If I register Republican will I lose my account here?

That's right, I'm going to register Republican.

This Popular Front Democrat is going to switch parties to vote for Rep. Ron Paul in the primary here next year.  

After the jump I'll explain why and then try and find a good hiding place.  

Actually I'm one of the so-called Libertarian Democrats, but I digress.

I was watching a clip from Crooks & Liars the other day and it sparked off a thought process in my head that I haven't fully formed yet, and that's why I'm trying to air it out a bit here.  There was some talk about the core beliefs of the two parties in our two party system.  Those core beliefs being boiled down to economic and social beliefs.  

Idealistically, I align with the D's on social issues and the R's on economic issues.  My political compass is Libertarian Left next to Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and The Dali Lama.  There's one big problem with my political ideology and how I perceive this US two party system.  It is literally a big elephant in the room.  The R's haven't been holding up their end of the bargain on the economy not to mention how Bush has just RUINED everything.  So I registered as a D when I moved here to NC, but now I'm thinking that I should register Unaffiliated, but I'm not sure if the R's here let U's vote in their primary.  (If you can point me to definitive proof that the R's will let U vote in their NC primaries then I'll switch to U.  I have heard that they do let U's vote, so I need the deep linked source please.)

Why does the political system have to separate the parties into Liberal socially and Liberal economically against Conservative socially and Conservative economically?  Why is there no 3rd party that is Liberal socially and Conservative economically?

THAT PARTY WOULD ROCK!

•  Tip Jar

  Anyone else gonna vote for Paul in a primary?

  by Dr Seuss on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:34:34 PM PDT

  •  No.

    by DH from MD on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:35:55 PM PDT

    •  Ditto

      and, to add - if you support Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism, in which he opposes all social welfare government programs, then I wonder what you've been doing here anyway?  But I can't imagine anyone would stop you from posting here anyway, unless you start spouting bannable shit.

      by geordie on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:41:27 PM PDT

      •  Here because I can't stomach the War, or Neocons

        We have a shared interest in creating greater personal freedom, even if Democrats might not agree with us when we also want more economic freedom.

        Of course the Democrats can't seem to get their act together on the war... of course Ron Paul would end the thing immediately if he had his chance.

        by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:12:15 PM PDT

        •  it would be pretty interesting

          since he also advocates withdrawing from the U.N.

          I wonder how that process would work.

          by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:31:21 PM PDT

          •  He believes in the sovereignity of the US

            We elect our leaders in a democracy for a reason. We don't get to elect any of the United Nation members, so would be quite silly to believe we should cede our sovereign status to it.

            by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:42:39 PM PDT

            •  withdrawing from Iraq

              will require more than just a set of beliefs.  

              If he is against the UN and against foreign aid, his belief system would seem to stand in the way of a sensible redeployment strategy and an effective international approach to the mess we've created in the region.

              by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:50:38 PM PDT

              •  We didn't create the mess, the neocons did

                and they did it purposefully.

                There is no "sensible" way to approach this mess, and no international effort will change it. There is going to be a civil war in Iraq because that is exactly what the neocons wanted in the first place.

                The UN can't stop it, just as they weren't able to do jack about Hezbollah firing mortars from Lebanon into Northern Israel for years, even though the UN was on the border practically the whole time.

                Also, Africa isn't getting out of poverty with the UN's help, if anything it has created a welfare state for dictators to commit genocide... your tax dollars and mine are being used to commit genocide in Darfur today!

                Please... the UN is a blackhole of nonsense.

                by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:56:07 PM PDT

                •  As far as the world is concerned

                  the United States is responsible for the invasion, occupation and resulting carnage.  That will impact this country economically, politically and diplomatically for the foreseeable future-- regardless of whether you wash your hands of it.

                  I disagree with most of your points-- but in any case, my primary point is that a president would not be able to take office in 2009 with these assertions as his international platform.  Whether you like it or not, whoever deals with the aftermath will have to engage in international dealmaking and foreign aid on a remarkable level, and will not have the luxury of pointing to a set of Libertarian principles as a way of explaining his refusal to participate in peacemaking and restoration efforts.

                  It's easy to bash foreign aid and the UN when you aren't the President of the United States and don't have a prayer of getting there.

                  by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:56:45 PM PDT

                  •  Umm... don't know if you haven't realized

                    this but Paul doesn't have a chance to win, and that is not what I advocate either (check my link that is further down the page to my diary entry on the subject).

                    Of course, Republican and Democratic principles (I should say "lack of principles) are what have gotten us to this point today, so you'll have to excuse me if I believe libertarianism is the only source of real change any of us can expect in the forseeable future.

                    And, for your information, polls consistently show that foreigners do not blame the US or its citizens for the Iraq War. They very clearly and unequivocally lay the blame for it at the feet of the Bush administration. Your assumptions are very misguided in consideration of that.

                    by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:06:42 PM PDT

                    •  no

                      You misunderstood my point: Paul doesn't have a chance to win, which is why he, and you, can stick to those "principles."

