As reported by the Daily Liberty:
Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Sue Newell and Presidential candidate Bob Barr have joined other Libertarians on the New Hampshire Ballot. Barr reportedly filed only an hour and a half before the deadline.
55 Comments
Comments are closed.
Pro-life (says James Ostrowski of LRC), anti-immigration (on his page).
He’s a fraudtaxer, too. But pretty good for a duopolist.
Interesting if a bit itchy on trade. Where is he on abortion and immigration?
Personally, I think there is better hope (however remote) of reforming the Democratic Party than the GOP. The Democratic Party, at least, has a noble tradition. The GOP had a handful of good guys in the 40s and 50s, but you can’t reform a party that has Lincoln as its figurehead.
Here’s a decent “Ron Paul Democrat”
http://aimhighwithbob.com/
The two parties will continue to co-opt any third party agenda that is able to successfully break free from the restraints of ballot access and the pillow-smothering of the MSM. They’ll co-opt it, and next election, squander it. There is no winner for voting for either of these elections.
-Both will draw us inexorably into new confrontations, both in the name of human rights.
-Both will raise the current poverty line.
-Even if the world becomes invigorated with hope for America, it will soon end the moment Obama backs down from his stances.
-Electing Obama does not guarantee a Republican majority the next few years, or that the rate of growth of government will be fought. If in the event they DO gain that opportunity, it’ll set the true movement for liberty and the opportunity for third parties to make a difference back several years.
No difference. None. So that argument is pretty null.
Sure,it’ll die when Keith Richards does.
NEVER. They’re both cyborg-robots.
Deran, predictions of the demise of the Democratic Party have become a dime a dozen, since at least the time of Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
I’ve also heard that with a McCain loss, coupled with the Democrats holding onto control of congress, the Republican Party will die.
Sure it will.
I for one, almost, but not quite, wish McCain wins, because that will be the end of the Democrats as we know them. This is their big push, if they fail here, that party will end in shambles. Which from over here on the Left, looks like a good thing. But, I think neither McCain, nor Obama, will be able to stop the economy from tanking, and that will also be a good motivator for people to look for other narratives, other explanations, as in:
“Arise, ye prisoners of starvation, arise ye wretched of the earth…”
And such.
“The people who voted for Paul were NOT all, or even mostly, Republicans. ”
Im not sure that is true. It may have differed by state—but here in LA it was dominated by third-party types and republicans,with very few independents and Democrats.
BTW: Mention of the Austrian theory of the business cycle got a long standing O in Minneapolis.
How does Buchanan come down on that?
His supporters are more worried about lesibanism on TV than central banking.
langa is right, but there is also one HUGE issue where the two men could not be more opposed. Ron Paul is a capitalist and Buchanan is a statist-mercantilist. That’s rather huge.
The people who voted for Paul were NOT all, or even mostly, Republicans. That should be abundantly clear, Trent. The people who voted for Buchanan in ’92, ’96, and 2000 were not necessarily — or even probably — anti-war. They were the people who supported Huckabee, etc., in ’08. The bulk of Buchanan’s supporters are beligerant nationalists first, foremost, and pretty much exclusively.
GE,
It is because of the anti-war wing of the GOP that the CP DOES exist. If it is so insignificant,explain the numbers who voted for Buchanan or Paul?
I agree with langa’s statements on coalition building and Buchanan/Rockwell/Rothbard
Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are similar on many issues, but the big difference is in what issues they choose to emphasize. Ron Paul keeps the focus on the economy and foreign policy, areas where it’s fairly easy to build coalitions. He basically stays neutral on cultural issues, since they tend to be very divisive.
That’s the big mistake that Buchanan, Rothbard and Rockwell made in the early ’90s. They tried to build a coalition of cultural conservatives, and once they built it, they found out it was a lot more statist than they had bargained for. It’s much better to focus on issues where there’s a clear libertarian consensus.
If the “anti-war wing” of the war party had any legitimacy, there would be absolutely no point for the CP to exist.
That wing is to the GOP what the Robert Milnes wing is to the LP/GP.
GE,
I dont know anyone who thinks Paul is a protectionist. My point is simply that there IS a Buchanan/Paul wing—the anti-war wing.
But if the anti-war wing combines its anti-war stance with anti-free trade, anti-homosexual scapegoating, religious aggrandizing, and hardcore anti-immigration rhetoric, then it has no appeal for a good 3/4 of the people who supported Ron Paul, by your count.
Honestly, I think the coalition cannot hold. I was thoroughly educated by the Ron Paul movement and abandoned my last ties to statism as a result of the research I did because of Ron Paul. If others do the same, then great. But I suspect that too large a number of people could not support another candidate exactly like Ron Paul, who by some miracle has people believing he’s on both sides of the trade issue.
GE,
The anti-war wing of the GOP is not insignificant, as the Paul and Buchanan campaigns have proven. John Hostettler, Walter Jones, Ron Paul–thats more than the number of elected jewish MPs in the Third Reich.
Oh, and to be clear: I’d probably vote for Buchanan if he were on the ballot today. But I sure as hell would not go stand out in the freezing cold and hold up signs for him, give him large amounts of money, etc.
And how many of them will still be kicking in four years?
Buchanan represents the ugly past. Paul’s endorsement of him in 1992 is as relevant as Rockwell’s part in the racist newsletters.
Sucked into the vitriol? Do you mean to tell me that Buchanan is NOT vitriolic and divisive? People think he’s a Nazi. He’s not, of course, but he gave a speech about the Culture War as the defining issue of our age. He has an us (Christian conservatives) vs. them (atheists, gays, Mexicans) mentality. That’s a fact, not vitriol.
Buchanan says he was invited to speak. You say he wasn’t — why wasn’t he if he wasn’t? Precisely for the reasons I’ve stated above.
Even you admit that the Buchanan/Paul overlap is no more than 1/4. Ron Paul himself said this isn’t about the GOP, and so your “anti-war wing” (which is not a wing at all, but a knuckle at best) is a fraction of the greater movement. Really, an anti-war wing of the Republican Party makes about as much sense as a pro-Jew wing of the Nazi Party.
As for what percentage would support Buchanan that supported Paul? Of the 1 million votes, I’d say….250,000–mostly the older folks.
GE,
You’ve still repeatedly dodged the obvious truth of my statements–Ron Paul endorsed Buchanan in 92 and Buchanan psuedo-endorsed Ron Paul here in 2008. I’d say that makes them allies.
I’m not going to get sucked into your vitriol, because I’m just not up for it tonight–but the anti-war wing of the GOP’s biggest figures are Buchanan and Paul,and they have been since the early 90s.
Okay, Trent. What percentage of the Ron Paul coalition do you think would support Pat Buchanan with any level of fervor? Virtually none of the libertarians, virtually none of the pseudo-leftists, and virtually none of the apathetics who were turned on by the inclusive message of freedom. Buchanan attracts the tiny CP constituency plus bigots who think the CP is too liberal; i.e. the vermin who supported Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, etc.
Rockwell, and possibly even Paul, once thought it was a wise move to forge a “redneck coalition” that engaged in race-baiting and thinly veiled appeals to anti-Semites. This is the unsustainable, critically small faction of support from which Buchanan draws. You said yourself he wasn’t invited (though he claims he was) because he’s a divisive figure.
The difference between being 100% pro-free trade and 100% anti-free trade is a pretty goddamn big difference.
“Yeah, Buchanan’s run in ‘92 prevented Paul from running, either with the GOP or LP. Imagine how much further we’d be if Paul had run.”
Paul was going to run in the GOP. And Buchanan likely did FAR better than Paul would’ve.
“If you can’t see the huge gulf between Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, then it’s because there’s still too much of a CONservative in you. Ron Paul’s message brings people together — Buchanan’s economically illiterate message is intentionally divisive.”
Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan attract the same voters, talk about the same issues, differ on only a few, have endorsed each other (Ron Paul endorsed Buchanan in ’92, Buchanan basically endorsed Paul in ’08), and are both anti-war conservatives beloved by LRC, Antiwar, American Conservative, and hated by the neocons. They are VERY similar and are allies–why you reject this is beyond me. I never claimed they were identical.
“Hilarious = you thinking I’m not a bridge-builder while touting a candidate who gave a 1992 speech talking about cultural armageddon. Buchanan is a scapegoat artist and a statist.”
I never said anything about how great Buchanan was. I never “touted” him. That is baggage YOU are bringing into the debate. I claimed there was a Buchanan/Paul wing of the GOP–the non-interventionist and small government wing.
Oh–and Buchanan the “statist scapegoat” was once touted by Lew Rockwell.
So free trade is a REDICULOUSâ„¢ standard?
Buchanan himself says he was invited IN THAT CLIP. Of course, he’s a liar, so…
Yeah, Buchanan’s run in ’92 prevented Paul from running, either with the GOP or LP. Imagine how much further we’d be if Paul had run.
If you can’t see the huge gulf between Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, then it’s because there’s still too much of a CONservative in you. Ron Paul’s message brings people together — Buchanan’s economically illiterate message is intentionally divisive.
Hilarious = you thinking I’m not a bridge-builder while touting a candidate who gave a 1992 speech talking about cultural armageddon. Buchanan is a scapegoat artist and a statist. To him, government isn’t the problem — brown people, homosexuals, and feminists are. Oh, and people who want to trade without permission of the government, them too.
“Fundamentally, there is no overlap between Paul and Buchanan. ”
Now THERES my little Wadical Wibertarian, excluding everyone else because he can’t build bridges or play along.
Buchanan and Paul are very similar. Hell, even Lew Rockwell cheered and endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992.
“If that’s true, then he just lied on national TV and misrepresented both positions for his own xenophobic, pro-poverty political agenda.”
Buchanan made a comment off-the-cuff that, to the average citizen’s understanding, is true. He had about 7 seconds to say what he wanted to say…do you think you could explain the differences between Libertarian Free Trade and McCain Free Trade in 7 seconds? No one stands up to your REDICULOUS (yes, that was on purpose, it’s sort of my trademark now) standards GE, not even Ron Paul.
Buchanan was not asked to speak at the rally, if you have a better source than me–let me know. But a high-level staffer told me Buchanan wasn’t invited because they knew it would generate bad press and he is a controversial figure in the freedom movement.
GE–you clearly havent been following Buchanan very well. Throughout the primaries this year Buchanan provided VERY positive commentary about Ron Paul and was largely responsible for attracting so many of the social conservatives to Ron Paul–his [BRIGADE] email list (which is some 200,000 people strong) send out 3-4 statements that were VERY positive about Ron Paul in the aftermath of the Ron Paul/Guiliani arguement in the first debate.
Buchanan’s website (buchanan.org) has a section called “Ron Paul News”.
http://buchanan.org/blog/topics/ron-paul-news/
Furthermore, Pat Buchanan’s HIGHLY influential magazine “The American Conservative” endorsed Ron Paul.
See, I said Pat Buchanan was a BIG SUPPORTER but I never claimed he “endorsed” Ron Paul–so that is a strawman you set up. Buchanan is probably obligated to NOT endorse anyone because of his contract with MSNBC.
And I notice you dodged the fact that Ron Paul endorsed Buchanan in 1992. (and 1996 I believe).
Fundamentally, there is no overlap between Paul and Buchanan. Someone who is dumb enough to think free trade is bad, and who thinks it’s appropriate for the government to protect domestic industry and restrict consumer choice, has NOTHING in common, at the core, with a free-market oriented libertarian. I hate to say Cato is right, but if this is the “coalition” that has been built around Ron Paul, it is not sustainable. Do you expect the GOP base to rally around isolationism?
If that’s true, then he just lied on national TV and misrepresented both positions for his own xenophobic, pro-poverty political agenda.
I do not believe he was ever a proponent of free trade. You’ve said this to me before, but until I see evidence of it, I have to assume you’re mistaken.
Buchanan was NOT a “big supporter” of Paul in ’88 or in 2008. He endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 and did NOT endorse Paul in 2008. He was asked to speak at the Rally and didn’t.
Buchanan’s is a true isolationists — i.e. an economically illiterate poverty monger. His campaigns were driven by hate and division, not unity like Paul’s. No comparison between the two whatsoever, even if a few Buchanan people are so stupid that they think Paul is anti-free trade and thus they support him.
As for Buchanan’s comment, he knows the difference between Free trade agreements and true free trade,he was once a proponent of the latter.
Buchanan is a thoughtful paleoconservative and although you may not agree with his positions, he is a policy-genius. His views are outlined all over the pages of The American Conservative, Chronicles, and TakiMag–but reading might get in the way of all that big talk.
GE,
Paul endorsed Buchanan in his 1992 run, Buchanan was a big supporter this year and in 1988, Paul and Buchanan are both extremely anti-war conservatives who want to eliminate the income tax, get the Federal government out of most issues, and are culturally and personally conservative septugenarians. They both built their campaigns and legacies upon the “Patriot” movements and both led highly energetic campaigns of smaller amounts of people. They are close allies and always have been.
You were saying?
In other words: There’s no such thing as a Buchanan/Paul wing.
Buchanan is an idiot and his wing can go to hell. He was on Morning Joe condemning Obama and McCain as “both free traders” and then said “libertarians are free traders, too.”
GE,
I think my number 2 is huge. McCain as the standard bearer WILL bolster support for the Buchanan/Paul wing of the GOP.
Reasons to root for Paul/Goldwater in LA:
It will punish McCain while re-activating the base.
The Ron Paul activists will consolidate their cash/efforts into one small state area.
Those reasons don’t even begin to compare with what I outlined.
GE,
Reasons to root for McCain:
He’s old,and will likely serve only one term.
He’ll continue the downward slide of the neocon,and likely lead to an event stronger anti-war conservative presidential campaign in 2012.
He wont get involved in Darfur.
Trent – Here are 2.5 reasons why I want Obama to win:
1. There will be celebrations around the world if he wins. The way foreign countries view the U.S. will be greatly improved.
2. If the Republicans get away with 8 years of Bush and then get elected for four more years, there will be NOTHING they can’t get away with.
2.5 – McCain is guaranteed to invade Iran. Obama is merely likely to do so.
Fred,
I wont say yet. The SoS hasnt accepted our paperwork–but we did file it. Also, Goldwater accepted the nomination for VP.
I dont.
They offer the same things,except Obama pretends to be anti-war and pro-civil liberties while McCain pretends to lower spending and not raise taxes. Its all the same in the end.
But, at least if McCain loses a solid couple of percentage points in every state, we’ll know why he lost—because he couldnt appeal to libertarians or conservatives.
Whoops. I misread the email.
Trent: so did you guys get RP on the LA ballot for sure?
I hope so. I, for one, do think it matters — a lot — who wins.
With Barr taking huge amounts in NH, NV, and GA, Baldwin taking smaller amounts in Montana, Alaska, and Idaho, and Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater taking a decent percentage in Louisiana–McCain ought to go down in a blaze of glory.
Good! Down goes McCain. Backstab that bastard.
Also, the text of this blog item is that the signatures arrived at the Secretary of State’s office one and one-half hours before the deadline. But the title says just one-half hour.
With the quotes?
That’s be okay, I guess.
Barr is on the ballot as “Libertarian”.
So Barr will appear as an additional Republican?
G.E., good one.
No. New Hampshire has strict statutes against fraud and a “truth in labeling” law.
Will Barr be able to have “Libertarian” listed as his party affiliation?