, 140 character message.  You see it in their scholarship, and in their advocacy.

    It's not a generational thing, I'm twice their age and five times more liberal.  Talking to this cohort is frustrating beyond measure as when they don't get it, and mostly they don't, they look at you like, "chillax man, we're slack lining…" and magically the roads get built, the health care is provided, and food magically appears on their plates.

    So when numb nuts like the Pauls come around they're all over the peace, love, and happiness because somebody else will do all the work and they can get back to whatever it is they're doing.

    Sorry to paint with such a broad brush, but it is what it is and anyone with extensive contact with this bunch can attest to it.

    •  Do they refuse to get off your lawn? (18+ / 0-)

      Kids these days! With their hippity hop and saggy pants.

      "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 Aug 10, 2014 at 06:51:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If they'd awaken from their stupor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost Left Coaster

        I'd gladly let them on the lawn, butt cracks and all.

        •  Cheers mate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CenPhx

          We all have our moments of cynicism. But I have taught millennials in college classrooms too, and the kids are all right with me. I can't complain about them trying to use their smartphones in class (although I do forbid it) because anyone who has ever been to a faculty meeting or a conference presentation knows that college profs are the worst about sneaking in smartphone time.

          "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 Aug 10, 2014 at 01:42:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Truly some don't. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pat bunny, KJG52, laurnj, Yonit

      Evidenced when they don't want to vaccinate because they have no clue as to the devastation wrought by disease.  My niece is all set up to have her first baby at home because what could go wrong?  Fortunately my kids and their friends are far from this demographic.  We have a college and masters program graduate who works in a very conservative field who is a sound liberal and keeps up on events and news in the world.  He talks intelligently and calmly to his fellow cons and libertarians attempting to change minds and votes.  Two other kids are not college grads but are solidly liberal and are involved in local work to elect dems,  They see the destruction and are worried about their future.  There is a divide in all age categories.

      Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

      by tobendaro on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:50:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's also a matter of listening, too. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tobendaro, Yonit

        I've heard the family stories about childhood friends, pregnant at the same time, who were chilly towards each other forever after.

        One was among the first in town to give birth in the hospital. The other gave birth at home. One baby lived.

        I've also heard the story of the ancestor who was told her next pregnancy would kill her no matter the birth weight. She went on to have two more children, both over twelve pounds the hour they were born. At. Home.

        If I'd just listened to my church growing up, I'd be pro-forced-birth and would be against all medical involvement in pregnancy outside immediate emergencies. Instead, I listened to the older women in my family and know how barely some of us have survived, both as mothers and as babies.

        The boys I was in church with were encouraged to NOT listen to woman-passed family history. A number of the girls were too involved in this or that activity or social group to take the time to hear.

  •  I wonder just how much support he has (33+ / 0-)

    among this generation. I'm skeptical that it goes very far beyond a few prominent (if you can call a former MTV host prominent) supporters.

    Nevertheless, I'm fully in support of any effort to tell the world just how full of shit Rand Paul and his brand of "libertarians" are. Libertarianism, even as practiced by its most dedicated adherents (of which Rand Paul is not one), is a completely bankrupt and nonsensical ideology that privileges the rich and corporations over the rest of us. But Rand Paul, who is opposed to civil rights, women's rights, and LGBT rights, isn't even a libertarian. He's just, as you say in the diary, a regular conservative with a handful of positions drawn from the liberal side of the spectrum.

    If he wants to be useful on a particular issue, like reining in the NSA, that's great, but he has done absolutely nothing to merit broader support. Nothing.

    "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 Aug 10, 2014 at 06:49:45 AM PDT

    •  I say that the support is being manufactured (5+ / 0-)

      n/t

    •  I think his appeal (9+ / 0-)

      is to people who want to vote liberal policies but have been scared off identifying with liberals because they fear being seen as weak tree huggers, etc. RP has tapped into this demographic by starting out as the tough asshole half this country seems to crave and then adding in a few key liberal positions.  This was his plan and he is sticking to it.  His road to the White House is picking up the dissatisfied from both sides and forming his third party out of that discontent.

      Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

      by tobendaro on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:05:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But his policy views aren't liberal (9+ / 0-)

        Anyone voting for him for that reason is incredibly uninformed about liberal public policy.

        I seriously doubt young voters are turned off by liberal Dems because of environmental policies. Polls show Millenials are very concerned about environmental issues, its one of their top policy priorities.

        Some young voters may be less interested in Dem liberals simply because they see Dem leadership is owned and controlled by corporate donors and feel liberals in the party are powerless to change things.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:35:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. The environmental issues are an (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yonit

          excellent example of how some young voters may engage the whole process.  

          Which is a very good thing.  

          The traditional demographic groups who tend to be pretty motivated in the Democratic Party are not going to stomach a Rand Paul nomination and they're strive to defeat him.

          At this point, of course, I have no idea how far Rand is going to get in his ambition.  But I hope it's not very far.  

          "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

          by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:54:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you are talking actual policy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dartagnan

          you are correct.  We know that much of the electorate votes on emotional attachment or the marketing success of the candidate.  Paul is going for a marketing effect.  It has worked well for the right over 30 years.  They have demonized much of the left's platform for a good part of the population. And that portion of the electorate votes accordingly. I do want to add that I feel these folks are stupid.

          Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

          by tobendaro on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:53:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That old hag is supposed to represent millennials? (0+ / 0-)

      Serious generation gap here. Way serious.

      I only hope the few actual millennials that are members here don't read this diary and get too insulted by the bashing of "cluless millennials" on this thread.

      Like Boomers never did anything foolish. If I can quote EC:

      Now you can't afford to fake
      All the drugs your parents used to take
      Because of their mistakes
      You'd better be wide awake
      And that was advice aimed at my generation of X-ers; and good advice I might add.
  •  Well this quote from the.... (29+ / 0-)

    ....article is really telling...

    Sometime after the elephant tattoo on her left hip “got infected and started looking more like a pig,” Kennedy began thinking of herself as a libertarian instead
    Republicans as infected tattoos looking like a pig is soooo spot on.

    Oh and for fuck sake Kurt Cobain did not die to preserve the bands legacy.  That is some seriously fucked up thing to say.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:49:57 AM PDT

    •  Count me as never having heard (9+ / 0-)

      of Kennedy's elephant tattoo until just now.  

      I guess I'm out of the loop on my right-wingers' body art.  I do remember that former Sec. of State George Schultz was said to have a tiger tattoo on his hindquarters.  Sadly, that was the pre-texting era...

      I'm thinking if the tattoo was badly infected, Kennedy should have sought the council of a physician more qualified to practice medicine than Rand Paul is to practice optometry.  

      "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

      by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:56:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great summary! (13+ / 0-)

    I'm going to keep it as a reference for future letters to the newspapers.

    Don't forget too that Rand has ties to religious extremists too.  Look up his connections to the Constitution Party (he spoke at one of their rallies in IL a couple of years ago). He and his Dad are also the darlings of our dear little home grown militia groups.

    And if anyone is doing Rand Paul digging, try to find out if David Lane still works for his staff/campaign.

  •  I laughed out loud... (3+ / 0-)

    this morning when I unwrapped the NYT, pulled out the Magazine (gotta' do the crossword first) and saw that "punk" cover image of Rand, in imitation of a poster for a Minor Threat show at the 9:30 Club in 1983.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:59:40 AM PDT

  •  The Dems had better get off... (12+ / 0-)

    ...their ass and provide someone better.

    The way you defeat Rand Paul is to co-opt his liberal ideas. If the Dems were worth a damn, you wouldn't feel the need to write this diary.

    People are sick of Obama and running another corporatist Dem especially against someone perceived as a rock star is a sure way to defeat. Hillary is tightly coupled to both Bill Clinton and Obama. The Dems need a product refresh desperately.

    With Hillary's comparatively high poll numbers it might seem shocking that she could lose. But she can.

    (-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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:01:30 AM PDT

    •  "If the Dems were worth a damn..." (11+ / 0-)

      They're worth a lot more than that.  

      One page from that book:  Kennedy's and LBJ's efforts in the struggle for civil rights in the U.S., as opposed to Rand Paul's (and his father's) remarks against those efforts.  

      I'm guessing there are quite a few Democrats on this site.  Your slam on how we vote is obnoxious.  

      "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

      by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:07:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You mean 50 years ago? (9+ / 0-)

        No one cares what happened 50 years ago. Millennials sure aren't going to show up and vote for Democrats because of stuff LBJ did.

        I'm guessing there are quite a few Democrats on this site.  Your slam on how we vote is obnoxious
        This is a site about electing more and better Democrats. Running Hillary Clinton is going to result in literally neither. It's very easy to get stuck in groupthink and miss the zeitgeist of what is really happening on a national level. It is very very rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than two terms. If you want to do that, you'd try to co-opt this "rock star libertarian" movement to turn it to a more liberal bent.

        The arguments in this diary have merit. But similar arguments also did in 2000, 2004, and hell, 1980. It didn't save the Democratic candidate in those elections and it might not in this one either.

        (-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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:17:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would propose that you should (7+ / 0-)

          very much care what happened 50 years ago, because the ideals people marched through police dogs for were realized in legislation and shifts in public perception of how a society strengthens itself.  

          You don't get exclusive pick on the Democratic ticket in 2016.  

          It's a group process.  If you don't care for one candidate, support a different candidate.  That's how it works.  

          But Democratic primary voters choose a candidate as a collective.  

          If you don't like that process, don't participate in it.  But most of the rest of us are ready to get to work for Democrats up and down the ballot.  

          "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

          by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:23:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi, TrueBlueMajority, Kickemout

            This is just my $0.02. I will vote in the primary like everyone else and will work to support Dems who care about the issues I care about. I don't dictate anything. Vote how you want.

            (-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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:35:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  in partial defense of Sparhawk (8+ / 0-)

            it is true that millennials do not identify with what happened 50 years ago.  those are their GRANDPARENTS' issues.

