Its Super Tuesday time

[Pop]

Pop, you started out good today and actually had me agreeing with something you posted, which is a big change for me. But you just shot off high and left of the target with this one. First of all Ron Paul is neither conservative nor republican despite his party affiliation. And judging by the amount of support he has gotten from rank and file Republicans I would think that would be self evident. He does appeal to the kook fringe and I assure you EVERY political faction in America (and everywhere else) has them and they never make common cause with the mainstream in any school of politcal thought. To paint repubs and libertarians with a broad brush because a handful of nuts exist within those two parties is at best disengenous, and worst out right B.S. By the same logic i could claim the democrats are all communists simply because the US Communist Party has endorsed the democrat candidate for president in the last 2 elections. It is true but it does not mean the dems are ALL communists. See what I'm getting at here?

I don't know why you'd say that RP isn't conservative. He sponsored a bill that would've defined an embryo as a child, he voted for both the Defense of Marriage Act and a bill that would've protected said act from judicial scrutiny, all of which are completely backwards from a libertarian standpoint. He's a certain type of libertarian, but it's an older and less cuddly kind of libertarian, the kind that would naturally feel at home in the Republican Party. I had a link to a vlog in which a Cato Institute member explains it, I'll dig it upHere it be!.

 

Of course every party has a fringe. What matters is how a candidate interacts with that fringe. Dem candidates rarely if ever court or address the socialists directly. If money was donated to their campaigns from a fringe, given the severity of the views of the giving group they'd give the money back or give it to charity, if they were smart about it. RP has directly accepted and used money from neo-nazis even when confronted about it (the official line is that he "accepted the money so that it can be used against the donor's interests", which doesn't seem very logical). When asked by Tim Russert on national television about the Civil War he said it was completely immoral and that the North ought to have bought all the slaves from the South instead of going to war, which was either a poorly-thought out evasion of the question which has an obvious and easy answer, or a revelation of Paul's lack of basic economic sense. The problem with slavery wasn't just that people owned slaves, it was that there was a demand for slaves. Buying them all wouldn't eliminate that demand. Add to that keynote speeches at secessionist conferences and you get an idea of where Paul's head is at. That's not even getting into the infamous newsletters that called MLK Jr. a gay paedophile (and despite what history would tell you, it was the civil rights activists who were the real racists, which is a remarkably common sentiment among rank-and-file libertarians. Civil Rights movements = collectivism, after all) and warned of the Trilateral Commission and the UN plotting world domination.

 

You are correct about one thing, the average libertarian party member shudders at the thought of RP attempting another presidential run with the LP because you are right, he does not represent the LP line. You posted earlier that libertrians run for govenment office in order to use the position to "destroy" government. That is completely inaccurate. The Libertairan ideal is to keep government reigned in to the scope of it's power as defined by law. Be it the US Constitution, the Constitutuon of a state, city charter, whatever.

I wouldn't draw much distinction between a socialist state that would dissolve free elections and private property and a libertarian state that would atrophy the state to the point of inconsequence and replace the workings of government with the bustle of the marketplace. Both are equally harmful to the public good and the average standard of living. But you knew that I felt that way already. I don't place any stock whatsoever in voluntarism or the invisible self-correcting mechanisms of the market. The state exists to prevent malignant self-interest of motivated individuals from running rampant. You don't necessarily need a short leash, but you need a leash.

 

Here is an example. I ran for the Florida State House as a Libertarian. One of my campaign platforms was to propose and pass a law which made it illegal for the state to sanction governing bodies other than those of incorporated townships, municpalities, or counties. We have homeowners assosciations down here and not just in jointly owned properties such as condos or townhomes but single family homes. That state sanction gives associations the power to "tax" community residents and it allows them a terrible amount of power over residents including the power to lein homes. At the same time it protected the assosciations from lawsuits brought by residents for bad business practice, etc. I argued and still believe that State sanction is a violation of Article 2 sections 3-4 of the 1968 State Constitution. So I wanted to remove an oppressive local government by forcing the state government to behave within the constraints of it constitution. That is the essence of what modern libertarian thought is all about.

I can see that such an arrangement is harmful, but I don't have to look to a constitution to arrive at that conclusion. Constructionism is akin to fundamentalism. Believing that a founding document drafted hundreds of years ago is the complete and unchangeable guide to how a society should function forever is no different from believing that a 2,000 year old novel is, to the exclusion of all else, the book of answers to every single question about how one should live and think about the world today. Ron Paul has such a belief. Indeed, his staunch opposition to the 13th amendment to the constitution, the one that guaranteed black men the right to vote and ensured that the children of immigrants were to be considered Americans under the law, is that which makes him so popular among white supremacists.

 

It is not all kooks who think 9-11 was an inside job. Or that we must close all foreign bases and abrogate all treaties and build a wall around America. We understand that some government regulation of buisness is right and necassary and the constitution allows for that very thing.

But the Paul candidacy would seem to indicate that either such beliefs are incredibly strong motivating factors, or that young libertarians that are so attracted to his candidacy are willing to take whatever they can get (or they're just ignorant of their candidate's positions). I'm willing to consider that the great majority of Ron Paul supporters aren't the "real libertarians" you talk about but rather young conservatives who have turned to libertarian persuasions more out of a disaffected reaction to the dominance of the Christian Right among the Republican Party than anything else. Thus they might have rudimentary libertarian sentiments but at their core they're still primarily traditional conservative Republicans who would believe that, for example, after abolishing federal protection of abortion rights states will naturally slide towards prohibition on their own, thus winning the abortion war without any actual government intervention.

 

BTW, in 1911 the Republicans were led by Teddy Roosevelt and were quite liberal compared to the much more conservative democrats.

I just pulled that date out of thin air. Maybe I should have gone post-Great War.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Pop

[Guard Dog]

I don't know why you'd say that RP isn't conservative. He sponsored a bill that would've defined an embryo as a child, he voted for both the Defense of Marriage Act and a bill that would've protected said act from judicial scrutiny, all of which are completely backwards from a libertarian standpoint.

 

No argument there, that is not libertarian at all. But a bill to protect another bill from judicial scrutiny is like saying "ain't" is a word. Such a bill would be open to overturn itself, which leads to overturn of the fist bill. I think you might have misremembered that second one. But that

Edited February 14, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Pop]

OK, since this was all news to me (granted i have never given RP a close look) I did a few google searches on RP and racism, RP and Neo Nazis (the page you linked does not mention him at all) and all i come up with is blogs like Daily Kos, Flopping Aces, LewRockwell.com, Democrat underground, and Raggedthots.com. Some of these sites do make raving, foaming at the mouth claims that are in line with what you say, but not one is a credible news source, or links their claims to any credible news source (like the LA Times article I linked). Do you have any?

A reporter from the New Republic found a dearth of up-to-that-point unreleased newsletters in the archives of a midwestern University library, most of which contained no byline but all of which claimed Ron Paul's name in the official title of the newsletter. The newsletters were published over a period of nearly 30 years, and contain a veritable bounty of crazy bull****. While Paul could have probably have removed himself from responsibility if it was a briefly published rag, the fact that it went on for so long seems to suggest that either he knew what was being written or didn't have the gumption to stop others from grossly misrepresenting him over a long period of time. The most infamous one is the first one presented, which Paul or Paul's surrogate wrote in the wake of the Rodney King riots.

 

As for the neo-nazi contribution, well

there it is. It's an old, standard tradition to sell photo ops with candidates, of course, but these purchasers, Don and Derek Black, happened to be the owners and proprieters of Stormfront, probably the most popular white power forum on the web. The donation's a matter of public record, so if you looked up "Don Black West Palm Beach Florida Website Manager" in whatever gov't agency database keeps track of that stuff (I can't remember right now) you'll see it. The RP folk came out and said they weren't aware of the Blacks' occupation, although curiously, a glowing portrait in the National Review by Tucker Carlson pointed out how proactive the Paul camp was in escorting people away from their man when confronted with Vegas sex workers. You'd think they'd know their stuff. The RP campaign was called upon to give up the money and they refused, which is their right, but it's not exactly a testament to their scruples. The one thing you can say about the RP campaign is that it was never, ever hurting for cash.

 

And the Honorable Doctor General Grand Master Dragon President Ron Paul is most certainly a conservative republican activist

 

you seem to believe that the republican party is racist. Why then does a man like Ron Paul get zero traction with rank and file republicans? Why is nobody, and i mean NOBODY in the repub party supporting him? Not a single endorsement, less than 2% of just the republican vote and you and I have already agreed his following is something of a kook fringe not really representative of either the repub or lib parties. Maybe because the republican party is not racist at all. And when a repub does pop up like Henry Hyde or David Duke who utter bad things in public that DO show up in credible news sources they are quickly shown the door.

That's not what this is about at all. I'm sort of surprised you've never run into Paulies before. See, Ron Paul is opposed to collective action, so he encourages his supporters to spread the word as individuals. This support manifests itself in a number of ways, some of which are creative but illegal, like the Ron Paul Liberty Dollar Coin, and some of which are spectacular and incredibly wasteful, like the Ron Paul blimp, but the vast, vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are internet missionaries, the ever-present tie-wearing mormons of politics. Digg and other finger-on-the-pulse sites were constantly being barraged by artificially inflated RP stories for a couple of months. Obsidian is actually the only forum I've been to that hasn't had a deluge of Paulies (or "Paultards" as they're less politely called). The RP forums have a number of tips and ideas for effective proselytization. One of the more popular tactics is to place the title of Dr. in front of Paul's name, lending it authority (any Paultard will tell you that Doctor Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies in his medical career and thus is best fit to lead the country) Imagine an environmentalist poster who takes every opportunity to talk about An Inconvenient Truth, but makes sure to place the words "Oscar-winning Vice President" before every mention of Al Gore's name. You can see how tiring it could get.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Pop

[Sand]

No Clinton, no Democratic vote. I'll go Republician which is usually who I favor to begin with. McCain FTW.

 

Why would you support the continued reign of Billary? I mean, I cannot see any redeeming factors that would make me vote for her instead of McCain -although I want Obama to win the Democratic nomination, and voted that way during yesterday's primary-, in fact she is the only one of the top three candidates that I would not want to see in the White House. It is not that she is a woman, I believe that there will be a female president within the next fifty years and do not have a problem with that fact, it is that she is both the wife of Bill Clinton (someone who I never want to see near the white house again, especially if he does not have a job to do) and that she is, in fact, Hillary R. Clinton.

 

 

I agree.

 

Also we need a leader that can work with the opposition, get rid of partisanship, and Obama can do that. Clinton cannot. She is a divisive force that Republicans hate, along with some independent minded Democrats. The Clintons must go.

[thepixiesrock]

Too bad we lost our best chance at getting a good economy.

[Walsingham]

I usually try and get slimmer arguments than Pop and Guard Dog, but I'm actually enjoying this one. I'd rate it 8/10 for style and 9/10 for substance.

 

I have to agree with Pops stance more, even though I only very recently became aware of Ru Paul. Sure, GD's right in that merely having an endorsement is sometimes unavoidable and bizarre. But Ru seems to be suspiciously concordant with militia nutcases whom I have known very well. And regrettably (given my own fondness for inept gun-rubbing) militiamen are often xenophobic dimlows.

 

On his anti-internationalism, I need hardly wonder out loud why Sand hasn't endorsed him as a candidate, since he also supports a "let's hide under the comforter with a nuke until the World forgets we're here" philosophy.

[alanschu]

Anybody else humming the Kirk vs. Spock fight music?

[Guard Dog]

Anybody else humming the Kirk vs. Spock fight music?

Just so long as I get to be Spock!

[Guard Dog]

Don and Derek Black, happened to be the owners and proprieters of Stormfront, probably the most popular white power forum on the web. The donation's a matter of public record, so if you looked up "Don Black West Palm Beach Florida Website Manager"

 

I did:Don Black

 

It's no joke, that's him. Thats credible enough for me. BTW, I forwarded that on to some other people I know who are still involved in politics.

 

 

The RP folk came out and said they weren't aware of the Blacks' occupation, although curiously, a glowing portrait in the National Review by Tucker Carlson pointed out how proactive the Paul camp was in escorting people away from their man when confronted with Vegas sex workers. You'd think they'd know their stuff. The RP campaign was called upon to give up the money and they refused, which is their right, but it's not exactly a testament to their scruples. The one thing you can say about the RP campaign is that it was never, ever hurting for cash.

 

On quick aside, you continue to quote the National Review as some kind of authoritative voice in conservative thinking. It really is not though. Journalisticly speaking it lumped in with News Max, World Net Daily, Mother Jones, Salon.com, and others as a politically slanted fish wrap/blog passing itself off as a news source. Real news with a conservative slant can be had from Forbes, Washington Times, WSJ (those are what I read) and I've heard Townhall.com, capitolhillblue.com and American Spectator are pretty good. Anyway, in the sources I read RP never comes up since he is not taken seriously. And true, he does have money and no votes so what does that tell you? The Repubs won't have him. He is not one of them. He sure is heck is not one of the Libs either. Thats really what I'm getting at here. I'm trying to convince you and everyone else that you can not take an extreme example of any group and use them to paint the entire group. Its a self defeating argument in any case because the left certainly has no lack of kooks and fools that can be trotted out for the same treatment.

 

In summation, you are right, he is an ass. I am right, he is an aberration not representative of the group.

 

Agreed?

 

I'm sort of surprised you've never run into Paulies before.

No but I've been out of politics for some time and the political boards I frequent would probably ban one of them the moment they popped up. After reading about him I'd be afraid if one of them bit you you would turn into one.

[taks]

Come on now, I'm betting I'm a lot younger than you are, and I still remember Ross Perot, who had much more support than RP has now.

yes, i remember ross, and no, not really.

 

And the Honorable Doctor General Grand Master Dragon President Ron Paul is most certainly a conservative republican activist, if the National Review editorial board is any litmus test for that sort of thing. The only real way he breaks from traditional principles is his anti-war stance, but even that is less anti-war than it is anti-internationalist, and in that he's really just a conservative Republican circa 1911.

uh, if you look at his stance he's actually a hardcore libertarian. more to the point, he's a strict constructionist, almost an absolutist when it comes to the constitution and capitalism. keep in mind, the only time since we were taken off the gold standard that the fed did not follow it was during recessions. whether that was a cause or an effect is probably impossible to discern, however.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, to label rp "conservative" because of his support of legislation that negates roe v. wade or embryo matters is a bit disingenuous. he does so certainly because he is pro-life, but also because he thinks those are state issues, not federal issues. the constitution does not explicitly empower the federal government to legislate these things (though it can be argued there is implicit power to do so), and his position is that they should be left to the states.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

Election news of small import: Romney Endorses McCain. He should have done that last week. Why delay the enevitable.

 

Election new of big import:Democratic Nomination For Sale

 

Election News of BIGGEST import:Dems Fear Superdelegates Could Reverse Election Results

 

I must admit I am salivating over that last one. I would love Love LOVE to see Obama win the elected delegates and have Hillary buy, beg, or threaten enough supers to reverse the vote and grant her the nomination. That would set a fire in the tinder for real and give us dicsussion fodder for YEARS to come.

[Pidesco]

Just a little derail on my part, but boy are white supremacists complete and utter idiots.

 

Here's an actual quote from Black's forum:

 

[Letters from Iwo Jima]was obviously made to smear Flags of our Fathers

[Guard Dog]

uh, if you look at his stance he's actually a hardcore libertarian.

 

No, no no. Did you read anything I said?

[Pop]

In summation, you are right, he is an ass. I am right, he is an aberration not representative of the group.

 

Agreed?

Sure, I suppose. I don't really think that RP is representative of the traditional libertarian platform. But I do think his type of libertarian, the kind that's only libertarian in its desire for small gov't., has a chance of coming into prominence in the future. Depends on if his supporters drop his ideology after he inevitably loses or soldier on into 2012.

 

Anyway, McCain: Torture should be illegal, except when it isn't illegal. Ah, the making of a Republican candidate for President.

[Meshugger]

Election News of BIGGEST import:Dems Fear Superdelegates Could Reverse Election Results

 

I must admit I am salivating over that last one. I would love Love LOVE to see Obama win the elected delegates and have Hillary buy, beg, or threaten enough supers to reverse the vote and grant her the nomination. That would set a fire in the tinder for real and give us dicsussion fodder for YEARS to come.

 

= Message to the voters: *Haha* *nee-ner* *nee-ner*

 

Here i actually agree on one thing that Mike Gravel said: "By negating the people a candidate that speaks for them, the government commits the worst political sin to its people, they create a generation a cynics."

Edited February 16, 2008 by Meshugger

[Guard Dog]

Election News of BIGGEST import:Dems Fear Superdelegates Could Reverse Election Results

 

I must admit I am salivating over that last one. I would love Love LOVE to see Obama win the elected delegates and have Hillary buy, beg, or threaten enough supers to reverse the vote and grant her the nomination. That would set a fire in the tinder for real and give us dicsussion fodder for YEARS to come.

 

= Message to the voters: *Haha* *nee-ner* *nee-ner*

 

Here i actually agree on one thing that Mike Gravel said: "By negating the people a candidate that speaks for them, the government commits the worst political sin to its people, they create a generation a cynics."

I've said all along Hillary will not go down gracefully. If the election results went against her she would beg, bribe, or threaten the supers to her side. If that fails she will probably sue the DNC to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated because that would be enough. Her lodestone is the personal gratification in the power of the Presidency. If you listen to her on health care it should scare the bejesus out of any red blooded freedom loving American.

[Meshugger]

Election News of BIGGEST import:Dems Fear Superdelegates Could Reverse Election Results

 

I must admit I am salivating over that last one. I would love Love LOVE to see Obama win the elected delegates and have Hillary buy, beg, or threaten enough supers to reverse the vote and grant her the nomination. That would set a fire in the tinder for real and give us dicsussion fodder for YEARS to come.

 

= Message to the voters: *Haha* *nee-ner* *nee-ner*

 

Here i actually agree on one thing that Mike Gravel said: "By negating the people a candidate that speaks for them, the government commits the worst political sin to its people, they create a generation a cynics."

I've said all along Hillary will not go down gracefully. If the election results went against her she would beg, bribe, or threaten the supers to her side. If that fails she will probably sue the DNC to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated because that would be enough. Her lodestone is the personal gratification in the power of the Presidency. If you listen to her on health care it should scare the bejesus out of any red blooded freedom loving American.

 

I think that she scares to the beejesus out of any sane human being. I mean her idea of "free" healthcare takes all the power from the people and gives it to the coorperations under government mandate. What was is it called again, Hillary? Corporatism! Mussolini would've been proud.

 

It's like she gone so much left on political compass that she jumped over to the farthest of right-wing authocracy.

[alanschu]

Wait...she wrapped around?? Haha :D