New Poll, No Paul

I was surprised that Ron Paul didn't even pull 1 percent in the latest L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll of prosepctive GOP primary voters.  Then I saw the question asked of them:

Q: If the Republican primary or caucus for president were being held in your state today and the candidates were Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.), Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), former Gov. Tommy G. Thompson (Wis.) and actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.), for whom would you vote?

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.

  • ||

    WTF??? I just got done reading a slew of reader comments in my local paper about him, and they were ALL positive.

  • Grotius||

    Are you suggesting that Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican party politics?

  • ||

    Looks like Paul is getting the Dick Lugar/Jerry Brown/Bob Graham treatment from the corporate media.

  • ||

    And what happened to the (breaking?) story about Paul's fundraising? Any confirmation?

  • Hulk Hogan||

    LUGARMANIA!!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    Looks like the LAT wants to test its web server security and capacity. Or don't they know who their fool'n with?

  • ||

    How many pr0n st4rz would kill for the name "Dick Lugar"?

  • ||

    The funny thing is that the "unscientific poll" that you can vote in on the same page does include Ron Paul, and doesn't include Gingrich.

    And in that poll, Tancredo has 45%, McCain has 27%, Gilmore has 9%, and Paul is fourth with 7%. So, by MSM logic, McCain is winning handily.

  • Dirk Diggler||

    Two or three... What about the name Rimjob? Um. Rimfax. RIMFAX.

  • ||

    I commented on their exclusion of Paul here:

    http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-national-cf2,0,5329431.customform?sId=National

  • ||

    Not sure I understand. I would have thought that the Dem-biased MSM would relish the presence of a curmudgeonly candidate making life uncomfortable for the traditional GOP hacks. Esp after his strong showing in the debates and esp considering his position on the war. Hmm.

  • ||

    crimethink,
    You're reading those results wrong. Paul has 27% McCain has 2.7%

  • ||

    Sorry, I misread the poll results due to the terrible format they're presented in...actually Fred Thompson has 45%, Paul has 27%, Giuliani has 9%, and Romney has 7%.

  • ||

    Warren,

    Yeah, I was looking at the bar below the name of the candidate, not the one above the name.

  • ||

    Of course they wouldn't include Ron Paul. We can game even scientific polls with our psychic libertarian powers.

  • ||

    Mc,

    I think the MSM is more interested in presenting a tidy narrative than in making the GOP look bad. Assuming GOP = pro-war, Dems = anti-war, makes writing the stories and opinion columns much easier to write.

  • ||

    Mc,

    We're not talking about "the Dem biased media." This is about the LA Times, not the American Prospect.

  • ||

    I think that complaints regarding Ron Paul being ignored by the media have merit.

    Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market system so who are we to complain?

  • One and Done||

    Not sure I understand. I would have thought that the Dem-biased MSM would relish the presence of a curmudgeonly candidate making life uncomfortable for the traditional GOP hacks.

    Mc - they don't want to remind people that you can be Republican and anti-war at the same time. It would ruin the whole Republicans=babykillers meme they've spent years cultivating.

  • Fluffy||

    When this ends up on Digg, the LA Times is going to be dealt a savage freeping.

    How about amending the article here to include contact phone numbers and email addresses for the Times and Bloomberg? Or would that cross the line between commentary and activism?

  • ||

    I am a star. I'm a star, I'm a star, I'm a star. I am a big, bright, shining star.

  • ||

    Dan T. is the Avril Lavigne of blog trolling.

  • ||

    "they don't want to remind people that you can be Republican and anti-war at the same time."

    I'm sorry, did the Republican Party put out a poll that excluded Ron Paul?

  • Make that Two and Done||

    they = the media

  • Fluffy||

    The LA Times phone number is 213-237-5000.

    Michael Finnegan wrote the article about the poll. He didn't personally conduct the poll, obviously, but he's as good a person to freep as any.

  • ||

    Paul couldn't pull one percent in any reasonably constructed poll. All these indignant but wasted electrons. The internet should not be confused with the real world. There is no greater waste of time on this earth than campaigning for Paul, especially if you are interested in advancing any sort of libertarian vision.

  • ||

    Boy, does JasonL=Edwards $400 haircut?

    It's apparently worth your time to comment on it.

  • miche||

    Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market system so who are we to complain?



    Dan, haven't you paid attention all these months? We don't truly have a free-market system.

  • fyodor||

    Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market system so who are we to complain?

    Yeah, all the calls for media regulation on this thread really show what hypocrites libertarians are.

  • Stephen||

    Paul needs to lawyer up and start covering these pollsters up with FEC investigations into illegal in-kind contributions.

    ($ poll cost + quarter page ad rate [this article]) / # of filed GOP candidates included
    == penalty amount due to Ron Paul's campaign

    Add in some damages too for the hell of it... dude needs to bend them over the barrel.

