Libertarian Party Blog: ‘Ron Paul, former LP Presidential candidate, supports property rights of Islamic cultural Center supporters’

Libertarian National Committee Chair Mark Hinkle at Libertarian Party Blog:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html

Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans – among them his son Rand – to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the "ground zero mosque."

In a statement decrying "demagogy" around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that "the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque."

 "Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be ‘sensitive’ requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from ‘ground zero,’" Paul continues.

 He goes on to argue that "the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia…never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."



Previously at IPR on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (New York candidates for Governor in bold): Mike Beitler, Howie Hawkins, Jake Towne, Warren Redlich video, John Jay Myers, Darryl Perry, Wayne Root (1) and (2), John Hospers, Reactions to Root’s piece from the libertarian blogosphere, LNC member Daniel Wiener, Tom Knapp, Kristin Davis, Warren Redlich (print commentary), Carl Paladino, and LPHQ interns Marissa Giannotta and Josh Roll.

108 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Blog: ‘Ron Paul, former LP Presidential candidate, supports property rights of Islamic cultural Center supporters’

  1. Thomas M. Sipos

    Yet another of the MANY reasons to admire Ron Paul, contrary to Loser Milnes’s incessant anti-Paul whining.

    Yet another example of why Ron Paul is a libertarian, and Wayne Allyn Root is not.

    In 2008, Root called himself “Ron Paul on steroids.” I saw then that it was not so.

    I’m so glad I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential race, rather than for the anti-libertarian, Islamophobic Root.

    How shameful and disgusting for the LP if Root were “the face of the Libertarian Party.”

    I’m so proud that I’m no longer a registered LP member. Since summer 2009, I’ve been a registered non-partisan. I’d be so ashamed to be associated with the party of Root.

    I hope Paul runs again in 2012, possibly as an independent, so I can vote for a real libertarian.

  2. Andy

    Ron Paul hits the nail on the head again.

    I cast a write in vote for Ron Paul for President in the 2008 general election instead of voting for the Barr/Root ticket, and I’m glad that I did this. I hope that Ron Paul runs for President again in 2012.

  3. Jill Pyeatt

    Thomas, I’m so sorry to hear you’re no longer a registered Libertarian. Our party is definitely going through some growing pains, and unpleasant ones at that, but I’m starting to think Root’s days as our spokesman (or “leading Libertarian thinker” as he hilariously called himself recently) are numbered.

    When he leaves, hopefully we can get back to the principles that I know the people of this country are about ready to hear about.

  4. Robert Milnes

    Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian & Root is NOT leaving the LP.
    Ron Paul is going for another 35 million in 2012. & because of fools like Sipos he may very well accomplish that & vex any chance of a real libertarian winning.
    He must know his credentials as a real libertarian have come under scrutiny and skepticism by not only me but Tom K & Prof. Phillies. His anti-war position-however genuine-is his bread & butter issue. Of course he is going to defend it as much as possible & avoid all the other baggage he has e.g. homophobia, mysogyny, nationalism, alleged complicity/duplicity in racism, states’ rights in oppression including anti-abortion etc. He is an American Taliban wannabe.
    Root is very possibly a government/GOP dupe and/or agent/plant. He’s in place & has a lot of fool libertarian rightist support. He ruined the 2008 nomination of possibly a winning fusion ticket of Gravel/Ruwart, Ruwart/Gravel. & set himself up in 2012.
    The simple solution to the Barr, Root, The Pauls problem is to require all LP party officials & candidates to be genuine libertarians.
    Ron Paul has very cunningly come out on this issue as passing this libertarian litmus test. He has had decades to hone his schpiel. So purging Ron Paul will not be easy.
    Pulling the dinosaur prick fossil out of the LP ass will not be easy. Do you want it there or not?

  5. Robert Milnes

    How I wish we could have a 2008 LP nomination do-over. If the requirement that LP candidates & party officials be genuine libertarians, Barr & Root wouldn’t even have been there. I would have been there & the remaining REAL libertarians would have listened to me about Gravel/Ruwart.
    But nooooooooooooo. Ron Paul had sucked the air out of the room. Even Kubby had problems getting campaign contributions. Ruwart was not politically astute enough to understnd the Barr/Root problem so did not fare well against them. She should not have withdrawn from vp consideration if only to keep it FROM Root.
    Let’s NOT have another debacle in 2012.

  6. Robert Milnes

    Mary Ruwart should have withdrawn from the race seeing that Barr or Root was going to win. & endorsed Gravel. Gravel my very well have won & called upon the delegates to select Ruwart as vp. Even if Gravel did not win, the delegates could have selected Ruwart as vp, keeping it FROM Root.
    Ruwart is not a very astute politician. The libertarian radicals are inept.

  7. AroundtheblockAFT

    Good for Ron Paul and shame on Christians (nominal) who can’t be sensitive to the feelings of millions of American muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11.

    And Mr. Milnes: who determines “genuine libertarian” status? Isn’t it the duly elected delegates? If they make a “mistake” in your eyes, who is to over-rule them? You? Nolan?
    The LNC? Rothbard from the grave?

  8. paulie Post author

    Mary Ruwart should have withdrawn from the race seeing that Barr or Root was going to win. & endorsed Gravel.

    She was no more going to endorse or run with Gravel than with Barr.

    Gravel my very well have won

    No. I’m surprised he did as well as he did, actually.

    Even if Gravel did not win, the delegates could have selected Ruwart as vp, keeping it FROM Root.

    They could have selected Kubby, who actually ran. Almost did, too. Fact is they had the votes, we didn’t.

  9. paulie Post author

    How I wish we could have a 2008 LP nomination do-over. If the requirement that LP candidates & party officials be genuine libertarians, Barr & Root wouldn’t even have been there. I would have been there & the remaining REAL libertarians would have listened to me about Gravel/Ruwart.

    Gravel made no pretense of being libertarian on economic issues. If there was some libertarian purity police (wouldn’t work, they would tie themselves in knots) Gravel would not be allowed in the room.

  10. paulie Post author

    Ron Paul is going for another 35 million in 2012.

    Probably more.

    & because of fools like Sipos he may very well accomplish that & vex any chance of a real libertarian winning.

    So he would make the chances of a real libertarian being elected less than zero?

    He must know his credentials as a real libertarian have come under scrutiny and skepticism by not only me but Tom K & Prof. Phillies.

    ROFL. On the extremely low chance he does know about that, why would he possibly care?

  11. paulie Post author

    How I wish we could have a 2008 LP nomination do-over. If the requirement that LP candidates & party officials be genuine libertarians, Barr & Root wouldn’t even have been there. I would have been there

    Why would you have been there? Even if you had the money to go and weren’t too depressed, you would be locked out of the hall for being a non-libertarian under your own proposed system.

  12. paulie Post author

    I hope that Ron Paul runs for President again in 2012.

    If he does, I hope he learns a few lessons from last time, such as but not limited to:

    Visit Iowa and New Hampshire early and often.

    Get Out The Vote.

    Database backups.

    Target independents, not far right Republicans, in states with open primaries.

    He’s got the fundraising part down. Now work on managing the money better.

  13. paulie Post author

    Better answer on newsletters would be nice.

    And cutting all ties to misguided neonazi supporters.

    We do not need to be associated with them – the little bit of added support is not worth the public relations downside, and the philosophies of individualism and collectivism just don’t mesh.

    Yes, they should have their freedom of speech and non-association, but we don’t have to associate with them either.

  14. Robert Milnes

    Under my proposed system an exception would have to be made for a fusion ticket therefore a progressive running for LP p or vp would get a pass. Also all anarchists would get a pass.

  15. Kreskin Karnak

    You could have a million do overs and you would still get no contributions, Milnes.

  16. JT

    Milnes: “In a 2008 do-over, Ron Paul would be shunned and I would have gotten significant contributions along with Kubby et al.”

    You’ll NEVER get money and loyalty from many libertarians like Ron Paul. And doesn’t that just burn you up? I love it.

  17. paulie Post author

    Yes, so? Why would Ron Paul care about that? Well, I guess an elephant might be bothered by a fly, but not in any serious way.

  18. Robert Milnes

    & this was 2 years ago. So paulie & Sipos have had at least 2 years to get over Ron Paul & get with the program & get the dinosaur prick fossil out of the ass & have not!
    LOL!

  19. Robert Milnes

    There is chicken shit & bullshit & elephant shit.
    Ron Paul=elephant shit.LOL!
    Like I told Sipos, Teddy Roosevelt would spit on Ron Paul & I would thank him.

  20. wolfefan

    Hi Robert – kind of OT, but why are you a big fan of TR? He wasn’t much of a libertarian by any measure, nor would he fit into the Green mold. TR also expressed support for eugenics, along with many of the progressives of his day – this would raise a bug red flag among mental health folks. (I say that last with no snark and genuine respect, but it’s kind of an elephant in the room for some people.) TR wouldn’t fit into almost anyne’s definition of the Libertarian party (let alone your kinda purist one), and he wouldn’t fit into the Greens – how would he fit into PLAS?

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    wolfefan,

    Actually, Bob is a proponent of eugenics, too. He wants to use it to turn all you palefaces into Comanches, thus redressing the “illegal immigration” problems of the past.

    Apparently he thinks that blacks can’t be genetically engineered into Paiutes, so he wants to just send them “back” to Africa.

    He’s very much a “Theodore Roosevelt libertarian.”

  22. Robert Milnes

    wolfefan, very good question.
    TR wasn’t erfect, to be sure. But the bottom line is -What if he had succeeded in 1912?
    We would have had a hundred years of progressive politics. Instead of the reactionary dems & reps. Note that I have said that PLAS votes out the dems & reps. This would be PERMANENT. Think of the amazing accomplishments!
    He might not have HAD to have a progressive democrat vp fusion ticket, but he would have had to eventually figure out the importance of a fusion ticket. The libertarians would not have split off into their own party but would have developed a caucus within an inclusive Progressive party
    & this gets back to Ron Paul.If he succeeds > Taliban America. Remember, he endorsed CP Baldwin.

  23. James Buchanan Libertarian

    I think government should do nothing…

    “James Buchanan Libertarian”

  24. Robert Milnes

    Yes, I support “positive eugenics”.
    Can you imagine a Native American Federation consisting of mostly mixed race people? Especially the eastern tribes.
    What Tom is describing is racial panmixis which I do not support.

  25. NewFederalist

    *sigh* Bobby, Bobby, Bobby… you just MUST get another hobby. Perhaps a time machine?

  26. Robert Milnes

    Dennis, it is an old saying that anything can be used for good or evil.
    Nuclear energy.
    Guns.
    Psychiatry.
    Government.
    Money.
    Drugs.
    Need I go on?
    Eugenics.
    The Nazis can use it for experimentation.
    Native Americans can use it to recover from genocide.
    Parents can use it-genetic testing.
    etc.

  27. Catholic Trotskyist

    The Catholic Trotskyist Party also endorses the Groundd Zero mosque.

    Milnes’s critics are right that TR isn’t a good example of a precursor to the PLAS strategy. I actually think that today, TR would be more comfortable in the Constitution Party than anywhere else. Or rather, the Alan Keyes corruption faction of the Constitution Party, now known as the America’s Independent Party, since he was pro-interventionist on wars.

  28. Catholic Trotskyist

    Still, I don’t understand why PLAS is made fun of so much, when third parties lost almost all the time anyway. Most Greens and Libertarians literally have nothing to lose by trying PLAS. It would at least get them some interesting media attention.

  29. Robert Milnes

    If I alone were to try it, it probably wouldn’t work.
    What is needed is for several Lib & Green candidates to call press conferences & announce they are going to try it.
    Best case scenario is that both parties call a joint press conference-with me & Richard Winger-in Washington to announce they are going to try it.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Most Greens and Libertarians literally have nothing to lose by trying PLAS.”

    That’s incorrect.

    PLAS calls for a “one candidate per office, cross-endorsed by both parties” ballot agreement between the Green and Libertarian Parties.

    To the extent that continuing ballot access is governed by poll performance — and in many states it is — every office for which a party does not run a candidate on its own line costs it a reduced chance of future ballot access.

    Furthermore, any state LP which endorses a candidate of another party for public office is in violation of the national party’s bylaws, which could cost that party its affiliation.

  31. Catholic Trotskyist

    What you people don’t understand is that continuing ballot access doesn’t matter in the long run. The vast majority of the people would never support the Libertarian, Green or Constitution Party even if they always had the opportunity to vote for them and understood what they stood for, with the media treating them equally, etc. That’s why coalitions such as PLAS and the Catholic Trotskyist Fringe Alliance Strategy are needed.

  32. Robert Milnes

    Tom, your points have merit, but you are arguing in favor of the status quo/politics as usual. A dramatic change in the dynamic is needed.
    Allende tried for many years a leftist coalition that finally succeeded.
    To maximize & add the libertarian & progressive vote blocs could do a similar job.
    Obama is president because he suckered the progressive bloc to support him by being perceived as anti-war thus adding to the liberal democrat bloc.
    If some states have to take a hit with reduced ballot access in order to try PLAS, that is acceptable.
    Bylaws that are an obstacle to PLAS should be changed or challenged or just plain ignored.
    CT is correct. It should be tried.In the least it just might generate some much needed publicity.

  33. Robert Milnes

    When CT says The vast majority, I’m calculating that to be @60%. Very fortunately, that is split about equally by the dems & reps. Now, if the remaining 40% can be garnered by one candidate on each ballot, that would result in about a 40/30/30 three way race.
    That could result in a consistent close plurality victory in every ballot.

  34. Dennis

    Robert;

    Someone suffering from any psychological illness–depression included–would automatically not qualify to partake in any eugenics program. I am not trying to be cynical or mean, I am just seeing a conflict of interests.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Tom, your points have merit, but you are arguing in favor of the status quo/politics as usual.”

    No, I’m arguing that your particular plan fails because of existing structural obstacles that guarantee it won’t be adopted, and that you therefore need to either:

    1) Address those structural obstacles as a prerequisite to implementing your plan (wishing them away won’t work); or

    2) Come up with a different plan that doesn’t run into those obstacles.

    Your plan as written and in the context of reality is will preserve, and probably even strengthen, “politics as usual” due to the simple fact that it can’t be adopted or put into practice.

    The Green Party and Libertarian Party are not going to commit organizational suicide based on nothing more than your assurance that less than 1% + less than 1% will magically = more than 34% if they do.

  36. Thomas M. Sipos

    Thomas Knapp: “any state LP which endorses a candidate of another party for public office is in violation of the national party’s bylaws, which could cost that party its affiliation.”

    Only if the national party was to enforce it. Let them.

    I’d love to see the LNC disaffiliate state parties. Under state laws, the state party keeps the name and ballot status.

    The LNC will have to start a new state affiliate from scratch, with a new name. (The national LP’s “trademark” of Libertarian Party will likely be non-enforceable against state laws.)

    I’d love to see the state parties disaffiliate from the LNC, give the finger to the LNC, and watch the LNC spout and sputter, ” But we are the LP! We have a trademark! We’re the leaders!”

    Not!

  37. Robert Milnes

    Dennis @51/52, possibly jeopardize ballot access.
    In some states. Partially. Temporarily. Any lost ballot access could be compensated for by the other party or be quickly regained.
    Remember we are dealing with the combined resources of 2 parties in 50 states + D.C.
    >Eugenics, why would any psychological illness preclude participation in a eugenics program?

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    Thomas S.,

    I agree with pretty much everything you say @54.

    That doesn’t change the fact that most state LPs which don’t already have legal “fusion” (violations of the bylaws of that type by those state affiliates are routinely ignored by the LNC) will choose to abide by the national bylaws rather than discard them — and that’s a structural obstacle to Milnes’s PLAS plan.

    When you have a structural obstacle, you need to either remove that obstacle so that you can successfully implement your plan, or go around it with another plan.

  39. NewFederalist

    “What you people don’t understand is that continuing ballot access doesn’t matter in the long run. The vast majority of the people would never support the Libertarian, Green or Constitution Party even if they always had the opportunity to vote for them and understood what they stood for, with the media treating them equally, etc. That’s why coalitions such as PLAS and the Catholic Trotskyist Fringe Alliance Strategy are needed.”

    OR… PSLA! That is the new way forward!

  40. Robert Capozzi

    ts: I’d love to see the state parties disaffiliate from the LNC, give the finger to the LNC, and watch the LNC spout and sputter, ” But we are the LP! We have a trademark! We’re the leaders!”

    me: Hmm, have you laid this out more comprehensively? It sounds like intramural squabbling with no particular purpose, but I’d like to hear more. Does this reflect a reflexive anti-authority bias, or is there a more strategic intention here?

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 59,

    Some time in the last decade, the LNC filed an trademark application on the term “Libertarian Party.”

    That application was fraudulent and wouldn’t last 30 seconds in court:

    1) The LNC was not the first entity to use “Libertarian Party” in commerce (I’m pretty sure that would have been either the California LP or the Free Libertarian Party of New York).

    2) Numerous other entities use that term in commerce for 30 years or so prior to the LNC’s trademark application with no attempt by the LNC to defend it as a proprietary mark, including the disaffiliated Arizona LP circa 1999-2000.

    I’m not sure what Sipos’s particular ax-grind is on the subject, but like him I’d enjoy seeing the LNC be forced to put up or shut up on it. Unofrtunately, my guess is that they’d put up until they ran out of other people’s money to waste.

  42. Bruce Cohen

    That’s right, folks.

    The vampire chronicler Thomas Sipos proudly states: “I’m so proud that I’m no longer a registered LP member.”

    He goes on to state: “Since summer 2009, I’ve been a registered non-partisan.”

    Of course, it’s all Wayne Root’s fault:
    ” I’d be so ashamed to be associated with the party of Root”, ‘Fuzzy’ Sipos says.

    And then, an LPCA Board Member comes on with her comment supporting him:
    Jill Pyeatt // Aug 24, 2010 at 1:16 am
    “Thomas, I’m so sorry to hear you’re no longer a registered Libertarian. Our party is definitely going through some growing pains, and unpleasant ones at that, but I’m starting
    to think Root’s days as our spokesman (or “leading Libertarian thinker” as he hilariously called himself recently) are numbered.

    When he leaves, hopefully we can get back to the principles that I know the people of this country are about ready to hear about.
    ————————————————————

    The truth is that neither of these two blowhards have ever shown any real initiative to building the LP, only complaints about how tough the job is, how ‘unfair’ everything is and blaming others for their lack of action.

    Sort of like the Chair of the LPCA.

    ————————————————————

    Listen Jill and Thomas, if you can’t handle Wayne Root, how on earth can you handle Democrats and Republicans?

    Typical for the ‘Radicals’ (translation: blowhard do-nothings) to focus on imaginary demons within, instead of actually doing real world things to move the political ball.

    It’s all about vanity.
    Both of you and all your ‘radical’ do-nothing friends need to have some ‘accomplishment’ in your life you can point to so that’s why you want your elected/appointed LP posts, not so you can actually DO anything.

    You both should be ashamed.

    Everything you and your team have been stewards of have fallen hard and fast.

    Since you can’t lead, won’t follow and are too slow and lazy to get out of the way, what good are you both?

  43. Laura

    As a college student who is just getting active in the Libertarian movement I thought I might drop in and see what is going on with some of the sites that write about the LP. It seems there is more bickering and bitching than actual work. Does anyone ever get out and do something constructive?

  44. paulie Post author

    Laura,

    Yes. I do ballot access work for a living. In the past, I have done several hundred OPH booths, scored tens of thousands of world’s smallest political quizzes, helped start over a dozen campus LP clubs, collected probably several hundred thousand signatures in quite a few states over the last dozen years (including several thousand volunteer signatures), registered thousands of voters.

