Why are we helping Republicans?

In this frontpage diary, we have a long diatribe about the Right wing fringe candidate.  I want to know why this site, which is about electing and promoting democrats and progressives, is helping to do the GOP frontrunners' work for them.

Ron Paul is running for the Republican party nomination.  He shows up on TV during the Republican debates.  He has 0% chance of being the Republican nominee in 2008.  Even if he got the votes, the Republican party would use delegate maneuvering, etc.  whatever it took to make sure he was not on the ticket.

That makes him THEIR problem.  The reason why THEIR fringe candidate has buzz is that THEIR president's neoconservative foreign policies have gone down the tubes the last few years, and they don't have a legitimate candidate who is breaking from Bush.  

This is why redstate is banning Paul.  This is why they wish his numbers weren't rising. (He's in 4th in NH and NV, and tied with McCain in Iowa).  The nominee we will have to face next year will be Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, or Thompson.  Period.  The longer Ron Paul stays in the race the worse it is for Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson.  Finishing behind Paul in early states may knockout legitimate, dangerous candidates for us.  

We should be laughing at their side for being so weak that 1200 people showed up to see Paul in Nevada yesterday while Thompson had 75 people show up in Louisiana.  Why are we aiding the GOP frontrunners by bringing up how fringe or extreme Paul is?  Do you think the GOP would be helping Obama, Clinton, and Edwards out if Gravel was rising up in the polls, and taking valuable media and face time away from them?  

What's next?  Diaries begging Huckabee to call for troops to be pulled out of Iraq to take away Ron Paul's monopoly on that position?

•  Tip jar.

  by duha on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:04:27 PM PDT

  •  brilliant

    where is the big picture. Can markos get a big picture editor for us?  

    by anna shane on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:37:06 PM PDT

•  what makes you think a negative

  endorsement from the daily kos won't boost his candidacy with republicans?

  by rasbobbo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:09:41 PM PDT

  •  bringing up the same obvious attacks that

    the GOP frontrunners use to try and stem his rise so that he won't be in any more debates making them defend Bush policies isn't helping us win in 2008.

    by duha on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:19:36 PM PDT

•  Your premise is that Ron Paul will draw

  away a greater fraction of dissaffected Republicans or R-leaning Indies than he will of disaffected Democrats or D-leaners.

  You might be right, I'm not sure.  But I do know that even here on dKos, by and large a bastion of liberal Democrats, I've seen some diaffected D's who dare to admit they lean Paul.  And probably more who won't "come out" about it!!  So the reason he gets discussion here, is to argue with those folks and hopefully bring a few of them back into the fold.  

  I guess those MIGHT inadvertently have the opposite effect on any R-leaning lurkers here, but how many of those really hang around and take their ideas from here?

  by lgmcp on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:10:11 PM PDT

  •  Ron Paul will not be nominated

    but in the meantime I do rather enjoy the knicker -  twisting Ron Paul inflicts on the freepers.

    by Bill White on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:16:28 PM PDT

  •  Back into the fold?

    You are assuming that Paul will have the nerve and the resources to even run 3rd party when he loses the GOP nomination, AND, that disaffected left-leaning people, EVEN AFTER the Nader 2000 debacle, will still throw away their vote at the ballot in November 2008 so that an Iraq forever Republican candidate wins.

    by duha on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:17:23 PM PDT

    •  Me? I get yelled at for being too old-school,

      still nattering on about how we have responsibility to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

      by lgmcp on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:21:32 PM PDT

•  A few people here have shown interest in Paul

  That's about all I can figure.

  I agree, we should let the leading Republican candidates take on their wing nut base. Let's watch the republican Party explode from a distance.

  by FishOutofWater on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:11:10 PM PDT

•  Well, there's that whole ...

  "for the good of the country" thing.  True, it's politically advantageous for Democrats to have a lot of bad shit happen/continue, so as to make the repubs look worse (a sinking economy, rising oil prices, health care spiralling further out of control).  But we're not in favor of things that are bad for the country just because it could give some incremental benefit to our side in elections - at least I'm fucking well not.

  by lineatus on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:16:54 PM PDT

  •  What is bad for the country, The GOP frontrunners

    having an easier time in debates?  Because don't give me the Ron Paul will be bad for this country line.  You know as well as I do that there is 0% chance he will be on the ticket of the Republican Party and 0% chance that he will be elected president.

    by duha on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:22:11 PM PDT

•  It would be manna from heaven if Paul did ...

  ...a run a a thrid party candidate.

  by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:17:28 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    by duha on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:22:54 PM PDT

•  What is REALLY sad

  Is that Paul, who is dead on about the war and about the Federal Reserve and fiat money system, as well as Kucinich, who is dead on about everything, are "fringe" candidates.

  Meanwhile, militaristic corporate whores like Guliani, Romney, HRC, Obama, and Edwards are all the "front runners".

  Paul gets ridiculed here because he SCARES the DLC status quo. His message makes sense with working people, Republican and Democrat. His plain talk serves to put HRC's constant BS into tight focus. And unlike Kucinich on the Dem side, he is getting some traction from his party.

  by swaygen on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:20:35 PM PDT

  •  Imagine if Paul were the nominee

    The Democratic Party leadership might actually have to do something concrete about ending the war and establishing the rule of law.  Perish the thought!

    by Simplify on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:33:58 PM PDT

  •  Our self-destrucitve politics

    THose who have constructive understandigs of the big uissues confronting us as a people are ruled out as "fringe kooks" from the starting gate.  This pattern has been increasingly true for over a quarter of a century now.  The consequences of this pattern are beginning to set in, and the national ersponse, among both the elites and the masses, is to intensify that same pattern.  It's self-destructive to us as a nation, as a people, as a society, it's blatantly obvious that this is the case (see:  President George W. Bush, "electable"), and virtually everyone recognizes it at some level.  How often have you heard: "Kucinich is right of course, but I can't vote for him because he's 'unelectable'", that's the recognition.  It's a downward spiral and there is no center, no crystallizing or unifying point to rally around to escape from this self-destructive vortex.

    by ActivistGuy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:47:23 PM PDT

    •  Crazy Isn't it?

      I read a funny comment on a blog somewhere today and it said that "Candidate A Believed Bush and Cheney when they sold us the Iraq war and Iran War. Candidate B Believed he saw a UFO. I'll vote for the guy who believed he saw the UFO."
      LOL

      My litmus test is the war.  It is the ONLY litmus test for me- we are eying the oil in Iran at this very moment. Halliburton is preparing future contracts.
      I am pissed as hell at these Dems who vote R and tell us that "Things will change". It is a joke and it insults me to no end.

      It is further insulting when Candidate A is chastised for accepting a check from Nazi's when Hillary Clinton, the woman THE DNC AND THE GOP AND CNN are shoving down our throats is funded by Clear Channel- and then, on top of THAT, we are told we are scum for even considering voting against her if we are forced to.

      The people who haven't sold their soul to the DNC can't win.  We take shit from the right and we take shit from the (not so)left. We can't vote for Kucinich b/c it is a lost cause, and I WON'T vote for Hillary. So tell me, what the heck am I supposed to do?  Well, I have found out here at KOs that I am supposed to accept the fact that I am NOT a dem., I am really a Republican.  Now I'll bet if I trot my butt over to redstate - I would be banned because I am a fringe nutcase lefty lunatic b/c I like what Ron Pual says.  
      wahhhhwahhhh! :)
      Sounds like censorship from all angles to me.  
      When are people gonna figure out that they don't like to be censored or slammed for having their own views and principles, and morals, and issues that they will not ever sway on? For some it is abortion, for some it is Gay Marriage, some it is the environment, some it is religion, for some it is IMPEACHMENT.  Mine happens to be the war.  I am stickin' to it.
      They told us that "Impeachment is a waste of time". They hammered it down our throats. Now they are telling us that "Hillary will be our next Presidential Candidate". Is it really any wonder people feel that the Democratic party has abandoned them, and abandoned their promises that they made to us?

      I am sure the Republicans feel the exact same way.  It might scare some people to think that pugs really feel, but rest assured - they do, and I will bet that they are just as pissed at the Government as we are. I think that if Americans can unite behind one cause, that TRUE change, the change that is made through compromise can in fact occur.  It is my opinion, that the cause should be putting an end to this war.  It is the ONE thing that the majority of American people agree upon.  

      by OregonDonor on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:57:55 PM PDT

  •  No, Paul gets ridiculed here...

    ... because many of his views are those of a fringe loon, including racist and anti-Semitic idiocy of which he is a part.

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:09:01 PM PDT

  •  Please explain how HRC, Obama, and Edwards

    who have a FAR, FAR more populist voting record than Ron Paul are corporate whores, while Ron Paul is somehow not.

    You may have a point with Kucinich, but attacking the Dem candidates while supporting Paul on the issue of being tough on corporations is purely hypocritical.

    by echatwa on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 12:19:28 PM PDT

  •  And Paul makes sense with working people?

    Because privatizing social programs and getting rid of regulations on corporate abuse appeals sooo much to working people, right?

    by echatwa on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 12:25:12 PM PDT

    •  Because Kyl does?

      Privatizing?
      Social Programs?
      WHAT ABOUT THE WAR WITH IRAN AND SYRIA?
      What about the massive debt we are in?
      What about your kids that will never be able to afford this war?
      what about the Veterans who won't grow legs and change skin because the War is Over?
      WHAT ABOUT THAT?
      What about WELFARE FOR VETERANS?

      by OregonDonor on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:28:29 AM PDT

      •  Who is Kyl? Also,

        you still haven't told me how Ron Paul is better than the Democratic frontrunners (out of which Obama and Edwards clearly oppose Iran war, by the way) when it comes to issues that affect working people. If you are talking about the Iraq war, remember that every single Democratic candidate will withdraw the vast majority or all of our troops.

        by echatwa on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 06:00:48 PM PDT

•  Ron Paul is not fringe

  He is more of an old school true conservative.  True, most of his positions come from the loonie bin, but when you get to the heart of it he has some positions that aren't bad (IE, opposition to aggressive wars)

  He has some character at least.  If you want to name a true fringe candidate, try Tancredo.  Now that guy is a nut.

  by El Yoss on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:44:10 PM PDT

•  It will take change.....Vote Obama

  by army193 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:50:29 PM PDT

•  Bingo

  The enemy is Rudy Guiliani, who would stack his administration with criminals and unleash an authoritarian surveillance state that would make Bush look nice by comparison.  And John McCain, who was the media go-to guy after 9/11 when they needed an uber-hawk to criticize Bush's foreign policy from the right.  And Mitt Romney, the sleazy chameleon who will do and say anything to get elected and then do whatever his handlers tell him to.

  But oh no, Bush (and Romney, Guiliani, McCain, and Thompson) aren't the problem, it's those people over there on the fringe who have no chance of ever getting near the White House but who happen to be right in every major area where Bush & Co. are wrong.  I smell a rat.

  by canyonrat on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:14:06 PM PDT

•  What is DailyKos about?

  Is this community's purpose to further progressive causes or to further the Democratic party?

  If you have an opportunity to realign the Republican party away from the NeoConservative agenda, it arguably benefits progressive causes.
  On the other hand, furthering candidates with spotty records on gay marriage, the Iraq war, USAPatriot does nothing but undermine progressive ideals.
  Yet I hear so many objections citing Republican/ Democratic division, as if everything good for the Democratic party is automatically good for America.

  What is the objective here?? Whhere does the loyalty lie in this community?

  by GoSlash27 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 07:35:45 AM PDT

  •  Nevermind...

    From the FAQ
    "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable"

    Amazing how this came from the roots of the blog...
    "Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" -- created Daily Kos on May 26, 2002, in those dark days when an oppressive and war-crazed administration suppressed all dissent as unpatriotic and treasonous. As a veteran, Moulitsas was offended that the freedoms he pledged his life for were so carelessly being tossed aside by the reckless and destructive Republican administration."
    ...and has since devolved into this; a blog that places partisan politics above freedom.

    Meh...

    by GoSlash27 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 07:52:39 AM PDT