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.
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
Curiously for a candidate tagged racist Paul has a public record of opposing the most racist governmental offensive in contemporary America - the War on Drugs - that societally destructive campaign other GOP presidential candidates ignore.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..."
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.
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 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'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
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 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'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.
"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?
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
