U.S. Presidential Race
January 3, 2012 - 4:49pm
blank
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
So, the big vote in Iowa takes place today.
Anyone want to offer predictions?
I think Rick Santorum may pull off a shocking upset tonight and actually win it. I think he's certain to come at least second place.
I also think tonight will spell the end of the Bachmann and Perry campaigns. Bachmann's support will likely shift to Santorum and Perry's support will likely split. Santorum will become the right wing / tea party alternative to Romney.
I still think Romney wins big in New Hampshire. After New Hampshire, I imagine that Huntsman and Gingrich both drop out. Ron Paul stays in but the race basically becomes a Santorum vs. Romney showdown heading into South Carolina.
Then, come November Obama will win in a squeaker.
What do the rest of y'all think?
Because you wanted to enter...
..and by golly you did.
Where is Iowa?
I dont get the hostility to the OP - I really don't.
I watched Santorum on Meet the Press this weekend. He makes my skin crawl.
In the wake of the Citizens United decision the emergence of the so-called "Super PACS" with their media blitzes apparently has really been felt in Iowa. So far, the special interests have been focussed on Gingrich, but speculation is that they will go after Santorum next.
I think Romney still faces an uphill battle getting many Conservatives to vote for him.
I dont get the hostility to the OP - I really don't.
What was hostile pookie? I really don't see where I was being hostile at all. Just a political junkie offering my predictions.
Mr.Tea, I think he meant why were we being hostile to you, and I think he misinterpreted our teasing as hostility. Like the U.S. elections, a comedy of errors.
I've been following US politics since Eisenhower, and, if you'll exuse my use of the vulgate, it gets more fucking nuts every year. Exponentially so I might add. Like really, it's gone from Dr. Strangelove to a bad Coen brothers movie way past anything The Onion could imagine as satire, right into the realm of methyl alchohol induced nightmares.
They should replace bloody Washington on their money with Edvard Munch's 'the Scream'!
I think Romney still faces an uphill battle getting many Conservatives to vote for him.
His perceived liberalism may be an issue, but it is not the real issue, IMO.
This is a rare occasion when I am actually thankful for the biases of fundamentalist Christians. If they didn't see him as a devil worshipper I am sure they'd be all over him. As it is, I am sure there are many of them who will stay home for that reason.
This would be the bible-thumping republican chickens coming home to roost.
(edit)
Come to think of it, the last time I remember this being an issue was over Kennedy's Catholicism.
I know no one was concerned about Richard Nixon's Quaker faith getting in the way of the war effort.
Ok, oldgoat, I've flagged you!!
I predict (for Iowa):
1. Ron Paul
2. Mitt Romney
3. Rick Santorum
I don't think Paul has a chance to win the nomination but I think he could also do well in New Hampshire and stay in the campaign a while. I find many of his views repugnant, but I hope he can stay in the race quite a while. I think his campaign is decreasing what credibility the MSM still has, and I think he is promoting some very important ideas. I would love to see Obama vs. Paul but can't imagine it could happen. I hope he goes for an independent run to stay in the spotlight.
I think Mitt Romney will be the nominee and I think Obama will win.
I doubt Rick Santorum has much chance of doing well beyond Iowa, even though he could get more of the evangelical vote, and stay in the race as their voice.
I think whoever does better between Gingrich and Perry will stay in the race as the primary Not-Romney. I don't think either are credible candidates, but they are not Romney.
I don't see how the Republicans can fully unite around a candidate.
I think the only potential early primary results that could be viewed as "good for Republicans" would be if Ron Paul does poorly and quietly goes away.
I would love to see Obama vs. Paul but can't imagine it could happen. I hope he goes for an independent run to stay in the spotlight.
I was watching someone on CNN suggest Ron Paul will split the Repug vote badly if he stays in as an Independent.
I've been following US politics since Eisenhower, and, if you'll exuse my use of the vulgate, it gets more fucking nuts every year.
Someone described it as like a bad sitcom but without any main characters, just composed entirely of the wacky comic relief neighbours
I think Romney still faces an uphill battle getting many Conservatives to vote for him.
His perceived liberalism may be an issue, but it is not the real issue, IMO.
This is a rare occasion when I am actually thankful for the biases of fundamentalist Christians. If they didn't see him as a devil worshipper I am sure they'd be all over him. As it is, I am sure there are many of them who will stay home for that reason.
This would be the bible-thumping republican chickens coming home to roost.
(edit)
Come to think of it, the last time I remember this being an issue was over Kennedy's Catholicism.
I know no one was concerned about Richard Nixon's Quaker faith getting in the way of the war effort.
