Google “Obama Drone Attacks” or “Obama Gitmo” or “Obama” even.

Now, my point is that I am trying to talk about VOTERS getting together. Those voters did not approve the drone attacks, the extrajudicial assassinations, or the decision to keep Gitmo open. I don’t think I will condemn Obama supporters because of Obama’s misteps.

By the way, I voted for Obama. I don’t think Obama’s policy decisions are an accurate reflection of my politics. So, when I talk to Ron Paul supporters, I can tell that they are a motley and mixed bunch, a lot of them are in their twenties, in college, with no hope of a future and a mountain of student debt. They are family members who lost loved ones in combat, either to death or injury (usually life-shattering injuries), or they are people with loved ones still not home yet. They are veterans being dicked around by the VA, or they are teachers and firefighters who don’t have any love for Bush or Romney, they aren’t religious-right politicos and will never vote for Huckabee or Santorum or Palin, but they are flabbergasted by the Obama reversals and the Corporatist policies of his administration.

Those voters have nothing to do with “Ron Paul Newsletters.”

The fact that you throw out there tells me a lot about your choice of news sources. It reminds me of the anti-Obama folks in 2008 who said, “Google Reverend Wright”

Like I said, everybody can close their minds to whatever degree they want. The ground is coming, and you haven’t pulled the chute. So you can google “Ron Paul Newsletters” or you can try talking to people who are living the hardship in their lives right now, and listen to what they are saying, and realize that they are equally mad at Wall Street, equally mad at the bank fiascos, equally mad at the drone strikes, the extrajudicial killings, equally mad at the privatization of prisons, equally mad at the loss of civil liberties, and you can choose to ignore their shared plight with you because they are a certain religion, or a certain socio-economic status, or even a certain skin color. You can choose to exclude yourself from helping each other, or you can choose to work together.

History is filled with different groups who didn’t see eye-to-eye learning to work together for a greater cause.

I know this. Sometimes people learn the hard way to work together. Sometimes, they come to that conclusion just a little bit too late. I am suggesting that we not wait until its too late. This division is exactly what Obama/Romney needs to two-step into the White House and Congress. Grand Old Democratic Republican Party is a Donklephant Corporatist nightmare, and they are laughing at the division between Libertarians and Progressives and Independents.

The average voter is not going to pay their bills, feed their kids, and get medical care by googling “Ron Paul Newsletters.” Nor will it do them any good to google, “Reverend Wright” or “Swift Boat Veterans” or any other two-bit soundbite smear attack that the GOP/DNC Machine pumped out through its talking heads.

If you want to invite his supporters into a coalition to break the <1%'s grip on power that would fine by me and, I think, a lot of others here as well.

That IS what I am saying. That is all I have been saying, and I think its not registering with many people. And yes, my reply to you was a general reply to everybody. Sorry if that confused anybody. That’s why I used the phrases, “Progressives” or “Some people” etc. I was explicity not addressing you directly. But I wasn’t sure why you kept hammering me about Ron Paul the man. Ron Paul the man is only one person. Look at Obama the man. Totally useless. I’m talking about getting Ron Paul the man to simply turn his supporters eyes and ears onto a bigger picture. Shoot, if Ron Paul the man simply did that, and told his supporters that he is willing to work with Stein/Nader/Anderson, wouldn’t your opinion of Ron Paul the man improve by some incremental amount? And if his supporters were willing to shake hands with us and say, “let’s talk” then aren’t we moving in a positive direction?

That is all I’m saying. Its a lot for some people to get their heads around. It sounds like you are hearing what I’m saying. And if you see, I did make some separate comments for specifics that dealt with other commenters. I didn’t lump it all onto your comment. But my “research” is based on talking to on-the-ground folks. That’s where I am coming from. The voters. Not the media-hype. Hope that explains better.

Thanks Michael and Julianna. I think the Progressive Tent can’t afford to keep making itself smaller and more knee-jerk based on mainstream media (DNC/GOP-propoganda machine) messaging.

I was just curious. Does it bother you that Ron Paul believes Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace? Is that sufficient for you to call him a religious nut?

You also said

an evangelical Christian and member of the Baptist Church – is a very quietly devout man with strong family values and an unquestionable faithfulness to his family and wife of over 50 years

Does that bother you? Why? Why are those the points you use to try to convince me that working with Ron Paul’s voters is like working with a theocractic Randian nut? There were other statements Paul made that don’t make him sound good. Like his comment about healthcare and letting people not have the surgery. That was a fair criticism. But why the theological points? Or his marriage and his faith? Are you anti-faith? Anti-religion?

I hate to tell you this, but the majority of Americans have a faith, and they have some form of religion. So, if that bothers you, and it is something that the Progressive wing doesn’t like, it would explain a lot as to why the Progressive movement is on this trajectory. I would advise that attacking Ron Paul because he believes JEsus is the Prince of Peace is exactly NOT the way to go.

Sarah Palin think Christians should engage in violent crusades against Muslims. Ron Paul believes in Peace as the center of his religion. I’ll take Ron Paul over Sarah Palin any day. And the way Obama drones people, I’d have to put Obama closer to Palin in that category.

So, I am curious why those points were rolled out in your comment to highlight why you thought he was a “Randian Religious” nut.

Well, let me put it this way. I know a LOT about the people who want to vote for him that I’ve talked to. It seems like so many that I talk to are not as rabid or disgusting as people on the left think they are.

The hatred of the “personality of Ron Paul” leads so many to simply ignore the idea of working with his supporters to promote a third way.

So many Republicans think that all Democrats just love Obama and support everything he does. So many Progressives think all Catholics are anti-Gay and anti-Woman. They think that because Ron Paul has been married to his wife for fifty years and is a devout Christian that something must be wrong with him. They use that as an insult to him.

I must be different than a lot of progressives. I know a lot of Catholics who support Social Justice, and who feed the poor, and give food to shelters, and help make sure that kids sleeping in cars at the local YMCA have clean clothes every day before they go to school.

I have met a lot of Baptists (who want to vote for Ron Paul) that have brought food to the little tent city that popped up outside a local strip mall that has been shuttered due to high rents and the loss of a lot of jobs in this area. They don’t look or sound like the “personalities” I see on TV. And they don’t look or sound like “Randian Religious” nuts.

So, its okay if you want to moralize and lecture to me about “doing my research,” but I think perhaps a lot of people are confusing the “media image” of various political personalities with the voters who are living in the real world and trying to decide who to vote for.

A lot of Ron Paul supporters are just like a lot of Obama supporters. Real Americans, trying to survive, low-information voters who are just struggling to keep up with their jobs, family, and health, and catch only bits and pieces of news little bits at a time.

I think to simply close the mind and declare that “we won’t join a coalition with those people,” is about as closed minded as it can get. If that is the Progressive way, then fuck it. I don’t associate with bigots and small-minded fools. Hatred of someone because they are “Baptist and married 50 years” to their spouse is about as disgusting as being hateful of someone for being Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist.

I’m not trying to defend every little word Ron Paul has said, or his life of politics, etc. But I will say that he is a lot better than Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. Do YOUR research. I think the DNC has done a lot to make sure that his name turns off the mind. To the point that people won’t even talk about working with his supporters. The voters are not the politician. We are all not just a bunch of talking heads doing inside-baseball on the Beltway. I am talking about real Americans, in the real world, who are trying to live real lives. Somehow, this has turned into a condemnation of Ron Paul as a personality and as a political figure. He certainly may not be the ideal person. And I have said I am not telling anybody we should vote for him. I talking about getting his supporters on board in a joint effort.

If your tent is too small for them, then so be it. The Progressive ideal transcends Personality of Politician. But of course, it was Progressives who pushed Obama into office. So, why should I be surprised that Progressives will likewise use a single political personality to shoot down all talk whatsoever of appealing to the large base of voters who are talking about changing things for the better.

I’m not ignorant about the things Ron Paul has said he will do if elected. I’m not saying I will vote for him. But I don’t think he is as terrible as some might claim. And I don’t think his voters and supporters are any worse than Progressive Voters. The kind that voted for Obama. Drawing conclusions about someone by linking back from the person they put in office … well, should we say that everybody who voted for Obama supports what he has done? Then why does everybody who wants to vote for Ron Paul automatically support what he hasn’t even done yet? Its flawed logic, but it suits the comfortable mind.

I agree with both of you. But I won’t vote for Mitt. I just plan on throwing a wrench in the wheel like a lot of third party voters. I also keep trying to get Libertarians to put down there guard and talk about the issues, and I try to get Progressives to do the same thing. The agreement is usually bigger than the disagreement. People get caught up in the cult of personality, and that closes the mind. Obama is a prime example of that. The key is to move past the celebrity-politician on the toobs and get out on the street and talk to the other 99% who are in this Huxley-esque diaroma that is unfolding around us.

Well, like I said, you have done more digging on him than I have. I even thought he was raised Lutheran. Maybe he was and he switched later. It happens. Well, my point was more that I don’t hear him fronting with it, and I don’t think he’s a die-hard about it the way Palin is. Or the others I mentioned. They will use a cross in their commercials, call themselves the “Christian Candidate” and use Biblical references every time they open their mouths. Like Bush. “God told me to [invade Iraq] do it.” Stuff like that. To me, THAT is a religious nut.

I guess we quibble over details, when the big picture is that neither of us will vote for him. I am talking about getting his supporters, who likewise hate both parties, to somehow come to the table. Its his supporters I want to talk to. They are not all like him. They are various stripes and sizes, and they are gravitating towards him just like some people gravitate towards Ralph Nader. He’s an alternative. Just like a lot of people voted for Ross Perot. He was an alternative.

I think deep down, most of us who are doing this “gravitating” are more alike than we are different. I think the Corporatist Duopoly wants to highlight those differences into something bigger than they are.

I think that the VOTERS of each group are more similar than that. And I think if we can look past the cult of personality that heads up these groups, and find each other, and shake hands, and talk like adults, like Americans, then we can find common ground, and work to common purpose.

I am perfectly willing to work with a Ron Paul supporter if it means we can get those 11 things I mentioned to happen. And if we can put aside our differences to do those things, then I suspect we can come to other agreements too. I’m not so radically close-minded that I will shun all Ron Paul supporters as if they are Ayn-Rand incarnate. How would that make me any different than the Palinites who shun Obama supporters assuming they are all secret Kenyan Muslim anti-Christ lovers? I think the degree of intolerance, and unwillingness to open our minds, our hearts, and our horizons to work with our fellow Americans is what will kill the Progressive ideal, and will kill America and its spirit.

I really don’t know why people put the label “Religious” on him. Santorum, Palin, and Bachmann get that label, hands down. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Ron Paul make a “religious” statement. Now, I’m not a die-hard follower of him, nor are you, I suspect. But, Palin couldn’t breathe without talking about the righteous of her righteousness. Nor could Santorum, Huckabee, Rick Perry, Bachmann, or others.

But Ron Paul? He may be Randian in some things, but he’s not “religious” in his politics. How can a guy who wants to Legalize Prostitution, Marijuana, and End the Drug War be “religious right” material?

I am telling you that here in Texas, he is NOT courting the Religious folks. He is courting the middle class, working poor and libertarian “get off my double-wide backyard” folks. He is not a TEa Party guy, he does not say things that the 1% want to hear. Romney is a Randian. Ron Paul wants to put the Federal Reserve in handcuffs and end Wall Street favoritism. How is that worse than Mitt Romney?

I think Democrats are scared of Ron Paul more than Republicans are. Because Ron Paul poaches Blue Dogs. He poaches the White Middle Class vote. He is a threat to the Southern Strategy. Something a lot of Blue Dogs don’t want to see happen. He is not a threat to the 1% Randians. And he is not a threat to the Religious Right wingers. They hate him even more. Fox News won’t even give Ron Paul air-time.

He wants to shut down foreign bases and pull troops out of these wars and bring them home. He wants to slash the Pentagon’s budget. And this is all from the little bit I’ve picked up from watching the debates and seeing him on TV shows. That’s all he says. He never talks about religion. Not sure where you get that from. I admit, I don’t research it further than that. But I’m not saying we vote for him. I’m saying HE needs to get his supporters to help with three other people, and the four of them unite their organizations to common purpose. That is a radically different thing than saying “vote Ron Paul.”

I agree with your risk analysis. But I don’t think that should stop the effort. Risk just means mitigation. Lets tackle those issues. What we have to remember is that those 4 people have supporters. Voters. They have movements. Organizational structure. The very things you correctly said need to happen.

When different organizations can find a way to work together, a lot of good might happen. Or a lot of bad (the risk). But what do we do? Fear the Risk and let the Known Evil just happen? Corporatist-A, Corporatist-B, or … take the risk.

I prefer that we take the risk. We are so scared of A and B that most people, Progressives included, engage in some degree of denialism or escapism just to avoid facing what we see is coming. Like being pushed out of plane without a chute. How long can one stare at the coming ground before losing their mind or simply dying from heart attack? For so many people, that’s what this election has become. But its not that bad. We have a chute. We just need to find it and figure out how to open it. I’m saying, “take the risk.” What do we have to lose?

He’s not going to advocate any kind of violence. I think he’s nothing like Rick Santorum. I would agree with you if we were talking about Huckabee, Santorum, or Palin or Bachmann. They are all very likely to start inflammatory rhetoric, and they do represent the “inchoate id” that you speak of.

Ron Paul may be old and fuddy duddy, and he may be stiff and rough around the edges. And he may say some odd things, even stupid things. (Hello, Joe Biden!), but how is he any more of a bad VP than Biden is? Plus, he’s a LOT OLDER. Hint Hint.

I wouldn’t shoot the idea down so quickly. He and Alan Grayson have agreed on things. We have to stop thinking in binary terms. That somebody will accomplish 100% or 0% of what they say they will. Often times, people will give you something in the middle. Like Obama, it may only be 1% of what he promised, but its still more than zero! I think Ron Paul is not so dangerous. I wouldn’t vote for him for President. But I would welcome him and his supporters into a league of voters who joined with Jill Stein and Anderson and Nader if all four agreed to work with each other to build America into a better nation and if they could muster their supporters to work together for the same thing.

They would all agree on:
1) Ending the Drug War
2) Ending Foreign Wars
3) Ending Mandatory Minimums
4) Ending Financial Crimes Going Unpunished
5) Ending Wall Street Strangulation of America
6) Ending the Tax Havens that are Offshore
7) Ending the Corporate Welfare
8) Ending the Tyranny of Citizens United (aka Money is Speech)
9) Ending the Tyranny of the PATRIOT ACT
10) Ending the Drone Strikes of American Citizens
11) Ending the Suspension of Habeas Corpus

Can we all vote on those 11 things? I bet I could come up with more. Give those 4 people just 4 years, and a Congress that is equally like-minded (Progressive Caucus, Libertarians, and the handful of others), and you won’t have time for them to start a civil war on anything else. That will be plenty to keep them busy. And by the end of those 4 years, they may like what they’ve accomplished, and they may rub off on each other, in a good way. And America may just wake up from this dystopian nightmare that we are quickly drowning ourselves into.
2)

He doesn’t have to be the President. You just need him to be part of the Third Party – his network, his endorsement, his supporters, and their votes. If he can bring Texas to the table, and Jill Stein can bring California, and Anderson and Nader can bring a few other big states, then they may bring, collectively, more states. I know it sounds hair-brained. But choosing between “RMoney” and “O’Bush” is itself an exercise in madness. Why not unite the opposition, instead of letting these four candidates tear it up so that either Corporatist-A or Corporatist-B can waltz in and finish what Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/O’Bushama started? Just a thought.

Why light a candle when we can start a political conflagration? :)

Paul/Stein/Anderson/Nader – flip the coin and join arms!

What Ross Perot did was the closet thing to a viable coup on the two-party stranglehold we’ve had in a long time. Maybe ever. It was just not quite enough. He picked the wrong VP, and things went down from there.

If Ron Paul and Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson and Ralph Nader could unite long enough to make this happen, they could work out the details on the back end. No joke.

Want an example? Look at nations that were occupied for 600 years by an Imperialist army and look at how they finally got their indepenence. They put aside the details and they laid it down and they made it happen. Of course, in some examples, those details got worked out on the backend in a terrible civil war. But, it doesn’t have to be that way. We aren’t occupied by a foreign imperialist power, so we don’t need to watch Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera come together here. We just need Ron Paul and Jill Stein and Ralph Nader and Rocky Anderson to stand together and say, “ENOUGH.” Flip a damn coin among the four of them, play rock/paper/scissors, and then let the runner-up be VP. STand arm-in-arm, and make it happen. You’ll see California, Texas, and some midwestern states roll third-party.

My two cents.

Here’s a good article on how the citizens of Michigan are trying to roll back that Emergency Financial Manager Law.

On Feb. 29, 2012, a Michigan citizens’ group opposed to the State of Michigan’s emergency financial manager law (officially entitled “Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act,” MCL §§ 141.1501 et seq. and referred to herein as the “Act”), filed petitions to place the issue of the Act’s rejection on the state ballot in November.

The sad thing is that the rollback is taking geometrically longer than the time it took the Republicans to gavel it through with a wink and a nod. Its easy to lose your rights. Its much harder to regain them.