Why Ron Paul attracts some liberals.

[MadHound]

Loads of people wonder why a man with overall regressive stances on the issues attracts so many liberal supporters. The answer is really quite simple, on approximately 1/4-1/3 of the issues, Paul takes a hard, unabashedly liberal position.

These aren't on piddly little issues either, but big picture issues, war and peace, US imperial expansion, the War on Drugs, restoration of civil liberties. Nor does the man act like a typical politician and pussyfoot around his views, he comes out, loudly and unequivocally for what he believes in, hammering it home time and again.

For many liberals, this is a huge, tornado sized breath of fresh air. No time tables to ending war(do it now), no restrictions(such as Medical Marijuana), none of the mealy mouthed, equivocating stances taken by Democrats of the past and present, nope, Paul states it as it is.

This sort of frank unequivocation is hugely attractive. After watching this country suffer through the grind of decade long wars, and decades of imperial adventures abroad, to have a candidate flat out state that stopping such military involvement is his top priority, that's intoxicating. The same with those who care about legalizing drugs and restoration of civil liberties.

And that's the problem with Paul, he is intoxicating, to the point that you can easily overlook the insanity of the rest of his positions. It is such a relief to find a candidate willing to buck the MIC that one starts to either forgive, or forget what else Paul stands for.

Which is why I will never support Paul. I've been fighting these illegal, immoral wars for years and decades now, but I'm not going to elect a President who, on the hand, will end our imperial adventures while on the other hand trashes our economy. I'm not that foolish.

But hey, I understand the temptation to support Paul. Which is why we have got to start coming up with truly liberal candidates, not the center right equivocators that we've been putting up for the past couple of decades. Because if we don't, somebody just a bit less insane that Paul is going to come along and eat the Dem's lunch and dinner.

[PeaceNikki]

1. I kinda put some blame Kucinich for giving Paul some legitimacy to the far left in 2008

The crazies are willfully ignorant, but I think a small portion are wooed by the *idea* of being anti-war/anti-drug war. But they have NO freaking clue about what that means in Paul's crazy head. None. At all.

[sabrina 1]

77. Do you blame Alan Grayson also? Or Ted Kennedy?

How about just blaming the actual reasons why someone like Paul has managed to get a national voice. And imagine if his Domestic Policies were not so crazy how much more support he would be able to get.

I agree with the OP. The way to shut Paul up is to find Democrats taking on the issues he is taking on so no Democrat will feel the need to support him or anyone else who comes along like him.

'Wooed by the idea of being anti-war'. It doesn't matter what is in Paul's head, most voters support people who say what they want to hear, they are not political junkies. What matters is what people hear politicians say.

I eg, am 'wooed by the idea of being anti-war'. War is not an idea, it has been a horrific reality with horrendous, tragic consequences for hundreds of thousands of human beings. It remains one of the most important issues for a majority of Democrats along with the root causes of all the current problems facing this country, money in politics.

Shut Paul up by having Democrats take back the issues that he is talking about.

[PeaceNikki]

79. Grayson and/or Kennedy didn't literally, to my knowledge, say they'd pick Paul as a running mate.

Nor did either claim "his position on international matters, particularly with respect to avoiding war as an instrument of policy has been identical to mine".

Paul's 'anti-war' stance is a ruse. Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or anything close to a position of pacifism. He wants to withdraw from the UN and end humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. Foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

And THAT is is the position Kucinich said is "identical" to his!?

Anyone who takes that surface level 'anti-war' stance of Paul's at face value is willfully ignorant or supporting that shit. There is no in-between.

[sabrina 1]

85. Whatever, Democrats respect the man, that was my point. If he's such a Hitler or whatever

the latest charges are, then we have to question everyone who ever said a nice word about him, don't we? This is a failed strategy, because see where it leads? It leads to having to constantly try to defend the PERSONAL ATTACKS, rather than focus on the issues. It's a waste of time. We hated it when the Swift Boaters and their network of dirty tricksters did it to Kerry and if we now are going to adapt these strategies, then let's not complain when they are used against Democrats next time.

I want all dirty tricks and smear campaigns, along with the money that pays for them, OUT of politics, always have and always will. They serve no purpose other than to further sink the level of political discourse into the gutter. Not one mind will be changed by any of this.

What could change minds? Give Paul supporters an alternative. Give them candidates that are speaking about the issues they care about. That's how you defeat a political opponent and keep the public focused on what matters, leading to a more educated and involved electorate.

I would make all these bought and paid for dirty, political smear campaigns illegal and clean up our political system. Right now it is mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric and is turning so many people off politics. Most voters are very, very turned off by by the politics of personal destruction and it is keeping good people from running themselves. Who wants to risk being called Hitler, or have their integrity questioned as we have seen so often, now appartently coming from both sides?

Attack candidates on the issues, that's all I want to know about right now. The rest is irrelant, just noise and will never win a single vote so I don't see the purpose of it all.

[PeaceNikki]

86. Wait... you're upset about personal attacks on Ron Paul here on DU?

weird.

[sabrina 1]

90. Are you saying you support the Swift

Boaters and Rove and their politics of personal destruction?

I am against failed tactics that harm this country, aren't all Democrats?

[PeaceNikki]

92. lol. Are you accusing me of "Swift Boating" or being "Rovian"?

Back up in this subthread and tell me where that happened, please.

Paul is a dangerous wolf and I have gone into great detail as to why I believe his entire platform is stupid and impractical. His ideas are stupid, and won't work in the real world. It's no wonder that most of his supporters are people who don't understand what it means to live as self-supporting members of society.

[sabrina 1]

101. It didn't, nor did I say what you attributed to me in my comment.

I was clear in my comment about my objection to the low level of political discourse, you built a strawman from that comment turning it into something you called 'weird' rather than address anything I actually said.

And since you chose to build a strawman I didn't see how you would object to anyone else following your example.

I was perfectly willing to have an actual discussion on the issues I raised in my comment, but I can't discuss anything with a strawman so I followed your example and just built another one

And this conversation perfectly proves some of the points I was making about the state of political discourse. Had you eg, chosen to have a discussion I might even have changed my mind on when eg, it is okay to engage in the politics of personal destruction or not. But that didn't happen, so we'll never know what anyone thinks which to me is a wasted opportunity.

[joshcryer]

94. Ron Paul is engaging in the same tactics you decry other DUers of.

Ron Paul is "mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric" if you watch his political ads, particularly those going after Santorum. I'm fine with it, mind you, but don't like the implication that DU is pervaded by this, as there are countless issues-based criticisms of Ron Paul posted here, which you won't find elsewhere on the internet. I have posted several, myself, and I continue to post issues-based criticisms of Ron Paul because I find this liberal defense of Ron Paul to be misguided.

Ron Paul is not our friend.

We share nothing with him. There's no convergence of ideas. His views don't desperately need to be heard.

[sabrina 1]

99. I know you would never claim I said something if I did not..

So would you please quote where I did this: Ron Paul is engaging in the same tactics you decry other DUers of.

Thank you!

[joshcryer]

108. A lot of DUers are Democrats. I know what was implied.

[sabrina 1]

116. So the answer is 'no I cannot produce such a quote'.

Thank you. Don't try to read minds, I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself and I generally say what I mean to say. If it is not there it is because I did not mean to say it. DU is not the world, it is one website. My statement was general, relating to the entire blogosphere and tactics which I consider to be a failure which I am seeing all over the internet. I objected to Republicans using them and even more object to Democrats using them. And always did. If someone can show me how they are a benefit to resolving the huge issues this country faces, I might change my mind.

[joshcryer]

120. I said it was implied, I didn't say you said it.

Simple. DU is where we are currently posting. The primary audience for posts here is other DUers.

I don't consider any sort of respect is necessary for capitalist ultra-nationalists like Ron Paul. And nether do the Admins who have used the term "Fuck Ron Paul," which no doubt qualifies as "schoolyard rhetoric," as you call it.

If you are contending that no DUers employ "low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric," then I suggest you say so, as otherwise DUers are included in your "criticism" which is why liberals are so weak on so many issues. I want partisanship. 3 years of Obama has shown us what bipartisanship does. The Republicans vote in a bloc, if anyone is voting against our wishes it's a small number of Democrats who "reach across the isle" and "compromise."

No more. I congratulate and defend all DUers and Democrats alike who use "low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric" if its target is people like right wing ultra-nationalists like Ron Paul.

And our politics would be better for it if we differentiated ourselves from these people, if everyone understood, and explained, that Ron Paul's ideas have nothing to do with ours, even if they "sound" the same. We must fight these fascists we can't respect them.

[sabrina 1]

127. Just admit it, you made an error.

No biggie, everyone does it sooner or later.

[joshcryer]

128. I didn't make an error, and your criticism applies to the Admins.

Congrats.

[sabrina 1]

129. Keep digging, we may have to let a jury decide.

Edited to add. It was comment #85. I suggest you go read it again. I have given you a chance to correct a mistake you made. The comment is clear, crystal clear on what I wanted to say. And now I'm done with this.

[joshcryer]

132. I quoted your own words and am sasitified with my response.

Meanwhile I support those "mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric." As it's a sight better than bipartisanship which is what got us this mess to begin with.

[sabrina 1]

133. Quote them again please ~ n/t

[joshcryer]

134. "mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric"

[sabrina 1]

137. I asked you for a quote

from comment #85 to back up the claim you made in your post #94. I'm still waiting.

Here, let me help you:

Whatever, Democrats respect the man, that was my point. If he's such a Hitler or whatever

the latest charges are, then we have to question everyone who ever said a nice word about him, don't we? This is a failed strategy, because see where it leads? It leads to having to constantly try to defend the PERSONAL ATTACKS, rather than focus on the issues. It's a waste of time. We hated it when the Swift Boaters and their network of dirty tricksters did it to Kerry and if we now are going to adapt these strategies, then let's not complain when they are used against Democrats next time.

I want all dirty tricks and smear campaigns, along with the money that pays for them, OUT of politics, always have and always will. They serve no purpose other than to further sink the level of political discourse into the gutter. Not one mind will be changed by any of this.

What could change minds? Give Paul supporters an alternative. Give them candidates that are speaking about the issues they care about. That's how you defeat a political opponent and keep the public focused on what matters, leading to a more educated and involved electorate.

I would make all these bought and paid for dirty, political smear campaigns illegal and clean up our political system. Right now it is mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric and is turning so many people off politics. Most voters are very, very turned off by by the politics of personal destruction and it is keeping good people from running themselves. Who wants to risk being called Hitler, or have their integrity questioned as we have seen so often, now appartently coming from both sides?

Attack candidates on the issues, that's all I want to know about right now. The rest is irrelant, just noise and will never win a single vote so I don't see the purpose of it all.

Sometimes it's better to just say 'I was wrong'.

[joshcryer]

138. That's your quote. I'm sorry if it's not clear to you.

Right now it is mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric and is turning so many people off politics.

That includes DUers. That includes EarlG who said "Fuck Ron Paul," which is schoolyard rhetoric. That spawned hundreds of posts saying "Fuck Ron Paul." I have no problem with it. I love schoolyard rhetoric!

[sabrina 1]

140. Does it?

Sabrina1: Right now it (political discourse)is mired in low level, boring, unimportant, mean-spirited, schoolyard rhetoric and is turning so many people off politics.


Joshcrier: That includes DUers".

Well if that is your opinion then you should have said so.

Try to be more clear next time and use your own words to say what you mean.

[joshcryer]

142. That's what your post implied and a logical conclusion. Do you disagree?

It's basic logic, you generalize about an entire group (as you admit), that group will include DUers. Simple.

I see nothing wrong with it, the best thing about politics when we get passionate about things. Especially the "mean-spirited, school-yard rhetoric" when it comes to ultra-nationalists like Ron Paul!

I disagree that it is "turning so many people off politics." If anything partisanship is needed more than anything else.

[sabrina 1]

144. There is nothing wrong with it, what is wrong is that you inserted

words that were not there, period. That comment was a statement about the general state of political discourse. If I wanted to make it about it DU I would have done so, and probably have on other occasions when the subject WAS DU, because as you say, there is nothing wrong with that.

I know what is in my mind when I write something. And what was in my mind when I wrote that comment was the general state of political discourse. Stop trying to read minds, you're not very good at it as this conversation demonstrates.

DU is a tiny corner of the internet and the rest of the media and has little influence over the national political debate, which is exactly WHY I did not make it about DU. Get it now?

[joshcryer]

146. It was implied. Get it?

Even if you didn't intend it, you made a generalization. Generalizations have implications. I asked and you have repeatedly fervently denied it. Fair enough. The implication is still there in your post unless you edit it to add an exception, like "except DU." But, of course, I don't expect that because "there is nothing wrong with that." And you're, ultimately, happy with the implication. If I said something that was implied, but not intended, I would correct it as soon as possible, as I prefer to be blunt and not leave implications hanging in my posts. Implications can be read in to, and I like people to know exactly where I stand.

We've been going back and forth about how I am wrong for making a factual, logical, observation.

But it's good to know, in the end, you're against that sort of discourse. One of the largest issues in progressive circles is we're too timid to take the fight to the fascists. We try to keep it civil and let them control the narrative as they have for so long. No more.

I will continue being critical of Ron Paul and supporting detractors if they're not "behaving a certain way."

[sabrina 1]

168. It was NOT implied. How many times do you have to be told something?

I said exactly what I intended to say about a topic that I have written about long before coming to DU.

YOU narrowed it down to DU rather than addressing the much broader subject that I was addressing. You missed the whole point. Everything is NOT about DU. In fact, most things are not about DU.

Yes, there are people on DU, on DK, on the street, and everywhere else who are led to believe that using these tactics is good politics. It is not. It is weak, it loses elections.

Rand Paul, remember him?? How did the politics of personal destruction work in that race? It made people cringe and it had the opposite effect. It disgusted people and for those on the fence, it was probably a deciding factor. Support the guy everyone is punching.

He is now a Senator when it could have been a Democrat. Stupid, stupid tactics and our loss.

How about Clinton? Was the public clamoring for him to step down as a result of the politics of personal destruction aimed at him?? He left office as one of the most popular presidents ever. It was a complete failure.

You think that sinking to the level of Rush Limbaugh is being 'tough'. Limbaugh, Fox and the Swift Boaters are WEAK. The only reason they got any traction was because Democrats failed to deal with them.

There is nothing that demonstrates weakness more than resorting to personal attacks. People see through it, they don't like it and it generally backfires. I want to WIN. I don't like the fact that once again we are heading towards an election with stupid, moronic tactics coming from idiotic political operatives in DC who badly need to be reigned in.

And since you so want to talk about DU, let's do so. Has a single mind been changed here by the repeated attacks on Glenn Greenwald? When someone continues to use a failed tactic, all that happens is they discredit themselves.

And who said anything about being polite?? Asking for strength to deal with weakness is not asking for 'polite'. You seem to think that yelling 'you're a jerk' is strong. All I can say is 'no wonder we lose elections'. We are up against COWARDS who should be easily defeated. But if these are the tactics and anyone who looks half sane is the candidate from the right, I can see another defeat heading our way. And that is why Ron Paul should be USED, not ATTACKED.

[joshcryer]

172. You're posting on DU, the readers are DUers, please spare me this nonsense.

Not even worth reading walls of text that have been repeatedly crammed down my throat while denying what I said without providing any real reason. Intent is irrelevant, generalizations have implications. Stop generalizing about people unless you're willing to own the implications.

Personal attacks against fascists and ultra-nationalists and far right wingers are strong, they show that we judge character, they show that we don't fold over when someone with a history of bad character pretends to be on our side. They show that we scrutinize the enemy. They show that we're not going to sit down and play nice. I like them for that reason.

This call for civility is the very thing that got us in this mess. Obama ran a very moderate, post-partisan, very "reach across the isle" campaign. We saw where that led. He installed a cabinet that was center-right. His entire first year when he had his mandate trying to get everyone to meet and agree on things. Then when they did he wound up compromising so hard that we didn't get what we needed to make this country stronger in the short term.

Fuck Ron Paul.

[eridani]

150. Great. Just what we need on a Dem board

Repuke talking points. Here's a clue for you--universal health care, taxing the rich, ending the drug war and winding down American imperialism happen to be mainstream American opinions.

[PeaceNikki]

155. Speaking of clues, here's what I was referring to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=34521

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=134636

[eridani]

158. You do understand that the US military empire exists mainly for the 1%, right?

This is not "far left"--it's just common sense. Just positing the actual existence of a "far left" in this country helps move the country to the right.

[PeaceNikki]

159. Claiming to align with Ron Paul's position on international matters is either terrifying or ignorant

And I stand by that statement.

[eridani]

160. Anti-imperialism has always had right and left components

The union-busting Carnegie was as much against the imperial assault against the Philippines as Mark Twain was. He in fact offered to buy the country for ten million and set it free. Does Twain agreeing with that mean that Twain approved of the Homestead slaughter? I think not.

I attach far less significance to anti-imperial motivation than you do. The left is against it on the grounds of solidarity; the right is against it because an imperial government must inevitably be a big government. I can't see blowing off support of a policy just because some supporters are morally deficient.

[Romulox]

184. You nailed it. The attempt is to smear anyone who dare challenge War, War on Drugs as

"agreeing with the right." This a 100% Rovian tactic, as expansionist wars abroad and fascism at home at 100% rightwing positions, irrespective of which party has coopted these positions.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Ron Paul DOESN'T attract "liberals." He attracts myopic, single-issue bots.

NGU.

[Rex]

5. Yep.

This stuff about his 'attracting' liberals to his cause is as believable as unicorns and trolls. I have YET to see a progressive put their support behind Ron Paul.

[ClassWarrior]

7. The key point, however, is that DEMS could be attracting those single-issue bots instead...

...SIMPLY BY TAKING STRONG POSITIONS ON TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC VALUES.



That part I don't get!!

NGU.

[ProSense]

10. Impossible

"The key point, however, is that DEMS could be attracting those single-issue bots instead..."

