Dickinson writes: "Progressive voices amplified through Internet activism can force congress to turn on a dime and prompt major corporations to abandon long and profitable relationships with the the most prominent and abusive figures and institutions on the right."
An anti-SOPA protest in New York City. (photo: Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images)
Don't Look Now, Lefties Are Winning
01 May 12
�
uick. What's the most important political trend of the past few months?
Bet you didn't say the resurgence of the Internet-empowered left.
The dogfight between Romney and Santorum got all the media oxygen, followed more recently by endless nonsense about whether Obama (who once ate dog meat) or Romney (who strapped his dog to the car-roof on a family trip) was the worse offender in the "war on dogs."
But step back and consider this impressive string of victories by progressives:
1) No SOPA for You!
The horrible "anti-piracy" bill that Republicans and corporate-friendly Democrats thought was a slam dunk was blocked at the rim by an ad hoc coalition of Big Tech and progressive-minded Internet users everywhere, nauseated by a law that would make everyday Internet activities illegal and punish illicit downloading with the kind of prison sentences usually reserved for manslaughter. The mass rebellion forced congress to turn tail and run.
2) Curing Komen's Cancerous Politics
The Susan G. Komen foundation, the previously non-partisan breast cancer-fighting pink-ribbon mega charity hired as its top lobbyist the Tea Partying former secretary of state of Georgia, who promptly pulled the plug on Komen's funding of Planned Parenthood, which provides, among other things, breast-cancer screening to low-income women. The Twittersphere ripped Komen to pink shreds, forcing the resignation of Komen's right-wing VP of Public Policy and Planned Parenthood's removal from the funding blacklist.
3) Busting Rush
After Rush Limbaugh called a pro-contraception law student a slut and demanded she provide pornographic video of herself in exchange for federally funded birth control, progressives mounted an Internet- and Twitter- shame campaign that prompted more than 20 advertisers to abandon the talk-show host, and even brought El Rushbo himself to apologize - twice!
4) Shaming ALEC
The same tactics that brought Rush to his knees have just this week forced ALEC - a corporate-backed bill mill that writes right-wing legislation for passage by Republican-led state legislatures - to abandon its efforts to influence social policy. In addition to advancing trickle-down economic policies, ALEC had been pivotal in the passage of Stand-Your-Ground gun laws across the country, like the one currently at the center of the Trayvon Martin court case. ALEC had also railroaded legislation in numerous states to restrict voting rights of the young people, poor people, and minorities. Pressure brought by the Internet Left forced Coca Cola, McDonalds, Kraft and others to withdraw from the group, and forced ALEC to stick to its economic knitting:
"We are eliminating the ALEC Public Safety and Elections task force that dealt with non-economic issues," the group announced in a press release, "and reinvesting these resources in the task forces that focus on the economy."
Each of these victories underscores the lost opportunity of the Obama presidency. The president never used his massive Internet-enabled activist base to seriously engage on his top legislative priorities. Obama's movement, likened at the end of the 2008 election as a many-million mouthed dog, was kept on leash.
That dog could have hunted; these unlikely lefty victories prove it. Progressive voices amplified through Internet activism can force congress to turn on a dime and prompt major corporations to abandon long and profitable relationships with the the most prominent and abusive figures and institutions on the right.
The president, if he's fortunate enough to gain reelection, should take note.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Hes not going to be better, hes going to bring the repubaggers back into some power. I just cant handle that, they will back him and he will cave as soon as he gets in there. No thank you!
Just so, pernsey, Ron Paul is basically Ross Perot Redux. A few "good" sound bites, but overall, certifiably insane.
These guys are a dime-a-dozen down in Texas. While they make passable 'reality TV', we certainly don't want them in charge of the Nation's nuclear codes.
The only reason people are willing to "paper-over" Paul's transparently illogical rantings is that they are (understandably ) desperate for SOME kind of alternative.
The American voter has been forced into a "box canyon" by the moneyed interests in this country and people are fighting back in desperation, fear and confusion. Not always the best basis from which to thoughtfully consider the obviously repugnant consequences of voting for someone like Paul.
(Side note - Paul, even if elected, would *never* be able to do *half* of the outlandish things that he "promises" his fans anyway.)
