1 vote

Progressive Coalition For Ron Paul playing 'Let's Make A Deal'



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How About Helping Greens Win Local Elections Tomorrow

There are about 52 greens on the ballot for local and state offices tomorrow. How about that for a good faith effort to the "Progressives for Paul" coalition?

http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/greens-go-local-novem...

This would be a great way of "sticking" it to the Democrats, and building support for the left to pull from Obama in 2012. This Occupy thing will carry on next year, and for every occupier who is open to Paul there are 2 or 3 that aren't. If we can help the Greens become competitive and viable many of them will put their support there rather than in a "reform the Democrat Party" effort.

Jack Wagner

I wouldn't

Greens don't spoil Democrats, they vet Democrats, like Libertarian Party vets Republicans.

JOIN THE GOP AND GET IN THE GAME FOR RON PAUL TO WIN!

i guess the point is will they be genuinely any better

progressivism is based on emotion and not principles.. corruption is inherent in everything they do when size grows past a certain point.

John et al

Thanks for all the responses. If I might exegete my own post for a moment. I wrote a paragraph about some ideas I have about potential areas of compromise between libertarians and progressives on economic issues. That was not the thesis.
My proposal was very simple, but first a bit of background: Ron Paul has already set the precedent by being willing to fully fund entitlements for everyone over 25 years of age. If he were unwilling to compromise, he would have said that he would reject using any funds other than what is currently approve by law. Instead he has offered up half of the savings from reductions in overseas spending for the purpose of shoring up entitlements.
I have said that when Ron Paul's opt out proposal is rejected by congress as it almost certainly will be, that he designate those funds for the states to be used as they wish. This proposal would not add a dime to Paul's overall budget plan. It would shift power away from the the federal government towards the states. The states would have a chance to use it for tax reductions or education or infrastructure. It would actually set up a contest between more progressive states and more libertarian states to see which economic policies work best. This is a very modest proposal which calls for no more compromise in principles than Ron Paul has already proposed.
It has the added value of sweetening the pot, as one of you said, for progressives to come on board. It could bring on board enough to give Paul the nomination and the election something that the Blue Republican strategy has thus far failed to do. (I do not want to undermine Robin Koerner's noble efforts but rather to point out that it fails to address a big issue that holds progressives back). Progressives would love to get the kind of cuts in militarism that Paul is talking about but they are dubious of supporting a candidate who seems to be threatening every domestic value progressives hold dear.
Finally, look at the real polls, not the straw ones. Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination, let alone the election unless he has a big surge in progressive infiltration of the GOP primaries.
Do you really want the perfect that you want Ron Paul to do to destroy the good that Ron Paul could do if he got elected? Do you want to win or do you want the smug sectarian satisfaction of not having your hands dirtied and all the while government grows under Romney? Do you really want to win?

Kucinich has worked with Paul

And I'm surprised he hasn't endorsed him yet. That'd be the proof I think, Nader has basically endorse Paul. I think progressives have proved they are willing to compromise.

I think the question is how often do Libertarians vote Green when no they don't have a candidate of their own to vote for. During the 2010 election I notice a lot of people on here saying they voted Green in some races.

I'd support Sanders. I gave Kucinich money in 2008, and voted for Nader in 2000. I am voting for Ron Paul again (as I did in 2008).

Ron would probably endorse a third party candidate over Sanders in the theoretical election mentioned in the blog. However, if asked who was the "best Democrat" running, he'd probably go with the Anti-War candidate.

The coalition should be Republic vs. Empire. "Progressive" and "Libertarian" are too loaded, as I found out when trying to merge the terms last year.

Once we re-establish a Republic we can debate health care. (and within a Paul Presidency states can pursue public options).

Jack Wagner

This isn't Blue Republicans, this is a progressive guy

Who supports Ron, but keeps trying to sweeten the pot to bring in more progressives. It isn't the same as finding progressives who will decide on their own Ron is the best bet they have of achieving change. He/she is a separate voice from the Blue Republicans, though.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

right

[]

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Anti-war Progressives should vote for Ron Paul

A president Ron Paul could and would change America's foreign policy and end the America empire. A president Paul can do this without Congress.

As for everything else Ron Paul wants, that will take Congress.

My experience with the Progressive Left has been disappointing. They seem hung up wanting More Taxes to go to government, a government that they correctly point out is owned and controlled for the benefit of the 1%. So, they will strengthen the government with more of our tax money. A government that is not theirs and is working against all of our interests. Yet they do not see a disconnect here.

Next, because Ron Paul wants to starve the federal empire beast of the Income tax they get mad and ignore that a Paul Presidency could only do one thing, end the Empire. A ron Paul Presidency could not end the Income Tax. Again a disconnect. SO Progressives are going to work against the "racist", "ProLife", "Anti-Tax" Ron Paul becoming President and allow President Obama to continue on with the American Empire of more wars and innocent lives lots...again a huge disconnect.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Thank you for the constructive comments. I just want to make it

clear, tho, I don't agree with any of these compromises. I am a supporter of the Blue Republicans but they don't even consider compromises. Also, about mid-way thru the blog I realized the proposed compromises were merely Union-saving propositions: unconscionable. But informing in all.

Thank you again. I could've saved some some time had I said that to begin with.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

reedr3v's picture

I first want to state how very much

I appreciate the work you are doing, and the thinking behind that work.
Here are the reasons I can't support your compromise suggestion: the majority of progressive to date have revealed themselves as unprincipled as NeoCons. Each camp folded their earlier principles as soon as their side got power.
Even the best of the best progressives, Kucinich, knuckled under, with only weak resistance, to the bias of his base when push came to shove. And the best of the best still supports the party even when it comes to the worst of the worst: wars of aggression foreign and domestic (such as the drug wars and, from my view, wars against the people by taxes, regulations, debt, and inflation that jail so many and even kill if people resist.)

So IMO it's not a matter of compromise between 2 equally principled groups with differing views. It is a compromise proposed between 1 principled group and an unprincipled group. this is not an equitable bargain.
You say that you see the Ron Paul camp as having already modified its positions to be acceptable to some of the GOP partisans. I think Ron Paul does not compromise but does emphasis points of agreement with both the Left and Right. Not compromise but an attempt to be inclusive and build coalitions, as he did with the Greens and Nader in the last presidential election.

I agree, the welfare/warfare state is supported by

both the Left and the Right, and the people who do not support the whole agenda are the ones we need to try to convince.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Excellant points, reedr3v, as usual-

I don't know if by 'you' you meant me. Really don't know who wrote this, they didn't say. But otherwise, I agree with your last paragraph, too.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Anyone with an account want to post this over there.

Please read all of my response. I hope you will find reasonable.
Anything NOT acceptable to progressives will probably STILL be passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a possible presidential veto. Second, why not first try President Paul's solutions? They may work MUCH better than you think. For example, if medical alternatives such as chiropractic and accupuncture can saves hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars over a decade, perhaps these choices would be encouraged, provided third-party bureaucrats from BOTH government and the private sector got out of the way. This would be the case in a truly free market medical industry. For Social Security, the Milton Friedman model in Chile provides relatively bigger retirement benefits, is self-supporting and doesn't steal benefits from those who have earned them just because they make a little too much money. Ron Paul is a man of principle. You can trust him to do what he says. That's more than you will get from anyone else. Remember, even Bernie Sanders compromised with Dodd-Frank.

Yes, I've seen it here too.

The thing is that they apparently don't think it's enough to get the war stopped.
They want the other half of their agenda for ridiculous liberal spending along with it.
Their "compromise" seems to be, they'll tell us that they'll vote for RP if he turns totally into a leftist nut.

Great.
It's essentially the same thing that all of the left wants.
Cut the military so they can continue their idiotic socialist spending programs.

Personally, I find RP's concessions on ramping down social spending to be more than I want to even accept.
I think for every dollar cut from military, there should be a dollar cut from social spending.
Make it even on both sides.

That last idea is Obama's

If you have read any of my posts here or on my blog, you know that I am calling for a net reduction in overall federal spending. We progressives do not want bigger or smaller government. We want better and more effective government which does the things through our collective resources which the private sector is unwilling or unable to do.

You may very well get your wish on the last item as Obama has agreed to it as soon as the super committee fails.

All that aside, the major point is: do you want to win or do you want to continue the same corporate duopoly rule. Progressives will never defeat this government by themselves and neither will libertarians. it will take a real coalition and the key ingredient that's lacking in building that coalition is a temporary, 4 year agreement about economic policy.

If each side continues to see the other as the winner taking all, this coalition will never materialize, Ron Paul will not be nominated or elected and the libertarian cause of less government will go no further than Obama and/or Romney will allow it.

This deal is more more appealing to me than it is to you but you have to admit it is much better than what either faction of the establishment is advocating. Time to stop allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

And look at the bright side, get Ron Paul elected and the debt comes down along with the size of the government and the unemployment rate to about 6.5 in November 2016. We progressives will be taking credit for it but with your man in the top spot, I'd bet on libertarians getting all the credit and win a landslide in 2016. You know you want to win Big T and you know I am right on the politics even if I am wrong on the policy. Come on just say, "I'm in." It want hurt a bit. Come on....

i would rather this "society" collapse than to "win" by

extending the life of this govt with ANY of it's violent/evil core intact. And intact it would be if progressives had any say. These people LOVE govt, and hence they LOVE violence (they want govt to FORCE people to behave as they approve, and to ASSAULT them if they resist).

I have MUCH more respect for petty thieves.
At least they have the guts to do the job themselves.

IF YOU HAVE SOME GREAT "VISION" FOR SOCIETY, THEN FORM A COMMUNE AND HAVE AT IT. BUT LEAVE ME THE F ALONE !!
Else, someone may pull you from behind that govt skirt and give YOU a taste of the violence that you wish on others.

In Your Dreams, Progressives

Ron Paul will never compromise on principle. His (our) goal is not to reform government or make it more efficient or work right. His goal is to repeal or eliminate as much of it as possible.

He will never, repeat never increase any general category of spending on anything.

I have progressive friends who are willing to form a coalition with Ron Paul supporters on common issues. That is a useful and valuable activity. But don't think for a moment that we will backtrack on any issue so as to diminish liberty, including economic liberty.

Many progressives seem to be plagued by the same inconsistency that neocons are plagued by. They can't see that the government which doles out billions of dollars in welfare benefits is the same inefficient, incompetent, corrupt government which carpet bombs foreign peoples. If you wish liberty on any issue, you will have to accept, via Karma, liberty on every issue.