The LP’s most recent Monday Message sent to the party email list and posted at LP.org:
Dear Friend of Liberty, Happy New Year! Could 2012 be the year that everything comes together for Libertarians? Former Governor Gary Johnson’s announcement last week that he’s leaving the GOP and running for president as a Libertarian brings a high-profile candidate to our Libertarian primary. Thousands of news stories and political commentaries were published and aired nationwide since his announcement where LP Chair Mark Hinkle signed him up to be a Life Member of our party. Possible results? Attention to Governor Johnson’s campaign. Attention to our other Libertarian presidential candidates. Attention to the Libertarian Party and our principles. A spotlight on our 2012 presidential nominating convention in May. One news story published by Mediate.com said, "With independent or unaffiliated voters making up a larger part of the voter base than they have at any time in the past, there are many more people out there open to defecting from the two-party system." Indeed! According to a September Gallup poll, “55% of Americans say the two major parties do such an inadequate job of representing the American people that a third party is needed.” Then there’s our libertarian friend Ron Paul. His stunning ascent in the Republican primary – while running a libertarian campaign – is giving unprecedented attention and credibility to our libertarian goals. If Ron Paul were to win the GOP nomination, a true Revolution in America would be underway. One that would put our libertarian agenda front-and-center in the 2012 election. In liberty, Carla Howell Executive Director Libertarian Party P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.2012 – Possibility and Hope for Libertarians
(Emphasis added).
We don’t normally concentrate on the duopoly races much at IPR, but since they are partially the subject of this post, many of our readers may find this analysis of the Iowa results interesting:
Iowa and Ron Paul: How the Rockwell Strategy Harmed Ron Paul
The following articles, from vastly different perspectives, are also of tangential relevance:
VDARE: Lew Rockwell And The Strange Death (Or At Least Suspended Animation) Of Paleolibertarianism
Punk Patriot: Yellow Journalism At Its Worst.
And, as Trent Hill noted yesterday, an ACLU report card gave Johnson 21 of 28 torches, and Ron Paul 18 of 28. Both did better from the ACLU’s perspective than President Obama and the Republican field of candidates that have been participating in presidential nomination debates. Johnson got 13 of 16 torches on immigration, abortion and gay rights, while Paul got 7 of 16 on those issues. On issues revolving around the “war on terror”, Paul got 11 of 12 torches while Johnson got 8 of 12. Obama got a total of 16 torches – 12 of 16 on immigration, abortion and gay rights and 4 of 12 on issues revolving around the “war on terror”. Other than Huntsman, the remaining Republicans all scored 2/28 (Gingrich and Perry) or 0/28 (Romney, Santorum, and Bachmann).
@181
‘
‘Most states don’t have fusion. They can go AE or LP but not both.
TLK
The scenario in question was “re-register Republican, vote for Ron Paul, then change back over to LP immediately so that the LP’s ballot access isn’t pranged by your temporary defection.”
Not “re-register Republican, vote for Ron Paul, wait until August to see if he wins their presidential nomination; if so, stay GOP, if not, go back to the LP.”
You added the word immediately to my scenario that I proposed. Waiting until August to see if the Republicans nominate Ron Paul before switching back to the LP to help maintain ballot access does not hurt LP ballot access. Thus, it’s not necessary for people who want to do both to switch back before August if they still hold out hope that Paul will get the Republican nomination somehow.
If he does somehow get the Republican nomination, yeah, we lose those people to the Republicans. As we both agree, that is unlikely. Otherwise, they come back and bring more friends with them.
Of course there are some people who don’t think Ron Paul is libertarian enough, so there would probably be an LP even if Paul wins the Republican nomination, but I suspect it would be a much smaller LP than the one we have now. And yes, that LP would lose ballot access in some states.
If Paul is on track to win the Republican nomination I think the LP will pick NOTA for president and will remain as a shadow of its former self.
Once again my scenario was predicated on Paul losing the Republican nomination and unless there is something I forgot “immediately” is something you added, not what I said or meant.
Hopefully the LP can get Johnson/Ventura elected then turn around with a grassroots effort to get Johnson/Ventura to win the Americans Elect ticket. That would guarantee being on all 50 states ballots.
I’m hoping that the Americans Elect Party elects Jon Huntsman as the 3rd Party candidate. He’s a true centrist, I would vote for him immediately over Obama or Romney. I like Ron Paul as well.
Yes, becoming a member of X is definitely affiliating with X. But affiliating with X doesn’t necessarily imply becoming a member of X.
There are 92,246 RegLibs in California, but the LPCA has only ~1000 members.
Parties (like the CA GOP) may decide to confer “membership” to all who register with them, but such policies impose no ethical obligation of the type Tom is projecting here. Any such obligation must be inherent in the state’s registration rules, and cannot derive from a party’s hopes about what you intend when you register.
af•fil•i•ate ( -f l – t )
v. af•fil•i•at•ed, af•fil•i•at•ing, af•fil•i•ates
v.tr.
1. To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/affiliate
The Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary uses the same definition.
The main and #1 definition relates to being a member.
affiliate n. a person who is affiliated; associate; auxiliary
affiliate v. to attach or unite on terms of fellowship; associate
affiliate v. to be officially connected with a larger organization or group
affiliate v. to bring or receive into close connection; to ally
There are millions of voters registered as Democrats & Republicans, many of those voters do not pay dues to either party; thus, unless some State(s) happen to have a bylaw granting party membership to anyone registered with the party, they are not “party members.”
BH @ 173. Try a dictionary!
Paulie @169,
“If Ron Paul wins the Republican primary they stay Republican.”
I don’t know any other way to put this, having said it n to the 34th power times already, but no, that’s the whole point, they DON’T.
The scenario in question was “re-register Republican, vote for Ron Paul, then change back over to LP immediately so that the LP’s ballot access isn’t pranged by your temporary defection.”
Not “re-register Republican, vote for Ron Paul, wait until August to see if he wins their presidential nomination; if so, stay GOP, if not, go back to the LP.”
[Yes, you know and I know that Paul will likely be eliminated long before then, but we’ve already seen what happened in 2008 — even after it was obvious that he had lost, his supporters fantasized about a brokered election right up to the minute the states read off their votes]
Affiliate doesn’t necessarily mean member. Registered Libertarians are not necessarily members of the LP.
Affiliate means to take in as a member or to adopt as a member or branch.
Registering as a voter of a particular party is a declaration that one is a member of that party.
Parties may define membership that way, but the voter registration form here in California says nothing about becoming a “member”. It merely says that you can choose to “affiliate” with a party. Voting in the state-sponsored primary is a prerogative of affiliation, not of party-defined membership. Indeed, some parties even allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their primaries.
Some people — even anarchists — claim that to register or vote in the state’s elections is to give consent to the state’s authority over them. Nothing like that is on the voter registration form, either.
There’s nothing distasteful in supporting a candidate of another political party. Party loyalism is “distasteful”.
Ron Paul is globally relevant, because he champions a globally relevant cause.
with no intention whatsoever of delivering the notional price (support for the party) under any circumstances.
Actually, the intent would be to support a libertarian party regardless of what it is called.
If Ron Paul wins the Republican primary they stay Republican. I don’t see that happening, so I say they go back to LP to ensure LP ballot access – as if I already know Paul loses the Republican race.
To refresh or inform how we got on that topic, the question was that Gary Johnson recommended people vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.
‘
In fact, I think that was aimed primarily at people who would be voting in Republican primaries anyway, or independents.
Also, in many states people can vote in Republican primaries without registering Republican.
However, to cover cases of registered Libertarians in states like California where they do have to register Republican to vote in that party’s primary and where LP ballot access depends on voter registration numbers, I said they can go back and forth. Paul losing the Republican primary was implicit in that strategy.
And, as stated previously, the vast majority of people Johnson was talking to would not have that problem anyway.
IMO Ron Paul has actually helped LP registration numbers without even actively trying to. Those numbers have been growing. My sense is that it is because people associate the word libertarian with Ron Paul far more than any other factor.
It certainly is not in any large measure due to Barr, nor IMO in any big portion to anyone active in the LP per se.
@160
I don’t see the problem you see.
I believe the people who would switch to Republican to vote for Paul would stay Republican if he somehow won their nomination. At that point they would no longer care about LP ballot access since the Republicans would be libertarian enough for them.
However, since I see very little likelihood of Paul winning that nomination, I can state it in terms of them going back to the LP to ensure LP ballot access, based on the presumption Paul loses the Republican nomination.
“George Phillies // Jan 7, 2012 at 7:59 pm
@147
Let’s see: It says positive things about Ron Paul in a public forum. That’s helping his campaign.”
I hope that it does help Ron Paul’s campaign. The public already identifies Ron Paul as a libertarian. Most of the membership of the Libertarian Party supports Ron Paul. The Libertarian Party making positive statements about Ron Paul shows all of those many Ron Paul supporters out there who are not currently members of the Libertarian Party that they should be at home in the Libertarian Party. If even just a small percentage of Ron Paul supporters who are not currently members of the Libertarian Party joined the Libertarian Party it would greatly increase the size of the Libertarian Party.
Gene Berkman said “The state committee decided to endorse one of the registered Libertarians who had qualified. He was not active in the LPC, and he did not campaign as a Libertarian. He owns a chain of cheap cigarette stores, and he campaigned on the single issue of cutting taxes on cigarettes. His website identified him as candidate of The Smokers Party.
In that context, many California Libertarians supported Tom McClintock, a long-time ally of the LPC, who had spoken at the LPC convention that had endorsed the recall.”
The Libertarian Party of California nominated an odd ball candidate who obviously didn’t have his shit together and who ran a pathetic campaign.
Tom McClintock ran on a lot of libertarian issues and had a real campaign.
This is why most Libertarians in California voted for Tom McClintock instead of the official Libertarian Party candidate for Governor.
The California Governor’s Recall Election of 2003 presented a huge opportunity for the Libertarian Party because the eyes of the nation were on that election and prior to the election there were debates where the top 5 candidates were included. The Libertarian Party of California COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE had a candidate in that debate. This was yet another of many example of times where the Libertarian Party fumbled the ball.
BH@164,
Registering as a voter of a particular party is a declaration that one is a member of that party.
Registering with the intent of exercising a prerogative of membership, and with the intent of then immediately returning to another party’s membership, is fraud.
You don’t have to like it.
It’s a fact whether you like it or not.
Have a nice day.
Switching party registration to vote for a candidate in a primary is not a promise to “support the party” — or even to remain so registered — until it’s known whether the candidate wins the party nomination.
Rather, it’s simply a self-enforcing promise to be publicly listed at that time as a registrant of the party, and to have your vote added to the total both for that candidate and for that party in that primary.
Any other implied promises are simply projections of your own never-ever-ever-under-any-circumstances ideas about party loyalty.
BH@162,
“Tom, you seem to be the only one talking about the situation of people switch-hitting to vote for Ron Paul, with no intention of supporting him if he wins the GOP nomination.”
In the case I was initially replying to, whether or not they intend to support Paul if he’s the GOP nominee isn’t relevant. The discussion pertained SPECIFICALLY to switching parties to vote in one party’s primary, then switching back to support another party’s ballot access, without even knowing whom the one party’s presidential nominee will be.
Tom, you seem to be the only one talking about the situation of people switch-hitting to vote for Ron Paul, with no intention of supporting him if he wins the GOP nomination.
I wrote: Maybe the questions for switch-hitters are: 1) Would you support Ron Paul over an LP nominee if Paul were (on track to be) the GOP nominee? 2) Would you be willing to work within the GOP if Ron Paul took it over?
Paulie answered: I strongly suspect almost all of them would say yes.
I think he’s right.
P.S. The only price built into registering with a party is that, while so registered, you are publicly listed as a registrant of that Party. It’s not possible to not pay that price when you switch-hit.
@159 The Massachusetts Party did in 2000 and 2004, so “if ever” is a bit late.
Paulie@159,
We seem to be talking about two different situations.
The situation you seem to be talking about is “voter goes Republican to support Ron Paul; if Paul loses he goes back to Libertarian because the GOP didn’t do what it needed to do to keep his support.”
I see no problem with that (although internally to the LP, it is reasonable to question whether such people are reliable enough to entrust with leadership positions — are they going to go running off again next year, too?).
The situation I’m describing is one that was explicitly laid out somewhere on IPR earlier with reference to California: “Voter switches to Republican to support Ron Paul, then switches back to LP ASAP to support LP ballot access.”
That’s not a genuine commitment to the GOP that might be broken by the GOP’s failure to go the voter’s way. That’s a fraudulent commitment to the GOP, for the purpose of obtaining a valuable consideration (a primary vote) with no intention whatsoever of delivering the notional price (support for the party) under any circumstances. It’s just lying for the purpose of stealing something, and that’s all it is.
No, that’s not what I believe at all.
What I believe is that any party that subjects itself to binding government run primaries, including the LP if it ever does so, should accept the possibility that some people will only vote in that party’s primary to change its outcome, and may up to (and right after, if they don’t get their way) identify with a different party, which is why I don’t think the LP should have binding government run primaries.
Given that many states don’t have voter registration by party, and that the ones that do allow voters to switch such registrations back and forth as they wish, I don’t consider the action you describe to be in any way fraud.
And, that would apply equally if say the LP had binding primaries and a bunch of Democrats switched to the LP to nominate Gravel, then switched back after Barr got the nomination.
Turnabout is, indeed, fair play.
I’ve already said I do.
Correct. See links I provided above.
Paul, much like the LP, draws just as many or more people who are mad at the Democrats for selling out peace and civil liberties in the “war on drugs,” “war on terror” and related wars overseas, and at government-corporate cronyism, as he does from those mad at the Republicans for endless tax, spend and borrow policies.
If Paul goes outside the duopoly he isn’t a “spoiler” for Republicans, he’s a “spoiler” of the spoiled welfare-warfare-police-prison-industrial complex and its twin hands in government, the Democratic and Republican establishments.
As my previous links showed, his stances on abortion, immigration and gay rights, while much more conservative than mine, are more liberal than those of most Republicans. And his stances on other peace and civil liberties issues are better than either Obama or the rest of the Republican field.
Many (ex-)Democrats, (ex-)Greens, Occupiers etc I know support Ron Paul.
@155 The problem is where you cut off the list. Does she then have to mention Milnes, Ogle, Ralph Allen Beach, etc?
What about saying it this way:
Then continue saying that the Paul campaign is giving unprecedented attention and credibility to our libertarian goals. … This will bring heightened attention to our libertarian candidates such as Gary Johnson, Rodger Gary, Jim Burns, (insert the name of the other candidates) who are seeking the nomination for President who offer bold reductions in Big Government that most Republicans and Democrats won’t dare.
Why the disdainful comments toward Ron Paul on here from Libertarian Party members?
Ron Paul should be irrelevant to us. The reason there is much disdain from some Libertarian Party members and the reason he is relevant to us is because some in the Libertarian Party are using recourses and are suggesting the Party membership support and endorse a candidate of another political party (Ron Paul). And that is wrong. And we find supporting a candidate of another political party distasteful!
Paul won’t run as an independent and won’t run as a Libertarian.
Why the disdainful comments toward Ron Paul on here from Libertarian Party members?
He’s not our standard bearer. He’s altered the States political landscape more than anybody else over the last five years and in a libertarian direction. You should be cheering him on. Carla Howell’s right. George Whitfield’s comment at 34 says it most succinctly.
A lifelong democrat for keeping Roe versus Wade told me last week he’d vote for Paul over Obama if he’d get nominated. The big abortion issue ain’t the big deal breaker for every democrat, just some of them. He liked it when I told him my nickname for the president, Barack Dronebama. He still insists W was worse than O, but it’s the civil rights issues that switched him over to Paul. The Constitution matters to some democrats too.
@147
Let’s see: It says positive things about Ron Paul in a public forum. That’s helping his campaign.
It cost party money, because the party shells out tons for IT technology, and this message must be charges as overhead its cut of the total, which for the last quarter-year of FEC filings included:
$10,985.2 to Blackbaud for software licensing, $6108 to Lyris Tech-Sparklist for email amrketing services, $3567.48 to PAETEC
for phone and Data Services, $2064 to Rackspace for Website hosting, $1722 to SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. for email server hosting, $909 to AT&T – Mobility for cell phone and data services, $222 to Comcast for Cable and Internet, and $126 to Telecompute for phone and data services.
148 sm, yes, if a liberal has a litmus test of pro-choice, RP as the L nominee loses them.
GJ certainly is stronger on paper on social issues for reaching out to liberals.
Of course, no-name movement Ls might be even “better” on paper on social issues.
Who our optimal nominee should be requires some judgment and discernment.
147 gb, yes, that seems to be the intent, a helpful one.
Hyper-sensitive minds might believe that any message that a paid LNC staffer puts out using LNC assets talking up a R is “using LP funds,” is my guess.
Saying anything that might be construed as not hewing precisely to the plumbline as codified in the platform and SoP could set off the literalistic into the sort of frenzy we’re seeing on this thread. For me, it illustrates the severe limitations of absolutism. Others may find such absolutism to be the One True Way, the only “principled” path.
Optimizing the benefits to the LP and LM of RP’s reasonably good showing thus far is a judgment call. I’d like to think that adults would recognize that optimization requires experimentation….
Having talked with a few libertarian leaning democrats… the moment the issue of abortion and Ron Paul’s stance on it is discussed… it becomes a non-starter. Ron Paul will not draw from the democratic vote because of his stances on gay equality and abortion.
Ron Paul at best will be a spoiler, who if he runs third party or independent can only prevent a republican win.
I don’t see how this message used LP funds to aid the Ron Paul campaign.
The message was an attempt to indicate that the LP might gain supporters from the Ron Paul movement – and most Libertarians hope that will happen.
143 bh, see my comment 17.
I also agree with your comment, my Silicon friend. It is certainly extraordinary how many times the MSM uses the word “L” when describing RP.
I’ve swagged that the gross impressions of the word “L” has probably gone off the charts due to RP ’12. Even with NewsletterGate, we may be observing an major ideological inflection point, where L-ism(s) takes its rightful place inside the public square.
Those who prefer the comfort zone of being deep out on the fringes may find this development a bit unsettling. Be on the look out for acts of self-sabotage…
@141 The members of the National Party, as members of the National Party, have specified that they forbid using LNC funds to support Paul.
It’s called the LNC Bylaws. Paul is in a race in which there are already Libertarian candidates. President. It has some funny hoops along the way, but he is running against a whole bunch of fine Libertarians.
Any print edition of the Knapptionary would involve 3-hole punch paper in a loose-leaf binder, sold as a subscription to the stream of updates. 🙂
Bob, how was Howell’s messaging off? The only tweak I can think of would be to not bother certifying Paul’s campaign as libertarian, and instead point out that Paul’s campaign is both self-proclaimed and widely described as “libertarian”. Then continue saying that the Paul campaign is giving unprecedented attention and credibility to our libertarian goals. … This will bring heightened attention to our libertarian candidates who offer bold reductions in Big Government that most Republicans and Democrats won’t dare.
BH@140,
If you produce a print edition of the Knapptionary, let me know if you need a hi-res head shot or anything.
133 gp: …the LNC is spending its funds to endorse the anti-Libertarian agenda of Republican Paul…
me: Stipulating that I agree that Howell’s message was off, and not agreeing entirely with the characterization of RP’s agenda, do you have any sense that the rank and file of the LP object to promoting Paul in some fashion?
My guess is something like 80% of LP members applaud the notion of positive Paul messaging by the LNC. If I’m close, how is that anti-L?
Ah. So when you said “ethics are for those other guys, not members of the tribe”, you meant “Knapp’s should-never-ever-ever-under-any-circumstances standards are for those other guys, not for members of the tribe or for Knapp when he decides to violate them”.
OK, duly noted in my Knapptionary. 🙂
BH,
I’d be hard put to argue that Paulie or Gene have any standards at all regarding the issue.
After over a dozen comments on this topic, you still have produced no evidence that Paulie or Gene have different standards for when Republicans and Libertarians can temporarily cross party lines to support someone campaigning for principles one believes in.
At long last, sir, will you please muster some evidence for your calumny against these men?
BH@136,
Hypocrisy is “insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.”
“Do as I say, not as I do” can be an indicator of hypocrisy, but it is not necessarily so.
It’s hypocritical to pretend that you go by the same rules set as others when you don’t actually do so.
It’s not hypocritical to genuinely believe that different rules sets apply to different people.
Most tribal ethics sets do differentiate between the actions of the tribe’s members and the actions of the tribe’s non-members, but I assume that the particular expression of such a belief on e.g. Paulie’s and Gene’s part is genuine, not hypocritical.
They truly believe that since Libertarians are right and Republicans are wrong, it is okay for Libertarians to commit fraud in avowals of party allegiance in order to stick it to the Republicans, but that turnabout is not fair play.
This all started when you said “ethics are for the other guys” to Paulie when he defended switch-hitting to vote for Ron Paul. I guess if you think should-statements are neither normative nor statements of ethics, you’ll also claim that “ethics are for the other guys” is somehow not an accusation of hypocrisy.
If only Google had a Knapp<->English translator, we could save ourselves a lot of time… 🙂
BH@134,
“To convict Gene or Paulie of hypocrisy, you have to cite them agreeing with the should-rule that you say they have broken.”
Why would I want to convict them of something I haven’t accused them of?
Tom, “normative rule” describes the content of the rule (“should”), not its origin in some external objective source of ethics. (I don’t think the latter exist; cf. http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2008/04/rand-did-not-solve-is-ought-problem.html.) To convict Gene or Paulie of hypocrisy, you have to cite them agreeing with the should-rule that you say they have broken.
If you’re going to continue making should-never-ever-ever-under-any-circumstances statements, and then claim that your disregard for them is not an ethical lapse because the “should” was a mere “opinion” and not a “rule”, could you please distinguish for your readers when you’re using “should” in the I-don’t-really-mean-it sense? 🙂
But perhaps one should be more concerned that the LNC is spending its funds to endorse the anti-Libertarian agenda of Republican Paul:
States rights — states should decide if gays can adopt, women can have abortions, African-Americans can vote, or (thank you, Senator Santorum, for this one) married people can have contraceptives.
anti-gay
anti-pagan
anti abortion
Christian dominionist
evolution denying
@130 and earlier
Perhaps it would be better to propose that the Jewish and Christian message about forgiveness is sometimes worth applying.
BH @ 128,
“Readers can decide for themselves whether you prescribed a normative rule”
Well, yes, they can “decide for themselves.” But their decision doesn’t affect whether or not I did. I either did or didn’t, regardless of what they “decide.”
BH@128,
“You still have not quoted Paulie or Gene making a ‘should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances’ statement that they later violated.”
Nor do I intend to do so, nor do I have any reason to do so. If ethics are “normative rules,” then whether or not they stated them before violating them is of no importance whatsoever.
Common Tater@127,
“I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that you were on the Missouri and/or St Louis party executive committees, central committees or whatever they were called during at least some of that time.”
I think you’re right.
Of course, as I pointed out, Kubby was an LP candidate, not a candidate of another party.
So the issue there is not me violating the “normative rule” I actually prescribed (that party officials should support the party and its candidates, rather than the party’s opponents), but rather me reversing my opinion on how one should subsequently interact with people who violate that normative rule.
If you’re looking for a case of me violating my the normative rule I prescribed, there are at least two plausible ones:
– I ran as the vice-presidential candidate of another party; and
– I voted for the presidential candidate of another party.
I say “plausible case” — not “air-tight case.” Instead of pointing out the holes in the case, I’ll let you hunt them up yourself.
However, if anyone wants me to stipulate to hypocrisy, consider it so stipulated.
Tom, you wrote “should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances [do X]” and then you did X. Readers can decide for themselves whether you prescribed a normative rule, and whether your commission of X was an instance of “ethics are for those other guys”.
You still have not quoted Paulie or Gene making a “should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances” statement that they later violated.
To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I held not office of trust in the Libertarian Party at the time I supported Kubby.
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that you were on the Missouri and/or St Louis party executive committees, central committees or whatever they were called during at least some of that time.
Brian et al.,
No point in arguing with Tom – he’s doing a great job of arguing with himself!
@122-123
TLK 2003) those “Libertarian leaders” [ such as Steve Kubby ] who do choose to go around endorsing non-LP candidates in races where the LP has a non-repugnant candidate should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, be considered by the membership of the LP for election to Party office or nomination as candidates for public office under the LP banner.
TLK 2006-2008) Nominate Steve Kubby for President!
TLK 2012) those “Libertarian leaders” who do choose to go around endorsing non-LP candidates in races where the LP has a non-repugnant candidate should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, be considered by the membership of the LP for election to Party office or nomination as candidates for public office under the LP banner.
Brian @123,
“You prescribed a normative rule”
In your imagination, perhaps. In the real world, all I did was state an opinion.
Tom, at the link @83 you wrote: those “Libertarian leaders” who do choose to go around endorsing non-LP candidates in races where the LP has a non-repugnant candidate should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, be considered by the membership of the LP for election to Party office or nomination as candidates for public office under the LP banner.
You prescribed a normative rule, and then you violated it. How is this not an instance of “ethics are for those other guys”? Can you quote a normative prescription from Paulie or Gene that they have similarly violated?
Paulie,
Ron wants to re-criminalize abortion he also wants to allow the state government to collect taxes and use them to promote religion.
I do not equate the abortion issue with being pro or con woman.
I do equate using state government as a repressive instrument to be contrary to the libertarian ideal. And certainly to be contrary to the party platform. Specifically with regard to abortion.
Lets be clear… that if you are apposed to having a government that can and will use its power to collect taxes to promote religion and re-criminalize abortion then you should think twice about supporting a candidate whose legislative history, the pledges they have signed and the speeches they have given indicate that they will use the power of the office to enact.
Ron Paul Ad: Staying on the Right Path – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_qBSow4FrE&feature=player_embedded
BH@119,
“Tom, was your Kubby support @83 an instance of ‘ethics are for those other guys’?”
To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I held not office of trust in the Libertarian Party at the time I supported Kubby.
And had I held such an office of trust in the LP in that timeframe, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, Kubby was in fact an LP candidate, not a candidate of another party, throughout the entirety of that timeframe.
So, as best I can figure out, your question is “is it unethical for an LP member to support an LP candidate?” In general, I think the answer to that question is “no.”
Gene and Tom seem both to be setting up strawmen. Nobody is advocating unthinking party loyalty. Nobody is advocating that LP officers should feel free to support a Republican over the duly-chosen Libertarian candidate in normal circumstances. Nobody is denying that supporting a liberty-friendly R or D legislator can marginally tighten the R or D grip on the legislature.
Tom, was your Kubby support @83 an instance of “ethics are for those other guys”?
Gene, Jack Hickey is somewhat vocally pro-life and is a colorful character, but I’m not sure if either explains his 2003 non-endorsement.
@ 86 Gene Berkman writes Anyway, you will not recruit very many people into the Libertarian Party if your selling point is that they give up all independence when they join the party. And the type of people who are attraced to that kind of authoritarian strait jacket are not good at being libertarians.
@ 88 Thomas Knapp writes The point is that when one accepts a leadership position in the party, one undertakes an obligation of trust which is broken when one then turns around and supports, and urges others to support, the party’s opponents.
@ 103 Gene Berkman wrote You will not get competent leaders if they are told they have to support the LP candidate regardless of merit or lack thereof.
It reads to me that the comments have gone from ones about a person in the LPHQ office, which I originally thought didn’t matter too much to one about the general membership at 86 to one about the leadership at 88.
Seems to me that two different functions of members are being mixed, the general membership and leadership. Maybe I am reading this wrong. Who cares? It is Friday.
GB,
You can try to build a strawman in which basic obligations of voluntary trust become a “Bolshevik notion of Party Loyalty” all day long if you like. At the end of the day, basic obligations of voluntary trust will remain basic obligations of voluntary trust, and what you’re shoveling will still be bullshevik.
TK @ 114 – I happent to think that a Bolshevik notion of Party Loyalty is unethical. You have only asserted it and not proved that it is in line with libertarian values.
I have not supported candidates who were enemies of liberty, except maybe Howard Dean because of the war. Every Republican I have supported has been a friend of the Libertarian Party, not an opponent.
Darryl @ 112 – thanks for listing the names.
Ned Roscoe, owner of Cigarettes Cheaper was the candidate endorsed by the LPC Ex Comm.
Jack Hickey actually has long been active in the LPC and has run for state legislature several times I believe.
Ken Hamidi was contacted, and told the LPC contact that he was not really a Libertarian. I am not sure why he registered Libertarian, or even why he ran in the recall.
I am not sure why the LPC did not endorse Jack Hickey. Maybe Ted Brown or someone can comment on this.
GB @111,
I’ve simply pointed out that if you want to hold internal office in the LP, the obligation of trust involved involves supporting the LP’s endorsed/nominated candidates rather than their opponents.
I don’t expect to convince you. As I’ve pointed out, the LP is like most other tribes — ethics are for those other guys, not members of the tribe.
Gp @ 110 -As I mentioned, there were three registered Libertarians running in the recall, along with 132 other candidates.
One of the three had clearly indicated he was not a Libertarian, and had registered Libertarian for some uncertain reason, so he was out of the running.
I think the LPC Ex Comm endorsed the owner of the cigarette stores in the belief that he would promote the Libertarian Party through his stores.
Ironically, the cigarette store owner would make everyone who worked for him read Harry Browne books, and he did not even register to vote until the recall election, and he has not been involved in the Libertarian Party since then, nor have either of the other two registered Libertarians who were on the recall ballot.
Tom McClintock had a real campaign, supplemented by millions of dollars in ads bought by Indian tribes, grateful because McClintock was the only Republican office-holder in California to support Indian gaming.
McClintock came in third with 13.5%; the three registered Libertarians received about 2000 votes each, in a state where our statewide candidates typically get from 100,000 to 200,000 votes.
Full results of the recall can be seen at:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2003&fips=6&f=1&off=5&elect=0&minper=0
Ned Fenton Roscoe (Libertarian) 2,250 (0.03%)
Ken Hamidi (Libertarian) 1,948 (0.02%)
John J. ‘Jack’ Hickey (Libertarian) 1,689 (0.02%)
Common Tator is correct about staff positions at LPHQ. I was referring to local LP groups, since I have been an officer my county organization numerous times, and Mr Knapp has attacked me for actions I have taken.
Mr Knapp has criticized the Riverside County Libertarian Party even though he does not live here and has never made a contribution to RCLP.
Mr Wilson @ 107 – you may operate according to your own lights in this matter, I would not presume to urge you to do anything. I am writing about this issue because Mr Knapp thinks that his opinion matters, and I am pointing out that it does not matter to anyone in the Riverside County Libertarian Party.
@109 Thank you for your historical facts.
Out of curiosity, why did the State Committee choose that candidate and not the other two?
Just to give some detail about the recall election in2003 – there were 135 candidates on the ballot, including three registered Libertarians.
There was no convention between the time the election was called and the time of the election. Indeed, at the LP convention earlier that year, the LPC was the first group to endorse the recall.
The state committee decided to endorse one of the registered Libertarians who had qualified. He was not active in the LPC, and he did not campaign as a Libertarian. He owns a chain of cheap cigarette stores, and he campaigned on the single issue of cutting taxes on cigarettes. His website identified him as candidate of The Smokers Party.
In that context, many California Libertarians supported Tom McClintock, a long-time ally of the LPC, who had spoken at the LPC convention that had endorsed the recall.
I don’t expect the facts to change anyone’s mind. I only offer them on an FYI basis.
all leadership positions in The Libertarian Party are voluntary upaid positions.
Not the staff position at LPHQ, since that is what started this discussion.
re Gene @ 103. As a representative in one of the state parties. I think it is unacceptable to support someone in another party. If I cannot support a candidate from my own party the least I can do is shut my mouth, of course, I am assuming the LP candidate has been chosen through the proper procedures.
@103 The leadership positions in the National Party are elected *after* the Presidential candidate is elected, so it is totally reasonable to insist that they be supportive of the Presidential campaign, as is required by the Party By-Laws.
Ron Paul has actively written Libertarian Party members urging them to support a Republican rather than their own party’s members.
RC@101,
Sorry, I saw (and even typed) “GP,” but for some reason I read “GJ.”
GB,
I wouldn’t have dreamed (when in the LP) of telling volunteer party leaders that they have to support the LP candidate regardless of merit or lack thereof.
As you point out, party leadership positions are volunteer and unpaid. If the people filling those positions become unwilling, for whatever reason, to support the party’s opponents instead of the party’s candidates, there’s nothing at all to stop them from doing the right thing and resigning.
TK @ 88 – all leadership positions in The Libertarian Party are voluntary upaid positions. The leadership comes from the membership.
You will not get competent leaders if they are told they have to support the LP candidate regardless of merit or lack thereof.
If LP leadership positions were paid positions, there might be a case for putting some limits on what people holding those positions can do.
In any case, Libertarians who support Ron Paul or Tom McClintock do not consider them opponents of the Libertarian Party. Both Ron Paul and Tom McClintock have spoken at LP conventions, and both have endorsed Libertarian Party candidates in some races.
More importantly, if either of them are elected, they defend freedom much more than they oppose freedom. That is a more important standard than party affiliation.
100 p: No, taking a cue for Bob Barr, the plan is for limousines, not taxis.
me: Funniest statement of 2012 thus far… 😉
97 tk, surprised you don’t recall. This IPR link should help:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/barber-phillies-violated-party-membership-oath/
The vast majority of people I have heard say that abortion should be illegal believe it should be illegal to perform an abortion (ie the doctors or other medical staff), not illegal for the would-be mother to participate in one. I agree with you that logic would dictate that it would be illegal for the woman to be, at the very least, an accomplice.
No, taking a cue for Bob Barr, the plan is for limousines, not taxis.
More seriously, minarchist pro-life libertarians would say that this is a legitimate use of tax money since arresting, prosecuting and locking up people for murder (which is what they believe abortion is) is one of the few things government should keep doing.
Anarchist pro-life libertarians don’t believe there should be any coercive taxes, so the question is moot. They would start by ending government protection of abortionists against terrorism or vigilante justice, depending on your perspective.
Paul, or Paulie. The I and the E are a package deal.
It implies nothing about you. It is a response to an article by Adele M. Stan. She says “He’s anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that’s just the start.”
The section you may be thinking of says
The other subjects – “He’s anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that’s just the start.” – are also addressed in similar fashion, as well as the issue of religious freedom.
I highly recommend everyone read the full article at http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/yellow-journalism-at-its-worst.html along with the other article I linked earlier by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.
I lived in Arcata, California at the time and wrote in “abolish the office.” It was the last government-run election I actually voted in, although obviously I’ve been participating in other ways.
RC@96,
Refresh my memory. When did GP “file a complaint” with the FEC against the LNC. If he has, I’ve never heard about it.
80 gp: Thank you for extending the list of party turncoats [prominent LPers who’ve in the past supported Ron Paul or McClintock].
me: Help us understand how you can label people like Nolan, Clark, Bergland, etc., “turncoats” and how you exclude YOURSELF from the list of turncoats? Those Ls made a one-off decision to support candidates who advanced liberty outside the LP.
You, OTOH, made a one-off -WAY off – the reservation decision to file a complaint with the FEC against the LNC.
90 GP: Not very bright, are you. [Stone thrown at GB].
ME: Yet another example of a frequent, recurring theme coming from the Phillies Matrix Pod: Dissing other people’s intellect. One gets the sense that Brother Phillies considers himself bright. (By all indications, both GP and GB are quite bright.) GP might want to review some ancient wisdom, like:
“He Who Lives in a Glass House Shouldn’t Throw Stones at Others”
or
“Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye.”
Thanks for reminding us how psychological projection works. Rather than dealing with one’s own guilt, one lashes out at others for similar behavior. Textbook example here, actually…..
Andy,
Keep all the babies you want just don’t force them on me. I won’t be willing to pay to have prisons built and maintained for families that want babies. Are you willing to pay for prisons to lock people up who abort fetuses?
“Being anti woman is not the same thing as wishing to strip woman of certain privacy rights.”
So I guess you are anti-baby.
George,
At the very least, the libertarians who want to criminalize the behaviors of others (such as abortion) need to figure out how they would pay for the jails.
Private donations?
Tom McClintock continued . . .
There was a time Tom McClintock was running for a state wide office. This election the Libertarian Party of California did have a candidate. At the Party convention there was a movement to have a “dual” endorsement. In other words we were to endorse Tom McClintock and our candidate. How this would work I never could figure out.
Some of us were able to put a stop to the attempt to do a dual endorsement. It helped our cause that our candidate who was very upset was at the convention and she expressed her anger and disgust at that attempt by some to have us endorse Tom McClintock.
I also supported Tom McClintock in the 2003 recall election for the office of Governor in California. The Libertarian Party had a very poor candidate . . .
Tom McClintock is the Harold Stasson of California politics. Many years ago he ran for a state wide office. The Libertarian Party of California did not have a candidate for the state wide office Tom McClintock was running for. The reason for this was so we (Libertarians) would vote for Tom McClintock.
The reason we did not have a candidate for that office was not stated publicly by the Party establishment because the Party Bylaws prohibit supporting or endorsing a candidate of another political party. It was all under the radar but it was known why we did not have a candidate and that we were to vote for Tom McClintock. Being the contrarian that I am I refused to go along and I voted for the candidate of the Constitution Party (at that time the affiliate party for the CP in California being the AIP).
@86 Not very bright, are you. But then, you are a crypto-Republican, and we know about Republicans. The topic was party leaders, not random members. Nor would I care what they did in the privacy of the ballot box; that’s why the ballot box is private.
John Hospers stands first and foremost among the cryptoRepublicans; he was a founder of the Libertarians for Bush. And when I met him, at a later date, he appeared to have his wits about him.
Steve: Yes, the antiabortionists do want to strip women of their liberties, and they should be made to understand that their opinion is not welcome in a legitimate libertarian political party.
Pauli,
http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/yellow-journalism-at-its-worst.html implies that I am accusing Ron Paul of being anti-woman when in fact i am accusing him of wanting the government to intrude into reproductive health medicine and to indeed want a branch of the government to re-criminalize abortion. Being anti woman is not the same thing as wishing to strip woman of certain privacy rights.
To put it explicitly, Ron Paul wants to have a branch of the government make a very personal decision criminal.
So my anti-choice libertarians… I ask… do you favor building and maintaining prisons to lock woman and doctors up?
If so do you plan to use the force of the government to collect taxis to implement your beliefs?
GB@86,
“Anyway, you will not recruit very many people into the Libertarian Party if your selling point is that they give up all independence when they join the party. ”
As usual, you intentionally miss the point. The point is not that people give up independence when they join the party.
The point is that when one accepts a leadership position in the party, one undertakes an obligation of trust which is broken when one then turns around and supports, and urges others to support, the party’s opponents.
“Gene Berkman // Jan 5, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Among the ‘turncoat’ LP activists who backed Libertarians for McClintock in 2003 were Art Olivier – candidate for Vice-President in 2000 on the LP ticket – and Steve Kubby.”
I also supported Tom McClintock in the 2003 recall election for the office of Governor in California. The Libertarian Party had a very poor candidate and a major opportunity was blown by the Libertarian Party of California by not having a better candidate because there was a debate held between the top 5 candidates in that election and since the Libertarian Party ran a disorganized odd ball candidate the Libertarian Party candidate did not get included in that debate (note that the Green Party’s candidate Peter Camejo did qualify for being in the top 5). McClintock did hold a lot of libertarian views, although I later found out that he was not as libertarian when it came to foreign policy issues, but none the less, Governor is a state office and not a federal office. I would have prefered it if the LP of California had managed to get a better candidate who was also a more hardcore libertarian, but since they didn’t, I voted for libertarian leaning Republican Tom McClintock in that election.
GP @ 85 – I did not mention John Hospers supporting Bush because that was the wrong thing to do, quite aside from questions of party loyalty.
Anyway, you will not recruit very many people into the Libertarian Party if your selling point is that they give up all independence when they join the party. And the type of people who are attraced to that kind of authoritarian strait jacket are not good at being libertarians.
@85 You missed John Hospers and the Libertarians for Bush.
It is, of course, unfortunate that former party supporters turn coat and support another party, but we should focus on the good news: Just as they dumped their party to support a Republican, so also we can persuade Democrats and Republicans to abandon their parties and positions, and come over to the party of Liberty.
For people who don’t recognize the names:
David Nolan founded the Committee to Organize a Libertarian Party and was chair at the founding convention of The Libertarian Party.
Ed Clark was LP candidate for President in 1980 and achieved the highest vote total for the LP in a Presidential race.
David Bergland served as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee and was LP candidate for President in 1984.
Art Olivier was LP candidate for Vice-President in 2000 and LP candidate for Governor of California in 2006.
GP@79,
“TK might say that none of the people GB cites are party officials”
Why would I say that? They either are (were) or they aren’t (weren’t).
I was well aware that Kubby and Olivier were involved in “Libertarians for McClintock” — I called them out for it at the time.
That was the biggest thing I had to get past to support Kubby for president in 2008. If he hadn’t been by far the best candidate in any LP presidential field since I’d been in the party, I probably wouldn’t have been able to bring myself to do it.
GP @ 80 – glad you are so committed to the Libertarian Party that you are ready to denounce David Nolan, Ed Clark, David Bergland, Art Olivier etc.
Perhaps Turncoat is not the right word. Perhaps “patriot” is better – people who care more about principle and the good of America than about party loyalty.
For an even longer list of (ex-)Libertarians who have expressed support for Ron Paul’s 2008/2012 campaigns, see http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2007/12/teflon-libertarian-moderate.html
@78 Thank you for extending the list of party turncoats.
TK might say that none of the people GB cites are party officials. Of course, neither is GB!
Among the “turncoat” LP activists who backed Libertarians for McClintock in 2003 were Art Olivier – candidate for Vice-President in 2000 on the LP ticket – and Steve Kubby.
Kubby also endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican nomination in 2008. Among prominent Libertarians, David Nolan contributed $300 to the Ron Paul campaign; David Bergland contributed $250; Ed Clark gave $1000 to the Ron Paul campaign in 2008.
I admit I have been involved in Republican campaigns. I have never hidden it. Lots of other Libertarian activists have supported Republicans too, because there are serious issues of the power of government, and some Republicans (too few) have opposed big government, sometimes more effectively than TK or GP.
Yes Ron Paul is anti-abortion, which was the biggest problem for libertarians when he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988.
However, he opposes a federal ban on abortion, opposes the “Human Life Amendment” and favors legalization of the “morning after” pill.
Ron Paul voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and he opposes a federal ban on same sex marriage.
Yes he has religious views that I don’t agree with. But all too many LP members are Pagans, which I find similarly irrational.
It’s like reading vomit:
http://getbruce.blogspot.com/2009/01/ron-paul-against-israel-and-usa.html
69 tk, the programming in the Knapp Matrix Pod directs you to conclude that your sports analogy ports to this situation, e.g., LPers speaking positively about RP’s run for the GOP nod. I respect that.
The Capozzi Matrix Pod, however, directs me to conclude that the analogy doesn’t work. Politics may have some similarities to team sports, but political parties don’t have the sorts of discipline that teams do. For ex., while I consider the LP’s SoP absurd, there’s no means to bench me for saying so.