  • Anvilwyrm||

    Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market system so who are we to complain?

    The customers?

  • ||

    Dan T,

    The beauty of the free market of ideas is that it polices itself in these matters. Any media entity is free to choose who to include on its polls, and everyone else is free to criticize them if their choice seems unfair.

    In other words, having a free market doesn't mean that you can't criticize anything a private entity does. Indeed, the proper functioning of a free market depends on such criticism.

  • ||

    Just a quick comment, and not necessarily one that I think is true:

    a lot of times, when libertarians say "well, it isn't a true free market system", it sounds like "well, that wasn't real communism"

    *ducks and covers*

  • ||

    Libertarians deserve a slow and disgraceful death if they can't rally around the one quasi mainstream candidate that they have.

    joe,

    Are you off your meds? It's been like three days of total snark from you. Not that I'm counting.

  • ||

    Yeah, all the calls for media regulation on this thread really show what hypocrites libertarians are.

    I'm just saying that the Market has spoken. And it don't want Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market system so who are we to complain?

    No, the media is subjected to so much regulation that it is in fact controlled by the government. If you do or say anything that the government strongly disapproves of, the government will find some sort of regulation that you have violated (with hundreds of thousands of such regulations, some contradictory, everyone is America is guilty of some sort of criminal act). If a major newspaper or television network were to not tow the government line (as opposed to speaking out against the Democrats or Republicans, which is totally acceptable), then that media company will be the target of retribution by the government, Hugo Chavez style.

  • ||

    "Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market system so who are we to complain?"

    What? 5 corporations? MSM is an oligopoly.

  • ||

    "I'm just saying that the Market has spoken."

    And what it says is against what the market participants want.

  • Fluffy||

    The ombudsman at the LA Times can also be reached at readers.rep@latimes.com.

  • Stephen||

    I'm just saying that the Market has spoken. And it don't want Ron Paul.

    Bullshit... the *store* has spoken, and they are refusing to sell a product their customers demand.

    A damned good way to lose your customers to other competitors (*cough* BLOGGERS *cough*).

  • ||

    The mainstream media has the right to print whatever it wants, and we have the right to complain about it.

    What's the big deal?

  • ||

    Randolph Carter,

    "and not necessarily one that I think is true:"

    Oh but it is true, so true.

    Comparing an idealistic fantasy like the true freemarket to the idealistic fantasy of Marx is, well idealistic. Comparing the real world to the idealistic fantasy of the true freemarket is, well, idealistic. Comparing the real world to the idealistic fantasy of Marx is, well, idealistic.

    Calling the US system a free market is, well, inaccurate.

    Calling the USSR communist is, well, inaccurate.

  • Edward||

    Boy the shit will really hit the fan when all it dawns on all those polled that Ron Paul wasn't even mentioned in the question. The reaction will be ferocious. This could even put Ron Paul over the top!

  • ||

    How can you guys be against the Death Penalty with Dan T. around here? I'm confused.

    CB

  • The SAW guy||

    Oh, yes, there will be blood.

  • Harry||

    Wow -- just wow.

  • ||

    Randolph Carter,

    Well, you're right, the two do sound a lot alike. I don't know that a truly free market is ever going to exist, but I would say that in the vast majority of industries in this country, the "unfreeness" of the market is very slight.

    And, keep in mind that there is nothing keeping people from getting their news from alternative sources, of which there are thousands if you include Internet news. The biggest problem, in my view, that keeps most people from considering candidates the MSM doesn't keep putting in their faces is that they don't really care about politics.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    I see Gilmore didn't make the list either, just as he didn't make the Reason candidates roundup a while back.

  • ||

    I guess what's disconcerting about it is that I was just thinking, yeah, the statements are similar, but a free market works!

  • Lupito41||

    "Libertarians deserve a slow and disgraceful death if they can't rally around the one quasi mainstream candidate that they have."

    No additional comment; just thought it ought to be repeated.

  • ||

    The whole "corporations don't want to be regulated" argument propagated by liberals goes right out the window when you consider Ron Paul's candidacy. If giant corporations really wanted to be unregulated, don't you think they'd financially support Ron Paul in a big way? If the MSM was really concerned about its freedom to report whatever it wanted, do you think they'd be stressing the wonders of the big-government control freaks (every other candidate)?

    Leaving Ron Paul off of scientific surveys not only makes the surveys less accurate (and not scientific, really), but it sends a strong message that federal power = corporate power, and makes the usual and most emotional arguments against a free market/free society impotent.

  • ||

    Plus, his actual support ( and cash on hand) is higher than or at least equal to 5 of the candidates listed.

