Writing for the Socialist Worker, columnist Alan Maass says appearing alongside “reactionary” Ron Paul and “crackpot” Chuck Baldwin was a “step backwards” for Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. Maass says Nader and McKinney should have followed Bob Barr’s lead and “snubbed” the press conference:
Barr snubbed the gathering, arguing at his own press conference a few hours later that he wasn’t “interested in third parties getting the most possible votes,” but in building his own candidacy.
That’s what Nader and McKinney should have done. In spite of surface similarities on a few issues, Ron Paul is no ally of the progressive agenda that these two candidates have stood for.
I signed the petition to get Barr kicked out of the Libertarian Party. We’d all be singing a different tune if Mary Ruwart had received the nomination, as she should have. The Suspicious Barr Take-over served only to divide and cause disagreements.
As for Alan Mess’s article using the word “crackpot” to refer to Baldwin — insinuating McKinney is the “sane” one! — he must have candidate dyslexia.
McKinney is as big a “crackpot” as they come, with her embarrassing, violent public behavior (check out her arrest record), her self-importance (check out her taxpayer’s money indiscretions), her support of “the enemy Obama” (check out her open letter of congratulations) and the huge chip on her shoulder and finger-pointing with her constant bitching about being targeted (for whatever reason) because of her race.
As for plc1’s astute observations about the primary election rigging (and plenty more to come), I hear you loud and clear, pal. How many primaries Ron Paul actually came first in, we’ll never know.
Some people actually sneer in disbelief when the subject of rigged voting machines and vote count fraud comes up. How sad. Of course, these are usually the people who supported Bush and now support McCain…
“As if nations are not tribes.”
GE—do some research on tribalism as a form of government, it is a complex and specific form of governance, not a “group” as you are trying to imply.
With that said—I’d love to see it tried, cuz it would end this circular debate that has been going on between minarchists and anarchists since at least the early 70s.
Tell you what GE,
Form a anarcho-capitalist community and I’ll watch and see how it goes. If it succeeds, you’ll have converted me.
Unfortunately for you, it is an unrealistic and impossible goal that will never, could never, be accomplished. I can create my own utopia too, but it isnt realistic, sorry.
Trying to justify the State on moral grounds never works. All attempts of it I’ve ever seen have devolved into collectivist rationale–e.g., some sort of fictional “social contract” imposed by the majority which the individual cannot override. All libertarians with any concept of morals know the State is evil–some just consider it a necessary evil, necessary for utilitarian reasons.
How does he measure the consent of the governed? I think we can safely throw out birthright citizenship and paying taxes as invalid instruments.
Trent’s argument is that people voluntarily band together in part, to impose their will on the rest of society and call that “the state” — as if that’s NOT a dictatorship. As if nations are not tribes.
“Anarcho-capitalism will inevitably lead to either tribalism or dictatorship. So will limited government. But anarcho-capitalism will devolve within days, weeks, or months–rather than decades or centuries.”
Why? How is self-regulation not an appropriate counter-measure?
In a truly free society, anyone who attempts to coerce people to sign onto their private defense company or otherwise would only strengthen the number of people defending themselves without an agency. This includes cartels.
Trent – Does the state have the right to force me to pay taxes and prevent me from entering into competition with it? Yes or no? From whence does it derive this authority? From God?
Lovely.
“Spence–suggesting that all people act in their own rational interests 100% of the time is one of the failings of anarcho-capitalism. Thanks for pointing that out pal.”
Well, gee, when you make a claim with no evidence like that, it’s almost seems as if you are right!
When I was 15 I was a semi-interventionist paleoconservative type, who was basically just logically consistent. At the age of 17 is probably about the closest I came to anarcho-capitalism.
“Trent himself says that individuals have the right to personally secede, that is to be free from involuntary taxation and regulation, so long as they do not initiate force against others. He also says that individuals have the right to set up competing services in the fields of defense and dispute adjudication. To me, that makes him an anarcho-capitalist.”
I did not endorse these ideas, I simply admitted that they could exist legitimately on a VERY small scale and in a homogenous society that is fully informed. We have no such society. All of these things are ideologically sound–but realistically unachievable. Competing services in the fields of defense ALREADY exist(although its tied into corporatism) so of course.
Anarcho-capitalism will inevitably lead to either tribalism or dictatorship. So will limited government. But anarcho-capitalism will devolve within days, weeks, or months–rather than decades or centuries.
“Well, it’s a good thing that’s not what I’m suggesting. That would be socialism wouldn’t it? The fact of the matter is that if the billionaire truly valued his money, he wouldn’t do such a thing for fear of reprisal. Aggressive expansion like that has been met with harsh consequences, even in our current system.”
Spence–suggesting that all people act in their own rational interests 100% of the time is one of the failings of anarcho-capitalism. Thanks for pointing that out pal.
“The example of limited government is zilch, zero, nada, and unlike anarcho-capitalism, it has been tried many, many times.”
I dont know about “many many times”–but it has been tried, and gradually failed (or succeeded for a shirt period of time, however you want to view it).
Anarchism has been tried, see Somolia. =)
Maybe you’re catching on, Deran. 🙂
Seriously: Didn’t you criticize McKinney for criticizing the Fed, and then rethink your position a few weeks later?
I find myself agreeing with GE on this, at leat to some extent. Human history, since the time we gathered into large “societies” has always had rebellions against tyranny. And in a few spots along the way, liberty and cooperation have been able to work, for awhile, until the state was able to gather its forces and crush the “temporary autnomous zones.”
And when you look at our primate relatives, we see that they use cooperation to succeed.
Cooperation is a means where “power” is distributed horizontally, instead of vertically.
I meant it expressively in a way that Ross could understand. Yes, of course, that’s the goal in anarcho-capitalist theory, but should the criminals fail to pay fair compensation or undue their injustices, there would surely be other things for them to do.
Not jail per se, but you got it right. If they “presented a serious danger or refused to pay restitution”.
This is why the Greens and Dems have the whole thing backwards. More regulation – more unjust monopolies. You don’t think voluntary donations instead of taxpayer subsidies could fund the same amount of progress, if not more? Then, my friend, you have obviously not seen the true potential of the market. (Can’t say I blame you, either.)
Spence – My understanding is that “jail” would only be used for people who presented a serious danger or who refused to pay restitution. My understanding of anarcho-capitalistic justice is that it’s restitutive in nature, not punishing. But yes, polluting is a criminal act.
What G.E. said. Think about it this way. We still have pollution now don’t we? The laws we have in place excuse a certain amount of pollution as “acceptable” and if they violate this “acceptable” level, we sue them.
No. In an anarcho-capitalist society, you throw them in jail. Pollution is an act of disrespect and carelessness and as such, should be judged as serious crimes. Anything otherwise is a corporate bribe.
As the air and sea are shared by everyone, pollution is an offense against everyone and would be dealt in that manner. More specifically, air or sea pollution threatens the value of your land or other property and thus is not tolerated.
You might be thinking that strong regulation is key to progress, so as to change the market. But all it does is promote more waste. Look at where ethanol subsidies have got us nationally, and at the high emission standards in my state, California.
They, in effect, tip the market to those who can most easily adjust, creating new monopolies, which in turn, generate more waste. Monopolies have no incentive to innovate again, so what happens? The government has to fight deadlock, lobbyists, and other frivolous lawsuits in order to heighten the emission standards AGAIN, so the same thing may repeat. If that’s not a textbook example of insanity, I don’t know what is.
You may be thinking – well, that means a lot of businesses will stop being productive. They require energy sources that do in fact pollute, so it’s impossible to shut down business until that happens.
But in fact, we DO have alternative sources today that do not pollute. Wind, solar, hydrogen, electricity… the problem is giant monopolies, who want to preserve their cash cow oil as long as possible, buy up the small firms as soon as they appear.
Since in an anarcho-capitalist society, there are no monopolies, the firms would flourish, alternative energy would propagate much quicker, and our air would be cleaner.
There are numerous other examples other than energy and production. Think about your water supply and all the tainted pharmaceutical chemicals in it.
Today, we are fortunate enough to have alternatives. But how long is it until the government places regulations on distilled water? Sounds crazy? The same thing was thought before.
If economics is the question of reconciling market choices, then anarcho-capitalism is the best answer.
The market is also under no means to pursue ever-increasing advancements in technology and efficiency if society so wishes. In fact, there may come a time when society has reached its pinnacle under such a system and we no longer rely on competition so much.
However, the above concept rejects too much of current human behavior and thousands of years of ingrained aggression to make a difference. Plain and simple, anarcho-capitalism, with its organic ability to heal through choice, is the most applicable solution.
Ross – What happens now? Nothing. The crooks get away with it. At least in most cases. “Regulations” are in fact PERMISSIONS to pollute.
Under anarcho-capitalism, pollution is aggression, and no one has the right to do it.
Spence – what if what you’re doing affects someone adversely? Say, your power plant creates mercury emissions, which pollute the area around it, and cause a high percentage of the kids born there to have birth defects. What could be done about that in your ideal society?
If I am ever confused about whether to shell out $8.75 for a flick[er] I have critics I can rely upon: some give a positive opinion to my wants and needs and some give a negative review of stuff that I would really like!
If I am confused on politics, I read the San Diego Union Tribune. They have not printed one of my letters to the editor in two decades. They are also up for sale as the owner cruises around France and Spain in his two million dollar boat.
I also read the unworldly lefties of the Daily Worker, [California] Peace and Freedom Partisan [also zero on my letters and articles in two decades], Socialist Worker, or the more reasonable Village Voice.
If the U-T is against some thing, the Gray Davis or the Schwarzenegger recall, it MUST be AOK.
If the Socialist Worker is against some thing, same deal!
Anarcho-capitalism is a way of reconciling the syndicalist/collectivist rejection of the State with free trade. It is the extreme libertarian position.
Basically, this means that you are your own governor. There are no crooked laws that give people an edge over you.
So basically, as an example:
Let’s say you have an acre of land. Not much, but ok. You want to build a house on that land. You may do that, as long as you do not overextend it onto your neighbor’s property.
Okay. What’s next?
Know how City Hall has all those annoying ordinances which prevent you from building subterranean additions or using asbestos, etc (poor reference, but you understand)… well, there’s no such regulation anymore. You can do whatever you like. It’s your property.
Now, in a way that anarcho-capitalism varies from simple libertarianism:
You hire a contractor to build your house. You set up a voluntary agreement on a case by case basis each time you deal with him etc, so you don’t get screwed with a poor job. That agreement, that contract – defines the rules, including how much you’ll pay him, what you want in your house, how he’ll work etc.
If he violates that agreement, he goes against the de facto law. You may then take him to court so that you receive proper restitution for the damage he’s inflicted.
Instead of being coerced to select our slow and corrupt judiciary system, you and him have both already chosen your own court in your contract in the clause that states what you should do in case of a lawsuit.
After that long-winded example, anarcho-capitalism means EVERYTHING that the government provides for you can be done better by the private sector. And because people choose how to govern themselves, they will negotiate the best terms and laws under how to operate in these companies. Since money, and above all, self-interest is the motivating factor (econ 101), companies wouldn’t be biased in to helping only the rich or unions, because they would lose customers.
I’m actually 15 🙂
Spence can give you a more thorough answer if he’s so inclined. I think you and he are the same age and two of the smartest 17-year-olds I’ve ever encountered.
There would be laws and government but not “the state.”
That means that there would be no monopoly on the provision of legislative, executive, and judicial services.
Believe it or not, I think you could get into it. The jury-supremacy aspects are very similar to the “democracy” of the NI4D.
GE – I have a question. What exactly is anarchocapitalism? Does it mean that there would be no laws or government at all?
Trent himself says that individuals have the right to personally secede, that is to be free from involuntary taxation and regulation, so long as they do not initiate force against others. He also says that individuals have the right to set up competing services in the fields of defense and dispute adjudication. To me, that makes him an anarcho-capitalist.
The above makes “the state” a voluntary government, and thus not “the state” at all, which is by definition monopolistic. THE government would be one of several competing voluntary governments. THAT IS anarcho-capitalism, Trent. What are you arguing against? You’re just saying that YOU would prefer to be a member of the current government (why, I can’t fathom), which would be your right so long as you don’t force me to also pay taxes and be regulated by it.
“False. If you are suggesting that there would be no billionaires in an anarcho-capitalist society (which is a ridiculous arguement to begin with), then simply assume that said billionaire is from another part of the world and his wealth was not created in such a society, nor does it depend on said society.”
Well, it’s a good thing that’s not what I’m suggesting. That would be socialism wouldn’t it? The fact of the matter is that if the billionaire truly valued his money, he wouldn’t do such a thing for fear of reprisal. Aggressive expansion like that has been met with harsh consequences, even in our current system.
The example of limited government is zilch, zero, nada, and unlike anarcho-capitalism, it has been tried many, many times.
By the way: Corporate America: Freedom’s greatest threat by Chuck Baldwin
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2008/07/corporate-america-freedoms-greatest-threat/
You get angry because you know that the state is evil and yet you defend it. You say we need to have the state so that billionaire murderers can’t get off (they do now) or so that we can have “corporations” (the state inhibits capital formation) or so that corporations can’t “abuse” their power (they do now).
There is nothing evil and everything good about people working together for profit. If you call that a “corporation,” then fine. But the legal definition is NOT that. It involves the state giving them PERMISSION to confederate and seek profit. And this has always been the case, so much as I know. It certainly was the case in Western societies that had “the state.”
“That insane billionaire concept is inherently flawed because it is limited by the scenario of an anarcho-capitalist society, itself.”
False. If you are suggesting that there would be no billionaires in an anarcho-capitalist society (which is a ridiculous arguement to begin with), then simply assume that said billionaire is from another part of the world and his wealth was not created in such a society, nor does it depend on said society.
Spence – corporate personhood truly complicates the whole anarchism vs. libertarianism vs. socialism etc. argument. It adds in a variable that makes it hard to predict what would happen if “anarcho-capitalism” or something like it were enacted.
GE,
Corporations really existed before governments involved themselves in their affairs, though perhaps they went by other names. A federation of businesses is a corporation.
GE—the “insane billionaire arguement” is a legitimate critique of the anarcho-capitalist system,and one which shouldnt even need to be asked. However, I did not mention it. We’re talking about centralization, or decentralization, of power. Not government power, mind you, but buying and producing power.
I needn’t make arguements against your precious system of anarcho-capitalism. The only living example of anarchist (i.e., an area without government) is Somalia–and they are doing just great,right? Inevitably you will say that they are not based on capitalism, but I believe Rockwell, Block, and you have all said that in the absence of the state, capitalism naturally emerges. The examples of real-live anarcho-capitalism are zilch, zero, nada. Midieval Iceland, as i’ve previously shown, was not an anarcho-capitalist system, as Rothbard tried to claim. The native americans were not, none of them. The peaceful civilizations in pre-dark age Scotland and Ireland were not either. In point of fact, all of these examples point to tribalism or minarchism.
That insane billionaire concept is inherently flawed because it is limited by the scenario of an anarcho-capitalist society, itself.
Trent – Maybe you should get a legal dictionary and look up the word “corporation.” BY DEFINITION they could not exist in a stateless society.
Capital formation would not only be possible in a stateless society, but MUCH EASIER. Do you know how many laws prohibiting capital formation the state imposes in supposedly capitalist USA? Have you ever started a corporation? I have.
Without the state bestowing the privilege, free-market “corporations” would not be allowed to initiate force. If they did initiate force, they’d be subject to penalty. I’m not going down this road with you again — you’re going to eventually make the insane billionaire argument. It’s boring.
You see, corporations have a unique status in these United States- one called national person status. This means that as a person, they are entitled to the same basic rights a person is, making them immune to complete insolvency.
