Is Ron Paul Toast after Racist Newsletter Firestorm?

Having now seen the texts of the newsletters and Paul's older and recent attempts at explaining them away, it would seem his chances have just gone down the tubes. Now, he may still have a good chance in Iowa and possibly win, but in the long run, no matter what his level of culpability is, I'd be amazed if he can survive this. His only chance is to make a very clear statement denouncing the newsletters, accepting some responsibility, and offer some type of apology. Maybe the American people will accept his explanation, like Texas voters apparently have.

I was here and survived the clawing and gnashing of teeth between rival candidate supporters during the 2004 primaries, and I fully expect to take some heat for this, but when language like this is in any way attributed to a candidate, whether it was yesterday, or 20 years ago, it's alarming, disgustful, and should not be swept under the rug.

Perhaps this gives Paul supporters a chance to address the issue and show why it shouldn't hurt his chances.

Prior to this I didn't have a real opinion on Paul either way, although apparently he seems to be the only candidate raising the issue and making sense on the legalization of marijuana. And don't forget that Trent Lott of the Greedy Ole Pricks party said not too long ago that America would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had become President, so you never know in politics, they may say we're all good with it and he's our candidate.

If you were President, what one major policy or program would you change?

I would cut military spending in half immediately. With our spending now at approximately $650 Billion, if we cut spending in half, we would still spend three times more than China, the number two global military spender at just over $100 Billion, and we'd still equal China, plus the next three top spenders of France, the UK, and Russia, who spend roughly between $50 and $60 Billion. Just imagine what we could do with $300 Billion in America. With a measley $10 Billion I would finance the creation of the Department of Peace.

Go ahead, feel the power, what would you do?

In Alternate Universe Matt Damon Blasts President McCain

Is it possible to put the Progressive Party discussion on hold until after the election?

Can we agree not to publicly stone progressives who are feeling left out of the process, while at the same time indicating that a full and frank discussion of the issue could he held here after the election?

Before progressives cry censorship, heavy-handedness, or whatever, please read the entire post before flying off the handle. First off, this is the Democratic Underground, not the progressive or socialist underground. Secondly, while my views would fit better in the latter, I accept that the purpose of this forum is to elect Democrats, and from experience, I know that this issue strikes a nerve here at DU, and to have any real discussion about it this close to the election is not only counterproductive to the overall intent of DU, it can only serve to erode support.

Now, I am only offering this suggestion based on the assumption that Obama will win. If a catastrophe happens, well, I won’t have a lot of faith left in American society, and DU will be going ballistic. At that point, I would tell anyone who might want to discuss the issue then simply to choose a better time, sort of like I’m saying now. In politics and life, I guess, it’s not always your ideas that fail, it can be the time in which you present them.

While most of us were still stunned or possibly suffering from some level of depression after the 2004 elections, I brought up the idea that perhaps it was time to look at a third party. I was here previously as Floridaguy. You’d have thought I suggested we discuss all becoming Rethuglicans and just get in line. I wasn’t some lukewarm supporter or someone who never supported Dems, I actually had dedicated several years of my life attempting to beat shrub. I went as far as quitting my job and getting a job with the party as a precinct coordinator, spending several months in the urban precincts of a neighboring city.

Suffice to say, I was not a troublemaker, instigator, or someone who didn’t really support Democrats, I was all in. So after I suffered the wrath of the understandably upset DU faithful, I realized that while some, but certainly not all of them, might be able to discuss the idea rationally, it was not the time to do it.

So, while IMHO this discussion should be had at some time, the time is not now.

Organizing Democrats, Cat Herding, and Circling the Wagons

As Democrats, we often hold strong views and positions on one or several issues or policies, and the likelihood that we will agree on most or all of them is zero. If we were simple minded like our GOP counterparts, we could listen to the talking heads for our talking points and repeat after them. "No new taxes", "I'm against abortion period" "Guns and God", etc. See how easy that is?

But we're not wired that way. Although most of us consider ourselves somewhere along the Socialist/Progressive/Liberal spectrum, and many of us are far apart on that spectrum, we also have our pet policies, or we hold adamant positions on one or more issues like anti-war, pro-choice, LGBT issues, or others. Having been involved with both GOP and Democratic campaigns, I can tell you it's a breeze to organize a bunch of idiots who rally around one issue or are simply anti-everything. It is far more difficult to get a group of intelligent open-minded people to wholeheartedly support a candidate or anything for that matter.

While the simplicity of the black and white world of the GOP allows them to approach elections in what appears to be a more businesslike manner, our approach is more cerebral and issue-oriented, and we often come off as less unified. So while these heated discussions going on now in GD may not feel good to some, and is certainly a good test for DU3, it is our nature. We fight or argue, because we hold strong beliefs and we care. So trying to get Dems on point or squared up behind a candidate is a lot like cat herding, and could possibly be as dangerous.

And while I believe in boisterous debate, there is a point soon when we should circle the wagons behind President Obama. If you live in the same universe I do, you know in your heart that either President Obama or the GOP nominee will be our next President. Although I don't agree with many things he has done, or not done, he is still heads and shoulders above the realistic alternatives, (not the lesser of evils) and I support him 100%.