Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 2, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Could Ron Paul Be the Next Ralph Nader?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 1, 2012
Matt Market (CC-BY)

By Joe Conason

Even as Barack Obama gradually climbs in national polls, more than a handful of the president’s once-ardent admirers suddenly seem more attracted to Ron Paul.

Long disappointed by Obama’s overly solicitous attitude toward banking, defense and national security interests—at the expense of economic justice and civil liberties—these disappointed critics find a satisfying echo in Paul’s assaults on the banks, the Federal Reserve, the military-industrial complex and, indeed, the entire American superstructure, including the miserably failed war on drugs. As a libertarian, he doesn’t actually share the liberal perspective on these issues but sometimes sounds as if he does.

For some people, perhaps that is enough.

As a seasonal fad unlikely to persist beyond Iowa, a minor liberal flirtation with Paul wouldn’t matter at all. While he has provided much entertainment over the past few weeks, scaring the Republican establishment with his anybody-but-Romney climb in the polls, he undoubtedly understands that he will not be the nominee of the GOP (and in calmer moments, so do the Republicans).

His prescriptions for government and the economy may be misguided, to put it kindly, but his passionate support for the Bill of Rights is refreshing, especially because so many Republicans and too many Democrats are prepared to snip or even scrap that document. So is the consistency of his current stance on such issues as narcotics, marriage and military engagement abroad. Which are only the most obvious reasons that he will always be rejected by the GOP, even as his dedicated supporters occasionally win a momentary victory in a straw poll or a pseudo-convention.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
But what if Paul should decide to run on the Libertarian Party ticket next year? He ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and he has coyly hinted that he might do so again in 2012, a campaign that the Texan seems to suggest will leave Republican leaders practically begging him to accept their nomination when the primaries end. He could either defeat former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who recently announced that he had left the Republican Party to seek the Libertarian nomination, or ask Johnson, who supported Paul in 2008, to join the ticket as his vice presidential candidate. In many respects, Ron Paul for President is as much a family business as an ideological crusade, so the incentives for him to continue into November will be powerful.

For liberals who are drawn to Paul as an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve, the military budget and the wars on terrorism and drugs, that would pose a challenge. Like Ralph Nader in 2000, Paul could offer them a tempting opportunity to express their weariness with compromise and complexity; once more they could vote their conscience and voice their frustration. The moral hurdle would be much higher than with Nader, a genuine American icon who carries none of Paul’s embarrassing baggage. At the very least, Nader upheld traditional progressive ideals for government, the economy and the environment—while Paul would eagerly repeal a century of advances on all those fronts, if he could.

But for those willing to overlook the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and paranoid Ron Paul newsletters—as well as their putative author’s feeble, implausible and changeable explanations for them—the congressman might claim to be an alternative to that tired-old-two-party, lesser-of-two-evils ballot choice.

That would appeal only to progressives who suffer from historical amnesia, the chronic affliction of American politics, and were thus unable to recall the consequences of Nader’s third-party candidacy. One of those consequences, ironically enough, was the war in Iraq, which probably would not have occurred if Al Gore hadn’t forfeited the electoral votes that Nader threw to George W. Bush.

Another consequence was the abandonment of the U.S. commitment to mitigate climate change, which dwarfs even the economic debacle of the past few years in its potential toll on humanity. And a third consequence was the spike in economic inequality encouraged by Bush’s tax, spending and regulatory policies—which will someday seem moderate in retrospect, if Obama loses next year to Mitt Romney and Republicans control both houses of Congress.

The Nader supporters of 2000, a fraction of the liberal electorate, didn’t get the policies they so urgently desired, of course. They didn’t even get a viable Green Party or a lasting movement for change. Instead, they helped to inflict a political disaster from which America has scarcely begun to emerge. In the new year, we may discover whether they wish to revive that nightmare.

Joe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com.

© 2011 Creators.com


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Korky Day, April 18, 2012 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

I started a new non-profit fun-poll about Mitt Romney’s choices for vice president at
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=RomnVP2012

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, February 14, 2012 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment

“Could Ron Paul be the Next Ralph Nader” is like asking “Could Wee Man from
Jackass be the next Bernie Saunders” LOL

http://subversify.com/2011/09/02/ron-paul-fantasy-fallacy-and-foible/

:p

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

ain’t gonna any discussion about that shit from Romney,
Korky,

time the old boy got sent back to Texas, make him work
on his ranch.

Report this

By Korky Day, February 14, 2012 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

Aquifer asks, “Are we allowed to make RP somebody else’s VP?”  If Ron Paul wants to, sure, but not in the particular poll I started at DemoChoice.  There’s discussion of Ron Paul taking the vice presidential slot with Mitt Romney at the Daily Paul
( http://www.dailypaul.com ).

Report this

By Aquifer, February 13, 2012 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment

hetero,

By Gorky, er cracky, I think you’ve got it!

So shouldn’t he be making it on his own, instead of relying on the gov’t to take care of him? His gold stocks ought to be leaving him sitting pretty. Shucks i don’t even have any gold fillings ..

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 13, 2012 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

congressional retirement benefit are pretty swank.

and yes, we should make Paul someone else’s running
mate…...I’m thinking Paul might fit on the Putin
ticket.

Report this

By Aquifer, February 13, 2012 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

Korky,

Are we allowed to make RP somebody else’s VP?

Also, I didn’t realize RP was retiring at the end of this term .... Wonder what his pension and health care benefits are. Does he have a better deal that garden variety Medicare?

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 13, 2012 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

how about Ron Paul’s chief of staff and long-time pal, Lew Rockwell ?

Report this

By Korky Day, February 13, 2012 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

Vote in ranked-ballot fun-poll for Ron Paul’s vice president!  Included on the ballot are Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney.

http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=PaulVP2012

Report this

By ardee, January 8, 2012 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, January 7 at 8:29 am

You share an execrable trait with your fellow Democratic Party shill, Lafayette in that any criticism of your positions is automatically misinterpreted and distorted by you both.

Report this

By Korky Day, January 8, 2012 at 2:37 am Link to this comment

I am a good editor, but I doubt that anyone would hire me from reading my comments here.  Few people want their writing to be improved, anyway.  I alluded to my availability more to make a point than actually to drum up business.
Korky Day
http://www.korky.ca

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm Link to this comment

So far the only Republican I see that might give us a little hope is former governor Buddy Rhomer and he has been 86ed out of it.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 7, 2012 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Korky,

LOL! Gotta give you credit, not a bad idea - how to make a buck off a free blog! Now that’s American chutzpah!

How’s your client base? Seriously, do blog commenters actually do this?

(PS - I DO appreciate TIC - tongue in cheek)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 7, 2012 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

Querky Day

Let me suggest that you “Report this” if you don’t like it and go elsewhere to peddle your pretend expertise. Do you wish to censure, or do you fancy yourself a super duper editor?

Ardee

I find your comment to be vague and difficult to understand. Are you saying that my words are “pretty” or are you referring to other words? “Tunny” as best I can ascertain, is British slang for tuna fish. What exactly do you mean by “Tunning”?

One thing is clear though. Saying that Obama is a “Pariah to those in need” demonstrates an astounding lack of acuity. Compromising in order to preserve unemployment benefits for those truly in need demonstrates clearly that Obama is not a pariah to those in need and that the word once used effectively to describe Go Right Young Man applies to you quite well in this instance.

Report this

By Korky Day, January 7, 2012 at 12:56 am Link to this comment

The 4000-character limit is here for good reasons.
Learn to be brief and clear.
I’m a professional editor.
I can help you summarize and re-organize your text before you post it.
Reasonable rates.
Korky Day
http://www.korky.ca

Report this

By Aquifer, January 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

Whoa! and i thought I was long winded! Is this your PhD thesis? But seriously, (no more LOL, only chuckle, chuckle,chuckle) i feel flattered that you would spend so much of your precious time on my “bs”!

You really can’t stop with the personal insults, can you? As if making me a “3” and you a “10” somehow strengthens your case, although seeing as how you have spent more time and space than i on BS, I suppose those numbers might be correct ...

I am sooo glad you were able to adequately determine the true implications of the 2000+ page bill after reading “the top 50” provisions (according to this “author”, whom you fail to cite)  Hey, did you check out the PNHP site I mentioned? It seems that Obamacare is pretty much Romneycare (in Mass) writ large ...

Mystic, your defense of Obama is touching, really, and i am sure his mother would appreciate it. As far as being a Manchurian candidate or a CIA agent - I wouldn’t know about that, seems a bit far fetched to me, but if you feel a need to disprove it, knock yourself out, really ..

“I thought that the environmental movement was, as I was (Before being enlightened by you) primarily concerned with other kinds of fuel.”

I am so glad you found that educational! Yeah - much of the concern about fracking and the XL pipeline is it’s potential of/probability for polluting underground water supplies - aka aquifers. So now you know, aint that peachy!

As far as teaching advanced physics, maybe you could do that another time - i am sure you would be excellent at it. Let me know when you find the Higgs-Boson. Talk about instability!

I confess, yes “a little bit of truth” IS hard to believe when it is surrounded by so much, shall we say, horse patooty.

“If Obama attacks Iran as the Republicans wish then I’ll say no.”

No you won’t, you will find some excuse - “they threatened us” “fired a missile at our ship” or “NATO is doing it” or whatever. You said in the beginning, in case you forgot, it was so long ago, “the possibility that I will fall lower on the scale is too remote for consideration.” If defense of a guy who will gut habeas corpus, drone civilians, continue to allow deep sea drilling, and on and on qualifies you as a 10 on your scale of support - it is pretty obvious this guy can do little or no wrong in your eyes ...

And i need find no further indication of this than - “I’ll be arguing in favor of the better and against the worst for the next 10 months and beyond.” And we know who that is, for you, now don’t we?

Well, even i don’t have as many words as you - but i console myself with the reminder that quantity is not co-terminal with quality.

Unlike you, apparently, i have enjoyed this little “exchange”. You have “enlightened” us all as to where you are coming from - you will do whatever you can to keep this man in office, no matter what, and any Dem who comes after him - Biden? Clinton? in ‘16, and forever, because, by definition, the Dems will ALWAYS be the “best we can do”. And how do we know? Because they told us so, so there!

And i, for my part, will do whatever I can to advance what Zizek calls “authentic politics ... the art of the impossible – (which) changes the very parameters of what is considered ‘possible’ in the existing constellation”, because the “possible”, as defined by your politics, has failed us miserably ....

Report this

By ardee, January 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

Obama, hero of the people…according to a mystic anyway.

Obama, hero of the pharmaceutical industry, hero of the HMO’s, hero of the Financial Community, pariah to those in need.

Taking a principled stance, according to JD, means speaking some very pretty words and tunning away.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 6, 2012 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

Aquifer

Before I post this lengthy post I’ll comment that by my appraisal writing this response to you has been a waste of time. I spent a good part of my morning yesterday writing this response to you. Of late I have spent far too much of my time responding to the uninformed and irrational on tired old threads. Yes it is tiresome and, I’m sure, an exercise in futility but when I see bullshit I feel compelled to point it out. Hey! Look there! There’s a big pile of bullshit! Don’t step in it!

You wrote:

Mystic,

LOL - “2.  airy: very light, airy, [or insubstantial]”

I’m pleased that you found my comment amusing and L’ed OL. My half-hearted, feeble attempt at abstract humor apparently hit the mark. I’m hoping that you laughed out loud hysterically; but I would not consider causing hysterical laughter much of an accomplishment in your case seeing as how you have a propensity for hysteria.

“Even I would not have pulled this out - you have described yourself as such, so what can i say, too much CO2, maybe, or is it the ozone?”

So am I to conclude that the above by you has some substance or are you attempting to be humorous? If so, I’m sad to report that I did not find your attempt at humor at all amusing. Oh well! To each his own, there’s no accounting for taste. Humor is very subjective, isn’t it?! Seeing as how my frivolous comment regarding nom de plumes elicited laughter in you I can only conclude that you are easily amused; perhaps a little unstable.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 6, 2012 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Aquifer (Cont.)

“But you still haven’t answered my question ...”

Ok, Ok… I’ll yield to a demand for an answer to your question. On a scale of one to ten measuring lowliness, ten being not low at all, and one being the lowliest, I would rate myself a nine or ten and the possibility that I will fall lower on the scale is too remote for consideration. So, the answer to your question, “How low will I go before I say “no” loses all significance and is devoid of any rational meaning. I am not now, nor have I ever been low and the possibility that I will be going lower is, frankly, non existent. My saying “no” in any respect would bear very little relationship to lowliness. (Incidentally, I would rate you as a high three or a low four on the lowliness scale.)

“I would hardly describe my position as “going with the flow”, rather it appears that i am going against the grain ... And need i point out that it is the defense of aquifers that is “fueling” much of the environmental movement right now ...”

Thanks for the “Heads up” regarding the environmental movement. I thought that the environmental movement was, as I was (Before being enlightened by you) primarily concerned with other kinds of fuel. My question now would be is this aquifer fuel toxic? If you are any measure, I’m inclined to believe that yes, aquifer fuel would be toxic.

“to your “tiresome explanation to the advantages of the ‘Affordable Health Care Act,’”, you are right, it is, indeed, tiresome.”

“You’ve got that right; explaining the advantages of the “Affordable Health Care Act to the likes of you is as tiresome as would be trying to teach advanced physics to skeptical 1st grade problem children.”

I would suggest that you read some of Wendell Potter’s stuff on how the insurance industries work and how that 80% requirement is easily gotten around. i also suggest you check out Dr. Marcia Angel’s critique on the Moyer’s journal sometime back and also the exhaustive comments on the PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Plan) site. And you may want to review the footage of the docs getting arrested at Baucus’ Sen hearings on the plan, and on and on. Or you may do none of those things, if you prefer to remain up in the air ...

Aha! Now your comment has very little, but at least something that vaguely resembles substance to it. I have the greatest respect for all who promote Universal Health Care, and I applaud Potter for pointing out the nefarious activities of the Health Care Insurance Industry of which he was once a part. I’ll point out that the Affordable Health Care Act was designed to eliminate those nefarious activities. Baucus functioned as a Democratic nemesis to achieving a better system of Health Care dissemination, Baucus is recognized by the astute as being one of the very few Democrats who colluded with Republicans in obstructing better Health Care dissemination. It was Democratic Congress people: Baucus, Blanch Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson, along with Independent Joe Lieberman who sabotaged the Public Option. Joe Lieberman cast the deciding vote that killed the Public Option. Based on what I know of you, I would not expect you to be aware of these facts, it was Obama who proposed the Public Option, but Obama being an astute politician, aware of the “Art of the possible,” dropped his demand for the Public Option out of political necessity.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 6, 2012 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

Aquifer (Cont.)

“Of course it is known how Obama abandoned (some would say “sabotaged”) the public option and made backroom deals with the pharmaceutical industry –“

(This is an addendum I failed to respond to your uninformed politically ignorant comment regarding the pharmaceutical industry yesterday, I let it slip somehow.)

Go back to 1992 and study what happened to “Hillary Care.” Given the difficulty of passing the Affordable Health Care Act my analysis is that Obama was politically shrewd in not making an enemy of the deep pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industries almost single handedly destroyed Hillary’s proposal for Health Care Reform.

It was Obama who proposed the Public Option, and alone confronted a gathering of Republican Congress people defending the Public Option. As it all played out, Obama being an astute politician, aware of the “Art of the possible,” dropped his demand for the Public Option out of necessity. It’s clear that you are the victim of, and purveyor of, anti-Obama demagoguery. Your ignorance of what transpired during the Health Care debate is manifest. You and the “Some” who suspect clandestine perfidy on Obama’s part are not at all rational and prone to condemnation based on unfounded conspiratorial thinking. I’ve got news for you; believe it or not, Obama is not a CIA Manchurian Candidate. That little bit of truth is hard for you to believe isn’t it?! (I jest only as a means of pointing out your ignorance and the unfounded irrational thinking you and your ilk are prone to.)

“And why, oh why, pray tell, do the majority of the so called benefits not come into play until ‘14, giving the insurance cos ample opportunity to jack up their premiums, as they have been doing. And, when it comes time to actually pay the subsidies to folks for these premiums do you really believe that the Pres and the Dems newly found concern for the deficit will allow them to actually FUND them? What an airy idea!”

No need for prayers, I’ll be happy to set you straight about Democratic objectives. The Democrats have every intention of implementing the Affordable Health Care Act as scheduled. Your apparent contention is that Democrats have no intention of implementing the provisions of the affordable Health Care Act and that The Affordable Health Care Act was nothing but an attempt to stifle public support for Universal Health Care illustrates your conspiratorial irrationality perfectly. Your contention that Democrats have delayed implementing provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act with the nefarious intention of making those provisions unavailable further highlights your irrationality. Are you asserting that all provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act not being implemented immediately is an indication that Democrats have no intention of seeing them implemented? And who is it that is guilty of “airy” thinking? Clearly, that would be you. Apparently you believe that implementing all provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act could be easily done immediately and that no time would be required to implement those provisions. The only legitimate threat to the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Acts provisions being implemented comes from the Republican dominated Supreme Court and from the Republicans themselves. Will you be arguing that there is a grand conspiracy and that Democrats, Republicans, and the Supreme Court are clandestinely colluding to deny affordable health care to Americans thereby serving the Health Care Industry at the expense of Americans; I think you might be. I think you might be out of your freaking mind.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 6, 2012 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Aquifer (Cont.)

“Look, the momentum for single payer was building - the insurance cos had to head it off at the pass, and their (polluted) water boys (no relation) did the job for them - make folks think they were actually doing something while giving their insurance donors a big present - wow, guaranteed customers.”

“Look” you ARE arguing that there is the aforementioned clandestine collusion; you Are out of your freaking mind!

“Health insurance companies have had a very hard time getting used to the fact that the health care reform bill has been passed and they actually have to implement the necessary changes that were outlined. Insurance companies have been fighting tooth and nail to try and get the health care reform bill repealed because they now view it as a threat to their profit margins.
In the beginning of the reform process, health insurance companies were in favor of the health care reform bill because they would get millions of new customers. Now the tides have changed and Republicans want to repeal the individual health insurance mandate which would basically make the bill a losing proposition for these companies.
A new report has found that health insurance companies gave more than eighty six million dollars to the United States Chamber of Commerce. The money was not surprisingly used to fight the health care reform bill. The bill makes health insurance companies cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. This is a very tough thing for health insurance executives to get used to. They want to only insure people that are very healthy because this dramatically reduced the numbers of claims that they have to pay out.”

“Sorry, man, if you are talking Dem “accomplishments”, you must be talking about what they accomplished for their wallet stuffers.”

You got my gender correct, that’s something. However, you are not nearly sorry enough. The contention that each and every Congress Person who holds office is thoroughly corrupt and only serves the interests of wealthy campaign contributors and that they do not care at all about the welfare of their constituents is a very popular demagoguery now. The contention that there is a quid pro quo attached to campaign contributions is refuted by the actions of Congress people who advocate for and vote against the interests of large campaign contributors. The Affordable Health Care Act being an example of such. “Wallet stuffers” strikes me as being a simple minded comment asserting such. One time Obama contributors who hoped futilely that they would be able to control Obama policies are now flooding the campaign coffers of Romney and Republicans. Super PACs are already funding anti-Obama Republican spots across the country, not just in the States currently holding primary elections where Super PAC money flows like it’s coming from a gigantic moneyquifer.

(More below)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 6, 2012 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Aquifer (Cont.) 

“Yup, Joe Biden is a GREAT source to quote ...’exquisite: very delicate or highly refined’ indeed”

So what is it you object to? Is it the BFD comment? Well I’ll give you that one. BFD is not particularly “exquisite, delicate, or highly refined.” If he had whispered, “Mr. President, this Bill is something we can be proud of” would that be more pleasing to your sensibilities or is it that you are asserting that Biden lacks exquisiteness and delicacy and that he is not refined? Again I’ll give you that one, Joe is somewhat earthier than many in Washington and others in the political realm, Sarah Palin,  Rick Perry, Herman Canine, and the wide assortment of Tea Party Lunatics now holding office, for example. Oh if only Joe had the refinement of a Gingrich or a Romney. You’ve got me there, Yup!

“’With a Democratic Presidency and a majority Democratic Congress the door would be opened for further improvements in the dissemination of Health Care.’

Well we had that already and the door got shut. Are you kidding - they won’t touch this again with a 10 foot pole “Wait and see for a few years (after ‘14 of course) how this plan works out, you have to give it a chance!” Right?”

Right! Makes sense to me, but what do I know, I’m still trying to prove that Obama wasn’t a CIA assassin.

“And then there’s your point about the Reps wanting to repeal it - it must be good if the Reps don’t like it, right? See, that’s the problem, you prefer to remain up in the air when you need to dig deeper.”

Dig deeper? Do you mean like truthdeepdiggers, many of whom who accept demagoguery without checking the facts and thinking critically? Acquiring knowledge can be tedious (tiresome) and time consuming. I do not fault you if you do not have the time or skills to acquire the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision, but I do fault you for accepting demagoguery without thinking critically and without checking the facts. More complete listings of the Affordable Health Care Act provisions are available all over the web, even at Wikipedia, but it’s apparent to me that you are ignorant of the Affordable Health Care Act Provisions, I just read 50 provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act, (With referencing to the pertinent sections of the Bill) the author claiming that the 50 were only the top 50.

“This is going to be a lonnnng 10 months, I can see that, but I think you are going to have to do better than that ...

I still don’t know how low you will go before you say no ...”

If Obama attacks Iran as the Republicans wish then I’ll say no. If that should occur I’ll have to find something with a glimmer of possibility for making things better. We’re caught between a rock and a somewhat softer place. I’ll opt for the softer place with no “no” remorse. I’ll be arguing in favor of the better and against the worst for the next 10 months and beyond. I understand the “Art of the possible” and I will not abandon the better and serve the interests of the worst in order to achieve that which is impossible to achieve (at the present time.)

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 5, 2012 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

Aquifer, I did a bit of web digging and came up empty with the Doctors name who stated he worked on the ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’. It provides many things the Repulcians and their benefactors the Medical Insurance companies do not like, far as I see it this is a start in the correct direction.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 4, 2012 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller,

i do remember something about a Dr. Ezechial Emmanuel (sp?) coming up with a plan or outline of some sort - don’t know if it was this one. Rahm’s brother - thought that was interesting ....

And, well, there are docs that work for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, what can I say ....

Check out what they are doing in VT - Dr. William Hsaio did a study and came up with a rec. for single payer - they are starting the process now ... VTdigger, an online journal out of VT has done a great job covering it.

That’s another little feature or this cutsy admin plan - states who want to do their own thing can’t get an exemption from the Fed program ‘til ‘17, Sanders and Leahy are trying to get that changed to ‘14.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 4, 2012 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment

Aquifer, I do not know his name, he was a guest interviewer on a TV News Program, he was the on the board or headed the making of Obama’s Health Care Plan, all I remember he was a Doctor! I may do a bit of research on the web to see if I can find his name?

Report this

By Aquifer, January 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment

Gerard,

Thank you!

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 4, 2012 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

gerard, excellnet idea, especially considering how much space was devoted to the
crazy old guy.

Report this

By Byard Pidgeon, January 4, 2012 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This was an interesting opinion piece, until Conason dragged out the dead
horse falsehoods about Nader’s candidacy defeating Gore, then compounds
his mendacity by blaming Nader’s running and Gore’s loss for the Iraq war.

Al Gore is a corporatist liberal, who lost the election because he couldn’t
convince even enough Democrats that he was a populist who would be
fighting for the 99 percent.

In other words, he couldn’t convince people he was Ralph Nader…and he
deserved to lose. He did it on his own.

Report this

By gerard, January 4, 2012 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

I’ve looked at some of the Jill Stein for President (Green Party) material on line and recommend that Truthdig give her some space and time.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 4, 2012 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller,

Out of curiosity, which Doc was that?

Report this

By Aquifer, January 4, 2012 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

Mystic,

LOL - “2.  airy: very light, airy, [or insubstantial]”

Even I would not have pulled this out - you have described yourself as such, so what can i say, too much CO2, maybe, or is it the ozone?

But you still haven’t answered my question ...

I would hardly describe my position as “going with the flow”, rather it appears that i am going against the grain ... And need i point out that it is the defense of aquifers that is “fueling” much of the environmental movement right now ...

As to your “tiresome explanation to the advantages of the ‘Affordable Health Care Act,’”, you are right, it is, indeed, tiresome.

I would suggest that you read some of Wendell Potter’s stuff on how the insurance industries work and how that 80% requirement is easily gotten around. i also suggest you check out Dr. Marcia Angel’s critique on the Moyer’s journal sometime back and also the exhaustive comments on the PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Plan) site. And you may want to review the footage of the docs getting arrested at Baucus’ Sen hearings on the plan, and on and on. Or you may do none of those things, if you prefer to remain up in the air ...

Of course it is known how Obama abandoned (some would say “sabotaged”) the public option and made backroom deals with the pharmaceutical industry -

And why, oh why, pray tell, do the majority of the so called benefits not come into play until ‘14, giving the insurance cos ample opportunity to jack up their premiums, as they have been doing. And, when it comes time to actually pay the subsidies to folks for these premiums do you really believe that the Pres and the Dems newly found concern for the deficit will allow them to actually FUND them? What an airy idea!

Look, the momentum for single payer was building - the insurance cos had to head it off at the pass, and their (polluted) water boys (no relation) did the job for them - make folks think they were actually doing something while giving their insurance donors a big present - wow, guaranteed customers.

Sorry, man, if you are talking Dem “accomplishments”, you must be talking about what they accomplished for their wallet stuffers.

Yup, Joe Biden is a GREAT source to quote ...“exquisite: very delicate or highly refined” indeed

“With a Democratic Presidency and a majority Democratic Congress the door would be opened for further improvements in the dissemination of Health Care.”

Well we had that already and the door got shut. Are you kidding - they won’t touch this again with a 10 foot pole “Wait and see for a few years (after ‘14 of course) how this plan works out, you have to give it a chance!” Right?

And then there’s your point about the Reps wanting to repeal it - it must be good if the Reps don’t like it, right? See, that’s the problem, you prefer to remain up in the air when you need to dig deeper.

This is going to be a lonnnng 10 months, I can see that, but I think you are going to have to do better than that ...

I still don’t know how low you will go before you say no ...

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 4, 2012 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

JD. At first I found Obama’s Heath Care plan disappointing, but after I heard the Doctor who helped set it up, like you I now find it a step in the correct direction, why else do the Repulcians find it so offensive? (Well they find anything offensive which helps the 99 percent) I suspect the Health care plan is just a first step and will be enhanced as time permits, especially if we get rid of an obstructing Congress!

I would have preferred single payer, but with all the crap coming down the pike after GWBush, I am glad Obama got the foot in the door! 

Sure Obama is not perfect, but please tell me who is? Ron Paul has one our two things I find acceptable and the rest is crapola!

I suspect a few posters here are sincere in their denigration of Obama from a left point of view, but I also suspect many are really Republicans in drag hoping to get people not to vote for Obama and do what the whore Senator Mitchel stated about ‘doing what ever it takes to make Obama a one term president!’

Come on people get your heads out of your fannies!

One of the most important reasons to vote for Obama is to not let in more ass hole corrupt Supremo Courtiers!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

By Aquifer, January 3 at 12:48 pm

mystic,

“My, my, we obviously have different “takes” on the “accomplishments” of the Dems.”

“One could go piece by piece in the analysis of Dem “accomplishments” but let me just settle on one - the delivery of the health care system lock stock and barrel into the slathering maw of the insurance companies…”

*****************************

Before I begin the tiresome explanation to the advantages of the “Affordable Health Care Act,” and comment about the irrationality of the tautological nay sayers; I’ll point out that an Aquifer is the source of a subterranean water supply while mysticism pertains, somewhat, to the ethereal:

e•the•re•al

1.  exquisite: very delicate or highly refined

2.  airy: very light, airy, [or insubstantial]

3.  heavenly: belonging to the sky or the celestial sphere

Hopefully the above will provide the answer to the question as to which one of us is lower, lowdown, going low, whatever. I’ll point out that while you, as an aquifer, are restricted by going with the flow, I, as a mystic, am free to mingle with the elements in their entirety. (Don’t pay any attention to the insubstantial part; you will find my arguments, in this instance, substantive.)

Now, where were you during the lengthy Health Care Debate? Did you fail to notice the Republican obstruction, the riotous objections to improving Health Care that included death threats, much profanity, and racial slurs directed at our commie president, and actual acts of murder and mayhem? Those in favor of reforming Health Care in order to better serve “We the People” were up against it, No?! Seeing as how Republicans, as a solid block, and a very few Democrats were adamantly opposed to improving the dissemination of Health Care in a more fair and just way; any improvement in the dissemination of Health Care should be considered an accomplishment, no?! Given what transpired during the Health Care Debate I would concur with Joe Biden who said that passage of the Affordable Health Care Act was a BFD.


