Rand Paul accuses Libertarians of being spoilers, says they need to “vote Republican” and “make the GOP bigger”

Libertarians?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), in  an interview with the Manchester Union-Leader editorial board:

“I’ve been there. I’ve seen what it’s like in the third-party world,” he said. “Our system is directed to the two parties and I made the decision when I started running for political office that I am a constitutional conservative and Libertarian-leaning Republican. My best influence is to bring the Republican Party to the Libertarian side of the issues.”

Paul pointed out that GOP candidates for New Hampshire’s two congressional seats lost to Democrats by 4-percent margins in 2010. “And the Libertarian candidates in those two races got 4 percent of the vote,” he said. “So we need to get Libertarians to vote Republican.

[…]

“We’ve met with some of the Free State folks, and the difficulty with Libertarians is that some want to stay in the Libertarian Party, some don’t want to vote at all, and some will vote in the GOP primary if they are convinced to,” said Paul. “There are a lot of issues that we share, and we want them to come over and vote in the GOP and make the GOP bigger.

Read more at the Manchester Union-Leader. 

Carla Howell, Political Director for the Libertarian National Committee, had the following response:

Interesting that Paul is staking out the Republican-loyalty position while Trump is staking out the non-allegiance-to-GOP position. On this point, Trump is decidedly more libertarian than Rand Paul.

Being defeatist about alternative parties is outdated, not to mention highly dangerous, especially when the result is endorsing people like Romney and McConnell. You can’t get much more pro-Big Government than that.

Public sentiment against Ds and Rs – and for third parties/independents – has swung significantly since his dad’s run as the LP POTUS candidate in 1988. Someone needs to point out to Rand (or to his target audience) that that was then and this is now.

Carla Howell
Political Director
National Libertarian Party

UPDATE: These are the 2010 election results that Paul refers to. Both were in fact won by Republicans.

2010 NH-1
Republican Frank C. Guinta                     54% W
Democrat Carol Shea-Porter (inc.)       42.4%
Libertarian Philip Hodson                       3.5%

2010 NH-2
Republican Charles Bass                       48.3% W
Democrat Ann McLane Kuster             46.8%
Independent Tim van Blommesteyn    2.8%
Libertarian Howard L. Wilson                2.1%

 

126 thoughts on “Rand Paul accuses Libertarians of being spoilers, says they need to “vote Republican” and “make the GOP bigger”

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    I disagree with Howell. There is nothing inherently libertarian or non-libertarian, or more or less libertarian, in terms of choosing a vehicle FOR libertarian ideas. It’s a pragmatic decision that everyone has to make.

    That said, the most pragmatic decision vis a vis libertarianism is clearly “build a libertarian party” rather than “try to turn the original and world champion party of big government INTO a libertarian party.” The Republican Party has 160 years of big-government inertia holding it in place. The Libertarian Party does not.

  2. Andy

    I read a recent, or relatively recent, quote from Rand’s father, Ron, where he said that voting for Libertarian Party candidates is a good thing and that he hopes that Libertarian Party candidates get as many votes as possible.

    I agree with the father and not the son here.

  3. paulie

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/11/mark-wachtler-sen-rand-paul-no-friend-of-the-opposition/

    Kentucky US Senator Rand Paul is currently waging a one-man war against independents and opposition candidates across the country. He’s coordinating with the elites of Washington and Wall Street and going after independent media outlets. You may have even seen one of his campaign commercials in your state telling you not to vote independent.

    And

    GOP Party bosses used him in campaign commercials this election asking independent and opposition voters not to vote for the independent or opposition candidates on their ballot because it would cause Republicans to lose their respective races to Democrats.

    And

    Rand Paul even campaigned for the Republican Senate Minority Leader and gave him the Paul family campaign manager – Jesse Benton.

    Benton is a key figure with his own alleged criminal controversies. He’s been accused of stealing the millions-strong membership list from the Pauls’ Campaign For Liberty and giving it to Senator McConnell and the RNC. Assumedly, for that act of loyalty, Jesse Benton was hired as McConnell’s campaign manager for the 2014 election. Soon thereafter, Benton was forced to resign after criminal investigations were launched over his alleged bribery of Republican Party delegates to the GOP’s 2012 Presidential nominating convention.

    And

    Senator Rand Paul’s transition to the dark side appeared complete in the run-up to this month’s Election. That’s when he was enlisted by the Republican leadership to travel the country with the specific purpose of reaching out to his former independent and libertarian friends. In races where Libertarians, Constitution Party candidates or independents threatened to take votes away from a GOP candidate, Senator Paul campaigned for the Republican nominees.

    Various 2014 Election races saw a GOP candidate threatened with defeat due to the candidacy of an independent or opposition Party candidate. One of those was the race for Alaska’s US Senate seat. Our friends on the left might call this the real triumvirate of evil – the Republican Party, the US Chamber of Commerce, and Senator Rand Paul. That was the team that joined together to record and air over one million dollars in TV commercials in Alaska featuring Republican Senator Rand Paul campaigning for his fellow Republican over independent and Libertarian challengers.

    A Chamber of Commerce spokesperson summed up the three-way partnership’s strategy. “In states like Alaska, the Chamber is focused on the independent swing vote, and we think Senator Paul is well positioned to deliver a message that appeals to them,” explained Blair Latoff Holmes from the US Chamber of Commerce, “This fits into our theme this year of using credible messengers in target races.”

    And:

    So, did the Republican Party strategy of using Rand Paul to lure independent and opposition voters away from their own candidates and into the GOP camp work? Unfortunately, it appears it did. In all but one of the known targeted races, the independent and opposition candidates received only 2 or 3 percent while the Republican candidate won by just as slim of a margin. There was one exception however.

    In the race for Alaska Governor, the independent won with 48.1% of the vote over the Republican’s 45.9%. Votes for the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates in the race totaled only 5.7%. But that was more than double the margin of victory. In the state’s US Senate race, the Republican won by 2%. The combined vote totals of the Libertarian and independent candidates was just 5.7%. If they would have gotten 1% more each, the Democrat would have won.

    Another targeted race was in the state of Georgia. In the US Senate race there, the strategy again proved effective. In a three-way race, the Libertarian candidate was limited to a dismal 1.9%, giving the Republican candidate the win. In another targeted race in North Carolina, the Libertarian candidate for US Senate was limited to just 3.7%. The Republican nominee won by only 1.5%.

    And in Kentucky, home of both Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, the strategy was most effective. In McConnell’s surprisingly easy victory, the Libertarian candidate was held to just 3.1% in a three-way race. With independents, Libertarians and Tea Partiers firmly in the Republican Party’s camp, the second most despised person in the US Senate won easily by 15.5%. And possibly more than anyone else, the American people may have Rand Paul to thank.

    Consider also:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rand-paul-chip-englander-2016-elections-114245.html

    https://twitter.com/chipenglander “Campaign Manager @RandPaul for President. Previously Campaign Manager @BruceRauner for #ILGOV.”

    I’m sure I don’t need to refresh Andy J’s memory, but in case anyone else forgot or did not know:

    http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q4/bruce-rauner-well-hurt-you-and-your-family/

    http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q3/il-gop-armed-terror-campaign-linked-bruce-rauner/

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/08/illinois-attorney-generals-office-will-investigate-intimidation-of-libertarian-petitioners-and-petition-signers/

    http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/pistol-packing-petition-challenger-prompts-review-ag/fri-08292014-121pm

    http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/under-gun-petition-challenges/wed-08202014-801pm

    http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/rauner-firing-blanks-flap-over-hired-gun-ballot-challenge/tue-08262014-837pm

    http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/rauner-appalled-outraged-gun-bearing-petition-challenger/thu-08282014-827pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-ibendahl/illinois-libertarians-lod_b_5737462.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago&ir=Chicago

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-ibendahl/rauner-camp-brings-a-gun-_b_5709799.html

    https://www.quinnforillinois.com/quinn-illinois-statement-regarding-rauner-voter-intimidation-guns

  4. George Phillies

    Given Paul’s stands, the spirit being invoked would appear to be not Holy but his friend Jack. Jack Daniels, that is.

    Tom is as usual right on the party issue. However, the Republicans are overrun by modern American conservatives, who are an opposite of libertarian.

  5. Pete Blome

    Hey, he might as well have said our system is directed at the government taking precedence over individual rights and I made the decision to support that for my own personal benefit, or our system is directed at providing Americans only two (one actually) political choices, and I made a decision to support that since I know it reduces political competition for me. Heck, he might as well have said shut up and like it land of the free; you guys are too dumb to know your own minds anyway.

  6. paulie

    All of the above shennanigans by Rand Paul (and in at least some cases Ron Paul, despite whatever good things he has said about the LP…albeit granted he never took this to the levels his son is doing) to endorse and campaign for anti-liberty Republicans wh are running against Libertarians, to work to suppress LP votes and get them to vote for the big government Republican instead, etc., is all based on the easily disproven notion that without the LP in the race all or most Libertarian votes would go to Republicans. This lie keeps getting repeated, just like the lie that Perot cost Bush the election, even though multiple polls all over the country (including exit polls) show that without the LP in the race a big chunk of our supporters would not vote at all and the rest would split about evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and that the same was true of Perot.

    I don’t find it plausible that the Republican Party can as a whole be transformed into some of sort of libertarian or “libertarianish” party. There are way too many anti-liberty forces in the NSGOP for that, and where woud they go?

    Aso, I don’t find that overall Republicans are any less bad than Democrats, with very few exceptions.

    So, to sum up, Rand Paul is working to suppress Libertarian and Independent opposition – including with very dirty tactics – based on a false premise that we cost Republicans votes, which we don’t, and as if it would be a bad thing if we did, which it wouldn’t be. The supposed objective of all this is to take over the Republican Party from the inside, which is highly implausible. The real world effect is to minimize the pressure that Libertarian campaign exert to move the establishment parties in a libertarian direction, all in a fruitless attempt to help the Republicans against the Democrats, which is irrelevant to liberty (both are equally bad), and to “take over the Republicans from the inside,” which ain’t gonna happen.

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    Well said. Paulie.

    I continue to be dismayed that Johnson hasn’t formally announmced he’s running.; When we argue that none of the declared GOP are worth voting for, I wish I could offter some alternative. I do like Darryl Perry but, so far at least, most people haven’t heard of him.

  8. Andy Craig Post author

    He couldn’t even get his facts straight by pointing to an election where the Dems won and the Libertarians beat the spread. Both of the examples he cites were won by the Republican nominee.

  9. paulie

    Hey, he might as well have said our system is directed at the government taking precedence over individual rights and I made the decision to support that for my own personal benefit, or our system is directed at providing Americans only two (one actually) political choices, and I made a decision to support that since I know it reduces political competition for me. Heck, he might as well have said shut up and like it land of the free; you guys are too dumb to know your own minds anyway.

    Yep!

  10. paulie

    Given Paul’s stands, the spirit being invoked would appear to be not Holy but his friend Jack. Jack Daniels, that is.

    I’ll drink to that!

  11. paulie

    …the most pragmatic decision vis a vis libertarianism is clearly “build a libertarian party” rather than “try to turn the original and world champion party of big government INTO a libertarian party.” The Republican Party has 160 years of big-government inertia holding it in place. The Libertarian Party does not.

    Exactly.

  12. George Phillies

    Paulie? Not horilka or pertsivka?

    The Republican Party gave us torture, wars of aggression, and the Guantanamo Gulag. They would do better to merge into the other Rockwell’s crew. The Democrats have shown they are just as bad.

  13. paulie

    The Republican Party gave us torture, wars of aggression, and the Guantanamo Gulag.

    True.

    They would do better to merge into the other Rockwell’s crew.

    From context, I take it you mean George Lincoln, not Norman.

    The Democrats have shown they are just as bad.

    Indeed!

  14. Ken Moellman

    Personally, I went from neutral to negative on Rand Paul when he started attacking our partisan-L candidates in 2014. There were much nicer ways to accomplish what he was trying to do without directly attacking our folks. But he did it, and so now I’m pretty negative on him as he’s obviously willing to do or say anything to get the presidency, and that’s not what I’m looking for in a candidate, personally.

    But at least he’s seeing the results of his selling out, right? Those establishment folks are backing Rand over the rest…..oh wait, no… they’re not.

    Giving your political capital to an institution that is inherently un-libertarian is stupid. We’ve seen this cycle 3 times before (this is #4); 1964, 1980, 1994, and 2010. If you can’t tell me why it’s different this time, then shut up and go away (and no, “the Internet” is not an acceptable answer). The GOP implodes from horribly anti-liberty, pro-cronyism practices. The “liberty” wing comes in and tries to “take over” (and say “take back” as if they ever had it), but actually just burns up all of its political capital. The establishment takes back over. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

    No thank you. I’ll remain a Libertarian in the Libertarian Party.

  15. Andy Craig Post author

    “In 2012, both LP Congressional candidates received over 4%; may have been a misstatement by Paul and a failure to factcheck on the reporter”

    Probably correct, but then he’s still wrong, at least in what he’s trying to imply.

    In 2012 NH-1 Kelly (L) just barely beat the spread, with Porter (D) getting 49.8%. So I’ll grant that, even though it’s not a plausible example of a spoiler unless ~100% of those votes would have gone (R) otherwise, with effectively none going (D), which we know is not the case.

    In 2012 NH-2 Kuster (D) got 50.2% of the vote, so the Republican would have lost even if they got all the votes that went to the Libertarian.

  16. Ted Brown

    I think it’s important for Libertarians to run in as many races as possible, provided we have principled Libertarian candidates available. It’s hard to know up front if the race will be close or not. When it becomes such, then the Libertarian will come under scrutiny, like Sean Haugh in NC in 2014. But we are not in the business of strategically putting candidates in certain races to help or hurt major party candidates. After all, we want to defeat both of the parties. And I agree that we are not spoiling anything. Something has to be pure and pristine before it can be spoiled. No one owns my vote. So I may well not vote Republican if no Libertarian was running. And I think that’s the case for most Libertarian voters.

    For the best example, though, of Republicans accusing the LP of “spoiling” the result, look at the 1998 Nevada U. S. Senate race. The notorious Harry Reid, not yet the Dem leader, won by under 1,000 votes. The Libertarian won 12,000 votes. They may have a point on that one. 🙂

  17. Andy Craig Post author

    It isn’t even clear that 12k Libertarian voters would translate into a net benefit of +1k for the Republican if the Libertarian wasn’t on the ballot. Given the usual near-even breakdown of who Ls would have otherwise voted for, it takes a Libertarian vote total several multiples of the D-R spread to even be plausible. And then there are also examples of Ls beating the spread when the Dems lost, including in cases where there’s good reason to think the L’s support came more for the left, e.g. FL-13 Sink/Jolly/Overby.

    Besides, when Republicans nominate candidates that fail to earn votes, there’s nobody to blame for that but Republicans. Instead of castigating Libertarians for voting Libertarian, maybe he should be criticizing Republicans for nominating candidates who don’t deserve and don’t get Libertarian votes. But instead he’d rather endorse and campaign for such candidates.

  18. George Phillies

    For a hysterically funny take on Rand Paul and Donald Trump

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44933_Rand_Paul_Went_After_Donald_Trump_and_Boy_Did_It_Backfire

    “It’s too funny to see the Republican candidates tearing at each other like crazed ferrets on bath salts. If Donald Trump achieves nothing else with his gonzo campaign, he’ll have done serious, lasting damage to the image of the Republican Party….Donald Trump’s entire campaign has been carefully calculated to appeal to the totally deranged right wing base. He bailed out in the last election because he realized the base wasn’t sufficiently out of their gourds yet.”

    Pauli, the Republicans wished for Norman but they got George Lincoln.

  19. paulie

    WaPo reports:

    UPDATE: At 6:50 p.m., Donald Trump sent The Washington Post a lengthy response to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s ad. Here it is, in full.

    Rand Paul is doing so poorly in the polls he has to revert to old footage of me discussing positions I no longer hold. As a world-class businessman, who built one of the great companies with some of the most iconic real estate assets in the world, it was my obligation to my family, my company, my employees and myself to maintain a strong relationship with all politicians whether Republican or Democrat. I did that and I did that well.

    Unless you are a piece of unyielding granite, over the years positions evolve as they have in my case. Ronald Reagan, as an example, was a Democrat with a liberal bent who became a conservative Republican.

    Recently, Rand Paul called me and asked me to play golf. I easily beat him on the golf course and will even more easily beat him now, in the world in the politics.

    Senator Paul does not mention that after trouncing him in golf I made a significant donation to the eye center with which he is affiliated.

    I feel sorry for the great people of Kentucky who are being used as a back up to Senator Paul’s hopeless attempt to become President of the United States— weak on the military, Israel, the Vets and many other issues. Senator Paul has no chance of wining the nomination and the people of Kentucky should not allow him the privilege of remaining their Senator. Rand should save his lobbyist’s and special interest money and just go quietly home.

    Rand’s campaign is a total mess, and as a matter of fact, I didn’t know he had anybody left in his campaign to make commercials who are not currently under indictment!

    At 7:32 p.m., Paul campaign strategist Doug Stafford sent this response.

    Wow, that took a while to read.

    First, Ronald Reagan spent 20 years as a conservative before running for President, not twenty minutes. He changed out of conviction. He campaigned for Goldwater in 1964 giving one of the great conservative speeches of all time, setting the intellectual agenda for a generation of conservatives.

    Donald Trump couldn’t set the intellectual conservative agenda of anything, not even the tiniest rooms, never mind a country. He is devoid of ideas other than he likes the idea of power and getting attention for foolish statements and bluster.

    Rand Paul is the one following in the footsteps of Reagan, setting the intellectual agenda for a conservative movement of change. Rand stands for principle. He has detailed plans to end our debt by balancing the budget in 5 years. He has a detailed flat and fair tax that would be a huge tax cut for Americans while ending the corporate welfare gravy train for people like Donald Trump. He has real plans to defeat the Washington machine like term limits and forcing Congress to read the bills.

    While he appreciates Donald’s golf skills, I will note that [the game] was on his home course that he plays often. And he does sincerely appreciate Donald’s generosity to the eye clinic. In fact he has mentioned it often, including in his op-ed and speeches this weekend.

