Tim Wise: Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals

[PeaceNikki]

Tim Wise's latest essay: an attempt, however sarcastic and acerbic to address the phenomenon of liberals and progressives supporting Ron Paul.

Yessir, legal weed and an end to the TSA: enough to make some supposed leftists ignore everything else Ron Paul has ever said, and ignore the fundamental incompatibility of Ayn Randian thinking with anything remotely resembling a progressive or even humane worldview. And this is so, even though he wouldn’t actually have the authority to end the TSA as president, a slight glitch that is conveniently ignored by those who are desperate to once again be able to take large bottles of shaving gel onto airplanes in the name of “liberty.”

I want those of you who are seriously singing Paul’s praises, while calling yourself progressive or left to ask what it signifies — not about Ron Paul, but about you — that you can look the rest of us in the eye, your political colleagues and allies, and say, in effect, “Well, he might be a little racist, but…

How do you think that sounds to black people, without whom no remotely progressive candidate stands a chance of winning shit in this country at a national level? How does it sound to them — a group that has been more loyal to progressive and left politics than any group in this country — when you praise a man who opposes probably the single most important piece of legislation ever passed in this country, and whose position on the right of businesses to discriminate, places him on the side of the segregated lunchcounter owners? And how do you think they take it that you praise this man, or possibly even support him for president, all so as to teach the black guy currently in the office a lesson for failing to live up to your expectations?

How do you think it sounds to them, right now, this week, as we prepare to mark the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, that you claim to be progressive, and yet you are praising or even encouraging support for a man who voted against that holiday, who opposes almost every aspect of King’s public policy agenda, and the crowning achievements of the movement he helped lead?

...

In short, if you’re still disappointed in Barack Obama, it’s only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place. But don’t take out your own failings in this regard on the rest of us, by giving ideological cover and assorted journalistic love taps to a guy who believes the poor should rely on the charitable impulses of doctors to provide for their medical needs, including, one presumes, chemotherapy; or that America was meant to be a “robustly Christian” nation, but is being currently undermined by “secularists;” or who puts the term gay rights in quotation marks when he writes it, and believes states should be free to criminalize homosexual intercourse, and who is such a homophobe that he won’t even use the bathroom in a gay man’s house; or who has all but said that he would like to take America back to the early 1800s, in terms of the scope of government: a truly glorious time to be sure, if you were white, male and owned property.

Much much more at link: http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

[cthulu2016]

1. race-baiting trash

(The article, not the poster.)

[PeaceNikki]

2. The essay? Are you familiar with his work? Did you read the whole piece or just the snip I posted?

[FarLeftFist]

18. You should get more acquainted with Tim Wise's work.

[fascisthunter]

55. read up on him... it's worth it

[frylock]

3. can someone provide a list of liberals and progressives who are allegedly supporting paul?

cuz this shit has gotten way past tired. tia.

[99Forever]

4. No kidding...

... all I've seen is some VERY paranoid people making that empty accusation.

It passed tired a long time ago and moved on to lame.

[JackRiddler]

13. It's the cult of the moment to emphasize how much against him you are.

It's not enough that you're against him along with the rest of the Republican pack. You must have special hatred of him, as though he's worse than Romney or Gingrich (ha!). You must be appalled at the supposed "defense" of him among liberals. If you don't single him out as the worst candidate ever, and if you're not warning warning warning liberals not to look into the Ron Paul Abyss, then you're on your way to being incriminated as a covert supporter.

The reason for this is not how odious his odious positions are. These are no more odious, no more crazy, no more racist than those from Romney, Gingrich or Santorum. (Absurd to think otherwise: these guys are all practically pledging to start World War Fucking Three.)

The reason for this is that right now a D administration is involved in undefined open-ended warfare all over South Asia and producing outrages against the constitution like NDAA, and unfortunately the most prominent voice in opposition (owing to the presidential race) is Dr. Paul.

This is an outrage to the liberal self-image. They want to quietly adopt preventive detention and perpetual war and a growing police state as their own thing, owing to "realism" or "compromise" or "war is peace" or whatever cheap excuse they're making for it. QUIETLY. Not to be outflanked to the left by a right-winger! Grrrrrrrrr!!!

It produces cognitive dissonance, and so for now Exorcism of the Paul has become a required daily ritual. See OP article.

[hootinholler]

49. That's funny!

I rejected RP because I looked into the abyss.

What is the South Asia stuff? I haven't been keeping up apparently.

[JackRiddler]

53. South Asia?

[Spazito]

5. Wow, Mr. Wise does not pull his punches...

in this article. Good for him, he covers the real issue very well, imo.

[PeaceNikki]

7. He never does, his essays are always powerful.

I very much enjoy his work.

[Spazito]

8. I am definitely going to make a point of reading his essays from now on...

Thanks for 'introducing' him to me, in a manner of speaking.

[LoZoccolo]

6. DU rec!

[Number23]

9. Time Wise deserves a lifetime service award from every black organization (imho)

This man brings The Pain. And the folks who need to hear the message so desperately are always the ones trying to shut him down the fastest.

I heard that Melissa Harris Perry has her own show on MSNBC now. I hope that she brings Wise on as often as she can.

Thrilled to rec. Thanks for posting.

[MadHound]

10. Ah yes, that bogie man Paul,

Like Nader, he serves as a convenient excuse to bash liberals who dare to criticize the president. Not happy with Obama, you must support Paul. Think that Obama caves far to often, you must be a Paulite.

The author is simply another liberal basher who is using Paul as a weapon to beat on disgruntled liberals with. Sadly typical.

[PeaceNikki]

11. lol, if you think Tim Wise is a 'liberal basher', you're very very wrong.

And totally unfamiliar with him and his body of work.