  • ||

    Actually, over the weekend, Dr. Paul placed 2nd in a straw poll at the Utah GOP convention, after homey Mitt Romney, and AHEAD of Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. The observation that he doesn't do well in the "real world" is wrong.

  • ||

    Regarding why I bothered to comment on it the futility of pushing a Paul candidacy.

    Everyone is free to waste their time as they see fit, of course, but chasing unicorns has an opportunity cost. We are much better at influencing policy than we are at electoral politics precisely because we have good but strongly minority ideas.

    All of a sudden libertarians fall in love with polling and shun revealed preference when a straw poll or an internet survey tells them a guy like Paul has any non zero chance of being elected. I'm telling you he has a ZERO chance if he runs remotely libertarian. At least a lottery ticket gives you one in ten million or something.

    What we should know, after all this time, is that libertarianism isn't a prevalent way of thinking and it puts a majority of people off. We should know that by loss after loss after loss and decades of insignificance. Harry Browne, RIP, was a clown not a candidate. "Tear down the IRS!" is an idiotic way to pretend you are serious about attaining office.

    What we know about Paul, after all this time, is that he is defined by his anomaly status. By definition, that means he can't be elected by a broad sampling of Americans.

    The one area where we have not been a joke is policy. We have influenced every positive move in the last 30 years through policy work. Every election cycle, people just forget that. The kool aid comes out and we start hearing about which great guy is going to lead the LP and how you CAN be elected to the nation's highest office by being Dr. No.

    You know, because people really don't want pork. They really don't want an IRS. They really don't want drug enforcement. They really don't want medicare or social security.

    It is a very awkward time for libertarians that should be spent trying to influence platforms by grabbing bloc status on a realistic candidate.

  • ||

    "Yeah, all the calls for media regulation on this thread really show what hypocrites libertarians are."

    I haven't read any calls for media regulation on this thread, only complaints about media bias.

  • ||

    in response to Lupito41's comment

    "Libertarians deserve a slow and disgraceful death if they can't rally around the one quasi mainstream candidate that they have."

    No additional comment; just thought it ought to be repeated.


    CORRECTION: The United States of America will have a slow and disgraceful death, by rallying around mainstream Democratic/Republican candidates who ignore the boundaries set forth in the Constitution.

  • ||

    Paul couldn't pull one percent in any reasonably constructed poll. All these indignant but wasted electrons. The internet should not be confused with the real world. There is no greater waste of time on this earth than campaigning for Paul, especially if you are interested in advancing any sort of libertarian vision.



    As opposed to campaigning for what other figure that anyone has heard of who would would advance a libertarian vision?

    Some blue-skinned dipshit from the LP?

    A neo-con?

    Ha.

  • ||

    Good post, JasonL. Sorry I thought you a troll.

    Maybe Paul doesn't have a chance of winning. Neither does Chris Dodd. Yet he's on the surveys.

    If Paul's name is on the ballot in my state come primary time, you can bet he'll get my vote.

  • ||

    In case there's any confusion, by "quasi mainstream candidate", I meant Congressman Ron Paul.

  • ||

    CORRECTION: The United States of America will have a slow and disgraceful death, by rallying around mainstream Democratic/Republican candidates who ignore the boundaries set forth in the Constitution.

    That should read The Holy Constitution.

  • ||

    More accurately, the Holey Constitution.

  • ||

    For all those who vote for the candidate with "the best chance to win" , You know...you are right. What am I doing wasting my time, when there are plenty of candidates with no morals, great hair, and a penchant for great soundbites with no real agenda accept spouting off lie after lie for the people. Which liar do you think would be the best president and wouldn't screw us TOO much?

  • KirkH||

    I'm a gigantic skeptic but this is just getting weird. Why is Ron Paul the only guy that the media "forgets" to include in their polls?

    I'm just happy that the election is far enough away that newspaper circulation and CNN's ratings will be lower by the time the election happens.

  • ||

    All of a sudden libertarians fall in love with polling and shun revealed preference when a straw poll or an internet survey tells them a guy like Paul has any non zero chance of being elected. I'm telling you he has a ZERO chance if he runs remotely libertarian.


    And I'm telling you no shit, President Paul (or even Nominee Paul) is not remotely an option, but that supporting him keeps an important voice in the discussion. He gets a credible anti-war word in edgewise while the blues shirk away from opposing the war. He gets a small-government, non-interventionist word in as the Reds fight to be GWB 2, Electric Boogaloo. He gets an anti-torture word in while everyone else looks around guiltily.

    Who the Hell else am I supposed to support, some random neo-con who happens to like gun ownership, Jason?

  • ||

    Dan T,

    So, you're all for forcing people to follow the nebulous, unwritten, unvoted-upon "social contract"...but you scorn the Constitution? Fuck you.

  • ||

    "Not sure I understand. I would have thought that the Dem-biased MSM would relish the presence of a curmudgeonly candidate making life uncomfortable for the traditional GOP hacks. Esp after his strong showing in the debates and esp considering his position on the war. Hmm."

    Nope. Most partisan Democrats want to paint Republicans as all being evil war-mongers who blindly follow GWB, since having to mention that at least one Republican candidate is anti-war spoils the image they're trying to project of all Republicans as completely evil and clueless. A good chunk of that narrative is about tarring every Republican lower down on the ticket with the same brush, regardless of what the candidates actually stand for.

  • ||

    The real issue here is not will Ron Paul get elected. The real issue is how long will the American people sit back and allow the 2 party system to continue passing laws that make it almost impossible for any other candidates to have a fighting chance and run for President? How long will the American people sit back and allow lobbyists to sway the opinion of our "elected" officials? How long will the American peoPle sit back and WAIT for the Democrats and Republicans to do somethingfor the people instead of for their and their contributors pockets? Till then I suppose we have to vote for the "best" of the two best crooks.

  • ||

    JasonL,

    If libertarians are such a small minority that no candidate running on a libertarian platform can get more than a couple of percent, why would the major candidates even bother with us? There are a lot of interest groups with more money and more votes to offer, and most of them are anti-libertarian.

    There is no silver bullet for getting libertarian policies enacted into law. Politicians will not vote to restrict their power unless the people force them to, and right now most people don't care enough about politics to look past the BS that the MSM is feeding them. Success for us requires changing that fact.

  • ||

    Dan T. says, "I'm just saying that the Market has spoken. And it don't want Ron Paul."

    In a real market-based political economy, anyone who wants a government run by the likes of Ron Paul could choose that government to pay their voluntary taxes to in exchange for those government-provided services they voluntarily chose to subscribe to, while everyone else would be free to pick a competing government agency and services, or none at all.

    The majority getting to impose their government and the ensuing taxes and regulations on everyone else isn't a free market by any stretch of the imagination.

  • ||

    MOE: Dan T. has a brain like Napoleon.
    LARRY: Napoleon is dead.
    MOE: I know....

  • Edward||

    "There is no silver bullet for getting libertarian policies enacted into law."

    Not even wishful thinking?

  • ||

    What I'm suggesting is that we all drop the pretense of voting for an entire platform or an entire candidate because if we hold ourselves to oh glorious ideological consistency, we are deciding that we want to be ineffectual in advancing every dimension of our value system.

    Don't vote for a whole platform. You won't find a libertarian platform out there because people at large are not libertarian. Vote for the guy who is willing to give you something you really want - just one thing to make things marginally better in your value system than they were before. I make no bones that the right of self defense is my value priority. If I feel threatened on that, I don't care what else is going on unless it is pretty damned horrific.

    There may be other stuff out there on the same platform I don't like, but if I'm not part of the coalition, I have chosen not to have a voice at all. I don't understand that as a rational choice.

  • Rick H.||

    having to mention that at least one Republican candidate is anti-war spoils the image they're trying to project of all Republicans as completely evil and clueless

    I think it's more that the Democrats don't want to face their own pro-Empire, war-enabling history. A voice from the Right, that's better at articulating an antiwar position than any of the Democratic frontrunners, is an embarrassment to them.

  • Fluffy||

    Jason, 25 years ago I might have agreed with you.

    But since your argument is a thinly-veiled appeal to hold our noses and support the mainstream Republican candidate, whosoever that may be, I have to say: Nuts.

    I'd rather see them lose every office and watch the Democrats run wild than give the fuckers behind Bush one more day with the reins then they've already got coming to them.

  • ||

    Don't vote for a whole platform.



    Who said anything about voting? Only some Republicans are ever possibly going to get to vote for Paul. I'd vote for him if pigs grew wings and the Reds grew a sense of shame, allowing them to offer him up as a nominee. Short of that, I'm voting Blue, if only to punish them, so long as they can scrounge up an anti-torture and maybe even anti-war nominee.

    Nothing that you're saying even applies to the whole issue of supporting Paul's campaign. Go back and reread what I wrote and think about the actual worth of having someone openly anti-war and anti-torture actually out there and being talked about. This is about much more than a libertarian being in the debates - this is about affecting the debate on the issues that should be dominating this election.

    And no, Jason, you don't have a voice on any other issue than gun control. You've surrendered that to the Reds, who'll be happy to talk a good line about your second amendment rights while trashing the rest of the Constitution, just so long as people like you are more scared of Blues.

  • ||

    "Vote for the guy who is willing to give you something you really want - just one thing to make things marginally better in your value system than they were before."

    But what if you hate the warmongering foreign policy of the Republican candidate and the support of socialized medicine of the Democrat candidate? If those are the choices, I'll have to vote Libertarian again.