    The fact is, Rand is running to fight the big business, big government establishment. Donald Trump already represents one end of that problem. Now he wants to represent the other. It won’t work.

    Trump’s initial response came several hours after Rand Paul’s presidential campaign released an aggressive attack video Wednesday questioning Trump’s conservative bona fides.

    “I probably identify more as a Democrat,” Trump is shown saying in the video. “I’ve been around for a long time, and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” The words imposed on the screen as Trump speaks: “I … IDENTIFY MORE AS A DEMOCRAT.” (The all-caps are all theirs.)

    The Paul campaign said the ad would run in New Hampshire and Iowa through the weekend. “In sharp contrast, Senator Rand Paul has been a true conservative who has always stood up to the Washington machine,” a campaign spokesman said in a statement to the press about the new spot.

    Paul and Trump engaged in a tense back and forth during the first Republican primary debate last Thursday, in which Paul called into question Trump’s party loyalty after the real estate tycoon said he would not pledge not to run as an independent if he loses the GOP nomination. Trump fired back at Paul, insinuating that Paul was being bought by donors.

    The next Republican presidential debate is Sept. 16 in Simi Valley, Calif.

  20. Joe Wendt

    I hate to admit it, but Rand Paul is right on this one. The LP has effectively become the spoiler in certain cases and Libertarians should consider being involved in the GOP. The free market has spoken time and time again: The voting masses prefer the two party system. Stop blaming ballot access “discrimination” and debate “discrimination.” The fact is the voters have had an opportunity to destroy the duopoly and have willfully chosen each election year to continue the duopoly. The last time a third-party effectively challenged the system and temporarily displaced one of the duopoly parties was the 1912 election that brought us Woodrow Wilson as President and a third party TR in second place. George Wallace’s AIP and Perot’s movement effectively fizzled after their moments in the sun on election day. each The sad truth is that each moment where a real third party alternative emerges, no one of quality wants to get involved, the new group is plagued by infighting, and essentially implode or contract.

    More importantly, statistically the LP missed it’s moment for relevance. Given the amount of time and money spent on the LP, there should be results. For example, the LP and the Progress Party in Norway (a libertarian party in Norway) were founded in the same decade, yet the Progress Party is actually politically relevant (primarily by moving to the right on some issues) and is the third largest party in the Norse parliament. Another example is the Libertarian Movement in Costa Rica, which was founded in the 1990’s and has seats in their national legislature, and is still more relevant than the LP. I’m pretty sure there are other examples, I don’t feel like researching them. The fact that other groups are more successive, in environments that favor a more statist point of view, the LP can’t argue that it will one day be relevant when they can’t demonstrate any significant success in about 5 decades of existence. It further demonstrates that the free market has spoken, the voting masses do not like Libertarians.

  21. Pete Blome

    Mr. Wendt, I am sure the Republican Party would be more than happy to have you enter their ranks.

  22. paulie

    The LP has effectively become the spoiler in certain cases

    Wrong. See my previous comments.

    Libertarians should consider being involved in the GOP.

    Also wrong. See prior discussion.

    The free market has spoken time and time again: The voting masses prefer the two party system. Stop blaming ballot access “discrimination” and debate “discrimination.”

    Bullshit. They exist, as anyone who reads IPR should know, so there IS no free market in this case.

    And even if there were, it would still make sense to have alternative parties. See what the socialist, prohibition, and populist parties did a century ago to see why.

    The last time a third-party effectively challenged the system and temporarily displaced one of the duopoly parties was the 1912 election that brought us Woodrow Wilson as President and a third party TR in second place.

    Only if you look at vote results as your only yard stick. We actually got alcohol prohibition for ~15 years (with vestiges of it to this day) and most of the platform of the Socialist and Populist (People’s) parties has actually become law and duopoly consensus. If you consider that changing policy is the real goal, those were bigger victories for alt parties than anyting TR ever did.

    Nor is the phenomenon non-existent today. Perot focused attention on the deficit, and we actually got surpluses for a few years after that. Even the LP has inched policy in our direction in a lot of small ways by participating in the process.

    George Wallace’s AIP and Perot’s movement effectively fizzled after their moments in the sun on election day.

    Because they were personality cults, unlike more long standing movements such as the LP and GP.

    More importantly, statistically the LP missed it’s moment for relevance

    I disagree. In many ways we are growing. It depends on which measures you use. We have a lot of ripple effect impacts that are less obvious, but very real.

    Given the amount of time and money spent on the LP, there should be results.

    There are. They are just less obvious than would be optimal.

    For example, the LP and the Progress Party in Norway (a libertarian party in Norway) were founded in the same decade, yet the Progress Party is actually politically relevant (primarily by moving to the right on some issues) and is the third largest party in the Norse parliament.

    I question how “libertarian” the Progress Party is (my guess, not very), and see above regarding ballot access, debate access, and different political systems. It’s not obvious at all that a Republitarian party would do any better than the actual LP under the present system, nor that it would be a good thing if it did.

  23. Joe Wendt

    I already left and re-registered with the GOP, and have requested my name be removed from LPF membership rolls. When a “party or principle” cheers a decision by a arm of government to grant same-sex couples permission to marry, rather than insisting on fighting to get government out of the sacrament/process/ritual (however you want to view it), it’s undeserving of my time, money, and membership.

    Considering your (Mr Blome) rude & ungrateful rantings of against the LNC and Wes Benedict, you really should keep your mouth shut.

  24. paulie

    Mr. Wendt, I am sure the Republican Party would be more than happy to have you enter their ranks.

    The NSGOP would notice?

  25. paulie

    I already left and re-registered with the GOP, and have requested my name be removed from LPF membership rolls.

    Wow, you seem to change your registration more often than some people change their clothes.

    When a “party or principle” cheers a decision by a arm of government to grant same-sex couples permission to marry

    Which we were right to do. But sure, you are being a more principled libertarian by supporting the fascist NSGOP.

  26. Andy Craig Post author

    @Joe

    “Working within the GOP” is a strategy that’s at least as old, and arguably a lot older, than the LP. What progress do they have to show for it? I’d submit that over whatever time frame you want to look to- since 1964, 1980, the 1992 founding of the RLC, etc.- the GOP has become *less* libertarian the more libertarians have focused on losing GOP primaries (which gets you nothing) instead of running Libertarian general election candidates (which gives a real incentive for not just Republicans but Democrats alike to compete for libertarian voters).

  27. Richard Winger

    Canada ant Great Britain are examples of countries that political scientists always classified as two-party systems. Political scientists no longer say that. Great Britain and Canada have become multi-party systems. Duvergers’ Law says countries without proportional representation always have two-party systems, but that isn’t considered true any more. If Canada and Great Britain can transition right before our eyes, there is no reason it can’t happen in the U.S. as well. But it will be enormously helpful if the voters of Maine vote to use instant runoff voting, when it is on the ballot in November 2016.

  28. Andy Craig Post author

    “When a “party or principle” cheers a decision by a arm of government to grant same-sex couples permission to marry”

    Along those lines, I’d like to apply this reasoning to say that Joe Wendt’s license to drive, passport, and any professional licenses or permits he may have should be revoked until such time as those things are totally abolished, and that’s the position LPF should advocate if they want to be principled according to Joe.

    Of course, Joe could voluntarily surrender those licenses and permits and stop asking the gov’t for permission to do things, if he wanted to. Maybe then he’d have half a leg to stand on in arguing Libertarians should uphold and defend bans on same-sex marriage.

  29. paulie

    “Working within the GOP” is a strategy that’s at least as old, and arguably a lot older, than the LP. What progress do they have to show for it? I’d submit that over whatever time frame you want to look to- since 1964, 1980, the 1992 founding of the RLC, etc.- the GOP has become *less* libertarian the more libertarians have focused on losing GOP primaries (which gets you nothing) instead of running Libertarian general election candidates (which gives a real incentive for not just Republicans but Democrats alike to compete for libertarian voters).

    Yep.

    Along those lines, I’d like to apply this reasoning to say that Joe Wendt’s license to drive, passport, and any professional licenses or permits he may have should be revoked until such time as those things are totally abolished, and that’s the position LPF should advocate if they want to be principled according to Joe.

    Of course, Joe could voluntarily surrender those licenses and permits and stop asking the gov’t for permission to do things, if he wanted to. Maybe then he’d have half a leg to stand in arguing Libertarians should uphold and defend bans on same-sex marriage.

    Yep. And IIRC, Joe Wendt is married as well. I could be wrong.

  30. Steven Wilson

    The reason he won’t jump to the LP is that he would be held to his father’s voting record and statements on the Federal Reserve. In essence, Rand wouldn’t be running as a Libertarian, as much as he would running against his father.

    Very George Lucas of him.

    “Accomplish nothing you will staying within the force of the GOP.”

  31. Andy Craig Post author

    “Canada ant Great Britain are examples of countries that political scientists always classified as two-party systems. Political scientists no longer say that. Great Britain and Canada have become multi-party systems. Duvergers’ Law says countries without proportional representation always have two-party systems, but that isn’t considered true any more. If Canada and Great Britain can transition right before our eyes, there is no reason it can’t happen in the U.S. as well. But it will be enormously helpful if the voters of Maine vote to use instant runoff voting, when it is on the ballot in November 2016.”

    I wish this is a point we could get across more clearly. Maybe it’ll be the subject of my next FB meme.

    There is nothing about the American political and electoral system that makes a third-party or a multi-party system impossible. Yes, if we had a better election system than single-member FPTP that’d be great and we’d no doubt do better. But the collapse of a two-party system can and has happened without electoral reform happening first.

  32. Jill Pyeatt

    Yeah, after that comment by Joe, I’m happy to see him gone. I wonder how long he’ll keep bitching on our third-party blog now?

  33. Joe Wendt

    @ Andy Craig

    I concede you have a valid point. Unfortunately, I can’t see the validity of continued LP electoral action considering the LP doesn’t provide tangible results for the money & time spent. More importantly, the LP wants people involved, but yet in some cases criticizes those who don’t tout the party line. Look at me for example, some people have already inferred on this thread that I am a fascist for registering Republican. More over, when I was an involved and dedicated Libertarian, I have been called a “destructive element” by some in the LPF leadership after running two campaigns for local nonpartisan office on a Libertarian platform (and performing well both times). For me, I see the appeal of being involved in the GOP over the LP: less pressure to be actively involved, you can usually vote for the party nominee in a primary, and less bs about personality conflicts. I mean after all, Ron Paul adopted the “Working within the GOP” after being the LP Presidential nominee, so there is an appeal to working within the GOP over the being involved in the LP.

  34. Andy

    “Joe Wendt August 13, 2015 at 2:00 pm
    I hate to admit it, but Rand Paul is right on this one.”

    It rarely makes any difference who gets elected between the Democrats and the Republicans.

  35. Mark Axinn

    >>They would do better to merge into the other Rockwell’s crew.
    >From context, I take it you mean George Lincoln, not Norman.
    And certainly not Lew.

  36. Mark Axinn

    on spoiler issue:

    Didn’t 2/3 of the Sarvis for Governor voters say they would have voted for Teryy McAuliffe (Dem.) over the Republican if Sarvis was not on the ballot? Seems that “taking” 2/3 from Democrats belies Republican claim that LP “steals their votes”.

  37. Mark Axinn

    >It rarely makes any difference who gets elected between the Democrats and the Republicans.

    That’s for sure.

    Which one is the Warfare/Welfare party?

  38. wredlich

    I’m somewhere between torn and ambivalent on this.

    If you look at both Rand Paul’s actions and his words as a Senator and a candidate, he’s done more for liberty than Gary Johnson or any libertarian candidate.

    I mostly love libertarian ideals – maybe a little too statist for me 🙂 – but LP candidates are often disappointing in both ideology and especially in campaign performance.

    These comments by Rand don’t bother me much. I don’t like it, but he has to say things like that in his effort to get GOP support. He’s more willing to do that than his dad.

    Personally I get annoyed at libertarians taking shots at the Pauls. You don’t have to like either of them to recognize they are a huge boost to the liberty movement.

  39. Andy Craig Post author

    “If you look at both Rand Paul’s actions and his words as a Senator and a candidate, he’s done more for liberty than Gary Johnson or any libertarian candidate.”

    I don’t think he has much at all to point to in *actions* but I’ll concede that’s the difference between being one out 100 Senators vs. a Governor.

    I would posit that against this, there is the damage he has done by associating the “libertarian” label (attached to him whether he rejects it or not) with his anti-libertarian positions, which are more numerous and increasingly more heavily promoted than his libertarian ones.

    Let’s just look: what has he campaigned on since announcing his candidacy?

    On the (relative) plus side: He’s pretty good on the 4th Amendment, but lots of non-libertarians are good on the 4th, including plenty of Dems. We call them civil libertarians. So for that matter was Obama c. 2007, and we know how that turned out. A grandstanding balanced budget proposal? Those are a dime a dozen in the GOP. His opposition to drone strikes? That was nice theatrics while it lasted, but even then he was much more focused on the crazy-sounding red herring of domestic drone strikes, than he was the reality of drone strikes overseas, to the point where he basically no longer opposes the latter. His talk about overcriminalization and incarceration? Again, some nice talking points- but if you get into the substance of what he proposes it’s nothing better than state’s rights and slightly reduced sentences, which doesn’t even stand out from the rest of the GOP field these days. And then there’s his flat(-ish) tax proposal, which he sells as “abolishing the IRS” even though it most emphatically would not.

    Other than that? We’ve got his campaign trying to sell him as being the most anti-abortion and anti-immigrant candidate (sound familiar?), and as a born-again hawk who learned the errors of his father’s dovish ways and is willing to bomb Iran and jack up military spending. He makes vaguely libertarianish noises on some social issues, enough to give a libertarian impression without actually stating that position, and then goes to Iowa or home to Kentucky to assure the religious right how really opposed to gay marriage and marijuana legalization and legal prostitution, etc. he is.

    More broadly, he’s developed a well-earned reputation as a cynical flip-flopper who’ll say whatever he thinks GOP primary voters want to hear, and who isn’t even that good at it. The exact opposite of the principled-to-a-fault reputation that was a large part of Ron Paul’s appeal.

    And I’ll say: I don’t dislike Rand for not being an LP-only partisan Libertarian. If a libertarian wants to run as a Republican, I think that’s misguided, but if they can pull it off (and once in a blue moon it happens), then more power to them. My objection to Rand is that he isn’t campaigning on a libertarian message at all, and that nobody has any idea what his position will be on an issue until it pops to the top of the news cycle and his Frank Luntz wannabes tell him what to say about it.

    I was initially more-or-less on board for Rand 2016, going back to his 2010 election, even as a Libertarian. He lost me, like he’s now lost most of the people who used to support him. And it’s not even too late, I’ll admit. If he comes back more in our direction because he finally figures out his neither-fish-nor-fowl strategery isn’t working, that’s great. But then he’s already demonstrated that he only says the right thing when it pays to say the right thing, and that doesn’t really count for much. No better than the Democrats who jumped in front of the marriage equality parade at the last second so it looked like they were leading it.

    “Personally I get annoyed at libertarians taking shots at the Pauls. You don’t have to like either of them to recognize they are a huge boost to the liberty movement.”

    Ron was, Rand isn’t. He’s done more to shrink than he has grow the liberty movement, if by that you mean the number of people in the country who actually support moving in the direction of more liberty. If you mean increasing the number of “Liberty Republicans” who get excited about electing more folks like Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert, then yes Rand has increased that. I don’t see that as cause for celebration.

  40. NewFederalist

    “Wow, you seem to change your registration more often than some people change their clothes.” – paulie regarding Joe Wendt

    I resemble that remark! I change clothes seasonally and even take an occasional sonic shower.

  41. NewFederalist

    BTW folks… the owner of this site has spoken. Back off or find a new place to vent your plasma.

  42. wredlich

    Didn’t realize I was so terrifying. I’ve been pretty much hands off and intend to stay that way. I just noticed this one and thought I’d chip in my thoughts.

  43. Andy Craig Post author

    “BTW folks… the owner of this site has spoken. Back off or find a new place to vent your plasma.”

    That’s not at all what he said. I’m sure there are a lot of things posted and said here that Warren disagrees with, and if he didn’t want something on his website he would delete it, not comment on it.

    In any event, a major-party candidate talking about a minor-party is within IPR’s area of coverage, and the post itself doesn’t editorialize, it just quotes the relevant things said by Rand and Carla (and then I added as an update the election results Paul refers to and gets wrong). If Bernie Sanders said something similiar about the Green Party, we’d cover that too, just like we’ve covered Trump’s speculation about running as an independent or third party, as well as Jill Stein’s campaign, and Sawant, and the Const. Party, etc. etc. Most of our writers and commenters might be Libertarians, but IPR is not a Libertarian-only site. As it says on the about page “IPR is dedicated to covering America’s third parties and independent candidates, and providing a forum for the intelligent discussion thereof.”

  44. paulie

    The reason he won’t jump to the LP is that he would be held to his father’s voting record and statements on the Federal Reserve. In essence, Rand wouldn’t be running as a Libertarian, as much as he would running against his father.

    I don’t think that is the reason, LOL.

  45. paulie

    Unfortunately, I can’t see the validity of continued LP electoral action considering the LP doesn’t provide tangible results for the money & time spent.

    Yes we do. See above.

    More importantly, the LP wants people involved, but yet in some cases criticizes those who don’t tout the party line.

    You didn’t do this when you were in the LP? Give me a break.

    Look at me for example, some people have already inferred on this thread that I am a fascist for registering Republican.

    No one inferred that you are a fascist. I said you registered with a party that is fascist in its general direction, whatever your personal reasons for doing so are.

    More over, when I was an involved and dedicated Libertarian, I have been called a “destructive element” by some in the LPF leadership after running two campaigns for local nonpartisan office on a Libertarian platform (and performing well both times).

    That is not why they called you a destructive element, and you know it.

  46. paulie

    “Canada ant Great Britain are examples of countries that political scientists always classified as two-party systems. Political scientists no longer say that. Great Britain and Canada have become multi-party systems. Duvergers’ Law says countries without proportional representation always have two-party systems, but that isn’t considered true any more. If Canada and Great Britain can transition right before our eyes, there is no reason it can’t happen in the U.S. as well. But it will be enormously helpful if the voters of Maine vote to use instant runoff voting, when it is on the ballot in November 2016.”

