Tweet
Ron Paul (photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr)
By getting 21.4 percent in Iowa and 22.9 percent in New Hampshire, Paul is showing that his anti-foreign war, anti-drug war, anti-Federal Reserve and “get the government out of my life” platform has a significant base of support in this county and in the Republican base. Most importantly this substantial base is made up mainly of young voters who will potentially be involved in politics for decades to come.
Looking at the exit polls in both states, Paul is overwhelmingly the choice of young people. In Iowa Paul won all the age groups under 40 and dominated with voters under 30, taking a full 48 percent of the under 30 vote in Iowa. Similarly in New Hampshire, Paul won 46 percent of the vote under 30, compared to Mitt Romney who won just 26 percent of the youth vote. No candidate comes even close to matching Paul’s support from young people.
On the other hand, Romney’s victory in both states is mainly due to his strong showing with senior citizens. Romney is the candidate of what the GOP once was and currently is, but Paul could potentially be the candidate of what the party could become.
Assuming these young supporters’ opinions don’t change significantly in the next few years, it is conceivable that another candidate in 2016, perhaps without as much of Paul’s baggage, could be successful just trying to ride Paul’s basic coalition.
Paul’s roughly 22 percent finishes are not good enough to win this time, but they are not very far off from what it takes. In a crowded primary all it takes is small plurality victories to become the prohibitive front runner. A candidate with a solid base equal to only about 30 percent of the vote could have a decent shot at the nomination.
I’m not saying Paul supporters will be the future of Republican Party, I’m just saying the current success of Paul’s campaign indicates a latent potential. Given the right political conditions, leadership, and organizing his base in the future could be harnessed into a real force inside or even outside the GOP.
This youth energy could easily dissolve with the end of the Paul campaign, but it is at least possible this campaign could end up serving a role similar to the Barry Goldwater campaign in shaping a future generation of activists.
The old guard in both parties risk ignoring what gives Paul such a huge appeal to young voters at their own peril.
84 Comments
The GOP will not become Libertarian any more than the Democratic Party will become progressive. Both will remain tools of the Oligarchy. Both are already irrelevant except as an obstruction to our future. How many of RP’s youngsters will vote for Romney in the general election. My wild guess is damn few.
Cue the reflexive Ron Paul haters, 1,2, . . .
The bigger story is being missed. Why are voters under 30 voting Republican?
If not, what do you think they will do?
It’s a trick question.
Ron Paul seems to have a hard base of support at which he never polls below but his ceiling is just as hard and the range between his high and low is narrow indeed.
Barring a VP slot or a third party bid, Ron Paul’s political career ends this fall.
He himself and the spurious ad hominems against him become increasingly irrelevant.
What is relevant is that his supporters could unilaterally kill the Republican party, or at least hold it hostage. And they could do so above and against Ron Paul’s public wishes to the contrary!
To wit: a grassroots movement could coalesce around Gary Johnson which would siphon votes away from both parties, but crucially from the GOP. Ron Paul could tut-tut it for the sake of Rand Paul’s political future, but what incentive would Ron Paul supporters have for not putting the fear of God into the GOP? They win big time by making it plain that the GOP cannot exist without them and that they either drive the bus, or the bus don’t go no where!
In a game of chicken, they lunatics always win!
Paul and Paul may not like that (publicly) but the movement would benefit.
Well, perhaps because they found a candidate who will take action on the things they find the most important?
Ron Paul.
Or better said, there is only one candidate that is anti-war and pro-honesty in the economy.
If you think about it, just getting those two things right goes a long way towards preserving any future for the young and their offspring.
Toggling the tax rate or the prime lending rate or the COLA is trivial in comparison.
The harder ceiling is mortality itself, which favors the young in the long run.
I would like to know the economic demographics of his supporters.
This is definitely true, Jon. Ron Paul attracts most young people because of his opposition to American interventionism and imperialism — not to be mistaken for “anti-war” — and his opposition to the federal involvement in drugs.
Of course, young voters see Ron Paul’s positions and support him because in their minds he’s the “anti-war” and “anti-drug war” candidate. That’s where the energy comes from. If Dems don’t latch onto that, it’s definitely dangerous for where young people will go. Poli sci shows that people vote for a party on maybe two or so issues, and then they eventually adopt the rest of the party’s platform (even if they initially disagreed with it). If something isn’t done, we could be looking at a whole slew of “True Believers” in our future.
Speaking as a 23 year old myself…the most important issues to all of us as a whole:
1.) Wars
2.) Environment
3.) Gays
But most young people I know support RP mostly because of the drug issue.
I know it’s sounds nutty — just like a Paulista — but…
Caucus states, including supers, have 486 delegates. And Paul could conceivably walk away with some of those caucuses, such as Northern Mariana… where nine people voted in 2008.
Open primaries have 755 delegates. Closed primaries have 575 delegates and semi-closed primaries have 470 delegates.
Wikipedia suggests that the new GOP rules (of most states) provide delegates to anyone who gets more than 20%, provided no one else exceeds 50%. (A majority wins all delegates.)
Furthermore, I think they get delegates based on the results of most congressional districts in each state. That could be significant if there are anti-war CDs (perhaps the cities??) that vote for Paul in big numbers. San Francisco comes to mind.
IF Paul runs the gauntlet in low turnout caucuses and IF Newt’s billionaire backer funds his race for the big states… I think it’s conceivable that Mitt misses the 50% mark in several big states (i.e. Florida) and we see a brokered convention.
If that happens, it could be either Christie or Rand Paul getting the nomination.
It’s too early to declare Willard the winner. Recall that McCain was declared bankrupt and hopeless up until is gained a win in Florida.
The future looks both scary and exciting. I think there will be huge realignments with people who you would think would not have anything in common. The truth is beginning to come out and what is being done to us is no longer a mystery. The changes won’t be in 2012 IMO but 2016 is going to be very different.
Yes they do risk ignoring actual American people, who have been saying for a along time now that they’re sick of war, sick of dysfunctional government, want legal weed, are in favor of marriage equality, women have the right to their bodies, etc.
RP only picks a few of these to give voice, which in my opinion always limits his ceiling of approval. Gary Johnson doesn’t have the baggage and hits all the populist notes, so that’s probably where the Libertarian future lies, but certainly not the republican future.
After all, if Ron Paul really meant all of his positions, he should dump the Republican Party association. My opinion is that he isn’t doing that so it doesn’t damage his son Rand’s political future in the Republican Party by association.
It ain’t what they say, it’s what they do. And all these people saying Paul is somehow progressive should be equally demanding that he dump the legacy party affiliation. Like they demand of all others.
The thing is, if the Democratic Party had behaved as Democrats starting back in 2008, the Republican Party would by now be re-organized and renamed. That failure is something I can never wholly forgive.
I am a registered Democrat. I’m not young and I will write-in Ron Paul during the general election.
I’m done wasting my vote on corporate democrats. I gave Barry a chance (and my vote) in 2008. He used his opportunity to succor the bankers by:
a) reappointing Ben Bernanke (thanks for 0.5% savings interest, you scumbag), and
b) appointing Eric Place Holder, a true waste of skin (hasn’t indicted a single major banker for the 2008 meltdown).
How could Ron Paul possibly do worse?
My sons support him. I keep hammering them with the downside to Paul’s vision. They come back with “Would RP have signed the NDAA’? Not to mention the drug laws which the young recognize as being very stupid. Add to that Paul’s view on wars and….bingo….we have a winner.
The flip side is not as appealing but as long as he keeps talking civil liberties and foreign policy he’s going to be very appealing. If I knew nothing about him and only heard his speeches, I’d be a follower too.
I think the bottom line re Paul’s appeal is that the issues that Paul is good on are the most basic issues to any democratic state with basic privacy and freedom, and they affect each and every citizen within such a state. That’s pretty powerful stuff, and it rightly appeals most to those who will be here for the longest time in the future.
Er, its not “reflexive” to hate someone who thinks the civil rights act of 1964 was a bad idea, who believes in the medieval illusion that metals have intrinsic value, who opposes any meaningful role in the economy under advanced industrial conditions.
a Paul or Paulian presidency will never end imperialism and will only slow the erosion of civil liberties under an oligarchic and oligopolistic form of capitalism that no longer needs either strong democracy or a strong middle class. On the other hand, a Paul, or Paulian presidency can muster support to kill off social security, medicare, the department of ed, EPA etc.
these are substantive features of Paul’s politics that would be an anethema to progressives if this country had a left worthy of the name. Notice the countries that have higher quality of life than the US do have broadly libertarian parties, they are also marginal and no one confuses them with being progressive.
