I know, I know.
I am not saying Ron Paul is my idea of an ideal American President. FAR from it.
But doing an inventory of Obama and Paul as to who is the lesser of two evils? Paul wins.
Anti-abortion. Anti-universal health care. Anti-gay rights. Anti-social security. Anti-welfare. Pro-guns. Pro-capital punishment, etc., etc. I don’t like -- no, I HATE -- these stances of Paul. Since I have just begun researching him, there may be a lot more that genuinely will repel me.
And yet again I declare in measuring Obama to Paul in terms of lesser of two evils-ness, Paul wins.
Ron Paul wants to end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars immediately. [about.com]
Ron Paul is sick of American aid propping up puppet dictators.[about.com]
Ron Paul wants to audit the Fed. [about.com]
Ron Paul is against giving trillions of dollars to Wall Street. [Davis]
Ron Paul is against the Fed giving low, low, low interest loans to political corporate cronies. [Davis]
Ron Paul supports a state’s right to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. [ronpaulforums]
Ron Paul would repeal the Patriot Act. [ronpaulforums]
Ron Paul would end the TSA. [ronpaulforums]
Ron Paul is not beholding to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup. [ronpaulforums]
Ron Paul would close Gitmo. [ronpaulforums]
Ron Paul would not authorize drone strikes. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not protect torturers and human rights violators. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not extrajudicially order the assassination of an American citizen. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not push for the largest military budget in world history. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not bomb or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not authorize the use of cluster bombs. [Davis]
Ron Paul wants to end the drug war which has placed 2.3 million people, 1 in 100 Americans, mostly African American and Hispanic, behind bars. [Davis]
Ron Paul would pardon non-violent offenders locked up from the War on Drugs. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not cravenly subsidize corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not protect BP from legal liability of environmental damage. [Davis]
Ron Paul would not mandate that all Americans purchase corporate-profiteering health care. [Davis]
Ron Paul would bring troops home from Europe, Korea and Okinawa. [Davis]
Ron Paul wouldn’t pretend he was supporting “clean energy”, but really be enabling environmentally toxic, profiteering coal companies. [Davis]
Ron Paul wouldn’t support half of American income taxes going to the military industrial complex. [Davis]
Ron Paul wouldn’t finance and take on Israel’s battles. [ronpaulforums]
Ron Paul believes in tort law going against corporate polluters. [neue politik]
Ron Paul respects the efforts of Wikileaks. [guntotingliberal]
Ron Paul? What you see and hear and ask to know is what you get.
"Say-anything-Obama"? C’mon!
I am a liberal. Ron Paul is a libertarian. There are a lot of irreconcilable gaps in our perspectives.
If you are hyperventilating with outrage about my endorsing Paul as the lesser of two evils rather than Obama and undermining Obama’s lock on the progressive sensibility and chances of winning in 2012 you probably should relax. Charles Davisin an article on April 28, 2011 in Dissident Voice entitled “Ron Paul: A Lesser Evil?” declares that the number of "party-line progressives" who would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama “wouldn’t be enough to fill Conference Room B at the local Sheraton.” He adds that even Obama’s harshest progressive critic, the hardworking and brilliant Matt Taibbi, shuns Paul more than Obama.
I don’t care what MSNBC comfortingly says about Obama as its seductive spokespeople call out the Republican clowns. Time to really measure the evil in the "lesser of two evils" rationale.
Since Obama’s early days of betrayal I have been wanting the so-called progressives of America to find a real champion and not be so triangulated in the “lesser of two evils” crap. Out of 300+ million Americans, the corporate and even most of the alternate media tell us we get to choose from Gingrinch, Romney and Obama -- and their imperialistic and crony capitalism commitments. Talk about mass “learned helplessness.” Media psyops. I yearn for a strong third party liberal candidate to primary and dump -- DUMP! -- Obama. Kucinich, Sanders, RFK, Jr., Nader, Warren, Feingold, Moyers, any Green candidate, etc., etc. There are plenty of Americans that recognize bottom line human decency. I left the Democratic Party and joined the Green Party to help promote that soon after I recognized Obama had no moral compass.
Ron Paul is NOT and would NOT be my choice for President.
But for what it is worth, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils between Paul and Obama?
Ron Paul by a LONG SHOT!
Here are some quotes from Charles Davis that help bottom line it for me to regard Obama as a far greater evil than Ron Paul:
“... your first priority really ought to be stopping your government from killing poor people. Second on that list? Stopping your government from putting hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens in cages for decades at a time over non-violent “crimes” committed by consenting adults. Seriously, what the fuck? Social Security’s great and all I guess, but not exploding little children with cluster bombs -- shouldn’t that be at the top of the Liberal Agenda?”
“Over half of American’s income taxes go to the military industrial complex and the costs of arresting and locking up their fellow citizens. On both counts, Ron Paul’s policy positions are far more progressive than those held -- and indeed, implemented, -- by Barack Obama. And yet it’s Paul who’s the reactionary of the two?”
“My sweeping, I’m hoping overly broad assessment: liberals, especially the pundit class, don’t much care about dead foreigners. They’re a political problem at best -- will the Afghan war derail Obama’s re-election campaign? -- not a moral one. And liberals are more than willing to accept a few charred women and children in some country they’ll never visit in exchange for increasing social welfare spending by 0.02 percent, or at least not cutting it by as much as a mean ‘ol Rethuglican.”
My own bottom line and concise statement for voting for Ron Paul as the lesser of two evils? “It makes me feel less of an accessory to mass murder.” No small thing.
Why isn’t Obama’s murdering militarism a deal breaker for more of America? After all, his promise to wage peace not war won him the presidency in 2008, didn’t it? Where is America’s conscience, let alone Obama’s? Where is America’s, let alone Obama’s, SOUL?
If you are inclined to respond to this blog, please don’t respond with reasons I should hate Ron Paul. Respond with any reasons you may have why Obama’s murderous imperialism is acceptable to you as a member of the family of man and woman and children as the standard for lesser of two evils-ness.
[cross-posted at correntewire and sacramento for democracy]
---------------
I've disliked Paul since I've known of him (and his frenzied supporters). I may vote for him just as a no vote to the duopoly/US imperialism, though.
Vote Green. If the Dems lose they'll know where they have to go for votes to win in the future.
Ummmm, no.
I'm not voting for Obama either, but Ron Paul (and his evil Minny Me clone son of his) are MUCH worse.
I'm all for stopping senseless war and incarcerations, I'm all for stopping the corporate ownership of this country and I'm all for legalization of marihuana. What I CAN'T abide is any of those "anti"s you mentioned nor the fascist hate that drives them.
So no. I'd take Obama over Paul any day because Obama simply sucks. Paul has a brown shirt on under his "Libertarian Man" cape.
P.S. Write in Sanders/Warren in 2012!
I'm not voting for Obama either, but Ron Paul (and his evil Minny Me clone son of his) are MUCH worse.
I'm all for stopping senseless war and incarcerations, I'm all for stopping the corporate ownership of this country and I'm all for legalization of marihuana. What I CAN'T abide is any of those "anti"s you mentioned nor the fascist hate that drives them.
So no. I'd take Obama over Paul any day because Obama simply sucks. Paul has a brown shirt on under his "Libertarian Man" cape.
P.S. Write in Sanders/Warren in 2012!
Ok so when, as will happen, Paul loses in their pimaries, will you then support him should he run on a third-party ticket and so help to guarantee the president's re-election?
...and Amy's clear-as-a-bell right.
This is why Obama gives the finger to the Left. It's not like the Left kept Bush out of a second term, got Obama elected, ended world hunger, or really did much of anything but talk about dead Europeans during the past 11 years.
Before the Left makes demands, there needs to be some contribution, and soon, before irrelevancy sets in.
Before the Left makes demands, there needs to be some contribution, and soon, before irrelevancy sets in.
Dream . . . Someday we will have the choice between two good, rather than two evil.
Thanks for comments. I suppose this is as pragmatic as I have ever been promoting Paul to a degree in order to demote Obama. Paul has some frightening stances, BUT Paul is not at the mercy of, not ENTHRALLED TO, the corrupt and capturing matrix or the combination of matrices, the media one, the Israeli one, the oligarchy's, the politician's group think cronyism one, and the military/industrial/security complex matrix. The enemy of my enemy is my somewhat friend maybe in this case and the combo matrix is the enemy of all of us 99%ers, even those in denial projecting onto Obama what is not there.
It also chills me once again that the "thou shalt not kill" human mandate is glossed over as much by Obama's followers here on open salon as by Obama himself and group-think cronyism without taking responsibility for reality is not acknowledged. Ignore, deny or minimize what should be in a civilized world among humane humans unignorable, undeniable and unworthy of minimization! libby
It also chills me once again that the "thou shalt not kill" human mandate is glossed over as much by Obama's followers here on open salon as by Obama himself and group-think cronyism without taking responsibility for reality is not acknowledged. Ignore, deny or minimize what should be in a civilized world among humane humans unignorable, undeniable and unworthy of minimization! libby
I just posted this as a comment on Jacob's blog but the cognitive dissonance has me so whammied I am going to post it here, too.
Did I just hear right on my teebee news? Re Harry Belafonte!
http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/152374/harry-belafonte-still-speaks-to-his-own-tune
""I wasn’t an artist who became an activist. I was an activist who became an artist," Belafonte said.
"As an activist, he marched side by side with The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement often risking his career and his life.
"Harry Belafonte also raised millions of dollars to help Civil Rights workers and often condemned American foreign policy.
"He took some heat for calling President George W. Bush a terrorist and he does not mince words when talking about President Barack Obama either.
""I feel that what’s at stake here is Barack Obama has lost his moral compass," Belafonte said. "You said you were gonna end Guantanamo and torture. Well Guantanamo still exists and torture is still in our presence."
"Belafonte says his criticism of much of President Obama's foreign policy is not personal, but he says he takes great pride in exercising his First Amendment rights. However, the Harlem-born activist stunned the audience with this admission about the current president, saying, "I’ll tell you this much: I’m voting for him."
Say what?
Et tu, Harry? Once again, cronyism over tough love prevails.
Did I just hear right on my teebee news? Re Harry Belafonte!
http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/152374/harry-belafonte-still-speaks-to-his-own-tune
""I wasn’t an artist who became an activist. I was an activist who became an artist," Belafonte said.
"As an activist, he marched side by side with The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement often risking his career and his life.
"Harry Belafonte also raised millions of dollars to help Civil Rights workers and often condemned American foreign policy.
"He took some heat for calling President George W. Bush a terrorist and he does not mince words when talking about President Barack Obama either.
""I feel that what’s at stake here is Barack Obama has lost his moral compass," Belafonte said. "You said you were gonna end Guantanamo and torture. Well Guantanamo still exists and torture is still in our presence."
"Belafonte says his criticism of much of President Obama's foreign policy is not personal, but he says he takes great pride in exercising his First Amendment rights. However, the Harlem-born activist stunned the audience with this admission about the current president, saying, "I’ll tell you this much: I’m voting for him."
Say what?
Et tu, Harry? Once again, cronyism over tough love prevails.
Libby,
You do not have to hold your nose to vote for Ron Paul (for the first time in recent history).
Here are some clarifications on his positions:
(Note that his positions are not sound-bite quick – they are detailed and logical)
#1: “anti-Gay” – Paul’s position is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
Government involvement in this personal issue is what led to making Gay marriage illegal in the first place.
He does not want to make your personal decisions about who you love for you—to Dr. Paul, that’s your business and no one else’s.
#2: Anti-Abortion: Although he is personally against abortion, as long as the legality of abortion was determined in a Constitutional manner—it stands.
However, abortion is a hot-button issue that will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of Americans. Therefore he advocates the Libertarian approach where States and even counties can decide on the issue (much like dry counties that exist today) –
It’s not the best solution, but from a pro-choice point of view, as ;long as abortion is a Federal issue, it’s legality can (and is) challenged and could be overturned by the Supreme Court as easily as it was instituted.
Remember anything that can be made legal can be made illegal with the same effort.
But, keep in mind that if abortion legality was determined on the local level, the down side would be that someone may have to cross state lines to get one – however, States rights could be invoked against any group that wishes to interfere with it.
It becomes a bigger target for the anti-choice groups and more difficult to focus their political actions.
#3: Anti-universal health care: First of all Dr. Paul, as a physician, provided free health services to the poor (without accepting Medicaid) and still made a decent living.
His detailed position can be found here: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
I agree that his position can sound unsettling at first, but focusing on the root cause of high medical costs is something that the current pro and anti universal healthcare politicians are willing to do.
Getting the costs down and offering more choices should have been the first step either way.
#4: Anti-Welfare: His detailed positions and voting records are here: http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
#5: Pro-guns: Yes, and I used to be anti guns, but I’ve changed my mind – so have many people who looked into the actual facts of gun violence.
#6: Pro-capital punishment: Here’s are two direct quotes by Dr. Paul: “my position now is, since I am a federal official and I would be a U. S. President, is I do not believe in the federal death penalty...”
“It’s so racist, too. I think that more than half of the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks.”
