Ron Paul's useful idiots on the left

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left

If his newest converts are to be believed, his support for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, his impassioned pleas for a return of Americans' civil liberties from an overreaching government and his opposition to the drug war are reason enough to give the man a chance. After all, they say, President Obama has not delivered on his promises and supporters' expectations in those areas, either. But to the women, minorities and LGBT people (and their supporters) who have paid attention to Paul's record, it comes as little surprise that his most vociferous supporters on the left are pale and male … and their arguments stale.

This is the man who, to trumpet his pro-life agenda in Iowa to social conservatives, released an ad that questions whether repealing Roe v Wade would eliminate women's abortion rights in enough states, since it would create "abortion tourism" (a situation with which the Irish and the British are already familiar). He opposed the Obama administration's decision to declare birth control a preventative medicine, which pressures insurance companies to cover it without co-pays. He has said he would allow states to decide same-sex marriage rights for their citizens but keep the Defense of Marriage Act intact – which restricts federal rights, including immigration and social security survivor benefits (among others) to opposite-sex married couples. He also opposes the US supreme court decision in Lawrence v Texas that decriminalised consensual sodomy in the United States. He opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He wants to restrict birthright citizenship, denying the children of immigrants legal status in the United States if they are born here, voted to force doctors and hospitals to report undocumented immigrants who seek medical treatment, and sponsored bills to declare English the official language of the United States and restrict government communications to English. And that's just for starters.

Nonetheless, there have been calls by progressives, most notably Glenn Greenwald, to ignore all of that and more, and focus instead on Obama's policy failings to have "an actual debate on issues of America's imperialism". He went on to argue that there are no policy priorities more imperative than those – certainly not abortion, immigration rights, LGBT equality, racial justice or any other aspect of the US's extensive foreign policy. (Greenwald, who is gay, was in the relatively privileged position of being able to travel to Brazil to circumvent Doma.) And so people whose lives, safety, livelihoods and health depend on them should accept that they are trading their concerns for, say, the lives of Muslim children killed by bombs in Afghanistan.

In fact, many of Ron Paul's newest supporters on the left look strikingly like the majority of the ones on the right who have been following him for years: the kinds of people whose lives won't be directly affected by all those pesky social conservative policies Paul would seek to enact as president, either due to their race, class, gender or sexual orientation.

[Enrique]

1. this is maybe the worst of these I've seen

the lies in this one are outright. "newest converts", "calls to ignore all that". Utter falsehoods, this woman is a liar.

[LeftishBrit]

5. What is a lie?

That Paul has these nasty attitudes, or that some who claim to be progressives defend him?

I do agree that it's misleading to say that the problem is mainly 'new converts'. The flirtation of some progressives, with the idea that it's possible to form alliances with Paul and with right-libertarianism, has been going on for a while - I've been expressing my concerns about it since 2007 - and I think is probably declining since the revelations about his newsletters. But I can remember that on DU in 2007-2008 some people were suggesting Kucinich-Paul or Obama-Paul tickets, or even suggesting that they might vote for Ron Paul over certain Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

10. Progressives like Alan Grayson and Kucinich eg. They both 'formed alliances with Paul'

but not with 'right-Libertarianism'. This article is ignoring the fact that in politics people can agree where they find common ground, WITHOUT ignoring the areas of disagreement. And who are all these 'useful idiots on the left'?? Grayson, Kucinich, Vanden Heuvel?

This is why the attackers of people like Greenwald have zero credibility. The giant leaps they take from someone acknowledging a fact which cannot be denied among honest people, to 'you love Paul' are simply irrational.

It reminds of the rightwingers who accused 'useful idiots on the left' (interesting that, the rightwing terminology for people on the left) who opposed Bush's illegal war in Iraq, with 'loving Saddam'. Same kind of leap of logic and equally false.

[Change has come]

20. Someday, DU will have a "DU Rec this post" feature...

This post is wonderful. Thank You.

