Skip to main content

View Diary: Got AIDs? Your fault, says Ron Paul. Boss can't keep his hands off you? Switch jobs, says Ron Paul (254 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your mistake is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Kaib, Dauphin

    even thinking about Ron Paul in terms "a worthy candidate."

    Of course he isn't.

    This way of looking at Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a manner of shutting down discussion of "what Ron Paul is saying (mostly) about U.S. imperialism, what he is saying (mostly) about the War on Some DrugsTM, what he is saying (mostly) about civil liberties."

    IT is an absurdity to discuss Ron Paul as a serious candidate. He isn't.

    The discussion to have, imo, is what impact Paul's position in the Republican Party  may have on certain issues.

    To pretend Ron Paul is unique in the Republican Party with regard to "odious points of view, offensive, disgusting, hate-filled points of view [that . . .] condone racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, 1%erism, anti-environmentalism, victim-blaming, social safety net-shredding and conspiracy-mongering," is to not be forthright.

    Ron Paul's views are the view of mainstream Republican candidates.

    Are Ron Paul's views, as a Republican, important in shaping discussion of those issues?

    I submit they are not.

    His views that differ with the mainstream GOP positions could be.

    It seems strange to me that tremendous efforts from progressives are being spent to try and fringe Ron Paul off the  Republican stage.

    The notion that there is some movement that will garner Paul meaningful progressive support as a CANDIDATE is sophistry. There is no possibility of that.

    To me the interesting part is not Paul the ELECTABLE candidate, but Paul the iconoclast in Republican circles.

    Not sure why progressives do not want to discuss that.    

    •  Red State says (0+ / 0-)

      "To be sure, Paul’s warnings about the divisiveness of identity-group politics are not terribly outside the mainstream of conservative thought."

      No, they are not.

    •  Perhaps, Armando, it has to do with the... (7+ / 0-)

      ...fact that there are progressives who DO in fact support Paul by ignoring the fact that he is, on many issues that matter, just like all the other Republicans in the race. I have encountered them myself at three Occupy sites in California.

      Nobody, certainly not I, is suggesting that Paul will win the GOP nomination. And I am not arguing that he is different on key issues from the rest of the GOP pack. On the contrary, I am saying his views transformed into policy would have the same impacts as those in that pack. It's just that his expression of these views is a bit less polished.

      While I wouldn't ever call any concept you put forth as sophistry, I will say the idea that Paul's views on civil liberties, the drug war and imperialism will even dent the GOP armor in such matters is magical thinking.

      If Paul doesn't win the nomination and chooses out of hubris or whatever to run as an independent, he could siphon off enough votes of disaffected progressives in key states to affect the results of a close presidential election in the same way that Ralph Nader did in 2000. A Romney v. Obama contest could be a close election. There are millions of progressive voters. But it might take only a few thousands to really screw things up.

      That's why it's worth hammering home now who Paul really is.

      The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 11:03:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two points in response (0+ / 0-)

        First, you write "here are progressives who DO in fact support Paul by ignoring the fact that he is, on many issues that matter, just like all the other Republicans in the race. I have encountered them myself at three Occupy sites in California."

        Anecdotal evidence can produce handfuls of anything. There are almost certainly more "progressives" who might vote for Romney than will vote for Paul.

        Property rights "Libertarians" are not progressives. This is battle I have waged since Kelo here at Daily Kos.

        In short, I don't accept your rationale as reasonable.

        Beyond that, in a general election, no "progressive", Democrat, Paleoconservative or anyone will be able to cast a meaningful vote for Ron Paul as a Republican.

        I suppose it is possible Paul will run an independent campaign. If he does, my understanding is that would be favorable for President Obama.

        Which begs the question, why would Democrats and progressives discourage that possibility?

        You write "Nobody, certainly not I, is suggesting that Paul will win the GOP nomination. And I am not arguing that he is different on key issues from the rest of the GOP pack. On the contrary, I am saying his views transformed into policy would have the same impacts as those in that pack. It's just that his expression of these views is a bit less polished."

        It seems to me that your post does indeed suggest that. Consider the reaction to Paul in this thread. He is a "loony" outside of the mainstream, including the GOP mainstream.

        One of the effects of trying to fringe Paul AS A REPUBLICAN is to impose the view that Republicans are not as
        crazy" as Paul on these issues. I submit that such a suggestion is harmful. Not to mention, incorrect.

        Second, you write "While I wouldn't ever call any concept you put forth as sophistry, I will say the idea that Paul's views on civil liberties, the drug war and imperialism will even dent the GOP armor in such matters is magical thinking."

        It would indeed by sophistry if I made such a suggestion. I don't. My suggestion is that the discussion of THOSE ISSUES COULD be different. Not in Republican circles, but in discussion about  those issues.

        One of the more interesting phenomena about Paul to me is seeing Republicans squirm on Paul - because on some of this, it is what they say, but now they want to argue "Paul takes it too far."

        I submit that the Kelo discussions, and similar libertarian impulses  that some "progressives" romanticize, deserves a thorough airing.

        I think that a smart discussion should be had about Ron Paul, and I think that includes a discussion of what is NOT "progressive" about "libertarianism."

        Not sure we are doing that very well at daily kos so far.

        •  If you and I are going to have this discussion... (5+ / 0-)

          ...then I'd prefer that you not impute things to me that I did not say nor suggest that your anecdotal evidence is somehow superior to mine.

          I did not say or imply or even leave open a slight possibility that I believe "property rights libertarians" are progressives. What I said was that an unknown number of progressives are ignoring Paul's stances on many issues because they like what he has to say on a few, and those few happen to have some libertarian cachet, even though anti-interventionism has a long history before libertarianism was a gleam in anybody's eye. The fact that they like these views of his doesn't make them libertarians of any stripe. So your long-standing battle on this matter is most assuredly not with me.

          Your "understanding" of Paul's potential impact as an independent is based on the same speculation about such impact as mine. We don't know. We do know, however, that Paul's positions on the three issues of war, drugs and civil liberties are highly appealing to the same demographic that gave tremendous support for Obama in 2008, young voters, whose ballots favored him by the largest margin of any cohort. To assume that they might not switch to an independent Ron Paul campaign after four years with the guy they voted for having produced, at best, a mixed record in those areas, is based on what evidence? I am not saying they will jump ship. I am saying it's a possibility. And I find your dismissal of a pre-emptive strike in this matter puzzling.

          You say I did suggest he could get the GOP nomination? Cite it, counselor.

          We do agree about one thing: Some progressives romanticize libertarian views, and from there derives their support for Ron Paul. Discussion of that romanticization is, of course, separable from the presidential primaries, indeed, from elections altogether. Theory vs. reality is always a good discussion to have.

          But I don't believe showing everyone Ron Paul's dark side, his just-like-the-other-Republlicans side, puts up any roadblocks to such a discussion. Rather, it is complementary to it.

          The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 11:51:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heh - does not impute (0+ / 0-)

            How about "inadvertently suggests?"

            Still and all, this seems thin gruel - "an unknown number of progressives are ignoring Paul's stances." An "unknown number of progressives are ignoring" some of Obama's stances too.

            Anyway, I do think you are factually wrong here = "Your "understanding" of Paul's potential impact as an independent is based on the same speculation about such impact as mine. We don't know."

            Unless your speculation is based on polling, then that;s not correct.

    •  we debunk all candidates and issues all the time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, Meteor Blades

      My take of MB's posts has been that Paul is not a "worthy candidate," but a putative spoiler because some progressives focus only on a few tidbits regarding issues of US imperialism, war on some drugs and civil liberties but wholly ignore his hatred, racism, sexism, etc.

      Is is sophistry to acknowledge that Paul has been getting some progressive support?

      Why Do Some Progressives Support Ron Paul, Even Though He Is Anti-Woman, Anti-Civil Rights, and Anti-Equality?
      http://www.alternet.org/...

      "There are few things as maddening in a maddening political season as the warm and fuzzy feelings some progressives evince for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican presidential candidate. 'The anti-war Republican,' people say, as if that's good enough.
      But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican. He's the John Birch Society's favorite congressman. And he's a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you're a member of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I can see how he'd be your guy."

      Why progressives should not support Ron Paul
      http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/...

      The progressive support for Ron Paul comes in many facets. You have the disenchanted progressive, the misinformed progressive, the bandwagon progressive, and so on. These progressives, lost and confused on the political spectrum,  are attracted to Ron Paul for a few select reasons: his outspoken views on drug legalization, his opposition to foreign engagement, and his resistance to the encroachments on our civil liberties through avenues like the Patriot Act and body scanners at TSA.

      A google of "Ron Paul progressive support" yielded 122 million results.
      https:/www.google.com#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=ron+paul+progressive+support&pbx=1&oq=ron+paul+progressive+support&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1539l8548l0l8779l36l23l4l8l8l0l203l2901l5.17.1l33l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=918a461f06fdbea1&biw=992&bih=809

      Clearly, people are discussing both sides of the issue of whether or not progressives should vote for paul. The reality is that we need to fight back, as MB has, to point out that there should not even be an issue of whether progressives should vote for paul. The fact that it IS an issue being discussed online and offline means that paul has had some measure of success and we should debunk the BS that some have bought that paul has any kind of progressive credentials as a candidate.

      A recent gallup poll showed that 58% of Americans want a third party.
      http://www.gallup.com/...

      Americans' desires for a third political party are as high as they have been in seven years. Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic Parties do a poor job of representing the American people. That is a significant increase from 2008 and ties the high Gallup has recorded for this measure since 2003.

      Given that many progressives even at DK have not been happy with President Obama, that the public is pissed off with Congress, and close elections are not uncommon, it is better to now nix any support that might be building for Paul by some progressives than to have this discussion after the elections.

      It's a matter of setting the record straight and we do that for ALL candidates on all issues. Why is it different here?

      As lawyers, we do this all the time. We nix the big issues and the little issues, and the putative issues in our cases/litigation because you can't predict with certainty how courts will rule. We can't predict with certainty what voters will do either.

      Sorry for not coding links, have internet problems.

      Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

      by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 12:16:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

        No need for me to belabor the point in comments.

        If I have more to say, I'll probably write about it.

      •  If 58 % of Americans want a third party (0+ / 0-)

        I wonder which issues this party should represent differently than the current two existing parties?

        Do the people, who see themselves as left of the center progressives, want a third party that is more left and more social democratic  than the current democratic party, or do they want more a libertarian party, which would mean more right-wing, but at the same time less imperialistic with regards to foreign policies with a lesser military industrial complex than the GOP is fond of?

        Do they see the libertarian ideas as something more leftist progressive or as more right-wing free minderish.  Do they understand the nuttery of that ideology?. (I apologize if I don't use the right terminology and words, I am not sure of how to express what libertarians stand for - but my guess is so don't many others and therefore people love it, because they can make out of libertarianism anything they want)

        Right now it looks like we have an religiously extremist non-inclusive right-wing GOP and a conservative party of Democrats.  

        So what do the people who want a third party that party to be and to stand for?

        "If it gets too rough, or too lonely, you've got family here." - Meteor Blades

        by mimi on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 06:01:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site