That's true. Most who would vote for a Paul would never describe themselves that way.

The weird surge in popularity of libertarian-leaning candidates is not because there has been an inexplicable surge in Ayn Rand devotees. Most people who would end up voting for a Paul would never label themselves as "Libertarians." They are the independents in the middle who have been lurching back and forth between the major parties trying desperately to find someone who will represent them.

We're not talking about the tiny group of self-identified Libertarians in your survey, who have always constituted the base of the fringe Libertarian Party. We're talking about a larger group in the middle, actual Americans who are frustrated as hell with the corruption of both major political parties. They are frustrated as hell that no major party is representing their interests anymore and looking for a new political home.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks?
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.

Perhaps the corporate-purchased parties themselves have something to do with this conclusion by the American people:

Poll: Half of Americans dont care which party controls Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024988821

People are so frustrated and disillusioned with the two corporate parties at this point that they are looking for something radical. They are so desperate that they are willing to risk the terrifying aspects of Libertarianism because these people are at least saying *some* of the right things with regard to finally ending the outrageous surveillance state, the predatory and discriminatory drug wars, and the warmongering that is emptying the country from the inside out.

That's why Democrats who care about this country had better make damned sure that we get a better candidate than Hillary Goldman Sachs.....or these voters may, in their desperation, vote to issue in the most dangerous aspects of the Libertarian AND the corporate agenda: the finalization of the privatization and gutting/looting/transfer to private ownership of our education system, our prison system, our national parks and resources....all of the shared wealth of this nation, and the democratic system that ensures our tax dollars are used to benefit and care for all of us.

Women and minorities can't afford more corporatism.

The effects of continued corporate warfare on this nation will be a disaster for all Americans, but *especially* women and minorities.

I don't know how the Third Way anticipates being able to protect values of racial and gender equality by supporting candidates whose policies are dismantling the very economic and democratic systems that make it possible for them to be empowered.

197. I just can't wait to see the status of women and minorities in this country when we are all working for Third World wages, Hillary's trade agreements have ramped up corporate power and the ability of corporations to override our laws and protections, and dissent in the new corporate America has been crushed.

Why the Third Way would love a race between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul

Why do corporatists and investment bankers infiltrate a party? Why the massive corporate backing of groups like the Third Way and the pouring of billions into running corporate candidates and establishing a strong corporate presence in the Democratic party?

It's because the Democratic Party *was* the opposition party standing in their way. Now they own it.

Here's the important part: They didn't buy it because of some perverse affection for the Democratic Party or the color blue on the Democratic Party pom poms. They did it to advance the corporate policy agenda that rakes in billions in wealth and power.

They don't give a rat's ass what party actually wins, as long as the win accomplishes the goal for which they spent billions running candidates to infiltrate the party in the first place. They are the same people backing corporatists in both parties. They will work together and USE the parties to ensure the victory of whichever party or candidate can best serve their interests at the moment.

Running HIllary to the right of Paul pretty much locks in the agenda they want either way. And running Paul has the added benefit of possibly appealing to those who are disgusted with both parties, by giving the illusion that something radically different is being offered. It could dupe a lot of people into remaining passive about what is being done to us for at least one more election cycle, by making them believe, one more time, that merely voting is going to be enough.



__________________________________________________

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

I think you're right.

It's time to stop imagining what we wish the MIC would do, and look at the actual record.

You have to ignore all of MIC recent history to believe that we will "do what we can and get the hell out." Obama even said today that the commitment in Iraq is open-ended.

We have a long history by which to evaluate the behavior of the MIC. This is part of a well-established pattern of crisis, intervention, destabilization, and crisis. It is a cycle, and it is linked to the military INDUSTRY which profits from it all. We have to stop reacting to the crises that the MIC's own behavior creates.

I'm going to link again to this post by JackRiddler that I think should have hundreds of recommendations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025355401

Add in the one by IchingCarpenter for good measure: We are at this point bombing our own guns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025359142

The MIC's own behavior ensures the continuation of this cycle of violence. As JackRiddler's post points out, there are things they could do to show good faith in actually trying to end the violence rather than perpetuating this cycle, but their behavior, and the behavior of US politicians, does exactly the opposite.

It's a racket. It's shock doctrine. We're always reacting to a crisis we helped create, and we ignore the ones behind the scenes getting filthy rich from it all. Meanwhile, our country is hollowed out from all our money being poured into war.

No. It's time to end it.