Go back and check on that thing called reality.
Paul is horrible on the environment. his blessed free markets have zero ability to curb global climate change and will be extremely inefficient in organizing our adaptation to the multiple ecological crisis to come. Markets inherently can’t price long-term or external costs. So, markets simply can’t be ecologically sustainable.
My sense is that the single biggest attraction to Ron Paul is summed up in one word: authenticity.
Exactly. and lily white. Paul is the spectacle of the moment. clocking in at 25% of republican primary/caucus voters is a small and self selecting % of the population. To the extent that he does have support among the young, this mainly due to their lack of understanding of how terrible he is on education, race, gender, the environment, the economy etc.
What the party could become: sensible about cutting back military bases around the world and legalizing drugs. Still wrong about everything else. Well, it would be an improvement at least.
Under conditions of economic stagnation due to fall profits and slack demand Paul’s economic policies would plummet the US into a depression, the world economy would follow and governments would respond via military conflict. Being anti-war and anti-imperlism in your head when you also hold completely nutty economic ideas means that you are quite likely to end up in inter-imperialist wars.
My sense that the biggest attraction to Paul is that he isn’t Obama and isn’t the usual crazy Republican. He’s nutty, though.
I completely agree, and climate change is the most important issue to me. Having the EPA follow through with their goals by 2014 — which if they do, coal in this country is going to be crippled to where they’ll be begging for cap and trade — is my “make or break.”
I’m just saying, those three issues are the most important issues to young people, especially with young people I interact with. Adhering to those is what’s going to bring young people into the field.
yeah. I got you. In my dealings with 18-30 folks, it only takes about 15 minutes to help these folks with good intentions and impulses who are pro-Paul to see Paul in total and not just his few good positions on war, imperialism, civil liberties and drugs.
I don’t understand why so many people don’t get this. Younger voters are so often single-issue voters. (Anecdotal evidence alert!) My generation has spent most of their lives under wartime, so it’s natural that we’d want to cut military spending and bring our troops home. My generation has liberal social views, so it’s understandable that we want to legalize marijuana. I’m not so sure why my generation doesn’t like the notion of government spying on us, but when you use that language it certainly sinister.
So when you have a candidate that up-plays those positions while downplaying or not fully explaining his utterly insane economic and foreign policy positions, it is understandable that my generation will like him. Unfortunately, my generation lacks sophistication, like so many generations before us. We are enamored by somebody who “speaks the truth” and is outside the mainstream, so much so that we don’t think it’s necessary to look beneath the surface.
The fact is, if you ask a young voter if the United States should fall behind China, India, and Europe in economic performance and diplomatic influence, not rise up to defend people against genocide, and introduce a monetary policy that will cause massive instability of the dollar to the detriment of the majority of them, they will not support a candidate who advocates for that. But my generation is so susceptible to confirmation bias. So once they found Ron Paul, it’s difficult to get them to believe that he is not the candidate that will serve their best interests.
(cross-posted from my blog)
MALCOLM X: “You’re A Political Chump!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYVv4LY_KQ
it is just amazing how so many continue to want to preserve the entities of mass murder and social injustice.
because that is what all the enemies of ron paul advocate.
unending wars.
unending blindness to the crimes of the friends of barry[think jon corzine].
and an undending warfare state targeting negro men.
don’t you think it odd how it is that the purportedly progressive left wants to prop up those entities that continue to promote invasions of sovereign nations[none of which have done anyting to the usa]?
don’t you think it odd how it is that the purportedly progressive left continues to support a president and his doj that pursues non-whites and incarcerates them for possession of marijuana.
don’t you think it inimical to your well-being that barry and his boys continue to eliminate constitutional safeguards.
when one settles back into the armchair, one might view barry as a mullato george walker bush. and eric holder as a j edgar hoover wannabe.
still, because these gangsters carry the imprimatur of the democratic party, the purported left prefers to excuse their fascism.
now, i would assert that ron paul ain’t perfect. still, don’t you prefer his shibolleths to barry’s? for instance….
1. the cessation of mass murdering by the usa all over the planet.
2. the end of the federal reserve hiding/excusing the crimes of those banksters that financed barry.
3. the end of the dea and the atf. the end of the racist incarceration of black men for what. smoking, holding marijuana.
candidly, to prolong the regime of barry will be to prolong the injustices.
How can Ron Paul be horrible on the environment? He is for the Rule of Law, Property Rights. You make no sense.
To quote Dan Drezner:
Repeat the pattern for every single insane policy Ron Paul has.
Such as?
RP is not the future of anything. He is the past : a perfectly preserved-in-amber Republican of the 1920s, who spent the 30s grumbling about how the New Deal was destroying the country.
He’s not against the drug war, he’s against the Federal drug war. He’s perfectly happy with state regulation of drugs – like it was back in the 20s.
He’s a non-interventionist – like lots of Republicans were in the 20s in the aftermath of WW1.
He distrusts the Federal Reserve and prefers gold coins over Federal Reserve Notes – like lots of Republicans did when the Fed was 15 years old and gold coins were still legal tender. Then that damn Roosevelt came and confiscated it all!
Sad. Pathetic. Worthless. Ideas that were unworkable a century ago, and even less relevant today.
American isolationism, Austrian economics, ending abortion, opposing gay rights, advocating states’ rights, ending the EPA, repealing the Civil Rights Acts, abolishing minimum wage, ending federal social welfare, regressive taxation… These are all position he has taken and can be found very easily online. If you need more, there’s no shortage of insane policy ideas that Ron Paul supports.
Go back and read the comment before yours.
Check yourself. NOBODY but you is talking about Paul being elected President. NOBODY BUT YOU. So, stuff all the booga-booga shit back up your ass.
You’re something of a buzz killer there. Imagine that: Paul is an asshole after all.
Who do you support?
Since I understand the dynamics and limitations of a two-party system, I support the Democratic nominee, whomever they are.
Your last “Democratic nominee” just took away your habeus corpus rights and your right not to be assassinated. Was that part of your understanding of the “dynamics and limitations” of the system? If so, how fucking stupid do you have to be to continue to play the same old lesser-evil game?
Which is exactly what the DLC and Barry expect. I.E., there are no consequences for major suckitude.
In the 2008 Iowa caucus Democrats had 55,000 caucusers 17-29, Reps had 13,000. In 2012 Reps had 18,000 Iowa caucusers 17-29. Youth don’t make up much of the Republican base, and Paul got most of his votes from people over 45.
The Prospect has a better analysis of Ron Paul’s votes by Charles Stewart, Paul picked up the Huckabee voters in IA and NH. If you call it the Huckabee coalition you get closer to the truth without as much craziness.
http://prospect.org/article/romney-should-thank-his-rivals-his-big-win
He would have to.
and you advocate what?
continuing global mass murder.
continuing drug warfare
continuing avoidance of pursuing the banksters and their crimes.
continuing impoverishment of the citizenry.
someone thinks it is a good idea to keep killing muslims all over the planet so as to preserve the presidency of a gangster.
this makes me think that the purported left is almost the fascist right.
Sorry Mr. Walker, yer whole diary presumes politics matters, polls matter, poll results matter.
N then there’s the whole concept that voting and electoral outcomes matter.
I think, given the full ownership of our country, government and daily lives by the corporate fascists, that it all matters not one whit.
N certainly, Ron Paul matters not . . . his influence on anything is a greatly inflated NOTHING invented by the MSM and I am saddened you and FDL feel a need to clamor about any of it, cuz it’s non essential and purely fabricated . . .
Karl Rove himself could not have created a greater meme than the one which posits that Ron Paul has any influence and bearing on anything.
LeSigh.
Right on, comrade. Ron Paul, the phantasm, is a national security threat, and wouldn’t last a nano-second. Poof! As to his supporters, can you imagine a nationwide protest movement of libertarians? Ridiculous.
His campaign is a scam, too.
Perhaps when viewed in the funhouse mirror of US politics. Is that the vision you’re using to attach yourself to Paul?
There is no left in US politics, comrade. But, yammer on …
so, i might not disagree with u about the non-existence of an anti-statist entity[sometimes identified as the left in amerikan politics].
on the other hand, i do wonder why it is that you seem to be an advocate of continuing global warfare, militarism, by the anti-paulists.
ron paul espouses the termination of the “war on drugs”. is it your proposition that this failing expenditure of your tax dollars should be perpetuated?
if that is your proposition, i would like you to explain why this is a desirable endeavor.
under the regime of the mossadist, michael chertoff, the department of homeland security was empowered to acquire radiating inspection devices. these have never been vetted by any agency other than the one that chertoff once headed. in fact, all efforts to examine their radiation levels have been denied. barry soetero has defended this hiding.
is it your proposition that the citizenry deserves being subjected to these unknown levels of radiation. oh, and by the way, the europeans have refused to subject their airline travelers to these mechanisms. and have publicly advocated the cessation of using these “fukushima” devices. still, barry and his myrmidons persist in advocating the exposure of airline travelers to these devices and their unknown levels of radiation. it is your proposition that this is a constitutional right of the state?
some weeks ago, barry said that from 40,000 ft, no illegal activities amongst the bankster classes could be discerned. it was an odd statement, don’t you think?
principally because from any altitude, the economic crimes of the banksters, barry’s friends, were quite obvious.
so, i ask you, these questions. again….
1. don’t you think the time has come to terminate united states militarism? to withdraw us troops from all of the countries in which they are invested?
2. don’t you think the time has come to terminate the “drug” war, to dismantle the dea and the atf?
3. don’t you think the time has come to start insisting that the sec, the cftc, the doj, et alia begin to initiate the CRIMINAL prosecutions of the financial wizards that have broken the global financial systems?
don’t you think that the time has come for barry to stop protecting his financier friends? to pursue economic justice.
4. don’t you think it is time for barry’s ties to the secret state to be revealed? his mother’s employment by the spook surrogate, USAID, and her role in indonesia as a targeter of suharto’s political opponents. and lolo soetero’s military orders to eliminate all those enemies of amerikan hyrdocarbon extractors.
now, i shall admit that ron paul fails to go as far as i think he should go to reveal to the electorate the dimensions of the gangster state that is the usa. and i suppose that is the decision of a politician who has some objective to try and seize the rose garden. after all, the citizenry is well known to be scared of learning the truth.
but, i ask you, do you really want the past to continue controlling the future?
don’t you want a real alteration?
or are you comfortable with totalitarianism?
3.
Ron Paul Hosts Third Party Press Conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYALxUfEmfQ
The New Jim Crow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgM5NAq6cGI
Heh
As we get older our brains mature and we have more experiences to pull upon. We develop better decision making processes. There’s a reason they credit wisdom to experience. So I wouldn’t count on mortality providing the libretarian utopia Paul wishes any day now.
I don’t think he would have. Although that ain’t enough for me to give him the Presidency. Then again I consider the freedom to make personal choices and not have personal prejudices of others to interfere with their outcome just as integral to democracy as the idea that I not be indefinitely detained. It isn’t really freedom when whole classes and substructures are relegated to second class citizenry and civil rights pertains to more than detention. That is the essence to my complaint that Paul is “good” on civil rights.
Well first, he’d close the EPA. Without monitoring, how long do you figure before corporations would do exactly as they wish and we’d be blissfully unaware since there would be no regulatory agency to tell us it was occuring? Even if we did find out through private groups there’d be no mechanism to prevent the behavior from occuring because the agency responsible for complaince would be gone. Your only recourse would be courts.
Exit poll data suggests differently
Polling-place interviews in New Hampshire and Iowa found younger voters in both states were just as likely as older voters to cite the economy as their top concern. Paul won among younger voters who said the economy is the most important issue. Overall, he drew 46 percent of under-30 voters in New Hampshire, beating front-runner Mitt Romney by a full 20 percentage points in that age group. In Iowa, he got 48 percent of the youth vote, 12 points higher than top-two-finishers Romney and Rick Santorum combined.
I took this excerpt from an article.
http://news.yahoo.com/young-voters-propelling-ron-pauls-campaign-192744429.html
amen, SN.
Debt money and central banking are the root cause of the crisis of Western Capitalism. Progressives don’t understand this because Krugman doesn’t understand it and because their professor in college didn’t understand it. Paul is not necessarily calling for a new gold standard although he admits it would be an improvement. He prefers a free market in gold which would keep fiat currencies honest.
Ron Paul wants to restore constitutional government complete with civil liberties and democracy without which there can be no Progressive agenda. He wants to dismantle the illegal and immoral military empire that is bleeding us to death. He wants to decentralize political power which is now, in the American Police State, concentrated in ONE MAN.
Paul’s youngsters want freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The legacy parties are committed to the Oligarchs and the Police State. Democrats and Republicans want favors and concessions from the ruling elite. Paul’s followers are not Republicans. If Paul retires after the convention they will support Gary Johnson assuming he gets the Libertarian nomination.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. In 2008 I supported Kucinich and boycotted the general election. Earlier I supported Anderson and Perot. I have never been a legacy party partisan although I voted for the Democrats for congress prior to NAFTA. I think the hard core Paul haters are Democratic partisans or disgruntled Democratic partisans or former Democratic partisans. Republican partisans hate him also.
Well done Jon. Young Americans, whether involved with Ron Paul or Occupy or both, are the future. Democrats and Republicans, Obama and Romney, are obstacles to their future.
“The GOP will not become Libertarian any more than the Democratic Party will become progressive. Both will remain tools of the Oligarchy.”
Exactly. The only reason Ron Paul runs Republican is to have any shot at winning any sort of election in this country. Try running on the Libertarian or Progressive ticket, and see if your views are known to any voter. Good luck. I credit Ron Paul for crashing the Republican Party, and that’s why the Oligarchy is so very frightened about this “kook, wingnut and loon.”
I believe young people have learned from the Democrats and decided to “Not let the Perfect be the Enemy of The Good.” Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but he’s good enough (just like Obamacare).
Ron Paul 2012
IOW, you don’t want the entree if the dessert won’t be the one you prefer? I think this is a very disingenuous comment from you. Imagine yourself actually in a cage, in solitary confinement, naked in the dark, where nobody who cares about you knows where you are, whether you are alive or dead, no lawyer, no right to ever see a judge, subject to various torture techniques at the whim of your jailers, no light at the end of your tunnel, for, say, 5-10 years. You would really chooses that rather thaan live in a society that, let’s say, won’t permit gays to formally marry? If you answer yes to that, you are either lying, or insane, IMO. I have seen you demonstrate intelligence on other issues. How can you be so stuck on stupid with regard to this issue? Some civil liberties and freedoms are more important than others, period. You just lost your habeus corpus rights, you know. Please try to get your brain engaged. Paul does not need to be elected to do some good. His good issues need to be talked about. He is the only way right now to get them talked about. If those issues becomes part of the discussion, then it becomes easy for Stein or Anderson to take them over. Is that too subtle for you?
Not true McCain won New Hampshire
I’m fairly certain that should I ever be arrested and put on trial, I’ll have habeas corpus and I won’t be assassinated. I don’t see people being denied trials and dying all over the place. Do you?
Besides, not voting for the Democrats and helping a Republican into the Presidency isn’t exactly going to change things, considering Republicans were the one who put that provision in the NDAA. This is simply logic, but I know that the more of an extreme partisan you are, the less you accept logic.
What you apparently don’t realize is that you are playing into the game Repblicans have designed. They WANT you to regret voting for Obama. All of this obstruction and poison pill stuff is to get Obama in between a rock and hard place. With the NDAA, it was either seriously harm defense policy — which the majority of Americans don’t want, and it’s the majority to which Obama is answerable — or accept a provision he didn’t like, but ultimately had control over its use. It’s not like the NDAA is sacred law. Vote for Democrats next year, give them a filibuster-proof majority, and they won’t have to accept Republican poison pills in the 2013 NDAA.
But you’ve fallen exactly into line with the Republican’s ploy. They gave bad choices to the President, hoping that whatever choice he made would weaken his position among the likes of you. Why you? Because you guys are the ones who are so vocal about everything, and that influences non-extreme partisans. So, feel free to be a bitplayer in their political game. But don’t complain if Mitt Romney becomes President. I’ve told you the trick the Republicans have used. It’s your fault if you continue to fall for it.
“I’m fairly certain that should I ever be arrested and put on trial, I’ll have habeas corpus and I won’t be assassinated. I don’t see people being denied trials and dying all over the place. Do you?” You really have to be a low-grade moron to be willing to attach your name to that “reasoning.” OR, exactly the kind of “extreme partisan” you accuse me of being. Which is it? Are you at all capable of ever thinking beyond the immediate election cycle? Because THAT’s the trap that both the Rethugs and the Dems want you to fall into, and you are doing exactly that.
I can appreciate the theoretical arguments about how that NDAA provision is contrary to all of our commonly-held democratic principles. But I can be practical enough to know that the United States isn’t going to become a totalitarian police state by this time next year, when the next NDAA will have to be written. And since I’m fully aware of what a two-party system entails, I’m going vote for the Democrats, because they’re the party most likely fight against that provision’s inclusion in the 2013 NDAA.
Yeah, and I can appreciate your “theoretical arguments” about how the Democrats will suddenly become champions of our liberty. Both parties serve the corporate oligarchy. Both need regular people to be powerless. That is what you are voting for. Just be clear about it.
“What you apparently don’t realize is that you are playing into the game Repblicans have designed.”
No, DylanH. What YOU apparently don’t realize is that they are all Republicans now. Where have you been since the turn of the millennium?
Just because the duopoly has designed the political infrastructure to compel the poor beasts down this chute or that to the slaughterhouse doesn’t mean we have to behave like cattle. Your ‘logic’ astounds me.
It is mendacity like this that has caused me to finally shun Thom Hartmann and his ilk. Poor Obama; the Republicans made him do it – NOT!
Not really trying to wreck your point but the problem with this argument is in treating Paul’s “good issues” like Plato’s ideals. They exist in a mental vacuum with no real relation to reality (no reflection on your tag intended). As Plato had to learn, they cannot just actively inform the real world, they are also passive recipients of the real world. Paul is full of shit and it hurts the good issues more than the reverse. If it were not for Aristotle, we’d still be in la la land with our heads up our navels. But, hey, if it works for Anderson or Stein, go for it.
…but as for sn1789 @ 21, Damn, I wish I’d said that.
Wow, Plato vs. Aristotle! Rather a stretch, Bro Tom, though personally I think Plato wins that contest hands down – your dismissal of his teachings really is very shallow, you know. Without him there would probably be no Aristotle.
As to your disparagement of Paul’s strong issues, there’s no mental vacuum there, unless it is one which the PTB would like us all to be in, with no consideration of right and wrong with respect to perpetual war, no consideration of fair play with respect to the less fortunate in our citizenry, no consideration of what will best support life on the only planet we can call home. If Ron Paul is giving voice to just one of these issues, I want him to be respected for that, just as I respect the Occupies for doing what they do.
Ron Paul has my support so long as he is the only voice we are hearing on the political podium. And he has my respect.
Well, perhaps you didn’t notice that Comment #21 presumed a premise that I am not arguing for-namely, that Paul actually get elected. So, it’s all just drivel.
Paul haters are stupid because they can’t separate their hatred of the man and their obsession with his past from the fact that he is the ONLY vehicle available right now for forcing discussion of several key issues that go right to the heart of our freedom and democracy, i.e., foreign wars, civil liberties, rule of law and accountability, bank-controlled Fed, drug war. Two weeks ago, Obama signed away your habeus corpus rights. The media makes no mention. Neither will any Rethugs or Dems. In this environment, can you still not see the value of having Paul’s candidacy stay alive a while longer (which is ALL that I am arguing for)? Can you not understand that if Paul gets enough attention for these issues, then alternate candidates like Stein or Anderson can easiy co-opt them into a true progressive campaign? For all the Obamabots who glory in “eleventy dimensional chess,” this requires much less cogitation.
PLUS, your embrace of Aristotle is unsurprising, since Aristotle was responsible for promoting a mode of thought that keeps one inside-the-box.
Just an observation.
in this whole thread we’ve gotten to Plato and Aristotle, but no quotes from Marx, Che, Mao, or even John Stuart Mills or Thomas Jefferson on unchecked corporate capitalism..
That’s my major disagreement with Libertarianism.
Yes, this is why President Obama wrote a very lengthy signing statement saying that he believes the provision is unconstitutional and that his administration will essentially ignore it. That definitely shows that Democrats want to indefinitely arrest everybody and assassinate the more annoying ones.
How big a fool are you, really? He thinks its unConstitutional, so he signs it into law anyway so ANY ASSHOLE who follows him can freely use it against the citizenry. That’s if one assumes he will keep that promise, which I don’t. And, it’s not about locking up EVERYBODY, fool, it’s about being able to disappear anyone who makes a nuisance of themselves. Add the vagueness of “terrorism” to the vagueness of “material support,” then add no judge to pass on whether those words are being interpreted reasonably. Is that really too complicated for you?
Given the ownership of this country and each and every one of us by the 1% corporate fascist oligarchy, I continue to snigger n chortle anytime someone champions Paul as having any influence, much less being a catalyst for change.
1) He will never win nuttin.
2) He will only distract, which the MSM loves cuz it perpetuates the left.right meme and sells ad dollar.
3) It’s all rigged way beyond the political process, by the corporate fascists, n Paul is just another form of Kabuki wherin all participants in our political process take turns being good guys, bad guys, alleged ‘spoilers’, or ‘one who influences outcomes’.
It’s all rubbish, kabuki.
You know this.
Bless you for some sanity.
I’M not a hater, it’s just mind over matter.
I don’t mind, cuz he don’t matter.
His purported worthiness is a manufactured one, a meme, he counts for not much in reality, it’s all a kabuki perpetrated by the 1% corporate fascist bastids who own and operate us all.
If you think any of this is real, I want some of what yer puttin in yer pipe, hoss . . . ;-)
What voters? Which election? For how long?
Just another polling meme or Rovian planted faux statthot implant into the MSM.
;-)
Money aside, they are white, racist, misogynist and homophobic, 3 denominators which happen to transcend poverty or being rich (I don’t include white, cuz whites are obviously all those things, too).
You know, like wife beating and male domestic violence against women . . . cuts across ALL walks of life, regardless of station in life, religion, color of skin . . .
Young voters are either factually ignorant or hopelessly idealistic with blinders to Paul’s other positions of place in his scheme of things in life.
Do you have numbers of NONWHITE MALES who support Paul?
But again, he’s not important, none of the politicians are.
The game is bought! N sold. This feather ruffling of and about Paul is inconsequential wrt to outcomes of any sort.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
That pretty much explains it. Disillusioned with Pr. Obama, they flock to Dr. Paul.
Let’s analyze the options he had.
1. Veto the bill.
2. Sign the bill.
If he vetoed the bill, we would likely still be in the same situation. Congress most likely would have overridden that veto. But let’s assume they couldn’t have and let’s assume Republicans would make this big fight about the provision. What are the consequences of that? Well, quite clearly, it would mean the entire military would lack funding. Sound good? Maybe to you. But I would rather we have a military and that we’re able to pay our soldiers. The majority of Americans agree with me.
So, he signed the bill, seeing as how neither option would get him to where he wanted to be, but signing the bill would avoid a politically toxic mistake. When signing it into law, he makes sure to say that the provision is unconstitutional and that he won’t use it.
It should end there. You erroneously assume that “any asshole who follows him can freely use it against the citizenry.” That’s simply wrong. The NDAA expires and must be rewritten this time next year. You’re assuming that Republicans will win all three branches of government, with both a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority. That’s wrong, but it’s not as wrong as your other assumption.
You cannot seriously believe that any President would go around arresting civilian citizens left and right, denying them trial, and assassinating them. That’s is obviously hyperbolic. You need to address reality and stop living in a world where something that theoretically can happen will always happen to the worst extent imaginable. The fact is that this provision will likely be inconsequential from here until next year.
Do I like that it exists? No. Am I going to abandon my party and President because of it? No. Why on earth would I voluntarily hand a victory over to Republicans, who like the provision and would most likely insert it into NDAA 2013?
In 1930′s Germany, you would have been a reliable Hitler supporter. Your type focuses so closely on the individual trees (I could say the saplings, or even the toothpicks) that you never, ever, get around to seeing the fucking forest. Pure short-term thinking, with no long-term component at all. You make me puke, frankly.
Of course he should have vetoed it even if that action wouldn’t have stopped it. It is principle. “Because I didn’t think I could stop it.” didn’t cut it at the Nuremberg Trials and it doesn’t cut it here. And, yes you should abandon your party if it does, or allows to be done, things you disagree with. The whole point of party affiliation is that you agree with them, not that you disagree with another party.
Considering the GOP is Military Money Hungry, they would move mountains to ensure military funding and a little extra push back from the President could have forced them to cave. Maybe not, but at least it would be a message to the people that he tried everything he could to defend their rights and liberties.
I do agree that he will most likely not use it and that there probably won’t be massive death squads roaming the streets but that is not the point and as a graduate from Harvard Law who practiced as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law he should realize the importance of standing up for constitutional rights and civil liberties.
But hey, no worries. If Obama gets re-elected he will just ensure an extension doesn’t happen like he did with the Patriot Act and the Bush Era Tax Cuts.