    I wish this is a point we could get across more clearly. Maybe it’ll be the subject of my next FB meme.

    There is nothing about the American political and electoral system that makes a third-party or a multi-party system impossible. Yes, if we had a better election system than single-member FPTP that’d be great and we’d no doubt do better. But the collapse of a two-party system can and has happened without electoral reform happening first.

    Exactly!

  47. paulie

    >>They would do better to merge into the other Rockwell’s crew.
    >From context, I take it you mean George Lincoln, not Norman.
    And certainly not Lew.

    By definition. “The other” referred to other than Lew.

  48. paulie

    on spoiler issue:

    Didn’t 2/3 of the Sarvis for Governor voters say they would have voted for Teryy McAuliffe (Dem.) over the Republican if Sarvis was not on the ballot? Seems that “taking” 2/3 from Democrats belies Republican claim that LP “steals their votes”.

    Yes.

  49. paulie

    pm

    >It rarely makes any difference who gets elected between the Democrats and the Republicans.

    That’s for sure.

    Which one is the Warfare/Welfare party?

    Under Democrats, some people leach off others.

    Under Republicans, it’s exactly the other way around.

  50. paulie

    Mr. Wendt is now supporting Santorum for President, it would appear.

    Because formerly he was a radical Libertarian who regularly chided other Libertarians for not being pure enough. But now he says what is wrong with the LP is that we criticize each other and don’t change our positions to be more conserative.

    That makes sense, in light of his past support for Herman Cain, Billy Roper, etc, etc.

    In light of his party switch, is he still supporting Augustus Invictus (who actually is a fascist and damn proud of it)?

  51. paulie

    If you look at both Rand Paul’s actions and his words as a Senator and a candidate, he’s done more for liberty than Gary Johnson or any libertarian candidate.

    And more against. I tend to think more against than for.

    Personally I get annoyed at libertarians taking shots at the Pauls. You don’t have to like either of them to recognize they are a huge boost to the liberty movement.

    Rand Paul is not a boost to the liberty movement, he’s a monkey on its back.

    These comments by Rand don’t bother me much. I don’t like it, but he has to say things like that in his effort to get GOP support.

    No he doesn’t. He goes way out of his way to make this point, to actively work to suppress LP and independent candidates, to hire Rauner’s campaign manager who took dirty tricks to try to keep us off the ballot to a whole new level, etc, etc. See my prior comments.

  52. Rick Adams

    A concerned citizen/amateur political analyst posted this on the LP’s fan page:

    John Lewis
    August 12 at 8:27am ·
    “Libertarians are on many State ballots, there is much name recognition (for a 3rd Party), and from a messaging standpoint (do what you want, unless it interferes with others) it wins hands down over the class-baiting of the democrats and the demagoguery of the Republicans…
    So why… is it not a viable 3rd party. Even those in Congress who choose to not associate with the two Parties that control everything, decide to run as “Independent” or even “Socialist”. So what exactly is wrong with Libertarians that they remain on the fringe, even though much of their “crackpot” agenda, has become mainstream? Why does a legitimate Political party with infrastructure to propagate itself, get so little credibility?

    1. The Platform stinks. No other way to say it, but Libertarians continually miss the boat on this. Philosophically, getting government out of our lives, our gun cabinets and our bedrooms, should appeal to everyone. But when an outsider looking for an alternative happens upon the Libertarian option, they are confronted with really poor pubic policy rooted in very good intellectual principle. Get rid of the IRS, deregulate… everything, etc. The party for the crackpots, is still viewed that way, because of its past and current stances on public policy, even at a time when, legalization of Marijuana, Gay Marriage, and Gun rights are at an all time high acceptance rating. With Liberty on the rise, why are Libertarian numbers not? Because, as a party the platform does not speak to what is best and different about these ideals.

    2. Cross-pollination. the Libertarian ideal should appeal, and does, to Republican voters, who think that social spending on those who do not contribute is reckless. It should also appeal to moderate Democrats who believe in Social freedom but don’t think that all rich people ate babies to get that way. Republicans avoid the party because , “They can’t win”, and politicians who do run on this messaging just follow Republican voting lines anyway (the Pauls are a great example of Republican voting records wrapped in a Libertarian cloak – Don’t flame me… I know they were both anti-war, but in everything else…). Democrats avoid the Libertarians because of the correct perception that most in the mainstream are just Republicans trying to coop Libertarian voters. The Party has no unique identity. No collection of principles to promote as a unique 3rd option, so each election all the Libertarians simply vote inline with one of the two major parties and whine about the day when a 3rd party will become viable.

    3. Poor representation. The best the party has is a couple of Republicans who give occasional lip servcie to the Libertarian ideals. Even those cited as foundational thinkers for the Libertarians like Ayn Rand (only one flavor of Libertarianism by the way), and negatives for the party. Extremist, conservative, irrational and impractical principled stands. Liberty should be a positive, socially uplifting message. Instead we wrap those ideals in anti-… well just about everything. Based on those who represent the part (the Republicans), there is no positive world view being promoted as the agenda.

    4. Herding Cats. OK, so all parties have this issue. But the two major parties have the advantage of futility. As a gay man of wealth, I will hold my nose and vote for a Democrat every time… OR, as an advocate for low taxes, and a strong defense, I will side with all manor of religious nut to push Republicans into office. The other two parties have the advantage of their ‘base” voting for their candidates, whether or not they agree with much of their policy statements. Libertarians play this game badly and fail to recognize that they have a greater advantage… both Democrats and Republicans WANT to be Libertarians. What is missing is the is the strategic progression of Libertarian politicians from local office, to State, to Federal… When a Libertarian does begin to get some level of traction, they are simply purchased by one of the other parties (usually the Republicans).

    5. Wrong messaging. Finally, it is not the party principles that fail to find a home in the hearts and minds of voters. It is the adoption of rhetoric from the other two parties. Use of Republican gun rights rhetoric or government in your bedroom democratic soundbites. Depending on the issue, Libertarians do not appear to be fair minded, middle of the road folks. They appear to be Republicans (most often) and Democrats. Worse they appear to be inconsistent members of those competitive parties. Libertarian ideals couple with practical application to public policy (no need to ban the IRS to reduce the tax burden on our citizens), lends itself to positive, pro-active, party stances that people could rally behind.
    If the Libertarians ever decide to leverage their infrastructure, recognizable brand, and philosophy in the practical development of a unifying party platform that moderates on both sides could get behind, they would win and win big. The country aches for a 3rd option, and it is simply missing the money to make it real. Money is used to buy support for a cause by lobbyists, and is only given to those who have “support”. If we want to change our outcomes, we must start with gaining popular support. THEN, the funds will come in and campaign financing will begin to equalize. Just my two cents early on Wednesday morning…”

    https://www.facebook.com/Goodguy130/posts/10204948583862854

  53. paulie

    Looks like Mr. Lewis didn’t have his morning coffee yet… ;P

    Way too much wrong in his post to try to unscramble.

  54. paulie

    “Wow, you seem to change your registration more often than some people change their clothes.” – paulie regarding Joe Wendt

    I resemble that remark! I change clothes seasonally and even take an occasional sonic shower.

    Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t mean people who change their clothes nearly that rarely by the above.

  55. paulie

    but LP candidates are often disappointing in both ideology and especially in campaign performance.

    Compare and contrast:

    null

    Since the above graphic was made Randal has sunk a good bit lower. Last I saw was 3% and 11th place, maybe even lower by now?

    And where will he be at during general election season? Endorsing and campaigning for whatever turds Republicans nominate, including but not limited to president; working his ass off to suppress the Libertarian vote as much as humanly possible; carrying water for the establishment and generally being their pissboy and hatchet man.

    He did it before, and we know who his campaign manager is…he’ll do it again.

  56. 27B-6

    I hear that Chip Englander was a “campaign manager in name only,” from someone associated with the Rauner campaign, relegated to sponsoring regional pizza parties while the campaign moved on without him. There was some other jerk named Mike Zolnierowicz, Chief of Staff (I assume he was a jerk, for what he did in the IL signature challenge against the LP) responsible for actually running things for Rauner. Again: this is hearsay, but it makes me wonder.

    In the final analysis, who cares? I tend to agree with Redlich on this one. Rand is making a lot of mistakes, but he’s also doing a lot right. Because the LP makes far more and far greater mistakes, Rand’s criticisms are legitimate, and he’s saying what he feels has has to say. (He’s done a wretched job of profiling the motivations of contrarian Libertarians, though.)

    If the LP had done their job for the past 35 years, they’d have a giant political powerhouse now that Rand would have to take seriously. Instead, they’ve conducted themselves in an unserious way, and have nothing to show in the way of success, to the point where idiots like Lewis (above) criticize them with zero factual comprehension, and they don’t know where he’s legit, and where he’s not.

    There are no Thoreaus in this game, and nobody really worth caring about. I’m glad Rand’s running, because he’s at least “on the libertarian spectrum.” Maybe if he doubles down on ending the prison industrial complex, drug war, and internet spying, I’ll contribute. Maybe if the LP gets their head out of their ass, I’ll contribute to them. Given past history, it’s more likely I’ll contribute to Rand.

