On Progressives: Obama vs Paul

[Enki]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... singleton/

Clearly Ron Paul is more Progressive than Barack Obama.

[Mr. Perfect]

You and your labels.

Poorly written article, lots of fluff, and all I can say is if a guy who is very pro life, for gun freedom, slashing gov't agencies and entitlements, taxes and T&A/TSA is now considered progressive then I say welcome aboard.

[crashtech]

Just don't say Communist where Enki can hear.

To the extent Paul is a Progressive, call me one also.

[crashtech]

Also, I am reading the article, so far I don't have the same criticisms as Mr. Prefect. I appreciate the perspective it brings.

I did not ever think that I would say that it might be true that neocons are actively working against the interests of the US.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well it is a long article and I don't want to put in the work to parse it, but among the problems is the rambling beginning wherein really outdated and false liberal memes are established as a foundation, eg GWB and the whole with us or against us bit. He bafflingly opposes "targeting" of Muslims but I did not see him say one word about T&A/TSA, which targets and violates us all.

Later, he is holding onto the really false notion that "progressives" are anti-war in some way, that is largely a false creation that is less than a decade old and has no basis in reality. The left has always vitriolically opposed Republican foreign policy and has always remained silent when Democrats do the exact same things. So he does not have a grasp of reality there.

So his confusion is somewhat understandable when he confusedly can't understand why Obama "gets away with it" and RP isn't gaining any traction.


The anti-war people for the most part were all liars, politically cashing in on the blood of the soldiers of their supposed home country.

[monster_gardener]

You and your labels.

Poorly written article, lots of fluff, and all I can say is if a guy who is very pro life, for gun freedom, slashing gov't agencies and entitlements, taxes and T&A/TSA is now considered progressive then I say welcome aboard.

Thank you VERY Much Tinker for the thread & link.

Thank you Very Much, Mr. Perfect for your posts too.

I agree that there was too much wordage especially at the beginning BUT after that IMVHO Mr. Greenwald has it right and seems to be an honest man/truth teller. He echos your criticisms of Obama and many of the Democrats...........

I was rather surprised and pleased to see him mention Gary Johnson as a Ron Paul without the bad baggage: something I have said............

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The Democrats and Republicans become indistinguishable with a breakdown of their original distinctions. We are hampered because instead of facing obsolescence, the parties continue as zombie apparatuses with a cognitive dissonance in the average citizen which won't hold.

[crashtech]

Won't hold? It's been holding for quite a while. Do you see some tipping point in sight?

[Enki]

You and your labels.

Poorly written article, lots of fluff, and all I can say is if a guy who is very pro life, for gun freedom, slashing gov't agencies and entitlements, taxes and T&A/TSA is now considered progressive then I say welcome aboard.

Thank you VERY Much Tinker for the thread & link.

Thank you Very Much, Mr. Perfect for your posts too.

I agree that there was too much wordage especially at the beginning BUT after that IMVHO Mr. Greenwald has it right and seems to be an honest man/truth teller. He echos your criticisms of Obama and many of the Democrats...........

I was rather surprised and pleased to see him mention Gary Johnson as a Ron Paul without the bad baggage: something I have said............

Mr. Perfect will disagree with his own opinion if voiced by a Democrat.

[Mr. Perfect]

You know Tinker, you have stumbled across a profound revelation in our differences, and how we perceive each other.

If a Democrat voices my opinion, it's not that I will disagree with him, it's that I won't believe him.

[Mr. Perfect]

You and your labels.

Poorly written article, lots of fluff, and all I can say is if a guy who is very pro life, for gun freedom, slashing gov't agencies and entitlements, taxes and T&A/TSA is now considered progressive then I say welcome aboard.

Thank you VERY Much Tinker for the thread & link.

Thank you Very Much, Mr. Perfect for your posts too.

I agree that there was too much wordage especially at the beginning BUT after that IMVHO Mr. Greenwald has it right and seems to be an honest man/truth teller. He echos your criticisms of Obama and many of the Democrats...........

I was rather surprised and pleased to see him mention Gary Johnson as a Ron Paul without the bad baggage: something I have said............

MG, I will say that the latter half is much better than I gave the impression. I generally discount a lot of the left when they talk about this sort of thing, and this fellow deserves some discounting because in the end he will vote for Obama. And he left quite a few things off the list, notably the T&A/TSA and the non-pullout from Iraq. There are so many now, so many, maybe he just forgot.

[Enki]

You know Tinker, you have stumbled across a profound revelation in our differences, and how we perceive each other.

If a Democrat voices my opinion, it's not that I will disagree with him, it's that I won't believe him.

Yes, and I finally came to the root of why your politics are morally bereft. Because it's not about what someone actually believes in or what philosophical standpoint he'd be good for, it only matters what constituency you think he appeals to. As you probably assume that all partisans on the other side are your equal and opposite, I can see why you would have trouble trusting under such conditions.

