I said “liberals”, not “Democrats”. The Republican Party was the party of urban northern liberals in 1960s.

Anecdotally speaking, it would appear that liberals have not done all that much for blacks. In fact, the problem is that “liberals” approach any given problem by believing that the government must do something to create equality of outcome, and that is really the problem. Libertarians (and many conservatives) believe that providing equality of opportunity is the true solution. Look at the difference between the civil rights acts that Republicans were instrumental in creating (yes, the GOP led the charge on congressional civil rights legislation in the late 1950′s, not the Democrats) versus the ones that Democrats created.

Now, of course, if you meant liberals in the original meaning of the word, then you would be correct. But, you didn’t.

“Liberals” have done a fantastic job of creating a new, modern plantation for blacks. I’m happy to agree with you on that.

How about the fact that blacks were second-class citizens in a number of states and now have much more equal rights than they did? That’s the most promising liberty development of the past 50 years, and that was thanks to liberals, not libertarians.

Someone, Jeff or gmason, or both, accused Doug of espousing a neo-con foreign policy without, obviously, having read his posts on foreign policy and military issues. Try checking those posts before making accusations.

And these are the reasons why I cannot claim to be a libertarian. Doug tries to point out that libertarians make accusations and denunciations around orthodoxy and you promptly denounce him for it and accuse him of being a neo-con.

Good job!

But, victory isn’t going to happen if the freedom philosophy becomes associated with people that the average middle class American wants nothing to do with.

If they’re not intelligent enough to understand that A can associate with B without B reciprocating, well they’re just not intelligent enough to understand and embrace the freedom philosophy anyways.

Ron Paul can turn support from unpopular groups from a liability into an asset by once again speaking the truth.

One of the primary founding principles of this country is Freedom of Speech. It’s in the First Amendment, and tends to get support from a wide variety of crowds. I can see Frank Luntz polling: “How many here oppose free speech?”

When anyone brings up these unpopular supporters, Ron Paul can remind the questioner that liberty and free speech are the kinds of American values he’s fighting for.

If he were to try to decide whose speech is “unacceptable”, he’d spend all the campaign’s resources hunting down unpopular supporters in order to refund their money and denounce their support. That’s all Dr. Paul’s meager staff would be doing, day and night. It also gives a gigantic free weapon to any detractors by validating their un-American demands and letting them decide who will support Dr. Paul’s campaign.

Differences ? Maybe, maybe not. We shall see and maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

Thank you. All I’ve ever really wanted from you was a little humility.

But, victory isn’t going to happen if the freedom philosophy becomes associated with people that the average middle class American wants nothing to do with.

If they’re not intelligent enough to understand that A can associate with B without B reciprocating, well they’re just not intelligent enough to understand and embrace the freedom philosophy anyways.

Differences ? Maybe, maybe not. We shall see and maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

But, victory isn’t going to happen if the freedom philosophy becomes associated with people that the average middle class American wants nothing to do with.

And sometimes, there are idiots who it is necessary to disassociate from.

When it comes to racists, they’re at top of my list.

Good points. I’ve actually talked to a local GOP member about getting involved here, since the Wichita area Republicans are pretty libertarian friendly. The guys leading the GOP up in the KC area are a bunch of neoconservative trolls, but fortunately they’re also old, they’ve got a lot of people who aren’t happy with what they’re doing and they’re on the way out if the Republicans lose next year. Besides, I gave the Libertarian Party a look-see during my disillusionment, and I’m telling you there’s nothing there worth spending a significant amount of time on. They aren’t going to turn into anything more than a protest vote…they just don’t have the tools to pull it off.

Jeff’s right, you can vote for whoever you want in the general election regardless of your party affiliation. But if you want to have a hand in who the Republicans put up for office you need to stay involved with the party and not just walk away in disgust no matter how unhappy you are with the neocons. The GOP is the most open to our ideology of capitalist economics and small government, it’s just that they’ve lost their way lately. Plus, it’s not like the Democrats are ever going to embrace a pro-free market agenda…if the Bush administration hasn’t convinced them to budge off their socialist platform to steal the libertarian voters the Republicans are alienating, nothing will.

However, in his pessimism, he forgets that there are key structural differences between this wave and the previous ones.

“Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.”

– Anna Quindlen

There are idiots and sages in most groups. Denying an idiot the mic only insulates us from his idiocy. And whether misguided idiot or insightful sage, I welcome their resources to further the campaign of a man who’s free speech has worked for him in my eyes.

The key to correcting the party, though, is to stay involved. Be a delegate, go to those monthly meeting, and develop a rapport with the insiders and gain influence.

Then, the next time the movement peaks, we won’t be on the outside looking in.

Valid point.

If Ron Paul doesn’t win, will his voting block leave the GOP? I know I will. Why would I vote for 3 magical initials G-O-P no matter what they espouse?

The key is to recognize the difference between voting for the GOP nominee and staying in the party. No one will ever know what you do with your general election, so do whatever you believe is right.

The key to correcting the party, though, is to stay involved. Be a delegate, go to those monthly meeting, and develop a rapport with the insiders and gain influence.

Then, the next time the movement peaks, we won’t be on the outside looking in.

If Ron Paul doesn’t win, will his voting block leave the GOP? I know I will. Why would I vote for 3 magical initials G-O-P no matter what they espouse? How many blank checks like that would you write? I’ll vote for Ron Paul because I trust him to work towards the policies I want addressed in the White House.

To me, all the other choices look like votes for big-government domestic tyranny (socialism) or big-government international tyranny (pre-emptive intervention).

But if Paul fails to get the nod and you can propose an alternate libertarian candidate to carry the torch, I’m all ears.