    As part of writing for IPR, I post articles that regularly make it to the top of google news searches for libertarian and other terms. We’ve been used as a source by “mainstream” media more than a few times.

    Many other people here do constructive things.

    What kind of things do you like to do, or would like to do but haven’t yet?

  45. What a waste

    Bruce Cohen, you comment at #65 — “Listen Jill and Thomas, if you can’t handle Wayne Root, how on earth can you handle Democrats and Republicans?” is dead on target.

    The so called leaders of the California LP could not and cannot lead that party out of a paper bag. They are failures. For them to even think they are doing good within the LP is delusion defined. Do they seriously believe they can fight against the Democrats and Republicans? They can barely even take care of internal party issues like fleeing members, a pathetic budget, unprofessional campaigns and pedophiles.

    The Democrats and Republicans eat them up and spit them out, laughing the entire time.

  46. Robert Milnes

    Thomas M. Sipos, why don’t you start things off & call on CA libertarian candidates to call press conferences & declare they will conduct PLAS campaigns?

  47. George Whitfield

    Hi Laura,

    Please don’t let the many feuding comments on this blog turn you off on the Libertarian Party. I live overseas so am limited as to what I can practically do but I have donated to many Libertarian candidates and have attended 3 National Conventions. I also am the organizer of the Seoul Libertarian Party Meetup Group that since 2004 has enabled many Libertarian Party members and interested people to meet and discuss issues. Our group also distributed flyers in the international shopping district here before the 2008 Presidential election. The best place to meet people who are active and do constructive things for the Libertarian Party is in your local area. Look for the local LP or a Meetup Group. We are happy you are getting active in the LP and welcome you.

  48. Marc Montoni

    Laura,

    Keep it in perspective. A high percentage of the “bickering and bitching” is sourced from just a few mouths — like less than twenty. In just one comment thread last year, I counted something like 200,000 words posted, nearly half of them by one individual. The rest were almost all generated by the same 20 individuals.

    There are 15,000 or so LP members, somewhere between 500 and 1000 LP candidates for office.

    Granted, these debates go on in other venues also, such as in local meetings; but they don’t particularly detract from the level of activity in the political arena.

    Naturally, I wish the talented people who wage their ideological wars here would spend more of their time running OPH booths or something, but their time is theirs to spend. Even I get wrapped up in discussions now and again (although it’s been months between my comments lately).

    If you’re in Virginia, please look us up and I promise you we will be happy to help you engage the public on libertarian issues. Contact Jim Lark to obtain help & resources in starting up a campus group.

  49. paulie Post author

    In just one comment thread last year, I counted something like 200,000 words posted, nearly half of them by one individual.

    Me?

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    Actually, I’ve had reason over the past couple of weeks to be personally amazed at the high level of activity and professionalism shown by the LPCA’s leadership.

  51. Michael H. Wilson

    Tom if I may be allowed to trump your comment. I think we have one of the best management teams in some years at the national level. That is not meant to belittle others by any stretch of the imagination. I expect significant improvement.

  52. Robert Milnes

    Tom, MHW, if I may.
    TS seems upset that he has felt he had to quit the LP, mostly because of Root.
    National seems dominated by rightists.
    Whether this translates to TS being willing to defy national in order to try PLAS remains to be seen. I’m hoping yes.

  53. Robert Milnes

    TS, note that Christina Tobin is a CA libertarian candidate. I believe she is just short of age for vp, unfortunately. & Richard Winger-as in they need me & I need Richard-is her campaign manager.
    Maybe they will back you up.

  54. paulie Post author

    TS seems upset that he has felt he had to quit the LP,

    He’s still a county officer unless their website is out of date.

    TS being willing to defy national in order to try PLAS remains to be seen.

    Only in your dreams.

    I don’t worship anyone.

  55. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert, not just because of Root. But because of the LP’s cowardice in standing up for freedom on many issues, but especially on the wars, for fear of “offending” and “losing votes.” The LP is useless on antiwar, so I got tired of the LP.