  57. NewFederalist

    BTW folks… the owner of this site has spoken. Back off or find a new place to vent your plasma.

    LOL, how so?

    Just kidding! I don’t know Warren but I am sure he would never give posters the boot for not agreeing with him. He seems waaaay too intelligent for that.

  58. Steve M

    I say spoil the elections! eventually they will figure out they should switch the ballots to some sort of ranked choice instant runoff method.

  59. Arthur DiBianca

    Here’s my prediction: In the November 2016 presidential election, the Libertarian candidate will get more votes than Rand Paul.

  60. wredlich

    I share some of Lewis’ concerns, but not all. The platform is nonsense. All party platforms are crap. Not sure why anyone bothers having one.

    To me the main concerns with the LP are:

    1. Messaging (Lewis’ #5). Most LP candidates are incapable of even grasping the value of a simple campaign message. The typical libertarian flyer is 8 1/2 x 14 with 1/2″ margins and 8-point font covering both sides so they can squeeze in every single issue. Whatever money comes in is spent haphazardly and poorly.

    I went with three words (“Stop wasting money”) on a business card. I spent what little money we had where it really works – radio and TV. I got triple the votes of the previous and subsequent candidates for the same office.

    Did anyone learn from that? Hell no! I can say this until I’m blue in the face, and back it up with supporting evidence, but Libertarians are so smart they can’t accept when they’re wrong.

    2. Disruptors (related to Lewis’ #4). Trump makes it obvious that major parties also have trouble herding cats. The LP has a different problem. One aspect of it is that as an outsider movement, the LP attracts goofballs. They tend to stand out and diminish the brand. But (paranoia warning) the bigger problem in my view is that the establishment deliberately plants and/or assists troublemakers, to damage the brand, attack viable candidates (as happened with me) and distract the core from its message.

    This will be more obvious to those of us from upstate NY, where fusion voting gives third parties more importance. It is common in most counties for major party insiders to plant family and friends in third parties so they can gain control of those lines in general elections.

  61. Joe Wendt

    Paulie,

    I support Santorum, believe it or not, because I like his economic vision andhis plan to end the IRS.

    Now you want to criticize me for embracing radical libertarianism, but then backing Santorum as though it were contradictory. Considering that the LP and supposedly radical LPers would rather accept the government dictating whom a baker should sell a wedding cake to, blindly support the government granting same-sex couples permission for the sake of “fairness,” and nominate a Presidential candidate who believes in “humanitarian military intervention” while still claiming to advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy, there really is no point in being a radical in a Party that doesn’t want to promote principle over politics. I’d rather spend my time backing the lesser of two evils that actually believes in the principles he spouts, than a party willing to abandon principle for the sake of being supposedly more palatable. In other words, I haven’t changed my point of view, just gave up beating my head against a wall.

    I still support my friend Augustus, because I believe in him and he truly believes in LP platform and principles. If he makes it to the ballot on election day, he has my vote, and he will probably be the only Libertarian I would vote for next year.

  62. Cody Quirk

    Yep, I’m even more committed to voting Libertarian now after reading Rand’s comments.

    Fuck you Rand Paul.

  63. Andy

    Rick Santorum is not even remotely libertarian. Joe Wendt supporting Santorum really raises question marks about Joe Wendt’s credibility as a libertarian.

  64. NewFederalist

    I really like the Keyes-Duke idea! Riding on an elephant draped in Confederate battle flags singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic… Oh George… the imagery!

  65. Andy Craig Post author

    The Rand campaign is trying to make “breaking news” out of the fact that Ron has endorsed him (again). If that isn’t just about the saddest thing I’ve ever seen from a presidential candidate.

    In other breaking news, Rafael Cruz is endorsing Ted, and Chris Christie’s aunt thinks he’d make a great President.

  66. Mark Axinn

    >Just kidding! I don’t know Warren but I am sure he would never give posters the boot for not agreeing with him. He seems waaaay too intelligent for that.

    NF–I know Warren and I resemble that remark!

    Personally, I’m glad Warren bought IPR so we can all have fun showing what smartasses we all are! 🙂

  67. NewFederalist

    Or at least TRYING to be smartasses. Some posters here are decidedly “humor challenged”!

  68. Joe Wendt

    @ Andy

    I could care less about my credibility as a libertarian since I’m not a Libertarian anymore. It’s along the lines of criticizing a butterfly for not being a credible caterpillar anymore. Haters gotta hate so, bash all you want

  69. paulie

    Or at least TRYING to be smartasses. Some posters here are decidedly “humor challenged”!

    You…you take that back…take that back right now!

    🙂

  70. paulie

    The Rand campaign is trying to make “breaking news” out of the fact that Ron has endorsed him (again). If that isn’t just about the saddest thing I’ve ever seen from a presidential candidate.

    LOL seriously? It took this long?

  71. paulie

    WE are talking about Republican candidates. The worse they are, the better we look. Huckabee is good. Trump-Palin is better. Keyes-Duke is even better.

    I don’t agree with this logic.

    That’s kind of like the people who hope things will get as dictatorial and economically depressed as possible and that this will lead to revolution and liberty. The way it actually works more often is that things are already moving in the direction the revolutionaries want, and they get frustrated that they aren’t moving fast enough.

    If the establishment parties become marginally less bad, that will whet people’s appetite for positie change. Some will insist on a pace that the establishent parties won’t accomodate.

    By the same token, libertarian-leaners within the establishment parties, although they may not realize it, have their hand strengthened, not weakened, by the existence of alternative parties. While it’s true that they are competing for some of the same activists, it’s more important that they provide outside pressure for the estabishment parties to move in their direction to win some of those votes, contributions, and volunteers, or win them back. Without that pressure, the establishment parties’ only incentive is to compromise with each other. and that compromise is usually in the direction of accepting the bigger-government portions of both establishment parties’ ideologies.

  72. paulie

    Rick Santorum is not even remotely libertarian.

    Duh. But neither are Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, Herman Cain, Billy Roper, the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, et tedious cetera.

    In between Wendt comes in and out of the LP – repeatedly – and when he is in the LP he criticizes other LP members for not being pure enough libertarians, but now he has clarified that he is actually not libertarian at all. And it’s equally inconsistent that while in the LP he attacked other party members for ideological deviations, yet now says what’s wrong with the LP is not compromising enough and attacking each other. And then he further clarifies that he’s not even small l libertarian at all. Well, at least he is consistent in his inconsistency.

  73. Andy Craig Post author

    So far as I care, Ron Paul is the only one who gets to use “He’s Ron Paul’s son” as a valid excuse. Even when they publicly disagree without naming each other (e.g. Iran), I’d never expect Ron to say anything directly critical of Rand, or deny that he supports him, or not do anything Rand asks him to do for his campaign. And I doubt he even wrote it himself, it was almost certainly written by Rand staffers in Ron’s voice to address and deny their current concern, which is libertarian displeasure with Rand’s pandering.

    As for the timing of when Rand chose to play the Ron card, instead of continuing to keep him hidden under a rock as far away as possible, that speaks for itself. It really is more sad than anything else at this point.

  74. paulie

    embracing radical libertarianism, but then backing Santorum as though it were contradictory.

    Of course it is. Duh!

    Just ask the frothy mix himself if you don’t believe me.

    Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum dismissed Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s 2016 presidential ambitions, claiming “the Republican Party is not a libertarian party” and suggesting few GOP voters would be swayed by Paul’s small government message.

    Santorum swiped at the senator Monday during an appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire,” where he told left-wing host Van Jones that Republicans “need a positive agenda” to win in 2014 and 2016.

  75. Adrian Wyllie

    @Joe Wendt

    You went from running for chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida to a registered Republican and Rick Santorum supporter in two months? That’s quite a metamorphosis, to continue your butterfly analogy. It makes me wonder how long you were plotting from behind the veil of your cocoon.

  76. paulie

    blindly support the government granting same-sex couples permission for the sake of “fairness,”

    Not blindly, and addressed well by Andy Craig above.

    nominate a Presidential candidate who believes in “humanitarian military intervention”

    He said he would not rule it out in very extreme circumstances. Generally, though, Johnson is a peacenik.

    http://ontheissues.org/gary_johnson.htm

    We can no longer afford to shell out billions in foreign aid. (Feb 2012)
    No foreign aid spending unless it protects U.S. interests. (Nov 2011)
    Flights to Cuba ok; trade promotes friendship. (Sep 2011)
    Act in US self-interest, but wary of unintended consequences. (Aug 2011)
    Should we have 100,000 troops on the ground in Europe? (Aug 2012)
    Patriot Act is a direct assault on privacy & due process. (Aug 2012)
    Torture has created millions of enemies we wouldn’t have had. (Aug 2012)
    Let the PATRIOT Act expire; respect habeas corpus. (Jan 2012)
    Due process at Guantanamo; no torture of terrorist suspects. (Jan 2012)
    Allies want more US military spending, but cut by 43%. (Nov 2011)
    43% reduction in military spending; cut foreign aid too. (Sep 2011)
    No physical or psychological torture of terrorist suspects. (Aug 2011)
    Abolish the TSA; let Patriot Act expire. (Aug 2011)
    No waterboarding under any circumstances. (May 2011)

    Afghan nation-building will fail; withdraw immediately. (Aug 2012)
    Cut all support and aid to Israel. (May 2012)
    No military threat from Iraq, Afghanistan, nor Libya. (Aug 2011)
    Iran is not currently a military threat. (Aug 2011)
    Let Israel deal with Iranian nukes; not US role to tell them. (Aug 2011)
    Absolutely would not have gone into Libya; get out now. (Jul 2011)
    We wiped out al Qaeda 10 years ago; leave Afghanistan. (Jun 2011)
    No threat from Libya; so no authority to topple dictator. (Jun 2011)
    Afghan War initially warranted, but not for 10 years. (May 2011)
    Military surveillance should discover WMD before invasion. (May 2011)
    I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. (May 2011)
    No Afghan timetable; start tomorrow & finish in a few months. (May 2011)
    Eliminate ineffective interventions in Iraq & Afghanistan. (May 2011)

    Meanwhile Santorum is an unabashed warmonger:

    http://ontheissues.org/Rick_Santorum.htm

    Successfully pushed bipartisan national security legislation. (Jan 2015)
    Stand up for our friends in Latin America, not leftists. (Jan 2012)
    Keep embargo on Cuba–the heart of cancer in Latin America. (Jan 2012)
    Self-determination on statehood for Puerto Rico. (Jan 2012)
    Iran’s theocracy encourages use of nuclear weapons. (Jan 2012)
    JFK-Khrushchev negotiations failed; Obama’s will fail too. (Nov 2011)
    Assassinate Iranian & North Korean nuclear scientists. (Oct 2011)
    Deal with Musharraf in Pakistan in advance of trouble. (Sep 2011)
    No apologies for past American interventions in Iran. (Aug 2011)
    Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
    Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
    Voted YES on capping foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
    Voted NO on limiting the President’s power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
    Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
    Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
    Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
    Getting out facts about Benghazi makes hearings successful. (May 2014)
    Privacy is in 4th amendment, but Patriot Act is ok. (Jan 2012)
    Confront virulent threat of radical Islam. (Jan 2012)
    Giving money to Iran rebels is not enough. (Nov 2011)
    Don’t cut one penny out of defense spending. (Oct 2011)
    Removing Don’t-Ask injects social experiment into military. (Sep 2011)
    Department of Homeland Security fixed an internal mess. (Sep 2011)
    Cut waste in DOD, but don’t cut defense budget. (Jul 2011)
    Terrorism is an asymmetric threat; we need worldwide bases. (Jun 2011)
    Waterboarding gets useful info, like on Osama bin Laden. (May 2011)
    We need to spend money to study the EMP threat. (Aug 2009)
    War against Islamic fascism will be won or lost in America. (Sep 2006)
    Invest in our armed services’ fundamental mission. (Aug 1995)

    There are good earmarks, like Osprey military program. (Feb 2012)
    Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
    Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
    Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
    Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
    Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
    Voted NO on restoring $565M for states’ and ports’ first responders. (Mar 2005)
    Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
    Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
    Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
    Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
    Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
    Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
    Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
    Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)
    Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)

    We cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. (May 2015)
    Obama left Iraq because it was politically popular to do so. (Jan 2014)
    Unclear which side in Syria used chemical weapons. (Aug 2013)
    Stay in Afghanistan until security of our country is secure. (Jan 2012)
    Iranian people admire us; Iranian leaders are evil. (Jan 2012)
    Afghanistan victory means Taliban is neutered, not wiped out. (Nov 2011)
    Work with Israel to take out Iranian nukes by force. (Nov 2011)
    We need 20,000 troops to stay in Iraq to achieve victory. (Sep 2011)
    We’re tying one hand behind our backs; change Afghan rules. (Sep 2011)
    Jihadists want to kill us for what we are. (Sep 2011)
    No isolationism on Libya; but Obama did it wrong. (Sep 2011)
    We should withdraw from Afghanistan more slowly. (Aug 2011)
    Iran has been at war with us since 1979. (Aug 2011)
    Iran must be confronted to stop them from getting nukes. (Aug 2011)
    No national security at stake in Libya. (Jul 2011)
    Iraq: We have a great game plan, and Rumsfeld does fine job. (Sep 2006)
    War in Iraq is one front in war on Islamic fascism. (Sep 2006)
    Iran is at the heart of the Iraq war. (Sep 2006)
    Saddam had no new WMDs, but did have old WMDs. (Sep 2006)
    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but still a necessary war. (Sep 2006)
    My Iraq plan, and my opponent’s plan, is same as Bush’s. (Sep 2006)
    Needed exit strategy & objective in Kosovo, but not in Iraq. (Sep 2006)
    Sanctions against Iran, despite Administration disagreement. (Sep 2006)
    Threat posed by Saddam is like drunk driver’s threat to all. (Oct 2002)
    Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
    Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
    Voted NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
    Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
    Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
    Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
    Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
    Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
    Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)

    there really is no point in being a radical in a Party that doesn’t want to promote principle over politics.

    Especially when you don’t even share that principle, and now feel comfortable in admitting to it since you switched parties yet again.

    I’d rather spend my time backing the lesser of two evils

    There is no lesser of two evils, only the evil of two lessers.

    And even if there were, you’d just get ever greater evil. What’s the great advantage in being choked slowly rather than having your neck snapped quickly?

    And in this case it’s not even that, just whether the boot on our necks will be a left boot rather than a right boot.

    Apparently you, and to some extent Randall Paul, think it is deadly critical that it be a right boot.

    In other words, I haven’t changed my point of view

    If so you were never a libertarian, since you clearly say you are not one now.

    I still support my friend Augustus, because I believe in him and he truly believes in LP platform and principles.

    Aside from the fact that he quite obviously doesn’t, if he did, why would you support him, since you yourself don’t?

  77. paulie

    @Joe Wendt

    You went from running for chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida to a registered Republican and Rick Santorum supporter in two months? That’s quite a metamorphosis, to continue your butterfly analogy. It makes me wonder how long you were plotting from behind the veil of your cocoon.

    Let me see if I can help clear that one up:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/10/adrian-wyllie-polling-at-13-files-lawsuit-over-debate-exclusion/#comment-939479

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/10/adrian-wyllie-polling-at-13-files-lawsuit-over-debate-exclusion/#comment-938069

    “Funny to see somebody questioning the libertarian purity of some campaign supporters when the person doing the complaining has been a supporter of newt gingrich, herman cain, alan keyes, and billy roper, all within the last 2 or 3 years.”

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/10/adrian-wyllie-polling-at-13-files-lawsuit-over-debate-exclusion/#comment-934409

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/10/adrian-wyllie-polling-at-13-files-lawsuit-over-debate-exclusion/#comment-934317

    Wendt was then registered Constitution Party, after considering Reform Party

    http://web.archive.org/web/20111110192747/http://bostontea.us/node/1010 Wendt marshal arguments in support of a neo-nazi candidate. That candidate’s views, including actually exterminating all non-whites, are openly discussed in that thread. Forward to today and you have support for eugenicist neo-confederate Invictus. At least some things have not changed much.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/10/jeremy-young-analyzes-illinois-libertarian-presidential-debate/#comment-717309

    …His website says he was a Ron Paul supporter who switched to Alan Keyes in 2008, supports Cain now but in between was an organizer for the Coffee Party (a lame Democratic Party attempt to copy/ape the Tea Parties). ….

    And now Joe Wendt says

    “In other words, I haven’t changed my point of view”

    And

    “I could care less about my credibility as a libertarian”

    Just so everyone is clear.

  78. paulie

    As for the timing of when Rand chose to play the Ron card, instead of continuing to keep him hidden under a rock as far away as possible, that speaks for itself. It really is more sad than anything else at this point.

    LOL, yeah.

  79. paulie

    Disruptors (related to Lewis’ #4). Trump makes it obvious that major parties also have trouble herding cats. The LP has a different problem. One aspect of it is that as an outsider movement, the LP attracts goofballs. They tend to stand out and diminish the brand. But (paranoia warning) the bigger problem in my view is that the establishment deliberately plants and/or assists troublemakers, to damage the brand, attack viable candidates (as happened with me) and distract the core from its message.

    Trump may be an example of the same thing in the duopoly. Sharpton may have been another. Who knows how many more?

    It is common in most counties for major party insiders to plant family and friends in third parties so they can gain control of those lines in general elections.

    It’s also common to have two or more major parties with many of the same people behind both of them. The Democrats and Repubicans have many of the same corporate sponsors and many of the same anti-liberty policies.

    None of this explains why a fruitless attempt to take over an establishment party is any better.

  80. paulie

    Here’s my prediction: In the November 2016 presidential election, the Libertarian candidate will get more votes than Rand Paul.

    Agreed.

  81. paulie

    eventually they will figure out they should switch the ballots to some sort of ranked choice instant runoff method.

    There’s a fair amount of disagreement on the best voting system among those who would like to change away from what we have now. Some of them believe IRV would be even worse than what we have now.

  82. Joe Wendt

    Paulie, I am rolling my eyes. Again, I am supporting Santorum because I like his economic message, a point I already made clear. I explained my point of view on this thread politely, without malice, and you continue with beating a dead horse & character assassination. Congratulations, you’ve demonstrated why Libertarians have a low approval rating (a fact you yourself have pointed out on a different thread), because rather than leaving something when it’s clearly dead, you chose to harp on it. Yes, I am no longer a fan of the LP; yes, I have had disagreements over certain parts of the ideology (go here for full reasons: https://www.facebook.com/groups/JWSSociety/permalink/750846741692393/). I have a different opinion you don’t agree with, great. Am I calling you names? BTW, I used to respect you.

  83. Sean Scallon

    “My best influence is to bring the Republican Party to the Libertarian side of the issues.”

    And I have to say Rand you’re just not doing a very good job of this. And if you lose and lose badly , many libertarians (Justin Raimondo for example) are going to conclude there simply is no hope for the GOP as its currently constituted, Because it’s clearly obvious that even if they lose the White House they’ve offset this by winning everything else and by large margins. So they have no incentive to change, especially in the areas which they have power and exercise it. Only a spectacular defeat which cost them power, especially in places where they currently hold power, might change their thinking. But when you consider where the party was after losing in 2008 compared to now, it’s a joke. No self-respecting libertarian would have anything to do with it.

    I find it hilarious Rand is urging libertarians to become Republicans but his flunkies are more than happy to cold call LP members for money and make up lies about the LP endorsing him. Is he going to try the Constitution Party next? After all, he is a “constitutional conservative”.

    Here’s the crux of the dilemma: We know GOP demographic problems, especially when it comes to age. At some point this is really going to start to bite, even in places like Texas and Georgia for example. Will this change them and if not, is the LP prepared to take advantage of this by offering younger voters a mainstream alternative they can support in spite of the way the system is structured? Rand has a right to be cynical about non-major parties but he does not have the right to pretend what he’s doing has made any kind of tangible progress, not after watching the last GOP debate. Sure there have been some successes along the way but the policies which led to defeat in 2008 and 2012 are still there and still being supported by those 17 candidates in a race to the bottom to see who can be more clueless than other.

    The bottom line is Conservative INC. and the neocons have the party by the balls and will basically direct it to where it wants to go, even over a cliff, just so they can continue to make money and just so they can have vehicle to go to war with. And libertarians are supposed to follow just because Rand Paul said so? I think not. But if you want to keep and develop libertarians as a political force, the LP has been as a legitimate vehicle for their votes, otherwise they’ll simply drift back to apathy and only the hardcore few will take part, just like it was pre-2007

  84. paulie

    Indeed. Let’s help him focus more of his energy on good work like that by helping remove unnecessary distractions from his path.

  85. George Phillies

    “My best influence is to bring the Republican Party to the Libertarian side of the issues.” By campaigning against Libertarian stands on a vast number of issues. He is a liar.

  86. 27B-6

    Kind of funny how “libertarians” want to champion the fact that the market acts in a benevolent manner due to self-interest, but that they don’t want to admit the same about any election cycle or democratic process. (Very ironically, they then complain bitterly that the establishment tries to prevent them from participating with various laws rigged in the establishment’s favor.)

    Ironically, the fact that Rand is running for president against naked totalitarians provides a significant incentive for his charity work in Haiti, even if only to distinguish himself from the other candidates (who have nothing of value to provide the world in the domain of the marketplace of governance ideas). If Rand says that charity works, his providing charity is self-fulfilling prophecy. There: his presidential run (as well as the semi-free market) caused him to act more benevolently.

    Mark Axinn
    August 15, 2015 at 11:24 am

    Helping to demonstrate that Senator/Dr. Paul is basically a very decent guy who can do a real lot of good when he is not running for President:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/14/rand-paul-leaves-the-campaign-trail-for-eye-surgeries-in-haiti/

    It’s the failure-oriented resentment of libertarians that causes people who intend to win freedom to avoid them as “spoilers.” It wouldn’t be so bad if they only spoiled anti-freedom candidacies, but a real case could be made that Rand would reduce tyranny in specific and useful ways, if elected. Would he be a Thoreau? I doubt it. Would he be a Douglass? I doubt it.

    But I hope he’d be close, and I hope he could at least be pressured to stand by his campaign promises, which are vastly different than those of the establishment candidates.

    And that ignores the good that Rand, trying to present himself in the best possible light (strategically and philosophically), can do on the campaign trail. Is it a mixed bag? Sure. If he listens to his campaign manager, he may well shoot himself in the foot. Sure. Mistakes have been made, especially considering the dogmatic contrarian nature of most libertarians.

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.? -Henry David Thoreau

    Sure, I’m comparing Rand Paul to Thoreau, and there’s little comparison. Thoreau wouldn’t have done anything against conscience, ever. Rand has made calculated political moves against conscience, where there’s been political gain to be had.

    But there’s an important point to be made. I’m sure Rand would interfere with the government collecting ____ amount of taxes that they would have collected if the IRS were just “raping and pillaging as usual.”

    Whatever that amount is, it’s less destruction, extortion, and murder from the government, if Rand wins.

    Those who don’t believe he can win lose nothing by voting for him, unless they think he shouldn’t win. In fact, they gain more detailed, useful knowledge of the system, how it is rigged, and how to interact with it. The establishment would definitely prefer we did not have this knowledge, as witnessed by their successful bullying of Ron Paul’s delegates in 2008, and their making off with ballot boxes in NH and returning a false vote in Maine in 2008. They also open themselves up to being caught rigging the vote, as increasingly more sophisticated voluntaryists, perhaps like Amir Taaki, and democracy activists, like the late Aaron Swartz and the Sunlight Foundation, use technology to uncover their trickery.

    Without participation, that trickery goes unrecorded, unknown, and unimagined by the masses. That which the masses don’t know about, they cannot be outraged about, nor can they learn from. While the public is completely uninformed, there is no obstacle to tyranny.

    From that standpoint alone, it makes a lot of sense to either demand seriousness from the LP, or, failing that, to side with Rand Paul who is seriously participating, like him or not, and allow the LP the same failure that it would have “won” on its own. My view is that, whether or not the LP is controlled opposition or not, it might as well be. There are specific people who make it so, and I believe Andy’s assessment is more or less correct in that regard.

    Liberty will not happen without strategy and philosophy. They are mutually-inclusive, but one must work to make them work together, due to the low education level of the American electorate and the political planners themselves. At least Rand seems to recognize that.

    More power to him.

  87. Andy Craig

    That’s a lot of hand-waving about what you *hope* Rand Paul would do, and precisely zero of what he’s actually *said* he would do.

  88. George Phillies

    Rand Paul is an anti-abortionist daughter-murderer, a homophobic bigot, a warmonger who worked for war with Iran, a supporter of defense welfare, a scoundrel who actively campaigned against Libertarian Party candidates..in short, he is as bad or worse the rest of the duopoly party candidates.

  89. paulie

    That’s a lot of hand-waving about what you *hope* Rand Paul would do, and precisely zero of what he’s actually *said* he would do.

    People keep fantasizing about his supposed secret agenda. Why do they think he has one, or if he does, that it’s not even worse than what he says openly?

  90. paulie

    On the bright side, his campaign is making like an airplane after the wings fall off.

    Praise the Lord and pass the shoulder held surface to air missile launcher!

  91. Andy Craig

    “People keep fantasizing about his supposed secret agenda. Why do they think he has one, or if he does, that it’s not even worse than what he says openly?”

    The Rand camp has been pushing the “trust us, he’s lying!” narrative for a while now. It’s their standard rebuttal to any libertarian criticism of him, they just can’t say so in any official or formal context, so they have surreptitiously paid surrogates make that argument instead.

  92. paulie

    It’s highly likely that he lies about some things to some people. The question is about which things and to which people? Maybe he’s lying to the people that think they secretly know that he is a secret libertarian.

  93. Andy Craig

    I’m sure he lies about his real beliefs sometimes, but I actually give him a lot more credit for honesty than his defenders do. When he says he wants to draw Kurdish borders or keep Gitmo military tribunals or build more Tomahawks or ban gay marriage or increases sanctions on Iran, I actually believe him.

  94. paulie

    Our nazi troll at least at one point was saying that the Pauls are actually secretly national socialists. That’s unlikely, but if Randal can secretly be a libertarian, why can’t he secretly be a nazi, or a liberal democrat, or any number of other things?

  95. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Paulie, one of Rand Paul’s quotes on that graph is “Planned Parenthood!”

    Well, what about Planned Parenthood? It’s not much a quote. No substance.

    If Rand Paul is saying that PP should be entirely defunded, I agree. I was surprised the govt was giving money to PP. (Although I shouldn’t be — govt gives money to all sorts of private groups that shouldn’t be getting tax dollars.)

    Apart from that, I disagree with Rand Paul on all those other issues. But that’s based on my guesses of his position, as some of those quotes don’t specifically state his positions on those issues.

    I’ve long said about Rand Paul, the son is not the father.

  96. paulie

    I did not create the graphic. They are references to his positions, not quotes. You can find the quotes with a search, if sufficiently motivated.

    I’ve long said about Rand Paul, the son is not the father.

    Too true!

Leave a Reply

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