Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The worst thing in this world, next to anarchy, is government.”     Henry Ward Beecher

February 13, 2008

Libertarian Party Makes An Open Appeal To Ron Paul’s Supporters

by Doug Mataconis

With Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign all but officially over, there’s a small but sizeable group of voters out there up for play, and the Libertarian Party is looking for them.

First, the Party issued this statement last week when John McCain’s victory became apparent:

Washington, D.C. – Following a solid McCain victory in the Super Tuesday primaries, the Libertarian Party has sent Republican headquarters a funeral wreath marking the death of limited-government values within the Republican Party. The wreath was hand-delivered to the D.C. offices of the Republican National Committee. “We simply felt the need to express our heartfelt sympathy for the Republican Party as they undergo this tough time within their party,” says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis, who delivered the wreath.

“Given that it has become readily apparent that Senator McCain will soon be the presidential nominee for the Republican Party,” reads a card that accompanied the wreath addressed to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, “we, the staff of the Libertarian National Committee, send our condolences to you upon the death of small-government principles within the GOP.”

And then, today, Wayne Root, the leading candidate for the LP’s Presidential nomination said this:

Ron Paul bowed out honorably a few days ago- not only as a GOP Presidential candidate, but as a third party candidate as well. That shocked and saddened his supporters- many of whom are dedicated Libertarians.

But I say BRAVO! Doctor Paul waged a long and courageous battle – raising more money; generating more media attention; attracting more committed and passionate supporters; and attracting more voters than any political expert or Beltway insider ever imagined possible.

Ron Paul certainly created more energy, enthusiasm and passion than any 72 year old in American political history! And, more than any Libertarian ever.

God bless him.

He’s quite a hero. But now the onus falls on the Libertarian Party and its Presidential candidate to pick up the ball and cross the goal line. This is no time for a fumble. This is no time for indecision. This is no time to concede defeat. Ron Paul was the starting quarterback. He got the ball past midfield.

Now that he’s out of the game, it’s up to all of us to push the ball over the goal line for a touchdown. We must work together to do so.

Frankly, I’m not sure that the tactic will work, or that a lot of Paul supporters will go to Root or the LP, but, heck, it’s worth a shot. Honestly, the best that the LP could have hoped for this year would have been for Paul himself to run as a Libertarian in November, but that’s not going to happen.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/02/13/libertarian-party-makes-an-open-appeal-to-ron-pauls-supporters/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

109 Comments

  1. I just don’t see a lot of those supporters making their way over to the LP who weren’t already planning to do so once Paul’s campaign wound down. Most of the uncommitted ones likely aren’t libertarians as a large number of them are for closed borders and restricted trade. And quite a few of them were more interested in who the candidate was than anything else.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 5:51 am
  2. I’m not sure you’re going to get a favorable response from us Paul supporters when you further the myth that he has left the race. He HASN’T! Please STOP LYING!

    Comment by Jim — February 13, 2008 @ 5:52 am
  3. To the Libertarians appeals.

    Try NO WAY IN HELL.

    And Ron has not bowed out!!

    Comment by Josh — February 13, 2008 @ 6:14 am
  4. I rest my case.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 6:15 am
  5. U.C.,

    I agree, especially with the part of a large segment of RP supporters not really being libertarian to begin with.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 6:21 am
  6. Josh and Jim,

    He’s not campaigning for President. He’s not going to win any primaries. He’s not getting any delegates.

    He may not have made it offical, but, face it, he’s out.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 6:22 am
  7. The March to take back Washington begins here…

    BUSES… we are going to need lots and lots of buses, and a website to co-ordinate buses from every state for anyone wanting to goto the rally. Our ability to bring people to this event will drive fear into our opposition. Any celebrity types that you can get will be a huge boost, and celebritys willing to perform at the event in particular. The blimp is a must. We will need at least one big stage and at least one huge tent. Also, we have to get porta-toilets setup around the national mall. Plan to come a day or two in advance. Parking is available at the many metro(light rail) stations throughout the DC area, and the national mall is a short metro ride away.

    Advise people to bring:

    -food & water for 3 days

    -camcorder/camera

    -poncho/umbrella & towel

    -tent/camper

    -white shirt or sash

    -toilet paper

    -pepper spray (DC is a rough town), but NO WEAPONS.

    -flashlite & extra batteries

    -map of DC

    -signage

    -Love of Liberty

    Comment by Logistics — February 13, 2008 @ 6:29 am
  8. Doug, Thanks for the prediction or theory or whatever. Stating it as fact comes off pretty smug. However, I’m not one to “cut and run” and I’m a stickler when it comes to my principals, so I’ll be supporting Paul until HE actually concedes.
    I guess you’re of the “wasted vote” crowd. Remember, a vote for freedom is NEVER a wasted vote.

    Comment by Jim — February 13, 2008 @ 6:29 am
  9. Ron Paul DID NOT bow out of the race. He is still in the race. The mass news media makes it appear as though he has dropped out. The GOP treats Ron Paul as if he doesn’t even exist. The so-called conservative talk show hosts will not even consider Paul as a candidate. They have all ignored and even censored Dr. Paul.

    And now Wayne Root is also claiming that Ron Paul is no longer in the race. If this is your strategy to “win over” Ron Paul supporters, your making a big mistake! You are just adding to the lies that the media has created. And you’re supposed to be any better? I don’t know much about you, but this comment makes me think that you are just like the rest of them.

    Ron Paul is still strong in the race! I will vote for him even if I have to write his name in!

    Comment by Robert — February 13, 2008 @ 6:29 am
  10. I don’t really think I could support the LP. So many libertarian sites have all but flayed Paul for not running LP in the first place and then undercut him further by spreading the fallacy that he’s dropped. Come hell or high water I’m still going to write him in anyway. If he croaks before November then I might go LP, but constitution would be my first choice.

    Comment by Nathan — February 13, 2008 @ 6:31 am
  11. I can’t stand the open-borders policy of the Libertarian Party. It’s what’s kept me from voting for them in the past.

    I understand that in a perfect world, the government wouldn’t be large enough to police borders, but in reality, there are entitlements, and there are two pandering parties encouraging foreigners to come here for a free ride.

    Until the big-L’s get out of their ivory towers on this issue, I’m going to support Paul; he’s the closest to my beliefs, i.e. the person I’m expected to vote for.

    Comment by F-104 — February 13, 2008 @ 6:31 am
  12. Ron Paul and his supporters are in it for the long haul. We will never part from Ron Paul. Remember once your eyes are open to Ron Paul’s message, you can never go back to just voting for whomever. Personally, Ron Paul has changed my life and my families lives forever. He is the only person qualified to run this country.

    Comment by Jason Christian — February 13, 2008 @ 6:35 am
  13. Jason,

    Then what do you do when Ron’s not running ?

    Keep writing his name in forever ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 6:36 am
  14. Doug,
    I’ll answer the question you put to Jason. I will support Ron Paul candidates. If they are of like mind with Ron’s platform, then I’ll support them.

    Comment by Jim — February 13, 2008 @ 6:46 am
  15. Jim,

    What if they aren’t 100% in lock stop agreement with the “platform” ? Let’s say they part ways with Ron Paul on an issue like immigration, abortion, or gay marriage ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 6:47 am
  16. Here is my favorite part “How I will Win The Battle Ron Paul Started” By Tool Root.

    I just gave to Ron Paul and pre-ordered 3 of his already best seller book at amazon.

    I also viewed is latest video clearly letting us know that he is still running. Also calling for a huge march on Washington.

    Ron Paul is still running and is gaining ground as well as attention. ROOT DOES NOT EVEN SHOW UP ON THE RADAR!

    What a scam, scum, low tactic by this root tool.

    We hope that you ordered one of those funeral wreaths for your own party.
    ———————————————-

    And Doug replies…BLAH BLAH BLAH….BLAH BLAH…BLAH.

    Comment by Matt Kerbouchard — February 13, 2008 @ 6:56 am
  17. So all RP supporters are supposed to join the LP in voting for Obama?

    Comment by lol — February 13, 2008 @ 6:58 am
  18. I am a fan of the Libertarian Party, and third parties in general. But please stop saying the Ron Paul has dropped out. He has not, and is going to the convention! I belieive in his message, and if I do vote in this corrupt system, I will write him in.

    Comment by Thad Schiele — February 13, 2008 @ 7:18 am
  19. So the LP party is regifting it’s wreath, huh.

    Comment by doogie — February 13, 2008 @ 7:24 am
  20. Doogie,

    Nope, Paul said he’s not running as an independent so the LP is suggesting that Wayne Root might be an acceptable alternative for Paul supporters in the general election.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 7:26 am
  21. A vote for the LP candidate is indeed a vote for Obama in my opinion. Obama also mouths that he is against the war but he is not against government largess.

    This thing with McCain is a lot like the thing with Bob Dole. It is like it is his turn not that he is the best the GOP have to offer. It is going to lose them the election. The stubborn and stupid of the party still outnumber the Ron Paul faction by a large margin.

    The only thing to do keep plugging away until the end to try and get the message out and educate the people to see the truth of the situation.

    Most people do not read in the GOP. They use their thumb on the remote control to educate themselves about their candidates. If we do not change that sorry state of affairs we have little hope for freedom and even less for the continuation of our republic.

    Comment by Michael McDonnough — February 13, 2008 @ 7:29 am
  22. Root is a pro-war candidate. The LP would cutting its throat if it supported him. I’d vote for Obama (who is far better on the war than Root)over him.

    Comment by austin — February 13, 2008 @ 7:30 am
  23. Doug,

    Libertarians, from what I have seem have, along with the GOP, fought against Ron Paul for the most part. Very few have really tried to support Ron Paul and organizations like CATO have simply fought Ron Paul.

    So if you guys want to be associated with people like CATO and James (K.. nobody) well then be my guest but don’t expect reasonable people to join such a fragmented bunch of War Mongers such as CATO.

    It will not happen!!

    I would campaign for Monica’s ex-boyfriend’s wife before supporting the Libertarian Party and even wear a blue dress.

    And yes I will keep writing in Ron Paul until something better comes along.

    Besides which Libertarians seem closer to McCain than anyone else why do they want Ron Paul supporters anyways we don’t agree with the war mongering stances and the making every illegal legal immigration policy.

    Someone mentioned that Ron Paul changed their life and I can understand that because he has certainly made a big difference in mine. He said “the government doesn’t have any money” they need your tax to get any money. That made me realize a lot. When he spoke of the reason why people attack us “I researched and found Dr. Pape” these were enlightening experiences. Dr. Ron Paul made me think and see things in a different light.

    Libertarians appear to be nothing more than the worst combination of poor democratic thinking and stupid republican neo-con polices.

    So, NO WAY IN HELL will the Libertarian Party get my vote and YES WAY IN HELL will I do what I should have done for Ron Paul and that is give my views on what Libertarians really are to everyone that will listen.

    BUT Right Now Ron Paul has a message to get out and he needs help, I will try and help that cause.

    I hope that put things into perspective Doug.

    Comment by Josh — February 13, 2008 @ 7:36 am
  24. To Those in the LNC, if you promise me that the Republican Party won’t blame Ron Paul for running third party, splitting the rep. base, and forcing a dem in office, if you can promise me that won’t happen i will consider coming back to the LP, its a great place, but its like this either we as the american people take back the Republican Party or we some how merge the LP with it.

    Good Luck, oh and make sure when you talk about a politician in the Presidential race you quote your source on whether he dropped out or not. Because if its not from the official campaign then i wouldnt believe it. Good Try

    Comment by Libertas — February 13, 2008 @ 7:36 am
  25. I’m a libertarian and proud Ron Paul supporter and will be voting either for Obama or the LP candidate in November.

    Comment by Ben — February 13, 2008 @ 7:37 am
  26. I don’t blame the LP for putting out a blurb acknowledging Ron Paul’s realistic appraisal of his chances of winning the GOP nomination. I was pleased they have come to the conclusion Dr. Paul will not be running on the LP ticket. But as others have said Rep. Paul has not folded his campaign, only diverted his attention for the next three weeks to assure his victory in the Texas Primary March 4th. March 5th … HELLO!!!! ARE YOU FEELING IT YET? Fun times ahead. Who cares if McCain has sown it up by then? Has he had his meltdown yet?

    The primary has passed in my state. I am still hanging signs to the consternation of the local governments. I am not going away, and neither is Paul.

    I encourage ANYONE running for office to attach a Ron Paul Candidate logo on their campaign. I don’t care what party — if any — you run as. Just run as a Ron Paul candidate. Don’t worry about wasted votes and I can’t win. Run to educate. If the elections so far have shown Rs & Ds alike, the elections are rigged, your votes aren’t counted and the anointed ones strangely enough in the end are ALL the “choice” you are given. Enjoy the show. It’s a tragedy, but an effective learning experience for many and yo can save a few lost souls while having some fun.

    Comment by Fascist Nation — February 13, 2008 @ 7:42 am
  27. “there’s a small but sizeable group of voters”. Isn’t that an oxymoron? Small but sizeable?

    FJH
    http://brushfires2008.com/2008/02/05/dont-blame-me-i-voted-for-ron-paul-bumper-sticker/

    Comment by Fielding J. Hurst — February 13, 2008 @ 7:50 am
  28. this is one of the most obvious attempts to disinform and misinform, and both the author and the venue in this instance make total sense.

    and using this nonsensical LP announcement: it’s times to pick up the ball for a touchdown? what does that actually mean? vote LP POTUS candidate, or push RP to use his POTUS money for a libertarian PAC for state/fed candidates?

    i say FUCK the LP. look at doug mataconis as a caveat emptor as to why. and if Paul were to disperse POTUS money for a PAC, it wouldnt be according to libertarian cadidates first, but people Paul himself want to support. fuck these libertarian bozos. they don’t know what they want and are highly suspect of mis- and disinformation.

    Comment by oilnwater — February 13, 2008 @ 8:17 am
  29. Closed Borders… ok but Restricted Trade? UCrawford, you are really really playing fast and loose with the facts as usual.

    On the former, you really have to engage in a rethinking of immigration policy.

    Do you best fix immigration policy by having quasi-legal/underground citizenry, excused from legally agreed upon restrictions that employers must adhere to with every other citizen? Or do you fix immigration from the ground up, resetting the system and altering it if need be to support what may indeed be a policy more acceptable to the open-borders wing of libertarian thinkers. Border control is what makes a border meaningful, might as well not have one if that isn’t the case.

    On the latter, nowhere do I see Restriction in Ron Pauls platform regarding trade. Nowhere, please contradict me in some meaningful way, because I must have missed something really important in my perusal of Ron Paul’s campaign platform. Indeed free trade is the foundation of his foreign policy! I suppose you could see restriction in his desire not to transfer taxpayer dollars from the US citizenry to support armnaments and material support of Israel’s government in their siege of the evil Palestinian menace, engaged in to this very day.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 8:17 am
  30. The Constitution Party seems like a better fit for my ideals and principles.

    Comment by Layne Buck — February 13, 2008 @ 8:30 am
  31. Michael,

    Border control is what makes a border meaningful, might as well not have one if that isn’t the case.

    Since I consider border restrictions to be the primary reason for the underground economy to which you refer, and since our nation grew and prospered quite well without them until the 20th century, I’d be in favor of abolishing quotas on who may come here and getting rid of all but the most cursory of background checks and basic screening for Customs-type restrictions (which brdrknight spelled out in the comment thread on my last post).

    People who emigrate here generally do so because there’s work. There’s work because the domestic labor force isn’t supplying sufficient manpower at a salary commensurate with the amount of utility provided to the employer. All restricting immigrant labor does is a) keep needed job positions unfilled, b) drive up overhead for producers by increasing labor costs, thereby increasing prices of goods and services, and c) limit economic expansion by restricting the labor supply.

    I think borders are important, but not more important than economic productivity, expansion and prosperity. Border controls should help enhance our economics, instead currently they inhibit them by turning a great portion of the immigrant labor force into criminals and punishing employers from acting in their own best interests.

    You can’t be for more restrictive immigration policy and also be for free-markets and economic growth…it just doesn’t work (which is why I consider Ron Paul to be absolutely on the wrong side of the immigration issue, particularly since he justifies his position with an argument that we can’t overload the welfare state). Given the choice, many Paul supporters I’ve seen post here choose closed borders, which is why I think they wouldn’t choose to vote Libertarian.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:44 am
  32. Michael,

    I suppose you could see restriction in his desire not to transfer taxpayer dollars from the US citizenry to support armnaments and material support of Israel’s government in their siege of the evil Palestinian menace, engaged in to this very day.

    Actually, I generally agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions and oppose foreign aid. I thought he had the best ideas on it. My biggest problem with supporting him is that I just didn’t trust him to appoint a Cabinet that could help him implement it.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:47 am
  33. Folks don’t you see that Doug is a liar? By the way he posts the same infor at another blog.

    Don’t you remember that Doug told us over and over that he supported Ron Paul. Then when I pointed out I didn’t see his name on the FEC filling as a donar I began to question is intention. The fact is Doug never supported Ron Paul. He always offered some attack.

    No Doug Mataconis is a troll and you should not trust this man with Ron Paul news. Of course every man or women has the right to support whom ever they choose but Doug’s action cry foul.

    Doug Matacnois your a waste of time… But at least it’s good to know I can place you on my list of liars….. You earned it!

    Doug I see no reason to join a voting block which only had 700,000 votes in 2004 when I can support Paul and the message of Paul and really support liberty and freedom within a larger platform which will obtain news whereas 3-party sedlom if ever receives even a blimp of news coverage from the MSM.

    Comment by Darel — February 13, 2008 @ 8:51 am
  34. Darel,

    I’m glad to see that your recovery from your accident is apparently progressing well. Unfortunately your pro-Ron Paul arguments are still all garbage premised mainly on whining about Doug.

    Which would make you the troll, not Doug.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:00 am
  35. I wasLibertarian, became Republican for Ron Paul. Attempts like this to split the base for the candidate you claim to idealistically support, well, it sounds like party politics to me. I will not be back to the LP, I will helping reform the Republican party. The LP should endorse Ron Paul, not try to pull this movement apart. Shame on you!

    Comment by claire — February 13, 2008 @ 9:00 am
  36. I was considering throwing my support to the Libertarian Party – but you’ve certainly discouraged me with your inaccurate assertions the Ron Paul has all but dropped from the Presidential Race.

    One of the main reasons for joining the Ron Paul movement was because I’m sick and tired of the deceit, dissolution and distraction tactics used by Government and MSM.

    On the other hand I would of expected you to support Ron Paul whole heartedly. Many of his views are closey aligned with the Libertarian Party.

    I CALL ON THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY AND WAYNE ROOT TO JOIN THE RON PAUL MOVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    For the People! Liberty and Freedom for All!

    Comment by David Cox — February 13, 2008 @ 9:01 am
  37. I have no idea who Wayne Root is. I’m surprised to hear that the LP has a pro-war candidate, though. I was expecting to vote for whoever they nominated, but I guess I’ll just have to write in Ron Paul.

    It seems like a HUGE strategic mistake not to find some slightly younger Ron Paul clone, at this point. If the Ron Paul base can be pulled into the LP, it might actually make the party viable nationally.

    Since Ron Paul will not endorse McCain, it would be nice if the LP found someone who Ron WOULD endorse.

    Comment by Jimmy — February 13, 2008 @ 9:04 am
  38. David,

    Why should anyone be obligated to support Ron Paul ?

    The fight for liberty is bigger than one man and it’s fate does not depend on the fate of Ron Paul.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 9:05 am
  39. Jimmy,

    It’s becoming obvious that a large portion of the Ron Paul movement isn’t libertarian at all. There’s a nativist streak there that is fairly strong, hence the support for immigration restrictions. There are the conspiracy theory kooks. Heck, there are probably people who were involved in the Y2K nonsense when that was hot.

