"Lord knows that the Republican Party and the conservative movement are generally as bad or worse on civil liberties and executive power. But if progress is ever to be made on these issues, I'd argue that the minority on the left and right who purport to care about them have got to behave as if they mean it. For me, that meant supporting Obama when he was a voice for reclaiming the rule of law, reining in executive power, increasing transparency, ending indefinite detention, and getting Congressional declarations before taking the country to war -- and it means opposing him, and supporting Paul and Gary Johnson (for whom I'll likely end up voting) and Rand Paul, and hoping that Russ Feingold ends up back in the Senate, and many other things besides."

I would seriously consider Ron Paul if he weren't determined to destroy social programs, unemployment insurance, etc, basically usurping the meaning of the Constitution preamble for the care of citizens in lieu of privatization, mass homelessness and starvation.

There is little he offers differently from any other candidate - other than his views on foreign policy. And even then, who's to say another 9/11 wouldn't be pulled to pass more "Patriotic Action Legislation", drawing the US into a more militarized scenario domestically. I trust Paul to behave precisely as he would be told to, that's simply never going to cut it as an actual presidency. He'd basically act like Bush - a worthless puppet to the wealthiest, gutting any progressive movement, imo.

He has no intention of "auditing" the Federal Reserve or the Pentagon - the entire congressional body would be in upheaval as Republican after Republican would potentially become exposed, basically transferring power away from his GOP.

Paul is just another lying, hive-minded sack of shit from the Republican party. Never forget 9/11.

Alternatives: Dennis Kucinich, Sheldon Whitehouse ticket.

Ron Paul is not a serious candidate and his philosophy would disarm the state to pursue the best interest of the general populace, making us all easy prey to the excesses of corporations.
BTW, I don't believe that pot legalization is even in consideration for the top issues facing the country.

Why do we need an alternative to Ron Paul?

Ron is doing a fine job of giving the 'libertarians' someone to idolize, someone to point to as being screwed by the 'evil media', someone to have claimed to have supported and even lie about having voted for when they need to avoid the truth about voting for Rmoney or (horrors) Obama.

No. Ron is perfect for the job and he even appears to enjoy it. Why do you think the GOP keeps him on the payroll, after all.

Chris Hedges on Ron Paul:

Chris Hedges on the "pull yourself by the bootstraps" fantasy:

BTW, I don't believe that pot legalization is even in consideration for the top issues facing the country.

#3 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

No it isn't. The War on Drugs, in general, is. It's just one issue under the rubric of the national security/surveillance/
incarceration state.

Chris Hedges on Ron Paul:
www.youtube.com
#5 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-01-16 07:04 PM

God, how I miss C-SPAN.

We need to end Comcasts monopoly and force the recently dismantled free public wifi program to be put back in place.

No it isn't. The War on Drugs, in general, is. It's just one issue under the rubric of the national security/surveillance/
incarceration state.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2012-01-16 07:14 PM

These are just different facets of the corporate state. Why do yo think there is a 'war on drugs'? Private prisons need to be kept filled.

just another lying, hive-minded sack of shit from the Republican party. Never forget 9/11.
#2 | Posted by redlightrobot

We wouldn't be a truther would we?

Too many of these type of arguments demand on thing from Democrats in order to be veiwed as authentic, they have to be willing to stand up for principle so strongly that they will most certainly lose their elections and allow a Republican to win. Sorry, but that's a bridge too far for me, we are making some progress on issues I care about and the next appointments to the SC will sit for life. I just don't want a Republican in office making those appointments and I feel quite secure with President Obama making difficult decisions in regard to national security. I'll stick with the Democrats (flawed as they are) and Obama.

Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Jim Hightower, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters. For openers. herm

I don't believe that pot legalization is even in consideration for the top issues facing the country.

#3 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-01-16 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag: HAS PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

A better question is: What do you like.. hell even KNOW about Ron Paul except he'd legalize your Lord and Savior Marijuana?

Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Jim Hightower, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters. For openers. herm

#12 | POSTED BY HERM AT 2012-01-16 08:36 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Herm speaks some sanity. I'd jump right behind Kucinich or Franken instantly. Waters not so much, but she's still better than anyone else running.

Oh by the way, all of these people want to legalize pot as well, last I heard. But then they're not running on "I will legalize pot" as their platform, therefore NORML isn't supporting them, so Nullifidian hasn't heard of any of them.

A better question is: What do you like.. hell even KNOW about Ron Paul except he'd legalize your Lord and Savior Marijuana?