Spoiler Alert : Ron Paul is just another politician who will promise whatever it takes to get him where he wants to go.
No matter how all of this "shakes out" the voter will be left with a corporate approved choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, just as we have been for the past 30 years. Ron Paul(like any other politician) is far from being a "savior".
After couple more years in totality and censorship ... they will understand.
"Our dear leader" Obama will lead us to the promised land .."
Parody was common to use to criticize in totalitarian society. Dissident writers Vaclav Havel, Milan Kundera used it. It was so extreme, that everybody who read it KNEW that the author meant just opposite. The regime could not do much - these were very slogans they were in media - PRAVDA.
Hope that Tom Baxter answers ...
Dear leader "Obama will lead us to the promised land"
His economic policies are based on pre-depression Austrian fringe theories. He believes in "supply" but doesn't understand that "demand" must also be present.
In his entire congressional career he has passed one bill, transferring some unused federal property to Galveston county. Very controversial.
He wants to take us back to the 18th. century.
He thinks we have TOO MUCH REGULATION of corporations and financial products. He wants none.
No rational person who actually reads his policies could believe that they would actually work.
Like everyone else, I would be happy if we stopped our aggressive military and economic imperialism but with Ron Paul you can't pick and choose. You have to take the whole insane package.
On balance, it is dangerous and completely unrealistic as well as being extremely racist, sexist and anti almost everything that is not christian male oriented.
Anyone who supports him is either a bigot,a supply-side dead ender, or has not bothered to find out what he really believes. He's also a Theocrat!
What less could you ask for?
US is spending $1.3 trillion on militarism/year . Budget is $3.7 trillion. Deficit/yearly debt is like $1.6 trillion - accumulated debt $15 trillion. US competitive edge are BOMBS!
There is NO way US will get out of this recession in a generation. Did you study/predict collapse of the Soviet Union after 1989? Small war in Afghanistan ..
It is/was MILITARISM that is killing USA -
like in triage as it occurs in medical emergencies and disasters - one has to STOP bleeding first.
- the present economic and political system has no solution. There is power of powerless - combine with complexity theory, chaos theory - order at the edge - small kick and the system changes - small chance for emergence of something better? I am NOT optimist.
IN YOUR DREAMS. THE AMERICAN MASSES ARE AS BRAINWASHED BY THE MEDIA MONOPOLY TODAY AS WERE THE GERMAN MASSES IN 1943. AND THAT IS WHY THEY LOOK THE OTHER WAY AS THEIR GOVERNMENT PLOTS AND PRACTICES GENOCIDE.
You are right that Paul's criticisms of interventionism , the banks, and government suppression of constitutional protections should not be ignored. Nor, for that matter, his views on the War on Drugs, though I am only prepared to say pot should be legalized, not heroin, crack, etc..
Next time, you need to add some wink of the eye or something to key people onto your line. ;-)
I believe some progressives are so desperate to hear a clear, anti-imperialis t, anti-statist message from a politician that they downplay the ways in which Paul's views on other issues are a reactionary throwback and destructive of humanistic values.
If a vote, maybe in a GOP primary, we able to send a CLEAR message to the Dems, then I could see the value of such a vote. But I remain unconvinced it would be seen as anything but a rightwing libertarian vote.
YOU CAN START BY LOOKING UP THE WORDS 'IRONY', 'SATIRE' & 'PARODY' IN ANY CONVENIENT DICTIONARY.
A little bit of honey DOES NOT make the (poison) go down
Yes, a lot of Paul supporters are white and male. Yes, white males are OFTEN insensitive to the gains of the civil rights and women's movements. This is true even among progressives.
But she slanders Greenwald and provides her own SIMPLISTIC approach. If she opposes people voting, even tactically, for Paul, she should point to another approach which might be more productive. Instead, she presents no alternative but voting for Obama and, shame on you, you are a racist and a sexist if you criticize him for his corporatist policies.
And since you mentioned it, most "foreign aid" is in fact military aid (which is why so many people in the recipient countries also oppose it!). Progressives in the U.S. and elsewhere generally oppose the WTO, so why is Paul's opposition to it evidence of his lunacy?