    It’s no surprise that I’ve seen more than one self-identified Ron Paul supporter say that they’d feel more at home in the far-right, nativist Constitution Party than in LP or the GOP.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 9:07 am
  40. My disrespect for the ivory tower, snobbery of the libertarian party has only deepened as my support for Ron Paul has grown. This is not a political party, it’s a debating society. It has been overrun by every anarchist, pot smoking, fool who wanted to impress a girl by his “deep politics”.

    The Libertarian Party can sit and spin, (as is it’s custom). The future doesn’t lie with the Libertarian party. They allowed themselves to rot, for the inside. The rot is too deep to save the tree. At least the Republican party, perhaps by pruning the new growth, the tree can be saved.

    Comment by Tom — February 13, 2008 @ 9:10 am
  41. To use buzz word’s in disinformation peice of garbage, Nice trick spout off a bunch of nonesence about Ron Paul quitting, and watch the Paul supporters give you ratings, nice trick won’t work though, You see all the lies about his delegates, Washington State has not had the Convention yet. I am a Paul Delegate one of many up here and we will be a voice for change at the Republican convention. We won’t quit! You never quit when it’s for real! See all of you in Washington on 21 of June, The thing about a Revolution it keeps coing around to get in your Face! RonPaul 08 for Truth, Justice and the American way, not the Neo Con way.

    Comment by RaferJanders — February 13, 2008 @ 9:13 am
  42. Go To:
    http://www.revolutionmarch.com
    to sign up!
    We are going to March for Freedom! You can get the details at the site above.
    We need as many ppl on board as we can get!

    P.S. You won’t get Ron Paul’s supporters to vote for anyone but him, espically when you say he has dropped out when he hasn’t.
    We don’t get out information from MSM, so we know when something is a lie.

    Comment by wakeup2change — February 13, 2008 @ 9:15 am
  43. Doug said: “He’s not getting any delegates.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that. Media sources have estimated his delegate count at 14 to 16 already. The Paul campaign estimates more optimistically at 42 delegates earned so far. The real numbers will come out after all of the states have their state conventions to pick the actual delegates to the national convention.

    I suspect a lot of Ron Paul supporters will write in Ron Paul in November. Others will stay home, or vote for Obama (if he wins the Dem nomination), or vote LP or Constitution Party.

    For those who go LP, Wayne Root isn’t likely to be the beneficiary, since he thought invading and occupying Iraq without provocation was okay. George Phillies might benefit, since he has said he would enforce the immigration laws as written.

    I liked Root’s football analogy, but I don’t think Ron Paul got the ball across midfield. He definitely got in the game, though, and picked up a few first downs.

    Comment by Craig — February 13, 2008 @ 9:20 am
  44. In response to your borders assertion: You are being unfair and disingenuous with your assertion that you can either be Closed or Open in your position on borders. Your slated reason for opposition (and subtle or slight demonization of Ron and his Supporters position on borders) is sidled right up with your own contradictory position on the matter. Your words: “I think borders are important, but not more important than economic productivity, expansion and prosperity. Border controls should help enhance our economics, instead currently they inhibit them by turning a great portion of the immigrant labor force into criminals and punishing employers from acting in their own best interests.” yet this follows your assertion that Ron fails to be “libertarian enough” in his position because: “People who emigrate here generally do so because there’s work. There’s work because the domestic labor force isn’t supplying sufficient manpower at a salary commensurate with the amount of utility provided to the employer. All restricting immigrant labor does is a) keep needed job positions unfilled, b) drive up overhead for producers by increasing labor costs, thereby increasing prices of goods and services, and c) limit economic expansion by restricting the labor supply.” — None of which I personally disagree with, nor in principle does Ron. The difference of opinion is better dealt with by my position of ultimately supporting your position with a staged process: Stem the flow, deal with difficulty, achieve consensus politically, change law to suit, (profit!?!?!) and everyone’s happy.

    Yet somehow Ron’s position fails your high bar of perfection how? Because he’d rather enforce law as written, and not have a completely open border which the status quo border position gives us. He’s either with you 100 percent by opening the border now and not addressing the problems of a totally unrestricted open border in doing so, or he’s deserving of your complicity in slandering his position and belittling his supporters wishes. By hook or by crook.

    You still haven’t addressed or retracted your insisiously placed and ludicrous assertion that he’s a trade restrictionist either. Look forward to that, it should be quite a laugh. Surprised you didn’t use the term ‘isolationist’. Though I suppose you may have lumped that in with your immigration policy assertion, if so, it’s quite a stretch to pull immigration policy to overall trade policy. If that is the case you’d assert that X contains Y, regarding Y candidate is restrictive so regarding X and Y candidate is restrictive on both.

    From my perspective, you lot of Cato supporters mainstream Libertarian Party supporters and by extension Reason Magazine and it’s ilk have fundamentally betrayed the very cause you pretend to support in your treatment of Ron. You prop up Idealistic Perfection as a righteous Enemy of the Good.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 9:25 am
  45. Michael,

    From my perspective, you lot of Cato supporters mainstream Libertarian Party supporters and by extension Reason Magazine and it’s ilk have fundamentally betrayed the very cause you pretend to support in your treatment of Ron. You prop up Idealistic Perfection as a righteous Enemy of the Good.

    Actually, I would argue that it’s some of Ron Paul’s supporters who have been guilty of this.

    There the ones who have told me and other for the past year that we were wrong to question whether Ron Paul had a chance to make a difference in the GOP, they were the ones who told me and others it was wrong to point out policy issues that Paul held that weren’t consistent with libertarian ideas, they were the ones who told me and others it was wrong to question the campaign’s association with racists and 9/11 truthers and Ron Paul’s own parroting of nonsensical worries about a North American Union.

    And, finally, they were the ones who told me and others that if you didn’t support Ron Paul without question and treat him like the Second Coming, then you weren’t a real libertarian.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 9:29 am
  46. wow, nice command of the English language, costello.

    Comment by oilnwater — February 13, 2008 @ 9:41 am
  47. Logistics, you are right:

    “The March to take back Washington begins here…

    BUSES… we are going to need LOTS and LOTS of buses, and a website to co-ordinate buses from every state for anyone wanting to goto the rally.”

    It’s time to leave the comments and start to ORGANIZE! ;-)

    Comment by Energy — February 13, 2008 @ 9:41 am
  48. GO TO HELL!!!! WE FIGHT ON!!!! RON PAUL IS STILL IN THE RACE, YOU PAWNED MEDIA PROSTITUTE!!

    Comment by RP TATOO — February 13, 2008 @ 9:48 am
  49. Fine rational response there Tatoo

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 9:50 am
  50. Who is this clown and where did he learn to read? Ron Paul hasn’t dropped out. Hellooooo?

    Get this BULL shit off of Google “News”, it belongs on the blog/editorial section, or the trash heap.

    Count another few Ron Paul supporters for the long haul here in Milwaukee Wisconsin. NOTHING could sway me to vote for anyone else at this point.. It would take a miracle like some other candidate suddenly appearing with a more Constitutional, more pro-freedom and pro-liberty message and a longer voting record than Ron Pauls……. Fat chance of that!

    Comment by Josh Straub — February 13, 2008 @ 9:52 am
  51. Doug, was I arguing Ron’s idealistic perfection? Somewhere? I’m arguing Ron is, rather than Perfect, is/was a Very Good fit for libertarians, libertarians like you are the ones that engage in the righteous tripe like assertions that Ron might be good but he fails because of his positions on Immigration and Choice/Life issues.

    Furthermore you and your ilk consistently parrot these wee smears:

    As to Ron’s movement being jam-packed with 9/11 Truthers, such a deserving bogeyman and such a vile menace, aren’t they? Right up next to the Nazis you like to trot out as being such a fundamental force in Ron’s campaign. Laughable.

    9/11 truthers aren’t deserving of your bigotry, I think they raise some valid questions that deserve answering at the very least.

    The Nazi supporters smear has already been sufficiently proven to me to be a disgusting propoganda play by you and your allies since the events of the New Hampshire debate. Thanks for rehashing the debacle, tearing open old wounds.

    The NAU is an interesting case as well, it can both not exist, and be exist and be completely benign at the same time- out of the mouths of it’s apologists (but can a thing that does not exist be said to have apologists?!?!) or deniers, hmm, frankly I’m at a loss as to which is the better term. At any rate, that bit is perfect if you want to dismiss someone as a kook for it’s very mentioning.

    My head spins at the very thought of being labelled a lunatic for asserting that overreaching beuraucractic interests might have an overarching goal of increasing their revenue streams and expanding their territory at my expense, pardon me, feel free to call me crazy it will roll off my back like water on ducks. It’s at least better than arguing that Socialism implemented by a large state ultimately results in slavery with Socialists.

    In general Doug, you find great ways to stifle debate and end discussion, imply that someone is a nut, assert that they are in bed with racists, or assert that they are delusional and move right on with your de-facto support of warmongers and statists. CATO pretty much did recently endorse McCain now didn’t it?

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 9:56 am
  52. I Some what agree with TATTOO. lol..

    Remember people… Ron Paul is still a politician. Lets hope that 90% of what he says is true, and lets hope that the other 10% (the “no third party run”) is politicians fluff.

    I say that we all start a Ron Paul Write in “r3VOlution” if he doesn’t.

    Comment by Dizor — February 13, 2008 @ 10:00 am
  53. Michael,

    My point is that it’s become apparent to me that many of Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t really libertarians and even Paul deviates in some important respects.

    I do have the right to decide who I can support, don’t I ?

    And, no Cato didn’t endorse McCain. They are a 501(c)(3) organization and they don’t endorse anybody because they’d lose their tax-exempt status. And, oh yeah, their entire foreign policy team was against the Iraq War.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 10:03 am
  54. Doug,

    No Ron Paul support I know of has told any one to vote or support Ron Paul if they disagree with him. Ron Paul himself suggest that we question everything including him. So your comment is out to lunch.

    As to the the chance to make a difference to the GOP . Even the GOP themselves have seem the difference and he has made a difference.

    No one give a rats touchy about how Ron differs with anyone else we just care that he makes sense even if we respectfully disagree.

    Racist and 9/11 truthers, ahh how terrible and again the unfounded smear by his loyal Libertarian supporter. These days that hold less water than the statement Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Now you really want to enrage a Ron Paul supporter associate Ron with the War Mongering , illegal immigrant loving Libertarians who thinks like democrats an supports stupid neo-com Republican policies.

