Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Then there’s the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and political independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan loyalty. The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry — husband of the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain’s wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney’s wealth as proof of his insularity; conversely, the same people who relentlessly mocked Kerry in 2004 as a kept girly-man and gigolo for living off his wife’s wealth spent 2008 venerating McCain as the Paragon of Manly Honor.

The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate

Still, for better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Alan Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues).

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:He's also a bigot and a homophobe, and the kind of guy who will ensure the GOP base stays home on election day.

Seahawks08 wrote:Wow that was one of the best analysis of Ron Paul I've ever read. Kudos to you for finding it.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:He's also a bigot and a homophobe

OL FU wrote:He also wants to reduce the size of the federal government its post revolutionary war size. I am sure progressives don't like that idea.

Kudos to your siggy and avatar.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:He's also a bigot and a homophobe, and the kind of guy who will ensure the GOP base stays home on election day.

Seahawks08 wrote:

Kudos to your siggy and avatar.

Why thank you!

And for the record, I find fluffy to be one of today's best comedians.

bobbythekidd wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:He's also a bigot and a homophobe

Have any proof to back up your slanderous lies?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote: Have any proof to back up your slanderous lies?

The newsletters from 1995 for one.

He can claim whatever the hell he wants - that shit went out with his name on it. prepared and paid for by his campaign.

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
The newsletters from 1995 for one.

He can claim whatever the hell he wants - that shit went out with his name on it. prepared and paid for by his campaign.

And Obama cavorted with known domestic terrorists. Didn't stop HIM from getting elected now, did it?

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:He also wants to reduce the size of the federal government its post revolutionary war size. I am sure progressives don't like that idea.

And Obama was going to...

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
And Obama was going to...

was going to what?

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
was going to what?

Kind of a wrinkle on the conk "change" meme, so name it.

Obviously there's a difference between campaign rhetoric and real actions and every president is hamstrung to a certain extent by the system just like Paul would be as president. But when Obama took office there were some real opportunities for meaningful change and he has done very little in some of the key areas. He is clearly not a progressive president.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Kind of a wrinkle on the conk "change" meme, so name it.

Obviously there's a difference between campaign rhetoric and real actions and every president is hamstrung to a certain extent by the system just like Paul would be as president. But when Obama took office there were some real opportunities for meaningful change and he has done very little in some of the key areas. He is clearly not a progressive president.

Actually I think he is a progressive president. I think he had no idea how to exercise executive authority. Most things accomplished were marketed by Obama, but drafted by congress which loaded everything up with their own stupid pork and perks so that there was little meaningful coherence in the laws passed. Therefore, bad healthcare law, bad banking regulation law, bad stimulus bill (even if you believe those things were in the right direction they were all done wrong). While I disagree with most of what Obama wanted to do, he had the opportunity to change a lot and he wasted it. So as I said, I think he is progressive, he was just ineffectual.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:

Actually I think he is a progressive president. I think he had no idea how to exercise executive authority. Most things accomplished were marketed by Obama, but drafted by congress which loaded everything up with their own stupid pork and perks so that there was little meaningful coherence in the laws passed. Therefore, bad healthcare law, bad banking regulation law, bad stimulus bill (even if you believe those things were in the right direction they were all done wrong). While I disagree with most of what Obama wanted to do, he had the opportunity to change a lot and he wasted it. So as I said, I think he is progressive, he was just ineffectual.

A progressive president would never have appointed Geithner and would have vocally sided with Paul, Kucinich, Sanders, and co. on auditing the fed and Freddie and Fannie.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And Obama cavorted with known domestic terrorists. Didn't stop HIM from getting elected now, did it?

And again proving Greenwald's point. These are the type of items that the media will focus on ad nauseum and partisans will hold to and they pale in importance to things like foreign policy and the drug war - both of which Paul is clearly more progressive on than Obama.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
A progressive president would never have appointed Geithner and would have vocally sided with Paul, Kucinich, Sanders, and co. on auditing the fed and Freddie and Fannie.

Not sure I agree but then there are different ways of looking at what is progressive. Today's progressives are not the Teddy Roosevelt progressives no matter what Obama says. Todays progressives have to find a way to fund their initiaties. One of the best ways is corporatism. TEddy would roll over in his grave.