Robert Scheer on Ron Paul

...are just depressing to read. There are a great many people out there who simply are not capable of complex thought and reasoning, and the people who fit into that category just can't wrap their heads around the idea that while yes, a lot of what Paul has to say on matters of economics and civil rights is not acceptable, on points of war, indefinite detention, assassination (oh hell...call it what it is...murder) of citizens on no more than the say-so of the president and the president's councils, the drug war, the NDAA, Ron Paul has some things that ought to be heard and talked about and even embraced by progressives, liberals and Democrats for whom these things were supposedly important issues.

You can agree with Paul in some areas without supporting him for president. That's the point I'm trying to make. When it comes to voting for president, I'd be nearly as inclined to oppose Paul as I am Obama. For me, Obama is a freaking disaster. He is the ratchet effect personified. As Greenwald said in the Guardian, Obama has moved so far to the right that the only way the Republicans can move to his right is to move into full-on lunatic mode. Obama has moved the Overton Window even further into Republican territory, and by making right wing policy into bi-partisan consensus, has essentially assured that it can only remain there or move even further right. (Like I said, the ratchet effect.)

I've been thinking for a few days about how much of the Democratic blogosphere and Democratic news outlets like Salon have gone on a Ron Paul bender these last few weeks. For a while it made no sense to me that so much virtual ink and worry would be wasted on a candidate who almost surely will not come close to his own party's nomination, much less the presidency. And then it hit me. It's diversion. Here's how I put it elsewhere:

...I am just about 100 percent (sure that) Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination, or in the exceedingly unlikely event that he does, will not be elected president. As much as anything, that's why the spreading of the "Paul is a racist!" meme everywhere and at once in Democratic blogs and news outlets puzzles me. What's the point in waging rhetorical war upon a relative mosquito?

I've pretty much decided that the reason for the meme boils down to diversion. Much as a magician directs your attention because a magician must divert your attention in order for the illusion to work, Democratic outlets seek to direct attention to Paul's newsletter's (not that different from how Republicans wanted to direct attention to Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright) in order to divert attention from areas where Paul has some very good points, because those points do not reflect favorably at all on the man who is currently President of the United States, Barack Obama.

If we can all be made to debate endlessly over whether Ron Paul is or was a racist and what if anything that means for the present time, then we are diverted from discussing the areas where Obama has continued or even expanded on Bush policies that were supposed to be such a huge issue and a fundamental threat to liberty. For me, those issues remain, and they remain a deal breaker. Obama did not run as the drone war, indefinite detention, security state, national secrets shut down due process, indefinite detention and citizen assassination candidate on his way to the White House in the 2008 campaign. Had he run on these things, would you have voted for him?

Ron Paul is not going to be president. I'd like to discuss the issues he raises with respect to war, and bank bailouts, and drug policy, and the USA PATRIOT Act, and indefinite detention, and citizen assassination, and warrantless wiretaps, and military intervention. But the "Ron Paul is a racist" meme is designed to foreclose all of that. And it's designed to shield Obama.

Barack Obama is a corporatist, and he's as big a threat -- actually, I think bigger, as he closes down Democratic opposition -- to the rule of law and basic Constitutional protections as GW Bush ever was. In matters of executive power (the "unitary executive" theory of the presidency), this is objectively demonstrable.

Bottom line? Tribalist Dems don't want to talk about the issues where Ron Paul has a point and those points are compatible with liberal and progressive ideals...because on those issues, Paul has a point and those points are compatible with liberal and progressive ideals. What I don't understand is why it is that when someone tries to talk specifically about those points, so many self-proclaimed progressives respond like automatons with some version of "But Ron Paul is a racist! I will never support a racist!" (Supporting a war mongering, banker protecting, drone-strike civilian murdering Dem? That's OK!)

What I want people to wrap their heads around is that it's OK to discuss Paul's positions on these issues. Doesn't mean that they have to support or vote for him. Don't know why that is so hard to understand.

Ron Paul field worker on Alex Jones, interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQxSDSzAv...