Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Rant of the Year

Recs

20

April 30, 2011 – Comments (4)

I promise this will be my last political post for a couple weeks. But this was too good not to share. It comes from a liberal who is just a teeny bit upset with Obama's warmongering.  Be forewarned: foul language.

I'll Take the Reactionary Over the Murderer, Thanks by Charlie Davis, False Dichotomy Blog

Full Article

Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I'll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn't protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn't overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government's criminal behavior.

Can the same be said for Barack Obama?

Yet, ask a good movement liberal or progressive about the two and you'll quickly be informed that yeah, Ron Paul's good on the war stuff -- yawn -- but otherwise he's a no-good right-wing reactionary of the worst order, a guy who'd kick your Aunt Beth off Medicare and force her to turn tricks for blood-pressure meds. By contrast, Obama, war crimes and all, provokes no such visceral distaste. He's more cosmopolitan, after all; less Texas-y. He's a Democrat. And gosh, even if he's made a few mistakes, he means well.

Sure he's a murderer, in other words, but at least he's not a Republican!

Put another, even less charitable way: Democratic partisans – liberals – are willing to trade the lives of a couple thousand poor Pakistani tribesman in exchange for a few liberal catnip-filled speeches and NPR tote bags for the underprivileged. The number of party-line progressives who would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama wouldn't be enough to fill Conference Room B at the local Sheraton, with even harshest left-leaning critics of the president, like Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, saying they'd prefer the mass-murdering sociopath to that kooky Constitution fetishist.

Full Article

It only gets better as you read on. Enjoy!

David in Qatar

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 30, 2011 at 11:45 AM, kdakota630 (29.50) wrote:

Kudos!  Excellent article.

Report this comment
#2) On April 30, 2011 at 11:47 AM, ajm101 (31.91) wrote:

"Yet, ask a good movement liberal or progressive about the two and you'll quickly be informed that yeah, Ron Paul's good on the war stuff -- yawn -- but otherwise he's a no-good right-wing reactionary of the worst order, a guy who'd kick your Aunt Beth off Medicare and force her to turn tricks for blood-pressure meds. By contrast, Obama, war crimes and all, provokes no such visceral distaste. He's more cosmopolitan, after all; less Texas-y. He's a Democrat. And gosh, even if he's made a few mistakes, he means well."

== big old flaming straw man.   But aside from his opponent being imaginary, he really took it to them.

Report this comment
#3) On April 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM, whereaminow (21.14) wrote:

ajm101,

I think we're in agreement here. It's a small sample size, but my liberal friends back home are very kind to my Ron Paul enthusiasm. They want to know more and they are genuinely interested in his views.  They are massively disappointed in Obama as well.  To a man (and woman), they light up over the thought of a Paul-Kucinich ticket.

But perhaps Charlie lives in the Beltway, where politics is life, and any disagreement with your Party is seen as a break with your religious faith.  DC liberals (and conservatives) are vastly different than, say, Kentucky libs and cons.

Either way, it was a rant. And a fun one to read.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#4) On May 01, 2011 at 1:16 AM, ajm101 (31.91) wrote:

I like a lot about Ron Paul.  His views on the role of federal government are incompatible with mine, but he seems sincere and intelligent.  He does remind me somewhat of Kucinich.  A split ticket with both of them would probably not work out.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement