ACP Recommends Marijuana Reclassified From Schedule 1

This is kind of a big deal. The American College of Physicians (and remember, this is the organization of practicing physicians, not all the old retired turds at the AMA) just endorsed medical marijuana. If this pseudonymous blogger cared a whit about blogging right now, he'd definitely be writing about this story.


This is big time.

ps-The Marijuana Policy Posse's Nydia Swabee is on the case:

And You Thought Detroit Was a Rough Town...

Breaking news out of Minneapolis (you bet!) According to undercover ScaryShit reporters, Senator Obama barely made it out of the final Minnesota pre-caucus rally. An unnamed assailant appears to have punched the Senator in the face, in fact, other recent photos have shown noticeable bruising on this chin and left cheek. Details are extremely sketchy at this moment, will update as soon as more details emerge.

Come On Artists, the Day is Here, And Your Mission is Very Clear, Put an End to the Bourgousie, And Death to Everyone Who's Never Heard of Me

As I mentioned recently, this Pseudonymous Blogger won't have much time nor opportunity to post in the foreseeable future. I'll toss one off whenever I get the chance, but I just wanted to re-run a pps to a post I did back in October before I initiated my whirlwind, cross-country misadventure. The reason I bring this up is I'm hoping that there will be some new information coming down the pipe related to the issues mentioned below, hopefully in short order.

Nevada in 2006 was the scene of some major election shenanigans, in fact, they may have been a significant factor in Karl Rove's decision to resign his post at the White House (I have to apologize for the garbled html. on the site. I figured it would be better to put that up than link to a .pdf that automatically opens on your computer. Basically, it's a letter from Henry Waxman asking about the Drug Czar's visit and accompanying federal anti-drug "grants" [read: pork] to districts with "vulnerable Republican incumbents," a likely violation of the federal HATCH Act). State and local officials, as well as the federal government illegally interfered in a major statewide election. Of course you haven't seen anything about that lately in the media or blogosphere, but hopefully a few things are percolating that just my blow the lid off of this can of festering bullshit. I'll keep you updated as information becomes more publicly available.

And seriously people, click through the links below. The former author of this blog made a very compelling, if disjointed, accounting of the disgusting and illegal tactics used by the establishment in campaigning against the Question 7 initiative to tax and regulate marijuana in Nevada.

This Pseudonymous blogger will do his or her best to keep you all in the loop.

Regards,
PB

ps-I wish I could embed this, alas, here is a link to the trailer for Grass Roots.

pps-If you are new to this blog, please read these three posts. Out of the past three (now six- PB) month's output, they are by far and away the best (only good?) pieces that I've written.

(snip)

The first installment of the ongoing Hatch Act, CRCM, Nevada, marijuana, Karl Rove, ONDCP, Jim Gibbons, Sig Rogich, fired US attorney Bogden, Rory Reid et al. saga:

The Paranoid Style in American Politics-In Action

and an important comment thread.

Part Two:

Sig Rogich (Rogich Communications) and Judge David Wall (NV Department 20), Hate America

Part Three:

When You Come Around, Everything Else Disappears

Enjoy.

pps-When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

ppps-A comment thread from a long couple of months ago. LudditeRobot wins:

ludditerobot said...

Man, this is one impassioned, honest blog you've going here, Commando Bowie.

Here is my overarching question for your next post --

Despite your obvious disenchantment with the Democratic party, there seems to be an almost desperate desire on your part to "reclaim" it -- to bend it to the will of the people it is supposed to be representing but who it has, through over-calculation and triangulation and simultaneously hyper-theoretical and sub-obvious self-strangulation -- ignored, debased, marginalized, removed from the process.

Question: Why reclaim it? What did it offer, exactly?

I won't provide the recounting of the Sins of the Democratic Party. As Hippocrates said (rough translation), "This list is long, and I'm drunk." Or something. Point being, this shit started a while ago -- certainly, before the 2000 cycle.

More griping? No idea for a change? Okay, fair enough (though I have a few ideas ... first of all, what's with the donkey? That's the same motherfucker what stole my, wait ...). But do you think, at some level, your own faith in the "Democratic Party" -- as an idea, rather than its obviously degraded reality -- might be misplaced?

Also, what if the party backed a candidate who both supported the war, at least in the short term, but *also* supported making available something apart from Zoloft? Because that shit does not allow you to function well, you know, as a man.

8:38 PM

Matthew said...

Ludditerobot,
Am still mulling things over. Pragmatism once told me that the danger to the republic from the Republicans is so great that working with the Democratic party (no matter how distasteful that may be) was the only course.

Obviously protest, persuasion and attempts at changing perceptions are extremely important. Nevertheless, I fully believe that a POLITICAL solution is the most important aspect. 3rd party politics, as it currently stands, is a nonstarter because of the limited impact and overall ineffectiveness-

(Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat])

So I am still mulling it over.

To tell the truth, if someone offered full out legalization of marijuana along with continued support of current corporatist/evil policies, I'd have to think about it.

The Soma of Brave New World at least allowed the people to forget how absolutely fucking awful the situation is. Huxley's hedonistic sex and drugs and total fascism sounds better to me than the pseudo-religious overbearing morality and sexual control of The Handmaid's Tale (and where we seem to be heading.)

m

What Book Are You?

I'm not really down with the whole online quiz, Facebook-y type shit, but, I did find this quiz at the Mahatma X Files pretty interesting.

Which literature classic are you?

T.S.Eliot: The Wasteland. You are a desperate cry to God, moulded in intricate word-craftmanship. Your language is controlled, but inside, you feel empty and are not content with your life. You see both the world and your inner self as a waste land: nothing good can come out of it anyway. People find you difficult to understand but admire you nevertheless.
Take this quiz!








Quizilla |
Join

| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code

Now, how fucking embarrassing would it be to admit that I had never read this book?

What book are you?

ps-Update to previous post. Marijuana took a commanding early lead, with alcohol making a strong run, but it appears that prescription drugs, the sleeper in this contest, might just take it.

Hillarama, Motherfuckers!

OK, so, Hill-dog won Nevada.

OK, so, the former proprietor of this blog used to be pretty darn involved in Nevada politics, and usually seems to know what the fuck he's talking about when it comes to the Sagebrush State.

OK, so, the former proprietor of this blog said this a couple of months ago:

2b) My compatriot CrazyMonk and I briefly discussed the Nevada Democratic caucus debate earlier today. I noted that it was pretty awesome the way that Harry Reid rammed this early caucus thing through, and then has his son (as well as just about every single prominent Democrat in the state) endorse Hillary and chair her Nevada campaign. The Iowa Democrats might be dimbulbs, but they at least take some advantage of their ability to influence the nominating procedure. They might make "bad" decisions, but they are at least trying to decide. Not so for Nevada Dems. They took the lay of the land, said to themselves, "Looks like it's gonna be Hillary, so let's support her." It's all about patronage, juice, and influence in Nevada. Fuck issues. Fuck who would be the "best" choice for president. Who's most likely to win, and how much cock do I have to suck to get a job in his/her administration? is the only important question out west in the Sagebrush State. God bless motherfucking Nevada Democrats. Douchebags all.

OK, so, now, the actual point. This Pseudonymous Blogger frankly does not have a dog in the Obama/Clinton fight. However, he would like to make a little bit of a suggestion to those who actually do consider themselves to be Democratic partisans.

Obama is a "better" candidate and is more likely to win the general election.

Why does this Pseudonymous Blogger say that?

Check out the county by county breakdown at the Review Journal.

Go, check it out, I'll wait.

OK, you're back. So, notice anything?

Hillary won Clark County. Las Vegas is in Clark County.

Barack Obama won Washoe County (Reno and its environs) and Carson City.

So what does that mean?

Well, again, I refer you to Matt's above quote.

Las Vegas is a Democratic machine town. Much like Boston, or Chicago.

The establishment has been lining up behind Clinton for over a year. The party hacks still maintain their death-grip on Las Vegas (while you're at it, just so you understand a bit more about Las Vegas Democrats, you might want to check out this post by Digby a while back on Las Vegas' congresswoman, Shelley Berkeley. She's like, totally Harry Reid's homegirl. Harry Reid is like, totally gonna ram new FISA language through the Senate. The Democrats in Nevada should like, totally have their voting rights removed. They continue to send Berkeley [who's a lot like Nancy Pelosi, except even more fucking stupid] and Reid to congress, year in and year out. Sorry Democrats of Nevada, but we've gotta do this for the good of the country. No more voting, ok?)

Washoe and Carson City are purple. Las Vegas is bright blue. Reno and Carson are whiter and more working class than Vegas. Reno and Carson look a lot more like "America" than Las Vegas does. Las Vegas is still attempting to manage the perception that it won't turn to dust and blow away within the next ten or so years (due to peak-oil and the housing market implosion, natch). Reno is dealing with the impending economic crisis right now. The Hummers are still rolling down the Strip in Vegas. The Bellagio is still having it's fountain shows. The gaming money is still flowing, so appearances must be kept up. Not so much in Reno.

I think everyone knows this blogger's feelings about Obama. In case you didn't, this blogger thinks that Barack Obama is awful. This blogger also thinks that Hillary Clinton is awful. However, in the grand scheme of things, this blogger would prefer a Democratic administration than another Republican one.

Barack Obama has a better chance of making that happen.

I've predicted on multiple occasions that the nominees for the respective parties would be Clinton/Obama, and Giuliani/Huckabee. What if I had them reversed? Obama/Clinton, and Huckabee/Giuliani?


ps-Good strategy on supporting Romney in the MI primary, douchebag. Here's a prediction for ya. If Romney gets the nomination, he trounces whoever the fuck the Democrats run. Anyone wanna take that bet?

pps-This Pseudonymous Blogger's life has gone absolutely sideways in the past week or so. Posting will be light to non-existent for the foreseeable future, as this blogger prepares for his third cross-country move in as many months. I hear Minnesota is very nice this time of year...

ppps-Nothing matters anymore, anyway. The economy will be in Great Depression II, Electric Boogaloo territory by the end of the year. Whoever becomes the next president will be horrible. The Democratic congress will ram through the awful new FISA bill in short order, and we will probably go to war with Iran before the current president's term expires. Quite frankly, with such a bleak future staring me in the face, this blogger is gonna go get really fucked up right now. Marijuana, prescription drugs, or booze; who will win this no holds barred battle royale? My money's on marijuana. Now that's a nomination fight I can get behind!

pppps-On a more serious note, big ups to Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen. The Assemblyman and the former proprietor of this blog worked together at the Nevada Democratic party back in the day, as the kids say. The former author of this blog is as much of an outsider/insurgent as you can get. The Assemblyman is the consummate insider. But, the former author of this blog knows that Assemblyman Kihuen is one of the goodest of the good guys (even if his politics are a bit messed-up), and the guy can campaign like a motherfucker. Madame President better have a damn good position for the Assemblyman in her upcoming administration.

Ruben Kihuen just might have single-handedly won the Nevada Caucus for Hillary Clinton.

Sounds About Right...

So, here's the new game-plan. Saw this on Drudge today:

Spychief Mike McConnell is drafting a plan to protect America’s cyberspace that will raise privacy issues and make the current debate over surveillance law look like “a walk in the park,” McConnell tells The New Yorker in the issue set to hit newsstands Monday. “This is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

At issue, McConnell acknowledges, is that in order to accomplish his plan, the government must have the ability to read all the information crossing the Internet in the United States in order to protect it from abuse. Congressional aides tell The Journal that they, too, are also anticipating a fight over civil liberties that will rival the battles over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (my emphasis added- PB)

I really don't feel like commenting on this. Bloggery can be a real chore sometimes.

I would, however, certainly like to hear what our Democratic presidential saviors have to say about this. Senator Obama? Senator Clinton? Senator Edwards? Hello?

Want to See the Least Funny Thing Ever?

Watch this episode of the Simpsons. Ugh.

Bloggers

Arthur Silber is apparently not doing well, which was kinda what I feared. Seriously, I wish you well Arthur, and hope things somehow start looking up for you.

Speaking of bloggers, anyone know what happened to Scruggsie?



ps-You can donate to Arthur right here. I'm sure he'd greatly appreciate anything you could send.

Mike Gravel Rocks Out With His Cauc(us) Out

Shit, I forgot to use that one before the Iowa Caucus. Oh well, the state that will always be closest to my heart has one coming down the pipe, quickly.

So, tell me again how, if this is a rational world and the Democrats are the supposedly "liberal" party in America, is Mike Gravel a dangerous extremist and this guy is the new liberal lion of American politics?

Let's examine something Avedon said today:

America doesn't really need Obama to bring us together, because we already are together with just about anyone who isn't a movement conservative/Republican. We want liberal programs and we don't want crazy neocon wars or stupid privatized "services" and destructive monetarist trade/economic policies. There's a minority that will hate Obama just for being a Democrat, but there's no pleasing them. Everyone else is sick of the Republicans. Messrs. Broder and Sullivan may not get this, but pretty much everyone else does.

The Democrats really have a chance to win big this year. They could of course still manage to lose, I mean, they are the Democrats, but still, they are looking pretty good right now. For once in the entire history of everything, the Democratic primary and caucus voters don't NEED to look at the supposed 'electability' of the prospective nominee. If the election were held today, the Democrats win, no matter which of the top four is the nominee. People are sick of the Republicans right now, no matter how hard the press is working to prevent that(update-that is a really good post, Digby). But that's before the campaign, the only thing Republicans are any good at. I could probably link to some such poll or other on various D v R matchups, but I don't care, I know they'd win right now, look at the turnout numbers in Iowa.

So for once, just once, you'd kinda think that the primary electorate and Democratic partisans would be working their asses off trying to get their prospective nominees to actually take some issue positions that they actually like? Asking pointed questions of the candidates, and trying to bargain your support in trade for certain political stands, right?

Here's Gravel today:

"Alcohol is a heck of a lot worse than marijuana, and I'm sure a lot
of you have tripped out on alcohol," Gravel said. "It's a lot safer
to do it on marijuana."

This one is simple. End the war on otherwise law abiding marijuana users, and let's start talking seriously about how we want to handle the regulation of hard drugs, even up to decriminalization or tax and regulate. I know that a lot of people aren't there yet on the larger war on drugs. I'm very conflicted on the subject myself. However, there is absolutely no reason in the fucking world that we should accept a Democratic party nominee for the presidency who would continue to support the federal government's current war on lawful marijuana users, arresting over 830,000 people last year.

Or perhaps you aren't yet there on marijuana tax and regulation yet. Jesus, but, fine. Putting aside the fact that this poll(let alone anything else out there on the popularity of marijuana reform), taken in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, showed that 61% of respondents said that they "oppose arresting and jailing nonviolent marijuana smokers?".

OK, fuck it.

But can we at least get a nominee that actually seems to support ending the federal raids on medical marijuana patients and distributors, without having to be dragged kicking and screaming to that position like some had to be (Obama, cough).



(Although admittedly that "sound science" crap is a total dodge. Sick and dying people should have the opportunity to discuss all options of treatment with their doctors, including medical marijuana; these are the only people who should be involved in the treatment process, not bureaucrats from Washington DC.)

Wanna know someone who's even better on the issue? Bill Richardson:

New Mexico Governor Tells Feds: "You want to arrest somebody. Arrest me."

Seriously, what the fuck is up with you "progressives"? You are working your asses of to try to elect these clowns. Ask for something in return.

You deserve it.

Let's get some specifics on this from the candidates, not vague generalities.

ps-Check out #4 from Time's 10 Most Underreported Stories of 2008 list:

#4 | Deploying Bureaucrats for the Grand Old Party

In July a congressional committee reveals that the White House praised officials at the Office of Drug Control Policy--who are barred from engaging in partisan politics--for appearing with as many as 18 Republican candidates in the months before the 2006 election.

Sounds familiar...

Run, Mitt, Run

Great medical marijuana video from Catharsis Media.

Not Joking, I Would Probably Vote for Hillary Clinton Over Barack Obama

The more I actually listen to Barack Obama's vacuous bullshit, the more that I viscerally dislike him. I honestly hadn't paid much attention to the contenders; so far in the debates I was just watching the oddballs to see if they could stir up any shit. Now I'm actually listening to the front runners, and they are even worse than I had originally thought.

I'm listening to the presidential debate on the radio right now. Hillary just went after Obama for changing his positions, specifically noting his vote on the PATRIOT Act. Obama swept it aside with some nonsense about how "we are all fine public servants, and we shouldn't distort each other's records." Edwards just jumped on her and said that if she were leading in the polls, then she wouldn't sound like such a bitch (paraphrase), then went on to say that the true agents of change should be allowed to spread their mumbo-jumbo about change this and change that, and new tomorrows and rainbows and bullshit, etc without the interference of people calling them on their actual voting records or expecting actual specifics.

Hillary is a corporate, authoritarian shill. I know it, you know it, she knows it. At least you know what you get. Barack Obama (and to a lesser extent, John Edwards) is an 'agent of change.'

Whatever the fuck that means.

ps-Thank God I don't have to choose between Clinton and Obama. Bitch just blamed those fucking sand-niggers in Iraq for not taking advantage of our glorious gift of freedom again.

pps-Big ups to Corrente for their laser-like focus on Obama lately. They aren't trying to destroy Obama's candidacy, they aren't trying to tear him down. Instead, they took the lay of the land, saw that it was likely that a candidate that they deemed to be insufficiently "progressive" was likely to get their party's nomination, so they then focus their efforts on trying to get some answers on some very real and important issues which, up until this point, his supporters have managed to brush aside in all of the ongoing Obamarama goodtime fun extravaganza. They are trying to bring up real weaknesses that have been displayed so far in his campaign, rhetoric, and character, and they are trying to influence him and his supporters now, before all of the votes are cast, while "We the people" still have some nominal influence on the candidates.

Again, nice work Corrente guys. I think that a lot of Matt's earlier anger at some of the big name bloggers in the progresso-web stemmed from the fact that they do such a good job of critiquing the other side that he found it very disheartening that A-list bloggers almost never seemed to turn their attentions to their own party's leadership. Criticizing, and in fact even threatening, one's organizational leadership is all about keeping them honest and accountable, and should be encouraged. So often, Matt saw one particularly prominent A-list "progressive" blogger admittedly document the atrocities of her own political party's leadership in a tone of saddened acceptance and resignation; in a tone that seemed to suggest to her readership that they were powerless to do anything whatsoever about the failures of their own party's leadership, (because we NEED them, no matter how bad they actually are) and that they must instead turn all of their energies into attacking the Republicans and electing more and better Democrats.

Many of the ne'er do wells of the 'sphere scoffed at this notion. "Don't you fools realize that the more clearly precedes the better?" Well, Corrente is making a valiant attempt at making Barack a "better" Democrat.

The former author of this blog would have probably made a mean spirited comment about awful Barack Obama and the horrible Democratic party, dumb as shit bloggers and blog readers, and Iowa voters at this point. I, on the other hand, am but a humble Pseudonymous Blogger, brimming with hope in a new year, and will choose to instead focus on the good efforts of Lambert and the rest of the Corrente fellows. Blindly following and thoughtlessly defending your preferred candidate without asking anything of him, with a blind hope that even though he is saying "bad" things now, he will do "good" things when he is in office, he just has to say "bad" things now to get elected is a shitty philosophy to live by.

ppps-Scroll down to item number 3. FISA. You guys remember that one? eRobin has a post up about getting ready to support Dodd NOW (via Avedon, of course). I know that the guys at PruningShears are on the lookout for suggestions on how to keep the pressure on our leadership on FISA, and what we as activists should be doing now. We need leaders. We need to BE leaders. Matt told me to tell Dan he's still thinking...

Frankly guys, this FISA fight is a lot more important to the country's overall wellbeing than whoever the next president might end up being.

To Shreds, You Say? Well How Is Senator Gravel's Campaign Holding Up? To shreds, you say?

Good news, everyone!

Reports of Mike Gravel's campaign's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

ps-I saw this at The Field. I am so stoked that Al Giordano is blogging again. Big Left Outside is my favorite departed blog of all time (other than Billmon).

pps-I really hope that those comments that Arthur Silber left at IOZ's a few weeks ago aren't the last that we'll ever hear from him again. Write a damn million word blog post when you come back, Arthur, I'll read every bit of it.

ppps-There's still plenty of time left to turn the White House into the "Gravel Pit." Mike Gravel for president!

(new management's endorsement)

Who Is That Masked Man?

We've been getting some complaints here at ScaryShit that there is far too much Ron Paulery going on over here, and that we need to get back to basics. Some feel that the last guy who was writing this blog kinda sucked, so we just fired him and hired someone new to replace him.

Enjoy!




-Pseudonymous Blogger


ps-Go Barack! Obama/Richardson 2008!1!!!1!

Lemme Just Steal This SSDP Image...

So good.

SSDP is another class act organization, like MPP. I've met some fantastic people who are going to do big stuff in the near future at various Students for Sensible Drug Policies events. Good ad. Via the Agitator.

ps-Check out the comments for this post at DKos by Pete Guither of the always excellent DrugWarRant. (to give you the gist: Bullshit Pete Guither! Democrats aren't racists, Republicans are. Get it straight, you asshole!)

Words and deeds motherfuckers. Jesus! (not to mention the inability of the d-bags on Kos to understand that Pete was riffing off of Kos' post "Yup, Ron Paul is still a racist") OK, thought experiment time again!

Which is worse:

someone who might privately hold 'racist' views, but does not act on them, and actually wants to end "the institution that is arguably the most racist since slavery" (nice, Pete), OR the person who espouses the correct PC views on race, but wants to continue the drug war?

Put that in your fife and smoke it!

pps-I was considering saying something about Kos being a PC-thug, and that we should all grease ourselves up real good and... but then I realized it would be way too much work.

ppps-Yes, I do not have a TV out here in Arizona, so I've been spending some quality time with my Simpsons dvds on the ol' laptop.

pppps-Yes, this blog is pretty much officially all Ron Paul and drug-war, all the time. Until there's another FISA vote or some other civil liberties abortion, I think I'll stay in my comfort zone.

ppppps-I didn't like Ron Paul nearly as much a few weeks ago. The progresso-sphere's collective hissy-fit over him has greatly improved his esteem in my eyes. Fuck, attack his positions, douchebags (there has actually been good discussion on his abortion views, which is so far the biggest sticking point for me. But hell, I might not agree with the outcome from his stance on abortion, but it's at least constitutionally principled). Bringing up moldy old 25 year old anecdotes about racism ain't gonna do it for this dude.

pppppps-I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Can someone explain to me, a very very liberal guy who is flirting with voting for Ron Paul why I shouldn't, without calling me a Paul-bot, or a racist, or an asshole? (Matt is not a racist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.)

It seems to me that would be a pretty good test for the progresso-sphere. I mean fuck, I worked for the Democratic party and Howard Dean back in the day. I voted for Kerry. I'm a self-proclaimed liberal (not some shit-eating "progressive"). Explain to me, someone who's overriding issue is return to the rule of law, accountability, support for basic freakin' civil liberties, and return to constitutional principles, why I shouldn't vote for Ron Paul.



Anyone?

Ron Paul for President

Jeff Taylor has an excellent look at "The Left and Ron Paul" over at Counterpunch. Go ahead, check it out. Taylor (like me) prefers Mike Gravel. However, right now, it looks to me that Ron Paul is the next best choice. Here a few snippets (including a caveat, please excuse the length, this is good):

My favorite candidate for the '08 Democratic presidential nomination is Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska. But Gravel, like Kucinich, is treated as a joke by the mainstream media, has not raised substantial money, and languishes at the bottom of the polls. Thomas Jefferson was not perfect, but the founder of the Democratic Party had a platform that is not only remarkably good but still applicable and popular in 21st century America. Leavened with the racial egalitarianism of King, Abernathy, and Hamer, the Jeffersonian platform could be used by politicians for electoral success and wise policy...

...Ron Paul is not perfect as either a candidate or a policy maker. I don't agree with him on everything. He has a few personal flaws and weaknesses. He has some disreputable supporters (e.g., racists and anti-Semites who like his opposition to globalization and plutocracy)...

...While the stray neo-Confederate may like Ron Paul, he is also the recipient of more African American support than any other Republican. Paul is backed by both realistic veterans and idealistic pacifists, Christians and atheists, John Birchers and NORML members. It's a kaleidoscope campaign--not of pandering or double-talking but of an honest commitment to an array of deeply held American values. Liberty and peace are popular. It's not a cult of personality like Obama...

... I don't expect that you'll support Ron Paul during the primary season, but I wanted you to at least understand why he could have some appeal for a three-time Nader voter such as myself. Many anti-war, pro-limited-government, grassroots democracy advocates will support Edwards, Obama, or some other mainstream candidate in the coming months, but I think we're selling ourselves short when we do so. We may well end up with crumbs from the table in the end because that's how the system is set up. But if we start the process by making it clear that we'll settle for crumbs, we assure that we'll never get anything more. Radical change will never happen because the Establishment understands that progressive voters can be taken for granted. In the end, most will fall into line behind the candidate with the (D) behind her/his name, no matter how unprogressive s/he is.

To me, voting for Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, or Paul makes some sense even though they're unlikely to win. At least we're asking for something honest and principled during the first round of voting. Ron Paul isn't the perfect candidate and his Jeffersonianism is not as full-bodied as I would prefer (e.g., he's too weak on the ecological dimension), but at least he's a step in the right direction and his ability to attract a wide range of grassroots support is commendable. He's not the only good choice, but he's no lunatic and there is some logic behind his campaign. It's not everything, but it is something. In a rigged system with a populace divided by secondary issues and exploited by a bipartisan elite, it may be the best we can do in 2008. (my emphasis added-m)

I completely agree.