Meme stirring much controversy today on LP national facebook, LP national social media volunteer pages, LNC list and LP state chairs list
National Harbor, Maryland (CNN)Don’t chalk Rand Paul up as a libertarian just yet.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, said the Republican senator from Kentucky is just that — a Republican — but definitely not a libertarian.
While Paul may be the most libertarian-minded candidate in the field of prospective GOP presidential candidates, Johnson said, Paul doesn’t fit the libertarian mold on a host of issues: from abortion to marriage equality to immigration and marijuana.
“He’s a Republican,” Johnson said.
“Great, I mean terrific,” Johnson said sarcastically. “I mean, the most libertarian candidate that Republicans may end up fielding.”
Paul has even sidled away from his libertarian foreign policy views, shying away from his isolationist views in favor of a more nuanced foreign policy that would better fit the mold of a Republican primary.
Bruce Majors’ blog post on CPAC included the following quote from someone named Jeff Olson:
I’d say he’s about 70% libertarian, versus RP’s 95% libertarian. He certainly isn’t less “anti-immigration” – something that RP in recent years has totally de-emphasized and Rand sends me emails daily protesting about (Obama’s “amnesty”). To give one illustration – Rand thought Snowden should’ve gone the “legal route” while Ron declared him to be a hero. That’s a huge litmus test right there. Rand is much more soft-spoken about the USG involvement abroad, where Ron just straightforwardly says it’s bullshit….
I’d say that assessment is pretty much right on the money, except for the part about Rand being 70% libertarian, which seems a bit generous. I’d say he’s more like 50% libertarian.
The question for “reading a lot” is….what language are you reading in; Martian,,,Venusian,,,,
or Saturnalian?
?
wouldn’t it be nice… if the libertarians just stated where they think Rand is right and where they think Rand is wrong… then get on with selecting their own candidate, who I would hope is more right and less wrong then Rand. After Rand loses or wins the Republican nomination we can have an entirely different debate, but until then… lets just focus on what we want and now what other people in other parties want.
Well played! Kudos. Also, sad but true.
Absolutely. Every time I go to the airport.
#BlueGlovesOfFreedom
Dammit! You guessed my secret plan.
In your case I think we’ll skip the censorship and proceed straight to the gulag.
80 years of misguided conservative-libertarian fusionism, the Republican Party’s continued misuse of vaguely libertarian rhetoric, the media’s identification of libertarians with conservatives and Republicans… there are many reasons, none of them good.
As mentioned above, Rand Paul has hired the same campaign manager who was responsible for this, and also was very actively involved in trying to persuade anyone on the fence about voting for Republicans rather than Libertarians in 2014 races. So given those facts, what are the chances that laying low and letting all the attacks come from their side will work as a way of getting his supporters to come to our side after the primaries?
This ain’t his daddy’s campaign!
Says someone who is “tired of nitpicking.” Andy C and I both explicitly said that the numbers were not the point.
“I wasn’t claiming my numbers were verified”
Perhaps you need to add this disclaimer to most of your posts.
As far as our new commenter, reading a lot, we should expect more and more attacks like this on Libertarians the closer we get to the 2016 Presidential election. Remember how nasty Republicans have been the past couple years? The more degraded the Republican Party becomes, the more frightened they are of us (and rightfullly so). It’s amusing, isn’t it, that someone might think the insults from someone like reading a lot will convince us to vote Republican?
Here are some links to remind everyone how nasty Republicans can be toward us:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/11/uncovered-politics-desperate-republicans-unleash-last-minute-attack-on-chad-monnin/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/09/republicans-in-new-york-file-challenges-to-keep-libertarian-candidates-off-ballot/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/08/republicans-in-illinois-sent-out-armed-representatives-to-persuade-libertarian-petition-signers-to-recant/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/03/rt-america-judge-republicans-orchestrated-removal-of-libertarian-candidate/
>and join the real battle for liberty in the Republican Party.
Why do people argue for promoting freedom in the Republican Party so much more often than in the Democratic Party? Both are anti-freedom, both have members who are not, both could, in principle, be ‘taken over’ – but as of now, the Republican Party has more rules to prevent this. The Democratic Party has historical ties to Jefferson, which seems a stronger freedom credential, so to speak, than a connection to Lincoln. The Republican Party was born out of the Whig Party, so it was based, from its inception, on the American Plan and corporate welfare. Why is it believed, by those who like the two party system, that the GOP is somehow more open to freedom than the Ds are?
I have no idea who “Vernon” is, that means exactly as much to me as “Andy” does. Which is nothing whatsoever.
I do believe it is highly likely however, if you support Gary Johnson, the “Libertarian” Party or Anarchists trying to pass themselves off as libertarians against a REAL libertarian such as Rand Paul….all so you can get Hillary Clinton elected OVER Rand Paul…chances are very, very good that YOU are the one who has government handlers. Either that or you are very, very, very stupid.
I don’t know what “racist gimmick” you mean.
I just asked a very sensible set of questions,
1. Who has killed and enslaved more people….nazis, or marxist commies?
2. Which one is worse……nazis, or marxist commies?
3. In regards to #2 please explain your answer.
Are these questions that you fake LP/Gary Johnson/Anarchist “libertarians” simply can’t answer, so your only reply is that whoever asks them is “racist” and the questions must therefore be ignored?
You DO realize this is a Marxist Communist tactic right? To make even the QUESTIONS completely impermissible? What’s next, are you going to advocate that I should be censored, or sent to the Gulag, for even having the temerity to ASK such questions or supporting RAND PAUL and OPPOSING Hillary Clinton?
Look everbody, “Vernon” is back as “reading a lot” and he/she is back to using the “Libertarians are losers who are wasting their time” angle. What happened, the racist gimmick started to get too stale for you and your government handlers, so they told you to dust off this angle?
This crap is hilarious. Does anyone really think the “Libertarian Party” or Gary Johnson is even nearly as libertarian as Rand Paul? And yes, we will destroy your phony “libertarian” party. Count on it. We need each and every libertarian to stop wasting time with your crypto-marxist/government stoolie/drug addled hippie nutcase operation, and join the real battle for liberty in the Republican Party. Do you really think we will allow you to cost Rand Paul the election and get Hillary Clinton elected? No way! Better get to work on your last will and testament, LP.
He could have made more pardons, and now says he wishes he would have.
But as you correctly point out that’s no reason not to draw legitimate contrasts with Rand Paul.
I wasn’t claiming my numbers were verified, just reporting what I’d seen claimed elsewhere.
I’m not interested in rehashing the debate over him not pardoning more, Johnson has addressed the question himself numerous times and no doubt will be asked about it again in the future. I was just pointing out that the claim of “zero” drug pardons while he was Governor is not correct. And if the question is Paul vs. Johnson on the topic, then you have Johnson on the one hand saying he would pardon nonviolent drug offenders as President, and urging Obama to do so now, vs. Rand Paul, who wants to sue Obama for not cracking down hard enough on state-legal marijuana and whose idea of drug policy reform is “still lock people for it, just not quite as long.”
More generally when it comes to criticisms of Johnson’s record as Gov., a lot of people misunderstand how much power a Governor has. Depending on the state, the answer might be “very little.” Texas famously has a very weak Governor, and NM is closer to that end of the spectrum. Even in states with the strongest Governors, there isn’t the kind of unitary-executive, all-executive-power-ultimately-flows-from-the-President model that people are more familiar with at the federal level. Depending on the state, big chunks of state government (sometime the majority of it) are under their own independently elected officials. When it comes to matters of administration and law enforcement, even if it’s under the Gov’s nominal overall management, the Governor’s hands may be tied by statute or the state constitution or reserved county/local powers in a way that the President’s could not be. A Governor’s ability to issue executive orders is either non-existent or much more limited than the Presidential counterpart. Those are just some of the structural limits, without even getting into the practical politics of it.
The strongest power most Governors have is the veto and their influence in proposing and submitting a budget (or even just parts of the budget), as well their high-profile ability to shape the issues on the agenda. In those areas, Johnson did very well from a libertarian perspective. The fact that he didn’t single-handedly turn New Mexico into libertarian utopia, is simply the reality of how winning a single office with limited powers works.
Why, did Rand Paul pardon someone?
What Johnson did or didn’t do (that as far as I know no other Governor anywhere has done either) as Governor is one thing, clear policy differences between himself and Rand Paul are another.
I would say that Gary Johnson’s pardon record, or lack of pardon record as Governor, is quite relevant, especially if he is going to sit on a moral high horse and lecture Rand Paul on libertarian purity.
Which is all kind of irrelevant, unless/until you can show some governors that actually did issue blanket pardons. Did Ventura do it? Not as far as I know. You might guess that Ron or Rand Paul would but we don’t have any proof whatsoever. I don’t know of any others either. And as far as your numbers go, not that they matter – I’ll just stipulate to the zero disinfo because it may as well be in the larger picture – but what is their source and how reliable is it?
I actually looked up Gary Johnson’s record on pardons shorty after he announced that he was seeking the LP nomination. During the 8 years that he was Governor, he pardoned between 124 to 128 people (I think I have the exact number in my email somewhere). I am not sure what all the offenses were, but the real number of pardons is far less than what Andy Craig said above. I’d be willing to bet that a lot more than 124-128 people were convicted for victimless “crimes” or were otherwise falsely convicted in New Mexico during the 8 years that Gary Johnson was Governor.
Yeah, “Guess What” may have to change that screen name to “Wrong Guess” 🙂
“Really, not one? I find that a little hard to believe, but suppose you are right.”
My google-fu is coming up weak, since his time in office was back in the Internet dark ages, but I know for a fact he pardoned somewhere in the range of a few hundred people altogether during his two terms. I don’t know how that compares to other NM governors, or how many of those were drug offenses, but I’ve even some sources claim “close to 1,000” pardons altogether and that they were mostly drug offenses.
He didn’t grant a blanket amnesty or pardon to all drug offenders, as has been much debated and commented on, but the number he did pardon was most definitely not zero.
On the plus side at least we are talking about the main topic of the article at last, even if it’s the same tired old attacks against Johnson 🙂
He’s a hell of a lot closer to it than Rand Paul is and has every right and absolutely should continue to draw the contrast.
Really, not one? I find that a little hard to believe, but suppose you are right. Easy for those who think the Pauls are better to criticize Johnson on that since they have never been in the executive position yet (maybe you are just assuming they would pardon a lot of people; I wouldn’t assume anything). How about Ventura, lots of drug pardons? Any examples of any governor anywhere doing that? Maybe there would be more serious backlash than some people here realize.
I agree with Guess what. Gary Johnson is not exactly a hardcore libertarian himself, so it does not really come off well for him to lecture anyone on libertarian purity.
I was referring to Rand,,NOT Ron!
It is probably a push with Ted Cruz.
One is about as good/bad as the other
Tom Knapp’s statement about Ron Paul having a negative contribution to the pro-liberty movement in this country is so absurd that nobody should take it seriously, and I’d be willing to bet that hardly anybody, other than a few delusional nut-jobs, would take this seriously.
I’d say that Ron Paul has done more for liberty than anyone I can think of who is alive today.
Gary Johnson is so wonderful that he spent eight years as governor and never pardoned one nonviolent drug prisoner. It’s hard to take seriously his lectures about who’s a “real” libertarian.
TLK,
That seems to negative to me. I’m not as idolatrous about Ron Paul as some people are but not as negative as some others.
Rand Paul is a mixed bag too, but with a lot less good and a lot more bad in the mix.
“Can anyone here name a current US Senator that is more pro-liberty than Rand Paul?”
That’s not a very high bar to begin with, which is quite sad… it’s akin to having the lowest high temperature in January, and saying you had “record highs”
“Who has done more for the Libertarian Party and movement in this country, Ron Paul or Jed Ziggler?”
Presumably the latter, if we’re talking net balance. Paul is definitely in the negative. If Jed threw $25 at the LP once and didn’t go out and actively damage the party, he’s well ahead of Paul.
Which stance on drones…the one where he filbustered against it or the one where he said it would be OK to use drones against common criminal suspects?
Which stance on gun rights…the one where he is for gun rights, or the one where he campaign for anti-gun rights Republican against a Libertarian – handpicked, like the other races he got involved in, because there were non-duopoly candidates getting traction?
etc
“Can anyone here name a current US Senator that is more pro-liberty than Rand Paul?”
In some ways he is the most pro-liberty US Senator right now but in other ways he is actually the most anti-liberty Senator because of the mission he is on to crush any dissent outside the duopoly and his unique qualifications for that role that have been seized on by the US Chamber of Commerce, Rove, Adelson, etc.
Expect more, and worse, to come.
Since we have a Democrat President right now, voting the Republican side is probably more libertarian on average than if we had a Republican President, as in Rand voting the same as most Republicans 83% of the time is not all bad.
Another factor is how do you weight the issues. If you give extra weight to some issues based on importance, then it could further skew the ratings. So should Rand get “bonus points” for his stands on gun rights, NSA spying, drones, and auditing the Federal Reserve?
Can anyone here name a current US Senator that is more pro-liberty than Rand Paul?
The indexes that rate Rand Paul higher are based on selection of issues that are designed to make libertarians and conservatives seem more similar than we are.
83% is how often he votes the same way as the establishment of the Republican Party, which is a relatively more objective measure.
To me, it’s pretty simple. From a libertarian standpoint, Ron Paul is excellent (not perfect, but far better than any other member of Congress since at least Barry Goldwater). Rand Paul, on the other hand, is not that good at all — somewhat better than the average Republican, but still nowhere close to his father. This is all pretty obvious, and I don’t see any reason why so many people insist on lumping the two of them together — whether to praise them or to criticize them.
I have d one some checking into Rand’s voting record over the last few days, and I have also checked a couple of those candidate rating things. Rand Paul was rated at 93% on the Freedom Index rating. Another site rated Rand at 89% pro-liberty on economic issues, and I think they had him at 59% on social issues, however, part of his social rating score was based on abortion, which is an issue that libertarians have been divided on for years, so if you take abortion out of the equation, Rand’s social issue score would have been higher.
And more from that same Wachtler article:
Targeting independent and opposition candidates
Senator Rand Paul’s transition to the dark side appeared complete in the run-up to this month’s Election. That’s when he was enlisted by the Republican leadership to travel the country with the specific purpose of reaching out to his former independent and libertarian friends. In races where Libertarians, Constitution Party candidates or independents threatened to take votes away from a GOP candidate, Senator Paul campaigned for the Republican nominees.
Various 2014 Election races saw a GOP candidate threatened with defeat due to the candidacy of an independent or opposition Party candidate. One of those was the race for Alaska’s US Senate seat. Our friends on the left might call this the real triumvirate of evil – the Republican Party, the US Chamber of Commerce, and Senator Rand Paul. That was the team that joined together to record and air over one million dollars in TV commercials in Alaska featuring Republican Senator Rand Paul campaigning for his fellow Republican over independent and Libertarian challengers.
A Chamber of Commerce spokesperson summed up the three-way partnership’s strategy. “In states like Alaska, the Chamber is focused on the independent swing vote, and we think Senator Paul is well positioned to deliver a message that appeals to them,” explained Blair Latoff Holmes from the US Chamber of Commerce, “This fits into our theme this year of using credible messengers in target races.”
Mixed results
So, did the Republican Party strategy of using Rand Paul to lure independent and opposition voters away from their own candidates and into the GOP camp work? Unfortunately, it appears it did. In all but one of the known targeted races, the independent and opposition candidates received only 2 or 3 percent while the Republican candidate won by just as slim of a margin. There was one exception however.
In the race for Alaska Governor, the independent won with 48.1% of the vote over the Republican’s 45.9%. Votes for the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates in the race totaled only 5.7%. But that was more than double the margin of victory. In the state’s US Senate race, the Republican won by 2%. The combined vote totals of the Libertarian and independent candidates was just 5.7%. If they would have gotten 1% more each, the Democrat would have won.
Another targeted race was in the state of Georgia. In the US Senate race there, the strategy again proved effective. In a three-way race, the Libertarian candidate was limited to a dismal 1.9%, giving the Republican candidate the win. In another targeted race in North Carolina, the Libertarian candidate for US Senate was limited to just 3.7%. The Republican nominee won by only 1.5%.
And in Kentucky, home of both Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, the strategy was most effective. In McConnell’s surprisingly easy victory, the Libertarian candidate was held to just 3.1% in a three-way race. With independents, Libertarians and Tea Partiers firmly in the Republican Party’s camp, the second most despised person in the US Senate won easily by 15.5%. And possibly more than anyone else, the American people may have Rand Paul to thank.
From Mark Wachtler’s article that I linked earlier:
Immediately after Sen Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney over his father Ron Paul, two independent journalists asked the Senator the question no establishment news outlet dared to ask – how could you endorse Mitt Romney over your own father? For the crime of not following the Capitol Hill propaganda protocol, those two journalists were accused by Rand Paul of criminally harassing him, leading to interrogations by everyone from the Capitol Hill Police to the FBI to a collection of Washington DC media bureau chiefs.
Those two journalists – Abby Martin of RT News and Media Roots, and Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change – were the two unfortunate reporters who dared to ask that question and were now suffering the wrath of Rand Paul and the GOP establishment. They are legitimate reporters, they had proper credentials and press passes, and they had every right to be at the Capitol and ask that question
“My liberty is bigger than yours. I’m a girth libertarian.”
It’s not the size that counts, it’s how you use it.
I disagree with the notion that Ron Paul is against us. Ron Paul publicly stated that he thought that Gary Johnson was “wonderful,” and he is said to have voted for Gary Johnson in the 2012 election. Even as a Republican, Ron Paul has always been supportive of minor party and independent candidates, and more specifically, of the Libertarian Party. When Ron Paul was in Congress he put forth a bill to ease ballot access restrictions for minor party and independent candidates, and he has also favored allowing more candidates to participate in debates. Also, the Libertarian Movement in this country is much larger than the Libertarian Party, and Ron Paul is very active in the Libertarian Movement.
This is all true. I don’t think our angle should be to go after the Teflon Ron.
On the other hand it’s also true that Cuccinelli was hardly the first, and probably not the last, big government Republican that Ron Paul has endorsed.
Rand Paul takes that to a whole new level by specifically targeting races that have Libertarian Party candidates to campaign against them using money from the Rove/Adelman operation, hiring the campaign manager that played dirty tricks against you, Jake and many other people in Illinois in an attempt to keep the LP off the ballot on behalf of the Republican Rauner campaign, etc.
And it’s completely legitimate to attack the assumption that he inherits some kind of libertarian crown and scepter from his dad.
83% agreement with the Republican establishment and specifically working to destroy the LP in multiple states is not a friend of liberty IMO, and I’m sure he’ll get much worse as his quest for power takes him higher.
I’m a girth libertarian.
Big tent?
I disagree with the notion that Ron Paul is against us. Ron Paul publicly stated that he thought that Gary Johnson was “wonderful,” and he is said to have voted for Gary Johnson in the 2012 election. Even as a Republican, Ron Paul has always been supportive of minor party and independent candidates, and more specifically, of the Libertarian Party. When Ron Paul was in Congress he put forth a bill to ease ballot access restrictions for minor party and independent candidates, and he has also favored allowing more candidates to participate in debates. Also, the Libertarian Movement in this country is much larger than the Libertarian Party, and Ron Paul is very active in the Libertarian Movement.
I did not agree with the Cuccinelli endorsement either, but it is possible that Ron Paul would not have gone along with it if the Sarvis campaign had bothered to fill out and return the candidate survey that Campaign for Liberty sent him, and if he had gone to some of their meeting and reached out to them.
Like I said above, I am not a fan of Ken Cuccinelli, but he was good on a few issues. I do not think that Cuccinelli was high enough on the pro-liberty scale to merit endorsing, but if he had been say 80-90% pro-liberty, I could have seen a decent argument to endorse him. Cuccinelli was good on a few issues, but he was also bad on multiple issues, and I do not believe that he merited an endorsement. It came down to the following:
1) Wanting an endorsement for Rand Paul’s run for the Presidential nomination. If Cuccinelli had become Governor, Rand getting endorsed by the Governor of Virginia (the 12th most populated state) would have been a big deal.
2) The head of Campaign for Liberty in Virginia, who is a person that Ron Paul had known for years, lobbying Ron to endorse Cuccinelli.
3) Lack of communication between the Sarvis campaign and the LP of VA and Campaign for Liberty in Virginia, combined with negative rumors that were floating around about the Sarvis campaign.
My liberty is bigger than yours. I’m a girth libertarian.
“Didn’t Jed say that he quit the LP? If so, this would mean that Ron Paul is Life Member of the LP, and that Jed is not even a party member.”
I stopped paying dues, I’m probably still on the party member list, not sure how that works. If this somehow makes my opinion not count, well that’s pretty stupid. I’m a voter, I regularly vote for LP candidates, and I like to see Libertarians who are willing to stand up against Republicans. I’m not a party member because I don’t think parties should require the paying of dues for membership, though I’d gladly go against that principle & kick in some money if they keep up the attack on the GOP.
“Who has done more for the Libertarian Party and movement in this country, Ron Paul or Jed Ziggler?”
Ron Paul, without question. But now he’s going to be against us. That makes him our enemy now. And by our, I mean those of us in the third party movement, not party members. All this should be fairly obvious.
Wait.
Marrou has a son who is one of the plausibly serious presidential contenders of the Republican Party (NSGOP), who is a sitting US Senator, who is frequently called a libertarian all over the media but says the label is an albatross being hung around his neck, who has a lot of anti-liberty views and votes 83% with the Republican establishment, who frequently campaigns for establishment and warmongering/theocratic Republicans against Libertarians (and even endorsed one over his own father), who is personally committed to destroying the LP and has hired a campaign manager whose last gig was pulling out all the stops to keep the LP off the ballot, who has used all his power and connections to threaten news organizations into silencing journalists who even dare to ask him questions he does not like?
The things I did not know.
Shit, I’d be begging the national office to start making those things known to as many people as they could, as soon as possible, if I knew something like that.
Especially if a lot of people thought he was entitled to receive inherit the leadership of the libertarian brand and the support of all libertarians and Libertarians from his father as some sort of birthright.
I’m looking forward to the LP’s next winning fundraiser — NO MORE MARROUS!
Didn’t Jed say that he quit the LP? If so, this would mean that Ron Paul is Life Member of the LP, and that Jed is not even a party member.
Who has done more for the Libertarian Party and movement in this country, Ron Paul or Jed Ziggler?
Should read, “I do think the lack of outreach…”
Ron Paul has also endorsed a bunch of Libertarian candidates over the years.
The thing with Cuccinelli was politically motivated so that Rand Paul would get an endorsement for President from the sitting Governor of Virginia, if Cuccinelli had won.
Also, while I am by no means a fan of Cuccinelli, he did have a record of supporting gun rights, opposing eminent domain abuse, and opposing Obamacare, so it is not like he was completely anti-liberty.
Another factor is that the head of Campaign for Liberty in Virginia, who was some women who had apparently known Ron Paul for years, was pushing Ron to endorse Cuccinelli.
There were stories floating around at the time that Sarvis was not a real libertarian, as in that he was bad on several issues, and that he was put up by Democrats. I think that all, or at least most of, the negative talk about Sarvis was false, but a lot of people took it seriously. I do not think the lack of out reach from the Sarvis campaign to Campaign for Liberty helped (I recall hearing that Campaign for Liberty sent him a candidate survey and that they never got a response back).
I was still not happy with the Cuccinelli endorsement, but given all of the good that Ron Paul has done, and given the circumstances surrounding the endorsement, I consider it to be a forgivable offense.
It is not the job of the party to insult Ron and Rand Paul. It is not the job of the party to never offend Ron and Rand Paul and their supporters. It is the job of the party to elected Libertarians to office. I like the meme. That doesn’t really matter – what matters is whether it will help us or hurt us with the target audience, which is not me. The decision was made that it would do more harm than good, and I’m in no position to say if that was right or wrong, not being an expert on this topic. What I can say is that it is time to move on.
I think a much bigger issue than what this party has to say about Republicans is the motion that was voted down at the last LNC meeting regarding what this party says about our own candidates. I am far more concerned about how we portray our candidates than how we portray Republicans.
Yes, I am willing to stand up for unpopular speech. I am not willing to crucify a man for making one endorsement with which I disagree.
Yeah, I’m not getting into an argument with someone who kisses the asses of trolls like Don Grundmann, Vernon, and Nathan Norman. Speak for the third party movement? Please, I’m one guy with an opinion, which always seems to threaten you. Laughable, really.
However, to answer the broader point about the “lifetime member stuff”, since other people have brought it up, Ron Paul gave a bunch of money to the LP, that doesn’t excuse his endorsing of Ken “The Cooch” Cuccinelli over Rob Sarvis, which I consider to be one of the greatest betrayals of not just the third party movement, but liberty in general. Cuccinelli was bad. Like, REALLY bad.
Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party, Ziggy. Who are you to speak for the third party movement?
The third party movement. Oh please, do argue with me Billy. Then I’ll know I’m right.
“Ron Paul isn’t one of us anymore, if he ever was at all.”
Oh please. And who are “us”?
My biggest problem with the LP is the weak-willedness of some of its prominent members to really go after the GOP & Dems and boldly reject the duopoly. You actually have a state chair in New York promoting (con)fusion voting & “Libertarian” candidates who are running as Republicans! The LP should firmly and unequivocally reject the duopoly and so-called “libertarian Republicans”. I draw a thick line between ex-Republicans who see the light & commit themselves to the party & the movement, and GOP carpetbaggers like Bob Barr, and potentially Rand Paul. I’m for a bold, third party, a true Libertarian Party, not GOP light. The Pauls are as much our enemies as Hillary & Jeb.
Stand firm Mike & Rich, I stand with you!
Mike Kane: “Are you all forgetting that Ron Paul actively campaigned against Rob Sarvis in 2013? Calling anyone who votes for him ‘insane’.”
I certainly haven’t. Ron Paul isn’t one of us anymore, if he ever was at all.
Would those in Libertarian leadership say that it is more important to settle and get a win or get small wins and keep fighting back? We are here to get candidates elected. I understand why some people have issues with the meme but I think they are making a big deal about nothing. I am sick of hearing about Rand Paul. I honestly have to say I am over Ron Paul. Yeah, he was great but lets move on.
And Mike, there is absolute no reason to be sorry you were actually at a tabling event promoting the party to the public rather than on here engaging every comment. You put your weekend to better use than I did mine. However, if and when you and others get a chance to address the points raised here by others earlier that would be great….but don’t let it take you away from something like doing outreach either.
Sarah, Jed, Andy Craig and Mikester, all excellent points.
I just want to say, I appreciate everyone who has stepped forward to defend this meme. I apologize for not participating a little more in all the conversations but I had a two-day event this weekend and there’s just too much going on to keep up with. But I can see it’s really veering into strawmanville with the conversation suddenly being about micromanaging the social media team instead of figuring out how to dump the Teaocons off our coattails – and let’s be real, they are the ones who need our name, that’s why they’re stealing it – we have a lot more power right now than we realize …. we don’t need them, they need us … and let’s really think about this idea that we “need” the Tea Party at all, to say so I think acknowledges something totally irrational which is the idea that ANYBODY needs them, least of all America. NOBODY needs the Tea Party we need them to GO AWAY. I am still trying to figure out what is even different between them and the neocons, let’s see: islamaphobic, anti-gay, pro-war, anti-immigrant, the list goes on … It’s a moral imperative to defeat them just as much as every other Republican and Democrat. Aside from that, I really think people are just completely over reacting. I could see if this were like a new election season series of memes that were going to be our whole message or something but it was literally one graphic. That’s not enough to even create a pattern … it would have been forgotten in the space of scrolling away, if his closet fan club hadn’t gone all GOP-loyalist on us. It would take really consistent messaging to have the effect being attributed to it. This wasn’t a marketing promotion or a campaign platform it was a single image on a facebook page.
Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. Hillary Clinton is not a Libertarian. Jeb Bush is not a Libertarian. It is that simple.
I’ve been an Editor/Scheduler for the LP Page since 2012. Im the Editor/Scheduler that posted that image and stand by it. You know who else stands by it? The over 3400 and counting people that have “liked” the image.
That image was scheduled a week in advance as well and was sitting there (like all posts) in plain view for all to see who have Admin/Editor/Analyst access. Not a peep from anyone.
The page was successfully hijacked by many Rand Paul supporters….GOP operatives/trolls…and plenty of people that learned for the first time that Rand Paul is not a member of the Libertarian Party. A great message – the Libertarian Party supports the Libertarian Party and not the GOP or DNC. Imagine that.
And all of this noise is essentially for naught since like all memes we post, it has essentially run its course.
Exactly.
I strongly disagree.
I found it a more productive use of my time, to go and create social media content that I thought was higher-quality and good LP branding, and work with the state and national parties to promote that, vs. criticizing every meme or post that I personally found juvenile or off-putting. I shared some of the same concerns about the quality of the national page’s posts, I expressed them to those involved, and was invited to join and help. An insight into how it actually works behind-the-scenes makes it clear how misguided and uninformed some of the demands for something different from those on the outside can come across. The biggest lesson is just because something’s not your cup of tea or flavor of humor, doesn’t mean it’s a mistake to post it. And the idea of having a committee review each post ahead of time, instead of having a group of people trusted with posting privileges who work together, would effectively kill any hope of successfully managing and growing the party’s FB page.
If half the people criticizing the social media team for picking through all the (usually much worse) libertarian memes available and selecting post-able content, were instead producing something better, then low-quality or poorly-worded memes wouldn’t be as much of a problem. If we treated graphic design volunteers decently and kept them on board, we could have them churning out more on-topic memes with the exact wording the LP wants.
In the meantime, the LP’s official facebook page is the single biggest outlet to the most people that the party has, by far, and that means playing the Facebook game of frequent content, lots of memes, humorous images, and even some controversial content that provokes comments and discussion. That’s how, when have something important to say or promote, we can get it out to tens of thousands of people who will actually see it, instead of just sending out a blast email that nobody will read and a post on the party website that nobody will look at.
For the reasons all thoroughly hashed-over above, I think this particular meme was a mistake to post. Mistakes happen, and this one blew up in part because of the coincidental timing with Rand at CPAC. And while the LNC members and state chairs rumble into action and gripes roll uphill through three or four layers of LP administration, the problem has already been dealt with as best it can, and the social media team are moving on, lesson learned. By the time some kind of committee might actually take action, they’ll just be provoking and extending an “issue” that would otherwise already be dead and buried, and there’s a decent chance whatever action they take would actively harm the effectiveness of our social media efforts.
If yins are so fond of Rand Paul go join the GOP, leave the Libertarian Party to actual libertarians.
Leave the meme up, it’s great! I may have to renew my membership, there’s still things I don’t like about the party but the boldness of some of its members, especially those in Outright, is really inspiring me.
The meme is great. It should be left alone and everyone should move on.
It sounds like you’re telling me that on the most prominent outlet for LP media the inmates are running the asylum.
The person who posted that picture should have their privileges revoked immediately.
Rich Anderson scheduled it and it’s branded Outright so Mike Shipley would have most likely worked on it. I could check my logs.
Thousands of hours of unpaid effort to get to that stage of access.
YMMV. I got you added to some of the groups so you can help provide your input. Higher levels of access require higher levels of effort and participation.
Some people only want to run all that effort down and criticize it while others do tons of work to make it happen.
Rich Anderson: I’d happily help push back.
So far I have the following from LNC Votes Discuss
Mike Raffone I’m a dues paying member, I would be happy to sign on to a letter. (Against pulling the meme)
Sarah Stewart I am too and will sign as well.
Joe Enroughty I’ll gladly sign on to such a letter when the time comes. As a dues paying member, I do not want my party backing down from this Rand Paul stuff. He’s not going away (even if he doesn’t get the nod) and neither are his supporters. When he endorses Jeb Bush or whatever statist candidate the GOP puts up, they will have an excuse for that, too. “He had to do it so he could run again in 2020,” etc.
Then who posted this? And why do they have access to the Facebook page? And why are head-shaking memes constantly posted to that page making insulting jokes about “liberals” or calling people “statists” or “slaves?”
As has been the topic after that Reason article started making the rounds, there are people who want to grow the party and there are people who want to show how tough they are and support their own self-image.
For some things you want to move more quickly and spontaneously. Before the fact committee review pretty much kills that, and takes much of the fun that makes people want to volunteer for the social media teams at all out of it.
For facebook it is scheduled in advance (this one was scheduled for a week before it went live) with many people having access to review it and raise concerns on our internal discussion fora for the social media volunteer teams before that happens. There’s also the APRC which does have after the fact review, but pulling anything after the fact is a really bad thing to do on social media after people have already liked and shared it, commented etc, it is considered a huge faux pas.
That would be a truly horrendous idea. We work on it in volunteer teams with people being given higher levels of access as they contribute more.
I support removing the picture.
But also, what is the process for deciding what content goes out to social media? Does it have to go through a committee?
I’m willing to co-sign a letter to the LNC against such an action. Let me know if anyone else is as well.
Although the photo was removed from the timeline, it’s still up as a photo and Scott Lieberman is pressing hard on the LNC and state chairs lists, along with Alicia Mattson, to have it removed from the photos so that it shows up as “attachment unavailable” for all the many people that shared it.
The next generation of Paulites will be a lot less likely to consider the LP to start with, and they will have Rand Paul very actively pushing them to stay in the Republican fold after the nomination, unlike what Ron Paul did. Any that will come to the LP despite all that will be natural contrarians, and the best way to get them to consider the LP in the future is to piss them off as much as possible right now and all the way up until they switch sides.
Please read the rest of the preceding thread if you haven’t done so already. Lots of details there…please read it carefully.
jp: I simply try not to offend them by not talking about Rand, unless he does something really good or really perplexing. Don’t we all have people in our families we simply choose not to talk about?
me: I respect what you say here, JP, but I get the sense from you that you are not concerned by what others think. You like to hold high the banner, regardless of how it might affect reputation or public standing or whom you might offend. You say what you mean and mean what you say…most of the time, perhaps?
Seems to me both Pauls are big boys, and they can take criticism. Of course, I favor constructive criticism, not only with those I disagree with most of the time, but those whom I have fewer disagreements with.
I can’t imagine that RP2 would find GJ’s quotes here “offensive,” anyway. His comments are well within bounds, I’d say.
Wrong!!! Their anger will be directed against those that “duped” them, and the LP’s credibility
will be incredibly enhanced!
And when they fail in their attempt to get Rand nominated and the Republican Party ends up with a neo-con, anti-immigrant bankster homophobe instead and the next generation of Paulites are all out there disappointed with the Repubs., it will be good that we spent two years insulting them so they won’t want to even consider the LP as an alternative, right?
Jill,
That’s not going to be an option. Rand Paul will be actively trying to destroy the LP in his upcoming campaign. So will his supporters.
langa,
No, it’s not. See the comments directly addressing this point above and the upcoming separate post, which is also in the comments above.
As far as all the infighting, it’s clear the younger Dr. Paul is going to be a divisive topic for the Libertarian Party. Perhaps we should keep conversation about him on internal debate threads, as opposed to something as public as FB.
Rand has really done nothing to court Libertarians, and indeed makes it very clear that he isn’t one of us. On the other hand, he IS Ron’s son, and I see no reason to insult Libertarian members who are here because of Ron. For example, some of my FB friends are members of the Paul family, due to the fact that they are in the same geographic area as the Pyeatt family. (FYI,Rand’s mother’s b-day was yesterday). I simply try not to offend them by not talking about Rand, unless he does something really good or really perplexing. Don’t we all have people in our families we simply choose not to talk about?
No, that is not the intent of the graphic.
The intent of the graphic is not to compare Ron Paul to George Bush and Bill Clinton? If it’s not, then it’s the most misleading and ineffective graphic ever created.
No, that is not the intent of the graphic. See preceding comments.
Haven’t seen too much of that. What I see more of is people willing to excuse anything and everything Rand Paul does just because Ron Paul is his father…
Sure, there are a few of those people, but there are many more who take every non-libertarian thing that Rand does and use it as an excuse to attack Ron. Examples include the graphic you posted at the top of this page, as well as Phillies’ comments on basically every thread where either Paul has ever been mentioned.
…and as for Ron Paul a lot of these folks seem to quite literally believe he walk on water, was born of a virgin, turns water into wine, etc (well, if not quite literally, than at least very, very close).
I have certainly never claimed he was anywhere close to perfect. What I do claim is that he is probably the most libertarian member of Congress ever, and certainly by far the most libertarian member of Congress since Barry Goldwater. Given that fact, I find the amount of grief he gets from libertarians to be absolutely baffling.
Sorry, I somehow missed your comment last night. You are correct. Further discussion from the LNC list on this point:
I see Scott Lieberman mentioned one of the comments on this post on the LNC list. I hope some of the other comments I and others have made in response as well as the post itself get mentioned there. LNC memners who have not commented here yet, please feel free and encouraged to jump in.
Good post Nick. Exactly right.
This post is my preferred tone.
Here is the intelligent way for Libertarians to handle Rand Paul. First of all, before doing anything else, learn his actual voting record and what bills he has put forth. Give him credit where he deserves credit (and from what I have seen of his actual record thus far, he deserves credit more often than not), but feel free to critique him where he does not. The best way to put it would be something like, “I appreciate Rand Paul’s 100% voting record on protecting our gun rights, and I appreciate his stands against drones and the NSA’s domestic spy program, but I disagree with Rand on ____________ (insert issue here).” This way you do not come off like an unappreciative or uninformed jackass, and you can still get your point or points of disagreement with Rand Paul out there.
Second of all, Libertarians need to “jump to the front of the line” and frame the conversation and debate in a manner to where it is Rand Paul who looks like a jackass if he disagrees with, or otherwise does something against the interest of, libertarians. There are many ways to do this, but Libertarians will have to be pro-active to make any of it happen.
Using Snitker’s logic, the LP shouldn’t criticize Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, or Joe Biden either because it might damage efforts to reach out to their supporters.
“Rand Paul is a Republican. And, though Ron Paul played a huge roll in my journey to the LP, he’s a Republican too. The LP is supposed to criticize Republicans. ”
Yes!
Disagreed. See my response to this above. It’s not the same dynamic at all with Rand Paul as it was with Ron Paul in that regard. More of Rand Paul’s supporters will come from the Republican establishment side, many of Ron Paul’s better supporters want nothing to do with Rand Paul, and unlike Ron Paul, Rand Paul will be very actively campaigning to keep any of his supporters from going anywhere near the LP (except as foes) regardless of what happens with the nomination.
Well, I don’t think it would have been a bad thing if Bob Barr had never come to the LP and there are people here (although I am not one of them) who will say the same of Gary Johnson. But even if you think both of them should have come to the LP, Rand Paul had nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, much as with government itself, if we choose to ignore him that does not mean he will choose to ignore us. Again, see my comments earlier in the thread.
There is no if about it because we already know exactly what will happen. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012 before the nomination. He specifically went after Libertarian candidates in tight statewide races in 2013 and 2014 with a vengeance. He hired a campaign manager best known for taking dirty tricks used by Republicans to try to keep Libertarians off the ballot to a whole new level of dirty (and would probably be looking at criminal charges for it now if his client had not won the election). The “keep quiet and try to get his supporters later” game plan will not work with Rand Paul the way it (sort of) worked with Ron Paul. For all the reasons I keep saying in multiple comments in this thread, and more.
Entirely predictable given that he is playing the political game to win. (L)ibertarianism was at best a booster rocket to him, or as he himself said, an albatross that the media tried to hang around his neck as a false label.
Haven’t seen too much of that. What I see more of is people willing to excuse anything and everything Rand Paul does just because Ron Paul is his father; and as for Ron Paul a lot of these folks seem to quite literally believe he walk on water, was born of a virgin, turns water into wine, etc (well, if not quite literally, than at least very, very close).
“The LP might have been better served more or less ignoring him until he exited the race, then putting out a press release encouraging his supporters to come over to the LP rather than continue to support a Republican party that robbed the Pauls again (Trust me, folks would have eaten this up.)”
Agreed. Attacking the Pauls isn’t going to gain anything and it may well cost something worth having, their supporters. Indeed without Ron, and even Rand for that matter, it’s doubtful either Bob Barr or Gary Johnson would have had anything to do with the LP. For the time being the LP should just ignore Rand. If and when the time comes Rand is out there plugging away for the GOP and Jeb Bush or Scott Walker, then you can say to libertarians “You must choose between us” because that will be the appropriate time to ask for a decision. In politics, timing is everything.
What’s even more interesting (well, not really. I should have known by now how this works) is that very few people have even noticed the main part and headline of this article:
I went back and forth about including the meme as my illustration for the article or giving it its own. Looks like I probably should have gone with the latter, and may yet (reposting of Mike’s latest blog post from the Outright blog, linked and copied above).
The meme was actually originally just thrown in as an illustration, because what came with the CNN article (but was not in any way actually referenced there) was Gary’s “heart attack” from CPAC, which we already covered. And having used the picture I had to add the caption, and given that articles are truncated on the front page that’s the main thing people see more than the headline or the body of the article. Having done that I should have expected that it would take over the article discussion, so I only have myself to be mad at about that.
The controversy actually arose because the national LP facebook page shared it.
In some states fair numbers of people who started out as Ron Paul supporters in his 2008 and 2012 presidential nomination runs ended up in the LP, including in leadership positions. Not everywhere.
And, for those of you who have forgotten, the 14th Amendment trumps and in fair part improves the tenth.
It is interesting how few people here have commented on the words at the very bottom of that poster, the ones that make clear that the message came from Outright Libertarians and not the LNC. Given their positions, it is hardly surprising that Outright Libertarians is happy to lump the Republican Social reactionaries together.
I am aware of Libertarian Party people who — noblesse oblige — worked for Paul the Republican in ’08 and ’12. I am less aware of Republicans who bailed and switched parties. Certainly the local Paul and Social Reactionary Republicans are staying in their party to wage Holy War against the moderate machine Republicans.
I don’t know which is more disappointing: Rand Paul continuing to move farther and farther away from anything remotely resembling libertarianism, or all the “libertarians” with an axe to grind who use Rand’s behavior as a convenient excuse for taking cheap shots at his father.
In case anyone forgot https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/libertarian-party-of-kentucky-rand-paul-is-not-a-libertarian-or-a-libertarian/
I love the meme. There isn’t a “Paul” Libertarian, plus we have a Libertarian that has announce he will run for President (Marc). We shouldn’t hold back on the truth.
And I suspect he is even less libertarian than some people here fear, much less hope, and will be even less and less libertarian the more power he gets.
Newsflash: that’s exactly what a lot of people in the establishment leadership did. Many of them started out as radical reformers. Not so much by the time they actually got any significant power. What makes you think Rand Paul is different, his last name?
It all depends on who he is speaking to.
Who said he is a completely bad guy?
Hey, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl and Alan Greenspan was part of Ayn Rand’s inner circle. Maybe Hillary is the real stealth libertarian? Not really, and neither is Rand Paul.
You’re probably right about the top spot, at least in 2016, although his chances are better than Ron Paul’s ever were. He has a better shot at VP or 2020 or beyond. Regardless, he will be stumping hard for the Republican ticket up and down the ballot and specifically targeting libertarians as well as Libertarian ballot access with the help of his campaign manager Chip England, who was also Bruce Rauner’s campaign manager in Illinois…I’m sure you remember all about that since you were one of the people unfairly grilled in a dirty attempt to knock the LP off the ballot. Expect lots of that all over the country and lots more robocalls to libertarians and Libertarians, campaign appearances and campaign ads for Republicans who run against Libertarians from Rand Paul and his camp over the next year and a half.
And both of them campaigned for Cuccinelli against Sarvis.
Whatever Ron Paul is, Rand Paul is still very much a Republican.
I recall that Ron Paul quit the Republican Party after the 2012 election. Ron Paul has a Life Membership in the Libertarian Party which he never revoked. So this means that technically, Ron Paul is a Libertarian Party member right now and not a member of the Republican Party.
Oh let’s not forget Rand’s position on Edward Snowden as well. That enough should be a deal breaker here.
Wow. All I can say.
Are you all forgetting that Ron Paul actively campaigned against Rob Sarvis in 2013? Calling anyone who votes for him “insane”.
Rand Paul is no Libertarian, or libertarian, either. Yes, I appreciate his filibuster on drone strikes. But then a week later he back tracked. He gave a speech to Howard University on ending the war on drugs, and then gave a speech to conservatives about how he doesn’t really want to legalize drugs. The guy is a politician – good at speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Let’s not forget he endorsed Mitch McConnell over a Libertarian candidate for US Senate last year as well.
Just a few weeks ago, a Republican political strategist masquerading on Facebook as “Libertarian Girl” went after my county affiliate for calling her out about attendance at CPAC. Where she and other REPUBLICANS can cozy up and talk about cutting spending (but actually failing to do so) and their conservative war mongering agenda. Did I fail to mention she’s being paid by Rand Paul? I’ve attended CPAC, and it’s hardly ‘libertarian’ in the least.
I’m disappointed I just sent $100 a few weeks ago to the LP. If I had known they wouldn’t have a spine to stand up to REPUBLICANS and REPUBLICAN supporters, I would have kept the money for my local affiliate, or treated my wife to a nice dinner.
I’m sorry to hear that it was taken down.
Rand Paul is a Republican. And, though Ron Paul played a huge roll in my journey to the LP, he’s a Republican too. The LP is supposed to criticize Republicans.
I also agree with Mike’s point – Rand Paul hasn’t earned any libertarian cred. He’s riding daddy’s coat tails in the libertarian movement, while building his own credibility as a conservative. I ain’t got no use for him.
What I emailed to the state chairs list.
I also have a problem with national party putting out that meme. It was offensive to many of our members.
Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. He is not Libertarian friendly. He is not Libertarian leaning. He has actively supported Republican candidates against Libertarian candidates. He does not support the Libertarian Party. To be so bold he is actively working against the Libertarian Party in support of the Republican Party. He is competition.
Not one of those things matter when it comes to that meme.
The meme was also about Ron Paul who is not the same as Rand. While he did run through the Republican Party and I can understand some people’s frustration with him for that, he has still done tremendous things for our party and the Libertarian name. Many people are here today because of Ron. Not only in our membership but even on this state chair’s list. They have been hardworking dedicated members and donors of our party. You have Ron Paul to thank for each and every one of them. To alienate every one of those Ron Paul supporters who are not only in our party but working hard to see our party succeed was more than poor judgment. It was disgraceful.
How many more do we stand to gain when Rand Paul does not win the GOP nomination? None if we stay on the course to alienate and insult them before they even have a chance to consider it.
Libertarians do not fall from the sky. They are recruited when they finally come to realize that the Libertarian Party is the only option to restore liberty and freedom in this nation. However, telling them they are not welcomed before they even get here will do nothing but keep our party stagnant. What is even worse is losing the thousands of people already here and dedicated to our party by insulting them.
I know there are people in this party who would rather stay stagnant than welcome Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporters. That was sure the feeling from whoever put up that post. The problem is that by doing it on our official party page you also made that decision for the rest of us.
It wasn’t long ago that this same state chair’s list was talking about the current drop in dues paying members. Maybe it is time to start looking within and understanding it is the constant insulting and alienating behavior from the current LNC that is to blame.
Many of our states are seeing rapid growth. They are seeing candidates breaking records. Florida for one has doubled in membership, had a 12.87% increase in registration in the last quarter and has been raising more money than ever before. Our candidates broke records in vote totals and fundraising.
Messaging and perception is key and if that meme is suitable for this LNC, than it is clear to me where our failings are as a party. Something needs to change or the next LNC in 2016 will have nothing to rebuild from.
In Liberty,
Alex Snitker
Vice Chairman
Libertarian Party of Florida
I suspect that Rand is more libertarian than some people here are giving him credit for being. I think that Rand probably spent a lot of years analyzing the political system in this country, and he probably came to the realization that in order to get anywhere in our present reality, you’ve got to suck up to the establishment in one of the major parties.
I listened to part of Rand’s speech at CPAC 2015 today, and he sounded good from what I heard. Such as when he blasted the NSA for domestic spying.
I will say that I am less enthusiastic about Rand running for President than I was about his father’s runs, but I do not think Rand is a completely bad guy either.
If it came down to Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton or whatever other turd the Democrats squeeze out in 2016, I could see a good case to be made to vote for Rand Paul, but this is not likely to happen, because I do not see the Republican establishment allowing Rand Paul to win the nomination.
The Rand Paul image is still up in the photo album on the LP Facebook page. Did they just remove it from the timeline? Because the comments are still there to read.
On the other hand I would bet heavily against Rand Paul seeking or accepting the LP nomination. And if he did get it, it wouldn’t make him any more libertarian.
You’d probably win your bet. After all Bob Barr won the nomination.
All of this talk about Rand Paul not being a libertarian, but here is something that I bet would happen if…….
If Rand Paul decided to seek the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination in 2016, a majority of LP delegates would “drop their panties” for him, and Rand would take the nomination on the first ballot.
I’d be willing to bet $1,000 on this if it were to happen (and yes, I know Rand is not likely to seek the LP’s nomination in 2016, or maybe ever).
And from Mike on the FB thread:
Also Mike, did you see the postings from the statechairs list that I put on the LP admins and mods thread? I may post them here later. Even more negative than the LNC stuff.
I’ll probably post the new one later also, but let me know if I am reposting too much of your stuff or just want me to post excerpts instead. I do always put author credits and links back to the original.
Mike, while you are here, I posted a couple of other Outright blog post to IPR – please feel free and encouraged to join our discussion of those and invite other people from Outright to join us here
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/02/steven-rodriguez-thank-you-ron-paul-now-step-aside-so-we-can-support-individual-liberty-for-all/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/02/mike-shipley-get-the-state-out-of-marriage/
Wow … I hadn’t seen the LNC posts, I just am stunned that people can’t connect the dots between those three characters, and worse are unwilling to stand up and take the chance to educate. The meme wasn’t saying their policies were similar, it is saying something a little more refined than that, and I stand behind it as a valid similarity. A lot of people say they run for office to educate the public, wouldn’t this be the perfect chance to explain this?: http://outrightusa.org/joomla25/blog/339-a-history-lesson-for-conservatives-what-these-people-have-in-common
(spoiler, it’s the exact same text I wrote above, in the form of a blog)
The timing of the post was the one and only part of that you got right.
My English is better than my Russian, and I had a perfect score on the verbal portion of the SAT exam. I’ve also communicated extensively with the creator of the meme about it, before and after it was posted.
However, it’s true that I did not learn English until I was 7-8 years old. What’s your excuse?
Alternate Cannoli @1029pm doesn’t seem to understand that the “meme” is an attack on Ron Paul. Maybe it’s an ESL thing.
Reactions to the meme (now pulled) on the LNC list:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002498.html Lieberman, Hayes
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002499.html Lieberman
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002500.html Sarwark
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002501.html Lieberman
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002503.html Sarwark
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002504.html Wiener
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002505.html Lieberman
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002506.html Lieberman, and quotes Doug Craig from State Chairs list
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002507.html Sarwark
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2015/002508.html Lieberman
George Phillies> “Rand Paul gave us our name only if the name is that we are anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti global warming, anti evolution, anti science…..”
Are we to assume that you are IN FAVOR of global warming?
“States’ Rights is the right of states to say gays can’t marry, women can’t have abortions, African Americans may not vote or attend white schools, wives may nor vote, marry, attend university, or own real property, and people may not smoke pot or own guns.”
Not familiar with the Tenth Amendment, George?
“The powers not delegated to the United State nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It IS clear that, whether you like it, or not, SOME
powers are the prerogatives of the States and off-limits to the Congress and the President.
I agree with Mikester @ 9:57.
Mark @10:25, valid point with Ron Paul, but different dynamic with Rand Paul; see my earlier comments.
Like Dave and many who are interested in growing our Party, I too believe that the Paul supporters will need a home to go to when their candidate loses the Republican nomination, and the LP should be the first place, not the last to which they turn.
I put that theory to the test two years before I became a state chair. In 2008, whenever I attended a Ron Paul event, I always asked the crowd how many people in the room actually had the privilege of voting for Ron Paul for President. Often mine was the only hand held high, as many of Ron’s supporters did not know what happened in politics one or two years before, and especially not as far back as 1988.
Then I would remind them that only the LP truly welcomes the pro-freedom agenda Dr. Paul was espousing, which is why he was our nominee way back when. Result: More new members in the Libertarian Party.
Or we could piss these people off and tell them they are supporting war-mongers who are just like Clinton and Bush. How stupid is that?
I want to point out the historical point addressed by this meme: an ideological critique to the notion of inherited power in what is supposed to be a merit-based individualist society. Having power pass from father to son was the legacy of aristocracy and monarchy … It’s impossible to be a Constitutional conservative and want to be ruled by an aristocracy.
The error in reasoning which leads people to believe that Rand must surely be like his father, is the same one which led humans to submit to hereditary transfers of power for thousands of years, and which leads people to believe that entire families of evil human beings named “Clinton” or “Bush” must be great ideas for President!! Confronting that core idea is totally fair game for libertarian activism within the context of a constitutional republic which our founders absolutely never meant to become anything like what they fought to overcome.
The fact that this escaped nearly everybody who saw the meme is just proof of how far we’ve strayed from one of the most important concepts that fueled the revolution that led to our founding. Go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist documents if you aren’t aware of what a huge thing that was to both sides of the question – all were agreed that aristocracies were to be avoided no matter what; that power should no longer be passed as inheritance, but that it must be earned by merit.
I believe it is very clear, Rand has not earned by merit the loyalty he claims through his father, and a dialogue about that is useful not only against Rand, but against the Clintons and Bushes as well. The thing they have in common was really important to our founders … It should be important to us, too.
Rand Paul is no libertarian. It’s fine to attack him for his unlibertarian positions (of which there are many)… but attacking him and his father because they are related is just plain stupid.
On Facebook you want to have your page on as many news feeds as possible. You want people to be following your page in addition to liking it, as that dramatically increases the chances your stories will be read and shared. This meme is clickbait for the “unfollow” and “unlike” buttons. Many companies and non-profits pay massive amounts of money to increase their pages’ like count and reach; likes and follows have value. The Libertarian Party social media team in this instance seems to be flushing money down the drain.
It’s better to stay silent than to say something guaranteed to alienate people, lose members and donors, and reduce the effectiveness of future social media campaigns — especially when there is no gain whatsoever to balance against that colossal loss. The meme is a poorly thought out, illogical, ad hominem attack on Rand Paul with a misplaced allusion to nepotism which appears to be aimed at people who fit in the tiny (perhaps nonexistent) sweet spot of smart and independent enough to be interested in the Libertarian Party (such that they are following the page already), but stupid enough that hatred of the Bushes and Clintons blinds them to rudimentary logical reasoning skills (such that a false analogy to the Bushes and Clintons will make them suddenly hate Rand Paul).
Read the prior comments before yours.
Why are the Paul’s on there?Ron Paul got me to pay attention to politics.I might be paleo-conservative and not libertarian you can’t even begin to compare the three families.This is just about parties,they are just as partisan as the hardest of the hardcore Democrats and Republicans.
I agree.
I haven’t forgotten it. He stayed quiet on the presidential race though, said good things about Johnson (“he’s wonderful”) and mutual acquaintances have told me elder Paul voted for Johnson, and may have voted for Badnarik and Browne. He would have stayed quiet on Barr vs Baldwin too if not for “snubgate” and certainly would not have stumped for McCain or Romney.
Rand Paul will absolutely 100% be stumping hard for the Republican presidential ticket, and will directly target L/libertarian voters with robocalls, ads, and campaign appearances, exactly as in the state races in 2014.
“That strategy worked somewhat with Ron Paul, because he did not actively campaign against the LP. Unlike Ron, Rand will be pulling out all the stops to directly attack the LP”
Apparently some of you have forgotten Paul the elder writing Libertarinas urging them to vote Republican in, e.g., California and iirc Virginia.
> “Gary Johnson is not exactly a hardcore libertarian himself.”
> “Hell of a lot better than Rand Paul though.”
NOT TO MENTION, better than Barr and the snake in the grass, John Hospers,
(who endorsed Bush for President and W.A.R. for LP Chair.)
“Waste” was meant to be in quotes. Any vote i make will be a waste, so I’d rather help the little guy.
Fair enough. I know my posts may read as apologism for Rand, but that’s honestly not my intention. I’m just trying to analyze the situation in the way I feel benefits the LP the most. Even if I did like Rand, I live in a safe state and will probably waste” my vote on the LP barring unforeseen circumstances. I’d like to see them cross 1% this time. It’s why I’m kind of hoping for a Bush Clinton race. If third parties can’t do well in that scenario, I’m not sure they’d ever be able to. 🙂
You are probably not. There will be many others in a more persuadable position, and unlike Ron, Rand Paul will be working hard to corral them into voting Republican in November, and not only for president but in every race.
Not as many as if he had been the candidate they had been working for rather than his father, and not as many as if he spent the entire post-nomination election season actively stumping for Mitt and directly attacking the LP, which by all indications is his plan for 2016.
Even so, the Rand Paul endorsement of Mitt was used to hammer Ron Paul supporters into not voting Libertarian, but that was a very small taste comparing to what we have in store for 2016.
For example, I voted RP in the primary and then Johnson in 2012. But I don’t intend to vote for Rand at all this time around regardless of whether he’s the nominee or not, so I may not be the best judge.
It’s also the only reason a lot of libertarians even like him at all.
He’ll be out stumping for the Republicans whether he is on their ticket or not. I agree he has very little chance at the top spot, but he may have a less trivial chance at VP… regardless, his designated role in the NSGOP is to kill the LP as much as possible, regardless of whether he gets his reward with a spot on their ticket in 2016, a cabinet post or maybe a spot on their ticket in the future after 2016, more power in the senate, a governorship, or any combination of these.
Paulie, that is a valid point. Certainly the LP has no reason to want to protect Rand’s reputation, nor should they. However, I’d be curious how many of his supporters were swayed by Rand’s endorsement of Mitt. I was an active supporter of Ron in 2012 and user on the RP forums, and I recall that most of the posters intended to write Ron in, vote third party, or not vote at all, with a small minority voting for Mitt because they felt him better than Obama. Another sizable minority planned to vote for Obama to set up Rand in 2016.
My point is, I don’t think Rand’s endorsement would have much sway with his rank and file followers, at least the ones who would be open to voting outside Republican. Though this is purely a personal anecdote and I could be easily mistaken.
I agree the graphic is a poor choice because it implicitly criticizes Ron Paul, equating him with Bush and Clinton. It doesn’t really raise any kind of substantive point, it just pushes people’s buttons and pushes away people who may well be leaning towards voting Libertarian in the general election. It might as well just say “Rand Paul sucks! Nyah-nyah!” I think the social media team works hard and does a generally good job, but mistakes happen and I think this was one of them. In a few days nobody will care and it will have passed, so I’m not too worried about it.
Johnson (and Sarwark in his letter about the Iraq/Syria war) handles Rand Paul questions much better, and if we put that sort of thing out there it wouldn’t be nearly as divisive. People expect us to call out Rand Paul for not being libertarian enough, and Rand fans might not like it but that’s all well and good. We still need to do it. Eyebrows and hackles get raised however when we criticize him for being Ron Paul’s son, which is the only point the meme makes.
Johnson needs to continue to hit this point about Rand Paul, not only because it’s correct and important to say, but also because it generates coverage. Gary Johnson just stating his position on the issues of disagreement doesn’t get headlines like Gary Johnson explicitly criticizing Rand Paul and the GOP does. There is a decent chunk of people dissatisfied with Rand Paul being held up as the exemplar of libertarianism, not all of them are already partisan Libertarians. We need to reach those people, and eventually we need to be able to reach people who did vote for Rand (and others) in the major-party primaries.
Remember: Rand Paul isn’t actually our opponent for the 2016 election unless he wins the GOP nomination (which isn’t going to happen). Until then, who the Republican nominee should be is a matter for Republicans to debate and decide. We play no role in it, any more than we do the Democratic primaries.
There’s also a better than zero chance that he might be the Republican VP candidate, but either way he will be out stumping hard for whoever the Republicans pick and directly targeting anyone thinking about voting LP. See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/11/mark-wachtler-sen-rand-paul-no-friend-of-the-opposition/ for Rand Paul’s history of this in 2014. And his campaign manager, Chip England, is the guy who ran Rauner’s campaign in Illinois that took dirty tricks aimed at keeping the LP off the ballot to a new level, so expect the same from the Rand Paul campaign aimed at LP efforts to get on the ballot nationwide over the next year and a half. Rand Paul is the NSGOP’s designated attack dog to destroy the LP.
That strategy worked somewhat with Ron Paul, because he did not actively campaign against the LP. Unlike Ron, Rand will be pulling out all the stops to directly attack the LP and ask all his supporters to vote Republican for president and up and down the ballot in 2016, regardless of whether he is on the ticket or not, just like he did in 2014 and 2012.
Hell of a lot better than Rand Paul though.
Mike Shipley adds:
Dave hit the nail on the head from a strategic stand point.
Via Joe Enroughty and Mike Shipley on FB:
Hmm. From a purely strategical point of view I’m not sure this was the best move. I can understand why the LP wants to prevent voters from going to Rand, but recent polling suggests he’s not going to be the nominee. That could change, but he’s only doing a little better than his father did. The LP might have been better served more or less ignoring him until he exited the race, then putting out a press release encouraging his supporters to come over to the LP rather than continue to support a Republican party that robbed the Pauls again (Trust me, folks would have eaten this up.)
Now that’s my take strategically. From a more ideological point of view I can see why the LP doesn’t have much time for Rand. But flies with honey, so forth.
Gary Johnson is not exactly a hardcore libertarian himself. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I’m proud of Gov. Johnson for this statement, and I agree wholeheartedly. If Johnson is one again the Libertarian nominee for president, I would be proud to vote for him.
When was a Paul ever president or the nominee of a major party? Placing the Pauls in the same category as the Clintons and Bushes is ridiculous. Maybe we should have no more Johnsons since we’ve already had two as president including one who was warmonger that may have been behind the JFK assassination.
Rand Paul gave us our name only if the name is that we are anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti global warming, anti evolution, anti science, oh yes, and in favor of states rights: States’ Rights is the right of states to say gays can’t marry, women can’t have abortions, African Americans may not vote or attend white schools, wives may nor vote, marry, attend university, or own real property, and people may not smoke pot or own guns. Yep, That’s the States’ Rights of Rand.
We need a good Presidential candidate who will make clear we are pro science, pro reality, and in favor of the right of every individual to marry, have abortions, vote, attend school, attend university, own real property, smoke pot AND own guns. Yes, That’s the Individual Rights Real Libertarian Support.
A candidate whose running mate thinks Edward Snowden is a traitor doesn’t appear to qualify.