In case you haven’t heard, Ron Paul announced today he will not seek another term in Congress. Does this make it more likely he will seek the Presidency as an independent or with a third party if he fails to get the Republican nomination? Our friend Sean Scallon thinks so.
Today’s big campaign news is Ron Paul’s announcement he will retire from Congress and go back if things don’t work out on the Presidential campaign trial. It’s another indication this is a serious bid for the White House, not an educational campaign.
That being said, it does open the possibility, however unlikely, a third party could spring forth from his campaign. I say “party” rather than “bid” because there no reason to go this route unless it is an effort to create another major party, on the ballot in all 50 states, not just another spoiler, sore-loser campaign which would be a waste of time and money and serve no ultimate purpose both historically and for the long-run.
People say all the time they want another political party to choose from. But the question still remains do they really mean it and is there a cultural base to such a party which make people vote for it automatically? That’s what a major party is. I do believe the Ron Paul movement does have those characteristics and possibilities worthy enough to be explored and could take from both parties, not just one.
Bob,
Once again, I addressed a VERY narrow issue of metaphysics, and why it is axiomatic and irrefutable that existence exists.
You’re addressing broader questions that get way over into epistemology. I have my own opinions there, and some of them are surprisingly like yours, but my point was not to discuss them, it was to defend the particular axiom of metaphysics which George seems to have some kind of complaint about.
Tk: In order for there to be a question, there has to be some entity to ask it and some entity to ask it of (they could be the same entity). If that entity or those entities exist, then there are in fact existents, and therefore there is in fact existence.
Me: We’re talking past one another. It’s my view that there is only ONE thing I can know: I have consciousness. That’s it. Questions that I seem to ask have no PROVABLE existence, nor does the source of the questions. Everything has to come back to: I am. Everything else is open to interpretation, which is often distorted by imperfect perception. It may be your OPINION that questions and questioners have existence, and you may have convinced yourself that your opinions are “correct,” as your Matrix programming may be especially convincing to YOUR consciousness. As a radical, I’m skeptical.
Tk: I don’t. My perceptions could be entirely incorrect as regards the nature of reality, but that doesn’t change the fact that in order for there to be a me to perceive anything, correctly or incorrectly, I (and therefore reality) must exist.
Me: Yes. You (i.e., your consciousness) must exist. Your “reality” beyond “you” is open to questioning.
TK: Yes, it is [an opnion]. But it’s a correct one — because in order for an opinion to exist, some entity to hold and express said opinion must exist.
Me: Yes, you exist. Yes, you seem to have opinions and perceptions. Yes, your perceptions seem real to you. They aren’t, at least not irrefutably true. They can be questioned to the source, and there you cannot “prove” much of anything.
Tk: If Newtonian physics had its place, then Newtonian physics existed.
Me: So sorry, but no. Here in the Matrix, discussing things in Newtonian terms may facilitate some level of understanding, but Newton just seemed to have some ideas that seemed to work most of the time. You and I may well agree that the sky is blue in time and space, but there is no unassailable proof that there’s a you or I or a sky or blue. There is only I AM.
Bob @ 152,
You write:
” I understand that you perceive that you ‘noticed’something. You may well ‘believe’ it. But that’s not the question. The question is how do you KNOW what you perceive is ‘reality?'”
OK, so the question has suddenly changed to something completely different?
Back to the actual original question, as opposed to your fork of it: In order for there to be a question, there has to be some entity to ask it and some entity to ask it of (they could be the same entity). If that entity or those entities exist, then there are in fact existents, and therefore there is in fact existence.
Now to your question:
Q: How do I know that what I perceive is reality?
A: I don’t. My perceptions could be entirely incorrect as regards the nature of reality, but that doesn’t change the fact that in order for there to be a me to perceive anything, correctly or incorrectly, I (and therefore reality) must exist.
“150 tk: Existence is an axiom precisely because it can’t be explicitly questioned without b[e]ing implicitly acknowledged. I can’t question anything — unless I exist.
Me: That’s an opinion.”
Yes, it is. But it’s a correct one — because in order for an opinion to exist, some entity to hold and express said opinion must exist.
“One can ask the question,’Who am I?’ If I answer, ‘I am Bob,’ I can then challenge that – radically – by asking, ‘Is that true? How do I know that is true?’ So, yes, in that sense, something seems to exist, else it could not ask a question. But that’s about all one can conclude.”
Yes, it is about all one could conclude. And it’s also exactly all I stated one could conclude. I was addressing one axiom of metaphysics, not other axioms of metaphysics, nor epistemological claims.
“Consider the possibility that you’ve leaped to a conclusion here. I didn’t suggest that ‘nothing exists.’ I simply questioned it.”
Right. And by questioning it, you answered the question.
“I’m not a physicist, but from what I understand of it, your apparent impressions are, oh, nearly a century out of date. Newtonian physics may have its place, but relativity and quantum physics are revealing things about the ‘physical universe’ that is mindblowing.”
If Newtonian physics had its place, then Newtonian physics existed.
If relativity and quantum physics are revealing things about something, then both they and that thing exist.
rm, epistemology is always relevant, as the theory of knowledge under-girds all communication.
It’s different than self promotion.
The definition of milnesanity is saying the same thing over and over and over and over and…expecting a different result?
148 tk: I know by noticing that you asked the question, which you couldn’t have done if you, and therefore existence, didn’t exist.
Me: I understand that you perceive that you “noticed” something. You may well “believe” it. But that’s not the question. The question is how do you KNOW what you perceive is “reality”?
150 tk: Existence is an axiom precisely because it can’t be explicitly questioned without b[e]ing implicitly acknowledged. I can’t question anything — unless I exist.
Me: That’s an opinion. One can ask the question, “Who am I?” If I answer, “I am Bob,” I can then challenge that – radically – by asking, “Is that true? How do I know that is true?” So, yes, in that sense, something seems to exist, else it could not ask a question. But that’s about all one can conclude. “Dude.” “Transplanted from NY Virginian.” “Middle aged.” All these qualities are contrived labels. None are “provable.” All are fiction. There is “evidence” of these things, but they are not “true” unless the mind believes them to be true. Radically testing these assumptions to the root finds non-answers, only serviceable approximations based on imperfect perception.
151 jt: Right. Further, if nothing exists, then there isn’t even an existence to doubt, and there’s nobody to even address the question to. If a person asks how one can know that there’s something and not simply nothing, it’s probably a good idea to treat that person like he or she doesn’t exist.
Me: Consider the possibility that you’ve leaped to a conclusion here. I didn’t suggest that “nothing exists.” I simply questioned it. Stop being defensive! But, yes, absolutely. Treat people with respect. Yet another massive confusion on both Rand and Rothbard’s part. Read their stuff, and the flow of condemnation and judgment is bracing, and, I’d suggest deeply dysfunctional. IMO.
152 jt: Phillies, a physicist who thinks it makes any sense to question that there’s a physical universe is too ridiculous to even contemplate.
Me: I’m not a physicist, but from what I understand of it, your apparent impressions are, oh, nearly a century out of date. Newtonian physics may have its place, but relativity and quantum physics are revealing things about the “physical universe” that is mindblowing. Of course, scientists once based the view that the earth is flat and the sun circles the earth, too. And, yes, one can see why they thought so. Limited perception leads to false conclusions. Just because your eyes “see” something and your mind “interprets” what it sees does not make it true. It only makes it true for you in that moment. Is it possible that what you see and interpret are not reality? A closed mind says no, not possible. A closed mind can’t be a radical mind, because a radical mind questions.
Phillies, a physicist who thinks it makes any sense to question that there’s a physical universe is too ridiculous to even contemplate.
Capozzi: ““You know, ‘existence exists.’ Oh? How do you know?””
Knapp: “I know by noticing that you asked the question, which you couldn’t have done if you, and therefore existence, didn’t exist.”
Right. Further, if nothing exists, then there isn’t even an existence to doubt, and there’s nobody to even address the question to.
If a person asks how one can know that there’s something and not simply nothing, it’s probably a good idea to treat that person like he or she doesn’t exist.
George @ 149,
Concluding that it’s a keyboard error doesn’t call the existence of existence into question. The keyboard, the error, and the user of the keyboard/maker of the error don’t exist unless existence does.
Existence is an axiom precisely because it can’t be explicitly questioned without bing implicitly acknowledged. I can’t question anything — unless I exist.
Why do you suppose this is not a keyboard input error?
RC @145,
“You know, ‘existence exists.’ Oh? How do you know?”
I know by noticing that you asked the question, which you couldn’t have done if you, and therefore existence, didn’t exist.
Edited; debate on debate parameters belongs in the debate on debate parameters open thread.
145 jc, please expand, for this stream of thought has me puzzled.
RP stayed in the race until quite late in 08. He might do better in 12 and again stay in quite late, but this time to make it “interesting.” But you acknowledge he can’t get the nomination.
I’m not seeing why you find this a better outcome than a RP bolt to the LP/CP/BTP/Ind. to continue the campaign until Nov. Help us understand….
I hope Ron Paul wins the GOP nom just so we won’t have to worry about any of this LP/CP/Ind speculation. It won’t happen, though. Maybe he can manage a little stronger 3rd place than he did last time and keep things interesting long enough to take it off the table.
143 jt: I’m saying there’s no significant harm to health from air pollution in the United States today …
me: You may not recall the days of leaded gas. The regulatory approach — which I don’t support — was effective in largely mitigating the stench of leaded gas that US cities used to be choked with. Smog remains a significant challenge in many places. But you still sidestep my point with collectivist judgments…YOU believe there are no “significant” health risks in a setup where anyone can dump toxins and particulates in the air, which is unowned.
jt: Why is “global climate change” a better shorthand than “global warming”?
me: My understanding is that Algoreans believe that man-made co2 effluents are leading to climate shifts, not an even global warming. This is triggering a variety of secondary and tertiary effects, like floods, hurricanes, polar ice melts, etc. I’m skeptical, but the term global climate change is more accurate in my estimation.
jt: That’s like using the label “isolationist” to describe people who are against foreign militarism but favor peaceful relations internationally. That’s dishonest.
me: Dishonest is one description. Using the language as it evolves is another. Good example you bring up, since “non-interventionist” was coined to avoid the stigma of “isolationist.” I’m using Antigorean until a better term comes along. Obviously, I’m not the best exponent for either the deniers/Antigoreans or the alarmists/Algoreans, since I remain a skeptic of both views. Deniers and alarmists are, I agree, both pejorative.
I’m disappointed that you seem to think I have a problem with logic, btw. Logic is a wonderful tool. Logic requires accurate premises, however, and some Randians and Rothbardians often seem to play fast and loose with premises and axioms.
You know, “existence exists”. Oh? How do you know? 😉
109 jt: I’m taking into account fossil fuel emissions. It’s your assumption that emissions from cars and such are significantly harmful and benefits of carbon-based energy don’t overwhelmingly outweigh costs. I disagree.
Capozzi: “By your logic, it would be more “efficient” to execute all those who are arrested of felonies, rather than have the “expense” of courts and prisons.”
First, I’ve never known you to be constrained by logic. Second, no. I’m saying there’s no significant harm to health from air pollution in the United States today (barring a disaster such as occurred at ground zero on 9/11), and that carbon-based energy is vital for economic well-being and has contributed to higher living standards for the entire population.
Capozzi: “As a L, I believe in maximizing individual rights,”
What?! Don’t you know that “L” doesn’t have a specific meaning like that?
Capozzi: “Surely you know that technological innovation tends to respond to market signals or legal evolution. If spewing is dissuaded by law, market players will adjust to build economies of scale of things like Tesla-type technologies into the mass consumption marketplace.”
I wouldn’t say human beings “spew” carbon dioxide, but perhaps you would. I also like your loaded term “dissuaded.” Reminds me of the book “Nudge” by Thaler and Sunstein, who argue for a paternalistic government that just gently pushes people to make better choices.
In any event, if they were viable, alternative energy sources would already be gobbling up market share (they’ve certainly received a lot of government subsidies). They aren’t.
Capozzi: “Horse-drawn buggies once seemed “efficient,” too, but smelling horseshit was a widespread but unquantifiable negative externality once, too!”
Exactly my point. Horse-drawn buggies were efficient compared to walking everywhere. Then cars were developed and horse-drawn buggies were replaced. The government didn’t need to “dissuade” people from riding in horse-drawn buggies that “spewed” horseshit.
Capozzi: “And, btw, the term is now “global climate change,” as the label “global warming” proved to be a poor shorthand.”
Why is “global climate change” a better shorthand than “global warming”? Global warming is shorter and has widespread recognition.
Capozzi: “Maybe I should set up a macro of MMGCCDer to assuage your umbrage!”
My umbrage is against someone who uses misleading, loaded labels to describe other people–no matter how popular it is. That’s like using the label “isolationist” to describe people who are against foreign militarism but favor peaceful relations internationally. That’s dishonest.
@141 RC you can remain “a skeptic with ambivalence about both views” only so long. You will PAY the tax or there will be people with guns who will eventually come to your door to collect.
We don’t require (FORCE) you to comply with your cash or your freedom. We want truth to prevail and for everyone to KEEP their cash and freedom !!
RESIST NOW, while there is some room to resist !!!
*** ^ ***
Environment – We (the members of the Libertarian Party) support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior. – http://www.lp.org/
Energy and Resources – While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We (the members of the Libertarian Party) oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production. – http://www.lp.org/
Who’s the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed “none of the above,” you’d be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn’t even clean up its own garbage! In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals — enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity. – http://www.lp.org/
The environment would benefit immensely from the elimination of sovereign immunity coupled with the privatization of “land and beast.” The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative. – http://www.lp.org/
* * * \ / * * *
First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I’m not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I’m not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I’m not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me. – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)
When they come for you, then WHAT !?! RESIST NOW while you still can resist PEACEFULLY !!!
140 D: It’s also dishonest, because most listeners are not consciously aware of why they’re hostile toward “deniers” of global warming.
me: I agree it COULD be “dishonest,” but it isn’t always. Until now, there was no alternative label, only long strings of words. We now have “Antigoreans” until a better one comes along.
In my case, I’ve used “deniers” as a convenience, not because I’m hostile to Antigoreans. In fact, I’m a skeptic with ambivalence about both views.
Re 138 …
Historically, the term “denier” has long (and most often) been used to refer to those who deny the Holocaust.
Thus, the term “denier” has come to mean (even if only subconsciously) someone who denies any historical truth.
Calling someone a “denier” implies that it’s a “given” that the thing denied is true.
For this reason, the term “denier” has a negative emotional impact on listeners, even if they aren’t consciously aware of why they feel hostile toward “deniers” global warming.
So yes, it’s an insult to call someone a “denier.”
It’s also dishonest, because most listeners are not consciously aware of why they’re hostile toward “deniers” of global warming.
sc, you’re catching up to that thread. I agree. I’ve suggested Algorean and Antigorean. I’m a skeptic myself, stuck in the middle with clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right… 😉
And I’ve made the same point about “pro-life/anti-abortion.” The onus was on that school of thought to popularize a label to take the sting off their view.
Robert Capozzi @62 wrote,
“Denier” in this case is shorthand for “deny the theory that CO2 emissions are causing global climate change.”
If you have a catchier, short label that captures that view, I encourage you to popularize it.
How about “correct”? 🙂
I think the phrase “denier” was popularized in a bid to undermine skeptics of anthropogenic global warming theory, since it is believed by many that to be “anti-” something puts you at more of a disadvantage in PR terms than to be “pro-” something. Same reason opponents of abortion generally prefer to go by “pro-life” rather than “anti-abortion”.
I suggest that a fairer and more neutral, not to mention more accurate set of terms would be to refer to AGW theory supporters and natural climate change theory supporters.
135 dwp, fair point, thanks for your volunteering that. I take your answer to be that you would have to seriously consider RP as the BTP candidate.
I suspect the LP would, too, and I would lay big odds that the CP would, too.
My support of Paul/Johnson is conditioned on the public answer to the NewsletterGate question. I would not support it if the answer remains “I don’t know.” I didn’t like Johnson’s answer on Gitmo, either, but I’d like to hear more than his awkward soundbite. But I didn’t see Johnson’s position rising/falling to the level that NewsletterGate did.
plas spam removed
@133 – the BTP nominee will be chosen in December of 2011 – anyone wishing to seek the nomination after that date is out of luck.
I can guess that you will ask: what if the BTP nominee wanted to step down to hand the nomination to RP?
That mythical bridge will be crossed if it is ever reached.
@133, good question.
dwp, if in say 3/12, RP came to you and said he was going to bolt the RS and he wanted to run in the general election on the BTP line, what would you say?
@131 – I believe Milnes is referring to the fact that I will not involve myself in Ron Paul 2012,not that I was involved in the ’08 campaign.
129 dwp: …I campaigned for [Paul] in 2007/2008.
130 rm: I personally hope & believe & take that as a non-endorsement of Ron Paul.
me: [Scratching head…]
Yes, I remember you saying that. Good man.
I personally hope & believe & take that as a non-endorsement of Ron Paul. Because if he were a demi-God to you, you would make an exception for him.
You have some immunity to Ron Paul disease, thank God.
I like Ron Paul as a person and as a Congressman, most people may recall that I campaigned for him in 2007/2008.
I recently wrote “I will not discourage anyone from campaigning for Ron Paul or any other candidate seeking any party’s nomination. That being said, instead I will focus my energy on building the Boston Tea Party, ensuring the party nominates the best candidate possible and obtaining ballot access in as many states as possible.”
http://www.freepatriot-press.com/2011/05/presidential-race-is-on.html
There are a few issues on which I disagree with Johnson: Gitmo & immigration being the most obvious. When Johnson spoke at PorcFest 2010, I was the first to “boo” when he said something positive about Jan Brewer.
@125, let’s ask him.
Perry, what do you think of Paul/Johnson?
Bob Milnes @ #124- And your response to my original assertion was still not a response. Were you simply rationalizing why it is okay for you to be uncivil to Carl? My point is that a careless word or a not so well thought out post can be very damaging. I have been unkind in my remarks to you in the past and I have always apologized. I really believe in disagreeing without being disagreeable. Believe it or not I’m just trying to help.
Milnes: “You screw with me for years. Like poking a dog with a stick.”
So you’re the dog? Well, you know what they say about laying down with dogs and getting fleas.
Rm, I would not presume to speak for BTP, but my sense is that that some in that tiny, merry band might relish Paul/Johnson. Perry might, for ex.
I simply don’t agree with your characterization of RP.
NF, Carl & I exchanged many email back in the day. 2008. Then he kind of disappeared. At least went off my radar.
Now he’s back with the same start a new upper left party stuff? He sounds a lot like Cavlan-& I did mention Milsted to Cavlan.
Milsted is a genius & I have said so many times. But he created a political Frankenstein-the LRC, & can’t understand why it is a monster. It opens the floodgates for the rightists to ruin the LP, which it has.
But I’ll repeat here what I said to both of them. The new upper left party will fail. Because it is tragically flawed. TR tried & failed. So whether he(Carl) or Cavlan realize it, they are talking about retrying the Progressive Party.
Try all you want. It will fail. It is one of the great tragedies of history.
RC, you just don’t get it. We need to show RP the retirement home, not give away the store to the counterrevolutionary chameleon.
The BTP ballot line? Are you crazy? They are rads alienated from the LP. Trying to find their own identity & destiny. & you want Ron Paul, piece of shit, have it handed to him?
ARE you crazy?
Bob Milnes @ #116- I encourage you to re-read your post. You welcome Carl back to IPR and then insult him? Now just why do you think you aren’t getting any support?
more…
I get the distinct sense that Paul is interested in leaving a legacy. An independent-only run is very much like John Anderson 80…nothing came of it.
While C4L is somewhat of a legacy, it’s very difficult to be consequential without an actual electoral operation. Exhibit A: Paul himself. If he were “just” an “doctor/activist,” he’d be one of thousands. As a MC, he’s — well — Ron Paul.
My concern is he might not resist the impulse to impose his brand of L-ism on the rest of us. Choosing Johnson — who’s pro-choice, as I recall — would go a long way to signal that he doesn’t dis those of us who don’t lean paleo.
And, if he gets on MTP, I trust he learned that presidential politics is not a good place to discuss Civil War revisionism! Bat those questions away! Don’t take the bait!
114 cm, nice to see you here. I’m no expert in ballot access, but I do wonder whether there are enough Paulistas in each of the 50 states to accomplish ballot access quickly. I’d like to see the details and distribution of how Paul as an independent would quickly get on the ballot.
The good news is that IF he wanted to run, he already knows all about the LP’s deep dysfunctions. The even better news is that he tends to unite most Ls coming from the various sub-schools of thought. Heck, even Phillies — generally an outspoken Paul critic — sees that Paul’s first ad is a home run.
I’ve been quite outspoken in Paul’s handling of NewsletterGate and all it represents. Despite feeling burned a bit in 08, I’d like to see Paul/Johnson on the LP line. I might even like to see them on the CP or even BTP line (if they have any). Indeed, in Knapp’s brilliance, the BTP’s streamlined structure has a lot of benefits. Maybe they could even drop the “Boston.” BTP was WAY ahead of its time!
Of course, Paul/Johnson could create a new (call it) Liberty Party that picks the barnacles off what the LP should be, cleanses the absolutism (Paul’s a relativist), repurposes the liberty impulse away from macho flash to edgy positioning.
Lots of speculation, admittedly. But a vision is forming that’s compelling.
Ron Paul cannot win, thank God.
But he has & can again, mess things up for the rest of us.
As long as 72% of libertarians support him & send him 35 million $.
Everybody, stop supporting The Pauls!
@112, “Funny that Milnes keeps bringing me up…”.
No paulie, you fat ass, it’s just the opposite of funny.
You screw with me for years. Like poking a dog with a stick. & you are surprised that I started to snarl? & I continue whether you are on a leave of absence or whatever.
I’m sick & tired of you lols. You ain’t funny any more you lousy prick.
You use the word stalk cavalierly referring to Deborah. You know very little about that. That word was never used, not even by the bastards at FBI. Yet you use it like you know what you are talking about.
You are by far the worst offender at IPR. & you have the nerve to edit MY thoughtful comments?
Screw you paulie.
@115, George, when are you going to join me in denouncing Ron Paul, counterrevolutionary?
@114, hey Carl. Haven’t seen you here in a while. How have you been?
Still trying to start a new upper left party?
Not gonna happen.
TR failed. What makes you think you would succeed?
Better to make use of the existing parties.
On topic to the thread. The Paul campaign has released an ad on the debt issue. It does not talk about the Central bank, returning to the gold standard, or he like.
It’s quite well done:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/171443-ron-paul-to-run-ads-criticizing-gop-on-debt-ceiling-compromise
(not saying what I think of the message, but it will tend to box Paul’s opponents).
Mega dittos to Thomas Knapp’s comment 111!
Some difficulty in ballot access can help a third party because it lends credibility to those which get over the hump.
As for Ron Paul, he has enough screaming fans that his campaign would not need to send people out with clipboards in front of the grocery store.
111 tk: That doesn’t mean Paul might not see advantages in running under the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party banner, but I think ballot access is overrated as “something a party can deliver that a candidate needs.”
me: Que sera, of course. But I suspect the premium of existing ballot access goes up the later a campaign starts. IOW, if Paul bolted today he’d have a less challenging time assembling a nationwide independent ballot effort. If he did it next May, the challenge goes up significantly.
Knapp quoting Milnes,
I don’t offer anything like unqualified support to Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, although I find them to be better than the other contenders for their party’s nomination, and (more importantly) find that networking with their rank and file supporters leads me to find many people who agree with me on many issues.
I have not supported Wayne Root for President, Vice President or LNC Chair. Generally speaking, we are on different “sides” of the LP. I’m not sure where the idea that I “support” Root comes from, but then again that’s Milnes talking.
Funny that Milnes keeps bringing me up, when I barely ever even read IPR in the last few months.
Which is too bad, because there are lots of things I’d like to talk about, including this thread. Unfortunately, my internet time/access is very limited right now.
I only read the comment I am responding to because it listed me by name.
When people talk about ballot access, they usually treat lack of it as a handicap, and a party’s possession of it as an asset for a prospective candidate.
I think the opposite may be true, at least with respect to “viability” in the form of vote totals and potential victory.
First of all, yes, ballot access is an expensive hurdle to get over — but the candidate who can’t do it isn’t viable in a presidential election anyway.
The winning candidates are spending hundreds of millions per election these days. If you can’t raise that kind of money, you can’t compete with them. Which means if you can’t raise a few million or tens of millions to get on the ballot, you’re already admitting your campaign staffers need not look into DC apartment rentals and start scrubbing their records clean for security clearance checks in anticipation of January 20, 2013.
Secondly, a good ballot access effort can be part of the campaign’s cachet. It can energize activists and bring in contributions before the election and votes on election day.
People who sign a ballot access petition are probably far more likely to vote for the candidate.
People who see the petitions being circulated, or even just hear that a successful campaign was mounted to get a candidate on the ballot, probably take that candidate more seriously than a candidate who just flopped down on an existing ballot line that always loses.
Prospective contributors probably contribute earlier, and contribute more, if they know it’s needed for ballot access and trust the candidate/campaign to get the ballot access job done.
Finally, even third parties with SOME ballot access generally have states that they have to get it done in … and working through those parties means trusting those party organizations’ competence to make things happen. Frankly, that may not be the wisest thing to trust in — it might be a better investment to just put together a professional, if non-partisan, petitioning organization that’s inherently coordinated nationwide instead of split between potentially jealous, squabbling state party organizations.
That doesn’t mean Paul might not see advantages in running under the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party banner, but I think ballot access is overrated as “something a party can deliver that a candidate needs.”
109 jt: I’m taking into account fossil fuel emissions. It’s your assumption that emissions from cars and such are significantly harmful and benefits of carbon-based energy don’t overwhelmingly outweigh costs. I disagree.
me: By your logic, it would be more “efficient” to execute all those who are arrested of felonies, rather than have the “expense” of courts and prisons. As a L, I believe in maximizing individual rights, so while some may be OK with dealing with the negative consequences of air pollution on health and quality of life, others would prefer to take reasonable steps to dissuade pollution in the shared air. Your “right” to spew into the air ends at least with my lungs. And vice versa, of course!
And, your either/or is grounded in static analysis. Surely you know that technological innovation tends to respond to market signals or legal evolution. If spewing is dissuaded by law, market players will adjust to build economies of scale of things like Tesla-type technologies into the mass consumption marketplace.
Horse-drawn buggies once seemed “efficient,” too, but smelling horseshit was a widespread but unquantifiable negative externality once, too!
And, btw, the term is now “global climate change,” as the label “global warming” proved to be a poor shorthand. Maybe I should set up a macro of MMGCCDer to assuage your umbrage! 😉
Capozzi: “And I’d agree, IF we didn’t take into account the negative externalities of spewing carbon monoxide and other pollutants into the air.”
I’m taking into account fossil fuel emissions. It’s your assumption that emissions from cars and such are significantly harmful and benefits of carbon-based energy don’t overwhelmingly outweigh costs. I disagree.
Capozzi: “I took your point, and asked for a better shorthand. You refused.”
Why should I come up with a one or two word label for you? You can’t type man-made GW denier on this board? I didn’t just make that up.
I don’t think “Antigorean” is unfair. I think it’s stupid though.
104 jt: I’d love to know how the notion of *man-made catastrophic GW* can be addressed substantially without governments forcing people away from fossil fuels, which are the most efficient sources of energy.
me: IYO fossil fuels are “efficient.” And I’d agree, IF we didn’t take into account the negative externalities of spewing carbon monoxide and other pollutants into the air.
jt: LOL. You’ve got nerve, Robert. That’s what I’ve been asking of you to no avail. I’m not surprised.
me: Really? Quick review…I’ve used the common terms “deniers,” “skeptics,” and “alarmists.” You objected to denier. I took your point, and asked for a better shorthand. You refused. I offered you one — Antigorean. Is that one unfair in your mind, too?
It’s because of my SUV that the ice-age ended… that’s why I use GEICO!
@103
You need to work on your maniacal laugh.
Dondero does it *much* more accurately.
One might note that Congressman Paul is a septuagenarian and may want to enjoy retirement while he is still in good health to do so.
Also, being a Congressman places certain limits on things you may or may not do to raise money for your favorite causes, not to mention traveling the country speaking out on them.
Capozzi: “I suggest you make a mistake assuming (as it appears) all Algoreans are cap and traders.”
No, I didn’t say anything about cap and trade, which is but one idea. I said taxes and controls, which is broader. I’d love to know how the notion of *man-made catastrophic GW* can be addressed substantially without governments forcing people away from fossil fuels, which are the most efficient sources of energy.
Capozzi: “Let’s keep the narrative fairly representative of the schools of thought….”
LOL. You’ve got nerve, Robert. That’s what I’ve been asking of you to no avail. I’m not surprised.
@85, libertarian radicals…tee hee hee…hee haw…LOL!…LMAO!
Ha,Ha!
83 jt: Global warming isn’t an idea? There are demands for heavy government taxes and controls in the energy market based on the notion that man-made global warming is a serious danger that must be abated.
me: This should be addressed. One can be Algorean and yet not be for things like cap-and-trade. TK is one, as I recall. Not sure about GP. As a skeptic, I do favor a green tax shift, but not cap and trade.
I suggest you make a mistake assuming (as it appears) all Algoreans are cap and traders.
One could also be an Antigorean and be for a green tax shift. I doubt any Antigorean is for cap and trade, although that’s possible, I guess.
Let’s keep the narrative fairly representative of the schools of thought….
Well, RM doesn’t like the idea of Paul/Johnson, but that’s not surprising. It grows on me. Both of them seem to be getting seriously dissed by the GOP establishment, and it should become abundantly clear that they are not “at home” in the GOP.
Yet, surely the media would boost a sitting congressman and former R governor in ways that we’ve not seen to date. The media would love Obama 2, and the narrative of Paul/Johnson as the “tea party” schism of 2012 would be highly alluring, I suspect.
In terms of practicality, Paul especially knows that ballot access is critical.
Who knows what the political field will look like in a year, but one can dream!
The nightmare, though, is this happens, and then NewsletterGate is used to torpedo the entire scenario….
Robert Milnes // Jul 13, 2011:
“This is a great website. Buy this website.”
[Lake: and yet CUIP / Independent Voting ……..]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ALL:
I’m working very hard to build a (Reform Party) political organization in Virginia. I have no interest in these old disputes and name-calling.
The Republicans and Democrats have failed. The window of opportunity for us to do something has never been better.
This is our chance to matter. To do something amazing for this country. I have no interest in this crap. I want to make a difference.
You guys want to live in the shadows of your own mind and egos, fine. Leave me off your BS parade.
I want to field candidates in VA for every House race and our Senate race, as well as state and local offices.
And want to win some of those races too. What do you people want to do?
If are not going to end this – then I want no part of it. Please leave me off. I don’t need or want the distraction.
Thanks, Michael Hackmer
Director, Reform Party of Virginia
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
bruuno’s makin da most sense on here
topic of loaded words aside, just speaking of AGW…
The globe’s been going through multi-decadal cycles of warming and cooling. The latest warming trend was from the mid-70s to 1998. As for anthropogenic, what people do aint makin it any cooler. Human land use (urban heat islands, deforestation, and the like) contributes greater warming effect than human Co2 emission. All the warming we do is slight to negligible.
People are still so medieval-minded, self-important, enthralled with people as the center of everything. In truth, we’re puny, the Earth is grand and the Sun is great.
This is a great website.
Buy this website.
Milnes: “Here is a thought: Puke/Jerkoff.”
That’s a better thought than any you’ve espoused on this site. Nicely done!
Robert Capozzi // Jul 13, 2011:
“……….. I’d say Gore is more the headliner at this stage. So, alarmists = Goreists. Deniers = Anti-Goreists ……….”
[Lake: pretty sure that Doctor Revelle will not be up for a future Noble or Copley [British / English Speaking ‘Nobel’] Post mortem, his memory lives at UC San Diego main campus and in Al Bore’s brain. So …………..]
@34 ” Try reading the post title again.” ….
Robert Milnes // Jul 12, 2011 at 9:08 pm
You are correct. I am wrong.
I just responded to verbal compaints without reading the post.
Continue spaming IPR as a revolutionary and when I hear complaints I’ll just shrug my shoulders as a reactionary.
Here is a thought: Puke/Jerkoff.
The LP should Repudiate Ron Paul, republican counterrevolutionary,
NOT Nominate him.
amending…
Rockwell uses the term “Algorean,” so we can use that true believer in man-made global climate change adherents…propers to Lew. Deniers can then be “Antigoreans.”
I think RP is pretty much Antigorean, but frankly the issue seems so early-aughts at this point.
We surely can’t know what’s going on with Paul, but I suspect he’d be more inclined to (re)bolt if it’s Perry or Romney. He’s personally close to Bachman.
Here’s a thought: Paul/Johnson.
#42
I agree that at least to some degree the Lib Party platform may be a burden to Paul. However he already is pro-legalization and openly supports other issues in the platform that would be the ‘burden’.
As for ballot access I agree with you that he probably would get on virtually all ballots if he ran as an indy but I think you are underestimating the cost, both financially and man hours that getting on the ballot would be if he decided to run as an “Independent”. Plus as I mentioned before if he ran on the LP line it would seriously free him up in the GOP primaries and he wouldn’t have toworry about the states thatb have very early deadlines for indys, particularly Texas which would be vital for him to get on the ballot.
I don’t disagree that the LP has more to gain by Paul being their candidate than Paul has by taking their line. However I do think the positives outweigh the negatives for him.
TANSTAFPUTPWASPRH
(There ain’t no such things as a free “pink unicorns that pissed whiskey and shit prime rib” hunt)
Yea, the GOP will have one less far right-winged nut job in its ranks!
I like Lake’s idea, but I’d say Gore is more the headliner at this stage. So, alarmists = Goreists. Deniers = Anti-Goreists.
@rm84
“embarass”?
We are not the ones who cannot take the hint.
Also, as you point out yourself @84, you haven’t been “singled out.”
The US Parliament guy who imagines Google is named after him also got his own thread and walking papers from other threads on the topic.
So did the Dynamic Whiny Petitioner Duo.
I don’t remember any thread exiles over Nightingale, but I’m not surprised to hear that there may have been one. Lake and Grundman nearly turned IPR into a rubber room over it.
“[Paulie] supports Ron Paul, Root, Gary Johnson & I do not. Coincidence?”
Yes.
If you believed in pink unicorns that pissed whiskey and shit prime rib, and he didn’t, and you insisted on hijacking every thread for the purpose of calling for a) an organized pink, whiskey-pissing, prime-rib-shitting unicorn hunt and b) a purge of the pink, whiskey-pissing, prime-rib shitting unicorns’ nemesis, he’d also eventually exile you to your own dedicated thread to that the adults could talk about other things in other threads.
That happens to be a much more relaxed policy than you’ll find on most sites, where you would have been banned completely at about the third iteration of the PLAS thread hijack routine.
Robert Milnes will post about PLAS in the PLAS threads and debate on debate parameters in the debate on debate parameters thread, or Robert Milnes’ comments may continue to be changed and/or deleted, with or without notice, regardless whether Robert Milnes likes it or not.
Wilson: “I don’t even know why you guys argue about global warming. Why not instead promote ideas, such as reducing our military, which uses a significant amount of fossil fuel?”
Global warming isn’t an idea? There are demands for heavy government taxes and controls in the energy market based on the notion that man-made global warming is a serious danger that must be abated. And if that’s true, reducing our military wouldn’t have a great impact on it.
However, I realize this interesting thread about Ron Paul has been hijacked and I accept some of the blame.
# 74 JT // Jul 13, 2011:
‘Robert: “Here’s a thought. Find the leading advocate for “man-made global climate change denial.” Say his name is Jones. Y’all can be Jones-ists.” ‘
[Lake: or anti – Revelleists, as in Al Gore’s teacher, Doctor (PhD) Roger Revelle ………]
I don’t even know why you guys argue about global warming. Why not instead promote ideas, such as reducing our military, which uses a significant amount of fossil fuel?
Phillips: “JT, I think when most people speak of “global warming” these days they generally mean “anthropogenic” global warming, because this is the part of the issue that is controversial. This may be unfortunate, but it is true.”
Not sure about that. Many, many people don’t know anything about global warming except that it’s happening (even though it’s been a relatively tiny amount over the past century and they might think it’s more than that). So “global warming denier” can easily be interpreted as someone who rigidly rejects the idea en toto.
Phillips: “In the future I’ll use anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for the sake of clarity.”
That’s fair. I’m not suggesting using that with the general public because I don’t think most people would automatically know what anthropogenic means.
Phillips: “My point to NatLibCon was that he was snarking at Ron Paul for being an AGW non-believer, but as Robert points out, AGW non-belief is likely by far the majority opinion in the LP. So perhaps he should find a different issue to snark about.”
I don’t think you can conclude that he or she was in fact referring to AGW, which is my point. NatLibCon could have just been talking about global warming per se. I don’t know Paul’s view on this topic, but NatLibCon may just have that idea about him from something. That’s why I think the terms should be differentiated so that people who deny or are skeptical about AGW aren’t just lumped in with people who stubbornly deny that which has already been clearly scientifically established: that the Earth’s temperature (at least when all global data are taken into account) has warmed slightly over the last century.
Capozzi: “I don’t “want” to. I want to refer to you as Jonesists. All else equal, we use shorthand labels for pretty much everything, so the onus is on the “Jonesist” community to find itself an appropriate and short substitute shorthand, just like the anti-abortionists did by successfully re-labeling themselves.”
No, there’s no onus on me to do that. I’ve pointed out that you (and anyone else who uses that term to refer to people who *aren’t* global warming deniers as well as those who are) are unfairly lumping in 2 different groups of people. I’ve asked you if you’d use a phrase on this board that’s one word longer, which would more accurately represent what most Libertarians such as myself believe, regardless of your own opinion or non-opinion on the issue. That doesn’t matter to you because “global warming denier” is a one-word shorter, more popular term. Not a problem.
JT, I think when most people speak of “global warming” these days they generally mean “anthropogenic” global warming, because this is the part of the issue that is controversial. This may be unfortunate, but it is true. In the future I’ll use anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for the sake of clarity.
Personally, I hate politicized science. AGW is either good science or bad science regardless of the potential political implications. AGW is not absurd on its face. It is a plausible theory, and the science should be examined objectively. What I do object to is the foot stomping on the part of AGW believers that the sceince is settled. Whatever you believe about AGW, the science IS NOT settled and no amount of insisting that it is will make it so.
My point to NatLibCon was that he was snarking at Ron Paul for being an AGW non-believer, but as Robert points out, AGW non-belief is likely by far the majority opinion in the LP. So perhaps he should find a different issue to snark about.
74 jt: Look, if you want to call people who deny that GW is a man-made, harmful phenomenon “global warming deniers,” then that’s your right.
me: I don’t “want” to. I want to refer to you as Jonesists. All else equal, we use shorthand labels for pretty much everything, so the onus is on the “Jonesist” community to find itself an appropriate and short substitute shorthand, just like the anti-abortionists did by successfully re-labeling themselves.
Or continue the futile resistance…
I think it’s premature to speculate on Paul trying for plan B months before even one state’s voted. It’s none to early to speculate on, say Trump though. Last time McCain was still polling single digits a month before he won New Hampshire.
Robert: “Here’s a thought. Find the leading advocate for “man-made global climate change denial.” Say his name is Jones. Y’all can be Jones-ists.”
Look, if you want to call people who deny that GW is a man-made, harmful phenomenon “global warming deniers,” then that’s your right. It’s still not accurate or benevolent to lump people like that in with people who deny GW period (people who do exist). On this board, you can certainly say “man-made global warming deniers.” But if you don’t want to, don’t.
Melty: “I strongly disagree with your go-with-the-flow viewpoint on loaded words, Robert, or “terms of art” as you call them, but you and I have argued over this more than once before, so I’ll not pursue it further.”
Good idea, Melty. It’s generally not worth it.
I strongly disagree with your go-with-the-flow viewpoint on loaded words, Robert, or “terms of art” as you call them, but you and I have argued over this more than once before, so I’ll not pursue it further.
71 jt, oh, I’m certainly pro-fairness, even more than my ingrained passionate dispassion and evolving-language approach.
Here’s a thought. Find the leading advocate for “man-made global climate change denial.” Say his name is Jones. Y’all can be Jones-ists.
Darwinists and Freudians have used this labeling approach to their advantage….
Capozzi: “My feedback is that’s too long for these sorts of communications. It’s gotta be short, like “pro-life.””
Well it can be one word longer or it can be flat wrong. In your own communications on this particular board, you can be more accurate. I don’t see why that would be a problem if fairness is important to you.
67 m: If “young-Earth denier” was popularily said, would you go around repeating it?
me: Maybe.
64 m: …therefore you have a position on it just by wording it that way.
me: I understand your view, but I disagree. The common label I use for those who oppose legal abortion is “pro-life.” I am “pro choice.” I use those shorthand terms of art. I am myself pro-choice, and I accept the term “pro-life” EVEN THOUGH I don’t believe it’s an accurate label.
I roll with the language as it evolves, including the short-hand terms of art. Others resist these trends. All the best in doing so!
66 jt: “man-made global warming denier”
me: My feedback is that’s too long for these sorts of communications. It’s gotta be short, like “pro-life.”
I don’t make up the rules as they evolve. Sometimes, I find it hard to keep current with how the language is used, but I am doing my best.
The Tower of Babel never ended…
Oh, yes, as a skeptic myself, I personally find it a far more persuasive and defensible viewpoint. Those seeking pat, black-and-white, “forceful,” politics may disagree…
If that event occurs, I think he’ll be busy fighting off a challenge from Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If “young-Earth denier” was popularily said, would you go around repeating it?
The above should say “man-made global warming denier” or “man-made global warming skeptic.”
Capozzi: “Denier in this case is shorthand for “deny the theory that CO2 emissions are causing global climate change.”
If you have a catchier, short label that captures that view, I encourage you to popularize it.”
I’d settle for man-made global warming. I’ve already seen that many places, it’s not long, and it’s more fair.
“Denier” is a very passionate word. It’s a loaded word. You say you have no position on it, Robert, but the word “denier” certainly has, therefore you have a position on it just by wording it that way.
Bob @#59… how about Paul/Kucinich?
jt, I get your point. Your last post illustrates the limitations of labels. They are often pejorative. Both “denial” and “alarmist” are pejorative, I’d say, but I don’t know of a label that captures your view.
Btw, I don’t know any outright deniers that temps have increased.
Denier in this case is shorthand for “deny the theory that CO2 emissions are causing global climate change.”
If you have a catchier, short label that captures that view, I encourage you to popularize it.
I’m a skeptic myself, so I really don’t have a dog in this particular fight. My passion is dispassion, so any time I see people hyper-ventilate about anything, my lean is to challenge passionate absolutism.
It’s what I do. 😉
Capozzi: “The terms of art are “denial,” “skeptic,” and “alarmist,” as I understand it.”
I think either I didn’t make the point clear or you didn’t get it. The point was someone shouldn’t call the center of the LP “global warming deniers” or in that camp. There *are* people who deny global warming. People who acknowledge there has been a little global warming over many decades but believe what I believe (see above) *aren’t* global warming deniers or global warming skeptics; we’re deniers of global warming that’s man-made and catastrophic (or potentially catastrophic, if you insist). That’s more of a mouthful, obviously, but that’s accurate. I don’t want to be referred to as a global warming denier or something akin to that, and I don’t think many other Libertarians do either. It’s not true.
Woods seems to be cool to RP going LP or independent, btw.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/07/tom-woods-on-the-ron-paul-news/
NF @53, Americans Elect 2012 seems centrist to me.
Actually if RP would pick a dem or Nader for vp, this could fulfill the dreams of many as mentioned here in IPR comments.
It would get complicated,& Paul could negatively impact my plans, but fortunately I do not think he would be willing to have a dem or Nader vp.
So that line would end there. Thank God.
more…
The terms of art are “denial,” “skeptic,” and “alarmist,” as I understand it. Perhaps there are more accurate terms…
It’s kinda like pro-life and pro-choice, or anti-abortion and baby killing, I guess…
56 jt, sorry, I intended that as a guess. I cannot read minds, most certainly!
Capozzi: “I mean those that deny that human activities are exacerbating climate change, and that such change COULD lead to unintended negative consequences.”
Okay. But I think calling those people global warming deniers or saying they’re in the denial camp about global warming isn’t a fair statement. I don’t think most of them deny that slight global warming has occurred over many decades. I don’t.
Capozzi: “As for RP, while he says he’s in it to win it, he considers himself a very long shot at best.”
How do you know what he considers himself? Do you have the ability to read minds now? Maybe that’s true in some cases but not in others.
50 jt, when I say “denial camp,” I mean those that deny that human activities are exacerbating climate change, and that such change COULD lead to unintended negative consequences. I myself remain with no position on the matter.
As for RP, while he says he’s in it to win it, he considers himself a very long shot at best. My guess is he has no specific plan to (re)bolt the GOP, and would prefer not to. But he likely has considered the possibility. Wisely, he’s following this path where it takes him, and will decide his next step when it’s appropriate, all things considered.
@ 47: Give it a few years for the Baby Boomers like me to be replaced by voting Gen X and Y and lets see how the two old and tired parties from the 19th century stack up.
False premise. Old and tired? Tired, how? Both major parties have more young members than the LP.
Also, the Dems and GOP are NOT 19th century parties.
Both exist in the 21st century, and address 21st century issues.
The major parties have continued to adapt with each new generation. The Dems were pro-segregation several generations ago, yet not now. The GOP were isolationist several generations ago, but not now.
Libertarians like to fantasize that the major parties won’t adapt, that all the LP need do is wait — and someday it’ll be “their turn.”
But that is to ignore history.
If the Paul campaign gets treated unfairly by the GOP (which I believe is inevitable if he gets close) then why focus on starting a new party? If Americans Elect 2012 really delivers on its promise of 50 state ballot access and a non-partisan ticket nominated by “the people” rather than the elites, I would think he would be a natural contender for that nomination. As I read their info he would have to select a Veep choice from “the other party”. I guess they just assume a two party system. They seem to have plenty of money for petition drives.
I misspelled your last name above, Sean. Sorry about that.
Scanlon: “And given the field he has as a good chance as any of them of winning.”
I don’t agree with this statement. I think Paul is definitely an underdog.
Scanlon: “But, let’s say for the sake of argument he gets close to the nomination but the GOP establishment plays dirty to stop him.”
In the unlikely event he even gets close, I’m sure it would.
Scanlon: “Then what?”
Then he probably wouldn’t win. I don’t think he’d start another party in that case, however, and I think he has no plans to do that now.
Capozzi: “Dunno. My sense is that Rs and Ds are not so much “loyal” but anti the OTHER party.”
Same difference. I think most (not all) of them are loyal to their party because they hate/fear the other party.
Phillips: “So, is belief in global warming now the official libertarian position? Has Phillies taken over the LP and I missed it?”
Capozzi: “No and no. If anything, the center of the LP is in the denial camp. Every now and then, the LP allows for diversity of thought, especially where science and morality crash together, leaving ambiguity.”
Dunno. There’s a difference between denying global warming is occurring and denying man-made harmful global warming is occurring. Data show the Earth has warmed a little bit over the past century, but based on what I’ve read I believe it’s part a natural cycle that’s actually beneficial to life and not evidence of some kind of eventual catastrophe (and certainly not justification for more government controls). I suspect most Libertarians agree with the latter viewpoint, but I haven’t taken a survey.
As for Phillies, I get the sense that he’d like to take over the LP and set its agenda himself. Fortunately, national convention delegates soundly reject him whenever he runs for anything.
I would agree Paul and his campaign do believe they can win the GOP nomination and probably won’t pursue this angle. And given the field he has as a good chance as any of them of winning. But, let’s say for the sake of argument he gets close to the nomination but the GOP establishment plays dirty to stop him. Then what? What if other credible politicians like his son or Jim DeMint or Mike Lee say, hey, we need to strike out on our own, we need to put something different together? I think there is a culture base out there to do it but it would take something extraordinary to bring it all together. Well, they history goes, you never know what’s going to happen. As the old phrase goes, we’ll see….
Come on, Kevin. Gen X & Y aren’t exceptional.
They will fall into the same old patterns.
Just look at 2008. After 8 years of Dubya you’d think youth would be radicalizd.
NOT.
@ # 37. Big name.
Hmmm, John C Fremont or Abraham Lincoln didn’t hurt that third party, called the Republicans, back in 1856 or 1860.
Give it a few years for the Baby Boomers like me to be replaced by voting Gen X and Y and lets see how the two old and tired parties from the 19th century stack up. Especially, the GOP.
41 rp: So, is belief in global warming now the official libertarian position? Has Phillies taken over the LP and I missed it?
me: No and no. If anything, the center of the LP is in the denial camp. Every now and then, the LP allows for diversity of thought, especially where science and morality crash together, leaving ambiguity.
37 D: Historically, whenever a “big name” jumps ship to make a third party run he destroys that party.
me: Balance your assertion with Paul 88 or Barr 08. Trajectories remained about the same.
35 jt: I do think the LP can draw a significant portion of voters who’ve traditionally voted Republican or Democrat, but let’s be honest with ourselves: the majority of those people are party loyalists who won’t change their allegiance, period.
me: Dunno. My sense is that Rs and Ds are not so much “loyal” but anti the OTHER party. Conservatives seem especially uncomfortable with their party, especially quick to brand other Rs as “RINOs.”
Obama v. Romney opens up possibilities for Paul as L, as Romney is (in their minds) RINO and a Mormon to boot. Tacking right-ish might gain attention.
Obama v. Bachman offers another set of opportunities. Tacking left and anti-war might gain attention, too.
Obama v. Perry would be tough. Perry can play to both the moderates and the “conservatives.
Either scenario (or its equivalent) doesn’t mean Paul could win. The point is not to “win,” but to “show.”
Of course, who knows what the future holds? Eurozone meltdown, war with Iran or even NK, polar shifts, Event X…. Interesting times.
@41, I just looked around and it (the glacier) was gone.
I’m going to takeover the LP. Try not to miss that.
@ 25, it’s true the LP has much to gain by Paul running on the LP. The reverse is not true.
The LP has nothing to offer Paul other than easy ballot access — but that comes with much party baggage.
If Paul runs as an Independent, he runs free of any party baggage. He’ll have greater appeal to non-Libertarians.
Can Paul get on all 50 states as an Independent? Maybe. He can certainly fire up young, volunteer supporters to pass around petitions.
Sure, a Paul Indie candidacy would drain votes from the LP. But, every year, something or other drains votes from the LP.
Perot, Nader, Buchanan, Paul, the “wasted vote syndrome” and “this election is too important to lose” … something always steals the LP’s thunder. It’s a tradition.
@ NatLibCon,
“He disbelieves in … global warming”
So, is belief in global warming now the official libertarian position? Has Phillies taken over the LP and I missed it?
Opps left a comma out. It should read;
Here’s one, that is # 10, that pretty good.
Here’s one, that is # 10 that pretty good;
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor’s. I wonder how that works with eminent domain?
Barr 2008.
Reaction- BTP expands.
He would do a great deal of damage to the Libertarian Party by running under their banner. Historically, whenever a “big name” jumps ship to make a third party run he destroys that party.
Buchanan 2000: Reform Party
McKinney 2008: Green Party
@32 Absolutely spot-on question. You may search out for yourself the Bibles used by the various southern Baptist sects.
I am reminded of the ‘we should put the ten commandments in the public schools” and asking if the proposal was for the Protestant Ten Commandments, the somewhat different Catholic Ten Commandments, the original section that my Jewish friends tell me is properly “The Twelve Utterances of Moses”, and you do notice I said “Twelve”, which by the way are no more important that the other 600+ biblical commandments, and by the way the whole thing appears in two versions in some versions of the Bible.
But you are completely right to raise the question.
Nick: “Don, the mistake I think you’re making is that those voters are ever going to vote for someone outside the GOP, no matter how much the position is moderated. Meth, immigration, and no taxes are all just convenient excuses for a deeply ingrained tribalism that keeps them attached to “my GOP, right or wrong.” I wish you luck in your endeavors, but I think you’ll find that the cake is a lie.”
I largely agree with Nick. I do think the LP can draw a significant portion of voters who’ve traditionally voted Republican or Democrat, but let’s be honest with ourselves: the majority of those people are party loyalists who won’t change their allegiance, period. Sure, they may bitch sometimes about their party’s politicians, but then they’ll crawl back every election with excuses (e.g., I don’t like Republican X a lot, but Obama is a damn communist!). For most of them, it doesn’t matter how moderate a Libertarian may be. That’s why the LP also has to draw a lot of people who don’t vote at all and a lot of people who are young and just starting to vote.
Nick: “Milnes, how much of those millions are you going to divert to fixing your truck so you can leave the house?”
I think he’d invest most of it in solar panels and windmills.
@30, no it isn’t.
Try reading the post title again.
@31, agreed.
I would be hard pressed to say it better.
Thank you for doing so, as commenting here is a thankless job.
Pay isn’t much to write home about either.
Which Bible ???????????????
@25
Ron Paul’s stands are very close to the Constitution Party. He is a state’s rights supporter. He supports letting states refuse to recognize marriages contracted in other states. He is a staunch antiabortionist. He is a Christian dominionist — see his interview on TheAmericanView who believes that the Bible is inerrant and supreme over the Constitution. He disbelieves in evolution and global warming.
CP supporters would be comfortable with his faith.
And, of course, he showed his position in 2008 when he appeared to endorse the Constitution Party Presidential candidate.
@ #20, 22 & 27
Mr. Milnes
This IPR article is about a Congressional seat in Texas opening up for a third party challenge. It is not an appropriate place to sollicit help for your POTUS12 campaign.
I’m counting on real libertarians to reject Ron Paul this time around.
I’m not out to deliberately sucker anybody.
RM,
Anybody but Ron Paul, anybody but Bush and anybody but Obama are all lines to pull in suckers. I am not saying it might not be a successful campaign (after all it worked for Obama) but you are going to have to tap some hidden well spring of people who really-really don’t like Ron Paul and I think that you may have to travel to Washington, DC to find it.
That said, good luck with the organizing in Washington, DC!
Ron Paul is a very slick politician.
Just like Obama.
Obama got elected by deliberately allowing progressives to think he was a progressive. He is not.
Ron Paul was amazed at the support he got in 2008 mostly based on his anti-war nationalist position.
So all he has to do for a do-over is just run & not say much more than his same old schtick.
A 35 million dollar do-over.
This is certainly interesting news. I’d like to see RP swan song out by running LP UNLESS the NewsletterGate issue rears its ugly head and he cannot put it to bed. I wonder whether Paul would go independent or CP instead.
Let’s say he bolts the GOP in March or April. That’d probably give him time to regroup and go LP (or CP). The LP gives him more ballot access quickly, so there’s that.
It’s conceivable he could begin a realigning coalition based on a anti-war, anti-Fed, bailout-onomics. A Perot-type performance could make him a player in his final performance on center stage…but a LOT’d have to break right.
OTOH, he could try to infuse the C4L with energy, but such orgs are no replacement for an electric candidacy.
Why Paul should run as a Libertarian if he intends to run a 3rd Party line-
It really is very simple, Ron Paul would have several advantages (for both Party and him) if he ran as a Libertarian Party candidate
1) easy ballot acces in many states, Libertarians get on at least 40 state ballots every 4 years (many basically automatic), probably do even better with Paul as the head of the ticket
2) the Party would certainly get the 1 million mark they have been striving for for so long. Paul would probably get as many votes as Nader in 2000, possibly more, giving the Libertarian Party the platform and press they so desperately need
3) Money, money , money-Paul is a good fundraiser if nothing else. He would bring a lot of money to the Party
4) he would bring a new generation to the Party. He has strength on College Campus’. Much needed for a 3rd Party searching for long term legitimacy
5) Between his own followers and the Lib Party folks they would have a good start in regards to organization. On their own they are much weaker
6) With the ballot access being easier as a LP candidate he can actually stay in GOP primaries longer without the worry of getting ballot access in states that require early deadlines like Texas if he runs simply as an ‘Independent’.
On another note he simplyu doesn’t mesh with the Constitution Party no matter what some in the CP think. His stance on social issues is way far way from the CP and frankly irreconcilable. With the LP the only major conflict is the abortion issue which seems like some sort of compromise can be reached on.
On another note I am neither a LP or CP supporter but do support the 3rd Party movement in general. I think the LP would be crazy not to run him if given the chance. With all due respect to the other candidates but they simply will languish in the same territory they have since 1984 if they get the nomination. And to those who point out that Paul ran in ’88, he had a lot smaller base of support and name recognition at the time. This would be a completely different situation
no
The advantage for Paul of running as an in independent, as opposed to LP or CP, is that he’d have no ideological baggage other than his own.
Paul, the independent, would be in a stronger position to attract progressives, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, as well as libertarians and Constitutionalists on an independent ticket.
Sarwark,
My 1980 Econoline has been round trip to CA about 10 times in the past 15 years or so.
I leave my house every day. I do not have agorophobia.
I am chomping at the bit to take on Ronulan Paulnut & Oily Bomber.
Join me & WIN!
Don, the mistake I think you’re making is that those voters are ever going to vote for someone outside the GOP, no matter how much the position is moderated. Meth, immigration, and no taxes are all just convenient excuses for a deeply ingrained tribalism that keeps them attached to “my GOP, right or wrong.” I wish you luck in your endeavors, but I think you’ll find that the cake is a lie.
Milnes, how much of those millions are you going to divert to fixing your truck so you can leave the house?
plas spam deleted.
This article is about a hypothetical Ron Paul run for President, not the Milnes PLAS fantasy.
If he does, let him go to the CP. They can be this election’s Green or Reform Party and he can be their Nader/Buchanan. They will get some attention, few votes, and then fall apart when the personality cult leaves.
The Libertarian Party doesn’t need an influx of theocrats, white supremacists, and protectionist interlopers to hang around and give a slight bump for one election cycle and then leave the party as irrelevant as it was before.
The Simpson quote may not have been directly to the point, but here’s what I was trying to say –
Most of the regular voters I ran into while involved with my state’s LP were exactly Nick’s “mythical ordinary voters”, folks who wouldn’t vote for a candidate with the LP label if it was Jesus Christ himself. Just like Homer’s “magical animal”, Nick’s “mythical ordinary voters” are not mythical at all, but are large in numbers and very real.
I think the truth why is somewhere in the middle.
1. As mentioned, his district got gerrymandered out from under him. That makes it harder for him to get re-elected there and run for President simultaneously.
2. He’s 76, his son is there in the Senate to carry on the legacy and message, albeit he needs some seasoning and improvement, and there’s no disgrace in retiring to be an old country doctor, grandparent, and husband, advise his son, and work on C4L.
3. Mr. Sarwark is correct in that if Dr. Paul walked in the door in Lost Wages to seek the LP nod he’d get it on the first ballot in a landslide. The same was true in Denver.
4. This is not an attempt to form a new third party. The ballot access requirements for that are enormous.
5. Mr. Wills appears to have lost it. Ditto Chuck and Harry.
While the announcement is in one way sad, it makes political and personal sense for him, so all we can do is wish him the best and push forward all around.
NS – Volunteers for the Wyoming Country Party are gathering signatures to gain ballot access. We’re even more irrelevant than the LP until we gain ballot access, so there is no reason to publicize anything.
No Rand Paul does not like the GOP establishment, and they don’t like him. Ron Paul held his nose and went back to the GOP so he could become relevant – which he did. Rand will take the same path. If Rand runs for re-election in 2016, I suspect the GOP leadership will primary him. However, Rand may snooker them all by winning the GOP presidential nomination in 2016 if Obama wins in 2012. There are a lot of Ron Paul supporters who will be looking for someone to support for president in 2016!
How’s that Country Party working out for you Don? I didn’t see any news on the (very nice looking) website after the initial April convention.
As to Ron maintaining his good relationship with the GOP, I don’t think the father or the son particularly like the party establishment, so there’s not that much downside in them pissing them off. From the redistricting screw job Ron Paul got in TX, it seems like that the feeling is mutual.
I don’t think Ron Paul would agree, Sean, that “…[there’s] no reason to go this route unless it is an effort to create another major party, on the ballot in all 50 states, not just another spoiler, sore-loser campaign…” I think he and his staff honestly believe that Paul has a decent shot at becoming the Republican nominee, even if it’s unlikely, and that’s their reason.
That said, I don’t think he’s going to win the nomination, and I’m sad that he won’t be in the House anymore. No Paul means nobody in the House who publicly criticizes both Democratic and Republican efforts to expand the federal government and calls for downsizing it dramatically.
Is this the same Ron Paul who wants to eliminate my right to be safe by allowing people smoking CRACK COCAINE to drive and even encouraging such behavior? Is this the same Ron Paul who sides with ISLAMIC TERRORISTS in the War Against Terror? Is this the same Ron Paul who wants to redefine marriage so his “gay” HOMOSEXUAL son can commit adultery in the open?
Christians across the world will reject this demon Ron Paul and send him to the pits of HELL where he belongs!
NS writes – “some mythical “ordinary voters” who have bad vibes with the LP label”
reminds me of the Homer Simpson quote
—
(Lisa) “I’m going to become a vegetarian”
(Homer) “Does that mean you’re not going to eat any pork?”
“Yes”
“Bacon?”
“Yes Dad”
“Ham?”
“Dad all those meats come from the same animal”
“Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!”
—
Wake up Libertarians! Your brand name is so tarnished by the stench of legalized meth, completely open borders, and abolition of taxation, as to be irreparable. Ron Paul won’t do anything to harm his son’s future in the GOP, so no third party run is in the offing.
I would say the answer is somewhere between Ron Paul has no reason to pursue anything but a Republican nomination and #NeverSayNever.
Speculation is fine but don’t bet your rent money on Ron Paul being anything but a Republican candidate for President. It isn’t as if he has H. Ross Perot money folks.
As the first poster has already noted the gerrymander his GOP “friends” in the Texas Legislature presented him with probably made an impression as well. It’s nice to be loved!
I agree that his work at home would’ve taken away from his real goal. This election is about applying all that he has been saying his entire career.
This is his last at bat. Swing away.
Internal shenanigans in a few states and some mythical “ordinary voters” who have bad vibes with the LP label are enough to justify attempting to get 50-state ballot access from scratch instead of building on the existing LP infrastructure? I don’t know how you come to that conclusion, unless you have some personal beef with the LP.
very bold move … Dr Ron is all in for the win
Given the internal rivalries and rough shape many LP organizations are in right and the bad vibes many ordinary voters have with the LP label right now, I think it would be best to start from scratch rather trying to lift the Titanic.
If the GOP thing doesn’t work out perhaps Americans Elect?
If he wants to run a third-party campaign for President, I don’t see any reason why he would start another one as opposed to just seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party. He’s a life member, had the nomination in 1988, and would likely get it if he sought it for 2012.
Gary, Wrights, Person et al are all fine Libertarians, but they wouldn’t stand a chance at the convention if Ron Paul sought the nomination.
The Catholic Trotskyist Party would like to co-endorse Barack Obama and Ron Paul for President. With Ron Paul’s retirement from Congress, he will be able to focus on his striving for the republican nomination. Barack Obama and Ron Paul both advocate for various parts of the Catholic Trotskyist agenda; Paul is good on foreign policy and social traditionalism, Obama is good about government control of the economy. Together, Barack Obama and Ron Paul can build the New World Order which will lead to peace and prosperity for all.
Read the Book of James and the Book of Eclesiastes. Check out US Parliament, which will be the true system for world government. God bless the state, god bless the church, God bless Pope Benedict, and God bless Barack Obama and Ron Paul, amen.
I do want to just throw out there that Jim DeMint was talking up third parties on the BBC last night.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012fbkj/Americana_10_07_2011/
Basically, he’s just using it as a stick to beat the GOP leadership in the debt negotiations with Obama. However, DeMint has been building up his own national fundraising mechanism. It is possible they he could go indy. In places like SC where the ruling GOP is rife with factions, you could take a good chunk of the organization and safe local incumbents.
Again, I don’t think this has anything to do with Paul, as DeMint is no libertarian. But DeMint’s saber rattling is more unsettling to the GOP than Paul’s.
Well, his original district has been cleaved in half, so he probably would have had to work twice as hard to maintain his Congressional seat now then he did in 2008.
I honestly believe that this is an all-in attempt at the Presidency (as an R) more then anything.