EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
- The Terror Con
Popular content
Today's Top News
Orthodoxies and Adolescents
One day when I was twelve years old, I told my grandmother, born in 1890 and a staunch believer in the Church of Rome, that I had doubts about the existence of God, as well as the idea that her beloved religion had a corner on the game of eternal salvation.
I knew that I was courting trouble. But even still, I wasn’t prepared for what came next. This woman, who had always cooed my name with love and laughed at almost everything I said, turned to me with a look that was equal parts disgust and disdain and said very angrily: “you’ll never amount to anything with ideas like that!”
This event came to mind while watching Bob Schieffer’s interview of Ron Paul on Face the Nation two Sundays ago. In it, Paul tells the long-time establishment reporter that there is a strong causal link between the way we as a nation conduct ourselves overseas (bribing, bullying, invading, occupying, assassinating and destroying) and the hostility that citizens of many foreign cultures have toward us.
Upon hearing this rather unassailable fact, the supposedly objective Schieffer was, like my grandmother all those many years ago, overcome (watch the clip) by a wave of physical repugnance. And like her, he did his best during the rest of the interview to shame the libertarian candidate into hedging or renouncing his position.
Speaking of orthodoxies and thoughts that can't be broached by "serious" people in the establishment, Wednesday’s New York Times reported that the growth of the British economy is stalled, and that as a result, the Cameron government is contemplating the application of still more budget cuts.
As Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs and others have ceaselessly pointed out, only people lacking the most basic understanding of economics would ever engage in sweeping austerity measures in a time of economic recession/depression.
So why, after predictably failing with its first application of such measures is the British Government now talking about doing more of the same?
Because the people that control the politicians see this as their big chance to finally destroy the "aberration" of the mid 20th century welfare state, you know, the thing that delivered hundreds of millions of people into the security of the middle class.
For thirty years, the large-scale capitalists have, through their control of media, hammered home the idea that government only screws things up…and that anyone who doesn’t believe this is a naïve child unable to grasp how the world really works.
Key to the functioning of this campaign of indoctrination are the ideological enforcement tactics on display in the Schieffer-Paul interview. The idea is to make it very, very uncomfortable for those expressing views that question the underlying orthodoxies of the plutocratic and war-making establishment.
An essential enabling factor in all this is the abject historical ignorance of the political class and the "media pundits" now in power, people born, for the most part, between 1955 and 1975.
They, like most of the people they grew up with, have no real understanding of the fact that the middle class lifestyle they have enjoyed did not--as the ideologues of the Right have told them throughout their entire adult lives--just appear because of market forces, but that it was mindfully engineered to happen. That’s right, it was meticulously and consciously engineered to happen by the political class that came of age in the wake of the Depression and the Second World War.
History is, at its core, an intellectual toolbox. By providing us with a broad longitudinal perspective it allows us to exercise critical judgment about the many things that are presented to us as "unassailable facts" in the heat of a given moment.
Without it, we are reduced to the status of children, people imprisoned by the need to respond in "socially appropriate" ways to the "urgent" stimuli of the cool (read powerful) people in our midst.
Look around. The coreless children (Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama, Cantor, Harper, and until quite recently, Zapatero) are now in charge everywhere, arrivistes all, careless and heedless in the way that only spoiled children who have not been forced to engage with tragedy (or some convincing representation of its stark imperatives) always are.
As people floating in the adolescent angst of the eternal present, subject above all, to a desire to please those they see as being smarter or cooler than themselves (check out Ron Suskind’s accounts of Obama’s obeisant behavior before the criminal bully Summers), they are resolutely incapable of the developing the only real compensations of maturity: courage, wisdom and compassion.
They are, sad to say, the perfect mirrors of their generation.
Our children will pay mightily for their arrested development.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




48 Comments so far
Show AllGreat Article. Very insightful............
Second that. Thank you, Thomas Harrington and Common Dreams! This is a concise and powerful analysis of the power of propaganda and perception management---practiced in earnest under Reagan's regime and perfected under Obama's.
But as with those risking eternal damnation by questioning the infallability of the Church, it is finally beginning to break down. Cognitive dissonance is rising as the stark realities of rigged-market cannibalism intrude on the myth of exclusive salvation and eternal bliss.
And the infallability of university sports enterprises. Patriarchal all.
I find these developmental psychology arguments to be unconvincing in relation to the historical and social analysis -- upon the death of FDR, the conservative conspiracy that had organized against the New Deal began to attack the top directors of the governmental agencies, bringing arguments that they were the agents of a communist conspiracy (a projection typical of paranoid schizophrenia, as Wilhelm Reich diagnosed of conservatives). In order to salvage social largesse, liberals made a deal with the devil, becoming staunch fighters of communism and then anything designated by conservatives as anti-American as an appeasement to conservative outrage, which has a notoriously low threshhold of violent response.
Liberals should learn that appeasement is only a viable strategy if it buys time for a reply of equal counterforce, but few of them were ever committed to the public interest in the first place, or else they would in fact have been Communists as conservatives charged.
Thanks for wise words, Class Act. From Grandma to TV interviewers to a very broad brush stroked over an entire generation, while Harrington posits some good insights, in other areas his needless generalizations undermine them. If someone wants to see proof that history is about human psychology, they'll cue into whatever reinforces their pet theory. If another person sees history mostly as a battle for economic self-determination, they'll find ample evidence to back that clause. And so on. Truth is a many faceted prism and those who endeavor to understand the multiple factors that shape it, in my view, qualify as the most keen philosophers and thinkers of our time.
"Look around. The coreless children (Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama, Cantor, Harper, and until quite recently, Zapatero) are now in charge everywhere, arrivistes all, careless and heedless in the way that only spoiled children who have not been forced to engage with tragedy (or some convincing representation of its stark imperatives) always are.
"
Generally good article, until you wrote this. You're personalising this too much. Like some, you're too desperate to make politics about personal qualities, just like all those liberals who suffered from Bush Derangment Syndrome, who suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome, who obsess about personal qualities. These pols behave the way they do, because it is in their self interest to behave this way. Bought and paid for, and / or because they themselves belong to the small minority that is monopolising wealth and resources; for example David and SamCam are multimillionaires estimated to be have net wealth of > 30 million pounds. It has nothing to do with being "spoiled children who have not been forced to engage with tragedy (or some convincing representation of its stark imperatives" Cameron for example HAS been forced to engage with personal tragedy, viz a son of his who had serious health problems, and who died very young.
Look to economics, not armchair amateur pop psychology.
Excellent article. Why don't you try to get it in front of Bob Schieffer somehow. I'd love to hear his reaction.
Great idea. These people need to be confronted, but unfortunately they are protected.
our industrial habits are deadly to the living world...
the increasing planetary pollution we create as our industrial revolution progresses is analogous to the growing spiritual pollution we suffer as subconscious accomplices, due to our lack of courage and comrade to counter our oppressors, and our intimate awareness of the inexcusable consequences of inaction...
the only cure for both our planetary poison and our spiritual poison is the reclaiming of direct responsibility for ourselves and our behaviors, and the cessation of industrial activity...
I've been using the phrase Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...
perhaps another word would be better...
we could call it Catharsis...
Although I think that Ron Paul's political perspectives aren't without fault, he made a great point, as does your article, Thomas.
I have decided to register Republican to vote for Paul in the primaries because:
1. the Dem primaries are meaningless as no liberal leaders dare oppose obambo.
2. Ron Paul is by far a better choice than any other Repub running. His domestic policies, other than his strong civil liberties and End the Fed stands, are awful, but only a bit worse than the rest of the Repubs. His foriegn policy towers above all others, Repub or Dem.
If it comes to a choice between Paul and Obama, I wouldn't think twice before pulling the lever for Paul. The people need to shake up the political class and Ron Paul is the only candidate that would do so.
dreamjoehill--I'm somewhat surprised at your position but totally concur. If Ron Paul were to actually win and carried out his campaign promise to, as one of his first acts, pardon all non-violent federal drug offenders, he would have done more for us than Obama has. Not to mention the savings in prison costs.
To those who find this position abhorrent, including Two Americas who stated he/she decided to read extensively about Paul (I hope primary source) where do you think we'll be with anyone else? The Randians are in charge at the moment and pushing their advantage. So the worst thing a Paul presidency could produce would be the status quo, a downward slide to serfdom and ecological disaster. The other thing I would say is that, if it actually looked like he could win, a bullet in the brain would be the most likely outcome, so you shouldn't really fret about this.
Still, a great coast-to-coast primary shoutout for peace and civil liberties, no matter how futile, would be a wonder to behold.
And to ezeflyer--yes, I think an Independent run with Bernie Sanders would be a winning one.
Except for his anti-military antiimperial stands and his strong anti drug war pro-civil liberties positions, and his anti-Fed Reserve actions, there is little else to like about Paul, and much to scorn.
Still, US national elections have been zombified for a several decaes and Paul is the only candidate that threatens to add actual life to the process.
If a socialist candidate had a cahnce, i'd quickly change my vote, but I don't see that happenning.
My support for Paul will always be hedged, but I see him as a much better alternative than O'Bomber. I just wish more of his left supporters were more forthcoming about his drawbacks.
Unless / Until a REAL Progressive IE: Cynthia McKinney, Kucinich, Feingold, etc declares their candidacy [& that hasn't happened yet, nor does it seem that it will happen for 2012]- as you've indicated here Progressives need to at-least Consider Paul as a tactical choice [they're don't have to feel he's their perfect choice- they don't even have to like him- HELL Obama is probably a more likable guy BUT we see what that's got us]- or Simply Don't Vote For Any Other Candidate- whether O-Bomb-em for the Dims or all other Repugs- For US Pres [remember the Electorial College makes the ultimate decision for US Pres anyway]... But many so-called 'liberals' will vehemently disagree w such a tactical choice- & end up voting for Mr 'Change You Really CAN'T Believe In / Audacity WithOut Hope'- Any Ole Way! Many So-called progressives come up w excuses against Paul like- 'The only reason Paul is anti-war / anti US Empire is because the Federal Gov't has to pay for it & Paul is against the Gov't paying for / doing anything...' Personally I couldn't give a DAMN what Paul's personal motivations are for having a proven track record of being anit-war / anti- US empire - IMO What's FAR more Important Is that He In FACT DOES Have such a Track Record [NOTE: Paul took an unwavering anti-war position when his fellow Texan & white conservative Repug Bush was Pres & he's still taken an anti-war position {like Kucinich, Barbara Lee & a few others} now that a Black fake 'Liberal' Dim {O-Bomb-em} is Pres. That's about as principled as it gets in US Poly-tricks!]!
Plus a Paul presidency would put so-called 'Liberal & Progressive' Dem Politicians in the spot light [for all to see] to show their true colors! Would they back an anti-war / anti US empire / strong proponent of protecting civil liberties - US Pres like Paul, who happens to be a GOPer; or would they use the fact that Paul is a GOPer to fight against his anti-war / anti US empire / pro-civil liberties positions! Of course if Paul tries to roll-back social Security / Medi-care & Depts of ED / EPA, etc- they'd likely fight / block him [& I'd have no problem w that]- BUT Obama is doing a Helluva job putting SS & Medicare on the chopping-block table, as well as effectively co-opting for corporate control the Depts of ED [via RTTT] / EPA [he ordered the EPA to look away from the fact that BP flooded the Gulf of Mexico last yr & as he approved more deep-sea drilling in the Gulf this yr], etc... ANY OLE WAY!
anyone willing to talk to the brain dead bob sheeeeefeerr deserves whatever they get
msm is dead - so are the zombies who toil in it
nuff said
Where is the link to the interview?
Paul is great and horrible too.
But lacking better choices, I could vote for him if he ran as an Independent with Bernie, Nader, Kucinich, or similar, but not if he brings the Republican troglodytes with him.
At the end of the clip Schieffer asks Ron Paul about his plan to shut down the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, Housing and Urban development and FEMA. When asked specifically what will happen to national parks if the Department of the Interior is shut down Ron's reply is:" We would like to see a lot of land sold off."
Bye, bye parks.
How can so-called progressives even consider voting for this guy?
Because 1) it takes Congress to do that and, 2) they're going to be sold anyway no matter who is elected and 3) Paul is probably the most reasonable and willing to give that a lower priority, especially if people reach out and talk to him.
cassandra: We should elect him because Congress will stop him from implementing his ridiculous ideas?
Yeah, that's a great plan.
There is no better plan available. Third parties have been marginalized by the duopoly and can't get ballot access.
Here's a better plan than voting for Ron Paul:
Write-in Daffy Duck.
I would rather support someone who would at least TRY to stem the tide of this Empire.
Domestically, I seriously doubt Paul would get his agenda advanced.
But hey - ctrl-z - go ahead and re-up with Obama and waste another 4 years living in a dream state.
jbarret1 sez: "But hey - ctrl-z - go ahead and re-up with Obama and waste another 4 years living in a dream state."
Nice false dichotomy. There are more choices than just Obama and Ron Paul.
Funny how many Ron Paul supporters have shown up here on CD. It almost looks like a deliberate attempt to skim off disaffected Dems.
Name / outline some other choices besides Obama, Paul or, God-forbid, those other Repugs / Rethugs [IE: Romney, Perry, Grinch-witch, Cain, etc] - Pray Tell!
To me, this is the point. There is no other plan.
I'd gladly vote for a true Progressive who would challenge Obama. I guess the question becomes Where are they and/or Why isn't anyone challenging him? One can only assume, they're for him..........right?
BTW - I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but given the choices presented, I'd go with him and just maybe not as many people would die in the next four years.
If more people could vote on principles over politics just like you, this nation would be far better off. Unfortunately, the Obamabots are pretending to oppose Obama but show their true colors when they pelt anyone giving reasonable not crazed support to Paul, Green Party, etc... based on positions. Whether they know it or not, they end up shilling for the status quo.
Reasonable support for Ron Paul? The destroy government, eliminate all regulations, drill baby drill, overturn Roe v. Wade candidate?
Reason and Ron Paul don't go together and neither does your attempt to paint anyone opposing the whack-job as an Obama supporter.
We're still waiting to hear your choices / options outside of O-Bomb-em, Paul, or the rest of those Repugs running for US Pres- unless you're suggesting that progressives should sit out the 2012 US Pres election [If that's your suggestion - I'm OK w that]. BUT - If you know of some true progressive ala: Cynthia McKinney, Nader, Kucinich, Feingold, etc that is going to soon get into the 2012 race for US Pres - Pray Enlighten Us!
Well, excuse me but Obama and most Democrats are just as bad as Ron Paul or even worse when they continue Raygun/Dubya's policies of
1. weakening government to the point of almost being dead
2. eliminating regulations against corporate abuse but keeping and enforcing laws unfairly against the people
3. stifling green projects and jobs while continuing to shill for Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear
4. continuing to chip away at Roe v Wade by doing nothing to overturn most of the major anti-women gag laws passed by Republicans while even adding more such as last year's 2700 page disaster care package which contains another major gag amendment to deny coverage for women when it comes to reproductive rights.
5. continuing to give corporate subsidies to Big Agri while Paul would at least end the subsidies and push for removing the unfair laws against small farmers.
6. continuing the drug war which Paul would at least end.
I take pride in putting principle over politics which is why I have my reservations about both Paul crazies who selectively discuss his left leaning positions and the anti-Paul crazies who selectively discuss his right leaning positions while dishonestly omitting mention of the Democrats who also lean right. I do not see Nixakliel, jbarret1, or cassandra as Paulite crazies. I cannot speak for them, however, I see them as correctly putting Ron Paul as an in between of Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama and Nader/Mckinney. I find that far better than people falling for celebrity pols who have horrible voting records but go out on a limb to justify themselves as "progressive" via all their showoff books and/or radio/television shows.
JB sez: "...I see them as correctly putting Ron Paul as an in between of Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama and Nader/Mckinney."
Only ignorance or ignomy could produce that statement.
Ron Paul supporters here answer every criticism of his documented positions with, "Yes, but Obama..." Obama is a disaster. Ron Paul is a disaster in the making.
"I take pride in putting principle over politics..." That why you support the anti-government/taxes/regulation/abortion candidate? In Ron Paul's world there would be no environmental regulations, no safety regulations, no abortions, no taxes. Businesses would be free to do whatever they wished. Toxic waste in the creek? No problem. Nuclear reactor in the center of every city? Go for it. Woman wants an abortion? Lock her up. Gotta protect that fetus.
