Yesterday, I wrote an article, Endorsing Ron Paul, and Why Progressive Dems Should Support Ron Paul . (This was specifically referring to the Republican presidential primary NOT for president.) Some friends and readers challenged me on this. After I posted the article to dailykos.com, over 100 Kos readers treated me to the most horrific day of insults and name calling I ever experienced in my life. Here, I try to explain my rationale for the endorsement and call for support for Ron Paul, in a broader framework. And I offer a mea culpa... again (sigh.)
As a progressive, I want the most progressive candidate possible to win the presidency.
As right wing republicans, I assume people like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist want the most anti-tax, anti government right wingers to win.
We know that the right wing strategists consider which Democratic opponents they would prefer to run against. We can be fairly certain that they look at all the potential Democratic candidates and evaluate them in terms of their effects upon the other democratic candidates in terms of the issues the enliven and energize, their strengths and vulnerabilities and possibly, the ways they wake up and energize potential right wing voters. At least it makes sense to consider that they would think about these things.
I'm pretty sure that many on the right are drooling over the idea that Hillary will be the democratic candidate. The mainstream media has hundreds of millions in old, already paid for footage of Hillary. The Bush admin has had seven years to mine the records of the whitehouse to get the goods on her.
But what about Obama or Edwards? Do you think the RNC strategists have been gearing up in preparation for running against either of these? I do. If I were them, I'd be attempting to explore the ways each candidate would affect the big horse race. I'd also want to think about how losing primary candidates would affect the race. Where will Tancredo's thimble-full of supporters go? How about Romney's? Will these candidates have the ability to influence the supporters, so, if they lose, they can direct the supporters to one particular campaign?
Are these kinds of questions ones that Democratic strategists are asking? I hope so.
Yesterday, I found a link on the drudgereport to a recording of a video originally broadcast on Fox News, about a whore house that is "pimping for Paul." Clearly, this was an effort by Fox to hurt Ron Paul's campaign by showing that immoral people support him and that he accepts the support.
It raises an interesting question. How do unsolicitied endorsements by not-the-ordinary kind of endorser affect campaigns.
It was in the spirit of being a strategist that I endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican Primary yesterday. I thought I made it clear that I was only saying that he was the best of the Republican crop, not my choice for president. I thought I made it clear that I would be supporting one of several Democratic candidates. But some readers took my endorsement as a direct endorsement of Ron Paul for the presidency. I must confess, I chose to endorse Paul, rather than simply discuss a strategy addressing the Paul supporters. I took a risk there. Here on OpEdNEws, one reader unsubscribed because of it and at least several regular members of the OpEdNEws community scratched their heads and wondered what I'd put in my egg nog that day. On the dailykos site, the reaction was harsh and horrific, and frankly upsetting. But after an exchange of emails with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, it's owner, I apologized. Fact is, as he pointed out, I could have gotten my ideas across without the tabloid headline. I don't think that excuses the incredibly nasty comments that were posted. But it does explain the reception I got. I still feel that the comments that showed up on my posting are an embarassment to progressives. And I include the angry replies I made too.
So, I pushed too far in my title. The fact is, I was trying to point out that it seemed to me, strategically, that Ron Paul supporters who like his anti war and pro habeus corpus positions would be more like to switch to a democrat than to a republican, if Paul did not win the Republican primaries. I also felt and still do feel that if Paul wins, he'll force the Democratic candidate to differentiate his or her self on the issues. I could have said all that without the incendiary title.
I just want to make it clear, since I clearly didn't in my first article, that there is this whole libertarian side of Ron Paul that I find totally unacceptable. I'm a firm believer in supporting the commons-- that government run education, police, army, road building, environmental protection, energy production, management of resources can be a very good thing. This is diametrically opposed to Paul's point of view.
And there are reports that he is an anti-semite, and I know that with him being anti-abortion, he is anti women's rights. I could never vote for Ron Paul.
But, thinking strategically, I can encourage my republican friends and relatives to consider him. I can even say that he is preferable to his Republican primary opponents.
I think this is where I get into trouble with many progressives. To many progressives, considering the "best" republican primary candidate is kind of like digging around in a garbage dump to find the best garbage. But hey, don't forget recyclables.
Seriously though, many people wrote to me saying that they don't want to waste their time considering which Republican is better or worse. I can't blame them, in terms of their own choice of how to be engaged in politics.
But at the same time, I believe that strategic benefit for the left can be had if there are some ways to influence the Republican primary race, to affect the conversation, the prioritization of the issues, the moment-to-moment flow of the polling stats, or even, the results in primary elections.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
I understand exactly what you wrote about Ron Paul. He is anathema to the "entrenched" republicans. You are completely right in proposing that we convince the rethugs to get behind "a constitutionalist". Most didn't understand or didn't take the time to understand what you were saying. Like you, I have not endorsed him. I am hoping for Edwards to become more aware of the liberties we have lost. I call attention to the same reasons that you do. If he runs on an Independent ticket I think it will hurt us more than the thugs. You did well and I respect what you wrote.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 9:03:13 AM
This is certainly not meant as a derogatory comment in any way shape manner or form
What is it you seek when you ask progressives to think about a Paul candidacy? Do you wish Huckabee, Guiliani or Romney to adopt those of Paul's planks with which you and I agree? Do you seek to aid them in winning the nomination and weaning support from Democrats? Why work to make a Republican candidate more palatable?
I think that there are far better ways to use ones time, frankly. Now if you want to work to promote Kucinich, Gravel, or even attempt to push Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama or John Edwards to take a more emphatic stance on ending the war, as has Paul, well then I can at least rationalise that.
It is a sad thing that you have been villified for an honest stance, but ,while I support your right to take and expound on any stance you wish, I believe wholeheartedly that you made a mistake here. Ron Paul is appealing on two distinct fronts:
1. He , with Dennis Kucinich, stands alone in firmly calling for an immediate end to our military involvement in Iraq.
2. He is alone among republicans in displaying an intelligence, a candor and honesty that some find appealing.
So freaking what? He is also one who seeks to return these United States to the eighteen fifties....to roll back womens rights, to further free our corporate entities from the controls they so sorely need, to end all government run social contracts which are in need of enhancement not ending, including the single most successful program in our history, social security.
But I digress, this is not about Paul, per se, it is about strategy, it is about pushing a liberal agenda. I would think it a far better use of time to actually find a liberal to support. My own strategy has been made clear by me many times. I reject both major parties as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, I work to make third party politics a reality here as the only way to push the Progressive agenda against the controlling parties who have sold their souls for corporate money.
I believe that campaign finance reform, sane election spending limits and control of rampant selfish capitalism will only come about when there are third party folks seated in our Legislatures, able to bargain with their votes to inject such sanity onto our laws.
I do think that you and I , Rob, are allies, that we share a vision for this nation, though there are undoubtedly differences, which is fine. I do regret that you were sorely abused, but that is where politics has gone these days, far too little thinking and far too much reacting. I blame our educatory system.......it turns out fast food workers not critical thinkers.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 10:22:09 AM
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum is so what I see. It pertains to the whole mess were in. We are of different perspectives on Paul. I think it's his message that our sys. is broken is what's causing all the hoopla. I haven't seen this kind of ferverant discussion since RFK. The fact we are talking, bashing it out as it were, is healthy. But Paul is scary in what I can't find. His opinion on corporate personhood for one. Nada.
I'm not here to tell you anything Ardee.
I'm spending time as you and others suggested, adding to my libertarian 'defined' understanding. I am closer to your claim of neglect where it concerns the poor and the general welfare application in our constitution. But I think the programs instituted (social security, food stamps, med coverage etc..) for good intentions have been so abused by our government, we are left to bail out the failures of those entrusted with their protection. Our hearts have been stolen in the name of these policies.
I just wish you to know I share your concern and thank you for giving me a reason to look further. I will continue.
Though there are definded differences between liberals, conservatives, progressives, etc,... rather than the differences being dividing, I believe it is in these differences that we can find our way. Your passion to the less fortunate is a mirror to that quality. I would guess that you will not stop no matter what Tweedle gets in.
Neither will I.
peace
by
mikel paul (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 396 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 4:24:11 PM
Daily Kos is not generally a "progressive" community. It is generally a "liberal" community. There is a world of difference between the two. Daily Kos has many Hillary supporters who think of themselves as "modern progressives," as Hillary calls herself, because she is so afraid of the "liberal" label. But of course, Hillary is a centrist liberal, lock, stock, and barrel. The rest of Daily Kos are primarily liberals supporting Obama or Edwards. Again, the Edwards supporters like to think of themselves as progressives though what they actually should be called is liberal populists, if they are supporitng Edwards' current rhetoric and not his record in the Senate.
Though there is a committed contingent at Daily Kos in his support, Dennis Kucinich, the real progressive in the Democratic primary, gets little credibility among most of the liberals who populate Daily Kos.
by
Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 2:29:13 PM
It is like this.. As everyone who posts here understands, with the exception of Dennis Kusinich and Ron Paul, there are NO CANDIDATES who have a consistent record regarding anything.
In fact, all of the other candidates seem to be going for the corporate america nod, because THAT is what will gain them the Oval Office...
(certainly not us...) Nope, we are told who we are ALLOWED to vote for.. Except in the primary elections...
We have a shot at making a real change for the country, but that does not mean we should be voting for a lying scheming Democrat over a lying scheming republican...
We should be supporting the candidates who are honest about what they believe, and are willing to STAND BEHIND WHAT THEY SAY...
Unfortunately, for our nation, we have two "parties" who make sure that Ron Paul is not discussed, DESPITE the fact that he is blowing McCain away in the polls... We have options.. whe should go with them as opposed to going with the same old BS....
Ciao, CZ
P.S. Merry Christmas everyone!
by
steve scheetz (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 592 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 11:03:41 AM
Whenever the issues of ending the war and civil liberties get more attention in the news it is effectively free advertisement for progressive causes. It is essential that we do whatever we can to keep these issues in the forefront of public debate.
While Paul brings other matters to the forefront as well, the significant disparity between him and the other Republicans on these issues is enormous. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the Democrats incorporate more of these issues into their own campaigns and pick up the independent and even some Republican voters who were favoring Paul after he's out of the picture.
by
Vito (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 11:06:29 AM
that Ron Paul supporters will vote for anyone else? Even though RP has stated that it is not his intention to run as an Independent, that is still a possibility which I think he will do if he has enough support. There is also something called a "write in vote" that I am sure many Paul supporters will use if he loses the primary and does not run as an indie.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 11:40:34 PM
There is a lot going on behind the political scene - and to shake-up the Republican nominees and alert them to the inconsistencies of the other candidates, and how it will affect this country is vital to bringing forth change in the 2008 elections.
I do believe that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, which I'll cover in an Op-Ed that may startle many people. Our way of live and freedom itself is at stake in the coming election, and unfortunately, there are forces at work that still remain largely hidden and the public itself is generally unaware of what the underlying plans of the GOP and Mitt Romney represent.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, as I stated before, if Kucinich or even Edwards don't walk away with the Democratic nomination - I fail to see another choice that will help to defeat tyranny in this country that is still spreading like a cancer which is receiving no chemotherapy or other alternative treatments - like sending the people that are attempting to destroy America to The Hague to reap what they have sown.