            Ds have to show how those issues are still relevant to their lives TODAY and so far we have not done that.

            we have to show how Howard Rand Paul and libertarians and tea partiers would affect rights they take for granted and do not realize are under attack

            that's why they focus on spying and pot--those things are current hot buttons

            Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
            Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:30:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem with Sparhawk's comment (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority, Yonit

              there was that civil rights gains from the Kennedy-Johnson era are disqualifying in current national debate.  

              If you say we have to "show how those issues are still relevant" now, that would strongly override the notion that the ideas are disqualifying.

              Things tend to run on a continuum.  The Greeks of pre-Christian ancestry gave us our form of government.  Much of our science and art was born in that period as well.  Nearly all of our language comes from either Greek or Latin.  That's a long time ago.  Long before JFK and LBJ were born.  

              Rand Paul is attractive to many young voters, but by and large, not to voters who are informed on issues, engageable on issues, and able to identify the reasons why they vote on those issues.  

              In that estimate anyway, Rand Paul is a failure right out of the gate.  
               

              "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

              by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:39:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is attracting younger voters (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx

            And speaking to their values and issues to do so.

            Because ... demographics.

            And I have to say I agree with Sparhawk that too much emphasis on past accomplishments and running a candidate that is tone def to voters below about 50 may not be a brilliant way to capture younger voters.

            Most certainly Dems can claim a legacy of action on certian issues like immigration that are very relevant, but what are they doing and saying about it now?

            And absolutely the progress on LBGT right is an accomplishment largely of Dems and the Obama Administration, that can and should be leveraged.

            But now we have Clinton throwing Obama under the bus and spouting Neconisms, and our genius strategy is:

            Rand Paul, Bad. Hillary Clinton, Good
            Wow, just wow. How could that possibly fail?

            Clue: Just for example, the gap between Clinton's position on the I/P conflict and the millennials. She just pissed them off and trashed Obama at the same time, and she is totally clueless about that.

            She says "Let's see". OK, but how did that work out the last time Hillary?

        •  Its the post - Citizens United Dem Party (6+ / 0-)

          Its very different from your parents and grandparents Dem Party.

          We have to work to restore our party's credibilty on issues and good governance,  abandoning the GOP-lite brand.

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:39:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There Is No One (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Remediator, Yonit, Tortmaster

          To run against Clinton in 2016.  In the primaries.  This is not going to be 2008 redux.  That narrative doesn't fit.

          It's rare for a political party to win the White House for more than two terms...but a little context-

          -absent Watergate, a case could be made that the Republicans could have won the White House 6 straight times.

          - that whole time the Democrats had a lock on the House of Representatives, which represented a lot of power in a different way.

          - I'm hard-pressed to find another example in our history where a political party represented such a small segment of the population.  That would be the Republicans now.  They have gerrymandered Congressional districts, the support of oligarchs, and a reliable but shrinking base.  This is most apparent in....presidential races, where the ceiling of their base can be surpassed by a fairly modest GOTV operation.

          I, for one, am not moved by the notion of a "rock star libertarian", mostly because it is based in idiocy.  Clinton is besides the point- she is not going to be a rock star, or  "new and fresh."  What she can do is lay the groundwork for newer and fresher Democrats in her wake.

          In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

          by Bring the Lions on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:26:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because politics for me is more local (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bring the Lions

            and state oriented, I agreed with those points, Bring the Lions, but especially with your first long paragraph ("I'm hard-pressed to find...").  

            That is the kind of informed assessment voters could bring into their polling precincts.  That's the kind of dialogue people need to have over kitchen tables and in living rooms and so forth.  

            It also magnifies the liabilities the GOP has built into its own party.  For a while now they've been in a zone where if they move too far toward the center their right flank howls and thrashes.  If they move right to please the nutbags, they lose swing states by the dozens.  

            All this while Michael Steele was out looking for hip-hop Republicans, as part of the party's "massive outreach" campaign.  

            If we can get people off their patoots this fall, we might ride a paragraph like that second one of yours to keep hold of the Senate and do some damage over in the House.  

            "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

            by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:45:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Have Hope (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Remediator

              That we can hold onto the Senate this fall.  Again, if everyone examined the numbers, this is more feasible than people think.

              The great lesson of 2008 is take a candidate like Obama who can pull in even a fraction of the non-voters, and Democrats can really get somewhere.  That's why this diary is so essential.  A bunch of superficial people see a cluster of skateboarders who think Rand Paul is "cool" (because they think he'll legalize pot) and extrapolate from that Paul could win the White House.  Not when those kids hear the whole story.

              Those people are non-voters for a reason.  The political system really has no interest in them, and they are relatively invisible to the political system.  Every time someone who can reach them comes around, it's vote first and "trust me" later to do what I say I will do.  And of course change is never as simple as voting on one day in one election.  Disappointment sets in, then apathy and nihilism.  

              It's not just reaching the non-voters....it's having them understand it's a long slog, election by election.  That sounds hopeless, but as you know, it won't take many of them to turn GA and NC on our side.

              In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

              by Bring the Lions on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 05:58:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you aren't active in a political (2+ / 0-)

                organization in your home area, by god you should be.  

                I'm hopeful about the Senate, too, but I don't think it will be a cakewalk.  

                Agree on the need to sustain interest over a long period so that U.S. elections (at all levels) aren't just a one-time, short-term experience.  

                Families and friends of 18-year olds should go with them to their country courthouse, have them register to vote, take pictures, offer congratulations, and then go out for a pizza together.  The whole thing could be elevated.  At age 18, you get your regular birthday, and you get a to-do when you register to vote.  It could be a passage into adulthood, necessary affirmation from family and friends, an occasion to be honored and photographed and remembered.  

                It's a gesture of high citizenship.  

                Ok, I'm done with the grassroots citizens rant.  Cue the Aaron Copeland fanfare & I'll shut up.  

                I've really appreciated your comments today in this diary.

                "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

                by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:11:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Kennedy and LBJ are not running. (0+ / 0-)

        They were with us > 45 years ago. We are talking about today.

        "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -- JC, Matthew 6:24

        by Chi on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:38:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm aware that those two (4+ / 0-)

          gentlemen are not running.  

          Their work regarding civil rights, however, is very much with us today.  

          Very much.  

          "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

          by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:38:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess I need to get a couple (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Remediator

            of recent high school history books and see what they actually say about Kennedy and Johnson.  I wonder if it's going to be the way I remember things actually happening.

            I am a Liberal. I am not a Progressive. If you are a Progressive you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

            by LemmyCaution on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 12:05:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Our group locally has been talking a bit (0+ / 0-)

              about the Nixon-Kennedy presidential race.  

              We're kind of hooked on it.  

              It feels to us as if the polarization people talk about now among the electorate was in place then, only it was more discreet and polite.  

              Though just as deep and hurtful.  

              We're guessing Nixon supporters could not see why anybody would support an elitist hotshot like Jack Kennedy and that Kennedy voters couldn't see why anybody would vote for a shifty mediocrity like Richard Nixon.  

              I was a wee lad but my parents voted for Kennedy.  they took some heat for it from some of their older siblings and other kinfolk.

              "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

              by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:49:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Liberal ideas?!? (27+ / 0-)

      He's anti-choice, anti-union, anti-health care, is against the civil rights act, wants to build a border fence and runs away from Dream kids.

      Liberal as compared to what? Anne Coulter?

    •  Sure, because Ron Paul's son is so Fresh! (6+ / 0-)

      Gah.

      Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow. Just....wow.

      by Inland on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:19:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Someone better than Rand Paul? (12+ / 0-)

      That's a pretty low bar, no?

      I'm far from being a Hillary Clinton fan, but, hell, I'd crawl through broken shards of glass to vote for her over Rand Paul or Rubio or Christie or Bush or whoever else the GOP belches onto the national scene in two years.

      I agree with you that HRC is beatable, if the GOP had an actual "rock-star" candidate. But Rand Paul? Please. He would be a disaster as a national candidate. HRC would crush him.

      How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

      by BenderRodriguez on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:23:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with some of what you're saying (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Yonit, CenPhx

      But it is amazing to me that Rand Paul gets a free pass on so much. He's really only decent on a handful of issues, and abhorrent on the rest. Why do some people let him off the hook? I just wonder.

      "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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:30:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If he ends up as the Repub nominee... (0+ / 0-)

        ...he won't be getting a free pass on that stuff anymore. Every bit of anything he ever did or wrote will be out there.

        But GWB also had very a negative past, and won anyway with some marketing and image consulting.

        (-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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:43:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gore actually won the popular vote. (4+ / 0-)

          GWB won the Supreme Court vote.

          •  Yes yes (0+ / 0-)

            Meanwhile, Bush was close enough that the Supreme Court mattered. Gore should have beaten him 53-47.

            (-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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:54:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, Gore should have beaten Bush by (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yonit, Denise Oliver Velez

              55-45.

              No, make that 60-40.  Well, we could make it two-thirds and go 67 or 68 percent.  

              Tell ya what.  Gore should have won fully 100 percent of all votes cast.  Which of course would have obviated involvement by the Supreme Court and no one would ever have heard the phrase, "hanging chads."  And Jim Baker would not have had to be dug up from the dead to preside over the dispute.

              A SCOTUS gig is a life-time deal, and once someone is on the bench, virtually nobody can tell her or him how to vote.  But the odds for progressive decisions would suggest that a Democratic president would nominate judges more likely to advance a more progressive agenda and said nominations would be on purpose.  

              That's one argument, and IMO a very good one, for supporting the Democratic ticket.  

              "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

              by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:04:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  People are sick of Obama? That's what you say. (4+ / 0-)
    •  Clinton Is Going To Win (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yonit, Tortmaster

      The nomination.  And the general election.

      There's a lot less certainty that Paul will even get the nomination.  And he WILL lose to Clinton.  As every GOP nominee will.

      This isn't just wishful thinking.  The part of the population that is committed to voting AGAINST anyone from the GOP is more authoritative than the part of the population you are talking about- the part that MIGHT vote for Rand Paul as president.

      "People are sick" of a BUNCH of things....and those of us that are more seasoned know that the system is corrupt and that the Dems are better at fixing and running it than the hopeless.  Anyone who thinks that Paul would be better because he's open to legalizing pot and doesn't want to engage in foreign wars (ha!) needs to bone up on the list in this diary and wake up to the choices that they really have.

      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

      by Bring the Lions on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:18:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And if you make that assumption (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx

        And I do, then thus diary and many of the comments in the thread trashing millennials ( ... and Dear Diarist, Kennedy is NOT one ... ) is very counter-productive and a good start of insulting the intelligence of younger voters Dems should work to attract.

        And it should be a cause for Clinton to open her fucking ears and listen for a change, instead of spewing her Corporatist, Necon bullshit that is alienating people from the Dem brand.

        Every time she takes a cheap shot at Snowden, and every time she sounds-off with her faux neocon Foreign Policy talking points, she loses some of these voters.

        Most people here don't get it because they north of 50 so there is a generational divide at work.

        •  Nope, Don't Agree (0+ / 0-)

          It's not "trashing" or "insulting" anyone to talk about things the way they are.  I mean, come on.

          I've followed politics for a long time, and I'm not sorry to pull that card out.  Certainly if years of experience are supposed to mean anything.

          There is no one on the Democratic side that will overcome Hillary Clinton, assuming she runs (and I am).  There is no Barack Obama equivalent.  

          Markos has written on this as well, and I agree with him.  All the thrashing about whether Clinton will win the nomination is wasted energy.  Anyone that has a problem with is advised to throw themselves into down-ballot races because there is no one to her left that can beat her for the nomination.  I'd entertain Elizabeth Warren....except she isn't running.

          So there you are.  And guess what?  These younger voters that you are imagining as being "insulted" by Clinton....they're simply not her concern at the moment.  OBVIOUSLY.  In the Clinton worldview, she is still worried about not being perceived as "tough enough" by the right wing powers-that-be, by the Beltway, by the MSM pundits, by the moderate, non-partisan voters she believes the election swings on.

          This simply isn't age-centric.  In her worldview, the election HINGES on those people, not the people (whatever their age) you know that are alienated by that.

          Because the reality is, come November 2016, you can have Clinton or Rand Paul/Ted Cruz/Whomever.  Because the reality is that a Hilary Clinton who takes cheap shots at Edward Snowden is frankly superior to anyone on the other side.  If only because of the Supreme Court, but for other reasons as well.

          If anyone, of any age, is all bummed out about that, here's what you can do-

          -work to make the Senate more progressive
          -work to make the House more progressive (hell, make it Democratic for a start)
          -work to make your state more progressive
          -work to make your local area more progressive

          If you're really progressive you're not getting the choice at the top of the ticket that you really want in 2016.  Just like 2004, and 2000, and 1988, and 1984.....

          In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

          by Bring the Lions on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:31:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  When someone wears a toupee it already says a lot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    about how sincere they are

    •  I assume this is snark (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko

      but as a balding 33-year old man, I take offense to this comment.

      Losing your hair is a very difficult change, and to each their own with how they want to deal/cope with it.

      Attacking one's toupee as being disingenuous is no different than going after a woman's character because she wears a push-up bra.

  •  Rand Paul: The face of snake oil. (9+ / 0-)

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:04:39 AM PDT

  •  women get nuttin' (0+ / 0-)

    with these guys...

    but at least Paul isn't as rude to Obama.  He tones it down, which is a huge improvement

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:05:18 AM PDT

    •  "As rude" is still rude & just as evil (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yonit, Tortmaster

      as any other teapublikkkan.

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:12:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not to mention his opposition to civil rights (13+ / 0-)

    Just four years ago, kids, he questioned sections of the Civil Rights Act. And he's refused to say if he would have voted to reauthorize the Act. His father Ron Paul HAS said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act and has called for its repeal. How's that for progress kiddos?

  •  What Part of "Libertarian" and "Voting No" Is (5+ / 0-)

    confusing?

    Why would a libertarian vote FOR a program? Regardless of who it helps?

    More important, why would voters who've been attracted by a candidate advertising libertarianism be upset that he voted against a government program even if it was aimed at them?

    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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:13:04 AM PDT

    •  If it costs money, they vote no (5+ / 0-)

      It is as simple as that. This has pretty much gone mainstream in the Republican Party, with their recent insistence that any new government expenditure, even for emergencies, be paid for by cuts somewhere else. (That rule was never applied during Bush's term of office).

      Libertarians in general have two things right: the government shouldn't go overboard regulating personal behavior (what you smoke, whom you marry), and foreign wars and a bloated military are a bad idea. However, Rand and Ron Paul's anti-choice positions are not even consistent with Libertarian doctrine, as most people understand it.

      Unfortunately, these positions are joined to an extreme anti-government bent, fueled by wishful thinking and non-reality-based economic/political theories. They really think they can shrink government back to where it was 100 years ago. And if that hurts people, including vulnerable people such as those covered by programs such as Social Security, that is not something they worry about. Willful indifference to other people's hurt is part and parcel of Libertarianism.

  •  The Kochs have been throwing some of their (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, llbear, laurnj, peptabysmal

    nearly infinite wealth at the task of spreading the Gospel According to Ayn Rand. They have don't everything that they can to make her ideas mainstream. Is it any wonder that some of our children have come to believe this tripe?

    We need to remind people just how fanciful this thinking is.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:13:10 AM PDT

  •  Ya gota admit though (4+ / 0-)

    the boy can run.  Rand Paul showed with the Dreamer video that he can make some moves and get those feet in motion.  He is certainly not a point guard, but as a water boy, he could do it.

  •  Kentucky has dry counties, and Paul ignores (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, tobendaro, Caj, Cassandra Waites, Yonit, koNko

    those while preaching about freedom outside the commonwealth about low flow toilets. And Kennedy? How old are these "young" people?   If you know a VJ, you're 45.

    Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow. Just....wow.

    by Inland on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:16:01 AM PDT

    •  I would love to take a poll of millennials (0+ / 0-)

      to see if any of them, even a single one, could identify what a "VJ" is. Or, for that matter, if they even knew that the "M" in "MTV" used to stand for "Music," although it has been a hell of a long time since that was true. It's all reality TV now -- not a big loss, considering how terrible most music videos were back in the day (although every once in a while you could see something really ripping).

      "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 Aug 10, 2014 at 07:36:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are Millenials that into (10+ / 0-)

    Nirvana and Pearl Jam?

    That Gen X'er done forgot who she was talking to.

    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame/Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name/Mother of Exiles.

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:21:56 AM PDT

  •  Steal Paul's thunder.... (12+ / 0-)

    ....Dem's need to get in front of the NSA & Drug War issues.  By simply working towards legal pot, Dems would cement the millennial (and most of my aging Gen X cohorts.)

    Use social issues as a wedge against the GOP.  The Nixon era 'Silent Majority' shtick doesn't play so well anymore

    This space for rent -- Cheap!

    by jds1978 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:24:21 AM PDT

  •  Good description of Rand Paul (4+ / 0-)

    Bugs me when people think of him as anything more than a right-wing gasbag just because he likes drugs.

  •  Frightening thing is (9+ / 0-)

    that my wife's cousin's kid, who is 25 and absolutely brilliant, mentioned to me how great Paul is. I disabused him of the notion with facts and he was shocked. But Paul is the darling of that generation. I don't know how much they vote, however.

    Ceiling Cat rules....srsly.

    by side pocket on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:28:41 AM PDT

  •  I'll never vote for Rand Paul... (11+ / 0-)

    and he won't be the Republican nominee anyway but...

    this is the problem with the Democratic Party -

    The Times cites the marijuana issue, the growth in support for same-sex marriage, the disinclination of the public for foreign interventions (read: wars) as emblematic of a resurgence in what it suggests is a "libertarian moment," but it fails to recognize these are not particularly "libertarian" positions. They are liberal positions, grown and nurtured by liberals, not "freedom-loving" conservatives.
    Why in the hell are libertarians allowed to be seen as leaders on the "marijuana" issue, war, or the NSA ? (I don't buy same-sex marriage, i've never seen a libertarian voice anything but lukewarm support for same-sex marriage.)  B/c the Dems don't push these issues nationally, they leave it to liberals to rouse about them on the internet.  And b/c liberals have been shunned so incredibly by the party leadership, that the liberal message doesn't get out, so much so that young suburbanites don't equate the above positions with liberals - they equate them with the only people they HEAR speaking out about them - libertarians.  The problem is the people don't know these are Democratic positions b/c they aren't publicly supported by Democratic politicians.  

    Libertarians are seen as a pushing a consistent ideology. That is very comforting in a world with so much uncertainty.

    In truth, the Libertarian movement is just the selfish brother of the Republican party.  But it sometimes stumbles on a nugget truth, kind of how your drunk unlce sometimes makes sense when he's ranting and raving.  Liberals are your gay aunt who never even gets invited to dinner.  So don't be surprised when the kids start to mimic the drunk uncle.  They don't even know where the weird aunt lives.  

    •  Dems should be pushing these issues (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gulfgal98

      Why Obama has gone right wing on them is baffling, but hey, I'll never understand him.

      The problem is other Dem leaders and candidates refusing to step up and take the right stand.  I have a feeling many of them would like to, but something is holding them back. They dint speak out anymore, its as if they're being intimidated.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:48:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pro-Marijuana, (0+ / 0-)

      Pro-Same sex marriage, anti-war isn't going to make it through the teabag primaries.

    •  Because the Democratic party hates liberals (0+ / 0-)

      The Democratic party leadership would rather beat liberals than beat Republicans. Simple as that.

    •  Thank You. (0+ / 0-)

      To answer your question: not running for President as a Democrat, unfortunately.

      It's a bit disappointing to find so many Dems tone def to the values and issues of younger voters, and see them trashed here a "clueless millennials" simply because they are young and have different values than the Boomers and X-ers (include me) who dominate this site and party politics.

      Maybe they need to lose another election to get it.

      I hope not, but maybe.

  •  Definitely not a millennial myself. I am a (7+ / 0-)

    boomer and I am old enough to associate "Birchers" with everything contemptuous.  Rand is a Bircher by my standards, as in a resurrection of the John Birch Society.  I have always thought of the KKK and Birchers as pretty much equally malicious.

  •  I don't disagree that Rand Paul is NOT the answer. (25+ / 0-)

    But if you think lecturing them on his evils and cheerleading corporate Democrats and sell-out liberalism is going to change their minds, you're wrong.  

    By coupling these liberal-inspired initiatives with the laissez-faire, deregulatory "free-market" theories of the Koch brothers, the media (Times included) perpetuate a mythical "libertarianism" Democratic Party that doesn't in fact exist except as a media contrivance.
    Millennials know the dog that bit them.  They supported and were used and screwed by Democrats.  It was their party that laughed at them for wanting pot legal so they could stay out of jail.  It was their party that cut a grand bargain on student loan interest rates and gave them peanuts on a dollar.  It was Obama's 2008 campaign that promised them change and then gave them Geithner, Gates, grand bargains, and austerity.   Millennials know  Obama gave the keys right back to Geithner and the rest of the guys that drove it into the ditch in the first place.

    It is time to take the Democratic Party back from within, but not by funding and electing bad aka more and better Democrats.   We need to shine a light and shame the Democratic Party away from the money, lobbyists, Wall Street, and .001% .  We need to make them "earn" our votes.   This is the party of FDR, not Reagan.  This is the party of working people, not Wall Street.   Clinton sold us out, and it is time to take our party back.  

    I will not vote for Hillary..... #38067

    by dkmich on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:42:30 AM PDT

  •  I have said for years (8+ / 0-)

    that whichever major party comes out in force for marijuana legalization will see a flood of new voters pour in and win the youth vote. Let's please not let the Republican party do this first!

    Instead of trying to scare us about Rand Paul (of whom there are plenty of scary aspects), why the hell don't we field a Democratic candidate who speaks out against Empire and against the failed drug war?

    I guess there was Kucinich in 04 and 08, but he was "short" or "weird" or whatever, but probably just too early. The time for a new direction is now.

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:54:46 AM PDT

  •  Dart, you have outlined very good points (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan


    and highlighted votes that demonstrate what Rand Paul actually stands for.  But writing things like "Rand Paul's approach boils down to this: "Fuck you, I'm not paying to repair the roadways.  That infringes on my freedom." " - is going all the way to hyperbole.  It isn't needed - the vote summaries and what they mean make your point.

    Just a suggestion.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:59:07 AM PDT

  •  Not for nothin', but (4+ / 0-)

    Kennedy isn't a Millennial.

    Non futuis apud Boston

    by kenlac on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

  •  libertarians are the equivalent of the teenager (7+ / 0-)

    who, when his mom tells him to clean his room, stamps his foot angrily and yells "It's a free country! You can't tell me what to do !!"

    Um, yes we can.  (shrug)

    Some of the libertarian positions (on civil liberties especially) are indeed actually liberal--and should have been defended by Dems for decades now. Those positions are what make the libertarians appealing to some liberal voters.

    But fortunately for us, the libertarians have also chained the big heavy millstone of "the free market" firmly around their necks. It will drown them every time.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:04:21 AM PDT

  •  OK, he's against NSA spying, I'll grant you that (4+ / 0-)

    Mind you if he wins we'll all be much too busy working 16-hour shifts in Bangladesh-style sweatshops for pennies an hour to care about the NSA.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:07:37 AM PDT

  •  You don't have to be a self centered jerk to be a (7+ / 0-)

    libertarian, but it helps. We're not little independent islands, we're a society. Like Spock said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, Catte Nappe, mattc129

    The fact that you list a series of government programs and write in amazed wonder how any millenial could support someone who didn't vote for those things shows a pretty profound misunderstanding about what libertarianism is. And considering millennials have been told about government programs that improve their lives for the past 6 years, and they still feel pessimistic about their future, don't trust government, etc. in the age of Obama should tell you something.

    Not everyone thinks like people on here do, and that seems truly hard for some people to grasp. There's prevailing attitude around here that any idea or ideology that isn't progressive in X way is stupid and wrong.  Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying I'm a fan of Rand Paul or his ideas.  I am saying I understand his appeal to millennials who feel lied to and without hope.

    It's not going to help Paul much, mind you, since they don't vote anyway, but I do think that it's an indication that the tired left/right paradigm(that we are very much a part of around here) are not doing much anymore for good parts of the rest of the country.

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:24:09 AM PDT

    •  Rand's supporters can afford to be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emelyn, Yonit

      vacuously uninformed in part because they feel he vindicates their abnegation of citizenship; because hey, he's for legalizing weed; and in any case, and because, they might not show up to vote in the first place.  

      You would suggest to a registered Democrat who plans to vote in all local and national elections and who was inspired by the public service of say, Barbara Jordan or, more recently, by remarks from Reverend Barber, that their response to their citizenship represents a "tired paradigm"?  

      In my opinion, that would be a pretty dumb move.  

      "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

      by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:33:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting take (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, PsychoSavannah

    I see it all the time, kids who think they've latched onto some secret intellectual identification.

    Libertarianism is something that most people grow out of, not unlike, say, hay fever or asthma. Bob Johnson

    by randallt on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:30:21 AM PDT

  •  Well, if the few millenials I talk to (6+ / 0-)

    are any indication, they fully expect to get shafted by Republicans and Democrats based on past history, and are willing to settle for anything.  Pot, anti-NSA, it's at least something.

    •  The problem is leadership (6+ / 0-)

      I don't think the millennials see genuine leadership from anyone in the country...not the Republicans, or the Democrats, or even the President. They, and the rest of America, see's its "leaders" arguing over things like impeachment and filibuster reform. They see both parties excusing spying into their lives, a good deal of which are lived online. So no matter whose "fault" it is, they just see squabbling children and no leadership.

      In such an atmosphere, people like Rand Paul rise.

      It reminds me of this great bit from The American President...

      The America People want leadership. And in the absence of genuine leadership, they will listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

      We've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand, because they're thirsty. They drink it because they don't know the difference.

      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

      by Pi Li on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:46:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree. I don't think Rand Paul has much (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laurnj, Yonit, Dartagnan, PsychoSavannah

    to offer people. He's gotten some attention due to a few issues like the war, NSA, etc. but he's the same old GOP trickle down economics that got us into this mess...

    I don't see him doing anything to solve the two issues most important to me- economic inequality/unemployment and the environment. He is for free trade - NAFTA, WTO, & I presume TPP. He is for the Personhood amendment and disagrees with parts of the Civil Rights Act..

    Yes, he recently said he would not support any changes to abortion policy because the country is "too divided." But would any Republican president nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who would do anything except vote to reverse Roe v Wade?  

    •  I don't think he does either (0+ / 0-)

      But the question is, does he appear to offer something to younger, less engaged, potential voters?

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:00:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Er, Say What? (5+ / 0-)
    Paul opposing the NSA spying is no less a conservative for doing so. He's simply a conservative who opposes domestic spying, much in the same way nearly all liberals do.
    Any liberals running for President this time around? I thought there was one the last couple times, but apparently not....

    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

    by stevemb on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:00:42 AM PDT

  •  Rand Paul is more like a broken clock (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joedemocrat, Yonit

    - always right twice a day - and wrong the rest of the day. I say for all those issues where Paul has VOTED IN AGREEMENT WITH US need not be discussed again until the next right-wing challenge appears to be headed for a vote. THEN whomp on Paul before the vote and call him out when he votes the wrong way. However if he votes with us, say, "Thanks, Rand. Mighty liberal of you." and to the right-wing ask if they think Paul is really their kind of guy.

    The time has come to repair this country and care for its' veterans.

    by llbear on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:05:13 AM PDT

  •  Rand Paul's policy views are like the joke: (6+ / 0-)

    lawyer is asked "how much is two plus two?  A:  What would you like it to be?"

  •  the guy fled in fear (12+ / 0-)

    when approached by two millenial dreamers.

    the nyt dredged up someone whose claim to "fame" is that she was an mtv veejay twenty years ago? to talk politics?

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:08:07 AM PDT

  •  what an insult to Eddie Vedder (10+ / 0-)

    on his best day Rand Paul isn't 1% of the man Eddie Vedder is

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:15:14 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, a hair question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoBlueSkies, Front Toward Enemy

    Every time I see RP I wonder how he really looks without the toupee.  Is there a picture out there so that I can stop thinking about it?

  •  there's a reason millenials are turning to Paul (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Dead Man, stevemb, CenPhx

    what the Dem party claims to stand for and what the dem party does are two very different things.

    Much of the corporate culture that now intrudes on and controls our lives was very much assisted by the Clinton admin.  Hillary Clinton, the current heir apparent for the '16 dem nom, has surrounded herself with advisors who think WTO, NAFTA, TPP are good things.  And of course, there's the Iraq War, something overwhelming numbers of dems railed against, especially when it was BushCo pushing it.  HRC voted for it, and, apparently, a significant % of dems are willing to forget about their "moral positions" of '02-'08, in addition to 100k+ Iraquis dead, just so to elect the first fem pres.

    In '08 Obama was elected amidst great hope the worst excesses of the previous admin would be fixed.  6 years later, he's just getting around to saying "We tortured some folks."  The financial sector and Wall St. continue to do really well while the rest of the country... not so much.  No one with serious power at any of the TBTF banks that fucked over the US has gone to jail.  Or trial.  Or been charged.  And as much as the grassroots loves Elizabeth Warren, most of the dem leadership seems to wish she would just go away.

    Then there's Keystone XL, taking single payer "off the table", drone strikes, Guantanamo, NSA spying, SOPA (and now, f*cking PIPA) and a sh*tload of other issues that Dem leaders would get worked up over under a repub admin, but are just grumbled about under Obama.

    I can't fault younger folks for looking for something different.  It saddens me.  But i can't fault them.  The Dem party hasn't remotely done what it claims to stand for.  At the top, where it counts, the Dem party is just as beholden to the corporate/big business teat as the R's.

    Given how batsh*t insane any repub prez candidate is likely to be, if HRC gets the dem nom in 2016, 2020 will likely be the election where 3rd (and 4th and 5th and 6th) parties see major gains.

    "Stories about bacon should be uplifting" - Oberon

    by bnasley on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:30:41 AM PDT

  •  IMHO, the issue is not how bad (27+ / 0-)

    Rand Paul or any other Republican is.  The issue is what are the Democrats offering to the voters to make them want to vote Democrat?  I am not seeing anything substantive coming out of top party leaders.

    This next comment is not directed toward the diarist because I think his diary is just fine, and I do not disagree with what he has written.  

    But...here it is.  My continuing beef with the  Democratic party and with this site, in particular, is that the constant harping bout how bad the Republicans is not a good campaign strategy.  If the Democrats want people to vote for them, it is imperative that they offer good ideas to the voters and then stand behind them. People want their politicians to stand FOR something, not be the less bad alternative.  And people want to see politicians fight for them.

    Where the Democrats went really wrong was Obama made promises of Hope and Change.  However, once he was elected, he did neither.  That has turned a whole generation of young voters off.  Pragmatism is the coward's way out and that is exactly what we have been seeing in the Democratic Party...a bunch of cowards.

    So I do not care how bad Rand Paul is.  I care about what the Democrats can do to make me vote for them and then to stand behind those promises.  If the Democrats start doing that, we do not have to worry about the Rand Paul's of the world.

    "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~ So.Lib.inMD UID166438

    by gulfgal98 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:39:04 AM PDT

    •  Well said, gulfgal. (14+ / 0-)

      I don't think it's asking too much of the Democratic Party to give voters solid, well-thought-out reasons for WHY they should vote for Democrats. This tactic of showing over and over and over how terrible Republicans are is preaching to the choir. People KNOW how bad Republicans are! But they're looking for and they deserve reasons for voting for Democrats other than the chosen mantra  of "Republicans are worse!." It's just ridiculous to keep harping on that and it never gets around to giving voters reasons to vote for Democrats. The current Democratic leadership is not very imaginative and they need to be careful because they lied to voters once as it is. It's stupid to risk it. Just tell voters what they will DO. They owe it to people if they want their votes. It's that simple and straightforward.

      Partisans who don't acknowledge the problems with the Democratic party are its worst enemies. If you don't acknowledge problems, you'll never fix them. ~ Dallasdoc

      by 3goldens on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:12:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many liberal millennials won't even see this diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx

        If they were here to begin with, they probably heeded the directive to 'fuck off'.

        If they're not supposed to be fussy purists with the Democratic Party, they may wonder why they're supposed to be fussy purists with Rand Paul.

        A Republican president with a principled left or a Democratic president with an acquiescent left -- and something about voting and a greater evil.

        by Sucker Politics on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:41:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In fact that's exactly what Congressional Dems did (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aimeehs

        but Democrats seem to prefer to ignore that inconvenient fact because presumably it doesn't fit with their narrative.

        Democrat politicians provided an entire campaign agenda full of reasons to vote FOR but I bet most Democrats are barely aware of it's existence let alone what's in it. I'd provide a link to it but why bother when it's not likely to get so much as a single sighting because, it seems, Democrats either don't want to know or want to rip it to shreds because it isn't good enough.

        Republicans lying I can cope with because I expect it but Democrats...

        And what's with "they need to be careful because they lied to voters once as it is"? What do you expect of them? Must they be super heroes now and paragons of virtue in order to be worthy of your attention? You excuse or dismiss hundreds of lies from Republicans but one from the Democrats is too much? Maybe you need to shop around for another political party, one that can live up to your high expectations.

        Please note that lamps in the Magic Lamp Emporium are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

        by Mopshell on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:27:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You need to take a deep breath. (0+ / 0-)

          And just FYI, it's Democratic politicians---and not "Democrat" politicians. That is a Republican term (using Democrat instead of Democratic) so you might want to stop using it. Further FYI, I've been a Democratic voter since the early 1970s, so don't presume to make assumptions about my loyalty or my background. You know NOTHING about me. What do I expect of Democrats? I expect them to tell the truth when they campaign, which this President did not do. And if you think I am the only one who noticed what he did, you could not be more wrong. As to giving people a list of Democratic accomplishments in order to get them to vote for Democrats, there is nothing unusual in expecting them to do so. What IS unusual is for people like you to simply SCREAM at Democrats to vote or else! Using authoritarian threats and insults, does NOT get people to vote the way you want them to. And the current mantra of "Republicans are WORSE!" is a pathetic, pitiful, and lousy excuse for a way to get people to vote for Democrats. We've had that shoved at us for far too many years. People are sick of it.

          Move along and find someone else to berate, but realize you are doing far more harm than good with your screaming and insults. Now, you and I are done here.

          Partisans who don't acknowledge the problems with the Democratic party are its worst enemies. If you don't acknowledge problems, you'll never fix them. ~ Dallasdoc

          by 3goldens on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:14:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  THIS! (9+ / 0-)

      Particularly this:

      I care about what the Democrats can do to make me vote for them and then to stand behind those promises.
      It's amazing to me that one still has to explain this to party leadership acolytes after all the shit we've all been through in the last 14 years.

      "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

      by lunachickie on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:36:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, vote for me; and I'll let you live. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoMoreLies, 3goldens, gulfgal98, CenPhx

      I belong in this gated community tent, and I refuse to let anyone push me out.    

      I will not vote for Hillary..... #38067

      by dkmich on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 12:49:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't you hear? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      congenitalefty

      You shouldn't vote for Rand Paul, because so-and-so. It's important to be a purist here.

      But you should vote for the Democratic Party despite so-and-so. Because 'pragmatism'. It's important not to be a purist here.

      Yeah. That'll go over with the young ones like a lead balloon.

      I also think people in these comments are vastly overrating the priority of domestic race/gender issues (such as contraception), given that young liberals are voicing more concern about brown folks, including women, being blown to bits overseas because of our foreign policy (which Paul's supposed isolationism promises to correct). Makes you wonder who are the broad-minded ones and who are the self-absorbed ones, eh?

      A Republican president with a principled left or a Democratic president with an acquiescent left -- and something about voting and a greater evil.

      by Sucker Politics on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:34:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You should care (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aimeehs

      at least if you don't want an Ayn Rand worshipping lunatic in charge.

      It's easy to sit there and say it doesn't matter. And it probably doesn't matter because for some reason I doubt you're female or living paycheck to paycheck. But it does matter for many many people.

      So by all means look down your nose at those that look at the world and view it pragmatically if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile those pragmatic people? They're out there making real progress and real change.

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:36:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Libertarianism hearkens to a similar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver

    view that was popular in the late 70's and if it stands will lead to precisely the same thing. A type of Reaganism and further desertification of America.

    It is clever in its packaging ´you like craft beer don't you?,' and states ´well big things will take that away. ´ The philosophy is puerile at best and proto-authoritarian at worst as in the end it calls for the ´ charismatic one´ to pull grand endeavors together.

    The end result is chaos, requiring a Reaganesque or Zuckerberg-like ´hero´ to pull it together. To  bully the sheep. Moral questions for the smitten are whether Z-berg would actually have used his sword on a programmer he disagreed with and whether those who endured the bullying stayed for any other reason but money?

    And I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine. And I damn all gentlemen. Whose only worth is their father's name And the sweat of a workin' man Steve Earle - Dixieland

    by shigeru on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:41:17 AM PDT

  •  Ron Paul (daddy) (7+ / 0-)

    got support because he was anti-war.

    He isn't anti-war.  He's anti-government spending on war.  Or on aid.  Which means if folks are starving, or being slaughtered to a person, or swept away in tsunamis, he won't lift a finger.  

    Also anti "entitlements".  And the EPA.  And the IRS.  And the DOE.  

    He believes in the "right to pollute" on your own land.  Drill oil, climate change?  Meh!

    In fact, he believes the Federal government has no right to levy taxes or regulate anything.

    Except your womb.

    Rand is just a smoother version of this same bag of odious policy positions.

    So he's the proverbial broken clock.  By accident, his views coincide with liberals' views on a couple of vital issues.

    He needs to be exposed.  Unfortunately he'll have to be exposed for something personally embarrassing, because no one listens to policy positions but everyone likes a good scandal.

    •  Both of them have had their scandals. (0+ / 0-)

      and more then a few, just not the tawdry tabloid type that the Beltway Media loves.

      I don't think even the broken clock theory works with father or son, for when one thinks a view aligns, further digging proves the case to quite different with both Pauls.

      Charlie Crist for Florida Primary date: August 26, 2014, Election Date: November 4, 2014

      by aimeehs on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 05:39:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd vote for the marmot on top of his head (0+ / 0-)

    but not for him

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:58:51 AM PDT

  •  Kennedy is 41 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Archie2227, mattc129

    She speaks for millennials?  Really?

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:05:08 AM PDT

  •  This guy really has you guys freaked out? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevemb, CenPhx

    I have to ask why?

    Taking away every one of his issues is simplicity itself, so why all the fuss?

    Could it be that those are issues that the Democratic pols are committed to on the wrong side?

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

    by Greyhound on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:40:38 AM PDT

    •  Who's freaked out? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kefauver, Remediator, emelyn

      All I've seen is people pointing out his hypocritical and odious views .

      Your concern is noted.

      •  Nah, he's right. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stevemb, CenPhx

        Why the freakout?  If Rand's a nutjob, that'll come out in the campaign.  

        The issue is that Millenials are supposed to take their scraps and like it, and the diarist (and their supporters) are furious that they want to be treated like citizens of a great nation.

      •  In diary after diary after diary... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx

        One would think that republicans are wrong is a given among any group with two brain cells to rub together.

        So, what about taking these points away from his campaign?

        As long as you're satisfied with not-republican as the only qualifier, well... just look around you.

        And to your attempted dismisal, the script is already approved and greenlighted, so no, I'm not concerned in the least as the outcome is already set.

        Ignore what they say, watch what they do.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

        by Greyhound on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 12:32:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You may disagree. When I examine all 15 items (4+ / 0-)

      he lists as Issues on his Senate webpage, and add a few others that he omitted, his proposals suck.

      What freaks me out is how he uses Progressive terminology to disguise regressive ideas. Compare what he says on the issue of Foreign Policy and Defense with what he says on p. 3 of his budget proposal:

      "Prioritizes additional funding to national defense"

      Here's the link to what I quoted in the budget on his Senate webpage:

      http://www.paul.senate.gov/...

      On page 16 he says:

      The budget adds back more than $126 billion to defense, above the sequester amount, but it continues to keep the large military complex of yesterday in check.

      When you put what he proposed next to what the President opposed, his amount over 10 years is $5.8 trillion and the President's is $5.9 trillion.

      Compare that small cut with a $1 trillion cut in Medicare in Rand Paul's budget compared to the President's.
      Likewise, there's about a half trillion cut in Social Security compared to the President budget.

      Another reason to freak out is knowing that few people look into the details as much as I described here.

      •  Absolutely right on every count. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mark Lippman, CenPhx

        So where are the Democrats?

        They have deep pockets, a big microphone, and are ostensibly opposed to these things.

        We keep coming back to the same issue. The other guys are completely insane and the only reason Democrats are vulnerable is that they are either on the wrong side of the issue, or lack the will to take a firm stand on and fight for issues that really do matter.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

        by Greyhound on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 12:40:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you go by commercial media, the Republicans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Greyhound

          have a lot more game than Democrats. The GOP will throw 10 candidates into the Presidential primary and use it as a platform to start mainstreaming extremist ideas. Imagine the Democrats mainstreaming extremist ideas on Left so that there's symmetry. I doubt the commercial media would be so unjudgmental to the Left as they are to every nitwit idea proposed by the Right.

          The young'uns made me watch a program about the Sixties on CNN last night because they wanted a second opinion about how true it was. I literally gasped at something Walter Cronkite said. It was during a live broadcast from the 1968 Democratic Party convention in Chicago. He said he was reporting from a place that could only be described as a police state. Cronkite was no hippie and he was one of the most trusted public figures at the time.

          People on this site mock me when I'm candid about what I think. The Republicans are always animated, no matter how poorly things are going for them. I don't even classify them as a traditional political party anymore. The Democrats seem to carry a cloud of doom over them.

          When I study the Congress up close, without using commercial media, the picture is a bit different.

          About a week ago, a Republican in the House, called out Pelosi by name in debate, and blamed her for not passing an immigration bill when she had the gavel. He broke the House rules in a couple of ways and Pelosi got up from her seat, charged across the aisle, and got in his face.  I never saw anything like it in my life. She didn't have a mic so her voice was audible but it was hard to hear what she was saying. The Republican had a mic and the member acting as Speaker was banging the gavel and calling for order.

          It should have been the lead story of the day. Imagine if the commercial media ran it into the ground 24/7 for days like they do for inconsequential garbage. How much coverage did it get? Any?

          I'm smart enough to know that the Democrats are unsatisfactory in a number of ways. I'll start talking more about that when the commercial media is more even-handed.

          Nobody in the commercial media today would ever say what Cronkite did. He didn't get fired. I doubt there was a big controversy over it. It's the bigger picture today that worries me.

          •  link to the show's transcript (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            http://transcripts.cnn.com/...

            The exact quote:

            CRONKITE: A Democratic convention is about to begin in a police state. There just doesn't seem to be any other way to say it.

          •  That where I've placed the turning point for (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mark Lippman

            America, as well. The '68 Democratic Convention was when the decision was clearly demonstrated that they would rather loose elections than power.

            As for what we once called the news, both Cronkite and Palley laid all of this out in explicit detail in the '70s. They told us what would happen if the parasites got their way and broke down the wall between news and entertainment.

            The network news departments used to fulfill the public good part of the deal where they get to use our air. How many today even know that we own the air, that the networks exist solely at our pleasure?

            "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

            by Greyhound on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 02:45:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent, Dartagnan. Thank you. n/t (4+ / 0-)

    "...[Among] which are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruit of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness."

    by Yasuragi on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 10:47:28 AM PDT

  •  The current administration spent 2 years on a new (8+ / 0-)

    tax treaty with Switzerland to go after the 1%ers who evaded taxes with Swiss bank accounts. It took one Senator to block the ratification vote.

    Rand Paul. His explanation? It would violate the privacy rights of the super wealthy people like the Romneys. Remember?

    That's just one example. How many people even know about it?

    I agree with Markos Moulitsas that there are very obvious and visible differences between the parties.

    Are the Republicans offering better policy proposals on any issue? I say, Absolutely Not. When the difference is that stark, why would anyone want to disregard it?

  •  Dear Boomers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattc129, CenPhx

    I am on your lawn.

  •  Wrong angle to persuade (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gulfgal98, mattc129, CenPhx

    You come to the right conclusion -- that the youth are looking for a liberal voting alternative -- but they do not have one in our binary voting system (there are a few exceptions in some congressional districts of course).

    Why aren't the democrats running liberals to capture the youth vote?  It's much easier to get someone motivated to vote FOR someone than against someone.

    Because they love corporate cash too much.

    Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

    by The Dead Man on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:10:15 AM PDT

  •  The real Rand Paul is in the federal budget (0+ / 0-)

    proposal he posts on his official Senate webpage.

    It illustrates who he is and what he represents. At the link, scroll to the bottom of the page for a link to the actual budget document he wrote:
    http://www.paul.senate.gov/...

    The first dozen pages or so, makes a case for austerity. On page 9, he quotes Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff the discredited economic experts who are infamous for their misuse of the formula functions in Microsoft’s well-known Excel program.
    http://www.paul.senate.gov/...

    On page 21, he asks, “Do we really need a federal Department of Education?”
    http://www.paul.senate.gov/...

    If there’s any doubt about what he means, a graphic on p. 28 suggests that three cabinet level federal government agencies should be eliminated:
    Dept of Education,
    HUD,
    Dept of Commerce
    http://www.paul.senate.gov/...

    On p. 30 he takes aim at:
    TANF
    Child nutrition
    Food Stamps
    Supplemental SSI
    Medicaid
    SCHIP
    Unemployment Benefits
    http://www.paul.senate.gov/...

    This is really a document for people to study on their own for examples of far-right extremism.

    A budget has to explain how revenue will be raised and here Rand Paul adheres to the Republican Religion of low taxation. It is taken as an article of faith that lower tax rates automatically produce more revenue. Of course, there are no real-world examples that support this fantasy.

  •  rand paul will not get millennial support (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woodrow Stool

    in a general election, although within the context of the republican primary, he might do disproportionately well with millennial voters in the GOP primary.

  •  additionally (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, Val, PsychoSavannah, CenPhx

    if dems want to cut off paul's appeal at the knees, all they have to do is back legalization and rein in the NSA. the guy's got nothing after that, and both positions happen to be popular with voters anyways.

  •  I Really Feel Bad for those Duped by this Huckster (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dcg2, Remediator, gardnerhill, Dartagnan

    Rand Paul is all about Rand Paul.

    Nothing more.

    He is a libertarian douche who isn't progressive in the slightest sense of the term.

    He's as delusional and bigoted as his dad.

    Those who admittedly bookmark online comments of various people in order to use it against them in the future are creepy fucking losers.

    by kefauver on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:54:52 AM PDT

  •  Anyone who thinks Rand Paul isn't an (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, dcg2, Themistoclea, Dartagnan

    Authoritarian of the absolute worst sort is a dupe and a fool. All they need to do is look at his background to see that.

    The fact that he supports neo confederates and has openly expressed his opposition to such bedrock progressive policies as integration should make hum a pariah.

  •  I'm gonna say it until people listen. (4+ / 0-)

    This is about marijuana.  Obama and the Democratic Establishment are insane and wrong and incredibly destructive, and when he changes, Ron Paul and Rand Paul will cease to exist as political forces.

    At some point, you have to deliver, not just be incrementally less awful than the other guys.

    •  The only thing they add (0+ / 0-)

      to the marijuana debate is that they delegate it as a 'states right issue'.  Don't mistake that as anything more then what happened in Colorado for example.  Rand Paul is not looking to change federal law on this issue and even if he were (he's not), the Republication legislative body is not behind those changes.

      Charlie Crist for Florida Primary date: August 26, 2014, Election Date: November 4, 2014

      by aimeehs on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 05:56:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Also, a note to our own "don't bother" crowd (0+ / 0-)

    Not only are these phony populist types falsely beguiling and flawed (many good comments here already have well defined the situation), but our cynics around here need not give up or fail to step up to block Republicans once Election Day arrives. Yes, better Democrats can and do win. Look at the upset in Hawaii, the establishment Dem. lost by a wide margin. See http://news.msn.com/... etc. (Must admit, my impression of the winner is a rough draft but he looks reasonably good so far ...)

  •  Libertarianism isn't a practical way to govern ... (0+ / 0-)

    it can be powerful as a philosophy to generate ideas and free people to be creative and it has helped with a lot of issues ... but with 330 million in the United States, you can't simply manage all these people, communities, states, cities on the basis of libertarianism.

    Electing a president is about selecting someone who can govern a nation of 330 million, and that takes big government - period. If you don't believe that - the Dems and the GOP have accepted this fact.  And "hands off" economics has been a dismal failure in many respects. And, there simply will never be a true libertarian hands off the world foreign policy in the United States.

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:03:14 PM PDT

  •  Smells like millennial libertarian astroturf: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, mattc129

    The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

    by lotlizard on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:09:43 PM PDT

    •  Oh it's definitiely astroturf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard

      I clicked on your link and saw that the group is run by Evan Feinberg.

      A quick google search brought me to his linked in page -

      Before this generational opportunity gig, he was a program director for the Charles Koch Institute.  Before that?  Staff Director for Rand Paul on the HELP Committee among a series of right wing jobs (and a Congressional run).   No doubt this group is funded by Koch Brothers money and Paul donors.

      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

      by dcg2 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:33:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I apologize in advance (0+ / 0-)

    But Kennedy and MTV?  Let's go back......

    From Wikipedia

    Political views

    Montgomery is a libertarian and a registered Republican, describing herself as a "Republitarian". She even has a pink Republican elephant tattooed on her upper left thigh.[1] She actively supported Gary Johnson's 2012 presidential campaign.[13]

    She is a supporter of same-sex marriage,[14] pro-choice,[15] privatizing social security,[16] opposes the War on Drugs, and opposes bureaucratic regulations.[17]

    When Montgomery joined MTV in 1992, she said “I didn’t dare out myself as a conservative” in her early months at MTV. At MTV’s 1993 Rock ’n’ Roll Inaugural Ball for Bill Clinton, she chanted, Nixon now! Nixon now!”, whenever the Clintons went on stage.[18] Along with being a fan of Richard Nixon, she supported Dan Quayle and Bob Dole.[19] She was also a speaker at the 1996 Republican National Convention.[1]

    She later abandoned conservatism. Montgomery said that "Social conservatism was really bringing me down, and I realized, as time went on, that I wasn't a Bush conservative. I was really a libertarian."[17][20] She was first introduced to libertarianism when Kurt Loder suggested she read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.[21]

    Yeah, she got a FOX show, too.
  •  Let the media build Aqua Buddah up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator

    He's just another cruel-hearted mental midget who will fall hard, just like all the other jokers the rump of the once-proud Republican party tried to promote last cycle.

    if they really do nominate him, Dems will win huge in 2016.

    "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

    by dcg2 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:27:07 PM PDT

    •  I'm hoping hard for maximum turbulence (0+ / 0-)

      in the GOP primaries.  

      I'm talking about knife fights, howling and squawking, and thrashing rage, preferably on national television.  

      Two or three outright brawls would be excellent as well, possibly in the first 30 minutes of each GOP debate.  

      Agree with you that if Rand somehow survives that process, the Democratic candidate is likely to defeat him soundly.  I think Rand lacks the experience, the vision, and probably the staff.  I think he'll hire people for his staff who agree with him very narrowly, and in the process, he'll have a staff no better than he is at running a national campaign.  

      "...the baffled king composing 'Hallelujah'..." (Leonard Cohen)

      by Remediator on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 01:57:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dear White Millenials you mean (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gardnerhill, FrankAletha

    The polling that is spurring all this Millennial Libertarian nonsense reveals that it is only the white ones who are showing any kind of support for "libertarian" shit.

  •  Please re-post this monthly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Themistoclea, Dartagnan

    with updates. People need to know the truth about Rand Paul. The only value that he shares with some (not all) progressives is support for a dangerous isolationism.

  •  Libertarians are spoiled straight white boys. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Themistoclea, Dartagnan

    With very, very few exceptions, Libertarianism is populated by the young, the white, the male, the straight, the entitled - a "philosophy" that essentially turns the values of spoiled white boys with money but absolutely no empathy into a political position.

    - Hurts women? I'm no chick, so that problem doesn't exist.
    - Hurts POC? I'm white, so the problem isn't important.
    - Hurts LGBTQ people? Dude, I don't do that gross butt stuff with other dudes, so why should I worry about it?
    - Hurts poor people? I once had to wait two whole extra days for my trust fund check from Dad to show up so I could get the latest iPhone - and I survived okay without food stamps, so why can't they?

    Rand just exudes the obnoxiousness of a white dude who's never heard Daddy say "no" in his whole life. We've already had a spoiled, useless Daddy's-boy in the Oval Office and we're still picking up the pieces from that one, thank you.

    “[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] created Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson - which proves he was way ahead of his time on gay marriage.” - Bill Maher

    by gardnerhill on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 02:06:07 PM PDT

    •  A few Republicans who were emabarassed (0+ / 0-)

      voting for George W. twice also claim the Libertarian mantle, they very in age though, but always dutifully vote for the Republican nominee.  They never vote Libertarian.  

      Very few people vote Libertarian actually.  They were hoping to gain 5% in the last election so they would automatically have a  place on the 2016 Presidential ballot.  Otherwise they have to petition qualify in most states for a place on the ballot to begin with, they didn't qualify needless to say.

      Charlie Crist for Florida Primary date: August 26, 2014, Election Date: November 4, 2014

      by aimeehs on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 06:23:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The only thing good about (0+ / 0-)

    Rand Paul getting the Republican nomination in 2016 will be watching the right wing neocons go apeshit over the fact that the party that they used to control has now nominated an anti-Israel isolationist.

    But I don't want to see that happen. Rand Paul is the most dangerous Republican considering a run. He will attract the low information crowd that likes freedom and dislikes war, including not a few so-called progressives who want to destroy America as a world power and are willing to throw ethnic minorities, gays, and women under the bus to accomplish that. I want him defeated in the Republican primaries so that whatever boring corporatist they do nominate will be easy prey for Clinton, Biden, or whatever Democrat gets nominated.

  •  Rand Paul is no Libertarian (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, Woodrow Stool

    and despite a Presidential run neither was his father.

    Except near Libertarian wallets that they hope to hooverize.

    His Daddy is so dishonest that he appeared in Virginia, attacked Libertarian candidate Sarvis, and claimed Republican Cuccinelli was a libertarian.  Readers will recall that Paul, Paul, and Cuccinelli are all antiabortionist girl-killers., global warming deniers,...

    His daddy...and I think it was his daddy, not Senator Paul...give a speech excusing the War of the Slaveholder's Rebellion, while standing under the Flag of Treason.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/...

    (And if any of you encounter right wing nutbags claiming the Rebellion was about tariffs, remind them of the remarks of secessionist Senator Yancey of Alabama, who noted that the claim was palpably absurd, since every tariff had been supported more or  less unanimously by every southern Congressman and Senator.)

    Rand Paul, however, is honest about it, saying that he had avoided letting the media hang a 'libertarian' tag on him.

    The Republicans are justly concerned that their candidates are losing elections. Building up Randal Paul as a libertarian is supposed to be a way of protecting their Libertarian flank.  

    Republican conservatives, big government, anti civil liberties, pro war, antiabortion, supporting the racist war on drugs, are an opposite of Libertarian.  Republican Conservatives are also an opposite of progressive Democrats.

    Restore the Fourth! Save America!

    by phillies on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 02:32:41 PM PDT

  •  i've got two words for you: layne staley (0+ / 0-)

    it's bizarre how there is so little discussion of pearl jam vs. nirvanna in the comments here - there has to be some millenials who listened to grunge music in the 90s who comment on this site.  i mean, you were either in one camp or there other - and never the twain shall cross.  seriously, pearl jam and nirvana feueded like alot and the fans were just as divided -  i can't recall how many arguments i've made for why pearl jam is better.

    seriously, are there no grunge listening millenials on this site asides from myself and apparently mephie and lost left coaster?

    i mean, kurt cobain just whines all the time folks, like literally all he does.  my favorite song by them was a cover song for crying out loud!  and it was unplugged!!  kurt cobain was just the most successful grunge-goth hybrid in the world.  what did he do?  pearl jam stood up to ticketmaster, at least.

    but in the end, neither group are as good as alice in chains, and even alice isn't as good as chris cornell farting in a cup.

    no ones better than chris cornell.

  •  As a millennial born in 1992... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattc129, Dartagnan

    I find it pretty insulting that people just assume we latch on to "libertarians" like the Pauls. Are we a "more" libertarian generation? Arguably yes, however the libertarianism that dominates the current definition is not the same kind of libertarianism that I think my generation is supposedly so hyped about.

    Sure, politicians like the Pauls / Gary Johnson strike a chord with their stance on marijuana prohibition, MIC-related issues, etc., but as aptly pointed out by this diary, their loyalty on fiscal policy still lies strictly with the 1%.  When they say things like "end the Fed" will of course earn points with that crowd, and well, so be it--but it would surprise me if that sentiment was echoed by a majority of my generation as a whole.

    To that end, as has also been noted on DK from time to time, my generation is also much more open to socialist (or similar) ideology, which is obviously NOT what the macho-man/Ayn Randian brand of libertarianism wants to trumpet.

    If I were to attempt to sum up my generation's (though not necessarily my own) stance on the current political landscape in one phrase, it would be something like: "Republicans are crazy and stupid, Democrats are spineless sellouts, only the lasseiz-faire libertarians get any attention, and socialists are laughed off."

    In short: disappointed by the Democrats and the Obama Administration, PISSED at the Republicans, mildly (if at all) supportive of Paul-brand libertarians, and discouraged all around.

    "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi

    by punkRockLiberal on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:26:24 PM PDT

  •  pretty soon, there's gonna be hell toupee! (1+ / 0-)

    if there's one thing my many millenial friends won't stand for. it's store-bought hair on a man!

    game over!

  •  This diary so goes along with my opinion of key... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan

    This diary so goes along with my opinion of key ways to insure a 2014 win. IMO if these 3 ideas were adopted nationwide by candidates not only would we retain the senate but also make great gains in the house. Now keep in mind the 3 ideas I am about to list are not to be taken as stand alone but additions to the mainstream actions already in play (advertising, voter registration, canvasing etc...).

    Here goes...

    1) College campus presentations - think stage with 2 large boards with this voting record on Rand Pauls voting record one side and relevant republican candidates on the other. Now in the middle big screen for power point presentation going through how each of these votes affects them lotsa slides w/pics like kid with diploma in one then stats of jobs sent overseas then slide kid working retail or fast food all telling a story of how this affects them. I would add to this environmental issues and where local candidates 1% contributions tie in and how we voted for CHANGE IN 08 but change doesn't come from one (2) votes for a president change comes from them...they are our future and every election counts so unless they like what they see on these voting records they have to vote November. Food should be served throughout (college kids always hungry try to get local band favorites for area) add to this voter registration tables and maybe even a dunk tank/pie throw with volunteer campus professors or maybe even candidate at end (this would get republican students there and walla life good. Don't forget tri-fold brochures or flyers to hand out with pins t shirts and stuff oh plus dem relevant candidates position or voting record lined up next to republicans on all marketing stuff big boards around venue and sides of stage and handouts.

    2) same concept all nursing homes retirement/gated communities (smaller scale) change issues voucher medicare, decimate social security. Highlight how decimating pension funds is step one because easier with all republican legislators but if they had both in Washington this would top their list. Dont forget issues that affect grandchildren and like up above...forget what your republican candidates says LOOK AT VOTING RECORD!

    3) VOTING VANS TO THE POLLS IN ALL LOW INCOME DISTRICTS and from colleges one or two designated stops and as many vans as needed doing nonstop round trips (Nov.4th) no party discrimination or party distribution/discussion with this program from start to finish but funds would have to come from campaigns,super pacs or volunteers.

    On the events above the reason I use Ron Paul on boards for colleges is because comparison can be made this is the Republican considered to be the most moderate on social issues this is the least bad it can get and if this is the least do you really want to figure out what life would be like if they gain both houses? What judges will be confirmed? Making decisions for years? And let them know they have the most power to make CHANGE!!! because they also have the most control over not only themselves but their grandparents and parents. EVERY COLLEGE KID ENGAGED IS WORTH up to 7 votes with family alone!

    If you made it this far Thank you sorry so long a comment but I have not had time to learn how to write a diary yet.I am pretty new but I just had to get these ideas out of my head hopefully for some feedback before presenting to my local candidates thanks your your time and I hope to hear back with additional out of box ideas, tweaks to the above or if I'm just nuts. Lol

  •  Yeah, Rand will legalize pot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, Woodrow Stool

    But you'll be so awash in student debt that your job at Applebee's won't allow you to PAY for it. That might not be so bad, however, since the roads will be so fucked up due to no infrastructure spending, that you won't be able to get to your dealer's place to actually BUY any.

    That's the way you should explain it to the Millenials.

    A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

    by METAL TREK on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 05:03:12 AM PDT

  •  It isn't Rand Paul's fault that the Democratic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattc129

    party has turned off so many people.  He's just cashing in on the Democrat's corruption and love for Wall Street.

  •  TLDR (0+ / 0-)

    and voting records aren't "sexy".

    You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, none of this matters. Rand Paul will be the next POTUS. He's the one most likely to win the nomination, and the Democrats are dead set on nominating Hillary Clinton apparently. She will lose mostly because in that matchup she cedes populism to the right and populism + media darling is a combination we know from experience she can't beat.

    The only thing that could save her would be the neocon war chest, and identifying as a full blown neocon (which she is) after the torture report hits? Yeah, that's going to go over well.

    edwardlcote.blogspot.com

    by Edward L Cote on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:46:48 AM PDT

  •  Rand and Ron Paul appeal to young people (0+ / 0-)

    The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are very similar - they both seek the approval of the 1% and they serve the rich by distracting the general public from what is really taking place.   The 25 year old man who has student loans he cannot repay and has few prospects for a traditional American middle class life understands this very well.  He is not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.  The 1% intends to use her as another "change" candidate - the novelty this time is electing a woman.  If Rand Paul asserts he is opposed to war, opposed to the NDAA, wants to reign in The Fed, and HE SEEMS TO REALLY MEAN IT then he will be far more appealing to young voters than anyone else the two major parties trot out.      

  •  Read Ron and Rand Paul's histories! (0+ / 0-)

      You really want to know who these people are read the "John Birch Society"!  That's where they came from!!!

    THEY ARE "BIRCHERS"!  Members of the "John Birch Society" from 1950s and 1960s!!!!!!!!  READ IT!!!!!!  IF THAT DON'T SCARE SOME SENSE INTO YOU, NOTHING WILL!!!

  •  Redefinition of ideologies is fun! (0+ / 0-)

    Rand Paul is not a libertarian. Obama is not a Progressive. John McCain is not a Republican. Or else these words no longer mean what they did when I was in college. It is like calling the people at the Westboro baptist "Church" Christians. Either the word has been re-defined or these people should have their label removed. Calling Chris Christie "Moderate" is a lie. Either HE isn't Moderate or MODERATE isn't what he IS. Oh - Wait - the word LIE also got changed. Nobody in DC lies anymore - they just have varying beliefs and often misspeak themselves when explaining their intent. THere - Feel Better?

  •  Wonderful article ! Young people need to unders... (0+ / 0-)

    Wonderful article !

    Young people need to understand that liberal and "libertarian" are not even similar. That in fact, they are almost exact OPPOSITES.

    Libertarians are selfish creeps who don't care about the poor, the jobless, the homeless, ..... etc.

    They basically care only about THEMSELVES.

  •  Wayyy off topic but..... (0+ / 0-)

    I was just buying toilet seat bolts, the ones that hold the seat on, for $2.65 at Home Depot before I came to Daily Kos. Now I see a Home Depot advertisement  for toilet seat bolts HERE, on Daily Kos, the ones for $7.76 I didn't buy. How do they do that? lol

    Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.---George Orwell

    by okpkpkp on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 07:11:01 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, Sylv, KeithH, Trix, hazey, fcvaguy, Mogolori, decisivemoment, teacherken, Sprinkles, Emerson, Shockwave, Wintermute, ChicDemago, richardak, GayHillbilly, eeff, Bryce in Seattle, windwardguy46, niemann, davelf2, TracieLynn, EricS, fugwb, whenwego, because, highacidity, DaveP, KMc, otto, denig, retLT, bwren, askyron, Cedwyn, sidnora, dksbook, sviscusi, pollwatcher, revsue, psnyder, Bring the Lions, TexDem, NYC Sophia, wdrath, chrismorgan, niteskolar, DSC on the Plateau, houyhnhnm, Catte Nappe, Brian82, Major Kong, zerelda, randallt, boran2, murrayewv, Gowrie Gal, rapala, dcg2, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, radarlady, NoMoreLies, MHB, UncleCharlie, sc kitty, Flint, kamarvt, kefauver, basquebob, MT Spaces, dewtx, ChemBob, Laurence Lewis, Gary Norton, eru, WinSmith, owlbear1, most peculiar mama, blue jersey mom, RichterScale, SBandini, Tunk, FindingMyVoice, turdraker, bunsk, peacestpete, Alan Arizona, begone, MadGeorgiaDem, martini, BachFan, LeighAnn, golem, Clytemnestra, Themistoclea, dopper0189, mr crabby, koNko, AoT, Naniboujou, MargaretPOA, fou, Marcus Tullius, kck, MJ via Chicago, The Hindsight Times, Crashing Vor, SadieSue, Zwoof, gabriella, middleagedhousewife, MBNYC, gratis4, llbear, Turbonerd, rage, markthshark, HM2Viking, Thinking Fella, tegrat, Sapere aude, Msanger, Habitat Vic, camlbacker, Deadicated Marxist, puakev, karmsy, Via Chicago, Matt Z, shesaid, deepeco, Ninepatch, joedemocrat, bnasley, jayden, strobusguy, rontripp, jnhobbs, Bridge Master, carpunder, CT Hank, Wreck Smurfy, GeorgeXVIII, leonard145b, delver, on the cusp, TomP, Empower Ink, chicago minx, JDWolverton, MKinTN, bkamr, mconvente, JeffW, angry hopeful liberal, GAS, OleHippieChick, Youffraita, Morgan Sandlin, KJG52, Its any one guess, mikeconwell, sandav, pamelabrown, vernonbc, Jeff Y, catly, petulans, elpacifico66, shigeru, JamieG from Md, billybam, Diogenes2008, lissablack, Sun dog, Bule Betawi, Rhysling, lostinamerica, Carol in San Antonio, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, mkor7, Remediator, Bonsai66, geebeebee, MKSinSA, glitterlust, oxfdblue, papahaha, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, sfarkash, Tortmaster, Livvy5, Wendy Slammo, JaceInVA, smileycreek, flitedocnm, SanAntonioKrusty, roadbear, gramofsam1, catwho, mookins, BenderRodriguez, Polly Syllabic, ATFILLINOIS, pixxer, DiegoUK, cai, Yasuragi, Betty Pinson, BlueFranco, ericlewis0, Loose Fur, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, fiercefilms, soaglow, stevenaxelrod, Pakalolo, Onomastic, kerflooey, Front Toward Enemy, matercarol, Catherine R, slowbutsure, afisher, Nicci August, TwoSolitudes, laurnj, Jasonhouse, thomask, Muskegon Critic, peregrine kate, punkRockLiberal, Vatexia, SteelerGrrl, Rashaverak, caryltoo, Auriandra, ParkRanger, allergywoman, Woodrow Stool, BlueZone, James Allen, sow hat, angry marmot, charliehall2, IndieGuy, tb92, a2nite, cinepost, pmexec, Trotskyrepublican, FiredUpInCA, CA ridebalanced, joeschmeaux, peachcreek, jan4insight, AspenFern, MartyM, doroma, cuphalffull, ricklewsive, wxorknot, avsp, rat racer, Glen The Plumber, George3, wasatch, peptabysmal, Hammerhand, BobTheHappyDinosaur, GoGoGoEverton, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, nomandates, wozzlecat, Linda1961, Late Again, poopdogcomedy, gypsytoo, GwenM, nasheval, ORswede, howabout, Icicle68, nice marmot, BadKitties, Fishtroller01, duhban, starduster, aimeehs, jbsoul, waterstreet2008, gnosticator, Darwinian Detritus, VPofKarma, Choco8, ginimck, boppersan, sotiredofusernames, IsaacKuo, hbk, writeofwinter, ypochris, PrefersaPension, kfunk937, Mopshell, bobcat41702, bluenick, calgalnfl, coyote66, laughingRabbit, Silencio, Miang, NoBlueSkies, Theodicy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site