Sure, you'll be able to toke on that joint, if you can still inhale with all the air pollution and smog that will come about when the EPA and all air quality restrictions are gone.
What is the principle you're so proud of supporting over politics?
"What is the principle you're so proud of supporting over politics?"
Try voting by the issues and then add them all up to see which candidate is really better rather than judging by party labels for a change. You should then be able to see why some such as myself choose to vote for people like Nader, Mckinney, Rocky Anderson, etc... while looking at Ron Paul as a fallback and a last resort.
If your principles guide you to support for Ron Paul I would suggest that you re-evaluate them. Party label or no, Ron Paul is a whack job.
That all depends on who all is on the ballot come election day next year. The only time I ever voted for Ron Paul was in the 2008 Republican presidential primary and I will probably do it again in the 2012 Republican presidential primary. I can thank my stars for now that Rocky Anderson is running as a strong progressive and a Justice Party candidate. It would be nice to see the Green Party nominate someone sooner as well. If, however, the worst case scenario occurred where only Ron Paul or some GOP nominee and Obama were on the ballot, then I would most likely do a write-in. If it were down to only between Paul and Obama, I would sympathize with those on the left who chose Paul over Obama due to their true concern for the issues. As far as Obama is concerned, I have yet to ever regret my 2008 presidential vote for Nader over Obama even when doing so just so happen to tilt MO "red".
P.S.: This thread is closing in so I will discuss more at a later date if need be. Thank you.
"If, however, the worst case scenario occurred where only Ron Paul or some GOP nominee and Obama were on the ballot, I would most likely do a write-in."
Ditto. Nice to see we have a point of agreement.
I was unfamiliar with Rocky Anderson. His wikipedia bio is impressive. I hope he's able to gain some traction. If not he'd be an excellent candidate for write-in.
Your Quote: >' I was unfamiliar with Rocky Anderson - he'd be an excellent candidate for write-in.' <
Finally you've mentioned something constructive besides 'You can't be a progressive & even consider voting for that wacko Paul' - except as you said- You [& I] were NOT even familiar w the possible Rocky Anderson alternative till Jennifer just Enlightened us about him.
PS: The reason I pressed this issue [Paul vs Obama] is because IMO [based on experience] most so-called 'liberals & progressives' are really just so-called 'left' leaning Democrats! So in the crunch their default choice is to vote for Dims like O-Bomb-em. In fact even w the Anderson alternative too many so-called 'liberals' will likely conclude [just like they did w Nader, Kucinich, McKinney, etc in 2000, 2004, 2008] that 'he's a good guy but he has no real chance to win, so I'm going to vote for {those corp-controlled war-mongering Dims faking as 'liberals'} Billary / Kerry / Obama, etc....
FYI: Food for thought: Are you aware that Kerry, Obama, the Bushes & Cheney are all related- IE: distant cousins -&- that Kerry & the Bushes are also fellow Skull {duggery} & Bones-men???
Your assumptions were thin. :-)
Cassandra, I just heard last night from lefttown on another thread that Rocky Anderson will be running for president under the Justice Party. He is disgusted with both the Republicans and Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson#Third-Party_Run_In_2012_U.S._Presidential_Election
A couple of comments to the comments:
To Class Act:
I don’t recall ever saying or suggesting that personal action of politician takes place in a vacuum of structural factors. To talk about personality is not to vitiate the idea of large-scale, pan-social factors.
Perhaps these two explicative approaches are mutually elusive in your mind. They are not nor have they ever been in mine.
Rather, I am a proponent of idea (generated at the near dawn of the time when structural history and the history of “Great Men” were being presented and irremediably antagonistic ideas) summed up in Ortega y Gasset’s famous epigram: “Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia” (“I am me and my circumstance”).
If you don’t think that personal courage and conviction can make a difference in the face of daunting structural realities, take a look at the recent history of Argentina under Nestor Kirchner.
All the same structural factors were lined up to crush him, and to the surprise of almost everyone, including many members of his own political clan, he said “no”, “no”, and “no” again and got right into the faces of the media that tried to ridicule and marginalize him. As a result, the course of Argentine history and the fate of millions of people in his country was changed dramatically for the better.
To rfloh:
I think what I wrote above to Class Act also applies to the first part of your commentary. You apply to me a level of unidirectional critical outlook that I simply do not have or embrace.
Your point about the notion of tragedy I invoke is well-taken.
Perhaps a better wording would have revolved not around the idea of how these callow leaders had failed to experience tragedy, but rather how, blinded by the god of ambition, they have failed to assimilate its core lessons into their political praxis.
Tom Harrington
Thanks Tom,
i really appreciate it when writers join the comment threads.
Ron Paul's Positions (from his webshite):
Abortion: " And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
Energy: "As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:
* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.
* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.
It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy."
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/
Taxes: "As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good.
Capital gains taxes, which punish you for success (and interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins), should also be immediately repealed."
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/
More of his positions at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/
Compared to Ron Paul, Daffy Duck is looking better all the time.
Except on the abortion issue Obama policies match up quite well w almost everything else Paul's outlined here.
Lift Gov't Road blocks to offshore drilling, coal & Nuke power - in effect Obama is doing just that [remember Obama lifted restrictions on deep-sea off-shore drilling less than a yr after BPs Gulf Oil Disaster & has authorized multi-$billions in federal aid / loan guarantees to the nuke industry even after Fukushima, Obama & so-called 'clean-coal' {ain't no such damn thing}, & Obama's now pushing tar-sands & gas-fracking], he's just not as straight-forward [IE: Honest] about it as is Paul.
Eliminate the EPA- Obama put a muzzle on any EPA restrictions / critiques on offshore drilling -&- like Bush / Cheney before him has filled his cabinet & Gov't agencies w Corp friendly people [IE: lobbyist] after promising NOT to...
Eliminate Capital gains, gasoline, income taxes & the IRS [Note Paul's position on the IRS goes hand in hand w his position on eliminating the unconstitutional Bankster Controlled FED] - Remember Obama supported the Bush tax cuts for the rich after he promised he would let them phase out... Remember Obama is currently pushing more NAFTA style Trade agreements after he promised he would NOT [If I'm not mistaken I think Paul is against NAFTA type trade agreements]!
Paul might look like Daffy-Duck compared to Obama because Paul's more honest about his positions than that shrewd slick talking poly-trickster O-Bomb-em!
With Paul vs O-Bomb-em Progressives have to consider a tactical choice: either back Paul & win on 1 front [the anti-war / anti US empire / anti-Military Industrial Intel Security Complex / anti-Police-State - front] & fight like hell on the domestic front, or delude themselves & Back O-bomb-em again & Continue To Lose On BOTH Fronts! Or if progressives can't stomach either- then they might have to just sit this one out!
Why, when you show what a whack-job Ron Paul is, do people insist on comparing him to Obama?
They're both bad.
Because if that comparison is not made many so-called progressives are going to go back to the default choice of voting for the Dims & O-Bomb-em. And some people are so-frustrated by Obama's betrayals that they'll vote for any ole Repug [IE: Romney, Grinch-witch, Perry, Cain, etc] just as a protest vote! I say it's better to be tactical than emotionally reactionary.
As I said if you can't stomach either Paul or O-Bomb-em, I'll understand if a progressive simply sits-out the 2012 Pres Election- BUT IMO: If no real progressive candidate gets into the race, to vote for O-Bomb-em or any other Repug- is just 'Cutting off your nose to spite your face'!
No, you Ron Paul supporters are simply trying to skim off disaffected Dems.
Ron Paul is the opposite of a progressive.
I didn't call Paul a progressive- I said compared to Obama he's much more honest [So in your opinion is Obama a progressive or even a liberal?]. And Paul, unlike Obama, has a definite established track record of being anti-war / anti-US empire / anti-police state... But you're right I do want progressives that are sick & tired of being LIED to & Disrespected & taken for granted by the Dims & Obama to at-least consider Paul as a tactical alternative [I don't expect them to love the guy - just respect his positions as a real anti-war / anti US empire choice]!
And its note-worthy that you like many so often call Paul a wacko- but seldom call Obama a 2 faced hypocrite poly-trickster!
Amazing how you keep trying to paint opposition to Ron Paul as support for Obama.
Opposing cancer doesn't mean you support tuberculosis.
The comparison is apt- because in the unlikely case that Paul wins the GOP race for Pres, he's going to be running against O-Bomb-em!