                      I see several other alternatives to the status quo that are preferable to libertarianism, and more practicable to implement.

                      And I think you are incorrect and misguided about world opinion.

                      by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:16:41 PM PDT

                      •  WHy in the world would you send me to the page

                        of a lobbyist? Don't you see how you are proving most of my points?

                        I actually do believe in the concept of "live free or die" and not making compromises which destroy freedom, in the name of freedom!

                        It feels good to be principled, you can actually look at yourself in the mirror without scouling at the murder your party is causing to innocent civilians around the world.

                        And frankly, Paul puts his voting record into action. He would lose his seat if his principles were impractical, and yet he's had that seat for over 9 terms.

                        by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:34:08 PM PDT

                        •  lol

                          Of course-- if everyone is unprincipled or a lobbyist except you, and you never have to put your "principles" into play, then everything proves your points and you can look at yourself in the mirror all day long.  
                          Enjoy!

                          by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:39:46 PM PDT

                          •  I put my principles into play everyday

                            thanks. It's how I didn't support the war before it started, unlike the many Democrats who were fooled into supporting the murder of innocent women and children.

                            I might not have won that battle then, but I am winning it now, and hopefully "pragmatists", or "tri-angulators" like yourself hold some degree of shame for the blood on your hands.

                            "LOL"... you have blood on your hands! What are you "LOL-ing" about?

                            by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:47:36 PM PDT

                            •  bullshit

                              "pragmatists", or "tri-angulators" like yourself hold some degree of shame for the blood on your hands.

                              With statements like this, you can take this discussion and shove it.  Clearly, you have no intelligent points to make, so you resort to facile accusations like this.

                              If you want to characterize me as an anti-Paul, anti-libertarian, go ahead.  You throw this trash at me and you prove your ignorance.  You know noithing about my politics. You're the one who boasts that, by rejecting the political process and remaining aloof, you have somehow maintained a pure conscience.  

                              I've fought against this war since it was a gleam in the eye of the neocons, and have marched and written and shouted and published against American foreign policy for the last 6 years (and more).  

                              "LOL"... you have blood on your hands! What are you "LOL-ing" about?

                              I'm laughing at you, asshole-- because I've been working against the war and those who wage it-- not standing in front of the mirror as some preening, self-satisfied elite.

                              by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:13:31 PM PDT

                    •  I think he does have a chance to win

                      You got a republican base that shrank from 50% of the populace to 30% in two years time. Those 30-percenters are haggling over Rudy McRomney, splitting their votes evenly among them (roughly 10% each) while Paul wakes up the other 20% who abandoned their big-government pro-war leaders out of principle. Now who's got the better chance: Romney or Guiliani riding along at 10% popularity in the country, or Paul riding along to wake up the 20% who hate what the neocons have done to their party?

                      Paul wins it, hands down, if he and his campaign are successfully and unambiguously introduced to these disenchanted 20% percenter "real" republicans. Toss the disenchanted liberals on top of that and it's a resounding victory for Paul.

                      by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:19:19 PM PDT

        •  more economic freedom?

          I am not letting you get away with this... Greater economic freedom for whom? Does that include artificial 'corporate' entities? How does intellectual property enter into your calculation of economic freedom?

          by debedb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:39:36 PM PDT

          •  Corporations have no standing in the constitution

            and should not have any recognized status from the government.

            Intellectual property, as per the founders, was to be 14 years for copyright, and something close to that for patents.

            Libertarians are not pro-corporation, they are for "corporations" to have no special status from the government, to face as much competition as possible, and receive scruntiny and oversight from the populace that has been too lazy to do so.

            by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:50:47 PM PDT

            •  not bad not bad

              Winning me over...

              by debedb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:04:03 PM PDT

  •  You got guts even posting here...

    seeing as this is a site for the election of Democratic candidates. That said, I commend your honesty and you seem like a nice chap. You won't lose your account though. Even complete trolls don't have their accounts deleted (though sometimes they WANT to!).

    But alas...though Paul is the best of the GOP choices (he has run before as a libertarian I believe, right?), like most here, I'm a registered Democrat and in CT, you can't vote in a primary unless you are registered in that party...

    by methodishca on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:44:31 PM PDT

    •  Why does he have guts? marKos calls himself

      a democratic "libertarian".

      Kos has opened the door to libertarians here, even writing an article for a libertarian magazine, "Reason", before the 2006 elections.

      by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:14:10 PM PDT

      •  well...

        this site is to elect Democrats. Kos certainly isn't a registered Republican. I just mean that people won't necessarily respond too kindly, that's all. I'm not saying this guy is Gandhi or anything...

        by methodishca on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:23:32 PM PDT

        •  the title of the diary was a bit

          knee-jerk-ish to try and garner a bit more attention, and i don't really fear for my dkos account

          but i do see your point and that is why i titled the diary as such...  

          all i really wanted to do was gauge the support for Paul here on kos and see who's out there spreading the good info and who's spreading the dis-info

          personally i think that just because of his foreign policy he's the best candidate in any party

          by Dr Seuss on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

  •  You might want to "air out"...

    ...what your conception of the R's position on ecomnomic issues really is...

    by mudslide on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:46:36 PM PDT

    •  The diarist hates fiscal responsibility...

      they prefer waste and corruption and money pissed away forever...that is their conception.

      by Los Diablo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:50:26 PM PDT

      •  Actually

        Paul would support the slashing of nearly all spending that isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.

        This is a principled man who votes against pork and graft everytime he gets a chance.

        by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:15:30 PM PDT

        •  I am NOT talking about Paul. I am talking about

          the diarist.  Argg!!!!

          by Los Diablo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:33:43 PM PDT

        •  Paul is an idiot...

          a principled idiot, but still an idiot with an idiotic philosophy.

          by jbou on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:31:08 PM PDT

          •  Awesome substance

            I'll have to remember that the next time democrats vote to give the president unprecedented war powers.

            Talk about idiots.

            by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:08:36 PM PDT

            •  fine

              I can spend a long time debating the merits of the libertarian philosophy if you'd like. We can star with the role the government played in the economic development of the US and go from there.

              You up for it?

              by jbou on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:21:09 PM PDT

              •  not tonight... it's about midnight here

                but I will just point out that Jefferson covered this topic better than you or I could ever dare to. He was very much the father of liberty, and I'm tired of seeing his work, and the constitution thrown out of hand.

                by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:28:55 PM PDT

                •  give it up

                  Libertarians try to claim Jefferson as one of their own all the time.

                  by jbou on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:30:05 PM PDT

                  •  well, the things he wrote are pretty damning

                    to any other interpretation. Supported property rights, rights to own a fireare, no taxes, separation of church and state, small government...

                    The list goes on and on. Maybe you're thinking of William "Jefferson" Clinton... I'm fairly sure libertarians don't claim him.

                    by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:36:54 PM PDT

  •  So you are fiscally irresponsible and bankrupt?

    Because that is the only way you can align yourself economically with Republicans.  They are some of the most wasteful and corrupt people with money that I have seen.

    by Los Diablo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:48:06 PM PDT

    •  Paul's voting record is better than

      nearly every Democrat and REpublican when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

      by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:16:34 PM PDT

      •  First of all, I am talking about the diarist who

        claims to be like the R's on economics and the R's on economics and fiscal matters is a joke.  Secondly, see the post below on Paul.  He border on racist if not a racist, etc.

        by Los Diablo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:32:26 PM PDT

  •  no

    he's anti union, racist and antiabortion. I hope he gives the publicans fits, but I have no intention of voting for him in any way, shape or form. I have a feeling that the pubs will supress him soon anyway. He won't be viable because the authoritarians over there won't allow it.

    by dougymi on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:50:09 PM PDT

    •  What racist policy has Ron Paul supported?

      I think he probably has a far cleaner voting record than Senator Byrd.

      by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:18:00 PM PDT

      •  Voted against the Voting Rights Act in 2006.

        Byrd voted badly in the 50's and 60's on civil rights, but since then, he's improved drastically and regrets his bad votes and his past racism. He voted YEA along with every Senator (Republican Senators aren't nearly as crazy as Republican Congressmen). Link

        Plus Ron Paul had a racist newsletter that was listed as a "racialist" news letter by a neo-nazi group

        Some choice quotes:

        If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
        Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"

        We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

        by DemocraticLuntz on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:27:59 PM PDT

        •  So anyone who voted against the voting rights act

          is a defacto racist, no matter that their reasons for doing so had nothing to do with race, but that the constitution does not give the federal government the right to legislate on such a matter (it's in the 10th if you squint your eyes a little) and is a state issue.

          For the congress to enact such a thing there would have to be a consitutional amendment... which is what we have an amendment process for.

          I would definitely find a better example of racist legislation if you want to be persuasive.

          It's very interesting that you don't have clear cut racist legislation that Paul has written to back up your statements whatsoever.

          by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:48:59 PM PDT

          •  I don't understand the logic

            He isn't a racist, racist statements notwithstanding, because he didn't propose racist legislation?  
            It's a dubious measuring stick.

            by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:38:18 PM PDT

            •  Wait... if he is a racist

              wouldn't he be proposing racist legislation left and right? Wouldn't he be saying racist things uncontrollable in every youtube video that you can find with him in it?

              I mean, if this guy is such an avowed racist, where's the beef?... other than one bizarrely uncharacteristic article, that was written by one of his campaign aids?

              I mean, I don't know many racists who behave so well, not to mention kindly to people of all races.

              I mean, if he's such a racist, why would he even entertain the questions from Wendell Goler, the black moderator, who was attempting to smear Paul?

              I'm just saying that the racism charge doesn't add up in any of this guy's character.

              by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:14:14 PM PDT

              •  you can make that assertion

                but it's not a logical one.  By your logic, there are no racists in the Congress-- because where is all the racist legislation that would prove it?  

                For that matter, he must not be a racist because he's never burned a cross on the House floor.

                Congressman X beats his wife.

                Supporter says Congressman isn't a wife-beater because he has never proposed any wife-beating legislation.

                I, for one, only know of the quotes that I have seen circulated-- so I don't know what's in the man's soul.  If you have a case to make, you should make it on the basis of the allegations-- those quotes-- not on some incongruous other measurement.

                by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:28:22 PM PDT

                •  Wait... the quotes from a source that no one has

                  an actual copy of. Where is the original document? I have never seen it.

                  But, no, it is actually quite logical. I could pretty much call you a racist because your username looks like a racist slur used in South Africa.

                  I trust you are not a racist, however, since you don't write racist things day in and day out.

                  See, either Ron Paul is a racist everyday of his life... or he is not a racist. What would make him a racist, I believe, would be some evidence that he says racist things day in and day out.

                  I'm afraid the burden of evidence is on you.

                  by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:42:13 PM PDT

                  •  nonsense

                    First off, you are trying to distract from the fact that the attributed statements are, in fact, racist.  They aren't just some unfortunate mis-translation.

                    If you wish to contend that those statements aren't racist, good luck.  I don't see any room for debate there.  As far as I'm concerned, such things could not be said, or written, without an awareness of the racist message they convey.

                    If you want to argue mis-attribution, then the burden is on you or Rep. Paul to explain why the Houston Chronicle would cite these as quotes by Ron Paul (perhaps you can shift the burden to the Chronicle, if it was, in fact, a journalistic fabrication-- though I imagine Dr. Paul would have made that accusation at the time).  

                    If a staffer wrote these things, and Dr. Paul is not a racist-- why didn't he vigorously repudiate the statements and dress down his employee.  Every non-racist I know would do everything he or she could to publically renounce any connection to such ideas.

                    In any event, I have no burden at all.  I know why I don't support Ron Paul, and it has everything to do with his positions on the issues, on domestic and foreign policy.  The allegations of racism are concerning-- but they ultimately don't make the difference in whether I support the man's politics.

                    by vivadissent on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:59:07 PM PDT

            •  No, he isn't a racist

              because he's never uttered a racist word or proposed a racist bill in his 30 years in public life, with the exception of one newsletter that somebody else penned in his name about 15 years ago. It'd be a shame to see a Dem ratfucked in about the same manner when all the opposition believed it was true no matter the Democrat's upstanding principles on display prior to and since the incident. But what goes around comes around I guess. Believe what you want to believe but your standards are brilliantly on display here as well.

              by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:10:00 PM PDT

          •  ok you are just this side of trolling

            Can I hear 'states' rights'?

            by debedb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:41:46 PM PDT

            •  It's called "amending the constitution"

              and there is a process to do just that.

              by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:43:12 PM PDT

      •  read and enjoy

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        by dougymi on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:29:45 PM PDT

        •  That is a good piece of propaganda

          But it isn't a racist piece of legislation with his name on it. In fact, he has never writeen a racist piece of legislation.

          by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:45:02 PM PDT

          •  ok vote for him

            I won't.

            by dougymi on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:48:39 PM PDT

            •  Obviously I am going to

              and you can do what you like... but you will be supporting the same graft and corruption that has allowed the Iraq war to go on for all of these years, as there are plenty of neocons in Dem clothing.

              by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:51:18 PM PDT

              •  lots of assumptions there

                of course any Democrat is preferable to a regressive anti-union asswipe.

                Wouldn't you be happier at reason magazine or over at sully's site? You're not making many converts here.

                by dougymi on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:05:16 PM PDT

                •  Not making any converts?

                  isn't that quite an assumption?

                  Anyways, I'm not looking for converts. The Dems will display the same corruption they have in the past when they were in the majority, and we'll do the same merry-go-round cycle that we always do.

                  By the way, Paul isn't "anti-union" as far as I know. He would support any person's desiere to form a union, but he would also support the business owners right to fire. But he would also want a more active citizenry that keeps an eye on businesses with grassroots journalism, so people could boycott bad employers... and employers would actually fear firing those who create their own unions.

                  I know that is somewhat complicated, but it isn't deserving of an "anti-union asswipe" tag.

                  by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:16:01 PM PDT

                  •  He's genuinely offering

                    to hand this country back to its citizens. Only the lazy and ignorant are turned off by it. The rest of us are ready to sieze that control. Nothing will engage the population more than them having to get involved at the local and state levels to make their communities what they want them to be.

                    by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:05:40 PM PDT

  •  No - and you're wrong BTW

    Social liberalism and economic conservatism feel good, but they can't work.

    Social liberalism wants to accord everyone a high level of personal autonomy, but we're not living on isolated homesteads anymore. We live in a hugely complex global social system where we are, by our acts of omission or commission, our brother's keeper.

    Economic conservatism wants to accord everyone a high level of personal financial autonomy. However, if you believe in a market system, you have to recognize that there will be a lot more losers than winners. You can't just write them off, or there won't be any peons to pay for your success. Plus what if you end up as one of the peons?

    Both concepts feed our fantasies of self-reliance. But in a global economy and society we aren't independent any more - either socially or fiscally.

    Its a conundrum - just like life.

    by grapes on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:50:13 PM PDT

    •  Wait a minute..

      Is this the same group of people who have been harping about how much money red states have been siphoning off the blue state tax dollars? What Paul proposes is exactly the remedy for these whiners who resent having to carry all those poor welfare red staters on their backs, by changing policies so that your tax dollars don't take a detour through Washington, but are dumped right back into your own economies and tax bases, for the almost exclusive benefit of your local and state economies.

      Now you've got a problem with that? Would you people please make up your minds?

      by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:03:05 PM PDT

  •  Even though I believe you are misguided...

    ... both the Democratic and Republican parties of North Carolina currently allow unaffiliated voters to vote in thier primaries.  You should verify this with your county board of elections.  Contact info for NC county boards of elections is here.

    And speaking of economically conservative, how's that Republican/Conservative economy been working out lately? Oh, not so good huh?

    By the way, the economy IS a social issue.

    by bluerevolt on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:08:27 PM PDT

  •  That's awful that you'd take Theodore Geisel's

    name and post as a "libertarian Democrat."

    He was far from a libertarian; he was a socialist and he pushed for intervention in WWII before Pearl Harbor.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:16:54 PM PDT

    •  for starters... i didn't take the name

      it was given to me, and does it really matter?

      ... and I think it's awful that you've taken the name of one of the worst Americans out there ... he is directly responsible for so many of the communication problems that Americans are bogged down by...

      on a side note, did you see him on Real Time with Bill Maher two weeks ago??  Great show that Real Time.

      by Dr Seuss on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:51:06 AM PDT

  •  If sticking your hand in the

    fireplace or gouging your eyes out with a spoon feel good why shouldn't voting Repuplican't.

    by eastvan on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:00:52 PM PDT

•  What Economic Issues

  Could any person possibly identify with the "R"s about?

  by Anna Sukrana on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:41:27 PM PDT

•  have you no clue

  about Paul's racist history???

  by rgdurst on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:44:15 PM PDT

  •  I certainly didn't...

    oh great! Strike my former comment then...I just heard some sound bites of the debate and he seemed by far the  most outspoken against the war...

    by methodishca on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:46:15 PM PDT

  •  Which racist policies does Paul support?

    Which racist Bills has he written. This guy writes more Bills than many house representatives and senators. I'm sure such a deeply convicted racist has proposed many discriminatory and racist bills. So where are they?

    by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:21:35 PM PDT

•  Fine by me

  I think a Ron Paul Primary win would be great because it would make the November election a sure thing for the Democrats.  If Paul drops out, can you please vote for Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich instead?  Thanks in advance.

  by ortcutt on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:44:31 PM PDT

  •  Democrats are going to win anyway

    no matter who wins the Repub nomination. I would just like Paul to post either 2nd or 3rd.

    by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:22:41 PM PDT

  •  You can rest assured

    that no Democratic candidate will ever become anti-war or pro-liberty and say the things Paul is saying now in those regards if Paul is not their opponent in the general.

    Everyone here keeps talking about how Paul is blazing the trail as the Dems' sacrificial lamb, saying the things Democrats are too politically paralyzed to say, and that once Paul makes it safe to actually say those things and mean it, then the Dems will come charging to this country's rescue.

    The minute Paul is eliminated from the running is the minute Dems breathe a sigh of relief for finally never having to defend their cowardice to a very angry populace.

    The only way to force them into compliance with our anti-war/pro-liberty wishes is to put the Dem candidate up against Paul in the debates.

    by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:30:05 PM PDT

•  Are there fiscally responsible Republicans?

  I haven't seen one yet.  Not only do they spend without having the money but they bribe and cheat and reward noncompete contracts.

  I would have to say that Republicans are horrible at money management.

  by Los Diablo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:45:20 PM PDT

  •  They Seem Very Competent

    At managing their own money, and even better at stealing other people's.

    by opinionated on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:49:19 PM PDT

  •  Then you haven't seen Ron Paul

     - returns a portion of his office budget to the treasury every year (approx. $50,000 returned every year)

    - refuses to participate in the Congressional pension program

    - refuses campaign donations from corporations

    - ranked third in Congress for the majority of his campaign funds coming from private citizens

    - Votes no on spending bills that bring pork back to his district, reasoning that the agri subsidies are going to corporations and in turn harming his family farming constituents

    - has the lowest burn rate in the way his campaign goes through their funds (18% compared to approx. 50% per qtr for the other candidates)

    In fact, Ron Paul is the only Republican running for the nomination. All the others are big government pro war imposters.

    by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:56:47 PM PDT

    •  very good rebuttal

      and informative too... thanks

      by Dr Seuss on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:40:45 AM PDT

    •  "Ron Paul is the only Republican"

      That was my whole point.  By today's definition and standards set by the Republic Party, Paul is not a Republican.

      by Los Diablo on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:53:19 PM PDT

•  More Important Than That.

  If you're going to use a handle like "Dr. Seuss" then you have to do all your diary entries in Suessian rhyme.

  by Tod on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:46:09 PM PDT

  •  Heh

    How's this for channeling the doc????

    The Democrats caved. I don't want to stay.

    So I'm gonna change parties to show them the way.

    I'm sick of the war. The deficit too.

    Perhaps a batshit crazy guy will know what to do.

    The Congressional leaders have dropped the ball.

    So I say fuck it, I'm leaving to vote for Ron Paul.

    I'm tired of ranting, Shit! Shit! Shit! Shit!

    Supporting Dems brought no change, not one little bit.

    by Sharon Jumper on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:58:51 PM PDT

    •  PERFECT

      i couldn't have done it better myself...

      really ... i'm not that good at rhyming

      by Dr Seuss on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:37:22 AM PDT

•  Just my .02 cents

  I saw Ron Paul on Bill Mahr the other night and I must confess he seemed like the (very!) last "good" republican.

  But... as much as I agree that it would be nice to have a 3 (or more) party system the unfortunate reality is that we don't.

  That means that, in all likelihood, Ron Paul would vote in lockstep with the rest of the republicans - most all of whom are doing and have done some really bad stuff to this country and would do more bad stuff given half the chance.

  So again, my .02 cents is this: If you care more about the issues that are important to Democrats, stay with the party unless and until a third one comes along that you like better. If not, you could "Ralph Nader" another "Al Gore" in a future election which would be a little like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

  Or... perhaps you could persuade Mr. Paul to switch parties. ;-)

  by Snud on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:46:19 PM PDT

  •  He hasn't been voting "in lockstep."

    No on Iraq, against PATRIOT, and against all Bushco budgets.
    There's plenty to criticise, but lockstep doesn't fit.

    by ben masel on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:02:14 PM PDT

    •  Against Bushco budgets cause they're too liberal.

      Against Voting Rights Act for who knows what reason (he needs to read the 15th amendment)

      Against Brown v. Board of Education, etc.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:19:07 PM PDT

      •  I don't support the VRA

        I don't support the voting rights act because portions of it are focused on only a few areas of the country while places like Florida and Ohio go completely unprotected. Either those provisions should apply to all states across the board, or to none.

        by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:23:36 PM PDT

      •  He also voted against the Bushco

        budgets because they were unconstitutional.

        by retired on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:24:33 PM PDT

•  There is a party that is more or less

  socially liberal and more or less economically conservative.

  That would be the Democratic Party.

  You might give those guys a shot.

  by Karmafish on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:46:36 PM PDT

•  shaking my head but i'm jumping in

  anyway...

  i agree: we need more parties.

  and it's my hope that you WOULD NOT be kicked off this site.

  we need an array of ideas in dealing with problems... people who think alike end up depleted and making decisions not based on reality: BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ONE TO CHALLENGE THEM

  we all need to be challenged... the Dems are NOT supreme...and they'd become a monster if left unchecked... of that i'm certain... it's human nature

  so i'd welcome your ideas and your company here. but then, they may want me to leave with you...

  and you know what?  i'd go.

  no more one-party politics. no more one-party rule of my country. no more. and i'd fight the dems just as hard on this issue.

  sincerely... pf8

  by pfiore8 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:46:43 PM PDT

  •  American... not Dem... not Repub

    needed to add that...

    no one size fits all here... no easy answers...

    by pfiore8 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:51:00 PM PDT

  •  If you want more parties

    We need electoral college reform. The easiest thing is to get individual states to change how electors are apportioned. Get rid of the "winner take all" formula.  Until this happens, no third party will be a force.

    by Sharon Jumper on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:00:31 PM PDT

•  If conservative economically

  means not being willing to pay the cost of living in a first world country, and therefore underfunding schools, parks, social safety nets, and all the things that make some of our first world allies more socially mobile places for the working and middle classes, then I think you probably belong in the Republican party.

  if you're just doing this to sabatoge them, go for it, we all appreciate the help.

  by decembersue on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:47:24 PM PDT

  •  More socially mobile?

    My parents are in Belgium right now and they can't even buy a liter of water for less than $7US.

    If you call the suffocation of choices some sort of "social mobility", I'd suggest you take an extended vacation in the EU to wash that notion out of your mind.

    by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:30:46 PM PDT

    •  suggestion

      If your parents are staying in a fine hotel and ordering sparkling water at the overpriced restaurant, it is perhaps true that they can find a way to pay more than $7 for a liter of Perrier or some such.  They could probably achieve the same thing in San Francisco or New York City.

      But I can also do a simple web search and find someplace like Allo Supermarché, where a Belgian can buy various brands of bottled drinking water for 0.32 EUR (about 43¢/liter).  And they deliver.

      This makes your claim, well, false by an order of magnitude.  Some of us actually have taken extended vacations in the EU, and know first hand that such statements are jingoistic crap.

      by craiger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:51:00 PM PDT

      •  Actually

        you are incorrect. But I won't let that stop you. The labor regs have created very high costs for most products. It is a socialist culture, so what can anyone expect.

        by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:19:39 PM PDT

        •  nice

          The parent brings facts, and you counter with 'you're incorrect'. Nice going.

          by debedb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:44:24 PM PDT

          •  The fact is my parents are there right now

            so, unfortunately, I have a better view right now than he could possibly have from behind his computer.

            by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:53:17 PM PDT

            •  belgium

              first off, drinking anything but beer in Belgium is a heresy.

              by debedb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:12:00 PM PDT

            •  parental hearsay?

              I've been in the EU within the last six months.  I bought water there on several occasions, although I preferred the wine, which was generally cheaper in restaurants.  I might have paid $7/liter at a hotel restaurant adjacent to Heathrow, but that's the exception rather than the rule.  I've traveled in Europe extensively, well over a dozen visits over the course of the last 18 years.  You, sir?

              by craiger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:18:46 PM PDT

•  Yes

  I've been a registered dem all my life, but like you, Ron Paul appeals to me. I don't know what I'm going to do yet, but no one on the D side of this mess has impressed me as much as he has. This country isn't just in trouble. It's dying. Ron Paul seems to be the only one willing to look that ugly truth in the face.
  I'm sure we'll both get flamed to death, but I agree with you.

  by jiordan on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:48:05 PM PDT

  •  Ron Paul may have integrity

    I'll give him that. But he is just another part of the republican machine that got us Reagan, and now Bush. His absolute libertarianism is just as corruptible, if not more so, than the monstrosity we have now, simply because there are too many wolves waiting to be released from their cages. It is our regulations that hold them back.

    by corwin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:18:58 PM PDT

    •  Libertarianism isn't corruptible

      because it is based on clearly defined principles, and it is clear to see if a person is living up to those principles and vote them out if necessary.

      Democrats and Republicans have nearly no principles, and thus define themselves politically based on "the political climate".

      Whereas the definition of Republican and Democrat will change over the years to reflect whichever lobbyists are paying them at a certain time, Libertarians will remain with the same principles they always have... personal freedom, and a small government restrained from impinging on those freedoms. And no war unless we are attacked, or can see the attackers on the horizon.

      by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:35:30 PM PDT

      •  Excuse me

        I most certainly do have principles. As do most democrats, and most real republicans. The ones who don't are the ones who stick around power too much. That applies not only to government, but religion, business and the media.

        As far as voting them out of office if they don't live up to their "clearly defined principles", a good media campaign can make just about anyone look like anything. Otherwise we would have voted Bush out of office in 2004 with all his broken promises.

        Finally, you seem to want lots of personal freedom without restrictions. Sorry, won't happen these days. We are too interconnected and have too many business and personal relationships, some very bad, to not impose some very necessary rules about how we live together. I still want clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. That imposes restrictions on business and individual freedoms. I want a reasonable opportunity at success, not limited by some corporate CEO intent on driving my wages into the ground. Again that impose some restrictions. Libertarian principles can be a good thing, but not if trying to prove a point gets us someplace only a few can actually live.

        by corwin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:56:30 PM PDT

        •  You don't understand a true free market

          which wouldn't stand for bad water, or underpayment of employees or anything like that.

          Today we have a society of people who don't give a damn about what companies are doing because they think "the government is taking care of it". Those same companies are paying the government cronies to do their bidding to screw the citizens.

          It is with corrupt, large government that we get screwed everday!!!

          Libertarian principle would demand that the government be so small that no one entity could corrupt it, and no corporation would get subsidies or protection from that government.

          Citizens would actually have incentive to learn about how companies are running their business, and could make wide and strong choices about boycotting them, and there would be no government subsidizing power to prop up the corrupt company.

          That is the ideal most libertarians stand for, because that type of true free market is a more watchful entity than the corrupt, mafia-like system we live under today.

          It is more revolutionary than the way you are envisioning it (which has been taught to you that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - of course that has happened all along the time we've had more invasive government.

          by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:05:39 PM PDT

          •  It costs less to pollute

            Than to keep things clean. A true free market system would virtually guarantee a poor environment. If company X has to pay 1 million dollars a year to store its hazardous waste, or could dump it in the nearest lake for one hundred thousand dollars, the decision of the free market is too maximize profits, therefore it would be dumped in the nearby lake.

            We can look overseas and see how American companies treat employees. It is in many cases shameful. Think they wouldn't do it here?

            If you want to look at how badly things have changed with our more invasive government, you might look at a little history. In the 1880's and 1890's, the government was used to shoot and kill laborers. See here for example. Here is a list of major recessions and depressions around the world. Notice how they tend to drop off since Roosevelt?

            This is the real world of the free market. Bad guys will always exist and always do everything in their power to take advantage of the situation. Get rid of the bad guys, and you might have a half a chance, but until you do, it just won't work.

            by corwin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:27:11 PM PDT

            •  The government was invasive in every one

              of your examples. DO you get that?

              Corporations wouldn't be able to do any of the things you mention if people paid attention to them and boycotted them.

              Most do not boycott today because the government has deincentivized them from paying attention... and that has opened up the backdoor for corporate lobbyists to make decisions for the government for us.

              It is actually quite simple, and unfortunately you have been raised to think that government is the way to some sort of purity, when it actually has created more poverty than you will ever realize.

              by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:24:01 PM PDT

•  Only if you tell us about it in a diary...

  by madame defarge on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:49:33 PM PDT

•  You'll lose...

  ...all pootie privileges.

  by boran2 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:50:37 PM PDT

•  Conservative economics????

  You mean like the ones where the wealthy pay no taxes whatsoever and the poor get nothing for their efforts and the middle shells out all the cash for the running of the country while their job security goes into the shitter and their healthcare gets exponentially more expensive (and by this I mean it becomes 1/10th as valuable even as it becomes 10x more expensive)?   That kind of economics?

  You can leave that shit at home.

  by slippytoad on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:51:29 PM PDT

  •  No, Not That Kind of

    conservative economics-- I believe the diarist refers to the kind of economics most of us in the middle class were raised on-- i.e. you SAVE more than you spend and you give a percentage to the needy.

    your cynical take of course reflects just as badly, or worse, on the so called "liberals" in congress than it does the clownservatives.

    by Superpole on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:10:55 PM PDT

    •  As You See, Superpole...

      ...you have to further expand on your ideas.  I'm with slippytoad here.

      And Paul doesn't think the federal government is legitimate in the area of regulartion or protections.

      And I don't see that the diarist has been nearly precise enough in his details for any of us to know what the heck he means.

      your cynical take of course reflects just as badly, or worse, on the so called "liberals" in congress than it does the clownservatives.

      Egad.

      by InquisitiveRaven on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:06:01 PM PDT

      •  Sorry, I Happen to Agree With

        the diarist who implies the federal government should be conservative fiscally and liberal with social, infrastructure programs.

        fiscal conservatism does not mean little to no social spending.. IMHO what it means is keeping the books in the black and instead of pissing away $6 Billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan, we spend it here at home on social and infrastructure programs.

        the so called conservatives fleecing the Treasury at the moment are conservatives in name only-- they are in fact dangerous radicals which the democrats in congress are responsible for in terms of preventing and prosecuting their criminal acts.

        your "egad" gets little to no traction here. instead of words how about proving to me the democrats are actually interested in getting federal spending under control-- and they have succeeded in doing so. I'm referring to the last six or so years.. not the Clinton administration.

        by Superpole on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:51:59 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I'm just a little bit cynical

      But when a "liberal" was in charge of the economy, things went well and for the benefit of all.  When a "conservative" took charge it went right to shit, for the benefit of a few.

      by slippytoad on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:28:16 AM PDT

•  WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??

  at least you're HONEST... instead of the fantasy-landers here still hanging on to the desperate notion "the democratic party" is different, better.

  please, please give me a break.

  by Superpole on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:54:08 PM PDT

  •  They are the "reality-based community"

    who apparently hasn't realized that in reality their party is owned by corporate interests and lobbyists who profit from war.

    by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:37:01 PM PDT

•  There's a name for people who are social

  liberals and economic conservatives:
  libertarians. and they already have
  a party. Paul used to be a libertarian.
  I don't know how a "Democrat" can be
  for getting rid of social security,
  government oversight on labor, and
  trickle-down, laissez-faire markets and
  eliminating safety nets for the elderly,
  that seem to be the hallmark of "economic
  conservatives." Democrats now and always
  have been for the underclass.  

  by Wildthumb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:54:58 PM PDT

  •  one thing is clear: REGULATION is necessary

    period...

    and one other thing: gov't has to be advocate for its citizens, not global corporate interests

    after that, i hope it's a free-for-all

    by pfiore8 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:27:16 PM PDT

    •  Democrats are going to get rid of global

      corporate interests? That's news to me. Maybe if se close our eyes and flinch our noses we can make all of the lobbyists and their backroom deals disappear.

      by libertynow on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:38:46 PM PDT