Progressives for Ron Paul

Replace Operation Hilarity with Operation Green Blue Coup

2012-03-02T22:43:00.002-08:00

I had promised myself not to write before Super Tuesday but I am so angered by the stupidity of progressives I otherwise agree with when they take up the cause of promoting Rick Santorum. I can't help but think they are deliberately trying to pre-empt what I, Robin Keorner and other Blue and Green Republicans are advocating. Below is my response to a Huffington Post article on the subject. I suggest you favorite it even if you disagree with its decidedly progressive and Obama sympathetic content because we need to light this fire under Democrats immediately if we are going to get Ron Paul back up in the headlines and moving ahead of Santorum and Romney in the upcoming caucuses and primaries:

Nothing wrong with tactical voting. Operation Hilarity, however, distracts progressives from a much more promising application.

There is a risk that this tactic might backfire and Republicans find in Santorum a true believer they can enthusiastically support. Regardless, the outcome of giving aid and comfort to any neo-con will serve as a minor irritant or even welcome relief to the GOP establishment.

A much more serious blow can be struck against the GOP by progressives tactically voting for Ron Paul. If Ron Paul can go to the GOP convention with a plurality of votes and/or delegates, the GOP establishment will be forced to reject him and cause his followers to walk out. A rupture of this magnitude would cripple the Republicans in the general election. Paul's supporters would convince him to run a third party or write-in campaign and draw enough votes away from Romney/Santorum to give Obama a landslide victory.

Additionally, with Ron Paul in the debates, Obama can be restrained from the instinctual reaction of so many Democratic candidates to prove they are not "weak on defense" by going along with calls for steroidal increases in funds for the MIC beast. Instead, Obama would appear to be the moderate while Romney's true warmongering intentions are exposed.

Finally and perhaps most promising, Ron Paul's presence in the general election would lend support to Libertarian candidates for Senate and House which would also draw votes away from Republican candidates for congress. This could very well result in giving President Obama the 60 Senators and the re-established Democratic majority in the House he needs to get anything significantly progressive done in his second term.

Making sport of Santorum at Romney's expense may give us a thrill but greater fecundity is to be found in tactically supporting Paul in the primary.

Why this tactic is not being widely endorsed by the likes of Huffington, Moore, and Moulitsas is mind-boggling. Wasting this exceedingly rare strategic opportunity would be an epic political failure.

Progressives and Libertarians Unite! Final Word after One Year of PfRP

2012-02-17T06:12:00.000-08:00

Today marks the completion of one year writing and publishing this blog. I am not encouraged that my ideas here have made any significant impact on either progressives of libertarians. The one certainty that remains is this Ron Paul will not be nominated by the Republican Party. I had hoped he would gain a plurality of votes and delegates by embracing a coalition strategy early on. It appears too late to do this now, but maybe he will change his mind after Super Tuesday.

Regardless, even if Ron Paul went to Tampa Bay with a majority of votes and delegates, the GOP establishment would not allow him to be nominated. They would find some means, like using super delegates, to overrule popular support and to keep their power undiminished.

It seems, therefore, inevitable that Ron Paul will run third party or independent or endorse Gary Johnson's LP campaign. That last option will result in the weakest showing.

A Ron Paul 3rd party campaign is needed but what is more needful is a Ron Paul victory. If he can get 18% right now in the general election, just think of what he could get if he had a Dennis Kucinich or a Bernie Sanders as his running mate and together they developed a platform that stressed agreements between libertarians and progressives like non interventionism, civil liberties, and ending the drug wars.

What if they went beyond that and ironed out a deal which called for significant and real reductions in federal government spending, replaced income taxes with a progressive consumption tax and human rights based tariffs? What if they designated half of the savings from reduced spending as well as half of any gains in revenues to paying down debt and the other half of savings and revenue gains to block grants for the states based exclusively on population to be used by each state as it sees fit with only one condition: reporting publicly and online where every dime is spent? What if they agreed to consolidate several domestic departments and cut their budgets by 25% while putting progressives in those fewer cabinet posts?

My hunch is such a coalition campaign could win and such a coalition government would be exactly what our country needs. Why settle for 18% when he could get 40% and the White House? If libertarians and progressives would get beyond their sectarian ways and come to the realization that separately they are two too-small minorities but in temporary alliance they could constitute a plurality and with success in governance, a super-majority.

This blog has been dedicated not just to getting Ron Paul elected president but also to outlining a number of other creative strategies and policy ideas that can simultaneously advance both libertarian and progressive causes.

I understand the desire of both libertarians and progressives to gain an ideologically exclusive mandate through a landslide victory, but we all know that can't happen in 2012. What still can happen is that both groups could come together and compromise on a number of issues in a way that preserved each group's core principles and ultimate goals. It might take 4 or 8 years to get halfway where both of us want to go. After that we can have our battle, sans the two-headed Corporate Beast, to win over the American people.

I know that both progressives and libertarians would like to realize their cultural, economic and political ideals without having do any deal making. However, that strategy, if either side chooses it (or should I say, continues to choose it), will keep the Corporate Beast in charge. Let's not do something so blatantly stupid and miss this exceedingly rare opportunity to do something much better for our nation and our world.

Let's end the military industrial catastrophe and all other forms of corporate cronyism for good! Let's remove the burden of insane debt from backs of future generations! Let's begin to build, at least at state and local levels, whether through public and/or private funding, the prosperous and peaceful green economy we all desire! And together along the way, I bet we can end the fed!

If I may paraphrase Engel's tired cliche: "Progressives and libertarians unite; you have nothing to loose but your chains!"

Thanks to all my readers and followers. Whether you have liked what I have said or not, I appreciate your willingness to hear me for this past year.

