According to 2010 census numbers, about 26 percent of food stamp recipients are African-American, while 49 percent are white and 20 percent are Hispanic.

Which does say that food stamp recipients are disproportionately African-American.  But the reasons for that are not stupidity or laziness, it’s institutionalized racism.  Predictably the GOP has it the other way around, claiming that giving people money is somehow racist.

They sure get a lot of mileage out of that “soft bigotry of low expectations” spiel.  Helping anyone do anything is “condescending” and it’s defeatist to suggest that a person can’t just magically bootstrap hirself into a cushy gig just like Oprah.

So, what, the standard’s gone from, “not racist,” to, “not more racist than Newt Gingrich?” What’s next? Ron Paul’s no more obsessed with other people’s genitals than Rock Santorum? He isn’t any more of a fraud than Mitt Romney? He’s no dumber than Rick Perry?

Also, that’s not actually true about Paul voting for Martin Luther King day; he voted to change the date, but was still against the holiday happening at all: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/mlk-day-fact-check/251037/

I digress, however. (See, it’s infecting me!) My point in writing this blog post is to point out that Sullivan, in his desperation, appears to have used Newt Gingrich as his standard-bearer for not-racism. He did this two days ago, in fact, which puts this comment after the blogosphere erupted with this comment made by Newt Gingrich:

I don’t get this part at all. It seemed to me Sullivan’s saying Paul isn’t racist like Newt Gingrich is?

And Coates, in his post, actually dug up the fact that the claim that Paul voted in favor isn’t even true.

I agree with you on the subject of Ron Paul’s obvious nuttery, but it’d sure be nice if we had a pol on the Left willing to articulate a genuine anti-war, pro-due-process position.  As it stands, the person representing us in this election thinks its just fine for folks to be arrested or killed just because the President says they’re bad people, has no problem with indefinite detention, claims prisoners held in Bagram have no rights of any kind, claims those wronged by the government pursuant to terrorism have no standing to petition for redress in our courts, claims the president can not only open hostilities anywhere in the world without Congressional agreement, but can do so over Congressional objection, has instituted quotas for ICE deportations, a policy which has led to more than a few citizens being picked up and deported, and in the last year has begun a policy of raiding and arresting licensed pot shops in California, even though they comply with state law.  As a fellow Texans I’ve known a fair-share of Ron Paul types myself, and its absolutely ridiculous to think that an unreconstructed neo-Confederate gender equality opponent like him is the only person the ACLU can justify saying anything remotely nice about this election year.  In general I have to say that, from Plan B to Yemen to Finance issues, Obama’s been a real disappointment.  Of course, it isn’t like any of the Rs would be any better; we libs are in a real “Hell and High-water” type situation and frankly I find the whole thing damn depressing.

#5 Heron YES INDEED.

I’m torn as well. Paul has just no chance of winning, but he does have a chance of being a spoiler if he went 3rd party - which I think is distinctly possible - this is going to be his last hurrah given his age.

BTW, last night on NPR/CBC (“To the Best of Our Knowledge”) I heard Ralph Nader is aligning with Ron Paul on civil liberties issues. He’s setting aside his emphasis on regulation of corporations (that’s a BIG one, eh?) because he thinks the emphasis on ending freedumb bombing - he also hinted that Paul wouldn’t restrict tort access (a GOP trope since the ‘90’s) which aligns with Citizens United position. 

Ron Paul is probably racist in his ‘heart.’ Obama is surely not racist in his heart.

The drug war has been the primary vector for the police state’s wholesale incarceration of black men.

But Obama is also become famous for saying one thing and doing another. He talks about ‘the public option’ - AFTER he’s already cynically traded it away in a back room deal.

So Obama is not a negro hater - clearly true. But what does he do?

Obama is not just allowing the drug war to continue - he’s stepping it up by attacking California’s quasi legalization with the DEA Jackboots.

Paul would end the drug war.

Paul will never become president, but it’s important that ‘his’ issues remain in the debate because freedom bombing, the police state/drug war are probably the most intractable problems in this country since the courts and police have pushed the boundaries of totalitarianism in the last few decades.

This is why I stopped reading Sullivan years ago. He blames black people (8% of the population in California) for Prop. 8. He goes out of his way to promote theories that black people are less intelligent than white people. But when someone accuses a white person (with damning and overwhelming written evidence) of being a racist, he desperately clings to any excuse to prove that they’re not racist. Ron Paul did indeed vote against the MLK holiday. But I’m sure Sullivan can rationalize that as a vote against the tyranny of the government giving you a day off instead of more proof that Paul is a bigot.

One thing I feel is important to note is that Ron Paul’s argument against all of those things comes from a belief in small government, not a belief that any of these things are inherently, morally wrong (if anyone can point to where Paul has made a moral argument against things like the drug war, indefinite detention, etc., please point it out). Many things that Paul says the government shouldn’t do, he seems to have no problem with when done by private parties. Also note that his anti-big government stance magically disappears when it comes to controlling women’s bodies. In the end, although Ron Paul might very well be able to put an end to indefinite detention and foreign wars (not so sure that would even happen, but for the sake of argument), the standard of living and basic rights of minorities and women would be significantly diminished, and its pretty arrogant of Paulbots to expect women and minorities to get behind a candidate who want’s to make their lives more difficult, just so that well-off white men can feel righteous about ending American militarism.

Look, I know Libertarian used to pretend to be a real commenter, but he’s clearly crossed the line into pure bogus troll. Can we finally stick rule him, please?

(If for no other reason than that he is too stupid to read a fucking calendar, on which Washington’s birthday would be prominently displayed, as it is in fact a federal holiday. )

I invoke Poe’s Law on Libertarian @7.

Racist.  That word has lost all meaing.  The only legal racism in this country is racism against white people, expecially us white guys.

Oh, dear. Libertarian is back. Please, Libertarian, explain how white men are being systematically oppressed by minorities, how we have fewer employment opportunities, less wealth, worse educational outcomes, etc. I’m waiting with bated breath. I’m especially curious, because I had no idea I was so oppressed. The outrage.

progrocker - he’s a stopped clock: right twice a day, but still utterly useless

When Obama’s wrong, he’s wrong for reasons of political realism/expediency.  Where he’s not progressive enough, a more progressive president wouldn’t do any better because of the current Congress.  It doesn’t make me happy, but I can’t be that upset with him personally.

When Paul is right, he’s right because his particular moonbat philosophy occasionally prevents him from toeing the standard right-wing ideological line.  But other than not invading any new countries, with the current Congress, a Paul presidency wouldn’t look much different than a Bachmann or Perry one.

Well what, I think Washington shares that one with Lincoln now; their birthdays were merged into what is now Presidents’ Day.  King is in fact the only American with a federal holiday all to himself.  That said, I second you on the stick rule - for Libertarian & anyone else who knows no better than to characterize it as “hate whitey day.”  Sheesh…

Please, Libertarian, explain how white men are being systematically oppressed by minorities, how we have fewer employment opportunities, less wealth, worse educational outcomes, etc.

Maybe Libertarian can tell us about all those cases of unarmed white people being shot and killed by black police officers, who are then acquitted of all charges by all-black juries.

@Dave Fried: Well, I wouldn’t say that when Obama is wrong it is always because of political expediency. I’d believe it about gay marriage, but when it comes to some of his economic decisions, or his positions on executive power or the drug war, I think these are thing he really believes in. That said, Obama is still the only candidate in this election who isn’t totally over the moon, or a corporate toadie. So come election day, I’ll sadly lament the dearth of decent progressive politicians, and vote for Obama.

“Aside from some newsletters, that everyone knows he did not actually write, I’m still waiting for any evidence in the last 20 years that Paul has done or said anything racist.  Still waiting.”

So you are asking for what evidence we have that Paul is a racist, but demanding that we ignore the biggest evidence that there is, the racist newsletters that he wrote, based on a lie claiming that he didn’t write them, when he did, and everyone knows he did?  Please.

I think Washington shares that one with Lincoln now; their birthdays were merged into what is now Presidents’ Day.  King is in fact the only American with a federal holiday all to himself.

I think The federal holiday is officially “Washington’s Birthday”, and but is called “President’s Day” by many states and furniture sales departments. Also, Libertarian is wrong in another spot, since Columbus Day is still a federal holiday.

We could however change Washington’s Birthday to “Hate States Rights Day” since his support of a Constitution was one of the main drivers towards public acceptance of eliminating the Articles of Confederation.  And then you could add the whole Lincoln thing in there…

@Jimmy: On a slightly related note, I’d like to say that I hate the phrase “State’s Rights”. People have rights, not states. States have powers. If people have an argument that some things are better handled as locally as possible, they’re free to make it. But I hate it when people invoke “State’s Rights” as if they are some inviolable, inherent thing.

#12 my thoughts exactly.  At first I didn’t get what everyone was upset about because I was reading libertarian’s post as snark.  At any rate, his post is just more proof the liberatarians are just Republicans who don’t like to go to church.

The only legal racism in this country is racism against white people, expecially us white guys.

Ok, seriously, consider smoking less crack.  It’ll do wonders for your worldview.

I don’t want Ron Paul anywhere near the Presidency, but I do sort of understand, apropos of the arguments about civil liberties made by #5 and #6, why progressives might want him to get the GOP nomination. He is the only one remotely likely to bring up civil liberties in any Presidential “debates,” and it would be good to see the President squirm a little on all those issues. And yes, go ahead and win reelection anyway, because he is “less evil.”

As for the “I-didn’t-know-what-was-in-them” defense for the newsletters—that’s just baffling. Not that he makes that excuse, but that people seem to think it would be an acceptable one. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it is 100 percent true. So he is telling us that a newsletter went out for years under his name, that it raised millions of $$ and he had no idea they were putting these awful things in it. Now he tells us that he wants to be put in charge as the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the United States government. No one has asked him, “if you couldn’t keep track of a (monthly, quarterly?) newsletter, how are you going to keep track of what your government is doing?”

@21: yeah, me too. I was calling bullshit on the Paultard/Tenther crowd.

progrocker @21

Good point. 

I’ve always been annoyed by the states rights people because they are not, as they claim, in favor of the states over the federal government.  They’ve consistently been in favor of whichever level of government is more to the right on a particular issue, all the way back to the Fugitive Slave Law and up to today with the push for DOMA and anti-abortion laws at the federal level to prevent liberal states from doing what they want to do.

You’re absolutely correct that the other problem with the states rights people is that rights belong to people, not to levels of government.

@Jimmy: On a slightly related note, I’d like to say that I hate the phrase “State’s Rights”. People have rights, not states. States have powers. If people have an argument that some things are better handled as locally as possible, they’re free to make it. But I hate it when people invoke “State’s Rights” as if they are some inviolable, inherent thing.

This is one of the things I will never get about libertarians. Why is something the wickedest evil if it’s done on the Federal level, but totes cool when done at the state level? As I’ve never gotten a straight answer from a libertarian about this, I have to conclude they don’t actually believe it and “State’s Rights” is indeed just code for preserving or reintruducing all the legalized prejudices of the Old South along with the economic wet dreams of the Robber Barons.

Judging from the attitude of my Ron Paul woshipping brother-in-law—if there is anything to taking the issue of State’s Rights at face value—the end game is a “nation” of miniature serfdoms where every man’s home is literally his castle and he can rule his family as a tinpot tyrant.

If only these folks would quit going on and on about the Constitution, when what they clearly want is a watered down Articles of Confederation.

Well what, I think Washington shares that one with Lincoln now; their birthdays were merged into what is now Presidents’ Day.

Actually (yeah this is totally pedantic but bear with me) the federal government in fact designates Feb 20 as Washington’s Birthday. States etc. can do as they wish with it, and most now call it Presidents’ Day, but since Libertrollian was being all sticklery about National Holidays…

http://www.opm.gov/operating_status_schedules/fedhol/2012.asp

“This holiday is designated as “Washington’s Birthday” in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees. Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law.”

Ugh…and once again my browser done me wrong by not reloading loading comments. Mea culpa, @19.

Not to mention, Ron Paul admitted writing the newsletter back in the 90’s.

Ron Paul, In 1996, ‘Did Not Deny’ Controversial Statement In Newsletter

I reject out of hand the notion that any member of the forced pregnancy brigade is someone who is working from an interest in human rights. Have we really fallen so low that we cling to cranks because they occasionally say lucid things?

When Obama’s wrong, he’s wrong for reasons of political realism/expediency.

No, Obama’s refusal to prosecute any banker who was associated with the current collapse has cost him dearly, politically.  Obama has only drawn a few lines in the sand, and this was one of them.  No bankers go to jail.

He’s been stick rule’d. Woof.

Punditus, I’m a little unclear on why you reject the notion that pandering for campaign donations from banks doesn’t fall under the general category of “political expediency”. I’m not saying I support Obama’s decision here, but I can see pretty clearly how it’s a result of the big money donation situation.

@Comment #7: Libertarian on 01/09 at 11:40 AM

Racist.  That word has lost all meaing.  The only legal racism in this country is racism against white people, expecially us white guys.

I don’t know where to start with this statement. Do I question the narcissistic attitude of a white man who tells himself that he is the true victim of racism? Do I ask you if you live on the same planet as I do?

I guess I will just state that, even if all legal racism against nonwhites had been eliminated (and a simple google search will give you instances where it has not), then this would not mean that the word had lost all meaning.

@28, I demand satisfaction!

Well, what? - (to continue being totally pedantic) No, this year Washington’s Birthday is being celebrated on 2/20; it is officially celebrated on the third Monday of February, whatever date that is in any given year.

I reject out of hand the notion that any member of the forced pregnancy brigade is someone who is working from an interest in human rights. Have we really fallen so low that we cling to cranks because they occasionally say lucid things?

Yes, unfortunately America has. The proof is exactly this: the only reasonably polling candidate who is talking about the errorsion of civil libirties and endless war is a rascist crank on the right. Obama has been terrible for civil liberties. To talk about Ron Paul’s racisim and many disasterous positions is important, but you are being biased if you ignore his positions on civil liberties.

I suggest reading Glenn Greenwald’s piece: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies and Democratic Party priorities . He has put it far better than I ever could.

It’s entirely possible to think that:

1. Contraception (including abortion) is great.

2. It shouldn’t be banned.

3. It’s important enough that it should be unconstitutional to ban it.

4. But nevertheless, the constitution says nothing directly on the matter.  Griswold et seq were wrongly decided.

5. The reasoning in Griswold et seq was at least somewhat plausible.  They were not so wrongly decided that they should be overturned.  Stare decisis is important.

In principle there’s nothing preventing someone from holding position 4 with positions 1, 2, or 3.  In practice, of course, criticisms of Griswold that do not include 5 are arguing for overturning it, and are almost always motivated by opposition to contraception.  And a politician would never be able to have this level of nuance as a position.

How the hell did I post that on the wrong article?  *sigh*.  Apologies.

One thing I feel is important to note is that Ron Paul’s argument against all of those things comes from a belief in small government, not a belief that any of these things are inherently, morally wrong (if anyone can point to where Paul has made a moral argument against things like the drug war, indefinite detention, etc., please point it out).
Comment #8: progrocker on 01/09 at 11:44 AM

The problem with “his conscience prevents him from endorsing something on the basis or morality,” assuming he’s saying it in good faith, is that it will then result in bad outcomes.  If someone’s willing to endure bad outcomes on the basis of “principle,” not just occasionally but as a matter of course, entirely predictable based on history, then there’s something wrong with the principle and it should be reexamined.

And as has already been mentioned, why is small government any better than big government when the matters the state is legislating on are basic things like civil rights and women’s rights?  That’s insane.

@28, I demand satisfaction!

@35, you can’t get none.

I wish we were all Austrians now, because they pay 40% less on health care (in dollars) per person than we do, which is over 60% less in terms of GDP per capita.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm

But Piator can’t be a man ‘cause he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me.

Further, although there are non-racist arguments that could have been made against the MLK holiday—did Ron Paul make any of them?

Arguments against adding a national holiday to commemorate anyone or anything: the cost of paying government workers to sit home and do nothing, the cost to the economy of having banks and markets shut, the inconvenience and cost to parents by having to find day care for their school-qged kids, etc.

Arguments that MLK’s achievements somehow were not “enough” to be singled out in this manner: Lincoln doesn’t get his own day, no day for FDR, Indigenous People’s Day does not really honor Columbus the man, but the opening of the Western Hemisphere to white people, etc. But such arguments could easily mask racism, in that nothing a black man could do could ever be enough.

Arguments that mid-January is not when a holiday is most needed: After Christmas and New Year, I could go a whole month or so before I need another day off. And why not end of July/beginning of August?

Ron Paul also voted against honoring Rosa Parks.

His positions are in the record clearly.  I don’t now why it’s up for discussion.

Re: Comment #5: Heron on 01/09 at 10:56 AM

Look, the policy of raiding ‘pot shops in California’ is overblown.  It’s not a new policy, and it’s less than the previous policy.  I know pot heads have trouble with scale - this is why we don’t let them drive - but the only shops that were raided were pulling over a million dollars.  So that means none of the dozen-odd in my county were touched, and there’s no plans to.  Prior to Obama, they were all at risk.

PPS, Washington’s actual birthday is the 22nd, of course.

I agree with you on the subject of Ron Paul’s obvious nuttery, but it’d sure be nice if we had a pol on the Left willing to articulate a genuine anti-war, pro-due-process position.

We do—In 2008, Dennis Kucinich was one, but the MSM marginalized him before he began.

It doesn’t help that the accepted primary pattern brings us through a series of right-wing states before ever visiting a significant metropolitan area…  In 2008, the Democrats visited Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan (which initially did not count, had no campaign, and only seated half the delegates!), Nevada, and South Carolina before visiting a state that had a top-10 metropolitan area (Miami, in Florida.)  Only New Hampshire and Michigan were carried by Kerry in 2004. 

As someone noted about Iowa this year, Newark, NJ has as many registered voters as votes were cast in the Iowa caucuses.  So, the fact that we let these right-wing voters set the early results and cull the candidates works against liberal candidacies for President.

That said, there have been voices in politics below the presidential level who have been advocates for civil liberties from the left.  The Udall Amendment to remove the indefinite detention provisions from the NDAA received 38 votes.

@26 - Spot on!! 

And thinking that RP is some voice of liberty/freedom is a bit of a stretch.  In the same way that if you say “I have a problem with Israel’s actions right now” equates to anti-semitism is also a stretch.

There’s just too much of Ron Paul’s history that gives me the willies.  It’s not the same willies as thinking of a Gingrich or Santorum (horror, disgust, slight pedophile edge), but they are willies all the same.  Just because he throws out some buzz words that even us progressives like, the way he would go about it and the way a progressive would go about it would be two very different paths. 

And more importantly, anything these days that stems from the Republican party is bad for women, poor, minorities, science, arts, innovation, education, sanity, etc. 

But nice commentary, Amanda, re Sullivan’s newest freak position.  I swear, that man seems to secretly hate who/what he is. 

Morphing his version of conservative (UK-style) onto Conservatives (US-style) is a joke.  He’s been in the US long enough to know that there is nothing “conservative” about how Republicans behave. 

For a gay, HIV-positive Catholic man married to his partner, WTF is he doing remotely “betting” on a horse that actually believes he is a sinner and lives in sin?  He’s now got some love for Huntsmann, but how progressive does he honestly believe Mormons culturally are?  (Hint, Andrew:  Prop 8, CA)

How does he see it better to hang his hat effectively on the GOP side of America after seeing the new turds it is turning out in droves?  (Namely the same ol’ GOP base rebranding themselves as TPers)  Socially conservative freaks who seem like they would blow sh-t up if they could.

And don’t even get me started any time he spews his “abortion is morally wrong” sh-t wrapped up in his faith.  At least, from his public speaking on the issue of abortion, it seems he wouldn’t ultimately vote against a woman’s right to choose.  But, then again, who knows what any of us do when filling out our ballots about anything?

Sorry this is so late, well what, but you’re absolutely right.  Thanks for the correction.

(And you too, Jimmy.)

Re #45 Crissa: 
I don’t smoke anything and never have; I only pointed the pot thing out because I was listing various ways in which Obama has proven either unreliable or disappointing to liberal voters.  And it isn’t overblown; at the start of his term he said he’d tone that stuff down and let California take care of it, he reneged on that.  It’s no skin off my nose because, like I said, I’m not a toker, but I don’t have to be personally affected to find the unethical behavior of a politician I helped put into office repulsive.  As to the issue of scale, I never said he made the raids bigger, only that he made it a priority to push them.  You make a fair point that I should have been clearer about how he was “only” putting greater emphasis on an old campaign, and directly targeting the most profitable businesses as an example to everyone else, but that doesn’t change anything about the rest of this episode.

Re#47 James:
Yeah, Kucinich, Udall, and I’d also add Alan Grayson, are(or in Grayson’s case, were) good each in different ways, but they’re pretty marginalized.  Norman Solomon’s another good lefty on these issues, but again, also a rather fringe figure who has difficulty getting his message out there.  I’d love if the Democratic party put these folks forward, but that just doesn’t happen.  Given his redistricting, we might not even have Kucinich around much longer, either :/

Re#48 avoidswork:
Forgive me for getting all psycho-analytical, but I’d say in his youth Sullivan’s politics were driven by resentment, and much of his life since then has been dedicated to finding an intellectual justification for those politics, which has primarily meant him changing his politics while strictly maintaining that he hasn’t changed them at all.  Consider his childhood.  He was a closeted gay half-Irish Catholic growing up in South England during the worst period of the Troubles.  On top of that he was a staunch Tory during a period of Labor political dominance.  Imagine the crap he must have put up with on a daily basis at school, from people he considered his intellectual inferiors.  That’s why his default Toryism inherited from his family became the virulent hatred of all things liberal it was by his college years.  It was that burning resentment that led him to identify the American left with the English left, even though the two political movements had much different origins and shared very few similarities until Blair came along, and that fueled his absurd obsession with the Rush-invented fantasy of Political Correctness, and it is an unwillingness to face and repudiate that resentment entirely (and probably a bit of ego)that drives him to still defend those views in small ways today, through things like his championing of the Bell Curve (which is now at the “I’m not saying anything, just asking questions” stage).  While his encounters with philosophy were powerful enough to make in him a desire for a logical and intellectual approach to life, which in turn has mellowed him over the years, that resentment is so old and deep and central to himself that it’s probably difficult to confront it completely.  The above is probably all bs, but for some reason I get a kick out of putting stuff like this on the internet.

I suggest reading Glenn Greenwald’s piece: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies and Democratic Party priorities . He has put it far better than I ever could.

Please don’t sell yourself short. I don’t even know you and I’m sure you could come up with something more than this steaming pile of “If you don’t support Obama you HATE MUSLIM BABIES!!!11!!!” tantrum. But that’s GG for you.

As has been pointed out over and over, Paul doesn’t give a shit about civil liberties. He cares about a) having virtually zero federal power and b) isolationism. He is perfectly fine with a states-run War on Drugs, or private citizens hiring mercenary companies to go kill Muslim babies.

And speaking of those Muslim babies GG pretends to care about, how many babies (of whatever faith) in the developing world will die if the US cuts off all foreign aid - including aid to end malaria and HIV, which Paul has explicitly said he will end?

Re: Comment #52: mythago on 01/10 at 01:58 AM

Did you even read the article? If you did you seem to have walked directly into a self-evidently petty and slimy distortion. Let me summarise:

Ron Paul is not going to win, he hasn’t got a prayer. This is not an argument if Romney, Obama or Paul will be a better president. It is argument about why Paul is the only candidate talking about empire, and why so many liberals cannot even admit, never mind talk about, that in voting for Obama they are tactically:

willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support)

.

Video chosen, because like Ron Paul, I hope we can all day be Austrians.

Heh, I knew before I read the rest this would be the best thing I’ve read so far today (well, it’s not even 10am in Britain, but still).

@53, the problem I have with the Greenwald article is that it uses the same manichean argument that neocons used against Iraq war opponents as “objectively pro-Saddam”.

Re: Comment #55: Jimmy on 01/10 at 10:14 AM

No the distortion is that GG is saying that if you vote for Obama you are supporting mudering Muslim children, and he is not. Firstly, as he points out, this is the same argument some are making about Ron Paul, if you support him, you hate women etc etc. No, that is manichean. Once again the argument is that Paul cannot win, and so even though he is crazy in some areas, it is useful to have a major candidate bringing up important issues. Issues which will be completely absent from an Obama Romney debate.

There is a tactical argument for voting for Obama, I understand that. I would vote for him over all the Republicans, but he has done a great deal of damage to civil liberties, and the more party line Democrates are forced to realise this and forced to face what the Democratic party has become the better. In this Ron Paul is great.

Out of curiosity, Amanda, would you support the idea of Malcolm X day as well?