Libertarians don’t endorse the monolithic fascist culture of state-granted monopolies and omnipresent corporations. They are more often than not in the Jeffersonian vein, preferring regional identity and localized culture. As long as this does not transfer into sectionalism and then back into collectivism.
Trent, what you’re missing is that governments are these monolithic corporations. Microsoft could buy out all the entire state of Washington, but what would it really change?
Governments, as “legally immune” monopolies, are just a halfstep above corporate rule. You can’t shop around, and thus there is no incentive to provide for you. The safety net is the problem.
GE,
Are you saying that corporations cannot exist outside of governance? I’d say thats an admittance of the limits of the freemarket. Please–you are better than that.
“The power to be concerned with is the power to abuse. No such power would exist in a free market.”
ahahaha, hahahahahaha, ahahaha. Right,hah. Whew. You are always good for a laugh GE. The free-market will lead to just as many large corporations as our current system,possibly more. The free market does very little to dispel the power of the individual, or of the successful business–and it shouldnt.
How can a corporation not be entwined with government? Who gives it its corporate charter?
The power to be concerned with is the power to abuse. No such power would exist in a free market.
I’m certainly for voluntary confederations of individuals forming business ventures. If you call that a corporation, then fine. But this kind of “corporation” is not a whole lot like what we have today.
When I say “real” I mean to differentiate between the Statoites and tReasonistas, etc.
How is it that “real” libertarian capitalists are against corporate power? In true Randian fashion, I’v seen Libertarians suggest that corporations are the closest thing to God, that they are wholly benevolent–when not intertwined with government that is.
Deran – While people like me are not going to adopt Nader’s ideas, there are people in the Ron Paul movement who are not hardcore libertarian capitalists, and Nader could “convert” them. Bob Barr could have theoretically converted them to libertarianism, but that won’t happen now.
I respect Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin for WANTING my vote. Barr doesn’t want my vote.
I will vote for Nader not because he’s reaching me with “his ideas,” but because many of his ideas are my ideas, and where we disagree, the GOP/Dems are either almost as bad or worse. What socialists like you don’t understand is that libertarian capitalists — the real deal — are against corporate power, too. We’re just against the monopoly state even more (and against the monopoly state aggressing against private business).
I think it makes sense for the SWpies, lead by the Eternal Leader, Fred Barnes (who some say is a CIA or FBI plant himself), to oppose Nader and McKinney reaching out to a broader audience with their ideas. It’s served Nader well; looks to me like Nader may well pick up more of the libertarian capitalist vote than Barr!!
Check out this vid. Jesse Ventura discusses being questioned by the CIA while governor of MN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me5fMLWPfcw
This sort of thing is part to do with the distrust of Bob Barr. As Barr is ex-CIA, many think he may be a “plant”.
For those interested in the 3rd party press conference, it can be seen in several parts here: http://www.youtube.com/campaignforliberty
To bad they didn’t skip out. Then it would have been a defacto endorsement of Baldwin.
I don’t think someone could call themselves a “Starchild” supporter and be a Barr supporter.
Just a guess.
Wow Brian,
All I asked was if you were a backer of Barr…but I guess I can respond to your exceedingly long diatribe. Congratz on the platform committee win, by the way. Im not an LPer and dont have a dog in the fight of radicals vs. reformers—but I admire the Reformer’s organizational skills.
I do not blame you for backing who you did. Im not a fan of Phillies because of his position on the Fed, but I can see your reasons. To be fair, I would’ve voted for Barr over Ruwart too.
On to the meat of the reply. Apparently you think I called you “pro-war”—I never did. I have heard some imply that you are though. As for “nuance” and foreign policy–I am a committed non-interventionist of the Ron Paul-variety.
Trent, it will take more than what Barr has done so far to have me not vote Libertarian in this fall’s presidential election. Of the 2008 contenders, I think Phillies makes the best impression on the smartest people in an audience, and so I voted for him on every first ballot — in the California primary, at the LPCA convention, and in Denver. After the first ballot in Denver I switched to Root, because Phillies had no chance and Root was best at pitching the Libertarian brand (as neither Left nor Right) to a general audience. After Root dropped out, I had to choose between Barr and what would have been the first (except perhaps for Bergland) openly anarchist LP nominee — which would have been fine except she was campaigning on being “fully attuned to the Libertarian philosophy” and said she will “take the party in the direction we want to go” and “really explain to the American people what we truly are all about”. We all know what that explanation turned out to be.
