GOP Primary Megathread!

[Neil]

The dead baby thing will bring him down.

This is the Republican primary.  The party is full of freaks who think that a fetus is a person.

But a dead one?  That's creepy even for them.

They have websites about that sort of thing, don't they?

[Razgovory]

Probably.  They have websites for everything.

[Tamas]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html

Some quotes I find interesting:

The most perplexing character in Congress, ideologically speaking, is Ron Paul. This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn't play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy, he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins. You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve. And as I've drilled into Paul's ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.

....This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul's stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It's quite obvious that there isn't one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn't be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there's no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.

What we're seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.

[CountDeMoney]

he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins.

Bullshit.  Jerry Brown's been saying that since '74.

[Sheilbh]

he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins.

Bullshit.  Jerry Brown's been saying that since '74.

[CountDeMoney]

So I'm watching Morning Joe on MSNBC, they're broadcasting from Iowa today, and Michelle Bachmann is on.

Man, she is a total goof.  I AM THE ONLY GOP CANDIDATE IN THE RACE WITH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE

Yes, she just said that.

[DGuller]

Santorum claims he has a record of having Democrats and independents vote for him, and Romney doesn't.  Which state was Romney the governor of again? 

[Neil]

Santorum claims he has a record of having Democrats and independents vote for him, and Romney doesn't.  Which state was Romney the governor of again? 

We've reached the 'flat out lie' section of the election cycle.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Santorum claims he has a record of having Democrats and independents vote for him, and Romney doesn't.  Which state was Romney the governor of again? 

We've reached the 'flat out lie' section of the election cycle.

Reached?

[Razgovory]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html

Some quotes I find interesting:

The most perplexing character in Congress, ideologically speaking, is Ron Paul. This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn't play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy, he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins. You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve. And as I've drilled into Paul's ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.

....This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects. Ron Paul's stance should be seen as a challenge to better create a coherent structural critique of the American political order. It's quite obvious that there isn't one coming from the left, otherwise the figure challenging the war on drugs and American empire wouldn't be in the Republican primary as the libertarian candidate. To get there, liberals must grapple with big finance and war, two topics that are difficult to handle in any but a glib manner that separates us from our actual traditional and problematic affinity for both. War financing has a specific tradition in American culture, but there is no guarantee war financing must continue the way it has. And there's no reason to assume that centralized power will act in a more just manner these days, that we will see continuity with the historical experience of the New Deal and Civil Rights Era. The liberal alliance with the mechanics of mass mobilizing warfare, which should be pretty obvious when seen in this light, is deep-rooted.

What we're seeing on the left is this conflict played out, whether it is big slow centralized unions supporting problematic policies, protest movements that cannot be institutionalized in any useful structure, or a completely hollow liberal intellectual apparatus arguing for increasing the power of corporations through the Federal government to enact their agenda. Now of course, Ron Paul pandered to racists, and there is no doubt that this is a legitimate political issue in the Presidential race. But the intellectual challenge that Ron Paul presents ultimately has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with contradictions within modern liberalism.

Liberals can answer his ideas, but it's much easier and fun to find the juicy racist newsletters, or his wild conspiracy theories, or him shilling for the John Birch Society.  His biggest thing is fiat money.  Destroying the federal reserve to return to money back by gold, or oil, or pork-bellies or what ever is a terrible idea.  Akin  to Jackson destroying the Bank of the United States.  The liberal alliance with mass mobolizing warfare ended in the late 1960's.  We don't even have mass mobilizing warfare anymore.  It's not like we were drafting people for the Iraq adventure.

[Zanza]

When will we know the results from Iowa?

[DGuller]

When will we know the results from Iowa?

Tomorrow evening, American time.

[Admiral Yi]

Seems to me the author of Tamas' articles is trying to draw a connection between Paul's gold standard plank and the OWS abolish the Fed slogan, as well as Paul's neo-isolationism and the peacenik abolish the military position.

[Sheilbh]

Seems to me the author of Tamas' articles is trying to draw a connection between Paul's gold standard plank and the OWS abolish the Fed slogan, as well as Paul's neo-isolationism and the peacenik abolish the military position.

Well there's obviously a link.  I think the article's got a lot of truth to it. 

I'd add that in addition to opposing the drug war, war in general, opposition to the bank bailouts and the Fed, that Paul is probably the most civil libertarian candidate around.  Far moreso than Obama and I've always said civil libertarians are the one group who should be rightly outraged at Obama's betrayal.  Paul stands for quite a lot that the left - as opposed to just centre-left - has long argued for, it's no coincidence that he's often co-sponsored bills with Bernie Sanders - I think it's simply infuriating for them that he's coming at it from a different perspective while they're trying to defend their President for a series of policies they'd decimate Bush for.

[alfred russel]

Some of the new polls apparently have Santorum in a statistical dead heat for the lead.