I wonder how many comments this post will receive. 
Chris,
Well, so far, one ... er, two.
WOW! I've been reading a lot of opinions on Ron Paul since I first heard of him two months ago & this one was just WEIRD!
This Knappster guy sure puts a lot of weight on a party name & not much on a guys reputation as a true conservative statesman. Read some Shakespeare dude! A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet!
And is your soul so black that you could put forth all of these suspicions about his motive with absolutely no evidence that it even MIGHT be true? What's up with that?
You seem to be taking this all very personally. Just LISTEN to him! Look at his record. It speaks for itself!
I think there is something wrong with your whole viewpoint.
A third party is the worst way to try & change the system. You have to be much smarter if you want to make any real difference.
I consider myself a Libertarian in spirit but in the 6 years that I have, I have always voted Republican in Nationals (lesser of two evils). And there are many others like me. Also many Dems are drawn to Paul's philosophy because it makes more sense than anything else being said.
You are your own worst enemy.
You need to start THINKING.
The libertarian party has been spinning its wheels for years and years now. If anything, Ron Paul has given it a bump it definitely does not deserves. Try something NEW - that's what people want - NEW AND FRESH - a platform made in today's age suited to today's age.
The idea that Ron Paul has somehow harmed the libertarian party is just plain ignorant. The libertarian party is what has harmed the libertarian party.
Gravatar I wonder how many comments this post will receive.
You read my mind. I'm also wondering how LONG each comment will end up being.
I tend to side with the previous commenter - the LP could use an urgent challenge to its raison d'etre.
Besides, if you want to engage in electoral politics, then the cynicism about principles and party affiliation shouldn't surprise you. While I support no person who claims the right to rule me, not even Ron Paul, I do realize that he has the best chance of achieving libertarian goals. He also has the best chance of setting the libertarian movement back.
But here's the catch, Tom: ANYBODY who has the ability to credibly achieve libertarian goals will by definition also be the biggest danger to the libertarian movement's future. That's what pinning your hopes on a national candidate means. If Kubby were getting the kind of support Paul is, it would be *him* whom people would be attacking for his flaws, and him whom we would effectively be trusting with the reputation and future of the LP. I agree with you: it sucks that Ron Paul represents us libertarians, but honestly, it sucks that ANYBODY has to represent us.
This is electoral politics: it is defined by the abstract concept of "representation". There will never be a perfect representative of libertarian principles, party affiliation be damned. I don't blame you for being skeptical and cynical - I am, too - but this is a situation the LP should have seen coming from a million miles away years ago. To blame Paul for the perilous state of the LP is a bit bogus (correct me if I'm overstating your position incredibly).
Frankly Tom, this is insane. Ron Paul was the LP candidate for President in 1988. The implication that he is a Roveian plant trying to destroy that same party is beyond fever dream bizarre.
There are lots of reasons to vote for an LP candidate over Ron Paul. Problem is, you're not making any of those arguments, you're just whining about Ron Paul being more popular than your guy.
It's not persuasive and the farther afield you roam with sideline sniping at Ron Paul, the less credibility you have.
Tom, I know you've said it before, but it won't hurt to repeat it again. You are not acting in you Kubby campaign capacity on this one.
I have yet to see Steve say anything negative about Ron Paul either privately or publicly.
He does have a few issue differences with Ron Paul, such as immigration, and he also believes we need a Libertarian Party candidate in the general election - especially since the odds are still strongly against Ron Paul making it past the primaries.
I don't know why some people, including apparently Wes, seem to think that you are speaking for the campaign on this, when you have said repeatedly that you are not.
I've been voting for the LP presidential candidate in every election since 1980. I will vote for the LP candidate in 2008 unless Ron Paul is the GOP candidate. Simple as that. I still consider myself a big-L Libertarian, and will continue voting for Libertarian candidates whenever possible. Even if Paul is the GOP nominee, I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that the LP candidate will get close to the same number of votes that Badnarik did last time around (say, within 50,000 votes). The LP needs to get real and start electing some state legislators.
Posted this previously on Steve Gordon's blog.
I don’t believe the Republican establishment will allow Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee, I don’t believe in drafting people who are not interested in the LP nomination (or that he is interested) or disqualified by sore loser laws from being on the ballot in several states, and I oppose NOTA (which would destroy ballot access and party organization) or any pro-war candidate for the nomination, or anyone who has just now suddenly become involved in the libertarian movement and immediately wants to run for President.
To any of the last type of candidates: welcome to the LP, and I hope you stick around. Please run for lower level office first, do some more reading, get active in your local party organization, and then run for President next time around.
George Phillies is becoming a better public speaker, is pretty solidly libertarian on the vast majority of issues (although we do disagree on some, such as immigration, trade, federal reserve, and tuition tax credits), and has run for lower level office and been involved in local, state and national LP organizing for many years. So, he deserves our consideration.
Steve Kubby is my favorite candidate for the nomination. He has also been involved in the LP and the movement for many years, has run for office as a Libertarian before, and is solidly libertarian in ideology. He is the only presidential candidate in any party, so far as I know, who has played a major part in actually passing a law that increased freedom rather than decreasing it (California’s first in the nation medical marijuana law).
He has a very compelling personal story as a long time survivor of a type of cancer that has been 100% lethal in every other known case, and has literally put his life on the line and has gone to jail in the fight for freedom. I think he is more charismatic than George, and has spoken to crowds of up to 50,000 people at a time.
I hope that the Ron Paul supporters come back to the LP and bring more people with them, but I fear that they may crash the LP by focusing solely on a longshot campaign for another party’s nomination, depriving us of crucial early money and organization and relegating whoever the LP nominates, if anyone, to playing catch-up from a late start. This would be a huge lost opportunity in a year when the Democrats and Republicans are presenting a very weak field, and new technology makes it easier to bypass top-down media and get our message out to more people.
Additionally, I hope that whatever socially conservative migrant bashers might come in to the LP due to the Ron Paul campaign are balanced out by recruiting from left-libertarian ranks, such as the migrants rights, antiwar and drug policy reform movements. We are already too far tilted to the right as it is; any more and we’ll topple and fall. On the bright side, Ron Paul is solidly antiwar and I’d rather have social conservatives than Boortzist warmongers, not
Got cut off.
...
On the bright side, Ron Paul is solidly antiwar and I’d rather have social conservatives than Boortzist warmongers, not that I much care for either.
Ron Paul is in fact doing some great things, such as standing up to Adolf Ghouliani in the Republican debates, but I hope his supporters also help the Libertarian party and its candidates - including presidential - so they will have a solid backup already in place in the high likelihood possibility that Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee. Creating one from scratch next year will end us up far behind in votes and party building from where we could be if we start in earnest now. And that will have long term consequences.
Mr. X,
You write:
"Frankly Tom, this is insane. Ron Paul was the LP candidate for President in 1988. The implication that he is a Roveian plant trying to destroy that same party is beyond fever dream bizarre."
Apparently your law studies didn't leave time for a class in logic.
The fact that Paul was the LP candidate for president in 1988 in no way precludes his working against the LP in 2008. And, as a matter of fact, he has a record of doing exactly that in prior election cycles.
Historically, Ron Paul has gone to whichever side his bread is buttered on. He went to Congress as a Republican. Then he came to the LP and ran for president -- in the process, developing a fundraising list which he parlayed first into a newsletter subscriber base, and then as a fundraising base to go BACK to Congress, again as a Republican, on.
Once back in Congress, he continued to play all ends against the middle in a big way -- effectively building a motley collection of disparate/opposed groups into an ad hoc Ron Paul Promotion Fund -- carefully cultivating his relations with those groups but assiduously avoiding actually accomplishing anything for them on the House floor that might derail his gravy train.
One week he's "Dr. No," gladhanding the Libertarians (while on the side, signing campaign letters from anti-libertarian Republican candidates urging registered Libertarians in California to vote against the LP and for the GOP).
The next week he's "the pro-life OB-GYN who wants to keep the damn Mexicans out" talking to the Constitution Party (which may resemble his actual beliefs).
The week after that he's playing a more coy brand of footsie with the Council of Conservative Citizens or the Southern League -- not quite coming out with "I'm just like you," but perfectly happy to let them believe that he's got a sheet and a hood in his closet too, and would wear them in public if he could get away with it. Hey, a check's a check.
