17 replies to this topic

[PeaceFrog]

At a town hall event in Ohio last month, Rep. Paul Ryan was asked why supporters of Ron Paul — the iconoclastic congressman from Texas — should back this year’s Republican ticket.
Appearing offended by the implication, Ryan scolded: “Do you want Barack Obama to be reelected?” Paul is actually a “friend,” he claimed, and the two are in agreement on key issues.
Baloney. Paul is one of only three GOP House members to not endorse Mitt Romney — and there are several reasons for this.
Leave aside that Paul is a man of deep principle, while Romney appears to have never held a sincere belief in his life. More important are their governing visions, which stand in profound conflict.
Paul was moved to run in the 2008 Republican primary largely out of his disgust with President George W. Bush’s foreign policy. You may recall the preemptive invasion of Iraq?
America’s misadventures abroad, Paul posited, have engendered “blowback” (i.e., anti-American resentment) around the world. This, in turn, has put our security at risk.
His rivals for the nomination were predictably outraged by the suggestion. A bitter Rudy Giuliani recently told me that Paul was intent on “blaming America” for the 9/11 attacks.
Those inclined toward Giuliani’s hardline way of thinking constitute the lion’s share of Romney advisers. Liz Cheney takes part in weekly conference calls with the campaign; former Bush officials and consummate warhawks like John Bolton and Dan Senor are major players.
By voting for Romney, then, Paul supporters would be voting for a return to the same neoconservative philosophy that mired us in the Iraq disaster, costing countless lives and dollars.
President Obama may have authorized a drone war and escalated ground troops in Afghanistan, but at least he has avoided launching another full-scale invasion.
This is not a petty distinction. Romney routinely gives assurances that he’d be far more likely to appease Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has designs to attack Iran — perhaps in the coming months. Paul’s passions seem to be most enlivened by his unflinching opposition to aggressive war; for him, this dark prospect would be a nonstarter.
But the unbridgeable divide between Paul and the GOP is not limited to foreign policy.
Many supporters were first attracted to the congressman for his blunt words on the scourge of drug prohibition. Romney has failed to evince an iota of rationality on this front. In May, he was asked for his view on the legality of medical marijuana. “Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about?” he rebuffed.
Yes, it is true that under Obama, the Drug Enforcement Administration has continued to raid marijuana distribution facilities, while Marines have been deployed overseas on ill-advised drug interdiction missions.
But it’s equally true that Obama has demonstrated some measure of amenability to reform, at least rhetorically. The famously puritanical Romney would likely bring us back to the era of “Just Say No.”
If Paul supporters still believe their aims can be best advanced vis-à-vis the GOP, they are deluding themselves.
Rather than continue this abusive relationship, they must reevaluate — bearing in mind Paul’s track record of fruitful cooperation with the left, most notably Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. Ron Paul faithful should thus take a cue from the man himself and reject Paul Ryan’s phony entreaties.
In states like New York, where the outcome is essentially predetermined, they should instead vote for a third-party candidate: Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party or Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party.
In states that hang in the balance, such as Ohio, Florida or Virginia, they should pinch their noses and vote for President Obama — even if only to punish Romney, Ryan and the GOP.
Tracey is a journalist based in Brooklyn. He contributes to The Nation, The American Conservative, Salon and other publications.


Read more: http://www.nydailyne...7#ixzz29IclV4G6

[elder]

Horse shit.

The reason Libertarians and Paul supporters will vote for Romney (or in my case NOT vote for Obama) is purley based on the economy.
Obama inherited a mess, promised change, but threw the usual Democrat load of shit at us, putting our grandkids grandkids in debt up to their asses.
He has done NOTHING except take money from me and you and given it to his supporters, aka the entitled.

We need someone to fix the business that is our country. Then we can work on the so called social issues that folks like to get their panties all bunched up about.

[Joker]

Dude, you're talking to an Obama supporting, unemployment collecting, union worker, Obama is giving HIM your money.

[PeaceFrog]

"the usual load of Democratic shit"

actually, Clinton left us a surplus and Gore's intention was to use it to pay down the debt.

But, Republicans don't want the debt paid off or W would have done so. What did they do? oh yeah... tax rebates -- remember that?

we all got $600, but the wealthiest among us got billions that should have been used to pay down this debt that you're so afraid of.

or, at least improve our countries infrastructure and public education system.

Now they're attacking Obama for passing health reform in his first days... well, it was important for the economy. If you don't have your health, you can't be productive and can ONLY be a drain on the system.

Healthy citizens make for a better country.

[elder]

Clinton also paved the way for the housing collapse with his bullshit homes for everyone campaign (can you spell ACORN) The collapse that stays with us today.
He also did NOTHING to stop the beginning of what is now a hemmorhaging of our jobs to other countries, or worse yet, the loop hole filled visa programs where business owners can basically hire cheap foreign labor right here in our country.

The strong economy during his tour was basically a pay for it later job. A ruse. A setup.

Which is the Democrat way isn't now? Print more money, fake more jobs, payoff this one and that one, and let consequences be dealt with after they'r e out office.

[PeaceFrog]

I didn't like Clinton at the time, either. I thought he was too conservative and I disagreed with him on NAFTA.

However, he did turn around a faltering economy and left us with surplus.

He had a Republican house and Senate, and he was moderate. This is what we get when the country leans conservative. The banking deregulation done by him was bipartisan.

anyway, it's a fact that more jobs were created under a Democrat President over the last 30 some years than Republican. Clinton said it this year at the DNC and it was verified accurate by fact checkers.

[elder]

..He just got rid of the redlining which was discriminatory..

aka gave homes away to people who didn't qualify, and who now without stable work are in foreclosure

[PeaceFrog]

I edited that statement and I take it back because upon further research, he did a lot more than that in 1999.

It still stands, though, that it was a purely bipartisan action, and Clinton was moderate, if not conservative.

Romney has described himself as "severely conservative"

[elder]

it's a fact that more jobs were created under a Democrat President over the last 30 some years than Republican.

totally misleading as the types of jobs created should means something too

[PeaceFrog]

totally misleading as the types of jobs created should means something too

well, good point, and also that one a President's numbers may be affected by his predecessor.

anyway here's the breakdown according to http://www.cbsnews.c...vention-speech/

Republicans:

Richard Nixon: + 7.1 million

Gerald Ford: +1.3 million

Ronald Reagan: + 14.7 million

George H. W. Bush: + 1.5 million

George W. Bush: -646,000

Total jobs added: +23.9 million

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: +2.7 million

Lyndon B. Johnson: +9.5 million

Jimmy Carter: +9 million

Bill Clinton: +20.6 million

Barack Obama: +332,000

Let's keep in mind that Ronald Reagan, although having 14.7 million jobs added under his watch, did not do so without getting the country into debt for 3 trillion dollars.

20.6 million were added under Clinton's watch, while balancing the budget and leaving us a surplus to pay off Reagan's big debt.

[elder]

Totally agree that the current president inherited a mess made by the former Republican, if you want to call him that. Bush was a disgrace no matter how you look at it.

Because of this Obama could have done any number of things to make progress. He promised change, but gave us much more of the same.

4 years later we and we should be the world leaders in alternative energy. With the crap in the middle east and gas prices he could have gone in a number of directions. Instead the Obama team supports drilling for more oil on our proprty, supports extending pipelines full of it, and here in NJ his "fast track" campaign is fast tracking additional power lines through prestine northern NJ, where coal fueled electricty will be increased...even though studies show demand has shrunk.

He had his chance. He wasn't up to it. He needs to move on.

[PeaceFrog]

actually, you've made all valid points. As I've said before, Obama is also too conservative.

The thing is, if you don't like the job Obama did... you damn well won't like the job Romney will do. I can guarantee it. Romney would just be an extension of the Bush Regime.

The country is still in debt, and it's because the Bush tax cuts have not yet expired. Congressional Republicans bring up this "debt crisis" every time Obama tries to spend a dime. His hands have been tied except for his first 133 days in office.

Here's my idea. If we can get the Republican party to just fizzle out and disappear, another party will step up and take its place. Nature abhors a vacuum.

The problem is that we keep thinking Republicans are a viable alternative to Democrats. They aren't. They are far from it. They have done this to themselves by clinging to their ignorant and bigoted attitudes.

Look at it this way... everything you don't like about Obama (if you're like me) is something that he's done to please the Republicans. If this is the case for you, as it is for me, then why would you (or I) vote in a Republican? They are THE influence in Washington DC that I do not like. If their influence was not present to obstruct progressive action, then Obama would have been much more successful.

They fought him every step of the way in their quest to make him a "one-term President". It's sad that this was their only goal.

[PeaceFrog]

so, who is fiscally irresponsible

[elder]

For the record, Paul stated yesterday that what this country needs is not a 3rd party, but a 2nd, as the 2 we have are basically the same.
Couldn't agree more.

However we (those paying attention) have been saying this for years, and just when we thought we might be making some headway (think Ralph Nader) in the fight for alternatives to the 2 party system, the last couple of elections has all but buried that hope.

Now besides Paul, I have not heard one person utter the possibility of an alternative. Instead it seems as though the majority of this country has fallen into the trap the govt and govt controlled network news stations want us in.

[PeaceFrog]

People became very turned off by third parties after Ralph Nader siphoned off some of Al Gore's votes in Florida in 2000 arguably helping GWB win.

I really can't see it myself how anybody could be actually paying attention and think that Democrats and Republicans are the same as if this was the WWF.

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

here's why these people are voting Republican:

[elder]

.. after Ralph Nader siphoned off some of Al Gore's votes in Florida in 2000 arguably helping GWB win.

Ugh. This again.
Gore, ran one of the most pathetic campaigns ever. The country wanted change then too, it was there for the taking. He had great ideas, but he tanked it.

And the rest, mainly FL, was stolen.

[PeaceFrog]

It could be argued that Ron Paul spoiled the Libertarian Primary this year by convincing Libertarians to register Republican.

Now, you're left with Gary Johnson as your candidate because of it. Do you support Gary Johnson?

[PeaceFrog]

Ugh. This again.
Gore, ran one of the most pathetic campaigns ever. The country wanted change then too, it was there for the taking. He had great ideas, but he tanked it.

And the rest, mainly FL, was stolen.

Well it is a part of history. There is no running away from it, and if we don't learn from it then it will keep repeating itself.

People only wanted change because they were tired of hearing about Karl Rove's blowjob investigation.

If you look back at the Gore/Bush debates from that year there is a stark contrast between the two candidates.

Bush was already talking about WMDs in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich, and Gore was talking about paying down the national debt, energy independence, and preserving the social security trust fund. There were two entirely different paths laid out before the country, and now we are experiencing the results of one of them.