Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum

Is the soul of the Republican Party even worth fighting for?

(Page 2 of 2)

Quin Hillyer at American Spectator presents a realistic-sounding scenario of Santorum and Romney fighting it out until the end, each with many victories and many defeats, and makes the telling—and encouraging to Paul fans—observation that in this process, GOP voters seen “very willing to change their minds about candidates as the process wears on.”

It’s true the Tea Party has forsaken Paul, with him winning only 6 percent of that self-identified vote in Arizona, and only 7 in Michigan—a state where Paul’s fans showed a willingness to come rally for him in the multiple thousands that was not reflected in vote totals, if one assumed they were representative of their brethren. (Given Paul’s willingness to contemplate the collapsed and apocalyptic economy we might be heading for because of government mismanagement of the economy and money, it’s only fitting that he did win Detroit, a city that is almost already living out his nightmare vision.)

With Romney as the GOP nominee, libertarians could take comfort in the excuses of his momentum, it’s his turn, he’s been presented in the media as the anointed, and all that. With the over a million votes cast so far for Santorum, it’s hard to avoid the dreadful thought that those people really might want Rick Santorum to be president, with all the sanctimony, warmongering, and religious culture wars that would imply. It’s a hard fact for a libertarian, particularly one who in the age of Paul saw the Republican Party as a possible vehicle for state-shrinking, to face up to. But it’s there.

But the race isn’t over yet, and nearly half a million—about 10 percent of the total votes cast—have gone to the supposedly unelectable and crazy libertarian choice, and he’s pretty much always winning with the under-30s, which likely says something about the GOP’s future that party members best mind. His fans are still fighting hard for him in Washington State, the next big hope in Paul-world for an actual clear victory. I’ve seen enough of Paul’s ability to build seemingly crazy and wide coalitions around his prescience, his love of peace, and his willingness to leave us alone to give up on that coalition’s ability to shape America’s future yet. As Julie Ershadi pointed out at American Conservative this week, lots of Paul partisans don’t have any other choice when it comes to the Republican Party. And Paul continues to pretty reliably double his vote totals from 2008 in every state.

Even if Santorum ends up a clear number two—or even number one—in 2012’s GOP field, the forces of demographics, cultural liberalism, and government’s self-crushing overreach still means Paulism is apt to have a richer future than Santorumism. A recent Rasmussen poll still has Paul beating Obama in a one-on-one. The whims of GOP primary voters are temporary and seem of the moment. (For all we know, Gingrich could have an inexplicable comeback.) But monetary and military overreach, crushing debt, and a social furor based on government’s hand in every cultural controversy are all problems that still must be dealt with, and Paul’s ideas are still the best means to do so.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and the forthcoming Ron Paul’s Revolution (Broadside).


Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    When matter and anti-matter meet you get a burst of X-rays and Mitt Romney. Bleh!

  • GILMORE||

    you get a burst of X-rays and Mitt Romney. Bleh!

    'Mitt' is term for the waste-byproduct of a number of common chemical/physical reactions;

    Mitt: Odorless, flavorless; changes color depending on mood of viewer; has no known useful application; attempts to employ it as a low-cost lubricant, insulator, coating, building material all resulted in discovery of new contrary indicating properties - too sticky, full of holes, slimy, utterly lacking in structural rigidity or ability to maintain form. Some scientists endorse shooting it into space.

  • ||

    More madder and anti-madder.

  • DK||

    More Maddow and anti-Maddow.

  • ||

    I bet a meeting of matter with anti-matter would be a dynamic, explosive event, exciting to watch from a safe distance. Are you sure you want to use this as an analogy for Mitt Romney??

  • ||

    There's also mitter and anti-mitter. And dark mitter.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The properties of dark mitter are almost impossible to detect; they can only be inferred from their effects on their surroundings. Otherwise, they are a bland nothingness.

  • Juice||

    < pedantry >gamma rays< /pedantry>

  • WWNGD?||

    Is Newt a black hole?

  • Maxine Waters||

    Racist!!

  • ||

    Only when he's at a smorgasbord.

  • ||

    In other words, Doherty writes, the duel between Paul and Santorum is a duel for the soul of the GOP,

    It doesn't have one.

    if the party is going to have a future at all

    Doesn't have one of those, either.

    beyond dull centrism.

    They'll probably opt for jingoistic militarism with a heaping side order of corporatism.

  • What?||

    "jingoistic militarism with a heaping side order of corporatism"

    They're turning into Democrats?

  • shrike||

    His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001….the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities [and] the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere

    Ahh, bless you Doherty. The GOP is lost and not worth saving.

    Bring on a true secular Small Gov type!

  • aaskavind||

    Not worth saving in its current form, no.

    But is it worth Libertarians taking it over from the inside like the Commie-left did to the Democrat party? Hell, yes.

  • ||

    "Libertarians taking it over from the inside..."

    *snort*

    That tactic has been tried for the last 40 years. Worked well, hasn't it?

    All it's gotten Libertarians is lip service and ass-fucking.

  • aaskavind||

    really? With who? Ron Paul with his racist Anti-semite comments weighing him down?

    Who else? Hmmm? *crickets*

    The strategy of Libertarians gaining influence in the GOP is a good one.

    The Tactic we've used is to demand all-or-nothing. The GOP took nothing and we marginalized ourselves. That's what needs to change.

  • Nick||

    If you want to "take over the Republican Party" the only way to do it is through the committeemen or precinct captain system. Then you can vote out the chairmen and not endorse/support the candidates/elected officials who talk a good game, but do nothing to roll back the government.

  • Mike Z||

    That sounds good. Let's do that.

  • cw||

    I consider myself religious, shrike. One can be religious and and still demand small government.

  • shrike||

    Your point is valid.

    Now find a candidate for that. I won't wait.

  • Tony||

    One can be religious and still demand others suffer for one's benefit? I never.

  • ||

    You're speaking of yourself and the Church of The Warming Globe, right?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And Our Lady of the Starving Grandmothers.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The fuck you say, shrike.

    You come here, shill for fuckheads like Obama and Buffett... but claim you want "Small Gov"?

    The fuck you say.

  • ||

    "You see my wife over there? It is a dead marriage. But, you know, you learn to live with it. You drive around, out at night, windows down, music up. Some people call it cruising. Me, I call it looking for a friend."

  • ||

    On the down-low.

  • ||

    Once I've butt-fucked every inkling of constitutionalism and libertarianism out of the Republican Party with my iron fist, it'll be time to ship all the fags to a rehabilitation center. Also, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

  • aaskavind||

    I used to like Ron Paul but let's be honest. He has never had and never will have any hope of winning this cycle. Now, he's playing the role of Romney's bitch, mindlessly attacking whoever threatens Mitt the most at the moment and hoping to catch a scrap or two when its all over.

    Anti-establishment like hell. Paul is working to put the original author of "personal mandates" into office, principles be damned. All in the lame hope of some personal gain.

    I thought Paul was above that. Silly me.

  • romulus augustus||

    Maybe it is because Romney and his supporters have avoided foaming attacks on Ron Paul as some kind of lunatic, America-hating, let the Mooslims win, nut?

  • jacob||

    I sincerely doubt you ever supported Ron Paul.

    And what support is there that he is "attacking whoever attacks Mitt?" He'd attack those two other dipshits whether Mitt Romney was in the race or not. Remind me, who was it that said Ron Paul's ideas were outside the norm for decent Americans? Was that Romney?

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    If you believe that Romney represents basically the same drift towards statism that Obama does, that Paul is as you say "Romney's bitch", and that Paul is the "l"ibertarian candidate, then what does that tell you about what "l"ibertarians really stand for?

  • Rhywun||

    "Like many words in our lexicon, they evolve and change over time. ‘Happiness’ was one of them. Go back and look it up. You’ll see one of the principal definitions of happiness is ‘to do the morally right thing.’ God gave us rights to life and to freedom to pursue His will."

