Greenwald links to pieces arguing the validity of citing Ron Paul's views, and more [View all]

[ProSense]

http://twitter.com/ggreenwald

Here is the most recent:

Finally, on the Paul debate: former ACLU Board Member Wendy Kaminer: http://is.gd/H5QJAW

From the link:

If Voters Cared About Liberty, Ron Paul Would Be the Frontrunner

His platform has some serious flaws, but Paul is the only candidate standing up for individual liberties.

<...>

You don't have to overlook or make excuses for Paul's weaknesses on civil rights or his apparent courting of virulent right-wing extremists to appreciate and applaud his support for liberty, where it arguably matters most. After all, Paul poses no threat to racial and religious tolerance, civil rights, or entitlements; he has virtually no chance of becoming president and his own alleged intolerance is, to say the least, unpopular. (It demonstrates the declining respectability of overt bigotry.) But he has an opportunity to organize and perhaps empower voters who oppose the Bush/Obama security state. If only that were a priority, for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Presidential candidates, like nominal frontrunner Mitt Romney, aggressively advertise their patriotism, their embrace of American exceptionalism, and their love for this titular land of the free. They characterize Obama as anti-American: Santorum has accused him of siding with our "enemies." Romney asserts he knowingly promotes policies harmful to the country and that he will "poison the spirit of America" (and then they have the nerve to call him divisive). But with the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates, as well as President Obama, share a decidedly un-American disregard for liberty. The question is, how many voters care?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/if-voters-cared-about-liberty-ron-paul-would-be-the-frontrunner/250880/

Got it: President Obama. unlike Paul, has "adecidedly un-American disregard for liberty"

I guess the author believes that freedom to treat blacks like second-class citizens and for people to die without health care is "decidedly" American?

Paul On Newsletters: Not Only Did I Not Write Them, MLK Was One Of My Heroes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135956

Ron Paul's hypocritical vision of health care: charity or death, "that's what freedom is all about"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100288476

Republicans Versus Reproductive Rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002141047

In Paul's own words:

“It’s not because I’ve changed my message,” he told FOX News’s Chris Wallace, in one of several interviews on the Sunday political talk show circuit. “This is what I’ve worked my whole career to warn people about,” he said, dismissing criticism that he’s a candidate of the lunatic fringe.

<...>

And the Texas congressman is sticking to his Libertarian guns. He doubled down on statements from one of his books, downplaying the need for sexual harassment laws in the workplace. “Because people are insulted by behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of that,” Paul said on FOX News Sunday, saying that unless there is a threat or act of violence, a sexually harassed person could choose or not choose to work at the offending location.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/the-die-has-been-cast-ron-paul-makes-closing-argument-to-iowa.php?ref=fpa

In Book, Ron Paul Opposed Workplace Harassment Protections

Ron Paul may be be polling well in Iowa, but he’s had a tough few weeks denying responsibility for racist and homophobic material once published under his name. Now, we can add women’s rights to the list. And this time, it will be hard for Paul to place the blame on another author.

As highlighted by CNN on Friday, in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200-Plus Years, republished in 2007, Ron Paul made some eyebrow-raising statements about sexual harassment and women’s rights in the workplace:

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.

<...>

The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?

<...>

Other passages in the book include jabs about LGBT people and AIDS. Like the notorious newsletters which include unsavory passages about the AIDS epidemic, Paul writes that the Founding Fathers probably wouldn’t favor AIDS research and that insurance companies should have the right to refuse care to patients with HIV/AIDS:

Victims of the disease AIDS argue…for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don’t have AIDS), demanding a cure…The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim — frequently a victim of his own lifestyle — but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I believe, the Founding Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.

And of course, Paul also takes issue with minority rights, wondering, if there’s a black and hispanic caucus in Congress, why not a white one too?

White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/in-book-ron-paul-opposed-workplace-harassment-protections.php

Crackpots Do Not Make Good Messengers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002112129