Libertarian Party: Rand Paul Betrays His Father’s Principles, Endorses Mitt Romney

Press Release
June 8, 2012

Why Ron Paul Supporters Need the Libertarian Party

When Dr. Rand Paul ran for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, many of his fund-raising appeals were sent to the donors and supporters of his father, Congressman Ron Paul. They were designed to convince Ron’s supporters that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. That Rand was, like his legendary father, a steadfast champion of liberty.

But no true libertarian, no true friend of liberty, and no true blue Tea Partier could possibly even consider, much less actually endorse or approve of, the Father of Obamacare, Big Government tax and spender, Republican Mitt Romney.

Especially the son of Ron Paul, who has no excuse.

Especially a medical doctor, who has even fewer excuses.

Earlier this year, Rand Paul showed his willingness to sell out his supporters when he called higher federal government spending a “spending cut” – Orwellian language used routinely by Big Government Democratic and Republican politicians.

Sorry, Senator Paul. An increase is an increase, whether it’s a big increase or a really, really big increase in federal government spending.

Rand Paul had a list of excuses for his endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. For example, he claims that Romney will support auditing the Federal Reserve, oppose SOPA legislation which impairs Internet freedom, allow construction of the Keystone Pipeline, and support the REINS Act which would require Congress to vote on major new regulations.

But as Sherlock Holmes would note, it’s the dog that didn’t bark that proves Rand Paul made a devil’s deal with Big Government Mitt Romney.

It’s what Rand Paul did not say that Mitt Romney will support that tells us what we really need to know.

He did NOT say that Mitt Romney would cut federal spending.

He did NOT say that Mitt Romney would never raise taxes.

He did NOT say that Mitt Romney would end Obamacare.

He did NOT say that Mitt Romney would bring the troops home from Afghanistan like Rand’s father has promised to do again and again.

Because a President Mitt Romney would NOT do those things.

Which is why Republican Mitt Romney is unfit to be president.

Vote Libertarian – the only political party that embraces the same core value as Dr. Ron Paul: Liberty!

###
P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party with a mission to give voters a choice to downsize Big Government, to do so in the most humane way possible, to greatly reduce taxes, and to slash high government spending. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can simply make a contribution.

You can find the original article here.

 

44 thoughts on “Libertarian Party: Rand Paul Betrays His Father’s Principles, Endorses Mitt Romney

  1. Trent Hill

    Without wading into the controversy itself: This looks sleazy. Using this “crisis” of the Ron Paul people to try to recruit for the LP just seems low.

    With that said, I’m sure it’s also fairly effective. I’m glad Johnson is handling things with more class.

  2. Gene Berkman

    Apparently Rand Paul decided to sell out now, and avoid the rush.

    That said, I don’t think an unfortunate choice in the Presidential race should obscure Sen Paul’s actual record opposing the expansion of government.

    Sen Paul is a mixed bag, and a mixed bag is the best we can hope for in D.C. these days.

    This press release sounds a bit petulant, but gets the facts straight. And petulant probably appeals to the target audience of Ron Paul campaign activists.

  3. NewFederalist

    While I totally agree that this was a terrible move on Senator Paul’s part, I would point out something that Professor Phillies has said all along… Rand Paul has never claimed to be a libertarian. As George has pointed out before on other threads Rand is a constitutional conservative rather than a libertarian. If Rand cut a deal with Governor Romney I hope he got more than 30 pieces of silver for putting the shaft to his own father BEFORE the GOP convention even convenes! I think he richly deserves his place in history with Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold.

  4. Nick Kruse

    @2 and 3 – The LP adds that P.S. message asking for new members to all of their e-mails.

  5. Be Rational

    Iscariot – Arnold – Paul

    Rand’s motto: Safe seat. Two legs. No silver.

  6. Tim Smith

    It is only a terrible move from the irrelevant LP’s point of view. It is a very smart calculated move for Rand’s political career.

    He cannot run the risk of being ostracized like his father if he wishes to continue moving his political career along. Politics take compromise and Rand is playing it well.

    Rand is an electable version of his father, which is exactly what we need. We need someone to actually get into office to make the change.

  7. Thane Eichenauer

    I wonder how many of the folks proclaiming Rand Paul a traitor (Iscariot/Arnold) would say the same thing if Rand Paul were to be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee?

  8. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I also wonder if the move was meant to temper some of the violence out there–make it look like his dad had conceded, or something like that. It was a strange move, but Rand is not Ron.

    I posted this article also to try to calm down the people so mad at the previous LP release about Scott Walker. I didn’t agree with everything in that press release, but I don’t think Geoff Neale was that off-base. This is more standard Libertarian talk..

  9. Thane Eichenauer

    @13
    I haven’t forgotten that Rand Paul is a Republican (he certainly doesn’t). He advocates for a limited federal government and every action he takes that restricts federal government power and points out the abuse of power by the federal government is a good thing in my book.

    Even though I read Knapp’s blog I still have a hard time understanding why it makes all that much difference whether it would matter whether Rand Paul (or Ron Paul for that matter) is a states rights constitutionalist or an individual rights constitutionalist given that his role only offers him oversight over the federal government. Does being states rights politician make Rand Paul’s advocacy of a reigned in US military any less inspiring? Would his being a states rights advocate (either by label or in fact) make Rand Paul’s advocacy of an audit of the Federal Reserve any less worthy of support?

    I evaluate each person based on their support of greater freedom. My Nolan chart doesn’t have a third axis labelled states rights/individual rights.

  10. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ 14

    I only support people who support individual liberty, not state dictatorships.

    Rands view seems to be that he wants the Feds to ban gay marriage.

    “Six thousand years of tradition” combined with “anthropological” evidence shows “there’s stability in the family unit,” he said

  11. just asking

    @15 – How do you get that conclusion form those quotes?

    Perhaps you are projecting own totalitarian thought processes onto Sen. Paul?

  12. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ Just 16

    Darn you caught me; yes by removing government restrictions I am promoting totalitarian thought.

    Here are a few more quotes from Rand.

    Opposes same-sex marriage
    Like Dr. Paul, Mr. Grayson, 37, said he opposed the federal bailout, abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
    Source: New York Times politics report: Kentucky , Nov 26, 2009

    Paul supports the CC survey question on banning same-sex marriage
    The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
    The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: “Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same sex marriage”
    Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q3 on Aug 11, 2010

  13. langa

    Rand is an electable version of his father, which is exactly what we need. We need someone to actually get into office to make the change.

    No. This sort of top-down approach is exactly what we as libertarians should be opposed to. It does no good for “libertarians” to get elected if they have to pander to non-libertarians to do so. You can’t trick people into electing you and then ram liberty down their throats. We will never live in a free society until the majority of the people in society actually desire to be free.

  14. just saying

    @17 – If you actually study the Christian Coalition publication, you will see that the position they ascribe to Sen. Paul is something they themselves have divined about Sen. Paul’s position — not something based on a direct answer Sen. Paul sent them.

    Just like you are, the Christian Coalition is projecting their own totalitarian thought processes on to Sen. Paul.

    Sen. Paul is a federalist on the issue, the correct position for anyone who is pro-America.

  15. just saying

    @18 – You sound like King George III reading Publius’ stuff. Why would you take such a hardcore anti-freedom, anti-American position?

  16. George Phillies

    The Christian Coalition has Paul’s entirely solid interview on The American View, not to mention years of publishing his newsletters, that make clear they have an entirely clear understanding of his position.

  17. Tim Smith

    @21

    I’m not part of the LP so I’m not opposed to the top down approach. It is a fact the LP is irrelevant after more than 40 years and is not even close to making any time of real headway on the national stage.

    Another fact is that the vast majority of the country are not libertarians. So yes, it is clear that libertarians would need to pander to non-libertarians to get elected.

    I’m fine with Rand’s pandering to eventually move onto something bigger. The LP’s approach has failed miserably by every single standard so it’s time to support another approach.

  18. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    langa had it right: “You can’t trick people into electing you and then ram liberty down their throats. We will never live in a free society until the majority of the people in society actually desire to be free.”

    True. First you must educate and convert the people. That’s the real job of the LP, and it’s a job they’ve not been very good at.

    Ron Paul has been very successful in educating people about some core libertarian values — far more so than the entire LP.

    Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he is entitled to far more slack than the entire LP, which hasn’t done much of anything to advance liberty these past 40 years.

    Finally, Ron Paul is not Rand Paul. Rand’s pro-liberty achievements are far less, but then, he never claimed to be his father.

    Rand Paul and the LP have one thing in common. At these point, based on their records, neither of them deserves the support of freedom-loving Americans.

    Should any freedom-loving American support either Rand or the LP, it will be a gift, not something actually earned.

  19. just saying

    @26 — You are repeating false information after having been corrected. This indicates either mendacity or a severely limited intellectual capacity on your part.

    If you actually study the Christian Coalition publication — http://cc.org/files/13/2010_KY_Senate-6.pdf — you will see that the position they ascribe to Sen. Paul is something they themselves have divined about Sen. Paul’s position — not something based on a direct answer Sen. Paul sent them. Sen. Paul evidently didn’t answer their survey at all.

    @25 – Can you cite this interview with Sen. Paul? It seems rather that just as Christian Coalition does, you are projecting your own totalitarian thought processes on to Sen. Paul.

  20. just saying

    @25 — I’d also be curious where one can find copies of Sen. Paul’s newsletters.

  21. Erik Viker

    Carla Howell goes on about Ron Paul’s principles because she hopes to encourage Paul devotees to join the LP, which is kinda part of her job. But Ron Paul isn’t really all that Libertarian. Sure, he is a fiscal conservative, which is the least any elected official can do when spending other people’s money. But Ron Paul endorsed for president Chuck Baldwin, a religious extremist who ran with the ironically-named Constitution Party, a theocratic organization that wants to cede our nation’s government to a religious figure under Biblical law. He signed the so-called Personhood Pledge affirming the use of government force against women’s control over their own bodies. His version of state “rights” would allow state governments to decide to intrude on the family lives and medical lives of peaceful citizens, rather than support the Libertarian Party platform positions that don’t support government at any level to do that sort of intrusion. And his immigration positions include working to restrict citizenship requirements and support of government meddling in peaceful people’s private housing and employment arrangements, which isn’t very Libertarian.

    What Carla doesn’t understand is that Ron Paul followers who care about citizen liberty and limited government already know about the LP, and will support our efforts to bring Libertarian principles into public policy now that their favorite politician is finished. Those Paul fans who just transfer their adoration to Rand Spawn of Ron will not support LP regardless of our messaging. Carla’s repetitive Paul-pandering gains us nothing and could make the LP look like a fan club for a Republican retiree to outside constituencies.

  22. Erik Viker

    JT @ 32, none of that material you linked to refutes my observations about Republican Ron Paul.

  23. Erik Viker

    JT @ 32, none of that information you linked to refutes my observations about Republican Ron Paul.

  24. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ Erik 32

    Good post, I agree.

    I do think there is a sizable number of Paul supporters who do need to be reminded but as you say a lot of them will just back the next conservatatian/Tea Party candidate who says the right things.

    We will never gain the independents and left if we continue to praise Paul and his right leaning social conservative issues. Especially now with Rand and his homophobic rants.

  25. JT

    Viker: “But Ron Paul isn’t really all that Libertarian.”

    No, your statements about Ron Paul’s views on a few things are accurate. But to conclude that means he “isn’t really all that Libertarian” is wrong. That’s why I linked to that page. Based on a wide variety of votes & statements, it shows that he’s solidly libertarian, though leaning to the right.

  26. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ Erik 34

    Unfortunately I think people love his Federal stances so much they ignore or don’t “hear” his state and local stances.

    He is a great constitutional states rights advocate. I promote liberty for the individual, not states.

  27. Erik Viker

    JT @ 36: Nah, he’s a fiscal conservative, which is fine, but he woudl allow a voting majority to intrude on individual rights, which is far from Libertarian. He doesn’t even consider himself a libertarian, nor should he. He’s a loyal Republican operative.

    Mark @ 37, I’m right there with ya. I too promote liberty for the individual, not states. But I do nto see the “state’s rights” mythology in the U.S. Constituion that so many people seem to see. The Tenth Amendment in thematic context of the U.S. Constitution is very clear. The people trump both state and the federal governments. Government is differentiated from the People throughout the document, and the Tenth Amendment’s final phrase refers to individual people. Unless specifically enumerated otherwise, the U.S. Constitution privileges individual liberty over the actions of any level of government.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

  28. JT

    Viker: “Nah, he’s a fiscal conservative, which is fine, but he [would] allow a voting majority to intrude on individual rights, which is far from Libertarian.”

    Well if you’re going to say that his views on abortion & immigration (which are things that many Libertarians disagree about) and same-sex marriage (which I’m not even sure I understand, because on the one hand he thinks states should be able to make their own laws, but I’ve also heard him say multiple times that government shouldn’t be involved) make him not a libertarian, then go ahead. There are more social issues than just those things, as documented on that page, which you just ignored. His views on war, spying, due process, speech, and drugs immediately come to mind. There are reasons why he (and nobody else in Congress, to my knowledge) scored in the libertarian area of the chart.

    Viker: “He’s a loyal Republican operative.”

    Republican operative? Establishment Republicans hate him.

  29. Erik Viker

    JT @ 39, I don’t care what some hypothetical individual Libertarians might say about abortion any more than I care about who Rand Spawn of Ron plans to vote for. But the LP has had opportunities to change the official LP position on abortion every national convention, and we have not done so: women are supported by the LP in their right to control their own bodies without governmwent intrusion. Your favorite Republican politician is at odds with that position. It is currently stated as this: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” An excellent position.

    Your favorite Republican politican is also at odds with the Libertarian position that “sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.” He maintains the tyrannical claim that a state government may be allowed to violate individual liberties in those areas at the whim of a voting majority. That’s what “he thinks states should be able to make their own laws” can mean. As a Libertarian, and not merely a libertarian, I will oppose any government action that intrudes on individual liberty. I do not care if that intrusion comes from th efederal government, my state capitol or the local mayor. If Republican Ron Paul won’t say the same, every single time, then I have no use for him.

    And no, he is a loyal Republican operative despite the popular Paulite mythology about being hated by “establishment Republicans.” Ron Paul is nominated by Republican Party voters every two years. His committee chairmanships are appointed by the Republican leaders in congress. He receives Republican campaign money and caucuses with the Republicans in Congress. He is a registered Republican voter. Do you need to see an elephant tattooed on his right butt cheek? He’s not marginalized by the Republicans. They know he’s a valuable member of their carefully engineered stranglehold on government. He encourages liberty activists like you to continue voting for the government-bloating, liberty-squashing Republican Party.

    I’ll pass on that, thanks.

  30. JT

    Viker: “JT @ 39, I don’t care what some hypothetical individual Libertarians might say about abortion any more than I care about who Rand Spawn of Ron plans to vote for.”

    They aren’t hypothetical. I’ve met some. They’re a minority in the LP though.

    Viker: “But the LP has had opportunities to change the official LP position on abortion every national convention, and we have not done so: women are supported by the LP in their right to control their own bodies without governmwent intrusion. Your favorite Republican politician is at odds with that position.”

    He’s really the only Republican politician who I like. So saying that he’s my “favorite” one, as if there are others whom I like but not as much, is rather misleading. Also seems somewhat snide.

    Viker: “He maintains the tyrannical claim that a state government may be allowed to violate individual liberties in those areas at the whim of a voting majority. That’s what “he thinks states should be able to make their own laws” can mean.”

    He has also publicly said that government has no business in marriage licensing. It’s in his most recent book as well. So I don’t know exactly what he’s saying. Seems contradictory to me.

    Viker: “As a Libertarian, and not merely a libertarian, I will oppose any government action that intrudes on individual liberty. I do not care if that intrusion comes from [the] federal government, my state capitol or the local mayor. If Republican Ron Paul won’t say the same, every single time, then I have no use for him.”

    Fair enough. Anyone who doesn’t toe the exact libertarian line on everything you “have no use for.” You must “have no use for” a lot of LP members & candidates.

    Viker: “And no, he is a loyal Republican operative despite the popular Paulite mythology about being hated by “establishment Republicans.”

    It’s not mythology. Whenever Paul has tried to rise above his current seat in the House, Republican officials have mobilized against him. They’ve also pulled some shady tricks, to say the least, at state Republican conventions when RP supporters turn up en mass.

    As long as he’s in the House, however, his colleagues treat him as a Republican member who has held that seat for many years.

    Viker: “Do you need to see an elephant tattooed on his right butt cheek?”

    Again, snide. But either cheek would be okay.

    Viker: “He encourages liberty activists like you to continue voting for the government-bloating, liberty-asquashing Republican Party.”

    I know that he encourages liberty activists like me to vote for *him*, but I don’t know that he has encouraged libertarians to vote for Republicans per se. He won’t even get behind his own party’s nominee for President, as every other Republican politician eventually does.

    It’s your right to hate RP, of course. You’re definitely in the minority in the LP on that one.

  31. Erik Viker

    With apologies in advance to all those who don’t give a rat’s hairy bottom about JT’s Paulite affections and my petty enjoyment in prolonging this conversation. . .

    JT: They aren’t hypothetical. I’ve met some. They’re a minority in the LP though.

    EV: You have named no names, so they remain hypothetical to me. And remember that popularity does not equal validity or value. See here to learn more: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

    JT: He’s really the only Republican politician who I like. So saying that he’s my “favorite” one, as if there are others whom I like but not as much, is rather misleading. Also seems somewhat snide.

    EV: If he’s the only one you like, he’s your favorite. “Accurate” does not equal “snide.”

    JT: So I don’t know exactly what he’s saying. Seems contradictory to me.

    EV: His contradictory nature is just one more reason for me to dismiss him as a fraud.

    JT: Anyone who doesn’t toe the exact libertarian line on everything you “have no use for.” You must “have no use for” a lot of LP members & candidates.

    EV: You perpetrate a straw man fallacy, in which you react to what you pretended I wrote, rather than respond to what I actually wrote. See here to learn more about your error: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html I wrote nothing about “anyone who doesn’t toe the exact libertarian line on everything.” You made that stuff up.

    JT: Whenever Paul has tried to rise above his current seat in the House, Republican officials have mobilized against him.

    EV: I suspect you can’t prove it. “Unsuccessful Paul fan strategies” do not equal “shady tricks” by others.

    JT: But either cheek would be okay.

    EV: If you ask nicely, maybe he’ll show you both.

    JT: I know that he encourages liberty activists like me to vote for him, but I don’t know that he has encouraged libertarians to vote for Republicans per se.

    EV: A vote for Republican Ron Paul is a vote for the Republicans.

    JT: He won’t even get behind his own party’s nominee for President, as every other Republican politician eventually does.

    EV: “Every other?” I bet a dollar you’re wrong there because you can’t possibly know what every past GOP candidate has done. Paul’s decision to not endorse a fellow Republican is negated by his 2008 endorsement of a theocratic right-wing cult leader running with a political party that wants to cede control of government to religious law. I remain unimpressed.

    JT: It’s your right to hate RP, of course. You’re definitely in the minority in the LP on that one.

    EV: That’s another straw man fallacy. Nowhere have I said anything about hating anybody. But making that false accusation sure is easier than successfully refuting my observations about your favorite Republican politician. I hope you choose to support the Libertarian Party when your idol expires or retires. Some of his more gullible devotees are already transferring their adoration to his son, just as the Republican Party expects them to.

  32. JT

    Viker: “With apologies in advance to all those who don’t give a rat’s hairy bottom about JT’s Paulite affections and my petty enjoyment in prolonging this conversation. . .”

    My “Paulite affections”! Nice.

    Viker: “You have named no names, so they remain hypothetical to me.”

    Are you saying that you’ve never met actual Libertarians with those views?? I didn’t even think that was a controversial statement. Any Libertarian who has been to national conventions before can confirm the accuracy of that statement.

    Viker: “And remember that popularity does not equal validity or value.”

    Seriously? I didn’t say that it does.

    Viker: “If he’s the only one you like, he’s your favorite.”

    Haha, don’t be obtuse, Erik. If you say that your favorite song is X, then reasonable people would think that there are other songs that you like, only not as much. So I was clarifying.

    Viker: ““Accurate” does not equal “snide.””

    Of course not. You’re snide though. You may not recognize it. I also suspect that you’re overcompensating for a lack of testosterone 🙂

    Viker: “I wrote nothing about “anyone who doesn’t toe the exact libertarian line on everything.” You made that stuff up.”

    Nope. You said:
    “As a Libertarian, and not merely a libertarian, I will oppose any government action that intrudes on individual liberty. I do not care if that intrusion comes from [the] federal government, my state capitol or the local mayor. If Republican Ron Paul won’t say the same, every single time, then I have no use for him.”

    So unless you have a double standard for RP, you must have “no use for” others who won’t say they oppose every intrusion on liberty from any government. Yet there are a lot of LP members & candidates who won’t. Therefore, you must have no use for a lot of LP members & candidates.

    Viker: “I suspect you can’t prove it. “Unsuccessful Paul fan strategies” do not equal “shady tricks” by others.”

    Are you ignorant of the Nevada GOP convention, as one example, that was closed in violation of convention rules when RP supporters overwhelmed it & it looked like he might win a party vote? It was discussed on this site a lot at the time.

    Viker: “A vote for Republican Ron Paul is a vote for the Republicans.”

    Sorry, Erik, but this is irrational. A vote for RP isn’t a vote for the Republican Party (which was what you said). Many of his political views are *fundamentally different*, as reflected in that ontheissues.org page. A vote for RP is a vote for him as a candidate for a particular office.

    Viker: “But making that false accusation sure is easier than successfully refuting my observations about your favorite Republican politician.”

    Based on what you’ve said & how you’ve said it, it seemed as though you despise him. But I’ve already answered everything you’ve said effectively.

    Viker: ““Every other?” I bet a dollar you’re wrong there because you can’t possibly know what every past GOP candidate has done.”

    Here I wasn’t specific enough so I’ll take responsibility for that. I meant that every other candidate who ran for the Republican nomination against the eventual nominee gets behind him.

    Viker: “I hope you choose to support the Libertarian Party when your idol expires or retires.”

    My “idol”? Erik, don’t use loaded language to try to prove a point–you’re better than that. I don’t idolize RP. I respect him & like him in the same way that most Libertarians I’ve met at conventions do. It must boil your blood that so many Libertarians respect & support RP, doesn’t it?

    I’ve supported the LP for many years in different ways. It also seems as though I know more about it than you do.

  33. Erik Viker

    This is fun. . .

    JT: My “Paulite affections”! Nice.

    EV: You obviously feel affection for Paul. I refrained from phrases such as “a fanboy rubbing the old fraud’s bunions.” So yes, I’m being nice.

    JT: Are you saying that you’ve never met actual Libertarians with those views??

    EV: No, I’m saying what I actually wrote. You seem to have a habit of responding to what you pretended I wrote, when my actual words are available to you a few inches above this post. Please review them!!

    JT: Any Libertarian who has been to national conventions before can confirm the accuracy of that statement.

    EV: But “any Libertarian” is not responsible for confirming the accuracy of your statements. You are. And so far you have failed to support your claim. Until you produce the actual Libertarians who believe what you claim they believe, they remain hypothetical for the purposes of this conversation. You pretend I deny their existence and I do not. Read my actual words again, more carefully, and you’ll see.

    JT: Seriously? I didn’t say that it (popularity )does (equal validity or value).

    EV: Forgive me for misunderstanding your repeated mention of an opinion being “in the minority.” I assumed you meant that having a majority opinion was inherently valuable. I now have no idea why you repeatedly mentioned me having a minority opinion.

    JT: If you say that your favorite song is X, then reasonable people would think that there are other songs that you like, only not as much. So I was clarifying.

    EV: Those allegedly reasonable people have no business meddling in this conversation. The only item on a list is at the top of the list. He’s also your least favorite Republican politician, but this doesn’t disprove my earlier observation that he’s your favorite Republican politician, because he’s the only Republican politician you like.

    JT: You’re snide though. You may not recognize it. I also suspect that you’re overcompensating for a lack of testosterone.

    EV: You say “snide” and I say “courteous and witty.” Tomato, tomahto. A smiley face doesn’t gain you anything when you perpetrate yet another fallacy, this time an irrelevant joke about masculinity, as if such humor supports your flawed premises. See here to learn more: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

    JT: Nope. You said “As a Libertarian, and not merely a libertarian, I will oppose any government action that intrudes on individual liberty etc. etc. If Republican Ron Paul won’t say the same, every single time, then I have no use for him” (end awesome quote from me). So unless you have a double standard for RP, you must have “no use for” others who won’t say they oppose every intrusion on liberty from any government.

    EV: Your premise is inaccurate here. I am not required to respond to everybody who fails to support liberty in exactly the same way. Different people have different resources available to them and should be judged according to their individual circumstances.

    JT: Therefore, you must have no use for a lot of LP members & candidates.

    EV: False. See above.

    JT: Are you ignorant of the Nevada GOP convention, as one example, etc. etc.

    EV: No, I’m aware of it. Please see this link to learn why that anecdote doesn’t support your premise: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html

    JT: A vote for RP isn’t a vote for the Republican Party (which was what you said).

    EV: Nah, a vote for Republican Party candidate is a vote for the Republican Party. You go ahead and support a guy who has been in bed with that bunch of liberty-squashers for over two decades. I’ll promote Libertarian principles in public policy instead.

    JT: Many of his political views are fundamentally different, as reflected in that ontheissues.org page.

    EV: Nah. He votes along GOP party lines over ¾ of the time. It’s right there in the Congressional Record.

    JT: Based on what you’ve said & how you’ve said it, it seemed as though you despise him.

    EV: False. I have made accurate observations of his behavior. Based on what you’ve said & how you’ve said it, it seemed as though you are in love with him.

    JT: But I’ve already answered everything you’ve said effectively.

    EV: Typing popular Paul talking points doesn’t equal “answering everything effectively.”

    JT: I meant that every other candidate who ran for the Republican nomination against the eventual nominee gets behind him.

    EV: I suspect you have no evidence to support this version of your claim either. Now send me a dollar.

    JT: My “idol”? Erik, don’t use loaded language to try to prove a point–you’re better than that.

    EV: Unless you’re somebody I’ve met and extensively interacted with (and I notice a certain anonymity on your part so I can’t be sure about that), you have no idea what I’m better than.

    JT: I don’t idolize RP. I respect him & like him in the same way that most Libertarians I’ve met at conventions do.

    EV: The extent to which you try to defend a Republican politician here looks a lot like idol worship to me. You may disagree and I can live with that. You can claim “most Libertarians” you’ve met at conventions “respect him & like him in the same way” you do, but I suspect you can’t prove that either.

    JT: It must boil your blood that so many Libertarians respect & support RP, doesn’t it?

    EV: Nope. I don’t get all bent out of shape when people don’t agree with me. Peace and goodness all around. 98.6 degrees.

    JT: I’ve supported the LP for many years in different ways. It also seems as though I know more about it than you do.

    EV: I appreciate your support of the LP. But you have provided no evidence that you know more about the LP than I do. All you’ve done here is claim that a vague bunch of LP members you’ve allegedly met feel the same was about Republican Ron Paul that you do. This claim has no bearing on your relative level of knowledge about the Libertarian Party compared to mine. So anyhoo, with all that LP knowledge and prior support of yours, when the old gent goes on to his eternal reward, I expect you’ll be putting all your juice behind the LP instead of following Rand Spawn of Ron or some other Republican pied piper. That would be good.

Leave a Reply

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