Crickets Chirping and Epic Opportunity for Progressives

2012-02-13T06:47:00.000-08:00

Want to get back to the basic argument:

Ron Paul cannot win the Republican nomination but he could do some serious damage to the Republican party if he has enough votes and delegates going to the GOP convention in Tampa Bay.

Progressives, Democrats, Greens, and other left of center types ought to change their registration so they can vote for Paul. Don't do this if you have a competitive race in the Democratic primary between a progressive and a blue dog. However if your district and state are like most, the primary races are usually personality and /or fund raising contests and the incumbent or party favorite is probably going to win. Casting your vote in such a primary when the president is running unopposed is mostly meaningless.

The value in voting for Ron Paul in the primary is as follows:

1) The GOP establishment's worst nightmare is a brokered convention with Paul holding a decisive number of delegates. The more delegates and votes Paul brings to the convention the more dangerous this scenario is for the GOP.

2.) A walkout by Ron Paul supporters is likely if they constitute a plurality of delegates and the GOP establishment refuses to allow him to be the nominee. Progressives need to expose the nefarious intentions neocon war mongers, and getting Paul the plurality of votes and delegates he needs is the best way to do it. This is not merely political theater. It is a way to severely wound an evil party.

3.) If Ron Paul is shafted at the convention, he will run as an independent or third party candidate. Such a candidacy will take a substantial number of votes away from Romney/Santorum and assure President Obama's re-election.

4.) Keeping an anti-war candidate in the forefront of the primary and general election debates is essential for progressives. Huge budget cuts are on the way, and if progressives do not cooperate with libertarians like Paul, the cuts are going to come first and foremost from domestic programs. Marginalizing Paul and keeping him out of the general election debates will make the debate about which candidate is the most bellicose and the most willing to feed the military industrial monster the biggest budget. Paul on stage will serve as a needed counterweight to the corporatists' agenda. Many other vital issues will be raised or ignored depending upon whether Ron Paul is on stage with Obama and Romney: excessive military spending, civil liberties, the stupid drug war, the prison industrial complex, bailouts of big private banks, an unaccountable Federal Reserve, etc.

5.) If Ron Paul decides to run a coalition candidacy with a vice presidential candidate like Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders, progressives may find a platform and a candidacy worth voting for in the general election.

On that last reason to support Ron Paul. This blog is loaded with policy ideas for a temporary progressive/ libertarian coalition government. The main idea is this: Develop a revenue neutral tax policy while cutting massive amounts of funds from drug wars and empire building and maintenance through the military industrial catastrophe. Whatever cuts are agreed to, put half of the savings to debt reduction and send the other half to the states according to populations in the form of block grants to be used as each state chooses with the only requirement being that each state must report publicly and online how every penny is spent.

This policy of 50% of funds for debt reduction and 50% of funds for state block grants is not ideal for either libertarians or progressives but it would give progressive states the funds they need to build the infrastructure of a peaceful green economy. If conservative states choose to waste this money on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, let them expose themselves for all the nation to see so their political operatives can be put out of business for good.

You will find all sorts of anti-Paul propaganda on liberal and progressive sites. Some of it is factual; some of it is speculative. Some of it would make sense as good reasons not to vote for Ron Paul if he could ever get elected without a coalition campaign and the promise of a real coalition government.

None of these liberal and progressive critics of Ron Paul progressives will give you one good reason not to jump ship and vote for him in the primary. Just ask them about it. Ask them, "What is the harm in voting for Ron Paul in the GOP primary and what good will it do to instead vote in the Democratic primary for uncontested candidates like President Obama?"

When you do, enjoy the music of crickets chirping.

Repost for Democrats and others Thinking about Voting for Ron Paul

2012-02-13T05:54:00.000-08:00

There are several good reasons for Democrats, progressives, greens and liberals to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries and caucuses. He will not win without us. We can help his supporters cause a giant headache for the GOP at their convention.

And after the GOP rejects Paul despite his plurality of votes, Paul can decide to thank us and join a Kucinich or a Sanders to form a coalition candidacy and a real libertarian/progressive coalition cabinet which will not allow Paul to go off the deep end policy wise.

Such a coalition could free up funds from the military industrial catastrophe's steroid budget for empire building and maintenance and use those funds to pay down national debt and build the communication, energy, education, environment, and transportation infrastructure of a peaceful green economy.

Epic fail if we progressives, greens and liberals do not take advantage of this extremely rare opportunity to change the debate and direction of this nation!

Here's the rest of the strategy: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-green-republican-coalition.html

Last Word on Current Strategy

2012-02-10T06:21:00.000-08:00

I remain skeptical about the delegate caucus strategy for a number of reasons. It assumes that only Ron Paul's supporters are being coached enough to get elected as delegates. It's hard to believe Mitt Romney's team is that stupid.

I have always assumed that caucus states and small media states are going to be most productive for Paul but to simply think he can get enough delegates through this strategy to win the nomination is a bit far fetched.

If I were in charge of his campaign, I would have made it clear from the start, that Ron Paul will not be allowed to gain the nomination no matter how many delegates and votes he gets. The goal should be get as many of both as you can but do it with two things in mind: 1.) Build a bigger national base and reach out very intentionally to disenchanted progressives. 2.) aim for a plurality in votes and a brokered convention which exposes the GOP as the exclusive and warmongering club that it is, with the aim of garnering more progressives for a coalition third party run in the general election .

In short, the primary should be a warm up to a third party coalition bid. I still believe Ron Paul wins only in coalition with progressives and that it's best to build that coalition now or, even better, yesterday..

My strategy is obviously not the one in place. I will try to bite my tongue on this henceforth and pray that I am wrong and the Ron Paul campaign is right.

Can anyone explain the purpose of this strategy?

2012-02-08T18:20:00.000-08:00

What is the total number of delegates awarded in all caucus state combined? When will we know the number of Paul delegates vs. other candidates' delegates awarded in caucus states thus far? Is that immediately following state conventions? If so, can the campaign supply us a list of dates for state conventions in all the caucus states?

There seems to be a message from the campaign that Paul's delegates are the only delegates smart enough to stay late and pay fees and get elected. Are Romney's delegates all that dumb? How many delegates are awarded in primary states verses caucus states?

How many primary states are winner take all? Does the RP campaign still believe he can be nominated? If not, what is the goal of amassing delegates? Is it a prime time speech? Is it certain planks in the platform? If so, what are the planks and how can we be sure the nominee will abide by all planks in the platform in formulating and implementing policy?

I know these are a lot of questions but this has the smell of cigars in a backroom somewhere. I think everyone here values clarity and transparency. We want to know what we can expect the end result to be? Some of us are beginning to wonder why spend valuable resources on getting delegates if its not going to get RP the nomination?

If the nomination is impossible and the platform and speeches are all meaningless formalities, why not just get as many votes as possible everywhere in preparation for a walkout of the convention followed by a third party run?

I doubt a floor fight over delegates coming from a third or fourth place candidate is going to impress anyone outside the Ron Paul choir. Isn't this campaign supposed to be about winning the nomination and if not, punishing the neocon that does?

I'm trying to be polite about this but i think I am not alone in losing patience waiting for a chance to hear Ron Paul make a floor speech. A floor speech is going to be used by Romney/Santorum to say, "See we are the big tent party." how many Ron Paul advocates are really interested in being used...again?

Switch Strategy Now!

2012-02-06T15:41:00.000-08:00

With the low turnouts in Florida and Nevada, understanding why Ron Paul is not coming in first or even second ought to be a no-brainer. The candidate with the most fervent and fixed supporters should be in good shape when turnout is low for all other candidates.

It is time to replace the current strategy with a coalition strategy. Ron Paul is not winning, he is finishing way to far back in both caucuses and primaries. He is getting way too few delegates and votes to have any significant influence at the Tampa Bay convention.

It is also wishful thinking to believe that Santorum and/or Gingrich dropping out will bring more voters to Paul than to Romney. Ron Paul is at his peak now. Things are not going to get better with the delegate/caucus strategy.

But let's imagine what would happen if Ron Paul did go explicitly coalition. Promising a coalition cabinet and vowing to put half of savings from spending reductions into block grants for the states based solely on state populations would cause a huge stir in a media environment looking for a new story. Everyone is convince the drama is over and the nominee is decided.

Imagine Ron Paul dealing in a big way with the racism charges by showing up on The Tavis Smiley Show after delivering a major speech confronting every charge and outlining an agenda to end discrimination in our judicial system by ending the drug war and commuting the sentences tens of thousands of non violent offenders.

For nearly a year I have been pushing this strategy. It has not been tried. Do not confuse it with the Blue Republican strategy. As necessary and noble as that grassroots hospitality has been, it has not delivered the numbers of progressives needed to put Ron Paul in position to win.

Shifting to the coaltion strategy should not be delayed. Waiting for another third or fourth place finish is ridiculous. Make the switch today. Get it done now!

Progressives, before it's too late...

2012-02-01T14:15:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul may or may not be a racist and/or opportunist. I would be surprised to find any white politician born before (or after) 1964 who wasn't both. However, his campaign can become a vehicle for significantly advancing both libertarian and progressive causes.

This election is not about racism, sexism or homophobia. It's not about cults of personality or fantasy agendas. It's not about shutting down government or getting government in or out of the economy. It's not about killing social security, medicare and medicaid or eliminating progressive taxation.

It's about dealing realistically with political stalemate in opposition territory. It’s about changing the debate and creating the possibility of a coalition rather than sticking with the sentimental and waiting for 60 progressive votes in the US Senate. It’s about dealing with the reality of massive budget cuts close on the horizon and making sure they come out of the military industrial catastrophe rather than an already weakened domestic budget.

It’s about killing the corporate beast so the funds can be made available for building a peaceful green economy. It’s about returning government to the people. It’s about forming a tactical and temporary alliance to escape the bait and switch, divide and conquer lowest common denominator politics of the already opulent and permanently powerful. It’s about getting our heads out of their corporate cabooses.

Fanatical insanity is thinking that Obama 2 or Romney 1 is going to be an inch different from Bush 2 and 3.

Ron Paul is no messiah but he has proven his willingness to work with progressives and he has provided a transition plan that can become a spring board, not for compromising anyone’s principles, but for moving our politics in the common direction both progressives and libertarians want.

If we would turn the tables and trick the establish just this once, we could have a fighting chance of getting something significant done and an honest future contest as to where to go beyond the common ground currently squatted upon by the corporate duopoly.

11 Coalition Agreements to Woo Way More Progressives

2012-02-01T07:05:00.000-08:00

Beyond Ron Paul's well known stands on war and peace, anti-prohibition, anti-bailouts, etc., here are some big ways to woo progressives without alienating libertarians:

1. Agree to direct half of all reductions in spending into block grants for the states based strictly on their populations for the states to do with the funds as they wish with only one requirement: Publish online how every cent is used.

2. Agree to a public option available to all who are eligible to opt out of entitlements.

3. Agree to select a progressive running mate such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Rocky Anderson, or Jill Stein.

4. Agree to appoint progressives to head domestic cabinet posts which are consolidated or have their budgets reduced.

5. Agree to income tax brackets of 10, 20 and 30 with a 10% consumption tax on spending above 1 million dollars and with a minimum tax of 10% and 15% on the 20 and 30 margins.