[DallasNE]

24. What A Load Of Crap

Your bridge to nowhere that invokes "loving Saddam" with some misguided Democrats as loving Paul is about as wrong as wrong could be. Paul is like a stopped clock that is right 2 seconds a day and wrong the rest of the time. What connection does that have with the demogogic "loving Saddam" by a bunch of discredited neo-cons.

[TiberiusB]

41. Where did you read that Ron Paul WASN'T like a broken watch...

The point isn't about the substance of the debate, it's about the tactic of trying to discredit critics by attributing positions to them that they never espoused. When critics of Obama's policies regarding civil liberties, war, economics, and so on point to Ron Paul as being one of the only, if not THE only, prominent opponents of these policies, they are labeled as Paul lovers and are trashed as being "naive" or "deluded."

Now consider those people who stood against the imperial policies of the Republicans under G.W. Bush. How often were they labeled in much the same way, tossing aside any nuance in an effort to simply discredit them out of hand as cranks and "Saddam lovers."

When you scrape away any attempt to cloud the debate by going off on tangents discussing the many glaring flaws Ron Paul has, you can see the core issue for what it is, blatant dishonesty.

So, yes, "opposition to the Iraq war" = "Saddam lover" is PRECISELY the same as "I agree with Ron Paul as often as I agree with a broken watch" = "Ron Paul for President!"

They are both employing the same tactic, manipulation of the terms of the debate to discredit an opponent while utterly ignoring their message.

[freedom fighter jh]

45. I think Sabrina is saying you can agree with someone in one or more areas . . .

. . . without supporting that person generally. Many on the left agree with Paul's anti-war stance. That's more than 2 seconds a day, because it's a big part of who he is, but it doesn't make those anti-war people Paul supporters.

Sabrina, correct me if I am wrong.

[sabrina 1]

50. Yes, that is what I was saying

Thank you freedom fighter,

[yurbud]

30. yep. bipartisanship is great when it serves corporate interests. Obama doesn't get tarred by

the GOP's vote suppression and other racist practices and statements when he agrees with them on other issues.

It's only when people reach across party lines to OPPOSE policies that serve only the rich at the expense and even the cost of lives of others that it's wrong.

[yurbud]

31. any chance same people making this stink about Paul praised bipartisanship at other times?

It's worth a couple of searches.

[AverageJoe90]

49. I'm sorry, Sabrina, but this guy is 100% correct.

People like Greenwald are definitely useful idiots for the fringe right, including Ron Paul.

[Zoeisright]

22. Bull shit.

Ron Paul is a racist, bigoted homophobe who got his and wants everyone else to suffer.

If you can't see that, you're in serious trouble. And want to put the country into serious trouble.

[Enrique]

27. also he's a liar

he's a racist, bigoted homophobe and also a huge liar.

And this woman who wrote this article is also a huge liar.

[saras]

39. Those are your hot-button issues. They aren't everyones, not even progressives.

ALL the Republicans, for all intents and purposes, are racist, bigoted homophobes who want people to suffer. Does this mean that we, including the Dems in Congress, and President Obama, should never deal with them? Hell, probably a third of the Dems in Congress fall into the same category. Are we really THAT exclusive over THAT set of issues? To assert in America that one won't deal with racists is as radical and extremist as someone asserting that they will not ever consume another product.

Personally I see no advantage to society in advancing minorities of any kind into institutions that are fundamentally unjust and wrongheaded. It just makes it more difficult to fight the institutions, since the minorities then start to claim they are being attacked rather than their employers, and I just don't have that much in common with ALL minorities like I do with ALL anti-corporatists. There are a lot more minorities who are bigots than there are anti-corporatists who are bigots, and their bigotry runs deeper.

The reasons for my theoretically forming an alliance with Ron Paul are EXACTLY the same as my reasons for forming an alliance with Barack Obama - that is, in both cases someone whose fundamental values and worldview are opposed to mine (they both support monkey dominance hierarchies over democracy, but belong to different tribes - Obama likes corporations and Paul likes good-old-boy networks) may be useful in short-term political maneuvering in order to avoid an even worse fate. They have a few differences of opinion on social issues unrelated to wealth.

[TiberiusB]

42. Stay on point

Who said he wasn't?

The debate isn't about Ron Paul, it's about someone trashing critics of Obama who have had the audacity to point out the irony that he is to the all to often to the right of even a prominent racist crank.

Instead of taking the bait, why not prove that Greenwald and others have actually been doing just that, supporting Ron Paul for President, and that their critics have been right all along?

[Old and In the Way]

2. Good thing the person who wrote this, didn't do it as an OP on DU - she would have been tombstoned.

[redqueen]

6. Why?

What did she say that was a bannable offense?

[Old and In the Way]

11. Well, she attacked Glen Greenwald and mentioned that he was gay.

Another DUer did pretty much the same thing, except wondered if Greenwald's sexual orientation and his situation with his partner not being able to get entry into the US was a root cause of his hatred for Obama. He got group jumped, then was TS'd. I think the OP, johnaires, was wrong in his argument, but it certainly wasn't an anti-gay post as a few of the Greenwald supporters/Obama wanted to frame it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[MH1]

19. It's nice to see I wasn't the only one who saw it that way.

What was done to johnaries was b.s., IMO.

[yurbud]

33. why don't you disagree with the merits of Greenwald's writings?

[TiberiusB]

44. In other words...

He completely fabricated an entire OP based on nothing more than his distaste for Greenwald. Unable to explain why anyone might so vehemently oppose Obama's positions on so many issues, at least with regards to civil liberties, the Constitution, Executive authority, and so on, johnaires came up with "maybe it's 'cause Greenwald's gay."

But he has no problem with gay folk, why he even has friends who are gay! And they completely support Obama, too! Try switching "black" for "gay" and see how that reads. I don't necessarily think the author is a bigot or hates gays, or anything like that. However, building a case against Greenwald's arguments based on his sexual orientation, and then covering your ass by claiming you not only know gay people but they totally have your back regarding Obama, is ridiculous.

And that's being kind.

Having said that, while the OP was essentially a waste of electronic space and provided not one iota of evidence to support even the smallest claims made therein, I don't see why it led to the individual being purportedly banned.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. DU Mad Libs- The word substitution game!

Here is a quote from that OP. Take the word 'gay' and replace it with any name for another minority you wish, such as 'Catholic' or 'Jewish' or 'Mexican. Now read it out loud!
" He is obviously “smearing” a President that the opposition has painted as being so Liberal/Progressive that they maintain he is a Socialist. Yet, Greenwald paints him as “Conservative” and actually claims that many Conservatives were more Liberal than Obama.
Why?
I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting...."

Was that fun? Now do the same with the entire OP! Read it out loud to your friends who are minorities, using the name of their minority! Why? Well, why not? It's not 'anti' anyone. You should enjoy sharing it with all your many minority friends, tailored specifically for them! They will surely laugh along at the funny joke! Don't you think?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[Old and In the Way]

48. As I said, I think he was flawed in thinking Greenwald's motivation for his anti-Obama screeds

are based on his sexual orientation. I think his motivation has more to do with keeping himself visible as a talking head. And being an Independent means you never have to defend your choice because your choice never gets elected. It's nice high ground to snipe from.
But the guy was supporting Obama, who apparently is also a homophobe, so guilt by association, I guess.

[TiberiusB]

51. Sigh...

So you think Greenwald writes "screeds", then? No substance to his positions? They are totally unsupported by the facts? Just the ranting of a glory hound trying to extend his life as a talking head?

Example?

What does this mean:

"And being an Independent means you never have to defend your choice because your choice never gets elected. It's nice high ground to snipe from. "

What choice is he supposed to be defending? His choice for President? Do you actually know who he backs? Would knowing that change the validity of his arguments?

Bluenorthwest was pointing out, I think, the obvious problem with framing a debate about the merits of Glenn Greenwald's positions by attributing them to being an oversensitive homosexual. You know it was dumb, you've said so yourself...twice. Don't try to reverse course and take aim at critics as merely attacking anyone who dares support Obama. As I said, I think the OP was clumsy and ill conceived, but not necessarily worthy of banning. Others may not be inclined to be so kind.

[Old and In the Way]

52. Do you actually know who he backs?

No, I don't and yes, it would add context and then we could compare shortcomings of our choices. I believe Glenn considers himself a "progressive independent" which means...nothing really. Much like a "conservative independent" actually.

Reality today is, we have a governing structure consisting of 2 viable Parties. I have no problems with people being unaligned, of course, but I really can't take their opinions too seriously. Why? Because being politically independent means never having to say you're sorry about your performance or your choices. Conversely, there are no performances to take credit for, either. The 'Independent' never has to justify his actions or performance execution. He/she remains on the sidelines, bitching and moaning about how awful both Parties are and how bad they are playing on the field. He/she can see the game and field of play quite clearly from their vantage point, elevated above the 50 yard line, and are disgusted at such crappy players and outcomes. But, oddly, they never themselves suit up and put their own skin in the game. They never get beat up or dirty trying to move the ball across the goal line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in recent American history....roughly, the last 100 years or so, name me one fundamentally important thing, good or bad, that the "independent party" has accomplished in this country at a national level? Ultimately, "Independents" are simply a collection of independent individuals and their collective political accomplishments reflect that basic reality.

I've always voted Democrat, I've worked on numerous campaigns - both state and local. Ran once for a local office, unsuccessfully. I'll be the first to admit we Democrats are not perfect....I know I'm not perfect. I know Obama is not perfect. In my 60 years on this Earth, I've changed positions and have had to compromise to get things done. That's the game of politics. But I know who is blocking the goals I want for this country and I hate that opposition fiercely, but I respect that they are willing to commit themselves to their beliefs by getting involved. The independent spectators on the sidelines? Who knows what they believe in.

Today, the national electorate is estimated at about 30% identifiable Republican, 35% Democrat, and the balance of 35% are Independent. When 1/3 of the voters choose to remain on the sideline and exercise their constitutional right to complain about politics and maybe vote or vote for that independent cool person who talks a good game....are you really surprised that things are going to hell in this country? You don't think if those 35% got in the game with the Democrats we couldn't kick the Republican agenda to the curb?

[TiberiusB]

53. No, I don't know who he backs

If suddenly Independents started voting consistently Democratic long enough to push through the current Democratic agenda we might kick the Republican agenda to the curb, but what would replace it? As Bill Maher once effectively said that Democrats are the new Republicans and Republicans are the new crazy. I think, however, that there is a profound difference between those that identify themselves as "belonging" to a group that, ironically, identifies itself as "Independent", and those who simply don't identify with either dominant political party.

The former group is, it seems, comprised of conservatives who either don't identify with the current state of the GOP or who simply like to live the life of the fence-sitter. They wait for whichever candidate seems to be headed for a win and then jump on board at the last minute. Many are wild conspiracy nuts and all think they are ferociously self reliant and "mavericky," if you take my meaning. Deeply conservative Libertarians like the Ron Pauls of the world live in this group, correctly identifying problems with our government more out of sheer coincidence than astute observation. This doesn't apply to all independents, of course, but it's hard to shake the feeling that most are simply another flavor of Republican, perhaps British Royal. Trying to win over this group is a waste of time, I think. Obama scored with Independents in 2008 thanks to massive dissatisfaction with Republicans, pushing many to roll the dice on a Democrat promising to change the system. That approach will likely not work again, with Obama's best hope being the pathetic group put forth as viable opponents by the GOP. Obama has a record now, and a lot of people don't like it, meaning he has to run a "at least I'm not that guy" campaign. This is an especially tenuous position to take with a group that I think tends to lean to the right anyway. Ironically, I think Obama does best with this group when he genuinely pushes to the left, which is not his or the Democrats usual strategy. The more he openly challenges the established power structures in America, the more people across the spectrum gravitate to his message. I expect we'll see a lot more effort to brand the Democrats as the party of the 99% in the coming months. Hope and change worked as a campaign for a reason.

Then there are those independents that chose to live outside party labels, or that simply want the freedom to choose as they please without feeling constrained to support a single party. It's just a hunch, but I would guess most people in this group are far more to the left than the right, or even center. Many identify with the platforms put forth by the Democrats in years past, finding themselves increasingly at odds with a party clearly slipping ever rightward thanks in no small part to the attraction of corporate money. I tend to think of small "i" independents as being more resolutely issue oriented, even if such positions conflict with whichever party they might otherwise identify with. Faced with such limited options, most people in this group will either vote for Obama or not vote at all, I suspect. Too few to matter will vote for a Republican, Libertarian or otherwise.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Posted comment in wrong thread! So I cut it...

Coffee must kick in soon...

[LeftishBrit]

3. This is saying what I've been saying for a long time...

I am not sure about 'newest converts', though. The flirtation of some left-wingers with Ron Paul has been going on for a while. I think it was even stronger at the height of the Iraq war, because some people were prepared to support anyone who opposed that war.

Besides his other vile attitudes, it has been clear for a long time, that *according to material that he fully owns and keeps on his website*, he is opposed to ANY social safety net, even of the limited nature that exists in America; that he considers that it is a 'serious error' to assume that just because someone needs healthcare they are entitled to have it; and that he would like to go back to the social and economic policies of 1900. In other words, let poor and sick people die!

Horrible man, with an even more horrible son.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Ron is the new Ralph Nader. nt

Wait till he goes 3rd Party....

[LeftishBrit]

9. Hope he does - as he'd be not so much the new Nader as the new Perot

and would probably ensure a Republican defeat.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Well Paul and Nader do have one thing in common, they both

fall closer than the other candidates to the Libertarian side of the spectrum versus the Big Brother Authoritarian side.

[rhett o rick]

15. I find that to be a very interesting graphic. nm

[LeftishBrit]

25. That may be.

But anyone who campaigns against social safety nets is a MONSTER OF PURE INDESCRIBABLE EVIL.

Right-libertarians are ALL thus monsters - even when they are consistently right-libertarian, which Paul is not (he is libertarian about drugs, but not about women's reproductive rights).

Nader is not opposed to social safety nets; therefore, whether one agrees with him or not, he is not a monster like Paul.

I do not know much about Greenwald, and it could be that the article is misrepresenting and distorting his views in particular- I wouldn't know. However, it is not misrepresenting Ron Paul, or the danger that he poses when some progressives think he might not be that bad. ALL Republican politicians are monsters, for the reason mentioned above, but most are recognized as such by progressives.

[Uncle Joe]

46. I agree, but the same holds true

for those; whose wet dream is a Big Brother, authoritarian, corporate supremacist, facist loving government.

The ideal situation would be for a left leaning libertarian, but unfortunately the corporate media insists on only promoting the distorted fiction of centrism being in the right authoritarian quadrant, and this brainwashing manipulation of the American People can in the long run only lead to a monstrous catastrophe in its' own right.

When the supposed "centrists" start living up to that label and strongly adovcate centrist postitions that empower the people instead of just right leannig corporate supremacist, authoritarian ones, the Ron Pauls of the world will lose their power but until that day comes, there will be more "Ron Pauls," even if this one doesn't succeed in the coming election.

The ironic tragedy isn't that Ron Paul; a far right, racist libertarian is correct on a few issues, the tragedy is that the supposed center isn't.

[freshwest]

4. Commentor is making a good (but sad) case. The perfect over the good, seeking a reason.

[madrchsod]

8. how in the hell can anyone say he is a leftist?

this really is sad that anyone would even say that he is.

wait a minute did`t we discuss this to death a few days ago?

[DURHAM D]

12. Spot on "his most vociferous supporters on the left are pale and male … and their arguments stale"

[msanthrope]

16. "The Nation: Progressive Man-Crushes On Ron Paul" by Katha Pollitt

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144783916/the-nation-progressive-man-crushes-on-ron-paul


It's a pretty good read on that theme.

[Doctor_J]

36. The comments are almost entirely rabid pro-Paul fascists

which goes to show that NPR is now staffed and listened to by the far right.

[SunSeeker]

37. Ron Paul is Mr. Liberty unless you have a functioning uterus.

How anyone--let alone any woman--could claim this fossil is all about liberty or a libertarian is beyond me. Nothing steals a person's liberty more than not being able to control their own body.

[joshcryer]

54. White males are the most privileged group of people on the planet.

It goes without saying that Ron Paul attracts them.

[rhett o rick]

14. This is garbage but a good example of the efforts by some to alienate the left

from the Democratic Party. Why would so many Democrats want to disparage the left? Can these Democrats differ from the left in principle that much? If so, I would love to find out how they differ. But I cant get any to answer that question.

I can only conclude that those that disparage the left at the risk of losing their votes do so because they value their conservative principles more than the health of the Democratic Party. They are Democrats whose principles do not align with the principles of the left. Now that's very interesting.

The OP talks about Paul having supporters on the left w/o giving any evidence of such. This meme is right straight from a republicon think tank. How better to split the Democratic vote. What is the agenda of those that would propagate such a meme?

Of course the left criticizes some of the Pres stands on issues. It is very big D Democratic to be skeptical and to hold the President accountable. And on the other hand there are some issues that Paul takes that are true to Democratic principles. But how very intellectually dishonest to say that if you dont agree with everything Obama and disagree with everything Paul, you are not a good Democrat.

[msanthrope]

17. I'm not particularly interested in maintaining the votes of those who would consider

Ron Paul.

If they don't vote Ron Paul, they'll vote for some other fringe candidate. Or they can't or won't vote at all. The Far Left is vocal, but small.

The people to focus on are the Independents, and the middle. The people who will hear about Ron Paul's racism, and goofy economic theory, and consider what it will mean to their children, their homes, their jobs, their country. Those are the people who feel connected to society and therefore, have an interest in maintaining it....

People who have nothing to lose vote fringe candidates like Ron Paul...people who really don't give a crap about the consequences of their vote, but want to make a statement.

The Far Left who vote for Ron Paul will be the same people who voted Nader, McKinney, etc...their righteousness can keep them warm.

[TiberiusB]

43. Ron Paul is a loon on any number of issues, we get it.

You rail against "the Far Left" as though this whole thread is about dealing with a sinister fringe element among the Democrats. In short, you've been baited into a false argument like so many others. Consider the position the OP is taking, that there are prominent voices in the Liberal blogosphere effectively campaigning for a Ron Paul presidency. Now consider this, what proof is offered?

Who is considering Ron Paul for President?

I don't mean the usual Paul supporters that come out in the comments to defend their hero.

I mean, who are those people "on the Left," who are openly advocating for a Ron Paul presidency and who have a platform beyond the odd post in the comments section of this blog or any other?

Who is saying, unequivocally, that Ron Paul should be the next POTUS?

Who is saying Ron Paul is more progressive than Obama ACROSS THE BOARD, and not simply on some issues, and even then, only in his diagnosis of some problems, and not necessarily their solutions?

Articles like the one quoted in the OP serve one purpose, to disparage Obama critics and to "dog whistle" the rabid Obama supporters to come out and attack anyone who dares even mention the name Ron Paul.

[LeftishBrit]

26. I don't think that the author was disparaging the left in general!

Certainly, I'm on the left myself. I am a Europaean-style socialist who worships the memories of Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan; is well to the left of most Democrats; and would approve more of President Obama if he really DID turn America into a 'Europaean welfare state' as Romney has accused him of doing.

This article was published in The Guardian, which is for a British audience, not concerned particularly with being 'good Democrats', though I think most British people, on the left or not, would prefer President Obama to be re-elected.

The point is that Paul is a right-wing, racism-enabling, economically hard-right individual whom the left should not trust in any way! The only good thing about him is that he may split the Republican vote.

ETA: Here is an earlier article by the same author, which indicates that she is quite prepared to cricitize President Obama for being insufficiently left-wing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/18/barack-obama-us-politics

[rhett o rick]

40. The implication in this article as well as others I have seen is that there

are those on the left that embrace Paul. IMO this is a distortion. Some on the left have been critical of the President when he embraces conservative issues and some on the left have stated approval of some of Paul's stands on issues. This does not mean that there are substantial numbers of people on the left that support Paul over Obama. This meme is being used by those that would try to split the Democratic party. Of course the republicons want this but also there are some that call themselves Democrats that seem to want this also.

[MisterP]

18. they're not embracing him: they're being exceedingly selective in their praises

as they are for everybody else--that's because they're focused on policy, not the Bieberesque worship of the "support-no-matter-what-becuase-he's-godlike" Paul and Obama supporters

[Jakes Progress]

21. I think his more useful allies are the ones like the OP

who post offensive drivel like this to alienate the left from Obama.

[dougolat]

23. More of an indication of how much people want drastic action ....

...to end the wars of aggression, the drug war industry, and get a grip on the F.E.D. -I think.
A similar dynamic works for Alex Jones, eh?

[BumRushDaShow]

28. Fixed.

"calls by progressives pseudo-progressive Log Cabin Republican act-alikes, most notably Glenn Greenwald"

[cpwm17]

29. This Greenwald/Paul controversy is an authoritarian vs liberal issue

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:47 AM - Edit history (3)

The more liberal posters are more issue oriented. Anyone that supports a particular issue that they care about gets some positive notice.

The authoritarians are more leader oriented. It's all or nothing. You can't pick and choose issues, no matter if you think a particular politician has something worthwhile to say.

As typical for authoritarians, they don't care too much if their government tramples our civil liberties and conducts unprovoked wars - at least when their guy is in charge. So the nasty stuff in Ron Paul's newsletter concerns these authoritarians, but mass murder against foreigners by Obama: not so much.

So when an actual liberal points out that Ron Paul may be correct on a particular issue, the authoritarians have the typical right-winged response which is to blame the actual liberal of being a Ron Paul lover. We'll never improve our country with this attitude.

[yurbud]

32. maybe the real problem with Paul is a bipartisan ANTI-WAR coalition including him forming

and this is an attempt to make him radioactive, the way the right has done successfully with so many others.

[Doctor_J]

34. Is the writer saying that Greenwald wouldn't be affected by GLBT legislation?

someone hasn't done his homework

[Corruption Winz]

35. He has some great ideas...

But, in the end, there's a reason that he's a conservative and not a progressive..... He's not a very progressive person.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I doubt any of us actually want Paul to win, but I am very glad he is in the race.

Do you think Obama would have annouced his intention to drastically reduce the cost of the military this week, if Paul wasn't doing such an effective job of raising excessive miltiary spending in the republican's faces in their primary? HE has made it an enormous issue, all the other candidates are talking about keeping spending on the military flat or increasing it.

This acutally gives Obama some political breathing room to do exactly that, without being drowned out with cries of making america 'unsafe' or any of the other bloviating bullshit the far right comes up with every since time the military budget is trimmed.


No, I don't want him to win the general election at all, and I will work hard to support Obama against him, but I DO want him to win the Republican primaries. I want Obama running against a candidate that wants to cut the military, and reduce foreign interventionism, not Romney, who wants to park two carriers up Iran's tailpipe, and restore the 4% Obama has already cut from the military budget.

Let's have Obama up against a candidate with whom he can compete to reduce, not increase the military budget, and our flagrant use of it overseas.