EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ron Paul Disavows…Ron Paul?
Libertarian candidate tries to duck responsibility for racist, homophobic and conspiratorial writings that bore his name
To look at him, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems harmless. He's cute and contrarian. He wears poorly fitting suits. He's decidedly un-slick. You almost want to pat him on the head.
So we're not supposed to criticize Dr. Paul as a nutjob who subscribes to some rather wacky ideas. And subscribe is the operative word here, folks: The newsletters Dr. Paul published for nearly two decades during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s are chock full of racist, homophobic and anti-new world order rants.
From Dr. Paul now comes the nuttiest claim of all. He wants us to believe newsletters published with the titles Ron Paul's Freedom Report; Ron Paul Political Report; and, weirdest of all, The Ron Paul Survival Report do not reflect the views of, um, Ron Paul. He says he never wrote them, never even read them, and now disavows them. (Question: Why disavow words you neither wrote nor read?)
Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles, his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son, Robert, is a physician.
Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what? When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every word they contained — period.
What's in them? Four years ago, during Dr. Paul's first bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The New Republic's James Kirchick dug through state libraries, found old copies and took an inventory. "What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays," Mr. Kirchick concluded. "In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing — but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."
Is Dr. Paul also not responsible for his votes in the House of Representatives, like the one he cast in 2004 on a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed equal access to the ballot and public facilities for all Americans? The final roll call was 414 ayes, one nay. A free subscription to The Ron Paul Survival Report for anyone who can guess the name of the lone dissenter.
None of Dr. Paul's radical beliefs would really matter if the Texas congressman were slogging around in fifth or sixth place in the Republican primary. But he isn't. His poll numbers are rising. He might win the Iowa caucuses next week.
Dr. Paul projects a mild manner and policy humility. He wants to reign in federal spending. He wants the government, and in particular its military industrial complex, to control its imperialist impulses. He'd like America to protect its core civil liberties. (Unless, of course, you happen to be pregnant.)
But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking responsibility for his writings.
I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense: Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he is.
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...
211 Comments so far
Show AllI think someone is running scared that the only candidate running for the republican nomination that could possibly beat Obama might have chance at gaining that nomination. Call him what you will. At this point I'd prefer a racist, anti-gay conspiracist to the "Nobel Peace Laureate" running for the other party.
gardenernorcal: I would completely agree with you. But he is not a racist. As far as I could tell when this came up in 2008 his greatest fault was poor management skills--allowing publications in his name to go unread. Mr Schaller says no one wouldn't know, but I've worked with and for people who were poor managers and it can be amazing what they don't know about what goes on right under their noses.
Poor management skills is not a good quality in a President, but then what's left.
I'd rather his poor management skills than those of Goldman Sach's alumni. We've had three years of those.
Minor point--we've actually had 30 years of gov't by Goldman Sachs, possibly 100 years.
If Ron Paul accomplished nothing but fulfilled his promise to pardon all non-violent federal drug offenders, we'd be better off.
As much as I loathe Ron Paul, he is less damaging than Obama and his four predecessors, and less damaging than any of the other GOP "hopefuls".
Pretty darn sick isn't it ?
How do you know he would be less damaging? Obama outlined a platform of policies that got him elected and then proceeded to ignore his campaign promises and do the opposite. Paul's racist rhetoric in his newletters and a variety of other policies, if he carried them out, would be a progressive's nightmare. Can we assume he won't live up to his own rhetoric? Possibly since he's tried to disavow those newsletters.
It is pretty damn sick Ray,
Coyote Sick. We're going to have to chew off our own leg to get out of this trap. Then, we're going to half to chew off the arm that pulls the lever for this guy, just so we can live with ourselves. Man is this guy Coyote Ugly!
Here we are arguing for another Texas president, as if GWB didn't do enough damage to our fragile world.
As long as we're destroying ourselves here, I vote for 100 million OWS takeover of Wall Street first. What the hell do we have to lose at this point? Both sides are bound and determined to kill off our safety nets and right of organized labor.
It is pretty damn sick Ray.
A homophobic racist who is the champion of all the white supremacist hate groups, is better for our country than Obama? A guy who wants to get rid of the departments of education, FDA (“why can’t we buy unpasteurized milk?”), EPA, CDC, etc.? No need for a department of energy – market forces will keep nuclear reactors safe – right? No need for the IRS, which of course would mean that there would be no federal tax revenues (we don’t need a federal government anyway, and it doesn’t matter if we default on our U.S. bonds) – right? No need for any government regulations, because corporations will behave in the interest of U.S. citizens – right? If you agree with these assumptions, then yes, Ron Paul is your guy.
Mike in L.A.
Bravo! Very well said. But the hope is that you also realize that Obama is not the answer either. You may wish to check out Rocky Anderson as he is a much better alternative than anyone the Democrats or the Republicans can nominate.
You sound like the bourgeoisie author of this article, a scared little liberal who is not going to do a thing to stop militarism or advance social and economic justice.
Nuclear power would end quickly if Paul withdraws federal Price Anderson insurance supports for the industry. Without those supports nukes are a bad investment from a profit POV.
And you know what? F-ck the Federal government and its drug wars, pot dispensary prosecutions, monstrous military and bloody racist imperial wars. You think at this late date you'll rally the left to the support of the Federal government?! That's a laugh.
Yes Paul's better than Obama because Obama is a murdering, torturing, militarist and imperialist. Or did you forget that part while you were busy condemning the horror of Paul's stands on unpasteurized milk. BTW, the FDA is a jackbooted enforcer for big pharma, but that probabaly goes way beyond your liberal sensibilities.
Your comment is of a most sickening liberal establishment bent, of a real Soros/Rothschild variety. You guys are coming out of the woodwork now that the signal has gone out to take down Paul in defense of the empire.
BTW, you liberal imperialist pigs have your timing right because if Paul gets the Repub nod, it will be too late for your smear attempts in defense of the oligarchy. If Paul is the Repub candidate, he will win against Obama.
Hello dreamjoehill,
I generally support Ron Paul’s criticisms of the U.S. military adventurism. And I also agree with him about the futility and destructive effects of the drug war. So, I fully support him – as Obama’s drug czar. But sorry, I can’t vote for a liar, and a homophobic racist jerk who will let the rapacious corporations run rampant. But isn’t this all really just hypothetical anyway? Paul’s chances of being president are approximately equal to the probability that I will marry a 28 year old supermodel who shares my interest in mathematics. So, let’s agree to disagree, and you should be sure to vote for whomever the hell you want.
Mike
For some reason, Google is blocking his website from coming up in any search - even though it is at the top of the search-term auto-fill list - indicating high popularity.
So, here it is - please spread it by word of mouth, becasue Google seems to be deliberately blocking finding it.
https://www.voterocky.org/home.html
pjd412
I had no trouble connecting to that site from Google via the Justice Party.
https://www.voterocky.org/home
What I have done is to put the Justice Party's bumper sticker on my car. If anyone inquires what that is then I will give them a copy of Rocky's policy issues from that site which will help clarify what he stands for. In this way the hope is that others will spread the word that there are other alternatives for president beside a Democrat or a Republican.
Actually, I find that Justice Party "prospectus" platform to be vague - nothing on universL heanthcare, nothing on labor, nothing on war or foreign policy. So, I have a wait and see attitude toward the Justice Party.
Rocky's positions are much better.
And at both home and work, any and all search terms with "Rocky Anderson" in them fail to bring up the campaign website or the Justice Party's website.
Erroll and PJD, what do you think about Jill Stein of the Green party also running?
Let me posit a question to you. Charles Lindbergh was anti-war and did not believe the USA should involve itself in a war with Germany. In his camp were people like Prescott Bush who also believed the USA was better off as an ally and friend of Germany and should continue doing business with them.
Would you have elected them and simply ignored all their other beliefs because they were anti-war?
The logic of the people that indicate it MUST be Ron Paul because the other two are worse is baffling.Were Ron Paul to drop dead tomorrow or withdraw his name form the ballot who would you vote for?
If you state no-one or Rocky Andersen or some other Candidate then why would you not apply that same resoning with Ron Paul on the ballot.
To paraphrase. The lesser of three evils is still evil.
For some peculiar reason, Google (which no doubt is a big Ron Paul supporter) is blocking Anderson's web site from coming up in any seach. So, here is is:
https://www.voterocky.org/home
As far as your analogy, a closer to the present one would be one of leftists supporting the election of Richard Nixon (who did run on a "peace with honor - bring the boys home" platform) becasue of Johnsons escalation of the Vietnam War.
I'm always amazed at how Canadians are often far more knowlegable of US history than USAn are.
I am amazed that people that call themselves progressives want to go back to the world of 1890 , which is what Ron Paul advocates.
No Federal reserve. No EPA or FDA. Little to no regulations on business. No Minimum wages. No Child labor laws. No Income taxes.No Social Security . Union members died by the hundreds fighting against that in order to garner labor rights and curtail Corporate power and people want to turn the clock back.
This was the time of the Company town where all the wages one earned working in a factory had to be spent at the "company store". Ron Paul calls it "Liberty".
Mind boggling.
The longer I live and learn, the stranger it all gets.
And I'm amazed that people who sell themselves as justice-seeking humanists, caring, and loving persons would want to keep killing the fuck out of people, destroying their lands and cultural histories and taking their shit.
Is that you, GwNorth?
I do not think you can read. That i think Ron paul would make a terrible president hardly means I support wars on other nations.
Where did i ever advocate killing other people?
This is the problem with the people who like to pretend they are progressives. They like to pretend there no other choice. It is the same argument used by the people who voted Democrat rather then Ralph Nader.
It is a shallow knee jerk response and is the major reason the USA regresses as a nation. People "held their noses to vote democrat" because it was "better then voting republican" and anyone who did not support the "democrats' had to be for torture and the war in Iraq.
Go back to when Obama was running for president. I and a few others suggested he was a phony and we got the same response from people such as you. If we were not for Obama it means we must support the republicans.
That is simply idiotic.
So why are you not supporting Rocky Andersen?
By the way i have voted for the green party for the past 5 elections. That hardly means I support Harpers Conservative even if the green party has only ever won one seat.
So the only choice is to vote for someone who wants to roll the clock back to 1890 because that person claims he will end wars. If anyone opposes the first policy, it mean s/he is in favor of war making. What twisted logic. The only reason Paul opposes war is because wars are waged by the government. Given his inhumane stances regarding civil rights, gays, etc., it seems unlikely he opposes war because of the human death and suffering involved. Unregulated industry metes out plenty of death and suffering, but Paul has no problem with that.
The traction Paul has even on a relatively progressive site like CD is an illustration of how politically naïve many Americans are. The populace has been so poorly educated and so brainwashed for so long it’s hard for many to think straight on political matters.
Yet another person who can read Ron Paul's mind!! Wow!!
There's no need to read his mind. He's talked and written plenty and it's all out there.
In addition to the newsletters, from Wikipedia:
"Paul terms himself "strongly pro-life",[202] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[203] and believes regulation or ban[204] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[205][206] He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception;[207] his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."
"As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. In 2009, he claimed that climate change is a hoax.
"Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations."
Note in his abortion position, he's against federal gov't involvement but is all for state gov't involvement in women's right to choose.
Don't expect any R. Paul supporters to address these issues because they are like the reading version of listening to a broken record. They would dismantle most citizen protections or civil rights without ever addressing the need for them.
“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009
That alone plants him firmly in crackpot land.
It's one thing to question the degree to which humans are influencing the climate.
But it is something else entirely to call it a "hoax". That implies a vast conspiracy among virtually the entire climate science community and even among some of the world's most presitigious scientific bodies (US National Academy of Sciences and British Royal Society).
That's just batshit nutty.
The guy is little more than a kook and anyone who would vote for him knowing about his "hoax" comment about global warming should have his or her head examined to see if there is anything in it -- preferrably not by Ron Paul who is actually a physician (which is itself quite frightening).
Thanks Jimbojangles for that post.
Your fine cynical wit really made me laugh. Ron Paul is a kook isn't he? Reminds me of Ross Perot a little bit. But in this fake democracy, sometimes a kook is all they let get put on the ballot. GWB was a kook too, who thought God was talking to him (hearing voices) and was a convicted felon for felony drunk driving in Maine in 1972 I believe. His two other DUI's in Texas somehow disappeared, although the old website "bushthedrunk.com" used to post those arrest documents before it went "poof". His classmates said he was a druggo too, but that and the AWOL from Air National Guard duty evidence all got covered up too. Dan Rather got fired and blacklisted for reporting on it.
But there's an unmistakable bigger elephant in the room we have to deal with right now:
Obama is going to have us all in leg irons if we don't get off the couch. We're screwed no matter what we do, imho. Should we vote for Paul if he gets nominated? I really don't know; he's probably just making promises he can't keep. But Obama has already proved through actions he's part of the Bush/CIA Crime Family........
My opinion? Plan to Boycott this fake election and OWS with 100 million this spring. Then if that doesn't work, lick our wounds and vote for the kook....
Please Help us Flying Spaghetti Monster who aren't in Heaven.....
TJ
p.s. With FEMA trains and KRB SuperMax Concentration camps gearing up to incarcerate "domestic suspects" as permitted in the recently passed "Defense bill": We're down to just Liberty or Death at this point. Our chances of saving the carbon environment are between slim and none right now; and "Slim" just done left town.
Longevity or Prosperity are pretty much ridiculous fantasies in these dark ages. If we don't restore meaningful democracy first (free from Wall Street Zombie Bank Corruption) nothing else can get any better for us.
You better get used to dealing with a public that disagrees with your warmed over liberalism. The identity politics left has proven an utter failure beyond the relatively narrow confines of anti-discrimination. Now anti-racist laws were a big accomplishment but liberalism and "progressivism" (another name for wramed over liberalism) have been utterly unsuccessful in opposing the military police state, and have been very unsuccessful in promoting economic justice.
The US populace overwhelmingly does not see liberalism as its friend. It may be less of an enemy than rightist reaction, but the liberal left is a treacherous ally at best. It really cracks me up when you wan liberals get on your high horse about "the reasons" for Paul's anti-militarism. As if all anti-militarism must conform to your liberal prejudices. What appalling arrogance.
Thre are some anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists who seem to be supporting Ron Paul based on a variant of the "the worse, the better" strategy, or a belief that if the federal control is gotten rid of, and power is devolved to the local level, it will somehow be easier for workers to engage their struggle with the Bosses. It seems to be based on an over-romatization of US labor history. But, the facts are, the colorful events of 1877, Homestead, Matewan, Blair Mountain etc were, they were utter failures. With a mere stroke of a pen, FDR's signing of the Wagner Act and the establishment of the Dept of Labor accomplished far more than the battles with the Pinkertons ever did.
pjd412,
I hate it when you're partially right. But FDR, and Federal Labor Law would have never happened without black boots and ball bat pressure at the local level. The New Deal happened, not because the extremely rich FDR felt sorry for the poor, but because he feared a revolution amidst record Great Depression Unemployment. But i suspect you defend this Federal Hydra which has ruined all our lives now because it still feeds you on your subcontract gravy train.
Am I right?
The labor movement has become stale since co-opted by the state. The NLRB has not exactly been the working man's friend as of late. Unions have become bloated status quos in the last few decades. The militant unions of the past would return if the state apparatus is dismantled. In the absence of state regulation, hopefully communities would come together as they once did to provide for the common welfare. I live on a Pacific Island where state provided assistance is very minimal, but people here come together to support one another in the absence of state infrastructure. I think the parade of horribles therefore is not as bad as you make it out to be.
GwNorth,
I am with you 200% on this one! I struggle to find the sense of all of this too. I guess that is why, for some reason, I think it is ONLY about getting the 'black' man out of office. If you've notice, not too much mention about all of the others in congress or the senate, but, they think everyone will just jump up and vote the 'black' man out of office, only to have the same thing. The way it usually works, as it did with Clinton, if the same people are left in position, it doesn't matter who you vote for president if the congress (mainly GOP) doesn't like them. Rick Santorum is not getting too much love, because he was a part of the Gang of Seven - his downturn was when he leaked the alleged affair of another GOP Ensign's affair to a DEM.
What is also striking about all of this, Paul, from what I've been reading quite a bit, didn't bother to vote on NDAA, yet, he runs around talking about how bad it is. I guess, if he were to get elected, he would say, 'yeah, I didn't like the bill, but, I didn't vote on it.'
Me, I am still voting Obama. This, what you are seeing is what I saw happening with the tea party. They were disrespectful to the Pres, hated the Pres...people followed suit, and now, most are unhappy with the results, such as what is happening in Wisconsin. Oh, and I voted 2010 elections, so, technically, I do have the audacity to complain. I vote in every election, never skipping a beat. Oh, and you've mentioned '1890' I wonder if Paul participated in the sterilization program - sterilizing women and men (Eugenics program) in U.S. that they thought were unattractive, promiscuous...or for any other reason.
Your warmed over attempts to cast all obama opponents as racists is pathetic bullshit and you are a real as-hole.
I don't know if Paul participated in Eugenics, but the founder of what would become Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger certainly did. The selective blindness of the party line liberal is nearly as repulsive as the ignorance of the Tea Party..
Oh and thanks for that Rocky Anderson link. I looked at it and can not believe that so called progressives are ignoring him in favor of Ron Paul.
Anderson is an unknown. Lose the disbelief.
GW NORTH: Truthout published an article 2 days ago relating that within military ranks there was a growing support for Ron Paul. Consider that at least some of the crop of Paul's posting advocates are CD's alleged "Progressives" IN uniform. Paul is obviously a pious Christian theocrat, and the same people who blindly support him have obviously not read Chris Hedges' book, "American Fascists."
Those who were born into military families, or gravitated to that "calling," tend to be comfortable following orders. They adapt easily to rules imposed on them, and prefer a father figure to do their thinking for them. That's why Ron Paul is their man.
His complete lack of respect for the DEATH of our planet (i.e. environmentalism), his idolatry for big business (making Mammon his god-father), his ALLEGED goal to decrease foreign military involvements (which reveals a naive understanding of how deeply the MIC/Homeland Security State's tentacles have reached into all aspects of American life, politics and culture), his patriarchal views toward women and their rights over their own bodies, AND his racism are enough to make one want to vomit. The fact is that some who PRETEND to be Progressive dominate these threads, and push their man.
I noticed the trend some time ago. There were unnecessary assaults on every principled voice/persona from the Left. Some termed the phenomena the "purity test." It was not that at all. It was a concerted attack on the Left from those who only feign Leftist views. Sure, some of these individuals FORMERLY backed Obama, as few could imagine how far to the Right Obama would lead the Democratic party. Now that the evidence is in plain sight, and most of us realize the degree to which the 2-party system has been compromised, the answer to the problem is not a swing to the extreme Right (by calling it Left!).
Whoever gets elected, by hook, crook, voter fraud and/or manipulation... little will save the nation from meeting the momentum its leaders have set into motion. A few in this forum diligently blame "The people," and could care less about evidence in the form of an owned and controlled media in place to manage consent; the evidence of voting machine fraud; or the way the system pre-vets candidates to insure that no change CAN come from within its metrics.
The nation's elites have unleashed a dark agenda that's taken a murderous course involving 3 lines of attack on its own citizens (through karma's boomerang) and much of the rest of the world:
1. Ecological ruin: As witnessed through a virtual holocaust against the natural world that we all depend upon. (There's an abject DISREGARD for meaningful leadership in the way of engendering greener energy systems, teaching recycling & conservation, and putting the unemployed multitudes to work in preparing our infrastructure for climate change's inevitable assaults)
2. Economic ruin: By deregulating Wall Street, and using tactics taken from Enron, the S & L Scam of the l990's, and Arthur Anderson style accounting, new "products" were created that were worthless, and sold 'round the world. Fittting the precise cookbook directions exposed by Naomi Klein, once all the money was secure in the pockets of those who designed the Great Heist, the seeming lack of funds then functioned as "the necessary pretext" to stick it to the people. (Hence all the protests just about everywhere.)
3. War, War & More War: As referenced by The Geneva Conventions: Aggressive War constitutes the supreme crime against humanity; and when war is executed on the basis of trumped up evidence, the crime is even more serious. Over a million dead in Iraq, 4 million homeless, the nation's infrastructure left in a wreckage with depleted Uranium left behind to impact the genetic integrity of future generations. While here at home, we learn first hand that "war abroad entails tyranny at home." Our liberties are being swept away without the collective blink of an MSM eye.
These are the 3 most serious crimes executed by those who have turned our nation into a corporation run by one of the most heinous, corrupt boards of CEOS ever born.
The karma is headed home. In a sense, someone like Ron Paul whose life has been built upon hatred of certain others may deserve the fate of sitting in the hot seat when all that karmic shit hits the US fan.
Give thanks for your daily bread... and watch for falling debris.
Gardenernorcal, I also agree with you. CounterPunch has an essay by Dave Lindorff in which he debunks many of the myths that are used to slander Ron Paul. Writes Lindorff, "Nelson Linder, president of the Austin, Texas NAACP, says he has known Ron Paul for 20 years, and reports that he is “not a racist.” Linder notes that Paul has called Martin Luther King a “hero,” and adds that he has condemned the police repression of black communities as well as the mandatory sentencing rules (supported by Democrats and Republicans over the years) that have condemned many blacks to long prison terms for minor offenses–concrete positions that you will not hear coming from either Obama or any of Paul’s competitors for the GOP nomination."
Compelling commentary from Glen Ford of BlackAgendaReport.com:
"We know that we are in an electoral political wasteland when the only major party discussion of U.S. empire and endless warfare takes place in the Republican presidential primary. On foreign policy, Ron Paul calls for closing hundreds of U.S. bases abroad, opposes U.S. empire-building and the fraudulent war on terror. Paul opposes preventive detention and the drug war, and he has led the charge against the Federal Reserve which, under President Obama, has become the umbilical cord that binds the imperial American state to the imperial bankers Wall Street.
Of course, Ron Paul is no friend of Black people, or working people of any race. He is a racist, who has always worked closely with white supremacists who wish for a return to the apartheid America of the founding white fathers. Ron Paul’s foreign policy and civil liberties stance, as a Republican, is noteworthy only because of the contrasting light it shines on the vast desert that Democratic Party politics has become under the grip of militarists and Wall Street.
The Republicans are ugly, nasty and evil. President Obama is the most attractive and articulate servant of Wall Street and war – and, therefore, an even more effective evil. There is only one alternative, and that is mass political action in opposition to the rule of the rich. Without a people's movement, the people inevitably lose."
Absolutely spot on citation, thanks for this quote from Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report.
i'm just amazed at all the people here arguing about presidential candidates! That is NOT where our power, our hope, our future lies. WE NEED TO CAUSE TROUBLE FOR THE CORPORATIST OLIGARCHY. That is how we shift awareness, shift the debate, move the political playing field, by "mass political action in opposition to the rule of the rich."
There is so much distracting noise here. Absolutely without any doubt, some of this noise is purposely created as noise to distract us. The amazing thing is all the people who are NOT here to purposely distract us, who are nonetheless apparently sincerely so concerned about the UTTER CHARADE that is US presidential politics in our era.
The unforgivable sin that Ron Paul is guilty of is pulling the plug on the EMPIRE.
Exactly.
As ugly as it is, the upside of this process of character assassination by liberals and conservatives tells you who belongs to the 1% (or wants to be) or who doesn't. Its times like these that strips people down to their basic nakedness where they bare their souls.
Almost overnight, once "peace loving, thoughtful & caring" people turn into murdering and destructive, selfish monsters.
Interesting to watch.
I especially love reading here from the political academics that teach the America's young. As a nation, its no wonder we're at the place we are. If anyone needs to be exposed for who they really are, its them. Producing haters & dividers = selfish, deceptive, greedy and violent adults.
I believe that MOON PIE is an agent. This post is sheer psy-ops. This poster has spoken AGAINST the OWS movement at every turn. No true progressive would do that. And he's here every day. Where's the job? Now, he's alleging that those who don't support an ostensibly racist, sexist, homophobic, pro-business candidate are the ones who are NOT oriented towards Left-leaning polices & principles. And while his wording is meant to confuse, he appears to be suggesting that those who love peace and justice MUST find appeal in Ron Paul, with the subtext being that those who do not find Ron Paul fit for leadership, lack a commitment to peace and justice.
These types of linear frames are MOST suitable to authoritarians. They speak in the language of CONTROL. Of discipline, and narrowed options. They limit the playing field, and not just on cognitive levels, as their True Believers rant on about Freedom.
They remind me of the Jules Pfeiffer character, "Carol Newquest," from his brilliant script: "Little Murders."
"I want to see a fence around every block! I want my freedom!"
Moon Pie is in this forum to INVERT the truth to serve his own agenda. His idea of government is one that suits military-style metrics.
Moon Pie is as big a phony as Barack Obama.
A witch!
She's a witch!
WITCH!!!
My Lord! We have caught a witch. Can we burn her?
What a dumb ass thing to say.
No the dumb ass thing is siouxrose's inevitable paranoid accusations.
Maybe you're a dumb ass for not seeing that, dumbass.
et tu dumb ass....You must be a Ron Paul supporter that can't think outside of the box. oh, well.
No dumbass, I'm a life long opponent of militarism and imperialism who IS thinking outside the lefty box. It's liberals like yourself who are incapable of thinking outside your culture wars mentality.
Ron Paul's anti-militarism and anti-imperialism doesn't conform to your liberal biases; so you dismiss it and yell "RACIST!"
Pathetic.
The "character assasination" is based on newsletters written for decades under Paul's name. He assassinated himself.
"Almost overnight, once "peace loving, thoughtful & caring" people turn into murdering and destructive, selfish monsters."
I resemble that remark.
Or, in short, BS.
So.
Which candidate do you recommend in the Red Party Nomination Elections?
How about in the real Election in November?