William Cormier
by
William Cormier (127 articles, 7 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 308 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 12:10:03 PM
but only ONE batch of ice cream will be made. It never ceases to amaze me how some cannot let go of the dimwit-repug fallicy. Ardee reminds me of Perry Logan, endlessly droning about what the dimwits have done for us. If there was a difference in the partys why is Dubya preparing Hitlerys people for the transfer of power? And pappy Sherff will be touring with Slick Willy Times man of the year ! If they are giving the award to whoever whacked the most people it should have gone to Dubya. There are no partys,there is no left or right, only tyrany. You want abortion ? The post-national Clinton-Bush crime syndicate may give it to you whether you want it or not. When the jack-boot is on YOUR neck Ardee what will it matter to have abortion rights or food stamps for illegals driving new cars? The ONLY issue now is LIBERTY. Blackwater will be rounding up bleeding heart liberals and right-wing patriots. Wake up and smell the rising tide of fascist sewage before you drown in it.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 427 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 12:27:43 PM
You don't have to apologize for anything! If we were all honest and un-biased, open and forthcoming, your article should have hit home. And to those critics that reacted rather than to respond, well, there you go again. Putting people in boxes has never solved a thing and never will. Straight forward opinions and observations should be welcomed as it furthers the education of our progressive idealogy and as a relavent body that deals fairly with those differing opinions.
Now, this is not a new subject by any means but do you really think H. Clinton can ever be elected President? I doubt it. The powers that be will not allow it (don't forget the last two elections that were stolen). And, do you think that R. Paul can be elected? I doubt that, too. Both canidates platforms appeal to many voters but in reality 1) Clinton is a woman and flip-floppy on too many issues, and 2) Paul is too anti-establishment (anti-everythig really.) But what can we learn from them? I grab hold of their ideas and compare them with the other canidates from both sides (partly because the best way to win at anything is to know your enemy and act accordingly.) Are they addressing the REAL problems faceing us today? And those problems aren't really health care and immigration in my personal opinion. What is the problem is that the American people are buying into these things and ignoring the direction of the whole political world has undertaken. I'm not too happy at all about this new North American Union and the way it fits in with the European Union and the soon to come Asian Union. These are frightening facts of life that will change our lives drastically and for generations to come. I'm not into the direction we're going towards national ID's, chip implants, bio-access and military implemented martial law. I'm not into "no fly" lists, no-knock policeing, and the un-Godly destruction of our Constitution and "un-alienable" rights. I'm not into the notion that I have to have some government slob to say where I can work (or not for that matter.) And the most frightening of all, "WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES!!!"
So, before we go jumping on any band wagon or whole-heartedly agreeing with any political representitives, be it Executive, Judicial or Congressional, make yourselves aware of what is NOT being voiced by the canidates. Those silent offerings will be the end of our world as we not only know it but want it to be.
by
RM Merrill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 1:04:40 PM
You need to rehtink your opinions of both candidates
Hillary Clinton is a corporatists dream candidate, perhaps thats why Rupert Murdoch supports her as do so many of our wealthy contributors.
Ron Paul may be anathema to the military industrial complex with his call to end this very profitable war, but the rest of his agenda is a righties dream, ending social security, ending welfare, ending the public education system.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 1:12:09 PM
i have seen you posting all over the ron paul articles and have restrained myself from replying. but I can't anymore.
Ron Paul does not want to abolish public education. In fact it is exactly the opposite, he wants to save it. Do you think the school system is working well? I spend a lot of time in public schools and I am very concerned about the education system. It is failing. Ron Paul wants local states and cities, meaning people like you and me... to have more control over our kids education. he wants the federal government out of it. You know how standardized testing has taken over the school system so that teachers can't even teach anymore? That is due, in large part to the federal government regulating the education system. Why would you want to turn such an important thing such as education over to politicians?
There are many other things that I would like to correct you on, but I don't have the time. It's christmas and I have a family to be with.
Peace to you and yours.
by
robin Robin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 3:27:33 PM
because you are dreadfully , terribly and absolutely wrong about both Paul and about the Libertarian agenda. Government funded education is high on their hit list, as is social security and every other entitlement.
I have heard Ron Paul speak to the need to raise private schools over the public system, I have heard him speak about shedding this nations laws about the right of women to choose, havent you?
Spend a half hour with a search engine and you will quickly be shocked at exactly how wrong you are.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 6:34:13 AM
Robin I am afraid that Ardee wins this one hands down. All you must do is listen to Ron Paul and the Libertarians. Government is a necessary evil and less government means less evil.
The basic premises of Libertarian philosophy leads to all Libertarian political positions. Want to why they are against Anti-Monopoly Laws, against Anti-Trust Laws, against a National Health without profit Laws, why they are against Brown vs. Board of Education, why they are against Roe vs. Wade, why they are against Federal Public Education, why they are against the Iraq War, and dozens of other Federal programs? It has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has only to do with their deep hatred of any Federal Program. We fought that War in 1860, the States Rightist lost big time.
Ardee, I would almost bet anything that Rupert Murdock has sent money to John Edwards, Barak Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and any one else who is running. I bet he gave both to the Bush and Kerry campaigns. It is called covering all your bases. Until there is a Democrat President with a large enough Democrat majority to overcome a filibuster campaign laws will not be changed, and then I would not hold my breath waiting.
I am going with Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson and in that order. If Edwards drops out, I will go with Clinton. There is a lot about Clinton I like. I like her new position on Iraq better than her original position, I like her position on health care, I like her position on education, I like the types of Federal Judges she would appoint. I like her position on abortion though I disagree with assembly line abortion for birth control. I like her position on a graduated income tax. I like her high intelligence which seems to give her an uncanny ability to know when to compromise and when to fight. She has always been much more liberal than Bill Clinton and she will be even more so if she ever gets Congress behind her. I could almost say the exact same thing about Edwards even though I am very concerned about his lack of universal health position. If I could make one person President by fiat, I would make Dennis Kucinich President. I hope he makes Speaker of the House or at least Whip. I like his positions more than anyone else running.
I think I like Robin more than you. She sounds like she is much prettier than you are.
Now, if I can make Panurg mad. I will end the New Year well. Here goes.
Panurg, I love the Jewish people!
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:45:39 PM
Ron Paul only wants to remove the Federal Government from issues that should rightly be being decided at the state and local levels. Education, health and welfare and so many other things that the Federal Government has a hand in should be carried out only at a local level with no interference from outsiders.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 11:45:32 PM
Is it matching funds you seek to stop? Or is it the necesity of adhering to federal laws in order to qualify for those funds that gets your panties in a bunch?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 6:41:00 AM
I know that I, for one, will be voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary here in Texas, which is his home state. I think that vote is stragetic, in that it will do more long term good than my voting for Denis Kucinich in the Texas Democratic Primary (I did that in 2004), which is pretty much pissin' in the wind for all the good it'll do. I will NOT vote for RP in the general election if he should win the GOP nomination (not holding my breath on that), but I might sit out the election or vote Green (Cynthia McKinney) in the general election, if Hillary gets the Democratic nod.
I could get behind Edwards if his populism were more genuine and less hypocritcal, and if he didn't make that stupid comment about the 2nd Amendment right-to-keep-and-bear-arms as being "privilege" rather than a right. Kucinich also doesn't "get it" when it comes to RKBA.
I also supported Kinky Friedman's bid for the govenor's job here in Texas, too. The Democrat running was a nice guy and all, but he had ZERO passion. Kinky had a lot of passion, and early on stole some GOP thunder, but he wasn't prepared for the fight to get dirty (which it did) and didn't know how to counter or defend himself very well. He didn't do his policy homework, and discovered you can't joke your way into the govenor's mansion. Also it didn't help to have our local Benedict Arnold (Strayhorn), a once Democrat turned Republican turned Independent running also...though Kinky would've been eliminated even in a perfect IRV system...but Perry would've probably NOT won.
Back to Libertarians, when they are talking strictly about civil liberties, I'm with them 100%; A lot of local Judicial races here have been GOP versus Libertarian, with no Dem bothering to file to run. I vote for the Libertarian each and every time in those races. I disagree with them on economic policy, but on civil liberties questions they are solid.
But I would love to see RP win the Texas Primary...it will force the other GOP candidates to keep debating him and taking him seriously.
by
John (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 1:22:00 PM