    President Santorum is gonna win Nanny of the Month, like, every month.

  • aaskavind||

    I doubt it. Rhetoric aside, Santorum's record shows far more restraint on nannying social issues than he gets credit for.

  • ||

    That was when he was just a senator and knew his limits for getting his agenda passed.

  • aaskavind||

    Assuming you're right, SCOTUS has already ruled against restricting contraceptives, against outright abortion bans, against forced prayer in schools. So it would be futile for him to try.

    But he's far better than Romney on weeding out Corporatism and repealing ObamaCare, which the fight that he could win. Romney won't fight it.

    We have to prioritize our targets. Santorum's religious views have no chance of making it into law if he wins. But Romney's Corporatist views are already enshrined. He'll have a field day with the public treasury if he's allowed to win.

  • What?||

    You are forgetting that Santorum is also a Corporatist, shilling to get "manufacturing" back in the US with the basic tenants of Corporatism - war and preferential treatment.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Santorum isn't even going to get the nomination, but he sure is scary, isn't he?

  • Max||

    Here's what Jesse Walker had to say about Ron Paul's racist newsletters when the story on them broke:

    "If Paul didn't write those articles, who did? If he didn't know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash)."--Jesse Walker

    So, has Ron Paul continued to be vague on those points?

  • ||

    And when you look back on this day, Max, and you recall the events of yesterday, always remember that not a single fuck was given on that day.

  • ||

    Max actually has a point.

    And "la la la not listening" is a leftist response. I expected more from libertarians.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    La la la not listening.

    Also: red-light cameras!

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    It's not "la la la not listening," but rather "Who gives a flying fuck about a bunch of 20 year old bullshit when the assholes who keep harping about 20 year old bullshit are the same that forgave Robert Byrd for Klan ties and the same that have, in vaunted bipartisan fashion, been fiscally (and morally?) fucking this country into a shallow grave where the wolves will rend it's maggot-infused corpse apart?"

    Intellectual dishonesty is a Neocon response. I expected more from those who claim to hate them.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck you, Max. Go over to DemocraticUnderground and spew your bullshit.

  • DemocraticUnderground||

    Oh, HELL no. That guy's fucking crazy, even by our standards.

  • Robert Byrd||

    There's white niggers too.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Max is bat-shit insane, Tulpa. Best to just give him the zero respect he deserves.

  • "Paul's Racist Newsletters"||

    Uh, yeah, sure.

    /snicker

  • Peter||

    It's the same point he's been regurgitating for months, maybe years. So, the point has now shifted to Max's neurotic obsessive compulsive illness. Sorry you're a little slow to catch on, Tulpa.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Listening to almost any politician talk foreign policy is like listening to Slayer.

  • ||

    very good sir.

    +1 internet for you

  • Max||

    Sometimes Ron Paul sounds like Santorum.

    "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." - Ron Paul, CBS-TV, 2007

  • ||

    And when you look back on this day, Max, and you recall the events of yesterday, always remember that not a single fuck was given on that day.

  • So What???||

    My college anthropology proffessor pointed out all the holes in the theory of evolution, not because he doesn't believe in evolution, but because he feels we need to develop a better model. However, the current model of evolution being accepted as gospel truth by anyone who wants to try to prove how smart he is has gotten in the way of that happening.

  • Mike Z||

    All facts are merely the best and most popular theories.

  • Max||

    "The public school now is a propaganda machine. They start with our kids even in kindergarten, teaching them about family values, sexual education, gun rights, environmentalism, and they condition them to believe in so much that is totally un-American.” - Ron Paul, to Christian home-schoolers, March 2011

  • ||

    And when you look back on this day, Max, and you recall the events of yesterday, always remember that not a single fuck was given on that day.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There's nothing but truth in that quote, Max. Why are you bitching about it?

  • Team Blue||

    Good soldiers do that, FIFY. And Max is one of our best.

  • mgd||

    And it's all true. My youngest is damn sharp, but finished their unit on the Declaration of Independence with the idea that it legalized slavery and took away women's right to vote. No, they didn't read the document.

    Just about every chapter in her algebra book has a word problem involving the horrors of man-made global warming.

    Her public school has taught civics and government in such a way that I am still trying to get across to her that the president can't just do anything fucking thing he wants, nor can Congress--that there are limits to the powers Washington has.

    If what her school does is not all propaganda, Max, just what in the fuck is it?

  • It's true.||

    As a former teacher, this statement by Ron Paul is correct. Not in every school district, but in all the large urban ones.

  • ||

    Calling Santorum a joke candidate is not right. More like a nightmare candidate. This guy is what is wrong with the party. In short he is a pro-life compassionate conservative. Bush w/o the hint of class.

    We need small guv'mint, not holy guv'mint. As for are them there anti-abortion types, a small guv'mint won't have the band-width to fund NOW or any of the left wing social engineering BS. You wanna win, drop the abortion argument, it is not a federal issue. If you want to think of it as murder, then it is a state issue.

  • aaskavind||

    The abortion issue is a left-wing canard and you're falling for it.

  • Another Phil||

    The abortion issue is a left-wing canard and you're falling for it.

    Right. No conservative ever made a campaign issue out of abortion.

  • Pro-Life Democrats||

    We're planning our next meeting at a Denny's somewhere in Ohio.

    We'll be in the booth closest to the front door.

  • Mike Z||

    Agreed. I'm pro-life, but murder should be a community handled crime not a Federal one.

  • Max||

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

    “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.” Ron Paul “The War on Religion”

  • DarrenM.||

    It's amazing how many people are unable to tell the difference between 'church' and 'religion'.

  • ||

    Max, I think it's time for you to face the fact that you are a fanatic; We get it- you don't like Ron Paul. When you start to post multiple comments- a collage of quotes or references to a certain individual- I think it's fair for others to start questioning your mental health.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Five bucks says Max is just peachy-fuckin'-keen when Team Blue uses the Bible to justify their egalitarian bullshit.

  • Team Blue||

    It's okay when WE mix religion and politics!

  • Liberals on Facebook||

    Obamacare is moral! "I am my brother's keeper"!

  • Max||

    From the June 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report:

    “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

  • Sizable reason contingent||

    I fail to see anything wrong with that sentiment.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm straight, but I don't go around demanding people praise me for it and make all kinds of special provisions for it.

    In fact, I keep it to myself, for the most part. But if I *did* cobble together a "Straight Pride" bumpersticker or t-shirt, and displayed it in public, it would likely be seen as a "hate crime" of some sort.

    Fuck, life's too complicated as it is.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    You're obviously an anti-gay hatemonger.

    /sarcasm

  • ||

    What about Fast Orange vs. Santorum?

    My results have been unimpressive.

  • Max||

    What a Ron Paul newsletter from 1990 says about Martin Luther King:

    "[Martin Luther King, Jr.], the FBI files reveal, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys…And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?"

  • ||

    [NOOZLETTRZ] !!1!eleventy

  • Sealant||

    I guess we won't know what MLK was really up to until 2027 or so.

    Come back then and we'll discuss.

  • Max||

    "As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.
    I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the newsletters carried his name after all--and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage."-- Nick Gillespie

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "tons of"

    Yeah, to a Team Blue fucktard, maybe.

  • wvoquine||

    @ Max|(3.2.12 @ 5:37PM)
    thank you for this quote - highlighting the ugly truths about Ron Paul

  • Max||

    Does he still own the garbbage, Doherty? Do you you address this question in your book?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Is the soul of the Republican Party worth fighting for?

    In a word, no.

    The Republican Party has no more soul than the Democratic Party or, for that matter, the Mafia.

  • ||

    Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

    The problem is...there's no prize.

  • ||

    Dude really does seem to know what he is talking about wow.

    www.Went-Anon.tk

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    My good anonbot, the truth value of that statement depends heavily upon to which dude you are referring.

  • ||

    Prohibition comes with great human cost. If you support it you're either a black market profiteer, a corrupt politician, a terrorist, a sadomoralistic fake-conservative, or an authoritarian wing-nut-socialist. As a prohibitionist, you've helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike, while making these dangerous substances freely available in schools and prisons.

  • DarrenM.||

    many voters don’t approach their political choices as rationalistically as a libertarian might guess

    "Rationalistically"?

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Eh, it's a productive phoneme. Why quibble?

  • Tony||

    One reasons rationally.

    One rationalizes rationalistically.

  • Matt||

    Yes, but many of the Republican voters don't even rationalize their choice, much less reason it out. They vote on such ridiculous claims as electability, or worse - "looking Presidential". If we can ban drugs merely because they are bad for you, why can't we ban stupid voting? It's even worse.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Compared to the emotionalism of whining about starving grandmothers forced to eat their grandchildren?

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Well I, for one, still hold out hope for the Paul campaign. Who can say what could happen, come the Convention?

  • ||

    The problem is entirely foreign policy, IMHO.

    I don't think it's even the real message (I think most want to bring the troops home, and don't want to protect countries like Germany, Japan, and Korea and the like), so much as Paul can tend to phrase it, which is critical of the US.

    Republicans are extremely patriotic - anything that portrays the US's action in a negative manner, even when it's arguably correct, is not going to sit well with them.

    I think Rand Paul gets this, and I think his father knows it too, he just speaks to his own convictions, rather than repressing them.

  • Realist||

    "Republicans are extremely patriotic - anything that portrays the US's action in a negative manner, even when it's arguably correct, is not going to sit well with them."
    Republicans are extremely stupid....
    There much better.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    This "Max" person aside, there's a clear difference between Santorum and Paul... one is a potential theocrat, and the other one has a son named Rand.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There's no difference when it comes to Team Blue, though even most of Team Blue is willing to co-opt biblical scriptures when it suits their utopian/egalitarian endgame needs.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Let's not forget that Paul was an apostle. Amen.

  • Max||

    Both Ron Paul and Santorum think there's a war on religion,and gays should stay in the closet. Neither accepts evolution. Only one has fake eyebrows, though.

  • *yawn*||

  • wvoquine||

    'War on religion'? 'gays must stay in the closet'? , 'evolution is false'? when has Santorum ever said those things?

  • West Texas||

    The funny thing about calling someone "unelectable" over and over and over and over is that the voters actually start to believe it and ignore that candidate.

    That slur has pissed me off the most... when any of these other candidates - Santorum included - were polling in the single digits back in the fall, you NEVER heard the media call any of them "unelectable," yet look what happened to Santorum?

    Fuck my leg.

    Self-fulfilling prophesy FTW!

  • Annoying Yappy Little Dog||

    "Fuck my leg"

    OK!

  • Reality||

    Like every election, we start with most republicans voting ticket; most democrats voting ticket; the swing voters, that is, the thinking segment, deciding the race.

    No thinking person will ever vote for Santorum. He's a superstitious, dictator-like freak.

    No thinking person will ever vote for Romney. He's a bland, out-of-touch rich dude.

    Paul isn't going to get elected because the repubs simply won't have him -- and no wonder, although as president he wouldn't actually have the power to do it, his *attitude* is that everything that has made being a politician a profitable enterprise has to go, and they're never, ever going to stomach that.

    Obama, in the meantime, has done quite a bit right, although he's far from perfect.

    So guess what?

    You're going to get four more years of Obama. End of story. HAND.

  • mgd||

    What in the hell has Obama done right?

  • Mike Z||

    I'm wondering that myself.

  • ||

    He replaced Bush. That's enough.

  • Reality||

    Hey, love the new 900 character limit. Complex ideas are no good, after all.

    Idiots.

  • ||

    Rack up delegates? He got something like 18 in 2008 and might get a few more than that, but let's not get carried away. He'll do what he did in 2008: have a lot of millions left over from the campaign and put them into his organization.
    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....ursements/

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Paul will get more delegates than '08. But it won't be enough.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Mr Doherty,

    How many registered Republicans are there out there? Now, out of the other people who can and do vote, how many are libertarians? You're a reasonable man, how many? How long have these people been trying to get a foothold in politics now, and how many are in office compared to Republicans? The bottom line is that you can develop a message that Republicans will find palatable or you can say "F*** conservatives and f*** the GOP!" just because your candidate didn't do well enough with impressionable (and stupid) gen Y voters (who wouldn't pull the lever for GOP under any circumstance) and go back to the political wilderness or move to Switzerland. Grow up.

  • Max||

    Yeah, Doherty. And stop writing hagiographies of racist sacks of shit.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    You are the racist, Max. Stop kidding yourself. Every bone in your body is racist. You try to hide it. Indeed, you seek every opportunity to act out and foster the perception that you're enlightened. But the fact is that you're a lilly-white, slope headed, provincial, racist no matter what you do, and you'll go to your grave knowing it. Poor little man.

  • Max||

    Yeah, and you're a fucking Jap.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The REAL Max wouldn't be able to spell "hagiography" if an English professor was butt-fucking him while spelling it out one letter per stroke.

  • Max's English Professor||

    I tried, it still didn't work.

    BTW Max, we're through. You're not worth losing my job over.

  • wvoquine||

    seconded

  • wvoquine||

    seconded (Max 3.3.12 @ 11:06AM)

  • jacob||

    It is you that needs to grow up.

    Politics isn't a binary proposition. You don't have to vote only Democrat or Republican. It's possible to switch sides and choose different candidates at different times. Also, the absence of votes affects political outcomes as well. Why do you think McCain lost in 2008? Was it because there are millions more liberals than conservatives? Absolutely not. It's because people that aren't lemmings like yourself realized that McCain/Palin would be no more palatable than any Obama, and they either stayed home or, like myself, voted third party (Bob Barr in my case). To maintain a tone-deaf attitude "We're Republicans! You better follow us or move to Switzerland" does not seem to be an intelligent strategy in the least.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    What you're suggesting I'm saying is 180 degrees away from what I said. McCain got the nomination because he had been in the running for years and no one (including libertarians) could agree upon an alternative candidate, much less an obscure third party candidate like Bob Barr. People of various leanings have all sorts of theories about why McCain (another shitty GOP pick) lost, but the obvious reason is that the economy was headed for disaster and he was the nominee of the incumbent party. McCain had an steep uphill battle to fight against the press that intent on crowning Obama king, and he wasn't the man to do it in the first place. But McCain got the nomination because he was aiming to get the nomination instead of score points against people in the GOP that he didn't particularly like.

  • jacob||

    The premise of your original post (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that libertarians don't constitute a large segment, especially when compared to Republicans. Due to these small #s, they do not have enough influence to tell the GOP to become more "palatable."

    My point's that libertarians (more accurately, independents), do constitute a reasonable enough size of the population that they can have an impact. McCain and Palin lost because they had some really stupid ideas. Two quotes that come to mind include McCain's "we'll stay in Iraq for 100 years" and Palin's "Iraq war was God's will." These aren't be exact quotes but you get the idea. Both of these stances are absurd. Additionally, McCain ran a very bad campaign. In Ohio, 80% of his ads were about Jeremiah Wright. Nobody gave a shit about that in 2008, people were more concerned about the economy.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Yup, people were more concerned about the economy. You're repeating what I'm saying. But what does the official libertarian position on the war have to do with the bank failures. Before you launch into another rant, I'll tell you: just like McCain's position, nothing.

  • jacob||

    So, it's perfectly reasonable to say "F*** the GOP" if they want to put up a statist candidate. The author's point is that they have the option of not doing so (Ron Paul).

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    I'm over here, Jacob. That straw man you're attacking isn't me. If and when you come back down to earth, you'll find that it is inhabited by statists, although quite few of them have some libertarian impulses. The trick is to unite enough of them to make a majority.

  • jacob||

    Lastly, it is seems rather silly to cast an entire generation as "stupid" because they don't espouse your political philosphy. I'm 35, and much too old to be considered Gen Y, but there are quite a few Gen Y'ers that aren't stupid. Your broad generalization says a lot about you.

    (darn 900 word limit)

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Gen Y'ers are friggin' intelligent, it's just that the whole world is full of evil, hateful people who are conspiring against them, Jacob. I spoke out of turn, so sorry.

  • ||

    Max|3.3.12 @ 3:59PM
    "Yeah, and you're a fucking Jap."

    I suggest that Reason Magazine limit the comment posts to one comment per article. Eleven posts from troll named 'Max' is ten too many.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    In his case, eleven posts are TWELVE too many.

  • ||

    Trolls are better than rules.

  • ||

    THIS!!! Should be THE defining year/season for the abolishment of BOTH so called parties(crime families). Their time has run completely out,and the next generation is NOT gonna' buy in to this fake,dicotomy. Ron Paul is educating the next wave and the message is pure...the idea is not gonna' die...Only thing gonna' die is the scam. WE'VE BEEN ROBBED ENOUGH!!! WE OWE NOTHING!!! THEY DO!!!

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I'm still trying to figure out how McCain ended up being the GOP nominee in '08. In that election, the Republicans actually had some decent candidates in the mix; I for one liked Fred Thompson, but he was already out of the running before I ever had a chance to cast my ballot, and somehow, the least effective candidate ended up being the guy. The only thing that was even remotely exciting about him was Sarah Palin, but the media did a pretty good job of eviscerating her over her lack of big stage experience (and yet she was actually more qualified for the presidency itself than "The One" the media was backing).

    Now we've got a stable of the most lack-luster, unappealing candidates since the GOP put Dole up against Clinton. Personally, I'm casting my ballot tomorrow for Ron Paul, not because he's the do-all, end-all, but because I find him the least distasteful of the whole lot.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    However, barring a last minute Hail Mary, I'm expecting that I'll be casting my vote for Mitt Romney in November as the lesser of two evils.

    I'm just curious - when did the qualification for being the GOP candidate become being the most Democratic/liberal of the bunch?

  • ||

    The GOP is never going to lend support to Ron Paul. Mitt represents one extreme of GOP thinking and Santorum represents the other. From end to end, most people who today consider themselves Republicans have little in common with Libertarians, who do not take a stance on social issues and moral control but are agreed on reducing the federal government and keeping most decisions local.

  • ||

    Is the soul of the Republican Party even worth fighting for?

    In a word No. Except for Ron Paul they are all Progressive trash in one form or another. And Paul scares the hell out of middle America.

    We are screwed, and we will continue to be screwed until all progresssive leaning GOP and Democrats are removed from the system.

  • ||

    This article misrepresents Santorum. Failure to see the many areas where Santorum agrees with libertarian principles hurts the cause. Paul's two great weaknesses are his unwillingness to discuss the really serious problems that we face economically as a result of the social breakdown, children being raised in broken homes, and the assault on the traditional family. His other great weakness is the idea that if America just withdraws from the world, we will have peace for America. He fails to understand that we are the "blowback" against fascism, communism, and Islam. Not the other way around. So I, an Austrian school libertarian am going to support Santorum. I hope that there are enough other real libertarians who aren't so far off the deep end that they are going to throw this election to our worst enemies.

  • Corey||

    An Austrian libertarian backing Santorum? That makes about as much sense as an Israeli supporting Hezbolah...You fail to understand the entire concept of blowback. It is the result of covert or overt military actions that lead to unintended consequences that the American public cannot put into the correct context. Funding the Mujahadeen leads to the Taliban and Al Qaida- blowback. Spending trillions of dollars to face down the Soviet empire even though Communism was doomed to fail= Just stupid.

  • myfriend123||

    Great.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement