It should not be difficult for those same editorial writers [at the New York Times] to treat Ron Paul as a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power instead of attempting to marginalize his views beyond recognition.Dear Bob, you and all the other "progressives" who want to treat the Dixiecrat sleazeball politics of Ron Paul as "profound" are exactly why I don't call myself a progressive anymore. I have no patience for your racist drivel, your ignorance of history, your smug-self-regard and condescending lectures. Take your limousine liberalism for a long drive off a short pier. This is where Ron Paul's anti-federalism comes from - and if you are too stupid, too immersed in your privileged position, too ignorant to understand that, why don't you go join the Republicans?
That The Nation is debating Ron Paul is an indication of how much the election of a black man as US President has unhinged a number of white guys who think of themselves as deserving a place in the elite - whether they call themselves "leftists" or "rightists".
Meanwhile, Matt Stoller, the former Grayson aide has added a similarly repulsive argument of his own on the pages of "Naked Capitalism" - which is a home for all sorts of Bircher nonsense that is sold as progressive. Oddly, Stoller's former life as an employee of John Corzine is not causing him any trouble at Naked Capitalism which generally claims that Corzine's Goldman-Sachs is the source of all evil. Stoller's paen to Paul includes the following:
This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects.So we learn that for Stoller, basing your political career on your appeal to the Ayran Nation is a debatable "character defect". This is from someone who has spent the last 3 years bitterly attacking the President for not being progressive enough.