Beware of "Hillary not electable" pieces written by supporters of Rand Paul and other Rethugs,

[pnwmom]

Last edited Wed Nov 11, 2015, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

like H. A. Goodman.

H. A. Goodman is a Rand Paul supporter who poses as a "liberal Democrat." And he says that if you're worried about Rand Paul's economic policies, you shouldn't, because Congress can rein him in.

Yeah, right.

Paul, who considers himself a tea party member, opposes abortion, opposes Federal LGBT rights (because he didn’t “believe in rights based on your behavior”), voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, opposes all gun control legislation, thinks vaccines should be voluntary, opposes the ACA, opposes campaign finance reform. Among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.

On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn't Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described "moderate" on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul's recent Bill Maher interview shows he's open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn't abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Are you suggesting Mr. Goodman is not a sagacious prognosticator?

OEM

[leveymg]

62. Not a word about the substance or merits of his argument. A POV that needs to be discussed

Instead, we get your basic HRC campaign attack piece with a lot of guilt by association innuendo. Typical.

As for the point of her high negatives and how that impacts her electability in the General, see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251452687

[leveymg]

100. You're going off on an anti-Right Libertarian tangent and not addressing the point that Goodman made

Engage on the issue of Hillary's electability, or you can go on about Rand Paul.

Still crickets.

[Rogue Democrat]

2. I'd give him a bit more credit than that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-bernie-sanders-has-already-won-the-democratic-debates_b_8278834.html

H.A. Goodman explains:

Remember that article on Rand Paul I wrote? Of course I never wanted to vote for a Republican, but I didn't want another president willing to engage in perpetual wars. Clinton's review of a book by Henry Kissinger as well as articles in The New York Times, Vox, and other publications illustrate she might be willing to continue Bush's quagmires. In 2014, even I thought that Clinton's nomination was an eventuality, therefore I searched for an alternative to a hawkish Democrat.

I always believed progressives should oppose Republicans on matters of war and national security, not simply claim a devastating Iraq vote was a "mistake."

I've been a registered Democrat all my life (voting for Gore, Kerry, and Obama twice), but when President Obama was sending Americans back to Iraq in 2014, I searched desperately for an alternative to Clinton's "neocon" foreign policy. I'm not a Facebook Liberal and when I'm on Ring of Fire correlating Dick Cheney to the chaos in the Middle East, I also know that Hillary Clinton could have offered a powerful voice of protest.

Had she championed a progressive stance on Iraq when the nation and the world needed her the most, I'd be writing constantly about why Americans should vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead, she chose to side with the Bush administration on Iraq.

[pnwmom]

3. It shows what poor judgment Goodman has. He said that we could disregard Paul's economic policies

because Congress has the power of the purse.

As if the Rethug Congress would do anything to rein a President Paul in.

Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.

On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn't Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described "moderate" on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul's recent Bill Maher interview shows he's open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn't abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. How would Mr. Goodman ignore Rand Paul's judicial picks?

Often ignored is the fact that the pres appoints judges at all levels of the federal courts, just not the Supreme Court.

[Armstead]

60. He's a pundiut. He's paid to provoke....And much of it I agree with

The Pauls are dead wrong on many things...And pretty much everything when it comes to the economy and regulation of business and enforcement of civil rights and women's rights.

But in terms of foreign policym, war and peace, that kind of stuff, and protection of personal privacy from the National Security State, I agree with them more then the neocons, D or R.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. With all due respect I am not a fan of his punditry...

His punditry is to politics is what Skip Bayless' punditry is to sports. IMHO, both of those gentlemen are professional trolls. They have so much disdain for the targets of their ire that it clouds their thinking.

[Armstead]

71. I don't read him much

But on this column -- setting aside his obvious attention grabbing premise -- I think he is spot on.We have no business with much of the destructive military adventurism we engage in. I'm not talking about legitimate national defense, but actions like the Invasion oif Iraq that stir up the hornet's nests needlessly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Bayless hates LeBron James and it blinds him to his obvious strengths.

Bayless hates LeBron James and it blinds him to his obvious strengths. I am not saying LeBron James is unflawed but when a sports pundit ignores his obvious strengths it makes him look silly...Substitute Goodman for Bayless and Hillary for James and you have the same dynamic.

[Armstead]

77. Er, about all I know about basketball is that people try to throw a basket through a hoop

I know even less about football....I know. unAmerican. Just never inherited the sports fan gene.

But in any case, this particular column I agree with on a number of counts, including the national security state, and that pesky war thing and out habit of continually backing ourselves into messes after causing the problems by our earlier meddling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. How about movies?

Rex Reed hated certain actors and actresses and it blinded him to their talent.

Politics, sports, movies, and reading are my passions, in that order.

[Armstead]

82. Oh Rexster? Now I get your point.

I did with the sports one too. The only other thing I know about b'ball is who LeBron James is (and Magic and Jordan and the other big names.)

Like I said, I don't know enough about the guy. And if he keeps pumping that Sanders WILL win, then I don't agree with that one. I think he Could win, but a very long shot.

Politics is my version of sports I guess.

Movies too. Reading too, but it's a busman's holiday because I write for a living (despite my frequent typos here). I pop into DU as a break when I need to let off steam from the formal objective writing I do in RL.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. He hated Meryl Streep for some reason.

EOM

[MADem]

80. He's a troll and his "works" are banned from the Sanders Reddit group!

He's not a pundit--he's a paid disruptor. There's a difference. The folks at Reddit got it--the folks at DU have yet to grasp it, because he's saying bad things about someone they dislike.

He'd turn on you in a heartbeat if it helped his hero, Rand.

[JDPriestly]

85. What do you like about Hillary's war policies? I realize that you agree with her disregard for

privacy rights and her contempt for Edward Snowden. Just how far do you think the NSA should be allowed to go under our Constitution in so far as creating databases of your relationships with others, say your communications on DU?

I disagree with Goodman. I think Rand Paul could never win an election and is a horrible candidate. Americans deserve better.

But I would like to see your point by point analysis of what he says.

I would like to know in detail why you disagree with Goodman.

It should be easy to state that. Goodman is, in my opinion, so wrong, on a number of issues. I agree with him on the human rights violations by the NSA. And I think the president should go to Congress before putting troops on the ground in the Middle East although the Iraq War Resolution probably gives him the authority. I'm just thinking the president should have the cover of getting congressional approval before committing troops. We should have a discussion about it.

President Obama has done many things by executive order that have an economic effect, therefore, I disagree with Goodman when he says that Congress has to vote on economic policy. That is true to a great extent, but the president has a lot of influence through his executive orders.

Rand Paul appointing the heads of regulatory commissions would be one huge nightmare. Rand Paul as a libertarian would exercise almost no supervision at all over our financial sector, over our food safety, etc. Just a nightmare.

But what are your reasons for disagreeing with Goodman?

[think]

5. "I've been a registered Democrat all my life (voting for Gore, Kerry, and Obama twice)"

Sounds like a libertarian to me...

[merrily]

21. Clearly a Paulist acolyte. Didn't even vote for Nader, ffs.

[pinebox]

4. Then debunk him in a reply instead of shooting the messenger

and back it up with facts and not with "OMGZ THE GOODMANZ!!11"

He has some valid points and just because he one time supported Ron Paul doesn't make him any less credible when he brings facts to the conversation and solid points backed up with links.

I see this time and time again on here. The whole shoot the messenger state of mind thing got old a long time ago.
I don't care where my sources come from as long as they're rock solid and factual because in the end, that's what matters.
Facts.

[pnwmom]

6. I can debunk him in any way I choose. But in this case he debunked himself,

revealing an extreme lack of good judgment, when he went on record supporting Paul and saying his economic policies didn't matter because Congress has "the power of the purse."

[winter is coming]

8. FAIL. You've attacked the messenger without addressing the message.

Hillary's unfavorables don't magically go away just because someone not on your approved list brought them up.

[JaneyVee]

13. How about this for a debunking:

12. Nov 9: McClatchy/Marist Poll: Hillary Clinton Leads All Republicans Nationally


General Election: Trump vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 56, Trump 41 Clinton +15 
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Carson 48, Clinton 50 Clinton +2 
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Rubio 45 Clinton +5 
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 52, Bush 44 Clinton +8 
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Cruz 43 Clinton +10 
General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Fiorina 43 Clinton +10 

[winter is coming]

16. That doesn't change Hillary's unfavorables, either.

And Bernie's also kicking GOP butt.

[beerandjesus]

32. That doesn't debunk anything, actually.

Goodman said that although he was a Democrat, he supported Paul because he wasn't willing to accept warmongering from EITHER party.

That means that your stats about Hillary versus other Republicans are completely irrelevant.


Now, I realize you could simply reply with stats showing how Hillary beats Rand too, but that's not what you did. You threw out a red herring, as if we wouldn't notice it.

[brush]

46. That poll was revealed last night in the recap of the repugs debate

She and Sanders both beat all the clown car candidates, including Paul.

[pinebox]

40. And back at ya

In a new McClatchy-Marist poll, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads Republican candidate Donald Trump by a landslide margin of 12 percentage points, 53 to 41. In the McClatchy poll, Sanders also leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) by a landslide margin of 10 points, 51 to 41.

The huge Sanders advantage over Trump is not new. In the last four match-up polls between them reported by Real Clear Politics, Sanders defeated Trump by margins of 12, 9, 9 and 2 percentage points.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/259812-in-new-shock-poll-sanders-has-landslides-over-both

[JaneyVee]

43. And neither Trump, Bush, or Bernie will be the nominee.

[pinebox]

55. And either will Hillary XD

[pnwmom]

24. I did address the message. He is WRONG to say Paul's economic policies don't matter

because Congress decides on economic policies. If Paul is elected,, chances are great that the Rethugs will retain control of Congress.

[winter is coming]

28. No. You're trying to use his opinions about Paul's economic policies to

negate his arguments about HRC's unfavorables. It's possible to be right about some things while being wrong about others.

[pnwmom]

34. They show his poor judgment in the political arena.

So does disregarding Paul's agenda:

Paul, who considers himself a tea party member, opposes abortion, opposes Federal LGBT rights (because he didn’t “believe in rights based on your behavior”), voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, opposes all gun control legislation, thinks vaccines should be voluntary, opposes the ACA, opposes campaign finance reform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul

[winter is coming]

36. It shows his poor judgement about economic policies.

It doesn't show anything else.

[pnwmom]

39. And economic policies are at the core of Sanders candidacy -- as they should be.

But Goodman thinks they're unimportant because he's an idiot -- or a troll.

[Hortensis]

44. Interesting OP, PNWMom. Thanks.

BTW, Rand Paul is a social conservative with libertarian economic leanings. An absolutely terrible combination, anathema for anyone who likes Bernie's ideology at all, even leaving out the fact that Paul's as dumb as a bag of rocks.

[winter is coming]

45. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary's unfavorables,

or indications that Sanders is drawing a goodly number of young and disenfranchised voters.

[pnwmom]

52. It has everything to do with Goodman's worthless opinions on her "electability."

I will strongly support whoever the Democratic nominee is.

But Goodman feels economic policies are so trivial that just a year ago he endorsed Paul for President -- and said that Congress can decide about economic issues. No one here should care about any of Goodman's political opinions. He's shown his true stripes and they're not progressive.

[AgingAmerican]

30. Is Paul even running anymore?

What is he at now, .02%

[Armstead]

64. FOREIGN POLICY....How about addressing the author's actul points?

About 90 percent of people here think the Pauls are full of shit about the economy.

How about addressing the authors real points?

[riversedge]

86. PFF to unfavorables. She is winning the polls over Sanders by large percentages.

[pinebox]

10. So let me get this straight about judgement

Explain please because shouting "OMG Goodman" isn't a debunk. I'm not saying you do that but heaven knows many do.

That article is a year old too but if we're going to go this route on judgment, can one not then bring in Hillary's claim of ducking sniper fire as well? Or how about her Iraq war vote?

Fascinating. That's quite a double standard.

[pnwmom]

22. Once again, a female with an opinion is accused of "shouting."

Funny how that works.

I demonstrated his extremely poor judgment in his statement that Paul's economic policies -- the core of his whole candidacy -- didn't matter because Congress has the power of the purse.

Either his poor own judgment, or that of anyone who takes anything Goodman now says seriously

[bunnies]

48. You dont even display your gender in your profile yet you accuse others of sexism.

*smh* This shit gets so old.

[pnwmom]

50. I do in my screen name. n/t

[bunnies]

51. Like Middle Finger Mom did? nt

[pnwmom]

53. I didn't realize that he wasn't female for a very long time.

But making sexist comments to someone with a feminine screen name should be avoided.

[bunnies]

54. I didnt realize it either...

but it certainly made me stop assuming. Nevertheless, this whole "shouting" thing has gotten out of hand.

[pinebox]

41. And as I said about judgement

well, up above.
If you're going to attack judgment of a pundit, you may want to look at the candidate you're supporting first.

[pnwmom]

42. I'm supporting whichever Dem wins the nomination.

And I'm opposing anyone who says we shouldn't, if that person is HRC.

[Blue_Adept]

12. That's like debunking Cheney

You know he's an asshole. You don't lower yourself to dealing with assholes like that.

[jkbRN]

25. Comparing Goodman to Cheney is absolutely absurd

People are allowed to have their own opinions, draw up their own interpretations based on the data. Get. A. Grip.

[MissDeeds]

72. +1000

Yep, how many people did Goodman help send to their deaths for a bogus war? Pathetic comparison.

[OilemFirchen]

87. It is silly, of course.

Goodman's doppelganger is Peggy Noonan.

[jkbRN]

20. Speakin' truth!

Great response

[beerandjesus]

27. And meanwhile, we wait and wait for one factual reason to vote FOR Hillary

But somehow the argument boils down to "she's a FIGHTER! it's HER TURN! what are you, SEXIST?" ....and we haven't heard it in a while, but here it is, revived once again: "oh, so you want RAND PAUL???"

Just one reason to vote for Hillary over Bernie is all I ask. So far, nothing.

[frylock]

79. These are the same people that have no issue with David Brock or his past.

[Art_from_Ark]

96. Or a certain FOX News regular

and HIS past.

[NCTraveler]

9. Paulites. That's it. It's really not many promoting it though. nt.

[Blue_Adept]

11. Common. Freaking. Sense.

Same goes for the same kind of articles about Bernie.

[Betty Karlson]

14. Just earlier there was a piece saying: "If Bernie is so good,...

... his supporters wouldn't resort to conspiracy theories" (not my words, actual quote)

The same could be said here: If Clinton is such an excellent candidate, her supporters wouldn't resort to Paulite conspiracy theories.

[pnwmom]

18. This isn't a conspiracy theory, unless you think Goodman can conspire with himself. n/t

[Betty Karlson]

23. Is your misinterpretation of my words deliberate,

or do you actually think to demonstrate a fallacy in my argument by suggesting that I intimated a conspiracy of one?

[pnwmom]

26. You must have "intimated a conspiracy of one" because I certainly didn't,

and you were the one to bring up the idea of a conspiracy, not me.

[Betty Karlson]

33. But you are suggesting that very intimation, are you not?

I'm not saying you intimated anything, I am saying that you suggest an improper intimation on my part.

And I think one might have to be deliberately misinterpreting my words in order to do so...

[beerandjesus]

29. If it makes you feel better, it's not just your words.

It's a deliberate misinterpretation of Goodman's words too--words that, incidentally, speak directly to one of Hillary's major weaknesses as a candidate.

You could be in worse company!

[Betty Karlson]

31. It's your kind reaction that makes me feel better. Thanks. eom

[pnwmom]

37. I'm not misinterpreting his very clear words. You are just intent on disregarding them. nt

[beerandjesus]

38. Well, you haven't debunked anything but your own credibility.

And this black and white mindset, by the way, is why your side is so blind to Hillary's liabilities. All REAL Democrats just LOVE Hillary, and anyone else can go to hell anyway. Any discussion of her substance is superfluous.


You'd really better hope that you can scrape together at least 270 electoral votes, cuz that sure as hell doesn't motivate anyone who isn't already drinking the kool-aid.

[brush]

49. Sorry, but WTH? Why waste time with all these posts on Rand Paul?

His economic policies stink. He says businesses can refuse to serve black/brown people. He's a racist, Randian jerk just like his father and not worth our time.

This site is about electing Democrats.

[Betty Karlson]

58. I think you have missed both the point and the counterpoint of this discussion. eom

[brush]

90. I got them both but got tired of post after post about an Ayn Rand-loving, racist repug

[Betty Karlson]

94. We were discussing the merits of his opinions.

All you do is shooting the messenger. Point and counterpoint well and truly missed.

[brush]

95. I'll know better next time . . .

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

to skip them.

[ibegurpard]

15. more whistling past the graveyard

People are telling you over and over the reasons they don't want her and you just refuse to listen.

[pnwmom]

19. Yup. I refuse to listen to why a Paul-bot doesn't support Hillary Clinton. n/t

[mythology]

17. I ignore basically everything libertarians say

My concept of a moral society is antithetical to libertarian ideas.

[FSogol]

35. I agree. Fuck Rand Paul. n/t

[NobodyHere]

57. Even legalizing marijuana?

[Armstead]

68. So I guess you disagreed with Ron Paul about Iraq then?

That ever so humanitarian war he opposed

[Mnpaul]

89. I remember a bunch of people cheering on DU

When Ron Paul ripped the Iraq War and called Reagan a paper tiger. It was a great smackdown.

[stillwaiting]

81. On civil liberties and some social issues Libertarians are good.

On domestic economic issues they are insane.

They are averse to rapid engagement in military affairs abroad as well.

But again, their thoughts on domestic economic issues would WREAK HAVOC on our country for everyone except for the wealthy (who would be rewarded even more than they already have been the past 4 decades). For this reason, they must be strongly opposed.

[Thinkingabout]

47. If I was a RW, I would listen to FOX and try to sell their lies everywhere. I am not RW ergo I do

not listen to FOX. H A Goodman writes opinions which are not truthful, has only an opinion and trying to sell Goodman's opinion is like selling FOX material. Might sound good, does not make it true.

[NobodyHere]

56. Are you implying that Rand Paul has supporters?

[MisterP]

59. then stop pushing candidates who support policies of Rethugs

damn easy once you get the hang of it

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Let me put my two cents in here . . .

1. Hillary Clinton is electable.
2. Bernie Sanders is electable.
3. No Republican presidential candidate is electable.

I don't need to know the politics of any prognosticator. That is what I believe and any deviations from that are simply wrong.

Moreover, in a match up against any Republican presidential candidate, my cat, Swashbuckler, would win.

[pnwmom]

65. I agree with 1 and 2. But unfortunately, I'm afraid that any Rethug who is the nominee

has a chance against anyone we put up.

Between election fraud and gerrymandering, they have their thumbs on the scale.

[Jack Rabbit]

74. Well, true, I'm discounting that kind of steer manure

However, I think it will have to be an awfully big thumb to put one of those degenerate reprobates in the White House.

[passiveporcupine]

70. I vote for Swashbuckler!

cats rool

[Jack Rabbit]

75. I'd tell him you have his support . . .

. . . but he's taking a nap on my bed right now.

[passiveporcupine]

88. Sounds about right

cats don't give a fuck.

[Fearless]

63. Are the "scientific" polls lying now too??

[Hekate]

66. We seem to have a nest of them here. Amaaaazing. nt

[LW1977]

67. Threads by Bernie supporters bashing Hillary are getting old

Like I said in the mentioned thread, I'm a Bernie supporter, but refusing to vote in the GE because you don't like YOUR party's candidate is beyond moronic..

To these people I say "Enjoy a President Trump and a couple more Justice Scalias!"

Do you really want that? That is what your basically asking for..

[SidDithers]

76. DU rec...

Fuck Rand Paul and the useful idiots on the fringe left who #StandWithRand.

Sid

[Cha]

91. KICK!

[pnwmom]

92. Thanks, Cha!

[Cha]

93. You're Welcome.. thank you again!