Oh I definitely think the Mormonism is a problem for him. But his more liberal past is an equally serious obstacle among primary voters, and the punditocracy.
And Romney being Mr. 1% is an obstacle among some tea party voters, also part of the unravelling Repug coalition.
Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins - by Matt Taibbi
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/9252-focus-iowa-the-meani...
"The 2012 presidential race officially begins Tuesday with the caucuses in Iowa, and we all know what that means
....Nothing."
Season of the Fascist: Watching the Ron Paul Campaign Humanise the Face of White Supremacist Politics
http://indigenist.blogspot.com/2012/01/election-2012-season-of-fascist.h...
"...Wake up and smell the coffee before it quietly morphs into the stench of roasting skin..."
I'm watching the coverage on CNN and suppressing giggles every time I hear the phrase "Santorum surges". If you don't get it, look up what dan Savage did to the name "Santorum"...
David Letterman really doesn't like Gingrich, and really mocked him tonight, calling him a "whiny ass___" live on air. Earlier, I watched a bit of Gincrich's closing speech on CNN, and he was pretty pissed off at Romney, and he's taking out attack ads against Romney tomorrow in New Hampshire. The Grinch has a short fuse. All of the Repub candidates make my skin crawl except Huntsman, and he got just 1% tonight.
Huntsman didn't campaign in Iowa at all, focused all his energy on New Hampshire. He'll do better there but it won't be enough. He's too smart and sane for the Republican base..
I watched Huntsman on one of the late night talk shows, he impressed me with his lucidity, and humbleness. He apparently speaks fluid Mandarin, from his days as Ambassador to China - during the Reagan years?
LOL Spector!
Shows that Darrow backed the wrong side in the Scopes case as well. The photo proves that the governing force in evolution is unnatural selection.
Romney will be the nominee. If for no other reason than there's no one else. Bachman is dropping out today. Perry may soon follow. Santorum is a joke. Paul will never get the nomination. There's only room for one Mormon in the race, so Hunstman is out. Gingrich is the only other possibility, but he has so much baggage, tends to make outrageous statements, and is totally unlikeable.
It seems like they'll take the least batshit sounding stooge with even half a shot...even if he is a Mormon...on the premise that Republican/Tea Party/evangelical voters will, when the chips are down, vote for someone like Romney with all of his faults rather than....you know...that guy in the White House.
And I'm sorry, but I can't read Rick Santorum's name without thinking of this. (NSFW)
Euwwwwwww.
@ SJ #25
Some will, I am sure.
But I am also sure there are plenty in the rapture and mark of the beast crowd who will simply refuse to vote for him.
Of course, this was not an issue for George Romney back in 1972, but those were different times.
For that matter (considering issues that have dogged Barack Obama), the fact that Romney was born in Mexico was not an issue either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
Well, here's to learning something new every day. Mitt Romney...the son of Mexican immigrants.
I watched Huntsman on one of the late night talk shows, he impressed me with his lucidity, and humbleness. He apparently speaks fluid Mandarin, from his days as Ambassador to China - during the Reagan years?
No, he was actually Barack Obama's ambassador to China. That's partially what hurt him, the sense that he was "too close" to Obama. I actually think it's rather noble that he would put aside partisanship in order to serve the president in an important role but, then again, I'm not some nutty tea partier who thinks that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist out to destroy America.
He learned Mandarin cause he grew up Mormon (but no longer really practices) and did some missionary work there before going to university.
Huntsman strikes me as likely the most intelligent and qualified of the candidates. But because he doesn't foam at the mouth about Obama, believes in evolution, dares to acknowledge climate change and brought in gay civil unions as governor and doesn't run away from his record like Romney does, he has little chance. The Romney from 10 or 15 years ago was actually pretty decent as far as Republicans go. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, brought in healthcare, etc. But he ran from his track record faster than Usain Bolt...
An actual revolution going on under your noses and you are all too blind by your bias to see it. Activists? Gimme a break!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k8Imw91fQQ&feature=related
not to be repetitive, but what the hey:
Obama will be re-elected
An actual revolution going on under your noses and you are all too blind by your bias to see it. Activists? Gimme a break!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k8Imw91fQQ&feature=related
Actually, by army regulation, he shouldn't be in uniform for that interview... he could get in trouble for that.
Good for him!
The GOP Savages Itself, While Wall Street Backs the Black Guy, Again - by Glen Ford
http://blackagendareport.com/content/gop-savages-itself-while-wall-stree...
"The Republican presidential campaign has been relegated to a sideshow in the American powergame. The white nationalist masses recoil at the scent of Wall Street denizens like Mitt Romney. A deeper atavism is at play in Republican ranks, a far less malleable strain of reaction that is no respecter of the GOP establishment's brand of bling.
Wall Street money is once again betting on Obama, the man that delivered them resurrection from the 2008 meltdown and a pipeline in perpetuity to the financial innards of the US treasury..."
Good for him!
What, getting in trouble or voting for Ron Paul?
CNN reported that Perry had stepped down, but then he got a call from a Super PAC, and he's back in.
"...The lack of skin in the game may explain why Willard Mitt Romney is so coy about releasing his income tax returns. It would also make sense for someone with $264 million in net worth to joke that he is 'unemployed', as if he were some jobless sheet metal worker in Youngstown, when he is really saying in code that his income stream is not a salary subject to payroll deduction. The chances are good that his effective rate for both federal income and payroll taxes is lower than that of many a wage slave.
The real joke is on the rest of us. After the biggest financial meltdown in 80 years - a meltdown caused by the type of rogue financial manipulation that Romney embodies - and a consequent long, steep drop in the American standard of living, who is the putative front-runner for one of the only two parties allowed to be competitive in American politics? None other than Mitt Romney, the man who says corporations are people.
Opposing him, or someone like him, will be the incumbent president Barack Obama, who will raise up to a billion dollars to compete in the campaign. Much of that loot will come from the same corporations, hedge fund managers, merger and acquisition specialists and leveraged buyout artists the president will denounce in pro-forma fashion during the campaign..."
Have the Super Rich Seceded From the United States? by Mike Lofgren
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/05/have-the-super-rich-seceded-from-...
Santorum and the Grinch are both under fire on CNN right now for denigrating African Americans.
That Matt Taibbi article from post #17 sums up my feelings perfectly. The presidential race could not be less relevant to what's really happening in the world. That said, it would be very entertaining if it were possible for Ron Paul to win the nomination. Can you imagine Obama forced to campaign as the pro-war candidate?
I love the comment by one political commentator after the results on Tuesday.
'From Bachmann to Santoram....Republican B.S.
'nuff said!
Based on their voting records, we can already classify them as accessories to mass murder.
in more serious news, support for my view that 2012 could potentially be an Obama landslide:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/business/economy/us-adds-200000-jobs-unemployment-rate-at-8-5.html?ref=global-home
It was the sixth consecutive month that the economy showed a net gain of more than 100,000 jobs - not enough to restore employment to prerecession levels but enough, perhaps, to cheer President Obama as he enters the election year.
The sustained run of positives had economists like Markus Schomer, of PineBridge Investments, feeling much more optimistic than they did back in August, after a spring and summer of lost economic ground and a demoralizing debate over the debt ceiling.
At that time, Mr. Schomer thought, as many did, that government dysfunction was paralyzing the economy. Now, he is ratcheting up his growth forecast for 2012.
"The improving trend in the U.S. labor markets is not just a temporary blip, but seems to be something quite sustainable," he said, adding that the improvement had come despite continued Washington gridlock.
Among the pieces of good news in Friday's report: the drop in the jobless rate came largely from real gains, not from discouraged workers giving up the job hunt. The new jobs were spread broadly across industries, with transportation and warehousing, retail, manufacturing and restaurants all hiring.
Ron Paul's Useful Idiots on the Left
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion/277-75/9309-ron-pauls-useful-...
"If you told a liberal in 2008 that progressives ought to give Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul a chance because he was the most anti-war candidate on the ballot, you would have been laughed out of the room - or, more likely the bar.
But in 2012, some prominent (and white male) progressives are arguing exactly that. What's changed? Not Ron Paul, that's for certain."
Ron Paul's Useful Idiots on the Left
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion/277-75/9309-ron-pauls-useful-...
"If you told a liberal in 2008 that progressives ought to give Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul a chance because he was the most anti-war candidate on the ballot, you would have been laughed out of the room - or, more likely the bar.
But in 2012, some prominent (and white male) progressives are arguing exactly that. What's changed? Not Ron Paul, that's for certain."
What's changed? Obama.
"Most Passionate Arguments of 2011" Alex Jones, Dylan Ratigan and Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeesqxEYC14
If you told a liberal in 2008 that progressives ought to give Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul a chance because he was the most anti-war candidate on the ballot, you would have been laughed out of the room - or, more likely the bar.
I don't believe that's true. There were many U.S. and Canadian "liberals" - some posting right here on babble back in 2008 and earlier - who thought Ron Paul was their hero.
I love the comment by one political commentator after the results on Tuesday.
'From Bachmann to Santoram....Republican B.S.
Ooh! I just got it! B for Bachmann and S for Santorum! Ha!
Well, it looks like Mr. Frothy Mixture of Lube and Fecal Matter didn't do so well this time around...
Mitt ("corporations are people too") Romney has won the New Hampshire Republican primary with 38% of the vote.
Ron (let's turn the government into a privatized post offfice box) Paul came in second with 23.6%
Jon Huntsman 16.7%, Newt (contract on America) Gingrich 9.8%, Rick Santorum 9.7%
Here's the NPR liveblog
THis has been making the rounds on facebook:
If you told a liberal in 2008 that progressives ought to give Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul a chance because he was the most anti-war candidate on the ballot, you would have been laughed out of the room - or, more likely the bar.
I don't believe that's true. There were many U.S. and Canadian "liberals" - some posting right here on babble back in 2008 and earlier - who thought Ron Paul was their hero.
I sure wasn't one. Saying good things on foreign policy and civil liberties is nice, but they're dwarfed by his totally reactionary views on economic issues.
As for the race itself, Romney has it wrapped up. But libertarians need not fear because former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is running for the Libertarian nomination.
The only quasi-unique contribution of left-wing politics to Ron Paul's ideology, according to the Venn diagram above, is opposition to NAFTA. But even there, the left and Ron Paul come at the issue from opposite sides.
The left opposition to NAFTA is anti-imperialist, rooted in a rejection of neoliberal "free-trade" schemes that are designed to allow for the smooth functioning of international capital in its pursuit of the highest profit margins available at the expense of working people, while Ron Paul's objection is primarily to the de-industrialization of America resulting from the offshoring of jobs and production infrastructure that is part and parcel of free trade. It's essentially a form of imperialist protectionism, and represents the interests of a significant minority of the U.S. capitalist class.
Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Bachmann action figures
and the Canadian version...LEGO-MAN!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/01/11/ottawa-stephen-har...
US Rep: Death of Iran Experts Wonderful
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/220712.html
"On occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that's a wonderful thing, candidly,' said Rick Santorum addressing an election campaign in Greenville.."
Many of the Democrats supporting Paul are young liberals who don't really give a crap about the economy, and, as such, Pauls conservative positions regarding the economy. Most just care that he's against the war, for legalization of drugs, and probably the most important, for same-sex marriage at the state level, something Obama has said time and time again he is completely and always will be against. As a voter, you have to decide what issues are important for you, and chose the candidate that most closely resembles your views. I'm sure many of the people who voted Obama in 2008 did not agree with his stand against gay marriage, but that didn't stop them from voting for him. Same thing goes for Paul and his supporters.
I doubt there are very many liberal USians of any age who "don't really give a crap about the economy", and the few that there are are all wealthy and don't need to worry where their next paycheque is coming from.
I think Paul's ideas about the eliminating the Federal Reserve and moving to a gold standard appeal to a lot of people. I don't think these people think about it too much--but they want a money system that is based on something. The way that the USA has been dealing with its problems by just printing more money is not sustainable and people can see it. Ron Paul is a protest vote.
Huntsman is about to drop out and endorse Romney, who has a huge lead in South Carolina. It's now pretty certain Romney will be the nominee.
Colbert Super PAC Ad - Mitt the Ripper
"If corporations are people then Mitt Romney is a serial killer"
Huntsman is about to drop out and endorse Romney, who has a huge lead in South Carolina. It's now pretty certain Romney will be the nominee.
I don't think it is certain. Also, if he does win the nomination he will need Paul to beat Obama. Lots more action to come.
The only person who can still beat Romney is Santorum and he's so far back and lacks money and organization. It would take Gingrich and Perry's supporters flocking en masse to him to beat Romney and it may be too late for that. Could still happen, as there's a large segment of the party who just won't support Romney.
If Paul runs as a third party candidate, that guarantees an Obama victory. Of course, Paul's supporters generally hate Obama and don't want to to create a "Ralph Nader" effect.
I wonder if Republican Representative Ron Paul, the apparently nothing in common with the Republicans Ron Paul, has a Republican think tank's hand up inside him to a great extent? Someone to round up the complainers who know too much already, but who would still listen to someone talking outside the beltway language, and who, to the pleasant surprise of everyone involved perhaps, managed to sweep in a few disgruntled leftists who similarly know too much - by promising a few things that incidentally appears on everyone's list? In the end nothing can happen through him. As President his program would enjoy no support in Congress, being effectively neutered by both sides. He doesn't actually draw anything away from the whole, but draws it back in. He doesn't seem to have any other purpose, but as a party they still tolerate his idiosyncrasies and heresies regarding support to Israel.
Chomsky on Ron Paul (and vid)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30251.htm
"Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him.
But his policies are off the wall..."
I think Paul's ideas about the eliminating the Federal Reserve and moving to a gold standard appeal to a lot of people. I don't think these people think about it too much--but they want a money system that is based on something.
Yes, monetarist economic theory does have appeal for people who don't think too much.
I think Paul's ideas about the eliminating the Federal Reserve and moving to a gold standard appeal to a lot of people. I don't think these people think about it too much--but they want a money system that is based on something.
Yes, monetarist economic theory does have appeal for people who don't think too much.
People sure think about it when you tell them the Fed gave the crooked banks 16 trillion. Chomsky said "some of his policies are off the wall" jut like many of Obama's policies are off the wall, like assassinating US citizens
The Racism Dance
The Drug War's documented race-tainted enforcement practices drives facts like blacks comprising 25% of Iowa's state prison population despite blacks there representing just 2.9% of that state's population.
Another answer to that question of why Ron not Rick or Newt lies embedded in America's historic refusal to earnestly address racism especially pernicious institutional racism. Dancing around racism, individual and institutional, is as American as apple pie.
America's Last Chance? - by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/16/americas-last-chance
"Why is Ron Paul America's last chance? Because he is the only candidate who is not owned lock, stock and barrel by the Military-Security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby..."
Tim Wise on Ron Paul
Yet to the so-called progressives who sing the praises of Ron Paul, all because of his views on domestic spying, bailouts for banksters, and military intervention abroad, the fact that 90 percent of his political platform is right-wing boilerplate about slashing taxes on the rich, slashing programs for the poor and working class, breaking unions, drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere, and privatizing everything from retirement programs to health care doesn't matter: the fact that he'll ostensibly legalize drugs is enough. And this is so, even though he has merely said he would leave drug laws up to the states (which means 49 separate drug wars, everywhere except maybe Vermont, so ya know, congrats hippies!), and he would oppose spending public money on drug rehab or education, both of which you'd need more of if drugs were legalized, but why let little details like that bother you?
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...
....
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.
Tim Wise on Ron Paul
Yet to the so-called progressives who sing the praises of Ron Paul, all because of his views on domestic spying, bailouts for banksters, and military intervention abroad, the fact that 90 percent of his political platform is right-wing boilerplate about slashing taxes on the rich, slashing programs for the poor and working class, breaking unions, drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere, and privatizing everything from retirement programs to health care doesn't matter: the fact that he'll ostensibly legalize drugs is enough. And this is so, even though he has merely said he would leave drug laws up to the states (which means 49 separate drug wars, everywhere except maybe Vermont, so ya know, congrats hippies!), and he would oppose spending public money on drug rehab or education, both of which you'd need more of if drugs were legalized, but why let little details like that bother you?
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...
....
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.
Worth repeating.
Who Are the Victims of Civil Liberties Assaults and Endless War? (and vid) - by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/16/who_are_the_victims_of_civil_liberties_a...
"...Here is the 55 minute discussion I had with Pollitt this weekend, one which, as I indicated, I thought was quite constructive and hopefully illuminated the key points.."
Ron Paul's Racism Isn't the Worst Thing About Him - by Kenneth Quinnell
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/ron-pauls-racism-isnt-worst-t...
"Yes, even on war and foreign policy, Paul still votes the wrong way more than half the time.."
sure glad I don't do elections...especially this one.
In case there are any Canadians reading, the TSA is the Transportation Security Administration in the United States.
It seems like they'll take the least batshit sounding stooge with even half a shot...even if he is a Mormon...on the premise that Republican/Tea Party/evangelical voters will, when the chips are down, vote for someone like Romney with all of his faults rather than....you know...that guy in the White House.
And of course the unspoken assumption in Republican ranks - now that the token black "businessman" has faded, it's really"that...you know...that black guy in the White House." Ever since the southern "Christian" vote - historically behind the folks who opposed Lincoln - switched over Civil Rights. It's a nation that dare not repeat that truth, that lives with it as just another of the monstrous contradictions that they desperately try to paper over. How Noam Chomsky can resist breaking out in laughter during those oh so serious question and answer sessions, boggles the mind.
You are right. Ron Paul should drop out now and quit talking about the war-mongering, racial inequality in drug policy, infringements on civil liberties, the FEd handing trillions to the banks while devaluing the US dollar,
It would be a much better race if he wasn't in it. Those debates would have such better content. I am sure that Romney Obama debate will be so interesting.
He is a force for good and is raising public debate. end of story. He has a graveyard in his closet with those newsletters but no candidate will ever be perfect and at least he disavows them unlike the other racists in the GOP like Gingrich, Santorum
the least batshit sounding stooge with even half a shot
Hey you better copywrite this before Team Romney uses it as a slogan.
Personally, I have no interest in Ron Paul. He may have some specific policies with which I agree, but his foundation for those positions are completely different than mine. It is no different than any other issue where you have strange bedfellows.
I think Tim Wise puts forward a good argument in putting Paul's entire platform on the balance. The fact Paul might have a unique position in some things is far from the whole story.
I could do without Wise's moralizing about how I can look people in the eye, though. If he has arguments and evidence I am all ears, but guilt trips about my credibility and empowering issues I don't support are a load of crap. I'll make those value judgments for myself, thank you.
I can't think of a candidate I have voted for with whom I agree on every issue; I am sure any person who thought they did has wound up disappointed. The important thing, as Wise correctly points out, is to look at the whole platform and make the best choice you can.
I would never vote for Ron Paul or advocate that others do but I think he's saying a lot of important things and I think it is a very good thing that he is in the race.
I'd love to see Ron Paul make an independent run in order to keep highlighting some of these issues. I would love to see Ron Paul debate Obama on the war.
I always felt Romney was the only one in that rat pack that had an honest:) chance of beating Obama. Govenor of historic liberal bastion, home of the despised Kennedy clan, definitely not a frothing so-con, notwithstanding what he may have said for expediency sake.
So, he can definitely take not only fiscal conservatives but alot of liberal votes as well. I don't think the millionare thing will hurt him too badly as isn't that a requirement for the presidency? When did the U.S. last vote in someone in who wasn't a millionare?
I was hoping that kook Newt or Santorum got in but I guess the so-cons might be crazy, but they aren't stupid. Like Jon Stewart has said, Romney has to be the most presidential LOOKING guy he has ever seen, lol. So Obama may have an actual fight on his hands once the repubs realize Romney is actually someone who could pull it off and rally behind him.
All of which is bad news for Iran.
I would never vote for Ron Paul or advocate that others do but I think he's saying a lot of important things and I think it is a very good thing that he is in the race.
It's not a "very good thing". It's a symptom of the disgraceful depths to which US political discourse has sunk that right-wing scumbags are attracting naive progressive voters with their "libertarian" rhetoric.
I'd much prefer to see a debate where Obama has to face someone who really is an opponent of imperialist wars and who can expose the hypocrisy and duplicity of Ron Paul and Obama alike. Someone like Ralph Nader, for example.
It's not the end of the world that progressives share views with libertarians. I think it is good that Paul is in the race and I think it is a step forward that people are considering his ideas. Now when the Romney is chosen as the candidate and Paul takes his spot as a loyal Republican supporter, there will be room for progressives to advance a candidate.
Well said
It's not the end of the world that progressives share views with libertarians.
No, but you have to be able to go on from there and actually do something. I think what is more important is the core beliefs that produce those platforms.
I could see supporting or working with a politician or group if wehave some common viewpoint and understanding, even though we have strong disagreements on other things.
On the other hand, when I think of an issue like opposition to pornography. There are people on opposing ends of the spectrum who hold that value, How likely do you think it is that they will ever be able to agree or cooperate on anything?
Not that I disregard everything Paul is saying, but when I look at all of his values, I don't see any common ground.
And the fact that he might not be bought and paid for doesn't have much relevance, as far as I see it. He could still be a complete fuckup.
Paul is a racist. There's no getting beyond that. His policies would usher in a new age of economic tyranny and security state repression to deal with all the unrest that would rise up to greet his presidency.
and the present 'usher' already has that new age well underway...and has paid the banksuckers and fixers more than generously from the people's money to continue with more of the same.
If you drew a Venn diagram of the main political philosophies you will find that they overlap one another with very few exceptions.
The issue is not that Paul supports something that we support therefore we need to get behind him. Of course not. The good news in the story is that Americans after decades of living within a narrow political spectrum are pushing the boundaries. Now the job of progressives in the US is to take advantage of this. Just like Preston Manning was able to quote Tommy Douglas and scoop up NDP votes across Western Canada, a focussed progressive campaign could gather up much of Paul's support.
I also think that with the rise of libertarianism will come an equal and opposite reaction from the left, it is just not clear what form it will take
If it's to equal libertarianism but from the left, I can't say there's much pleasure in imagining what form it could take given the historical precedence.
I would never vote for Ron Paul or advocate that others do but I think he's saying a lot of important things and I think it is a very good thing that he is in the race.
It's not a "very good thing". It's a symptom of the disgraceful depths to which US political discourse has sunk that right-wing scumbags are attracting naive progressive voters with their "libertarian" rhetoric.
Yeah but all that is true whether Ron Paul is in the race or not.
I'd much prefer to see a debate where Obama has to face someone who really is an opponent of imperialist wars and who can expose the hypocrisy and duplicity of Ron Paul and Obama alike. Someone like Ralph Nader, for example.
Yeah that's not going to happen, unfortunately.
Tim Wise on Ron Paul
"Well, he might be a little racist, but...
....
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.
By the same token, am I not supporting homophobia, heterosexism, and against marriage equality for same-sex couples if I support Obama? Better yet, am I not an avid supporter of the war, and the killing of thousands of civillians in the middle east if I support Obama? Following this lunatic's logic, the answer is yes.
Ordinary Evil (1) : Just Admit that You're Voting for Hitler, Okay? - by Arthur Silber
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/01/ordinary-evil-i-just-admit-...
"...What Americans refuse to acknowledge, is that to vote for either the democratic or Republican nominee for president later this year is to vote for these horrors. It is TO SUPPORT them.
(I consider it impossible that Ron Paul will be the Republican nominee, whatever your view of his candidacy might be. If by some miracle he were, he would never be elected. The ruling class, including its indispensible ancillary component, the media complex, will not permit it. I don't consider this an arguable point, not in THIS world.)
Tens of millions of Americans will vote for the Democrat or Republican nominees for president. They will not understand that they are supporting EVIL. And the murders go on, and they increase in number. Later on, those who manage to survive will be heard to say, 'But we never knew it could come to that.'
No, evil does not come to us proclaiming its true nature. Evil is not committed only by screaming, psychopathic maniacs. Most of the time, and certainly in the beginning, it seems completely ordinary. It is, as Auden said, 'unspectacular and always human.' It appears to be entirely normal.
The greatest danger is not the person whom you view as obviously 'CRAZY'. The greatest danger is the person you regard as normal, thoughtful and well spoken, the person who CLAIMS to be opposed to the horror and who says he's on YOUR side...
To be continued very soon. "
Quiz question - who said the following?
The term "racism" is thrown around loosely these days. Sometimes it applies, and sometime it does not. I define the term as (1) the defining and disparaging of a whole people due primarily to its racial, ethnic, or religious makeup, which leads to (2) the desire to deny an individual or group full rights in the civic community, and (3) the related impulse to see some harm come to an individual through private or public means. The terms "racism" or "racist" could apply to one or all of the above.
With this definition in mind, it should be clear that racism is a problem that begins with a denial of individualism. A racist believes that some group trait always trumps all individual traits. This is the first error, and it stems from a desire to simplify the reality of group heterogeneity (people really are different) for the sake of convenience or quick thinking.
I'm not talking about the universal tendency to generalize based on particular circumstances of time and place. This is part of the expectations that we develop based on observed behavior of group solidarity. And of course people act with group solidarity. If you doubt it, watch any sports match and see the way many thousands can simultaneously cheer for a team. It is not racism, of course, to expect the fans of one team to cheer if their team makes a point. But if you believe that this shared interest of a group obliterates individual differences, or that individual differences do not matter at all by comparison to the group trait, we see the beginnings of a racist cast of mind.
@ NDPP
That's quite funny, actually, considering he goes on for the first third of the piece railing about analytical imprecision, and ends by telling me that Obama is Hitler and he can kill me and as many other people as he wants to.
Nothing like cranking the amp up to 11 to make everything as clear as mud.
I think I get the pointthat he doesn't support voting, which is his privilege, but is he saying we should not pay attention to candidates' platforms, or war crimes because some people make false assumptions, and because the president is Hitler?
Perhaps he assumes we can't walk and chew gum at the same time too,
The good news in the story is that Americans after decades of living within a narrow political spectrum are pushing the boundaries. Now the job of progressives in the US is to take advantage of this. Just like Preston Manning was able to quote Tommy Douglas and scoop up NDP votes across Western Canada, a focussed progressive campaign could gather up much of Paul's support.
The boundaries are being pushed in the wrong direction. Opposition to war, for example, is not something that sits exclsusively on one side of the political spectrum.
And your Preston Manning example is 180° the wrong one to support your point. Ron Paul is the Prestion Manning of the US, and just as the Reformatories "scooped up NDP votes across Western Canada" Ron Paul is doing the same with weak-minded "progressives" in the USA.
This to you is the "good news"?
And the last time we had advice from you about the job of US "progressives" it was to "take advantage" of the election of Obomba. How's that project going, by the way?
Yeah that's not going to happen, unfortunately.
And I could have said that when you wished for a debate between Obomba and Ron Paul.
At least my unlikely wishes make political sense. ETA: Let me rephrase that:
At least when I make wishes they are for something better, not something worse.
By the same token, am I not supporting homophobia, heterosexism, and against marriage equality for same-sex couples if I support Obama? Better yet, am I not an avid supporter of the war, and the killing of thousands of civillians in the middle east if I support Obama? Following this lunatic's logic, the answer is yes.
Duh!
Yes most of what Ron Paul says scares the hell out of me, concerning Austrian economics and the free market
But it is the stuff that Obama doesn't tell me that scares me the most
Honesty has to be a factor in this and even Chomsky admits that Paul is honest
So it doesn't matter what he says and does, so long as he tells the truth all the time? Sorry, but his policies, values and actions are much more important to me.
And on that question of honesty, the fact that Noam Chomsky says something does not make it true. Do a bit of internet searching and there are enough people claiming Paul has not always been truthful.
So it doesn't matter what he says and does, so long as he tells the truth all the time? Sorry, but his policies, values and actions are much more important to me.
And on that question of honesty, the fact that Noam Chomsky says something does not make it true. Do a bit of internet searching and there are enough people claiming Paul has not always been truthful.
If politicans don't tell the truth it doesn't matter what ideology they are,
Has Paul ever told a lie? Probably, but he sure isn't shrinking from the truth in those debates and I applaud him for it
A lot of liberals were taken in by the guy whose program called for total confiscation of all war profits, the nationalization of all corporate enterprises, profit-sharing in large enterprises,and the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
Still, at least he was honest, and he was saying a lot of important things. It was "a very good thing that he [was] in the race".
Yeah, yeah, Hitler wanted to take over the world, Paul wants to retreat from the world, big difference
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/10581-poll-gop-voter...
That is what I call progress
Honesty is all well and good. But I'd rather have a dishonest campaign that led to good policies than an honest one that led to bad policies.
In any event, very, very few progressives are supporting Paul. Nearly all, while appreciative of many of his views on civil liberties and foreign policy, know that his view on the political economy are off the wall.
Yeah, yeah, Hitler wanted to take over the world, Paul wants to retreat from the world, big difference
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/10581-poll-gop-voter...
That is what I call progress
Well, Paul did make the statement that he wanted to be able to say, "We are all Austrians now."
A lot of liberals were taken in by the guy whose program called for total confiscation of all war profits, the nationalization of all corporate enterprises, profit-sharing in large enterprises,and the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
Still, at least he was honest, and he was saying a lot of important things. It was "a very good thing that he [was] in the race".
Not everyone you dislike is Hitler. Also, Godwin's Law.
I didn't say Ron Paul is Hitler. The comparison I was making was between the liberal doofuses who praise Ron Paul because he says a couple of things they think they agree with, and the liberal doofuses from 90 years ago who had the same attitude towards the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Why wouldn't you praise someone who says something you agree with?
What's that whooshing sound?
Silber is right. Paul hasn't a chance. Liberals will again be taken in by Obama.
I didn't say Ron Paul is Hitler. The comparison I was making was between the liberal doofuses who praise Ron Paul because he says a couple of things they think they agree with, and the liberal doofuses from 90 years ago who had the same attitude towards the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Got it. You weren't analogizing Ron Paul to Hitler, you were analogizing him to the NSDAP. I can't imagine how I got confused.
Liberals will again be taken in by Obama.
No, not taken in. Fully aware not to expect much of anything from Obama, but using him to block a Republican congress from dismantling every federal social program, and every federal regulatory agency, in sight.
Silber is right. Paul hasn't a chance. Liberals will again be taken in by Obama.
Again, is the fact that Obama is not the president of our dreams any reason why we should not take a critical look at Ron Paul and the complete range of his policies?
After all, how independent can he be if he is running for the nomination of the Republican Party?
And for the sake of argument, even if he were, would you really want to make him the most powerful person in the world based on that, plus a bit of isolationism (which has always been the fallback position for the U.S.)?
As between syphillis and gonorrhea I choose none of the above. Obama is an actually existing dangerous and malevolent global catastrophe. Paul is a distraction not an alternative to that. As between syphilis and gonorrhea I choose none of the above. I don't vote. But a plague upon all their houses...
Too long.