    But I don’t see joining or quitting the LP as meaningful to anything. The LP is a flaccid organization, with a wide open revolving door. People come and go, haphazardly.

    The LPCA has always had activists who were registered nonpartisan, or even Democrat or Republican. They attend meetings, and probably even have titles. Apart from credentialing at conventions, I’m not sure if anyone checks or cares.

    In 2008, I let my LNC membership lapse.

    In 2009, I re-registered non-partisan.

    Used to be, “hardcore” Libertarians ignored party registration, since “it’s a state thing.” Signing the pledge made you a Libertarian, not how you registered.

    I think it was Aaron Starr who made party registration mandatory, only about 5 years ago, supposedly to be “compliant” with state election laws.

    I’m still an LPCA member, in that my state dues are paid up. But really, who cares?

    Robert, no I won’t try PLAS. But what if I did? It wouldn’t change anything. You keep shuffling around your imaginary presidential tickets — Milnes/Keaton, or Milnes/Ruwart, or Gravel/Ruwart, or Milnes/Kwiatkowski, or … as if most Americans even know or care who these people are.

    Just being a progressive male, with a libertarian female running mate, does not magically transform 1% into 40%.

    We’re seeing rising, organized hate being whipped up against our fellow Americans, because of their religion. Ron Paul is more effective in fighting against this than is the entire LP — some of whose “leaders” are actually contributing to this hatred, hoping to please xenophobic voters.

    It’s hard enough educating the public about libertarianism, without having to educate LP leaders about libertarianism.

  56. Pingback: Phil Maymin: In the Lower Manhattan Islamic center debate, everyone is pretending to be something they’re not | Independent Political Report

  57. Losers

    Wayne is busy with Real life and Real world. The loser. On here complaining about Root. All about Root. WHAAA WHAAAA

  58. Robert Capozzi

    ts: We’re seeing rising, organized hate being whipped up against our fellow Americans, because of their religion.

    me: The Cordoba House issue has certainly stoked some ugly rhetoric. I take SOME solace in the fact that we’re not seeing widespread anti-Muslim violence, lynchings, etc.

    ts: Ron Paul is more effective in fighting against this than is the entire LP — some of whose “leaders” are actually contributing to this hatred, hoping to please xenophobic voters.

    me: Yes, being in Congress and having run for president gives RP a nice niche platform to speak from. MSM loves to trot out the R congressman with the different take. Nice positioning.

    We don’t know what’s going on in Root’s head, but my guess is he believes what he says on CH. Do you believe otherwise — that he in his heart doesn’t oppose building CH but is taking the opposite position to be popular?

  59. Robert Milnes

    TS, “The LP is useless on antiwar…”
    Agreed. So is Ron Paul.
    In fact, so is antiwar.com.
    Because they can’t or won’t do anything about it.
    THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER.
    The LP is dominated by rightists who are actually warmongers.
    Ron Paul is only one person & a republican.
    Antiwar.com is in the typical pos
    ition of begging the reactionaries-WHO DO HAVE THE POWER-to stop the wars.
    If THAT is your issue, you should try PLAS.
    The only way to get the power-nonviolently-is to elect a progressive/libertarian/revolutionary administration & Congress-who then legislate and PASS antiwar & nominate antiwar judiciary.
    “Just being a progressive male, with a libertarian female running mate, does not magically transform 1% into 40%.”
    But if you are antiwar, what choice do you have?
    The Libertarian & Green candidates are going to lose. That means the reactionaries are going to win. The 35 million$ that went to Ron Paul was mostly IMO antiwar $. Ron Paul never had a chance to win the nomination. Not even 1 primary. Tom & I discussed this. He did the math. I said Ron Paul basically in 2008 got The Libertarian Vote. He said no as usual & did the math-about 8%.
    Besides not being able to win, You have to go along with his other bad baggage. + even if he did win, he’d face the reactionary Congress. Administration legislation would get voted down. Congressional legislation vetoed which would get overrided.
    You are listed as a lplac official. You have the capability to CALL FOR Libertarian candidates to adopt PLAS campaigns.
    THAT is what you should do.
    If you are not trifling about antiwar.