6. Agree to phase in a progressive consumption tax to replace the income tax.

7. Agree to auction off interstate highways in states which approve of it by referendum and use the funds to match state funding of public transportation.

8. Agree to a tariff structure based on environmental impact and human, civil, religious and labor rights.

9. Agree to permanently reduce payroll tax rates to not more than 5% each for both employers and employees in exchange for removing the cap completely.

10. Agree to legalize hemp and tax marijuana at the same rate that cigarettes are taxed.

Bonus 11. Agree that all new revenues raised through changes in tax law be designated half for debt reduction and and half for state block grants as in number 1.

Is There a Goal for this Campaign?

2012-02-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

I am trying not to criticize Ron Paul's campaign staff. I would like to increase the dialogue on what coalition policy could look like. I don't know who is responsible for the present strategy, but I am going to try to make this clear and concise:

Ron Paul is a candidate of the grassroots. Bottom up is the way the Ron Paul crowd works. This does not translate well with the quest for delegates. I understand the need to focus on states which are not winner take all. I understand the advantage Ron Paul has in caucus states. This strategy is not without merit but it needs to be supplemented with an earnest appeal to progressives.

Without progressives Ron Paul will find it extremely difficult to get above a 25% ceiling. This blog has pointed out several areas for potential issue oriented appeals to both libertarians and progressives. I have been extremely critical of progressives not already all in for Paul in the primary; however, it should be evident by now that anti-war, anti-prohibition, anti big bank bailouts and pro civil liberties have not been enough to woo enough progressives. Again, I agree it should be, at least for the primary. No excuses for progressives on this score.

However, progressives are not in charge. It is up to Ron Paul's campaign to initiate. Calling on progressive leaders to abandon the Democratic party, even if temporarily, is not going to be easy. The question is: has Ron Paul asked anyone? Bernie Sanders is not tied to the Democratic party. Kucinich is in a primary contest with another progressive but withdrawing and supporting Marcy Kaptur and campaigning with Ron Paul would be costly but where does he go in congress? Did the Air Force 1 ride yield him a cabinet post? His friend Ron Paul could convince him that he has peaked in his party.

The point is there are hundreds of ways to ignite this coalition fire. It's risky but what has Paul to loose? A prime time speech at the convention? Some reference to the gold standard and auditing the fed in the party platform? Is his campaign willing to settle for this token vapor? What is the goal? It can't be winning the nomination. So RP staff tell us, what do you expect to accomplish once all 50 states have caucused or caste ballots? Does anyone know?

Questions

2012-01-30T07:10:00.000-08:00

I invite your comments and answers:
How many third and fourth place finishes are necessary before the campaign decides that the coalition strategy is the only hope?
How many caucus victories are needed in order to call the current strategy a success?
Has Ron Paul's staff requested an interview with Tavis Smiley?
Will Ron Paul do a big speech on race relations in which he exhaustively addresses the questions that keep coming his way?
Does the campaign intend to win or does it think it can have significant influence with a third or fourth place finish?
What influence will Ron Paul have if he finishes second?
At what point do you say, "We're running an independent or third party ticket."?
What does the recent revival of media silence suggest?
Is anybody on the campaign staff asking any hard questions?

Does Ron Paul Want to Be President?

2012-01-21T18:21:00.000-08:00

If he does then he has to revamp his campaign and go very deliberately and clearly into coalition mode. If he just wants to make a speech at the convention, he should continue with the present course. His last place finish in SC proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. For libertarians this is what coalition means: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-for-libertarians.html
For progressives this is what coalition means:
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-green-republican-coalition.html

The Key to Positive Change and the Keystone to Crush Hope

2012-01-19T09:42:00.000-08:00

President Obama's "decision" to reject the Keystone pipeline deal illustrates a number of important political realities.

First, this is the typical bipartisan football punt issue. Keep this issue alive along with cultural wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage and you can fire up your base and discourage people looking for real solutions to complex and difficult problems like energy independence, national security, jobs and real environmental concerns. Millions will be spent on political ads and political resolution will come only after the election.

Second, Obama made a decision to decide after the election to go ahead with the construction of this pipeline. This way he gets to throw labor red meat later and greens vegetables now. Environmentalists are swallowing this natural political laxative with the false hope that Obama II will not flush them the way that Obama I has.

Third, Mitt Romney now has a jobs creation corporate Keynesian card he can carry to the white house with labor ready at his side to be ignored as much then as they are now. Look for this pipeline to lower the price of fossil fuels temporarily and crush advancement of green jobs long term.

Fourth, we need a trust busting campaign to break up the two major parties. The people are no longer represented by either party. Rhetorically, Republicans appear to be economic libertarians and cultural interventionists while Democrats appear to be cultural libertarians and economic interventionists. In actually, both parties global corporatists in the way they govern. What we need is for the global corporatists to have their on party to represent the 30,000 American clients. The rest of us need 4 parties: Libertarian, Green Peace, Cultural Conservative, and Labor. Combine that with diminishing the power of the US Senate, imposing term limits on congress and applying proportional representation to the House, and we will begin to establish government of, for and by the people.

Finally, it shows us that libertarians and progressives need to form a temporary alliance to bring this rhetorical bait and switch show to a close so that we can move on toward a real debate which result in real solutions to real problems.

Somebody give me hope that this can actually happen.

RP Campaign? Democrats? Liberals? Progressives?

2012-01-17T05:21:00.000-08:00

Did you see the debate on Fox last night from Myrtle Beach , SC?

First, for the campaign staff, why is Ron Paul not in every church and community center in the African American community in the state? Ignore the race issue is going way wrong. Confront it head first. He is advocating for African Americans in a big way with his anti-war and anti-drug war message and in his criticism of discrimination in law enforce and judicial systems. Africa Americans will hear him. The red necks in the audience last night booing the golden rule are not with him. (Not to mention Jesus....) Come on!

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives? What are you doing sitting on your hands? Do you want to let the warmongers in the GOP to get a free pass? Punish them! Vote for Ron Paul in the primary! This is a no-brainer! No excuses left!

On PORPs, PUERPs and Redneck Country Preachers

2012-01-14T19:06:00.000-08:00

I am pleased to see progressives begin to talk seriously about supporting Ron Paul. As we do, there seem to be two groups. One stands for Paul because of his stand on civil liberties, war, militarism and empire, drug war, the federal reserve's bailout of banks, etc. This group is not thrilled about Ron Paul's desire to end federal intervention in the economy. The second groups thinks his desire is so hideous that it disqualifies him from any consideration, especially as he has also opposed the Civil Rights Act and tolerated racist elements within his entourage and among his newsletters.

Neither group thinks that Ron Paul is wrong on all matters, and neither endorses all that he advocates. Progressive opponents of Ron Paul (hereafter PORPs) make a good point. If progressives support Ron Paul unconditionally and he wins, he is under no obligation to listen to our concerns over his economic policy. He truly longs for the day when we are all Austrians. Progressives unconditionally endorsing Ron Paul (hereafter PUERPs) are running a fool's errand, which might end wars abroad but start thousands in ever city, village and hamlet. (Think about who owns the guns.)

I am not sure that PUERPs actually exist. Some Democrats are actually libertarians who previously could not make a deal with coporatists, militarists and conservative cultural imperialists like their Republican counterparts. Now with Ron Paul not concerned with their legal sexual status or pot smoking, they have migrated to their homeland. Other progressives like myself, no longer disillusioned but realistic about the process of lowest common denominator politics, see in Paul a way to set Republican corporatism back by giving them a dose of their own divide and conquer medicine back.

We had more than 50 reliably progressive Democratic Senators on our side in 2009-10 with a huge majority in the House and a real progressive in the White House. Whether or not he was or is a progressive is meaningless. If Obama suddenly became George McGovern, we would still face the 60 Senator hurdle for the next 5 years, with several less than 50 reliable progressives.

Let's be optimistic and say we get the House back. The Senate is still too far gone and Democrats will be very lucky to hang on to 51 seats.The only way the Senate gets 60 anti-empire advocates is to turn 15 Republicans libertarian. This will not happen without Ron Paul in the general election debate.

I'm guessing that if a 3 way race were held today he would get 20% of the vote with a fourth coming from progressive Democrats. He would insure an Obama victory. If he does not do well, finishing 3rd in the Republican primaries, he will probably endorse Gary Johnson. I think he might change his mind if he manages to get above 30% of the Republican votes and beats Rick Santorum for 2nd place. He would be a fool not to go 3rd party if he edged out Romney for first and forced the convention to reject him.

The only way for Paul to place 2nd or 1st in the Republican race is through a large influx of progressives. Most of us being labelled PUERPs are totally on board with Ron Paul for the primary but are holding out on supporting him in the general election. We would like to see if he decides to go coalition or stick to his one winged message. I have yet to see any major progressive spell out why they reject this strategy. Could it be they have no sensible argument? I would encourage anyone reading this to pass the question on to Rachel Maddow, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Young Turks, Democracy Now etc..... Surely they have an answer to shut this redneck country preacher up.

Since, I'm guessing they want to keep their Democratic credentials, they ain't touching this, and as long as nobody important mentions it, they are probably safe. So I'll plow this lonely field by myself for now and pray that someone smarter and wiser than I will either show me the light or finally admit the redneck ain't so dumb after all. Until then, PORPs please pile on.

Quick debate...

2012-01-13T22:59:00.001-08:00

Who do you think won?

http://dorkmanscott.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/why-i-wont-vote-for-ron-paul/#comment-1340

Give Huntsman Some Love and Progressives a Call

2012-01-13T06:34:00.000-08:00

I am hopeful that Romney gets taken down a notch and the proto-fascist faction of the party is divided enough to give Ron Paul a victory in SC. After this the competition is going to get tougher as the field may be winnowed down to three.

The call center needs to identify and target progressives in SC. Coastal areas are the best place to start.

Huntsman needs to be courted. If I were Paul, I would go to him immediately and offer him VP if Paul is the nominee and Secretary of State if Huntsman is willing to join a coalition cabinet and support Paul in a third party run. Huntsman is the only other sane candidate in the GOP 6 calling for ending wars immediately. He is probably the only candidate Ron Paul could endorse among his 5 opponents. (I hate to leave Buddy Roemer out of the mix.)

It makes good tactical sense to make these offers to Huntsman. A Huntsman endorsement undermines charges of danger and extremism. It also makes sense for Huntsman since he is not going to be VP to a fellow Mormom. Ron Paul is closest to Huntsman in terms of policy and being the VP gets him closer to where he wants to be. It's maybe not a match made in heaven for either candidate but it would be a huge game changer for both of them. And more importantly, for the American people.

Comment on The Nation's Blog

2012-01-11T18:58:00.000-08:00

I posted the following comment on Opinion Nation, a blog of the leading American leftist magazine, The Nation. There is finally a real debate emerging on the left and libertarians would do well to show their support not only of Ron Paul but of progressives supporting Ron Paul.

Can anyone here tell me the down side of voting for Ron Paul in the primary? Lots of upside to forcing the GOP to reject him at their convention, especially if enough progressives get on board to give him a plurality of votes.

Having him in the debate in a 3 way general election race will serve to display the extremism of the GOP warmongers and to challenge Obama's willingness to go along with obscene military industrial catastrophe spending.

I understand the reservations progressives have about voting for him in the general election, but is it not morally irresponsible to refuse to help him in the primary when the Democratic primaries are, with very few exceptions, predetermined up and down the ballots?

Come on... give me one good reason for wasting my vote on Obama in the primary. There are no tenable primary races where I live involving a progressive with a serious blue dog opponent.

Not only is it a moral failure to not infiltrate the GOP and occupy their voting process in this rare instance when they have a serious peace candidate on their ballot and we do not, it is also politically stupid to not help Ron Paul.

The Nation is rightly supportive of occupations in parks which do little more than fire up the already convinced while alienating the could be persuaded. Why not do something that's maybe not as fun but which will have a concrete impact against those who perpetuate economic and political injustice.

Come on...anyone tell me one good reason for refusing to occupy the GOP to vote for Ron Paul in the the primary!!!!!

Racism and Ron Paul

2012-01-10T09:48:00.000-08:00

One of the most understandable reasons for progressives as well as people from across the political spectrum to hesitate about voting for Ron Paul is the existence of racist rhetoric in some of his newsletters. Ron Paul has disavowed these statements and for his most ardent followers, that ought to be the end of it.

He has also admitted that he followed bad advice when his campaign staff told him to claim that these statements were taken out of context. The one statement, about the swift footedness of young black men, that he tried to defend in that manner was embarrassingly incredulous. Fortunately for Ron Paul, he has, until this campaign, been able to take a minimalist approach to this problem in part due to the long accepted “southern strategy” of the Republican Party.

Thankfully for America, the Republican Party can no longer count on that strategy to gain them majorities in all southern states. I do not think that Ron Paul ever liked the strategy as is evidenced by his standing against the racial bias of our judicial system, especially with regard to the death penalty and drug law enforcement and sentencing.

Furthermore, in all the books, articles and public speeches that legitimately bear his name, Ron Paul has never used bigoted language or advocated racism. In fact, he has explicitly condemned racism as a violation of both his libertarian principles and his Christian beliefs.

Ron Paul can certainly continue through this primary and not make the speech I suggest. He might even win the nomination without such action. While I doubt that most mainstream Republicans care a wits end whether Ron Paul renounces the party's central political strategy of the last 40 years, he may need to satisfy enough liberal voices that he is not a racist before he can get a big time endorsement from anyone on the left.

Satisfying his critics, however, is just not Ron Paul’s way, and certainly that’s a part of his character I hope he never gives up (as if he could, if he tried). Deep down I think that what Ron Paul wants is to do the right thing. So what I would suggest he think about is how deeply the problem of racism has infected our American system to its detriment.

I would not presume to know Ron Paul’s heart or anyone else’s but my own, and that not very well. (I realize that last qualifier makes me unfit to be a libertarian.) I do know what I see and hear. I was born and raised a southerner but I have lived up north and overseas. In the latter I have seen American imperialism at work. Our supposedly enlightened and liberal entertainment industry has taught the world that black men are to be feared as inherently violent and criminal.

Northerners are just as bigoted as southerners. White liberals pride themselves on not being racists but are as much segregated from African Americans as any other political segment of our population. White conservatives have been thinking since 1865 that we live in a post racial society. Black leaders, regardless of their position on the economic ladder or political spectrum, continue to have to battle the impression that they somehow do not deserve their status. African American youth continue to be told there place is not in seats of power but in the sports arena or on the entertainment stage and sadly far too many of them embrace the stereotype.

The continued endemic presence of racism in our culture is revealed in subtle and not so subtle comments. The other day I was standing in line to purchase some books. Among them were 3 books on the life of Martin Luther King. The cashier, a white woman, asked me, “What are these for?” I simply told her, “They are for my 7 year old son.” Her silent and blushing reaction to a white guy buying three different books on MLK for his son tells us much about what is still expected in our culture. If I were a teacher purchasing them for display prior to the King holiday, that would be understandable but not simply so that my son could get to know a national hero from 3 different perspectives.

People with liberal political leanings are rightly cognizant of the continuing problem of racism in America but they should be careful not to pride themselves on not being racists. Whenever, some begins a sentence, “I’m not a racist…,” I am almost certain to hear evidence to the contrary. Culturally sophisticated liberals would never use such a phrase but their inordinate shallow openness and high regard for the supposed supreme virtue of tolerance makes me wonder just why they protest so much.

Such skepticism is my reaction to liberals' reactions to the obviously racist statements in some of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I think he rightfully deserves criticism for how casually he has dealt and/or not dealt with them. I like to imagine that when he found out about these statements, he was deeply embarrassed and went quietly to Lew Rockwell and said to him, “I don’t want to know who wrote this filth, but never let anything like it come anywhere near to anything bearing my name ever again.”

That hope might very well be truly wishful thinking. Ron Paul was raised in a racist culture. The thought of him never having a racist thought or saying a racist word or participating in a racist activity is about as ridiculous as expecting me to never think about eating blueberry cobbler. I don’t dwell on it but it wouldn’t take much for me to start craving some. Our culture is addicted to racism and if not for certain legal and cultural barriers, we could easily slip back into its worst manifestations.

All this is not to say that we have not made significant strides or that all white Americans are inherently racists. It is to say that the media ought to expect to find some racism in politicians born before 1964. (Not suspecting it in politicians born after the civil rights would be just as naïve.) Ron Paul has shown his homophobia publically on film when he was baited. It’s not a huge step to believe that such irrationality might show up in matters of race.

I am not saying that the liberal sector of the media should ignore Ron Paul’s racist associations or perhaps real racist sentiments. I do however want to ask, how will such real or imagined racism likely guide his policy agenda and enforcement of the law? My best guess is, if he is elected (and it hardly bears repeating my often asserted belief that he will not be elected except in coalition with progressives who would see to it that he not ignore the Civil Rights Act), he will do his best to prove, through how he governs, that racism is not his motive.

Beyond the usual affirmative action in hiring staff, Ron Paul would do something significant about our nation’s drug policy and penal sentencing by ending the federal death penalty(at least under his watch) and commuting and/or pardoning all non-violent drug offenders, thus releasing thousands of African Americans from unjust imprisonment to be reunited with their families. He would also greatly curtail the disproportionate number of minorities killed or injured on battle fields by bringing them back home from ill advised missions. These two measures alone would be of significantly more concrete benefit for African American individuals and families than any implemented or proposed by the current administration.

I would never pretend that Ron Paul is going to create a post racial America, but the criticisms of him on the matter seem to be more motivated by partisan politics than actual concern for racial justice.

All this said, I reiterate my call for him to deliver the exhaustive speech which affirms his commitment to both the presumption and the goal of racial equality in America. This is a necessity not just for political purposes but because it is the right thing for Ron Paul to do.

Not with a bang but a....

2012-01-09T18:52:00.000-08:00

Huntsman is surging and NH wants to shock the world. Romney is stumbling and Paul's campaign is talking about winning caucuses and influencing the platform. I hope I wake up form this nightmare.

If 3rd in NH where do we go? Call Dennis!

2012-01-09T06:34:00.000-08:00

Scanning the headlines, it seems that Paul will get about 20%, and if he does he may have plateaued. Hunts man and Santorum are coming up behind him and may overtake him for second and 3 third place. Huntsman is the most likely to finish 2nd Paul. He is the only other sane candidate left in the race and the most likely one to take votes from Ron Paul. If Huntsman becomes the 4th man in the race, Paul's ability to win any state is extremely diminished.

If Huntsman pulls off an upset, Ron Paul will probably never finish higher than third. I cannot see him wanting to carry on with that embarrassment...20% of the vote and 3rd place in 45 states.

Ron Paul has to make the transition very soon to a full blown coalition strategy. The lower he finishes in NH and SC the more this becomes evident. If he is content to influence the platform by getting a prime time speech at the convention, he will be played.

If he is in this campaign to win, he has got to see the ceiling and make it the base of a floor for progressives.
Progressives need to jump on this floor and wake the Paul's die hard supporters up. The copious attacks from the left on Ron Paul are effectively tamping down the would be enthusiasm for his candidacy.

Ron Paul needs a skillful progressive on his staff to speak to progressive organizations, and he needs to talk with members of the congressional black caucus. And finally he needs to speak with his friend Dennis Kucinich. Dennis give him a call. You really ought to see that this administration not offering you Labor Secretary and leaving you with no choice but to run against another friend, Marcy Kaptur, as a sign that Obama II intends to be like Obama I.

3 Options in Let's Make a Deal and Obama's Head Fake on Military Spending

2012-01-06T07:14:00.000-08:00

The Obama administration are trying their best to convince progressives that he is planning deep cuts in military spending.

He is not!

Ron Paul needs to explain his numbers in comparison to Obama's. By my calculations Obama II will spend $600 billion more on military than Paul would over those same 4 years. (Someone please help me with the math! Tell me I am wrong!)

Of course, Paul wants deep cuts in domestic spending as well. That is not good, and progressives should resist him and other conservatives who think they are doing the American people a favor by deeply cutting domestic spending. The question is: if progressives go with Obama, where are the cuts coming from? Note: it's not... "will they come?"...they will come in one form or another.

Progressives keeping the faith with Obama are going to be forced to negotiate with blue dog Democrats in defense contractor districts, Republicans who will never get over their war fetish and liberals who cower. Does anybody doubt that any cuts in military spending come with a price: at least dollar for dollar equal cuts in domestic spending. Conversely, the only way to preserve funding for domestic programs with this set of negotiating partners is to forego cuts in defense.

If progressives rescue Ron Paul ( and he does need rescuing if the goal is winning), we can get much deeper cuts in defense cuts. We rescue him in the primaries and then demand that we progressives design the domestic cuts of at least $400 billion over 4 years, sending half of the savings to the states and using the other half for debt reduction.

My guess is progressives will have to accept significant cuts in domestic spending regardless who occupies the White House. Paul needs to be prepared to lower the total of his proposed domestic cuts if he wants a winning coalition. If his cuts in domestic spending are the same or less than what Obama is willing to agree to, progressives will be left without excuse.

Regardless of the numbers, if progressives and libertarians refuse to get together, corporatists will continue to rule the economy by using cultural conservatives and cultural liberals, keeping them occupied in their usual arguments over wedge issues. (Wall Street is still the biggest occupier, merrily squatting all over tea parties and occupy movements.)

So with whom are you willing to make a deal? To quote the rock band, old time Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Making that choice is what his election is all about. But let me clarify one more time:

1.) Progressives, if you choose to vote for Obama/Biden, you are choosing very small cuts in military spending and very deep cuts in domestic spending, and some debt reduction

2.) Libertarians, if you choose to not make a deal with progressives, you are choosing Romney/Santorum, increases in military spending and deep cuts in domestic spending and some debt reduction, or the same as above.

3.) Coalitionists, if you choose Paul/Kucinich, you are choosing deep cuts in military spending, comparatively smaller cuts in domestic spending, a greater amount of debt reduction, and substantial increases in spending at the state level with money block-granted from the federal government through cuts in both military and domestic spending.

Name your choice.... 1, 2, or 3...?

Response To Bob Cesca on Ron Paul not being a Friend to Progressives

2012-01-05T08:57:00.000-08:00

Bob,

I do appreciate you visiting my little blog. I wanted to respond to your recent post at HP in a thoughtful way but the space provided was insufficient to do so. I hope that I do not misrepresent you or appeal to you in an overly combative way. Please feel free to let me know if I do either.

Your article represents a number of opinions from a variety of progressives who find Ron Paul to be a dangerous person to vote for. I am in agreement with much of what you and others have said about Paul's ideology, patterns of behavior and voting record. I especially find his economic views to be in many respects the exact opposite of what our nation and the world needs right now.

However, I also weary of the same tired arguments against his candidacy and progressive support for it. We all know that Ron Paul is not a progressive. We all know that he was at least guilty of extreme negligence in allowing racist articles to appear in his newsletters under his name. He may even harbor in his heart a variety of bigoted sentiments that imo most Americans struggle (or at least ought) to overcome. We all know that if he got his way on his entire platform, there would be disastrous consequences for our country.

What you and other progressives against Paul do not seem to be able to take into account is how our political system, like it or not, actually works. No president, once elected, gets all he (or one day hopefully she) campaigned on. Every president gravitates towards some contextual middle ground once in office. The same would be true in a Paul presidency.

Moreover, as you know, there is almost no chance that Paul will win his party's nomination and without it, he stands very little chance at getting elected. However, his followers do want him elected, and maybe Ron Paul can be persuaded to do what is needed to get elected. True enough, many libertarians are so deluded by their glorious dreams of total victory (just as many progressives are) that they cannot come to terms with what has to be done for him to be elected.

And what will it take to get him elected? Paul will have to agree to a coalition candidacy leading to real coalition government. Of course, neither he nor his followers are looking for this yet, but if enough progressives come on board to get him several victories in the upcoming primaries, he will have to consider forming such a coalition. He is not adverse to doing so as can be seen from his co-sponsorship of legislation with Kucinich, Sanders, Frank and other progressives.

If libertarians and progressives could sit down and talk calmly for just a little bit, I am certain there could be crafted several significant pieces of legislation which would serve to create jobs, reduce debt and fund the building of a peaceful green economy. I wish we could reach these goals through purely progressive means, and I am convinced that if progressives like Kucinich and Sanders were able to enact legislation unfettered by libertarian demands, we would get to that destination much quicker.

However, I am sure you will agree that the congress is unlikely to turn majority progressive in the next election, much less be seated by 60 consistently progressive Senators. Absurd as this reality is, we will probably never see the Senate pass strongly progressives legislation as long as there is this 60 vote threshold. I do not see that threshold being lowered any time soon as both parties have vital political interests in maintaining it.

It is this political reality which compels me to advocate for progressives to switch parties or register in whatever means allowed by their respective states to vote in the GOP primaries and caucuses for Ron Paul. I think that as the numbers of Iowa are looked at more thoroughly, Ron Paul will discover that close to 40 percent of those who caucused for him were Democrats or independents, and that the majority of them are progressives. I think he probably has an absolute ceiling of about 20% of real GOP voters. He would actually need at least 34% to win in a plurality in a 3 way race.

Sooner or later his campaign will realize that if they are playing to win, they have to explicitly and proactively reach out to progressives. The best way to prompt them to this realization is for progressives to occupy his campaign and vote for him. I'm not talking some sort of sit-in interference occupation but an actual face to face constructive and respectful engagement with him and his followers.

If progressives can become the driving force behind his victories and close finishes in upcoming primaries and caucuses, we can lift him to a plurality of votes come convention time. And can you imagine the panic and chaos of the GOP convention if Paul has a plurality of votes and delegates?!! Even if, at that point, progressives choose to vote for Obama in the general election, it would be worth the occupation of the GOP for Paul's candidacy just to cause a walk-out by Paul's supporters after the rest of the delegation decides to make the ticket, Romney/Santorum. Such a scene would be the worse press they could get.

More importantly, Paul's rejection by the GOP is probably going to lead to a third party candidacy. Such a candidacy will not be viable unless it represents a real coalition of interests. Of course, Paul and his campaign can choose to be obstinate, preferring purity of platform over principled compromise. Progressives can choose to do the same and end up backing a candidate who stands no chance of election but poses a real threat to the president's re-election.

Certainly, there is a risk even with a coalition candidacy that the electoral college ends up selecting Romney/Santorum or whatever hideous combination they come up with. We might even get Obama/Santorum or Romney/Biden if it goes to the congress. Politics is the riskiest of sports and the only one that really counts. But I am convinced that we have to do something unconventional this time around, if only in the primary. At a minimum a big electoral message needs to be sent to both parties: represent the people, not the corporations. This year's political circumstances present us with a rare opportunity to send that message in a loud and clear way.

I would encourage you to take a look at other posts on this blog in which I try to develop this idea and articulate it for both libertarian and progressives to hear. If you have time for reviewing only one more post, look at this one. I appreciate your willingness to take the time to consider my perspective and hope that we can maintain a constructive dialogue.

Cornelius F. Brantley, Jr.

In short...

2012-01-03T09:15:00.001-08:00

Iowa prediction

2012-01-03T08:22:00.000-08:00

Ok...I can't resist...I'm breaking my vow.

I have already rightly predicted on November 15 the top three survivors. I ain't got anybody else tooting my horn but can anyone find where anybody predicted the 3 finalist of Paul, Romney and Santorum earlier than I?

Now to say how Iowa will finish tonight:

Ron Paul 26%
Rick Santorum 25%
Mitt Romney 24%
Michelle Bachmann 10%
Rick Perry 7%
Newt Gingrich 5%
John Huntsman 2%
Buddy Roemer 1%

It's January 3, 2011 11:22am eastern time.