Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Lesser of Two Evils, Barack Obama or Ron Paul? Ron Paul.

I know, I know.

I am not saying Ron Paul is my idea of an ideal American President. FAR from it.

But doing an inventory of Obama and Paul as to who is the lesser of two evils? Paul wins.

Anti-abortion. Anti-universal health care. Anti-gay rights. Anti-social security. Anti-welfare. Pro-guns. Pro-capital punishment, etc., etc. I don’t like -- no, I HATE -- these stances of Paul. Since I have just begun researching him, there may be a lot more that genuinely will repel me.

And yet again I declare in measuring Obama to Paul in terms of lesser of two evils-ness, Paul wins.

Ron Paul wants to end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars immediately. [about.com]

Ron Paul is sick of American aid propping up puppet dictators.[about.com]

Ron Paul wants to audit the Fed. [about.com]

Ron Paul is against giving trillions of dollars to Wall Street. [Davis]

Ron Paul is against the Fed giving low, low, low interest loans to political corporate cronies. [Davis]

Ron Paul supports a state’s right to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. [ronpaulforums]

Ron Paul would repeal the Patriot Act. [ronpaulforums]

Ron Paul would end the TSA. [ronpaulforums]

Ron Paul is not beholding to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup. [ronpaulforums]

Ron Paul would close Gitmo. [ronpaulforums]

Ron Paul would not authorize drone strikes. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not protect torturers and human rights violators. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not extrajudicially order the assassination of an American citizen. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not push for the largest military budget in world history. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not bomb or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not authorize the use of cluster bombs. [Davis]

Ron Paul wants to end the drug war which has placed 2.3 million people, 1 in 100 Americans, mostly African American and Hispanic, behind bars. [Davis]

Ron Paul would pardon non-violent offenders locked up from the War on Drugs. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not cravenly subsidize corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not protect BP from legal liability of environmental damage. [Davis]

Ron Paul would not mandate that all Americans purchase corporate-profiteering health care. [Davis]

Ron Paul would bring troops home from Europe, Korea and Okinawa. [Davis]

Ron Paul wouldn’t pretend he was supporting “clean energy”, but really be enabling environmentally toxic, profiteering coal companies. [Davis]

Ron Paul wouldn’t support half of American income taxes going to the military industrial complex. [Davis]

Ron Paul wouldn’t finance and take on Israel’s battles. [ronpaulforums]

Ron Paul believes in tort law going against corporate polluters. [neue politik]

Ron Paul respects the efforts of Wikileaks. [guntotingliberal]

Ron Paul? What you see and hear and ask to know is what you get.

"Say-anything-Obama"? C’mon!

I am a liberal. Ron Paul is a libertarian. There are a lot of irreconcilable gaps in our perspectives.

If you are hyperventilating with outrage about my endorsing Paul as the lesser of two evils rather than Obama and undermining Obama’s lock on the progressive sensibility and chances of winning in 2012 you probably should relax. Charles Davis in an article on April 28, 2011 in Dissident Voice entitled “Ron Paul: A Lesser Evil?” declares that the number of "party-line progressives" who would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama “wouldn’t be enough to fill Conference Room B at the local Sheraton.” He adds that even Obama’s harshest progressive critic, the hardworking and brilliant Matt Taibbi, shuns Paul more than Obama.

I don’t care what MSNBC comfortingly says about Obama as its seductive spokespeople call out the Republican clowns. Time to really measure the evil in the "lesser of two evils" rationale.

Since Obama’s early days of betrayal I have been wanting the so-called progressives of America to find a real champion and not be so triangulated in the “lesser of two evils” crap. Out of 300+ million Americans, the corporate and even most of the alternate media tell us we get to choose from Gingrinch, Romney and Obama -- and their imperialistic and crony capitalism commitments. Talk about mass “learned helplessness.” Media psyops. I yearn for a strong third party liberal candidate to primary and dump -- DUMP! -- Obama. Kucinich, Sanders, RFK, Jr., Nader, Warren, Feingold, Moyers, any Green candidate, etc., etc. There are plenty of Americans that recognize bottom line human decency. I left the Democratic Party and joined the Green Party to help promote that soon after I recognized Obama had no moral compass.

Ron Paul is NOT and would NOT be my choice for President.

But for what it is worth, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils between Paul and Obama?

Ron Paul by a LONG SHOT!

Here are some quotes from Charles Davis that help bottom line it for me to regard Obama as a far greater evil than Ron Paul:

“... your first priority really ought to be stopping your government from killing poor people. Second on that list? Stopping your government from putting hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens in cages for decades at a time over non-violent “crimes” committed by consenting adults. Seriously, what the fuck? Social Security’s great and all I guess, but not exploding little children with cluster bombs -- shouldn’t that be at the top of the Liberal Agenda?”

“Over half of American’s income taxes go to the military industrial complex and the costs of arresting and locking up their fellow citizens. On both counts, Ron Paul’s policy positions are far more progressive than those held -- and indeed, implemented, -- by Barack Obama. And yet it’s Paul who’s the reactionary of the two?”

“My sweeping, I’m hoping overly broad assessment: liberals, especially the pundit class, don’t much care about dead foreigners. They’re a political problem at best -- will the Afghan war derail Obama’s re-election campaign? -- not a moral one. And liberals are more than willing to accept a few charred women and children in some country they’ll never visit in exchange for increasing social welfare spending by 0.02 percent, or at least not cutting it by as much as a mean ‘ol Rethuglican.”

My own bottom line and concise statement for voting for Ron Paul as the lesser of two evils? “It makes me feel less of an accessory to mass murder.” No small thing.

Why isn’t Obama’s murdering militarism a deal breaker for more of America? After all, his promise to wage peace not war won him the presidency in 2008, didn’t it? Where is America’s conscience, let alone Obama’s? Where is America’s, let alone Obama’s, SOUL?

If you are inclined to respond to this blog, please don’t respond with reasons I should hate Ron Paul. Respond with any reasons you may have why Obama’s murderous imperialism is acceptable to you as a member of the family of man and woman and children as the standard for lesser of two evils-ness.

0
No votes yet

Comments

illusionofjoy's picture
Submitted by illusionofjoy on

Write-in: "None of the Above." I will neither vote for a libertarian or a DINO. I'd gleefully vote for a socialist though. Who wants to help me start a "draft Bernie Sanders" movement?

Submitted by hipparchia on

I have just begun researching [ron paul]

that's obvious. ron paul is just like barack obama in that he says a lot of the things that progressives want to hear, but beyond that, he is NOT the lesser of two evils.

vote green, vote socialist, vote none of the above, write in the candidate of your choice, or vote downticket and leave the presidential spot blank... there's absolutely no need whatsoever to vote for ron paul.

Submitted by lambert on

And I'm with Hipparchia. Be very skeptical.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

gizzardboy's picture
Submitted by gizzardboy on

If George W. Obama (I like that name which was emailed to me just today) is reelected, how much that we do not want to happen will happen , or continue to happen? Contrast that with what a Ron Paul presidency could actually enact or do. Even with the authoritarian inclined, lock step Republicans, how much would actually happen? In many cases, it would just be a push in that direction and an airing of options that are now dismissed without consideration. I could live with that.

Roman Berry's picture
Submitted by Roman Berry on

I guess where I’m at with respect to Ron Paul boils down to finding myself agreeing with him on some extremely huge issues where a president has a great power, and disagreeing with him on some extremely huge issues where the president has limited power.

A president, as commander in chief, does have the unilateral power to avoid unnecessary wars. And a president does have the unilateral power to not assert the right to kill American citizens without charge or trial.

As long as the executive can order you detained and held without charge or trial, can order you killed without charge or trial or declare you a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer or assert that you provided "material support for terrorism" based on "secret evidence" that you can not see or rebut, then you really have no rights at all. None.

Like I said, there are some extremely huge issues where I vehemently disagree with Ron Paul. Fortunately, on most of those issues, a president has limited power. But the extremely huge issues of the ever expanding/never ending "war on terror" and all the abuses that are being done to this nation and its citizens in the name of that war are areas where a president has great power.

I'm not saying I will vote for Ron Paul in November of 2012. But I swear that I absolutely will not vote for Barack Obama. Obama as president is a great, great evil on par with and often eclipsing his predecessor, Dim Son. I oppose Obama absolutely, just as I opposed Dim Son before him.

Green. Third party. Ron Paul. Anyone but the candidate at the head of either wing of The Money Party.

dictateursanguinaire's picture
Submitted by dictateursanguinaire on

they're not the only two candidates. as others have said, vote for the Green or SWP. if your consciousness bothers you so much (and it should but come on -- you get what you deserve for thinking that some lib'rl superhero would fix all our problems -- tree of liberty must be periodically watered, permanent revolution, Jefferson or Trotsky, take your pick but the point stands -- it's incumbent on us to keep the pressure on pols if we want actual change), work at a community center or join you local Occupy or do something concrete. writing contrarian columns on the internet that endorse Thatcherite racists (who, despite his pretensions to 'libertarianism', is really something of a brownshirt -- he'd cut defense spending, sure, but you can believe that he'd have the cops crack these Dangerous Socialist Skulls at Occupy, whether he admits it or not) do absolutely nothing. If we have a corrupt system, we have a corrupt system. It's sure easy for Paul to be a civil libertarian superhero when he stands jack all chance of getting elected. Do you think Obama didn't promise half that stuff either? Honestly! Read Mark Ames' column on how petulant soft-libs defected to the libertarian right after Obama didn't do what they wanted -- it reads like a direct response to your column. Not trying to be too harsh but I see absolutely no point in this column. Your claim is both boring (some anarcho-capitalist that some economic ignoramuses like says he hates the military even though he'll never have to prove it) and irrelevant (they are not the only two choices, nor is RP a serious choice so if you wanna vote your heart, vote Green or Socialist or write-in Sanders or Nader or whatever).

Submitted by libbyliberal on

I said I voted for Paul as the lesser of two evils with Obama, not that I am voting for Paul. Thanks for comments all, and mm, the naked capitalism thread was a gratifying read, thank you.

I suppose this is as pragmatic (which I have always pushed against in other progressives) as I have ever been promoting Paul to a degree in order to demote Obama. Believe me, it is my horror at Obama that causes me to use Paul as leverage against Obama's "teflon" evil-doing.

Paul has some frightening stances, BUT Paul is not at the mercy of, not ENTHRALLED TO, the corrupt and capturing matrix or the combination of matrices, the media one, the Israeli one, the oligarchy's, the politician's group think cronyism one, and the military/industrial/security complex matrix. The enemy of my enemy is my somewhat friend maybe in this case and the combo matrix is the enemy of all of us 99%ers, even those in denial projecting onto Obama what is not there.

It also chills me once again that the "thou shalt not kill" human mandate is glossed over as much by Obama's followers as by Obama himself and group-think cronyism without taking responsibility for reality is not acknowledged. I appreciate correntewire has Obama's number, but so many Obamacrats are stlll so unbearably and unbelievably enthralled. They ignore, deny or minimize what should be in a civilized world among humane humans unignorable, undeniable and unworthy of minimization!

We need to break the matrix. In the 60's the matrix was attacked and cracked by Vietnam protesters but the cockroaches like Cheney came back with a vengeance.

Obama's 2012 Lucy and the football rhetoric is so shameless and craven, but still works with the "lesser of two evils" faux-progressives.

Also, Paul's non-interventionist commitment I believe. That is HUGE. Corporate warring is sub sub sub basement evil. I support him with that.

Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. (Japanese proverb)

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

the possibility of voting for him. I came to this same conclusion a couple months ago, when I noticed how actively the Rs were dissing him and wondered why. Did a bit of reading and whaddya know...

Also, regarding comment that Paul is just saying what progressives want to hear - no, that would be Obama. Difference between candidate Paul and 2008 candidate Obama - voting record and lengthy adherence to consistent political stance. Would Paul be more likely to stick to his ideology than renege on his promises? Hell of a lot more likely than Obama.

Submitted by Alcuin on

Respond with any reasons you may have why Obama’s murderous imperialism is acceptable to you as a member of the family of man and woman and children as the standard for lesser of two evils-ness.

0.

That said, I still have a hard time understanding why people are getting so up in arms about Paul - the man has zero chance of being elected and even if he was elected, he has very little chance of getting any of his agenda enacted. And that includes ending the wars and putting the United States back on the gold standard. Totally impossible. The reason I'm voting for Paul in the Republican primary is simply to add to the voice of the mob calling for Obama's ouster. Nothing more. I don't know who I'll vote for in the general election but I'll guarantee you that it won't be for Obama.

The important thing is to never stop questioning. - Albert Einstein