If your not voting or getting involved with Ron Paul’s campaign, then who are you voting for and why? And if your undecided who are you leaning towards and why?

As for Alex Jones saying “Jews, homosexuals, and Luciferians” run the new world order, your gonna have to post a transcript or link

I just hope you realize that your continued ad hominems are making me less and less likely to ever return to the Paul camp. You are doing a damn good job exemplifying why I felt compelled to make my post in the first place.

Oh and I love that the first thing that comes out of your mouth when you hear Bilderberg or New World Order is JEW LOL nice straw man you naive fool

I’m not here to convince kooky coincidence theorists of anything. My case has already been stated:

“The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs nor a favored few booted
and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God.”

–Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 1826

“I suppose the next thing you’ll say is that the New World Order is being driven by a bunch of Jewish, homosexual “Luciferians”?”

The Same Old World Order is and always has been driven by the same old small-minded, small-hearted fuckheads that think they were born with the right to rule over others. Some are Jews, some are Mormons, some are Catholics, some are Muslims, some are non-denominational, some are Rotarians….

There’s always a few of those bastards in every crowd and all of the bastards are equally open to criticism.

Jim:
You do realize you’re not helping your case, right? I suppose the next thing you’ll say is that the New World Order is being driven by a bunch of Jewish, homosexual “Luciferians”?

That’s like saying that one doesn’t believe in those wild stories about IBM having a board of directors and a business plan.

The world of business and the business of the world are far too important to a few people to leave to chance. They like to cover all of their bases even if that means taking away your life, liberty and property. Tyrants and their helpers have always operated in such a manner.

A studied ignorance of those corrupt people that prey upon the rest of us helps tyrants and their assistants.

Who are you voting for and why?

The forms of government are irrelevant and never protect liberty alone. Only ethical and virtuous people do. Without honest, humble, and wise leaders leading by example with the support of an informed and vigilant populace possessing civic virtue, tyranny is inevitable.

Discussions over the differences between proponents of various forms of political and economic organization are useless when the people themselves are largely ignorant, irrational, shallow, materialistic, lazy, and greedy. The politicians with the same weaknesses will always craft policies which are a reflection of the people, whether they are “constitutional” or not.

Make no mistake, it is my opinion that there is still much virtue out there. The question is whether the small minority who possess it will have enough influence to change things. I believe they will not until after the complete crash of the current system, starting with the collapse of the dollar.

Second- I had initially thought that the problems with overzealous Paul supporters were limited to the internet. But then I saw how high Paul’s negatives are compared to his support even in NH. I can’t find the link right now, but it was one of the polls in the last two weeks. It showed Paul at his highest level of support yet; but it also showed that his name recognition was very high, and 60% of the voters had decided that they would not support him under any circumstances. While I’m sure those numbers would be somewhat better these days with Dems, it shows you how much his campaign has turned off voters in what is one of the most libertarian-spirited places in the country.

Third- I’ve just decided he’s not right for me. I have explained why I came to that conclusion. If others were not persuaded by my explanation for themselves, then so be it- that is not my fight. I’m happy to be persuaded back into the camp, but without some changes that is not going to be easy.

But please know- these aren’t “demands” I’m making. I’m in no position to make “demands,” and doing so would be pretty silly for a libertarian in the first place. However, I articulated why I couldn’t stick around any longer, and what I was hoping for to get me to come back. It’s a personal decision on my part. I’m not going to suddenly turn into an outright anti-Paul blogger but will instead continue to call things as I see them. However, it is my opinion (no more, no less) that as things stand now, Paul is going to hurt libertarianism. I sincerely hope I am wrong, and if I am I will gladly jump back on the bus.

I should say one thing, though- I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to Jones. Until I did, I thought he was just a relatively benign conspiracy nut, and that his anti-semitic sentiments had been overblown by people like Dave Neiwert. Then I listened to the show. Believe me when I say that this is not a man someone should have a close professional relationship with if they want to be a politician with national appeal. I would go so far as to say that I can now understand (though I still vehemently disagree) why Neiwert argues that Paul is himself an anti-Semite.

It’s a perception problem, but please know that it is a very understandable perception problem that can’t be explained away merely by saying people who bring it up are just smear artists.

This won’t be the end of the country if he loses.

That’s a point I was going to add but forgot.

No, of course it wouldn’t be. Trust me, I didn’t get into this because I thought Ron was going to win. I got into it because I thought he, at least, provided a huge opportunity to inject a critical message at a critical time into exactly the place it was being most lost. And, like I said, he’s already wildly exceeded expectations.

He doesn’t have to win to be a success. I’d suggest that, by at least my initial metric, he already is, and then some. When Rudy Giuliani got directly confronted with a true foreign policy of freedom, to his face, in a Republican debate, by a guy on stage no less, that was as much as I’d ever hoped for in this Republican nomination race. Everything else has just been gravy.

This “either he wins or he doesn’t matter” meme is pretty dumb, but I don’t get excised about it too much, because it’s also wrong, whether people know it or not.

However, as somebody interested in injecting the liberty message into mainstream American discourse, I have a hard time trucking with fellow travelers who would rather he not run (or they not support him). I’m not a Libertarian, I’m a Republican, and I want MORE liberty-oriented folks finding voice in the party, not less.

I have little patience for people who disagree on that point, or find themselves lulled into a weird “our Savior will come someday” attitude about it.

When choosing to repeatedly call Alex Jones or 9/11 theorists “nut jobs”, “Nazis”, “kooks” and “tin foil hat wearers”, one should probably expect critical feedback from their supporters. People making ad hominem posts should expect ad hominem feedback.

As for ad hominem replies to civil posts about new issues, I’m completely with Doug on this one. Using personal attacks tends to undermine your credibility and nullify the point you’re attempting to make. No matter who’s making the personal attack against whom.

Who on the national political scene can be compared with Paul?

No one nationally, but there are some interesting politicians in Congress and on the state level. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is one. Congressman Jeff Flake from Arizona is another.

But of course in 2004, I couldn’t see Ron Paul running for president, so we shall see.

This won’t be the end of the country if he loses.

Some of that’s reasonable, however, a few things.

1. I think you’re demanding perfection out of Ron Paul’s campaign, and not quite seeing the forest for the trees. Not ready for prime time as compared to what? He’s gone from being an obscure 1% non-factor to having raised probably 12 million plus this quarter and probably good for about 10% of the Republican vote nationally. Did you expect that going in? Because I sure didn’t.

Ron’s campaign has exceeded expectations ALREADY to such a huge success that I find it hard to get too hung up on what is, at the end of the day, a pretty minor flap. On some level, my reaction to a lot of this navel-gazing about “he’s going to hurt the liberty message” to be “Geez, give him a friggin’ break.”

2. I’m not going to bemoan the point, because you’re certainly hearing it from everybody else, but I think the substance of your criticism is wrong. For one, I think there’s nothing wrong with Paul’s appearances on Alex Jones. Him appearing on Sean Hannity certainly isn’t an endorsement of War with Iran. I also think you’re reading way too much into the stuff with Stormfront.org (when you say “support” what you really mean is some random neo-nazis on an online forum having nice things to say about him). Nor do I think there’s anything inherently offensive about 9-11 Trutherism, but even if I did, his constant denouncements of it would certainly have satisfied me. Same with the charges of racism and anti-Semitism.

3. More to the point, I think that you’re pitting some hypothetical future wave matched with a hypothetical future candidate/cause against a very real current candidate running a very real current campaign that, guess what, for better or worse is ALREADY leading the liberty movement into the mainstream. Again, he’s not perfect, but nobody is ever going to be, and at the end of the day, his “sins” are pretty damn small compared to not just most other advocates of the liberty agenda, but most other candidates currently running both parties. If this is a disqualifier for you, then I submit that you will never find a campaign you will be able to entirely get on board with.

On the former point, forgive me if I don’t choose to let this bus pass and wait for the next one that’s not on the schedule and nobody’s ever seen before. I’ve been waiting for it to come for many, many years already, and it just never seems to materialize much. Libertarians CAN swing elections, and do, but never in a concerted way, more like “values voters” or “soccer moms” or whatever the hell that means, where our influence is only fudgy, and in retrospect, and defined by people other than us. We can continue to be satisfied with that, or we can start setting the terms of the debate ourselves. Ron’s doing it, and is well on his way to doing it to more of an effect than anybody in years. What’s your proposed alternative? “Wait and see” isn’t exactly something I’m going to be satisfied with.

4. This is sort of one of those “grain of sand in the eyeball” issues as well. Mom and Pop in Iowa are not reading David Bernstein and changing their vote from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney based on a $500 contribution or Alex Jones appearances. It seems like a big deal to you (and me) because we spend all day online pouring over all the inside baseball Ron Paul chatter, but honestly, it’s not. I can understand your terror that this could be what gets out in front of him, and to a much lesser extent I share some of it (more like “mild trepidation”), but honestly, if this is going to sink the Ron Paul campaign, it was sunk long before these things came along. And it had nothing to do with how he ran his campaign, it had to do with the mainstream acceptance of our message.

Because really, where’s it going to end? Bottom line is Ron’s always going to have crazy supporters. Bottom line really is that LIBERTARIANISM, both small and large L, are going to always have crazy supporters. What’s striking you now is this is just the first time you’ve ever seen so many of them coalesced.

I made my peace about that in the liberty movement a long time ago. And, in fact, if anything this campaign has proved me wrong, and has given me a little more faith than I’ve had that we’re NOT all like that. I’ve gone out to these events and met a lot of these people, and I tell you what, I’ve never met a neo-nazi, I’ve met a fair few Truthers, most of whom have relieved whatever anxiety I might have had about them, but most importantly, the people I’ve met (and I’ve bet about a thousand) have been, by and large, people like you and me. Smart, articulate, committed to the larger message, sane.

There is a cult of personality to some extent, but a big part of that is because Ron is succeeding where big L Libertarians have failed, which is to say, he’s bringing the message to people that haven’t heard it before, or people that have never heard it ring so far and wide, and they love him for it. This is not, in itself, a bad thing. What’s more, a fair bit of cult of personality is pretty natural for a political campaign (centered around a candidate)…it’s actually kind of a necessary condition for a dark horse candidacy.

The bottom line though is I understand your trepidation, and anxiety, and to some extent your frustration. However, it’s all confined to the campaign handling a very minor and, substantively, fairly ridiculous issue. I can keep that in perspective. I’d ask that you give it an honest shot.

Because it’s easy to say that the next big opportunity is probably right around the corner, and it’ll be perfect man, just perfect. But the truth is we’ve waited a long, long, long time for an opportunity this good.

So as for me?

I plan on getting on the bus.

And I’ll not let anxiety or trepidation keep me standing in the rain forever.