Like many others, I have been much disappointed by Obama, and the temptation to "show him" (lol.....I tried that in  2000 by voting for Nader...look where that got me.) by voting for someone else.

I frankly think it is too late to overcome the damage done by the Bush Administration as I have long felt that the tipping point had been reached and surpassed.  As I perceive the leadership under Obama, all of the loopholes and tyranical behaviors created by Bush and tolerated by "we the people." have been continued under Obama and are growing more tyranical by the month. 

I wish that there were a candidate that truly represented something not quite so dictatorial and terrorizing as the GOP lineup and/or the Obama experience.

As in 2008, I don't think the GOP wants to win this election.  The GOP, I don't think, even exists any longer.  What does exist, due to the Bush and company distortions of our laws, has no desire to better our Nation, but has every desire to control our nation.  I will have to find another article that  discusses that issue.  If you know of one, please post it.  I don't think it matters to them whether the Obama Presidency lasts for four years or eight years, just so long as it is kept from doing anything by the constant obstruction, distraction, petty bickering and the MSM continues to play the US Presidency as if it were a "reality show."  What matters to them is to create sufficient distractions and obstructions over petty matters, including (on a national scale, as represented by the actual distress the matters cause to our citizens at large) abortion, homosexuality and religious affiliations, or the eventual settlement of the conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere.  The world has managed to survive quite a long time (China, Egypt, and Central America are to be noted) without the constant interference and meddling of the USA.

What in the hell is the US Coast Guard doing in the Straits of Hurmoz?

Be that as it may, as much as I am disappointed to see my country so wounded, I can feel the appeal that Ron Paul has when he uses the words he uses.  As with the GOP, that's the trick.  Aye, there's the rub.  The words sound good, but they have a different meaning to him and one must listen with the full understanding of the zealous followers of Ayn Rand style Libertarianism.  There used to be, years ago, those who called themselves "Libertarians."  But they were a different sort of beings.  When I was younger, I thought I might belong with them.  But not this group.  This article is one of the best I've read at explaining the difference and the dangers of being deceived by their use of certain words that have one meaning to the non-libertarian citizen, and quite another to those who will consider casting their vote for Ron Paul. 

I like what he says.  But I am aware of what he means by what he says.  I've been listening to this group evolve since the 1950's.  That's over fifty years.  I don't think I could explain their definitions of words that seem to express so clearly benefits for human beings, but have no such intent.  Enjoy or ignore.
I just thought I'd share it.

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

JD

i think this is one of the best articles i have read on the New Right in the last decade:

http://www.newyorker.com/...18/101018fa_fact_wilentz

some of you here will remember it, as it was posted and well discussed.

What's scarier than someone like Ron Paul are the numbers of people who actually support him.

Watch it! macro supports him.

I'm taking the liberty of posting the entire article linked in JD's op because of my belief that people are more likely to read, or at least skim, something that is in front of them vs clicking a link ~ I've never read anything by, or even heard of, Tim Wise before this post ~ but, from my own quick skimming of this essay, I sense that he gets it ~ and I've bookmarked his website to read more by him ~ and I'm sure I'll have comments once I read this essay more closely ~ Sooz

Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals

i do.  that doesn't mean i support everything he thinks, no more than it means you supported everything Bush thought.

"Bush thought".  Now there's two words you don't see in the same sentence very often. 

As I've said before, superficially Ron Paul occasionally sounds good.  But when you look beneath the surface and what his positions really mean, what their consequences would be and just plain how workable they are, he quickly turns into nothing more than the affable old crank uncle that you smile and nod at around the Thanksgiving dinner table.  The author of the article Sooz posted touches on some of the major holes in his positions but virtually all of them, especially his isolationist and education policies are just plain ludicrous.



  

he's not an isolationist.  he is a non-interventionist.  and i happen to agree with him 100% in terms of that particular position.  it is the main reason i couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama last time, and i probably won't vote for him THIS time.  the Democrats are just as dirty as the GOP in terms of war, and i am totally sick of it.

I feel comfortable with the idea that Mac can handle an honest disagreement without becoming upset.  As Mac has said, he does not agree with everything Rand says, and I can honestly say I do not disagree with everything Ron Paul says.   Matter of fact, I wasn't even aware of any negative image of racism connected to Ron Paul, because I had never bothered to think through Ron Paul's expressed criticisms of there being any governmental controls on a business entity.  I had not thought (and I suppose this is the flaw in thinking experienced by most people who support Ron Paul, almost to the point of "religiously") that the exemption of all government control or regulations on businesses (which sounds good, especially if you include the aspect of taxation) could also permit businesses to deny service to black people, or hispanic people, or indigenous American people, or old people, or young people, or disabled people, etc. or, maybe, Martians? 

I am usually pleased with my tendency to let behaviours and promises play out in my mind as to the mechanics involved and the possible conflicts along the way to a change in acceptances of, or desires for, or instructions to any new path I might take.  My mind works that way.  If this happens, then what is likely to be the result.  And if that/those results are likely, then what will be the best action to take and what will be the result of that.  A million times I have heard and seen people become involved with some endeavor to improve things that are clearly going to cause much greater harm because they do not think about the :"mechanics" involved in the process.

I'm not a hundred percent on that, but I am more oriented to that kind of thinking than most people seem to be.    I have often been accused of not being decisive enough or enthusiastic enough because some kind of alarm goes off when I hear an idea that has indoctrination or salesmanship embedded into the plan.  I can feel myself being led, and I don't like the feeling.   

For that reason I spoke aloud to friend and foe, after 9/11, that the invasion of Iraq was idiocy.  In some rare occasions, there is a need for a dictator.  What has happened in the Middle East was absolutely predictable, and it was up to the Bush Admnistration to have righted the error in judgment.  Rather than admit to an error (we all saw the video, did we not?) in judgment, we pushed bigger and bigger distortions which have resulted in the collapse of much that may never recover.

But, I digress.........or recess......or transgress.....or process.....and perhaps even abcess????

I do not feel that Mac is in anyway wounded or offended by my contribution of this article.  Mac is better than that, and we both know it.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty certain we all know it, including Gop.  So, Gop, I take your comment as an amusing aside, intended to make Mac laugh.  And I'll bet he did.  Or maybe just smirked a bit.  

JD

I don't remember reading this article, Mac.  I just did.  Brought back a whole bunch of uncomfortable moments in the early sixties while I was a member of the JBS in Altadena, CA.  Same kind of psychological discomfort when someone feels like they're being brainwashed.  Thanks for posting it again.  It WAS long!!!lol

JD

Jeannedeurk1 wrote: ...some kind of alarm goes off when I hear an idea that has indoctrination or salesmanship embedded into the plan. I can feel myself being led, and I don't like the feeling.

I'm with you on that! I hate it when I feel like I'm being fed a line. Anytime it happens, I want to know why? and by whom?.

jeanne- i think that Ron Paul's social conservatism is completely anti-libertarian. i don't think he is even remotely consistent there, and i absolutely hold it against him.

Jeanne- sorry if that article brought back bad memories, but i happen to think it is one of the most enlightening things i have read in the last decade. but i repeat myself.....

indeed.  i can dismiss some of the article as hyperbole.  some of it hits home.  i know most of it already:  it is just reframing.

i like the Libertarian position on the social side, and i pretty much reject it on the economic side.  societies have a right to organize in such a way as to produce good outcomes even for those that are less fortunate.  there is nothing wrong with the inclination to do so, and the need to tax society as a whole to produce that outcome fits in with my LIBERAL libertarian instincts quite well.  i don't view it as despotic any more than i view it as socialism to save money so my son can go to college.  as i have said before, money is only as good as what you do with it, and i think that a great deal of good can be done with it when it is NOT hoarded.  and no, i don't view taxation as FORCING people to not hoard.  i view it as contributing to the kind of world in which all civilized people want to live.

the kind of view espoused by Paul on economic matters is, indeed barbaric and soulless.  it is the non-charitable, heartless form of survivalist and selfish capitalism preached by Rand, and it is incredibly hideous and backwards looking, imo.  i can't abide it.  but at the same time, he is spot on on a number of social and fiscal issues. 

i would love to see someone from the LIBERAL side of the libertarian perspective run for office.  someone more like Rosseau and less like Rand.  most Americans don't even know what that looks like, but it is a fairly common strain in government elsewhere.  our Libertarian party is basically anarchocapitalist, and i don't really see that as a good alternative to what we have. 

i am a firm believer in the social contract- that we empower government to do the good work that only a large entity can do, and that we pay for it by giving according to our benefit from living here (ie disposable income).  i very much doubt that Paul sees it that way, so that is where he and i part ways.  but i admire his discipline and consistency, despite our differences.

mostly. 

JD, you eloquently express your disillusionment with Obama ~ there are things he has done [or not done] that I'm not pleased about, too ~ but I think the following paragraph from the op essay, while certainly anti-Paul, is also a solid endorsement of Obama ~ 

[quote]In short, if you're still disappointed in Barack Obama, it's only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place. But don't take out your own failings in this regard on the rest of us, by giving ideological cover and assorted journalistic love taps to a guy who believes the poor should rely on the charitable impulses of doctors to provide for their medical needs, including, one presumes, chemotherapy; or that America was meant to be a [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]“robustly Christianâ€

sooz- that attack on Paul skirts very close to the "blame the victim" vindictive that i so despise. leaders are ALSO responsible for outcomes. leaders are ALSO accountable to their promises, and their failure to meet them. the fact is that a grass roots movement lifted Obama into office. if he failed to enhance the fortunes of those who entrusted them with their future, he should be held accountable for that fact.

i happen to agree with the underlying principle, however: when the people lead, the leaders will follow.

Mac, I agree.  I vote for a person who I believe has principles I agree with and a person I think will stand by those principles.  Not one who says he will not waiver on the important issues but does.

  

Every single candidate who has ever run for office and/or will ever run for office is flawed. Our duty as citizens, voters and taxpayers is to elect those we see as the least flawed regardless of race, religion, party affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, end etc.
IMO, not voting when one is able and eligible is not a viable option. To me, that's simply a copout to avoid making a decision.
Perhaps it would be worth considering an extra option on all ballots: "None of the above candidates".

no.  and i think the electorate is guilty, to a degree, of reading their own HOPES into a candidate.

for example- i noted with extreme alarm that pacifists endorsed Obama's candidacy.  Obama never promised to end the war, but to focus resources against supporters of AQ (which were never indicated in Iraq).  fulfilling that promise put us hip deep in the Afghanistan quagmire, and this is precisely what anyone who was actually LISTENING would have heard.

baffling.

for example- i noted with extreme alarm that pacifists endorsed Obama's candidacy.

And the alternative would have been?

[quote]In short, if you're still disappointed in Barack Obama, it's only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place. But don't take out your own failings in this regard on the rest of us, by giving ideological cover and assorted journalistic love taps to a guy who believes the poor should rely on the charitable impulses of doctors to provide for their medical needs, including, one presumes, chemotherapy; or that America was meant to be a [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html]“robustly Christianâ€