Obama vs Ron Paul : both hold positions anathema to liberals.

[merkins]

When it comes to government social spending and regulation, Paul is more antithetical to progressive goals than any candidate running for the White House. This is indisputable. At the same time, though, when it comes to war, surveillance, police power, bank bailouts, cutting the defense budget, eliminating corporate welfare and civil liberties, Paul is more in line with progressive goals than any candidate running in 2012 (or almost any Democrat who has held a federal office in the last 30 years). This, too, is indisputable.

###

In seeing Paul’s economic views, positions on a woman’s right to choose, regulatory ideas and ties to racist newsletters as disqualifying factors for their electoral support, many self-identified liberal Obama supporters are essentially deciding that, for purposes of voting, those set of issues are simply more important to them than the issues of war, foreign policy, militarism, Wall Street bailouts, surveillance, police power and civil liberties — that is, issues in which Paul is far more progressive than the sitting president.

###

From a progressive perspective, which is a more legitimate camp to be in? In terms of ideological allegiance to the larger progressive agenda, I don’t really think there’s a right or wrong answer. But in terms of realpolitik, there’s a strong case to be made that Paul’s progressive-minded supporters understand something that Obama’s supporters either can’t or don’t want to: namely, that a presidential election is a vote for president, not a vote to elect the entire federal government. As such, when faced with candidates whom you agree with on some issues and totally disagree with on other issues, it’s perfectly rational — and wholly pragmatic — to consider one’s own multifaceted policy preferences in the context of what a prospective president will have the most unilateral power to actually enact.

###

Paul’s progressive supporters seem to understand that truism, while many Obama supporters find it too inconvenient to acknowledge. That’s fine. In fact, that’s what democracy is all about — the freedom to make your own choice. But don’t think the choice being made by Paul’s supporters is so obvious a progressive litmus test when the same reductionism used to tar and feather those supporters (“they’re racist because of his newsletters!”) could be used against Obama backers (“they’re baby killers because of the president’s wars!”).


David Sirota via Salon
______________________________________________________________________

[ProSense]

1. Oh

another in the long line of "liberals not hyping Ron Paul." It has been said they don't exists.

Anyway, Sirota:

"That said, I believe the argument being forwarded by progressive-minded Paul supporters is significant because it embodies a calculating pragmatism that highlights uncomfortable truths both about liberal priorities and about presidential power."

Nothing about Ron Paul's positions have anything to do with "liberal priorities"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135956

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100288476

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101818

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-entitlements-are-not-rights/2012/01/08/gIQAbDsJjP_video.html

While we're debating the degree to which Obama is not perfect (http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108), Republicans are chosing between Ron Paul and the other corporate tools who want to eliminate corporate taxes, keep oil subsidies and tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and agree to whatever else is in Grover Norquist's pledge.

The idea that some of Ron Paul's views should be heralded because they sound good is preposterous.

These articles are basically comparing Obama's positions to selected soundbites from Paul's propaganda.

Why?

[MrCoffee]

5. It's not about Ron Paul's "liberal priorities", it's about liberal/progressives "liberal priorities"

Paul is a pretty good foil for Obama in this instance, not in that we are asked to compare the two and choose one, but to consider where we fall on a progressive spectrum, and even what it means to be progressive in the political culture we live in.

[ProSense]

8. This

"Paul is a pretty good foil for Obama in this instance, not in that we are asked to compare the two and choose one, but to consider where we fall on a progressive spectrum, and even what it means to be progressive in the political culture we live in."

...is nonsense. These are nothing but disingenuous commentaries framing Paul's proganda as genuinely liberal, while distorting Obama's to create the impression that he's a lesser or equal progressive than Paul.

I mean, the article is titled: Who’s a real progressive?

[MrCoffee]

11. OK then

Thanks for the reply, I guess.

[frazzled]

2. Only everything Ron Paul represents is anathema to liberals

While only exaggerated, misleading, or hyped-up things that Sirota lists as attributes of Obama are anathema to liberals.

I made my long analysis of the major deficits of Sirota's arguments in another thread. I won't repeat it here. God, if there were a prize for fucked up thinking, David Sirota is my candidate to win it!

Of course, I would have awarded it to him for his over-the-top adulation of John Edwards in the last presidential election: "The People's Party Candidate" he called him! Yeah, take the people's money and spend it on your mistress while your wife is dying of cancer candidate. David Sirota hears any snake-oil salesman say something like "end poverty" or "stop wars" and he thinks these words are magical things to be worshipped. He's been wrong on everything, and he's wrong on this.

[Wait Wut]

4. Virtual Rec.

Great post.

[MNBrewer]

17. That is untrue.

for example, Liberals oppose the Imperialization of the US.

AS for Edwards, was he not correct in his analysis that there are "two Americas"? His campaign has been vindicated in the OWS movement. Too bad he couldn't defend his own marriage against his human frailties. Otherwise, he'd have made an awesome President, or Attorney General (better than Holder, anyway).

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Note that Paul and the President share an opposition to marriage equalty.

That is anathema to me. They each claim religious reasons, and neither of them can summon any form of secular logic or foundation for their shared dogmatic intolerance to the notion of equal rights. They each speak of State's Rights as controlling the right to marriage.
On that, they agree. And I personally think they are out of their damn minds. Sanctity? Play another record, Max, that one's getting tired.

[hfojvt]

61. "end poverty" and "stop wars" are at least as magical as the words

"change you can believe in" or "yes we can".

At least with the first two phrases a specific mandate has been voted for vs. some undefined emptiness.

Edwards gave a few hundred thousand to his mistress, whereas Obama gave $1.9 trillion to the rich in tax cuts.

I gave money to both Edwards and then, after he dropped out, to Obama. I only want a refund from Obama. He can stop sending me requests for more money and just send my last donation back AFAIC.

[LeftishBrit]

69. I agree with your first sentence, but disagree with comparing Edwards to Paul

Edwards had good policies; he had serious *personal* flaws, which would have made him a disastrous candidate, but this was not known at the beginning. Paul's policies are fundamentally wicked and dangerous.

[frazzled]

72. First, I was not comparing the two of them--but rather

Sirota's tendency to pick and choose candidates' slogans (and I might add pie-in-the-sky slogans) without comparing their records or intentions. To go on (selective) words alone.

While John Edwards was not out of the mainstream of Democratic politics like Ron Paul is out of the mainstream of just about everything, Edwards had no record of advocating or even voting for the things he was saying on the campaign trail. He was one of the Senate's most conservative Democrats. To think that anyone could eradicate poverty as we know it is quite naive--much less a trial lawyer who made tens of millions off of other people's miseries (he wasn't helping them from the goodness of his heart to all appearances)--so to be constantly chasing slogans like that is pretty much a fool's errand. We choose a PERSON for president, not a slogan, and yes, their prior actions and records, as well as their personal flaws, are very much a part of the assessment of what they can and will do.

[DevonRex]

3. Fuck Ron Paul and anybody who promotes him.

Including Sirota. You're wrong if the first word out of your mouth after saying Ron Paul aren't homophobe, racist, antisemite and misogynist.

[MrCoffee]

7. Please take the time to actually read the article

Sirota, Greenwald and Stoller are making important points about what it means to be a progressive. Don't let those points get lost in the "Ron Paul is pure evil" part.

Yes, Ron Paul is a vile homophobe, racist, antisemite and mysogynist, just to be absolutely clear.

[DevonRex]

12. Thing is, I DO get the point. And if the first words out

of their mouths aren't (see list above) they're STILL wrong. No matter what.

[sabrina 1]

13. I think our wars are racist, vile, mysogynist and homophobic.

Our whole foreign policy can be described that way. We support dictatorships who kill Gays as criminals, who suppress women and stone them to death for daring to speak, or even whisper against their oppressors.

The Drug here needs no explanation regarding the vile racism it promotes. See the lates NYPD scandal if anyone has any doubts, the connection of the Drug Laws to the stopping and frisking of over 500,000 people, almost all African Americans in one year.

Not to mention our wars killing brown people and destroying them for generations to come.

So I ask myself this. If I were a Muslim woman in Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran, Yemen, or any of the places we are now or planning to in the future, kill more of their loved ones, and someone told there is a guy running for the WH in the US who is accused of being a racist, but has never voted to kill my people, to support Dictators who let them build military bases in our countries, or if I am an African American in jail for possession of marijuana, anywhere in the world that is allied with us in our WOD, from my perspective, I would wonder about those charges while the US War Machine is what I see as the biggest most powerful most destructive most racist, well almost, most Empires are racist, gets a pass?

But then who cares what one of the victims of our obscene wars thinks anyhow.

[cpwm17]

19. I could not have agreed more

Except the corruption that is the root cause of so many of Washington's problems, war is the number one issue in America. Nothing is more racist than war. Most politicians in Washington DC have demonstrated that they are more racist than Ron Paul.

The victims of our racist wars and drug policies are too distant and abstract. Offensive newsletters seem to affect some people more. That's backwards. Our drug policies and wars have millions of victims around the world. Too many people in America are too brain washed or indifferent to care.

I'm sure people in Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Palestine, Pakistan, and prison would love it if a less racist candidate wins the presidency. I would prefer that it was someone that didn't have the potential to destroy our economy. Where's that person?

[sabrina 1]

26. I remember when the War in Iraq was in its beginning stages. I believe that was when it struck me

how racism was alive and well in the US as I watched the warmongers including some US Generals, without any fear anymore of being CALLED racist, refer to all Muslims as 'camel jockies' 'sand 'n*****s, I hate that word, sorry, but it was used with impunity and never once challenged in those days.

The Iraq War released all the racists in this country from their fears of being called what they are, when, in the name of 'Patriotism' they were free to finally expose themselves. Before that, after decades of hard work to at least make not socially acceptable to utter such vile words, they remained under their rocks and kept their hate confined to their own kind.

I remember a US General stating openly that his troops were to 'treat the Iraqis like dogs'.

As for the Drug War, no one can continue to support that obvious war on minorities and claim not to be racist.

As to your last question, 'Where's that person'? Well, Paul has given Democrats a huge club to bash warmongering Republicans with. Clearly there is a shift in the thinking of the Republican base as this time, Paul still saying the things he always said but getting nowhere with Republicans, has managed to stay in the race, and he couldn't be doing that without Republican support.

For Democrats this should be viewed as a welcome political tool to start moving to the left. He will not be in the race after the primaries, but his condemnation of US Foreign policies and the Drug War with apparently Republican support, gives our side the opportunity to speak out also without fear of being called 'soft on security' by simply pointing to a Republican who agrees with them. I do it all the time when I argue with Republicans. And sometimes now, a few of them will concede that all these wars are harming this country. I think that's a good thing.

[LeftishBrit]

70. Yes, he is all these latter things - and also he is a right-libertarian!

Right-libertarianism *is* pure evil on its own, even without all the bigotry added. It basically means the denial of human rights to poor or sick people, or anyone who can't compete in an unregulated jungle.

[MNBrewer]

18. Just like you're wrong if the first word out of your mouth after saying Barack Obama

isn't warmonger, Wall Street bailout toady, surveillance state enforcer, due-process-free assassin, racist drug warrior?

[TransitJohn]

60. Well-reasoned, cogent, thoughtful response.

Thank you.

[dawg]

6. Under Libertariansim your freedoms get taken away ...

it's just that it gets done by corporations instead of the government. And that is worse, because at least I get to vote for who runs the government. With corporations, often there is no alternative.

[cpwm17]

20. That's so true

Now it's a choice on whether you'd like the US to destroy the world with our current government, or destroy itself with libertarianism. But while destroying the world, we destroy ourselves; and while destroying ourselves we destroy the world's economy. We need another candidate badly.

[Uncle Joe]

28. It's being done now by corporations, they're just using the government as the middle man. I

believe the primary problem is the corporate media's continous portrayal of right wing, authoritarian quadrant occupants as being the "centrists" this propaganda has distorted the American People's perception.

Any one that leans toward the true center is "liberal" and anyone leaning toward the libertarian, personal privacy point of view is an "extremist."

Look at Romney on this graph, the corporate media is trying to portray him as the most liberal Republican and he's an authoritarian loving, corporate supremacist!

[ddeclue]

33. I think Romney and Obama's dots should be overlapping and that Obama is a lot

closer to Romney and Giuliani than Hillary or JRE.

[justabob]

67. that chart is depressing

...All those leading Dem names in the top right corner, snuggling close to their "rivals". Also interesting is the virtual emptiness of the other quadrants.

I'd like to see the charts for the Senate and House members laid out like this.

[sabrina 1]

35. Corporations are running this government right now. I don't know that it is Libertarianism, but

whatever it is, it has devastated this country and taken it way off the track to becoming a real democracy.

When tens of thousands of Americans are allowed to die each year because our Health Care system is run by Corporations for Profit, what should we call that? That is half a million people since 9/11. Our wars are run for Corporate profits, wars of choice, fought for Corporate profits.

The Drug war is for Corporate profit where millions of mostly minorities have have had their lives and freedoms destroyed and our prisons have been turned into private, for-profit institutions.

Is there any part of our current system that is NOT run by Corporations? The Military, our Economic System, our Prison System, our Health Care System, our Education System and worst of all, our Election Process? How much more corporate run can a country be that calls Corporations 'People'?

What's left that is actually run by a government of and for the people?

You would think a Libertarian like Paul would be happy about how our country is run by private corporations. So why isn't he?

[dawg]

51. The government still does lots of things that he doesn't think it should do.

Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Food Stamps.
Environmental Regulations.
Banking Regulations.
Anti-trust Regulations.
The Mininimum Wage.
Worker Safety Regulations.
Overtime Rules.
TANF.
Unemployment Benefits.

All of these, and more, would be on the chopping block if Libertarians had their way.

[sabrina 1]

55. He is never going to be president, so I don't understand your point at all.

But the issues he is talking about, the War on Drugs eg, is depriving millions of Americans of their rights, women and children especially minorities, are the most affected. And the Imperial Wars he is talking about? What cost to people everywhere, including here, they have been.

So after Paul is out of the race, who will be addressing these issues? I cannot see anyone else doing so. Are we to ignore the Corporate Corruption and its influence on our government just because the only person talking about it is a Libertarian? Are we that miopic that we cannot see the absence of anyone else talking about these most important Progressive issues? Sorry, I can't go there. These were the issues that we SAID were the most important reasons for 'electing Democrats'. Has this changed for you? Because for me, it has not and will not.

[dawg]

56. Our best hope is to start looking for someone who will better represent us in 2016.

Libertarians aren't the answer. Even when they take a "correct" position, they do so for a crazy reason. I don't think it helps us to give any credit at all to Ron Paul, because the balance of what he wants to do is anathema to liberals.

If the Republicans think they can beat us by running Ron Paul as a third-party spoiler, they will do it. I still think he would take more of their votes than ours, but if we keep building him up as some kind of progressive, then it could go either way.

And Ron Paul is not a progressive. He agrees with progressives on some issues (mostly social), but in many ways he is far to the right of Mitt Romney.

[Saving Hawaii]

62. I think we should stop saying libertarians take "correct" positions for "crazy reasons".

They don't take "correct" positions in the first place.

It's an absolute pain in the arse to explain what's going on though to people who aren't particularly familiar with libertarianism. You have to make a libertarian argument to show what they're thinking. Then you have to explain why that argument is wrong.

We had a whole host of people on here the other day who couldn't understand why Rand Paul said the Civil Rights Act was an overreach because he "can't have a cigar bar anymore". http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002144546 24 replies and nobody seemed to understand what he was saying. One DUer said "Man, is he off the wall... He's absolutely bouncing from one thing to another and one doesn't have anything to do with the other."

Rand Paul made perfect sense to me but then again I spend a lot of time dealing with libertarians. It didn't take me five seconds to follow the connection he was making there. I'm not asking you people to understand libertarianism, that's a huge waste of time, but if you don't grasp the differences between negative rights and positive rights, and libertarian property rights, please don't defend libertarians if you're a progressive.

They use similar language to what progressives do but they don't mean the same things.

[dawg]

65. What I mean is that even when they do agree with us on an issue, it's for ...

a batshit crazy reason. If they favor marijuana legalization, for example, it isn't because they believe the substance is relatively harmless and that society is hurt more by crminialization than it would be by just allowing people to make their own decisions. It's because they don't think the U.S. government has the *right* to criminalize it. By their logic, crack and meth and should be legal too.

I'm not defending Libertarians. I actually prefer the Republicans over them. The Republicans lie, they are greedy, and they work against the interests of the 99%. But they do, at least, understand something about how the real world works. Libertarians live in just as much of a fantasy world as thier polar opposites, the Communists.

[sabrina 1]

9. Another progressive writer under the bus!

You're not supposed to 'think' or 'analyze'.

Just stop that, Swanson, Greenwald, Sirota, Somerby, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Cenk, Stoller and all the rest of you who DARE to stray from the 'he's bad, we're good' message. DARE you, all of you, you should be ashamed!

Rec'd for thoughtful analysis btw. Most people do get it. How to shut up Paul? Dems speaking out on the issues he's getting credit for. It really is that simple, all the rest is noise.

[ProSense]

10. Actually,

"You're not supposed to 'think' or 'analyze'."

...I believe Sirota didn't do enough thinking.

The real Paul, not the one of some liberals' myth, will help Sirota find the answer to his question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149315

Still, I could be wrong because he and others have done a good job of ignoring Paul's real positions.

Ron Paul will balance the budget "without cutting from...national defense"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632

[sabrina 1]

29. I'm sure Sirota knows more than anyone here about Paul. Paul is not the point. The point is

'issues'. Now that Republicans have begun to shift their support for forever war and for the Drug War, a fact demonstrated by Paul's managing this time, to stay in the Republican Primaries, Democrats have political cover to come out swinging on these issues. I'm looking forward to seeing them, as most of our best Progressive writers have done, take advantage of this weapon handed to them by Paul.

Way past time for the Dem Party to move to the left which is where they belong, and now a Republican has given them the tools they need to do so. I hope they use them.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Sirota makes a most astute observation re: the election of a President and not a government.

There are two reasons to support Paul's nomination, policy and poltics.

1. Policy wise, Paul most assuredly is correct on some civil liberties' issues, to deny this is to deny reality and he's the only major candidate addressing them.

2. Politics wise, President Obama has the good sense to know this, and a Paul nomination would make it easier for Obama to correct his course and be reelected assuming the first part of this sentence is correct.

It's long past due for the parties to move leftward toward the true center and vacate the Big Brother, authoritarian, corporate supremacist quadrant, a Paul nomination would allow Obama to do just that.

Thanks for the thread, merkins.

[Spazito]

15. What a load of codswallop...

Paul's vision of the U.S. under his leadership is the following:

corporations having NO regulations enforced upon them at ALL.

civil liberties not being constrained by civil rights.

"wars" will be illegal because private militias paid via the public purse will simply roam at will, usually at the behest of corporations, corporations with NO limitations enforced upon them.

the WOD will not exist, instead corporations without limitations will control the market with no limitations addressing safety and health or product.

The naivety of Paul supporters and the pundits like Sirota, if they truly believe what they are saying/writing, is stunning.

[Uncle Joe]

21. 1. That was the point in Sirota's column about electing a President vs a Government.

perhaps you missed that part? Congress has a role to play in this as well.

2. A Paul nomination would make it easier for Obama to move to the center and thus be reelected, ie; the so called "War on Drugs" in particular cannabis is counterproductive, dysfunctional, corruptive, insane and racist. Big Pharma; already has govenment by the short hairs, more people have died from prescription drug abuse than any illegal drug and they oppose legalizing cannabis because it would be too easy for the people to treat their own ailments versus going hungry to pay for big pharma's patented drugs.

The WOD turning what should be an educational, medical and personal privacy issue in to criminal one is not only racist in nature but a form of class warfare as well, a means to disenfranchise the people from their government, Paul is speaking to this and the Big Brother authoritarians have not.

Your post is the reason I bolded the word "some" in my post, Obama could take the best aspects of Paul's Libertarian views and leave the worst behind.

P.S. If you haven't seen this video I highly recommend you watch it, 49 minutes long but highly informative and enlightening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002148198

[Spazito]

27. I didn't miss it at all...

His point on that was a non sequitur, imo. It was, in essence, thrown in while the MAIN point of Sirota's opinion piece was trying to sell Paul's goals being the same as progressives' goals which could not be further from the truth.

Sirota and the other opinion pundits along with Paul supporters can only extoll the "what" if they ignore the "why" and it is the "why" that defines the "what" not the other way around.

There are NO libertarian views that can be considered as "best aspects" for anyone to take if they are progressives, imo.

LOL re the video, thanks but I have seen many videos, documentaries on why pot should be legalized and not just medicinally, I have no argument with that. It has little to do with Paul if anything at all.

[Uncle Joe]

30. Paul is the only one openly advocating for legalization so if you agree with that, De Facto,

you agree with Paul more than you agree with Obama, at least on this issue, that's a "best aspect!"

"LOL re the video, thanks but I have seen many videos, documentaries on why pot should be legalized and not just medicinally, I have no argument with that. It has little to do with Paul if anything at all."

War and empire are other "best aspects" as well, whether you agree with Paul's solutions or not, he's the only candidate speaking against it, that's particulary stunning for a Republican.

Sirota and other progressives agree with Paul on the "what" of some issues because it has been WTF for too long, they have asked "why" for years if not decades.

[Spazito]

31. LOL, No, I don't have to agree with Paul...

again, because of WHY he wants to legalize it. Here's a simple example of what I am trying to say:

A "what" statement: I support the legalization of marijuana

A "why" statement: I support the legalization of marijuana because I believe drug companies should have exclusive rights to any and all drugs, they should be able to have those rights without interference by regulatory bodies dictating health, safety, pricing limitations.

Do you see Sirota, the other opinion pundits debating the "why" or do you see them supporting the "what"?

[great white snark]

34. Great point re: what/why.

Alas, it's a point that Paul supporters refuse to acknowledge.

Thanks for your post Spazito.

[Spazito]

36. Thanks for the support, great white snark...

I appreciate it!

[sabrina 1]

37. Of course he sees, we all see. What you are missing is that it doesn't matter. What matters is that

a Republican consituency for the first time in recent memory is keeping in the Primaries, someone who is opposing Corporate Corruption, opposing Imperial Wars, opposing the War on Drugs and regardless of the relatively unimportant reasons why (note the word 'relatively' please) this demonstrates a shift in the thinking of the Republican base.

What it says is that that half of the country who marched in lockstep with Bush policies, is now beginning to show cracks. This is a golden opportunity for Democrats to take the lead and come out strongly for the principles which presumably THEY support for all the RIGHT reasons.

We have been told that the reason for the silence from Democrats on the national stage on these super important issues, is fear of being attacked from the right. I never got that, who cares what the 'wrong' Right thinks about anything. But now, they have political cover.

And it seems that Progressive writers all over the country get that. And that is what is important about Paul's candidacy. The Dems can now finally speak out loud about these issues and start dragging their party back to its core principles.

See, if you stay focused on the issues, you don't throw away opportunities like this. And it appears that most Progressives realize this which is why most Progressive writers are saying so. Now let the Democratic Politicians follow their lead. It's way past time isn't it?

[Spazito]

38. It DOES matter...

and because it does, it causes great discomfort for those who do not want to examine the "why" of it. There is NO opportunity to be gained in extolling Paul's statements because the reasons behind them are loathsome and those you seem to want to 'influence' as to his statements know full well the reasons why Paul believes as he does and those reasons are, again, loathsome and will, therefore, influence no one.

The writers are, imo, libertarian in their thinking as opposed to progressive in their thinking. The two are NOT the same, they are, for all intent and purpose, antithetical to each other.

When someone like Paul is touted as an example to follow, those doing the touting lose all credibility, imo, and decrease the likelihood of the issues being talked about in a serious and credible manner.

[sabrina 1]

40. The 'why of it'. Okay, Paul is saying all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

Let's accept that.

Now, here's the question everyone wants answered.

Where are the Democrats on the National Stage saying all the right things he's saying for all the RIGHT reasons?

Presumably if Democrats WERE saying them, they would be saying them for all the RIGHT reasons.

Can you show us those Democrats on the National Stage and we can then put Paul to rest?

[Spazito]

46. It would be more accurate to say the Democrats on the National Stage are...

not giving the answers "everyone" (it's NOT everyone, btw) wants to hear as opposed to they are not giving answers, period.

Is at all possible that the issues the libertarian pundits and Paul supporters raise are far from the issues concerning the public at large? I think it is more than possible and continuing to use Paul in any sense to try and raise the level of concern is wrong-headed, it does the opposite of what is intended.

As to Paul "saying all the right things", I would disagree, he does not. He does, however, use bland statements meaning nothing to try and influence people into thinking he is actually saying something of substance.

[sabrina 1]

58. A majority of Americans on all national polls are opposed to Corporate bailouts.

A majority of Americans want Corporate Criminals held accountable for their crimes.

A majority of Americans do not support these forever wars, the only way Bush got support for the first two was to lie about them.

And since when were all these issues NOT important to Democrats? Do you support our forever wars, Corporate control of our government, the Drug War and the loss of civil liberties using it and the WOT as pretexts? Aren't we supposed to do what is right, NOT what is popular, and if we are right to be able to argue effectively for what we believe in?

No one told me Democrats have abandoned these issues.

[sabrina 1]

45. So, forget Paul. Where is the Democrat who supports your opposition to the Drug War?

[Spazito]

47. Congressman Steve Cohen, for one...

Here is a video of his speech on the floor of the House:

[sabrina 1]

57. Excellent, I never heard him talking about the Drug War before.

Imagine if that wasted trillion dollars had been spent on treatment of drug addiction as a health issue.

He has a lot of good ideas. We need more like him in Congress. I wonder what happened to the legislation he introduced, how many sponsors he got?

And I'm glad he focused on the racial aspect of those laws. In NYC the NYPD have been using the drug laws to make record numbers of arrests and to conduct hundreds of thousands of harassing stop-and-frisk detentions some leading to arrests for no good reason, almost all of them African Americans and/or other minorities.

Good for him, I hope he gets more support after we elect more Progressive Democrats to Congress.

[Uncle Joe]

76. That's because the corporate media has little or no interest in broadcasting serious opposition

to the so called "War on Drugs."

The corporate media and their clients make too much profit from it in both monetary and poltical power compensation.

The "War on Drugs" is a racist and class based endeavor used to disenfranchise the people from their government, that's why all the "centrists" fall into the right wing authoritarian political quadrant.



With the American People being brainwashed by the corporate media as to the nation's true center, anyone opposing that narrow corporate supremacist frame of thought in the right top corner are labeled as extremists and rarely shown on television.

[Spazito]

81. It's the media's fault?

Is that a good excuse for those who say there are no Democrats speaking on the issue?

I don't think so at all. It is a pathetic excuse, actually.

Wouldn't you think it better to tout Democrats like the Congressman in the video clip and do more to raise awareness of the issue using him as a good example rather than using Paul? I hope now that Congressman Cohen's perspective on the WOD is known by some here, they would choose to use his view as one to support and exemplify.

[Uncle Joe]

84. Absolutely kudos to Congressman Cohen, but my point regarding the corporate media is legitimate.

All one needs do is watch the Sunday Morning talk programs to see the usual cast of characters continously touting the status quo within the narrow approved frame of the corporate media, or the debates, pundit discussion and primtime news broadcasts.

With the corporate media a tree falling in the forest is either ignored or described as something else entirely to the people.

I don't know if you recall but at one the time they brainwashed 70%+ of the people into beleiving Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, never mind the facts, they had a frame or mindset to produce in order to sell a war based on lies, the same institution enabled Bush the Least to power.

Surely you don't believe the corporate media spent hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars over the past half century on psychology and marketing for nothing?

They gained great power in shaping public opinon, the corporate media know which Pavlov's Bell to ring in order to get the desired result, whether it be selling the people a product, candidate or just down the river.

[Spazito]

86. The media is appalling, you will get NO argument from me in that regard...

that is not new. It also doesn't absolve anyone for not doing their own research, looking for the facts, etc. and using alternative methods to get the facts out as best one can do.

The media did not show, at least that I am aware of, Congressman Cohen's speech on the WOD but that is no excuse for accepting that no Democrat has spoken on the issue, no excuse at all, imo, and that was the point I was making.

[Saving Hawaii]

63. Nicely put.

Too many people listen for only the "what"s and not the "why"s. Problem is, the "why" is a big deal. Libertarians don't care about ending the abuses that progressives are concerned about. They just want to shift who is capable of committing them.

[Uncle Joe]

73. My point is you don't have to agree with the why, not if Obama gets out in front of the what; which

you admitted to agreeing with.

But if Obama and/or the Party of the People refuse to get out in front of the "what," then people like Paul will become more empowered to dictate the "why" as the people will increasingly turn to them on the "what."

If the President and Party of the People get out in front of the "what," they have more power to dictate the "why."

What's so difficult to understand about that?

[Spazito]

75. And my point is YES you do have to agree to the "why" if you are supporting the "what"...

otherwise what are you really supporting, an empty statement which, in and of itself, stands for nothing, imo.

"If the President and Party of the People get out in front of the "what," they have more power to dictate the "why.""

It is not that the President and the Democrats have not, at various times, commented on the "what" and the "why", it is that some don't like the "why" answer so they keep saying "the President and the Party of the People (need to) get out in front of the "what".

In simple terms, the answers (why) have been given at various times but some don't like the answers (why) so they ignore them and, instead, tout someone like Paul who only gives the "what" as someone to look up to.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Uncle Joe]

77. No you don't because by getting out in front of the what, you have more power to dictate the why.

The Republicans of the 1930s had no moral authority to shape the New Deal because they sat on their ass while the nation's economy went down the tubes.

You're a contradiction to your own post. You have already stated your support for the what but for a different why than Paul's.

If President Obama and the Democratic Party come out in favor of legalizing cannabis for adults, they have power to present the progressive, liberal, people empowering message as to why this should be done and shape the terms.

There are many good, legimate, logical, just and long overdue reasons as to the "why" if that argument can't made by the Democrats, they cede the ground to Paul and his ilk to do so.

[Spazito]

79. It seems I need to try and be more succinct...

It is not that there haven't been answers given by the Democrats and the President on the majority of the issues being mentioned by those touting Paul in these areas, it is that the answers given are NOT what some want to hear.

There was no contradiction in my post whatsoever. What was interesting, however, was no one asked me "why" I supported the legalization of marijuana after I made that post. In a way, the not asking me the "why" is exactly the same problem I see re not asking the "why" of Paul. I actually thought someone would ask but, nope, it seems it was enough for me to just say I support it, no one cared why. Not a good way to determine who one's allies are on any issues, imo.

There is no ceding to Paul much as some would like it to appear to be that way for reasons best determined by them I suppose.

[Uncle Joe]

80. If you supported freedom for the slaves, I doubt many people asked the why as well?

No doubt the motivations ran the gamut of human virtue and vice, from it was just the right moral thing to do, to let's stick it to the South and all points in between.

However since you brought it up I will bite, why do you support the legalization of cannabis?

[Spazito]

82. LOL, better late than never re asking me the question...

Congressman Cohen's view on the WOD mirrors my views on why cannabis should be legalized so I won't repeat all that he has said.

I will add that the odious standard being set with alcohol and tobacco being legal substances which are, in my view, more harmful than cannabis, while continuing to keep cannabis illegal, is appalling.

I think cannabis should be legal, regulated if being sold to ensure health and safety standards are met and, like homebrews, if one wants to grow their own for their own use, fine.

Edited to add: I smoke and I drink the occasional wine, I do not choose to use cannabis. Just wanted to make my perspective clear from where I sit as to my own usage.

[Uncle Joe]

85. Great, in that case you support the what; legalization of cannabis, now the issue becomes how do we

shape the why?

My belief in obtaining that goal is to bring constructive criticism to those poltical leaders that might be most sympathetic to our "why" should we persuade them to adopt the "what."

I'm in total agreement with your "why" and to be honest I thought I would be.

[Spazito]

87. LOL, it seems we agree on much, disagree in...

one context and it goes back to our fundamental disagreement as to the importance of the "why" as to whether one should consider someone an ally or not. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

As to you being in total agreement with my perspective in the "why" column, I also thought our perspective would turn out to be very close.

I very much enjoyed the vigorous debate we have had and I also appreciated the respectful manner in which you responded to my posts.

[Uncle Joe]

88. Peace to you, Spazito.

Just for the record, I don't consider Paul an ally so much as an opportunity to help persuade Obama and other Democrats to come around to the "what."

[Spazito]

89. Peace to you as well, Uncle Joe...

we live to 'fight' another day!

[cpwm17]

24. Libertarianism is a fantasy (and a nightmare)

It'll never happen, though some of that crap is already happening. The economy will self-destruct before it gets that far.

Libertarians are exactly correct on what's wrong with our current drug and war policy. It goes much deeper than a stuck clock being right twice in one day. They (in general) do actually understand how wrong and immoral our policies are. And this resonates with many people. There are reasons that libertarians exist. Not all of them are bad. It's good that someone of prominence is expressing these ideas, even if he is flawed. It's too important.

[sabrina 1]

16. Thoughtful post, Uncle Joe, thank you!

Elections are all about tactics. Paul is giving Democrats, whether he means to or not, a golden opportunity AND cover they did not believe they would ever get from Republicans, to speak out on real change regarding the Bush era policies they have been too scared to speak out about. Fear of being called 'weak on security' by Republicans, not that should have stopped them, but it has.

Paul's candidacy this time demonstrates one very important fact. Republicans are shifting their priorities from 'all war all the time and loss of civil rights to remain safe' to finally beginning to see that those policies may have been wrong after all.

Now, the Dem Candidate can actually point to a Republican candidate and COMMEND him for his stand for upholding the principled DEMOCRATS uphold as a matter of course, and this eliminates the fear of being called 'soft on security'.

Paul is coming in second and third in a REPUBLICAN primary. For Democrats who really believe in the principles they claim to believe in, this could not be better news, imo. I cannot understand those who do not see it. But thankfully a majority appear to get it.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Thanks for the thanks, sabrina.

Peace to you,

[woo me with science]

48. Great points in the OP and here.

The knee-jerk defensiveness we are seeing from many here about Ron Paul's stances on the surveillance state and the wars is a real shame and a tremendous lost opportunity for Democrats.

You are exactly right that he could be used as a great tool to help get our party back on track. He is opening a door to discussion of our American empire and the sheer malignancy of our anti-terrorism policies. Rather than use this conversation as a way to reaffirm our party's traditional core ideals and demonstrate their superiority to conservatism AND libertarianism, many seem hell-bent on digging in their heels and defending the status quo out of a sheer terror of acknowledging that Paul may have a point on ANY issue.

It is a damned shame, because all it does is drive home to people that they can expect more of the same from Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

53. Well, I keep seeing attacks on writers and on Paul and some of them may even have points to make

but what I am not seeing, is anyone actually addressing these very important issues on the Democratic side. And I cannot tell if those focusing on Paul, who really doesn't matter since he has no chance of winning so I fail to understand the enormous amount of energy going into dealing with him, I can't tell if those doing so are saying that these issues are no longer important to Democrats, because no matter how many times I ask, they answers are always distractions from that question.

To me, these are super important issues. They are the reason I am a Democrat and not a Republican because Republicans totally disagree with Paul, regardless of his motives. But there has been a virtual silence from our elected officials and since the fate of this COUNTRY is more important to me than the career of any politician, I am deeply concerned about that silence.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. Why aren't you avoiding topics re endless wars, surveillance, police power, bank bailouts,

the bloated defense budget, corporate welfare, and reduction of civil liberties?

Didn't you get the message?

Not to worry. It will be repeated many times.

Too bad someone doesn't just compile a comprehensive list of the topics that must be avoided to make them happy.

[woo me with science]

42. Thank you. But actually, you don't even need a list of topics.

It's even simpler than that. We must speak only of candidates, not issues, and each candidate will be associated with a category, either of absolute good or absolute evil.

Adult discussions of actual issues, or discussions of candidates that stray beyond these easily remembered parameters, will not be tolerated.

[ddeclue]

32. Neither is actually a progressive...

Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Bernie Sanders are progressives.

[Son of Gob]

39. "Welcome to LibertarianUnderground"

"Enjoy your Propaganda!"

[sabrina 1]

44. Can you elaborate on that? Is it not Liberal to oppose Corporate corruption?

Is it not Liberal to oppose Imperial Wars for Profit?

Is it not Liberal to oppose the Racist Drug war?

Can you point to the Democrat who is standing for all these issues on the national stage?

Isn't it sad that, regardless of the reasons, it is a Libertarian/Republican who is doing so?

I think that is what all of our Progressive writers are saying. And when so many of them are saying the same thing, maybe it's because they are right. Swanson, Vanen Heuvel, Sirota, Cenk, Greenwald, the list is growing. So, why do you think so many people on the left are all saying the same thing?

What should be the position of the Dem Party on all of these issues? What I am getting is that there are some Democrats who do not want to address the issues while a majority actually do.

[Son of Gob]

50. What's sad is that you don't care about the reasons a Libertarian/Republican is doing so

[sabrina 1]

52. What's really sad is that you still have not shown me a Democrat on the national stage who

is speaking out about these issues for all the right reasons.

Unless of course you do not think they are important. I cannot tell from your response.

[mdmc]

41. that is my dream 2012 mashup

Match up.

[joshcryer]

43. Ron Paul is already moving his anti-war message to the center. It's a joke.

Just tonight he said he'd leave Afghanistan "calmly and deliberately."

Wait until South Carolina when he's almost a fucking center right candidate on "issues" that "progressives share."

Fucking joke.

[JerseygirlCT]

49. If a woman's right to choose isn't a civil liberty

I don't know what is.

The distinction he makes is nonsensical.

[sabrina 1]

54. He is not going to be president, so as a woman, he poses no threat to me. But the war machine

and the drug war pose huge threats to women all over the world. Do you not agree with that?

Many minority women are in jail in this country because of the War on Drugs, and if they are not, the fathers of their children are deprived of those fathers because of our racist War on Drugs. Who, other than Paul on the national stage is addressing these issues which affect women more than anyone, especially minority women? Your right to choose? As a woman I don't have much right to choose anything, including raising the children I already have, if I have to spend 20 years in prison for 'possession' of marijuana, do I? And what about my little girls growing up without me? How are their choices affected by my incarceration in the cause of the Great War on Drugs?

[JerseygirlCT]

91. Well, I think we're seeing

two people with strong feelings about a particular issue.

Although I don't think marijuana ought to be illegal, it doesn't impact me personally in any way. And to be honest, unless you've got a health problem, you can choose to use or not without suffering any serious effects. (Unlike a woman being forced to carry an unwanted child).

To me, the issue of choice with abortion is much clearer - you don't get much closer to the bone than the right to control your own body.

I think it's nuts that pot is an offense that could send someone to jail. As you say, it makes no sense in many ways - socially, financially...

But. I cannot take the man seriously because of his flippant position on choice. He is a fraud, whether he is in agreement with you on one issue or not. You can't cry "Freedom!" while simultaneously arguing to deprive half the population of a very basic human right. (You can mirror that argument WRT his position on gay rights and marriage equality too.)

[Saving Hawaii]

59. "and ties to racist newsletters"

Seriously. "Ties"? It was the Ron Paul Political Report. And regardless of whether or not he read any of the crap that was being printed under his name, he certainly thought fondly enough of his supporters to pay for those things to be said in his name.

[Saving Hawaii]

64. Ron Paul is not a progressive.

Spazito posted this earlier and I wanted to continue with his idea.

>>A "what" statement: I support the legalization of marijuana
>>
>>A "why" statement: I support the legalization of marijuana because I believe drug companies
>>should have exclusive rights to any and all drugs, they should be able to have those rights
>>without interference by regulatory bodies dictating health, safety, pricing limitations.

One addition to your last "why": I support companies that choose that they do not want drug-addicted workforces and decide to fire any employees that might appear to be stoners. Why bother with drug tests? Just can them for long hair.

A "what" statement: I support an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A "why" statement: I support the end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because I believe that the federal government should not actively intervene in favor of American economic interests overseas. However I feel that if American companies operating abroad are being held at the point of a gun by totalitarian governments that they have a right to defend themselves against such abuses, up to and including armed self-defense.

A "what" statement: I support an end to the federal government spying on citizens.

A "why" statement: I support the end to the federal government spying on citizens because it's not reasonable to use those very citizen's tax dollars in order to spy on them. However I feel that it is perfectly okay for private corporations to do exactly the same sort of surveillance for their own ends and they should be allowed to do numerous acts of espionage that are currently illegal under US law.

...

We can go on and on and on. Do you people grasp already that Ron Paul is not a progressive, he's a libertarian. Progressives identify abuses of power that hurt people's lives and want to stop those abuses. Libertarians couldn't care less. Their only real concern is who gets to abuse that power. Is it the federal government (libertarians say no) or private interests (libertarians applaud)?

Like I've said several times before. Libertarians use very similar language to progressives on a lot of issues, but they are very rarely saying what progressives are saying. They use these words very differently than you and I.

I don't particularly care if you don't want to waste your time understanding libertarianism. I encourage you not to. It's a gigantic waste of time. But for chrissake please don't defend libertarians if you don't grasp what they're saying. If you do grasp it and still manage not to puke, have a nice day thank you very much.

[LeftishBrit]

66. Great post!

[LeftishBrit]

68. Firstly...

economic issues and public services are absolutely integral to progressivism. You *can* be left-wing on these issues and still be hard-right overall - there are examples from the distorted communism of the likes of Stalin, to some racist but populist groups. But you cannot be hard-right on these issues and be a progressive on most of the others.

In particular, if you oppose a social safety net, then you are fundamentally only in favour of civil liberties for those who can afford them. Living in fear of speaking your mind or acting contrary to custom because the boss may fire you without your having any recourse, and then you will end up starving and freezing in the streets, is no better than, or fundamentally different from, living in fear of speaking your mind or acting contrary to custom because the police might take you to prison.

The point is also that Ron Paul opposes some of the things mentioned for anything but progressive reasons. He doesn't oppose Wall Street bailouts because he thinks that government should be spending money on public services and not on the already-rich bankers; he opposes ANY sort of government bailout of ANYTHING. He would allow the rich to rob the poor even more than they do now; the fact that he would also allow them to rob each other more freely than they do now, and allow those who fail to go to the wall, does not mean that he wants the government to concentrate on helping ordinary citizens. He doesn't want the government to help anyone!

Also, his foreign policy is not more *progressive* than that of other politicians. It is more *isolationist*. This indeed means opposition to the recent wars, and a good thing too! But he also would reject any foreign aid to poor countries - resulting in even more people dying as a result of poverty than do now. He would have been prepared to have allowed the Nazis to take over Europe in WW2, rather than engage in an alliance with the Soviet Union (this is clear from things he's said in a speech available on his own website).

None of this is about partisanship in my case. I'm British. It's not up to me whether anyone does or doesn't vote for President Obama; though obviously I hope he gets re-elected. Nor am I in principle against *ever* voting for third or smaller parties - I've done it several times myself in my country. But the point is that anyone who is fundamentally opposed to social safety nets and public services is by definition a MONSTER OF PURE EVIL, and that even considering such a person as a valid option, or as even comparable to President Obama, is contributing to an attitude that is a real danger to the world. Of course people have the right to vote for whoever they want; but you do NOT have the right to be considered as progressive if you are prepared to let poor and sick people die in the name of the holy free market. Yes, that SHOULD be a progressive litmus test!

[Demonaut]

71. Sirota sucks....from a DU'er in CO

sorry, stopped listening to him a while back, he's a douchebag
rude to callers, whether they're conservative or lib
constant bitching with no real world solutions

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Neither of them are progressives.

[ozone_man]

78. Paul has more positions favored by progressives

"At the same time, though, when it comes to war, surveillance, police power, bank bailouts, cutting the defense budget, eliminating corporate welfare and civil liberties, Paul is more in line with progressive goals than any candidate running in 2012 (or almost any Democrat who has held a federal office in the last 30 years)."

Also, the legalization of pot, and reigning in the FED.

If you like these positions, they are represented by a progressive Democrat, namely Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, Obama does not have many issues that represent progressives.

[LanternWaste]

83. the path to a thing is as important as the thing itself.

To me, the reason and intent behind an opinion holds just as much import as the opinion itself. I am compelled to ask myself, "why does Paul want the US out of international treaties, want out of international commitments, wants to absolve the US of securing any perceived foreign interests..."

I've concluded from my reading that in Paul's case, it's little more than xenophobia and isolationism; which, if history is any indication, results in more destabilization than not.

[bvar22]

90. DU rec for Sirota.

He has a good track record of consistently standing for ISSUES
instead of blind loyalty to Political Personalities or Party.

Sirota was LOVED here when he was holding Republicans accountable.
The only way we are going to get better government is to hold them ALL accountable.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]