Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul: Advice to Liberty Activists on How to Win Elections



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ary5F5jKJY

Congressman Larry McDonald was President of the John Birch Society before he was killed.

Ron Paul: "[Larry McDonald] was the most principled man in Congress."
- The Philadelphia Inquirer

 

[LibertyEagle]

I live in the Texas GOP and I challenge any LP hater to discover how the LP doesn't respect my rights anymore than a GOPer.

Texas Republicans despise property rights. Libertarians don't.

Who gives a rat's ass? I live in Texas too. A "Libertarian" (from the Libertarian Party) isn't going to be elected; that is fact. I wish it was different, but it is not. I'm interested in getting our candidates elected. I don't care in what damn party.

Take a look at what Ron Paul had to say about it.

 

[Carlybee]

The hall monitors need to buzz off and let people have a discussion about whether the LP will run a candidate as per the OT and stop talking down to people like they're idiots. Or do you think if you beat people over the head with the mantra it will make them care about what you have to say?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

The hall monitors need to buzz off and let people have a discussion about whether the LP will run a candidate as per the OT and stop talking down to people like they're idiots. Or do you think if you beat people over the head with the mantra it will make them care about what you have to say?

Yes, they will run a candidate. So will the CP and the Green Party. Roseanne Barr will likely run again, and I am sure there will be some other minor parties on the ballot like the Justice Party and the Socialist Workers Party. In the end, will it make any difference? No.

What does this mean for Rand supporters? Well, job number one is to get him to win the nomination. If he does, then hopefully some of those people who are willing to donate time and money to an LP or CP candidate will wake up and see the opportunity that is staring them in the face.

 

[cajuncocoa]

We need more choices, not less. If either the GOP or the Dems are worried that some 3rd party candidate will siphon off enough votes from them to effect the outcome, they should run better, more principled candidates.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

We need more choices, not less. If either the GOP or the Dems are worried that some 3rd party candidate will siphon off enough votes from them to effect the outcome, they should run better, more principled candidates.

At the 2012 Iowa Caucuses there were six candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP. That's a lot of choices. In Thomas Massie's primary contest there were seven candidates representing multiple wings of the GOP. In the SC-1 Special Election, there were 16 candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP.

How many more choices would you like?

 

[erowe1]

Yes, they definitely will.

There are two ways they could go with this. One would be to use it as an opportunity for a consistent full-blown libertarian to contrast their philosophy with Rand's (and he with them).

But that's not what they're going to do. What they will do instead is see this as their big opportunity to go mainstream by fielding a candidate who is far less libertarian than Rand, in hopes that they can get all the conservatives to bolt the GOP and essentially switch places with them. Sound stupid? That's why you know they're going to do it.

 

[cajuncocoa]

At the 2012 Iowa Caucuses there were six candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP. That's a lot of choices. In Thomas Massie's primary contest there were seven candidates representing multiple wings of the GOP. In the SC-1 Special Election, there were 16 candidates on the ballot representing multiple wings of the GOP.

How many more choices would you like?

As many as necessary...why fear competition?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

As many as necessary...why fear competition?

I don't think anyone is "fearing competition". If you read my post from earlier today, I said in although multiple minor parties will run candidates, in the end it won't make any difference to the outcome of the election. And while there are benefits to competition, a minor party candidate's run is an exercise in futility.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I don't think anyone is "fearing competition". If you read my post from earlier today, I said in although multiple minor parties will run candidates, in the end it won't make any difference to the outcome of the election. And while there are benefits to competition, a minor party candidate's run is an exercise in futility.

I disagree.

The way I see it, these minor parties represent the people. The fact that they cannot gain foothold is testament to the fact that our government no longer represents us. Minor parties get their donations from people like me, and we can only send $2500 (or $2600 now?) per year to any particular candidate. The major party candidates receive contributions from large multinational corporations and they can get million$ from those corporations. Is it any wonder that our representatives from the major 2 parties listen to corporate interests rather than their individual constituents when a bill comes up for a vote?

Until that changes, there will always be a place in my heart for minor political parties.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I disagree.

The way I see it, these minor parties represent the people. The fact that they cannot gain foothold is testament to the fact that our government no longer represents us. Minor parties get their donations from people like me, and we can only send $2500 (or $2600 now?) per year to any particular candidate. The major party candidates receive contributions from large multinational corporations and they can get million$ from those corporations. Is it any wonder that our representatives from the major 2 parties listen to corporate interests rather than their individual constituents when a bill comes up for a vote?

Until that changes, there will always be a place in my heart for minor political parties.

