It baffles me that some liberals embrace Ron Paul. He and his son hold the same view!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

Rant On...

For the last several years, especially, I have seen that some liberals embrace Ron Paul, especially the young people, simply because he opposed the Iraq invasion and supports the decriminalization of drugs. His son, too, agrees with him.

Speaking of Rand, he caused an uproar when a local newspaper in Louisville asked him what he thought of the Civil Rights Acts and whether he'd support them/vote for them if he were in Congress when they were passed.

What the media did not tell us is that he and his father, Ron Paul, hold the exact same views on civil rights. Why didn't the media, other than Tim Russert, inform the public that Rand views are in line with his father's?

-----

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...

REP. PAUL: So it's...

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
advertisement | ad info

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/

----

On immigration, federal income tax, social security, public education, tax policy...both Ron and Rand Paul hold the exact same views.

Only on some foreign policy matters do they differ very slightly, with Ron making a bit more sense than his idiot son. But this is the protectionist view.

Other than that, I have no idea why I see liberals embrace, even vote for Ron Paul.

/Rant Off

[MineralMan]

1. Those who support the Pauls are not liberals at all.

That is the true answer.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. O.K., but I've seen it. I've seen liberals embrace Ron Paul simply due to his

stance on Iraq. I don't think they've really done research about the rest of his record or his views. It's a one-issue type of thing. Especially the young people who typically don't do all the necessary digging about politics. Ron Paul did the best among college students or those under 25. The anti-war movement did embrace Ron Paul only on this issue, to the point that people were volunteering for his campaigns. There were some liberals who did embrace him because of that one issue. That's a fact.

BTW, my post is about RON Paul, not his son.

[MineralMan]

7. My statement stands. Anyone can call him/herself a liberal.

Some of those doing so are actually libertarians, instead. After all, the first five letters are the same, right? Ron Paul is a libertarian. He's not a liberal. Not in any way. Yes, he opposes the current wars, as do liberals. His reasons for that opposition are different, though. Same with the TSA controversy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. I agree, but he's not a traditional libertarian. He still wants to control a woman's

body and supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He's phony, just like his son. And that's why the true Libertarian Party rejected both of them. They have no credibility as long as they remain in the Republican Party. Tea party or not.

[krabigirl]

42. But how many self-proclaimed liberal members of Congress voted against going to war with Iraq?

Not too many...a few, and they have principles.

[Extensivo]

13. It is false to say that it's "simply" because of his Iraq war stance

I embrace his condemnation of those who oppose a mosque near Ground Zero, for example: http://www.ronpaul.com/tag/citizens-united/

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Thanks. I had forgotten about that. But how many of his followers know

his view on this? I'm talking especially about how well he did among liberals and young voters during the election campaign.

[Recursion]

48. He also talks about corporations having too much power

And a lot of Democrats really want someone to talk about that.

[bahrbearian]

45. Bull shit

When we have Democrats , working for Repubican causes, you probably think they are liberal. Ron Paul is more liberal than all the Blue Dogs , that you like to embrace.

[Recursion]

47. He's anti-war and willing to talk about excessive corporate power

That makes a lot of Democrats' ears perk up.

There's a reason his best friend in the House is Kucinich.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. There is one thing we have in common

We are all anti-war. Other than that, nothing.

[Little Star]

3. I agree. n/t

[nxylas]

10. And the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs

There is some overlap between liberals and libertarians where individual liberties are concerned. Where we part company is over the pernicious doctrine of corporate personhood, which the libertarians embrace, causing them to worry as much (if not more) about the rights of corporations as they do about the rights of actual flesh-and-blood people.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. ...except in the Pauls' instance, they are the kind of "libertarians" that

want to intrude on our private lives when it comes to sexual orientation and a "fetus." Other than that, they seem to embrace most Libertarian ideals. I still think they're phony, though, especially as they continue to align themselves with the Republican Party while simultaneously accepting Medicare patients.

[ProSense]

5. In terms of the current TSA outrage, his primary goal is to privatize it.

From 2004:

Airlines should be using every last ounce of their lobbying and public relations power to stop TSA from harassing, delaying, humiliating, and otherwise mistreating their paying passengers. They should be protecting their employees, passengers, and aircraft using private security and guns in the cockpit. After all, who has more incentive to create safe skies than the airlines themselves? Many security-intensive industries, including nuclear power plants, oil refineries, and armored money transports, employ private security forces with excellent results. Yet the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so they cannot be held accountable if another disaster occurs. But airlines are finding out the hard way that millions of Americans simply won't put up with TSA's abuse. Wealthy Americans are using private planes via increasingly popular fractional ownership plans, while ordinary Americans are choosing to drive to their destinations and vacation closer to home. Even business travelers are finding ways to consolidate trips and teleconference. Who can blame anyone for avoiding airports altogether?

Paul has no problems with the Haliburtons and Blackwaters of the world. He's anti-government. Period.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. The new "Grover Norquist," with a touch of religious dogma! n/t

[krabigirl]

43. Not with the current regulations..he has said that it would be even worse.

Sorry.

[PeaceNikki]

8. I like to refer my liberal friends who *THINK* they like Ron Paul here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

[Extensivo]

11. You falsely state that Rand and Ron hold the same view on drugs

One is for legalization (Ron). The other one isn't:

Washington Post, May 18, 2010: "And I remember seeing Paul, in early interviews and debates, distance himself from the hard-line libertarian positions, like drug legalization and the war on terror, that soured Republican voters on his father."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_wins_and_libertarian.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Oh, thanks! It makes sense. I'm sure there are other issues to which they

disagree, but the main ones that get the most attention seem to be in agreement with one another.

Thanks for the correction.

[Turborama]

14. Ron Paul is a Randian fuckwad!

There, I've said it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. Yes. I was wrong when I wrote that they are *exactly* the same. They aren't.

Ron is a bit more reasonable and thoughtful.

Rand is a wingnut and an idiot.

There, I've said it, too! :)

[Turborama]

21. Here he is raving about Atlas Shrugged...

"She was telling the truth!": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I remember Rachel Maddow making shreds out of Rand

nt

[Imajika]

17. Yeah, I don't get it either...

Neither Ron or his son Rand are in the slightest bit progressive, yet there are/were many liberal Paulbots due Ron's stance on the Iraq war and drug decriminalization.

Additionally, perhaps it is because Ron never really dismissed "truthers" as cranks, and many left of center folks seriously believe silly LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracy theories.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. So, you've come across liberal Ron Paul supporters, too, eh?

I live in Takoma Park, Maryland, perhaps one of the most liberal areas on the east coast for sure. Among the sea of Nader and Obama bumper stickers, I've seen my share of Ron Paul stickers, and I have to look twice.

I get that Ron was one of the few Republicans against the illegal invasion of Iraq and that he seems quite reasonable and consistent on some of his Libertarian views--except for the right to choose and gay marriage--but I'm still baffled at the one-issue folks.

[Imajika]

34. Well, hiya neighbor...

I am in Northern Va, and yeah, at least during the lead up to the 2008 elections I knew of a lot of left of center folks who supported Ron Paul. These were mostly young people attracted to him for his anti-Iraq war/anti-interventionalist views - along with his positions on drug decriminalization. Most of these people were college kids and I suspect the vast majority went on to vote for Obama in 2008 - but many still think Ron Paul is the ideal candidate.

Paul was able to draw a lot of attention to himself because he was the only Republican who opposes the wars. He sticks out like a sore thumb in the GOP field, I think his position gets more attention than the host of real progressives whom oppose the wars as well. And of course, Paul's opposition to the war on drugs attracts a lot of support among young people.

And like I said previously, Paul never slapped down the "truther" brigades who found a home amongst the Paulbots. So Paul's antiwar, pro drug legalization/decriminalization and refusal to reject conspiracy theorists (truthers, fedwatchers, etc) gave him a pretty powerful "underground" following - particularly among young people. You could see it on any popular gaming/tech websites where Paulbots were simply legion.

Neither Ron Paul or his son are in anyway progressive though, and I usually found when talking to an otherwise left of center Paul supporter that they rarely even understood that Paul's libertarian views would destroy the social safety net. IF you could get this across to them, you had a chance to open their eyes some.

[Stevenmarc]

22. Apparently not every self identified liberal utilizes their critical thinking skills

[Extensivo]

23. Ron Paul wants Guantanamo closed. Rand wants it open

In the Glenn Beck show:

"Congressman Ron Paul, Republican from Texas joins me now. Congressman Paul, welcome to the show. Should Guantanamo Bay be closed as a prison camp for detainees?

Ron Paul: Yes."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-21/ron-paul-on-the-glenn-beck-program-with-guest-host-judge-andrew-napolitano/
_______________________________________________

Rand Paul: " Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts."

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/

[dkf]

24. Why should we shun support for things we like?

Personally I don't support abolishing the Fed but I would be very interested in Paul's efforts to create transparency as head of the House committee that oversees the Fed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. True. I think it's one thing to agree with Ron Paul on specific issues.

It's quite another thing altogether to go out and VOTE for him because in the general philosophical sense, we disagree wholeheartedly. And again, I don't think he's genuine as long as he continue to align himself with the Republican Party. The Libertarians rejected him for his stance on choice and gay marriage, along with some of his racist views. So in the larger scheme of things, he's someone I cannot support even though he opposes the Iraq invasion, supports the legalization of drugs, and is pretty reasonable on some civil liberties issues.

[Extensivo]

27. How many liberals voted for Ron Paul vs. a Democrat?

Do you have any exit poll data? What if the number is insignificant and you are blowing it out of proportion? What I see is, like the other member said, agreement among liberals in certain issues with Ron Paul.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. My OP is a rant, not blowing anything out of proportion. I think you're just

being a blowhard for no reason. I'm sure you paid attention to the Republican primaries and witnessed the support that Ron Paul received. Of course it wasn't overwhelming support.

And if you read my initial OP, you'll see that I explicitly stated that *SOME* liberals support Ron Paul and still do. Certainly not enough to make a difference. I didn't state that, nor did I imply it.

It was an observation. No need to start an unnecessary or nasty argument.

[LeftishBrit]

25. Indeed! I have been shocked at times by endorsements of Ron Paul

Yes, he is against the Iraq War and that is a good thing; but so are the BNP, the National Front in France, and other ultra-xenophobic groups; it doesn't make them a good thing. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Here is a link to a mini-essay that I posted some time ago, expressing my concerns, and why I consider the issue to be relevant even to non-Americans:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6072607&mesg_id=6072863

[Extensivo]

28. Which liberal endorsed Ron Paul vs. a Democrat?

?

[LeftishBrit]

38. There were a few on DU who preferred him to some Democrats

There was a poll on DU in late 2007, where 29% said that they would vote for Ron Paul against Hillary Clinton (and the poll gave people the opportunity to choose 'third party' or 'stay at home'). It may not have been representative; but there were people prepared to consider voting for him against at least one likely Dem nominee.

There were some threads here with titles such as "I'm ready for the maverick ticket of Gravel/Paul/Kucinich - are you?"; "I really like the way Ron Paul stands for something"; "Is it time for us Democrats to get behind Ron Paul?"

I think such people were/are definitely in a small minority - but they existed.

[Terry_M]

29. Rand seems crazier but...

There is one thing I can say about Ron that I can't say about most Democrats. He is NOT there to sell himself to the highest bidder. He actually has values, however misguided they are, and he holds himself to them. He doesn't dilute his values when the corporations squeeze him, or just flat out sell those values away. Most of the democrats on the other hand get elected on what at first appear to be good values, then they somehow forget about them on any issue that the corporations squeeze them on.

Don't misread this to say I agree with his views.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. I can say that one good think about Paul. He is pretty consistent

in his views. He holds libertarian views, but he's not a Libertarian in every sense of the word. To me, he has sold out to the Republican Party because the Libertarians refuse to embrace him.

There is some consistency but it isn't across the board. Again, I cannot embrace him at all because the racist rhetoric, his stance on gay marriage and choice are deal breakers for me.

[Monique1]

33. I'm tired of all this garbage

I was a progressive, I was a liberal, I was a Democrat, I was an independent - I know longer know what I am anymore after reading DU and I no longer can't communicate with anyone anymore. I'm finding it is useless to communicate because if I do .......... I will get slammed.

Obama, I am throwing you to the alligators and the same goes for any Dem, progressives, liberals. You just want to argue and fight with each other. I am not going there. I am tired of the fighting and proving they know all the answers and I must say many people are with me. I know many of the above mentioned groups are walking away and want nothing to do with politics anymore. People in our groups can't stomach what is coming out --

My point is - these above groups are turning off voters and politics, probably the little that is left of left wing talk on the internet, radio and TV.

From what I read - the right wing has won because those groups help them win. We gave and continue to give the right wing talking points.

I am not sure if this is the proper place so anyone who wants can move this some place else, do it. This needs to be said.

[Celebration]

32. It is actually possible to support some things of Paul

and not others (ahem, yes, believe it or not).

Another example is that I agree that the Fed should be audited, and the gold in Fort Knox should be audited.

[Stevenmarc]

35. Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day

But I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one.

[Celebration]

36. Agreed, but

How many Democrats hold this position? Only a few. I'll support Paul on these things, which I consider quite important. Remember he is the loudest voice on the Fed. I don't think his son holds the same views on this, although I am not absolutely sure. He is more of a manipulated teabagger.

[Stevenmarc]

37. Since

Ron Paul doesn't actually have any legislative power I really don't see the need to support him on any position, however, it would be more prudent to support a position without attaching a face to it and the rest of the baggage that goes with it.

[Celebration]

44. one thing that made me laugh

He is in charge of some house committee that generally has to do with commemorative coins. He is expanding the power to investigate the Fed. LOL, I think that is a pretty funny result of the election. To the Republicans: Be careful what you wish for. So, he does have some power, and I support him for using his committee in this way. :rofl:

[tuckessee]

39. It's because he brings up issues that other politicians won't touch.

1. The travesty of the Drug War
2. The need for a non-intervetionist foreign policy.
3. Opposition to the Patriot Act
4. The Federal Reserve

Some us believe these are important issues.

[JackRiddler]

40. There's a difference between "embracing" and agreeing on given issues.

Ron Paul has supported ending the war on drugs, withdrawing from the occupations and the empire of American bases overseas, repealing the USA PATRIOT Act and other Bush regime outrages against civil rights, and auditing the Federal Reserve bank bailouts.

You can agree with these positions, which should be liberal standards but are not, without embracing Ron Paul or the rest of his politics. He gets so much attention on the left because these positions are all too rare among all elected representatives, the now-ousted Alan Grayson and Russell Feingold notwithstanding (neither of whom got the support from the national Democratic party they merited).

These are among the most important, mainly ignored issues of American politics, and each is vital to real progressive change in this country. There will be no change until the war budget stops strangling all other public priorities, and the drug war stops giving impetus to the advance of a police state. There will be no change until the banksters stop controlling monetary and economic policy, in large part through their cartel, the Federal Reserve.

Try some nuance. It will do you good.

[krabigirl]

41. Well, he sticks by his principles and was one of the only to vote against the IWR and Patriot Act.

I don't agree with everything he stands for (anti-choice etc), but he has more principles than many Democrats on issues of civil liberties and such. I mean come on, why did so many Dems vote for the war in Iraq?!?!

[w8liftinglady]

46. i guess I'm no liberal,then.I protested the war with Ron Paul supporters.

i have said here many times,it's ok to work with other parties to accomplish things we apparently are unable to accomplish alone.When we had the majority,we were unable to act on these things.
http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm all of Paul's votes...needless to say,I don't agree with many of them...these are the ones I DO agree with.


Ron Paul was one of the few politicos who came out openly,adamantly against the war.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul7.html
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10708

He's one of the few who has openly favored decriminalization.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul663.html

He has been adamant about freedom of speech.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul165.html

He openly critized the Patriot Act
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8310

and federal use of torture against combatants and prisoners of war.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul185.html
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12509

I wish some of our own party were as openly committed to their beliefs(and,apparently the beliefs of his constituents)
Would I vote for him? Hell,no. Do I agree with his stances on some subjects? Yes.
Is it worth working with other parties to accomplish some things? Of course.