  • ||

    "I'm voting Blue, if only to punish them"

    I feel the same way. The Republicans need to be taught a lesson, but not at the expense of voting in Hillary or bringing socialized medicine to America.

  • ||

    For that matter, Jason, the influence of you and every other single-issue gun voter on Team Red is limited to keeping them perceptibly better than Team Blue on gun control. They can suck on the issue, as you know they do, but as long as they suck just a bit less than those scary Dems, your vote is Red property.

  • ||

    The Republicans need to be taught a lesson, but not at the expense of voting in Hillary or bringing socialized medicine to America.


    Meh. The Reds are only slightly less eager to do the same thing.

    Hillary, of course, is playing hawk and not saying much about torture or scaling back executive powers, so she, as of yet, wouldn't get my vote either.

  • ||

    Vote for the guy who is willing to give you something you really want - just one thing to make things marginally better in your value system than they were before. I make no bones that the right of self defense is my value priority. If I feel threatened on that, I don't care what else is going on unless it is pretty damned horrific.

    If the current rankings hold, and it comes down to Giuliani vs. Hilary, you're not going to see much difference re: gun rights. In fact, I don't think you'd see much difference on any issues between that pair of statists.

  • ||

    The Republicans need to be taught a lesson, but not at the expense of voting in Hillary or bringing socialized medicine to America.

    Considering that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all have a hard-on for universal health insurance, I'm not sure that voting for any of them is a vote against socialized medicine.

  • ||

    "Considering that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all have a hard-on for universal health insurance, I'm not sure that voting for any of them is a vote against socialized medicine."

    Giuliani said in the last debate that he was opposed to socialized medicine. He said he favored giving us $15,000 tax breaks with which to buy health insurance and with the money left over, to buy medical savings accounts.

  • ||

    Of course, I live in the Deep Blue state of NY, so my vote literally doesn't count either way. In '04 I threw reason to the four winds and voted for Badnarik. There's no way the LP can come up with anybody crazier this time around, right?

  • ||

    Rattlesnake Jake,

    Right. And the money for that will come from _________________. And, the law of supply and demand would indicate that health insurance costs would increase with the increase in demand.

    Face it, the only way to guarantee health insurance for everyone is a single-payer model where the govt keeps control of costs. Any other model is going to be way too expensive and require tax hikes. Obviously, I'm opposed to such a system, but the idea that we can guarantee health insurance for everyone in any other way is preposterous.

  • ||

    "Of course, I live in the Deep Blue state of NY, so my vote literally doesn't count either way."

    I live in the red state of Texas so I always vote Libertarian. I don't have to worry about taking away votes from the Republican and helping the Democrat win. If the race was close, I would have to consider choosing between the main two candidates, but I would have a tough time choosing between a warmonger and a socialist.

  • Fluffy||

    There's no evidence the Democrats will actually institute single payer health care.

    Let's look at some other issues, shall we?

    8 years of Clinton - no expansion of Medicare.

    5 minutes of Bush - Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    8 years of Clinton - no new campaign finance reform

    5 minutes of Bush - McCain-Feingold becomes law.

    8 years of Clinton - no new Cabinet level departments.

    5 minutes of Bush - Department of Homeland Security.

    8 years of Clinton - no major new federal education initiatives.

    5 minutes of Bush - No Child Left Behind.

    8 years of Clinton - no new major protected classes of people

    5 minutes of the LAST Bush - the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Clinton changed the top marginal tax rate by a tiny fraction. Oh noes.

    Bush added trillions to the national debt, increasing the long term tax liabilities of everyone.

    What benefit, exactly, did we gain from a Republican being in office? It looks like it was pretty shitty to me.

  • ||

    We all have our priorities, Jake.

  • ||

    crimethink,

    We need a system where people have the incentive to shop for healthcare. This would bring about lower prices and make healthcare more affordable. Republicans need to come up with programs along those lines and educate the public on how it would be a better system than socialized medicine. The only way socialized medicine will save costs is through rationing of services.

  • ||

    fluffy,

    Hillary tried to do too much at one time with socialized medicine. That's why it wasn't made law then. They've learned their lesson. Fabianism is their order of the day.

    On the other issues, we had a Republican Congress for 6 of those 8 years that acted more responsibly than the Republican Congress under Bush. With a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress, all hell breaks loose.

  • ||

    This may be a stupid question that makes me look bad, but what exactly is the "health care crisis"? I'm between jobs so I went out and got a United Health Care catastrophic plan for 44 bucks a month. I have to pay full price for prescriptions (24 dollars! Oh Noes!) but if I get in a car crash or get cancer, I'm covered on any bills over $15,000. That would leave me in less debt than my student loans. Do people not know about this option or something?

  • ||

    "Jason, 25 years ago I might have agreed with you.

    But since your argument is a thinly-veiled appeal to hold our noses and support the mainstream Republican candidate, whosoever that may be, I have to say: Nuts."

    To be clear, I was advocating no such thing. I have my issue. If I were homosexual, my priorities would be entirely different, I suspect. That vote would not wind up on team red, and I can perfectly understand and admire it.

    Like others have suggested, as I go through my priorities, Team Red in general owns my preferences. The right to defend yourself is clearly theirs. My next issue would be healthcare. If I feel no substantial difference between the platforms on guns, I'll go to healthcare (which is where I was until it took Team Donkey all of 3 seconds to start trying to ban things again). My concern on healthcare is, hey, I know we will have single payer of some sort. What I will fight is the removal of profit incentive from medical innovation. Dems don't believe in markets. I can't see any of them moving in a market friendly direction. Team Red would have to explain why their drug plan was not as bad to their constituents, so they'd have some market elements in there.

    Again, Red seems to win for me. Vote to punish is not meaningful to me. I view the bad stuff as an administration issue, and he will for sure be gone.

  • ||

    "This may be a stupid question that makes me look bad, but what exactly is the "health care crisis"? I'm between jobs so I went out and got a United Health Care catastrophic plan for 44 bucks a month. I have to pay full price for prescriptions (24 dollars! Oh Noes!) but if I get in a car crash or get cancer, I'm covered on any bills over $15,000. That would leave me in less debt than my student loans. Do people not know about this option or something?"

    Hear hear. I just broke my leg on a high deductible plan and, wow, it worked just like it was supposed to.

  • ||

    "8 years of Clinton - no new major protected classes of people"

    DOMA

  • ||

    Crimethink says: "There's no way the LP can come up with anybody crazier this time around, right?"

    Wrong -- I nominate Crimethink, if he runs with that actual name on the ballot.

  • ||

    I'm still curious how clinging to gun control as one's single issue advances "any sort of libertarian vision".

  • ||

    "This may be a stupid question that makes me look bad, but what exactly is the "health care crisis"?

    The crisis is that there are statist politicians who might not get elected if they don't rouse the rabble. The crisis is that there is a large segment of the American economy that statists think can be (more completely) taken over by government if it is portrayed as being in crisis, instead of it being the result of a market process where some people feel they have more pressing priorities than buying health insurance (or paying thousands of dollars extra for a hybrid system to get a few more MPG with their car). (This tactic applies with equal efficiency to both "global warming" and "the uninsured crisis".)

  • ||

    Wrong -- I nominate Crimethink, if he runs with that actual name on the ballot.

    Um, thanks...I think.

  • ||

    jh,
    yeah, that's about what I figured. But why can't CNN or ABC or something just do a broadcast where they tell people, "hey, there are these catastrophic coverage policies, and if you're healthy (like most people) it'll cover you against any ridiculous bills!"

    I think a major part of the perception of a health care crisis / uninsured crisis is that people are taught that they will be sick, probably deathly ill, and soon. VERY SOON! You might have cancer right now and not even know it! You probably have avian flu or super-TB too! So, you obviously need a gold-plated, get any medication in the world for 5 dollars plan.

  • ||

    If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

  • Jennifer||

    I'm still curious how clinging to gun control as one's single issue advances "any sort of libertarian vision".

    When all the rest of our freedom is gone, you'll still have the freedom to blow your brains out while us lesser proles search for a building tall enough to leap from. I guess.

    What I don't get is Jason's antagonism to Ron Paul; I don't recall the guy ever speaking out for gun control.

  • ||

    I'm still wondering why Paul won't confirm the rumor about funding that someone from his team started. Surely he knows the state of his finances. Why the delay in confirming? Was it a a false story planted for publicity? Was it a blantant manipulation of his supporters? Was it a staffer acting on his own? (Similar to when Rockwell wrote racist material under Paul's name).

    As for him being a "mainstream" candidate I'm not sure how many people in the mainstream believe in secret plots by bankers to establish a one world order.

    I wish people would take off their cultic lenses and try to be realistic. Once again someone touts the 2nd place finish in a strawpoll as proof of great support. Remember that 2nd place finish came with 5% of the vote. The poll was skewed since Republican Mormons voted for Romney. They were highly motivated to vote for a fellow Mormon. And Paul's supporters were highly motivated to vote for him. If Romney were not included you would see his votes redistributed and Paul would fall into the back of the pack where he has been consistently with any poll that can't be spammed. So far the fact remains -- he hasn't done well yet in the "real world" of this election.

    I'm glad Paul is saying what he does about the war. And I hope he gets through this without many of loony connections or associations with fringe groups getting much exposure and then he goes back to his last term in Congress. I hope he revives the antiwar tradition in conservativism and that he isn't too closely associated with libertarianism.

  • ||

    I've met Ron Paul at a FEE convention once. I don't really dislike him, but over the time I listened to him, it occurred to me more and more that he, like the LP, was part of the problem. I'm glad he exists in congress as the anomaly he is. I'm glad he can serve as a conscience to others upon occasion. I don't think he should be the face of any libertarian movement that hopes to have any influence. His policy is to say no to everything that isn't authorized by the constitution. I admire that, but the rest of the country doesn't read the constitution the same way he does, and you can't make them. People, broadly speaking, will not adopt nor be motivated by Paulian principles. They will be motivated by policies that they can see some benefit to.

    The choice to embrace 'no compromise' is the choice to be ineffectual. To the extent that many of the people I share an ideology with choose to be ineffectual, I get bummed out. It isn't personal for Paul or anyone else.

  • Jennifer||

    As for him being a "mainstream" candidate I'm not sure how many people in the mainstream believe in secret plots by bankers to establish a one world order.

    This is America. A good chunk of the mainstream, including our current President, thinks that the world is 6,000 years old and all creatures were created by God exactly as they look today.

  • ||

    "I'm still curious how clinging to gun control as one's single issue advances "any sort of libertarian vision"."

    Note there is a hierarchy of issues, but if I win on guns, I've won the most basic right there is in the world. If I lose on guns, I've lost that right. The libertarian implications of a disarmed society are so obvious to me I don't know what to say.

  • ||

    The choice to embrace 'no compromise' is the choice to be ineffectual. To the extent that many of the people I share an ideology with choose to be ineffectual, I get bummed out. It isn't personal for Paul or anyone else.


    That you can say that in response to things people including myself have actually said to you leave me at a loss, myself.

    But then, I thought you said you didn't actually consider yourself libertarian, so which ideology are you referring to?

  • ||

    And frankly, a bunch of armed people uninterested in the erosion of any other freedoms accomplishes roughly jack shit.

  • ||

    "crimethink | June 12, 2007, 5:36pm | #

    If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."

    Based on that "King Log" platform, you got my vote. I'm for the limited government caused by gridlock, and nothing gets you that faster than not being able to muster a quorum to pass bad shit because elected officials don't show up.

  • ||

    A free society isn't based on one or two freedoms, nor are any small set of freedoms its cornerstone. A free society is based on a broad and liberal vision of freedom. Or it isn't really free.

  • ||

    You guys all know that Ron Paul was the only member of the House OR Senate combined to vote against prosecuting Charles Taylor for crimes against humanity, including raping and torturing 1.2 million people in Sierra Leone and Liberia?
    That he publicly stated that Milosevic should not have been prosecuted for the mass murder of nearly a million of his own countrymen?

    Ron Paul's voting record makes it pretty clear that he supports genocide. If you support Ron Paul, that means you support genocide, too.

  • Fluffy||

    Jason, you're making contradictory points.

    First you say that we shouldn't bother to support a libertarian because the rest of the country doesn't see the Constitution the way we do, so we're going to lose and they're going to do whatever they want anyway.

    But then you say as long as you have your gun, you have freedom.

    But since you've already announced your willingness to give up all the other freedoms electorally anyway, what difference does your gun make?

  • VM||

    How much does of JasonL's disagreement with Paul on the war get painted into the statements?

    Jorge: AND HE DIDN'T SPONSOR A BILL SUPPORTING PUPPIES! HE IS AGAINST PUPPIES!

    now go back to crafts before I call the house monitor on you.

  • ||

    Folks like "Jorge" show the value of Ron Paul. With no hope of getting the nomination, he still scares the Hell out of the Reds.

  • ||

    Now, Eric, to be fair, we "pinks" support trying genocidists for their crimes, too.

  • ||

    Jorge: Since you're castigating Ron Paul for his votes on some non-binding resolution that you intimate implies his support for genocide, could you please provide the links to the actual wording of that reso?

    I say this because I've spent seven years reading such resolutions in our state legislature, and a lot of them that are touted as being, say, A Resolution Against Sodomizing Puppies And Then Eating Them turn out, if you read the actual text, to be advocating something entirely different. For example, our glorious legislature had this bill that purportedly would protect women's rights, but in fact was urging us to join some frickin' U.N. commission that allowed such exemplars of female liberty as North Korea and Saudi Arabia to be signatories.

  • b-psycho||

    I already know I'm not voting. It makes no real difference, and in the long run I favor no government anyway. I don't want anyone controlling my life but me, so I can never choose someone else.

    Yet, I find myself saying "Go Ron, Go!" to an extent. Why? Because I hope when people who like that he at least TRIES to care about freedom realize that the US political system at all levels wants to strangle people like him they'll say "fuck it" & decide their effort is best aimed at dismantling it.

