Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Moment of Truth for Obama and the Democrats
Fellow Americans, and fellow Democrats and Obama supporters, we are at a moment of truth, a pivotal turning point -- in the form of what happens in the next days and weeks with robust, universal health reform. A fork in the road socially, economically -- and politically. It could go either way depending on Obama and the Democratic officeholders many of us worked so hard to elect. They have the power to act, but will they use it -- or lose it?
If at this remarkable juncture Obama and the Democrats cannot enact a robust health care reform -- with a strong nationwide public option, cost controls, and nearly universal coverage -- I would not want to be in charge of fundraising and mobilization for them in the 2010 and 2012 elections! Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican.. But if Obama and the Democrats cannot act now on a once in a half century challenge and opportunity, they are not worthy of extra energy. And those of us who wrote big checks last time will tell the Democrats -- especially in the Senate -- to hold pharmaceutical fundraisers instead.
Key leaps forward for U.S. public social provision -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- have NEVER happened through "bipartisan" compromises and they always happen in close votes. They have always sqweaked through after gargantuan effort, strong presidential pressure, and refusal to allow eviscerating compromises. Think of Social Security if the Clark amendment -- allowing corporate opt-out -- had passed in 1935. We would not have it. And conservatives and the medical and insurance establishments cried "socialism" in 1965, too. We would not have Medicare if we had listened.
Obama and the Democrats are coming off a historic, landslide election. They have all the popular support for robust reform they will ever have. Good policy design as well public desire for change and considerations of social justice and economic efficiency insist that they enact health care reform with a strong public plan in the mix. That is the only way to move toward cost control and guaranteed access with quality to all -- especially for Americans in lower economic strata or in rural states where one or two private insurers call the tune. There is no need for "bipartisanship" and the calls for it from some weak-kneed Democrats are merely excuses for doing the business of the medical-insurance establishment. Senators Baucus, Conrad, Feinstein, Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh -- this means you. All of you come from states where people really need robust reform and you should step up.
The stakes here in political-economic terms are NOT between a "free market" and "government control." They are between two alternative uses of government regulations and subsidies: We will in America continue on the path set over the past thirty years: using government regulations and subsidies to distribute income and security upward, to guaranteed private profits; or will we redirect government interventions toward expanding popular security and leveling the economic playing field for various businesses? So-called conservatives seeking "compromise" on health care reform want more subsidies for their buddies' profits, and want to force more Americans to buy inefficient products (through a mandate to buy private insurance). If Obama and the Democrats agree to such compromises under the name of "reform" they will have squandered the country's future economically -- and undercut their own political fortunes for the future.
Because let's not kid ourselves: WHATEVER passes this year will make the Democrats owners of the health care mess going forward. If they just throw more subsidies and piecemeal regulations into the current system, they will ensure galloping public costs for residual arrangements and for subsidies to private insurers who will easily find ways to avoid sick or costly patients. Businesses and citizens will grow more and more irritated as time passes, and will blame the Democrats. Rightly so.
And to return to my theme at the start: no matter if Senate Democrats still think they are operating in the world of the 1980s or 1993, they are not. Activist Democrats -- mobilizers, volunteers, bloggers, analysts, and donors -- are watching them. We will know exactly who blocks or eviscerates real reform here. We WILL blame the Senate and the responsible individual Senators. And many of us will blame the Obama adminsitration if it does not take a strong stand on the public option and real reform, starting right now. Whatever he says in public, Obama needs to draw lines in the sand with Democrats in private -- and get tough. If he does not, and this fizzles into no legislation or reform in appeance only, energy will dissipate from the Demorats and the Obama movement. There will be the wrong kind of turning point for them -- and for America.
So step up now, Obama and the Democratic Party. Your moment is here and now.
- Posted in
122 Comments so far
Show AllWill the avoidable YEARLY deaths of 22,000 Americans due to lack of health insurance mean more to members of Congress than their campaign contributions from the profit-care insurance industry?
Stay tuned...
Shoot, the death of Americans don't matter to them.
The deaths of anyone don't matter to them unless making a stand serves them politically/financially.
