Matt Stoller rebuts his critics

[ProSense]

15. What?

You continue to misrepresent Greenwald and now Stoller...

You said...
"People like Stoller ask others to ponder ridiculous hypothetical choices: civil rights vs. the drug war. They don't consider the real impact of choosing the latter over the former because all is fair in theory."

Neither one pit civil rights against the drug war. They posit that both (as well as a host of other issues) are important and yet issues that are essentially off this Admins and the liberal government elites radar AND these issues which are important to progressives do not get a public airing from these self-same elites; and that, unfortunately, these topics are solely being promoted (on a national platform) by a flawed Republican candidate.

It is the simplest of concepts.

Really? Stoller:

Paul is deeply conservative, of course, and there are reasons he believes in those end goals that have nothing to do with creating a more socially just and equitable society. But then, when considering questions about Ron Paul, you have to ask yourself whether you prefer a libertarian who will tell you upfront about his opposition to civil rights statutes, or authoritarian Democratic leaders who will expand healthcare to children and then aggressively enforce a racist war on drugs and shield multi-trillion dollar transactions from public scrutiny. I can see merits in both approaches, and of course, neither is ideal. Perhaps it’s worthy to argue that lives saved by presumed expanded health care coverage in 2013 are worth the lives lost in the drug war. It is potentially a tough calculation (depending on whether you think coverage will in fact expand in 2013). When I worked with Paul’s staff, they pursued our joint end goals with vigor and principle, and because of their work, we got to force central banking practices into a more public and democratic light.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685