Medea Benjamin, March 7: “progressives should Stand with Rand”

[ucrdem]

That's Rand Paul (T), Kentucky's be-wigged junior Senator. Medea, writing in Mondoweiss.net:

While progressives have all sorts of reasons to dislike Rand Paul’s Tea Party, small government libertarian views, killer drones is one issue on which progressives should make common cause with Paul and his growing legions of supporters.

After all, it’s not about the messenger but the message. And compared to the Democratic Senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama’s killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should “Stand with Rand.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/following-filibuster-challenging.html

[center] [/center]

Nothing personal but progressives do not stand with teabagging obstructionists and methinks Medea has quaffed one too many pink martinis.


[center][/center]
[center] bad rug day? [/center]

[graham4anything]

1. Rand Paul and Ron Paul's John Birch Society views should not be tolerated in 2013 whatsoever.

Forget about his toupee, what is important is his JBS views that his father installed in him.
Rand is far more dangerous than Ron, in that Rand is presenting himself as mainstream and attempting to avoid
his true self.

note-my post is 100% about Rand Paul and Ron Paul.

There is IMHO NO democratic party supporter that should back any part of Rand Paul Whatsoever.

and google Austrian Jorg Haider, because Jorg's ideals/views are 100% in synch with both Rand and Ron Paul
and their friends.

and based on other recent events, there is indeed a vast disconnect about Rand and Ron Paul and the libertarian party in general
imho.

[ucrdem]

6. Here's what's really interesting:

Ron and Rand don't quite see eye to eye on matters military it seems. Ron is the one who claims he wants to pull the US out of overseas bases and close Gitmo. But Ron just retired from office to run a "peace institute." From an April 17, 2013 article:

Hours later, his father launched the Ron Paul Institute For Peace and Prosperity billed as “the next phase in the Ron Paul Movement” at the Capitol Hill Club where the elder Mr. Paul made it clear that he thinks the detention facility has damaged the nation’s image abroad, operated outside the law and should be closed.

“I think Guantanamo is not an American system,” said the 77-year-old former congressman and Libertarian icon. The prison, he said, has become a symbol for torture and, more recently, secret renditions.

Rand on the other hand has no such scruples: “I have not come down on the position of closing Guantanamo Bay.” Funny how that works, isn't it? Also funny that Medea didn't say "Stand with Ron," she said "Stand with Rand."

Ever get the feeling things are not always as they appear?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/paul-father-and-son-differ-on-issue-of-closing-gua/?page=all

[graham4anything]

8. IMHO Ron wants to divide the democratic party & get splinter votes.

I do find what Ron wants is to divide the democratic party to splinter away protest votes.
However, unlike Ron's dream of being a 3rd party, Ron is now covertly/overtly working with his son to win on a major party,
that being the republican party.
Ron, being for pot and saying he is anti-war, knowns he can ATTEMPT to splinter enough votes to win/secure Rand the nomination
in 2016, OR cause enough talk to have Rand become a major powerbroker forever in the party.

IMHO.
Ron is 100% on the same side as Rand, and they are coordinating this, to attempt NOT to make the major mistakes Ron made.

This makes Rand Paul more and more dangerous and makes him actually have a chance at the nomination, being that only 24% of the vote will be needed in the primaries for him to attempt to secure the delegates.

Also makes him a top choice for VP if he stays on the good sides of the upper people in the background of the republican party.

Very, very dangerous IMHO if one supports the democratic party and all the social issues of the democratic party

[ucrdem]

11. They're trouble, no doubt about it.

If you're saying they're playing a carefully scripted game I totally agree with you. And I'm finding it hard to believe that Medea getting mixed up with them is some kind of youthful folly. I won't reveal her age but let's just say it includes six decades.

[freshwest]

55. There's not a nickel's worth of difference between them on social issues.

Yay Pot! Yay Personhood! Yay Privatized Social Security! Yay Privatized Schools!

Yay RTW Laws! Yay Mandatory TVS! Yay Privatizing Police! Yay Privatizing Social Services! Yay Privatizing the Military! Yay Privatizing Emergency Service!

Yay letting states decides who marries! Yay installing religious schools! Yay to teaching creationism!

Yay to... Yay-Hoo!

[ucrdem]

56. Rand seems more like a straight-up teabagger

I guess because he is, lmao. All of dad's failings with none of his charm, not that I ever found Ron charming, but clearly many do, including many here, as you were the first to point out to me.

Incidentally remember this astonishing thread, astonishing because it wasn't immediately locked and the dewey-eyed Ron Paul testimonials weren't hidden ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3079051

[freshwest]

57. Yes, that was cute. I have the one with all the rec's and the 'I'll never vote Dem again' list.

Now the preface before going into a line that voting Democrat does no good at all, and never will...

Is that they always do vote Democrat.

Just 'because.'

Because it's in the TOS, is 'because.'

And no one should buy that line.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Do not underestimate the POWAH

...of the Libertarian side of the force.

We should be doing everything we can to shut down the government, million-dollar-per member, taxpayer funded, involuntary, communist country based, S&M club that is Guantanamo Bay right now. Until we can manage that basic feat, people who advocate for a more limited role for government, as Rand does, will continue to gain support.

[graham4anything]

3. President Obama has attempted this three times. It takes CONGRESS (owned by repubs) to do it

The protests should be against Rand, against REPUBLICAN Peter King of Long Island, NY and all the other REPUBLICANS who do not
want the trials to be in federal courts, WHICH BOTH Eric Holder and the President have attempted since KSM was nabbed.They wanted to try him in NYC federal court, and the uproar made it impossible.

The protests are on the wrong people.

CONGRESS AKA THE HOUSE FUNDS GITMO.

Unelect the republicans in 2014 and then it can quickly happen.
The President is NOT a dictator and cannot snap his fingers and do it.

and Rand is FOR a ground war everywhere. Rand is NOT a pacifist, nor is he for peace.

(note-this post is 100% solely about RAND PAUL and his views).

[ucrdem]

5. Exactly.

Basically he has no "common cause" with progressives and there's no rational reason progressives would "stand" with him. In fact the more closely you look at Medea's pointless stunt on Thursday the more it looks like Rand's pointless filibuster in April.

So I guess they have that in common.

[napoleon_in_rags]

13. Then why doesn't Obama go for the jugular on this?

We all saw him take off the gloves with Romney after the first debate. We know he can be tough. And yet he has this HOME RUN, Republicans advocating for their communist S&M club at the cost of a million dollars per inmate a year, and Obama hasn't yet made this a core issue. He could slaughter them on this, he could take all kinds of Americans who value civil liberties into his base. But his attacks have been soft, calculated, and hesitant. Why?

[ucrdem]

15. He made it a core issue before he ever took office

And possibly you missed this part of Thursday's speech:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014491176

Between Medea and the bridge the speech itself didn't get a lot of scrutiny but it was a game changer.

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. I recognize progress when it happens.

Yes, I heard the good stuff in the speech. But coming months will show whether he's really committed to this. Frankly, his actions haven't matched the commitments he made before being elected on the issue. But now its come to a ridiculous head. If he misses this opportunity to do the right thing - engineer a solution or hit the Republicans HARD for resisting, I will not forgive. In my eyes this is political softball. We're better as a nation that what's been happening at Gitmo.

[ucrdem]

19. I think it will. He's already taking action.

Lawyer that he his, he's getting the legislation ready, and that's really what all 4 issues -- Gitmo, AUMF, media shield, and drone rules -- are going to come down to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014491192#post21

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. Let's hope. Huge win for him if gets this to move forward. nt

[ucrdem]

4. But Rand doesn't want to close Guantanamo:

Wednesday, April 17, 2013:

“I don’t know that I have a great answer, to tell you the truth,” said the Kentucky Republican, later adding, “I have not come down on the position of closing Guantanamo Bay.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/paul-father-and-son-differ-on-issue-of-closing-gua/?page=all

He doesn't really give a shit about using drones overseas, either. Benjamin even says that in her ridiculous article:

He did not ask the government to stop the practice of hitting the same area twice, often times killing rescuers who are trying to help the victims of the first strike. He was not asking the government to take drones out of the hands of the CIA, a civilian agency that is supposed to focus on intelligence gathering. He did not ask for an accounting of civilian casualties overseas, and that the US publicly acknowledge when it kills civilians. Although he mentioned the case of 16-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, killed in a drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father was killed, he did not demand a response from the government.

Believe it or not that entire filibuster stunt in April was supposedly about getting the CIA to stop using drones domestically, which, as far as I know, is a total figment of his toupee.

[napoleon_in_rags]

14. Woah, wrong issue to back off on Rand.

I was assuming he had the same stance as Ron Paul, my mistake.

Gitmo is a steaming turd, that's what I've come to realize in recent days. I won't lie to you: I HOPE Obama not only shuts this thing down, but also that he makes it a big visible fight: I want every "small government" conservative to hold up the flag of gitmo as their legacy for their vision of government: forced feedings to prevent suicide, people held without a constitutional trial, sexual S&M games played to gain "intelligence", all the cost of almost a million per dollars per inmate a year. Pinning that on Republicans as their vision is pure win.

[dionysus]

45. !!!!!!

" a total figment of his toupee"

[Enrique]

7. she was right

the obsession with personality will get us nowhere.

[ucrdem]

9. About what?

[Enrique]

10. our drone war needs to end n/t

[ucrdem]

12. Did you listen to the speech?

That's what the first half of it was about. That's been the administration's position for the last four years. It isn't Rand's incidentally, see above.

So Medea's stunt was pointless from a policy perspective. Then what was the point of trying to make a fool out of Obama on an international stage? Well, that's what I'd like to know.

[Enrique]

17. you're the first i've heard say that she made a fool out of him

all the reaction i've heard has been very positive for Obama, and that is predictable. Everyone knows how Obama handles protesters.

The RWers are even saying she was planted there by Obama.

[ucrdem]

18. He managed to get a laugh the third time, sure.

but he was flummoxed the first two times. And I couldn't hear what she was saying, though surprise, viewers in TVland could, and I ws listening to the WH webcast, so it's possible he couldn't hear her either, meaning he couldn't respond. So yeah, I'd say he came very damn close to looking like a fool the way anyone trying to give an important speech with a world-wide audience would.

And she's being coy about how the hell she got in there:

MEDEA BENJAMIN: There are some secrets, Amy, that can’t be disclosed. But it was great to get in there.

Frankly I was embarrassed for Obama because even though he more or less handled it his security looked completely lame.

[ucrdem]

21. Looks like the feeling isn't mutual

because Rand doesn't seem to have been "in" when Medea showed up at his office with cookies and valentines:



"Sorry, ma'am, he didn't say when he'd get back"

[ucrdem]

22. Close up:

[ucrdem]

23. close-up:

[ucrdem]

24. Good thing they brought a camera!

[Buzz Clik]

26. Heartbroken.

[ucrdem]

25. Medea leaving Rand's senate office:

I guess she found somebody to give the valentine too. Such a happy day!

[Buzz Clik]

27. Openly supporting Republican and third-party candidates used to me instant banning from DU.

And? Now?

Well????!!!

[ucrdem]

28. She doesn't exactly keep it a secret, either.

Medea waxes lyrical about her "drone hero" Rand on RT:

[SidDithers]

29. +1...

Now it gets 100 recs.

Sid

[ucrdem]

30. The anti-Obama du jour?

Easily.

[DinahMoeHum]

31. Methinks Ayn Rand Paul gave Medea a hand-job with his speech. . .

. . .if she's desperate enough to call him an ally, then sorry, she's gone beyond pathetic to me.

What a shame. When she's emotionally disciplined enough, she's effective.

[Savannahmann]

32. Again with Party over Principle

We would staunchly oppose any Republican who stood for any issue we notionally care about. It is threads like this that convince me that our Party stands for nothing except opposing Republicans. If a Republican came out on the Talk Shows tomorrow standing up for and suggesting a Federal Law in favor of Gay Marriage, we would oppose it just because we hate the Republicans more than we care about what are supposedly our issues.

It is very distressing. We opposed war, and every day mentioned how many had died the day before, and how many had died total. Then we won the White House. Does anyone know how many are dead in the war on Terror right now? Do we hate the RW so much we would throw away our Principles just to oppose them? Apparent we do.

So go ahead, continue to make our party platform one thing and one thing only. That we hate the Republicans more than we care about any issue. That way, when we continue to lose elections for the House and Senate, we can blame the RW, Rush Limbaugh, Beck, and stupid voters. But from where I sit, the voters aren't the stupid ones.

[SoCalDem]

33. It's Ralph Nader all over again..

[ucrdem]

35. Yep.

2014 is not going to be pretty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I did not realize she was running for President

You have more on that?

[Pragdem]

34. Fuck anyone that allies with teabaggers/libertarians for any reason. You are a parasite. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Rand had his once a decade rational point

His dad did the same...once a decade.

Unlike dad though, Rand did back down later. I always respected his dad for standing for his principles, even if I objected to 85% of it. Rand backed down, after that magnificent old time fillibuster. Made me want to watch "Mr Stewart Goes to Washington" to be honest.

It is funny that it's been a libertarian and a Social Democrat who have done this in the recent past.

Also...perhaps my calendar is wrong, but this march happened two months ago? It's been a while.

And Medea Benjamin is consistent in her views, not a partisan. I can't say the same thing about either Rand or many here. Putting party over principle will get you in trouble every time.

[ucrdem]

38. Hi Nadin, she's consistent in her tactics, not her views.

If she seiously opposed Guantanamo or drone strikes, a) she wouldn't be screwing up that speech for all she's worth, and b) she sure as hell wouldn't be palling around with Rand Paul, who doesn't oppose either. His father does, or says he does, but Ron is no longer in office Rand won't even go that far.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/paul-father-and-son-differ-on-issue-of-closing-gua/?page=all

So it's purely a ratf*ck I'm afraid, pardon the expression. JMHO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. And that is your opinion

In mine she is consistent in her views. Now don't fret, she ain't running for office.

She exhibits all signs of a left wing libertarian, and most left wing libertarians never, ever, run for office, even dog catcher

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Hedges is not a libertarian.

He's a liberal, and again consistent in his views. He might run for public office someday. He is where the dems were a few decades ago

[ucrdem]

44. Hedges is a great example.

His views are ... what are his views? Basically he opposes all seated Democrats, vitriol calibrated to the office. But his views? All over the place, like his logic. There is no logic. It's pure, well, you know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. That is your view

And that is that.

For the record, I object to people who want to privatize public education, regardless of party, eople who have issues with civil liberties, regardless of party, people who want to attack and weaken the safety net, regardless of party...so I guess that makes me your enemy too. I am as far as you can get from a partisan as you can get.

There is more, a few local republicans have done their job to those who elected them. Granted, none could (or wants to) rise above city government. They are old time moderate Republicans. If I had to vote for them, or some of the folks put in by the local Democratic Party to try to unseat them...knowing a lot of the local sausage making, those Dems were unqualified. So sorry, if I do not put party before country. Oh that was a neighbor city of mine

Don't worry, I voted for the highly qualified dem in my city. The Republican was not just radical, but simply unqualified for the office he was seeking. I will have a second chance soon to vote him down, he is considering a House run, he is still unqualified.

[ucrdem]

50. Of course! :)

I don't doubt your views nadin, or really anybody's here. And my views are my own, naturally. And I'll be happy to self-delete any you find offensive. It's easy to get carried away sometimes!

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. You know, getting to cover the sausage making

Made me even more cynical about it

[Zorra]

41. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Exactly

His dad remained consistent against the Global War on Terror and Neocon Inc. for that I respect him. It takes fortitude to do so in the face of the pressure to conform in 2003.

Now would I have voted for him? Nope, but I can surely respect him

[Mojorabbit]

54. Spot on! nt

[dionysus]

46. another washed up professional protester... sad...

[whatchamacallit]

48. I thought the drone program was a crime before Rand ever opened his pie hole

so no.

[otohara]

49. When Pigs Fly

Rand is a freak and now so is Medea B

[Marr]

51. Odd. Obama fans usually say that finding common ground with the political opposition

in order to reach policy goals is the very pinnacle of Serious©, adult, pragmatic political problem-solving.

I suppose that only applies when we're talking about Third Way Democrats working with Republicans. It's an unforgivable act of treason if it comes from 'The Left'.

[LWolf]

53. I find the portion you chose to bold interesting.

You don't want to emphasize this:

"While progressives have all sorts of reasons to dislike Rand Paul’s Tea Party, small government libertarian views..." That's right. We do have all sorts of reasons to dislike RP and the TP. And we do.

Also, "And compared to the Democratic Senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama’s killer drones..."

For some of us, issues trump personality and party. For others, the team and the teams stars are untouchable no matter what their offenses. I'll call it the Penn State syndrome.

I'm glad that my Senator was the Democrat to support Rand's filibuster.

I guess, for some, "compromise" is only okay when it's a Democratic president giving candy store after candy store to republicans and corporations.

When it involves acknowledging common ground on a single issue, especially when that issue makes the team and the program look bad, so many want to close ranks and attack the messenger. I find that kind of closing ranks unworthy of my respect or support.

SOMEBODY needs to oppose the unethical use of drones. As the article you posted notes, RPs was a too-limited opposition. At least someone brought it to the floor.