Interesting that the author makes threatening noises but outright states that of course they will never support a Republican. If she hasn't had reason to be yet outraged, it is unlikely that she would be willing to support anything outside the 2 party monopoly--so anything she says amounts to big talk, no action. The Democrats know they are a captive block so they turn their attention to curry favor with the Right while Democrats continue back them fearing the Republicans will win.
There is no escape from that box.
I think Theda is hinting that if Progressives organize and unite to win, which is politics 101, that there is an escape from the box.
This is an opportunity to show that when the going gets tough, the tough get goin.
The question now is, do we have what it takes to do take the next giant step?
Perhaps they should rebrand themselves as Demosquats since they have done squat for the American People since Slick Willie basically converted the party into a cesspool of corruption and indifference to the needs of working people.
And we don't need a 'public option', we need universal health care, not to mention an end to endless wars, accountability for war criminals, an end to corporate personhood, and on and on. Two sides of the same coin of empire, what a useless article to post!!
"Slick Willie basically converted the party into a cesspool of corruption and indifference to the needs of working people."
I wonder where you get that. The Clinton administration has a list of accomplishments as long as your arm--the longest economic expansion in American history, lowest unemployment in 30 years, lowest crime rate in 26 years, higher income at all levels, lowest teen birth rate in 60 years, etc.--all excellent stuff for the working class, as was the Family Leave Act and the largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill.
You might want to hang around a bit less with Clintophobes. Clintophobes are very fervent--but they don't know doodley squat about the Clintons.
As for corruption, it is the opposite of what you said. As measured by the total number of convictions and forced resignations, the Clinton Administration was the cleanest two-term Presidential administration of the 20th century--the cleanest since Teddy Roosevelt.
Clinton is currently rated the 15th greatest President by historians, which is not very consistent with a "cesspool" of an administration.
Your harsh words about Clinton suggest you may been influenced by the mulit-million campaign of character assassination directed against the man and his famly. It was easily the most comprehensive and successful ad hominem propaganda campaign in world history.
Part of the reason the Democratic Party is so messed up is that most progressives still believe crap about the Clintons that was made up by right-wing psychos during the 90s. As far as I can see, they haven't questioned a bit of it or checked any of it out.
This means that many Democrats will go to their graves hating their own President. What a signal triumph for the right-wing slime machine.
None of this speaks well of today's progressives. Consider the sorry record:
They swallowed right-wing lies about their own President--and even went around repeating them.
They thought Obama would be hot sh*t.
PS: Read "The Hunting of the President," by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons.
Excellent post. Mr. Logan is, respectfully, full of it.
Clinton also gave us Waco, where 80 men, woman and children were MURDERED and burned to a crisp, IRAQ where they systematically killed-off children (with Ms. Albright's blessings), and as we know, NAFTA was--to this day--just great for the working citizens of this nation, wasn't it?
While they may claim the "victories" you speak of, they pale in light of anything substantial like Medicare or Social Security or Civil Rights.
The Clintons were just as much the murderers and empire builders as Bush and his successor, Blackbush.
When you talk about The Money, they gave the People zilch. Its ALL about the money. The hell with birth rates, and piddly give-aways. The vast amount of money went, and still goes, to the murderous military industrial complex and the richest of this land.
As for the article, they'll not give us single-payer because they are ruthless, heartless, greedy sons-of-bitches, and because there's nothing we can do about it short of going to Washington to make them give it to us.
Screw the tawdry, jaded hillbillies known as "The Clintons".
"...tawdry, jaded hillbillies..." I like that. How many Iraqi children died under US sanctions in Clinton's 8 years office? Half a million? How many people were slaughtered in his illegal bombing of Yugoslavia?
Oregoncharles
Clinton gave us pre-emptive bombings in Iraq. It was, still is, illegal to bomb a sovereign nation unless they have attacked you first, in other words for defense. And he presided over the deaths of half a million children who died as a result of severe sanctions that prevented them from getting medical care and supplies to save their lives.
I'm always astounded by the callousness of some people. You're more concerned about pumping up your identity ("I'm a Democrat!") than you are about the lives of innocent, suffering people.
If you're in favor of the brutal killings, wars for empire and great wealth, torture, bank bailouts, corporate subsidized health care, FISA, that's your business but don't expect anyone here to buy into your bs. Spare us, please. You could join up to fight in Obama's wars if you like. Maybe you could train to be a drone operator and kill little children playing in dusty, empty yards in Afghanistan.
The rest of us can see right through to the bottom of this cesspool and we are very concerned about what we see there.
Have a nice day.
Don't forget Don't ask Don't Tell and DOMA...
Clinton wasn't all that great for everybody.
So is this is what all the discredited Obama shills are now retreating to - revisionist defenders of Clinton?
What economic expansion? You mean his ridiculous specuative bubble economy that benefited only the wealthy? For me and most workers, the 1990's represented the longest upbroken period without a raise, while the possibility of home ownership receded further our of sight.
The Family Leave (completly without pay or benefits even a job when you go back) Act??? You have got to be kidding.
Then there is his hang-em high death penalty act. and his "get a job you lazy welfare collecter" Act.
His complete inaction and sabotage of any effective international action on global warming - expertly pursued by Al Gore himself.
Clinton has the blood of hundreds of thousands if Iraqi, children staining his soul plus more than a few Hatians, Somali's. Sudanese and Serbians. As his secritary of State said: "It was worth it" in pursuit of his power agenda.
Then there was Clinton's and his international capitalist buddy's near successful push at the complete subjugation of national and local sovereignty to the intererests of corporations and investors - AKA "free trade"? Thank goodnes for the brave efforts and blood shed in Ssattle, DC, Quebeec, Goteborg, Genoa and many other places for at least slowing that effort. The spirit of Porto Allegre will continue.
And I didn't learn any of this stuff from a right winger. Unless the "Monthly Review" is a right wing rag.
I refer you to Amy Goodmans famous interview of Clinton on his last day in office.
Clinton has a place waiting or him in hell.
Add to the list of Clinton's accomplishments really slick NAFTA, the slickest way to deindustrialize US of A and to get rid of unions.
On another hand, who are we to judge history? Slick Willey might have done good job for the rest of humankind by starting defunging the beast, cleaning way for haves and have mores and unmasking people's capitalism.
Democrats nominated Obysmal because they didn't want a third Clinton term.
Then the rank and file became gutless and refused to vote for a third party after the FISA vote.
So they got a third Clinton term.
Now that you've finished your Lewinsky of Slick Willy, here are a few other things not to forget.
Clinton gave us NAFTA.
Clinton gave us DOMA.
Clinton gave us Don't ask, don't tell.
Clinton finished ripping apart the safety net we so badly need right now with his Welfare Reform.
Clinton bombed Iraq every three days on average for 8 years.
Clinton, with American sponsored sanctions, was responsible for the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5. When asked, Madeline Albright said the price was worth it.
Clinton was responsible for the deaths in Waco.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss' - Pete Townshend
Sioux Rose
D COSTELLO: Apart from "Ruin Iraq, Part I" I would say the 3 worst things emerging from Clinton, oops, make it 4 are:
1. The deregulation of the FCC which allowed for a handful of broadcast companies (all with ties to big business and/or the MIC) to effectively OWN content and manufacture consent for oh, I don't know, things like a war based on false pretenses.
2. NAFTA: Effectively gutting the nation's industrial base and leaving blue collar workers fighting for crumbs, disabling many unions.
3. Taking away the firewall that Glass-Steagall maintained to keep the banks from speculating on Wall ST. Enter the current disaster, and in the glaring light of day the same perpetrators at the wheel pretending to manage the crisis or heal conditions when they are ultimately arrogating more freedoms to themselves to enact yet more carnage to the global financial system.
4. Ending "welfare" as we know it... to the poor, but opening the door to all kinds of military deals that Bush made a heydey out of. Private armies, anyone?