[MadHound]

17. Well, given that he is liberal bashing in this piece,

I just call 'em as I see 'em. And frankly if this slop is anywhere remotely representative of the rest of his work, I don't want to become familiar with his body of work.

[ProSense]

19. Oh please

"Well, given that he is liberal bashing in this piece"

He's criticizing the fawning over a racist. That's it's being done by some liberals should be more disturbing than calling out Ron Paul.

[MadHound]

21. First of all, the notion that "some liberals" are "fawning" over Paul is simply a stalking horse

A convenient and effective way of bashing liberals, without actually having to do so. Please, can you, or Wise, come up with a significant group of these "liberals" who are supposedly supporting Paul? You know, names, articles written, etc.? Not just the odd duck or three, but a significant number.

[PeaceNikki]

23. Nobody on DU wants to post written articles by these assholes. Did you lose your Google CD-ROM?

They exist. You may not have a big circle of young, white male associates, but there are plenty out there who support him or who are being marketed to by him.

Whether you believe it or not.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Well, how about you PM the names of white liberals of minimal influence that are supporting Paul.

By minimal influence, I mean someone NOT standing on a street corner with a sign.

[Spazito]

31. Edited as I responded to wrong post.

[DonCoquixote]

142. see my post down the thread

which does name names

[ProSense]

32. Yeah

"First of all, the notion that 'some liberals' are 'fawning' over Paul is simply a stalking horse"

how dare anyone criticize the only Presidential candidate who is a truthteller, right?

I'm fairly certain you know the meaning of "fawning," and I'm absolutely certain you've come across commentary by some liberals that would meet the criteria.

[dionysus]

33. actually, people are using paul as a stalking horse to trash obama. first it was DK, then elizabeth

warren. for 2 seconds it was darcy richardson.. and people laughed. now the bottom of the barrel is being scraped and people are using paul.



a few weeks ago i had the pleasure of hearing pompous gasbag sirota filling in for randi. when he wasn't trashing the dem callers who support the president, he spent the rest of the show gushing over how awesome ron paul was compared to (huh?) dick cheney.

he then said something to the effect of " the things paul has bad ideas on, congress would shoot down, but on the things he can do unilterally, he's teh awesome."

it was fucking hillarious(ly pathetic).

[FSogol]

110. +1. n/t

[stevenleser]

104. See post #97

[frylock]

116. See post #115

[stevenleser]

130. See post #122

[frylock]

34. which liberals are "fawning" over ron paul?

upthread i asked for names of liberals or progressives who are in support of ron paul. perhaps you would be kind enough to oblige?

[ProSense]

37. Sure,

"which liberals are 'fawning' over ron paul...perhaps you would be kind enough to oblige?"

...since you apparently missed this comment, you can read my response here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=161060

[frylock]

40. i didn't ask for one of your circular links..

i asked for names. surprisingly, you've failed to address my request, as you are wont to do. so i'll ask again; which liberals are "fawning" over ron paul?

[ProSense]

42. Well,

"i didn't ask for one of your circular links.."

...that's what you got, and if you can't click on the link to read the comment, don't ask me any questions.

Ignore me.

[frylock]

43. okay, i'm gonna type this reeeeeeal slow-like so you can fully understand..

which liberals are "fawning" over ron paul? just give me some names. type them out or copy n paste. just names. no links; we'll get to that later when i ask for evidence of said fawning. but for now, names will suffice.

[ProSense]

44. Since

okay, i'm gonna type this reeeeeeal slow-like so you can fully understand..

which liberals are "fawning" over ron paul? just give me some names. type them out or copy n paste. just names. no links; we'll get to that later when i ask for evidence of said fawning. but for now, names will suffice

you clearly didn't understand my comment, read it again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=161600

Otherwise, feel free to read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=161060

[frylock]

59. which liberals are "fawning" over ron paul?

[Luminous Animal]

95. You will never get an answer. And yet that NonAnswer is celebrated on DU as "facts".

"Wait, there is a link to her own post so it must be a fact."

[Union Scribe]

145. You'd have better luck asking a Coke machine.

At least you might get something out of that, if not an answer.

[stevenleser]

105. See post #97

[frylock]

117. See post #115

[stevenleser]

131. See post #122

[PeaceNikki]

22. It's not a liberal bashing piece.

The whole thing is about liberals who support Paul. That's what the 'if you're disappointed in Obama' part is referencing. Did you read the whole piece? If so, it's weird that you would get so hung op on that very small portion of it. But... whatev.

[MadHound]

25. Paul has become the convenient shorthand of Obama diehards.

It is used to bash and intimidate those on the left who dare to criticize Obama, much as Kucinich and Nader were used in the same way in the past(and still are by some).

[PeaceNikki]

26. lol.

lol

[Spazito]

28. Gosh, that almost reads like a defense of him...

it doesn't make sense. No one on DU is supporting him, he's a Libertarian hiding under the borrowed republican coat. Why do you think he should be treated any differently than Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, etc.

I haven't seen any posts defending "bashing" posts about any of these opponents, surely there is no difference between any of them. They are all nuts to one degree or another as is Paul.

[markpkessinger]

60. Madhound, I usually agree with you...

...and as you know, I've had my share of criticisms of President Obama. But I, too, have run across folks who claim to be progressives (or most typically, independents who claim to be progressively minded) who seem to latch onto a few of Paul's ideas that seem to be attractive while utterly ignoring the much wider swath of positions Paul holds on issues near and dear to progressives. I think it is a phenomenon we need to be aware of and, to the extent possible, counter.

[frylock]

35. still waiting on that list of "liberals who support Paul"

i got all night.

[PeaceNikki]

38. Did you, too, lose your Google CD-ROM?

It really makes no difference to me whether you believe they exist or don't.

[frylock]

41. then it should be real simple for you to provide names. right?

evidently we are knee deep in liberals that support paul. you can't swing a dead cat anymore without hitting one. so once again, i'll ask for a list of those liberals. thanks again.

[fascisthunter]

67. we liberals are part of the new Red Scare!

or is it now "blue"?

[frylock]

69. are you now, or have you ever been a supporter of ron paul?

i'd like you to name names....

[fascisthunter]

72. Hier ist mein Paperz!!!!!

I know, right.... it's nuts!

[Luminous Animal]

96. Someone even took the time to collect dissident posts. It's a long ass list...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=157357

[kenny blankenship]

153. Have you consorted with TEH GLENN GREEWALD!1!??

Answer the question, or this court will be compelled to answer it for you in the affirmative!

[Number23]

54. Considering the author mentions Glenn Greenwald in his freaking article

And other posters have referred to David Sirota and a host of other folks, I don't blame you for ignoring these repeated demands for links to "liberals that support Ron Paul." The answers to their questions are right in front of them which they ever so conveniently choose not to see (apparently along with all of the white "liberals" supporting Paul.)

[fascisthunter]

58. so anything Glenn Greenwald is YOUR Problem?

Oh... ok.

[Number23]

71. Darling, PLEASE try to keep up if you are going to continue running around DU

accosting everyone that you disagree with or don't understand.

THE AUTHOR, that would be Tim Wise, the person who wrote the piece, is the one who mentioned Glenn Greenwald.

[fascisthunter]

74. haha... you are full of it

[Number23]

76. If by "it" you mean disgust at simple-minded people that want to argue and disagree

even when they don't have the first clue what they are arguing about or disagreeing with, then yes.

[frylock]

79. the ironing is delicious

[Number23]

83. If I give you $5 a cookie, will you pester someone else?

You seem boring... I mean bored.

[frylock]

85. nah, i'm cool

thx

[Number23]

147. Still arguing with yourself, I see

That's okay. Most people who have no point, have no idea what the topic of discussion is but still want to argue even if it makes them look really stupid in the process do the same, I hear.

[frylock]

62. okay! we got some names..

now let's see the sourced material that quotes them supporting paul.

[Number23]

73. If you read the damned article, you'd get the very thing you are trying your absolute HARDEST

not to see.

[frylock]

78. we've been over the greenwald argument for what? 3 weeks now?

that dog don't hunt. and that's one liberal. who else you got?

[Number23]

81. I can see why Spazito is about to bust a gut laughing at you down thread

You keep clamoring for names and yet, you don't seem to understand that it is TIM WISE that has written this piece. I AM NOT TIM WISE. I DID NOT WRITE THIS ARTICLE. I am not the one "listing names" nor will I do so and especially not for you. You got a beef with TIM WISE mentioning GG? Take it up with him -- TIM WISE. The man who WROTE THIS ARTICLE.

So for God's sake would you stop pestering me now? Why you think that this is a winning tactic for you to take is absolutely beyond me but it sure as hell explains alot...

[frylock]

87. you're making an argument in defense of the article man!

or at least trying your damndest. fuck tim wise. if you agree with him, then articulate for me why.

[stevenleser]

103. See post #97

[frylock]

118. See post #115

[stevenleser]

132. See post #122

[stevenleser]

106. See post #97

[frylock]

119. See post #115

[stevenleser]

133. See post #122

[eridani]

102. Yeah, it is. No liberals are supporting Ron Paul

Some liberals are glad that the issues of imperialism and the War On Some Drugs are part of public discourse in the Republican debates because Paul is bringing them up.

[stevenleser]

107. See post #97

[frylock]

120. See post #115

[MicaelS]

24. If Wise is bashing any Liberals he's bashing those who

Can't see past Paul's anti-war and anti-drug war rhetoric. Some Liberals would roll over for anyone who is anti-war and anti-drug war.

The fascination of some people on the Left with Paul reminds me of the same type fascination with Eisenhower, simply because of his anti MIC speech as he left office. Despite the fact he presided over the enormous buildup of the US Nuclear Arsenal, and regularly contemplated Thermonuclear War with the USSR.

[Luminous Animal]

36. But alll those liberal Paul supporters are a simply not named...

I admire Wise. I have for many years. But, he's simply off the mark with this one.

He says this: "Yet to the so-called progressives who sing the praises of Ron Paul," but doesn't mention who these so-called progressives actually are.

And he says this: "Yessir, legal weed and an end to the TSA: enough to make some supposed leftists ignore everything else Ron Paul has ever said." Who are these supposed leftists?

And then this: "I want those of you who are seriously singing Paul’s praises, while calling yourself progressive or left..." What progressive or leftist is going to respond to him when they have no clue as to who he is accusing of singing Paul's praises.

And this: "that you claim to be progressive, and yet you are praising or even encouraging support for a man..." C'mon Tim. Give us a clue. Who are these progressives that are praising and encouraging support for Paul?

It's damn sloppy writing. Not only does he being coy about mentioning names, he's not even giving us examples of any of his accusations.

[Number23]

12. This passage is sublime

"When you support or give credence to a candidate, you indirectly empower that candidate’s worldview and others who hold fast to it. So when you support or even substantively praise Ron Paul, you are empowering libertarianism, and its offshoots like Ayn Rand’s “greed is good” objectivism, and all those who believe in it. You are empowering the fans of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, in which books they learn that altruism is immoral, and that only the self matters. You are empowering the reactionary, white supremacist, Social Darwinists of this culture, who believe — as does Ron Paul — that that Greensboro Woolworth’s was right, and that the police who dragged sit-in protesters off soda fountain stools for trespassing on a white man’s property were justified in doing so, and that the freedom of department store owners to refuse to let black people try on clothes in their dressing rooms was more sacrosanct than the right of black people to be treated like human beings."

Go 'head, Tim!

[PeaceNikki]

14. Yup, that sums it up.

[Number23]

16. Oh, and his closing para is a VERY close second

"In short, if you’re still disappointed in Barack Obama, it’s only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place. But don’t take out your own failings in this regard on the rest of us, by giving ideological cover and assorted journalistic love taps to a guy who believes the poor should rely on the charitable impulses of doctors to provide for their medical needs, including, one presumes, chemotherapy; or that America was meant to be a “robustly Christian” nation, but is being currently undermined by “secularists;” or who puts the term gay rights in quotation marks when he writes it, and believes states should be free to criminalize homosexual intercourse, and who is such a homophobe that he won’t even use the bathroom in a gay man’s house; or who has all but said that he would like to take America back to the early 1800s, in terms of the scope of government: a truly glorious time to be sure, if you were white, male and owned property."

Where's that cigarette smiley?

[Old and In the Way]

15. Ouch!

"In short, if you’re still disappointed in Barack Obama, it’s only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place. But don’t take out your own failings in this regard on the rest of us, by giving ideological cover and assorted journalistic love taps to a guy who believes the poor should rely on the charitable impulses of doctors to provide for their medical needs, including, one presumes, chemotherapy;..."

IIRC, it was "Yes We Can", not "Yes I Can".

[BumRushDaShow]

20. K&R

[raouldukelives]

29. Strange he used the TSA & weed as examples

I'm no Paul fan but if anything rings with me it's ending military action in the Middle East and around the world. Specifically stopping drone strikes on civilians and spreading depleted uranium. Those are biggies for me. Just wish we had more people on our team against those things. Odd to only hear it coming from the far right.

[PeaceNikki]

30. Read the whole piece.

Wise didn't say this part, but I am: 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.

He is a paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members.

[raouldukelives]

128. I totally get that

But like I said, if I didn't know any better his stance on war would be attractive to me. Far more attractive than weed. We all know the devastation and misery we have brought upon the middle east is unforgivable. I just find it almost pathetic we don't have anyone on our side calling for the end to it. The way we would like to see it end.

[1stlady]

39. Love Love Tim Wise!

He always speaks the truth and the truths hurts, as we can see by some responses in this thread.

[SunsetDreams]

45. K&R

[whatchamacallit]

46. Idiot Ron Paul has the democratic establishment crapping their pants

It's a hoot!

[Spazito]

48. Actually, if you read the thread, it is not people supporting the article...

who seem to be in full panic mode here and it is hilarious!

[whatchamacallit]

50. Crapping their

pants!

[Spazito]

51. Yep, all the 'give me a list' stuff I'm starting to see...

Hilarious!

[whatchamacallit]

52. Tim Wise

is anything but.

[Spazito]

56. Anything but what???

[whatchamacallit]

57. Wise :D

[Spazito]

64. That was very......

profound.......or not!



I love this thread for so many reasons.

[frylock]

64. i know! wanting people to back up their shit..

what a unique concept!!

[Spazito]

68. You want names of exactly who? and from whom? and why?

I know it seems to be important to you but I'm not exactly sure why?

If you want a list of names from the author of the article, I can only advise you e-mail him and ask him?

He does name one pundit in his article but one has to read all the way through it to find it.

[frylock]

70. names of the "liberals and progressives" that support ron paul..

i thought that's what this thread was all about. you know, to smoke em out. there are plenty of people throughout this thread that claim liberals and progressives support ron paul. surely there is evidence to back up these claims. who are these liberals and progressives?

[Spazito]

75. It is Mr. Wise that makes that claim in his article...

He names one you might find interesting and if you e-mail him asking for any others he may satisfy your need to know.

As to liberals and progressives supporting him, surely you don't think this is the only website that has liberals and progressives on it, do you? If so, just google "liberals and progressives supporting Ron Paul", it may well surprise you what you will find.

Edited to change "make" to "may"

[frylock]

77. the argument here is what, exactly, defines support..

if i, as a lifelong fan of the lakers, state that the celtics played a good game last night, am i then a celtic supporter?

[Spazito]

82. Well, your posts are using the word "support" when asking for names...

again, google "liberals and progressives who support Ron Paul" and, again, e-mail Mr. Wise and ask him what his definition of "support" is while asking for his list of names.

You and Mr. Wise can have a good chat on the nuances of "support" I am sure.

[frylock]

84. why would i email mr. wise when his evangelists are to answer instead?

the people on this thread making arguments in defense of such claims have been doing so for weeks now. surely they have a deep enough understanding of the topic as to provide answers to who, exactly, are these liberals and progressives? i have no interest in googling for these supporters. why should i do the research of those making the claim?

[Spazito]

86. I have tried to help you find the answers you seem to want quite badly....

but if you are unwilling to actually do the work to find the answers, well, I guess you will have to remain frustrated.

Surely you don't think others should do the work for you? I certainly hope not.

[frylock]

88. here's the answer. there is no answer. why? because these supporters don't exist..

and now i've helped you.

[Spazito]

89. ROFL...

Have a good evening!

[FarLeftFist]

90. Try this LINK:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=liberals+and+progressives+who+support+Ron+Paul

12million+ hits

[frylock]

92. jeesus..

1. that guy
2. that other guy
3. etc.

cmon! it's easy!

[DonCoquixote]

97. here you go

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-liberal-defenders

quote from article:
The consumer advocate and sometime presidential candidate Ralph Nader was one of the first prominent liberals to offer Paul support, telling The American Conservative in September that there exists a “foundational convergence” between progressives and libertarians like Paul. “Ron Paul has always been anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts,” Nader said. He has since been joined by others on the left, including the editor and publisher of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel. “I have big problems w/Ron Paul on many issues. But on ending preemptive wars & on challenging bipartisan elite consensus on FP, good he's in,” she tweeted on December 30

Left-wing blogger Philip Weiss has even suggested that liberals think of supporting Paul as an ugly, but necessary, progressive compromise, likening it to nothing less than “seculars joining with the Muslim Brothers to get rid of Mubarak. You needed a broad coalition to push Hosni out

. He has since been joined by others on the left, including the editor and publisher of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel. “I have big problems w/Ron Paul on many issues. But on ending preemptive wars & on challenging bipartisan elite consensus on FP, good he's in,” she tweeted on December 30.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yousef-abukhdair/ron-paul-liberal-voters_b_1177636.html

The most practical reason for liberals to vote for Ron Paul is that it would move the goal posts of discussions to a more liberal platform.

(OK, that quote cracks me up, but that is no surprise coming from the Huffington Post

So, the moral of this post is, do not snicker and roll your eyes when you insist you have never seen an example of anyone doing this when a 5 minute Google search will do that. If even Katrina Van Der Huevel drank the Kool Aid, then someone is buying it.

[stevenleser]

108. >Crickets<

...cheep cheep... (and other assorted cricket sounds)

[frylock]

115. so they've stated, unequivically, that they's be voting for paul..

and are urging others to do so? correct? then there should be quotes to back up that assertion. simply saying it's nice to see someone talking about the war on drugs and the war in the ME is pretty fucking far from support. what this boils down to is "lending aid and comfort to the enemy" bullshit. that fact that people on this board are shitting there drawers over ron paul is fucking laughable if not outright pathetic. paul doesn't stand a chance of even getting CLOSE to the nomination.

[Bolo Boffin]

122. Perhaps you should read the OP article.

Because your distraction about "they'd be voting for paul" is dealt with there.

[DonCoquixote]

152. I quoted the end of the article

Where it says that givign any support to Ron Paul will strngthen the right wing, and truth be told, the Vander Huevels and Naders know that, but they think that they can maintain control. The Communists in Germany thought that nobody would listen to the National Socialists, after all, they just had some creepy idiot named Adolph running them that everybody knew was bonkers, but they wanted to tear down the Weimar republic, so they let the Nazis talk...

Different era, same lessons ignored.

[Plantsmantx]

127. "support"?

I don't construe Katrina vanden Huevel as her "supporting" Ron Paul. She's glad he's highlighting those issues. It's not the same thing as wanting him to be President.

[frylock]

63. right?! it's positively laughable!

[MellowDem]

47. Seems like a strawman...

since I don't know of a significant group of progressives or liberals supporting Ron Paul, and indeed, Tim Wise fails to provide who these progressives and liberals are.

But, there is never a group more easy to bash than "certain white liberals". Hell, even conservatives know this. They're the worst of the worst. Privileged and rightous yet secretly conservative seems to always be the charge. Conservatives think of them as weenie traitors. And people like Tim Wise think of them as inherently flawed, earnesty naive, and more dangerous than conservatives, who at least are open about their inherent inability to do right.

[frylock]

66. nobody seem to know who these "liberals and progressives" are..

even the people making such claims are at a loss to provide a clue as to who they may be.

[Capn Sunshine]

144. .....

[joshcryer]

148. The self-identified liberals and possibly Democrats who voted for Ron Paul in NH?

Some of the Democrats may not identify as liberal, though.

[stevenleser]

109. See post #97 above.

[frylock]

121. See post #115

[stevenleser]

129. See post #122

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Can anyone show that there such supporters?

To me, supporting any GOP candidate at all means a person is not a liberal. Supporting Paul means you are a Republican. That's what Paul is.
The only liberal I know who looked at Paul did so in 2004, is African American and when informed of the facts of Paul, lost interest in him of course. Who informed him? Me. Why? Paul is a right wing GOP hate monger.

[jsmirman]

100. It's the craziest shit to me

if you're a "liberal democrat" there's a hell of a road to take before you find yourself voting for Ron Paul.

I am frustrated with our President, and even more frustrated with our party, but the idea "gee, I'm really thinking about voting for Ron Paul" has not only never crossed my mind, but fits in the category of "things I never think about and am unlikely to ever think about."

It has never even crossed my mind that Ron Paul should actually be President. It is unthinkable that I would vote for anyone other than Obama, although the idea of a protest non-vote might cross my mind, but it would be more a protest against the uselessness of my vote in a place where the electors to the electoral college have been decided the very moment the polls open.

Any liberal who would actually vote for Paul is nuts. I mean, even if they are a single-issue voter on say the legalization of marijuana, they're not thinking if they think that even if Paul were President, he could serve as any sort of engine to push legalization through the Congress.

It also seems like, why are people drawing an equivalency between "liberals who are willing to talk about Ron Paul" and "Liberals who could ever imagine voting for Ron Paul"???

I fit in neither group - the only thing I might think is that it's not horrible to have him on the stage with the other awful candidates, because he serves as a constant reminder that any Republican claiming that the eight years before these three years didn't exist by just declaring that they are now actual conservatives is propagating some bull-shit.

I can also say, emphatically, that on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, we were far from chagrined to meet someone who declared themselves a Ron Paul supporter. "Great! Now get five more of your conservative friends to vote the same, if we absolutely can't convince you or them to vote for Obama." These were votes we were not losing; they were votes not going to McCain.

And am I a "Ron Paul supporter" if I tell you that I am fervently wishing for a Paul third-party campaign? It would be nothing but helpful in November. That does not add up to support of Ron Paul - it's a matter of pragmatism and being able to count.

This witch hunt is beyond nutty to me. And no, don't get all excited that you've got me in a tizzy - you haven't. I'll just calmly leave DU, and spend my time at a site where I can express concerns or questions about a President who (at minimum, because he's got me where he wants me) has no reason to fear that I will vote for anyone else - without getting linked to some nutty position I can't even imagine supporting.

[Bluenorthwest]

114. Not sure what you are speaking of? I don't like Paul, and my point is that anyone

who is actually supporting him is not a liberal. My post meant this: I sure don't know any liberals who support Paul, and in my opinion, supporting him means they are not liberal at all. Of course thinking he's screw the GOP as a third Party guy is not the same as supporting him, Jaysus.
The OP claims there is a 'certain' group who are liberals supporting Paul. I'm saying I don't know any, did not know any during the 20 years or so Paul has remained high on my shit list, and that if a person supported him, they'd no longer count as liberal. Sorry if you don't care for that. Paul is a long time nemesis of mine, disliked him long, long ago, I need no permission from anyone to rip him to shreds.
Now. I also don't see the President as a liberal. Like Paul, he opposes equal rights for my community due to religious dogma they share. I'll as always, cast one against the GOP, which is sort of 'for' the President. He opposes my rights, so I am not really all that thrilled with him, he and Paul are the same in that regard, State's rights and God In the Mix nonsense.
To me, a Paul supporter is a person who wants him to get elected President. I see one on roadside with a sign some days. One. Not a liberal. I know that just glancing at him, as he supports the election of Paul. A right winger. A Republican.
People discussing Paul are not supporters of Paul. As a major opponent of Paul's who was discussing him years ahead of the DU frenzy, I think he and his policies need to get aired out and discussing in the full light of day. The DNC should take up the few areas which Paul uses to draw in support. We should stand for peace and for an end to the insane drug policy.
So why I'd get you upset is hard for me to see. I'll talk Paul all day if you want. I do not want him elected, nor do you, it seems. I think we agree.
I just do not think he has 'certain' liberal supporters. He's got right wing supporters he's a Republican with an interesting set of campaign rhetoric, that's it.

[jsmirman]

123. I was agreeing with you, pretty much completely

and some of the points you make in this post are exactly the points I am making.

Particularly: "People discussing Paul are not supporters of Paul."

You didn't get me upset at all. The "tizzy" part was a response to the other posts in this thread that accuse us of getting in a tizzy in our defense of the right to criticize and openly discuss the actions of this administration (which, wildly, around here now comes with the wacky tag that we must somehow be Ron Paul supporters).

I'm sorry for any confusion, but we are taking almost exactly the same position, I believe.

[JI7]

80. Tim Wise is one of my favorites

wish there were more like him who can call out the privileged.

[dsc]

91. I just wonder if he would allow gay people to have the same feelings

When we pointed out that an association with Rev. McClurkin was offensive to gays we were called racist. I have to wonder what the difference is.

[Bluenorthwest]

113. This is a most excellent question.

What is the difference?

[cthulu2016]

125. An amazingly good question

[ProSense]

137. Absolutely

"When we pointed out that an association with Rev. McClurkin was offensive to gays we were called racist. I have to wonder what the difference is."

...not the same thing. That would be like saying this is the same thing as Clinton inviting Rick Warren to take part in the CGI. Or the same as McClurkin being at the 1992 Convention or sharing the stage with Clinton

<...>

His following grew. With the Restoration Choir, Mr. McClurkin sang ''No Problem Too Big'' at the Democratic National Convention in 1992. In 1994, the choir sang before Knicks games at Madison Square Garden. In 1999, Avery Fisher Hall was on the schedule. Mr. McClurkin has also performed for Presidents George Bush the elder and Bill Clinton, and appeared twice on the Oprah Winfrey show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/nyregion/long-island-journal-an-uplifting-voice-from-cd-or-pulpit.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

There is huge difference between hyping Ron Paul and someone invited to an event.

One can condemn those actions, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

Ron Paul Condemns Obama's Decision to Abandon DOMA

Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the Obama Administration will cease to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against legal challenges.

“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States. Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

[dsc]

138. you have repeatedly brought up 1992

and I have told you repeatedly, and sighted links to prove it repeatedly, that McClurkin wasn't the anti gay horror story then, that he is now. He was, in 1992, a run of the mill gospel singer. He hadn't made any claims at all to be ex gay, he hadn't gone on stages calling gays vampires, in short he was a gospel singer. You know this, because I have on not one, not two, not three, not four, but on well over five occasions have told you this directly in response to your posts.

Oh, and McClurkin didn't just appear at some event. He emceed the kickoff event of Obama's campaign in South Carolina. During which emceeing he compared gays to vampires and told the crowd that gays can be cured. The fact is Obama deliberately slammed gays to get the black vote.

[ProSense]

139. I'm

you have repeatedly brought up 1992 and I have told you repeatedly, and sighted links to prove it repeatedly, that McClurkin wasn't the anti gay horror story then, that he is now. He was, in 1992, a run of the mill gospel singer. He hadn't made any claims at all to be ex gay, he hadn't gone on stages calling gays vampires, in short he was a gospel singer. You know this, because I have on not one, not two, not three, not four, but on well over five occasions have told you this directly in response to your posts.

Oh, and McClurkin didn't just appear at some event. He emceed the kickoff event of Obama's campaign in South Carolina. During which emceeing he compared gays to vampires and told the crowd that gays can be cured. The fact is Obama deliberately slammed gays to get the black vote.

...sure you have a reason to excuse Clinton for inviting Rick Warren to the CGI, but regardless, none of it has anything remotely to do with the OP.

[dsc]

140. I don't know what the CGI is

nor do I know why Clinton invited him or who with which would make some difference. You have provided no details whatsoever and I am not in the mood to do your homework.

[DonCoquixote]

93. K and R

and it's funny how people bent over backwards to avoid mentioning Glenn Greenwald here.

[DonCoquixote]

94. and just in case people forgot to read this

From the article:

And please, Glenn Greenwald, spare me the tired shtick about how Paul “raises important issues” that no one on the left is raising, and so even though you’re not endorsing him, it is still helpful to a progressive narrative that his voice be heard. Bullshit. The stronger Paul gets the stronger Paul gets, period. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger libertarianism gets, and thus, the Libertarian Party as a potential third party: not the Greens, mind you, but the Libertarians. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger become those voices who worship the free market as though it were an invisible fairy godparent, capable of dispensing all good things to all comers — people like Paul Ryan, for instance, or Scott Walker. In a nation where the dominant narrative has long been anti-tax, anti-regulation, poor-people-bashing and God-bless-capitalism, it would be precisely those aspects of Paul’s ideological grab bag that would become more prominent. And if you don’t know that, you are a fool of such Herculean proportions as to suggest that Salon might wish to consider administering some kind of political-movement-related-cognitive skills test for its columnists, and the setting of a minimum cutoff score, below which you would, for this one stroke of asininity alone, most assuredly fall.

[Spazito]

124. I can only speak for myself as to why I deliberately didn't name Greenwald...

or post the snip from the article which names him and spells out why Greenwald is being named and this is the reason: it seemed to be apparent that many of those wanting 'names' had not read the article beyond the snippets in the OP so leaving hints ie a name was given in the article but not repeating that name in my post might, hopefully, have lead more to actually read the article. I'm not sure that happened though, lol.

[Number23]

135. Exactly. It is so much more fulfilling apparently for some to run up and down

this thread demanding names and when provided with several, to keep acting as though they have no idea what this OP is referring to.

[Spazito]

136. Yep, I have to say I found it absolutely hilarious...

and very telling.

[TheKentuckian]

98. What the fuck is the deal with the no accountability and no responsibility for elected officials

We elect people to do nothing (or even plenty of shit we stridently disagree with) but it is the most important thing ever that they be elected and if we really want anything to be done (or even stoo the heinous shit) we have to shut down the system that the most important thing in the world is to prop it up.

There is also fear and that fear is driven by the issues he admits need to be addressed won't be except by the delusional institutional racist giving the impression to too many that that is the only way to them leading to the popularity of a toxic and unworkable ideology increasing so he must flog a largely imaginary dead horse.

His answer is for the people to shut the motherfucker down until those pulling the strings knuckle under rather than to force representation from the fuckers we are paying and vote for or even to expect such. Afterall, that ain't their job (for whatever reason), they are omnipotent hood ornaments or some such.

I also don't understand the confidence that civil rights can be maintained as civil liberties are erroded?
Being disappeared or murdered on a man's whim regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion, or creed rings hollow to me. Nothing to do with Paul who would kick such power down to the Governor, Mayor, CEO, or bossman. Same with the drug war. The hot wars may be ruled by the same jacked up delusions but in real world terms such a swich over would require a tremendous paradigm shift, mostly of the corporations footing the bills and having to work the inducements to bring in the fodder and the profit center for all the hardware without leaning on notions of patriotism. I don't think the libertarian ideology applies in ways that those that profit from and drive the war machine would prefer at all, even resource wars must be socialized to turn massive profits. You can run the merc scam for the personnel to an extent but there is no real way to replace all of those hard billions each and every year or the fervor of nation. None the less, the undertow would suck down everything else the Federal government does with it.

No, there is no belief in an ideology that was dead on arrival, despite being born in a time when slavery, monopoly, and a complete lack of functional oversight were easy options for those so inclined.

I think the guy that wrote the piece is to smart to participate in this bogus ass argument that has to override clear declaration to even have a reason to exist other than the political equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming. I also think he is too bright for all the privileged position stuff when he examines peoples motivations based on their arguments on a position. While fully aware of the institutionalized racial oppression, at this point an end is goal not fairness. Understanding the whys would seem to bring the understanding that that which is built on such a foundation is beyond any redemption, his sense of the issues is correct but not always the only or even the most important reasoning.

If you want to oppose the right answers for the wrong reasons, I can respect that but getting bugged about different good reasons (even without particular consideration to yours) is beyond my range or desire for such. I almost want to say he at least infers that you are akin to the wrong reason, I'm not sure but am left with the question for sure.

[Fumesucker]

101. "omnipotent hood ornaments"..

Exactly!

[DonCoquixote]

143. he never told people to shut up

Only told people that giving support to Ron Paul would only help out Ron Paul,who, although he is good on some issues, is outright deadly on the rest.

Here is an analogy, you have kids, you have to work, you hire a babysitter. You find some things about this babysitter you really, genuinely like and admire.

You then find out said babysitter is a convicted child molester, and has also been convicted for the making of kiddie porn.

Now, it would not matter if said babysitter is really, really affordable, punctual, trained in first aid and makes your children Spaghetti exactly the way they want it. You would not want someone who enjoys raping kids to have access to children. You really wouldnot want someone that makes MONEY off of Kiddie Porn, because he might give your children the wrong kind of film career.

Now, when you throw the fool out of your house, along come some people who say "But the kids like him so, so much more than that Barry guy you hired before him." Now, would you not say W-T-F?

Now is Ron the true progressives equivalent of the charming paedophile that might be plesant at tea, but must never be allowed to get any support?

He wants to completely get rid of the EPA, The Department of the Interior, and the Department of Education. If I need to explain why that is a horror, your credentials as a liberal get called into question.

He wants to get rid of the Civil Rights act. Again, this should be a self-evident truth.

He wants to get rid of Minium Wage.

It's one thing (albeit a bad, indefensible, inexcusable thing) to be weak on issues like Gay or Abortion Rights. If we did not have a Democratic Party that was pulled to the right by Saints Bill and Hill, these rights would be as safe as if they were in Fort Knox. However, Ron Paul wants to go above and beyond, because if he gets what he wants, we are ALL screwed, every man woman and child of every creed, color, and gender. And the point of the OP which no one looks in the eyes is this, when you support Ron Paul, you support those people he is also trying to help. He is not going to sit down and say "OK, I will make Weed free and cut off every cent to Israel, but I will forget that thing about getting rid of the EPA."

And no,this is not about making Obama a saint, or denying that we need to put pressure on him 24-7. However, OWS will be a better vehicle for that, because there is no risk of accidentally making the election close enough for the GOP to take. I have said it before and again, we the whole "protest vote" trick in 2000 and 2004, and it only helped ensure we got 8 years of W. and 8 more years for the media to turn the masses brains to mush. I am saying this, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. We justly rail on the way Uncle Sam supprts people who are evil, because they say some thing we like to hear. Are we going to feed Ron Paul the way we fed that young killer of Soviets, Osama Ben Ladin?

[joshcryer]

99. Home Run for Tim.

[FSogol]

111. K & R. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Oh, I looked all through Good Reads before posting this article there this AM

Didn't look over here.

Kick-ass article.

[Plantsmantx]

126. How will...which black people feel?

Well. That's not an altogether bad essay, but I think Ta-Nehisi Coates has a better, more nuanced take on the same subject:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/the-messenger/250685/#comment-408868777

The first part of Wise's post is very effective, to say the least. If people don't get the point from the comparison with David Duke, they don't want to get it. But for me, this is where is starts to go a little wrong:

"How do you think that sounds to black people..."

Which black people? There's an assumption that "that" will sound and feel the same to all of us.

And how do you think they take it that you praise this man, or possibly even support him for president, all so as to teach the black guy currently in the office a lesson for failing to live up to your expectations?

It's not easy to explain, but there's something a little repellent about this...for me, anyway. He seems to be certain about how all of us take it, and seems to be certain that we all take it in the worst way possible. First of all, he thinks that all white liberals who approvingly point out Paul's seemingly liberal policy stances are doing it to teach the guy currently in office a lesson, and beyond that, he thinks that all liberal black people will see them all as racists because the guy currently in office is black. That's not my basic, kneejerk reaction to the spectacle of white liberals "praising" Ron Paul. I think some of them don't really want to have anything to do with Paul, see him for what he is, but can't help pointing out the obvious ironies in the foreign policy differences between Paul and Obama. Some others aren't insensitive to concerns, but think the bad things Paul would want to implement won't happen. Still others are single or few-interest voters, and frankly, care more about the issues they care about than they do about black people. I certainly don't like that, but I will take their indifference over the malign attentions of the white right any day.

[ProSense]

134. Posted

at Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/13/1054389/-Of-Broken-Clocks,-Presidential-Candidates-and-the-Confusion-of-Certain-White-Liberals

[Arkana]

141. I can get behind this.

Anyone who goes "Well, you know, he has a POINT" in regards to Ron Paul is fooling themselves. A handful of "progressive" positions (which he holds for all the wrong reasons, btw) does not make him a progressive hero, nor does it make him worth supporting by anyone who would claim to be a "true progressive".

[nofurylike]

149. thank you for this!

i even had to post in GD(!!) - because this is so good, and because so many took on the defensive knee-jerks - to say thank you so very much for posting this, PeaceNikki!

thank you, all, for speaking out!
i could not have kept such cool.

[Bobbie Jo]

150. K&R

Thanks for posting this.

This thread is freaking hilarious!

[Scurrilous]

151. K & R

[Beacool]

154. And who are all these liberals who are supposedly praising Ron Paul???

I don't know any of them.

Having said that, I don't appreciate Wise or anyone else trying to guilt me into who I should or should not support.

[kenny blankenship]

155. Everyone who is not actively worshipping Obama is implicitly supporting Ron Paul

So it's an epidemic that must be crushed with the sternest measures. Protestations of ignorance, such as "Excuse me but I don't see any liberal Democrats "supporting" Ron Paul", or, "Who specifically is supporting Ron Paul?" are wholly unacceptable and will not find mercy in this court. Pretending not to know will be sufficient proof of guilt!

[Beacool]

156. Yeah, it seems that way.

I could care less for Ron Paul and I haven't heard any liberals praising him, but I resent the attempt to guilt a group of people into not supporting some candidate because it might offend another group of people.

"How do you think that sounds to black people, without whom no remotely progressive candidate stands a chance of winning shit in this country at a national level? How does it sound to them — a group that has been more loyal to progressive and left politics than any group in this country"

Apparently Obama should always receive a pass because he is the first biracial president. True equality to me means that he is not exempt from criticism, just like the other 43 presidents who preceded him.

[Plantsmantx]

157. Hmm...

How do you think that sounds to black people, without whom no remotely progressive candidate stands a chance of winning shit in this country at a national level? How does it sound to them — a group that has been more loyal to progressive and left politics than any group in this country

Well, to this black person, it sounds as if some liberals are pointing out the irony of some of Paul's foreign policy stances seeming to be more progressive than Obama's, at least on the face of it.

I wonder how Wise thinks it sounds to black people. He doesn't say, exactly.

[Beacool]

158. Good point.

I read recently that more people have been deported under Obama than under Bush Jr. Isn't that ironic?