Popular Posts

Monday, January 30, 2012

Questions

I invite your comments and answers:
How many third and fourth place finishes are necessary before the campaign decides that the coalition strategy is the only hope?
How many caucus victories are needed in order to call the current strategy a success?
Has Ron Paul's staff requested an interview with Tavis Smiley?
Will Ron Paul do a big speech on race relations in which he exhaustively addresses the questions that keep coming his way?
Does the campaign intend to win or does it think it can have significant influence with a third or fourth place finish?
What influence will Ron Paul have if he finishes second?
At what point do you say, "We're running an independent or third party ticket."?
What does the recent revival of media silence suggest?
Is anybody on the campaign staff asking any hard questions?

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Does Ron Paul Want to Be President?

If he does then he has to revamp his campaign and go very deliberately and clearly into coalition mode. If he just wants to make a speech at the convention, he should continue with the present course. His last place finish in SC proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.  For libertarians this is what coalition means: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-for-libertarians.html
For progressives this is what coalition means:
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-green-republican-coalition.html

Thursday, January 19, 2012

The Key to Positive Change and the Keystone to Crush Hope

President Obama's "decision" to reject the Keystone pipeline deal illustrates a number of important political realities.

First, this is the typical bipartisan football punt issue. Keep this issue alive along with cultural wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage and you can fire up your base and discourage people looking for real solutions to complex and difficult problems like energy independence, national security, jobs and real environmental concerns. Millions will be spent on political ads and political resolution will come only after the election.

Second, Obama made a decision to decide after the election to go ahead with the construction of this pipeline. This way he gets to throw labor red meat later and greens vegetables now.  Environmentalists are swallowing this natural political laxative with the false hope that Obama II will not flush them the way that Obama I has.

Third, Mitt Romney now  has a jobs creation corporate Keynesian card he can carry to the white house with labor ready at his side to be ignored as much then as they are now. Look for this pipeline to lower the price of fossil fuels temporarily and crush advancement of green jobs long term.

Fourth, we need a trust busting campaign to break up the two major parties. The people are no longer represented by either party. Rhetorically, Republicans appear to be economic libertarians and cultural interventionists while Democrats appear to be cultural libertarians and economic interventionists. In actually, both parties global corporatists in the way they govern. What we need is for the global corporatists to have their on party to represent the 30,000 American clients. The rest of us need 4 parties: Libertarian, Green Peace, Cultural Conservative, and Labor. Combine that with diminishing the power of the US Senate, imposing term limits on congress and applying proportional representation to the House, and we will begin to establish government of, for and by the people.

Finally, it shows us that libertarians and progressives need to form a temporary alliance to bring this rhetorical bait and switch show to a close so that we can move on toward a real debate which result in real solutions to real problems.

Somebody give me hope that this can actually happen.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

RP Campaign? Democrats? Liberals? Progressives?

Did you see the debate on Fox last night from Myrtle Beach , SC?

First, for the campaign staff, why is Ron Paul not in every church  and community center in the African American community in the state?  Ignore the race issue is going way wrong. Confront it head first. He is advocating for African Americans in a big way with his anti-war and anti-drug war message and in his criticism of discrimination in law enforce and judicial systems. Africa Americans will hear him. The red necks in the audience last night booing the golden rule are not with him. (Not to mention Jesus....) Come on!

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives? What are you doing sitting on your hands? Do you want to let the warmongers in the GOP to get a free pass? Punish them! Vote for Ron Paul in the primary! This is a no-brainer! No excuses left!

Saturday, January 14, 2012

On PORPs, PUERPs and Redneck Country Preachers

I am pleased to see progressives begin to talk seriously about supporting Ron Paul. As we do, there seem to be two groups. One stands for Paul because of his stand on civil liberties, war, militarism and empire, drug war, the federal reserve's bailout of banks, etc. This group is not thrilled about Ron Paul's desire to end federal intervention in the economy. The second groups thinks his desire is so hideous that it disqualifies him from any consideration, especially as he has also opposed the Civil Rights Act and tolerated racist elements within his entourage and among his newsletters.

Neither group thinks that Ron Paul is wrong on all matters, and neither endorses all that he advocates. Progressive opponents of Ron Paul (hereafter PORPs) make a good  point. If progressives support Ron Paul unconditionally and he wins, he is under no obligation to listen to our concerns over his economic policy. He truly longs for the day when we are all Austrians. Progressives unconditionally endorsing Ron Paul (hereafter PUERPs) are  running a fool's errand, which might end wars abroad but start thousands in ever city, village and hamlet. (Think about who owns the guns.)

I am not sure that PUERPs actually exist. Some Democrats are actually libertarians who previously could not make a deal with coporatists, militarists and conservative cultural imperialists like their Republican counterparts. Now with Ron Paul not concerned with their legal sexual status or pot smoking, they have migrated to their homeland. Other progressives like myself, no longer disillusioned but realistic about the process of lowest common denominator politics, see in Paul a way to set Republican corporatism back by giving them a dose of their own divide and conquer medicine back.

We had more than 50 reliably progressive Democratic Senators on our side in 2009-10 with a huge majority in the House and a real progressive in the White House. Whether or not he was or is a progressive is meaningless. If Obama suddenly became George McGovern, we would still face the 60 Senator hurdle for the next 5 years, with several less than 50 reliable progressives.

Let's be optimistic and say we get the House back. The Senate is still too far gone and Democrats will be very lucky to hang on to 51 seats.The only way the Senate gets 60 anti-empire advocates is to turn 15 Republicans  libertarian. This will not happen without Ron Paul in the general election debate.

I'm guessing that if a 3 way race were held today he would get 20% of the vote with a fourth coming from progressive Democrats. He would insure an Obama victory. If he does not do well, finishing 3rd in the Republican primaries, he will probably endorse Gary Johnson. I think he might change his mind if he manages to get above 30% of the Republican votes and beats Rick Santorum for 2nd place. He would be a fool not to go 3rd party if he edged out Romney for first and forced the convention to reject him.

The only way for Paul to place 2nd or 1st in the Republican race is through a large influx of progressives.  Most of us being labelled PUERPs are totally on board with Ron Paul for the primary but are holding out on supporting him in the general election. We would like to see if he decides to go coalition or stick to his one winged message. I have yet to see any major progressive spell out why they reject this strategy. Could it be they have no sensible argument? I would encourage anyone reading this to pass the question on to Rachel Maddow, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Young Turks, Democracy Now etc..... Surely they have an answer to shut this redneck country preacher up.

Since, I'm guessing they want to keep their Democratic credentials, they ain't touching this, and as long as nobody important mentions it, they are probably safe. So I'll plow this lonely field by myself for now and pray that someone smarter and wiser than I will either show me the light or finally admit the redneck ain't so dumb after all. Until then, PORPs please pile on.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Quick debate...

Give Huntsman Some Love and Progressives a Call

I am hopeful that Romney gets taken down a notch and the proto-fascist faction of the party is divided enough to give Ron Paul a victory in SC. After this the competition is going to get tougher as the field may be winnowed down to three.

The call center needs to identify and target progressives in SC. Coastal areas are the best place to start.

Huntsman needs to be courted. If I were Paul, I would go to him immediately and offer him VP if Paul is the nominee and Secretary of State if Huntsman is willing to join a coalition cabinet and support Paul in a third party run. Huntsman is the only other sane candidate in the GOP 6 calling for ending wars immediately. He is probably the only candidate Ron Paul could endorse among his 5 opponents. (I hate to leave Buddy Roemer out of the mix.)

It makes good tactical sense to make these offers to Huntsman. A Huntsman endorsement undermines charges of danger and extremism. It also makes sense for Huntsman since he is not going to be VP to a fellow Mormom. Ron Paul is closest to Huntsman in terms of policy and being the VP gets him closer to where he wants to be. It's maybe not a match made in heaven for either candidate but it would be a huge game changer for both of them. And more importantly, for the American people.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Comment on The Nation's Blog

I posted the following comment on Opinion Nation, a blog of the leading American leftist magazine, The Nation.  There is finally a real debate emerging on the left and libertarians would do well to show their support not only of Ron Paul but of progressives supporting Ron Paul.

Can anyone here tell me the down side of voting for Ron Paul in the primary? Lots of upside to forcing the GOP to reject him at their convention, especially if enough progressives get on board to give him a plurality of votes.

Having him in the debate in a 3 way general election race will serve to display the extremism of the GOP warmongers and to challenge Obama's willingness to go along with obscene military industrial catastrophe spending.

I understand the reservations progressives have about voting for him in the general election, but is it not morally irresponsible to refuse to help him in the primary when the Democratic primaries are, with very few exceptions, predetermined up and down the ballots?

Come on... give me one good reason for wasting my vote on Obama in the primary. There are no serious primary races where I live involving a progressive and blue dog opponent.

Not only is it a moral failure to not infiltrate the GOP and occupy their voting process in this rare instance when they have a serious peace candidate on their ballot and we do not, it is also politically stupid to not help Ron Paul.

The Nation is rightly supportive of occupations in parks which do little more than fire up the already convinced while alienating the could be persuaded. Why not do something that's maybe not as fun but which will have a concrete impact against those who perpetuate economic and political injustice?


Come on...anyone tell me one good reason for refusing to occupy the GOP to vote for Ron Paul in the the primary!!!!!

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Racism and Ron Paul


One of the most understandable reasons for progressives as well as people from across the political spectrum to hesitate about voting for Ron Paul is the existence of racist rhetoric in some of his newsletters.  Ron Paul has disavowed these statements and for his most ardent followers, that ought to be the end of it.

He has also admitted that he followed bad advice when his campaign staff told him to claim that these statements were taken out of context. The one statement, about the swift footedness of young black men, that he tried to defend in that manner was embarrassingly incredulous. Fortunately for Ron Paul, he has, until this campaign, been able to take a minimalist approach to this problem in part due to the long accepted “southern strategy” of the Republican Party.

Thankfully for America, the Republican Party can no longer count on that strategy to gain them majorities in all southern states. I do not think that Ron Paul ever liked the strategy as is evidenced by his standing against the racial bias of our judicial system, especially with regard to the death penalty and drug law enforcement and sentencing.

Furthermore, in all the books, articles and public speeches that legitimately bear his name, Ron Paul has never used bigoted language or advocated racism. In fact, he has explicitly condemned racism as a violation of both his libertarian principles and his Christian beliefs.  

Ron Paul can certainly continue through this primary and not make the speech I suggest. He might even win the nomination without such action. While I doubt that most mainstream Republicans care a wits end whether Ron Paul renounces the party's central political strategy of the last 40 years, he may need to satisfy enough liberal voices that he is not a racist before he can get a big time endorsement from anyone on the left.

Satisfying his critics, however, is just not Ron Paul’s way, and certainly that’s a part of his character I hope he never gives up (as if he could, if he tried). Deep down I think that what Ron Paul wants is to do the right thing.  So what I would suggest he think about is how deeply the problem of racism has infected our American system to its detriment.

I would not presume to know Ron Paul’s heart or anyone else’s but my own, and that not very well. (I realize that last qualifier makes me unfit to be a libertarian.)  I do know what I see and hear. I was born and raised a southerner but I have lived up north and overseas. In the latter I have seen American imperialism at work. Our supposedly enlightened and liberal entertainment industry has taught the world that black men are to be feared as inherently violent and criminal.

Northerners are just as bigoted as southerners. White liberals pride themselves on not being racists but are as much segregated from African Americans as any other political segment of our population. White conservatives have been thinking since 1865 that we live in a post racial society. Black leaders, regardless of their position on the economic ladder or political spectrum, continue to have to battle the impression that they somehow do not deserve their status. African American youth continue to be told there place is not in seats of power but in the sports arena or on the entertainment stage and sadly far too many of them embrace the stereotype.

The continued endemic presence of racism in our culture is revealed in subtle and not so subtle comments. The other day I was standing in line to purchase some books. Among them were 3 books on the life of Martin Luther King. The cashier, a white woman, asked me, “What are these for?” I simply told her, “They are for my 7 year old son.” Her silent and blushing reaction to a white guy buying three different books on MLK for his son tells us much about what is still expected in our culture. If I were a teacher purchasing them for display prior to the King holiday, that would be understandable but not simply so that my son could get to know a national hero from 3 different perspectives.

People with liberal political leanings are rightly cognizant of the continuing problem of racism in America but they should be careful not to pride themselves on not being racists. Whenever, some begins a sentence, “I’m not a racist…,” I am almost certain to hear evidence to the contrary. Culturally sophisticated liberals would never use such a phrase but their inordinate shallow openness and high regard for the supposed supreme virtue of tolerance makes me wonder just why they protest so much.

Such skepticism is my reaction to liberals' reactions to the obviously racist statements in some of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I think he rightfully deserves criticism for how casually he has dealt and/or not dealt with them. I like to imagine that when he found out about these statements, he was deeply embarrassed and went quietly to Lew Rockwell and said to him, “I don’t want to know who wrote this filth, but never let anything like it come anywhere near to anything bearing my name ever again.”

That hope might very well be truly wishful thinking. Ron Paul was raised in a racist culture. The thought of him never having a racist thought or saying a racist word or participating in a racist activity is about as ridiculous as expecting me to never think about eating blueberry cobbler. I don’t dwell on it but it wouldn’t take much for me to start craving some. Our culture is addicted to racism and if not for certain legal and cultural barriers, we could easily slip back into its worst manifestations.

All this is not to say that we have not made significant strides or that all white Americans are inherently racists. It is to say that the media ought to expect to find some racism in politicians born before 1964. (Not suspecting it in politicians born after the civil rights would be just as na├»ve.) Ron Paul has shown his homophobia publically on film when he was baited. It’s not a huge step to believe that such irrationality might show up in matters of race.

I am not saying that the liberal sector of the media should ignore Ron Paul’s racist associations or perhaps real racist sentiments. I do however want to ask, how will such real or imagined racism likely guide his policy agenda and enforcement of the law?  My best guess is, if he is elected (and it hardly bears repeating my often asserted belief that he will not be elected except in coalition with progressives who would see to it that he not ignore the Civil Rights Act), he will do his best to prove, through how he governs, that racism is not his motive.

Beyond the usual affirmative action in hiring staff, Ron Paul would do something significant about our nation’s drug policy and penal sentencing by ending the federal death penalty(at least under his watch) and commuting and/or pardoning all non-violent drug offenders, thus releasing thousands of African Americans from unjust imprisonment to be reunited with their families. He would also greatly curtail the disproportionate number of minorities killed or injured on battle fields by bringing them back home from ill advised missions. These two measures alone would be of significantly more concrete benefit for African American individuals and families than any implemented or proposed by the current administration.

I would never pretend that Ron Paul is going to create a post racial America, but the criticisms of him on the matter seem to be more motivated by partisan politics than actual concern for racial justice.

All this said, I reiterate my call for him to deliver the exhaustive speech which affirms his commitment to both the presumption and the goal of racial equality in America. This is a necessity not just for political purposes but because it is the right thing for Ron Paul to do.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Not with a bang but a....

Huntsman is surging and NH wants to shock the world. Romney is stumbling and Paul's campaign is talking about winning caucuses and influencing the platform. I hope I wake up form this nightmare.

If 3rd in NH where do we go? Call Dennis!

Scanning the headlines, it seems that Paul will get about 20%, and if he does he may have plateaued. Hunts man and Santorum are coming up behind him and may overtake him for second and 3 third place. Huntsman is the most likely to finish 2nd Paul. He is the only other sane candidate left in the race and the most likely one to take votes from Ron Paul. If Huntsman becomes the 4th man in the race, Paul's ability to win any state is extremely diminished.

If Huntsman pulls off an upset,  Ron Paul will probably never finish higher than third. I cannot see him wanting to carry on with that embarrassment...20% of the vote and 3rd place in 45 states.

Ron Paul has to make the transition very soon to a full blown coalition strategy. The lower he finishes in NH and SC the more this becomes evident. If he is content to influence the platform by getting a prime time speech at the convention, he will be played.

If he is in this campaign to win, he has got to see the ceiling and make it the base of a floor for progressives.
Progressives need to jump on this floor and wake the Paul's die hard supporters up. The copious attacks from the left on Ron Paul are effectively tamping down the would be enthusiasm for his candidacy.

Ron Paul needs a skillful progressive on his staff to speak to progressive organizations, and he needs to talk with members of the congressional black caucus. And finally he needs to speak with his friend Dennis Kucinich. Dennis give him a call. You really ought to see that this administration not offering you Labor Secretary and leaving you with no choice but to run against another friend, Marcy Kaptur, as a sign that Obama II intends to be like Obama I.

Friday, January 6, 2012

3 Options in Let's Make a Deal and Obama's Head Fake on Military Spending

The Obama administration are trying their best to convince progressives that he is planning deep cuts in military spending.

He is not!

Ron Paul needs to explain his numbers in comparison to Obama's. By my calculations Obama II will spend $600 billion more on military than Paul would over those same 4 years. (Someone please help me with the math! Tell me I am wrong!)

Of course, Paul wants deep cuts in domestic spending as well. That is not good, and progressives should resist him and other conservatives who think they are doing the American people a favor by deeply cutting domestic spending. The question is: if progressives go with Obama, where are the cuts coming from? Note: it's not... "will they come?"...they will come in one form or another.

Progressives keeping the faith with Obama are going to be forced to negotiate with blue dog Democrats in defense contractor districts, Republicans who will never get over their war fetish and liberals who cower. Does anybody doubt that any cuts in military spending come with a price: at least dollar for dollar equal cuts in domestic spending. Conversely, the only way to preserve funding for domestic programs with this set of negotiating partners is to forego cuts in defense.

If progressives rescue Ron Paul ( and he does need rescuing if the goal is winning),  we can get much deeper cuts in defense cuts. We rescue him in the primaries and then demand that we progressives design the domestic cuts of at least $400 billion over 4 years, sending half  of the savings to the states and using the other half for debt reduction.

My guess is progressives will have to accept significant cuts in domestic spending regardless who occupies the White House. Paul needs to be prepared to lower the total of his proposed domestic cuts if he wants a winning coalition. If his cuts in domestic spending are the same or less than what Obama is willing to agree to, progressives will be left without excuse.

Regardless of the numbers, if progressives and libertarians refuse to get together, corporatists will continue to rule the economy by using cultural conservatives and cultural liberals, keeping them occupied in their usual arguments over wedge issues. (Wall Street is still the biggest occupier, merrily squatting all over tea parties and occupy movements.)

So with whom are you willing to make a deal? To quote the rock band, old time Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Making that choice is what his election is all about. But let me clarify one more time:

1.) Progressives, if you choose to vote for Obama/Biden, you are choosing very small cuts in military spending and very deep cuts in domestic spending, and some debt reduction

2.) Libertarians, if you choose to not make a deal with progressives, you are choosing Romney/Santorum, increases in military spending and deep cuts in domestic spending and some debt reduction, or the same as above.

3.) Coalitionists, if you choose Paul/Kucinich, you are choosing deep cuts in military spending, comparatively smaller cuts in domestic spending, a greater amount of debt reduction, and substantial increases in spending at the state level with money block-granted from the federal government through cuts in both military and domestic spending.

Name your choice.... 1, 2, or 3...?





Thursday, January 5, 2012

Response To Bob Cesca on Ron Paul not being a Friend to Progressives


Bob,

I do appreciate you visiting my little blog. I wanted to respond to your recent post at HP in a thoughtful way but the space provided was insufficient to do so. I hope that I do not misrepresent you or appeal to you in an overly combative way. Please feel free to let me know if I do either.

Your article represents a number of opinions from a variety of progressives who find Ron Paul to be a dangerous person to vote for. I am in agreement with much of what you and others have said about Paul's ideology, patterns of behavior and voting record. I especially find his economic views to be in many respects the exact opposite of what our nation and the world needs right now.

However, I also weary of the same tired arguments against his candidacy and progressive support for it. We all know that Ron Paul is not a progressive. We all know that he was at least guilty of extreme negligence in allowing racist articles to appear in his newsletters under his name. He may even harbor in his heart a variety of bigoted sentiments that imo most Americans struggle (or at least ought) to overcome. We all know that if he got his way on his entire platform, there would be disastrous consequences for our country.

What you and other progressives against Paul do not seem to be able to take into account is how our political system, like it or not, actually works. No president, once elected, gets all he (or one day hopefully she) campaigned on. Every president gravitates towards some contextual middle ground once in office. The same would be true in a Paul presidency.

Moreover, as you know, there is almost no chance that Paul will win his party's nomination and without it, he stands very little chance at getting elected. However, his followers do want him elected, and maybe Ron Paul can be persuaded to do what is needed to get elected. True enough, many libertarians are so deluded by their glorious dreams of total victory (just as many progressives are) that they cannot come to terms with what has to be done for him to be elected.

And what will it take to get him elected? Paul will have to agree to a coalition  candidacy leading to real coalition government. Of course, neither he nor his followers are looking for this yet, but if enough progressives come on board to get him several victories in the upcoming primaries, he will have to consider forming such a coalition. He is not adverse to doing so as can be seen from his co-sponsorship of legislation with Kucinich, Sanders, Frank and other progressives.

If libertarians and progressives could sit down and talk calmly for just a little bit, I am certain there could be crafted several significant pieces of legislation which would serve to create jobs, reduce debt and fund  the building of a peaceful green economy. I wish we could reach these goals through purely progressive means, and I am convinced that if progressives like Kucinich and Sanders were able to enact legislation unfettered by libertarian demands, we would get to that destination much quicker.

However, I am sure you will agree that the congress is unlikely to turn majority progressive in the next election, much less be seated by 60 consistently progressive Senators. Absurd as this reality is, we will probably never see the Senate pass strongly progressives legislation as long as there is this 60 vote threshold. I do not see that threshold being lowered any time soon as both parties have vital political interests in maintaining it.

It is this political reality which compels me to advocate for progressives to switch parties or register in whatever means allowed by their respective states to vote in the GOP primaries and caucuses for Ron Paul. I think that as the numbers of Iowa are looked at more thoroughly,  Ron Paul will discover that close to 40 percent of those who caucused for him were Democrats or independents, and that the majority of them are progressives. I think he probably has an absolute ceiling of about 20% of  real GOP voters.  He would actually need at least 34% to win in a plurality in a 3 way race.

Sooner or later his campaign will realize that if they are playing to win, they have to explicitly and proactively reach out to progressives. The best way to prompt them to this realization is for progressives to occupy his campaign and vote for him. I'm not talking some sort of sit-in interference occupation but an actual face to face constructive and respectful engagement with him and his followers.

If progressives can become the driving force behind his victories and close finishes in upcoming primaries and caucuses, we can lift him to a plurality of votes come convention time. And can you imagine the panic and chaos of the GOP convention if Paul has a plurality of votes and delegates?!! Even if, at that point, progressives choose to vote for Obama in the general election, it would be worth the occupation of the GOP for Paul's candidacy just to cause a walk-out by Paul's supporters after the rest of the delegation decides to make the ticket, Romney/Santorum. Such a scene would be the worse press they could get.

More importantly, Paul's rejection by the GOP is probably going to lead to a third party candidacy. Such a candidacy will not be viable unless it represents a real coalition of interests. Of course, Paul and his campaign can choose to be obstinate, preferring purity of platform over principled compromise. Progressives can choose to do the same and end up backing a candidate who stands no chance of election but poses a real threat to the president's re-election.

Certainly, there is a risk even with a coalition candidacy that the electoral college ends up selecting Romney/Santorum or whatever hideous combination they come up with. We might even get Obama/Santorum or Romney/Biden if it goes to the congress. Politics is the riskiest of sports and the only one that really counts. But I am convinced that we have to do something unconventional this time around, if only in the primary. At a minimum a big electoral message needs to be sent to both parties: represent the people, not the corporations. This year's political circumstances present us with a rare opportunity to send that message in a loud and clear way.

I would encourage you to take a look at other posts on this blog in which I try to develop this idea  and articulate it for both libertarian and progressives to hear. If you have time for reviewing only one more post, look at this one. I appreciate your willingness to take the time to consider my perspective and hope that we can maintain a constructive dialogue.

Cornelius F. Brantley, Jr.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

In short...


There are several good reasons for Democrats, progressives, greens and liberals to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries and caucuses. He will not win without us. We can help his supporters cause a giant headache for the GOP at their convention.

And after the GOP rejects Paul despite his plurality of votes, Paul can decide to thank us and join a Kucinich or a Sanders to form a coalition candidacy and a real libertarian/progressive coalition cabinet which will not allow Paul to go off the deep end policy wise.

Such a coalition could free up funds from the military industrial catastrophe's steroid budget for empire building and maintenance and use those funds to pay down national debt and build the communication, energy, education, environment, and transportation infrastructure of a peaceful green economy.

Epic fail if we progressives, greens and liberals do not take advantage of this extremely rare opportunity to change the debate and direction of this nation!

Here's the rest of the strategy: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-green-republican-coalition.html

Iowa prediction

Ok...I can't resist...I'm breaking my vow.

I have already rightly predicted on November 15 the top three  survivors. I ain't got anybody else tooting my horn but can anyone find where anybody predicted the 3 finalist of Paul, Romney and Santorum earlier than I?

Now to say how Iowa will finish tonight:

Ron Paul                 26%
Rick Santorum        25%
Mitt Romney           24%
Michelle Bachmann 10%
Rick Perry                7%
Newt Gingrich          5%
John Huntsman         2%
Buddy Roemer         1%

It's January 3, 2011 11:22am eastern time.