Clinton has done enormous damage... and it keeps on going, each Prez feeding on the disasters of the former, and each covering the others' asses so that we now have lawlessness posing as leadership, and it's giving rise to serious crimes of escalating proportions.
Most of us who supported them (the Obysmalistas) last time will of course not vote for a Republican . . .
Right you are! I'm writing in my bulldog.
You might want to see how much money Obama and the rest of the fascist government took from the
"health care industry". Then you might get the general picture of where we are headed.
Too bad the american people will not get off the sofa and into the streets like they do in the
rest of the world.
The deal with health in this country is that the sick are of course the ultement minority. Most
people rairly think about the problem unless it hits home. I go garage sale shopping every week
and there are always somebody selling everything they own because of a medical problem. I always
ask them if they wished they lived in Canada and the most of them still don't get it. IT always just blows me away. A lot of the time they repeat the propaganda "we hear they have to wait for health care" They never seem to realize that you can wait till you are dead in the greatest country in the world and never get health care or have spent the last dime you have....
We do not see anything changing anytime soon. For now the corporations have won but even they will realize soon that they are going to be beating a dead horse.
SINGLE PAYER ALL THE WAY
Oregoncharles
the author called "the pack of naive timid sheep who supported Obama a "movement."
It's not a movement until it moves! It's in desperate need of a powerful laxative. I will be happy to supply the Cascara tea at the next MoveOn convention.
ROFL, Charles.
The answer to what do we all do if a public option doesn't pass is simple.
A third party so loud and huge, uniting all factions (greens,naderites etc) that the CM will have to cover our candidate!
If we stop standing in the wrong corners at the IA caucus, we could do this.
Hey, look!
The title uses "Obama" and "Truth" in the same sentence.
"Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican."
And there's the rub. Most Americans will vote for the Dems again. Bill Maher nailed it, "the Democrats are the new Republicans". If the Dems lose enough support then we get the "crazies" of the radical Right. The "business party", the "property party" aka, our ruling party (with 2 factions) will still run the show. Maher is right, we do not have a party that represents the interests of the majority of Americans. Until we do, the Dems will continue to sell out their base who elected them.
Lance Sulfa, in his book the "The Democrats: a Critical History", demonstrates over and over again, how the Democratic Party has coaxed progressives, labor, environmental, peace and civil rights activists to join the party promising positive change, only to dissipate movement energy, delivering after tremendous work by activists, crumbs or nothing at all. He makes it clear, that this, is in fact the Democratic Party's role in American politics - to channel the energy of social movements away from actually affecting the status quo. We will never get anything from the Democrats. It's time to abandon the Democratic Party. We must build independent movements and, our own party. In capitalist Europe, why were they able to achieve universal health care? They have 3rd parties (and 4th and 5th...), Labor and Green parties that actually represent the interests of working people.
It is my understanding that capitalist Britain at least got a national health care system as a direct by-product of World War II. The citizenry became accustomed to receiving rationed "national emergency" health care services that accompanied dispersal (evacuation) of a lot of children out of the urban population centers into rural communities. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, and related medical care delivery resources were geographically redistributed as well.
When the war finally ended, Labour unexpectedly ousted Churchill's Tories from power chiefly over the issue of scaling back on empire in favor of reconstruction at home, and government-run health care was a wartime measure that became successfully institutionalized. The British people were familiar with the system that had grown up. They trusted it, no matter how much ideological hyperbole was thrown at them about the evils of centrally planned socialism, or the purported virtues of free market economics.
Bill from Saginaw
So true.
And Truman had a similar opportunity - millions of USAns came home and had become accustomed to the free military hospital healthcare system. So Truman proposed a national healthcare insurance syatem for all.
Unfortunately, he did cave to the cries of "socialism"!
Good post, exactly right.
"And many of us will blame the Obama adminsitration if it does not take a strong stand on the public option and real reform, starting right now."
-yeah, blame them and then, like good The Nation liberals, implore us with lesserevilistic arguments to support them again because the dreaded Republicans are coming. These liberals will never break with Democrats.
"Just give him another chance," they'll implore, "What about the Supreme Court?" "Look, Obama gave us Sotomayor didn't he?"
The Democrats certainly are the new Republicans, no doubt about that.
But the Parliamentary system is not winner take all and it is designed so that multi parties can form coalitions and 3rd parties can have some power.
What power do the Greens or any 3rd party have in the USA?
I will tell you they only have a small influence on whether the Dems or Repubs will win. So in the USA they preserve the status quo simply because they don't unite.
Since our system is designed to only elect a Dem or Repub, We have to organize and form the coalitions outside the congress to get our reps elected.
We are not Europe which means as they now operate, none of our 3rd parties can win.... Why? Because they don't even try to unite so they end up splitting all our power and votes.
The sooner we realize that this is not Europe the sooner we will progress.
Because progressives have allowed ourselves to be conned by this, we cant get any progress.
In a winner take all system like the USA, if you don't unite to win, you lose like we love to prove over and over again.
The Big Boys take advantage of these hard facts and we let them. We like to complain and act hopeless and the Big Boys smile at our stupidity.
We are the Revolution...if we work for it.
Great article. I really don't understand why the Democrats are so concerned with repub support on health care. The GOP has gone completely insane as in the case of one Dan Burton a repub congressman who wanted a cost benefit analysis of putting a plexiglass dome around the house chamber to protect the legislators (from what exactly I'm not sure.) Then there is Governor Mark Sanford from South Calolina famouus for refusing federal stimulus money to help the people of his state then reportedly spending Fathers' Day weekend down in Argentina apparently to be away from his kids. On Fathers' Day?????????????
Do we have ANY representation in our government right now?? The dems are completely in the pockets of FOR-PROFIT insurance, big pharma and greedy doctors. The republicans have crazied themselves into complete irrelevancy. If the dems fail on health care, where are we to turn in 2010?
"If the dems fail on health care, where are we to turn in 2010?"
nixon68 (whoa, why does that handle give me the willies?),
I don't know where we turn to in 2010. I will say that Americans seem to have a fetish over "leaders" and being lead. I think some of the founders of this country would have a problem with that. It seems so ingrained that most, from the far left to the far right, cling to it like a drowning man clings to a bloated corpse floating in the sea.
So, who do we vote for in 2010? The Democrats will give us the Democratic wing of the corporate party. Whatever psycho candidates the Republicans vomit up will give us the Republican wing of the same corporate party. And we will once again be asking the same stupid, inane questions that we've been asking for a generation...or more.
In other words, as long as we look "out there" without moving our own feet, we will lose.
2010? You've lost the battle if you ask that question.
you do NOT wait until 2010 and hope there is an option.
you start working on school board elections on up to get 3rd party candidates elected.
the Libertarians are not a third party - they are Republicans that smoke dope.
Repubs that smoke dope? We need more of them if we want to win.
It is an inescapable fact of life that greed is an insatiable appetite. No matter what they may profess, it is endemic among both Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
I, too, am tired of being seduced by the Democratic Party and the icons such as Bill Clinton and, now, Barack Obama. They all do a laudible job of screwing without benefit of kiss.
Perhaps the time has come to seriously re-visit the political philosophy of Paul Wellstone and try to build a meaningful alternative to what is euphamistically referred to as a "two-party" system that now has a strangle-hold on our national politics.
With the sheer numbers and the caliber of progressives in society today, surely there must be a ray of hope left.
It is an inescapable fact of life that greed is an insatiable appetite. No matter what they may profess, it is endemic among both Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
I, too, am tired of being seduced by the Democratic Party and the icons such as Bill Clinton and, now, Barack Obama. They all do a laudible job of screwing without benefit of kiss.
Perhaps the time has come to seriously re-visit the political philosophy of Paul Wellstone and try to build a meaningful alternative to what is euphamistically referred to as a "two-party" system that now has a strangle-hold on our national politics.
With the sheer numbers and the caliber of progressives in society today, surely there must be a ray of hope left.
The good news here, of course -- is at last, at long last, the Democratic Party faithful might actually be beginning to "get it". After multiple sell-outs, lay-downs, surrenders to any criminality (and broad-daylight-banker-heists of billions of taxpayers money) Bush and Cheney cared to suggest, many like myself are wondering what the hell took them so long. If the upcoming health care "reform" sellout is what it takes to bring folks around to serious consideration of alternatives to either appalling camp, maybe -- just maybe -- we'll be getting somewhere ...
It's all about the bottom line folks and we don't give guys like Bauchus or gals like DIFI millions to run for re-election when the time comes. BIG VAMPIRE CARE does. $$ talks and BS runs the marathon. We're all just so much BS as far as the Congresscritters are concerned. Obama is rapidly going to lose big chunks of his base if he fumbles this, but he figs. in a couple of yrs. we'll all get over it.
Obama has made it clear that "reform" must be passed this year. He has willfully made it very unclear exactly what the "reform" will be. That is, put a bill, any goddamn "health reform" bill on my desk, this year or else! Because Obama wants the political victory, not actual significant change in the health care system. It doesn't matter what kind of contradictory, self-defeating, toothless but ugly Frankenstein monster they send him. He'll sign it and shake hands proudly with Mitch McConnell, John Behner, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The end result will be a frightful deepening of the health care crisis, ever greater concentration of wealth and political power in ever fewer hands, "modernization" of medical records (as the federal government becomes less transparent, your records become more transparent), etc. etc.
I don't know what is going on with Barack Obama. Either he made his choice years ago or he is going to go the mats and find out quick who his real friends are. If we get real health care reform, 70% of the electorate will be his friends. If not, look out! Those 70% out there know that something is wrong with the bloated, unfair, inefficient system we have now, but they seem unable to remember anything past about one week ago. Who knows who they'll follow in 2010, 2012 and 2016? Who knows who they'll blame for this failure and what they'll decide to do about it?
A not-for-profit health care system that covers EVERYONE. Anything less is pure BS.
Good grief! Could it really be true?! A moment of truth "for Obama and the Democrats" at long last!
I suppose a moment of truth for the U.S. public (i.e., non-corporate persons) would be too much to hope for even at this late date.
20-30 years ago George Carlin did a great stand-up bit about the difference between Russia(the Evil Empire)and the U.S.A., one of the things he pointed out was that Russia was corrupt because they only had one party to vote for and that it was SO MUCH BETTER here in the U.S. because we had, count em, TWO parties. That was way back when, during Ronnie Ray-gun and the mine's bigger "nuclear phallacy" cold war with said Evil Empire. Things have only gotten worse. Three parties aren't even enough, you need at least 5 parties to ensure that none ever have an outright majority and that all governing is done by coalition.
Alas, if only we could sit down and redraw the lines of political power distribution necessary to achieve the 3, 4, or 5 political parties you envision.
The problem is federalism and ballot access. Ask Ralph Nader. Wholly aside from the financial hurdles facing creation of viable new political parties, each state has its own bizarre formulae for qualifying to even get a slot on the ballot, and the two major parties will fight tooth and nail (very bipartisanly) to disqualify the new kids on the block.
It would probably require a constitutional amendment to achieve the multi-party world you and I would both like to see come into existence in the United States. And how do you think the two major political parties would react to that effort?
Bill from Saginaw
At one point, the Florida legislature passed strict requirements for a political party in order to outlaw the Communist Party there -
and the requirements were so strict they accidently outlawed the Republican Party. The quickly reversed. Can't hurt your partner in crime.
I don't think that was the answer George Carlin was humorously pointing out since we already have more than 5 parties.
Okay, so after this so-called "moment of truth" becomes a moment of betrayal (or really, just keeping the same policies that Obama espoused while running for president which his supporters chose to ignore) will all the Democrats and Obama supporters ditch their childish delusions?
So true. Do these supporters forget Obama's about face on FISA before the election??? Get real. Universal Healthcare will NEVER happen with Obama and these Dems. NEVER.
If history repeats itself, all the outrage will be checked at the voting booth curtain and because of fear that a vote for a Progressive will ultimately be a vote for the Republicans, most Progressive Democrats will vote for Obama again. We need NOW to start grooming a Progressive candidate by building name recognition and the appearance of an actual chance to defeat the (two?) mainstream party candidates. How about a Kucinich/Paul ticket? I put them in that order simply because I prefer the former over the latter, but if they were both on the ticket in any order, I would vote for them! They should both be getting pretty fed up with their Party affiliation by that time if nothing changes between now and then, and they are both already pretty well known, and know their way around congress.
Sioux Rose
JOHN2: That's a very interesting team. And even if there are many things about Paul I dislike, I'd take it ANY day over the usual fare. The problem/question is how to get the two into media or debates. Can Utube or an Internet group, a more enlightened version of Move.on create enough clout? The PUBLIC is ready and eager for other. Paul could draw in some of those disillusioned from conservative sectors, whereas Dennis would speak to the ideals of progressives. It would be a fascinating "marriage," and probably the only one that could draw together the genuine needs of workers across the spectrum. Wow... maybe this is the ONE PAGE ad that CD persons might consider supporting? Where we define ourselves as a forum and publicly call upon the aforementioned to unify and run in order to preserve what's left of citizens' rights, lives, & liberties. There's also the chance of using a billboard or metro bus ad campaign.
Oregoncharles
Paul is not a supporter of single payer or any government "interference" in health care.
I like his stand on many issues but he is not a progressive as are Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. But many progressives don't like Nader because, you know, they were taught not to.
"Paul is not a supporter of single payer or any government "interference" in health care."
What about legalizing industrial hemp and removing Raygun's state to state ban against transporting raw milk? In some other ways, Paul is for opening more doors to better healthcare and reducing the costs. I too wished he would open his heart to single payer but I love his other ideas. Plus, he doesn't support most of those "free" trade deals since he knows they're nothing but foreign briberies. I know I may sound desperate saying this but if I had to pick between Obama and Paul, I'd pick Paul in a heartbeat.
Oh no, another Ron Paul kool-aid drinker.
Ron Paul is a "Libertarian". Libertarianism, as the term is used in the US, is a belief in dog-eat-dog capitalism as a social ideal. They believe that the acquisition of wealth is the epitome of what it is to be a human, and that the unlucky or weak must be left to die. They do not believe in the concept of "society". Libertarians, including Paul, believe that in all forms of common-wealth and regulation - environmental laws, labor laws, social security should be abolished.
Their bibles are the novels of Ayn Rand - particularly her novel "Atlas Shrugged".
Trade deals have nothing to do with foreign bribery - although that is how a libertarian may view it (they tend to be isolationist). The so-called "trade deals" really represent the foundation of of a meta-government of the investor class which has veto power over individual nations and communities and their efforts to provide worker rights and environmental protection.
Obama is so bad exactly because he has adopted so many of the libertarian economics of Paul.
And yeah, all that legalized hemp and raw milk will really help a poor uninsured woman who discovers a limp in her breast. Heck, if we had legalized hemp and raw milk, it would surely prevent those 20,000 uninsured person's deaths every year. Yeah, that's all we need legalized hemp and raw milk...
Name calling aside, I agree re Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy and adherence to Ayn Rand. This is the epitome of cowboy diplomacy that Reagan was so fond of.
While Paul is a smart guy who shows integrity, I couldn't vote for him.
As for Nader...sigh...a political corpse and a major liability. I like Ralph, and agree with much of what he believes in, but he is a huge lead weight. That's why he runs unaffiliated. Time to cut bait with Ralph.
Anyway, another day, another round robin of "who's it gonna be?" Jeopardy.
'Ron Paul is a "Libertarian".'
Actually, the Libertarians rejected Ron Paul because he was too nutty for them.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the boss.' - Pete Townshend
"Oh no, another Ron Paul kool-aid drinker."
If you would just look at my posts, you'd realize I'm none of that. I vote on the issues and not on party affiliation. I know Paul's controversial stands but I am NOT a Ron Paul kool-aid drinker. If I had to pick between him and Kucinich, I would pick Kucinich. I hope that helps.