Ralph Nader Hearts Ron Paul, Hails Potential Left-Libertarian Alliance

Michael Tracey, who wrote about restrictive teen-driving laws in the June issue of Reason, catches up with the consumer crusader for The American Conservative:

Looking ahead to the 2012 presidential race, one might assume that Nader has little to be cheerful about.

Yet he says there is one candidate who sticks out—who even gives him hope: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. [...]

"Look at the latitude," Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. "Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that's a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good."

I thought I'd bring up the subject of Ron Paul with Nader after seeing the two jointly interviewed on Fox Business Channel in January. Nader had caught me off guard when he identified an emergent left-libertarian alliance as "today's most exciting new political dynamic." It was easy to foresee objections that the left might raise: if progressives are in favor of expanding the welfare state, how well can they really get along with folks who go around quoting the likes of Hayek and Rothbard?

"That's strategic sabotage," Nader responds, sharply. "It's an intellectual indulgence....If they're on your side, and you don't compromise your positions, what do you care who they quote? Franklin Delano Roosevelt sided with Stalin against Hitler. Not to draw that analogy, I'm just saying—why did he side with Stalin? Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted." [...]

"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." [...]

There are nascent movements underway to bring disaffected progressives into Ron Paul's fold. A new organization called Blue Republican, advertised on the Huffington Post and elsewhere, urges Democrats to pledge their support for Paul. While Nader isn't willing to endorse Paul's candidacy at this point, during our interview his praise grew increasingly effusive. "Ron Paul has always been anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts," Nader says. "I mean, they view him in the same way they view me on a lot of these issues. Did you see the latest poll? He's like two points behind Obama."

Whole thing here, including some interesting Ron Paul quotes about his approach to religion.

Reason on Ralph Nader here, on Ron Paul here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Caption Contest

    "Introducing the cover for the 35th anniversary edition of Dawn of the Dead."

  • ||

    "C'mon Ron, just give me some samples! I just can't discuss my ED with my doctor."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I already captioned this, like, a year ago.

    "You got your corporation in my government!"

    "You got your government in my corporation!"

  • ||

    Two great rapes that rape great together.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Dayzhavoo!

  • ||

    1. We are BROKE!
    2. Ron Paul wants to save money!
    3. Nader wants money for social programs!
    4. We are Broke!
    5. Ron Paul is elected President and trillions saved from the Wars fill our Coffers.
    6. Nader throws President Paul under the bus and every Democrat jumps on a soap box yelling for money to replenish Social Programs.
    7. Ron Paul Vetos.
    8. The next President has lots of money to demagogue for votes and passes the saved money out to his friends and buys votes with it.

    Liberty given then Squandered by the next Generation.

  • waffles||

    better to Liberty and lost than never Liberty at all

  • CT||

    Good job.

  • some guy||

    "We're just two wild and crazy guys! Also old. Very... old."

  • emmajane||

    +1

  • Brian D||

    Paul and Nader are the Statler and Waldorf of American politics.

  • ||

    well, if Nader's on board then Paul is sure to win....wait, what?

  • Mark||

    two old farts

  • ||

    That's nice, but the lefties know that we are not on their side on their one true passion: the welfare state. And it's a deal-breaker for them. So this "foundational convergence" is going nowhere.

  • Mr. Mark||

    A Left-Libertarian alliance?

    I'm nowhere NEAR dumb enough for this to make any sense to me.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    DO NOT WANT

  • fish||

    Didn't we just go through the whole Liberaltarian Alliance nonsense in 2008?

  • Jesse Walker||

    An alliance between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader seems somewhat different than an alliance between Brink Lindsey and Austan Goolsbee.

  • Joe R.||

    Still, just how many progressives have been proposing defense cuts? Protesting Obama's war in Libya? Suggesting repealing the Patriot Act? I'm sure there have been some here and there, but progressive silence on the issues libertarians supposedly agree with them on (War on Drugs? 4th amendment?) is deafening.

  • cynical||

    Progressives are a part of the left, not the entirety of it. They're to the left what neocons are to the right (literally, in the case of some political charts).

    Ideally, we'd create some kind of deathmatch arena for the Krauthammers and Kristols of the world to square off against the Krugmans and Kleins. I would say that's unfair to the one in the wheelchair, but he's still probably better than Ezra.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Ha, Better Than Ezra: also a band.

  • ||

    Drudge is linking this Harris Poll that has Ron Paul *up* 2 points on Obama.

  • kilroy||

    Gary Johnson not given as an option... again. Why would you include Huntsman and Santorum and leave Johnson out?

  • fish||

    Why would you include Huntsman and Santorum and leave Johnson out?

    You can include all the future losers that you want in a poll or debate. Always better to muddy the waters!

  • KL||

    Nader:

    They're on our side for investor rights.

    That little quip was off my Nader radar.

  • AF||

    "Nadar"

  • Digital Ruse||

    Beware Romans bearing gifts.

  • that would be Greeks||

    Greeks bearing gifts.

  • GSL||

    Cosmotarians!

    Seriously though, the whole "left libertarian" meme is wishful thinking. Most lefties don't give a crap about civil liberties or the military-industrial complex unless a Republican is in the White House. And they have a basic problem with the idea that people should be allowed to control their own lives and keep their own money; that alone should be a deal-breaker for libertarians.

  • cynical||

    "Most lefties don't give a crap about civil liberties or the military-industrial complex unless a Republican is in the White House."

    And yet, with a Democrat in the White House, Nader has kind words for a libertarian Republican.

    Frankly, as someone who was thinking positive thoughts about Bernie "openly socialist" Sanders when I was writing a comment about Democrat support for TARP (he was agin it, and was Paul's ally in getting the Fed audited), I can sort of see how he feels.

  • Amakudari||

    That segment of the left exists, but it's small. For the most part, the anti-war left stopped caring about war once Obama came into office, but the lefties who honestly believe it's wrong are still out there.

    It would still be an awful coalition, as they're few in numbers (fewer than libertarians, possibly) and disagree on almost everything economically, but they are out there.

  • jtuf||

    + 10 to GSL

  • ¢||

    Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted.

    Not sure if serious.

    Didn't we just go through the whole Liberaltarian Alliance nonsense in 2008?

    In years when Republican prospects are good, All Good Libertarians have to suck it up and vote D to divide government, because Republicans Be Crazy Yo. In years when Republicans look like they're gonna get trounced and leave us with a divided government, All Good Libertarians have to vote D to teach the Republicans a lesson, because...whatever. Mexicans or something.

    NEXT

  • Brett L||

    So should Ron Paul be more insulted by being analogized to Stalin or FDR?

  • JD the elder||

    "Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted."