I definitely know Democrats who hate and distrust Republicans for superstitious reasons too, they are mostly nice people, so you are in good company.

[crashtech]

Is it really fair game to say someone's politics are morally bereft? Don't we all live in a house with at least one glass wall?

[Enki]

Is it really fair game to say someone's politics are morally bereft? Don't we all live in a house with at least one glass wall?

It's of no real consequence. I consider blind partisanship to be a mental disorder. Doesn't really impact people's relationships outside of the political spectrum, but nonetheless it destroys critical coherence and decisions made within the political realm tend to be based upon who someone is, regardless of whether or not they are saying what you yourself have said in the past. Mr. Perfect has pointed out that Barack Obama is not actually living up to Progressive values. Remember that whole, 'mouse peeing on cotton', schtick? Well, here is the reality. Ron Paul is on the right side of more Progressive issues than Obama. This isn't identity politics, this isn't some juvenile ad hominem about the author of the article. If you line up the policy positions, it's more in line with what Progressives actually want.

Ron Paul is:

1) A Trustbuster: Wants to do a full audit of the Federal Reserve, and end it outright.
2) A Dove: Wants to bring the troops home from abroad and ratchet down the legacy of our Cold-War posture.
3) A Civil Libertarian: Wants to end the drug war and end policies that unfairly target minorities.

Those are three of his most primary positions and are three of the most solid core progressive positions. Regardless of who is saying it, that's the case. Some people hold real and true values. Some people realize that politics is about real life and real people and that it's not just a sport.

[Mr. Perfect]

Sounds like you have your candidate. I wish us both well.

I have decided to support Paul despite the newsletters, the things he brings to the table are so enormous and of such long term positive impact, and I can't see him bringing back any racist US policy, so that is how it is going to come down for me. It was a difficult decision.

[Mr. Perfect]

You know Tinker, you have stumbled across a profound revelation in our differences, and how we perceive each other.

If a Democrat voices my opinion, it's not that I will disagree with him, it's that I won't believe him.

Yes, and I finally came to the root of why your politics are morally bereft. Because it's not about what someone actually believes in or what philosophical standpoint he'd be good for, it only matters what constituency you think he appeals to. As you probably assume that all partisans on the other side are your equal and opposite, I can see why you would have trouble trusting under such conditions.

I definitely know Democrats who hate and distrust Republicans for superstitious reasons too, they are mostly nice people, so you are in good company.

Well that is a pretty fair miss, but in the interest of educating open minded persons.

Any given congressman votes with his party some 90%+ of the time, last I ran across those numbers. So in the end all that really matters is what your party agenda is. Everything else is feel good fluff, all the beautiful nonpartisan platitudes with the weight of an angel food cake..

And in the end, what makes someone choose one party over another boils down to one or two things. For a Democrat, it's always going to be erring on the side of government power. Every time. All the made up "progressive" beliefs discussed in the article were cast aside without a thought in pursuit of big government after the election, and it was natural as taking a dump for the Democrats. So in the end, Democrat is as Democrat does. Time to go Democrats, time to go.

[Mr. Perfect]

I tell you what, Ron will absolutely roast Obama alive on the mouse/cotton issues during a debate. It will be great fun watching Rush Limbaugh defend Obama against Paul.

[Mr. Perfect]

Great Ron video. You feel the greatness coming off of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls

[crashtech]

Is it really fair game to say someone's politics are morally bereft? Don't we all live in a house with at least one glass wall?

It's of no real consequence. I consider blind partisanship to be a mental disorder. Doesn't really impact people's relationships outside of the political spectrum, but nonetheless it destroys critical coherence and decisions made within the political realm tend to be based upon who someone is, regardless of whether or not they are saying what you yourself have said in the past. Mr. Perfect has pointed out that Barack Obama is not actually living up to Progressive values. Remember that whole, 'mouse peeing on cotton', schtick? Well, here is the reality. Ron Paul is on the right side of more Progressive issues than Obama. This isn't identity politics, this isn't some juvenile ad hominem about the author of the article. If you line up the policy positions, it's more in line with what Progressives actually want.

Ron Paul is:

1) A Trustbuster: Wants to do a full audit of the Federal Reserve, and end it outright.
2) A Dove: Wants to bring the troops home from abroad and ratchet down the legacy of our Cold-War posture.
3) A Civil Libertarian: Wants to end the drug war and end policies that unfairly target minorities.

Those are three of his most primary positions and are three of the most solid core progressive positions. Regardless of who is saying it, that's the case. Some people hold real and true values. Some people realize that politics is about real life and real people and that it's not just a sport.

All well and good, but why is it whenever I read up on Progressive philosophy, social issues are front and center, and the anti-war stance is hard to locate?

[Typhoon]

Sounds like you have your candidate. I wish us both well.

I have decided to support Paul despite the newsletters, the things he brings to the table are so enormous and of such long term positive impact, and I can't see him bringing back any racist US policy, so that is how it is going to come down for me. It was a difficult decision.

About those allegations, from the RP thread:

The NAACP President Didn't Get the 'Ron Paul Is a Racist' Memo Either

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people...

...Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

I can imagine POTUS RP attempting to dismantle the so-called affirmative action programs leading to howls of protest and mis-accusations of racism by those whose livelihood depends on what has become an industry.

[Enki]

All well and good, but why is it whenever I read up on Progressive philosophy, social issues are front and center, and the anti-war stance is hard to locate?

Anti-war is something Progressives generally believe in. It's rooted in the social justice philosophy. i.e. if you are fighting wars of foreign aggression those people aren't exactly being treated to social justice. The anti-war movement in 2003 is to this day the largest movement of people I've ever seen, bigger than the Tea Party and OWS combined. It was kind of amazing to see such a ground swell of grassroots support amount to nothing.

[Enki]

You know Tinker, you have stumbled across a profound revelation in our differences, and how we perceive each other.

If a Democrat voices my opinion, it's not that I will disagree with him, it's that I won't believe him.

Yes, and I finally came to the root of why your politics are morally bereft. Because it's not about what someone actually believes in or what philosophical standpoint he'd be good for, it only matters what constituency you think he appeals to. As you probably assume that all partisans on the other side are your equal and opposite, I can see why you would have trouble trusting under such conditions.

I definitely know Democrats who hate and distrust Republicans for superstitious reasons too, they are mostly nice people, so you are in good company.

Well that is a pretty fair miss, but in the interest of educating open minded persons.

Any given congressman votes with his party some 90%+ of the time, last I ran across those numbers. So in the end all that really matters is what your party agenda is. Everything else is feel good fluff, all the beautiful nonpartisan platitudes with the weight of an angel food cake..

And in the end, what makes someone choose one party over another boils down to one or two things. For a Democrat, it's always going to be erring on the side of government power. Every time. All the made up "progressive" beliefs discussed in the article were cast aside without a thought in pursuit of big government after the election, and it was natural as taking a dump for the Democrats. So in the end, Democrat is as Democrat does. Time to go Democrats, time to go.

The only thing wrong with your assessment of Democrats is that in my lifetime it has applied equally as well to Republicans. That's why I don't get it, what I cannot come to terms with regarding your opinion. You hate one party passionately for being pro Big Government and love the other party passionately despite the fact that they are pro Big Government. Doesn't compute for me.

In my experience the rank and file of both parties go with the only choices they have. Like people in small towns who shop at Wal Mart because well, Wal Mart is what's available. I travel in the circles of the party faithful, and believe me, I know the stereotypical Democrats you refer to. But they are not the average everyday person who is registered Democrat. It's kind of common for people to be partisans in the way of being irrational bigots against the other team. I see that on both sides, but it's more reflexive than it is well-considered.

I have not seen or experienced anything that tells me that either party is opposed to saying, "There oughta be a law..."

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Sounds like you have your candidate. I wish us both well.

I have decided to support Paul despite the newsletters, the things he brings to the table are so enormous and of such long term positive impact, and I can't see him bringing back any racist US policy, so that is how it is going to come down for me. It was a difficult decision.

About those allegations, from the RP thread:

The NAACP President Didn't Get the 'Ron Paul Is a Racist' Memo Either

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people...

...Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

I can imagine POTUS RP attempting to dismantle the so-called affirmative action programs leading to howls of protest and mis-accusations of racism by those whose livelihood depends on what has become an industry.

I have heard some now try to attack this particular NAACP President for not being "NAACP" enough or of small merit.

...which may be true, this is an anecdote after all, but the most refreshing aspect of Paul is the all-too-rare consistency he displays in his political life that any sort of smear of racism may need to be discounted regardless of the truth.

Let's be frank, a lot of his views (small government etc) are held by or promoted because of the ability for certain bigoted groups to use such a system to implement their views. Paul, though, has not shown an inclination towards this in his lifetime. When he says he's for government being out of peoples' lives: he means it. When he says it is up to Congress to declare war; he means it.

I don't see Paul attempting to dismantle the affirmative action state just because he doesn't like it but, I see him as an executive who would allow congress to decide most of these matters.

He would dismantle Executiver Over-reach, and that may be what we most need right now.

Until that goes, we will be able to heal other aspects....

so racist or not, he may be our best choice.

[Enki]

I have been working on progressives, people who have even worked on the Obama campaign pointing this out. That Ron Paul will be better for Progressive agendas than Barack Obama. Of course some people still have their minds broken over abortion and they don't vote any other issue.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

No, the "progressives" have not provides us any reason to trust them when they say they are anti-war. From the early movement (Roosevelt to Roosevelt) they defined American interventionism, then from the New Left's rebranding (cooption, really) of progressivism, they have only shown lip service with what seems to be an express purpose of destroying political coherency.