No reasonable person wants to Paul to be president. But there is an important strategic aspect to his support on the left. "Usefulness" cuts both ways.
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
With our current sycophants, we are creeping slowly under cover of horseshit into all of the things that the dark side of Rand Paul espouses anyway. When the fascism of our deranged psychopathic elite finally fully ripens in America, the people who regard money over people will roll back any advances we have made in tolerance, will promote even more hatred so that we fight each other and do not exterminate them as they deserve. If Paul even approached being POTUS, he would be executed by some fbi asset or the mossad. There is no real possibility if his being allowed to wield authority. He would be shot or suffer a sudden 'unexpected' heart attack or his aircraft would lose all electrical systems on landing or takeoff. He would never become POTUS, no matter what. But he could be the note that wakes the 'sleeping bear' of America. The political process in America is no longer ours nor will it be again until we physically remove our current elite, lock, stock, and poison asset. Paul may be the catalyst. More blather will just kill us. Who else holds any promise of anything but more and more creeping fascism? BHO is a fraud. The others are tools as well. Ron Paul in 2012 to jump start the American Restoration.
So thank you very much for pointing this out, because i'm sure i wouldn't have read the Greenwald's original article otherwise.
But, on the other hand, i think RSN's decision about whether to carry the piece is trickier, because the news is not just what's in the piece, but the piece itself. It does reflect the place where a lot of progressives are. (I guess it also reflects how far we have to go :(.)
The best response to bad ideas is good ideas. Suppressing bad ideas does not present an opportunity for us to develop a critical understanding of those ideas when we encounter them.
Obviously, RSN has to decide which commentaries are worth bringing to the attention of their readers. But in this case, I think it was a good choice.
Do you plan on visiting this planet anytime soon?
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN. Hold your nose & vote Democratic. It sickens me to says this. I'd like to say oppose both parties outright. But right now there's no strong, popular, clear alternative of a party or coalition that can simply take power, as well as to oppose the Repubs. But eventually there must be.
If so, Howzit and Aloha!
Have you never been to the DailyKos or Firedoglake? Are you unfamiliar with the Progressive Democrats of America?
A LOT of Democrats are extremely unhappy with Obama's mediocre, centrist non-leadership and are not afraid to say so publicly. The trick is to figure an effective strategy for dealing with that without succumbing to third party fantasies or helping the Republicans.
My only problem with progressives voting for Paul is my skepticism over whether it actually send the message they think it does. Provided they don't shut their eyes to his other, foul ideas, I got no problem. I would hate to build his credibility among the young, obsessed and sophomoric "Paulistas" who swallow all his Ayn Randian nonsense.
As you allude to, the Dems are no better than the GOP when it comes to its focus on social issues. While important, America's problems run far deeper than abortion and legalized gay marriage. On the major issues - foreign policy, the "[E]visceration of the Bill of Rights" (something Obama has made far worse than even Bush did), and not a single banker in this country doing the perp walk - there is simply no substantial difference between the two major political parties. Why ANY progressive would continue to support the Democratic Party - or to criticize those Ron Paul positions that progressives have long supported - is simply amazing.
Let me say this again: Firedoglake, DailyKos, and MoveOn ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE. They all supported Obama and are going to urge you to vote for him again. How is that progressive?
For all Ron Paul's talk, he is a libertarian and a disciple of Ayn Rand, who also mentored Alan Greenspan, who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. So Paul is linked philosophically to the Federal Reserve, the very institution he CLAIMS to want to tear down. Funny, huh? But not so funny when you realize that Paul is a Republican, so all you Paul supporters, in order to vote for your Janus-faced hero, are going to have become registered Republicans.
Come se me on facebook at Nicholas Pierotti for President 2012
So much for the progressive 3rd party ticket at this point. Unless he increases his visibility by about 10,000% immediately, I'd be surprised if he generates 1% of the vote this November.
Not to worry. Atleast he's against the Afghanistan War that he voted FOR.
I'd bet paul will be the 3rd party candidate in this election. He'll come in a distant third, but atleast president ROMNEY will put things back in order, right?
But those who hope to see a sustained third party effort, should recognize a Paulist third party would be solidly under the control of the rightwing libertarians. Except on small, tactical matters, I see no basis for ongoing alliances with those folks.
But we can debate the wisdom of voting for Paul as a third party candidate only i he chooses to run that way. And I think he prefers to remain a GOP gadfly.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
"Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies," by progressive Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/
"Democratic Party Priorities," by progressive Glenn Greenwald
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/01/05/the-ron-paul-precedent/
"The Ron Paul Precedent," by Justin Raimondo of anti-war.com
"And so people whose lives, safety, livelihoods and health depend on them should accept that they are trading their concerns for, say, the lives of Muslim children killed by bombs in Afghanistan."
Well, by any reasonable guess the US war on terror has killed 5 million people worldwide, made another 10 million homeless, poisoned with depleted uranium and other cancer-causing chemicals 20 million people, left 5 million children parentless, and so on. And how many LBGTs, women, and minorities in the US have suffered the same fate over the last 10 years. A few hundred probably.
The movement for equal rights for women, racial minorities, and LBGTs is strong in the US. Ron Paul is not going to change any of that. As a libertarian, he would probably end up supporting most of the agenda of these groups.
Ron Paul is far from perfect. But the number one crisis facing the earth right now is the murderous US imperialism. I also know Paul as president could not do anything about it. The CIA and Pentagon run US foreign policy. Paul would get the same lecture that Obama did -- do it our way or you'll end up dead, just like JFK.
The case Megan Carpentier is just silly and irrational.
It is astonishing and depressing that even on a liberal/progres sive/radical site like this I have to wade through a dozen comments before I get to a simple truth like this. And, as an LGBT person, I thank you for doing some math that keeps things in perspective. I want to keep the planet habitable for humans and contribute to the advancement and spread of liberal civilization. I live in the country which is the largest threat to both of these.
I think no matter what race, social economic status or social orientation one belongs to the slaughter of millions should be our concern.
Unfortunately like you say no matter who becomes president in 2012 they must follow the protocol of the CIA and the Pentagon or risk the prospect of death.
Any suggestions on how we stop US Imperialism?
Love it!
Personally I do not believe he gives a crap, if he is intelligent, he knows he can do absolutely nothing to get his dreams come true with all the other factors around him...ask Carter, OB, and anyone in Politics who try on local, state or fed level with everyone else's agenda first.
As far as Pentagon/CIA, they are as disposable as we are..they should have a president remind them.
Would be interesting seeing someone dismantle the USA as we know it, but even if he would...he could not. Bravo if he is keeping those in GOP who are waking up, dreams alive again.
I would love a Knight in Shining Armor to appear. It could...but we have to be part of the Assault to make it happen.
I have known such people who(I am going off on a bit of a generalization) are lost in the 60's or 70's and sugar coat the libertarians as open minded, anti regulation types that will benefit their interests....he re we go....NO FOREIGN WARS (a good thing)and legalization of( or at least decriminalizati on of) the hippie lettuce. Face it folks-the marijuana issue is a big deal to these people. To me it is a very minor "wedge" issue hardly worth the time of day...but then I stopped smoking that stuff when I was about 20 years old. I think there are many old progressives out there who are a bit dazed and confused.
having said that, I would not vote for Ron Paul because i disagree so strongly with him on issues which are important to me, either as I am grateful he is speaking so clearly and forcefully on a few issues. I would LOVE for a progressive Democrat to be saying the same things to a national audience. But this year, it is not happening.
So if other folks see a way to use Paul's campaign to "send a message" to other politicians, particularly Obama nd the Dems, I wish them luck. And hope they consider carefully what and how they are doing it.
But to dismiss them as pot-addled is unfair for them and diminishing to you.
Second, what's with the 'lost in the '60s or '70s' comment? Those of us who were around then may retain with some justification the open-hearted spirit of the time along with a well-earned suspicion of liars at the top of the food chain.
Perhaps you stopped smoking pot too soon at 20. Or maybe you started smoking it too early at whatever age you were, before your brain had a chance to develop critical faculties.
Presumably I am one of the 'old progressives' to which you refer. I can say that smoking pot has been a thoroughly positive experience which has enriched my life in many respects, not the least of these being the ability to function at a very high level.
Barack Obama reportedly quit smoking pot when he was about 20 and look at what a mess he's making of things now.
You pretty much made my point, Richard.I just feel so many radicals/progre ssives are admirers of Paul because of the libertarian ideal of "keep government off my back."I used the marijuana issue sarcastically since I know of people who are open minded "liberals" who have the same "live and let live" philosophy as I do.
I would consider myself a Kucinich Democrat or a Sanders Independent. But I also do not minimize the importance of what occurred in 2008-the election of an African-America n. I am sure you realize he has no choice but to be perceived as one who is willing to work across the aisle. For Obama to pursue a radical agenda from the get go would have served no purpose. He is obviously going for incremental change (see Health care legislation)bef ore he pursues any loftier goals-which will never occur without re-election. I am willing to give him a chance since the alternative is so dreadful. Libertarianism would be disastrous- resulting in minimal regulation of industry and of Wall Street. Back to your pot-of course people should not be locked up for possession. But if one is honest with themself it serves no useful purpose other than to intoxicate. And I am sorry sir, but sucking hot smoke in your lungs for many years is not healthy. But do as you wish -as long as you don't drive.
If we spent half the money and time on busting criminals, powder heads as we do pot heads There would be no cartels. If we allowed Medical MJ, there would be people with lot less pain, longer life than on phony chemicals/Pharms.
If we legalized drugs, took oxy off market, less killing. Less cost of prisons, better control of keeping rapists, serial killers in jail.
I believe we are over regulated and every year I see football becoming over regulated. We love being manipulated...I cannot fault anyone for wanting to save money. Too bad you got nothing for the years you did smoke but then you probably started to early and that is why you have no smarts now. Most of the hippies that actually stayed they mental hippie not the abuser Yuppie have life their way, and own their own businesses. Powder heads and Yuppies well their family life, their kids...Scary
The real question here is whether the obtuseness is intentional or organic.
Greenwald responds BTW: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left?commentpage=1#comment-14017789
"The paragraph that purports to describe what I wrote is an absolute, 100% pure fabrication - so reckless and false that it is inexcusable."
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left?commentpage=1#comment-14017789
readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/9272-ron-paul-may-have-secretly-won-the-iowa-caucuses#comment-129093
independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/los-angeles-daily-news-flashes-back-to-ron-pauls-1988-libertarian-presidential-campaign/
It's not the smears hear that stop Paul from running 3rd part. In 1888 he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President and very upset that he caused a spit in that party. Libertarians are skirmish about arrests for family matters, a mother locking a baby in a car while shopping or a husband beating up his wife, and dread the idea of the federal government anyway involved. Paul doesn't want an argument over abortion splitting the Libertarian Party, and Libertarians think it distracts from the more important issues.
So unless those who are members of People for the American Way and Libertarian Party at the same time or other vocal pro-choice libertarians ask him to, he won't run as a Libertarian and won't run in the Constitutional Party because doing so would weaken the Libertarian Party.
My feminist organization board interviewed Ron Paul for several hours while he was running for the Libertarian Party nomination. His position then is precisely his position today.
He is personally pro-life. However, as President he would not enact any legislation that would modify or curtail abortion rights since such authority is not granted in the constitution.
This position seems just fine to me. I hate guns but I support the rights of inner city residents to own them in order to defend themselves. I don't smoke weed but I support the rights of adults to indulge.
The author in this case is confusing personal preference positions with principled policy positions. Ron Paul would probably never perform an abortion unless a woman's life were threatened but that is far different from acting to prevent others from performing or getting abortions.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Yes, Paul would eliminate Dodd Frank and would not reinstitute Glass Steagall. Austrian economists argue that financial crises are caused not by the greed of businessmen (after all, greed is ubiquitous -- blaming greed is like blaming gravity for airplane crashes) but by the well-intentione d efforts to support certain markets -- in the present case, the feds dumped about 8 Trillion Dollars into the housing market in the decade before the bust. Does anyone with a brain think that that kind of money thrown at a market wouldn't always create a bubble? Had the feds not attempted to make home ownership universal, increasing demand for housing and increasing prices beyond what could reasonably be justified given the housing stock, the bubble and bust could not have happened.
But you are correct that our financial institutions are robbing us blind. How are they doing this? Simply because the feds give them oligopolies and small competitors are prohibited from competing. Regulations, albeit well-intentione d, are tantamount to crony capitalism. The bailouts, which only went to the large, favored financial institutions, are similar.
Only by doing away with federal power over financial institutions can we hope to allow a customer-respon sive industry to develop.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
I have been disappointed with much about Obama. But at least the man is not delusional and is living on planet earth. He has my vote in November.
Ron Paul does believe that we should not cede national sovereignty to the United Nations or any other supranational organization but that does not imply that he is paranoid.
Paul's positions are frequently being criticized from both the left and the right but the criticism usually depend on a simplistic and exaggerated sense of his actual positions.
Listen to him directly instead of the mischaracteriza tions of his detractors. You may still disagree with him but you will stop accusing him of all of the nonsense that has arisen in response to his growing popularity.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
I have heard so much misinformation here and I don't understand why you persist in it.
When I first started to ask you to look at his website he had three years of budgets posted. They showed that he will reduce the tax base to zero within 3 years so there would be no income to perform any government services. He will let people "opt out" of paying Social Security and since it is an inter-generatio nal compact where each generation provides assistance to the previous generation, that would destroy it. Any normal person could see that what he said he would do was all lies so he removed the budgets.
When he said, while in Iowa, "We are all Austrians now!" He was referring to the extreme Hayek/Mises school which believes in no government, no economic intervention and no regulation.
You'd better educate yourselves and be careful what you wish for.
I say any of the Republican candidates will be worse than Obama. If we had a parliamentary system, we could vote for a third party and force Obama's Dems to form a coalition government. But the US system is not designed that way. Voting third party under SOME conditions, serves to increase chances of a Republican victory. This is NOT true in a state where we can know in advance Obama will win or the GOP candidate will win, guaranteed. Under THOSE specific conditions, voting third party CAN send a message.
Some progressives want to vote for Ron Paul in states where the GOP primary is open. I see nothing in that tactic which would help a GOP victory in the fall. Especially if it becomes publicly known some of Paul's support is coming from progressives angry at Obama's policies on specific issues.
But progressives should not allow their frustrations with Obama lead them into the infantile view there is "no difference" between Obama and the GOP. I will concede "there is not ENOUGH difference" to make me happy. But there IS enough difference so I will hope for an Obama victory in the Fall, even while I continue to criticize him for all his sellout, corporatist-- and IMPERIALIST --policies.
Like Hitler, Ron Paul does have some good ideas but his desire to do away with civil rights for Blacks, Women, LGBT and others who don't "fit in" makes him a dangerous man.
I agree with you the left should be cautious about making common cause with the right simply because we share some criticisms of the current corporate-domin ated system.
While I do not see Paul as being anywhere near a fascist, some of his supporters do strike me that way. There is a real danger in the US of a strong, fascistic response to our current crisis. And SOME support for such a movement could slide away from those currently supporting Paul. I have been stunned by the cult-like attitude I have seen in the eyes of his young, white male true believers.
Is there anything in his views which would safely inoculate them from the fascist temptation? Not enough, I fear.
He's the perfect candidate for closetted liberals who'd rather find something palatable in a repug than openly admit they're too liberal to make their parents happy.
Obama "deported" over million of immigrants - south of border. Thousands of children were separated form their parents, young students deported to place they do not know - even language (Spanish).
This is CRIME of present US government.
Ron Paul does not want to do away with civil rights for blacks, women, LGBT and others who don't fit in. Where ever did you get such a notion?
He supported the repeal of Jim Crow laws and he supports the rights of people to marry anyone they please. He believes that the federal government is prohibited by the constitution from discriminating against any citizen on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, or marital status.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
He just wants to take away the laws that guarantee those rights and let the chips fall where they may - like in the good ol' days before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 he opposes.
He doesn't mind state governments or private companies discriminating against people though, does he?
It's fun when you leave out stuff, huh? Sorry for calling you out on your selective use of "facts".
Your position simply doesn't wash with reality.
"to the women who worry they'd be left without access to reproductive healthcare, African Americans who rightly wonder what this country would look like in the absence of a civil rights act, etc." Not to mention his virulent anti-gay stance. Do any of these important and hard won freedoms matter to so called Paul supporters? NO.
Just completely ignore Paul's stated positions, and voting record.
As far as Greenwald is concerned, there is simply one point that matters overall: Greenwald's support of Citizens United forced me to wake up regarding his supposed "fairness," and expertise on all things concerning the law. There is nothing he could say or write from that point on--he lost all credibility. If faux progressive readers want to disregard his twisted legalese logic, than they are as delusional as Greenwald. He's doing it again with Paul--leaving out the facts regarding Paul's voting record on many issues progressives have championed: environmental laws, endangered species legislation, reproductive rights for women, equal pay, civil rights, (Paul would undo the 1964 civil rights act, if he could.) I have been watching Paul's voting record for a long time. He is NOT the man people want him to be.
However there is no such word as "preventative."
"He opposed the Obama administration' s decision to declare birth control a preventative medicine, which pressures insurance companies to cover it without co-pays."
Also several people have pointed out he would not be able to do half of the things he wants to do just as Obama has not been able to complete a lot of his promises he made to us. I.E. Gitmo. I detest intolerance on both sides more than anything and when you would not see that out of the republican field he is the least bat shit crazy it seems like your article is nothing more than a GOP hit piece written by a liberal.
My first choice is Obama and if he does not get it I would rather have Ron Paul and any of the other choices out there.
The other republican candidates are saying things like they'd murder Iranian scientists, bomb nuclear sites in Iran. That seems like extremism to me.
I also think the mass media is telling people Paul is not electable with the hope of driving them away from Paul. But all of the republicans are not electable. Paul actually has a better chance than the rest. Romney will never get the independent, libertarian, hard right wing vote. He'll never get above 25%. Obama will waste him is a few minutes. Paul actually could beat Obama because he'd get progressives, anti-war left and right, veterans, and economic conservatives. Paul has the broadest coalition of supporters probably ever in US history.
That's why journalists like Megan have been given the assignment by their owners to take Paul down at any cost.
I've become a sort of single issue voter. Ending the Global War on Terror is the only thing that matters. Once that is ended, we can fix the rest of the world's problems. There's very much to dislike about Paul but he's the only one who is right on this single issue. However, the president does not set imperial policy. The CIA does.
US is spending $1.3 trillion on militarism/year . Budget is $3.7 trillion. Deficit/yearly debt is like $1.6 trillion - accumulated debt $15 trillion. US competitive edge are BOMBS!
There is NO way US will get out of this recession in a generation. Did you study/predict collapse of the Soviet Union after 1989? Small war in Afghanistan ..
It is/was MILITARISM that is killing USA -
like in triage as it occurs in medical emergencies and disasters - one has to STOP bleeding first.
Young people do not wan to spend rest in the totalitarian state of USA. Become another lost generation.
Our enemies, and by our enemies I mean those who do genuinely oppose freedom (and many do) - whether religious fundamentalists of ANY FAITH GROUP or criminals such as the drug gangs in Mexico, or any other groups -- all want nothing less than an uninvolved, inward turned US.
Ron Paul (so well exemplified by his son's name - Rand Paul) will not offer more freedom, he will offer FAR less freedom given power. Your final two sentences will become his reversed legacy. A nation with no Civil Rights guarantee, no Department of Education, no funding for Higher Education, no controls at all on corporations, no rights, say nothing about equal marriage, for LGBT persons, and so forth.
And that helps the Left how?
Think about it, please.
Reyn
My only problem with progressives voting for Paul is my skepticism over whether it actually send the message they think it does. Provided they don't shut their eyes to his other, foul ideas, I got no problem. I would hate to build his credibility among the young, obsessed and sophomoric "Paulistas" who swallow all his Ayn Randian nonsense.
I really don't think it will send a message other than the country has gone insane .
I do however believe as Kolea mentioned that the young and impressionable might very well get the wrong message and think Ron Paul and his Ayn Rand phylosophy is cool .
I think we have enough hate in this country directed at the poor ,elderly and disabled from the right ,we don't need any more !
Don't vote Ron Paul to send a message to Obama because the message you send might not reach the one you intended, it could have a very negative effect.
Not to mention, god forbid Ron Paul did get elected because you unintentionally encouraged young people to vote for him .
Republican's want the white house so bad I think they very well might take advantage of Ron Paul winning an election rather than having him silenced they would use him to finally end all the programs they have always wanted to end including Social Security and Medicare& Medicaid and oppose him on the ones you want changed .
Collectivist think that rights come from government that to get more rights you simply need a strong enough gang to run government to get what you want - and like the genie in the lamp their wishes are granted by the magical government.
Some of the The intellectual problems the collectivist must side step is that how these 'rights' are to be paid for. That argument must be either avoided or acceptance of slavery of those with the ability to provide for those 'rights' to satisfy the needs of their followers is glossed over in so many ways - traditional collectivist democrats and their slave holding brethren had generations to work out a host of self serving excuses.
I like Dr Paul because he is a messenger of individual freedom.
The message of Freedom IS popular.... Unless you can live better at some one elses expense and that does not bother you.
I am a professional, and solidly in the top 20% (though not the top 1%) in terms of income. I hold a terminal degree in a science related field. My job is not going to go anywhere, and the investments we make are largely protected from loss (though their gains are not meteoric, I know that they will be there with some profits, barring a complete economic collapse).
All of that said -- I do not see freedom coming from anything but government. The idea of a free nation is that your freedom ends at my nose, so to speak. I'm sorry, Ron Paul does NOT support that idea. When you talk about not just reducing opportunity, but removing equality for groups of people (for example LGBT folk) you are NOT a supporter of individual freedom, no matter what you say you are.
Regards,
Reyn
Ron Paul will never win the election and there are plenty of anti-war figures on the left to get behind. I think Nader has the right idea. We can look for common ground on a few issues but this is not the same as supporting a far right Libertarian as a presidential candidate.
I see jobs ,homelessness and economic inequality in this country as the most pressing issues we have but you see the most important issues as the wars.
Sense we don't have a draft any more wars can be addressed by simply encouraging our young not to enter the military . Whose making our young go and fight these wars ? Change your beliefs that wars are necessary and you change your childrens beliefs that its patriotic to joing the military and go to war ! Problem solved and you didn't have to elect Ron Paul with all his other disasterous agenda that would most certainly distroy our country !
If your not elderly, disabled or poor then I guess the wars are your only concern ,but if your in any one of these catagories the wars are the least of your problem when someone like Ron Paul would seriously effect your life and survival if he were ever elected .
His every man for himself phylosophy would kill people ,that is reality !
Maybe you don't think the lives of these people are important enough ?
scream their party is great and the other party is evil.
Your masters appreciate your unearned loyalty.
If Ron Paul gets his way on domestic issues . . . US citizens will live in fear of death that could have been prevented.
if ron paul is so objectionable, then the democratic party should adopt his various positions on war, drug laws et al. ron paul would have no traction whatsoever if bho and the donkey were doing their job which is to stand up for the rights of americans. what megan's essay basically says is "as long as i have mine, i don't give a good goddamn about anyone else", thereby undercutting her own position. once more, it is extremely easy to undercut ron paul, why are the dems not doing it? do they think it's fine to fight undeclared wars? to keep arresting people for marijuana possession? etc. etc? one can only conclude that they do. if ron paul is able to garner support for these positions? then why are the democrats not doing the same?
I do however think its important to not have another Republican President in the white house who would pack the Supreme Court with more Republican justices to make more laws that would take away more of our rights as citizens .
come on, vietnam, 68,000 dead. panama, grenada, libya. we have been throwing our weight around for a hundred years.
hemp, 25,000 uses (or so i have heard)including diesel fuel, but it is out the window because of it's botanic brother. how many people locked up, lives ruined, over a substance that there is not one recorded case of death by overdose? unlike alcohol.
there are certain paul positions that undercut the democrats, besides being right. it has bothered me for decades that the dems folded on these things. i did not just fall off the turnip truck, i was born at night, just not last night.
regrettably i have cast the only vote i ever will for barack obama.