    What a pile of crock you put out, beside your I support Ron Paul junk. What you say is no different than all the I support the troops send them to a new unfounded, unconstitutional war supporters.

    Comment by Josh — February 13, 2008 @ 10:09 am
  55. he has not bowed out, and i will never support this shitty libertarian candidate, and for the libertarian party to support such disinformation, makes me think they are no different than dems or repubs, you have lost not only my vote, FOREVER, but i will put you guys down wherever on the net and out in the world.

    Comment by justin — February 13, 2008 @ 10:10 am
  56. Michael,

    Yet somehow Ron’s position fails your high bar of perfection how? Because he’d rather enforce law as written, and not have a completely open border which the status quo border position gives us.

    No, because it’s a horrible law that needs to be repealed. Not all laws are just…our current immigration policy is a compilation of unjust and economically damaging laws. That’s why Reagan pushed for amnesty for the illegals in 1986.

    subtle or slight demonization of Ron and his Supporters position on borders

    There was no demonization involved with my remarks. I said that Paul supporters who weren’t already predisposed to vote Libertarian likely weren’t going to do so because they’re opposed to things that most libertarians support (like less-restrictive immigration). I certainly don’t agree with the position of people who advocate closed borders but I don’t consider those people to be automatically evil or racist simply because they hold that position…just wrong.

    None of which I personally disagree with, nor in principle does Ron. The difference of opinion is better dealt with by my position of ultimately supporting your position with a staged process: Stem the flow, deal with difficulty, achieve consensus politically, change law to suit, (profit!?!?!) and everyone’s happy.

    I can respect where you’re coming from on this so I’d like to address your points:

    1. Stem the flow – we can’t enforce the borders we have now because we don’t have sufficient resources and manpower to dedicate to it. Where is the money going to come from to hire more guards, support personnel, equipment, regulation enforcement? Either more taxes or increased deficit spending…particularly with this Congress. And why, according to Ron Paul? To keep the welfare state from becoming insolvent, which is what’s supposed to happen with the welfare state. Stemming the flow is merely protecting those who would save the welfare state from the consequences of their actions…those consequences need to become apparent in order to get reform passed. Paul is using one bad policy to justify another and the end result is simply that we end up with two bad policies which we’ll be paying for.

    2) Deal with difficulty – you can do that without adding more regulation to businesses and cutting back on their available labor force. The proper way to deal with difficulty would be to lessen border restrictions and suffer through the short-term consequences of having a welfare state that would lead to the long-term abolishment of that welfare state.

    3 & 4) achieve consensus politically, change law to suit, (profit!?!?!) – “The people” aren’t the ones who will need to achieve political consensus, politicians will. Career politicians (meaning most of Congress) don’t come to a consensus or change laws (particularly laws that give money to voters) unless it’s in their best interests to do so or unless they have no other choice. Cutting off the welfare checks is a visible action, one that will be immediately unpopular because the short-term consequences of doing so will be readily apparent. Further restricting immigration will have much more dire long-term consequences which will not be readily apparent but which will be very popular in some quarters…which will insure those restrictions likely stay around so long as the most powerful people supporting those restrictions (primarily unions) are vocal, organized and give money to the right politicians to keep them in place.

    Increasing border “security” is essentially putting more power into the hands of the government with the payoff of making life worse for consumers to prop up a welfare system that we should want to collapse. It’s a deal with the Devil and Paul’s on the wrong end of it.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 10:13 am
  57. The Bush Administration proved not only that Big Government doesn’t work, but neither does Big Business. We need a new economic philosophy. We have a engery crisis and a lack of decent viral and health medications, and big business gives us higher gas prices and Playstation 3. Thats not good enough.

    Where is the innovation? I was a libertarian, but the Bush years changed that.

    Comment by Titus — February 13, 2008 @ 10:14 am
  58. Of course Paul Supporters should get behind a Libertarian -that is if they don’t want to write in Paul’s name this Fall. if anyone would think they could vote for one of the other options, they don’t know what they believe in, or they don’t really know what the Libertarian party is all about. The Libertarian Party is the only party that fits with Paul’s message right now. They broke off from the Republicans when the Republicans quit being Republican. Hopefully in the coming years, they can rejoin.

    I will be at the March in Washington and am excited about that idea. Hopefully many will show up for that.

    Comment by Hes — February 13, 2008 @ 10:18 am
  59. Titus,

    I was a libertarian, but the Bush years changed that.

    Why? Bush wasn’t a libertarian under any stretch of the imagination. He campaigned as one in 2000 but he never really believed in it and abandoned most important libertarian positions immediately after taking office.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 10:19 am
  60. Ron Paul has not ‘bowed out’ ya freakin’ moron!

    Comment by Pete — February 13, 2008 @ 10:20 am
  61. Doug

    Aghast, Ron Paul supporters are not really libertarian? What indeed is the litmus test for libertarians? If I graph out on a Nolan chart as a libertarian is that enough? Or is there some cherished right-think, wrong-think libertarian test I’m not privy to that you are? Let me guess, it’s probably deep within the bowels of the Cato institute, right next to the 9/11 truther dartboard you all have in turn next to the pile of cut up Ron Paul newsletters from 1982 used for the Weigel articles careful quote-cherry-picking operation.

    Of course you have a right to support the candidate of your choosing. But don’t trot out smears like the ones you love to trot out without expecting distinct opposition.

    Point taken on CATO not officially endorsing. My stewing in the hatred of the organizations and it’s associates willing series of betrayals of my favored candidate must’ve temporarily blinded me to facts like their non-profit non-endorsing status. Apologies.

    Though according to the VP of Cato Boaz: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_boaz/2008/01/an_unsuitable_job.html
    McCain is better than the horrible Huckabee, and would be wise not to have him as a Vice President, so they are willing to if not officially endorse, wax poetic with respect to Warmongers, within discreet limits for the foreign press, on occasion.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 10:25 am
  62. Ucrawford: Regarding immigration.

    Thanks for your clarifications and arguments against my positions. Far better than an absolute dismissal in my opinion is when I see someone argue convincingly against Ron’s position. Normally though I see pith, laced with smear, even from you.

    Where is the explanation or retraction of the “restricted trade” assertion?

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 10:31 am
  63. Michael,

    What indeed is the litmus test for libertarians?

    Generally embracing free markets, consensual human interaction, non-aggression, individual and property rights, and freedom from oppressive government are the litmus test for libertarians. The Paul supporters I was referring to have positions that directly contradict some of that. There are a few others, of course, but that’s a rough guideline. The Nolan Chart is a useful tool but somewhat flawed.

    McCain is better than the horrible Huckabee

    Actually, McCain’s probably better than Huckabee, marginally. The only thing Huckabee’s got going for him with libertarians is the Fair Tax. Beyond that he wants to install a theocracy so he’s actually more authoritarian than McCain. But they’re both bad, undeserving of the office and Cato wasn’t endorsing either.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 10:33 am
  64. Josh Straub,

    Welcome to the NOT “Liberty Papers”. The regular clowns here have an important function regarding risks to Liberty, i.e. if there is any risk the people may get some real Liberty they try to limit that risk. The job of the clowns here at TLP is to fool as many as possible that they(the clowns) are on the side of Liberty.

    The clowns have two primary tools to accomplish the above:

    1. If a candidate comes along (Ron Paul) that advocates real progess toward Liberty-the TLP clowns attack/smear that candidate.

    2. Encourage people that just want to be FREE to waste their time with that tits on a bull organization-the Libertarian Party.

    Comment by gmason08 — February 13, 2008 @ 10:39 am
  65. Michael,

    Normally though I see pith, laced with smear, even from you.

    If I see someone as trying to have a discussion using an intellectually honest argument I generally try to be respectful of their attempt and try debate it in a civil manner (although, same as anyone else, sometimes I fall short). You’ve been serious and honest in your arguments so I’ve got no problems with you, or any other Paul supporter (or anyone else) who uses a similar approach and I can see where you’re coming from on some of this stuff, although obviously I disagree with you on parts of it.

    Where is the explanation or retraction of the “restricted trade” assertion?

    Restricting immigration is a form of restricting trade. Labor coming in from overseas provides utility to whoever is consuming it, same as a truck, or food, or any other product. It provides economic benefit to people who use it, it expands our tax base (because millions of illegal immigrants do pay taxes), it provides more consumers for the economy (because laborers do buy consumer goods), it lowers overhead for producers (allowing expansion for businesses and lower prices for consumers). Immigrant labor coming here is a form of trade because it’s voluntary human interaction (between laborer and employer). Restricting that restricts trade.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 10:55 am
  66. What a disgrace and a disservice to the American People!

    You have “No Clue” what is at stake, do you?
    Dr. Paul and the people are all in this for the long haul!

    Comment by Leonardo — February 13, 2008 @ 11:12 am
  67. UCrawford (and Ucrawford on behalf of Doug):
    Thanks to you on your willingness to not play the “Paulestinian” card with me. I suppose there’s hope for you yet, dunno about Doug though, I think his association with Pajamas Media (eyyyugh) may have rotted his brain perhaps I’m mistaken though, what is Doug’s claim to fame or pedigree in libertarian circles anyway?

    On your explanation of what a libertarian is, stay careful that your claims on parameters of what makes a libertarian don’t calcify to the point of essentially describing the contents of your own skull. I count neither of you as ultimate authority on relative ideological purity with respect to what makes one a libertarian, but I do not claim that you aren’t libertarians. Ron Paul supporters (the vast majority of them) are *quite* libertarian, perhaps in a broader or in some cases more restrictive sense than you personally view it.

    I still think it’s a stretch to say that overall Paul is restricting trade based strictly on immigration policy. Referencing my earlier pseudo-equation, Y does not grow to encompass X, one should make sure you are limiting your assertion to the smaller rather than assert that one is restrictive on the greater.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 11:26 am
  68. Michael,

    I have no affiliation with Pajamas Media, you’re mistaken.

    And I don’t claim to have any influence in libertarian circles, I’m just a guy with a blog and if people like what I write, or if it sparks a debate, then I’ve done what I wanted to do.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 11:29 am
  69. Doug:
    Well, you do spark debate. Consider that a success. Apologies for the Pajamas Media thing.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 11:38 am
  70. Spark Debate, no what you do is print disinformation, then the informed and educated school you, and you say, “Look boss 2600 comments today”. Right?

    Comment by RaferJanders — February 13, 2008 @ 11:43 am
  71. Libertarian Party members and their toady contributors (folks who do not work at Party HQ and who do not get government appointments since the LP does not win big-time elections) amount to nothing more than Randian Dorks.

    These Randian Dorks slept through wet dreams after reading Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged.

    Americans need a Jeffersonian Party.

    Currently, the alternative to the LP is the “Constitutional Party” — a second Amendment preaching front for what amounts to anti-abortion, Third Great Awakening Revivalists.

    Neither the LP nor the Constitutional Party offers what Americans long to have — a Jeffersonian Party.

    What would be a Jeffersonian Party?

    A JP would be a party that adheres to the Founders’ Design [see: http://pier23.pbwiki.com/Fixing+the+USA:+How+the+1913+Centralist+Overthrow+Changed+America+and+Runs+Your+Life ].

    The Founders sought to have Freedom with a highly restricted Officialdom — strong Popular Representation, specie money, no income taxation, states as countries bound by a mutual trade and defense pact.

    Today, you live under Statist Officialdom with a highly restricted Freedom.

    Libertarians exposed themselves to be the frauds that they are with their attacks against Ron Paul and long before those misdeeds, their war-mongering support for the Officialdom Neo-Rome war against Iraq.

    Browse the Cato.org and Reason sites — the voice of Libertarians. You will not find any supporters of Ron Paul there nor will you find any supporters of Freedom.

    Instead, you will find whimpy men too weak to mount a proper grab for power to instill their lame party — the Libertarian Party.

    When will Americans awaken?

    Comment by Pier Johnson — February 13, 2008 @ 11:51 am
  72. :) RaferJanders, come now, disinformation is rather str… oh wait, yeah I could see that being at least a fair choice of words, but this particularly article was to-the-letter not disinformation per-se, nowhere does Doug actually emit any falsehood in the posting itself.

    It’s more carefully crafted agitprop supporting the “good” libertarians agenda, or reporting on them anyway.

    Doug is being partisan, and mostly considers Ron Paul as irrelevant as he’s always probably considered him especially when he consistently cautions others against voting for him.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 11:52 am
  73. Michael,

    I’ve always told the Ron Paul supporters that comment on what I write that they’re free to vote for Ron Paul if they want to just as I’m free not to support him if I don’t want to.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 11:55 am
  74. Michael,

    I count neither of you as ultimate authority on relative ideological purity with respect to what makes one a libertarian

    Never claimed that I was…I just offer my opinion and argue it with people looking for an honest debate. I appreciate you offering some good feedback

    Thanks to you on your willingness to not play the “Paulestinian” card with me.

    The only people who usually get that one played on them are the ones who comment here with no point except to whine about the post authors, often in incomprehensible form. You actually brought up an issue you had differences with us on and rationally discussed it. That’s usually respected and always welcomed…even by Doug :)

    I still think it’s a stretch to say that overall Paul is restricting trade based strictly on immigration policy.

    I find current immigration policy to be very anti-free market and making it stricter to my mind would be more so. I understand where you’re coming from with your ratio but I disagree that we can keep out by legislation even more people who want to come here to work and still live in a productive and prosperous society. Most economists will agree that immigration is essential and I don’t consider our fear of a collapsing welfare state sufficient justification to change my position on that (which is what Ron Paul does).

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 11:59 am
  75. Doug, you said as much here, but you’ve also been a consistent and troublesome blogospherian nay-sayer and foil with respect to Ron. You agitate against, while pretending to admire, people do see that, as I can see from other postings here.

    If anything I applaud your consistency, but your wishes for candidacy are obviously sum-uppable thusly: WARNING extreme sarcasm and satire begins here:

    Loudly Doug Proclaims, vote for anyone, while he argues, anyone *but* Paul for me and by the way here’s why
    1)… oh i don’t know, he seems to be a racist or is supported by racists …
    2)… he’s too connected with the troublesome vile and reprehensibly irresponsible 9/11 truther movement …
    3)… he can’t win, he can’t possibly win, and by the way he’s a long-shot …
    4) … he takes ear marks while voting against them and loudly agitating against them being in existence in their current form he’s a hypocrite …
    and by the way, Doug’s inner voice says: I’ll ride his name for popularity and pretend to be objective, while openly asserting that the constituent population of his movement isn’t really libertarian. Thanks, don’t hate me, I really respect him, he’s just not perfect-erfect-erfect like an acceptable candidate like McCain over Huckabee on my other blog.

    So, really, come on. You’re Anti-Paul and firmly so, and you agitate diligently in support of that position. It’s fairly obvious.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
  76. Michael,

    Yes, I’ve become firmly anti-Paul since January. Before that, believe me or not, I had intentions of voting for him in yesterday’s primary.

    And I don’t support McCain or Huckabee either, by the way.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
  77. Look, Ron Paul’s main platform is bring the troops home from around the planet, restore our civil Rights and limited government, and save the economy through drastic reductions in spending, borrowing, regulations and taxation (with the latter encouraging investment and savings).

    If you are a true libertarian then you believe in a single tenet; that the initiation of force or fraud on another is unacceptable.

    There are two kinds of laws in this world of “democracies:” Those that prohibit bad because there is bad (see above tenet), and those that are bad because some authority — with the guns, and the will to use them and sleep well later — says so.

    Ron Paul is a limited government libertarian. We can argue if that does not constitute an oxymoron later. But I would rather support a guy with a consistent voting record (actions) of 20 years spread out over 30 years that back up his 30 years of ideas and rhetoric and live in his world than live in the current fiasco. And if things work out as well as I imagine his government would, then I would try to convince the public to eliminate the remainder.

    The Libertarian Party was created not to elect candidates, but to use the tools of the state against the state to educate the masses on the above tenet. That its success attracted those who seek to gain power through the election/ party process is unfortunate, but what happens to literally every association once it rises to a certain mass. The LP is no longer very effective in teaching because it has compromised its principles…indeed it all but abandoned them in its last convention. And like the GOP it now reaps the harvest in declining membership, money, influence and power. I am doing the same thing I was doing a few years ago. The LP once was a help, but I did not need it to keep on opposing the state.

    Ron Paul has attracted the disenfranchised from around the planet from the left and the right. The 9/11 Truthers you love to castigate embraced the name which was intended to offend and run with it much to your irritation I am sure. Ron Paul has not dismissed them. Nor has he denied racists are fully entitled to their opinions. And he has survived, even when this is the best the opposition can cast his direction.

    I would rather hang out with 9/11 Truthers any day than Koolaid drinking Republicans or Democrats who still believe in the fiscal conservatism or anti-war/ civil rights propaganda of their party respectively. They make better signs and bring better beer.

    Comment by Fascist Nation — February 13, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
  78. Fascist Nation,

    Ron Paul’s main platform is bring the troops home from around the planet, restore our civil Rights and limited government, and save the economy through drastic reductions in spending, borrowing, regulations and taxation (with the latter encouraging investment and savings). If you are a true libertarian then you believe in a single tenet; that the initiation of force or fraud on another is unacceptable.

    Your point is very valid and I agree with you but I still would not vote for the man. The problem is that I simply don’t trust Ron Paul to appoint a Cabinet capable of doing so or to work with others to get his ideas passed and I suspect he would be a weak and ineffective leader of a disastrous administration. It’s important to have good ideas, but it’s equally important to be able to have the ability to see those ideas through…I think Ron Paul’s got the former, not the latter. Idea-wise he’s good, but as far as practicality goes he’s got a mixed to poor track record as a manager of his people and he’s given no indication that he’s capable of convincing anyone else in government to follow his lead. On paper, he’s far and away the best candidate, but in reality he isn’t.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
  79. Michael,

    Now let’s not start going off on this tangent. You were doing a good job of avoiding the personal attacks before so I’d appreciate it if you not make us regret giving you the benefit of the doubt. I certainly have my issues with Doug’s positions as well (which I’ve expressed in often very combative terms), but he’s always been honest about his beliefs and he’s as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. You’ve no cause to be calling him a hypocrite.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
  80. The media tries to pretend that Ron Paul does not exist. The media should not choose our next president. Ron Paul has a lot more support then everyone wants to admit. I live in AZ and was not able to vote for him in our Primary because of our state rules (that’s right I can’t vote for who I want). There have also been stories of his name being “accidentally left off the ballot” and people making up statements that he has dropped out of the campaign. THE GOVERNMENT IS AFRAID OF A CANDIDATE LIKE RON PAUL. HE SUPPORTS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AND OUR RIGHTS. How could anyone really vote for someone who thinks that we should be in Iraq for the next 100 years? Then on to Iran? How many more people have to die for special interests? If we actually needed our troops in the U.S. we wouldn’t even have any available to protect us. They are all in other countries where they should not be. Bring our troops home and protect our borders. Why even waste anymore time? We do not have the right to be the police of the world nor should we. We our destroying our own economy by fighting wars that we can’t win.

    Our Government prints money out of thin air and borrows more from other countries then we can ever pay back which is killing us and the value of our dollar is rapidly dropping. Do you really think that the government brainwashed zombies and liars have done a good job with our country so far? Bush has been one of the worst presidents in history. You all fell for his BS. He used the emotions of our country after 9/11 to put us in a war that benefits him, his friends, and his family members. Why allow them to throw us further down? Fighting wars that can never be won and wasting our hard earned money on their special interests. The companies that get bids to do jobs in countries where we are at war, they get over paid, and the money trail always comes back to people in the Government that are in some way affiliated with that company.

    ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO TAX US. THEY TAKE OUR MONEY AND USE IT FOR THEIR INTERESTS. THEY SPEND OUR TAX MONEY ON WHATEVER THEY WANT. Then they want to send us a small check to keep us quiet. Its time for us all to stand up for ourselves and fight this!!!

    IT IS TIME FOR EVERY CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY TO COME TOGETHER AND STOP ALLOWING OUR GOVERNMENT TO TREAT US LIKE SLAVES. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT CARES ABOUT YOU.

    Please visit his website http://www.ronpaul2008.com
    Please visit http://www.youtube.com and search Ron Paul

    PLEASE READ AND LISTEN TO HIS MESSAGES. HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SAVE US!!! GIVE REAL HOPE A CHANCE…

    Comment by Ryan — February 13, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
  81. UCrawford:
    I’m not really calling him a hypocrite per-se, just want him to really own up to the fact that he is an ardent partisan who is firmly anti Ron Paul rather than say he’s passively disinterested in who one chooses to vote for.

    He seems to rhetorically waver between the two.

    I clearly labeled the apportioned rant as sarcasm and satire by the way, not that it excuses it morally, but it had the intended effect (admission) on the part of Doug in the form of admission or more accurately clarification that he is firmly anti and not an passive, objective observer.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
  82. “I simply don’t trust Ron Paul to appoint a Cabinet capable of doing so”

    What a load of incontinent musing.

    Get real and honest. You want perpetual war and large governments that is why you don’t support Ron Paul.

    “On paper he is the best candidate”!!! What next I vote with my heart not my head ? Well maybe that is now obvious.

    Oh Please !!! These excuses are so lame that even McCain or Bush for another term is looking better than a Libertarian whiner.

    Comment by Josh — February 13, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
  83. UCrawford:
    On the subject of a disastrous administration, what arguments, rationally offered ones of course, support your contention that a Ron Paul cabinet would be automatically disastrous, unappealing or flawed. By comparison with say, a Bush cabinet or a Clinton cabinet or say, my own pet utopianist libertine cabinet perhaps consisting of (humorously) Maynard James Keenan as head of the Department of Homeland Security, immediately prior to it’s utter and absolute disbanding as an agency, with my (again utterly reasonable) contention that the outgoing cabal of satanists should have a nice send-off in the form of a really good (trio of) rock band(s) causing them a sincere amount of righteous hearing damage on their way out the door.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
  84. The revolution march is vital to taking over our government structure. We need a huge show of force in DC on the 21st. of june.

    We can take over the government from the bottom up, just as effectively as from the top down. Realize that if the house and senate majorities are Ron Paul conservatives, which is to mean members who WE vote into office running on RPs platform, then we have areal voice like it’s supposed to be. Abuses by a president would be a lot less likely and impeachment power would be a reality once again.

    This revolution can take back our country by democratically rooting out fascism and replacing congress and senate with members who obey the constitution.

    We need to stick together, march together and increase our numbers.

    Comment by Trans-Mutant — February 13, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
  85. No, we will not leave the Republican party.

    The establishment WANTS Ron Paul supporters to leave the Republican Party BECAUSE The Republican Party ACTUALLY has a VOICE IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA. They’d love for us to leave and join the Libertarian party, so that we can have no tangible impact on the political system in this country. If the Libertarian party really wanted to change the country, they’d infiltrate the Republican party by working within the system and changing what it means to be a Republican. I agree with many Libertarian philosophies; unfortunately, the laws are set up to hinder 3rd party organizations.

    The mission is to change the voice of Republican politics and eventually the U.S. Government.
    We don’t have to vote for the Republican candidate in the general election, but we are staying in the Republican party.

    Comment by William — February 13, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
  86. I started reading Wayne Root’s book, Millionaire Republican or something to that effect, but had to put it down after he bragged about filing for bankruptcy. That’s not libertarian. That’s stealing.

    Comment by Marianne — February 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
  87. Michael,

    support your contention that a Ron Paul cabinet would be automatically disastrous, unappealing or flawed

    Paul’s history of hiring of people like Lew Rockwell, Gary North, and Eric Dondero to prominent positions…also the extremely embarassing running of his presidential campaign which was more of a detriment to his chances than an asset. Most of the publicity Paul gathered appeared to be a factor of the grassroots operating independently of the campaign, not because of any sort of organization on the official campaign’s part. Basically, he ran a disorganized and ineffective ship (even after he raised enough money to hire better, more experienced, personnel) and his campaign progressed in spite of his hired staff’s efforts not because of them.

    There’s always the possibility that Ron Paul would do a better job with hiring his Cabinet if he were elected, but frankly I’m a believer that our actions define who we are and Ron Paul’s actions consistently indicate that he’s a well-meaning but inept manager with a tendency to hire the wrong people, and I’m not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt just because I like some of the guy’s ideas.

    By comparison with say, a Bush cabinet or a Clinton cabinet…

    You’re not going to hear me say a lot of nice things about Bush’s or Clinton’s hires. Under Bush I liked Colin Powell (and the people installed at the State Dept during the first term…before Bush froze them out) and I like Robert Gates (who’s done an admirable job as SECDEF after Rumsfeld finally got the axe). Beyond that I think Bush’s hirings have been loyalists who’ve demonstrated little capability to do their jobs effectively and off the top of my head I can’t think of anyone else that I considered remotely competent. After eight years of Bush I’ve no interest in four more of the same under Paul.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
  88. Of course I will join the Libertarian Party. I hadn’t looked into them much before this race, but Ron Paul has drawn me into politics. What other party fits me now? It sure isn’t the GOP. The GOP is a statist organization that embodies all the evils of this world. They are for war, control over our lives, and control over our money. They are a bunch of corrupt thieves and always have been.

    I hadn’t voted in years, then became a Republican to vote for Dr. Paul. I then went to a Republican meeting. I have never seen a bigger bunch of bigoted, evil monsters. They forced everyone to swear allegiance to Jesus Christ before the meeting (not something this non-Christian had any intention of doing). I was told that any non-Christians were not wanted or welcome, and it was clear that if your skin was not lily white they didn’t want you there either.

    I have also read that the GOP is about to fall apart. People are leaving in droves, so why would I want to prop up that disgusting party by staying in it.

    As soon as I am done doing all the voting I can for Ron Paul you can bet I am getting out of the GOP for good and running HOME to the Libertarians. I read their website and they fit me like a glove.

    I don’t have to change them and they don’t have to change for either of us to feel comfortable. Maybe if all the people who are disgusted with the racist GOP party come over to the Libertarian Party, the libertarians would have more influence.

    Comment by kyle — February 13, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
  89. Josh,

    Get real and honest. You want perpetual war and large governments that is why you don’t support Ron Paul.

    That’s never been what I’ve argued for, not that you’ve likely read anything I’ve written on those subjects, so if you’d like to fabricate positions for me and try and put words in my mouth because you can’t come up with an argument for your position based on fact, as far as I’m concerned you can fuck right off.

    How’s that for honesty, sport?

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
  90. I didn’t know the Libertarian Party were a self-appointed hit squad and bunch of grave robbers. FYI Ron Paul is still alive and you just lost all the respect that you obviously never deserved in the first place.
    Go soak you heads in your own piss and stop pretending to be something you never will be.

    Comment by G Clarke — February 13, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
  91. Up to now my impression of the Libertarian Party has been very favorable. But now you are writing that Ron Paul:
    “bowed out honorably a few days ago – not only as a GOP Presidential candidate…”, and
    “Now that he’s out of the game…”.

    You, sir are a misrepresenter of the truth. Ron Paul has neither “bowed out” nor is he “out of the game” and he continues as a GOP Presidential candidate, contrary to your false assertion. He is continuing his campaign right up to the Republican National Convention. That is what he has clearly stated. But you choose to misrepresent the facts purposely. Shame on you for not being a lover of truth. What is it that motivates you to twist the truth in such a manner?You ought to be supporting Ron Paul right up to the convention if you wish to see the principles of Libertarianism attain their maximum exposure before the American people. You would actually being doing yourself a favor by taking that course of action. Instead you choose to twist the truth in a disgusting attempt to siphon away Ron Paul supporters towards your party, while Mr. Paul continues as a candidate and primaries in many States are still ahead of us. The honorable thing for you to do would have been to refrain from misrepresenting the truth and to wait until the convention was over. Then you would be in an excellent position to win over many more supporters to your party than ever existed beforehand. Instead you chose to be an opportunist and a misrepresenter of truth. All you have to do is to wait until the Republican National Convention is over and then you would actually be correct in writing that Ron Paul is no longer a candidate and you could in all good faith seek to bring as many of the newly aroused freedom-minded people into your party as you are able to. Instead you have stooped to purposely and egregiously misrepresenting the truth concerning the Ron Paul candidacy.

    Comment by John Krneta — February 13, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
  92. [quote]Stem the flow – we can’t enforce the borders we have now because we don’t have sufficient resources and manpower to dedicate to it. [i]Where is the money going to come from to hire more guards, support personnel, equipment, regulation enforcement?[/i][/quote]

    I thought the answer would be obvious, be it correct or not. Much of the resources and manpower needed for sufficient patrolling are being used in extensive overseas US military operations, specifically Iraq. The overseas US military presence, or at least that which is deemed by Ron Paul as redundant, is far more costly than patrolling the southern border could ever be.

    Isn’t this what Paul’s been saying since ever?!

    No increased taxes would be needed. The deficit would still be reduced, as not only would there be less overall military spending, but less illegal immigration. I don’t believe labor is simply another commodity like material goods, I don’t agree with guest worker programs.

    [quote]2) Deal with difficulty – … The proper way to deal with difficulty would be to lessen border restrictions and suffer through the short-term consequences of having a welfare state that would lead to the long-term abolishment of that welfare state.[/quote]

    It depends on how you quantify ‘long-term’. I think it would be an extremely long time before the short-term consequences are completely suffered through, but this is only if there was a chance of abolishment, which I doubt. Even after half a century, many communities descended from migrant workers are still living in squalor compared to their host communities. The Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Jamaican citizens in England come to mind, me being an English guy, with Chinese immigrant success being the rare exception. Whatever the causes, it is unfair on both the host population and the future immigrant-descendants to confidently predict they will soon have no need for the welfare state after their economic ascendancy.

    That being said, I do feel proud of British-Asian/Black culture, and I wish them economic prosperity. The thing is, this would’ve been inevitable, had Jamaican/Pakistani immigrants been selected for upper tier economic/educational attainment, like with British Indians, who are well off. If only in small controlled amounts, this type of border-transcending labor I have little ire for.

    But no one here is naive enough to think that fence-hopping Mexicans are unemployed doctors or engineers!

    Amnesty for illegal immigrants is never a good idea. The life of actual citizens would have been better off if border security (why the inverted commas?) had been tight from the start. It would’ve been better for Mexican Americans especially.

    [quote]Since I consider border restrictions to be the primary reason for the underground economy to which you refer, and since our nation grew and prospered quite well without them until the 20th century…[/quote]

    This is a bit sneaky. The world was a drastically different place before the 20th C, especially economically. Industrialization was in its formative years, for one thing, and there were no guest worker programs, nor any need for them.

    Again, being English rather than American, I don’t think I carry that much weight here, but I still don’t see why Ron Paul isn’t given more credence on this blog and elsewhere.

    I see ‘paultard’ as a perfectly valid word, not at all cromulant, as I define it as the loud, mindless personality-cultist who stamps his feet in ALLCAPS on Paul-dissing articles, rather than the majority of Ron Paul fans who are more often than not intelligent. Being a Ron Paul advocate need not mean being a ‘tard.

    Comment by Y. Zaus — February 13, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
  93. After my enlightening Ron Paul experience, I am now DONE with the GOP. Don’t get me wrong–I’ll keep on supporting Dr. Paul in his future efforts, but barring a major surprise I’ll be voting Libertarian for the first time in November.

    Comment by JP — February 13, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
  94. UCrawford: On Cabinets and Campaigns

    My distillation of your reasoning:
    You differ with the opinions of his slated cabinet officers, therefore they will be bad, you require ideological purity and only choices that match yours. You can make excuses for others that directly oppose your stated political ideology it seems, because at least they are qualified or popular, or well-spoken and uncontroversial.

    Of course, as is usual it seems, my opinion is directly opposite:
    Pauls Campaign (Under the circumstances) from my perspective, dealt with, and still deals with, the unique conditions of his candidacy rather well.

    Even with the Beltway Libertarian contingents defection to smear land of which I recall you approved, if not directly, you hurled a nice insult where it seemed most damaging and mean spirited.

    While a continual coordinated media blackout and smear campaign, and a corrupt media machine that continually listed Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson as potential front-runners (which ultimately resulted in how many delegates for them by the way?) Ron’s campaign has garnered a third place result from an initial pack of 7 then 8 (Thompsons late jump in) in real delegate counts. He enjoys roughly 20% GOP numbers even under concerted GOP Party Machinery efforts to exclude him.

    I think the campaign did a great job of holding us together in tough times, and keeping our movement growing despite these things. And of doing something quite valuable indeed for a movement based on Individual Liberty, staying out of the way when they should have.

    For that I see the campaign itself, and the candidate as prime examples of good leadership. Not perfect of course, but you don’t even expect that of theoretical front runners or George Bush! It seems odd however to me that Ron is held to a higher standard I suppose, considered your at times reasonable demeanor.

    In my opinion UCrawford. Well, your standards are suspect to say the least. No thanks to you for making the situation better, of course. But at least we can be civil, and your side seems to have won the day. More people are on your side than mine it seems though all for differing reasons.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
  95. Y. Zaus.:

    I salute your perspective, it’s valuable to see how this is dissected from someone from outside the incestuous US beltway machinery, and by extension the PC group-think that modern American libertarian thought now espouses. If you are pro border enforcement prepare for accusations of utter and complete racism to inevitably flood towards you. At the very least your ideological purity is called into question or even worse you may not even be an individualist at all!

    I guess I’m a Jingoist tool, oh wait, I don’t want to blow up Iran, just a tool then. Vile.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 13, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
  96. I would never vote LP. Once you go Paul, you can’t go back.

    I agree with RP on far more issues than I do with the LP. I’ve met plenty of LP pary members and I find a lot of them to be irrational and far dumber than a lot of the people that support RP. I would even go so far as to say that most of the crazys that support RP are LP members.

    Good luck LP, your just wasting your time.

    Take the GOP back, that’s the only way to do it!

    Comment by billlukemakeyapuke — February 13, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
  97. R.I. P liberty papers and Doug…. We have had enough.

    Comment by Darel99 — February 13, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
  98. Whatever Darel99.

    Comment by Adam Selene — February 13, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
  99. Notice Doug was no where to be found last qtr and now did he comment on the second place finish in several states and nor did he even show the progress made… Most libs will bitch about there house burning down while there siting in the middle of the fire. lets see the “L” party had over 700,000 votes nation wide iin the last election Paul had blown any former “L” out of the part and doug wants him to give it up to move in last place with another party. Now that sounds like a great answer to me if you desire to move backwords.,..

    Doug is just a fake Ron Paul supporter no where to be found on the FEC donations list and he lied to all of you about his support of Ron Paul.

    Move on….

    Comment by Darel99 — February 13, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
  100. Doug,

    You said:

    “Michael,

    Yes, I’ve become firmly anti-Paul since January. Before that, believe me or not, I had intentions of voting for him in yesterday’s primary.

    And I don’t support McCain or Huckabee either, by the way.”

    You sir are a liar… You posted many times that you supported Ron Paul after jan of this year. You replied to my comments about this very point. You posted on liberty several times when people questioned your support but you always stated you supported Ron Paul.. Now, sir you are twisting the facts…..

    Your on my list of liars of 2007/2008. At least I know where you stand.

    Comment by Darel99 — February 13, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
  101. Michael,

    You can make excuses for others that directly oppose your stated political ideology it seems, because at least they are qualified or popular, or well-spoken and uncontroversial.

    Actually no, I’m not supporting any of the others. I haven’t read enough about Wayne Root’s policy platform to make a decision but if he’s pro-Iraq he’ll be out too. I probably wasn’t clear when I said Paul’s not the best candidate in the race…I didn’t mean someone else was better than him, I meant that none of them are worth my vote. If that means I have ridiculously high standards, so be it, I won’t vote for a candidate I consider unfit for the office simply to say I cast a ballot for the least-worst candidate. That’s not to say that no candidate is worthy of my support ever (because I’ve been willing to compromise in the past) but all of the candidates in this race are sufficiently bad for me not to care. I’ll likely restrict my voting to the Congressional races (where I’ll be voting for whoever opposes Todd Tiahrt).

    While a continual coordinated media blackout and smear campaign, and a corrupt media machine

    Actually that probably had more to do with Ron Paul’s 24-year old press coordinator who had (from what I could gather) no experience in a presidential campaign, little experience in press operations and zero contacts in the media. It wasn’t an “MSM conspiracy”, it was the press ignoring a second-tier candidate who couldn’t be bothered to hire real staff…which was rational, unless you thought (in the interests of “fairness”) the press should have further cut into Ron Paul’s time by covering all of these guys too ( http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?party=Other&go.x=7&go.y=12 ), which would have guaranteed that no one would have heard about Ron Paul. The press, who are privately owned, are under no obligation whatsoever to provide coverage to anyone and they chose to expend their energy on candidates they thought were running serious campaigns. They gave coverage to Paul when he raised large sums of money, and he had some high-profile gigs (Leno, Maher, Blitzer, O’Reilly), but the Paul campaign did almost nothing to capitalize on that (likely due to their press coordinator’s inexperience).

    He enjoys roughly 20% GOP numbers even under concerted GOP Party Machinery efforts to exclude him.

    That was reflected in no scientific polls and he’s come nowhere close to 20% of the vote. Try 10%. Or less. Which he wouldn’t have gotten had the grassroots not organized on their own because his hired staff damn sure wasn’t responsible for it.

    For that I see the campaign itself, and the candidate as prime examples of good leadership. Not perfect of course, but you don’t even expect that of theoretical front runners or George Bush!

    George W. Bush is a rampantly unpopular and incompetent shitbird who took us into a war that he’s now losing and has wrecked the economy, and yet he’s won his presidential elections…twice. Ron Paul couldn’t even get through the primaries. If Ron Paul can’t rally the Republican troops against the worst Republican president in the last 140 years (who cost the GOP Congress) when all of the other candidates are running on Bush’s platform, what does that really say about Ron Paul’s leadership ability? You’re not a leader when nobody’s following you.

    In my opinion UCrawford. Well, your standards are suspect to say the least.

    They’re my standards and I’m happy with them and with my decisions on this race, regardless of what others might think. Some see me as being unrealistic, I just see myself as not selling out my beliefs for a candidate who’s not worth it.

    No thanks to you for making the situation better, of course.

    If he’d run a serious campaign and hired a professional staff he might actually have had a shot at winning. But he didn’t, so he lost. Ultimately that’s on him and not me. I was willing to vote for the guy right up until he exposed his poor character judgment and inability to handle crisis with the newsletter scandal and I decided that he wasn’t worth it anymore.

    But at least we can be civil, and your side seems to have won the day. More people are on your side than mine it seems though all for differing reasons.

    I’m not on anyone’s “side” except my own. I vote for the candidate who I think best represents my view. When nobody represents my views I don’t cast a ballot and I don’t win anything for it.

    More people are on your side than mine it seems though all for differing reasons.

    I think that says more about the dearth of good candidates than anything else.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
  102. Well… I was going to leave a comment after reading that lovely article, but it looks like everybody stole my thunder before I got a chance.

    In that case, then, I’ll just re-iterate:

    –Dr. Paul is still in the race.

    –You ARE obnoxious for writing this article (and you’re not catching any “flies with vinegar”.)

    –Actually Paul HAS won delegates.

    –Yes, he IS the best candidate.

    –If he’s not elected, you’re still not done with us.

    –And we’re supporting him for your own good, you know.

    Comment by Nathan — February 13, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
  103. Ohh UC doesn’t like my comments so he now gets honest.

    “That’s never been what I’ve argued for”

    That is what you are voting for or not voting for and that is what you perpetuate. No other candidate is against the war as is Ron Paul. You can argue and justify till you are blue in the face but that is what you are doing.

    ” not that you’ve likely read anything I’ve written on those subjects”

    Your actions and supported positions are clearly not what you write.

    “so if you’d like to fabricate positions for me and try and put words in my mouth because you can’t come up with an argument for your position based on fact”

    Fact is the only candidate running that is completely against the War is Ron Paul and you are against Ron Paul. Hence like it or not you are supporting someone who supports the war if you fail to support someone that does not.

    “as far as I’m concerned you can fuck right off.”

    Whooa what a fact based response. A little lame don’t you think.

    “How’s that for honesty, sport?”

    Well that is the only thing that I believe you on and it certainly shows your true colors sport.

    “If Ron Paul can’t rally the Republican troops against the worst Republican president in the last 140 years (who cost the GOP Congress) when all of the other candidates are running on Bush’s platform, what does that really say about Ron Paul’s leadership ability? You’re not a leader when nobody’s following you.”

    Nobody’s following you, that is a fact. But Ron Paul’s following remains strong. By the Way the Libertarian’s have not even made a little dent so you are says that Libertarians have no leadership abilities either and come to think of it didn’t Kerry lose to Bush so the Democrats have no leadership ability either.

    So let me get this right: In a reduced core of Republicans neo-cons while not getting enough Libertarians to switch over to the GOP because they didn’t believe Ron Paul could change Washington inspite of his steadfast record in congress Libertarians decide to smear him as an unelectable , uninspiring leader, who is a racist. Then Libertarians complain that it was Paul’s Campaign which was at fault in spite of a large body of evidence from candidates like Nader whom the MSM and other did not want to run shutting him out of debates and it was the campaign’s fault he was crossed off of ballots and let off of major newspapers etc.. etc …

    Golly.. you must be a genius.. how could I not have seen something so clear!!

    Oh boy back to dunces corner for me.

    “I’m not on anyone’s “side” except my own. I vote for the candidate who I think best represents my view. When nobody represents my views I don’t cast a ballot and I don’t win anything for it.”

    It is true that you don’t win anything; however, that does not mean you have not lost something.

    Comment by Josh — February 13, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
  104. Josh,

    Ah, I see what this is…your candidate didn’t win and now you’re looking for someone to blame. That’s a rough one, moving from Denial (Ron Paul can’t lose) into Anger (It’s everyone else’s fault except Ron Paul’s that he lost and I blame all of you). Pretty soon you’ll hit Bargaining (maybe Paul can have a brokered convention with his 16 delegates that no one else needs), after which you’ll go through Depression (man, I was a complete idiot for thinking Paul had a chance at winning) and eventually into Acceptance (Well, I guess it really wasn’t anyone’s fault but Paul’s how his campaign fell apart…oh well).

    Condolences, best of luck to you on the grieving process, and welcome to reality.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:10 am
  105. UCrawford:

    At least you’re up front about the fact that you have unrealistic standards. In that respect you really have no business IMO asserting any position electorally.

    Ron’s press coordinator may have been inexperienced, point taken there, but that doesn’t explain the press treating Ron the way it did at all. The Media Blackout was firmly intentional, and it was a conspiracy, not a shadowy one, an obvious and overt one. It was and is obvious to any honest observer that that was the case. You make a good argument, but your stated intentions, perceptions of what occurs around you and idealistic motives are serially muffled by the walls of your Ivory Tower once again.

    Comment by Michael Costello — February 14, 2008 @ 7:04 am
  106. Michael,

    In that respect you really have no business IMO asserting any position electorally.

    Ah see, now that’s where you’re completely and utterly wrong. I have absolutely every right to assert an opinion on any race whether I’m informed or not. On the subject of this particular race I believe my comments to be valid and relatively well-informed, so if you don’t like it you’re more than free not to frequent this site if you don’t like how I pointed out that your candidate ran a bad campaign and deserved to lose. There’s more to being qualified for President than having some good ideas and Ron Paul fell far short on most of those qualifications.

    Ron’s press coordinator may have been inexperienced, point taken there, but that doesn’t explain the press treating Ron the way it did at all.

    Actually, it explains it completely. A press coordinator’s job is to sell their candidate to the media to convince them why they should cover him…if the press wasn’t interested, it’s mainly because the coordinator wasn’t very good at his job. Most of that was probably inexperience, which doesn’t make Paul’s coordinator a stupid person (just inexperienced) but it does make it a rather stupid decision by Paul to hire him…and to stick with him when it was apparent the guy wasn’t getting through. That’s what I’m harping on about accountability…if the people you hire aren’t getting the job done as a leader you need to inform them of the standards you expect them to meet, you need to get them assistance to meet their objectives if they’re struggling or need help, or (failing that) you need to replace them with people who can accomplish the necessary tasks. Ron Paul didn’t do any of that (even when he had the funds to hire more help) ergo he didn’t run a serious campaign and the press justifiably ignored him.

    The Media Blackout was firmly intentional, and it was a conspiracy, not a shadowy one, an obvious and overt one.

    The media are privately-owned. They are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide coverage to anyone they don’t want to. If they didn’t cover Ron Paul it’s because Ron Paul’s campaign did a terrible job of convincing them that doing so was in their best interests. Ergo, the “media blackout” was the Paul campaign’s doing.

    You make a good argument, but your stated intentions, perceptions of what occurs around you and idealistic motives are serially muffled by the walls of your Ivory Tower once again.

    I worked as the press coordinator for a gubernatorial campaign when I was 23 and when the press ignored my candidate I didn’t fault them. I faulted myself for not coming up with a better sales pitch and worked to improve (which I did). By the time the campaign wrapped up, lack of press coverage wasn’t an issue, despite the fact that our campaign had far less money than the two who finished ahead of us, spent less money on advertising, and relied primarily on grassroots support. And we did a hell of a lot better than 10% of the vote.

    Campaigns that lose as badly as Paul’s have done do so largely because of internal factors or because they did a terrible job, not because it’s the rest of the world’s fault for not automatically recognizing the candidate’s brilliance.

    Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 8:04 am
  107. Remember the old saying about catching more flies with “honey” than vinegar? Not a wise idea to say Ron has dropped out when he has not. The fact he remains committed to his word to run as a GOP candidate in light of the way he has been ostracized speaks VOLUMES on this man’s character!

    I would suggest if you really want to attract the Ron Paul Republicans, you have your own party turn out and support our common platforms of peace, liberty, sound currency, etc when the march on Washington D.C. is confirmed.

    There’s a motto here in Dallas by one professional organization which states, “We support those who support us.” That’s a “hint” :-)

    Comment by JeffnDallas — February 14, 2008 @ 9:57 am
  108. Jeff,

    I’m not an LP-partisan by any means, but do you realize that they’ve been campaigning on the bascially the same platform that Ron Paul did since 1972 ?

    They don’t need to change anything. Unless Paul’s supporters intend to undertake the difficult task of changing the GOP, the LP would seem to be the perfect home for them.

    And, no, they don’t have to participate in some March on Washington to prove it, either.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 14, 2008 @ 10:01 am
  109. On the subject of this particular race I believe my comments to be valid and relatively well-informed,

    You believe some odd stuff!…about the ‘relatively well-informed’ bit, I mean. Of course what you say is valid.

    While Ron Paul’s press secretary was young and inexperienced, this is insignificant in the causes of Ron Paul’s lack of coverage. His campaign’s communication with the press and the people at large was more than adequate to get media attention, and his political views, policies and opinions have been communicated clearly, boldly and efficiently. He trounces all in debates, and has shown more intelligence and integrity than the other Republican candidates. I don’t wish to sound like a Paultard (Paul fan doesn’t equal Paultard, btw), but hey.

    His staff haven’t been significantly worse than any other Republican candidate. I can give you one strong example that compares both McCain’s and Paul’s racism-allegations…

    We all know about the newsletters, but they were written during a time when Paul was working as a doctor, not a congressman. It was carelessness, yes, but there is only so much overseeing you can do of small political newsletters while being occupied by a full time job that is completely unrelated to politics. Ron Paul is obviously not a racist, and the racist statements in question weren’t directly racist in the first place. They were factual, even if their usage was out of line and derogatory. The NAACP chairman defended Ron Paul’s character.

    Distinct from this kerfuffle is that of McCain’s previous use of the term ‘gook’ to refer to those who held him captive. He doesn’t say that now, and he stated that he only uses the term to refer to those few Vietnamese who held him captive. These words came directly from the senator’s mouth, not from obscure ghostwriters of a petty newsletter. It isn’t statistical fact that someone is a ‘gook’ or not.

    McCain’s spokesperson from 2000 said “We hope that people understand that the senator was referring very specifically to the men who beat and tortured him for five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp, … His language in no way represents his feelings toward the people in Vietnam or the Vietnamese American community”. Could this not easily be construed as a shoddy coverup for genuine hatred against Vietnamese people, DIRECTLY from the mouth of Senator McCain?! It’s odd to use racial slurs to refer to people who severely wrong you, and Chris Rock’s ‘black people/niggers’ dichotomy is for the use of blacks only, not whites; a white guy would be humiliated if it became public that he refers to the two black people who robbed him as ‘niggers’.

    I don’t believe McCain is racist, but his actions were direct, abrasive and very odd. Ron Paul doesn’t tend to act this way, even if he has eccentric qualities to him as well. Despite this, the mainstream media have gone to town, nay, gone to city over Ron Paul’s newsletters, while McCains direct use of racial slurs does nothing to weaken his position in the Republican nomination race.

    The actual statement by McCain’s communications staff was a fairly poor excuse, especially compared to the statement released by Paul over the newsletter scandal. This just one example, but it isn’t anomalous. Paul’s staff is no less competent than McCain’s. It is ill informed to say otherwise, and three staff members involved with the newsletters during a time when Paul wasn’t in politics cannot be used to determine the man’s character judging skills by any decent measure.

    The disparity of press coverage between him and the others, and even him and the success he’s had, cannot possibly be explained away. There has indeed been an MSM brownout. I don’t presume conspiracy, nor do I rule out circumstance being partially to blame, but there is a conscious effort to ignore Paul or write negatively of him.

    I really think it is best to endorse the bloke.

    Comment by Y. Zaus — February 14, 2008 @ 11:56 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML