Yes, Paul never claimed to be “a progressive” but, as I write, he “emerged as a progressive option” during the election. As part of this some of his views have been claimed as effectively progressive (whether intended by him as such). My point is primarily not about his views but rather his reception, then. Also, libertarianism sure enough wants to cram things down throats. Deregulation, for example, can be described as the “absence” of something, but what’s in a name? (Indeed, a bullet wound is the “absence of” tissue and blood in a certain region of the body.) To deregulate is to take real action to affect real people in specific ways–right? I mean, argue that deregulation is good; but don’t pretend it doesn’t “do” anything.

And regardless of who’s in power, half the country feels alienated. Why? Cause everyone in this country is trying to jam their personal ideologies down each others throats. Isn’t that what makes us miserable? Gay people persecuted by religious freaks and the faithful getting a rash of shit for putting a manger in their front yard at Christmas. It’s all so damned frustrating. We need to get our thick skin back, baby. We need to grow balls and say what we want. That’s freedom from anyone telling you what to do and how to think. The past eight years and the next four will demonstrate this, I guarantee you.

Why is Paul and the Libertarian movement the answer?
Simple. The only ideology he’s jamming down your throat is the one that says that no politician has the right to jam an ideology down your throat. That my friend is the answer. The solution. No more anyone telling us who is and isn’t a patriot. I may not agree with you but I’ll take a bullet to the skull for your right to lay it out there in this blog. Otherwise, why not move to China? Chances are you’re gonna be the tallest guy in town and the economy is better.

Whaddya think? Time for a REAL change?

Paragraph 2: Ron Paul is a a Constitutionally oriented member of Congress. You cited that Ron Paul “‘Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq’ complains that the vote ceded war-making powers to the President rather than, properly, to Congress. This reflects that goofy, crude Constitutional fetishism of Paul’s which quibbles over where the ‘proper authority’ for engaging some action technically rests rather than whether whatever is being authorized is actually a good idea.” Well, first of all, you are spinning, but, former-wise, let me tell you what Ron Paul was referring to — Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, 11, 12,14, 15, 16, and 18. Lader-wise, you are making it seem like Ron Paul is not concerned with “what technically rests rather than what is a good idea.” He instinctively went to the ‘War Powers’ section of the Constitution in which the power IS vested for declaring war and organizing overseas military engagements. You, sir, clearly, did not take that into account and dismissed it as Ron Paul acting “goofy”, which is a criticism largely encountered by people easily willing to dismiss Ron Paul’s sentiments as old fashioned and over-zealous.

Paragraph 3: The next paragraph is an even worse blatant attempt at making Ron Paul look like a war-hawk. “Paul also objects that the Iraq campaign was begun with no clear definition of what it would mean to win it. This reasoning is sympathetic and one can only wish Paul could be counted on to apply it.” Hmmmm… “no clear definition of what it would look like to win…” Well … that sounds like information that George W. Bush wasn’t giving out (not willing to give a timetable, exit strategy, benchmarks…) and something that you would want to know about indifferent of whether you necessarily think that what Bush was putting the nation through was correct or incorrect.

Also in paragraph 3 is criticism of Ron Paul’s approval vote for the Afghanistan thing, which is something that Ron Paul was going to vote against, but his staff and associates forced him into doing, threatening reelection and ability to reenter politics. No, it wasn’t strong willed to agree, but perhaps the staff were right that ridicule and political career ending may have followed at that time in American history had Ron Paul not voted ‘yes’ along with the war-beat then.

Paragraph 5: This isn’t really a defense for Ron Paul, but Barbra Lee is a Democrat, and you liberals really are more likely to vote against necessary actions like the war in Afghanistan was. Ron Paul is a Republican.

Paragraph 6: Ditto. The war in Afghanistan was obviously better than the next conflict. It’s not like we did that one on false intelligence and cherry-picking.

Paragraph 7: Perhaps because the Afghanistan occupation was, initially, tactical, not strategical occupations, like the Iraq No-Fly Zone, which would have been wrong on a time-frame of many years, where, what happened in Afghanistan, may have been very short-term at the time that was taking place.

Paragraph 8: Obviously, Ron Paul is referring to a direct attack and/or invasion of American land, which is, of course, a defense issue.

Paragraph 9: Actually, I would like to see Ron Paul end all occupations overseas, and you are correct about hypocrisy in pulling out of Iraq and not the rest of the world.

Paragraph 10: No, I think you are looking at a form of Libertarianism that is closer to Ron Paul’s views, such as ‘markets dictate peace.’ I do not know what your specific reference of “straight Libertarianism” may mean.

Paragraph 11: What I think is going to happen here is, if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the Republicans are going to give Ron Paul a stiff compromise. They will allow Ron Paul to do whatever he wants in foreign policy, BUT Ron Paul will have to give aid to Iraq OR not be allowed to be the nomination. It would be the only thing I would imagine will take place. I hope this does happen.

Paragraph 12: Come on … these are the Republicans, we are talking about … you have to bring up Reagan!

Paragraphs 13, 14, & 15: Capitalism is just the umbrella-belief. What is closer to Ron Paul’s world-view is that Ron Paul believes that prosperity comes not even from corporations, but from giving and sharing.

Paragraph 17: That’s my Paul! I don’t know, however, what you mean by “the wealthiest of the wealthy” when Ron Paul will get rid of all federal taxes not authorized in the Constitution. That is where he is coming from.

Paragraph 18: You do not go into detail as to how Ron Paul’s anti-war “chops” are meager. Ron Paul believes that American government should not be in charge of designating peace among lands, but that American people do so. This is consistent and I like it.

Paragraph 19: Ron Paul will get the run-around with Congress on his most radical beliefs. The worst case would be a lame-duck presidency, the best case is we get a nation more independent and noble than any time before.

Paragraph 21: Except for oil, which American inventions and innovations will solve one day, we have very few interests in ‘taking’ anything from Iraq. Ron Paul’s plan, unlike previous presidents, will be centered around diplomacy and respectable American relations.

Paragraph 22: So I guess this is so long, friend. Please correct your most gratuitous spinning in paragraphs 2, 3,7,8,10,13-15,18 & 19, the rest I will let slide. Oh, and nice try trying to make Ron Paul look bad.

There is no way you can spin that, just youtube his speeches before the war started and you will see that position repeated over and over again on the floor of the House (if only Clinton could say that when she was in the Senate).

And I can’t imagine after hearing progressives yammer on and on about US imperialism, voting against a candidate who’s publicly stated position is to dismantle the empire.