...because, clearly, they believe any propaganda that comes along. The next up would be eliminating the defense department or some similar cookie.

[ClassWarrior]

12. ROFL...

Huh?

NGU.

[ProSense]

14. Don't

you see a pattern: people who buy into propaganda and continue to hype debunked propaganda aren't necessarily going to come around.

Utopia doesn't exist, and Paul is trying to sell it.

To add: He's selling it to those most ignorant of his actual vision.

[ClassWarrior]

17. So let me get this straight. If Dems defend traditional Dem values...

...single issue ideologues will suddenly switch their allegiances?

Huh?



NGU.

[ProSense]

18. Wait

"So let me get this straight. If Dems defend traditional Dem values...

...single issue ideologues will suddenly switch their allegiances? "

...do you understand that Paul's positions are propaganda? Who said anything about them switching "allegiance"? As it now stands, the excuse is "I wouldn't support him, but..."

Propaganda is a moving target, and nearly impossible to debunk to those who want to buy into it.

It has been said over and over that Paul isn't anti war, but people continue to insist that he is.

[ClassWarrior]

20. True. So any Dem who is truly anti-war could walk away with those particular...

...single-issue voters.

QED.

NGU.

[ProSense]

24. Are

"So if Dems were truly anti-war, they'd walk away with those particular....single-issue voters. "

...you saying that Ron Paul's propaganda stance is more anti-war than anti-war Democrats?

Seriously, that is flawed logic.

"If Ron Paul was interested in peace, he wouldn't be a Republican — that party has even more enthusiasm for the military-industrial complex than the Democrats. For decades the GOP has turned every election into a contest over who is more macho, more nationalistic, more willing to do exactly the things lefty Paul fans excoriate Obama for doing. Paul doesn't get re-elected in his Texas district because of boutique positions like thinking Osama bin Laden should have been arrested, not assassinated."

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144783916/the-nation-progressive-man-crushes-on-ron-paul

"This year Paul requested 65 earmarks, more than any other congressman in the Houston area, including money for the renovation of an old movie theater in Edna and wild shrimp marketing.

Paul's congressional district also has been among the top in Texas in receipt of federal assistance since 2000, receiving $31 billion from Washington, according to a study by the group OMB Watch. In the first nine months of the 2006 fiscal year, the district received $4 billion in federal aid.

His district, which hugs the Gulf Coast, and reaches into Brazoria County, receives a substantial amount of flood control aid.

Paul said that although he has requested earmarks, he did not vote for the final spending bills that include the special projects."

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Ron-Paul-defends-seeking-funds-for-Texas-district-1534438.php

[ClassWarrior]

28. I'm saying Paul has managed to portray himself as more anti-war than his...

...Democratic Presidential opponent, and that's a shame because his opponent's record is infinitely better than Paul's.

NGU.

[ProSense]

33. He

"I'm saying Paul has managed to portray himself as more anti-war than his...

...Democratic Presidential opponent, and that's a shame because his opponent's record is infinitely better than Paul's."

...has been able to because he has some progressives spouting his propaganda as genuine.

[ClassWarrior]

36. So you're saying it's liberals, not Paul, portraying him as anti-war?

Is that sort of like the newsletters?



NGU.

[ProSense]

39. There

"Ahhh... The circular argument."

...is nothing "circular" about the argument that Paul's positions are proganda that do not reflect his actual views.

[ProSense]

43. Well,

"So you're saying it's liberals, not Paul, portraying him as anti-war? "

...it looks like my other comment was to the pre-edited version. No it's not all liberals " portraying him as anti-war," but don't pretend that there aren't some who do.

[Rex]

42. Who? What progressives are doing so?

You mean like anonymous posters on a forum or seriously, well known people like KO or Mike Malloy?

I would love to know WHOM these people are, so I can avoid them.

[ProSense]

45. Wow

"Who? What progressives are doing so?"

...I must be imagining things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002112129

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

Seriously, you're asking me the above question in an OP titled: "Why Ron Paul attracts some liberals."

[Rex]

48. So if Madhound makes a thread on it, it must be true eh?

Maybe to you, not me and for the record those two links support what I am saying. Okay Glen thinks he is a serious candidate...maybe I should have said Big Time person...Glen is a hack and I am not so sure he really is a liberal either...do YOU think he is a liberal Prosense?

[ProSense]

54. I

So if Madhound makes a thread on it, it must be true eh?

Maybe to you, not me and for the record those two links support what I am saying. Okay Glen thinks he is a serious candidate...maybe I should have said Big Time person...Glen is a hack and I am not so sure he really is a liberal either...do YOU think he is a liberal Prosense?

...find it hard to believe that you don't know that some liberals have been pushing Paul as anti-war.

Now Ron Paul is getting the love. At Truthdig, Robert Scheer calls him "a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power." In The Nation, John Nichols praises his "pure conservatism," "values" and "principle." Salon's Glenn Greenwald is so outraged that progressives haven't abandoned the warmongering, drone-sending, indefinite-detention-supporting Obama for Paul that he accuses them of supporting the murder of Muslim children. There's a Paul fan base in the Occupy movement and at Counterpunch, where Alexander Cockburn is a longtime admirer. Paul is a regular guest of Jon Stewart, who has yet to ask him a tough question. And yes, these are all white men; if there are leftish white women and people of color who admire Paul, they're keeping pretty quiet.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/06/144783916/the-nation-progressive-man-crushes-on-ron-paul

From the piece at the first link in my previous comment:




Though she later issued a retraction: http://twitter.com/#!/KatrinaNation/status/152842211090903040

(Have to cut and paste that link, not sure why part of it is going dead)

[Rex]

58. Where are the endorsements? And anti-war is a single issue.

Single issue voters are scary...yet, I don't see ANY one supporting Ron Paul in those links...KatrinaNation...is that something/someone I should know about as a big player on the media scene? Truthdig? Really...can't you find me someone that works for the M$M that is a liberal (that everyone would know) that endorses Ron Paul?

These are just bit players Prosens, try a little harder as I cannot believe anyone who is a liberal supports Ron Paul for POTUS.

EDIT - Jon Stewart has Paul on the show a lot and hasn't asked him the hard questions...one would only believe Jon is supporting Paul if they embraced Binary Thinking as their way to live.

[ProSense]

62. What?

Where are the endorsements? And anti-war is a single issue.

Single issue voters are scary...yet, I don't see ANY one supporting Ron Paul in those links...KatrinaNation...is that something/someone I should know about as a big player on the media scene? Truthdig? Really...can't you find me someone what works for the M$M that is a liberal (that everyone would know) that endorses Ron Paul?

These are just bit players Prosens, try a little harder as I cannot believe anyone who is a liberal supports Ron Paul for POTUS.

Where did I say anything about "endorsements"?

Here is the comment you first responded to: "He has been able to because he has some progressives spouting his propaganda as genuine."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=133757

I said nothing about endorsements. Feel free to write off everyone as a "not a big player on the media scene," that doesn't take away from the fact that they have a platform and are on the left.

[Luminous Animal]

122. Actually, Glenn does not think Paul is a serious candidate and has

stated that there is no way in hell that Paul would be elected.

What Glenn has said is that there are issues that Paul is talking about that need national exposure & dialog and that Paul is the only one airing those issues.

[ClassWarrior]

47. Regardless of how "he has been able to," it's obvious that taking a strong anti-war...

...position could attract single-issue peace ideologues to the Dems.

Which has been my point from the beginning of this sub-thread.

NGU.

[Rex]

52. Single issue voters are very dangerous.

IMO.

[sabrina 1]

81. Forget Paul, he's not even a consideration here, so I don't get the obsession with him.

Just show people the Democrats who are anti-Imperial Wars, anti-The Security State, anti-The racist and failed Drug War, anti-Wall Street corruption and FOR Accountability for War Crimes and Economic Crimes.

Who are those Democrats on the National Stage? I'm not interested in Paul, I'm interested in Democrats who are speaking out loudly and clearly about all these issues.

[Rex]

141. Thanks!

That is EXACTLY what we should be focusing on. This is like giving Sarah Palin the airtime when we could be talking about what Charlie Rose and Bernie Sanders are talking about on the TVEE. Ron Paul is a nutball and not worthy of much discussion...there I said it!

He will never win and probably loves the airtime he gets no matter where it is.

[Rex]

29. Well the POTUS did bring home the troops from Iraq

and he IS in serious discussions about drawing down the size of the military...

Jus sayin.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Amen. Let's hope his campaign shouts it from the rooftops.

NGU.

[Rex]

38. Amen. It should be part of the platform.

[saras]

66. You nailed it, and I imagine you'll get hammered for it.

[eridani]

153. Some folks just have trouble with difficult concepts--

--like stopped clocks being right twice a day.

[SaintPete]

21. thats too harsh

he attracts liberals who only know him through his positions that appear liberal (anti-war, anti-"War on Drugs&quot , he loses them once they get the full picture.

No need for insults

[PeaceNikki]

23. His positions are NOT liberal.

None of them. Not one.

[ClassWarrior]

25. I think the poster means his positions that are perceived as liberal.

NGU.

[PeaceNikki]

30. Agreed, but it's an important distinction. They are not liberal positions.

His 'anti-war' stance is a ruse. Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or anything close to a position of pacifism. He wants to withdraw from the UN and end humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. Foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

Civil liberties? In Paulistan you're only protected if you're a white Christian male property owner.

back atcha!

[SaintPete]

50. Your point is well taken

and I've edited my post for clarity

[Cannoneo]

154. It's still worth piggybacking on his rhetoric

For me it is not about what President Ron Paul would do -- he'd clearly be a destructive lunatic.

It's about his unique platform for denouncing military interventionism. It's an incredibly valuable (and long-term, life-saving) phenomenon that we would be fools to dismiss.

[Rex]

27. I wish I could recommend your post

a million times PeaceNikki!

HIS POSITIONS ARE NOT LIBERAL.

EOM.

[zbdent]

26. in other words ... the "independents"

who are single-issuers ...

Kinda like the Catholics who are against the death penalty and war, but vote Republican because they are soooooooo "pro-life" (read: anti-abortion). Never mind that most "cafeteria Catholics" would lose their contraceptive rights, too ... but remember, that's "big government in the vagina" ...

[sarcasmo]

53. The college kids like his anit MIC stance and pro weed stance,

that would be two big issues.

[SidDithers]

55. Well said...

Anyone attracted to Ron Paul is not a liberal.

Sid

[Rex]

60. True, how could they pass up the 98% material

that is batshit crazy? 2% 'normal speak' just means even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Blue_Tires]

171. The irony is did you know one the the earliest major online promoters of Paul

back in 2008 was the 9/11 truth/conspiracy crowd (Alex Jones and the like)?? One of Paul's major planks then was a full, top-to-bottom investigation of exactly who knew what and who benefited...And he got a lot of LIHOP/MIHOP leftists to join him thinking they would finally see Bush exposed or whatever...

Of course this new "mainstream" Paul has kept that crowd at arm's length this time around -- Guess it isn't important to him anymore...Funny how many people have forgotten about this...

[William769]

3. Fuck Ron Paul

and all the people that support that bigoted ass poor excuse of a human being.

[customerserviceguy]

46. Yes

Until he acts like a spoiled kid who didn't get what he wants for Christmas, and goes third party in the general. He'll bleed off a LOT of support for whoever the Repuke is.

[ProSense]

4. He's

" Which is why I will never support Paul. I've been fighting these illegal, immoral wars for years and decades now, but I'm not going to elect a President who, on the hand, will end our imperial adventures while on the other hand trashes our economy. I'm not that foolish."

...about as anti-war as David Duke and the rest of the racists.

Romney would support a war on Iran. Don’t vote for a neocon warmonger!

Ron Paul will not only get the traditional conservative right. He’ll get the far right, and he’ll get a lot of support from all across the political spectrum who think the Patriot Act, torture and the Iraq War are wrong and un-Constitutional.

http://www.davidduke.com/general/romney-would-support-a-war-on-iran-dont-vote-for-a-neocon-warmonger_25255.html

2007: Paul keeps donation from white supremacist
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/#.TvsxyyNWoqQ

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002129506

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=129621

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

[MineralMan]

6. It's odd that you would mention "civil liberties" in

connection with Ron Paul. He does not support civil liberties at all, unless you are white and a libertarian. His racism is well-known. I doubt that he is much of a fan of women's rights, and he's pretty silent on LGBT issues.

Civil rights is not a single issue. It is an all-encompassing issue, and Paul only supports civil rights in a Libertarian sense. What that means is that if an individual wants to act according to his or her prejudices, that's just fine with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is great on state's rights, but a loser on civil rights. He'll let you use drugs if you like, and that's about it.

I can think of nothing more important that an across-the-board attitude about civil rights. Paul's piecemeal support is a sham, and that's all it is.

You say he's intoxicating? So is meth. I'm not having either, thanks.

Condemning Ron Paul with praise is not on, as far as I'm concerned. Not on at all. And that's exactly what you're doing in this post.

"I hate Ron Paul, but hey, look at all these cool things about him..."

No, thank you very much.

FRP!

[TheKentuckian]

51. I don't see civil liberties as exactly the same as civil rights, though closely related.

Civil Rights are more about access to society, economic opportunity, and Civil Liberties which are the rights we have as individuals and this makes it more complicated than you let on, though it ends up being a distinction without a difference you must kinda drill down on it or you can't discuss this intelligently and it because a visceral and reactionary response that clearly isn't thoughtful and can be perceived as dishonesty.

Paul actually does believe in civil liberties within our present paradigm, he really probably doesn't want the Federal government to be monitoring our communications, or setting up virtual stip searches in transportation hubs, he is probably actually against the Federal government detaining or killing you without due process, he probably really doesn't want the Federal government dictating from on high what substances to put in your body,

All of that is actually true.

The story of why is were the rubber meets the road and where the problems come in because A) He is horrible on civil rights (access) regardless if he personally holds hate for minorities because he is philosophically opposed to protections and so his positions on Civil Liberties aren't helpful to a person of my background. He would remove the gurantees that would let me on to the highway and B) He is actually opposed to the Federal Government doing much of anything so it isn't that he is opposed to practices as such but just to who is doing them so if states, localities, and corporations wanted to do the same vile shit, it would be fine by him and he'd fight to make sure they had such freedom.

I think aside (or in conjunction with) from giving liberal answers to the concerns about Civil Liberties, imperialist wars, and the police state is to understand where he is coming from so that rather than assail his veracity (because he is telling the truth from a perspective) one can ask peeling ideological questions that would seperate him from his support.
Well framed questions are just more effective than attacks with this ideology if for no other reason it keeps the person from going on attack mode and shutting out reason.

I remain firm in my warning though that our party would be foolish, in the extreme, to allow the impression that only the extreme right has an answer to some of these issues and that only their path leads to the same positions.

If you think a viable long term strategy is to be pro-war, pro-drug war, and anti-civil liberties like the mainstream TeaPubliKlan party but be for a little more taxes then you are lost. Especially, if we are also broadly accepting conservative economics.

Democrats cannot continue to write bill eroding our rights, voting for wars, deporting unauthorized immigrants at a record pace, and busting medical pot.

Essentially, we cannot be liberal and also refuse to be a civil libertarian party as far as we can be and still protect the common good, which is pretty far.

[woo me with science]

61. Marvelous post. Thank you. nt

[MineralMan]

157. If you do not have civil rights, you have no civil liberties.

It is that simple.

[TheKentuckian]

176. I said as much though without civil liberties civil rights is just equal access to no rights.

There is nothing without substance and substance is hollow without access, if you are all on one side or the other the odds are you are worthless to a free and equal people as you are only promising freedom to the select or equality of access for all but to little or nothing.

[Enrique]

8. it's no mystery to me whatsoever

he and his followers are aggressively highlighting their anti-war and civil liberties positions which appeal to liberals. I could easily see how a liberal that's not thinking clearly might think Ron Paul is a liberal.

[MineralMan]

11. Ron Paul is not for Civil Liberties on the whole!

Not at all. Sure, he doesn't give a shit if you use drugs. That's not civil liberties. He's a bigoted, racist, sexist asshole.

He's also not anti-war. He's just anti war sometimes. It's Jingoism. That's what Paul's anti-war beliefs are about.

He's not pro-education. He'd let individual districts do whatever the fuck they want to do wrt education. Think about what that means.

He is a libertarian. He wants individuals to do as they please, regardless of how that affects others.

No, he's not for Civil Rights in any way. He would destroy your rights, and in short order.

[Rex]

35. In all fairness, the poster DID type

'a liberal that is not thinking clearly'...which to me indicates something important as opposed to all the liberals that ARE thinking correctly.

I still don't buy it...I've never seen a liberal (NOT to be confused with the liberatarians that do support RP) endorse Ron Paul and I doubt I ever will.

[MineralMan]

41. Yes. I don't know anyone I'd class as a liberal who

supports this lousy excuse for a Presidential candidate on any level. Only people who only think about themselves and their issues do. And that makes them libertarians, not liberals.

[Rex]

44. I cannot even believe he is considered a serious candidate!

The FACT that he is, scares the shit right out of me.

[joshcryer]

80. He's not. Watch how few votes he gets in the upcoming primaries.

Having a lot of support doesn't magically mean you have broad appeal.

By South Carolina Ron Paul won't even the the votes necessary for him to remain in debates (and this will piss off a lot of his fans, and everyone will call it a conspiracy).

[ProSense]

13. Hmmm?

"I could easily see how a liberal that's not thinking clearly might think Ron Paul is a liberal."

They obviously don't know that they're "not thinking clearly."

[JackRiddler]

9. Haven't you heard, we don't do "nuance" on this board.

Nuance is for opposition parties.

You're going to get spanked for all that.

You waved the red flag in front of the bull (the red flag is to mention "Ron Paul" and the issues that are unspeakable now that a "D" is commander-in-chief). The bull isn't going to read as far as this:

Which is why we have got to start coming up with truly liberal candidates, not the center right equivocators that we've been putting up for the past couple of decades. Because if we don't, somebody just a bit less insane that Paul is going to come along and eat the Dem's lunch and dinner.

Very true, but your last sentence could admit the stakes are a lot higher than the Democrats.

Why?

Because it's the right thing. Because we need it. Because the times demand it as the only alternative to perpetual war and inevitable destruction.

[MineralMan]

15. How about education, Madhound?

That's one of your issues, right? Ron Paul would handle education by letting every district do whatever the fuck it wanted to do about education. Decentralization is what he would do. How do you suppose that would work out for our children and for our teachers? Do you think Ron Paul supports teacher's unions?

There is nothing praiseworthy about Ron Paul. He's anti-war? Only in the sense that he's a jingoist. You're not really paying attention if you think he supports any liberal ideas, and so are the "liberals" who are intoxicated with him. There is not a liberal bone in the man's body. He'd let you starve to death if you couldn't afford to buy food, and laugh at you for starving.

Fuck....Ron....Paul!

[joshcryer]

74. I'm amazed that "trashing the economy" is used as an illustration here.

Ideally a trashed economy would put the elites under the bus in very quick order. It's the single thing that spurs revolution. It should be low priority for progressives, imo. Not to say that we shouldn't support a robust economy, but over being anti-war? Over being anti-union busting? Over being anti-discrimination? Over being pro-regulations and consumer protections?

The economy does good under democrats because democrats focus on social welfare nets, and regulations. If we focus on those issues the economy is fine. Capitalism thrives in social democracy, so I advocate social democracy over capitalist economy any day.

[LeftishBrit]

91. I think what was meant by 'trashing the economy'...

Last edited Sun Oct 13, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

was being far-right on economic issues. Paul HATES social democracy and social welfare and regulation and consumer protections.

[joshcryer]

112. Yes, and the OP thinks "ending the wars" is not as important as avoiding "trashing the economy."

[MineralMan]

106. Where did I mention "trashing the economy?"

I think you replied to the wrong post. I said nothing of the sort.

[joshcryer]

110. The OP did. I was agreeing with you.

[MineralMan]

111. Oh, OK. I didn't quite see that connection.

Sorry.

[DevonRex]

16. LOL! Praising with faint damn. He's a homophobe

To the extreme. As in the guy on his website (now scrubbed) is for the death penalty for LGBTs. He hates Jews. He hates African Americans. As far as he's concerned AIDS patients can just die already.

THAT is what RP is all about. No liberal is stupid enough to think Paul is "unabashedly liberal" about anything.

[MineralMan]

19. Yup. Ron Paul is a libertarian.

Question. Answer from Paul:

You're hungry? Get a job or starve.
You want an education? Good luck with that.
You're sick? Die, then, if you can't afford care.
You're gay? Who gives a shit.
You're black? Patronize black businesses. Anyone can refuse service to anyone.
You take drugs? Go right ahead. See above for health information.
You're unemployed? So, get a fucking job, you slacker.
Iran's about to go to war against Israel? Not my problem. Let the Jews defend themselves.
You're poor? So? I've got everything I need.

That's Ron Paul's liberalism.

[DevonRex]

56. And since he's all for states' rights,

what's to stop a state from rounding up all the gays or Jews or African Americans? Certainly not the federal govt in RP's world.

[great white snark]

34. Don't look there..let me sell you on his anti-war stance.

Jeebus, those praising RP remind me of used car salespeople. Problem is that shiny car they're selling runs on bigotry.

[DevonRex]

57. You've got it right.

That is exactly what's going on. Not especially subtle either.

[JohnnyRingo]

22. Well written, and sadly true.

I have friends who support him based on the reasons you give. These are normally progressive people who will consistantly vote for our Dem congressman and share my views otherwise. They don't really understand the austere underpinnings of libertarianism, I don't think, but it sounds like a good enough excuse to them to support Ron Paul's vision for America.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in that country where the new motto is "If you don't work, you doen't eat", and a basic education is something decided by the wealth of whatever state you happen to live in. I think the utopia Ron Paul sees is a colder darker version of an Eastern European country where the bankrupt government no longer cares about it's citizens or invests in it's cities.

Fortunately, he wants to legalize heroin which will come in handy coping in such a careless society where the mob underbids local commerce, money talks, and only the strong survive.

Added on edit:

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Paul is a racist as well as a homophobe and sexist

Additionally, his 'drug legalization' stance is not really that at all, he would take the Federal authority out of it, while allowing States to do as they wish, which in the US would rage from full legalization to draconian punishments depending on the State. Nothing he says is appealing in any way.

[MineralMan]

37. He only attracts "liberals" who don't think much.

Does he attract you?

[sabrina 1]

100. What do you think?

[MineralMan]

103. What do I think about what?

I've been pretty clear about what I think about Ron Paul in this thread.

Did you want to discuss something else? If so, I suggest a different thread.

[sabrina 1]

107. You indicated that you entertained the though that the OP

supported Ron Paul. I asked for your own opinion. It seemed to me to be an odd question to ask a longtime DUer whose positions are known by pretty much everyone here.

So I asked for your own opinion as I would never have thought to ask what to me seemed like a very silly and strange question for this thread, as the OP's opinions are stated very clearly IN the OP.

[MineralMan]

113. You will find my opinions of Ron Paul in all of my posts in this thread.

I'm not going to repeat them for you. Just read the thread.

[sabrina 1]

117. I was speaking of your opinion of the OP who was the subject of your comment.

Edited to for clarity The OP being Madhound to whom your comment was addressed.

[DevonRex]

135. He asked MH a question. Something wrong with that?

[sabrina 1]

139. Yes, if the question contains an accusation. Which is why I asked for clarification.

[MineralMan]

149. I have no particular opinion of the person who posted.

My comments are about the content of the post and about Ron Paul. In the post to which you refer, I asked the OP a question. I did not opine about the answer to that question. Perhaps you're reading more into what I wrote than what I wrote.

[sabrina 1]

161. Perhaps, people often do read more into things than is intended. Which is why I

asked you to clarify what you meant rather than hit the alert button. My reading of your comment was that you were suggesting that Madhound was enamoured of a Republican candidate. Since I saw nothing to prompt that question, I asked for clarification. Madhound is a longtime Democrat and DUer, so it would not occur to me to even suggest such a thing. Thank you for clearing it up.

[MineralMan]

163. OK. I often ask questions. That's how I find out things.

I recognize the poster's name, and know that Madhound is interested in education. That's where my knowledge ends. There are many, many DUers, and I don't keep track of them. I look at each post on its own merits.

[sabrina 1]

164. Well now you know that Madhound has been on DU for ten years is a longtime Democrat

all available in everyone's profile btw, if ever you have doubts again.

I'm glad this was cleared up as it is a shame to leave a 'suspicion' hanging around which may not have been YOUR intention, but that was what your question did, it raised a suspicion about a longtime DUer, and for the sake of the community I wanted to be sure it was not left standing without clarification.

Thank you, as I said, for clearing it up. Sometimes we do misread and sometimes we write something that leads to misunderstandings and it's always best, imho, to give people a chance to explain what they meant.

[MineralMan]

165. When I ask a question, it is a question.

When I voice my opinion, I use declarative sentences. Those end with periods. For example: I think you are attempting to imply something about me that is not true. That is an opinion. Why do you not understand when a sentence is a question? That is a question. I'm hopeful that you will note the difference as you read my posts here on DU.

Since you cannot answer my question to Madhound, I fail to see the value of continuing this discussion.

[sabrina 1]

166. I'm not 'implying' anything, I am saying that the question you asked

caused me to think you thought that Madhound might be a liberal who doesn't think much and a Republican supporter.

MineralMan
37. He only attracts "liberals" who don't think much.

Does he attract you?

Questions can lead to wrong impressions about people. That question eg, could lead people not familiar with Madhound to think that maybe there actually was some reason to ask it. Since there was never even a hint that any such thing was true, it seemed to me a strange question to ask. But you have more or less told me I am wrong, so I have nothing more to say about it. Thank you for clearing it up.

[MineralMan]

167. Yes, and the question remains unanswered by the OP.

In fact, the OP has not returned to the thread at all to address the many questions that have been asked.

Since you cannot answer the question, I wonder why we're having this discussion at all. Are you taking offense as a surrogate or something?

I asked a question. Just one question. Because of that, I've had to answer to several people who cannot answer the question I asked. I try to respond to all posts addressed to me. But, you cannot answer the question I asked. The OP can, but has not. I will not reply to any more of your posts in this thread, so you may have the final word, if you like.

[sabrina 1]

170. Now you are accusing me of something nefarious?

The question now is, does accusing people with the 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' style of question, meet community standards? I don't know Madhound, and my questions were to clarify your intent with a question that to me appeared to be a veiled accusation. It appears from your last comment, it was. Since you have repeated the use of this style of question to question my motives apparently you believe it does meet with CS.

Well, I followed the advice of trying to resolve these issues by discussing them when there is a question about a comment and it doesn't seem to have worked, maybe it's best put to a jury. We do need to know what is permissable and what is not. I rarely alert preferring to work these things out but this is something that needs clarification imho.

As for Madhound not responding to you, there are many possible reasons for that, don't know why you automatically assume guilt. S/he could have you on ignore, eg, among other possible reasons. And no, to answer your question, I am not a surrogate for anyone here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Here is the problem at big issue items

With the exception of war and peace, the rest fall in the rubric of federal government. If the state of Texas decides to continue the war on drugs, that a boy.

This second point most single issue voters do not realize.

And trust me, I will applaud Paul when he calls people chicken hawks. Or when he tears neocons a new one...but I am aware my admiration is surface deep....he is a proto fascist and truly be weary of what you wish for.

[TheKentuckian]

59. That means it is our job to present a liberal path to the same ends.

We are at the moment insistent on not showing any dedication or ideological path to these ideas which means the extreme right has a monopoly on the ideas and creates the impression that such are conservative notions and that liberal means being authoritarian over individual freedoms. Also, that being liberal means being pro-security state and anti-due process.

He is going to call his party "liberal" for those reasons (and from his perspective accurately) and if that notion gets traction without a left rebuttle then we are probably fucked long term.

[NNN0LHI]

49. I watched Ronald Reagan using the same racist dog whistles to attract some "liberals", once

And it worked like a charm until some of the same Reagan policies they liked because they were only hurting those "other", people began biting them in their own ass.

Like it is now is 2012.

Don

[Skip Intro]

63. Great analysis. Some are obviously irked that you didn't chant "racist" after mentioning Paul's name

but I think that label is iffy at best (when you dig into the details of the newsletters, it becomes apparent that Paul didn't write the passages in question, and at worst showed poor management over the content of a product carrying his name - I've yet to see a "racist" quote from Paul himself).

I agree with much of what you wrote. It is refreshing to have someone tell it like it is, be consistent, and make great sense on many issues. And I'll admit I find those things appealing. He loses me on some domestic issues (phasing out SS for example), but I can certainly see the appeal you speak of.

And I agree that a Democrat with that same appeal is needed.

[ProSense]

64. Ron Paul

"Great analysis. Some are obviously irked that you didn't chant 'racist' after mentioning Paul's name but I think that label is iffy at best (when you dig into the details of the newsletters, it becomes apparent that Paul didn't write the passages in question, and at worst showed poor management over the content of a product carrying his name - I've yet to see a "racist" quote from Paul himself)."

...is a racist among other things. In his own word:

In Book, Ron Paul Opposed Workplace Harassment Protections

Ron Paul may be be polling well in Iowa, but he’s had a tough few weeks denying responsibility for racist and homophobic material once published under his name. Now, we can add women’s rights to the list. And this time, it will be hard for Paul to place the blame on another author.

As highlighted by CNN on Friday, in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200-Plus Years, republished in 2007, Ron Paul made some eyebrow-raising statements about sexual harassment and women’s rights in the workplace:

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.

<...>

The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?

<...>

Other passages in the book include jabs about LGBT people and AIDS. Like the notorious newsletters which include unsavory passages about the AIDS epidemic, Paul writes that the Founding Fathers probably wouldn’t favor AIDS research and that insurance companies should have the right to refuse care to patients with HIV/AIDS:

Victims of the disease AIDS argue…for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don’t have AIDS), demanding a cure…The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim — frequently a victim of his own lifestyle — but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I believe, the Founding Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.

And of course, Paul also takes issue with minority rights, wondering, if there’s a black and hispanic caucus in Congress, why not a white one too?

White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/in-book-ron-paul-opposed-workplace-harassment-protections.php

“It’s not because I’ve changed my message,” he told FOX News’s Chris Wallace, in one of several interviews on the Sunday political talk show circuit. “This is what I’ve worked my whole career to warn people about,” he said, dismissing criticism that he’s a candidate of the lunatic fringe.

<...>

And the Texas congressman is sticking to his Libertarian guns. He doubled down on statements from one of his books, downplaying the need for sexual harassment laws in the workplace. “Because people are insulted by behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of that,” Paul said on FOX News Sunday, saying that unless there is a threat or act of violence, a sexually harassed person could choose or not choose to work at the offending location.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/the-die-has-been-cast-ron-paul-makes-closing-argument-to-iowa.php?ref=fpa

[Skip Intro]

67. And

I still don't see a racist quote from him.

I'm not saying I agree with the guy on any or all issues, but I believe in being honest and fair.

I haven't seen any proof of Ron Paul's supposed racism. I've seen innuendo and conjecture, but no proof. Without that, I'm not going to join in in calling the man a racist. Every repub candidate, btw, as well as Obama, has been called racist.

From what you've posted above, I'll say I surely don't agree with Paul's stance on workplace harassment protections - but I see his view. I can see where he's coming from without agreeing with him. I see him coming from his idea of limited government and individual freedom. He is coming from an extreme free-market ideology. Not sexism. I don't see sexism here.

I don't see the remarks about the caucuses in congress as racist, but coming from his idea of freedom and equality - if one group can do something, why can't every group? Again, I see his logic, where he is coming from. I don't believe he is coming from a racist view.

As far as the AIDS research opposition, I don't find it to be homophobic, but more based on his views of limited government. AIDS doesn't affect just homosexuals. My guess is he would respond the same way to other diseases as well. Again, I disagree with him here, but I see where he is coming from and I don't believe it is from a bias against gays.

My entire presence in this thread isn't to defend Ron Paul but is based on my desire to be fair and honest, because without that, what do any of us have?

If Ron Paul is a racist then it shouldn't be too hard to find quotes by him that are clearly racist. He's certainly not shy about speaking his mind. As I said, I've yet to see any.

[ProSense]

69. See

I still don't see a racist quote from him.

I'm not saying I agree with the guy on any or all issues, but I believe in being honest and fair.

I haven't seen any proof of Ron Paul's supposed racism. I've seen innuendo and conjecture, but no proof. Without that, I'm not going to join in in calling the man a racist. Every repub candidate, btw, as well as Obama, has been called racist.

From what you've posted above, I'll say I surely don't agree with Paul's stance on workplace harassment protections - but I see his view. I can see where he's coming from without agreeing with him. I see him coming from his idea of limited government and individual freedom. He is coming from an extreme free-market ideology. Not sexism. I don't see sexism here.

I don't see the remarks about the caucuses in congress as racist, but coming from his idea of freedom and equality - if one group can do something, why can't every group? Again, I see his logic, where he is coming from. I don't believe he is coming from a racist view.

As far as the AIDS research opposition, I don't find it to be homophobic, but more based on his views of limited government. AIDS doesn't affect just homosexuals. My guess is he would respond the same way to other diseases as well. Again, I disagree with him here, but I see where he is coming from and I don't believe it is from a bias against gays.

My entire presence in this thread isn't to defend Ron Paul but is based on my desire to be fair and honest, because without that, what do any of us have?

If Ron Paul is a racist then it shouldn't be too hard to find quotes by him that are clearly racist. He's certainly not shy about speaking his mind. As I said, I've yet to see any.

...you've just dimissed every charge against Paul in one sweeping justification.

Despite his lame claim about the newsletters he profited from, his own writings, statements by people who are close to him (his campaign manager said he isn't anti-war; another former ally said he refuse to use a gay man's toilet), nothing in your view earns Paul criticism.

His views on AIDS, sexual harrassment, blacks, gays, etc., are all dismissed because you believe in being "honest and fair."

Tell me, do you dismiss his views on Social Security, Medicare and health care just as easily?

[Skip Intro]

71. Wow.

I've dismissed attacks against his character that haven't been proven. If you have clearly racist or sexist or homophobic quotes by him from reliable sources, I'd love to see them. As yet I haven't seen such quotes.

What I have done is illustrate to some extent his views as I understand them, not dismiss them, and have indeed expressed my disagreement with those views on which I disagree.

Yes, I do indeed, vehemently, seek to be fair and honest. It is a mystery to me why that standard offends some people, but I know that it does. In those cases, I guess those individuals will just have to be offended.

I do wish we, as a nation, could focus more on the issues and ideas rather than engage in personal attacks and character assassination.

As I indicated in a previous post, I am opposed to Paul's views on SS, Medicare and health care.

[ProSense]

72. I'm

I've dismissed attacks against his character that haven't been proven. If you have clearly racist or sexist or homophobic quotes by him from reliable sources, I'd love to see them. As yet I haven't seen such quotes.

...not sure anything would convince you. Like I said, the newsletters and his book haven't

Well, now we know for a fact what Ron Paul really wrote, thanks to The New Republic. And man, he really didn't like gays. (And yes, it seems Ron Paul really did write these things, no matter what he says, because they're filled with utterances like ""Just because I favor the legalization of drugs doesn't mean I'm in favor of using them. As a physician, I know they're bad stuff.&quot TNR has scanned page after page of Dr. Paul's old newsletters, and again and again he displays the most atrocious paranoia -- he really seems to have believed, in the late 80's and early 90s, that the gays wanted to rape children, desecrate the Eucharist (which, to be fair, some of us do), die young of atrocious diseases on the taxpayer's dime, and give everyone AIDS.

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/ron-pauls-homophobia-in-context.html#ixzz1ioTOaRiQ

[woo me with science]

96. Nice job in this thread.

It's good to see attempts at honest discussion here.

[LeftishBrit]

89. But what does it matter whether it's based on personal racism or on 'limited government'?

It has the same effect on minority groups, and on poor people in general.

In fact, the whole 'limited government' viewpoint, when it reaches the point of opposing the provision of public services and social safety nets, is not only mistaken, but UTTERLY EVIL. It is basically saying, 'Let the poor die! Let the weak be trampled on! Let the ill die! Let minority groups go unprotected from oppression and violence!' It is basically turning psychopathy into a political philosophy.

Therefore, I don't really care if Paul is personally racist, etc.; he would give racists the freedom to practice their racism untrammelled, as well as allowing the poor and sick to starve and die.

Of course, all this could be said of most Republicans (when the most moderate of the Republican candidates attacks President Obama for supposedly 'turning America into a Europaean welfare state', this just sums up how vile they all are). But progressives are not expressing any tolerance for the other Republicans, that I can see.

'Extreme free market ideology' is just as destructive in its effects as personal racism and sexism; and *enables* racism and sexism in practice. Moreover, his supposed libertarianism does not stop him from wanting to ban abortion - so clearly it stops where it affects women.

[Bluenorthwest]

147. I'd like your take on these quotes in regard to AIDS, from Paul:

"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?"
So you "see where he is coming from and I don't believe it is from a bias against gays"? Can you specifically address the quote and tell us where he is 'coming from'? Since you understand and all. Many of us do not understand.

"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,"
"[AIDS sufferers] enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

Interesting that you see where he's coming from. Where do you think that is? Please, please share. Thanks.

[Skip Intro]

173. Link?

[joshcryer]

75. Can

...you please put more than one word in your subject line? It's totally screwing up posts and makes everything hard to read, and provides no information.

[ProSense]

76. Not

"Can...you please put more than one word in your subject line? It's totally screwing up posts and makes everything hard to read, and provides no information."

...sure what you mean by "it's totally screwing up posts," and the information is in the comment.

[joshcryer]

78. I

...don't even read half your posts because they convey no information in the title line. If you do not think the title should convey information, DU3 allows you to leave the reply title empty.

By "screwing up posts" I mean that while reading a comment thread, someone makes a comment in their title, and you reply with one word, conveying nothing, either way. Meanwhile one is forced to try to keep track of one word titles in a subthread and try to figure out what was said before and what the response was. It makes it much more difficult for people to track, and is not normal posting behavior, by far.

[ProSense]

82. Here's

"I...don't even read half your posts because they convey no information in the title line. If you do not think the title should convey information, DU3 allows you to leave the reply title empty.

By "screwing up posts" I mean that while reading a comment thread, someone makes a comment in their title, and you reply with one word, conveying nothing, either way. Meanwhile one is forced to try to keep track of one word titles in a subthread and try to figure out what was said before and what the response was. It makes it much more difficult for people to track, and is not normal posting behavior, by far."

...the thing: you generally have to read the entire comment to get the point. I do think even with more than one word in the title, most people click on the comment to read the rest of it or to see if there is more, unless it's indicated that there is no more.

[joshcryer]

83. Well, I am not even compelled to read a post unless there's info in the title.

And I think a lot of people are put off by this posting style, and you may encourage other people to respond to you in the event that you actually start posting like everyone else.

[ProSense]

84. That's

"Well, I am not even compelled to read a post unless there's info in the title."

...your choice. I mean, posts titled, "Here's the thing" or See, that's the problem," require reading on.

"And I think a lot of people are put off by this posting style, and you may encourage other people to respond to you in the event that you actually start posting like everyone else."

I don't understand why you need to speak for others, and it does seem that people respond to my comments. Still, who chooses to respond or not respond to my comments is not my concern.

[Cali_Democrat]

121. It's definitely not normal posting behavior. It's very strange.

[ProSense]

123. .

Blah!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002132887

[Whisp]

65. he's intoxicating alright...

I need about 7 tequila shots just to stand looking at him

[joshcryer]

73. But, Ron Paul has no positions that are compatible with liberals.

Those liberals that take Ron Paul's rhetoric at face value, are, unfortunately either ignorant or naive. Ron Paul's anti-imperialism is actually a call for an ultra-nationalist empire.

It's not about "overlooking the rest of his positions." If you actually look at apparently liberal positions they are in fact not liberal.

If you accept the premise that "will end our imperial adventures while on the other hand trashes our economy" then you have just indicated a "lesser of two evils" position, and for you, trashing the economy is more evil than ending the wars (this, btw, I find highly repugnant).

I figure Obama will make good on getting us out of Afghanistan, with a 40% chance he'll attack Iran. Romney would probably stay in Afghanistan, and there's probably a 90% chance he'd attack Iran. Economics does not play into the equation for me.

Ron Paul hasn't even been stumping much on getting out of the wars, his platform has been more about reducing the deficit, and lately he's been nipping at Santorum (in fact, Ron Paul wouldn't want South Carolina to know he'd end funding to Israel).

[cthulu2016]

87. Presumes a fact not in evidence

"Why Ron Paul attracts some liberals"

If by "some" you mean a number larger than zero then you might as well be writing about why Rick Santorum attracts some liberals.

If by "some" you mean a number large enough to be worth talking about, that is not an obvious assertion. Is there a factual basis for the claim?

[tnvoter]

88. I'm pretty liberal, and I'm still young. I can't stand libertarians.

Ron Paul included. He's a racist bigot.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. His stance on war is much more in line with hard right isolationists of the 1930's and early 1940's

Many forget that it was the Left that worked toward intervention to stop global fascism, that military intervention was actually a left-liberal position when the left was strongest in this country.

That is certainly not to say that the interventionist arguments of the 2000's carry the same weight as those of the Popular Front, but it should demonstrate that the lines you assume as natural are anything but.

As for the supposed lack of equivocation, I think the point is taken, but it would also be a liberal position to recognize the complexity of social issues, rather than imagining them to have an easy answer. In this sense, Paul's lack of equivocation can just as easily be read as his lack of thoughtfulness and general fanaticism - as if somebody can simply will a state of affairs by fiat (which is, in fact, a deeply conservative understanding of the "leader" - indeed, it's more monarchical than liberal). The second point here is that the position is deeply childish, as is almost all libertarianism. I have no doubt it appeals to a kind of childish streak in many liberals, but the reason it consistently loses is that the thoughtful grown-ups actually do policy assessments.

[Romulox]

97. Thus the Neocon arguments were said to have mutated from those of the Left.

That doesn't mean that pacifism is therefore transformed into "isolationism", nor is colonialism made into "compassionate conservatism" or "enlightened interventionism" with some flowery words of justification; we regularly send robot drones that kill unarmed civilians in countries that have neither attacked us, nor desire our presence. Neither world peace nor even regional stability have flowered under such conditions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. You are, of course, correct

And I am much more the pacifist than my post let on. But we should not mistake contingent evaluations of situations for a priori dogmas, which is what the OP seems to be doing. One can very easily imagine a left-liberal position re-ignited with an interventionist stance similar to that of the 1930's (a stance which was, by the way, largely correct). One can't praise FDR on the one hand, and ignore that he was an interventionist liberal arguing against isolationist conservatives. or, one can, but one would be an ignorant fuckwit to do so.

[joshcryer]

115. Otherwise known as "internationalism" to the war communists.

[alcibiades_mystery]

125. Their primary argument

being that international fascism was aggressively militaristic and spreading quickly.

You read their stuff from, say, 1935 and 1936, and it actually looks rather prescient. Then read the isolationists stuff. They sound like fucking morons. The Left was quite right about fascism.

[joshcryer]

126. It went on for awhile, at least until the 50s-60s. We know Cuba was behind that sort of thing.

I think it didn't really end until the Eastern Bloc was allowed to secede.

[Romulox]

95. Paul exposes the fact that many Democrats *enthusiastically* (not reluctantly!) support War, War on

Drugs, and other traditionally "rightwing" position.

The reaction to this uncomfortable truth is to attempt to smear anti-war posters as "agreeing with Ron Paul!"--it's crude and pathetic.

[sabrina 1]

104. You hit the nail on the head.

I don't get the focus on a candidate that has no hope in hell of winning the nomination let alone, making it to the WH, when all this energy could be placed on the one who actually does have a chance.

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum all are far more acceptable to the Republican establishment than Ron Paul who they would kick out of the race if they could because what he has exposed is that there are actually Republicans who are sick of their Warmongering and catering to Wall Street because he is running in the Repub Primaries and has managed to state among the top contenders. This has to be a scary thing for them.

What it says to me is, there ARE Republicans who are opposed to the Bush policies and that those Republicans could be won over by the Democrat who offers them a place to go because that Democrat is speaking out against the same Foreign Policies, the same Wall Street Corruption as Paul is.

I'm amazed Democrats are not thrilled to see the opportunity here.

[a la izquierda]

177. Wait, wait, wait just a second...

So Republicans who oppose Bush policies should be offered a place to go...by Democrats? I don't know about anyone else, but I've had to listen to anti-choice, anti-women, anti-GLBT Democrats for years. There's no way on God's green earth that Democrats need more of that in their ranks. Less social conservatives, not more.

He can speak about corruption and warmongering all he wants, and get a receptive audience from Democrats. But the minute the "state's rights" BS about abortion and gay rights comes up, Democrats need to tune him out. Remember, not all of us women or GLBT have the privilege of living in nice, liberal places like New York or Oregon. You turn abortion over to states like Mississippi or Oklahoma (where I lived), and say sayonara to the choices of your fellow Democrats.
Sorry, but I'll never screw my sisters and brothers. Ron Paul can remain a Democrat. People simply need to be more analytical and careful with their choices

Maybe I misunderstood your post.

[Romulox]

185. Have you ever heard of the "Third Way" and the "New Democrat" movement??? It's EXACTLY what you

describe, except these are Democrats who have whole-sale adopted rightwing positions, such as "free trade" and deregulation.

Many of these same "New Democrats" are now the ones attacking anyone who dare oppose war as "agreeing with Ron Paul!".

[a la izquierda]

189. I haven't heard those exact labels...

but yep, it sounds about right.
Cheers (I can't figure out where the emoticons went).

[ProSense]

109. Newsflash:

"Paul exposes the fact that many Democrats *enthusiastically* (not reluctantly!) support War, War on"

...That's not it. People are not objecting to Paul or denouncing the hyping of his propaganda because they support war. It's because Paul is a racist with atrocious positions.

[AtomicKitten]

114. +1

[Romulox]

186. You don't actually defend War, War on Drugs--instead you accuse anyone who holds these positions of

"agreeing with a racist!"

Do you understand that fascism at home, endless war abroad are ALSO positions held by racists?

[whatchamacallit]

102. Great post! Too bad your thoughtful observation will be lost in the din of invective

I'm beginning to believe the Paul frenzy is just a way to bury issues that put the president in a poor light.

[DevonRex]

118. You don't know why you should vote for Obama BUT

you DO know why you like Ron Paul? OMFG.

[joshcryer]

124. Worse, pro-economy is more important than anti-war.

[DevonRex]

130. Unfuckingbelievable!

The sad part is that I can believe that's being said here.

[joshcryer]

131. It's right there in the OP:

Which is why I will never support Paul. I've been fighting these illegal, immoral wars for years and decades now, but I'm not going to elect a President who, on the hand, will end our imperial adventures while on the other hand trashes our economy. I'm not that foolish.

[Rex]

143. He uses Old Spice?

[DevonRex]

145. That's what my grandfather used. I loved

the way he smelled.

[mdmc]

148. he is the only anti war candidate

[Quantess]

174. Who else?

[spanone]

151. he doesn't attract this liberal

[Cannoneo]

152. What liberals endorse Ron Paul?

I don't know of any who do, including Glenn Greenwald.

The point is simply to recognize and validate the success of his non-interventionist rhetoric. It's the camel's nose under the tent of national discourse. It's an unprecedented development -- lots of young would-be conservative men, service members, and independents find his rhetoric compelling.

We (liberals) would be idiots to dismiss this effect, on the mistaken belief that presidential campaigns are just about who wins and who loses.

[whatchamacallit]

162. +1

[kcretired]

156. easy

Politics is a slight of hand game! If they can keep your eyes off the target, they have you beat and Ron Paul is the ruse! His left of center social positions are to keep anyone on the right from voting for him and to get votes from anyone on the left who votes only on social issues. Then, after losing the primaries, he can run an independent campaign and take votes from the left instead of the right. Sounds easy? But we are easy to fool.

[pokerfan]

169. He's irrelevant

But to the extent that he can influence his party to become more (socially) liberal and less war-mongering, that's a good thing.

If hell were to freeze over and he wins the nomination, he would lose to Obama, which is a good thing.

If he drops out and runs third party, he would (according to experts) steal more votes from Republicans than he would from Democrats at about 2:1 rate, which is a good thing.

[pampango]

175. And Pat Buchanan attracts some liberals for his stance on free trade? I don't think so.

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Pat_Buchanan_Free_Trade.htm

America’s freedom is tied to her economic independence

Alexander Hamilton wrote: ‘Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. ‘ America’s political independence, Hamilton was saying, could not survive without economic independence. “

Reduce dependence on trade; support Monroe Doctrine

For Americans, Buchanan’s book says, only America should matter. Buchanan rages against the UN, the WTO, and a previously unknown animal, “the managerial elites of the New World Order.” Allies in South-East Asia and Europe must do their own fighting, and America must cut down its dependence on trade. The single pillar of American foreign policy should be the Monroe Doctrine; the country’s priorities are to guard against “hostile bastions in this hemisphere” and to try yo keep immigrants out.

Match 100% tariffs from Japan & China

Today, we let Japan and China to run up a combined annual trade surplus of $120 billion, blithely allowing them open access to our markets while we pay up to 100% tariffs for entry into theirs. By equalizing tariffs so that imported goods carry the same tax as American-made products, we can end the exploitation of US workers, and fund flatter taxes for families, fairer competition for business, and renewed economic liberty for all Americans.

Trade deficit is “tumor in intestines of US economy”

Today Buchanan called the massive merchandise trade deficit-over $26 billion for February alone-a “malignant tumor in the intestines of the US economy. Unattended, it will one day kill this country’s tenure as the world’s mightiest industrial power,” Mr. Buchanan said. “A $300 billion annual deficit will strip America of our manufacturing and production base. Manic consumption is a mark of a republic that has passed its apogee, and begun its long descent.”

We will rue the day we passed NAFTA

Ross Perot and I stood up again against NAFTA. We stood up against GATT. We stood up against the World Trade Organization. We stood up against the $50 billion bailout of Mexico.

Right wing wackos are what they are.

[ProSense]

178. Perfect example.

Though not on the same level, it's like Lou Dobbs roping people in with his immigration speak, and then easing in his flawed theories.

[Romulox]

180. Um, NAFTA is loved by CATO, US Chamber of Commerce, Mitt Romney, et al. So what's your point?

You support the same economic policies as Newt Gingrich?

[ProSense]

181. Does

"Um, NAFTA is loved by CATO, US Chamber of Commerce, Mitt Romney, et al. So what's your point?"

...anyone here constantly hype "CATO, US Chamber of Commerce, Mitt Romney"?

This is like saying that because Ben Nelson votes with Republicans sometimes, Democrats suck.

Better analogy, Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, therefore Ron Paul has a point.

"You support the same economic policies as Newt Gingrich?"

Do you have an example of anyone hyping Gingrich's point of view and trying to present him as genuine on any issue?

[Romulox]

182. Um, the poster I *responded to* was doing just that.

Read more. Post less. Please?

[ProSense]

183. No

"Um, the poster I *responded to* was doing just that."

...the poster did no such thing.

Comment: "And Pat Buchanan attracts some liberals for his stance on free trade? I don't think so."

[Romulox]

187. You

are attempting to deflect again.

[ProSense]

188. Here's

how the post you responded to ended:

"Right wing wackos are what they are."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=141624

[Wait Wut]

179. "...easily overlook the insanity of the rest of his positions."?

That's not "intoxicating". Anyone believing in this floater is already drunk.

I'm sure if we cut into the fabric of any of the clowns running for the GOP nomination, we could all find something we could agree with. If someone is going to be a "one-issue" voter, I have no hope for them. I've been having this discussion about Ron Paul for decades. He's a nut, a dangerous nut that surrounds himself with roses to hide his stink. When a Liberal or Progressive starts picking and choosing his feigned "good points" and decries that more Dems should be like him, I wonder where their purity test went in judging him. By using the "he's anti-war" line, you're claiming that other Dems are "pro" war. Just like the right has labeled Dems "pro-abortion" because they, themselves, are "pro-life". No. No Democrat should try to appeal to the RP crowd for one reason, that crowd has adopted that purity test and they refuse to apply to RP, himself.

He doesn't "state it like it is". He uses double-speak to appeal to the uninformed and hopes they don't ever see what's between the lines.

[ProSense]

191. Exactly,

"I'm sure if we cut into the fabric of any of the clowns running for the GOP nomination, we could all find something we could agree with. "

...it would be like hyping Gingrich's position on immigration.

[Puregonzo1188]

190. It's really not that hard to get. He's the only person talking about our foreign policy or the drug

war in the national media. Only person at all.

And not just--oh Iraq is a dumb war, blah blah, but talking about ending all of overseas bases, the drone wars, military aid to Israel--something no mainstream progressive will tackle, etc.

At the end of the day the problem isn't Paul or liberals who support him, but the media and national discussion which excludes or marginalizes progressive views and then gives Paul a platform to spew a few points that sound pretty damn close to them.

[babylonsister]

192. Is Paul and his views viable? Without knowing what info a president

actually has, he's not privy to anything. He sounds and looks like a joke to me.

And his 'followers? I also wonder if it's all about the weed.

[joshcryer]

193. He answers that when asked, but generally his campaign is anti-deficit.