To your comment about the “One point” regarding the “Slathering maw” of the Health Care Insurance Industry, did you fail to notice that as ordered by the Affordable Health Care Act the “Slathering maw” was reduced to taking a maximum 15% profit margin slather down from the 20%, 25%, 30%, which was typical of the Health Care Insurance Industries. There were other objectives accomplished by The Affordable Health Care Act such as pre-existing conditions not disqualifying applicants, cancelation of benefits for people who became sick, etc. etc., like I said it’s tiresome to have to tautologically point out the accomplishments of the “Dems,” just one of which was the Affordable Health Care Act and its provisions.

im•prove•ment

1.  getting or making better: the process of making something better or of becoming better

2.  change or addition: a change or addition that makes something better

3.  change that adds value: a change or addition, especially to real estate, that increases value

Given what transpired during the Health Care Debate “Accomplishing” an “improvement” is to be lauded, is it not?


Other than a paranoid, conspiratorial, unfounded, assertion of nefarious perfidy on the part of “Dems” you really have no valid complaint, now do you?! Of course you do; your complaint would be the same as a recalcitrant child who demands to have what can not be had, at present. With a Democratic Presidency and a majority Democratic Congress the door would be opened for further improvements in the dissemination of Health Care. Have you noticed that Republicans have stated as their first order of business when, and if, they resume political power will be the repeal of The Affordable Health Care Act?


Go ahead, waste your vote, and watch Republicans escalate war and destroy the social programs that took decades to implement.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 4, 2012 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

By ardee, January 4 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, January 3 at 12:06 pm

“You have a great future writing fairy tales, not so much as a political pundit I fear.”

*****************************************************************

Never fear, I am, IMHO, “A learned Person,” Which, according to my Random House Dictionary qualifies me as being a pundit. Regarding political punditry “My Future’s So Bright, I’ve Got to Wear Shades,” (IMHO,) So, IMHO, and according to you, I’ve got options for the future. Thanks for the career advice.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, January 4, 2012 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

Why is it that it is the Republicans who gravitate to the Libertarians but no other party does? Maybe it is because they are a Right wing version where wealth says how free you are and that the market dictates how life will be. Altruism is a throw away if it happens at all.

If anything Ron Paul is the anti Ralph Nader or mirror reverse supporting business over people, profit over human life, definitely the dark reverse of Ralph Nader.

Report this
Sandy Berman's avatar

By Sandy Berman, January 4, 2012 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

The concept of “States Rights” is bullshit.  Why should any American have less
liberty or protection in Alabama than in Nebraska?

Report this

By ardee, January 4, 2012 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, January 3 at 12:06 pm

You have a great future writing fairy tales, not so much as a political pundit I fear.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 4, 2012 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Out,

oops, sorry, wrong thread - gets tricky sometimes when you are arguing on several fronts and have to split up posts ...
Thanx for pointing that out!

Report this

By jones, January 4, 2012 at 7:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Instead, they helped to inflict a political disaster from which America has scarcely begun to emerge”


This culminating statement is so profoundly flawed.

Bush won because:

1) A lot of people voted for him
2) A lot of people didn’t vote
3) The Supreme Court decided the election and stopped the recount
4) A quarter million Democrats in Florida voted for Bush
5) The election may well have been rigged
6) Gore should have called for demonstrations in the streets, but instead rolled over like every other spinelsss Democrat

Moreover, Nader was not responsible for Bush’s policies.

If you’re like most voters you think polarization is a major problem in American politics.  But your solution is what, more polarization?

The two party system is a sham.  Nader’s analysis was right.  Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992.  It’s historical myopia to view past events in terms of present polarization.

Stop blaming Nader already, it’s fucking stupid.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 4, 2012 at 12:30 am Link to this comment

Re: Aquifer

I don’t see a “scott” post on this thread… who are
you talking to? I went through this first page TWICE,
did I miss it?

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 11:29 pm Link to this comment

Scott,

Pt 2

“But imho”

Ah, so THIS is where the humility comes in - you are right, it is a humble opinion, indeed ...

“it will require electoral reform, and this reform will either be brought about via a crisis knocking off a major party,”

Intriguing - and what might the nature of such a crisis be?

“If Jill Stein wants to be a factor she should get Anderson on her side and she should make a hard run to be the nominee of Americans Elect.”

Hmm, so it’s OK for her to run as a 3rd party as long as that 3rd party is Americans Elect? So who’s YOUR choice for Americans Elect?

Scott, I do believe that you have yet to “demonstrate how if everyone voted exactly like you will everything will be peachy.”

Report this

By kazy, January 3, 2012 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Voting for Nader did not give George Bush the election. What gave George Bush the election was the Supreme court. I doubt we can fare any better than we are with Obama than by electing Romney or Paul. I doubt Ron Paul would succeed in doing what he promises to do with the war on drugs, the Fed and the military industrial complex as these dark forces are far stronger than he and would surely assassinate him if he came close to his campaign promises. The problem is not that we need a third party, the problem is we need a second party. Obama certainly needs to go so that the Democrats get the message that they are no longer a viable party that represent anything close to what their constituents want. As they’ve moved further to the right they’re no different than Republicans, they just do more handwringing. I will probably sit out this election - the system is so broken and so diseased, nothing is going to change. Expecting solutions to come from the top down is futile. Politicians, i.e., Obama, are making a bad situation worse. The only thing to do is to decentralize the central government.

Report this
James M. Martin's avatar

By James M. Martin, January 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Ron won’t run as a third party candidate: it would undermine the political future of his son, Ayn Rand Paul.  Hey, it’s on the birth certificate: he was named after that sappy Russian woman who wrote those awful novels and pushed something called “enlightened self-interest.”  (That phrase alone would have Eastern mystics cringing.)  Early on, poor Ayn Rand Paul was teased and bullied by school mates, so Ron got a civil servant friend to re-do the birth certificate so it would reflect the birth name Rand Paul.  That way, no one would think Rand was some sort of girlie boy.  Wait a second, Rand does have a kind of high pitched voice, doesn’t he?  Maybe the damage was already done.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 3, 2012 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Re: Patrick Henry

cont.

This particular article regards abortion, but these same… as well as big money interests, will USE these “rights” regarding other issues as well (in many states are already attempting to), including how you dress, what you say and who you marry. It isn’t just the evangelicals, its BIG MONEY too. That’s why the Koch’s sponsor so much of this nonsense, because it allows them more easily to CONTROL YOU, one way or another. The Koch’s also push the “states rights” mantra for the record and it is for the very same reason, MORE CONTROL over us (not less).

BALANCE is the best case scenario. It is not so YOU will have freedom that Paul endorses “states rights” (he’s scamming the issue), its for evangelicals(which is big money today), the rich and big business interests.

Democracy is a work in progress, it always will be. There is a legitimate reason to have states rights as well as federal control. They need to be balanced, on that I would agree. The REASON for the “states rights” mantra currently is misconstrued and twisted, its reality… if brought to fruitation as they would like to see it, will be incredibly detrimental as regards individual liberty.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 3, 2012 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment

Re: Patrick Henry

“What plethora of evils?  I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some of his platforms but I do on most of them.

As a non-governmental worker, I am not enamored with Obama, who has pretty much lied to the American public and in my opinion needs to be replaced.  He is more concerned with appeasement than making the tough choices.  Not evil, just fact.”

First of all PH, it’s confusing to me WHY you support RP. I mean that seriously. You just don’t fit the mold of the majority of RP supporters (with their nasty dispositions) but either way.

Ron Paul is NOT Libertarian (which is what I gauge as your political posture for the most part), he doesn’t possess that viewpoint. Personally, while I believe the majority of people endorse social libertarianism broadly, OTOH, I don’t believe most people endorse it, in its “pure” sense, since in its pure sense it is basically anarchy,... that said.

I can agree with you (if I’m understanding you correctly) that we have way too many laws affecting the average joe/jane. Many of which are pushed specifically by the Right, controlling how we dress, what we can watch on TV (we can finally say fart, for christ’s sake)....etc.

One of the reasons I loathe Paul, is that he is of this vein, even though he professes otherwise. His stance, especially regarding state’s rights would make things much WORSE, instead of better. Look at the bulk of the legislation that’s been passed in the past several years and you will find that the laws that have impinged upon our basic freedoms have come from the LOWEST LEVELS of government. But here we’d need to add in “policy”,such as school dress codes and the like. These attempt to control our literal existence! These are almost without question passed by the very Righties you support. And RP’s “vision” would mean more of this not less! These same ideologues have been pursuing this at the federal level also but are met with much more resistance, although I think they’ve made headway there as well and they need to be pushed back! In local areas, the chastising of our freedoms has been saved only through protections at the federal level.

I could go on regarding specific evils with specific issues of RP’s platform but there is a more broad issue that I think socially focused Libertarians miss. I posted this the other day and I think it shows exactly why and how these Righties wish to control us via the “states rights” mantra. It’s a scam, they’re going to abuse it. Come to Wisconsin, experience what happens when the Righties come in with their big money groups and make your very existence illegal. That bastard Walker and his big money backers are attempting to outlaw demonstrating at our own capitol, THAT WE OWN! His legislation (which passed our Repug house and senate) outlaws groups of more than FOUR PEOPLE to be in the capitol without a permit! Seriously!

From TPM:
“In an interview with TPM, Christopher J. Neuendorf, pastor of Holy Cross Evangelical Lutheran Church in Davenport, Iowa described this “liberty” as Paul’s chief selling point.

“We’ve typically approached abortion with the idea that we have to have a Republican in office, no matter how bad he is, so he can appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, so eventually 10 or 20 years from now we can overturn Roe v. Wade,” he said. “But Ron Paul has cosponsored legislation to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts so they could not forbid states from criminalizing abortion. We could move much more quickly.””
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/how-ron-paul-won-over-iowas-evangelicals.php

cont.

Report this

By Jackie, January 3, 2012 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a load of crap. Think harder before you write.

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 3, 2012 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

PatH—- hilary clinton

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 3, 2012 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

A sad little shill you are Tic, you still dodged the question, who would you like to see be the Republican nominee?

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 3, 2012 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

Here, Pat…

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented
power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of
every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights
of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The
federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of
private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not
form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced
individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial
harmony and a color-blind society.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/14/166276/ron-paul-civil-rights-
act/

 

 

 

 

 


————-


“Congress is poised to pass the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill
passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to
nearly double the President’s requested amount. It is always distressing to see
officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional
limitations.”

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Inter
national_Aid/

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 3, 2012 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

PatH—- what does it matter who i would see winning the Repub nomination?

I won’t sit for someone who would repeal federal laws against state-sponsored
racial discrimination.

or someone ignorant and/or crazy enough to find Congressionally-authorized aid
to Africa in the form of donated medication to counter TB and AIDs to be
unconstitutional.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 3, 2012 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment

Re: Steven Thompson

Your comment:“hmmm, to hear some people speak.
Neither Ron Paul, a doctor, or Rand Paul, a surgeon, have any common sense or intellect.”

I’d certainly NEVER go under the knife of these two crazies - I’d look elsewhere…. get a second opinion and all that. Mengele was a doctor too…. Gee whiz, where was the good doctor’s “charity” when his campaign manager died..?

“Paul’s 2008 campaign manager, Kent Snyder, went through a strikingly similar experience to Blitzer’s hypothetical one, dying of complications from viral pneumonia just two weeks after Paul ended his presidential bid. Snyder was uninsured, so family and friends were forced to raise funds to cover his $400,000 in medical bills. Their efforts included setting up a website soliciting contributions from Paul supporters.

The episode reflects what Paul himself argued should be the free-market ideal for health insurance policy. During Monday night’s GOP primary debate, the libertarian Republican made the case that health insurance coverage was a choice. If one decided to forgo it, he ran the risk of mounting bills. If a patient was on his deathbed, it wasn’t the taxpayers’ responsibility to pick up that tab.

“I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa hospital in San Antonia, and the churches took care of them,” Paul said.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/ron-pauls-health-care-campaign-manager-kent-snyder_n_961812.html

Yep. All those Paulies clapping and cheering for the let ‘em die idealism Paul endorses. Sad.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 3, 2012 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Sounds like prepared talking points Tic.

Who would you like to see win the Republican, Inc. nomination?

More than one of the so called progressives who inhabit this forum offer nothing but diatribe against ron Paul but offer nothing in return. 

Lets pretend that you have 2 choices for President and they have to debate each other in front of the American people on the issues of the day, who do you want to represent the opposing viewpoint and yours?

I want Ron Paul to educate Obama on the issues and call him into account.  Any other Republican candidate would let Obama get away with the deficits and aggression as they are more guilty for American empire than Obama is.

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 3, 2012 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

to hear Ron Paul of his boy KrugerRand speak is to confirm that neither have any
common sense, Steve.

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 3, 2012 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

BTW, nice art.  1220 would be a good year for Ron Paul.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 3, 2012 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Re: munky

Your comment:“Wisconsin is the state with a governor that the Unions put into office. The unions supported Walker in his bid to win the governor’s race.”

NO, that is not the case.

“During the campaign last November, leaders of the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association and Milwaukee Police Association appeared in an ad supporting Walker and blasting his opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett. Walker also won endorsements from the West Allis Professional Police Association and the Wisconsin Troopers Association Walker didn’t get the endorsements of two statewide unions, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, which both backed Barrett.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/21/donna-brazile/donna-brazile-says-unions-supported-scott-walker-a/

Walker and his cronies are LYING, IMPLYING and/or otherwise inventing crooked schemes. The reason this became an issue is because when Walker trashed collected bargaining he exempted the police and firefighters. But even that wasn’t the endof the story. Several months later municipalities that employ police and fire attacked the unions and are bargaining using the same MO as Walker and his crooked buds. The unions, already severely weakened by what had already transpired are fighting it. It was simply a backstabbing way(which btw, is Walker’s way) to get at them without looking like it was really him and his cronies behind it. But even regarding the ones that DID back Walker, Walker LIED to them and everyone else in this state. They’ve left no resident unburned.

Locally, Walker met with the mayor where I live and the VERY NEXT DAY, the mayor announced cuts to police and fire. Coincidence…....I think not.

Report this

By Harold Young, January 3, 2012 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Considering what our two party system has delivered for the progressives or anyone in the 99% why would anyone want to vote for either party? In addition, people like me who are life long democrats are waking up to the fact that it is the Federal Reserve Bank and our money system which is the primary reason our government and hence us, we the people or taxpayers are footing the bill for the wasteful spending which unfairly bails out the corporations while leaving the 99% fighting for scraps in an economy teetering on the brink of destruction. There is only one candidate who will end the wars, and work towards a government which will let a truly free market do what it does more beautifully than any other system, a decent living for the majority instead of an obscene living for the minority or the elite. I for one have changed my party affiliation to Republican just to vote for Ron Paul in the California Primary. I encourage voters to do their own research on Paul and vote their conscious. Listen, Ron Paul is the real deal, so make your decision based on fact and logic. Please don’t succumb to the naysayers on both the right and the left and make the same mistake I have made time after time by voting for the lesser of two evils or the status quo as Paul would put it. The media on both sides will be circling the wagons soon in their attempt to once again manipulate the electorate to vote their way, whether right or left so beware. In closing, I want to add that Ron Paul is the best and only candidate to turn this country around for the 99%. And you can take that to the Bank!

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 3, 2012 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

Steve——your point is that we should vote for Ron Paul because he lends/sells
his name to people who are worse bigots?

——Ron Paul is Not the Worst Bigot!——is your idea of a campaign slogan?

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

Steve,

And what is RP’s take on climate change? Let “The Market” handle it? oy vey! (sp?)

Report this

By Steve R, January 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“who carries none of Paul’s embarrassing baggage”....

So what “embarrassing baggage” would that be?

“racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and paranoid Ron Paul
newsletters” that he did NOT publish, but that were
published by someone else in his name somehow?

In a time when one hell of a lot more Americans than Ron
Paul and the GOP were “racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic
and paranoid”?

Or do you forget?

If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian and there were
“consequences”.... it would be because people like you
are too ignorant to see the pure logic and sense in Ron
Paul’s thinking, and thus discount him as a viable GOP
candidate!

Of course, if he ran, either as a Libertarian or as a
Republican, and won the presidency, you’d be eating an
awful lot of humble pie for an awfully long time.

I have heard too many people say that voting for Ron Paul
is throwing your vote away. Why? Who would you prefer me
to give it to - one of the other cruds that amount to
nothing more than establishment business as usual in
Washington?

I might as well vote for Obama!

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 3, 2012 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

for sure, more than a handful of disappointed people would support Ron
Paul…..more’s the pity.

47,000 votes and a big-time 8th place finish in 2008.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

mystic,

Just saw part one of your missive (saw part 2 and responded earlier)

My, my, we obviously have different “takes” on the “accomplishments” of the Dems. I used to believe as you do - i kept clapping for Tinker Bell, but this Peter Pan eventually grew up, didn’t much want to, fought it as long as i could, but I couldn’t stop hearing the ticking of the clock in the croc’s belly as it got closer and closer and realized i had to get out of the swamp.

One could go piece by piece in the analysis of Dem “accomplishments” but let me just settle on one - the delivery of the health care system lock stock and barrel into the slathering maw of the insurance companies - guaranteed customers for over priced lousy service that was killing too many people - from a guy who, a few years before was touting single payer - “everybody in, no body out” - how ironic in the way he kept his word - yup, everybody in - to a cesspool of greed on the backs of the ill and infured - how sick is that ... And then there is the assault on SS, and on and on

Sorry, man, sell your Dem snake oil elsewhere - that dog won’t hunt (love to mix metaphors, never know what will pop up smile)

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

Aquafier

Beautifully put. Thank you.

Looking upward is the only way to get out of this mess.

We can even hope that TruthDig might even allow a story or two about the Rocky Anderson/Jill Stein campaign.

Instead of the usual rehashed Obama/Dem apologist muck we get with Rachel Maddow/Eddie Schutz/MSNBC/Air America.

We can hope- right? Or even ask- Why Not?

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

Yo, Mystic!

One knows one has hit a nerve when one provokes a response like yours;

“your overly emotional, irrational, uninformed, counter productive, nihilistic, foolhardy, and destructive activism.”

Sorry, but a vote for a 3rd party is just that, not a vote for a Rep or a Dem. If the Dems want my vote in this market place of democracy, they must earn it. When they do, they will get it - i have spent it far too cheaply too long.

People have died to get the ballot - to give it away so easily is, IMO, to dishonor it, but do what you will.

I understand your position - the pseudo sophistication of the educated elite often requires standing around trying to figure out how to unravel the Gordian knot. Elegance, truth and the way forward usually requires moving out from under the Sword of Damocles and using it to cut that knot. I am playing with words here, because you are as well - i simply choose different words -

“but there is nothing at all altruistic about facilitating the worst of compassionless pragmatists while being a detriment to those more disposed towards altruism. I believe that many whose motives are good have been indoctrinated into counter productive rationale by demagoguery and falsehoods proffered by radically counter productive essentially nihilistic demagogues and reprobates from Left, Right, and Center; such bodes ill for the future of our nation and for the world in general.”

I agree completely - compassion requires a refusal to muck around in the mud, smearing it in everyone’s wounds - being more disposed to altruism, i do believe the market model of life that is the guiding force of both main parties must be torn down, and so when you ask, “how low will you go before you say, enough?”, the answer is easy, i will go no lower - i will not participate in this lesser evil race to the bottom. But you have not answered my question - “How low will YOU go?”

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 3, 2012 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Aquafier

I speak from experience, You and anybody else can take it or leave it. I choose to speak the truth as myself and countless other former Greens see it.

Having said, I agree. The crisis we face is so severe that we cannot waste time with petty squabbling.

There is a path forward that would be adventageous to us all.

Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein on the same ticket, with one representing the Green Party and one representing the Justice Party. I am part of the Rocky Anderson campaign and I have made numerous requests for this to happen. So has Anthony Noel with the New Progressive Alliance who is on the Jill Stein campaign.

Contact both campaigns via these sites justicepartyUSA or Jill Stein For President

Contact both campaigns and DEMAND that they work together. As a Green AND as a Justice Party. There are no excuses what so ever for them to not do so.

Then promote them both. Everywhere you go.

Report this

By ardee, January 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

Michael Cavlan RN, January 3 at 11:06 am

Well, Mr. Cavlan, I guess that settles it then. Your “scathing diatribe” closes the book on the Green Party, you betcha….

In the immortal words of that famous and erudite philosopher, Bugs Bunny, “What a Maroon!”

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 3, 2012 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

RE: Aquifer, January 2 at 1:27 pm

“…but the Dems HAD both houses and the Pres. and did what with them, precisely?

“…I’ll ask you the same question - how low will you go, before you say “enough!”?

***************************************************************

Obviously you are grossly uninformed and oblivious to very real improvements and Democratic accomplishments; accomplishments that were obstructed and diminished by Republicans in the Senate and are now next to impossible to initiate and accomplish as a result of the 2010 Mid Term Elections, election results that you and your ilk contributed to with your irrational and uninformed criticisms. I’m weary of listing those accomplishments because you and your ilk are blind to those accomplishments and loathe admitting them. Each improvement and accomplishment has been criticized by you and your ilk as being insufficient and irrelevant, but those accomplishments are not irrelevant; those accomplishments are improvements over previous realities. I, like many, believe that those accomplishments are inadequate but those accomplishments were in fact improvements, and those accomplishments would have been more adequate if the Democrats had a working majority in the Senate, (Democrats would need at least 65 seats in the Senate to accomplish their goals under current political realities and current Senate rules) along with a sizable majority in the House of Representatives, but you and your ilk failed to support the Democrats during the Mid – Terms and actually worked against Democrats with your counter productive criticisms and lack of support. I firmly believe that many of those who offer their hateful and irrational criticisms here are not participants in Democracy who will not, and did not, vote in important elections.

Improving the Democratic Party from the perspective of progressives would require getting involved with Democratic Party Politics at the grass roots, district, or precinct level. A better more constructive challenge to Obama’s tragically misguided Foreign and National Security Policies would come from within the Democratic Party such as occurred in 1968 with the Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy primary challenges.

Obama as Commander and Chief has the responsibility of defending America and the American People, and some would say (Not me,) the world, from a dangerous and menacing spreading brutal tyranny. Obama by virtue of his office is inundated daily by what I believe is an oxy-moronic “intelligence” of fear. Obama, I believe, by virtue of his office is disconnected from reality and influenced by his advisors to pursue policies that aggravate the dangers rather than alleviate them, but I firmly believe that none of the current alternatives to Obama would behave any differently under the current circumstances or that Ron Paul would possess the political power, or even the desire, to reverse current Foreign and National Security Policies. After all, Ron Paul believes that National Defense is one of the few legitimate activities of government. That being said, the possibility that Ron Paul would actually be elected President of the United States is too ridiculous to even contemplate and it is my firm belief that Republican alternatives, (based on their written philosophy and public pronouncements) would only escalate the madness. What is clear to some is that a new, and non-militaristic, paradigm of thinking regarding National Defense is necessary but that “some” is only a tiny portion of the electorate and instituting that new paradigm at present would be met with vehement resistance. 

(More below)

Report this

By smitty8, January 3, 2012 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

We liked Paul too, until we read
his official positions on his
web site
(http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-
issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-
america/) and, read the noxious
views in his newsletter. I
suspect that even gullible
liberals would drop him like a
hot potato after reading these.
And Nader did NOT cost Gore the
election - Gore did, by not
taking on the views and causes
so important to Nader and us.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

Michael,

“I do not trust the Green Party. At all. In any way. I trust them to be transparent and do what is right just as much as the Dems or Repubs. I base this on a decades long work with them.”

Well, that is fairly nebulous - I suspect that any party that has been around for awhile has it’s internal dissents. And, I suspect that if the newly minted Justice Party lasts long enough, it will have its own, as well ...

For the record, i am an Indy - I prefer to stand at arms length from Party politics - I have my frustrations with them as well. But i have no personal political ambitions (though I ran for office once, out of desperation, long ago) - I prefer to stand a bit outside and view the “Big Picture” and the Big Picture is pretty scary - I have looked at and listened to Stein - I like her, what she says, her positions, how she presents herself and she and the Greens have been preparing for this for awhile. I do not have any “leverage” in the Party, I do not know much of the internal workings, and frankly, I don’t care. I want a decent candidate who speaks for me, and the people i care about, including the ones i do not know or even agree with, and the planet that ties us all together. I think i have found her and i will work for her. You, she and i all come from a medical background, we have seen too much pain and suffering up close and personal and are involved here because we understand that until the system that is producing it is fundamentally changed, that suffering will continue. That understanding is in our bones and why we cannot stop until we “fix” it or pass on. All considerations that get in the way of that are, IMO, when all is said and done, pretty trivial ...

Why don’t Stein and Anderson just sit down and hash it out together - if there is a possibility of a merger, it would be good to see how “compatible” they are ...

The stakes are just too high for this squabbling - it is time to put it aside ....

Report this

By ElkoJohn, January 3, 2012 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

It wasn’t Nader supporters that inflicted the damage, it was the incompetent, sell-out Democratic Party. Why vote for a George Bush disguised as Clinton/Obama when you have a choice to vote for someone like Nader/Ventura/Paul who represents your views? The Democratic Party apologists can all go to hell as they continue to settle for choosing the lesser of the two evils.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, January 3, 2012 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

RE: Aquifer, January 2 at 1:27 pm (Cont.)

Squandering votes on hopeless Third Party Candidates does absolutely nothing but divide the vote against ideologically corporatist war mongering Republicans. Each vote not cast for a Democrat is a vote cast for a Republican and each vote cast for Jill Stein or middle of the road moderate opportunist Rocky Anderson also amounts to a vote cast for a Republican. Occupiers need to occupy the ballot box in a constructive way but I seriously doubt that any of the most strident occupiers will vote at all. If you want to go back rather than move incrementally forward then by all means continue with your overly emotional, irrational, uninformed, counter productive, nihilistic, foolhardy, and destructive activism.

I am all in favor of altruism as a governing factor in philosophical belief but there is nothing at all altruistic about facilitating the worst of compassionless pragmatists while being a detriment to those more disposed towards altruism. I believe that many whose motives are good have been indoctrinated into counter productive rationale by demagoguery and falsehoods proffered by radically counter productive essentially nihilistic demagogues and reprobates from Left, Right, and Center; such bodes ill for the future of our nation and for the world in general.

Political chaos provides fertile soil for growing fascism. So I’ll ask you, “…how low will you go before you say, enough?”

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, January 3, 2012 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

“his [Ron Paul’s] passionate support for the Bill of Rights is refreshing,
especially because so many Republicans and too many Democrats are prepared
to snip or even scrap that document”

LOL .. another case adding to the nearly NO ONE does the real homework on
Ron Paul

How about a bit of ‘truth digging’ instead?

“Ron Paul’s ‘freedom’ agenda proposes a science fiction medieval society in
which our constitution is a Christian Lord, a corporation is a fief, directors are
nobles, politicians are clergy, shareholders are the landed gentry or freemen,
and everyone else is a bond servant or serf, in effect re-establishing the very
things our founders had sought to do away with”

http://subversify.com/2011/09/02/ron-paul-fantasy-fallacy-and-foible/

It won’t matter who is ‘elected’ because the system has every base covered ..
when enough people quit contributing to the charade of elections, the veil
should become thin enough to see some real ‘truth’

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 3, 2012 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

OK Aquafier

Here it is. The words from a former Green, who had been very active in the Green Party for over 10 years. Along with countless others who are friends of mine who have left.

I do not trust the Green Party. At all. In any way. I trust them to be transparent and do what is right just as much as the Dems or Repubs. I base this on a decades long work with them.

As stated before. Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson COULD be on the same ticket, running for Prez and VP. Pressure from and on both campaigns CAN make that possible.

But if the Green Party insists that it can only happen if Rocky joins the Greens, then it is a deal breaker.

They could work together, Rocky with the Justice Party and Jill with the Greens. It would be a win-win for both camps.

Let’s make it happen.

Report this

By balkas, January 3, 2012 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

yes, quite few people say that they don’t understand everything or s/mthing or other that i say. seems, most people do
understand; i.e., receive the message sent.
i do not know why some people don’t understand what i say. there may be many causes for that: novelties [never before coming
across ideas i posit], poor grammar and/or syntax/spelling, unintended omission of words, my particular english.

often—and too often for my liking—message sent is not message received. people not knowing this fact—along with the fact
that meanings are not in words—meanings are in people, get then confused or even discouraged/angry.
to make sure one understands an utterance, one should ask for a paraphrase.
this should proffer a clarification most of the time; agreement with it is not a must, tho.
—————————-
as for ending slavery, one could note that ending it meant for many blacks jumping from one hell to another; and often a worse
one.

as for usa wars, it had waged as many serious wars after protest of the 60s and 70s as in any previous corresponding period of
time.
there is fewer freedoms now in usa, as well. there is more prisons and prisoners.
to make matters worse, prisons are now run by individuals and not by governance.
there is now also more blacks in prisons than ever before. they often live in ghettos; rife with crime, divorce, beatings, drug
dealing/using and they get the blame from supremacists for it as well.
so, what is it? blacks an inferior, criminal, stupid, immoral, lazy, uneducated, unmotivated race or s’mthing else? what ARE THE
CAUSES FOR IT? if indeed inferior, why not drown all of them and put them out their misery and on the altar of white and other
supremacisms.
seems to me they lived a better life as slaves! tnx

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 3, 2012 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

“Gore cost Gore the 2000 election. Another quasi clever attempt to finesse history to attack progressive support for Ron Paul. You guys forget: we’re not stupid like the centrists. You’ll have to try harder next time.”

Referring to Ron Paul as progressive is just like the Repulcians and those morons who keep calling Obama a Socialist. Obviously who ever is making those stupid comments up, has a defining handicap and do not know what progressive and socialist really mean!  It seems now the right wants to be called progressive? (I suspect Karl Rove as culprit,.... he is known to muddy the waters with his cesspool antics!)

Paul is a fanatic not a progressive, he is so righty tightey he squeeks when he walks! Ron Paul’s cause is so blind it makes the three blind mice seem like visionaries seeing the fricking light!

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

Michael,

“Why have so many former members and activists in the Green Party, fled them?

I don’t know why they have, however many there are, so why don’t you tell me. This is the question I started out asking ...

“Nader would not do so in 2004, 2008 (now I know why) and Rocky has already stated he will not.”

As for Nader, i suspect he wouldn’t join any party, period. He has stumped for Green candidates.

I realize that Anderson has said NO, I want to know why - I keep asking and there is no answer. In the absence of a legitimate reason, what else can i conclude but that “its personal”. What a bloody shame ...

“The ball is now completely in the court of the Green Party. If they insist on going it alone, no real problem. It will be their loss.”

It seems to me the ball is hanging over the net - or completely off the court. And as for whose loss that will be, I think we know the answer to that - it will be all our loss to leave us divided when, more than ever, if we unify, we might actually have a crack at it.

Report this

By doodahman, January 3, 2012 at 11:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh, did Ralph Nader cause Gore to lose his home state of Tennessee and therefor create a swing of 22 electoral votes to Bush in 200? No, he didn’t. Did Nader cause Gore to go the shyster route and try for a selective recount, thus making his position indistinguishable from Bush’s before the Supreme Court that year? Uh, nope. He didn’t.

Gore cost Gore the 2000 election. Another quasi clever attempt to finesse history to attack progressive support for Ron Paul. You guys forget: we’re not stupid like the centrists. You’ll have to try harder next time.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 3, 2012 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

Now Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein COULD be on the same ticket and in fact people from both campaigns are trying to make that happen. However, when the Greens answer to that is “Sure, come join the Green Party and then we can work together” well that is a deal breaker. If the Greens continue to insist on that then nothing can be done.

They can run on the same ticket with different parties. It is allowed and in fact it was talked about a few years ago with a Dem and Rep ticket. The only thing stopping this from moving forward is the Green Parties insistence that Rocky join the Party. Nader would not do so in 2004, 2008 (now I know why) and Rocky has already stated he will not.

The ball is now completely in the court of the Green Party. If they insist on going it alone, no real problem. It will be their loss.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 3, 2012 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

Aquafier

I have a question for you.

Why have so many former members and activists in the Green Party, fled them?

Michal Cavlan RN
former Green Party candidate 2002
Official Green Party in 2004 Ohio Re-Count
former Green Party candidate US Senate 2006
former Green Party National Delegate 2005-2008
former Green

Candidate US Senate 2012
Minnesota Open Progressives

It is there that you will find the answer to the question why Rocky Anderson instead of Jill Stein.

The answer is not personalities, in case you decide to answer that way.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 9:34 am Link to this comment

Balkas,

Very interesting post (yours usually are, even if i don’t understand all of them)

In any case Greens ARE a political party and have been for some time - they have run candidates in a number of venues and have a platform that covers much. I have worked on several local/State Green campaigns. Please check out the Stein site. They have ballot access in a number of states, (considerably more, I do believe, though i cannot testify to, than does that of the Justice Party, which is newly hatched) and are working on more for this campaign. Nader ran under the Green banner in at least one of his campaigns.

Your position on movements is interesting - i would suggest that the “movements” to end slavery, give women the vote, and expand civil rights, accomplished a great deal indeed. And when movements develop political arms, the effect is synergistic - they are powerful. Should OWS decide to develop politically, they will find that the Green party positions fit them to a “T”

“most members of the green movement in usa appear to be supremacists;”

Could you tell me why you think this? I am really curious because that has not been my experience. If the a-bomb is a touchstone for you, i think you will find that Greens agree ....

Report this

By balkas, January 3, 2012 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

aquifer,
you asked, Why anderson over stein? as far as i know, greens represent a movement. movements and/or organizations never ever
change anything for better and especially in a region known as usa in which vast numbers [98%] of americans are so deeply
supremacistic.

as for evidence for depth of so-called conservatism [i prefer the label personal supremacism] in usa i do not need to enumerate it
once again.
i’ve done it many times already. for now, i’d like to posit just one: atom bombing hiroshima and nagasaki.
just this one act, told me everything about americans, all its presidents, congresspeople, laws, constitution, msm, education; and am
still in deep dismayed.
rocky heads a political party. i am hoping he’d eventually lead an econo-military-monetary-politico-educatuional party. a political
party is by far more effective in exacting changes than any movement. a movement can also be easily weakened or even destroyed
from within. this is seldom the case with political parties. it is nigh impossible to even dilute a political party let alone to destroy it.
and political partys endure for decades or even centuries!

most members of the green movement in usa appear to be supremacists; thus, differing slightly or not at all [in the THOUGHT] from
the other, say, 95-99% of americans.

btw, there is a reason why i do not split THE THOUGHT [supremacism] into a democratic, republican, progressive, liberal, libertarian,
tea party, paulian, obamian, conservative parts: it cannot be split on empirical level; it can and will be split on verbal level.
tnx

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

munky,

“who the hell is jill Stein?”

well, here ya go

http://www.jillstein.org

With regard to money - yep you are right, she doesn’t have what the Dem/Reps have, but if you make the size of the checkbook a qualification you have obviously accepted the MSM “market model” of politics. Remember where the duopoly gets its money from, or don’t you care?

Your intense dislike of Obama and the Dems has blinded you to the fact you would be trading them for more of the same with different colored sweatshirts.

I learned a long time ago, the hard way, that it is not enough to throw the bums out - you have to pay attention as to whom you are replacing them with ...

If you really are anything but a genetic Rep, or a Libertar., you won’t be happy with your choices, even if you “win”. If you want to take votes from the Dems, which is pretty clear, why not give them to someone who, from the way you describe yourself, actually represents you ...

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 3, 2012 at 4:37 am Link to this comment

Outraged,


My question is to those who say they’d vote for Paul, if though he has this whole plethora of evils. Yet still claim that that wouldn’t be picking a lesser evil. How do you qualify that?

What plethora of evils?  I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some of his platforms but I do on most of them. 

As a non-governmental worker, I am not enamored with Obama, who has pretty much lied to the American public and in my opinion needs to be replaced.  He is more concerned with appeasement than making the tough choices.  Not evil, just fact.

Report this

By munky, January 3, 2012 at 3:15 am Link to this comment

Outraged: Wisconsin is the state with a governor that the Unions put into office. The unions supported Walker in his bid to win the governor’s race. The unions are the modern-day version of Reagan Democrats. So, once again, we have Democrats voting for another right winger (Scott Walker), just as they voted for the right winger Barack Obama. Then, you people subsequently demand that guys like me bail you out of your mistake by voting for more Democrats. Sorry, pal, no sale.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 3, 2012 at 3:05 am Link to this comment

Re: munky

What, are you a glutton for punishment?

Yeah, I remember the Reagan Democrats….apparently you enjoy salt in wounds. Kind of sets the mood…huh. Even then Nancy was running the show with her astrologer, remember…so it wasn’t really ol’ Ronnie. As far as scare tactics, no. It’s not a tactic, it’s a reality.

BTW, if you like punishment come to Wisconsin we have the Repugs running the show. And if sadism is your thing, you’d love it here. There’s nothing like it.

Report this

By munky, January 3, 2012 at 2:43 am Link to this comment

Outraged: I yawn at your Democratic Party scare tactics. Ronald Reagan was pro-life, just like Romney. Remember the Reagan Democrats? Blame them for the fact that conservatives need only one more justice on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Overturning Roe is a done deal. It will happen in our lifetimes. Get over it. Stop voting for Democrats because you’re worried about Roe. As for Iran, Barack Obama is doing all those nasty things you claim Romney wants to do. The covert war on Iran is ongoing with Obama leading the charge. So, if Romney isn’t less right wing than Obama, he sure isn’t all that different from him, which is why I refer to him as Mitt Obamney.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 3, 2012 at 2:32 am Link to this comment

My question is to those who say they’d vote for Paul,
if though he has this whole plethora of evils. Yet
still claim that that wouldn’t be picking a lesser
evil. How do you qualify that?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 3, 2012 at 2:20 am Link to this comment

Re: munky

Your comment:“I predict a “President Romney” will be less right wing than Obama on many issues.”

You may want to rethink that one. I mean, you are talking about the “corporations are people” Romney….right.

Or:
”“At this stage, what we have to do is to aggressively put in place crippling sanctions against Iran as long as they pursue their nuclear program,” Romney told roughly 250 people crowded into the Family Table restaurant here.

Romney said he also would support Iranian dissidents who want to overthrow the hostile, theocratic government now running the country. He also said the United States should develop military plans to be used against Iran. He said he hoped that such plans would never be put into effect.”
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/31/mitt-romney-ready-military-options-to-prevent-iranian-nuclear-weapon/

Apparently, he’s not aware that he would decide that… but yeah, he is just so “left” of Obama. Or maybe you like this “lefty” position of his:

”“Mitt Romney is pro-life, and as he has said previously, he is supportive of efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception. He believes these matters should be left up to states to decide,” she said.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/Romney_campaign_He_doesnt_support_personhood_amendments.html

(just between you and me this kinda sounds like that nut Paul, but then again don’t they all)

Of course, you know how it is with those lefties…. always voting for Republicans…yeah, those elitist latte drinkin’ prius drivin’ liberals, you betcha….they’ll be supporting Romney right along with ya’, I’m certain of it.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, January 3, 2012 at 2:18 am Link to this comment

from the article:

... progressives who suffer from historical amnesia…if Al Gore hadn’t forfeited the electoral votes that Nader threw to George W. Bush…Nader supporters of 2000…helped to inflict a political disaster from which America has scarcely begun to emerge. In the new year, we may discover whether they wish to revive that nightmare.

BS, BS, BS!!!  Bloody Hell, talk about a defective memory!

Gore didn’t even carry his own state; and, more importantly, didn’t bother to fight for Florida’s disenfranchised voters, which he could have and should have done in Congress. He turned his back on the Black Caucus when they petitioned Congress to take up their cause of redress for massive illegal electoral crimes, particularly in Florida. 

Even candidates like Nerder or Appall can’t shame the media into articulating (from their 4th-Estate positions of privilege) an issues-based election process, where they challenge candidates with real issue-based questions.

They’d rather blame angry, activist voters who refuse to obey their sheepherding and simply tithe their vote to another Wall Street Puppet.

So, shove it, Conason. We’re not buying your Snake Oil. And, if you had a conscience, you’d quite buying theirs.

But then face it, the American Electoral Process, is one of the biggest industries going. Everyone knows that to make it fair, all donations must end - make it a publicly administered process and totally transparent. But that would derail a huge gravy train. So, ending it is almost as hard as taking down the MIC.

The MSM is fully addicted to campaign advertising. And sods like Conason are addicted to their media salaries, lecture tour fees and book-deals.

Report this

By munky, January 3, 2012 at 1:07 am Link to this comment

Acquifer: Who the hell is Jill Stein? That’s the answer to your question. She and Rocky are not viable candidates because they have NO money. At this point, I want to punish Obama and the Democratic leadership by helping to secure their ouster from the White House. Voting for Romney would help to that end whereas voting for Jill Stein would be throwing away my vote, imho. And you know what? I predict a “President Romney” will be less right wing than Obama on many issues.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 3, 2012 at 12:50 am Link to this comment

munky,

As a self described lefty, who says (s)he would support Nader, why would you support RP as a 3rd party instead of say, Jill Stein? i am curious.

Report this

By munky, January 3, 2012 at 12:27 am Link to this comment

I’m a left winger who supported Nader in 2000 and would do it again today. In 2012, I will support Ron Paul if he runs as third party, despite my vehement objections to his domestic agenda. Besides, he would fail to achieve most of that agenda anyway, whereas his commander-in-chief power would be near plenary (no Congressional approval necessary). If Paul doesn’t run, I will vote for Mitt Obamney as a protest vote against Obama. I’m 48 and was the typical Democrat for many years. No more. “Progressives” are not on the planet to stop “scary” Republicans from gaining power. Let the American people, who are majority conservative, make their drastic mistakes again as they did with Bush, the Iraq war, foreign policies that led to 9/11, etc. I’m all DONE being the guy who supposed to vote against Republicans by voting for Democrats. Let the country enter the s/hit hole, but always remember it was CONSERVATISM, as practiced by Democrats and Republicans, that led to the disasters of the last 11 years. Don’t try to blame it on left wingers.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 2, 2012 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment

Michael,

Somehow that this “group of Greens” that you speak of exists doesn’t seem to me to be a reason to reject the group of Greens of which it would appear Stein is a part, that obviously wants to compete at Sate and national levels. In NY we have had Greens running for Sen. Repres. and Gov. And that has been true in other states as well, I do believe. So why not work with those who are competing at the higher levels and leave “the locals” alone, if they are the ones who stick in your craw?

Every party has it’s problems - all the more reason to sit down and hash it out. I cannot see that you have touched on an irreconcilable problem, if this is truly all there is ....

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 2, 2012 at 11:23 pm Link to this comment

Aquafier
Only too happy to address this. Trust me when I tell you it is not just some personality issues. It is far deeper than that.

Now I was very active in the Green Party on a Local Minnesota and National level. I have come to the political conclusion that the Green Party has a group of people who are detirmined to make the Greens work ONLY on a small, city council level. There are lots of reasons for that, some legit, some not. Having said, it has led to many folks simply giving up on them. I am one of them.

Report this

By Dr_Snooz, January 2, 2012 at 11:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Liberals love to sing the “if-only” song about Nader.
“If only” Nader hadn’t run, then Gore would have won
and there would have been no war in Iraq, blah, blah,
blah. No one, however, heeds the lessons of this last
election. We went from a white, stupid,
“conservative,” obscenely rich, cowboy president to a
black, intelligent, “liberal,” urbane, president of
humbler origins and… NOTHING CHANGED!!! The wars
continued and were expanded. The banks were not re-
regulated in any meaningful way. Guantanamo remains
in business. Big Pharma and the health insurers got
another massive giveaway, ala Medicare Part D, in
Obamacare. You had this dramatic change in leadership
and NOTHING CHANGED!!! I’m tired of the “if only”
song coming from the Left. The lesser of two evils is
a false choice. Our next president has already been
selected by the oligarchs and will be installed at
the appointed time. We will get the policies they
want and will be told we like them. Stop buying into
the lie of American democracy. There is no democracy
and you don’t have a choice.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 2, 2012 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment

Michael,

I addressed my question to Balkas and i do want to hear his answer -

However, your response raises more questions - well here’s your chance - what is this deal breaker you speak of, and why is it one? I have been looking for an answer so do expound ...

i get the feeling there is some personal pique here, so get it out - somebodies’ egos are in the way and that is a bloody shame ...

I have my frustrations as well - but there is too much at stake for petty squabbling.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 2, 2012 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

Aquafier

I can answer the Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein question. From my own personal experience.

I was very active in the Green Party. Very.. On every level. I will never make that mistake again.

Now IF we can talk Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson to run together, on the same ticket but not in the same party. Well there is hope that they could indeed work together.

However, if the Greens simply insist that Rocky join the Greens while refusing to hear why many of us call that a deal breaker, then it will not happen.

Michael Cavlan
Candidate US Senate 2012
Minnesota Open Progressives

Report this

By kitpw, January 2, 2012 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

My take on Ron Paul has been mostly based on sound bites and opinion pieces, so I spent part of today reading up on his positions at http://www.aboutronpaul.com and http://www.ontheissues.org.  As a progressive, I see much to applaud and much to fear.

Ron Paul says we should spread the goodness of America by setting a good example instead of using force.  He would overturn the Patriot Act and dismantle Homeland Security.  He praises Wikileaks and other government whistleblowers.  He opposes international trade agreements and the World Trade Organization because they trump national sovereignty.  He is a fierce advocate of states’ rights, local rights, and personal autonomy (other than a woman choosing abortion).  He supports gun ownership, “right to work,” and voluntary prayer in public places, including schools.  Concerning campaign contributions, he opposes both limits and anonymity.  In his view, letting the market do its thing is the best way for government to support life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  He is confident that a liberated market would remedy any environmental concerns.

I haven’t discovered yet where he stands on corporate monopolies and the Supreme Court’s recognition of corporations as people; if any readers know, please share.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 2, 2012 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Balkas,

Just out of curiosity, why Anderson over Stein?

Report this

By NABNYC, January 2, 2012 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

It’s shameful how these democratic party agents are out doing Mitt Romney’s work for him, bludgeoning Ron Paul.  Why not let him speak?  Why not force the other candidates and politicians in both parties to address his foreign policy ideas to end wars, abandon the crusade and quest for empire, shut down foreign bases and bring our troops home.  Why not let these ideas be fully presented to the public?  What would Obama say about this?  Would he, perhaps, agree to shut down a few bases, say 100 or 300 or so?  Or, perhaps, the politicians would like to explain to the public why we maintain a foreign military base in Japan when the Japanese people want us gone. 

It’s tedious to see democrats pounding on Ron Paul with largely unsubstatiated attacks.  He’s a racist, they tell us.  Really?  Wasn’t it Bill Clinton who stopped campaigning for the 1992 white house to run back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of a black man who was described as so brain damaged as to be effectively lobotomized.  Who ran the Willie Horton ads again, was that Ron Paul?  No, come to think of it, that was the Republican party.  As far as the claims that he is an anti-semite, this is a pile-on, I suppose because he advocates that we stop sending four billion dollars to Israel and to loyal democratic agents that constitutes anti-semitism.  Odd how our children in Newark and Camden are allowed to go hungry but billions are sent to Israel, used to buy weapons from U.S. corporations, much of the money taken off the top, laundered back into the U.S. into the pockets of “friends” of Israel, and used to pay bribes and kick-backs to our politicians.  While our own children go hungry. 

Let the man speak.  I didn’t say vote for him.  But let him speak, and force the other politicians to address these serious issues.  It’s exactly like it was with Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich:  anybody who does not kiss the ring of empire and war must be silenced, ridiculed, attacked.  Let the man speak.  If you want to write articles about important issues, there’s an elementary school near me that now has 40 kids crammed into each classroom with one teacher and no aid because Wall Street stole all the money.  That’s important.  End the wars, stop propping up foreign despots and dictators and save our own country instead.

Report this

By balkas, January 2, 2012 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

yes, i like what rocky anderson says. he also has
justicepartyusa behind him. still, one has to be
leery of promise making. but what i heard him say
thus far, in think he’s leaps and bounds better
than paul. tnx

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook