Ron Paul - the new Nader

[The Count]

Can anyone explain to me why it isn't Gravel or DK that is 'the new cool thing" with the kiddies, but that insane shriveled nut (except for the war) Ron Paul?
last night in east Village there was a guy with a sign and this young overly pierced girl was swooning: "I looove him"
"Did you listen to him in the debate? YES! she jumped enthusiastically.
Did you hear him saying "Roe vs Wade ruined it for the whole country?" "Nobody is gonna overtun Roe vs Wade" she echoed Ralph's famous last words in 2000.
Does it bother you that aside the war the man is INSANE?????
"No" she said. I want the war to end. "Do you know there are sane candidates out there committed to ending the war? Her gaze went blank.

[Bluebear]

1. Please. I had the same reaction from people HERE. nt

[The Count]

4. Ron Paul? On DU? I missed that. reinforces my Nader comparison though.

[madrchsod]

34. yes, it`s sad but true

[Turbineguy]

2. If he runs as an Independent perhaps

I think that the Republican candidates have to pander to an ever shrinking Republican base in order to get the nomination. Whoever emerges from that will then have to repudiate the Bush-Neocon agenda in order to get elected.

I guess the term flip-flop is no longer au currant.

[The Count]

6. Perhaps what? he is still batshit crazy. I didn't mean "Nader" as spoiler.

I meant "Nader" as the light brained hipsters looking for the latest fad.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Speaking of light brained hipsters ...

You should brush up on the latest fads

THE SEVENTEEN TRADITIONS

By Ralph Nader

1. The Tradition of Listening
2. The Tradition of the Family Table
3. The Tradition of Health
4. The Tradition of History
5. The Tradition of Scarcity
6. The Tradition of Sibling Equality
7. The Tradition of Education and Argument
8. The Tradition of Discipline
9. The Tradition of Simple Enjoyments
10. The Tradition of Reciprocity
11. The Tradition of Independent thinking
12. The Tradition of Charity
13. The Tradition of Work
14. The Tradition of Business
15. The Tradition of Patriotism
16. The Tradition of Solitude
17. The Tradition of Civics

[The Count]

36. If this was meant seriously, it missed the mark. Sounds like one of those cults

out in Washington Square last night...Any time anyone tries to sum up life, the universe and everything and the result is not "49", it's a crackpot

[TahitiNut]

43. 42

Not 49. 42. ("Deep Thought")

[The Count]

50. yeah, I had the feeling as I was writing it I had the wrong multiplication table!

Always hated "6" for some reason! Glad you got my drift though...I stand corrected!

[tritsofme]

44. He wouldn't be able to run as an indy in many states

If he also ran in the GOP primary because many states have "no sore-loser" laws that forbid it.

[Czolgosz]

3. Maybe lame "Democrats" tearing down Democratic candidates have tarnished our candidates but not Paul

[Phredicles]

5. The problem is lame Democrats tearing down Democratic PRINCIPLES;

Not that I'd ever consider voting for a pseudo-libertarian like Paul, but years and years of Democratic sell-outs and roll-overs have to be taking their toll.

[The Count]

7. How is a guy against abortion rights, for creationism, against gays better than

say DK, Gravel- even Obama - or possibly Gore, Clark?

[tjwash]

12. Not to mention he wants to privatize social security, and get rid of all social programs.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I don't get it either

Sure he would end the war, but then we would have no health care, no education, no govt funded social programs of any kind. Why is that okay?

[The Count]

9. And he'd take us to "pre-Inherit the Wind creationism up to school boards"

situation. And build the fence to keep furriners out. And pretty much all the nuttiness of the others in everything else.
I consider ending the war the paramount issue myself - but why pick the craziest proponent of that?

[Make7]

10. Ron Paul has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination.

Perhaps we should just enjoy the fact that he brings up good points regarding the War and some foreign policy issues. I see no problem in giving him credit for saying things that I believe are correct, even if I fervently disagree with him on other matters.

Anyone who brings up the concept of 'blowback' and advocates for a less intrusive American foreign policy when "debating" a group of politicians that are desperate to ignore such matters deserves a degree of respect. I feel that we should appreciate the fact that he is bringing some of these issues into the discussion while he still has a visible platform to do so.

- Make7

[The Count]

14. I am not enjoying reading "Go Ron Paul" comments under Mike Gravel's videos

and then when advising people to go to their candidates video getting: "Come on! You know Ron Paul is the only guy!"
I don't think Gravel has more of a chance either, nor do I agree with all his stands ever - but the percentage of common sense/out there in the two is so astronomically different that I wonder...How can one listen to Gravel in the last debate and conclude: "Ron Paul's the man?" WHY?
I have heard the opinion that when the slightest glimmer of sense comse from a Republican it has more weight than all the wisdom & charisma from a democrat. And considering the GOP crimes of the past, it bothers me a lot.

[Make7]

22. I have noticed a tendency for people to be rather myopic.

If a public figure is advocating or voicing something for which some people agree, the praise is immediately forthcoming. If the very next day that figure brings up something the people disagree with, the disdain is expressed even more quickly.

I see this time and again right here on DU.

DU member #1: Did you hear what David Gregory asked at the press conference yesterday?

DU member #2: That was so awesome! He really stuck it to those Repugs.

The next day:

DU member #3: David Gregory was on Hardball defending the Bush Administration again last night.

DU member #2: That guy is such a tool. I can't even stand to watch him anymore.

Now that people are paying attention to Ron Paul, he will either say something to lose favor with people, or he will simply fade away after the losing the primaries. I fail to see why this is something to get worked up about. Some people appreciate some things he has said recently - the love affair is not likely to last very long.

- Make7

[blondeatlast]

24. He's prepping a third party run. Count on it. nt

[Make7]

39. I don't think I will count on that.

In fact, I'm more inclined to believe that he won't run as a third party candidate. Although if he did, I think that might turn out to be more of a positive thing than a negative one.

I guess we'll all find out in about a year and a half or so.

- Make7

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. kids are enormously stupid sometimes.

as were those who voted for nader, because al gore was just like george bush.

idealism and single minded focus is not particularly wise

:puke:

the war in iraq is important but so is the war on women/minorities/reality

[The Count]

15. And sanity. The woman was discounting sanity, for goodness sake.

If you are to go for a long shot on your most important issue why pick crazy???

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. ---

:rofl:

[Jacobin]

16. His reality based foreign policy views are a breath of fresh air

Some young folks in my office are disgusted with the republican candidates over IraqNam, but are republicans, so they enjoy listening to Paul and have ordered bumper stickers. They were actually playing youtube clips and laughing out loud at the 'they hate our freedoms, fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over there' bullshit the RW candidates were spouting

They are beyond hope on other domestic issues a president deals with, but they want a republican running who will get us out of endless foreign conflicts.

I think that's his appeal.

If he ran as an independent, I suspect he would draw off independent, repubican and democratic votes, for those disgusted with our foreign policy and who don't trust mainstream candidates to really get us out of IraqNam.

[The Count]

28. because they'd only hear their own? There's nothing he says DK or Clark didn't say

better, years ago. It's just that he's GOP that makes him "fresh"? Like Warner was briefly "fresh" until Bush shut him down? And Hagel? Why are they credited more for glimpses of sanity? Because they are from the elections stealing party?

[dkofos]

17. Not hardly.

He may be honest and against the war, but that is all he has going for him.

I disagree with everything else he has to say.

[FreeMeFromInsanity]

20. You don't agree with him on everything else?

Then we should get rid of the Constitution. And trust all those other honest politicians who've violated "it's only Goddamn piece of paper".

What happened to Matt Lepacek's thread? He was arrested for asking a question after last night's Republican debate in New Hampshire. I posted a reply on the political video thread and boom it vanished, I guess someone thought he was a "Attention Grabber"

Matt Lepackek and Cindy Sheehan are my favorite patriots!

[dkofos]

21. That is what I said.

What else did you read into it??

[The Count]

30. What constitution? he thinks separation of church and state only works at federal

level. States can force religion on your kids - he's fine with it. That's constitution?

[11 Bravo]

19. Nader is a narcissist. Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

Hell, he makes me long for the calm and reasoned discourse of Katherine Harris.

[The Count]

31. In all fairness, Nader has his lunatic moments too. remember the NBA?

He got incensed during a Lakers game and wanted to refirm the NBA!

[ariesgem]

46. Ron Paul is a batshit crazy bigot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1042847#1043185

[The Count]

53. Thanks so much for this! It all fits together

I wonder if the young woman cared about this one.

[windbreeze]

23. thinking the same thing, Count...thanx for saying it out loud....n/t

[blondeatlast]

25. He's building a cult of personality among those who are unwilling/unable to

inform themselves.

Since he's clearly NOT a left-leaner (unlike Nader, as much as I disliked him), I think praise for him on DU is very, very suspect.

[blondeatlast]

26. At least Nader was a progressive. Paul is a "pick and choose" Libertarian

who also adds fun stuff like anti-Semitisn, homophobia, misogyny, and public bigotry towards African Americans to the mix.

[TahitiNut]

27. He's a neo-libertarian - with draconian social policies and laissez-faire economic policies.

He's anti-choice and anti-regulation ... the worst possible combination. He combines it with an anti-spending isolationist attitude, which is what underlies his Iraq occupation posture.

Folks may like one or two of his stances but he's a total loon.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

29. No. He's a paleolibertarian

Neolibertarians are people like Neal Boortz: jingoistic pro-war conservatives who love their pot and porn too much.

Also, people like Paul because of authenticity, a big factor in politics. He looks like he means and believes in what he says. Some of our candidates turn on the Bullshit-machine every time the cameras turn to them.

Where's the discussion on economic policy? I've barely heard it from our side.

[The Count]

33. Paleo-libertarians are more like Bill Maher, South Park guys: no religion -

especially no creationism teachings left to school boards.
Economic talk is done in the Democratic party/debates ad nauseam (for me it gets too much). Our side is also the one that historically fixes the economy, reduces the debt, relieves the burden on the poor and middle class. So, on that issue I actually trust ANY of our candidates to do well.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

35. No that's not paleolibertarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarian

South Park Republicans are neolibertarians. Bill Maher...just seems like a DLCer to me but I don't know.

[The Count]

49. No, Maher is your typical libertarian. great on religion, first Amendment, off

on most everything else. And no DLC him of the "only Coulter, limbaugh defended me against ABC - liberals are hypocrites(when on DU they had a letter writing campaign for him). he was a nader man in 2000 - not exactly DLC stuff.
The short of it, Libertarians are grossly overrepresented in the political discourse. They don't really have a base - just muddy the waters. Neo, paleo - selfish pigs who think themselves better than everyone else.

[TahitiNut]

37. No... those are styled "neo-liberals" ... not at all the same.

A "paleo-libertarian" would subscribe to Hayek ... be against any state-sanctioned privilege/entitlements and would eschew global corporatism. Paleo-libertarians opposed the rampant conglomerates we see today - economic behemoths operating under government license and legal entitlements.

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others."
—— F. A. Hayek, 1956 Preface to "The Road to Serfdom"

I have already referred to the differences between conservatism and liberalism in the purely intellectual field, but I must return to them because the characteristic conservative attitude here not only is a serious weakness of conservatism but tends to harm any cause which allies itself with it. Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.

The difference shows itself most clearly in the different attitudes of the two traditions to the advance of knowledge. Though the liberal certainly does not regard all change as progress, he does regard the advance of knowledge as one of the chief aims of human effort and expects from it the gradual solution of such problems and difficulties as we can hope to solve. Without preferring the new merely because it is new, the liberal is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not.

<snip>

Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one's self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.

A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it might be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of "our" industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest. But in this respect the Continental liberalism which derives from the French Revolution is little better than conservatism. I need hardly say that nationalism of this sort is something very different from patriotism and that an aversion to nationalism is fully compatible with a deep attachment to national traditions. But the fact that I prefer and feel reverence for some of the traditions of my society need not be the cause of hostility to what is strange and different.

(from the essay Why I Am Not A Conservative; full text at http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/fah1.html )

[The Count]

32. That's the best summary - thanks! I'll use it in future debates.

The only somewhat redeeming thing about libertarians is that they were sorta for individual rights (at least some of them). This guy picks the worse from them and from the conservatives and has a lone moment on lucidity on war. I think Pat Buchanan is his closest political mirror.

[Swamp Rat]

41. That about sums it up.

Nevertheless, Ron Paul is going to divide the repuke party in two, as I've already talked a few repukes into supporting him. ;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I don't like him, but the comparison to Nader is unfair to Nader

Ron Paul's aversion to the Iraq War comes out of his belief in limited government. Economic libertarianism advocates a return to the type of system that prevails in Third World countries: low or no taxes on the rich, no social services, essentially no limits on what business can do except as the result of "market forces," all public services privatized, including utilities, schools, and transportation; no protection for workers in terms of wages or health and safety. The ONLY functions of government would be the military, the police, and the courts.

Nader advocates a Western European-style approach to national issues.

Aside from their opposition to the war, they're polar opposites.

[The Count]

52. They are both extremists with narrow acceptable ideas surrounded by some

unacceptable ones. They both appeal - strangely - to the young, rich or superficial - in spite their complete lack of appeal period. End of simile.

[IChing]

40. Ron Paul is a kernel of corn

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1061673&mesg_id=1061852

[Strelnikov_]

42. Rin Paul is like a blind pig

"Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes"

[LBJDemocrat]

45. They both have a high degree of credibility and are highly principled

Instead of wasting time criticizing them, we should fix our party to reduce the relative appeal of such candidates. No?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

47. Yes

But that would mean bringing the Democratic Party closer to the people. A dangerous move for the corporate wing.

[Philosoraptor]

48. No shit, all he is is a waste of millions of votes.

And I could NEVER, EVER forgive any 'paul Democrats', no matter how long I lived.

[blondeatlast]

51. Amen to that. If nothing else, there is that matter of the "RRR" nest to his name... nt