I voted for Root in spite of his simplistic and wavering views on foreign policy, not because of those views, as Steve Meier wants so desperately to believe. To find an LP leader whose foreign policy views resonate with mine, you have to bypass all the presidential contenders, all the members of LNC and PlatCom, and reach all the way down to Starchild, vice-chair of the San Francisco LP. Unfortunately, the LP is not institutionally capable of even confronting such nuanced views, let alone adopting them. Thus I never let foreign policy determine my vote in LP-internal elections, and didn’t argue it at all on PlatCom. Not worth it. But it’s stilly funny to occasionally get called names like “pro-war” by people whose thinking on foreign policy consists mostly of spinal reflexes.
This is funny. So there are political snobs on both the left and the right who are complaining that Ron Paul did what he did to actually get people to look at the alternatives. Pathetic.
I am sure the fascists behind the scenes are very happy with everyone’s attitude about this effort and ones like it. Which in my opinion are the only thing that are going to save our country.
Steve,
I think we can’t rule out election integrity issues. I did not study Iowa much, but I did keep up with the NH primary and its recounts. There was monkey business left and right.
For all we know, Ron Paul would have won Iowa and NH in honest elections, but we’ll never know. And we’ll never have election results that we can trust as accurate until we seriously change the current system.
Diebold has changed their name due to all of the bad publicity, yet many states are still using their machines or ones like them.
We’ll see what happens. Don’t be surprised if the results of the presidential race are the infamous 51% to 49% that is so common these days, in one or more of the key states. But, it won’t matter much as McBama are pretty much the same thing anyway.
I’m sure it was an accident on the part of Richard Winger but the publication the Socialist Worker is the organ of the International Socialist Organization not the Independent Socialist Organization
I normally just read IPR and don’t jump in the discussions, in part because I don’t have the time for rational debate and in part because those who support my party’s nominee aren’t the most welcome.
But I will comment on the Iowa Ron Paul campaign. The immigration focus probably did help us push up against 10% in that crowded field. After Tancredo’s last minute drop out, most of his supporters including some of his leadership came to us. As for “having the votes and failing on GOTV” that’s pretty questionable. I did GOTV calling on caucus day off of outdated lists that were about 50% Paul voters. I was told the raw list had 22,000 or so names, more that Huckabee’s, but that number shrunk fast after I scratched off all the people I had previously verified were not supporters. We hoped for third and a strong third was a realistic expectation we just got swamped by the record high turnout. Not a bad result in the end – 10%, just shy of 3rd, domination of the state platform committe, 8 delegates/alternates to RNC.
The only way to have done better would have been for the campaign to realize sooner that our competition was not Huckabee or Tancredo but O-bomb’em. Maybe if we’d hit the colleges harder, it might have been different but hindsight is 20/20.
Got it @ G. E.
Thanks
Richard, do you know which happened first — the founding of the Socialist Worker or of the Socialist Workers Party?
plc1 – Please note that the author of the blog entry and the author of the article are not one in the same.
Wow, many of you, including the writer are a bit shy on the facts.
First off, Ron Paul has the kind of support that Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, and Barr can only dream of. And they are all continually vying for Ron Paul’s supporters. They WANT to be seen with Ron Paul in that hope. So you have it “bass-akwards”. Most people are saying that it hurt Ron Paul’s credibility being seen with Ralph Nader. The others are so much less known to many, that they don’t matter to them either way. I don’t feel that way, because I understand what they are all trying to do, and respect all of them, except Bob Barr. More on Barr below…
The point of their coming together is to show that the majority of Americans are unhappy with the “Republicrats” and that we should all come together on the fundamental issues that we agree on, not be divided and conquered (as we always have been in the past) by the issues that we don’t agree on. The issues they came together on included the hold that the two party system has on the country, the economy/monetary policy, privacy and other rights issues and the wars. These important issues are hardly even touched on by McBama.
About Bob Barr. He had agreed to be at the press conference. Barr also approached Ron Paul some time directly prior, asking him to accept the position as vice presidential running mate with him on the Libertarian ticket. Barr’s VP, WA Root wrote Ron Paul a letter asking him to take over the position, saying he would gladly step aside for Ron Paul, and continue to help the campaign any way he could. Ron Paul turned down the offer. It was after this that Barr reneged on his agreement to appear with the other candidates at the conference, and latter a member of his campaign issued a statement slamming Ron Paul. This also seemed to be a childish reaction to Ron Paul turning down the VP position with Barr.
Barr had been getting quite a bit of support from many Ron Paul supporters, but this immediately dropped off. Now there is a petition going around to have the Libertarian party remove Barr from the ticket.
Of course many of us Ron Paul supporters were always suspect of Bob Barr. He is ex-CIA, ex-IRS, ex-pro war on drugs, ex-pro Patriot Act, and more. You get the point. He claims to have done a 180 on all of these things. His past does raise serious concern.
But never mind Barr. We should all try to come together on the important issues to buck the horrible two party system that has gotten us into the messes we are in.
Personally I think of Paul, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin as a kind of powerhouse super-group. None of them are perfect, but they all bring strengths to the table that this country is in serious need of. Strengths that would be needed in combination to challenge the “Republicrats”.
If I had to guess Brian H. would be a suporter of Wayne Allyn Roots and the pro war faction. Is Barr pro Iraq occupation?
Holtz,
Arent you a backer of Bob “thank God for Jesse Helms” Barr?
G.E. wrote that Ron Paul’s “advertising portrayed him as a hardcore right-wing xenophobe”. Very true.
The GOP run was DOA and I say that as a diehard Paulian.
The single issue for the GOP was the warfare state. Period. He was never going to win Iowa and even if the votes didn’t turnout he was not going to beat Huck or Romney their. I also thought that NH was a poor bet for Paul very early on.
Paul’s best hope was to fracture the GOP and to build a left-right coalition over his opposition to the war, while appealing to the populist base of the GOP that was fed up with managed trade agreements and immigration. Even then I don’t think he could have won the nomination, but he would have done better had he been able to pull that off.
doh! “that is”, not “that it”.
If you’re referring to his campaign for president, that it. If you mean his campaign for the GOP nomination, then I defer to your opinion on why it died.
The thing that killed Paul’s campaign was that he wasn’t willing to continue his candidacy beyond the GOP.
I don’t think so, Dylan. Paul ran on a libertarian platform and made libertarian anti-war statements. And yet, his advertising portrayed him as a hardcore right-wing xenophobe. I think that voting bloc was gobbled up by Tom Tancredo, and most of the xenophobes are pro-war. Paul should have stuck to his spoken rhetoric and not emphasized immigration in his ads.
You know, they thought Paul was going to WIN Iowa? They really did. They allegedly had the votes to do it, but failed in the GOTV effort.
The thing that killed Paul’s campaign was the poor showing in NH, which would not have happened had he done better in Iowa.
GE,
Regardless of your opinion on immigration, I think the opposite is true. Paul was hurt in the GOP primaries because he was not seen as an immigration hawk and was in fact viewed as a “liberal” by the talking head media that thinks conservative is a synonym for warmonger.
GE,
Regardless of your opinion on immigration, I think the opposite is true. Paul was hurt in the GOP primaries because he was not seen as an immigration hawk and was in fact viewed as a “liberal” by the talking head media that thinks conservative is a synonym for warmonger.
The publication Socialist Worker is the organ of the Independent Socialist Organization, which is not a political party. It wasn’t very polite of the ISO to name its newspaper the “Socialist Worker”, since that sort of enfringes on the name of the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP’s weekly publication is “The Militant.”
Legitimate criticism in that article:
In addition to the ads being disgusting, they failed miserably.