"Blue Republicans" for Ron Paul

Some Independents and disaffected Democrats are registering as Republican to help boost Ron Paul's chances of winning the nomination. This apparently came about as the result of a Huffington Post column. Now Ralph Nader, though not endorsing Paul, is talking up the idea of the commonalities of Paul's agenda with that of the Progressives. Here's a little bit from a Nader interview on the subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There may be an insurmountable impasse between the camps on social-safety-net spending. “But,” Nader says, “you could get together on corporate entitlements, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts. Ron Paul is dead set against all that. So are a lot of libertarian-conservatives. In fact, it’s almost a mark of being a libertarian-conservative—in contrast to being a corporatist-conservative.”

“Do you read all these right-wing theoreticians?” he goes on. “Almost every one of them warned about excessive corporate concentration. Hayek did, [Frank] Meyer did, even Adam Smith did in his own way.” He leaves the mechanics of a left-libertarian political coalition to be sussed out later.

If the issues around which progressives and libertarians can coalesce, I ask Nader, are the most intractable, deeply entrenched problems, is he proposing that such a coalition would be more tenable than the one currently cobbling together the Democratic Party, with its many Blue Dogs and neoliberals?

“Exactly,” Nader says. “Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They’re on our side against the military-industrial complex. They’re on our side against Wall Street. They’re on our side for investor rights. That’s a foundational convergence,” he exhorts. “It’s not just itty-bitty stuff.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are some links. First the Huff Post column, then the Nader interview, then the Blue Republican facebook page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html?page=1

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/

http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican?sk=wall

 

It can't be based on principle.

Democrats have more in common with Gary Johnson than the crusty old paleo-con Paul.
Why isn't there a movement by lefties for Johnson?

 

Anybody but Romney..
then make sure you poll with Paul..
"Poll with Paul" does have a ring to it..

Comparable to "Vote for Paul" which they wouldn't do..

 

Java, I think Nader makes a good point here:

“Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They’re on our side against the military-industrial complex. They’re on our side against Wall Street. They’re on our side for investor rights. That’s a foundational convergence,” he exhorts. “It’s not just itty-bitty stuff.”

It's an entirely true statement. Nader, Kucinich, Paul, recognize that they share common, important goals and would work together to change some very fundamental problems with the country. There would still be a battle over entitlement spending, but why couldn't the progressives and libertarians form a collective voice against those issues?

 

Strategic voting. If Democrats help Paul win the primaries, they will assure Obama gets a second term.

 

That's nonsense. Are you suggesting Ralph Nader and other progressives are happy with Obama? I honestly believe that someone like Nader would be more content with a Ron Paul in office than an Obama.

 

Reminds me of something called "Operation Chaos". Call me suspicious.

 

Sorry, didn't see this until I posted.

 

But his ideas on economic and federal policy are more in opposition to progressive/liberal causes than the center-right (though, that seems to have either disappeared or is hiding behind ideologiy-flavored lies).
When considering a candidate, balance is important.
It's better to have a candidate that is moderately against everything you stand for than extremely for some things and extremely against others.

Is it worth it to get a civil rights policy you like if it means sending the welfare state back to the guilded ages and allowing states to impose theocracy (truth be told, Paul's deeper philosophy is more about states' rights paleoconservatism than anything else).

It doesn't make sense to me. When facing a choice of evils, you pick the one that does the least harm, not the one that might help in one issue and annihilate progress on another.

I think Nader and others just have the luxury of being above where all the pain will be felt, allowing them to ignore the fiscal/federal side of a Faustian bargain.

That's not what they want. It's what would happen, but it's not what they're aiming for. The left is really bad at assessing where public opinion is, at least if the typical HuffPo article is representative.

 

For Liberty for Peace for Prosperity. Any person from any of the United States should stand for this regardless of party. Standing for the Constitution the very basis of America.

 

They are Progressive and see any conservative ..even a Romney as a set back.

Now if it was a Paul /Obama deal many conservatives would just stay home..Obama wins.
Obama is as much a progressive socialist as anybody could ever dream of electing EVER again.

IF by some miracle Paul was to win..he would need to move far right.
Not left.

 

he wouldnt move anywhere, he'd be excatlly where he needed to be if he won on his platform.

 

There are many Cons who would stay home if there was a Romney vs Obama deal. That, or write in, just to make a point.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Paul is beating Obama.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Harris-poll-Romney-RonPaul/2011/09/27/id/412375

 

Exactly. Paul would be just Paul, wouldn't move with whichever direction the wind blows. Its what I so admire about him.
ANY other politician checks the latest polls first before rendering an opinion.

 

One has all the civil liberties one needs in America, drug use is a "right" America doesn't need.

There is no such thing. That's a leftist/libertarian conspiracy theory that somehow became accepted wisdom.

What to make stock trading, banking and other financial services non-profit, or failing that make it as low-profit as humanly possible?

Investors have rights proportionate to the percentage of total stock they own.

No, they all share common conpsiracy theories that have absolutely no touch with how the real world works.

There is something in the world called RealPolitik and none of the men listed above practice it. They are ideologues, not men who engage in pragmatic, politically workable policy.

 

No, we aren't. But we would rather have Obama than anyone in the Republican field right now.

 

Of course. What you really want is El Presidente for Life Hugo Chavez, or at least an American form of him. That's why the left wants porous borders. The more hispanics from Latin America we have, the greater the chances of us electing a Latin American Socialist for President.

 

Middle Left Lie-bertarianRINOs for Paul

 

We have a great country. No one makes you vote for him.

 

But you are compeled to vote Democrat ?

 

Conspiracy theorists talk about it a lot, but it's actually a theory developed by C. Wright Mills and while it's connected to the political sociology theory of "elitism (the nation is run mostly by elites... as opposed to "pluralism")", it's not about conspiracies but rather about how our institutions are set up and the consequences of that setup.
Basically the military, the bureaucracy, and industry are what Mills thought to be the three most powerful interest groups in the nation. As such, sympathetic members of those groups met up a lot in political circles, engaging in group-think. It's not a conspiracy to run the world-- it's just the fact that certain people, with sincere beliefs and similar interests, were more often in the positions where they would be making decisions. And the groups beccame somewhat intertwined.

It doesn't so much lead to "wars for oil" as much as... government contracts for military weapons that are already obsolete! But the potential was noted that it might lead to the military intervening, with policymakers assistance, when business interests were in danger. Not because of conspiracy, but just because the people in those positions are in positions of power and their opposites are not.

I'm butchering this really, but the primary difference between this and a conspiracy theory is that a conspiracy theory involves conscious plotting by individuals to seize power.
In the military-industrial complex model, it's the positions themselves that lead to the results, no matter who holds them. Positions shape interests and outlooks through organizational culture and the kind of information that comes through (and that which doesn't).

The real lesson of the military-industrial complex is that we need transparency and a variety of voices involved in policy. Who's against that?
And the idea has actually expanded into a more general political science model called a power triad. There are other examples (unions, businesses, and a local government for instance could form a power triad that causes certain pro-industry biases to prevail).

 

I never felt Nadar to be a liar and what he's talking about is a coalition that is more palatable to more voters than either the far left or far right, which alienates a huge swath of Americans.

This whole thing gives me hope that Paul may have a real shot as an Independent even if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. I think most Americans of either party are not as extreme as their party is. This means that either party that may win carries a false mandate into office that doesn't really serve those that voted for them, except the extreme fringes.

All in all, I kinda like this turn of events. It should be seen as a warning shot across the bow of both parties. About danged time, too.

 

Globalized Trade and Capitalism are an absolute necessity for every single person in every single developed country in the world to survive. It is simply not possible for a small business to provide the logistical and transportation infrastructure necessary for globalized trade that takes Bauxite from Africa, ships it to somewhere else to be processed into aluminum then ships it China where it is fashioned into products then ship those products to American store shelves.

We absolutely have to have Globalism.

Now that we have established that. The globe is an unstable place, full of mean people who would love nothing more than to see America, or the Western world as a whole, punished for some perceived insult or wrongdoing in the past or present. They can do that by destabalizing the globalized economy.

These bad actors can make all kinds of serious mischief around the word by supporting terrorism, mass revolts or other forms of social disorder among their various neighboring countries that simply destabalize the world economy and cause economic hardship in America and other Western Nations.

When that happens, and such bad actors refuse to stop destabalizing the global marketplace and harming the quality of life of developed nations we all rely on as a matter of life and death.. then one must have the military power to remove such bad actors from power and enforce stability.

(*)(*)(*)(*) straight business and military are interlinked on the global stage, there is no other way to provide stable business opportunities that businessmen can invest in and no other way to keep products on store shelves that otherwise wouldn't be there if a war or revolt breaks out somewhere.

Peace is not the natural human instinct, war is. The only way Peace breaks out is when someone else is to scared to go to war in the first place.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/209609-paul-leads-obama-latest-poll.html

Jimmy Carter Back-In-Black is going to lose in a landslide to whomever gets the Republican nomination......kiss any notion of a second term for The Kenyan Tyrant goodbye.
.
.