  60. Robert Milnes

    This was left out of @84.
    “Just being a progressive male, with a libertarian female running mate, does not magically transform 1% into 40%.”
    The complementary fusion ticket.
    Agreed. But the POTENTIAL is there to ADD The Libertarian Vote bloc @13% to the progressive vote bloc @27%.
    It would take a lot of hard, smart work-a PLAS campaign-especially educating the voters as to what you are trying to do & need for them to do. But it could be done.

  61. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 80 Sipos writes “It’s hard enough educating the public about libertarianism, without having to educate LP leaders about libertarianism.”

    I agree and there is a whole lot of effort being wasted on this minor issue when more serious things are being overlooked.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “the POTENTIAL is there to ADD The Libertarian Vote bloc @13% to the progressive vote bloc @27%.”

    Except, of course, for the fact that neither vote currently exists as a “bloc” at all. They have to be formed into “blocs” before they can be manipulated as “blocs.” Right now they’re just statistics in a Cato paper on why people voted the way they did, not “blocs” that voted as blocs.

  63. Robert Milnes

    Obama didn’t piss around with technicalities. He -his rich, reactionary, liberal Massachusetts democratic handlers-knew the progressive bloc was there & got it. By letting them believe he was progressive & anti-war.& could win & therefore worthy of support.
    Ron Paul’s 2008 run convinced me The Libertarian Vote is accurate.
    Allende convinced me the leftist coalition can possibly get over 30% & win a plurality victory.
    Teddy Roosevelt got 27% with his Progressive Party run in 1912.
    I’m convinced this is not magic. Why aren’t you?

  64. Robert Milnes

    OK, everybody. I got a shutoff notice from Public Service AND ATT. So, if you don’t hear from me, one or the other or both services got shut off.

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Teddy Roosevelt got 27% with his Progressive Party run in 1912. I’m convinced this is not magic. Why aren’t you?”

    I am.

    What I’m not convinced of is that this is 1912.

  66. Robert Milnes

    Tom, you are being cute.
    Would you like to debate how many angels can dance on a pinhead?
    The basic fundmentals haven’t changed. Only the names & dates.
    The reactionaries are in charge. You know, the winners. As opposed to your bunch. You know, the losers.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The basic fundmentals haven’t changed.”

    They most manifestly have changed.

    In 1912, the Australian ballot had been in adoption for less than two decades and ballot access laws had not yet been carefully crafted to exclude “third party” candidates.

    In 1912, a real floor fight at a major party convention was still a real possibility (and that’s exactly what happened at the 1912 GOP convention — Roosevelt’s Progressive campaign started with a convention walkout).

    In 1912, identity politics weren’t nearly as big a factor, nor were they as fractured. Women couldn’t vote outside of Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. Racial minorities were generally intimidated from voting or from organizing as blocs.

    I could probably write a book on the fundamental differences between 1912 and 2012, but one volume wouldn’t cover them.

    As far as “winners and losers” are concerned, you seem to have forgotten that

    a) I’m no longer invested in party/electoral politics, and

    b) My record of political victory, while not exactly stellar, is so far beyond yours as to defy easy comparison.

  68. Robert Milnes

    Basic fundamentals=Reactionary governments may or may not let people vote.
    When people vote almost always reactionaries win.
    The few exceptions & extraordinary circumstances point to the only possible winning alternative.
    Inclusive Progressive Party,which includes libertarians.
    Now, you have evidently exited political activism at a time when elections are approaching & there is an incipient effort to try an inclusive progressive coalition & retry Progressive Party (Cavlan et al)
    But not before expressing your obstinate negativism & skepticism.
    So when I say I told you so after the election losses, your contribution should be evident.
    I’d like to thank you in advance.

  69. Pingback: Libertarian Peacenik on the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Libertarian Party | Independent Political Report

  70. Pingback: Conservative Party of New York State campaigns against ‘Mosque at Ground Zero’ | Independent Political Report

  71. Pingback: Green Howie Hawkins: 911, the Mosque and “why do republican rightwingers hate our freedom” | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *