Long disappointed by Obama's overly solicitous attitude toward banking, defense and national security interests—at the expense of economic justice and civil liberties—these disappointed critics find a satisfying echo in Paul's assaults on the banks, the Federal Reserve, the military-industrial complex and, indeed, the entire American super-structure, including the miserably failed war on drugs. As a libertarian, he doesn't actually share the liberal perspective on these issues, but sometimes it sounds as if he does.
For some people, perhaps, that is enough.
As a seasonal fad unlikely to persist beyond Iowa, a minor liberal flirtation with Paul wouldn't matter at all. While he has provided much entertainment over the past few weeks, scaring the Republican establishment with his anybody-but-Romney climb in the polls, he undoubtedly understands that he will not be the nominee of their party (and in calmer moments, so do they).
His prescriptions for government and the economy may be misguided, to put it kindly, but his passionate support for the Bill of Rights is refreshing, especially because so many Republicans and too many Democrats are prepared to snip or even scrap that document. So is the consistency of his current stance on such issues as narcotics, marriage and military engagement abroad—which are only the most obvious reasons that he will always be rejected by the GOP, even as his dedicated supporters occasionally win a momentary victory in a straw poll or a pseudo-convention.
A Risky Protest Vote
But what if Paul should decide to run on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2012? He ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and he has coyly hinted that he might do so again this year, with that party's leaders practically begging him to accept their nomination when the Republican primaries end. He could either defeat former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who recently announced that he has left the Republican Party to seek the Libertarian nomination, or ask Johnson, who supported Paul in 2008, to join the ticket as his vice presidential candidate. In many respects, “Ron Paul for President” is as much a family business as an ideological crusade, so the incentives for him to continue into November will be powerful.
For liberals who are drawn to Paul as an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve, the military budget and the wars on terrorism and drugs, that would pose a challenge. Like Ralph Nader in 2000, Paul could offer them a tempting opportunity to express their weariness with compromise and complexity; once more they could vote their conscience and voice their frustration. The moral hurdle would be much higher than with Nader, a genuine American icon who carries none of Paul's embarrassing baggage. At the very least, Nader upheld traditional progressive ideals for government, the economy and the environment—while Paul would eagerly repeal a century of advances on all those fronts, if he could.
But for those willing to overlook the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and paranoid Ron Paul newsletters—as well as their putative author's feeble, implausible and changeable explanations for them—the Texas congressman might claim to be an alternative to that tired-old-two-party, lesser-of-two-evils ballot choice.
That would appeal only to progressives who suffer from historical amnesia, the chronic affliction of American politics, and were thus unable to recall the consequences of Nader's third-party candidacy. One of those consequences, ironically enough, was the war in Iraq, which probably would not have occurred if Al Gore hadn't forfeited the electoral votes that Nader threw to George W. Bush.
Another consequence was the abandonment of the U.S. commitment to mitigate climate change, which dwarfs even the economic debacle of the past few years in its potential toll on humanity. And a third consequence was the spike in economic inequality encouraged by Bush tax, spending and regulatory policies—which will someday seem moderate in retrospect, if Obama loses next year to Mitt Romney and Republicans control both houses of Congress.
The Nader supporters of 2000, a fraction of the liberal electorate, didn't get the policies they so urgently desired, of course. They didn't even get a viable Green Party or a lasting movement for change. Instead, they helped to inflict a political disaster from which America has scarcely begun to emerge. In the new year, we may discover whether they wish to revive that nightmare.
© 2011 Creators.com
*/?>
The fact that someone like David Livingston, a bloodsucking parasite who thrives on human misery, is satisfied with Obama’s presidency thus far should tell you everything you need to know about our so-called progressive president.
1 - Libertarian choice
Ron Paul represents a choice opposing both the Democrat choice that favors Liberal Redistribution of Wealth, and opposing the Republican choice favoring fascist Big Government support of Big Business. The Red and Blue choices both need a big government to hold together their plans, but the Libertarian choice is about small government, as in "get your rules and regulations out of my face". For those who "hope" for "change", that would be huge!
2 - Occupy Wall Street
They may say "we are the 99%", but why does it look like the jobless and worthless lower 10% who cannot agree on what they really want? The real point is that the top 1% have put so much economic distance between their places of living life (work, sleep, and play), and the lower 99% places of living life, that the lower 99% are no more than grass and mud huts on the African plain or hills of South America, a place where you go to set up a missionary post or school to train your next batch of low-cost workers and captive consumers. "An adventurous place to visit", but no place to live! -- The 99% are simply saying "You don't even care about how you make us live, so we are bringing our underprivileged, oppressed, broke-ass citizens to you!"
3 - "Slumdog Economist" article in Jan 2012 issue of "Wired"
The article is about "System D", the $10 trillion worth of untaxed, unlicensed, and unregulated economies that serve half the world's people, and will cover 2/3 of them by 2020. Gee, sounds like what small business wants, what even big business wants, even what the common "Joe the Plumber" hard-working American consumer wants, a very Libertarian idea. -- The point being that Law-abiding, tax-paying businesses and consumers have all this red-tape (and local corruption) to work around as they go about their business. This "underground economy of the street" has been growing every year for the past 2 decades, whereas the taxed, licensed, regulated economy has become stagnant.
Are these 2 worlds that must stay forever segregated and at "economic war" with each other? What is amazing is what they said happens in west Africa regarding clean, safe-to-drink water. Rather than a public funded Water Utility that allows even the homeless to get a drink at a public bubbler, nor the government regulated, privatized big water business which by definition must not serve those who cannot pay their fair share to support its large infrastructure... Nigeria has independent entrepreneurs that hawk sealed plastic bags of water, no license registration fees or taxes. Nigeria has chosen to enforce purity and safety by its equivalent of the FDA to inspect and stamp these bags as safe, without bothering with taxes and license fees on these vendors. Most likely, the would arrest and prosecute those selling unstamped bags.
Imagine our moonshiners being able to affix a legal liquor stamp to their bottles, stamps provided free of charge in exchange for allowing safety and quality inspection. THAT would be a way to get compliance and still do public good. Imagine applying a similar policy to legal goods like prescription drugs, spoil-able foods, and even illegal items like street drugs and prostitutes, gambling casinos.
Not saying it would work well here, but we could learn from it, find a way to legally co-exist with it. Regardless, I think both rich and poor consumers still want some enforcement of quality, safety, honesty.
I was wondering when someone would bring up the NDAA. It is a topic that certainly needs more explanation. This legislation, as a part of indefinite detention, essentially allows the US military to act against the US populace. That is unconstitutional.
Obama, while signing this on New Year's Eve, when absolutely no one was looking, added a series of purely political hedges that should disgust everyone (except the most hypocritical liberals.) "While I have deep concern about some provisions in this bill....blah blah blah." Obama is scum.
For once PP, we actually agree with one another. Just for the record, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and the rest of the GOP field would have gladly signed the NDAA into law. Among presidential contenders, only Ron Paul opposed the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens by the president through military force without trial. The Patriot Act effectively erased the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure). The NDAA amply disposes of the Fifth Amendment (right to due process) and the Sixth Amendment (right to trial by jury). Next on the docket for these criminals are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA); this legislation has provisions that would effectively do away with the First Amendment (right to free speech) and would give the federal government the authority to censor the web in the same way as Iran and China. People need to wake up and get wise to the treachery that has overtaken this country. We need to reject the duopoly of the American political system, a system that has kept our country in a downward spiral ever since Reagan entered the Oval Office, which is when the corporate takeover of our government was made official.
FYI- I am a Paul supporter. SOPA and PIPA are incredibly egregious, and again, Paul would be the only candidate to oppose them.
Unfortunately, Paul is incorrectly characterized as a lunatic, especially with regard to foreign policy. I don't know how to argue with people who refuse to look at Iran's history prior to the 1979 embassy takeover. Prior to that, the grandson of one of our most lauded presidents used the CIA and the Iranian thug class to overthrown a democratically elected leader and replace him with a dictator, complete with secret police, disappearing dissidents and torture rooms. All because the elected leader nationalized the country's oil industry- which was really only a problem for BRITAIN!! That dictator, the Shah, ruled from 1953 to 1979. Is it any wonder that Iran hates us? How long would take you or I to get over 26 years of rule by a puppet dictator?
The media, be it Fox News or the Shepherd Express, will never allow Ron Paul to get the nomination, much less be elected in the general. More than any entity, the media is desperately afraid of a third party. Thus, they give glowing coverage to a go-nowhere assembly of sweaty losers (Occupy) and relentlessly deride a well-organized, focused group like the Tea Party. Occupy is no threat at all to the status quo- just like Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama.
Here is where we disagree; the Tea Party was given much greater coverage by the national media than Occupy Wall Street. Tea Party events with 20 attendees received more coverage than Occupy events with 2,000 attendees. That isn’t to say that the coverage of the Tea Party was more positive, but they were definitely treated as a force to be reckoned with and given a level of respect not afforded to OWS (probably because they weren’t packing heat at their rallies like the Tea Party). This is also why I suspect the police didn’t resort to violence against the Tea Partiers the way they have with the Occupiers. As far as I’m concerned, the Occupy Wall Street movement is merely the second incarnation of the Tea Party movement; both are fueled by the same anger and feelings of betrayal. The Tea Party began as a legitimate movement against big government bailouts and in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve. The Tea Party was quickly co-opted by the likes of Karl Rove and the Koch brothers and the attention of the movement was directed toward Obamacare, which is really Romneycare who owes its origins to Bob Dole’s 1996 run for president where the idea of the individual mandate was first conceived. While I agree that Obamacare is a catastrophe and boils down to a handout of taxpayer money to the insurance cartels and big pharma, I believe there were more pressing issues at hand that the movement could have had an impact on. Now that same energy has been infused into OWS, minus the dirty corporate money. That isn’t to say there are not efforts underway by the Democrats and their financiers like George Soros to co-opt OWS the same way the Republicans and Koch Industries co-opted the Tea Party, but so far those efforts have been unsuccessful. Occupy has no leadership structure, which makes it difficult to form a coherent vision for the future, but it also makes it nearly impossible to corrupt because no one person or group of persons has been given all the power. I’m surprised to hear you don’t support OWS, especially since most are ardent Ron Paul supporters.
Um, only OWS events featured shootings, and the Tea Party events never required police intervention- they actually cleaned up after themselves. I have attended Tea Party rallies, and the OWS "event" in Milwaukee. There is simply no comparison. There was not a hint of racism or corrupt corporate money at the Tea Party rallies I attended. Nor was anyone brandishing a weapon, threatening to disrupt trade, traffic, or the general progression of daily life. You are a glowing example of the effects of biased media coverage of the two groups.
There are actual, real-life Tea Party legislators serving in Congress. OWS will never boast a similar success and is nothing near the second coming of the Tea Party, which is all but dead at this point anyway.
OWS protestors would find themselves unwelcome in the Paul camp. Never has he advocated for the forgiveness of student loans, the end of capitalism, or any of the other myriad gripes of these entitled OWS creeps. In fact, personal responsibility is the core of the Paul platform- and is anathema to the OWS sludge.
NOTE to the media: This is not to say that Ron Paul would destroy all safety nets in our modern society. He has repeatedly stated that, in fact, ending wars with countries we've provoked for decades would leave a lot of money to take care of those in need here at home. He'd just leave most of that to the states, not the Federal money-suck machine...