Since you are not in the LP, we’ll use GP for illustration. He can object vigorously to any positive mention of RP by LP/LNC officials, and again he can’t be disciplined for doing so.
As I’ve indicated before, my Pod programming tells me that politics is not “objective,” not rigid, not an exercise in literalistic thinking. There is latitude on how politics is practiced.
I am the liar?
http://joecobb.com/2011/12/21/reply-to-bruce-cohen/
I see you are avoiding the real question here, which is one of you attempting to assasinate my character and put words in my mouth.
When challenged, you use a Ron Paul Kindergarden type of response, ‘I can tell’.
That’s a really good argument there, pal.
Hey Bruce, back up the fact that you call Ron Paul an Anti-semite…. that’s all the proof I need. You call him an anti-semite, because you fear him.
You fear his message.
You don’t like him because he does not want to continue the wars and foreign aid, talk all you want, but when push comes to shove you have to stab people in the back in order to hope they wont stop the money train and the loss of lives in these foreign wars.
Why else would you degrade yourself to lie about Ron Paul?
Lastly, to whomever else is bad mouthing Paul, what purpose does this serve? There is a 90+% chance that Ron Paul will not win the election, when his millions of followers are looking for a place to go when he doesn’t win, why are you so hell bent to chase them away?
John Jay Jung Jong Jing, you’re a flat out liar. You purport me to have said certain things that I haven’t. You purport me to take certain positions I haven’t.
Quoting JJ: “If you love Israel so much move there you schmuck, but do not spend our money or our children’s blood for your own personal “Israel first” attitude”
Then when challenged for a citation to back up your lies, you have to resort to arguing by implication.
Shall I quote your rationale?
Yes, I shall:
“Well let’s see Bruce, your numerous posts and blogs where you continually call Ron Paul anti-semitic, though everyone knows that is not true.
Now how does that apply? Common sense. Why would a person call someone anti-semitic continually when they are not? Because they are going down the “Anti-Israel = Anti-semitic” road. Which is complete shit.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where your loyalties stand.”
So, Mister Jay-Pee, where is the quote?
It’s not as though my positions and writings are secret and hidden like Ron Paul’s weekly lunches for Thai food with White Supremacist groups.
I just know you have one of those newfangled internet enabled computers that have this really great feature called a ‘search engine’. I suggest you click on that little “E” with the yellow ring on it and start from there.
Come on PPPJs, you are the one who said “…do not spend our money or our children’s blood for your own personal “Israel first” attitude”
Where have I ever advocated this?
Where, when, how… Let’s see it, liar boy.
@57 Paul advocates Christian Dominionism, the supremacy of his warped interpretation of the Christian Bible over the Constitution. I call your attention to his interview on TheAmericanView,com where he is entirely explicit on this point.
RC@66,
The point is not that “all Republicans are the same.”
The point is that political parties are distinct entities, in competition with one another through their candidates.
The passing coach, defensive coordinator, etc. for the Chicago Bears shouldn’t be spending their time and effort working with players who are signed for the Oakland Raiders. And if they are, Bears fans are very right to ask whether or not those officials can be trusted in The Big Game.
@67,
Paul will have more delegates than last time not only due to better organization, etc., but also because there’s a new delegate apportionment formula that isn’t “winner take all” in primary states. If he gets into double digits in various states, he’ll probably earn delegates.
@48: Also of note is that Paul will likely have way more delegates to the national republican convention this time around (due to increased support and better organization than in 2008). Those allow him to effect the outcome of a brokered convention and/or influence the national platform to move it in a more libertarian direction.
He would lose those delegates if he left the GOP to run third-party.
Getting the nomination remains a long shot, but Paul has always seen his campaigns of having a purpose in getting the message out and moving the country. That purpose looks best served by him staying in the GOP.
60 tk, yes, I suppose GP provides a service in noting the obvious, in this case, that RP is a R. If the further service is that all Rs are the same, I’m not buying.
Really, I do recommend people read the articles from Punk Patriot and Glenn Greenwald I link above.
Too long to post them here so hopefully the links will get followed.
@61, @62 The We The People Bill is something Paul boasts about in his more recent newsletters. The legislation has exactly the effect @61 notes.
By the way, note the alignment of Paul with Santorum. The reference in B to “reproduction” is the same as Santorum’s proposal that states are entitled to criminalize the sale of contraceptives.
@61 you really should read this
http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/yellow-journalism-at-its-worst.html
Congressman Paul is running on issues that align with the Right Wing Christians such as anti-gay marriage, pro-excluding gays from the military, re-criminalization of abortion.
Ron Paul Sponsored the “we The People Bill” which is meant to limit the federal courts from enforcing constitutional individual privacy rights.
” The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
(1) shall not adjudicate–
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).”
RC@56,
The point was not to be “clever.” The point was to demonstrate that Berkman’s “collectivist” assertion was BS.
Berkman doesn’t object to GP noticing that Paul is a Republican because Berkman dislikes collectivism.
Berkman dislikes GP noticing that Paul is a Republican because Berkman supports Republicans.
Not just Paul — among other GOP v. LP forays, Berkman was one of the ringleaders in “Libertarians for McClintock,” a group of turncoat LP officials which endorsed a Republican, as opposed to the Libertarian, for California governor in the 2003 recall.
From Israel: Vote Ron Paul & Let My People Go!
by RAFI FARBER http://bravenewworld.in/from-israel-vote-ron-paul-let-my-people-go/
We’ve already been over this.
Under LP bylaws he has to express an interest in the nomination first. If he does, I don’t think he will have any trouble getting it. If he doesn’t, I think it is unlibertarian to try to force him, thus quite properly against our bylaws.
Furthermore, the only scenario under which a “draft” could make sense would be where he is still a serious contender for the Republican nomination in May but not yet assured of winning it. I don’t think that is a likely scenario at all; by May, Paul is almost certain to be decisively eliminated from any real contention there, and it will probably happen a lot sooner than that. But, if he were to be in that position, an LP nomination would hurt his chances in the NSGOP, as he would have to spend all his time denying accusations of party disloyalty and alt party plans.
So, if Ron Paul does not ask for the LP nomination, take him at his (lack of) word.
That’s not a point in Paul’s favor.
It gets some votes, but from the wrong and least available audience. The opportunity cost is a larger number of votes from a more available audience. See links in article above for some of why.
Particularly http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2012/01/iowa-and-ron-paul-how-rockwell-strategy.html
See also http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
Ron Paul, is running a a libertarian leaning right wing conservative christian republican.
I don’t see that Paul is “running as” a Christian.
He is a Christian, but he’s not advocating theocracy.
He is anti-choice on abortion, but so are many non-Christians. There are non-theological arguments for and against abortion choice, usually based on one’s scientific opinion of when human life (and hence, one’s natural rights) begins.
33 tk: If Paul was running on the very same platform, only as the candidate of the American Nazi Party, you wouldn’t pull that “oh, don’t be a collectivist” bullshit out of your ass to excuse it.
me: Clever. By using the charged ANP, you make your point, yet your point is based on a hypothetical that distracts from the main point. IF the GOP = ANP in your mind or GP’s mind, then the analogy may work for y’all. While many/most are not enamored with the Rs and Ds, they have been and are the pathway to political office in the US in 99% of partisan offices. If someone chooses to run for office with another minor, political party, one is generally not interested in getting elected. Instead, one is attempting to advance a highly ideological point. It’s highly likely, for ex, that an ANP candidate is advancing fascism and implicitly advocating a massive overhaul to the current social order. If we make that assumption, it might also be “collectivist,” but it’d be a reasonable assumption nevertheless, IMO.
There are a few Rs whom a lot of Ls like. Paul and until a few days ago Johnson are at the top of the list. In both cases, both had been or were Ls, too. Others have been people like Rohrabacher, Weld, Rand Paul, Tucker Carlson, maybe a few more.
It’s getting to the point now that most times RP’s name gets hard-news or analysis on televised MSM, the word “libertarian” is used. One can also hear the teeth-grinding sounds emanating from Worcester and St. Louis over this. I can understand why y’all object so.
But, it is what it is. Ron Paul is effectively the leading libertarian politician the country. Deal with it.
Ron Paul, is running a a libertarian leaning right wing conservative christian republican.
In terms of anti-war, smaller government, drug policies Ron views parallel libertarianism.
In terms of freedom to select reproductive medicine and equal civil/property rights to gays Ron’s views are heavily pro government intrusion, thus anti-libertarian.
If find my self amazed to be in agreement (excluding the nu-necessary stabs at Starchild and Andrew Boarnett) with Bruce Cohen, but in this instance, Bruce is correct!
If you want to help Ron then you need to decide to be in the party that Ron is trying to lead.
Specifically, it is a conflict of interest to hold a leadership position in one party while actively supporting a candidate from another party!
Ron Paul is not anti-Israel. He calls for ending tax-funded foreign aid to all governments, not just to Israel.
Congressman Paul points out that the U.S. government gives at least 4 times as much aid to governments that are enemies of Israel as it does to Israel, so ending foreign aid would benefit Israel, as well as restoring its independence.
Well let’s see Bruce, your numerous posts and blogs where you continually call Ron Paul anti-semitic, though everyone knows that is not true.
Now how does that apply? Common sense. Why would a person call someone anti-semitic continually when they are not? Because they are going down the “Anti-Israel = Anti-semitic” road. Which is complete shit.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where your loyalties stand.
Most of Ron Paul’s heroes are Jewish. But he takes issue with foreign aid and our thinking of bombing Iran for Israel.
Which is plain and simple where you are coming from.
So you are like a rat, slowly trying to gnaw your way around the topic because you are not enough of a man to stand for the truth.
A rat in hiding behind the scenes hoping for a piece of cheese.
GW @34 “I hope Ron Paul continues to do well and that we nominate a Presidential candidate who can rally the millions of disappointed Paul supporters to our party in the General Election.”
> That candidate is Dr. Ron Paul and ONLY Ron Paul. Don’t pass up this Golden opportunity LP ! Think about it .
Ron Paul Ad TRUST – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDBp1OrCwI&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Ronald Reagan Sounds like Ron Paul – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ronald Reagan Sounds Like Ron Paul?
Ron Paul Sounds Like Ronald Reagan!!!
Ron Paul? For President
cbmodesto on YouTube
This Reagan talk gets more votes, the goal of running for office.
GB@37,
“I did not say ‘don’t be a collectivist.’ I merely identified Mr Phillies’ views as being collectivist.”
No, you didn’t “identify” them as such. You simply asserted that they were such.
When an individual knowingly, voluntarily and for long periods chooses to associate himself with a particular political organization which itself has an explicit platform and a long history of propounding and promoting that platform, it is not “collectivist” for others to likewise associate that person with the organization, its platform and its history.
Ron Paul has knowingly, voluntarily and for more than three decades publicly associated himself with the Republican Party. In the 2008 election cycle, he explicitly state that he has “always been a Republican” even though he “ran as a Libertarian” in 1988.
Ron Paul is a Republican, period. If you don’t believe me, ask him.
“The whole national crew of Paulbot types, from CA Chair Takenaga, to Mary Ruwart, all of them have been on the warpath against anyone who dared support Republicans for any reason.
This would include electoral races that were non-Partisan. Even races that had no Libertarian in the. Or both.
So now it’s ok for the Ron Paul Libertarians to do the very thing they so decried about the 40-45% of the LP that are not Paulestinian.”
There’s a big difference between a Libertarian Party member supporting Ron Paul and a Libertarian Party supporting most other Republicans.
I don’t care as much about party labels as I do about stances on issues and voting record. Ron Paul scores very high on both from a libertarian perspective, therefore I deem him as being worth supporting regardless of what party label is next to his name.
The majority of Republicans are not worth supporting, but just because most of them are not worth supporting it doesn’t mean one who is pro-liberty can’t support another person who is pro-liberty but who runs under the Republican Party banner (or any other banner for that matter).
@44 I think you accidentally omitted the B.C.
the rumors I have heard (I no longer remember where) say Vice Chair Rutherford will challenge Chair Hinkle.
I’m sure there will be others.
Speaking of running for LNC Chair, does anybody know of any candidates for the job?
According to OurCampaigns.com
05/27/2010 LNC Chair
11/04/2008 US President (NH ballot)
05/25/2008 US President – LBT Convention
07/02/2006 LNC Chair
05/31/2004 LNC Chair
07/07/2002 LNC Chair
07/07/2002 LNC Secretary
07/03/2000 LNC Chair
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=15123
I’ve heard him say he was misquoted. Make of that what you will.
@41
“When was the last even numbered year when George Phillies was running for neither LP chair nor presidential nomination?”
Is this a trick question? Wait… I think it was 1972!
I remember asking this before, but I don’t remember the answer, if I ever got one.
I’d be curious to know which ones and when.
Sounds like a yes to me.
When was the last even numbered year when George Phillies was running for neither LP chair nor presidential nomination?
http://ontheissues.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm scores him at 60/100 economic, 50/100 social on the Nolan chart. Not bad for a Republican, but not quite “libertarian-conservative”.
So, have any investigative journalists done so?
John Jay Myers // Jan 4, 2012 at 4:07 pm
“Bruce Cohen, you are a stooge and an idiot.
Thank you for making that clear to everyone.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, if he is not then this party has no chance. Because the bar is set too high for us to ever have enough members to win dog catcher.
If you love Israel so much move there you schmuck, but do not spend our money or our children’s blood for your own personal “Israel first” attitude.”
As far as your opinion of me and Ron Paul, I disagree, but you are entitled.
As far as your position on spending blood or money, please give us a citation where I have ever said anything otherwise.
You cast some pretty big stones for such an intellectual weakling.
Citation, please.
TK @ 33 – I did not say “don’t be a collectivist.” I merely identified Mr Phillies’ views as being collectivist.
If you or Mr Phillies wish to be collectivist, I cannot stop you. And since you identify “Don’t be a collectivist” as bullshit, I guess you have made your choice.
TK @ 33 – Ron Paul is not running as a candidate of the American Nazi Party. He is running as a Republican.
The Democrat and Republican Parties are not the same as little ideological groups. They are broad open organizations that anyone can join.
A rational person would not rely on exaggeration as the preferred method of argument.
Ron Paul has publicly denounced American wars, imperialism, and encroaching Police State — to the boos and catcalls of Republicans and conservatives.
Paul stood his libertarian ground, his personal popularity be damned.
Wayne Allyn Root — by his own admission — refuses to take libertarian positions on foreign policy and our police state (including the “Ground Zero” mosque) on the grounds that “radical” libertarian positions are unpopular with the conservative voters that he’s courting.
Root admits to selling out traditional LP positions to placate conservatives (He calls it part of his plan to “remake the LP.”), whereas Paul stands firm for liberty — to hell with statist conservatives.
Yet Bruce Cohen slams Paul, while cheerleading for Root.
I think Carla Howell is doing a fine job. The Libertarian Party has a good chance to achieve a recond level of success this year. I hope Ron Paul continues to do well and that we nominate a Presidential candidate who can rally the millions of disappointed Paul supporters to our party in the General Election.
GB@19,
“Each candidate and each officeholder has their own record of statements and actions.”
True. And that record of statements and actions includes the organizations they’ve joined and promoted.
If Paul was running on the very same platform, only as the candidate of the American Nazi Party, you wouldn’t pull that “oh, don’t be a collectivist” bullshit out of your ass to excuse it.
Phillies @ 27
Huntsman is some kind of libertarian or hyphenated-libertarian because he agrees with you about global warming.
Is that your final answer?
“ecause the bar is set too high for us to ever have enough members to win dog catcher.”
True by definition.
Dog catchers are not elected.
@ Phillies
Someone asked above
“It is my understanding the Gary Johnson joined the LP in 1993. When did you join the Libertarian Party?”
I would also be curious to know what attracted you to the LP at that time.
@5 if directed at me — I have been a member of several parties, but “Democratic” is not one of them.
@13 (Banks) and I think numbering got recomputed prior to my last post:
Announcements are a bit more formal than that.
However “Out with the idiots” is an interesting campaign line that I expect several of the current factions will be using.
@19 You don’t have a clue about how politics works. You also did not recognize the line, which is the primary refutation of the wasted voted superstition. When you are elected to Congress as a Republican your body helps make Boehner the speaker and increases the number of Republican torture advocates on every Congressional committee, no matter your personal taste on the issue.
Willie T. Libertarianism is the philosophy of reality, in opposition to ‘the science can’t be true because it is politically inconvenient”. In the case at hand, Huntsman is the only candidate who has worked out that there is essentially no disagreement in the active scientific community about the reality of global warming and evolution.
@22 Conde Recall that Carl ROve believed he had demonstrated the opposite victory mothed based on extremely systematic polling. Hiw model:
#1 There are in fact almost no people in the middle. Almost all of the people in the middle in fact almost always or always vote for one party. They say they are neutral, but they are not.
#2 Therefore a campaign pointed at trying to win over the middle does not work, because the middle substantially does not exist.
#3 The way you win is to mobilize your base, generally by terrifying them that there are communists under the bed and depraved bankers plotting to restore droit de seigneur.
Rove believed his model let him elect Bush, twice, and use of the opposite model had led to a long string of Republican defeats.
With respect to primaries, you win primaries by winning the votes of people who vote in primaries. That’s what the Republicans are doing.
@22 What is libertarian (hyphenated or otherwise) about Huntsman?
You guys can huff and puff all you want to, you won’t blow the “house” down.
Switching channels back and forth last night between MSNBC, CNN & FoxNews I heard the word “libertarian” more times on the 3 national (worldwide?) broadcasts than I have heard it in my entire lifetime on TV. All three stations carried Dr. Paul’s speech in it’s entirety.
Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish. Build your local LP on this movement. Dr. Paul won’t be here forever, but the LIBERTARIAN movement can be ! Use this movement to BUILD the LP all over the nation. If you want it to succeed, if not WHY are you involved ? Take up another hobby, PLEASE !!!
Ron Paul Ad – Secure – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmF7sNlraU&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Nominate over $50 millions worth of publicity to the LP this May !
Ron Paul Conviction Ad – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI&feature=endscreen&NR=1
@19- Well, said.
Knapp: “Was Howell hired to promote the Libertarian Party, or to promote an also-ran Republican?”
Well, Howell believes that if RP won the Republican nomination, then that would help Libertarian candidates. She isn’t saying “RP should win the Republican nomination”; she’s saying “RP should win the Republican nomination so more Libertarian candidates can capitalize on the greater attention paid to libertarian ideas.” Not sure if I buy that (and I know you don’t), but she clearly thinks she’s promoting the LP and not merely promoting “an also-ran Republican.”
What bothers me about Republicans is that they want to nominate the most conservative Right-wing Republican there is. The GOP needs to remember that the majority of American voters are right/center. If the wishes of the GOP come true and elect a hard conservative then that candidate will lose the support of his base since they have to move to the center and take a more moderate approach during the general election.
My point? Republicans need to elect a moderate common sense Libertarian-conservative that has a strong background in government and a clear stand on foreign affairs.
The name of that Candidate is Jon Huntsman.
19 gb: That is absurdly collectivist. Each candidate and each officeholder has their own record of statements and actions.
me: Yes, when GP seems to flip out like this, his otherwise fine analytical mind seems to subside to his Inner Mr. Hyde. It’s so obviously absurd, but even when his Inner Dr. Jekyll takes back control, he seems unwilling to even look at the havoc that Hyde wrought.
Bruce Cohen, you are a stooge and an idiot.
Thank you for making that clear to everyone.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, if he is not then this party has no chance. Because the bar is set too high for us to ever have enough members to win dog catcher.
If you love Israel so much move there you schmuck, but do not spend our money or our children’s blood for your own personal “Israel first” attitude.
“When you support a Republican, any Republican, you are supporting Republican Party stands for torture, wars of aggression, an American police state, profligate government spending,. huge debt, and, of course, European colonialism.”
That is absurdly collectivist. Each candidate and each officeholder has their own record of statements and actions.
It is clear that Ron Paul has opposed Bush’s war in Iraq, Bush’s Patriot Act, out of control spending under Democrats and Republicans etc.
Which of his critics on this site have done as much to defend freedom as Ron Paul?
It should be fairly easy to confirm or reject the claims about lunches, given that the day, place, and time seem to be specified.
Sub-optimal and I’d say inappropriate handling of the Paul phenomenon. Aside from the disjointed flow of words and the non-sentence (shoulda been “…underway, one…, I do believe), the positioning is off, IMO. First, RP isn’t going to get the GOP nomination. Speculating that that would lead to a “true Revolution” is just too vague, even for ME, the King of Vague! 😉
I have no problem mentioning Paul and citing him as a L friend. That’s fine. I would suggest leaving it at the idea that the energy that the Paul campaign is generating creates unprecedented opportunities for the LP and L ideas in the public square. Commenting on his getting the R nomination is at once not credible and inappropriate.
Remaining silent on the Paul phenomenon seems like a wasted opportunity, but this handling is maybe a generous C-….
Above all, remember, your vote counts twice. Once for the candidate. Once for the candidate’s party’s stand. When you support a Republican, any Republican, you are supporting Republican Party stands for torture, wars of aggression, an American police state, profligate government spending,. huge debt, and, of course, European colonialism.
The purpose of the Libertarian Party is specified in the Party Bylaws
” functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office; and, entering into public information activities.”
“supporting Party and affiliate party candidates”…no, Republicans do not count.
“functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties” … This is the opposite of distinct from all other parties.
I did not read this as a failing to promote the LP. It was just an okay friendly comment and nothing to get excited about. It do have a bit of a problem with the comment that Paul is running a Libertarian campaign or whatever words were used. Some of his issues are libertarian based but not all.
Hell the LP isn’t doing much to promote Libertarian ideas so we just might show some appreciation when someone else does.
The purpose of The Libertarian Party is to promote liberty. Carla Howell’s statements about Ron Paul are in line with that purpose.
@9
My bad – I just saw a non-rhetorical question @1
Tell you what, I’m certainly going to ask every single Chair Candidate if elected: would they fire Ms. Howell immediately, or not?
So, if I am correct that @5 is in response to this question, is @5 to be taken as announcement from Dr. Phillies that he is once again running for national chair?
@5 — It is my understanding the Gary Johnson joined the LP in 1993. When did you join the Libertarian Party? Would it be fair to characterize you as a “Democrat carpetbagger”?
@6 — Of course he is. Crazed warmonger Bruce Cohen started a whole Facebook dedicated to “Stop Ron Paul in 2012” where he and Dondero-Rittberg swap this kind of slander back-and-forth all day and plot for non-RP candidates in the GOP nomination race.
“If Carla likes racist anti-semites so much, maybe she should go to lunch with them once a week like her favorite, Doctor Paul?”
Are you seriously trotting out this old Dondero-line?
As far as I know, the only known original source for the claim that Paul does this is Virginia neo-nazi Bill White.
Does anyone have independent confirmation or denial of this claim that does not trace back to Mr. White?
And the answer to your question is “yes”.
Which question? He asked several, although as far as I could tell they were all rhetorical.
It’s not that complicated.
Was Howell hired to promote the Libertarian Party, or to promote an also-ran Republican?
Was the job description discussed during the hiring process?
“If Carla likes racist anti-semites so much, maybe she should go to lunch with them once a week like her favorite, Doctor Paul?”
Are you seriously trotting out this old Dondero-line?
Well said, Bruce.
And a fair piece of the rest of the LNC is cheering on a Republican carpetbagger trying to steal our party’s nomination, using the same lines used for the Barr nomination four years ago.
Apparently the LNC has no need of our money, since it can afford to spend it promoting a Republican. Mind you, I don’t care which Republican it is. It’s still a Republican.
And the answer to your question is “yes”.
I think it is just wonderful how everybody gets along and works together in the LP don’t you Bruce?
Troublemakers are ALWAYS just trouble.
Ron Paul is winning, so Iowa doesn’t matter [long version] – http://www.facebook.com/pages/Somerset-Youth-for-Ron-Paul/261208490581481?ref=pb
Busted! OMG! OMG! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape-NOT! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY&feature=share
NAACP Austin TX Director Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U Linder is interviewed explaining why he does not believe Ron Paul is a racist.
“The two party system has failed us…”
The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
Fifty million Dollars and thousands of activists should NOT be wasted LP. Think about it!
Rank hypocrisy above from crazed warmonger Bruce Cohen who has himself been involved in the GOP nomination process — campaigning against LP life member Ron Paul.
Go jump in the Dead Sea.
If Carla likes Republicans so much, why doesn’t she go to work for the GOP?
If Carla likes racist anti-semites so much, maybe she should go to lunch with them once a week like her favorite, Doctor Paul?
Tell you what, I’m certainly going to ask every single Chair Candidate if elected: would they fire Ms. Howell immediately, or not?
This is the peak of hypocrisy.
But as much as I chomp at the bit to beat Ms. Howell about the head with the Nolan Pledge, there is another group who I wish to castigate even further and more vociferously.
The whole national crew of Paulbot types, from CA Chair Takenaga, to Mary Ruwart, all of them have been on the warpath against anyone who dared support Republicans for any reason.
This would include electoral races that were non-Partisan. Even races that had no Libertarian in the. Or both.
So now it’s ok for the Ron Paul Libertarians to do the very thing they so decried about the 40-45% of the LP that are not Paulestinian.
Carla is the Poster Girl of the self named Libertarian ‘Radicals*’. From Starchild to Andrew Boarnett, they will have her posters on the wall, tacking her up right over their old Farrah Fawcett Majors pinup.
[*I’d prefer a much more perjorative term for this particular group, myself.]
I say Mark Hinkle and Carla should just shut down the DC office and travel with Ron Paul.
Why even bother to pretend you are Libertarians anymore?
You’re not Libertarians as in being team members, as being elected and/or paid to attend to the business of the organization at the direction of the members.
Make no mistake. Carla Howell’s statement here proves Mister Mark Hinkle is virtually 100% Partisan.
Mark’s fingerprints are all over this press release no less than Ron Paul’s on his racist and disgusting newsletters.