Talk about f*cking up the libertarian brand name. Jesus.
Oh, yeah--you left out his approval for a 'one world government'. I'll take conspiracy theories over outright embrace of state expansion any day. St. Paul does look like saint compared to this clown.
Josh. I discussed what Gravel was running on based on his own campaign site. He didn't say anything about one world government.
I stand by my view that Gravel is not a good LP candidate because he is wrong on some key issues. Ron Paul is not a good representative for libertarianism for the exact same reason. Different issues of course. And the issues is not whether St. Paul looks like a saint compared to Gravel or compared to any other candidate. The question is whether he is a decent spokesman for libertariansim.
Almost anyone would look good compared to the current batch of candidates but that doesn't mean that everyone is a good libertarian representative.
The latest rumor is that this is building a Barr/Gravel ticket for the LP nomination. The combined anti-liberty positions of the two of them makes that a ticket that would destroy the LP for good ...
I strongly prefer Ruwart and Kubby, who both happen to be libertarians, BTW, without exception or excuses.
If we got Barr's position on the Patriot Act and Gravels postion on gay marriage we'd be alright. I fear we'd end up with Barr's antigay politics combined with national health care. : (
I could live with Ruwart and Kubby, in that order. Kubby is a good guy just not a great communicator so I couldn't give him the top slot. But I could live with him as the VP candidate.
In my opinion,between Gravel and Paul, Gravel is the lesser-of-two paint thinners of libertarian principles. However, I agree that I would not want either of them as our presidential candidate.
I wouldn't want to try to quantify which is worse. Gravel's support for national health care is clearly a dangerous position that will cause a great deal of harm over the long term to everyone. Paul's antiimmigration stands and his opposition to all measures to increase free trade are also very bad. I would wish both men luck if they avoided trying to call what they espouse libertarianism. When they do they just cause "brand confusion" and harm the brand.
Nationalized healthcare is a position that a few good books and three hours with a few economists can possibly cure. It's not always the result of problematic values as it is a naive way of putting values into practice. Then again, it doesn't always work, just as throwing stacks of scientific journal articles doesn't always bring people to their senses re: global warming. The question is: is Gravel a "true believer"?
Barr/Gravel 2008 doesn't sound too bad; it would be a sort of reversing of the Party's lobotomy and a reattachment of the left arm hacked off years ago to prevent ever leaning that way!
Sorry Ben, but Liam, your compatriot on this issue insist it ain't global warming but climate change. Of course you previously accused the skeptics of changing the topic from warming to climate change.
I fear that what you have is a theory that looks good on paper but just doesn't fit reality. I've run into them before. We've now had a decade that doesn't fit the theory. How many more years would it take for you to question the theory?
Commenting by HaloScan