Name a fringe political group on the "right," and chances are Ron Paul has turned it upside down and shaken the loot out of its pockets.
In between fleecing the libertarian, constitutionalist and racist yokels and casting ineffectual votes strictly for their consumption, of course, he keeps the corporate contributors and the district constituents happy with loads of pork that he can insert into the budget bill, take credit for at home and deny responsibility for elsewhere.
The question is not what in Paul's record indicates that he'd accept a potentially lucrative deal to destroy a pesky third party, but what in his record indicates he wouldn't follow the same pattern he's always followed.
The fact that we (and that includes me) allowed Paul to con us for so long doesn't mean that we have to continue falling for it.
You need to make that last comment a blog post, Tom.
Wow, Tom, you've really jumped the shark on this one. Why would Karl Rove - or anyone else, for that matter - feel threatened by the LP? The LP has been a completely ineffective organization for most of its lifetime, and even more so in recent years. By contrast, Ron Paul is actually out there bringing the libertarian message - in a pretty explicit, uncensored form - to a wider audience than Steve Kubby or Michael Badnarik could ever dream of.
The libertarian movement isn't about parties, and that needs to be stated loud and clear. The libertarian movement is about the message. Ron Paul's succeeding at broadcasting the message, whether he'll be successful in the polls or not. And that's what it'll take before ANY libertarian has a chance to actually influence policy.
Frankly, I don't believe we'll ever see a libertarian candidate in my lifetime. We will at MOST see a handful more libertarian congresspeople, though not necessarily members of the LP. Our movement is tiny and insignificant. But it heartens me that Paul is bringing the ideals of limited government back to the public debate. Don't sully that with petty in-fighting over party identification.
Apparently your law studies didn't leave time for a class in logic.
The fact that Paul was the LP candidate for president in 1988 in no way precludes his working against the LP in 2008. And, as a matter of fact, he has a record of doing exactly that in prior election cycles.
It doesn't preclude it, but given that you've presented exactly zero evidence in support of your conspiracy (other than the possibility that Dr. Paul wants his kid to keep his seat, the burden is still on you to come up with a coherent narrative.
There's no sign in his public statements or actions that Ron Paul believes any differently than he did in 1988 when he ran on the LP ticket. To bandy around accusations that someone who has been consistently libertarian in his beliefs for over 20 years would sell all of that out for some political patronage and destroy a party he ran under doesn't make sense.
What my studies have taught me is that juries don't believe stories that don't ring true. Your cui bono conspiracy ramblings don't ring true and it's going to hurt whatever credibility you have when advancing other positions, which probably explains why Paul is so eager to note that you're not speaking in your capacity as a Kubby campaign operative.
There's no edge in trying to sling mud at Ron Paul. It won't help your fundraising and, if the recent survey is correct, will probably alienate libertarian donors who would otherwise support Kubby in addition to Ron Paul.
Mr. X:
it's going to hurt whatever credibility you have when advancing other positions, which probably explains why Paul is so eager to note that you're not speaking in your capacity as a Kubby campaign operative.
There's no edge in trying to sling mud at Ron Paul. It won't help your fundraising and, if the recent survey is correct, will probably alienate libertarian donors who would otherwise support Kubby in addition to Ron Paul.
True, but..
It shouldn't. Tom is speaking for himself on this one, and Steve's statements about Ron Paul have, at least so far, been positive. In fact, in at least one interview (recording still available in our media archives) Steve said that if Ron Paul was to somehow win the Republican nomination,
he would drop out and work for Ron Paul. I don't know if he stands by that statement, but I haven't seen him disavow it.
Tom has made it clear that working on the campaign does not preclude him from expressing his own opinions, including on issues where he does not agree with the candidate.
He has made an effort to distinguish his own views from times when he is speaking for the campaign. He has resigned as campaign manager to make this distinction more obvious and has offered to resign from the campaign if that fails.
Tom does bring a lot to the campaign, but he is his own man and has his own views. It is an unfortunate fact that
some people nevertheless hold Tom's personal views against the campaign, and against Steve.
Ron Paul supporters in the LP should be above that type of confusion. Let's leave that type of thing to the Democrats (Clinton blamed Obama for the opinions of one of his supporters, or was it the other way around?), or those folks who think that racists supporting Ron Paul somehow proves that he is also a racist.
Mr. X,
I wouldn't dream of slinging mud at Ron Paul. He's covered himself in it for 20 years without my help. I'm just taking notice of that fact.
I agree that Ron Paul's beliefs have probably not changed since 1988. Apparently "Won't Get Fooled Again" is not a tune to be found on the LP's existential iPod.
Daniel,
You write:
"Wow, Tom, you've really jumped the shark on this one. Why would Karl Rove - or anyone else, for that matter - feel threatened by the LP?"
See the first paragraph of the article. So far in this decade the LP has, according to the "votes would have gone to X if Y hadn't been in the race" theory predominant among major party politicos, cost the GOP four US Senate seats total, and last year two US Senate seats that made the difference between a GOP majority and a GOP minority.
That doesn't make the LP effective toward its own goals, but it does show the LP as an obstacle to GOP supremacy at the margins.
Furthermore, the Ron Paul candidacy has effects beneficial to the GOP beyond merely destroying the LP. Rove et al are trying to put the traditional GOP coalition together again. They want libertarians in the car, even though they'd never dream of giving libertarians the wheel. Ron Paul's perfect for that goal as well. He draws libertarians into the GOP, without there being a chance in hell that he will win the Republican presidential nomination or that those he draws in will ever exert any control over the GOP agenda.
There's no aspect of the Paul campaign I can find which isn't beneficial to the GOP and detrimental to the LP and the libertarian movement.
Over at my site I have a differnt take on this www.crazyforliberty.com.
I believe this could effect the repubilcan party in a way they dont see coming. At the end of the day Ron Paul could pull the repubilcan party toward us.The folks I know in Atlanta who are supporting Ron Paul are great activist who continue to support the state lp.I have not jump on the band wagon, but it's pull is great. a lot of us would let to see success and it has been a long time since we have had something to get excited about. Ron Paul is starting to give some people that hope.
Doug Craig
Wow, party groupthink has certainly cranked up your reality distortion field...and that of many others.
The LP served two potential purposes:
A. spread the message of liberty
B. election libertarians to office
Ron Paul has already done more of A than all LP candidates from 1984 to the present put together. While his chance of winning is tiny, it is still 100 times greater than for Kubby or Phillies.
If the LP leadership had any sense, if would ride this wave and gain new activists for down-ticket efforts. I've got about 10 new people who say they are going to attend my local LP meeting as a Ron Paul meetup. This would be an excellent opportunity to recruit new freedom-minded people into the LP save that:
1. I had to resign my remaining LP office (Web Dude) to set up the meeting due to bylaws quibblers.
2. I formally quit the LP entirely in disgust over the matter.
It is the Libertarian Party that hurts the libertarian movement. Associating an overly radical, politically clueless political party with the word "libertarian" damages the image of said word.
Ironically enough, the most radical of the candidates for LP chair in 2006 is plugging Ron Paul big time. Go Ernie!
Carl,
You write:
"Ironically enough, the most radical of the candidates for LP chair in 2006 is plugging Ron Paul big time."
That doesn't surprise me. Paul has remarkable cachet among libertarians of all stripes, from "radical" to "pragmatist."
What does surprise me is that nobody seems to have realized yet that this article and the comment thread so far haven't been intended so much as an attack on Paul as a demonstration of how conspiracy theory works.
For the record, no, I don't actually think it too likely that Rove really called Ron Paul and bought his soul. But on the standards of conspiracy theory, I can "prove" that he did by simply holding that the effects and beneficiaries of Paul's campaign are the ones we would expect to see if he had.
Wow.
The meta-attack on conspiracy theorists slipped right past me.
Just to engage the hypothetical a little, do you really think Rove and the Republican machine would voluntarily put someone on the stage at each debate to remind the American people that every other Republican contender is out of step with the vast majority of the country on Iraq just to mitigate a very small number of libertarian voters in close races?
My impression is that Tom doesn't actually believe this conspiracy nonsense. I see the conspiracy verbiage as a vehicle for his central point: Ron Paul is hurting the LP. I may be wrong.
Whether or not you like Ron Paul, you have to admit that he IS hurting the LP. He is actively running for the nomination of an opposing party. If he wins that nomination, then he will be actively campaigning against the LP presidential nominee as wel.l as EVERY down ticket LP campaign. Of course, in this respect he is hurting the LP no more than Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney. However, there is no doubt that LP fundraising has dried up since the start of the Ron Paul campaign. In this respect, he is directly hurting the LP.
What could be debated is whether or not he is hurting the greater libertarian movement. That debate would not get very far since very few would be able to agree on first principles, namely what the libertarian movement "is".
Personally, I don't want the libertarian movement associated with Know-Nothingism and anti-abortionists. However, I have ZERO problem with the conservative movement having these associations. Ron Paul is a self-described conservative. That Libertarians wish to fund a self-described conservative over an outright libertarian is not Ron Paul's problem, it's the LPs..
Carl,
Re-reading your comment, I think that where we're at loggerheads is on some more basic issues.
I don't agree that Ron Paul is "spreading the message of liberty" more than anyone, because I have yet to see that he's "spreading the message of liberty," period. Aside from his foreign policy position, he's mainly running as a troglodye conservative who wants to keep them thar swarthy beaners on the other side of the river and them thar queers out of the barracks and the wedding chapel.
I don't agree that his chance of winning is "100 times" that of Kubby's or Phillies's chances, because I don't see that any of the three have any chance at all.
I'm probably even less starry-eyed about the LP's past history and optimistic about its future prospects than you are. The difference is that you seem to think that libertarians can achieve their goals through some kind of inchoate mechanism, or through any random mechanism that happens to be lying around (e.g. the GOP). I, on the other hand, believe that liberty requires a tool of certain specifications to achieve, that the GOP resembles that tool in no respect, and that the LP, flawed as it is, is the only existing wrench that might be made to fit the nut.
What does surprise me is that nobody seems to have realized yet that this article and the comment thread so far haven't been intended so much as an attack on Paul as a demonstration of how conspiracy theory works.
I guess I came close. See above, which was written as you were writing.
X,
You write:
"Just to engage the hypothetical a little, do you really think Rove and the Republican machine would voluntarily put someone on the stage at each debate to remind the American people that every other Republican contender is out of step with the vast majority of the country on Iraq just to mitigate a very small number of libertarian voters in close races?"
Absolutely. That reminder is going to be there in every debate with an even remotely honest moderator anyway when the questions are asked. Having an "anti-war candidate" on the stage:
- Lets the big dogs establish their big, ballsy warriorness to the GOP's still fairly pro-war "base" for as long as that remains tenable by contrast with that candidate.
- Once that ceases to be tenable, it gives them maneuvering room. They've already established that the GOP tent is so big that it can accomodate an anti-war candidate, so they can move cautiously away from jingoland while remaining in the tent.
- Lets the GOP hold itself out as that "big tent."
- Attracts libertarians to the GOP without risking any significant likelihood that "their" candidate will actually win the nomination ... leaving them open to some of the candidates who claim to be, or are called, "libertarian-leaning" like Giuliani and (coming up) Fred Thompson.
- Possibly brings over some "soft" Democrats who are looking for an anti-war candidate and who might buy into the "moderation" of Giuliani on abortion, McCain on campaign finance and immigration, etc. once their attractor is eliminated.
There's really no down side for the GOP to having Paul in the race, unless he can win the nomination ... and he can't.
From a Roveian point of view, it might also look like "well, we're screwed in 2008 anyway ... might as well use it to mop up some of these splinter parties tht are costing us elections. We're going to lose the White House in 2008 regardless, but maybe we can stop bleeding Senate seats on the comeback."
But, once again: While I genuinely believe that the Paul campaign is having a negative effect on both the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party, I don't believe that that effect is intentional on his part, or that it's the result of a conspiracy/deal between Paul and the machine.
I've had quite a few Paul supporters who also happen to be "9/11 Truthers" taking the piss out of me recently for believing that libertarian support is better placed with the LP than with the Paul campaign. I just decided I should use their own "cui bono" logic on them and see how they took it (so far, no one's risen to the bait).
I actually have a good deal more respect for Paul than my recent writings would indicate ... I just tend to get to the other side of something by going over the top of it.
Tom, for what it's worth, I've had similar misgivings about the tentacles/ganglia of Bush's brain & its timely functions. But I did not come out with it because I would rather not be accused again of paranoia. So as long as I'm not the only one: what you said.
Tom,
Of course, I already knew what you were doing with the conspiracy argument. I did not want to dignify it by engaging that particular aspect, but since you asked, it is absolutely not true that the only arguments advanced by 9/11 truthers are cui bono and/or poking holes in the officially accepted conspiracy theory.
Of course, whoever has the burden of proof has the hardest case to make, so naturally the positive statements made by truthers seem to be (and often are) more dubious than the holes they poke in the 9/11 Omission Report.
If we place the burden of proof on the regime's official conspiracy theory, it seems hard to prove; and the same is true for any of the other various alternative theories that have been advanced.
The policy prescription - getting US regime forces out of the middle east and ending US regime aid to middle eastern regimes and other gangs, and reversing civil liberties destroying measures passed in the panic after 9/11 - remains the same regardless of which conspiracy carried out the attacks.
Whether the regime agents who are responsible for such things actually carried out the attacks, paid Al Qaida to do it, purposely ignored warnings, or were merely grossly incompetent in missing them, the fact that heads should roll and be kept from popping up again over this remains true.
A new, independent investigation would not hurt anyone. If the truthers are right, it may bring this to light. If they aren't, it will bolster the government's case.
Back to your regularly scheduled debate over whether Ron Paul helps or hurts the LP and the cause of liberty.
Cui bono?
Tom,
I think it is abundantly clear that you are are working to undermine and damage the libertarian movement.
The evidence is clear that the libertarian movement has been energized by the Ron Paul campaign like no other time except for maybe the 1980 campaign.
The claim that Ron Paul is hurting the LP is lacking evidence. The LP is trumpeting a 18% increase in membership since January. Spontaneous grassroots events are happening around the country, that are spreading a message of reclaiming our civil liberties and ending our empire building and restoring our constitutional Republic.
Back to "cui bono?"
Your actions and your constant smears of the most visible proponent of Liberty call into question your motives.
I think you are a sell out (or simply were always a fake) to the Libertarian cause.
You did not join the LP until after 1996, in which you voted for Ross Perot (what a libertarian...NOT!)
You attacked and undermined Harry Browne's campaign in 2000. You quit the LP and joined the Democrat's (what a libertarian vehicle that party is ...NOT!) because you claimed the LP was not serious about advancing libertarianism.
You started your own political party, the amazingly successful (NOT!!!!) "Boston Tea Party" to act as a pure libertarian political movement.
And, now you supposedly came back to the LP, but spend all your time undermining Steve Kubby's campaign by spreading lies and smears of the most visible and clearly popular libertarian candidate seeking the Presidency in 2008.
Keep in mind that due to the timing of the GOP primaries, Ron Paul will either be nominated as the GOP primary on a libertarian message or he will be knocked out of the race by the time the LP nominating convention is held, so he is not undermining the LP nominee unless he pulls off a major upset to win the nomination.
What is he doing is using the GOP nomination to espouse "Bill of Rights Enforcement", which you supposedly supported when backing L.N. Smith in 2000, to millions of voters that would otherwise not be exposed to that message.
You are a either traitor to the libertarian movement, Thomas Knapp, or an idiot that is harming this movement out of sheer idiocy. nothing else explain the cui bono? theory of your actions this year.
I'd love to see your financial record for the past 6 months.
Tom, as long as you hassle with dial-up, I have no need to see your financial records.
But,
If Tom gets a high speed connection or a non-prepaid cell in the next year or two, we'll know he's on the take.
Right?
Quoth (probably) Hunter Schaeffer:
"You did not join the LP until after 1996, in which you voted for Ross Perot (what a libertarian...NOT!)"
I joined the LP in early 1996, and voted for Harry Browne in both 1996 and 2000.
"You attacked and undermined Harry Browne's campaign in 2000."
Actually, I began attacking Harry Browne's campaign in 1998, as it began to become clear that his campaign manager had indeed stolen the 1996 nomination for Browne by betraying his position of trust as the LP's national director (something he later publicly confessed to having done) and that David Bergland was abusing his position as party chair to promote Browne's 2000 candidacy.
Those were just facts that I took no great pleasure in pointing out. As a matter of fact, at the same time I was pursuing them because they needed to be pursued, I was carrying on a friendly correspondence with Browne and serving as a volunteer proofreader for an early version of The Great Libertarian Offer.
Once Browne had procured the nomination again in 2000, I supported him wholeheartedly as a campaign volunteer, working a phone bank to bring people to his St. Louis appearance, working to put together an LP presence at the October presidential debate in St. Louis, placing a Browne brochure on each and every door in my precinct and two neighboring precincts, and voting for him on election day.
"You quit the LP and joined the Democrat's (what a libertarian vehicle that party is ...NOT!) because you claimed the LP was not serious about advancing libertarianism."
And I came back because I discovered that the Democratic Party couldn't serve that purpose either, and because I still believe the LP wants to get serious about advancing libertarianism.
"You started your own political party, the amazingly successful (NOT!!!!) 'Boston Tea Party' to act as a pure libertarian political movement."
The Boston Tea Party is not a political party, and its platform is more moderate/incrementalist than the Libertarian Reform Caucus's.
You forgot the part where I became one of only a few appointed Libertarian federal officeholders, the part where I managed two local Libertarian candidates to election, the part where I prevailed for the libertarian side on a local ballot issue, the part where I published the Internet's premier libertarian daily newsletter through (now) nearly 1,200 editions, the part where that newsletter has in its index at the moment about 300 articles by or about Ron Paul, probably 295 of which are complimentary toward him, etc.
"And, now you supposedly came back to the LP"
I came back to the LP in January of 2006 from the Democrats, and haven't left since.
"What is [Paul] doing is using the GOP nomination to espouse "Bill of Rights Enforcement"
... without mentioning any such concept or anything resembling it. His followers get his ideas from him via osmosis, apparently.
"I'd love to see your finan
(cont'd)
"I'd love to see your financial record for the past 6 months."
I don't keep financial records as such -- I don't even have a bank account. If I kept such records, you'd probably find them rather disappointing. Offhand, I'd guesstimate my gross income so far in 2007 at ~$7,000, less than $200 of which came from political campaigns (and much of that in the form of reimbursement for expenses incurred), and none of which is in any way connected to anything I've had to say about Ron Paul.
It may be that you consider my attacks on Ron Paul unjustified. That's fine -- at least I'm not lame enough to go around attacking, even less effectively, someone as insignificant as, um, me.
The LP is a dead horse. How many of the 18% increase that "Mockingbird" [i]Washington Times[/i] reported are brand new to the LP?
How many more would be in the Party, were it not for the failed leadership at Natl? How many have left?
Briefly, here's my theory: (which I don't think would preclude any of yours, with the exception of Paul's intentions).
*If* Ron Paul should win the primary/caucus/straw poll in every state, it is still unlikely that he would ever get the nomination. Even if Rove is using him as a "pawn," chances of enough delegate votes on the convention floor are slight, at best. Former Republican constitutionalist types might be able to get a seat in some states, but that's about it.
*So*
*if* Ron Paul were to be supported by tens of millions of Americans, and then *didn't win* the nomination.....
Where will the "would-be voters" turn? (Kubby ?!? -how cool would THAT be) The reason they supported Paul in the first place is not to be found in any Republican alternatives.
----
MHO, we already reached the political tipping point. We're just waiting for the proverbial straw.
P.S.
You had the right idea in the beginning, Tom. The spirit of BTP is alive & well, but timing is everything.
Well, well. Tom, You've really shaken the Paulite tree this time. Kudos to you for that! I find it disappointing that so many others can fail to see the damage that will result from Paul's candidacy. Amazing that the GOP faithful accuse libertarians of being cultists when they have a new Messiah in the form of Paul. Shoot, look at the conversions he making amongst the faithful. Keep it up, maybe it'll get through to some of them.
P.P.S.
Both Kubby & Paul are MySpace friends of mine! =P
myspace.com/WendyT420
Where will the "would-be voters" turn? (Kubby ?!? -how cool would THAT be) The reason they supported Paul in the first place is not to be found in any Republican alternatives.
That would be nice. I certainly hope it will turn out to be true. It may even happen.
Of course, a lot (or maybe almost all) of them could end up voting for...oh, I don't know, Fred Thompson? If Ron Paul spends all his time between the NSGOP convention and the election urging them to keep (Hillary?) out of office.
Or perhaps, there won't even be a LP candidate in the general election because most LP convention attenders vote NOTA out of deference to RP?
Or, how about if he does go third party....and it turns out to be the Constitution Party? (Less likely than the first two scenarios, but possible).
Of course, if the LP candidate turns out to be...oh, I don't know, Wayne Root? It doesn't mean we should vote for the LP candidate no matter who it turns out to be.
Not all Libertarians are created equal, after all.
BTW Wendy since we are now giving out myspace accounts...
http://www.myspace.com/paulie_cannoli
MRJarrell
So you're a Ron Paul Meetup virgin?
Wow? What's that like? My first time was fun because the organizer is about 10 yrs younger than me (& I'm not old!) who had - prior to 2007 - never paid any attention to politics before. He had NO clue what to do at such an event, but the flames of liberty were in his eyes! =P
The rest of us were - with a couple of exceptions - seasoned activists, mostly within the LP. Having been a libertarian since I was 14, I've never even voted for a Republican before. I HAVE voted for CP candidates, Green candidates, Natural Law candidates, & always NO on TAXES and retaining JUDGES! However, I DID let a former Republican state committee member help me pass out campaign lit. when I ran for city council.
2008 isn't about parties
the paradigm has been
shifting for more than a generation!
the wind is blowing freedom, but you can't catch the wind...only direct it
Fuck the LP anyway. Whether or not the neocons have infiltrated or hijacked the party - whichever it is - the LP will continue to lose members just as it was growing. Like some wild animals, LP faithful eat their young.
They have since I was young, and things are worse now than ever.
whether or not anyone's theory about an alleged conspiracy is true,
one truth we can agree on
we need the freedom movement to grow like a wildfire soon
REAL ID: May 2008
I don't care about parties right now.
Paul,
I agree that we should support individuals.
"Not all Libertarians are created equal, after all."
Neither are all libertarians.
=)
Paul,
(You have a lot of friends !)
Think about this:
Ron Paul's largest possible constituency is not from within the GOP, but within the non-voting public who sees through the BS they see on TV. These people will NOT be running out & voting for any of the others. A few "RINOs" in the GOP faithful will, but not 10s of millions.
Maybe tens of thousands...
Pat Buchanan followers mostly
these have already shown themselves useless as freedom fighters
Americans who realize that choosing between Dee & Dum is pointless, often believe that voting 3rd party is pointless as well. "Can't win," they say.
Ron Paul resonates among non-voters precisely because he IS different -- with or withOUT the "l" word" association.
"...by focusing solely on a longshot campaign for another party’s nomination,
..."
tee hee
Flash Gordon made a joke.
focusing on a long shot campaign.... what libertarian would do THAT?
=P
(You have a lot of friends !)
pffffttt. Only like 600-something, and the vast majority are strictly myspace friends only.
I think Tom has like 2,000 and many of the people on my friends list have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of "friends".
So I could defintely use more. A lot more.
As for what Ron Paul voters will do if he is not the nominee; are you saying it will not have much to do with what he urges them to do, especially if he spends a lot of time doing it?
"...by focusing solely on a longshot campaign for another party’s nomination,
..."
The key words there are
A) solely
and
B) the part replaced by
....
That's Tom Knapp has 2000.
Tom (Anderson) has more like 200 million.
In response to talldrink:
"a true conservative statesman" -- I can hardly think of a worse insult to hurl at someone.
"A third party is the worst way to try & change the system" -- Yeah, like the way that the Republican Party (a third-party) had no hope of ending slavery. Thank God for the Whigs and the two-party system, or else Ron Paul would probably be a slavemaster right now! Oh, wait...
"Personally, I don't want the libertarian movement associated with Know-Nothingism and anti-abortionists... Ron Paul is a self-described conservative. That Libertarians wish to fund a self-described conservative over an outright libertarian is not Ron Paul's problem, it's the LP's."
I agree with virtually everything Chris Moore ever says, and the above is no exception.
Robert Milnes: Congrats on your one vote in the LP Presidential survey. Did you vote for yourself or do you really have a supporter out there?
G.E. Smith, are you referring to the survey in which no matter how many votes you get you lose?
I'm referring to the one where if you would have gotten 2.72% of the vote, you'd be the front-runner for the nomination.
"I agree with virtually everything Chris Moore ever says, and the above is no exception."
Be Careful. I've said some stupid things in the past and fully intend on saying more stupid things in the future.
Knapp... Did you see this comment from your man, Steve Kubby?: "My biggest fear at the time was that the US government was involved in 9/11 and would use the attack to gut civil rights and the rule of law. I regret that my initial assessment has proven to be correct."
Even if Paul doesn’t destroy the Libertarian Party he has besmirched the brand. That is the term libertarian is forever going to be seen as some version of “conservative” -- which it isn’t. Paul has mixed anti-libertarian positions with wacko conspiracy theories cherry-picked from the lunatics at the John Birch Society. He is anti libertarian on immigration, abortion, separation of church and state, equality for gays, etc. He drags in utter nonsense on the “international bankers” and a “Nafta Superhighway” etc. He combines the worse of Lou Dobbs with the worst of Lew Rockwell, with the worst of the Birchers, cloaks it with some libertarian sounding rhetoric the yahoos in the movement lap it up.
And Mr. X just falsely claims Paul is not taking any positions different than he did in 1988. In 1988 he said he would abolish the INS. When asked about that he now says he “doesn’t remember” every saying that, in a written reply to a presidential survey questionnaire. He says his positions is totally the opposite of the one attributed to him in 1988. As a fool who supported him in 1988 I know his position then was nearly as nationalistic, racialistic and xenophobic as it is today. Damn him.
I’m not convinced the LP is doing anything worth doing right now. And some of their candidates are horribly unlibertarian. It is the destruction of the libertarian brand name that worries me. And Paul is one of the worst when it comes to damaging that name.
GE,
You write:
"Knapp... Did you see this comment from your man, Steve Kubby?"
No. I saw such a comment attributed to Steve Kubby in an alleged "interview" which had not been released for publication by the campaign's communications director, but I have no reason to believe that it's authentic.
Regards,
Tom
The quote is authentic. However, I've posted a notice:
“Whoops! This is a preliminary version of the answers and is being redone. I was not aware of that at the time when I posted this on my blog. I will publish an updated version when it has been finalized and made available. This turned out to be a preliminary version and I should not have published it, especially ahead of the interviewer. I was unaware that it was an unfinished product. The final version will go into more detail, and correct some possible wrong impressions based on overly hasty preliminary answers.”
I asked Steve about this and he said he is not a 9/11 expert and should not have made such a definitive and categoric statement. He has some questions about the official story, and it sounded like he may be in favor of a new and more independent investigation. We'll see what he says when he publishes a final version of the interview.
In response to G.E. Smith...
Please clarify.
How is being a "conservative statesman"
say, vs. a "liberal politician" anything but good. It's what I'm looking for.
I checked out your page & can't see where we really disagree on philosophy.
You say..."Capitalist Dove is for peace, freedom, liberty, justice, constitutionally limited democracy, and global prosperity. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for the mutual benefit of all parties involved. It precludes the use of force or fraud, and in the absence of these transgressions, there can be no victims."
I agree, I am all in for that. From what I have read, seen & heard of Ron Paul, he is & has been steady in his efforts to achieve those very things his whole life.
So, enlighten me please, I am a good student.
Deb
Oh, and be sweet. I could be your MOTHER!
Quoth Paulie,
"The quote is authentic."
That remains to be seen.
Print/hypertext interviews with Steve Kubby are vetted by the campaign's communications director before publication. That communications director either approves the text or asks for changes in it. The candidate could always reject requests for changes, of course, but that's how the process works.
The first time the campaign's communications director -- me -- saw this "interview" was when it popped up on Paulie's site, and I have reasonable doubts as to whether or not the statements in it even originated with the candidate himself.
Backs slowly, slowly away from the computer...walks out the door shaking head, not knowing whether to cry or fall to the floor and roll around laughing like a maniac.
Tom, Tom, Tom.
I suppose I'd rather see a post like this than to have you pull your punches. But, for the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to try to forget it ever happened.
In any case, keep up the good fight.
And the destruction of the Libertarian Party is bad because...? They are a shameful stain on the libertarian movement as a whole, and they have dumbed it down so much that now everyone thinks all libertarians believe in government.
Sir,
Since I am actively participating with the diverse Ron Paul supporters, I can tell you that we understand the bigger picture. We have put party labels aside. We just want liberties, less government, and sounder money. We know that one man can't create that for us. We know that we must have a long term impact on federal, state, and local elections, and only then can a presidential leader get it done.
Our supporters, from high school to seniors are all learning how the political system works, good and bad. All these things are only the first step. And we understand that we are taking on our responsibility as citizens, perhaps a responsibility that many of us have shirked for a long time.
I think I read something that called this a trans-partisan movement. From my observation, this is true. And from that perspective, yes, we the people are tired of having our voting choices limited to party favorites chosen by political party loyalists.
Respectfully.
I just hosted a Ron Paul meetup that overlapped the local LP social hour. We had an overflow crowd. I think there were only two registered Republicans present. The rest were independent and Democrat.
Such collaboration could enable my local LP affiliate to easily double its available activist base. Libertarians could use the Ron Paul campaign to double in size in one year.
But that would require common sense.
Typical Libertarian, Cleric
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
Strength: 9
Intelligence: 17
Wisdom: 5
Dexterity: 11
Charisma: 3
Inventory: Glock, +3 Tome of Striking, Pocket Protector of Holding
Correction:
Alignment: Lawful Silly
Donna,
You write:
"I think I read something that called this a trans-partisan movement."
That was probably Jesse Walker's piece in Reason yesterday.
"From my observation, this is true. And from that perspective, yes, we the people are tired of having our voting choices limited to party favorites chosen by political party loyalists."
That's great. But in my opinion, Paul's campaign will have the effect of strengthening, rather than weakening, that system. Rather than busting the system of party loyalists choosing party favorites, it will just reduce the number of parties with any chance to effectively do so.
Could we drop all the empty, hollow rhetoric about how "Ron Paul has done more for spreading the message of liberty than the LP ever has?"
Ron Paul wants a big government "solution" to the "immigration problem."
Ron Paul supports a constitutional amendment to assert government dominion over a woman's uterus by banning abortion.
Ron Paul supports state laws that target gay people as criminals, and believes that Supreme Court rulings that strike down those unconstitutional laws are an "attack on the states who have the right to regulate sex."
Ron Paul is just another "libertarian" Republican con job. The people swooning over him were also swooning over Ronnie Reagan in the 1980s and all his empty, hollow calls to "libertarianism."
I find that the vast majority of Paul's supporters within the LP don't know half of his positions on the issues. And it's ironic, since they often have supported criticism of other Democrats and Republicans on issues of statism when Paul's positions are often more statist than the Ds or Rs being challenged!
The guy is truly a joke. He has no national appeal. He doesn't appeal to women or anyone who isn't white. He doesn't appeal to the non-religious. He doesn't appeal to anyone who believes in (and promotes) the rights of the individual above the "rights" of "states."
His message isn't any more "libertarian" than that of Kucinich or any other political hack who opposes the war and the Patriot Act, yet so many Libertarians act like this septegenarian mooncalf is the Messiah himself.
Ick.
Speak for yourself. I'm Chaotic Good.
Brian,
You are just wrong!
I am a white, non-religious woman & met many others like me at the Ron Paul Rally in Mountain View this past weekend. There were not many, if any black people there, but I met a number of Asians, Mexicans & Native Americans. Maybe the local pop. affected that?
Liberty and smaller government are just appealing, period!
It was disappointing when the libertarian party started endorsing violence against the unborn. That was your sellout.
The God given right of mexicans to move to the united states is not practical for those of us here according to the rules. I guess that is our sellout.
You forgot the obvious attribute: CONSTITUTION!
"It was disappointing when the libertarian party started endorsing violence against the unborn." -- You mean from the very inception of the party? And what of my right to hire who I want to hire, regardless of what side of a line they live on?
Ron Paul is not for liberty. He is not for reality.
You've hit rock bottom. At first I thought it was going to be funny but now that I see you were being serious, I feel embarrassed for you. It reminded me of Buchanan when he talks about Nixon. Someone, who usually writes reasoned, logical arguments, getting emotional to the point that you can't help but feel he is pouting.
And do you really have faith in Neal Boortz and the LP?!?! I lost it years ago. You don't seem to care too much about the damage that party does to libertarian image. They don't get my money anymore (they're lucky they get my votes). Your theory also implies that most Libertarians are stupid. After reading this piece, I have my own conspiracy theory about you.
Ron Paul to Eventful.com organizers
Des Moines - June 30, 2007
"I'm glad you let me join you. This is great. I hear you have a revolution going on. I thought I'd get involved here a little bit.
...[snip]...
A lot of times campaigns are centered around the individual; and the individual starts it and rallies the troops. But the truth is the people who are interested in sound government, limited government, and the Constitution are really the organizers. I just happened to be in the place where I can encourage you, join you, and hopefully lead. but the truth is the only way for this to work is grassroots support. It's spontaneous. People are trying now to emulate us and they have no idea what's going on. All I can tell you is I am very happy to be part of what you're doing. Thank you very much."
Cui bono?
freedom fighters across the country are networking in a transpartisan movement to further the cause of liberty
"As for what Ron Paul voters will do if he is not the nominee; are you saying it will not have much to do with what he urges them to do, especially if he spends a lot of time doing it?"
Paul,
See my quote from him above. The quote is taken from his "Life and Liberty Celebration" in Des Moines, Iowa on June 30, 2007.
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_...h?
v=_vJmgMqIJTQ
article: http://www.freemarketnews.com/Wo...s.asp?
nid=44956
The "Ron Paul Revolution" is not about Ron Paul, the man, but about his message. While not popular in a few small, "politically correct" LP circles, restoring the American republic and the Rule of Law under the US Constitution IS a powerful message in America!
People are getting fired up! Ron Paul has been revered *for his voting record and strong adherence to the Constitution* for years. Alternative talk radio shows like "The Power Hour" and Alex's show have regularly interviewed him since they've been on the air. Add both "tin foil" & non-"tin foil" Constitutionalists, the disenfranchised cynics who lean libertarian, the Internet community (which leans libertarian), R's AND D's for whom Iraq is #1 issue, (Cindy Sheehan), Constitution Party members, (who will not nominate a Prez candidate if he is in the general - no need to), Green Party members (50-60% ??) and 3/4 of the LP. Oh, & I left out Gen-X & Gen-Y....how many ?? who the fuck knows>!
This is an GNARLY wave to ride, and I'm proud to be a part of it!
Tom, you are wrong. The Libertarian Party is not the highest nor is it the best expression of libertarianism, as you know well. Otherwise you (and I, and others) would not have formed the Boston Tea Party after the LP platform was "reformed" recently.
The Ron Paul campaign is a campaign by a libertarian constitutionalist Republican party candidate. It is a good thing. It has fired up lots of people all over the country, and around the world. It has created a large number of grassroots groups of concerned people who do want a government that lives up to constitutional limits. It has created a firestorm of posts, blogs, online profiles, videos, and other sincere support for an actual candidate who votes "no" on bad ideas very often.
Your conspiracy theory is nutty, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Instead of invoking names of arch evil villains like Karl Rove in connection with Ron Paul, you should be looking at his sensible support - guys like Lew Rockwell and Doug Casey who provide Ron with forums at vonmises.org and the Eris Society conferences. And, presumably, financial support.
Instead of attacking Ron Paul's campaign, you should seek to engage it. Contact the meetup group for Ron Paul in your area. Contact some of the prominent bloggers for Ron Paul, and video bloggers like Rachel Mills. You don't have to get involved in the campaign to connect with it. But, do realize that there are now tens of thousands of people fired up about a candidate who agrees with you on many issues: taxes, IRS abuses, constitutional limits to government, ending the war in Iraq.
Being an @sshole about the fact that they now exist and are fired up and working enthusiastically for what they see as a chance at freedom is the wrong approach. Cut it out. Instead, be glad that the Ron Paul "love" revolution is in operation, and exploit it for all it is worth.
When the candidate fails to gain the nomination, you'll be glad you engaged constructively with his enthusiasts. Then you'll be able to recruit them for other liberty related projects. Oops. I guess you weirded them out and offended many of them, instead.
Maybe it is time for an apology. See what you can come up with, huh?
Jim,
Now that we're heading toward 80 comments or so, I guess it's time for a reminder spritzer:
1) One more time, for those of you who missed it the first two or three: No, I don't actually believe that Ron Paul's campaign is a Karl Rove False Flag Operation.
The article you're replying to is an exercise in demonstrating that anything can be proven if the standards of "proof" are simply cui bono?. It was aimed at those among the 9/11 "Truth"ers who insist that they can "prove" that 9/11 was a US government op.
You mean Ron Paul's message that government discrimination against gays is "good policy," or "there's no basis the separation of chruch and state in the Contstitution or the writings of the founders."?
Talldrink: Sorry, I missed your comment... I hope you're still listening.
"Conservative statesman" is an epithet to me because of historical connotation. "Conservatives" have always been the enemies of capitalism and human progress, and a "STATEsman" of that philosophy sounds more like a John Shimkus (R-IL), i.e. a closet monarch, than a libertarian. You may see our philosophies differing little, but I wholly reject "conservatism." I am a liberal; a classical liberal, or if you prefer, a libertarian. But not a conservative; not ever.
I recommend F.A. Hayek's essay, Why I'm Not A Conservative:
http://tinyurl.com/arfxd
Furthermore, while I hope against hope that Ron Paul is the GOP nominee and I would vote for him if that were the case, I just cannot get too excited about a guy who is against free trade agreements, describes the flow of capitalist laborers across the border as an "invasion," and says "there's no basis in the Constitution or in the writings of the founders for 'separation of church and state,'" which is an outright lie.
Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for the mutual benefit of all parties involved. It precludes the use of force or fraud, and in the absence of these transgressions, there can be no victims.... Where is the victim when an immigrant crosses an imaginary line and I hire him to do a job commensurate with his skills? There is no victim, and therefore, the law is just as unjust as any social welfare state law used to justify it.
Thanks.
I heard the Praetorian guard in Rome was populated largely by homosexuals. I really don't know the facts yet, but I would rather hear more about what type of army is best to defend us, than who feels they have a right to do that job.
I suspect very strongly that known homosexuals in close living quarters with other males, would be bad for the army.
Maybe Massachusetts could form the new Praetorian state militia. Decentralization may allow something like that. A chance to prove the viability of new things without destroying the old.
G.E.~
Please give references to what you said above...
"You mean Ron Paul's message that government discrimination against gays is "good policy," or "there's no basis the separation of chruch and state in the Contstitution or the writings of the founders."?"
I've heard Ron Paul say exactly the opposite. You must be a flat out liar?
Why?
Not exactly the opposite, Ron Paul says, "Texas representative Ron Paul said sexual behavior of all stripes should be punished if 'disruptive.'" Other than gays in the military, what government discrimination is there? Dr. Paul does not seem to believe that government should define marriage, nor pay out benefits to married couples. So, I'm a bit at sea here.
Church and state, Dr. Paul writes here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/...ul/
paul148.html
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
He goes on to note: "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
G.E.
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying about the illegal immigrants.
RP is for legal immigration.
He says if we take away the "welfare state" then they will not have as much incentive to flock over & exploit our "free services" (which of course are not free to us). AND, coming from Texas, I can say for a FACT that their legal status causes them to be exploited in horrible ways. So, in everyone's best interest immigrants should follow a procedure to get here that is legal. Then, you can hire them if you want!
See Ron's Google interview! He talks about it.
Talldrink - any chance you could quote us the passage in the constitution which authorizes Congress to limit immigration? I find authority to establish "an uniform rule" for naturalization.
The word "immigration" doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution.
A wall big enough to keep illegal immigrants out is also big enough to keep Americans in. Have you considered what kind of silly look you'll have on your face when you realize that you've been supporting the establishment of the biggest border wall since the Iron Curtain descended across Europe after WW2? Are you proud of the USA government's role in paying for the walls that divide Western Sahara and the West Bank?
What sort of tortured logic do you use to suppose that being against the free flow of people and commerce over borders is anything like libertarian?
National sovereignty has always been a poor substitute for individual sovereignty. Get a grip.
Uh, did you stop to consider that if Ron Paul does not win the Republican primary, the libertarians will vote for the Libertarian candidate and nothing will be changed? So either they lose everything or they lose a little just like before.
If you had thought of that, you might have saved yourself a lot of typing.
Antecedent alert:In the above message I meant,
So either the Republicans lose everything or they lose a little just like before.
Yes, but, really, the meaning is just as clear if you were to have meant, "either the Libertarians lose everything or they lose a little just like before." The LP is not going to field a nominee for its party's presidential ticket who is going to win the White House in 2008. It is very doubtful that the Republicans would, either. There is no mainstream candidate from either major party who is going to be anything but a brutal totalitarian dictator. Dr. Paul does not qualify as mainstream, as we all know. And the LP is not a major party in enough states to have a serious shot at the presidency. Nor is the LP candidate going to be participating in the national election debates in 2008 after the nominations are sewn up.
Talldrink: Ron Paul said Don't Ask Don't Tell is "good policy." Everyone knows that. It was in a televised debate. Don't call me a liar when your facts are in obvious error.
Yes, GE Smith, but he also said that the policy should be applied to heterosexuals whose sexual behavior becomes disruptive should also be punished. Which is not exactly what you claimed, that Dr. Paul believes discriminating against gays is "good policy." It seems he believes that discriminating against anyone who is active sexually and in the military is good policy, which is different from discriminating against gays. Mind you, I think it is a poor policy. But, you shouldn't be surprised if people quibble - politics is full of quibbling - when you don't quote the exact phrase.
G.E.
I don't want MY employer asking me about my sex life, and I sure as hell ain't gonna tell!
=P
G.E.
I believe that you should look further into Ron Paul's feelings about personal liberty & privacy. When he said that the "DADT policy was a decent policy". He also said that ANY disruptive behavior should be dealt with, and not to focus on homosexuals. He does not believe in "victim-less crime". He is for EVERYONES personal liberties and does not like to "group" people by race, religion, or sexual orientation. He does not believe that anybody has any right to impose their "beliefs" on anybody else. That's why some Christian groups are screaming that he is FOR porn & gays & all of that. Even though he is a Christian, he does not think that government should be able to impose on physically harmless freedoms.
Does that make sense?
Also, on the border fence/wall issue...I am FOR border security. If a person can't come into our country through a legitimate door, they are illegitimate & illegal. We as a country have the responsibility & right to protect our borders. Call it immigration or naturalization or whatever you want. That's just crazy talk!
I don't know about you, but I'm not a country. I'm just this guy.
You are for border security, yes, we all got that from your earlier post. The question I asked is where you got the idea that forbidding entry to the country except through narrow and thoroughly targeted portals is a legitimate power authorized by the constitution. Where did you get the idea that the warrantless searches conducted on everyone entering or leaving the country are authorized by the constitution? Where did you get the idea that preventing immigration or making any laws about the conduct of those entering the country was an authorized power in the constitution?
And, the constitution is extremely clear, in Amendment 10, that NO power not expressly authorized to the national government may be exercised by the national government.
Which is my primary concern about Ron Paul. I think he is against most mala prohibitum laws, except where they concern the border. (One can also argue about his mala in se position about arbortion, which ought to stretch this discussion much further.
Jim,
I'll concede that the Constitution leaves immigration completely up to individual states.
But, I do not think that I am alone in feeling like at this point in our history, how we treat people coming across our borders is a national security issue. We need major reforms, which Ron Paul is calling for. But how, in light of all that has happened here & abroad over the last few years, can we not take some initiative and protect our borders?
How can we leave that burden to border states when it is so crucial to our national security?
Something must be done!
I respect the fact that you want to follow the Constitution "to the letter", but National Security is a Federal issue, is it not?
I think I'll stick with my view on this, but thanks for the input. You made me think on it real good instead of just accepting it.
Jim,
I'll concede that the Constitution leaves immigration completely up to individual states.
But, I do not think that I am alone in feeling like at this point in our history, how we treat people coming across our borders is a national security issue. We need major reforms, which Ron Paul is calling for. But how, in light of all that has happened here & abroad over the last few years, can we not take some initiative and protect our borders?
How can we leave that burden to border states when it is so crucial to our national security?
Something must be done!
I respect the fact that you want to follow the Constitution "to the letter", but National Security is a Federal issue, is it not?
I think I'll stick with my view on this, but thanks for the input. You made me think on it real good instead of just accepting it.
Sorry 'bout that double talk! It said that it did not go through. So I hit it again. It lied!
Deb
The constitution leaves immigration completely up to individual states, except to the extent that it forbids the states from regulating interstate commerce such as by imposing duties on cargo moving from one state to another, etc.
What has happened in recent years? According to Ron Paul, we are experiencing blowback from decades of interference in the Middle East. To which his response is, change the policies the USA is pursuing in the Middle East.
Jefferson and Washington suggested trade and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none. If you are going to insist on a nation state, those are good policies.
"Can we not take some initiative" without violating the constitution's limits on government? No. One cannot.
"Protect our borders"? I have protected my borders. The borders of the properties where I live are protected, by me. A militia is necessary to the security of a free state. National military is not. Indeed, all the evidence has shown that a nationalist military is a great danger to a free state's security.
How can "we" leave that burden to the border states? If your reading of the constitution says that the burden belongs to the states, then it belongs to the states. Why do you think it wise to nationalize anything? When has that ever worked well?
Something must be done? Well, then, what? Must we give up our liberty? Must we demand warrantless searches of every American and every foreigner crossing the border? Must we demand warrantless searches of everyone seeking to board a plane? No, we must not. We must remain free, even at some risk to our personal safety.
Let me tell you, searching, even wanding in some cases, the 11-Sep-2001 hijackers did not prevent them from hijacking those planes. I'll tell you what would have prevented those hijackings: an armed people. If the people on those planes, the ordinary passengers, had more than pen knives and pocket nail files to defend themselves with, how could a bunch of guys with box cutters have taken over three planes, and battled for control of a fourth?
If something must be done, I'll tell you what it is: Americans must resume their freedom, and with it the responsibility to guard themselves and their neighbors from crime, tyranny, and invasion. Americans must do something about their own liberty, and their own property, and their own prosperity, and stop insisting that the nationalist socialist government do everything for them.
Build another Iron Curtain? No. That is not the American way.
If you buy property along the border, then defending your property from trespassers and criminals is defending the border. It is a free market. Yet, there are plenty of people with border property who have no problem finding buyers for their land. Or had none up to a few years ago.
Freedom is the right choice. And safety at the price of chains is no safety.
Tom,
The main failure is that you never showed HOW the Republican Party benefits from Ron Paul's candidacy. I believe he exposes the party.
Also, have you seen the NYFD video yet? While many already knew this, the video states quite plainly that Giuliani's main command center was in WTC7 & that WTC7 was evacuated & destroyed. How could they have destroyed it in less than a day?
You have also left out modus operendi. I will submit the recent CIA's "Family Jewels" as evidence of black operations. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ope...tion_Northwoods
and
http://
www.newamericancentury.or...casDefenses.pdf
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor." (pg 63)
Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz are all members of PNAC.
And from Sept. 1988:
http://
www.newamericancentury.or...iraqsep1898.htm
Opportunity:
Marvin Bush was a board member of Securacom, in charge of Security
http://
www.washingtonspectator.c...215bushes_2.cfm
and
http://physics911.ca/pdf/2003/
bu...marvin_bush.pdf
The contract was over on 09/11/2001.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index...tle=Marvin_Bush
More specifically:
Newsday, 09-12-01, "Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted"
http://911research.com/cache/
wtc...ay_wtcdogs.html
and
http://
www.cooperativeresearch.o...b#a082301newjob
I believe the paper trail that we all seek was in WTC, which was destroyed after the NYFD evacuated the building & cleared the area.
The burden of proof still lies with the govt on that one. They have yet to make an official statement. There are no references to WTC in the 9/11 omission report.
What!? This is the funniest thing I've ever heard. In 100% sincerity, I can't tell if the author is kidding.
Ron Paul and Karl Rove?! It's just too funny. Rove may very well be having secret meetings about the "libertarian problem" but I'd bet my life that Ron Paul is the biggest part of that problem from Rove's perspective. Rove doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican Party. He cares about being part of a well connected political establishment.
Ron Paul throws dirt in the face of such an evil ideology, and Rove would no doubt gladly derail Paul's campaign if he could.
The idea of them being on a secret team...that is BY FAR the funniest and most far fetched conspiracy theory I've heard in months...
In fact, the last time I heard something more far fetched was when I watched a documentary about how we NEVER REALLY LANDED ON THE MOON!!!!
HAHAHAAH!!
Seriously though, if you were joking, thanks for the laugh and sorry to get all serious on you.
-Chad
Join the Free State Project.
Which one? Freestatewyoming.org, freestateproject.org, freecolorado.com, secession.net, akip.org, freealberta.com, or hisovs.org? The Solar System is big enough for more than one free place to live.
Chad,
I wasn't exactly joking -- but I was trying to make a specific point. That point is that anything can be "proven" if one wants to believe it badly enough to substitute "cui bono" assertions for real evidence.
For the record once again: No, I don't believe that Ron Paul is a Karl Rove plant, any more than I believe that George W. Bush and his papa sat down and said "hey, let's fake an al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." The reason I don't believe those two things is that I have yet to see any real evidence for either proposition.
I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's presidential campaign (although in the wake of my favored candidate's endorsement of Paul, I am re-thinking my position), but I don't live my life believing that every bad idea, tragic event, etc. requires a complicated, counter-intuitive explanation.
Dear Tom,
Interesting stuff. I don't think you have demonstrated anything like proof, nor have you considered in your assertion that only by believing in cui bono assertions are people convincing themselves of difficulties with the official story line on the 11-Sep-2001 attax. I think your approach amounts to reductio ad absurdum which belittles the sincerity, decency, and intelligence of those who do question the authoritarian views of the authorities.
Personally, I've never seen a 9-11 truth site which posits that GWBush and GHWBush sat down and decided to fake an attack. I have, however, seen a great many things which the official commission felt weren't answered properly, and many aspects of the official story line which have proven to be inconsistent with other facts presented by, e.g., firefighters. So, if you are looking for "real evidence" that the Bushes sat down and decided to fake an attack, I think you know that you won't find it. But, if you are willing to question the authorities, you'll find that many 9-11 truthers are eager for change away from tyranny.
Among other things, you might do well to consider whether the solutions proposed by the authorities make any sense. They had already disarmed the passengers - does it make any sense to take away their nail files and pocket knives? They had already searched everyone - does it make any sense to force feed mothers their own breast milk? Siding with the authorities in the matter of the official report, as you seem to be doing, ought to come with some explanation of just what you think ought to be done about that official version of events.
Do you support bigger budgets for domestic espionage? Foreign espionage? Rendition?
I don't ask that you be a fan of Ron Paul's presidential campaign. I wasn't a fan of Eugene McCarthy, either. But, I am impressed when anyone gets tens of thousands of people fired up about changing the world. And I am far more delighted that Dr. Paul's message stands against tyranny - in most things. Frankly, I like the fact that tens of thousands of Americans are excited enough to do something about freedom - even if I think what they are doing in campaigning for Ron Paul is probably ineffective. Engage these people in a positive way and perhaps, after Dr. Paul loses, they'll continue to look for things to do to fight tyranny and end oppression.
Similarly, rather than damning the 9-11 truthers for failing to shave with Occam's Razor, why not agree with them where you are able? You do agree that there are problems with the official story of what happened, don't you? Even the official commission doesn't like what it was told by government agencies. You do agree that there are problems with how the official story has been used and abused to justify all sorts of new authoritarian measures.
Why be contentious and unpleasant? I mean, other than for fun?
I think his Ron Paul is positive for the Libertarian party. I assure you as a normally Republican Ron Paul supporter that I am paying attention to libertarian (and constitution) candidates now
"...he's arguably functioned in office as a slightly cranky, but otherwise fairly typical, Republican congresscritter."
A snide and unsubstantiable quip.
As a well-known conspiracy theorist, I find your Paul theory absurd, and had to re-read it to persuade myself that you hadn't been joking (or that it was 1 April).
Tom, the purpose of the LP is to elect libertarians of all stripes. The LP is (or, at least should be) a means, and not an end in itself.
If any libertarian can sneak in the White House under the GOP banner (after having tried the big "L" route 20 years ago), kudos to him.
Ron Paul may not be YOUR perfect candidate, but he will garner more votes than any LPer this election. His victory has the potential to more increase American Freedom than anything the LP does by next November.
Is that what rankles you so much?
So WHAT he's wearing a Republican coat? The Socialists have been wearing coats other than their own for 80 years, and it's an effective formula.
It's encouraging that at least ONE libertarian has figured this out.
I urge all L/libertarians to get behind Ron Paul, who is at least in the debates. (Can't say that for any LPer...) The man is overtly calling for the dissolution of the IRS, for Pete's sake!
Somebody like Paul in office is the end goal, regardless of the party means in getting there.
Regards,
Boston T. Party/Kenneth W. Royce
www.javelinpress.com
www.freestatewyoming.org
Oh, now THIS is relevant:
______________
"All Together Now" -- Kubby endorses Paul
http://www.kubby2008.com/node/54
"...Dr. Paul and I disagree on some issues that I want to skyline, and I firmly believe that I'm the best candidate to represent the party next November. But when 70% of your own party believes so strongly in a candidate that they're willing to cross party lines to support him at least until he's out of the running, you owe it to them to back their play."
Kubby states that if his fellow freedom activists' long-shot bet pays off and Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee, he will withdraw, ask the party to nominate "None of the Above" at its national convention, and work as a volunteer on Paul's general election campaign. "And I'm urging my fellow Libertarians to approach this in the same way," he says.
______________
Gee, Tom, is the fact that Kubby endorses Paul good enough for you?
Regards,
Boston
Sorry to join late. Just thought I'd say a few things.
* I don't care about political parties' status. I would abolish them as they exist today. They are government creations. Government rules distract parties from their constituents, and create the political games which are a normal part of business today.
* So I'm not for third parties or the LP -- I'm for NO parties. "Libertarian Party" is almost a contradiction in terms.
* I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. I have pretended one year to be a Democrat, while another year to be a Republican, etc. It's a game with the government's party system.
* I don't care about Ron Paul's party affiliation. Despite disagreeing with him on one or two issues, he is the candidate which matches my views the most. Since it is more important that Paul win the Republican nomination than it is that any Libertarians or Democrats win their nominations over their opponents, I will vote for Paul in the primary. If Paul wins the primary, I will vote for him. Otherwise, I'll probably vote for the Libertarian. Any LP candidate is better than any Democrat or Republican candidate, except Paul.
* I disagree with some of the LP's candidates too. For example, I oppose "medical" marijuana and support 100% deregulation.
* I don't understand the reaction against Paul in so many camps, even historically libertarian ones. All that does is give him free publicity. I've even seen libertarians smear Paul on their blogs on a weekly basis -- even libertarians who oppose voting on principle.
* Whether Paul supports or is supported by racist groups, 9/11 Truthers, etc. does not alter my views. Everyone can be for individual liberty, even racists and conspiracy theorists. That's freedom of association. Those groups are probably attracted to Paul because they feel disenfranchised and angry like a lot of us do.
* I've followed libertarian politics since 1988, and I've never seen so much support for a single candidate among liberty-minded people. Marrou, Browne, Badnarik, etc. never had this level of support, and I can see why. Whether Paul hurts the LP by being popular is irrelevant to me, as long as he helps liberty.
* Even if Paul is wrong on a few issues, this should not stop us from supporting him. The danger he represents by his wrong positions is no greater than the limits placed on his office. Sainthood is not a condition for holding office, and we're not replacing one dictator with another, if the Constitution means anything still. It's not as though he's going to nullify Roe v Wade with the stroke of a pen, or erect new borders. His authority is limited.
* Whenever I'm casually asked my political party, I say "independent". I am a lowercase-l libertarian. The LP has problems, but I think the whole party system is broken.
* Vote for candidates, not parties.
* I think Tom should shut up about Paul if he wants to support Kubby, because a
* I think Tom should shut up about Paul if he wants to support Kubby, because all he's doing is giving Paul more publicity, and in that race he will surely beat Kubby. But since Kubby supports Paul now, the issue is moot.
Commenting by HaloScan