The bottom line is that, as a Libertarian, Ron Paul is unwilling to foist his personal views on anyone else. That’s the basis for liberty—we make our own choices and pursue the lives that give us purpose.
He is not against laws and safety and health regulations, he is against establishing huge, money sucking, inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies that can be influenced by corporate interests and politics.
The people that are against him are those that want to call your shots for you.
Remember the song line: “He can’t even run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine…”
Keep researching – he’s a lot less “evil” than you think.
You do not have to hold your nose to vote for Ron Paul (for the first time in recent history).
Here are some clarifications on his positions:
(Note that his positions are not sound-bite quick – they are detailed and logical)
#1: “anti-Gay” – Paul’s position is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
Government involvement in this personal issue is what led to making Gay marriage illegal in the first place.
He does not want to make your personal decisions about who you love for you—to Dr. Paul, that’s your business and no one else’s.
#2: Anti-Abortion: Although he is personally against abortion, as long as the legality of abortion was determined in a Constitutional manner—it stands.
However, abortion is a hot-button issue that will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of Americans. Therefore he advocates the Libertarian approach where States and even counties can decide on the issue (much like dry counties that exist today) –
It’s not the best solution, but from a pro-choice point of view, as ;long as abortion is a Federal issue, it’s legality can (and is) challenged and could be overturned by the Supreme Court as easily as it was instituted.
Remember anything that can be made legal can be made illegal with the same effort.
But, keep in mind that if abortion legality was determined on the local level, the down side would be that someone may have to cross state lines to get one – however, States rights could be invoked against any group that wishes to interfere with it.
It becomes a bigger target for the anti-choice groups and more difficult to focus their political actions.
#3: Anti-universal health care: First of all Dr. Paul, as a physician, provided free health services to the poor (without accepting Medicaid) and still made a decent living.
His detailed position can be found here: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
I agree that his position can sound unsettling at first, but focusing on the root cause of high medical costs is something that the current pro and anti universal healthcare politicians are willing to do.
Getting the costs down and offering more choices should have been the first step either way.
#4: Anti-Welfare: His detailed positions and voting records are here: http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
#5: Pro-guns: Yes, and I used to be anti guns, but I’ve changed my mind – so have many people who looked into the actual facts of gun violence.
#6: Pro-capital punishment: Here’s are two direct quotes by Dr. Paul: “my position now is, since I am a federal official and I would be a U. S. President, is I do not believe in the federal death penalty...”
“It’s so racist, too. I think that more than half of the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks.”
The bottom line is that, as a Libertarian, Ron Paul is unwilling to foist his personal views on anyone else. That’s the basis for liberty—we make our own choices and pursue the lives that give us purpose.
He is not against laws and safety and health regulations, he is against establishing huge, money sucking, inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies that can be influenced by corporate interests and politics.
The people that are against him are those that want to call your shots for you.
Remember the song line: “He can’t even run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine…”
Keep researching – he’s a lot less “evil” than you think.
" focusing on the root cause of high medical costs is something that the current pro and anti universal healthcare politicians are NOT willing to do."
--oops
--oops
Libby - Rated for your endurance without the use of a respirator. There's a lot to digest here - the bottom line is I'm not ready to vote yet.
spumey, thanks for that feedback! I am eager to explore more about Paul. so few people in power or asking for power are fighting for our civil liberties, our constitution. quite the opposite. will followup re Paul more earnestly.
marilyn, thanks for commenting and rating. so nice to see ya!
marilyn, thanks for commenting and rating. so nice to see ya!
It is understandable why a liberal would look to Paul, because between the two major parties, he is the only one who at least in part, supports a liberal agenda. As for Obama: http://nothingchanged.org
But, Paul is not the only option. You can pick a third party candidate, and while it is assured that candidate will not win, if enough people do this, the Democrats might look up from their partisan hackery and find that in order to win elections, they have to get back to their roots. That would be a win of principles, even if it is not a win for a specific third party candidate.
The MOST important thing for a true liberal however, is to vote, and NOT vote for Obama. That sends a message that Right Wingers in Liberal clothes just aren't going to cut it.
But, Paul is not the only option. You can pick a third party candidate, and while it is assured that candidate will not win, if enough people do this, the Democrats might look up from their partisan hackery and find that in order to win elections, they have to get back to their roots. That would be a win of principles, even if it is not a win for a specific third party candidate.
The MOST important thing for a true liberal however, is to vote, and NOT vote for Obama. That sends a message that Right Wingers in Liberal clothes just aren't going to cut it.
No comments:
Post a Comment