Truth is the people running as minor party candidates, can run on either of the two major party tickets through the primary process, and then have access to not only the money but also the manpower. They choose not to, and therefore set themselves up for failure.

I've said it before, but it needs repeating, there are more libertarians elected to federal, state and local offices as Republicans than there are as members of the LP or CP.

Let me ask you this. Prior to running for House, Massie had some political experience and name recognition serving as Judge Executive of Lewis County. Now when he decided to run for the House he had two options: run in the GOP primary or run as a third party candidate. Now, to get on the primary ballot, he needed to pay the fee and collect 2 signatures. To get on the general election ballot as a minor party candidate he would have needed 400 signatures (not a huge amount really, considering he already was well known in the district). In fact, one can argue that knocking on doors for a couple weekends getting signatures is a lot easier and less costly than facing 6 opponents in a primary contest. So why do you think that Massie ran for office under the GOP banner? Is it because he is a GOP bootlicker and wanted to suck up to the establishment? Is it because he's not a real libertarian? Or maybe it is because the man is smart enough to realize that the GOP is the wise path for libertarians to take to win elected office.

 

[PatriotOne]

As many as necessary...why fear competition?

It's not competition. It's the difference between getting your/our product on the shelves of Walmart or the local corner co-op. Where do you think your going to sell more product? Walmart or the local co-op?

 

[AuH20]

Glenn Beck is a neocon. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...on-why-you-should-care-about-the-middle-east/

There is no more legitimate reasons to agree with his apology tour to libertarians. He has made it clear that he is not one of us.

So of course he worked against Medina.

What we are witnessing now is those standing up for the Glen Becks while condemning the Medinas.

I live in the Texas GOP and I challenge any LP hater to discover how the LP doesn't respect my rights anymore than a GOPer.

Texas Republicans despise property rights. Libertarians don't.

I don't think you would know what a neocon was if it came up and bit you. It's the broad brush generalizations that make me want to pull my hair out. Neoconservatives per the Irving Kristol model have no problems with gun restrictions ala Cheney's opposition to the Heller verdict. Neoconservatives aren't opposed to the drug war like Glenn Beck. They espouse open borders for corporate raiders. Neoconservatives want American power directed into every hellhole and geopolitical friction point (see Marco Rubio wanting to draw Georgia into NATO). Now regarding Beck's fascination with the Middle East, he laid it out here. The fire will spread triggering the great economic reset:



Secondly, let's get to the Medina campaign that was an absolute albatross. Running a truther tinged campaign as a governor? Really? That's going to work. It's funny that Beck is the one assailed as this shadowy figure that brought down the AMAZING Deborah Medina (spare me) when Medina was the poor candidate. NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME which encompasses a very important theme in this thread. She just couldn't just shut up and keep it to Texas affairs. Property taxes, Texas sovereignty, etc. No, she had to embrace the convoluted fantasy land of thermite laced beams and holograms instead of keeping her eye firmly affixed to the prize.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It's the broad brush generalizations that make me want to pull my hair out.

It is as bad as when the liberals label people as "racist" because they disagree with a social welfare policy.

 

[AuH20]

It is as bad as when the liberals label people as "racist" because they disagree with a social welfare policy.

Label someone a neocon and you can avoid debating them. With a simple word, they have been isolated and polarized as a wicked creature that lurks in the shadows and who feeds on the blood of the elderly and infirmed. Look, the same Gotcha political tagging happens on the more mainsteam sites. You believe in national sovereignty for other nations? You're a Paulinista who's one step away from flag burning! I'm tired of the clan wars. Don't have time for the nonsense and insular attitude.

 

[Occam's Banana]

That said, his views on gay marriage would make me question that... that's the one issue where Nap fails to take a truly libertarian position, at least IMO. A true libertarian, and certainly a true anarchist, position would be to state that government should have nothing to do with marriage at all, yet Nap uses Loving v Virginia as a precedent. That issue really doesn't matter to me, but I'd be surprised to see any ancap defend marriage licensing of any sort even under lesser of two evils type conditions.

I am not aware of the case to which you are referring - or of what Judge Nap has said about it. But from what you say here, it doesn't sound like he's done any more that state that some particular case serves as some particular precedent for some particular legal position with respect to the legal system as it exists today. There is nothing particularly non- or anti-anarchist in that sort of thing. Tom Woods does this sort of thing all the time. He's an anarchist, but he frequently makes Constitution-based arguments because those are the terms in which such discussions often take place. This would especially be true of Judge Nap - he is, after all, a FOX News legal analyst. "Going full an-cap" just isn't in the job description ...

As for Ron, I'd be curious as to your logic regarding why you think he is.

I didn't say that I think he is. I said, "I'm not even going to get into the whole, 'Is Ron Paul an anarchist/voluntaryist?' thing."
I was merely acknowledging the existence of that particular can of worms. I have no desire to open it up (again).

That would be quite uncharacteristic of him, it wouldn't be consistent with his character, since he never refrains to say what he believes on everything else.

It would not be uncharacteristic of him at all. He does refrain from saying what he believes on some particular things.
There's a video clip in which someone asks him about 9/11 - and he says the issue is "too controversial."
Well, 9/11 doesn't hold a candle to anarchism when it comes to political controversy in today's environment ...

Why pretend to not be an anarchist, especially now that he's not even in congress anymore?

For the same reasons that any public figure might do so.
What purpose could it possibly serve other than to marginalize & discredit themselves in the eyes of the audiences they're trying to reach?
(e.g., FOX News viewers, rank-and-file conservatives & GOPers, etc.) Woods has explicitly cited this reason as applied to himself.
Tom Woods doesn't go around shouting, "I'm an anarchist! Rawr rawr raaaawwwwrrr!!!" That doesn't mean he's "pretending not to be" ...
(And the same would go for Judge Nap & Ron Paul - if they are "really" anarchists.)

IOW: If you're an anarchist, you don't need to flaunt the fact in order to be an effective spokesman for liberty - and in some cases, it might be quite unwise and counter-productive for you to do so. It would just pointlessly detract from the message you're trying to get across.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Truth is the people running as minor party candidates, can run on either of the two major party tickets through the primary process, and then have access to not only the money but also the manpower. They choose not to, and therefore set themselves up for failure.

I've said it before, but it needs repeating, there are more libertarians elected to federal, state and local offices as Republicans than there are as members of the LP or CP.

Let me ask you this. Prior to running for House, Massie had some political experience and name recognition serving as Judge Executive of Lewis County. Now when he decided to run for the House he had two options: run in the GOP primary or run as a third party candidate. Now, to get on the primary ballot, he needed to pay the fee and collect 2 signatures. To get on the general election ballot as a minor party candidate he would have needed 400 signatures (not a huge amount really, considering he already was well known in the district). In fact, one can argue that knocking on doors for a couple weekends getting signatures is a lot easier and less costly than facing 6 opponents in a primary contest. So why do you think that Massie ran for office under the GOP banner? Is it because he is a GOP bootlicker and wanted to suck up to the establishment? Is it because he's not a real libertarian? Or maybe it is because the man is smart enough to realize that the GOP is the wise path for libertarians to take to win elected office.

Oh, I know it's easier to run under the banner of one of the two major parties; there's no denying that. But that BIG MONEY that will come your way as a result can corrupt people, even some people who thought they were above it.

Until and unless we return the process of governing by the will of the people (in lieu of corporate interests) we will not solve too many problems that we are complaining about right now.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Oh, I know it's easier to run under the banner of one of the two major parties; there's no denying that. But that BIG MONEY that will come your way as a result can corrupt people, even some people who thought they were above it.

Until and unless we return the process of governing by the will of the people (in lieu of corporate interests) we will not solve too many problems that we are complaining about right now.

Agreed, but we cannot close our eyes and wish really hard. We need more people in elected office that share the same principles as our Founding Fathers. It's a simple numbers game really. It took the progressives 100 years to get us to this point, we can't undo it overnight.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Agreed, but we cannot close our eyes and wish really hard. We need more people in elected office that share the same principles as our Founding Fathers. It's a simple numbers game really. It took the progressives 100 years to get us to this point, we can't undo it overnight.

Not negating anything you're saying, but the way I feel, things aren't made worse by having more choices; they are made better. Let's say the GOP screws Rand out of the nomination in 2016 (it's possible)....are you going to feel comfortable voting for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, et al? If that's the case, I will definitely be checking into the LP or CP candidate...but if the LP nominates someone like Bob Barr again, they won't get my vote either.

It's easier for progressives: everything they want is exactly what the elites/establishment wants. It all works in their favor.

 

[Carlybee]

Not negating anything you're saying, but the way I feel, things aren't made worse by having more choices; they are made better. Let's say the GOP screws Rand out of the nomination in 2016 (it's possible)....are you going to feel comfortable voting for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, et al? If that's the case, I will definitely be checking into the LP or CP candidate...but if the LP nominates someone like Bob Barr again, they won't get my vote either.

It's easier for progressives: everything they want is exactly what the elites/establishment wants. It all works in
their favor.

Same here. I'm not holding my nose for anyone. That being said the thought of Hillary is a nightmare too.