Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 12/09/2007 11:57:26 AM PST by logician2u
Third Party Watch reports that the Libertarian Party National Committee just unanimously passed a resolution, which reads, in part, "In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, to be decided in Denver, Colorado, during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008."
Third Party Watch has an eyewitness reporter at this meeting, which has been going on this weekend in Charleston, South Carolina. The Paul resolution was authored by former Congressman Bob Barr.
FYI
They seem to understand that he isn’t going to win the republican nomination.
if I dont have Hunter/Tancredo to vote for I’ll vote for Paul on the LP ticket.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Read the article. It says nothing about the nomination.
You’ll have to write him in, ‘cause he ain’t running on the LP ticket. He promised his wife. His word is as good as gold, so I’m told.
Correction to #6: that would be “Republican nomination.”
(And before someone asks, "If he's so popular, why does Ron Paul score so low in the polls?", the answer is obvious. The polls are conducted by 19th-century techniques (land-line telephone) and Ron Paul is most popular with 21st-century internet geeks, and others.)
“if I dont have Hunter/Tancredo to vote for I’ll vote for Paul on the LP ticket.”
You’re not going to have them. It’ll probably be Dudy, errr,Rudy or Shit, I mean, Mitt. One of the socialists will get the nomination, make no mistake about it. You see, Republicans only care about winning elections, not about advancing an agenda. So they’ll nominate the “most electable”, by their accounting anyway, and we’ll continue the slide to socialism aided in full by both the Democrat and Republican parties.
Aren’t you “conservatives” going to be ashamed of yourselves when the new president is elected and within two years of this date (12/9/07), regardless of which party wins, we have universal healthcare because A SOCIALIST IS ELECTED? A socialist congress (regardless of which party holds the majority) and a socialist White House (again, regardless of which party holds the majority) get together and give us socialized medicine. You’ll be so proud that you bashed the crap out of Ron Paul and kept a consitutionalist away from the White House to stem and beat back the tide of socialism.
Come on travis, we need to get up a group to give St. Rudy at least one meetup event ;) BTW, did you see where even Rudy said Ron Paul's supporters are everywhere? LOL
They just want all that money he’s gotten anyway. The LP never had that much money to campaign with before.
Well, the graph appears to indicate that the odds of success (success = becoming the nominee) are inversely proportional to the number of “meetups.” Too bad for Mr. Paul.
If he did accept, his “supporters” would be torn between him and Hillary/Obama ticket.
Which would be fine by me.
We'll see if it's true, as some commentators insist, that Republicans don't grow a spine until their backs are against the wall. It did happen once during the Klintoon era (with Hillary-Care), but not at all recently. It's politically incorrect, I guess, to oppose socialist programs that your own president proposes.
If you dig down into the data on the meetups website you find that a “meetup” can be as few as one (1) person. Some are large, but most are only a few people or only one person. Myself, I wonder if the whole thing isn’t “virtual”.
“Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” — Jesse Unruh, Democrat Speaker of the California Assembly from 1961 to 1968
Perhaps you are thinking of those Republicans who currently support Gouliani?
I get notifications of Ron Paul meet ups in my town all the time. The only problem is that they aren’t happening. There are only about 150 people here and you would think one or two of us would have noticed these so called “meet ups”.
I liken it to the emails I get telling me that dozens of beautiful girls in “your town are waiting to meet you” if I sign up for this or that site. It’s all internet scam artistry.
He will be the democrats ross perot unless he runs with dennis
I'm not one so I don't think about them. But I'm right about Paul's support. The Ron Paul and No War signs in my neighborhood are in the same yards that had Kerry signs in 2004 (and have perpetually had No War signs). It's the same folks and they didn't discover small government and RKBA within the past four years.
Wouldn’t two 16-year-olds playing on mom’s computer and using her credit card to send in $20.00 (and checking off “military” as occupation) constitute a “meet up”? Come on, think outside the box!
Run, Ron, run! Siphon off the loon vote.
Aren't there many popular polls that rely solely on the internet? I believe Zogby's is one of them.
Then you will undoubtedly find the comments posted here of great benefit, although they mostly do not support your local observations.
You’ll know in a month or so how virtual the Ron Paul campaign is.
Don’t know about that. Zogby seems out of favor here on FR, but that could be for other reasons.
Absolutely true.
Glad to know I’m not all alone in that assessment. Others, I’m sure, will disagree.
Did someone get the day off?
Hmmm.
Well, here’s one:
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had two candidates such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as nominees discussing intelligent solutions to America’s problems. Then we would have a choice that was meaningful and no matter which won, America would be the winner.
Posted by:
Cleareye 1:26 PM
Hey great link!
Some folks think it’s the voters’ responsibility to support the party. I think it’s the candidate’s/party’s responsibility to appeal to the voters. If they don’t, then voters aren’t to blame for going elsewhere.
Look this isn't DU or KOS.
Here is another...
RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR FATHER’S REPUBLICAN Ron Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. It’s ironic that other GOP candidates are scared to death of his message, because his positions are more conservative than theirs. Being anti-war; pro-life; pro civil liberties; pro Second Amendment; pro States rights; pro secure borders; and in favor of a sound economic policy IS TOTALLY CONSERVATIVE. The Republican party has “lost its way,” Paul said during a recent GOP debate. Like the limited federal government principles espoused by Dwight D. Eisenhower, his school of Republicanism stands for a certain idea of The Constitution that much of the power asserted by modern Presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the States. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both The Constitution (it included slavery) and The Bill of Rights (it doesn’t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures like the ones currently being played-out in the Mid-East. After ten terms of service as a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul has demonstrated a consistent track record of adherance to The Constitution unmatched by anyone in either party. Ron Paul does not represent your Father’s school of political thought. He represents your Founding Fathers.
Posted by:
RealProphet Dec-8
There are probably even a few who would want to see a Paul/Kucinich ticket. Heck, I've seen some here who wouldn't mind Paul as VP for Hunter or Thompson.
Most Americans do not follow politics as much as those of us on Free Republic. They would be hard-pressed to name their own Representative in Congress. Their knowledge of Presidential candidates is limited to whatever soundbites are on the nightly news.
It is a bit disturbing, yet somehow refreshing, to know that a large segment of the population is turned off to the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. As partisans, most of the posters here have made up their minds that Democrats are inherently demons and that Republicans of a certain stripe are inherently good. That's not the way most of the country views it, which can explain the dynamics of partisan elections.
In this presidential election, we're seeing a good number of formerly apathetic Americans registering to vote for the first time. The younger generation, notoriously absent from the voting booth ever since the voting age was dropped to 18, is making itself heard -- and available as campaign volunteers. Despite years of indoctrination in public schools, young people are actually registering as Republicans in record numbers.
Which of the eight Republican candidates do you think draws the biggest crowds at colleges where he speaks? (Hint: It's not Thompson.)
Paul calls Kucinich veep speculation "premature" [will think about it in 3 or 4 months]
He admits to liking Dennis, and agreeing with him on issues like the war and economic policy.
BTW, did you watch the first part of Dr. Paul's (Web-only) interview with John Stossel? What did you think?
Marvelous quote. Where’d you find it????
It’s some where in the comments section.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/comments?type=story&id=3970423
You'll have to provide something more reliable than DailyKOS and DU as proof that Dr. Paul agrees with Dennis Kucinich on "economic policy." The fact that the two came down on the same side on a few key votes is not what I would call proof.
Kucinich is not just a Democrat and a liberal; he's just about a socialist on taxation and redistribution of wealth. His economics, if he's even studied the subject, is straight out of Keynes and Marx.
Paul is the staunchest supporter of laissez-faire capitalism in Congress. He would abolish many whole agencies that were set up to "rein in" capitalism during the Progressive Era. He sees unnecessary regulation as not only putting the brakes on economic growth but as a method big business employs to keep out competitors. In that sense, Paul is "anti-big business," but only to the extent that he wants favoritism stopped. Along with corporate welfare.
And as far as economics goes, Paul and Kucinich are diametric opposites.
I acknowledge that he gets a great deal of suport from Kos and DU, moveon too.
Proof, well there's what he says at second 33
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/paul_calls_kucinich_veep_specu.htmlDavis Fleetwood: And then the 2 of you differ on almost all of the issues, excepting the war.
Ron Paul: And civil liberties and economic issues
but I suppose I shouldn't take Ron Paul's word for it.
I think he would get J.S. Mills vote.
On Liberty
Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual
Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment.
Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.
As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.
It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other’s conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others.
But disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to their good, than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. It is equally the business of education to cultivate both. But even education works by conviction and persuasion as well as by compulsion, and it is by the former only that, when the period of education is past, the self-regarding virtues should be inculcated. Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be for ever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations.
But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being: the interest which any other person, except in cases of strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect: while, with respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else.
The interference of society to overrule his judgment and purposes in what only regards himself, must be grounded on general presumptions; which may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases, by persons no better acquainted with the circumstances of such cases than those are who look at them merely from without. In this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper field of action. In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person’s own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he himself is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.
JS Mills? That’s some pretty seditious stuff.
Don’t you know that freedom is about authority?
Bill
I suspect certain social conservatives among us would shreik in horror on reading this sentence if it were written by, say, James Dobson: "But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it."
Freedom. It's a hard concept for some people to grasp.
Not meaning to challenge your assertion, but do you have anything in the way of numbers to back it up?
Like, do they run polls like CNN and Fox News do? Or even FreeRepublic does? What percentage of DUers are Ron Paul supporters? And why do you think they haven't been kicked off as they apparently have at some other sites like RedState?
If it's true that a number of Democrats and unaffiliated voters are becoming Republicans in order to vote for Ron Paul, considered by most to be a longshot for the Republican nomination, why do you suppose there isn't an equal or greater number of Republicans changing parties to mess with the Democrat front-runners, Hillary and Obama? Don't you think they pose a bigger threat than an also-ran like Ron Paul? Certainly the anti-Hillary brigades have more breadth and depth than the platoons of Paul haters we encounter on various internet forums.
Could it be that Ron Paul actually has ideas that appeal across party lines, while none of the Democrats or the other Republicans running have gone beyond their respective parties' agendas? Think about it.
“Look this isn’t DU or KOS.”
What does this mean?
“I disagree with Dr. Paul completely about terrorism and consider the issue too important to tolerate his level of error. He’s a good man who has said and done good things in the past. He’s not the right man to be president today.
Bill”
Thank you, Bill, for your respectful response. You’ve shown yourself not to be one of the haters that inhabit this site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.