President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.
Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.
Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House that insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.
The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.
The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.
There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.
Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.
For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.
So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year . . . make 2012 the year you regained your rights.
Here is the signing statement attached to the bill:
————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Source: ABC
Republican National Committee Files Brief Seeking To Allow Corporate Funding Of Campaigns
By Ian Millhiser on Jan 11, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/11/402358/republican-national-committee-files-brief-seeking-to-allow-corporate-funding-of-campaigns/
One of the few remaining limits on corporations’ power to buy and sell American elections is that corporations are not allowed to give money directly to federal candidates. Citizens United frees them to spend billions of dollars running ads or otherwise trying to change the result of an election to suit their interests, but corporations cutting checks directly to candidates or to political committees such as the Republican National Committee is one of the few things the Supreme Court’s conservatives have not yet imposed upon the country.
If the RNC gets its way, however, that will soon change. In a brief filed yesterday in the Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it applies across the board to all corporations:
Most corporations are not large entities waiting to flood the political system with contributions to curry influence. Most corporations are small businesses. As the Court noted in Citizens United, “more than 75% of corporations whose income is taxed under federal law have less than $1 million in receipts per year,” while “96% of the 3 million businesses that belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have fewer than 100 employees.” While the concept of corporate contributions evokes images of organizations like Exxon or Halliburton, with large numbers of shareholders and large corporate treasuries, the reality is that most corporations in the United States are small businesses more akin to a neighborhood store. Yet § 441b does not distinguish between these different types of entities; under § 441b, a corporation is a corporation. As such, it is over-inclusive.
This attempt to make mom and pop stores — as opposed to Halliburton — the face of the RNC’s argument is clever, but it does not change the implications of their argument. If a court accepted the RNC’s argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations — leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate they’d like. Congress might be able to restore part of this ban by enacting legislation. But, of course, that would require any such bill disadvantaging corporations to survive John Boehner’s House and Mitch McConnell’s filibuster.
Moreover, if the court accepts the RNC’s argument, it will effectively destroy any limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals or corporation can give to candidates. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. For this reason, a Wall Street tycoon who wanted to give as much as a billion dollars to fund a campaign could do so simply by creating a series of shell corporations that exist for the sole purpose of evading the ban on massive dollar donations to candidates.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/in-health-care-brief-obama-doj-needles-scalia-on-precedent.php?ref=fpa
I dont understand what Obama is doing here, either. The whole political scene is one giant clusterfuck, imho. Bush policies that seemed impossibly wrong are now law, common sense is out of the mix in law enforcement all over the nation.
The lesser of two evils seems to be our only choice this year. The momentum of OWS will be important, but it may be too early to make structural changes that the nation needs to bring us back into balance with our ideals…
“Obama is a Democrat in name only….This is my opinion….he has championed one cause while doing the other…he campaigned on one theory but has consistently done mediocre or let it hang…..I will say that Obama is finally getting a clue that he may not be the shoe in that he’d hoped for….”
AY,
Surprise. I agree with you. However, sometimes we only see things with the wisdom of hindsight. By today’s standards Dick Nixon is a Liberal. Obama is a centrist Republican, which is how far the line has been moved to the Right. Obama is the same politically as Bill Clinton, who you like and who I don’t, even though I voted for him twice. Had they not tried to impeach him over stupidity I would have no sympathy for him at all.
Clinton’s collapse on Welfare Reform was more monumental than most in the public realize. By then I was in the upper reaches of NYC’s HRA, its’ “Welfare Department” and I knew first hand how that “reform” was being applied and the “monsters” reigning as Commissioners, under Giuliani, applying it. His support for destroying Glass/Steagall was also a crucial starting point for the financial crisis.
The deal to me is better a centrist Republican in Democratic clothing, than a fascist hiding as a Conservative in Republican garments. I don’t think our viewpoints are that far apart.
Now for the Ron Paul supporters among us who say he will eliminate all those bad things like war, torture etc., because of his strong belief in constitutional values, i give you this from his morning interview on MSBC:
“It’s not constitutional, but I wouldn’t put that on the list,” he said. “You know, if we want a perfectly free society, you can’t wave a wand and get everything you want. So you have to work our way out of this.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/ron-paul-new-hampshire-primary-results-2012_n_1199068.html
So explain to me please why you think that he’s willing to ignore his Constitutional values in one area, but will make good on them in another. Eliminating Head Start would get him widespread support among Congressional Republicans, but eliminating Guantanamo would cause those same congress people to anger. It seems Mr. Paul understands the
basis of accommodation and so might not follow through on what you might think he would.
Mike,
I respect your right (as well as anyone elses) to vote for and to campaign for or to not do the same for anyone of your choosing…I have yet to call anyone out for that…..
I did read an interesting piece from Move on as well as some other political sites that I am subscribed to….Something that I find humorous was someone saying that Obama’s biggest fear is for Huntsman to get the nomination…Keep in mind that I think Paul Tsongaus was probably the best Democratic Candidate that we had had in awhile….
I then thought about how many times I have crossed over to vote for a weak GOP candidate that would dilute the vote of the stronger one, so that I’d have a Good democrat to vote for in the General Election….I wonder how many so called good voters are sidelining the other guy by doing this….
Obama is a Democrat in name only….This is my opinion….he has championed one cause while doing the other…he campaigned on one theory but has consistently done mediocre or let it hang…..I will say that Obama is finally getting a clue that he may not be the shoe in that he’d hoped for….
I liked Bill Clinton…..He may have been challenged in a lot of areas…but skill and diplomacy was not one of them….He was smart….I am still leaning for Huntsman and hope that he gets the nod….But if not….I’ll more than likely vote 3rd party if an option or Obama if I have to hold my nose….
it is sad when you are voting the lesser of the two evils….and that it has become not a choice but the only option…..
MS. sure, whatever you say.
“MS. apparently i did not pass YOUR litmust test on how to control the corrupting influence of money, but oh well we can certainly agree on your comments here.”
1zb1,
I think you’ve got it wrong. My blog on “America’s Transcendent” Issue was attacked by you as being naive and wrong in content. I responded to your attack. Must I show you the intemperance and disdain with which you attacked me for even writing it?
Mike S and SwM,
Your ethical consistency and political morality has been challenged?
By whom? Over what?
Once those two questions have been answered then the challenge falls flat.
It’s the ever popular “holier than thou” approach. Hilarious, given the characters of the men and women who have been offered as alternatives to Obama.
Agreed, Mike. Tests of political purity – like any test of social “purity” – are a tool of division. Not only is the tool divisive by its nature, but it is often blunt as well. Tools for dividing have their place, but one should endeavor to make sure they are as sharp and refined as possible and applied when proper and necessary. Then again, I’ve always been a measure twice, cut once kind of guy.
Gene,
As you’re aware I’ve known your opinion on not supporting Obama for quite awhile and respect you for it. Where I get touchy is, where others who dislike Obama, for very valid reasons, don’t respect that I also am aware of the negatives, yet am making what I consider to be my rational choice. The truth is that too many Americans are blind to the issues that most of us here see and that “most of us” includes almost all political viewpoints at this blog.
There are many reasons that many Americans miss the nuances in politics, that have little to do with willful ignorance and/or immorality.. The presence of elite propaganda influencing human minds is age old. It works because few of us have the inclination and/or leisure to dig more deeply into things. Having spent a good deal of my work life with two jobs and raising a family, I understand how hard it is to also try to keep current on the affairs of governance.
To the extent possible, given the influences that fog people’s minds it is incumbent upon us with information, to try to inform those with less time on their hands, as to the pitfalls in our political reality. Not as an “Elite” touching the “unwashed masses” with our wisdom, but as equally frail humans trying to make sense of a confusing life. We don’t make connections and forge organizational strength, by alienating potential allies.
This is why It disturbs me that people with whom I have a lot of common agreements, question my morality for not sharing their total viewpoint. This is not only a disservice to me, but it is a poor way to go about changing anything. Unfortunately, their attacks on me require me to attack them in kind. This makes common cause difficult to achieve and promotes the mythology that homogeneity is the basis of common cause.
Mike,
I have to agree with Elaine that there is nothing wrong with your political morality. Even though I won’t be voting for Obama and I have a perfectly valid ethical claim as to why, I understand and support your position as to why you will. My choice to opt out of this Morton’s Fork dilemma does not eliminate the problem for others or us collectively as a country. Your solution – the lesser evil – is a valid solution and given the choices probably the one I’d make were it not for my particular professional objections to the man.
Jill,
I like Glenn G.. He is a highly principled young man. In your selection though he sets up a straw man and then proceeds to demolish it. His straw man does not represent my views and the views of those I agree with so I don’t accept it in refutation. I understand that Glenn has backed himself into a corner with this, just as you have, with his dislike for Obama so strong that he is willing to rationalize the true horrific effect that Obama’s loss would cause to the 99% of us.
Glenn was born in 1967 and it was in 1967 that I became enmeshed in the Movement against the repression of Civil Rights and the Viet Nam War. I had been to many marches before that of course but in 1967 I had started work and become a activist in the most successfully radical labor union of its time and was a participant in its second strike against NYC, which was mainly about increasing benefits to NYC Welfare Recipients.
By the time Glen was 8 the Viet Nam war had ended. He was no doubt a precocious child, but I was already a young man aging, with those years spent in radical endeavor. What is happening now on the Left is little different. It is the impotent posturing of people more willing to blame their natural allies for failing a test of political purity, than for damning and defeating those on the Right causing the political chaos. I heard the same rallying calls back then and the same promises to organize…..organize! only to see the defeat of their hopes via the frailty of too little, too late.
The OWS Movement has been the best thing around but it is barely 6 months old and it is too early to see if it will find equally effective follow-up
strategies. It can choose to change the nature of the battle by finding further effective rallying memes like 1% vs. 99%, or it can get lost by being co-opted by those “hotheads” among them, giddy with early success and unwilling to do the hard work needed to effectively rally a Movement. Now you can accuse me all you want of being “unethical” or even “bull-headed”, but I see no alternative right now except to support Obama and also elect a Democratic Congress, with people like Warren and Cranston. While it is true that both parties are in the main Corporatist, among the Corporatists there is a divergence of opinion on how to govern. I think that divergence is key until a Movement to overthrow Corporate control actually solidifies to the point it can get a seat at the table of power. This view comes not because I am less radical than you or Tony, there’s not a chance of that, but because my being radical is informed by years of experience about the errors even radicals make. The greatest mistake is in refusing to make common cause with those who have intertwined interests, because they don’t fully agree with you. That road leads to Nixon and later Reagan. The problem is we have already swung the pendulum so far to the Rights that more of that leads us straight to Fascism and then game over.
Mike,
I’d say we saw some of those “unintended consequences” when Republicans like Scott Walker and John Kasich were voted in as governors.
I, too, have been critical of President Obama. I’d say there is nothing wrong with your political morality. We must all determine what we believe is the most moral political position for ourselves.
I have some respect for Greenwald but do agree with Guardian’s piece that Greenwald would not suffer under Paul’s policies like a poor elderly person of color would.
Elaine,
Thank you. I must admit that what I find disturbing is that I have literally written hundreds of comments denouncing the same things Jill/Tony have denounced, yet my support for Obama is seen as some kind of litmus test for my political morality. I’m highly moral politically and have proven it, yet I’m also someone who has been through all of this before and watched how a hatred for the war and LBJ, translated into its ultimate escalation and then
28 out of 44 years of Republican Presidents who have virtually destroyed all of the gains of the “New Deal” in an actual sense and in the erasure of its principles from the tenor of American Debate. One fails to see the lessons of history at their own and others peril. I’ve seen this tune played on the Left before and while I have been and remain a radical in outlook, I am too realistic a person not to foresee that dangers inherent in ignoring the Laws of Unintended Consequence.
MS. apparently i did not pass YOUR litmust test on how to control the corrupting influence of money, but oh well we can certainly agree on your comments here.
Not voting for Obama is the same as voting for a 3rd Term for George W. Bush. However, imperfect anyone may think Obama is, not whole heartedly supporting and voting for him now is the same as voting for a 3rd Term for George W. Bush; it’s the same as voting for 2 more members of the Supreme Court like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It’s the same as voting for no hope over some hope.
In the real world that is the reality.
Promoting Ron Paul as any alternative is both false on the merits and wrong on the outcome. It amounts to a vote for a 3rd term for George W. Bush. The notion that Obama has done anything comparable to what has happened under the Republicans or what will happen if they are elected again is absurd in the extreme.
Elaine,
I agree with you. These questions would most certainly make any Republican of conscience uncomfortable. And yes, I think Buddy Roemer is being excluded because he is asking Republicans uncomfortable questions and asking them to be better people.
Since this is a liberal/Democratic/libertarian site I do not put that much emphasis on arguing with Republicans here but one could certainly make every argument I make about president Obama about most of the Republican candidates. I have no issue with that idea. It’s completely true and accurate.
S.M. and Mike S.,
This is from Glenn Greenwald. I know you don’t approve of him but it’s the argument, not the person, who counts. He writes about exactly what you’re arguing above:
“4) As we head into Election Year, there is an increasingly common, bizarre and self-evidently repellent tactic being employed by some Democratic partisans against those of us who insist that issues like indefinite detention (along with ongoing killing of civilians in the Muslim world) merit high priority. The argument is that to place emphasis on such issues is to harm President Obama (because he’s responsible for indefinite detention, substantial civilian deaths, and war-risking aggression) while helping competing candidates (such as Gary Johnson or Ron Paul) who vehemently oppose such policies. Thus, so goes this reasoning, to demand that issues like indefinite detention and civilian deaths be prioritized in assessing the presidential race is to subordinate the importance of other issues such as abortion, gay equality, and domestic civil rights enforcement on which Obama and the Democrats are better. Many of these commentators strongly imply, or now even outright state, that only white males are willing to argue for such a prioritization scheme because the de-prioritized issues do not affect them. See here (Megan Carpentier), here (Katha Pollitt) and here (Dylan Matthews) as three of many examples of this grotesque accusatory innuendo.
There are numerous glaring flaws with this divisive tactic. For one, it relies on a full-scale, deliberate distortion of the argument being made; demanding that issues like indefinite detention, civilian deaths and aggressive war be given high priority in the presidential race does not remotely advocate the de-prioritization of any other issues. For another, many women and ethnic and racial minorities – as well as gay Americans — are making similar arguments about the need for these issues to receive substantial attention in the election.
More important, it’s irrational in the extreme to argue that self-interest or “privilege” would cause someone to want to prioritize issues like indefinite detention and civilian causalities given that the civil liberties and anti-war advocates being so accused are extremely unlikely themselves to be affected by the abuses they protest. For the most part, it isn’t white males being indefinitely detained, rendered, and having their houses and cars exploded with drones — the victims of those policies are people like Boumediene, or Gulet Mohamed, or Jose Padilla, or Awal Gul, or Sami al-Haj, or Binyam Mohamed, or Afghan villagers, or Pakistani families, or Yemeni teenagers.
Put another way, when you spend the vast bulk of your time working against the injustices imposed almost exclusively on minorities and the marginalized — as anyone who works on these war and civil liberties issues by definition does — it’s reprehensible for someone to deploy these sorts of accusatory tactics, all in service of the shallow goal of partisan loyalty enforcement. Those who were actually driven primarily by privileged self-interest would want to de-prioritize these issues in a presidential campaign, not insist on their vital importance.
And that is this real point here: what’s so warped about those who employ this tactic for partisan ends is how easily it could be used against them, rather than by them. All of the authors of the three accusatory examples linked above (Carpentier, Pollitt, and Matthews) — as well as most of those Democrats who have now sunk to explicitly arguing that such matters are unimportant — are white and non-Muslim. To apply their degraded rhetoric to them, one could easily say:
Of course they don’t consider indefinite detention, invasions and occupations, and civilian slaughter to be disqualifying in a President or even meriting substantial attention in the presidential election — of course they will demand that everyone faithfully support a President who continues to do these things aggressively — because, as non-Muslims, they’re not the ones who will be imprisoned for years with no trial or have their children blown to bits by a U.S. drone or air strike, so what do they care?
I don’t employ or endorse that wretched reasoning, but those who do — such as the authors of the above-linked accusations — should have it applied to them and their own political priorities; they deserve to reap what they are sowing.
Indeed, The Washington Post today has an excellent article on the millions of civilian deaths which the U.S. has caused over the last several decades and how steadfastly those civilian deaths are ignored in U.S. political and media discourse. The article is by John Tirman, the executive director and principal research scientist at the MIT Center for International Studies who just released a book on that topic. One primary reason that these deaths receive such low priority is because Americans are unaffected by these casaulties and can thus easily de-prioritize them as aberrational:
This explains much of our response to the violence in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. When the wars went badly and violence escalated, Americans tended to ignore or even blame the victims. The public dismissed the civilians because their high mortality rates, displacement and demolished cities were discordant with our understandings of the missions and the U.S. role in the world.
These attitudes have consequences. Perhaps the most important one — apart from the tensions created with the host governments, which have been quite vocal in protesting civilian casualties — is that indifference provides permission to our military and political leaders to pursue more interventions.
To invoke the exploitative, accusatory tactics of Megan Carpentier, Katha Pollitt, Dylan Matthews and the other accusers linked above: it’s much easier to view these policies as non-disqualifying and to insist on their de-prioritization in favor of other policies because their white, non-Muslim privilege means that they aren’t the ones who are going to be indefinitely detained, assassinated without due process, or have their homes and children targeted with drones and cluster bombs. Muslims have a much harder time so blithely acquiescing to such abuses — as do non-Muslims who are capable of protesting grave injustices even when they’re not directly affected by them. Again, that is not a form of reasoning I accept or use — there may be all sorts of reasons why one would want these policies to be de-prioritized or at least not be seen as disqualifying beyond selfish, privilege-based indifference — but those who spew those kinds of smears should understand how easy it is to subject them to those accusations.
Ultimately, it really isn’t that complicated to understand why many people consider these issues to be so imperative. Those struggling to understand it should go read Lakhdar Boumediene’s Op-Ed. Or this story and this Op-Ed about a 16-year-old boy and his 12-year-old cousin whose lives were ended when the 16-year-old was targeted (in secret and with no checks) with a drone strike in Pakistan. Or these newly documented findings of ongoing abuse of detainees at Bagram. Or the dozens of Yemeni women and children killed by a U.S. cluster bomb. Or the secretive process by which the current President has seized the unilateral power to target even U.S. citizens for assassination.
There are many reasons why one might insist on attention being paid to these issues, even in an Election Year. As I explained in my response to Carpentier’s lowly Guardian attack, self-interest and “privilege” are not among them. If anything, those traits are likely to produce exactly the opposite reaction, i.e., that these issues not be prioritized because empowering one’s own political party and caring about issues that personally harm oneself is the overriding goal.
Mike S.,
Regarding your post at 10:43 am today: You said it better than I ever could have.
Jill,
“Tony C. and Mike S. are talking about things that make Democrats very uncomfortable.”
Are they things that make Republicans uncomfortable too?
BTW, Buddy Roemer has been excluded from the Republican debates. Could the reason be his stance on not taking any PAC contributions or money from special interests? I think being confronted with questions about that in debates would surely make the Republican candidates uncomfortable. One has to wonder why debate moderators and members of the news media don’t bring up the subject.
“There are reasons to oppose Paul. Many of the reasons you site would be reasons to oppose Obama. This lack of ethical consistency is disturbing.”
Jill,
What is disturbing is your continuing to think of yourself as a paragon of ethics and SwM and me as some moral lepers because we disagree with you. Your way gets us probably Romney and we all know how much better off we will be then, of course in your mind they’re both the same, so your end game for making a difference is what exactly. SwM and I have done more than our fair share of criticism of Obama, however, people need to make reasoned political judgments and not react merely from hatred. To condemn this country to a Republican debacle, with all the pain it would cause simply because of animus, seems to me to be highly unethical and amoral. If one chooses to descend to the level of name calling, I would say that they do so out of lack of a real justification for their inconsistency.
Paul wants to eliminate abortion for everyone and get rid of the Voting Rights Act. My brother in law that is an ER physician told me that under Paul’s plan people would just die in the ER. At least Paul is consistent. He wants no help for the poorest countries or the poorest people. Not voting for him or Romney. If you want to vote for him Jill, go ahead. Buddy Roemer came in last so Paul is your better option.