Is Ron Paul More Progressive Than Obama?

[handy]

Excellent article in Counterpunch. Even the (smarter) dems are starting to wake up.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04...ve-than-obama/


April 28, 2011
64



Who is the Real Reactionary?
Is Ron Paul More Progressive Than Obama?

by CHARLES DAVIS
Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.
Can the same be said for Barack Obama?
Yet, ask a good movement liberal or progressive about the two and you’ll quickly be informed that yeah, Ron Paul’s good on the war stuff — yawn — but otherwise he’s a no-good right-wing reactionary of the worst order, a guy who’d kick your Aunt Beth off Medicare and force her to turn tricks for blood-pressure meds. By contrast, Obama, war crimes and all, provokes no such visceral distaste. He’s more cosmopolitan, after all; less Texas-y. He’s a Democrat. And gosh, even if he’s made a few mistakes, he means well.
Sure he’s a murderer, in other words, but at least he’s not a Republican!
Put another, even less charitable way: Democratic partisans – liberals – are willing to trade the lives of a couple thousand poor Pakistani tribesman in exchange for a few liberal catnip-filled speeches and NPR tote bags for the underprivileged. The number of party-line progressives who would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama wouldn’t be enough to fill Conference Room B at the local Sheraton, with even harshest left-leaning critics of the president, like Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, saying they’d prefer the mass-murdering sociopath to that kooky Constitution fetishist.
As someone who sees the electoral process as primarily a distraction, something that diverts energy and attention from more effective means of reforming the system, I don’t much care if people don’t vote for Ron Paul. In fact, if you’re going to vote, I’d rather you cast a write-in ballot for Emma Goldman. But! I do have a problem with those who imagine themselves to be liberal-minded citizens of the world casting their vote for Barack Obama and propagating the notion that someone can bomb and/or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya and still earn more Progressive Points than the guy who would, you know, not do any of that.
Let’s just assume the worst about Paul: that he’s a corporate libertarian in the Reason magazine/Cato Institute mold that would grant Big Business and the financial industry license to do whatever the hell it wants with little in the way of accountability (I call this scenario the “status quo”). Let’s say he dines on Labradoodle puppies while using their blood to scribble notes in the margins of his dog-eared, gold-encrusted copy of Atlas Shrugged.
So. Fucking. What.
Barack Obama isn’t exactly Eugene Debs, after all. Hell, he’s not even Jimmy Carter. The facts are: he’s pushed for the largest military budget in world history, given trillions of dollars to Wall Street in bailouts and near-zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve, protected oil companies like BP from legal liability for environmental damages they cause – from poisoning the Gulf to climate change – and mandated that all Americans purchase the U.S. health insurance industry’s product. You might argue Paul’s a corporatist, but there’s no denying Obama’s one.
And at least Paul would – and this is important, I think – stop killing poor foreigners with cluster bombs and Predator drones. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief, Paul would also bring the troops home from not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Korea and Okinawa. There’d be no need for a School of the Americas because the U.S. wouldn’t be busy training foreign military personnel the finer points of human rights abuses. Israel would have to carry out its war crimes on its own dime.
Even on on the most pressing domestic issues of the day, Paul strikes me as a hell of a lot more progressive than Obama. Look at the war on drugs: Obama has continued the same failed prohibitionist policies as his predecessors, maintaining a status quo that has placed 2.3 million – or one in 100 – Americans behind bars, the vast majority African-American and Hispanic. Paul, on the other hand, has called for ending the drug war and said he would pardon non-violent offenders, which would be the single greatest reform a president could make in the domestic sphere, equivalent in magnitude to ending Jim Crow.
Paul would also stop providing subsidies to corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels, while allowing class-action tort suits to proceed against oil and coal companies for the environmental damage they have wrought. Obama, by contrast, is providing billions to coal companies under the guise of “clean energy” – see his administration’s policies on carbon capture and sequestration, the fossil fuel-equivalent of missile defense – and promising billions more so mega-energy corporations can get started on that “nuclear renaissance” we’ve all heard so much about. And if Paul really did succeed in cutting all those federal departments he talks about, there’s nothing to prevent states and local governments — and, I would hope, alternative social organizations not dependent on coercion — from addressing issues such as health care and education. Decentralism isn’t a bad thing.
All that aside, though, it seems to me that if you’re going to style yourself a progressive, liberal humanitarian, your first priority really ought to be stopping your government from killing poor people. Second on that list? Stopping your government from putting hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens in cages for decades at a time over non-violent “crimes” committed by consenting adults. Seriously: what the fuck? Social Security’s great and all I guess, but not exploding little children with cluster bombs – shouldn’t that be at the top of the Liberal Agenda?
Over half of Americans’ income taxes go to the military-industrial complex and the costs of arresting and locking up their fellow citizens. On both counts, Ron Paul’s policy positions are far more progressive than those held – and indeed, implemented – by Barack Obama. And yet it’s Paul who’s the reactionary of the two?
My sweeping, I’m hoping overly broad assessment: liberals, especially the pundit class, don’t much care about dead foreigners. They’re a political problem at best – will the Afghan war derail Obama’s re-election campaign? – not a moral one. And liberals are more than willing to accept a few charred women and children in some country they’ll never visit in exchange for increasing social welfare spending by 0.02 percent, or at least not cutting it by as much as a mean ‘ol Rethuglican.
Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, for example, has chastised anti-Obama lefties, complaining that undermining – by way of accurately assessing and commenting upon – a warmonger of the Democratic persuasion is “extraordinarily self-destructive" to all FDR-fearing lefties.
“Just ask LBJ,” Drum added. The historical footnote he left out: That LBJ was run out of office by the anti-war left because the guy was murdering hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. But mass murder is no reason to oppose a Democratic president, at least not if you’re a professional liberal.
There are exceptions: Just Foreign Policy’s Robert Naiman has a piece in Truth Out suggesting the anti-war left checking out Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who’s something of a Ron Paul-lite. But for too many liberals, it seems partisanship and the promise – not even necessarily the delivery, if you’ve been reading Obama’s die-hard apologists – of infinitesimally more spending on domestic programs is more important than saving the lives of a few thousand innocent women and children who happen to live outside the confines of the arbitrary geopolitical entity known as the United States.
Another reason to root — if not vote — for Ron Paul: if there was a Republican in the White House, liberals just might start caring about the murder of non-Americans again.


CHARLES DAVIS (https://charliedavis.blogspot.com) is an independent journalist who has covered Congress for public radio and Inter Press Service.

[ubaru]

Is Ron Paul More Progressive Than Obama?
Excellent article in Counterpunch. Even the (smarter) dems are starting to wake up.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/...ve-than-obama/

Excellent article Handy. So many pertinent points I can't even count them. Yes, even the smarter Dems are starting to wake up. Thank you so much for posting!

This is what I want the smarter Democrats to know. We're in a Revolution with all the Roiling and Boiling energy and ripe potential for Radical Positive Change. The biggest overthrow of the Corporatist agenda since the overthrow of King George the III during the American Revolution. Ron's got his targets set on the IRS and the Federal Reserve System. For those new to this, the latter is neither Federal, nor a Reserve System. It's a private banking cartel. Do you realize what life would be like without them? No more endless, senseless printing of fiat money. No more preemptive wars and world empire building. No more invisible inflation tax, and the slow burn of the dollar where you AND your partner have to take on two or three jobs to make less than your Father did while your Mother stayed home and raised you. The positive implications are so vast I can't possibly compile them here. Without the IRS--No more squandering of your best gardening hours in March and April slaving over your 1040's while your livers overheat from anger and frustration about paying your hard earned wages to evil things you do not approve of by an organization that was never legally ratified!

The two party system is a sorry tattered box. I'm hoping you can look past it and even claw your way out. I hope you all know that Ron Paul is not a true Republican. He's on that party's ticket because right now that's how to play the game if you're serious about becoming the President. He's a candidate By The People, For The People in an entirely new old class. Let your polarization with one party or the other die. It's a weird illusion that they're different, because they're both corporate serving sons a' bitches rehashing the same old same old. 'Scuse my French. You were hoping for change with O'bomba. Stop hoping for change from Corporatists. It ain't coming.

And if you ever wonder why Ron's supporters are SO loyal, and their roots SO deep, it's for the same reasons upon which America was born. On the ideals writ in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. For Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. For freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial, and all the rest of what has made the world look to our governance as a model worth aspiring to. Unfortunately we've strayed SO far from that, and to every person's peril. These ideals are full of integrity. Ron Paul is simply bringing them back--The Thomas Jefferson of our time.

Finally, in Ron we no longer have to vote for the lesser of two evils. We can vote FOR peace, FOR true economic reform, FOR the end of crony politics and bank bailouts, FOR the end of the out of control Fascist Corporatist policy of spying on it's own citizens, and being subjected to molestation in our airports. FOR freedom of choice to eat what we want to eat (for God's sake) or to saying NO to having a smart meter radioactive surveillance device forced on our dwellings.

So to the smarter Dems, I hope you take a second look.

Liz

Restore America Now
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb

[Barry]

Excellent article Handy. So many pertinent points I can't even count them. Yes, even the smarter Dems are starting to wake up. Thank you so much for posting!

Sure would be sweet if one of you would post a concise summary of the points made in the article.

[Iolchan]

ubaru wrote:
Excellent article Handy. So many pertinent points I can't even count them. Yes, even the smarter Dems are starting to wake up. Thank you so much for posting!

barry wrote:
Sure would be sweet if one of you would post a concise summary of the points made in the article.

Here, Barry - just thought I'd oblige you. Couldn't help myself - Just love to process them old words! It's a very good article - I especially liked the part about writing-in Emma Goldman...
P.S. This post o' mine does not mean that I endorse Ron Paul for Pres - I'm pretty much immune to the charm of politicians - but I recognize sound reason and good journalism when I see it; and this is both. - Mark

Is Ron Paul More Progressive Than Obama?

by CHARLES DAVIS

1) Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.

Can the same be said for Barack Obama?

2) Yet, ask a good movement liberal or progressive about the two and you’ll quickly be informed that yeah, Ron Paul’s good on the war stuff — yawn — but otherwise he’s a no-good right-wing reactionary of the worst order, a guy who’d kick your Aunt Beth off Medicare and force her to turn tricks for blood-pressure meds.

3) By contrast, Obama, war crimes and all, provokes no such visceral distaste. He’s more cosmopolitan, after all; less Texas-y. He’s a Democrat. And gosh, even if he’s made a few mistakes, he means well. Sure he’s a murderer, in other words, but at least he’s not a Republican!

4) Put another, even less charitable way: Democratic partisans – liberals – are willing to trade the lives of a couple thousand poor Pakistani tribesman in exchange for a few liberal catnip-filled speeches and NPR tote bags for the underprivileged. The number of party-line progressives who would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama wouldn’t be enough to fill Conference Room B at the local Sheraton, with even harshest left-leaning critics of the president, like Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, saying they’d prefer the mass-murdering sociopath to that kooky Constitution fetishist.

5) As someone who sees the electoral process as primarily a distraction, something that diverts energy and attention from more effective means of reforming the system, I don’t much care if people don’t vote for Ron Paul. In fact, if you’re going to vote, I’d rather you cast a write-in ballot for Emma Goldman. < great line!

6) But! I do have a problem with those who imagine themselves to be liberal-minded citizens of the world casting their vote for Barack Obama and propagating the notion that someone can bomb and/or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya and still earn more Progressive Points than the guy who would, you know, not do any of that.

7) Let’s just assume the worst about Paul: that he’s a corporate libertarian in the Reason magazine/Cato Institute mold that would grant Big Business and the financial industry license to do whatever the hell it wants with little in the way of accountability (I call this scenario the “status quo”). Let’s say he dines on Labradoodle puppies while using their blood to scribble notes in the margins of his dog-eared, gold-encrusted copy of Atlas Shrugged.
So. Fucking. What.

8) Barack Obama isn’t exactly Eugene Debs, after all. Hell, he’s not even Jimmy Carter. The facts are: he’s pushed for the largest military budget in world history, given trillions of dollars to Wall Street in bailouts and near-zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve, protected oil companies like BP from legal liability for environmental damages they cause – from poisoning the Gulf to climate change – and mandated that all Americans purchase the U.S. health insurance industry’s product. You might argue Paul’s a corporatist, but there’s no denying Obama’s one.

9) And at least Paul would – and this is important, I think – stop killing poor foreigners with cluster bombs and Predator drones. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief, Paul would also bring the troops home from not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Korea and Okinawa. There’d be no need for a School of the Americas because the U.S. wouldn’t be busy training foreign military personnel the finer points of human rights abuses. Israel would have to carry out its war crimes on its own dime.

10) Even on on the most pressing domestic issues of the day, Paul strikes me as a hell of a lot more progressive than Obama. Look at the war on drugs: Obama has continued the same failed prohibitionist policies as his predecessors, maintaining a status quo that has placed 2.3 million – or one in 100 – Americans behind bars, the vast majority African-American and Hispanic. Paul, on the other hand, has called for ending the drug war and said he would pardon non-violent offenders, which would be the single greatest reform a president could make in the domestic sphere, equivalent in magnitude to ending Jim Crow.

11) Paul would also stop providing subsidies to corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels, while allowing class-action tort suits to proceed against oil and coal companies for the environmental damage they have wrought. Obama, by contrast, is providing billions to coal companies under the guise of “clean energy” – see his administration’s policies on carbon capture and sequestration, the fossil fuel-equivalent of missile defense – and promising billions more so mega-energy corporations can get started on that “nuclear renaissance” we’ve all heard so much about.

12) And if Paul really did succeed in cutting all those federal departments he talks about, there’s nothing to prevent states and local governments — and, I would hope, alternative social organizations not dependent on coercion — from addressing issues such as health care and education. Decentralism isn’t a bad thing.

13) All that aside, though, it seems to me that if you’re going to style yourself a progressive, liberal humanitarian, your first priority really ought to be stopping your government from killing poor people. Second on that list? Stopping your government from putting hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens in cages for decades at a time over non-violent “crimes” committed by consenting adults. Seriously: what the fuck? Social Security’s great and all I guess, but not exploding little children with cluster bombs – shouldn’t that be at the top of the Liberal Agenda?

14) Over half of Americans’ income taxes go to the military-industrial complex and the costs of arresting and locking up their fellow citizens. On both counts, Ron Paul’s policy positions are far more progressive than those held – and indeed, implemented – by Barack Obama. And yet it’s Paul who’s the reactionary of the two?

15) My sweeping, I’m hoping overly broad assessment: liberals, especially the pundit class, don’t much care about dead foreigners. They’re a political problem at best – will the Afghan war derail Obama’s re-election campaign? – not a moral one. And liberals are more than willing to accept a few charred women and children in some country they’ll never visit in exchange for increasing social welfare spending by 0.02 percent, or at least not cutting it by as much as a mean ‘ol Rethuglican.

16) Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, for example, has chastised anti-Obama lefties, complaining that undermining – by way of accurately assessing and commenting upon – a warmonger of the Democratic persuasion is “extraordinarily self-destructive" to all FDR-fearing lefties. “Just ask LBJ,” Drum added. The historical footnote he left out: That LBJ was run out of office by the anti-war left because the guy was murdering hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. But mass murder is no reason to oppose a Democratic president, at least not if you’re a professional liberal.

17) There are exceptions: Just Foreign Policy’s Robert Naiman has a piece in Truth Out suggesting the anti-war left checking out Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who’s something of a Ron Paul-lite. But for too many liberals, it seems partisanship and the promise – not even necessarily the delivery, if you’ve been reading Obama’s die-hard apologists – of infinitesimally more spending on domestic programs is more important than saving the lives of a few thousand innocent women and children who happen to live outside the confines of the arbitrary geopolitical entity known as the United States.

18) Another reason to root — if not vote — for Ron Paul: if there was a Republican in the White House, liberals just might start caring about the murder of non-Americans again.


CHARLES DAVIS (https://charliedavis.blogspot.com) is an independent journalist who has covered Congress for public radio and Inter Press Service.

[handy]

Sure would be sweet if one of you would post a concise summary of the points made in the article.

Hi Barry,

To quote R. Buckminster Fuller in the introduction to Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, "We do not seek license to ramble wordily; we are only trying to be adequately concise."

I thought the article WAS a fairly concise summary. Eighteen good points were made. All were spot on and to the point. Sometimes, being concise requires more depth than a 15 second sound bite. Sorry if stretching your attention span hurt your head.

I will try to make the picnic.

[zenekar]

Excellent article in Counterpunch. Even the (smarter) dems are starting to wake up.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04...ve-than-obama/


April 28, 2011

Who is the Real Reactionary?
Is Ron Paul More Progressive Than Obama?

by CHARLES DAVIS
Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.
Can the same be said for Barack Obama?...

Ron Paul would do all these wonderful things singlehandedly? Wow! And the Repubs and Dems in Congress, who are lobbied by the multinational corporations, will go along with it?! Paul has a lot of gullible and clueless fans.

[Shake]

Nice job Handy- I met Ron Paul about 20 yrs. ago and actually worked on his campaign back then. Having come to libertarianism from the left, I don't agree with everything Paul stands for but he'd be light years better than anyone we've had in the last 100 yrs., slam dunk.

Two dirty little secrets for my leftist brethren:

1) The greedy Capitalists DO NOT like Ron Paul. He would strip them of their "Republican Socialism." The free market is the friend of honest people while those who like to exploit status quo advantage have no true interest in freedom regardless of their rhetoric.

2) Obama was "bought and paid for" at least 20 years ago. WAKE UP!!!

I've actually thought about starting an informal political club entitled "Liberal, not Left." Anyone think that's got legs?

Blessings, +John

Excellent article in Counterpunch. Even the (smarter) dems are starting to wake up.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04...ve-than-obama/

[handy]

Ron Paul would do all these wonderful things singlehandedly? Wow! And the Repubs and Dems in Congress, who are lobbied by the multinational corporations, will go along with it?! Paul has a lot of gullible and clueless fans.

He has the power of Veto. That can slow things waaay down.

You have to slow down if you want to change direction rapidly.

Now
Really?!?! You feel the desperate need to begin name-calling and denigrating remarks right out of the box? That's just sad. I had thought better of you. Sorry. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

[handy]

I've actually thought about starting an informal political club entitled "Liberal, not Left." Anyone think that's got legs?

Blessings, +John

Living room chat? Coffee, scotch, maybe smoke? I'm in.

[pbrinton]

Eighteen good points were made. All were spot on and to the point.

Really? Your standards of what makes for a good point are distressingly low. Are you referring to Iolchan's enumeration? Let's count them.

1, 4, 6, 9, most of 13, 15, 16, and 18 all make essentially the same point, which is that Ron Paul is against foreign wars and Obama continued the ones he inherited (with a lot of inflammatory rhetoric to provide variety.)

Johnson declined to run for a second term largely out of frustration with the Viet Nam war (he was not "run out of office) and then it took Nixon a further four years to finally get the troops home. It is much easier to start wars than to end them. It is also much easier to criticize from the sidelines than it is to actually govern.

2, 3, 5, 7 do not make any valid point that I can discern.

8 enumerates some failings of Obama, but does not argue that Paul would do any better

10 and 11 finally make valid arguments

12 is nonsense. We have already tried free-market non-coerced health care, and we have the worst health care at the highest price in the civilized world. Our education system, even with government participation, has been systematically gutted. You really think that turning it over entirely to the states (it is already mostly state-run) will improve it? The ownership class prefers an uneducated public; much easier to manipulate and keep from competing with them.

14 is true, but even a president with the best possible intentions is going to have a tough time taking on both the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex

So all in all what I see is a repetitive and poorly thought out diatribe with a couple of good points that you really have to dig for. Does not seem to merit much in the way of a detailed critique.

Patrick Brinton

[handy]

[QUOTE=pbrinton;141155]Really? Your standards of what makes for a good point are distressingly low.

-- Your claim to know my standards is questionable at best.

Are you referring to Iolchan's enumeration? Let's count them.

1, 4, 6, 9, most of 13, 15, 16, and 18 all make essentially the same point, which is that Ron Paul is against foreign wars and Obama continued the ones he inherited (with a lot of inflammatory rhetoric to provide variety.)

Ah well... learning requires repetition. Got it yet? Paul: anti war, Obama: pro war.


Johnson declined to run for a second term largely out of frustration with the Viet Nam war (he was not "run out of office) and then it took Nixon a further four years to finally get the troops home.

Actually, he was pretty much run out of office. I, among many other veterans, would have Loved to see him get the "Kennedy treatment". And back then the antiwar movement had some balls.

It is much easier to start wars than to end them.

Wrong. Starting them takes years of planning and secrecy. Ending them starts with veto of the funding.

It is also much easier to criticize from the sidelines than it is to actually govern.

Yes. I've noticed.

2, 3, 5, 7 do not make any valid point that I can discern.

8 enumerates some failings of Obama, but does not argue that Paul would do any better

10 and 11 finally make valid arguments

Guess you should take that up with lolchan. I still think the Counterpunch article was spot on.

12 is nonsense. We have already tried free-market non-coerced health care, and we have the worst health care at the highest price in the civilized world. Our education system, even with government participation, has been systematically gutted. You really think that turning it over entirely to the states (it is already mostly state-run) will improve it? The ownership class prefers an uneducated public; much easier to manipulate and keep from competing with them.

We haven't seen a free market in our life time. Federal control IS the systematic gutting.

14 is true, but even a president with the best possible intentions is going to have a tough time taking on both the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex

Yah. They tend to get the Kennedy treatment.

So all in all what I see is a repetitive and poorly thought out diatribe with a couple of good points that you really have to dig for. Does not seem to merit much in the way of a detailed critique.

Like I said, take that up with lolchan. I give him "A" for effort. May I assume you're going to vote for the mass murderer? Again?

[pbrinton]

-- Your claim to know my standards is questionable at best.

I can only judge by what you post, and I stand by my judgment.

May I assume you're going to vote for the mass murderer? Again?[/I]

You may assume nothing about my intentions or my past actions.

Patrick Brinton

[zenekar]

He has the power of Veto. That can slow things waaay down.

You have to slow down if you want to change direction rapidly.

Now
Really?!?! You feel the desperate need to begin name-calling and denigrating remarks right out of the box? That's just sad. I had thought better of you. Sorry. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Yes, I wrote "gullible and clueless" because Ron Paul fans are either unaware or in denial of his belief in the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, regulation of safety and environmental standards for corporations, the Department of Education, women's right to choose, and more.

Listen to Ron Paul repeat lies about Social Security and what he thinks you should do if you have a serious illness and don't have private health insurance: https://www.ronpaul.com/2011-09-12/r...xpress-debate/ Here is Bernie Sanders refuting Paul's assertion about Social Security: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh2Lw0iz3MA Believe the facts not falicies: https://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic...ng-broke/2797/

Paul's rhetoric may play into your desire to end the wars, but as all presidents before him, Ron Paul would be carrying out the ruling elite's imperialist agenda to control resources around the world. This can't be done without military intervention. It is out of blind desperation that some people want to believe Paul's claim that he would stop the wars. It is naive to believe that he would.

[peggykarp]

I admire and support Paul's opposition to the wars, but Ron Paul supporters remind me too much of Obama supporters in 2008. They believed what they wanted to believe, never mind any evidence to the contrary. Likewise Paul supporters say he's not really a Republican. Well, maybe not, but he is a libertarian. He doesn't want government intervention in our lives. That includes social security, medicare, medicaid, other programs for the poor, health and safety regulations, environmental protections, etc.

I agree Obama is a corporate Democrat. I didn't support him in 2008 and won't this time around either. His recent pronouncements on how we need to "strengthen" social security and medicare are particularly alarming. But progressives who are Ron Paul supporters need to take the stars out of their eyes and look at all his views, not just his foreign policy.

Excellent article Handy. So many pertinent points I can't even count them. Yes, even the smarter Dems are starting to wake up. Thank you so much for posting!

This is what I want the smarter Democrats to know. We're in a Revolution with all the Roiling and Boiling energy and ripe potential for Radical Positive Change. ...

["Mad" Miles]

The value of Ron Paul's candidacy for president is hotly debated here (I think this is at least the third thread in recent weeks) and on Facebook. I'm sure it's going on elsewhere in Left and Right circles. I am also sure he's not much discussed in mainstream Republican and Democrat Party circles.

What I find most amusing is that it is put in terms of what Paul would do if he became President. This is not going to happen. Ever.

He's a fringe candidate, even if he has a lot of support from the fringes, particularly the conservative Libertarian fringe, which has gained adherents in recent years.

(Why that's happened is another topic. There has been a concerted and well funded campaign to sell Libertarianism as the "new" Progressive Populism. The Olin Foundation et al. It's an interesting side show if you're interested and not already hip to the history.).

Now, there's nothing wrong with supporting a fringe candidate, to send a message, to build a party. That's been my approach to electoral politics at the level of presidential elections for all of my voting life in the past thirty-seven years. But Paul supporters don't write as if that's their/your goal, they write as if Paul has a chance of winning.

Just how is this supposed to happen? He won't get the Republican nomination. If he runs as an Independent or Libertarian, he won't be elected. So, other than Perot'ing the Republican nominee, something I would be happy to see, I don't see what role he plays.

I've absolutely no interest in helping build the Libertarian Party. "Laissez Fairyland"* Economics, to the extent they've been tried have been disastrous. And the theory is unconnected to reality.

(* I stole that from Jim Hightower!? He's great at such quips. In the same interview a couple of weeks ago he also said about Perry, "He puts the goober in gubernatorial!" Hightower is our contemporary Will Rogers with a touch of Samuel Clemens. Who, of course, Rogers could not have been who he was, without Mark Twain preceding him.)

As for sending a message, I like Paul's opposition to the wars, but he's certainly not the only anti-war figure at this time. I haven't seen him active in the anti-war movement* in the last eight to ten years. Most of the rest of his avowed goals and ideas are anathema.

(* Such as it is, another discussion as to why we're so weak and inept. Starman, it's not because of agent provocateurs. I'm sure there are "spies in the ointment", but the main reasons are internal. Partly Left Sectarianism, partly a new generation that hasn't learned the lessons of the past, the reinventing the wheel every five to ten years phenomenon, partly other issues, big discussion.)

This really looks like True Believer disconnect from reality. Makes for a diverting side discussion, but has no bearing on outcome.

Now, getting Barry Sanders to run for the Green Party nomination? I would be into that. But it also will not happen. Senator Sanders has made that very clear. I enjoy his contributions to the national discussion, but he seems to be content to stay in his current role and otherwise be a commentator.

I suspect that he's made the conventional calculation, along with me and most others who actually pay attention to history and political reality, that it'll be The Obamanator vs. which ever fundamentalist quasi-Tea Party wingnut the Republicans come up with. (Here's a repeated promise, it won't be Dr. Paul!) Romney appears to be the most likely at this juncture. I think Perry's record and style will sink him. At least I hope it will!!

I'll cast my protest vote for the Green Party candidate (not yet determined, she/he will be nominated by late spring) knowing that in California all the electoral votes will go to the incumbent (barring a major collapse of the economy, if that happens and it's not looking unlikely, all bets are off).

That's political reality. Whatever you think of it, no matter how much you dislike or like it, that's what is within the bounds of possibility.

If you're into Paul for his message and only his message, I think you're sorely miseducated and quite likely deluded about economic and political theory, but at least you have some sense of political pragmatics.

If you're touting him because you think that somehow the stars will align and something which has never happened before in electoral history will take place, well, you're just deluded. And if that's the case, obviously you aren't going to agree with my assessment!?

[handy]

I can only judge by what you post, and I stand by my judgment.

Agreed. I can only judge by what you post, and I stand by my judgment.

QUOTE=pbrinton;141169]You may assume nothing about my intentions or my past actions.[/QUOTE]


Fair enough. Assumptions/judgements, let's withhold themfor the sake of civil courteous conversation.

[handy]

I admire and support Paul's opposition to the wars, but Ron Paul supporters remind me too much of Obama supporters in 2008. They believed what they wanted to believe, never mind any evidence to the contrary. Likewise Paul supporters say he's not really a Republican. Well, maybe not, but he is a libertarian. He doesn't want government intervention in our lives. That includes social security, medicare, medicaid, other programs for the poor, health and safety regulations, environmental protections, etc.

Giving up the empire building/militarism would help buffer the weaning away from dependency to a large degree.

I'm coming up on 65. I've been paying into social security since I was 14. I do hope to start getting some of my savings back before too long. But I would WILLINGLY give up my ss retirement and work 'til I die, to see us stop turning our children into murderers for the state. Their lives and the lives of the people they slaughter are worth more to me than being able to retire.

I agree Obama is a corporate Democrat. I didn't support him in 2008 and won't this time around either. His recent pronouncements on how we need to "strengthen" social security and medicare are particularly alarming. But progressives who are Ron Paul supporters need to take the stars out of their eyes and look at all his views, not just his foreign policy.

Seeing clear and looking close. You too can wake up.

[handy]

...well, you're just deluded. And if that's the case, obviously you aren't going to agree with my assessment!?

Perhaps. and True.

I've "thrown away" my vote before, but I will always vote for the person I think is most honest. I refuse to consider the "lesser of two evils" as an option. One or the other of two mass murdering war criminals is simply not on the table. Just funny that way. Deluded is what you may perceive, but I sleep with a somewhat clearer conscience.

["Mad" Miles]

Since Ron Paul has ruled out running as an Independent in 2012, and since he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination, I guess whatever anyone thinks, voting a protest vote (which I do not consider "throwing away" anything at all, as any reasonable reading of my comments here clearly demonstrates) for Ron Paul is not going to be an option.

I suggest voting for the candidate of a party which focuses on Peace, Social Justice, Economic Opportunity for All and many other good things, The Green Party of the U.S., if one wants to send a message and not cooperate with the Corporate Duopoly Shell Game.

You will have to wait nine months to find out who that will be. There are some in the GP who have been promoting Paul as our candidate. I've opposed that too, but who knows?

I doubt it will happen, he's too antithetical to the Green Party's 10 Key Values and our current platform, but if a fluke were to occur, I would certainly be torn.

For now, I'm not going to worry about it, too low a probability.

[zenekar]

Ron Paul has ruled out running as an Independent in 2012[/URL], and since he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination, I guess whatever anyone thinks, voting a protest vote (which I do not consider "throwing away" anything at all, as any reasonable reading of my comments here clearly demonstrates) for Ron Paul is not going to be an option.

I suggest voting for the candidate of a party which focuses on Peace, Social Justice, Economic Opportunity for All and many other good things, The Green Party of the U.S., if one wants to send a message and not cooperate with the Corporate Duopoly Shell Game.

You will have to wait nine months to find out who that will be. There are some in the GP who have been promoting Paul as our candidate. I've opposed that too, but who knows?

I doubt it will happen, he's too antithetical to the Green Party's 10 Key Values and our current platform, but if a fluke were to occur, I would certainly be torn.

For now, I'm not going to worry about it, too low a probability.

[/FONT][/SIZE]

Why would the Green Party endose Ron Paul, knowing that he would destroy social programs and oppose women's right to choose? I voted for Cynthia McKinney in the last election but would quit the Green Party if Paul were to be the GP candidate. Ron and Rand Paul are both obstacles to progress in the US.

[ubaru]

Paul's rhetoric may play into your desire to end the wars, but as all presidents before him, Ron Paul would be carrying out the ruling elite's imperialist agenda to control resources around the world. This can't be done without military intervention. It is out of blind desperation that some people want to believe Paul's claim that he would stop the wars. It is naive to believe that he would.

The words "Paul's rhetoric" are an oxymoron. The guy has always spoken from and voted from the same principles for decades. One of them being "let's stop policing the world and mind our own business!" No one can argue that he is inconsistent. That's his appeal. He's smart, he's got common sense, he isn't bought out by the corporations, he speaks to the heart of our problems with very clear solutions, and he's consistent. Dependable. We know he'll do what he says he'll do and having a president that does that will be historical! REVOLUTIONARY!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk3F...eature=related


The uploader states, "Ron Paul is exposed in this old video. I can't believe the things he is saying. You've got to see this. How can this man be so absolutely right in predicting what America would be facing today? Because our founding fathers knew what fiat money and a central bank would do if they gained control of the U.S. economy, that's how. Apparently Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President that takes the founders seriously."

Ron Paul would be carrying out the ruling elite's imperialist agenda to control resources around the world.

He is an anti-imperialist to the core. Where have you been? You and I have lived in a corrupt, parasitic, ruling class world for way too long. But I differ than you in that I can see and feel the powerful grassroots Revolution against those forces caused by the now intolerable levels of oppression. I appreciate your skepticism, but it is devoid of the vision needed to remake a sane society.

Nice job Handy- I met Ron Paul about 20 yrs. ago and actually worked on his campaign back then. Having come to libertarianism from the left, I don't agree with everything Paul stands for but he'd be light years better than anyone we've had in the last 100 yrs., slam dunk.

I totally agree. We have a real opportunity here.

Liz



Restore America Now
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb
https://www.ronpaularmy.com/military4ronpaul/

[Iolchan]

Yes, alas, Obama is bad; but is Ron Paul actually the solution to what ails US? I agree with what Peggy Karp wrote, away back in this thread:

peggykarp wrote:

I admire and support Paul's opposition to the wars, but Ron Paul supporters remind me too much of Obama supporters in 2008. They believed what they wanted to believe, never mind any evidence to the contrary. Likewise Paul supporters say he's not really a Republican. Well, maybe not, but he is a libertarian. He doesn't want government intervention in our lives. That includes social security, medicare, medicaid, other programs for the poor, health and safety regulations, environmental protections, etc.

I agree Obama is a corporate Democrat. I didn't support him in 2008 and won't this time around either. His recent pronouncements on how we need to "strengthen" social security and medicare are particularly alarming. But progressives who are Ron Paul supporters need to take the stars out of their eyes and look at all his views, not just his foreign policy.

And Zenekar also made a good point :

zenekar wrote:

Paul's rhetoric may play into your desire to end the wars, but as all presidents before him, Ron Paul would be carrying out the ruling elite's imperialist agenda to control resources around the world. This can't be done without military intervention. It is out of blind desperation that some people want to believe Paul's claim that he would stop the wars. It is naive to believe that he would.

It may be that Ron Paul is totally sincere about ending American involvement in foreign entanglements; and wars of aggression and occupation in the Middle East and Central Asia, in the interests of the oil cartels, et cetera... But the question still remains, {in the unlikely event that Ron Paul should ever make it to the White House,} what's going to prevent Ron Paul from disappointing his peace-loving supporters the way Richard Nixon did, in betraying his campaign promise of 1968, concerning his "secret plan" to end the War in Viet Nam?

The Military-Industrial Complex has a mind, and a momentum of its own. And they have ways of persuading Presidents... There is always the example of what happened to Kennedy... Indeed, it is hard to imagine the pressure those guys {presidents} are under. There is a marvelous scene, in the Oliver Stone film,"NIXON" in which the president, in an unguarded moment, pays a soul-searching visit to his idol, old Honest Abe, enthroned in his Temple, overlooking the Mall, in Washington, D.C. It is 1970.

A group of young anti-War protesters, low-bagging on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, wake up, confront Nixon, and a dialog ensues. This actually happened, in real time. In the Movie, we are shown, graphically, viscerally, that Nixon is not his own man, and that the System itself, i.e., "America" is a "wild animal" i.e., a Beast. Oliver Stone brings off the Biblical imagery perfectly. It is great film-making. Sadly, however, I think that's the way it is...