That’s certainly a strategy many libertarians will likely take but I think we should do the opposite. I think the Republican Party is ripe for a hostile takeover of libertarians. I was at first a little irritated that Ron Paul decided to run again because I feared it would draw support that might otherwise go to Gary Johnson (my preferred choice). After seeing the first debate how the moderators ignored Johnson (much like they did Paul in 2008) I think that having 2 libertarians run make it harder for the libertarian message to be ignored. I would like to see another libertarian or two run as a Republican to balance out the Socialcons and Neocons.

That’s phase 1.

If/when neither Paul nor Johnson (or some other acceptable libertarian leaning candidate) gets the nomination, then it’s time to support the LP in the general campaign.

Oh Ya the Comment I was Replying to =)

Last time I only really had Paul, with maybe Fred Thompson as a backup.

As for Herman Cain, I came away from last week’s debate less than impressed. He’s espoused too many things that make him far more of a tea party guy, and far less libertarian.

I’ll support Paul or Johnson, but as far as I’ve seen from the Republican field, that’s about it.

The federal government will need >$1 million per household to pay its IOUs!
> $116 trillion =”official” debt plus money  short for future social security, medicare, etc
Even its “official debt” of $14.2 trillion  is $123,754 per household!
Details at http://StopNationalDebt.com with links to contact congress & complain.

“POLL REVEALS: Americans Are Still In Deep Denial About The Deficit” http://read.bi/h6QDGR If they realized how bad it is politicians would need to act.

So be among the first to join the new Facebook cause “Stop National Debt” : http://www.causes.com/causes/606425-stop-national-debt
since if you don’t spread the word, who will?
We need to spread the word virally to educate non news-junkies.

Like Cain’s executive experience, we’ve been undergoing a necessary-yet-radical transformation of what was a hugely bloated, ineffective and slowly dying corporate hegemon. Most middle management had erected VP and director-level silos, walled off and heavily guarded. Country operations were balkenized, with no transparency across borders; in fact, those who dared cross borders usually were shot at. Risks were carefully concealed, exposed only when it was too late, and the risk-causing executive was long gone.

The more I understand the state of our Federal government, the more I realize it has gone down the same path, yet suffers greater danger given the addiction to a Treasury that has the unconstrained capacity to pour in funds (through borrowing, printing ala quantitative easing aka bureaucratic easing, etc.).

As such, the defenders of this monstrosity (e.g. Hewitt) who believe minor fixes will repair a structurally flawed Leviathan will naturally, initially write off transformative executives, also framing them in the lens of “not necessary” and finding their post-structural language of radical reform to be incoherent and non-resonant with the biopolitical Beltway dialect.

Reform is coming, and it will come from outside the Beltway. The more the insiders resist, the greater their misfortune and extent of demise will become when the inevitable eventually occurs. Innovator’s Dilemma author Clayton Christensen and others have argued for willful creative destruction as a force to revitalize but sustain some relationship and ownership over the radical reform process. Should the RNC and other elites continue to reject the inevitability of tea party resonant transformation, it’ll be fortunate to be merely tossed to the trash heap of history.

Treat these candidates seriously and recognize what their arising-within-the-party means for rebirth, rather than replacement.