Skip to comments.Is He Good for the Libertarians? - Why some libertarians don't want to join the Ron Paul...
Posted on 07/27/2007 5:39:58 PM PDT by neverdem
Why some libertarians don't want to join the Ron Paul revolution.
Republican congressman from Texas (and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate) Ron Paul seems to be doing pretty good for libertarianism these days. He's gotten more press exposure and more Internet buzz than any libertarian movement political figure, and has done so outside the dead-end third party context. A surprising amount of the attention has even been respectful and positive—and for a candidate as ignored and excluded as Paul, any press short of a full-on hostile shredding is good news.
Sure, he still has zero traction (well, 2 percent) in conventional polling. And any respectable reporter would sooner fail to check whether his mother loves him than neglect to mention the apparently settled fact that Paul has no chance of winning the nomination.
But some Ron Paul Revolutionaries insist that the mainstream media are putrid corpses in brackish water, and conventional polls are for losers who still answer their landlines. Paul's support—by more postmodern measures—continues to grow. He's still the king of meetup.com, which does generate real-world crowds, and even real-world food drives. He's also the political king of YouTube (22,157 subscribers). We won't find out for months if these netroots measures mean anything in electoral terms. And that's just fine for a thrifty message-oriented candidate, who psychically benefits from running (and builds up more fundraising resources for any future effort) even if he fails utterly with vote totals.
This past Sunday he hit a political respectability jackpot, with a long, thorough, serious, and critical-but-respectful profile in the New York Times Magazine. Most of the Ron Paul press tells, however questioningly, of a politician dedicated to severely limited government that doesn't want to interfere in our personal lives, doesn't want to investigate us and control us, wants to abolish the income tax, and wants to bring troops home and dedicate our military only to actual national defense—a politician against the federal drug war, against the Patriot Act, against regulating the Internet, and for habeas corpus.
Still, many libertarians are either ambivalent or actively unhappy with Paul's campaign and the public attention it has gotten. They feel either that Paul is not libertarian enough in all respects, or are unhappy with linking libertarianism to certain aspects of Paul's rhetoric, focus, or past. You'll hear: If, after this campaign, whenever anyone thinks of libertarian, they think, oh, you are like Ron Paul?—will that be good for libertarianism in the future? And would you feel personally comfortable with it?
One prominent version of Libertarian Ron Paul Anxiety comes via noted and respected anarcho-legal theorist Randy Barnett in The Wall Street Journal. Barnett has decades of hardcore libertarian movement credentials behind him and is one of Lysander Spooner's biggest fans. (Spooner, the 19th century individualist anarchist, famously declared the state to be of inherently lower moral merit than a highway bandit.) But the mild obstetrician, family man, and experienced legislator Ron Paul is too radical for Barnett in one respect—the respect that is key to most of Paul's traction to begin with: hisconsistent, no-compromise, get-out-now stance against the war in Iraq.
Barnett is eager to dissociate libertarianism writ large from Paul's anti-Iraq War stance, claiming that many libertarians are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war—as Ron Paul does—and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame, he suggests, if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.
This is doubly curious. First, because opposition to non-defensive war traditionally is a core libertarian principle (to begin with, since it inherently involves mass murder and property destruction aimed at people who have not harmed the people imposing the harm) and is, in fact, the position of the vast majority of self-identified libertarians. Second, why would one worry that libertarianism can be damaged by an association with an idea that is in fact immensely popular? And, to boot, a popular position in which Paul has unique credibility for being right, and right from the beginning, unlike pretty much every other candidate.
Paul does, though, believe some things many libertarians don't, and some libertarians think these issues are so important that his libertarian credentials should be revoked. For example, he'd like to eliminate Roe v. Wade and would be happy to allow states and localities to ban abortion—and personally considers abortion a moral crime.
But this position, however hard to explain to one's liberal friends who ask a libertarian about this Ron Paul guy, doesn't place him outside the libertarian pale. If you see a living human fetus as a human life the same in morally significant respects as any born human, then supporting a ban on it is as consistent with libertarianism as laws against murder.
On trade, Paul takes a position that is perfectly proper from a radical, no-compromise libertarian position. That is, he's for free trade, but against government managed trade agreements. In practice, though, this seems to block off the only way tariff reductions and eliminations actually happen in the real world, a politically tone deaf stance that makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
When it comes to immigration, Paul believes the federal government can legitimately defend the border, and thinks that, in a world of government benefits and minimum wage laws, it is appropriate for government to do so stringently. I strongly disagree with how border defense has been done in practice, as do most libertarians. But as Paul told me, it doesn't mark him as essentially unlibertarian, but rather falls within a potentially legitimate set of actions for non-anarchist libertarians who do believe in the nation-state.
Paul's concern with immigration is of a piece with his right-populist strains, an obsession with "sovereignty" that feeds his fevered opposition to international trade pacts and the UN. Combined with his strong emphasis on trash-talking the Federal Reserve and advocating a return to gold, it's the sort of thing that strikes many other libertarians as, if not inherently unlibertarian, sort of cranky and kooky, and that led me to note to The New Republic that many libertarians (though not me) think of Paul as a bit of a yokel.
And a yokel with some ugly things in his past that no libertarian wants to be linked with. As The New York Times Magazine, among others, reported, Paul's newsletter during his years out of Washington contained some ugly race-baiting comments about the overwhelmingly criminal nature of black males in D.C. Paul says the comments were written by a staffer, but he's refused to say who and hasn't gone through any serious garment-rending and regret about it, though he did disavow them.
Some unhappy with Paul's presence in the GOP race are just Libertarian Party partisans who think no good for political liberty in America can arise from someone flying under the GOP flag. But LP-associated blogger Thomas Knapp presented a more interesting and detailed version of why Paul and the Paul movement can't do good for libertarianism (which he framed, unfortunately, in a jokey 9-11 Truther baiting frame, in which he seemed to be saying that because the GOP will benefit in the long run from Paul's campaign, that Paul was recruited for the task by Karl Rove).
Knapp argues that Ron doesn't always call himself libertarian, selling himself sometimes as a constitutionalist or small-government conservative depending on his audience; that he's accomplished almost nothing specific that furthers libertarian goals as a congressman while sucking lots of money out of libertarian donors; and that because of Paul's campaign, the LP won't do very well in 2008. Of course, there is nothing about these complaints that wouldn't apply to any almost-entirely-libertarian federal politician short of the libertarian revolution. It seems a classic best-enemy-of-the-good maneuver, or perhaps an inadvertent declaration that libertarian electoral politics, LP or major party, is inherently pretty useless for furthering libertarian policy change.
And Paul undoubtedly falls short of his reputation as a hardcore, no-compromise-ever libertarian constitutionalist. For example, he happily inserts earmarked pork spending that benefits his district in spending bills, to keep them happy—and then votes against the bills, to keep his free-market constituents nationwide happy.
Paul argues that the voting against the total bill is enough, that the rules of Congress mean the earmarks don't actually increase total federal spending anyway, and that while he'd rather the government didn't take the money, it's not inherently a crime to try to get some of it back for his constituents.
Sure, he's trying to have it both ways. Something about Paul that sometimes evades both his fans and opponents: He's a very, very successful politician. He's won election to Congress as a nonincumbent three times—an extraordinary record. And he's won as an incumbent 7 times, with steadily growing percentage totals. One of his political skills is a chameleonic quality: Without changing the roots of his message, he's able to seem a lot of things to a lot of people by intelligently strategic choices about which Ron Paul to sell. He's a libertarian, he's a constitutionalist, he's a true conservative. When I saw him speak earlier this month at FreedomFest to an audience of mostly self-conscious libertarians, he never once mentioned immigration, emphasizing rather war and money.
So, yes: Ron Paul is by no means the perfect candidate for most American libertarians. Some find his stance on trade obtuse, his stance on abortion tyrannical; the race-baiting, however disavowed, stupid, wrong, off-putting to most Americans, and dangerous for libertarians to be associated with; his position on earmarks sleazy politician logic-chopping. They envision a horrific Ron Paul's America in which abortion and immigration are banned, the federal drug war ended but a state-level one ongoing, and a financial system wrecked with reckless goldbuggery—and libertarianism tarnished forevermore.
Libertarians leery of Paul should ask themselves (while bearing in mind that of course no one, certainly no libertarian, is under any obligation to support or advocate or vote for any politician ever): Have we ever seen a national political figure better in libertarian terms—better on taxes, on drugs, on spending, on federalism, on foreign policy, on civil liberties? And for the pragmatic, cosmopolitan, mainstream libertarian: Why is Ron Paul the place where making the non-existent best the enemy of the good becomes the right thing to do?
I can't think of a better final response on FR than this! Bye Republicans.
Ron Paul ping.
And yet still Ron Paul isn't good enough. His position on Iraq blinds pro-occupation conservatives to his other positions and renders him merely a crazy, demented kook. And, of course, libertarians are confronted with the most significant and impactful national libertarian campaign ever conducted and have the gall to turn their back on it and say, "But his position on ------- isn't libertarian enough."
Ron Paul will forever wear the stench of Alex Jones.
I have nothing against Ron Paul but it’s a little disingenuous for a libertarian to run as a republican and have his supporters preach to us about his qualifications. If he were being honest he would be running to get the libertarian nomination. But then he wouldn’t be on national TV would he.
If Paul is disingenuous to run as a Republican, so are Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson. And Bush, for that matter.
Ron Paul calls himself a Libertarian, meaning he doesn’t think of himself as a Republican, until it is convienant to him. Those other guys are Republicans. They are not the best conservatives in the world but they campaign for and raise money for other Republicans. Ron Paul does not he shows up during election time and plays like he’s a Republican to get the exposer, that is simply the truth.
Libertarians probably don't represent more than 10 percent of the electorate at most and are easy for political consultants to ignore. But they are represented in much larger percentages among opinion leaders and thus have influence disproportionate to their numbers. Republicans will miss them if they leave the party en masse.
While the Libertarian Party never seems to get more than a few percent in national elections, small 'l' libertarians are not insignificant. The GOP won't do well without most of them, IMHO. In an exit poll last November there were only 32 % conservative. The remainder was 47 % moderate and 21 % liberal.
I know of nothing that confirms that Libertarians support the Republican party. I assume the majority support the Libertarian party. Most Libertarians I know tell me there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. While I would like to agree with your reasoning I don’t think it holds water.
Take the Pick Your Candidate Quiz >>> http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
His position on Iraq blinds pro-occupation conservatives to his other positions and renders him merely a crazy, demented kook."Pro-occupation conservatives"?
How about patriotic Americans backing our troops as they man the front lines of WWIII, you crazy, demented kook.
I see you are using your very best debating technique.;^)
When the facts aren't on your side, start the name calling.
Libertarian Party members usually support their party. Small 'l' libertarians understand that they don't want to throw their vote away, therefore they go with one of the major parties.
Most Libertarians I know tell me there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Between a big spending GOP and the neoCOMs, about the only differences are taxes and foreign policy.
While I would like to agree with your reasoning I dont think it holds water.
How many folks who are both social and economic conservatives do you think there are?
Why? Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.
On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split.
How do you explain how the GOP held the House and mostly held the Senate from 1994 to 2006? The margin of votes that Libertarian Party candidates received in Montana and Virginia explains how the neoCOMs picked up those Senate seats. Thank Jim Leach of the House for sponsoring the bill to ban online gambling. That idiot, I'm glad he lost, and he was a RINO.
If Iraq is the front line of WWIII, by which of course you mean the war between the West and militant Islam, why are we not also in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan? Are there not more militant Islamists there than were ever in Iraq? Why Iraq? If we're in Iraq to fight the terrorists there instead of here, which I hear frequently from the war's supporters, why have we yet to close our borders and reform our immigration system to the extent necessary to prevent the terrorists from coming and staying here in the first place? Is occupying Iraq the most efficient long term investment of our resources, attention, and political capital in the war on radical Islam? Is landing an occupying force in Islamic territory, removing governments, and killing Muslims an effective way to prevent Muslims from bombing us? Is it reasonable to expect the government we have erected in Iraq to be a stable and long term ally of ours against radical Islam? Is handing Congress and likely the White House to the Democrats on a silver platter a reasonable sacrifice for what has been achieved in Iraq?
The leftists and Democrats oppose the war in Iraq for reasons that are typical of leftists and Democrats. But there are many Americans, Ron Paul and myself included, who oppose the war in Iraq for different reasons; namely, that the war was and is not in the best interest of the United States.
This is the problem at best all we get is a wash. If they want to support us it’s their prerogative. I see no reason to treat them as anything other than a moderate. The last thing we need is to be thought of as sucking up to group that at best is 1-2% of the vote and we would only get about half of that. We give Libertarians respect for their positions and welcome them into our fold they give us precious little in return. They are ridiculed in the democratic party yet they often either sit at home or vote for the dems.
One at a time - Iraq, Iran, North Korea.
Because Randy no matter what interesting title Reason or anyone wants to apply to him is no libertarian. He's a liberventionist. His misunderstanding of the concept of self-defense and non aggression is laughable. At best.
I see a trend here suggesting two kinds of Republicans here. The modern, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity kind of GOPer I cannot abide. The name calling of conservatives who love our troops but oppose the war, who use the term “isolationist” when it isn’t at all accurate, it all smacks of liberal Democrats enraged but unable to defend their position. Nothing is uglier.
Wilson maneuvered us into WWI. Roosevelt maneuvered us into WWII, right or wrong. Bush maneuvered us into Iraq I. Bush II maneuvered us into Iraq II. Anything else is brainwashing and propaganda. Limbaugh is good, but wrong. Hannity is a know-it-all and even wrong on the facts. Michael Savage, however, swerves into the truth much of the time, if you can stand the swings between ranting and despair and resignation.
Odd as it may seem, it’s not my attempt to demonize any of them. Each of them felt it was right and proper to do so given the mindset they all develop after ascending the political or popular media ladder. It’s distorted and embraces the immoral “the end justifies the means” and becomes insular from, among other things, the tragedy of a dying man on the battlefield yearning for his mother’s company in his dying moments. Democrats claim a sensitivity to yearning to see such killing end but peace is the proper preserve of a true conservative. Witness Reagan’s finest hour as the Iron Curtain fell.
The demons are here in these forums where parrots live, men who can manage no better than to mock. That’s not conservative, nor close. They don’t deserve to wear the Republican mantle.
As a former Young Republican (I’m old now) I watched these candidates, Bush and all (and later, talk jocks) come into their own as politicians and it is all a tragedy of major scope. A friend, a former state campaign manager for Jack Kemp, watched Nancy Reagan break down weeping when Bush I was named Reagan’s running mate.
Nancy “got” it and President Ron remained typically sanguine. America and the GOP has tilted ever-leftward ever since. It’s lunatic fringe isn’t Ron Paul. It’s Giuliani, Bush and company. Wake up.
Just because a lot of people sign up to watch the circus, doesn't mean they are running away to join the circus.
Yes, I’ve seen better on foreign policy and I strongly disagree with the libertarian stance on drugs.
I’d wager if I looked I could even find better records elsewhere on spending, taxes, federalism and civil liberties but I’ll stick with what I know and say a man who suggests we’d stage an attack to increase support for the war isn’t someone I am ever going to be fond of.
I don’t recall Bush being too popular these days with conservatives and Rudy certainly isn’t supported by this forum.
Exactly what are we to wake up to?
Oh, right, we should drop our support for the war and support a conspiracy theorist. Yet we can’t do so because we’ve climbed too high in the power structure to see clearly. I’d love to know where the cloakroom is, because I seem to have missed that invitation to power. Along with its admitted perks of fame and fortune.
I must also have missed how a self admtted libertarian that disagrees with the majority of the GOP party from leadership to base on the war is the “true” Republican. But, you know what? If you wish paul to be th shining example of what a Republican should be that is okay. I don’t much like Republicans these days anyway. Whether you use mccain’s face or paul’s face to symbolize the party, I want nothing to do with either. I’d rather stick with the conservatives such as Sessions and deMint instead.
What are you expecting in return? Please answer that specifically.
Did you bother to look at the numbers? Read the links. They are at least 10 % of the electorate, probably more. We don't need to antagonize them with crap about gambling and other goody two shoes stuff. We're supposed to believe in limited, Constitutional government. Where in the Constitution does it deal with gambling?
Do you like statist, authoritarians? If we lose those small 'l' libertarians, we get leftist, statist, authoritarians in control of the gov't like we got now pushing crap like national hate crimes laws and withdrawal from Iraq. And we will only reliably get their vote when the Second Amendment is an issue in common cause as far as social conservatism goes. They can be a mixed bag as far as abortion, homosexual rights and immigration is concerned. If we keep them, and don't drive them away by social conservatives overplaying their hand, we start with about 45 % of the electorate.
When did he suggest wed stage an attack to increase support for the war?
My Moonbat Detector is already showing some activity. ;-)
“Wilson maneuvered us into WWI. Roosevelt maneuvered us into WWII, right or wrong. Bush maneuvered us into Iraq I. Bush II maneuvered us into Iraq II. Anything else is brainwashing and propaganda.”
So the Zimmerman telegram, pearl harbor, the invasion of Kuwait, and the defiance of 17 UN resolutions were all made up?!? ... amazing what you learn on the internet. :-)
The Bush’s aren’t warmongers and its a DU-like position, ignorant of history, to accuse them thus. Neither was Ronald Reagan, but GWB and Reagan were often called the same names, for the same reason - they got caught fighting an evil worth fighting.
whether it is fighting communism or fighting the GWOT, the same dynamic is at play: Anti-americans and muddle-headed sheeple who fall for their faked-up pseudo-pacifism throw phony claims and charges at the leaders who are making the difficult, dangerous decisions about how to fight the evil of the day.
“Democrats claim a sensitivity to yearning to see such killing end but peace is the proper preserve of a true conservative. Witness Reagans finest hour as the Iron Curtain fell.”
RFLMAO ... if you are going to call other people wrong, at least get some semblance of credibility to your own claims.
You have major blinders on.
Ron gave arms to Afghans, contras and other anti-communist forces. Without our peace-through-strength policy and Ron’s ‘warmongering’ and ‘interventionist’ policies, we would still be facing a nuclear USSR.
The lesson of Reagan? PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.
Peace is not the highest end. Human freedom and security is. Our freedom and secuirty is enhanced if we can maintain peace, but we have always been forced from time to time to defend freedom and security against enemies who threaten us on both counts.
“Its distorted and embraces the immoral the end justifies the means and becomes insular from, among other things, the tragedy of a dying man on the battlefield yearning for his mothers company in his dying moments.”
I heard today about Freedom concerts Hannity is putting on - wehre they are not only saluting the heros, waving the flag, etc., but giving the proceeds to families of fallen heroes. This is an insulting and ignorant comment. You know not what you say.
“A friend, a former state campaign manager for Jack Kemp, watched Nancy Reagan break down weeping when Bush I was named Reagans running mate.” Doh! She was friends with Laxalt is all. It’s not like she was a seer.
“no better than to mock.” Everything you say mocks our excellent leaders. What is your answer to how Bush should have behaved after 9/11? You think he shouldn’t have responded to the AQ attack on our soil via war? He should invade a country, topple a govt, and take out terrorists ...
What would YOU have done with Taliban/ Afghanistan?!?
“If Iraq is the front line of WWIII, by which of course you mean the war between the West and militant Islam, why are we not also in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan?”
Gosh what an ignorant comment!
Do you not know our anti-terrorist activities have involved cooperating with close to 70 other nations? That we worked with ISI to capture many AQ operatives in Pakistan? Did you not know our troops and other proxies are in several other countries like Phillipines and horn of africa, and that we have taken out terrorists even in Yemen?
Stick around FR a while and read up on what our DoD is doing and you might be surprised at what you learn. Stuff like ...
“s landing an occupying force in Islamic territory, removing governments, and killing Muslims an effective way to prevent Muslims from bombing us?”
PS. most of the muslims getting killed are getting killed by AQ terrorists? Yes, having AQ focussing on battling us in Iraq is making muslims the civilians in the crossfire and not westerners. This shouldnt be too hard to figure out - the IRAQIS HAVE FIGURED IT OUT BY NOW AND ARE NOW AT THE FOREFRONT FIGHTING AL QAEDA IN IRAQ!
It’s not a question of quantities, ya schmuck. It’s where the battle is.
Sounds like Obama just may be your man, then. He was against the Iraq War and also says we have no business using our military to stop genocide.
It always goes silent when you step away from it . . .
When the alarm goes off, it sounds kind of like the "Star Trek" theme music.
Hey, do you have a job? We were kind of polling the Paulistas to find out how many are employed.
And yes, we do count Taco Bell as employment.
I'm sure you will be happy to correct me if I am wrong, but where did the folks who formed the Libertarian Party come from?
My recollection was that they were disenchanted Republicans, fed up with elected Republicans working toward larger and more invasive government.
Sure, there were a few dopers, and some downright anarchists thrown in, but for the most part, they were originally Republicans.
To the extent that they are still at odds with the Republican Party, I think it comes from essentially the same tendancy toward larger and more intrusive government. Therefore, they cannot support most Republicans.
Had a friend visit recently who is an avid supporter of Ron Paul and despises GWB...because he wants to bring the end of the United States of America, in her opinion.
She said that she and her fellow followers of RP want Hilliary elected if RP isn't.
I was taken aback by her hatred of Bush and her love of Ron Paul. She doesn't like Sheehan or Pelosi but sure wants Bush impeached because he's removeing our north and south borders. Obviously, I missed that in the news.
Bush sure ain't perfect, but do all Paul followers believe him to be almost the anti-Christ???
I'm sure you did not intend to leave out these:
Truman maneuvered us into Korea, Kennedy maneuvered us into Viet Nam, Clinton maneuvered us into Haiti, Somalia, and Kosovo.
Other than that, I agree with most of his philosophy. Including that oft misinterpreted and libeled stance of his that we should be killing terrorists and not waging "democracy building police actions" in the middle of them.
I just don't want to see him POTUS. I'd prefer Hunter for that.
Oh I totally agree with you! The problem is that while the rest of us have tried to correct these problems they chose to throw their hands up throw a tantrum. If they truly wanted change they should have stuck it out and helped. Now we have Ron Paul showing up pretending to be a republican just to get publicity. They show up every four years rant and rave and in the end they end up sitting on their hands because we don’t roll over and support a candidate that obviously has no chance of going anywhere.
..sure wants Bush impeached because he's removeing our north and south borders."
Does she mention the NAU in your conversations?
"Obviously, I missed that in the news."
That's right. You will not hear much about The North American Union in the MSM.
I left those out because this is an ostensibly conservative forum. I imagined that the actions of those Democrats was already pretty self-evident and didn’t need mentioning.
Well, there you have it, folks; possibly the best single argument against the candidacy of Ron Paul that you will ever hear.
Yup. Been there. Done that myself.
Quite frankly, ontap, I found myself getting nowhere with it.
I haven't given up, I'm just changing tactics.
The “wake up” call comment was probably unnecessarily vague. It, as was the whole rant, targeted at those who attack Ron Paul and similar so vehemently without first considering thoughtfully what he has to say or by offering arguments instead of mocking him, violating our historically prudent 11th commandment (save the venom for the Democrats, puh-lease ;-) ).
Take the association with Alex Jones. Bad choice. But even so successful a conservative as Phyllis Schlafly spoke to Democrats when she was campaigning against the Equal Rights Amendment, and no one would accuse her of being a traitor. Bush (or was it Buchanan, it doesn’t matter) spoke to Bob Jones University—so what. It didn’t make him a racist. You have to bring people around. If Billy Graham decided to preach to a gathering of the KKK, that wouldn’t make him a close personal friend of David Duke. Right?
That guilt by association thing is so stupid.
No offense you sound like a reasonable guy ,but how does cowtowing to a rather insignificant fringe group help us achieve anything. While I philosophically agree with most of what they say they are so far out there that it is the kiss of death to be seen with them. Some on this post are trying to say they make up 10% of the voting public that is just plain silly.
Oh yes. That Ron Paul is the only candidate, other than the Dems, who doesn't want to bring about the end of the United States of America. She said he is the only one who believes in the Constitution.
Especially with his absolute stupidity in standing side-by-side with the likes of Kucinich. Being "anti the way this war is being fought" and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a Communist a$$hole are two completely different things.
Anyone willing to give their political detractors that much publicity ammo to use against them does not deserve the High Office.
If your friend the RP-supporter would vote for Hillary, then she would vote for Pelosi, don’t let her kid you. And she might even vote for Sheehan... she’s just not ready to admit it.
That’s the thing about RP supporters. They claim to be the only true conservatives on the planet, and yet they have absolutely no qualms with teaming up with the worst of the leftist traitors in our country to make common cause against Bush.
RP is just another form of BDS.
See NOTHING in life is ever perfect. To be effective in politics you have to accept that basic factual reality. The 100%er club, who wrongly call themselves “Conservatives”, are too arrogantly stupid to realize that fact. So they simply drag everyone down with their perpetual pouting because their political glass is 30% empty.
Better they simply go away and fight among themselves then waste our time with their fundamental political incompetence and rabid whining.