Ron Paul to make September anouncement? Barr? [mod edit]

[Mini-Me]

Originally, I would have liked for Paul to endorse someone...but as time goes on and more and more people invest time and energy into Barr or Baldwin, I'm afraid he might do more to alienate and upset people (on one side or the other) by endorsing someone as late as September - not least of which are his friends Barr and Baldwin.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I wonder if Ron Paul is waiting to see who gets the most ballot access? Maybe that will be a factor in his decision. tones

 

[torchbearer]

Barr is not a purist. He should endorse Chuck Baldwin.

Yeh, its been the purist who have grown the LP by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years because of their intolerance of anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they do.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

The LP is changing. Things change. Can't stop that . At 51 years old..I have found , in this life, it's better to be somewhat ..flexable. tones

 

[acptulsa]

Yeh, its been the purist who have grown the LP by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years because of their intolerance of anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they do.

I wish we could coalesce around one candidate, just to show our strength. I can't help but feel we're just saving the neocons trouble by splitting ourselves and our vote. I want the momentum of this summer to show this fall in the biggest third party vote since 1860! But, I guess, that's just me...

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Acp..I agree with you. It would be nice...but it doesn't look promising does it? tones

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Maybe hes just saying Barr offered him a cabinet position, if this is supposed to be Barr related...

 

[alaric]

I wish we could coalesce around one candidate, just to show our strength. I can't help but feel we're just saving the neocons trouble by splitting ourselves and our vote. I want the momentum of this summer to show this fall in the biggest third party vote since 1860! But, I guess, that's just me...

+2008
I'm with you all the way!

 

[Bruno]

For the record regarding his exact words, and for those who didn't watch the interview, here is the final question taken from the transcript on Kulow's website:

Kudlow: Yeah, we’re gonna go from $2.25 to $300. Last one, real quick sir. Political question. I’m going to switch gears. Have you thrown your support to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate?

Paul: No. No I have not. I have not endorsed any one particular candidate. The only question I’ve answered has been would I vote for John McCain, and I wouldn’t be able to.

Kudlow: But you haven’t ruled out voting for Barr, is that correct?

Paul: No I have not. I’ll probably do some type of announcement like that sometime in September.

Kudlow: All right. We appreciate your time very much.

Paul: Thank you.

Kudlow: Congressman Ron Paul, thank you for joining us.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25723790

 

[SLSteven]

Kudlow: But you haven’t ruled out voting for Barr, is that correct?

Paul: No I have not. I’ll probably do some type of announcement like that sometime in September.

We'll just have to wait till September. See you all in Minneapolis!

 

[torchbearer]

We'll just have to wait till September. See you all in Minneapolis!

Be there, or be square!

 

[Hook]

Yeh, its been the purist who have grown the LP by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years because of their intolerance of anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they do.

That is the problem. If we don't stand by purity then we just become GOP lite and have the same problems we are fighting now with the current GOP.

If the LP wishes to gain power, it will have to compromise completely. Just like the main two parties had to sell their soul to the devil to get the power they have now.

If you are wishing to use a party as a vehicle to gain power and control, the LP is the least efficient way of doing so. Better to do what Dr. Paul did and try to change from within the two party system.

The LP should remain true to principle so as to be a standard to measure politicians and other parties against.

 

[torchbearer]

That is the problem. If we don't stand by purity then we just become GOP lite and have the same problems we are fighting now with the current GOP.

If the LP wishes to gain power, it will have to compromise completely. Just like the main two parties had to sell their soul to the devil to get the power they have now.

If you are wishing to use a party as a vehicle to gain power and control, the LP is the least efficient way of doing so. Better to do what Dr. Paul did and try to change from within the two party system.

The LP should remain true to principle so as to be a standard to measure politicians and other parties against.

You can't expect everyone to think just like you do. That's the problem.
We can agree on the creed of freedom if its just a philosophy, but even then, you have fighting over quantity not quality.
Think about it.

 

[Kludge]

I guess this is a good time to announce that I will be running a write-in campaign and emailed Dr. Paul just days before the interview. I expect Dr. Paul's formal endorsement in the coming months and the date he mentioned must be the date of the endorsement.

The treaty I've been toting in my signature is actually just an attempt to kill chat about the candidates so you can all realize what a superior official I would be since you cannot talk about the other libertarians.

Write-in Benjamin Jingozian Ryzkhov '08! My official campaign website will be up shortly.

 

[Hook]

You can't expect everyone to think just like you do. That's the problem.
We can agree on the creed of freedom if its just a philosophy, but even then, you have fighting over quantity not quality.
Think about it.

That is true. And there should be a small amount of wiggle room. But not much. Certainly not as much as they have granted Barr/Root. Barr I can sorta handle, but not the loathsome Root.

 

[torchbearer]

That is true. And there should be a small amount of wiggle room. But not much. Certainly not as much as they have granted Barr/Root. Barr I can sorta handle, but not the loathsome Root.

Our party, in louisiana, is made of many different people, from different walks of life... sort of like the ron paul revolution. With a basic agreement that we want a constitutional government, you leave me alone, i leave you alone, type of life.
There were those who liked Root, those who liked Barr, those who like Ruwart, those who like Gravel, those who like Kubby... all of these candidate have a place at our table.
A party of inclusion, not of exclusion.
What i'm seeing from the purist is sour grapes. They controlled the convention since the beginning, and the one time they didn't get a purist candidate, they go beltway libertarian, and try to scuttle the ship.
That is not a healthy political party, and one that is doomed to fail... unless people stop and think...and perhaps get over their own self-importance.
I was a Ruwart supporter, but I can see what Barr brings to the table too... an example of redemption.
How many new "ex-neocons" are we going to win over if we treat our own former neocon like shit?
We win be making more ex-neocons. People don't get that concept. even...If it is incrementally towards your view of libertarian perfection.

 

[OceanMachine7]

That is the problem. If we don't stand by purity then we just become GOP lite and have the same problems we are fighting now with the current GOP.

If the LP wishes to gain power, it will have to compromise completely. Just like the main two parties had to sell their soul to the devil to get the power they have now.

If you are wishing to use a party as a vehicle to gain power and control, the LP is the least efficient way of doing so. Better to do what Dr. Paul did and try to change from within the two party system.

The LP should remain true to principle so as to be a standard to measure politicians and other parties against.

But there are shades of gray. Currently, the LP is the only party with any kind of base, even with the "Republican-lite" Barr as its presidential nominee, advocating smaller government. You can appeal to the public without sacrificing ALL principle.

You can disagree on what the ends are, but certainly you must admit that you have to be able to take the first steps first?

 

[Hook]

Our party, in louisiana, is made of many different people, from different walks of life... sort of like the ron paul revolution. With a basic agreement that we want a constitutional government, you leave me alone, i leave you alone, type of life.
There were those who liked Root, those who liked Barr, those who like Ruwart, those who like Gravel, those who like Kubby... all of these candidate have a place at our table.
A party of inclusion, not of exclusion.
What i'm seeing from the purist is sour grapes. They controlled the convention since the beginning, and the one time they didn't get a purist candidate, they go beltway libertarian, and try to scuttle the ship.
That is not a healthy political party, and one that is doomed to fail... unless people stop and think...and perhaps get over their own self-importance.
I was a Ruwart supporter, but I can see what Barr brings to the table too... an example of redemption.
How many new "ex-neocons" are we going to win over if we treat our own former neocon like shit?
We win be making more ex-neocons. People don't get that concept. even...If it is incrementally towards your view of libertarian perfection.

I understand what you are saying. It is a continuous line between absolute purity and absolute compromise. I am fine with new people joining the party, as long it as they don't turn it into what all the other parties are: vehicles for power and control with no regard to first principles. I don't want someone like William Kristol joining the party if it means turning into the Murder, Inc. party.

My point along the line happens to be to the purity side of your point. That is fine. But I'm not happy with the way the party has been going, because once you start down that path of compromise in return for power, you end up giving up all principle in the end. Just look at what the other parties have become.

This is the main reason that Murray Rothbard was so opposed to even starting the LP, even though he was a founding member. He realized that however principled it started out as, the desire for acceptance and power would eventually make its members compromise to the point where it would be unrecognisable.

That is why he always advocated trying to change people from within the current power structure.

I'm not going to be like Christine Smith and jump ship just because I didn't get my own way. But I'm also not going to stay with the party if it keeps moving away from its founding priniciples. Where the threshold is I'm not sure, but I'm not happy that they are moving toward it instead of away from it.

 

[torchbearer]

I understand what you are saying. It is a continuous line between absolute purity and absolute compromise. I am fine with new people joining the party, as long it as they don't turn it into what all the other parties are: vehicles for power and control with no regard to first principles. I don't want someone like William Kristol joining the party if it means turning into the Murder, Inc. party.

My point along the line happens to be to the purity side of your point. That is fine. But I'm not happy with the way the party has been going, because once you start down that path of compromise in return for power, you end up giving up all principle in the end. Just look at what the other parties have become.

This is the main reason that Murray Rothbard was so opposed to even starting the LP, even though he was a founding member. He realized that however principled it started out as, the desire for acceptance and power would eventually make its members compromise to the point where it would be unrecognisable.

That is why he always advocated trying to change people from within the current power structure.

I'm not going to be like Christine Smith and jump ship just because I didn't get my own way. But I'm also not going to stay with the party if it keeps moving away from its founding priniciples. Where the threshold is I'm not sure, but I'm not happy that they are moving toward it instead of away from it.

I don't see it as us moving towards Barr, but Barr moving towards us.
Its a difference in perspective.

 

[Hook]

I don't see it as us moving towards Barr, but Barr moving towards us.
Its a difference in perspective.

Actually, I am talking more about the trashing of the clear and specific party platform we used to have.

The Barr/Root thing is just a symptom of what is happening. They will be forgotten in about 6 months. But the problems I am talking about are much more systemic.