    You can almost hear Nader going, "Wait, that's not really what I meant, I mean, uh...can you strike that? I want to rephrase that..."

    "Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side against Wall Street."

    If Nader really thinks he and Ron Paul have the same view of Wall Street, he hasn't been paying very close attention.

  • Brandon||

    They are both on the side of not stealing money from the middle class to give to Wall Street. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.

  • Alan||

    The one thing that unites the likes of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader (and their supporters) is the combination of honesty and empathy. Both sincerely want to do right by the people.

    The difference, of course, lies in their beliefs as to how to do that.

    The differences are significant, but recognition of the similarity rightfully allows for mutual respect.

  • #||

    "If Nader really thinks he and Ron Paul have the same view of Wall Street, he hasn't been paying very close attention."

    This is because liberals have a way of alwasy looking at things as one group vs the other. Nader can't comprehend that that Paul is against bailing out and giving special priveledges to wall street. To him that must mean he is against wall street.

  • Amakudari||

    Well, since both were against TARP and for letting investment banks fail on their own terms, I can see how the more consequentialist left would see things that way.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I applaud Nader for being ideologically consistent.

    Trust me, if Ron Paul did win the Republican nomination, prepare for some retarded PRO-war, PRO-corporate welfare analysis and support from Michael Moore and Bill Maher..

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82WKtGjJBA Now, all we need is for Ron Paul to visit Sesame Street and warn Big Bird and Elmo about the shitty monetary policies of the Federal Reserve.

  • ranting ranter||

    if Ron Paul won the nomination, the left (aka the media) would "discover" that he's a pro-slavery racist.

  • cynical||

    He can just say that that what he actually supports is "mandatory volunteer service", and the only question they'll have about newsletters is if he has one and can they subscribe.

  • ||

    COnsidering Solyndra is a huge recipient of corporate welfare, I'll bet dollars to donuts there already is prenty of pro-corporate-welfare rhetoric emananting from both of their mouths.

  • Joe M||

    Caption: ¿Quién es más Rumpled?

  • ||

    Nader likes Paul?

    Damn.

    Just when I was thinking Paul might have a chance.

  • JOhnny MAckson||

    The clothing bill would be a record low for these two. They'll just keep borrowing hand-me-downs from a local high school's drama club. LOL

    Jess
    www.anymouse.com

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    You've got that right, anon-bot!

  • ||

    This was a very non partisan article. Neocons will love to share this article as proof that Ron Paul is a "Liberal." The meaning "Classical Liberal" like our founding fathers who supported Liberty is lost in translation to intellectually bankrupt Neocons. Let us also make it clear that Ron Paul is not changing his views to accommodate the Progressive Left who want a welfare state. The Progressive Left just feel that they can get one step closer to finding funds for their welfare state if that money was not tied up in Wars. If I was a betting person I would say if Ron Paul was elected and the troops where brought home, 50% of the saved money from demilitarization would be spent on the debt and the Progressive left would get to enjoy 50% which would fill the coffers of social programs that were promised to those who had already paid into a program and are expecting that money when they retire.

    The bottom line is that there is no money to fight over right now. Bring home the troops and when the coffers start filling up they will throw Dr. Paul under the bus faster than you can say Fluggen-kliggin-kien.

  • Apatheist||

    "50% of the saved money from demilitarization would be spent on the debt and the Progressive left would get to enjoy 50% which would fill the coffers of social programs that were promised to those who had already paid into a program and are expecting that money when they retire."

    So 100% to the debt then?

  • RobSmalls||

    +1

  • WWNGD?||

    "See Emily Play" 'neocon!' 'neocon!' 'neocon!'

    They left always throws people away when they are done using them.

  • The thing is....||

    .....modern progressives regard military expansionism as a social program to receive massive funding...just another wing of the welfare state...

  • Maxine Waters||

    The Progressive Left just feel that they can get one step closer to finding funds for their welfare state if that money was not tied up in Wars.

    Amen, sister Emily. I been sayin' this forever.

  • shawn||

    Too bad Ron's son is just a tea bagging sell out and not interested in curbing corporate well fare or the take over of the world by Goldman Sacks.

  • Apatheist||

    Citation needed.

  • Sacks and Bags||

    you sure 'bout that?

  • Pen0r||

    Too bad penis is just tea bagging penis and not interested in penis curbing corporate penis well fare penis or the take over of the world by penis.

    FTFY

  • ||

    Left-libertarian alliance? Sure. That makes as much sense as a matter-anti-matter alliance.

  • ||

    I've always believed that it's easier to out-argue the Left with economics than it is to convince the Right to give up entrenched, emotional hawkism, corporatism and closedmindedness. Really, political alliances with whichever party is out of power is more logical, but that doesn't mean that the principled members of the party in power can't be convinced of forming alliances on issues of agreement.

  • ||

    Yes, but note that the GOP can house the Pauls and Gary Johnson.

  • ||

    And that's not an endorsement of any right-libertarian alliances, either. What I'm saying is that there is a small, but legitimate population of libertarians in the GOP (the RLC being their face).

  • ||

    jesus. just fucking look at what the left has done on college campuses with "speech codes" etc. and tell me there is ANY hope with these fucksticks.

  • ||

    Anecdotally, I went to arguably the most Marxist school in the US (constantly listed as the most left-wing in the nation in many of the college guides). While universally Leftist, the people there were still on average more libertarian during the Bush years than most of the Republicans I knew. Of course, that's easy when you're out of power. I wrote a weekly libertarian column in the campus paper that usually received anything from shrugs to acclaim, but very little virulence even as I challenged their statist policies as thoroughly as I criticized Bush's.

    I don't think the Left realizes how self-defeating their policies are to their desired ends, but they aren't intrinsically anti-freedom; their overidealism and generally shoddy understanding of market economics leads them to prioritize other things before freedom. However, freedom and its correspondent value - responsibility - accomplishes the ends they desire more efficiently and more deeply with little need for authoritarian government structures. For instance, if economic decentralism is their goal, political control is the worst possible way to accomplish this, and competition is the best.

  • ||

    Madison?

  • ||

    Warren Wilson

  • SIV||

    Goddard's got ya beat.

    EVERY Warren Wilson grad I've met (plenty) is an arrogant, elitist prick.
    I will say in the school's favor that they seem to provide a very good education. If I was filthy rich and hard borderline retard offspring I'd send them to Warren Wilson.

  • ||

    LOL. Yeah, it's a great place if you want to pay $30k for four years to become a professional summer camp counselor. I'm serious - "outdoor leadership" was the second most popular major.

    But I'd say WWC kids are generally pretty nice, intelligent folks, but yeah, with wealth, lack of political diversity and left-wing utopianism comes arrogance and hypocrisy as well. I liked it there for the most part, but all students have to work for minimum wage for 15 hrs per week and all money goes to tuition, leaving little ability to get actual jobs that would pay better and put money in your pocket. Meaning mommy and daddy generally have to subsidize everything.

    For a such self-congratulatorily progressive school, I watched just about all my lower-middle class friends being forced to drop out.

  • sevo||

    "I don't think the Left realizes how self-defeating their policies are to their desired ends, but they aren't intrinsically anti-freedom;"

    You're more 'optimistic' of the left's desired ends than am I.

  • ||

    I've been around them a lot, and so I tend to distinguish the idealistic green hippies from the calculating statists in power.

  • sevo||

    Proprietrist,
    I live in SF; I'm *surrounded* by them. Not sure what you see as green hippies; the ones I encounter absent calculation are 'entitled' hypocritical twits.
    I'm not going to search for it, but the guy who 'owns' Burning Man is now considering selling it, and *not* at his self-proclaimed dollar limit.
    But you see, he's a *modest* man, having lived in a rent-controlled apartment for all these years, subsidized by the owner.
    How, well, sleazy!

  • ||

    Well, I live in Texas where just about every conservative I know thinks we should enshrine gay discrimination into the Constitution, grow our military even more so we can kill more swarthy people overseas, and ship every illegal back to Mexico no matter how many rights the State has to violate or families they have to break up to do so. And then they claim to be limited-government Christians. So, hypocrisy cuts both ways.

    The difference for me is that the Left approaches things from an idealistic "let's all be respectful to each other and cooperate" mentality that morphs into pseudo-authoritarianism. When you're an idealist, you're destined to be a hypocrite - especially when your idealism has no basis in economic reality and is grounded in the notion of entitlement.

    The Right tend to strike me as just being closedminded dicks whose authoritarianism manifests in different distasteful ways. They may speak limited government rhetoric, but I've yet to see it in practice, ever.

  • sevo||

    "Well, I live in Texas where just about every conservative I know thinks [etc]"
    Really have no gripe with that comment, other than you left out the equally obnoxious claims about 'jesus told me'. Suffice to say I agree.
    ---
    "The difference for me is that the Left approaches things from an idealistic "let's all be respectful to each other and cooperate" mentality that morphs into pseudo-authoritarianism. When you're an idealist, you're destined to be a hypocrite - especially when your idealism has no basis in economic reality and is grounded in the notion of entitlement."
    Got a problem here. I see both as 'idealistic' and neither as recognizing that their 'idealism' *requires* others to agree with them.
    ---
    "The Right tend to strike me as just being closedminded dicks whose authoritarianism manifests in different distasteful ways. They may speak limited government rhetoric, but I've yet to see it in practice, ever."
    Add "Left" to you first sentence and I'm with you all the way.
    To make it clear, either Johnson or (maybe Paul; his jesus crap makes me nervous) gets the GOP nomination, or I'm 'wasting' another vote.
    By comparison, there is NO Dem candidate that I'd consider.

  • ||

    "Got a problem here. I see both as 'idealistic' and neither as recognizing that their 'idealism' *requires* others to agree with them."

    I don't disagree - that's why it morphs into pseudoauthoritarianism.

    "To make it clear, either Johnson or (maybe Paul; his jesus crap makes me nervous) gets the GOP nomination, or I'm 'wasting' another vote.
    By comparison, there is NO Dem candidate that I'd consider."

    I'm with you, but there were multiple Democrats talking the talk when Bush was in power. Libertarians had to pick a side, but I still think picking the Right was erroneous. To me, the failure of libertarianism is the fact that they didn't make the case to the Left that competition in true free markets (without state-protected incorporation) is a superior force for economic decentralism than centralized government, which worsens economic centralism.

    Also, I'd prefer Nader or Kucinich in many ways over many of the Republicans running (Johnson and Paul aside), especially if the GOP could keep Congress. They could do severe damage to the drug war, the Patriot Act, our overseas military adventurism and corporate welfare/the military-industrial complex, which is more than I'm expecting from, say, Mitt Romney.

  • ||

    Hear, hear Proprietrist. The left-libertarian movement is not new and one would think that Reason readers would be more familiar with what's going on in liberty then to act surprised now, in 2011, at this news.

    I too can distinguish the green hippie types from the Nancy Pelosi's. I'd much rather choose to use economic logic to bring progressives to liberty than try to break through the strangling hold of religion and superstition. Facts can't crack that facade.

  • Zuo||

    You're a fool. Leftwing dirtbags are as closeminded as any evangelical ignoramous. Neither one responds to logic. If they did they wouldn't be what they are.

    Capitalism-sympathizers who are ambivalent or hostile towards religion are the best targets for libertarianization. And they will be, they just need to be shaken a bit. The left's most defining value is their opposition to capitalism and free markets. You can't fucking rationalize with those people. You'd have a better chance turning Egypt or Iraq into a secular capitalistic libertarian wonderland.

  • ||

    The left's most defining value is their opposition to capitalism and free markets. You can't fucking rationalize with those people. You'd have a better chance turning Egypt or Iraq into a secular capitalistic libertarian wonderland.

    This is it in a nutshell.
    Hatred of capitalism trumps civil liberties every time with these people. Just look at the individual mandate. If some aspect of personal liberty is interfering with their goal of universal healthcare ... it's the liberty that gets sacrificed, not the socialist goal.

    They will never ever, ever, put someones right to spend their own money above some social welfare goal, ever. End of story.

  • ||

    Zuo/Hazel,
    I doubt we'd convert hardened Marxists or the power hungry Nancy Pelosis and their sycophants. These are the kind of people who think libertarianism is worse than statist conservatism. Likewise, we'll never convert the Brooks and Frum neo-conservatives who'd prefer statist Leftists over Ron Paul.

    But I'd say a majority on the Left prefers libertarianism to conservatism, which means we already have one foot in the door. The second part involves fully extrapolating that in a free market without the distortion of state incorporation, enterprise will generally be smaller and more decentralized, business risk and externalities would be internalized and "corporate" criminals would not be exempt from personal responsibility for actions in the name of a business. The regulatory state primarily treats negative effects of state-created market distortions and ends up squelching small business while elevating big business. Adam Smith, Tom Paine, etc. were on the "Left" - they saw free markets as the best means to maximize freedom and expand both economic mobility and wealth for the working class. I think the Left would be more receptive if we don't approach them confrontationally like right-libertarians tend to do.

  • ||

    Well, there are some who might be sympathetic if we rephrased the argument as one about fairness (uniform simple rules), and justice (courts that enforce all contracts equally, laws that treat all businesses equally). I've been trying to do that.

    However, the statists and the central planners pretty much have control over the media that most of the left consumes. They've got so much influence over the saner left-liberals that they can convince them to just tune out anyone that says anything about free markets. You know, any information from FOX news is automatically discounted. CATO is a "corporate" think tank, so nothing they say is valid. They've pretty much trained them all to tune out any information that isn't from an approved statist-left source.

  • Tony||

    If you can predict a person's position before they say it because they represent certain interests then why should you listen to them?

    If your ideas aren't selling it's not for lack of access--see FOX News. Claiming victimhood at the hands of the liberal conspiracy (all those liberal corporations that own news outlets) is the last refuge of a bad idea.

  • ||

    Some like Glenn Greenwald and Nat Hentoff are still fighting the good fight, and I'd put Nader and Kucinich in the camp that, if not libertarian, is at least principled enough to hold their side accountable when they stray into militarism, corporate welfare and the the drug war.

    I just think there has to be tons of ex-Leftists who arrived at libertarianism after realizing how contradictory and counterproductive Leftist statist policies are and how far astray most progressive policies are from basic market economics, which you must fully understand in order to be able to criticize.

    There's plenty of tangible evidence to indicate free markets increase economic mobility; I have yet to see compelling proof that government does the same - in fact, government restricts economic mobility by restricting markets.

    Point being laissez faire, fully extrapolated, results in conditions closer to progressives' desired ends, while their own policies, especially in a democracy, result in more corporatism and oligarchy. Make that case strongly but respectfully to the more thoughtful/openminded progressives and you have a receptive audience.

  • The thing is...||

    The idealistic green hippies tend to vote for the calculating statists.

  • ||

    ...and then they complain about "The Man" keeping them down. I know. With better targeted messaging and emphasis on shared values, I think that can be changed over time.

  • cynical||

    The main problem is that a lot of our protections for thought and conscience were explicitly designed to protect against the threat of religions, as understood by the people of that society (ie, as monotheistic religions, particularly varieties of Christianity). Ideology wasn't much of an issue at all, at the time, given that the only significant ideology around wasn't competing with religions so much as refereeing.

    However, the brutality and oppression of the 20th century bears all the hallmarks of a particularly horrific sectarian conflict, with Fascism and Socialism standing for Catholics and Protestants. If we stopped treating religion and ideology as different (as far as the threats to freedom of thought/conscience, they are not), and expanded the first amendment's establishment/exercise clause to cover ideology, then public universities would have to act a little less like left-wing Bob Jones U.

  • Zuo||

    Be easier to just end "public" founding.

  • cynical||

    Politically? Doubtful.

  • moop||

    gawd you're a nerd. still, you have a point

  • Raston bot||

    Quick threadjack:

    Europe's proposed "Robin Hood" tax should be used to fight global warming says guy from Oxfam.

    Nicolas Mombrial, Oxfam International's EU policy advisor, was pleased to see the FTT [Financial Transaction Tax] moving near to reality. However, Oxfam does not want the EC to simply keep the cash to itself:

    An FTT is not a 'Robin Hood Tax' unless clear commitments are made to use the revenues for tackling climate change, and poverty at home and abroad.

    Lots of silly Euro stuff in this whole running commentary on the Greek debt talks.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/busi.....NETTXT8187

  • Apatheist||

    Won't that just move all the transactions to Switzerland, US, Singapore, Hong Kong,etc.? How retarded do they think these multinationals are?

  • sevo||

    Hey, the reporting costs will drop like a rock if you don't need info from the Bourse, Frankfort, and Zurich.

  • Lord Humungus||

    definitely not much love for Ron Paul in the standard 'pub circles.

    for example:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....ow-but.php

    from the comments:
    I saw RP a few debates ago. He looked and spoke like a kooky old guy.
    I have never understood his popularity among conservatives.

  • sevo||

    "from the comments:
    I saw RP a few debates ago. He looked and spoke like a kooky old guy.
    I have never understood his popularity among conservatives."

    Yeah, he doesn't, like, play basketball and stuff! He's not, like cool, ya know?

  • blintzes||

    he plays baseball and delivers babies. but he doesn't like war!? what the fuck is that shit about, fuck ron paul.

  • sevo||

    Yeah, he's not, like, "cool", ya know?

  • lol wut?||

    What an abortion of a blog. It accentuates everything about politics that I hate so damn much. These mental midgets, in chorus, vomit their self-proclaimed intellectualism with shit-strewn idiocy. Two Party's One Cup, our Republic should be called.

    "There is no such thing as a free market economy and free markets don't provide liberty. That is a myth. "

    Does this really need a rebuttal? FFS, it's Tony all over again. Common sense? Sorry, not over there. Because "free markets" means being free to shit on your hamburger and me somehow making a killing in profits. Perhaps government will bail me out 'cause my shit is too big to fail.

    "I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. That said, Dr Paul is simply too libertarian for my personal taste."

    Oh, STFU! You're a fucking neo-conservative, 'tard. Own it, bitch. Because being "too libertarian" means anarchy and goats fucking people on your front lawn.

    "How do I define "too libertarian"? Most of Ron Paul's positions."

    How do I define "too fucking retarded to breath air"? You, Dale Weeks. Libertarian leanings? Yeah, right. Just like Ellen Degeneres is a lesbian with penis leanings.

    Let's just get elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho and get this bullshit over with.

  • ||

    Like the `Two Parties, One Cup' line.

  • Colin||

    The left always love us when they're down. When they're up, not so much.

    Ditto for the right.

  • ptwalker||

    The point of alliance and compromise is that you yield on some things to gain an overall acceptable outcome. Can anyone picture Nader giving in to compromise? He will somehow be willing to say "sure I'll take less business regulation in exchange for greater civil liberties protection". The Progressive left has too much vested in the notion of the state providing all. The Republicans are equally full of shit in their attempts to court Libertarians. "Vote for us and we will sort out the differences later". Somehow the Libertarians are always the ones who need to compromise their values and vote for "their" guy: http://www.libertariansjustlik.....ld-be.html

  • sevo||

    "Can anyone picture Nader giving in to compromise? He will somehow be willing to say "sure I'll take less business regulation in exchange for greater civil liberties protection"

    I have a hard time believing the man gives a hoot about civil liberties, other than 'rights' to this, that and the other product or service.
    Nader on Citizens United:
    "[T]he U.S. Supreme Court gave carte blanche to the world's largest corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to support or oppose candidates for elected office."
    http://busmovie.typepad.com/id.....nited.html

  • ||

    But that's exactly what Citizens United did.

  • cynical||

    Actually, it just gave all of them that right. Certain favored corporations (most of which were biased toward Democrats, and all of which were biased toward the establishment) already had the right to spend their resources on publishing or broadcasting political commentary.

  • ||

    Too bad there's no love for Gary Johnson, who's even more progressive than Ron on gays, immigration, drugs and abortion. Support for legalizing those things is a lot more principled than falling back on federalist arguments.

    But honestly, as an ex-Green I've always preferred folks like Nader or Kucinich to the average Democrat or Republican authoritarian nuts. I don't agree with them on a great deal of things, but we converge more than we diverge, as Nader points out. Moreover, a free market inherently requires consumer advocates like Nader to uncover fraud and violations of rights as a check to business abuses.

  • ||

    I've sent him and Paul money. Nothing says love like money.

  • sevo||

    "Moreover, a free market inherently requires consumer advocates like Nader to uncover fraud and violations of rights as a check to business abuses."

    Care to explain how business can 'violate rights'?

  • ||

    i'll take a stab

    businesses can, as one example, violate people's property rights - by dumping chemicals that leach into other people's soil and water, for instance

    when businesses (like mining business) hired private security to bludgeon people , they also violated rights.

    i think you may be conflating constitutional rights w/rights.

  • sevo||

    "i think you may be conflating constitutional rights w/rights."

    Care to tell us the difference?
    The two you mention, assuming they happen, certainly don't need a Nader to 'uncover' anything. Plenty of ambulance-chasers made careers of corporate shake-downs.

  • ||

    if a company poisons your land, or a burglar breaks into your home, they are violating your property rights.

    it's not a constitutional rights violation for a # of reasons, primary being that the violator is not a govt. actor, and thus there is no constitutional violation, merely a violation of your property rights.

    PROPERTY rights are rights. you do realize that, right?

    if the govt. searches your property in violation of the 4th, that is a violation of your constitutional rights.

    if a private investigation firm hires a couple of guys to trespass on your property, take stuff out of your garage, etc. for evidence in a civil case, that is a rights violation - it is not a constitutional rights violation

    hth

  • sevo||

    "if a company poisons your land, or a burglar breaks into your home, they are violating your property rights.
    it's not a constitutional rights violation for a # of reasons, primary being that the violator is not a govt. actor, and thus there is no constitutional violation, merely a violation of your property rights."

    I think you're presuming the constitution 'grants' rights rather than recognizing them, property rights and contractual rights included.
    In your last example, you cannot bring suit against the government, but you certainly can against the individual or entity, and there's no need to specify which enumerated 'right' has been denied.
    And what's "hth"?

  • ||

    sevo, we have this thing called property rights. and i am well aware the constitution RECOGNIZEs not grants rights.

    the point is valid. a private company (or person) can violate rights.

    generally speaking, they do not violate CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

    lemme ask you a question? does it make sense to you to make the following statement: the burglar violated my property rights?

  • sevo||

    dunphy,
    "sevo, we have this thing called property rights. and i am well aware the constitution RECOGNIZEs not grants rights.
    the point is valid. a private company (or person) can violate rights."
    I stand corrected; entities other than government agents may violate rights.
    -----
    "generally speaking, they do not violate CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
    lemme ask you a question? does it make sense to you to make the following statement: the burglar violated my property rights?"
    Yes, the burglar violated property rights.
    The 'difference' I see is that an entity other than a government actor can be charged with violating property rights without bothering to mention them specifically; it's only when the government does so that the specific issue must be raised.
    The rights stand unalienable regardless of any specific claim referring to the constitution.

  • ||

    What are you talking about? It's way easier to admit you were wrong.

  • Zeb||

    Whether or not it has anything to do with rights, it is a good thing to have people who publicize information about dangerous or defective products. In doing so, Nader has done a lot of good. More information is good. The only problem is when he wants more government bureaucrats to deal with such things.

  • ||

    whatever one thinks about MADD, Nader, etc. - private citizens who have influenced legislation, regulation, and also helped changed attitudes, and in many have ways have caused companies to voluntarily (in addition to via regulation) change products ...

    look at driving.

    there are literally scores of thousands of people alive today who would not be alive if we had the same auto safety standards, lax DUI enforcement, etc. that we had several decades ago.

    in brief, accident fatality rates have falled from about 5 (per 100millionmilestraveled) to 1.27 over the last few years.

    LOTS of factors are involved... (for example, better trauma medicine), but a substantial amount of that drop is due to better product safety and better law enforcement (both detection and prosecution)

    those are undoubtedly good things.

    when you enter the public roadways, you are vulnerable to reckless, DUI, and incompetent drivers. the fewer of those there are, ceteris paribus, the safer you are.

    furthermore, given a collision, the design of your vehicle, the competence of EMT's/Paramedics/Cops/FF's etc. will also make a difference as well as the availability of lifeflight type services, etc.

    but it's pretty staggering to realize that you have a bit more than 1/5 the chance of dying now vs. a few decades ago for every mile driven

    considering also that vehicle fatalities far more often take TRUE innocents (iow people doing nothing wrong) than homicides (which are very often involving people involved in felonious activity, or payback by one scumbag on another etc.), these safety improvements truly help innocent people live.

  • ||

    when you enter the public roadways, you are vulnerable to reckless, DUI, and incompetent drivers

    Not to mention drivers with lights on their roofs, badges on their shirts, and tasers and Sigs on their belts which they have trouble telling apart.

  • ||

    MADD is also responsible for the idiotic 21 year old drinking age.

  • sevo||

    "In doing so, Nader has done a lot of good."
    Citation missing.

  • cynical||

    You know how the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

    Well, if rights only applied against your government, instituting a government to protect them would be perhaps the dumbest thing you could do. But they don't, they apply against all other people. A right is a moral concept, something that should not be taken from you, and if it is taken, makes the taker evil.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietarist,

    Too bad there's no love for Gary Johnson, who's even more progressive than Ron on gays, immigration, drugs and abortion.


    You mean Mr. Gary "Let's legalize only the soft ones and tax them" Johnson? That Gary? Him?

  • ||

    Incrementalism is not evil. I guess the morally superior thing to do is to let the statists continue their descent, while insisting that someday we'll convert a majority to the idea of legalizing heroin, crack and meth and then we can have it all at once? I think once you legalize marijuana and the sky doesn't fall, people will be more open to further legalization.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietarist,

    Moreover, a free market inherently requires consumer advocates like Nader to uncover fraud and violations of rights as a check to business abuses.


    Speaking of consumers being simply too stoopid and robotic to notice business malfeasance in a Galbraithan sort of way, I hope Oprah fans are happy that the totally excretable Rosy O'Donnell has a new show in OWN. I am sure they will also be too stoopid and robotic to do anything about it, like (oh, I don't know) switch channels...

    Maybe we need Nader as TV critic as well, to tell us what is good for us to watch. We're simply too stoopid...

  • ||

    There's a difference between "thinking we're too stupid" to make up our own minds, and uncovering fraud or warning about dangerous products. Fraud should be illegal, and as a consumer, I'd like to know about the dangerous side of products that the sellers have no intention of telling me about. That doesn't mean he's right to support regulation of dangerous products, but we aren't a truly free market where owners of businesses with full personal responsibility/liability have actual incentive to avoid (or at least warn about) dangerous products in the first place. If the government divorces profit from responsibility, it's no surprise companies act irresponsibly and fraudulently.

  • ||

    I agree with you on that. Nader's role as a watchdog has a legitimate role to play in a free market. I just wish he would stop at publishing consumer reports and not start demanding legislation.

    Why shouldn't informing people be sufficient?

  • ||

    My guess is that Nader would respond with the fact that these corporations, who now are guaranteed to be aware their products cause sickness/death/injury if they weren't already, continue to sell said products without warning consumers.

    It's not really outright fraud per se, but failing to notify customers that even proper use of their products will likely cause damages arguably dangles on that line between deception and caveat emptor. The company is taking advantage of consumer ignorance to earn profits they would not have earned if consumers had full information; for him, this might as well be fraud.

    For me, in a free market, fully liable business owners would have severe disincentive to bring products that are dangerous during proper use to market in the first place. Liability insurance companies as regulators would generally replace the need for a regulatory state, and companies avoiding disclosure of information revealed by consumer advocates like Nader will be punished with higher liability insurance rates.

  • Will||

    Jesus wears a wrist band that says “What Would Ron Paul Do?”

    While not a proctologist, Ron Paul will save this country’s ass.

    Ron Paul doesn’t go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.

    Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the
    Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom

    Ron Paul doesn’t pee. He liberates urine.

    Ron Paul turned down Superman’s job.

    When Chuck Norris gets scared, he goes to Ron Paul.

  • Laughingoninside||

    Please... Make it stop

  • Paul||

    Nader's just riding on Paul's coattails. Paul should shake Nader's hand, smile, and politely tell him to bugger off.

  • cynical||

    Didn't Paul encourage people to vote third party, generally, in the last election? I don't remember if Nader was a candidate at the time, though.

  • SIV||

    He endorsed Chuck Baldwin, who is a hell of a lot more consistently pro-liberty than Bob Barr.

  • sevo||

    "Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted."

    This man needs a refresher course in WWII and mid-century history.

  • DDavis||

    "They're on our side against..."

    Being the enemy of my enemy does not make you my friend. It's what you're for that matters, not what you're against.

  • Amphigorey||

    ""Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties..."

    No, he is NOT. Ron Paul is virulently anti-choice, which is anti-civilization. Keeping abortion legal and accessible is absolutely crucial for everyone's health and happiness. We have seen what happens when abortion is illegal, and it leads to horrible suffering and loss of life. Ron Paul cannot legitimately claim to be in favor of personal freedom while calling for women to be in chains.

  • Daniel||

    Just breathe in and out

  • ||

    May I introduce Gary Johnson...

  • SIV||

    and his coat hanger.

  • ||

    I think you're confused. Pro-choice advocates recognize banning abortion causes the coat-hanger black market. You mean all the other candidates, who'd rather a unwilling mother die in an alley?

  • zoso||

    Ron Paul does NOT want to make abortion illegal at the federal level and believes it is a state's rights issues.

    The man was an Obstetrician for crying out loud! He knows what will happen when abortion is made illegal and women will go to shady places to get it done, which is what he does not want.

  • Meaty Balls||

  • sevo||

    "Keeping abortion legal and accessible is absolutely crucial for everyone's health and happiness. We have seen what happens when abortion is illegal, and it leads to horrible suffering and loss of life. Ron Paul cannot legitimately claim to be in favor of personal freedom while calling for women to be in chains."

    Hyperbole's a bit much there. "Chains"? Really?
    BTW, I've argued in favor of some abortion being outside of government control; i.e. being a matter to be decided between the two actors.

  • ||

    "When abortion is illegal, it leads to loss of life." As opposed to when it's legal?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Amphigorey,

    Ron Paul is virulently anti-choice, which is anti-civilization.


    "Anti-choice" is code word for "abortion."

    By the way, your hyperventilating hyperbole is sure delicious - the very Roman civilization fell because of lack of abortions. Documented.

    Not.

    Keeping abortion legal and accessible is absolutely crucial for everyone's health and happiness.


    That tells me your parents were a sulking and ill lot - they had to be, they had YOU.

  • lol wut?||

    To think I thought Amphigorey was trollin'. Damn... not surprised this person's head is so full of not right.

  • ||

    Funny thing, in this moderne era, with it's PC intensity and it's endless focus on the sins against the Great Oppressed, I find very little documentation of the huge post-abortion death rate that must have existed prior to Roe v Wade. It doesn't seem to be there. Oh, wymyn's studies courses and advocates will hyperventilate over stories from that era, but there never seems to be a great number of these.

    In fact, it seems as if, prior to Roe v Wade, wymyn who got inconveniently pregnant didn't start searching for the local back alley clinic.

    But what did they do then?

    They had babies. And most went on to live normal lives.

    Only a very few sought out the illegal back alley abortionist, and, of those, only a few died. The majority simply got an abortion under less than ideal circumstances.

    Reality is never as exciting as hyperbole.

  • JFarque||

    That's a whole lotta "slouch" in one place...

  • ||

    Nader? Will always be the goon who killed the Corvair.

  • Obama's Volt||

    Maybe he'll kill me next.

  • Daniel||

    Its hard to see much good coming from an alliance with economic illiterates.

  • ||

    How about the chance to establish a dialog so that you can teach them economics?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Does anyone actually care what Nader thinks anymore:)

  • TLR||

    I always like hearing Ralph Nader's viewpoint. That he's a Ron Paul supporter is good news.

  • ||

    I really don't give a rats about Ralph Nader, but we should all heart Ron Paul.

  • Sudden||

    Eh, I like Ron Paul as an idealogue more than any person whose had a snowballs chance in hell at the oval office in my lifetime. But RP hardly seems like the shining beacon of liberty to me in terms of his delivery.

    He was on the Daily Show a few nights ago, and when confronted with a question of "should businesses be allowed to regulate themselves instead of having govt regulations" he essentially ceded the false choice point to Stewart. If he were a halfway decent purveyor of the libertarian message, he would've referenced regulatory capture, iron triangles, and barriers to entry placed by marketshare leaders that become regulatory czars vis-a-vis corrupt business/state alliances and said that govt regulations are written by industry leaders and meant to entrench the industry leaders at the expense of genuine competition. Or simply business =/= pro market.

  • ||

    I doubt you're typical of the audience he was trying to reach via the flerking Daily Show.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sudden,

    If he were a halfway decent purveyor of the libertarian message, he would've referenced regulatory capture, iron triangles, and barriers to entry placed by marketshare leaders that become regulatory czars vis-a-vis corrupt business/state alliances and said that govt regulations are written by industry leaders and meant to entrench the industry leaders at the expense of genuine competition.


    He did, Sudden. He did - watch the interview again.

    Granted, he could have given a better reply to Stewart to his original question (I posted a good answer in another post that made the sockpuppet's blood boil, which tells me it's ironclad.) But Paul did say that most regulations are artificial barriers to competition.

  • Joe M||

    Yes! I was so frustrated at that point in the conversation! He missed a golden opportunity to explain that business already are regulating themselves—or more accurately, their less well-connected competitors.

  • ||

    Don't see how could anyone not like Ron Paul, you don't have to agree with everything he says, but he's the only one running who actually understands what got us into this mass and how to get us out. People have to understand a lot before they can actually appreciate Ron Paul to the fullest and that includes journalists!

  • Meaty Balls||

    An alliance between libertarians and the left? What? Like the one with Bernie The Backstabber Sanders?

    You'll forgive me if I puke?

  • ||

    The right - left divide is only created to keep us divided. In reality they are both fascists. They use Government to print money to give to their friends on Wall Street and the military industrial complex. Look at the twins Obama and Bush. No difference between them.

  • ||

    The right - left divide is only created to keep us divided. In reality they are both fascists. They use Government to print money to give to their friends on Wall Street and the military industrial complex. Look at the twins Obama and Bush. No difference between them.

  • ||

    The right - left divide is only created to keep us divided. In reality they are both fascists. They use Government to print money to give to their friends on Wall Street and the military industrial complex. Look at the twins Obama and Bush. No difference between them.

  • lol wut?||

    Triple squirrel!

    Although, I agree.

  • ||

    I know many on the Left who are disilluisioned with the Democratic Party and have been for years. While they might not be ready to endorse Ron Paul they still have nice things to say about him.

  • ||

    LOL, when was Ron Paul "anti corporate"? Nader's just anti establishment for the sake of anti establishment. He would no doubt side with Obama in enacting all sorts of regulations and taxations on these corporate monsters to "protect the middle class".

    Nader the "consumer advoate" was ridiculed by John Stossel for years.

  • ||

    He said Paul was anti-corporate-welfare, which is absolutely correct. Obama is a huge fan of corp.welfare for corporations that help his agenda (Solyndra, GE, GM, etc).

    As long as regulations don't make their business completely impossible, Big Business loves them. That "historic" toy-testing legislation from a couple of years ago that was inspired by Mattel's quality control issues? Mattel opened up an in-house testing department and raised their prices a little bit to cover the cost, while your local mom-and-pop toymaker probably went out of business. That's a win for Mattel.

  • Max||

    Then there's the whole Ron Paul racist thing. That might make Nader take Paul's dick out of his mouth.

  • sevo||

    Max|9.28.11 @ 8:45PM|#
    "Then there's the whole Ron Paul racist thing..."

    Good GOIN', there, asshole!
    Not like your one-trick pony has been shot down many times.

  • Max||

    And haw has it been shot down, asswipe? Did you make the newsletters disappear?

  • lol wut?||

    That only thing that will make Max take his tin-foil hat off about a conspiracy over two decade old is if Ron Paul sucks Jesse Jackson's cock.

    You're a sick fuck, Max. Fuck off.

  • Max's Mom||

    Yeah Max. Just think, Nader can take his dick out of Ron Paul's mouth, and stick it in your ass. Just don't let him do it in my house. Go get a room.

  • lol wut?||

    Section 8 housing has a long waiting list, so Max will just have to fantasize about it, like everything else in life he'll never achieve.

  • MaxiePad....||

    ....still fascinated by rUan Paoul's Koch.

  • patrick||

    Obama is more of a racist that Paul.
    Racially biased drug laws....
    Bombing defenseless brown people in the middle east and africa....
    These things are much more subatantial that a few racist slurs..Oh Wait, those BS newsletters didnt even contain any slurs. Obama has done SQUAT for the black community. And he has definetly murdered many thousands of arabs. But i guess you think if theyre not american, theyre not people??? Right?? Sure, thats not racist.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Stoopid Arf Arf Max,

    Then there's the whole Ron Paul racist thing.


    What racist thing, imbecile?

    Nobody has been able to provide one single link to anything that Paul has said or written that is racist. None.

  • Max||

    Twenty fucking years of a racist newsletter that came out under his name? Jesus Christ, you true believers are something else.

  • lol wut?||

    Where you there when he wrote it? Oh, right. You were under his desk, giving his dog a blowjob at the time. My bad.

  • lol wut?||

    Btw - Nelson Linder, former NAACP President thinks you're a douche-nozzle, Max. Shall I believe a random basement dweller or someone who fought racism head-on? Yeah, easy choice. Try again, ya one-trick pony.

  • otherhmm||

    And what was said that is racist?

  • ||

    IMHO, I am amazed they both didn't disappear in a flash a of light like matter and anti-matter do.

  • F Hart||

    Now, if we could only get Elizabeth Warren on board.

    http://i.imgur.com/Bhj6B.jpg

  • Mr. Saveloy||

    Hilarious!

  • ||

    This is a great alliance.

    Ron Paul and the left want the same thing, they just believe in different ways of getting there.

    What they both want is a fairer society. The left believes the Government will ensure that while Ron Paul believes the Government mostly favors the elite and the mega rich. The left believes in a fairer government, Ron Paul believes government can never be fair. I tend to think Ron Paul is closer to the truth on this one. If you go behind the media and government propaganda then governments have never ever been fair to the poor. It looks ok for a while because the government spends borrowed or printed money but it is always the poor who end up picking up the tab in the end. The current crises is a good case in point. The Government and Wall Street are doing great while the people are losing their jobs and their houses. Same thing in Greece and so many other places.

  • MJ||

    "What they both want is a fairer society."

    The problem being definition. Paul's fairer has more to do with equality of opportunity, the left's more with equality of result. While using similar words, these are not compatible visions. When they clash , the "great alliance" fails.

  • MJ||

    "...why did he side with Stalin? Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted."

    Actually, it was more FDR went along with everything Stalin wanted. At the beginning of the war, Stalin sided with Hitler because he got a chunk of Poland out of the deal. After the war, Stalin kept the chunk of Poland he gained by aligning with the Nazis.

    Without the Axis, there was nothing to justify the US-Soviet alliance, the agendas of the two powers were just too fundamentally different, resulting in the Cold War. Similarly, any alliance between Paul & Nader would have to be on an extremely narrow basis as even on the policies they agree on, they likely have vast differences on the reasons and philosophy of why they support those positions.

  • ||

    The wars, the drug war, corporate welfare. That's the "extremely narrow basis" that they have to work on. But that's just about everything that's wrong in this country right now. So, I don't see why working to end those problems with other people who also want to end them is a bad idea. What's the alternative? Vote for Mitt Romney or Obama and hope that something changes from the party establishments?

  • MJ||

    There is nothing wrong with working with someone like Nader on a particular issue. Just recognize that you cannot build a permanent coalition with people who you have fundamental philosophical disagreements with. In forming long term alliances, why your partner supports a policy position is more important than the mere fact he supports a position you happen to agree on.

    Nader may like Paul for being against corporate welfare, but suspect they have a mighty dispute over whether corporate speech should be "free".

  • patrick||

    Great article! This would also be a winning ticket!

  • ||

    I'm certain that Nader is fully in favor of subsides for "green energy" though.

    Democrats LOVE corporate welfare.

    More than Republicans even. They even like to give it to many of the same companies. Just try taking GM's Volt subsidies away. Or farm subsidies.

    There are huge amounts of corporate welfare in the budget and much of it is the result of the left's benighted efforts to protect union jobs, create green jobs, and implement some sort of "industrial policy" to subsidize "infant industries" or whatever their latest command economy fetish is.

  • jtuf||

    It's an intellectual indulgence ...

    True, but that one line summarizes all of today's Liberalism.

  • Matt||

    This is excellent news.

    I am so happy that Nader as a progressive is willing to acknowledge the many places that libertarians and progressives can agree. This is awesome. I hope more progressives and liberals follow his lead, instead of calling us "Republicans who like to smoke pot."

  • Max||

    Ron Paul is a racist and a boring old fuck. Live with it.

  • Ryan||

  • lol wut?||

    Your mom is a boring old fuck, but gives great head. Live with it.

  • ||

    Don't feed the trolls. Just defuse them with facts as Ryan above just did. They feed on conflict and propaganda but the truth is like the light of day to a vampire... they scream and run away.

    Ron Paul has an IMPECCABLE record and ethical history. Even if you don't agree with him on everything, you most likely agree on a majority of topics, and the differences are usually around issues that the states should handle anyway. He's one of the few truly honest politicians in DC anymore. And he has a LOT more supporters than the critics care to admit and his base is well known for being THE most passionate.

    No other candidate has the ability to raise so much money through individual donations as opposed to million dollar checks from corporations and fat cats.

    No other candidate receives more donations from military personell than Ron Paul. You can't argue this stuff.

    Ron Paul supporters are going to start coming out of the woodwork like crazy. But sadly it does take cash to get your message out and compete with the media machines. Those that think they as an individual are better at running their lives than the government is... should pledge their support and vote for Ron Paul. Because the alternative is another 4+ years of the same DC rhetoric and the same corporations in control, but just waving a different party flag. This is a rare opportunity in American history to truly make a change and get the country back on track. Do your research, then do some more... don't listen to the media propaganda but think for yourself. And please consider donating to the cause...
    https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/?sr=dp1

  • ||

    About damn time. RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

  • Tony||

    Nader's association with fringe antigovernment crazies like RP does not make me reassess him as someone who is serious and merely made a horrible mistake in 2000 he's very sorry for.

  • spyle||

    liberals endorsing ron paul while people like catherine mangu drag his legs.. how interesting.

  • ||

    What Nader doesn't realize is Ron has a legitimate chance if Democrats switch parties NOW to vote for Ron in the primaries.

    Nader's campaign is as relevant as Johnson's, which is to say not.

  • ||

    As usual, Ralph Nader misses the obvious and profound differences between left wingers and libertarians. Nor are libertarians being adequately represented by Ron Paul, who's more of a flake and grenade tosser than a libertarian. THE core value of left wingers is faith in big govt to regulate individual, which is precisely opposite the core value of libertarians. There is nothing implied by libertarian core values with respect to large corporations, as long as those corporations do not impede a free market. Left wingers are in no fashion opposed to a central bank - they welcome any govt apparatus that can control the public sector. Nader is simply all confused here - he obviously doesn't know what libertarianism really is all about. It doesn't have much to do with Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Good, so we all agree this will never happen. Can we stop talking about it.

    Bitch about the left all you want, at least we get elected to office and take action. Libertarians are a laughable group of philosophers that would argue with a rock. Enjoy "winning" the argument and losing the election.

  • NewsView||

    I, too, see a convergence between Ron Paul and Ralf Nader --- the convergence of principled values. These men are among the few to represent CHANGE not to be confused with the neophyte variety President Obama was unable or unwilling to deliver once elected to office. At minimum going into the 2012 presidential election, I hope we have learned, as California voters did following the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, to at least set a higher degree of relevant experience as an electoral standard!

    Many voters and their media personality counterparts fear Ralph Nader and Ron Paul because they fear true change. They recognize these men as principled individuals and, even if they disagree with their politics, most people respect their transparency on the issues. At the same time, that transparency is also what intimidates voters. It will take a lot of pain --- be it economic or the acknowledgment that we can no longer afford national defense, as former Comptroller General David Walker warned, because we've bled too much Red Ink and Blood in wartime --- to persuade “we the people” to elect a president appropriate for the times in which we live.

    I say those times are NOW.

    As voters, we simply cannot allow the mainstream media to keep parading the pretty faces even as they gloss over or deride the decades-long track records of candidates who actually stand for something we can prove they can and will stand for. It is time our gatekeeprs refrained, furthermore, from denigrating candidates who have far more experience, ironically, than the media darlings.

    DON’T LET THE MEDIA HIJACK YOUR VOTE!

    The second thing I would urge voters to keep in mind is that we have a system of checks and balances in place that will dilute even the best of intentions upon election to office. So rather than voting for the "safe" Republican or Democrat, we need to vote for the principled candidate. If voting principle seems radical, it is a commentary on just how far we have strayed and why we find our nation in increasingly dire straights’. We've spent years making wrongheaded voting feel right; it's time to make right and do right by our children and grandchildren!

    I can think of no more powerful incentive to get out and vote than the presence of Ron Paul and Ralf Nader on the same ticket, and frankly I think it’s a strategy worth pursuing. When Americans see two powerfully-principled political figures work together, we can be assured that the gridlock in Congress and the Senate will no longer be tolerated at our expense.

    My advice to voters: Don’t play it safe in 2012. Think for yourself’ --- the pundits, fear-mongers and split-ticket alarmists be damned!

  • ||

    BLUE REPUBLICANS
    FOR
    RON PAUL
    2012

  • ||

    what a jewel of a find... I love this site!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement