Progressives, Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution - 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Adele M. Stan

5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution -- 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics
He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start.

August 26, 2011 |


There are few things as maddening in a maddening political season as the warm and fuzzy feelings some progressives evince for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican presidential candidate. "The anti-war Republican," people say, as if that's good enough.

But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican. He's the John Birch Society's favorite congressman. And he's a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you're a member of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I can see how he'd be your guy.

Paul first drew the attention of progressives with his vocal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Coupled with the Texan's famous call to end the Federal Reserve, that somehow rendered him, in the eyes of the single-minded, the GOP's very own Dennis Kucinich. Throw in Paul's opposition to the drug war and his belief that marriage rights should be determined by the states, and Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people with privilege adequate enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)

Ron Paul's anti-war stance, you see, comes not from a cry for peace, but from the deeply held isolationism of the far right. Some may say that, when it comes to ending the slaughter of innocents, the ends justify the means. But, in the case of Ron Paul, the ends involve trading the rights and security of a great many Americans for the promise of non-intervention. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution_--_%27cuddly%27_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics/

[Firebrand Gary]

1. He will not get the nomination.

You cannot get any more progressive than I, at least I don't think so. But even I cannot stand Sasha Baron Cohen, why and who in their god given mind would film with him? The way he portrayed LGBT people is pretty upsetting.

http://youtu.be/F7RnlPQCKBQ

[the other one]

5. You didn't get Bruno

I thought it was brave and deep.

Bruno was looking for fame but he found love and family.

Besides the shock value sterotype it was very pro equality.

[Fearless]

9. +1

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marmar]

3. Whose claim? This is an AlterNet article......

..... and sorry, but his anti-war stance is about staying out of foreign affairs, not some passion for peace. ..... And what's a charicature?

[HereSince1628]

4. I'm not much worried about Ron Paul re: the progressive movement

Progressives may desire an alternative from the approach of the past 2.75 years, but that doesn't make them stupid. Progressives share a system of core values that are mostly contrary to those of Ron Paul. As seen on the political landscape of the states, the progressive's shared values provide a stable node that has an attraction. That attraction is particularly strong during these times of open corporate aggression. Paul isn't going to win over progressive voters.

Moreover, Paul is a perpetual candidate.

It's my experience that perpetual candidates are usually eccentric within the party structures. They have eccentric perpetual supporters who early on make these candidates look better organized and stronger than what they really are.

It's my experience that as other campaigns mature, the role of the perpetual candidates become a source of 'color' to primary seasons when they turn boring. This year the republican field is plenty 'colorful' and has several eccentric offerings. Paul's distinction among that field is that of the experienced but perpetually losing candidate.

[Dokkie]

8. And thats what they said about Reagan till he got the nomination

and then won the elections. Reagan if I was correct won on his third try just like this is Paul's third term, he was hated by party establishment just like Paul, he had a passionate following just like Paul and running against a weak liberal president. Ok Obama is not that liberal or weak, but theres a lot of similarities between Reagan's third run and Paul's. Please do not under estimate this guy.

Obama better start becoming anti war because this country is very war weary, he better start cutting defense budget instead of increasing it and start accelerating the withdrawals because even though many liberals cannot stomach Ron's domestic policies, they know that if hes elected, he would not be able to pass any of his libertarian fantasy domestic bills but as Commander in Chief, he would be able to end the middle east wars and the drug wars. And I think that is why he is in a virtual tie against Obama in recent polls.

I have talked a few friends who passionately supported Obama in 2008 but are now considering voting for Paul if Obama doesn't do a turn around. This is mainly because of his anti war stance and the belief that he is an honest guy who cannot be bought by corporate America. Perpetual candidate or not, just don't underestimate him

[onehandle]

6. In 2000, I was at the Democratic HQ in Atlanta. There were a number of people excited people there.

Al Gore was going to have a rally and I was getting volunteer info. Three people came in and asked for tickets (part of the area was meant for supporters only). The girl behind the front desk, happily handed them some tickets. Suddenly they started chanting, 'Vote Libertarian! Vote Libertarian! Vote Libertarian!' and slowly withdrew from the offices.

Someone who knew at least one of them said that the three were liberal gay activists.

Libertarians attract uninformed idiots.

A few months later, President Bush was sworn in.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. A Theocrat, any way you slice it.

n/t

[bemildred]

10. Bah. I dislike him personally, I will never vote for him, but I agree with him on selected issues.

So what? There is no politician alive or dead that I agree with about everything, and damn few who are not corrupt self-serving weasels. If he manages to divide the wingnut vote, that's good enough for me, and if he gets elected, well, we will finally get that 2nd American Revolution.

That said, I suppose it's good to make sure people look past his cute cuddly appearance.

[BiggJawn]

11. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Paul's a libertarian.
Libertarians are Idiots.
You Progressives don't want to rub shoulders with a bunch of Idiots, do you?

[Dokkie]

12. Not too many repubs

do you see rubbing shoulders with socialist and liberals to expose the banksters sapping the middle class. So while you are it, send Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich and Sanders the memo about not rubbing shoulders with libertarians :)

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Congress members working with other Congress members is not

'rubbing shoulders with libertarians' it is performing their sworn duty, doing their jobs. Ron Paul is a homophobic bigot. Barney is not rubbing shoulders with him, he is dealing with him. Being a professional. That is what mature people do when confronted with atavistic idiots who hold prejudices.

[HelenWheels]

13. Republicants won't elect him

because they can't control him.

[Populist_Prole]

15. I'm really amazed at how much the RW-ers are bothered by his anti-war stance

Well, I guess I'm really amazed at how dear the wars are to RW-ers. I always figured that the righties ( excepting fundies ) main concern is for the plutocracy to run roughshod over the hoi-polloi, and that all the "family values" shit, and the wars were more like icing on the cake issues. Stuff they could live without if need be. I was mistaken.

A few I spoke to, including my reactionary father, are driven completely ape shit by Paul's opposition to the wars in Iraq / Afghanistan. It's an absolute deal breaker to them. We're did all this chicken-hawk shit come from?

[MisterP]

16. like all (right-) libertarians they're 20% correct on issues (allowing for tactical alliances)

and 80% "oh sweet Jesus, they're crazier than Hitler"
they're against big business, war, and state torture, but for guns, elimination of wolves, no environmental, animal, labor, or human-rights protections, and for the very unbridled capitalism that produces big business, and the monetary system of the 1830s ('coz the Fed is part of a conspiracy of Elizabethan merchants and Venetian wizards to enslave the Free Sovereign White Man)
Paul resembles Harold Camping, except that Camping's followers can't really be regarded as a cult

[JDPriestly]

17. Thanks for posting this.

[rpannier]

18. Paul's a Knob

His son is a door stop
Can't stand either

[McCamy Taylor]

19. My cat's hairballs are more dangerous. One then could actually get corporate support to run for

president. Exxon will support Obama over Paul.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Here's the plan. Progressives who now hate the Dems join the GOP and vote for Paul

in the primary. Get him so far ahead of the other contenders that there is a big stink at the GOP convention when they get together in a smoke filled back room and hand it to Perry, instead. I call this one "Chicago, 1968."