#14 | Posted by soheifox

, so Nullifidian hasn't heard of any of them.

#15 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-16 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag

Looks like another case of Nulli Derangement Syndrome. I'm vastly more informed than you about Ron Paul or anything else, with the possible exception of the art of bounty hunting.

Don't need an alternative, the corporate owned media (including Fux) is going to ensure he or anyone that does not tow the party line of corporate welfare is going nowhere.

they have to be willing to stand up for principle

#11 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-16 07:55 PM

Ron Paul is a terrible voice for the libertarian message. He can't even finish a thought without rambling over to three other topics. It's embarrassing, and it's not going to convince anyone that libertarianism is a viable means of governance. Gary Johnson should be on the stage where Paul is, and Paul should be drooling and playing with his applesauce in a senior home.

On topic, it's rather pathetic that not a single progressive Democrat decided to run against Obama this year. Apparently they are more concerned with damaging the incumbent and losing power than actually advancing a progressive agenda.

This is a great read.

I lean libertarian but I imagine a lot of us would have no problem voting for a progressive who ran on an anti-war, anti-drug war, and pro-civil liberties platform. (might be wrong, dunno)

"Gary Johnson should be on the stage where Paul is,"

No doubt about that, though Johnson pulled his punches when he was on stage.

"On topic, it's rather pathetic that not a single progressive Democrat decided to run against Obama this year. Apparently they are more concerned with damaging the incumbent and losing power than actually advancing a progressive agenda."

Interesting. In principle, I agree. But in reality, how would you advance a progressive agenda, nationally, if you gave the WH to a Republican? (Yeah, I know, there's more to it than that, but the usual take here seems to be that the presidency matters.) There is no Democrat, especially a true progressive, who could beat Obama. And if said person did achieve that, I don't see the country as ready for a real progressive president.

how would you advance a progressive agenda, nationally, if you gave the WH to a Republican?

Running as a progressive doesn't "give the WH to a Republican." It gives voters another option. I don't see anything wrong with giving actual progressives like Null (vs. fake ones like Danni) a person to vote for whose beliefs represent the progressive movement.

23--I don't either. But if you split the party, yes, you could give the WH to the GOP. Just as Ron Paul running as an indie could give the WH to Obama. But is your point that a primary challenge wouldn't affect the outcome 'cause Obama would win? And really, you think a progressive candidate would stand a chance in the US these days? I wish, but I don't see it. (This is where my handle comes from: pragmatist because my heart is farther left than reality seems to allow.)

if you split the party, yes, you could give the WH to the GOP.

After a primary that featured a progressive, only one candidate would remain, so you wouldn't really "split the party." I'm talking about the lack of a primary challenge, not the lack of a viable independent third party progressive candidate.

All I can say is that Obama is in danger of losing my vote. His actions are in many ways unrecognizable from his predecessor. I know of no other way to get his attention than to abstain from voting for him.

There are no realistic alternatives in this election to Obama or a republican president. The more I hear about Ron Paul, the more i dislike. I love his anti-war position, but his social positions are anethema to me.

What is a liberal to do?

"There is no Democrat, especially a true progressive, who could beat Obama."

I for one was mistaken, I thought Obama was a progressive (certainly compared to Hilary).

but on HCR, the WoT, economic issues, Obama's folding and compromise has proven he is a middle of the roader at best, if not slightly conservative.

What is a liberal to do?

#26 | Posted by truthhurts

Do what this conservative did in 2008, and throw your vote away.
I voted for Cynthia McKinney as a protest vote. McCain blew, and Obama was a wild eyed, shit talking rookie that was/is in way to far over his head.

He was too idealistic to know his ideas weren't even possible, let alone plausible, but his stary eyed supporters didn't care.

-What is a liberal to do?

I appreciate your position.

IMO, most pols get away with what they get away with becuase they know a lot of their votes are in the bag no matter what they do.

if they lost that security...IOW, if folks stopped being party line voters...actions on the part of Pols would change.

stay home if you can't vote for Paul.

What is a liberal to do?

Vote for the Green or Libertarian candidate, both of whom are far more socially liberal than their major party counterparts.

I don't see why a Paul Presidency is so threatening. I mean, as we've learned these past couple of years, a President can't do anything without the permission of a super-majority of the legislature anyway, and it's more than clear that his platform isn't very persuasive even in his own party or he'd be doing better in the primaries, so how many horrible things could he accomplish?

I don't see the country as ready for a real progressive president.

#22 | Posted by pragmatist at 2012-01-17 11:09 AM

People have increasingly grown comfortable with libertarian ideas because they have a libertarian out there championing the cause. Take for example Johnson, who I think is a better candidate than Paul. The reason Paul is getting all of the attention is because he's out there just hammering his message into a lot of skulls.

Imagine if a progressive did the same. He might not win, but he'd bring a lot of attention to important issues, and over time more and more Americans would embrace the message.

I don't see the country as ready for a real progressive president.

#22 | Posted by pragmatist

I don't see the progressives ready for a Progressive president.
Too many of them are ashamed of who they are or what they think. Not the Hagbards or the Nulli's, but the Danni's, Corky's, Doc's, etc just don't appear to want to be honest about what they want or how they want to achieve it.
Too much parsing from "progressives", which tells me they're either ashamed of their ideas (or how to achieve them), or that they're aware their ideas are counter-productive and pie in the sky/won't work.

Sure, their causes are noble for the most part, but there isn't a realistic means to achieve them.

Imagine if a progressive did the same. He might not win, but he'd bring a lot of attention to important issues, and over time more and more Americans would embrace the message.

Agreed. At the very least, the candidate would bring up inconvenient facts and force people like Obama to confront the fact that they take a shit on the Constitution on a daily basis.

"I for one was mistaken, I thought Obama was a progressive (certainly compared to Hilary)."

Which is the great irony of that primary: Hillary, a progressive/liberal, ran as a centrist; Obama, a centrist (more or less), ran as a liberal. WTF.
+++++

"The country never will be if real progressives don't even try."

Wasn't that Dennis Kucinich for at least a couple of cycles?
+++++

33--An interesting and cogent post from our resident joker. I love it when you do that... ya bastard. (I'm not saying I agree with all of what you say, mind you...)

#33 There is a great deal of truth to this sentiment. Progressives, by nature, are fair and inclusive and less "assertive" than conservatives. Not for lack of faith in their beliefs, but because their beliefs themselves are less belligerent and based on feelings of empathy.

As Bill Maher has said, it would be great for us to have a progressive president with bush's could care less attitude to the 50% that didnt vote for him.

it would be great for us to have a progressive president with bush's could care less attitude to the 50% that didnt vote for him.

#36 | Posted by truthhurts

you already have one.

it would be great for us to have a progressive president with bush's could care less attitude to the 50% that didnt vote for him.

#36 | Posted by truthhurts

you already have one.

#37 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at

bullshit, we have a president who doesnt seem to care about the people who voted for him. He has compromised on most important issues.

I honestly cant think of one thing that bush compromised on in 8 years of his presidency.

Obama has compromised on HCR, all his economic initiatives, Gitmo, NDAA, etc.

Guess it depends on your point of view.

37--Obama is not a true progressive. At least not visibly, maybe in the "long game" he is. But I think he's really quite centrist.

Try Bush letting Ted Kennedy right health care and education legislation.

Try Bush letting Ted Kennedy right health care and education legislation.

#42 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

bush passed health care legislation?

I willgive you the No Child Left Behind abomination, though that piece of shit was clearly a republican based monster

#41 | Posted by pragmatist

Like I said, I guess it depends on your point of view. I think he's a communist. If I were a communist, I might disagree....

bush passed health care legislation?

Medicare drug plan? With a Republican led congress to boot. Hillary Clinton couldn't have pushed that crap through.

Medicare drug plan? With a Republican led congress to boot. Hillary Clinton couldn't have pushed that crap through.

#45 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

not sure if this would be considered an example of compromise as it was a Republican initiative to begin with,

same with NCLB for that matter

"we have a president who doesnt seem to care about the people who voted for him. He has compromised on most important issues."

LOL...THIS one is certainly causing him some heartburn. He's talking to himself saying, "Lemme see now, do I care about what's good for the country or what gives me the most campaign money and votes?"

"But pressure across the political spectrum is steadily growing to persuade Obama to put the needs of thousands of Americans seeking jobs ahead of his own political concerns. In a speech last week, Donohue pointed to the unanimity of unions and the business community in wanting "President Obama to act in the best interests of our national security and our workers and approve the pipeline. We can put 20,000 Americans to work right away and up to 250,000 over the life of the project." And in a joint statement issued by U.S. pipeline contractors and unions, Hoffa said "the Keystone Pipeline project will offer working men and women a real chance to earn a good wage and support their families in this difficult economic climate."

"With unemployment at 8.7 percent and as many as 14 million Americans either drawing unemployment benefits and looking for work or having exhausted their benefits and given up applying for new jobs, approving Keystone ought to be a no-brainer, immune from political calculations. Support for the project is bipartisan in both the Senate and House, so there is no question that Obama would be cheered on Capitol Hill for making the right decision. So who is more important to you, Mr. President, the working men and women of America, or the high-paid, pin-striped liberal activists running groups like the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council?"

#46 | Posted by truthhurts

See, you had a progressive president and you didn't know it. Probably why you don't recognize the communist.....

44--If you were a communist (I am not), you would most certainly disagree. If you were a liberal, you would not see him as a liberal, just as many conservatives here (some of whom might have voted for Bush) don't see Bush as a conservative. I don't have the time or energy to try to convince you that Obama is not a true progressive. But one would think you should take the word of actual progressives over those of people way on the other end of the spectrum. (Similarly, I am not qualified to assert that Bush is not a conservative.)

Of course, "progressive" on this site seems to mean "liberal," which is not true historically speaking.

"All I can say is that Obama is in danger of losing my vote. His actions are in many ways unrecognizable from his predecessor."

WOW...at least ONE of our little friends has come to recognize that President Barack Bush is just his predecessor on steroids.

WOW...at least ONE of our little friends has come to recognize that President Barack Bush is just his predecessor on steroids.

#50 | Posted by jestgettinalong

so obama can count on your support?

51--LMAO. That would make sense if he is JUST Bush on steroids. But given Afk's ranting about certain non-Bush behaviors, that would appear not to be true in Afk's eyes.

#24 | Posted by pragmatist
#49 | Posted by pragmatist

And you were trying to convince me you're a "moderate" liberal. Even after saying shit like, "(This is where my handle comes from: pragmatist because my heart is farther left than reality seems to allow.)"
I hope "reality" reigns and NEVER let's you "progressives" take us any further left. So far, we've only allowed you and your little friends to do that for four years at a time just every once in a while. Your four years is just about up this turn.

Wasn't that Dennis Kucinich for at least a couple of cycles?

#35 | Posted by pragmatist at 2012-01-17 11:52 AM

"so obama can count on your support?"

That's gotta be your ass talking because I'm sure your mouth knows better. But, what makes you think I was so fond of big government, big spending, Bush? I did not vote for him, but I sure voted AGAINST BARACK Bush. In case you haven't figured it out, I'll be voting against him again.

"Yeah, but I don't remember him zealously promoting his message the way Paul has."

I think he was seriously engaged with foreign policy issues with the crews of those UFO's.

"Yeah, but I don't remember him zealously promoting his message the way Paul has."

I think he was seriously engaged with foreign policy issues with the crews of those UFO's.

Dennis Kucinich was the DNC Ron Paul, but the DNC was far better at destroying him than the RNC seems to be at destroying Ron Paul.

Dennis Kucinich was the DNC Ron Paul, but the DNC was far better at destroying him than the RNC seems to be at destroying Ron Paul.
#58 | Posted by kanrei

The DNC has winner-take-all primaries mostly, right? What's keeping Paul alive is proportional allotment of delegates for the nomination.

What killed Dennis is the DNC machine that marginalized him immediately and focused on his more bat-shit ideas like UFOs and ignored the fact that, like Ron Paul, he was the only true anti-war candidate they had.

Ron Paul is much stronger than Dennis...more of a fighter.

...ignored the fact that, like Ron Paul, he was the only true anti-war candidate they had.

#60 | Posted by kanrei

RP is not anti-war. If you believe that he is, then you know squat about what RP and the USCOTUS are about.

"And you were trying to convince me you're a "moderate" liberal. Even after saying shit like, "(This is where my handle comes from: pragmatist because my heart is farther left than reality seems to allow.)"

Too funny. As I wrote it, I knew you were gonna pop up. That just shows again that you don't comprehend what you read. I am a liberal; I have never tried to be "stealthy" about that or deny it. My heart is left; but I understand reality well enough to not indulge that heart. And somehow, in your eyes, it's a flaw to admit that. Honesty is too hard for you to take.
+++++

LoD, I remember it as you do: that Dennis K was not as zealous as Ron P. But they are sort of counterparts, party-wise.

I would seriously consider Ron Paul if he weren't determined to destroy social programs, unemployment insurance, etc, basically usurping the meaning of the Constitution preamble for the care of citizens in lieu of privatization, mass homelessness and starvation.

This is simply not accurate. If Ron Paul were President, Congress would control the purse strings as outlined in the Constitution. If social programs were to be dismantled, it would be the doing of Congress...and they would never do that because the people who vote are blue hairs.

There is little he offers differently from any other candidate - other than his views on foreign policy.

Monetary policy? The War on Drugs? Little difference...really?

And even then, who's to say another 9/11 wouldn't be pulled to pass more "Patriotic Action Legislation", drawing the US into a more militarized scenario domestically.

If that's the case, what difference would it make who's President?

I trust Paul to behave precisely as he would be told to, that's simply never going to cut it as an actual presidency.

His entire political career is the exact opposite of this statement.

He has no intention of "auditing" the Federal Reserve or the Pentagon - the entire congressional body would be in upheaval as Republican after Republican would potentially become exposed, basically transferring power away from his GOP.

He already has. He's already forced more transparency to the Fed in the last couple years than it has in it's entire history.

Paul is just another lying, hive-minded sack of shit from the Republican party.

Uh huh...

Too many of these type of arguments demand on thing from Democrats in order to be veiwed as authentic, they have to be willing to stand up for principle so strongly that they will most certainly lose their elections and allow a Republican to win. Sorry, but that's a bridge too far for me, we are making some progress on issues I care about and the next appointments to the SC will sit for life. I just don't want a Republican in office making those appointments and I feel quite secure with President Obama making difficult decisions in regard to national security. I'll stick with the Democrats (flawed as they are) and Obama.

Save the typing...just go with Party over Country and be done with it.

I lean libertarian but I imagine a lot of us would have no problem voting for a progressive who ran on an anti-war, anti-drug war, and pro-civil liberties platform. (might be wrong, dunno)

I certainly wouldn't have any issue voting for that candidate. I might not necessarily agree with everything they stand for, but I could certainly sleep at night after voting for a candidate like that.

His entire political career is the exact opposite of this statement.

#63 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2012-01-17 01:51 PM

"no problem voting for a progressive who ran on an anti-war, anti-drug war, and pro-civil liberties platform."

Russ Feingold/Gary Johnson 2016.

I can't believe we can't find a candidate who understands simple concepts like war should be avoided, freedom is good, and helping people is right.

I don't see why a Paul Presidency is so threatening. I mean, as we've learned these past couple of years, a President can't do anything without the permission of a super-majority of the legislature anyway, and it's more than clear that his platform isn't very persuasive even in his own party or he'd be doing better in the primaries, so how many horrible things could he accomplish? -- #31 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

That's exactly where I am right now, on the days I'm not considering organizing a write-in campaign for Donald Duck.

a President can't do anything without the permission of a super-majority of the legislature anyway, and it's more than clear that his platform isn't very persuasive even in his own party or he'd be doing better in the primaries

Damn logical reasoning.

My final decision on Ron Paul will be when he picks a VP candidate. Like McCain in 2008, Ron Paul's age is a very real concern and it is quite possible his VP would finish his term.

That's exactly where I am right now, on the days I'm not considering organizing a write-in campaign for Donald Duck.
#69 | Posted by Phoenix

Hope for change.

My final decision on Ron Paul will be when he picks a VP candidate. Like McCain in 2008, Ron Paul's age is a very real concern and it is quite possible his VP would finish his term.
#71 | Posted by kanrei

Do you think he'd stay in the race long enough to get to pick a VP, or are you predicting that he's going to run indy? I was just thinking about that, if he could go back to his part time gig as GOP Rep without hurting his platform (value of such being debatable) or the enthusiasm he's generated in his supporters? You're right, he's not getting any younger, this might be his last chance. Possible.

Do you think he'd stay in the race long enough to get to pick a VP, or are you predicting that he's going to run indy?

I think this time he will run indy. This is his last hurrah!

Russ Feingold/Gary Johnson 2016.

#67 | Posted by nullifidian at 2012-01-17 02:12 PM

68--Those things run counter to American hegemony.

74--I hope he does, and not for the cynical reason some do, but because I'd like to see if can catch fire that way. I'd be very curious to see what numbers he draws and who votes for him.

I'd be very curious to see what numbers he draws and who votes for him.

An Indy President would unite the two parties in Congress for certain. Truth is, until we get a strong non DNC/RNC presence in Congress, any Third Party President is doomed to being a Lame Duck.

Good point, Kan. So let's work it from that angle. Let's all pledge to vote for third-party candidates for Congress every time they come around in our home states. Well, if they don't suck. : ) Ready? I'd be really happy getting rid of my congresspersons and senators and starting over.

About 10 years ago, I was thinking a great deal about "alter or abolish."