In re: Ron Paul, libertarianism and all that stuff. This is a good read:

[pinto]

Ron Paul vs. the New World Order
Friday, June 08, 2007

by David Neiwert

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

I have to admit that when Rep. Ron Paul announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, I didn't raise much of an eyebrow, even though I am a longtime Paul watcher. After all, he's run before; his 1988 Libertarian Party candidacy attracted little attention because he ran mostly from the fringe, and his views haven't changed substantially over the years.

What I didn't expect was that his anti-war advocacy would attract as many evident admirers from the left as it seems to have, particularly those who are dissatisfied with Democrats' apparent fumbling of the Iraq war issue. Certainly, the message boards at liberal outlets like Crooks and Liars who've carried factual counterinformation about Paul have been flooded with raging defenses of the man, as have some of our comments threads.

To what extent this is an illusion created by Paul's legion of True Believers is difficult to ascertain. Paul is very well organized online -- much of his support is derived from this -- and it's entirely likely the flood of "liberals" and "progressives" who are busy arguing that someone like Paul is worth forming an alliance with are, in fact, simply part of Paul's corps and they're doing their part to muddy the waters and ultimately attract new supporters in a "Third Way" kind of strategy.

And to some extent it seems evident that they're succeeding. Mostly, they seem to be taking advantage of a combination of amnesia among those experienced enough to know better, and simple ignorance on the part of progressives who've never heard of, or paid any attention to, Ron Paul previously. They hear Paul's carefully crafted antiwar rhetoric and his critique of the Bush administration -- all of which elide or obscure his underlying beliefs -- and think it sounds pretty good, especially for a Republican.

As Sara has already explained, there's a real problem with that -- namely, for all of Paul's seeming "progressive" positions, he carries with him a whole raft of positions well to the right of even mainstream conservatives.

A more important point, though, that's overlooked in all this is that Ron Paul has made a career out of transmitting extremist beliefs, particularly far-right conspiracy theories about a looming "New World Order," into the mainstream of public discourse by reframing and repackaging them for wider consumption, mostly by studiously avoiding the more noxious and often racist elements of those beliefs. Along the way, he has built a long record of appearing before and lending the credibility of his office to a whole array of truly noxious organizations, and has a loyal following built in no small part on members of those groups.

more at:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

[citizen49]

1. AOL Straw poll

Looks like
HC 45% on the Dem side and
RP 30% on the Repug side

I can't start my own thread yet so if someone wants too...

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/

[PeaceNikki]

2. Thank you! Ron Paul hates you!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

Ron Paul hates you. By building him up, by supporting him, by taking him seriously, you are not driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican Party--you are only giving him a helping hand along the road to his goal of destroying just about everything you stand for.

[lvx35]

3. Its such a massive distraction.

1) Ron Paul win not win the Republican nomination.
2) Ron Paul has backers that which are conservative and DON'T LIKE BUSH, but like Paul.
3) There is a chance of getting a good chunk of those backers on our side, if we emphasize our own respect for the consitution rather than ranting about him all the time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Yes you are so correct

I like #3. :)

[lvx35]

5. Thanks. #3 makes a little nervous, I would hate to see us shoot ourselves in the foot here. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. When it comes down to it, the candidate with the most votes wins

So I will take as many voters as we can get. The Democrats have a great chance of gaining the support of Ron Paul's supporters. Not one Republican candidate has a plan for ending the war. Not one Republican candidate has a plan for holding Bush accountable. The Democratic platform will appeal to Ron Paul supporters.

And you bet I will welcome them.

[lvx35]

7. Absolutely. The truth is that Bush has really alarmed a lot of people...

with his reckless disregard for the constitution, and its not just us. We need to be careful not to offer them a shadowy Hillary Clinton presidency, where the feel the "conspiracy" is continuing...Rather we should be clear (Hillary especially, because she is most effected by this) that we respect the constitution and rule of law, and intend to end the craziness. I think if we do this simple act, we can pull in quite a few of them.

[Palladin]

10. Completely correct.

we respect the constitution and rule of law, and intend to end the craziness. I think if we do this simple act, we can pull in quite a few of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along these lines, it was impressive to read in Obama's bio that he is an expert on Constitutional law among his other accomplishments. We are also impressed by John Edwards' naming of the pernicious influence of the neocons, and his recognition that the good name of the former United States is in the sewer. Dennis Kucinich of course has been a hero. All the Democrats -even Hillary - are coming over as saner and more reasonable than any of the others besides Paul in the Republican field - and Dr. Paul is not really a Republican, but a libertarian. He and his supporters do not have a place in the corrupt present Republican organization that Bush and the neocons have fashioned. So let the GOP croak in its own vomit.
May their defeat be crushing, absolute, and the end of the new fascism.
Strange how the tide turns. 40 years ago many of us were marching for Clean Gene McCarthy.

[lvx35]

13. I agree completely. If we had an election...

...That ran Obama against one of the more "establishment" Republican candidates, we'd have a shot at a huge amount of Paul supporters. With Hillary, its more difficult, but it can still be done, especially if they run a big Bush supporter. Its also true that Kucinich has a lot of respect amonst Paul supporters, which is why I am SOO angry that his voice has been blocked from the Iowa debates...That reinforces RW conspiracy theories about Dems a lot.

But your main point, about Libertarians, is really true and worth mentioning in itself. I know it because I myself used to BE an active member of the Libertarian party, years ago. They are NOT commited to the republicans or Democrats, they are right in the middle...I know these guys. Yet we too often we let the republicans have thier vote, and it doesn't have to be that way at all... :)

[Lithos]

8. Most of Ron Paul's supporters are not single-issue

And are not going to be woo'ed.

Most Dems are anti-War, if these people were truly progressive, why don't they already support either Edwards, Kucinich or any other Dem candidate who has already announced themselves as anti-War?

The answer is that most of these people either have their heads buried deep and vote contrarian, or actually in the same Libertarian mold as Ron Paul. No matter what, they are not going to vote Dem anyway.


L-

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. I disagree

I know a brazillion of them. They are (well they used to be) involved in the anti-war movement. And the ones I know are fairly progressive. I just can't imagine the majority of them supporting any Republican candidate. For one thing, none of the Republicans have a plan for ending the war.

I honestly believe we have a good chance of winning them over. I know many of them are crazy libertarians, but not all of them are. Some are Democrats. Some are Greens. I really think we should be trying to pull them in to support a Democrat.

[Lithos]

11. I heard the same thing with Nader

And recently in Texas with Ron Paul friend Kinky Friedman who recently ran for Governor. In fact, many of the same people who voted for Kinky here, are now on record as supporting Ron Paul. Many proclaim themselves as progressive, but when push comes to shove, they never vote that way.

Now, tell me why a Progressive would ignore real Progressives who are also anti-War, who are Democrats, who aren't racist and who actually believe in things such as separation of Church and State, Women's rights, and who actually support the Environment? I can guarantee you RP's positions on these points are far to the right of most of the current Republican candidates making him about as non-Progressive as you can be. Do these people realize RP's anti-War position is based upon the belief that the troops should be home guarding the borders from immigrants and other non-whites in a way which is analogous to the stance of the Texas Militia and FAIR, and not as part of a rational international policy?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I think they are naive

It's really that simple.

But that's all the more reason we could win them over if we really tried.

[lvx35]

14. And you are totally correct. I know because I used to be one of them.

I used to be an active member of the Libertarian party. I was young and idealistic, and thrilled about liberty and freedom. I completely understand the attraction to Ron Paul, back in the day he would have sent shivers down my spine.

Then I got more pragmatic, and realized that corporations with limitation BECOME the big government we so dreaded, and that the best option was to have a sane balance between government and corporate interests, i.e. the Democratic party. I know that Libertarians can go Democrat because that's what I myself have done, and it would have been impossible without Bush! Don't underestimate the damge that the chimperor has done to his own base... ;)