  • ||

    Fluffy: "There's no evidence the Democrats will actually institute single payer health care."


    evidence?
    First thing tried under Bill Clinton and who did he get to organize it in secret...wifey Hillary.

    Oh, "actually" so she isn't going to try to do what she says?

  • ||

    Funny as hell that they didn't put Paul's name on the question but then put a stat on the results. I bet he would have gotten, maybe 2% if they listed his name, maybe more if that 1/2% was a write in.

    I guess I trust what you're telling me. Maybe Paul can make hay with this point. He has to get some spot light.

  • thoreau||

    Jason, I understand that as a matter of principle the right of self defense is by far the most important in your value hierarchy. However, for a guy who talks about the need for pragmatism, how important are gun rights in practice?

    Yeah, you can say that if you ever do need a gun then you really need a gun. But in practice, how likely is it? You can justify just about anything on those grounds. In the real world you need to weigh relative risks.

    Besides, the argument that if you ever do need something then you really need it could be just as easily applied to habeas corpus. Now, up until recently the idea that you'd lose that right would have seemed absurd. But we now live in a country where that risk is no longer a hypothetical, but a very serious and urgent matter.

    None of this should be taken as a suggestion that I oppose gun rights. But when you enshrine it as the single most important issue no matter what, to the point where your vote is guaranteed to the Torture Party no matter what, well, I want to question whether priorities need to be balanced sometimes.

  • ||

    You guys keep up your Ron Paul sensorship !!
    It is going to blow back on you .

    Vote Ron Paul 2008

  • ||

    The most recent CNN poll (taken after the NH debate) shows Ron Paul at 3%, ahead of ALL the other "second tier" candidates.

    Paul's supporters outside the debate outnumbered those of every other candidate.

    And, whatever the final number, I anticipate that Paul will have raised significantly more money 2nd quarter than any of the other "second tier" candidates.

    The support for Ron Paul is real -- and growing.

  • Anthony Gregory||

    America is about as close to a free market as it is to communism. When the government consumes half the wealth, regulates every industry, has 14 million pages of federal laws, 2 million prisoners, and a global empire, it is not a free market at all. Not at all.

  • ||

    We can't include Ron Paul in our poll until he gets at least 3% in our poll...

  • ||

    "There is no silver bullet for getting libertarian policies enacted into law."

    Maybe not but the closest thing seems to be a libertarian running as a republican.

    Paul may be an ideologue in congress because he's allowed to be. He keeps getting re-elected so he gets to keep voting no. A recent interview with LRC suggests he'd be more of a pragmatist if he was actually elected pres. Saying stuff like "I'd even support some social programs at the federal level if the end result was reducing the overall debt" is hardly a hard-line libertarian approach to policy.

    Yeah he ends the war, tries to get rid of the income tax and has to settle for something else and then dismantles the federal reserve. He knows he can't touch SS or medicare the congress isn't gonna let him.

    Unlike all the wacko LP candidates that run for prez this guy has been in congress for over 20 years. The guy knows how to play politics just like the rest of them. Give him some credit and give him a vote. He's the best chance we've had since Buchanan, and he doesn't have all the baggage.

  • ||

    skeptic,

    You pop up in just about every Ron Paul thread to throw in something like this:

    (Similar to when Rockwell wrote racist material under Paul's name).

    You've been asked before for any proof that Lew Rockwell wrote anything racist at all, ever. You've repeatedly provided absolutely nothing. Until you can back up your wild-ass claims, why don't you have a nice hot cup of STFU?

  • ||

    I feel like a bit of clarification is needed here.

    There is no situation being discussed in which guns are on one side and every other issue on the planet is on the other. I have a hierarchy of values. I suspect nearly everyone here does as well. What I'm suggesting is that it is better to advance a single issue than to choose to do nothing on any.

    Single issues are advance-able because you can find common cause with non libertarians interested in the same issue.

    Let's be clear. I am not the one giving up when I try to advance my issue. YOU are giving up by choosing a 'no compromise' platform that will never, read NEVER, be swallowed whole by the public at large and you know it. You are choosing to have no effect on any policy whatsoever. I am choosing to do something small and you are choosing to do nothing in the name of ideological consistency.

    In other words, if all other freedoms slowly go down the toilet because it is popular to do so, it won't be Ron Paul who saves us. There will be no ideologically driven libertarian revolution. If you choose to put your energy there, you are choosing to be ineffectual in the face of declining freedom.

  • ||

    Note. If Nash is right and Paul doesn't run as a libertarian purist, and he starts sounding electable, he could get my vote. But, then, is he still Ron Paul? Would he, gasp, make reasonable compromises to advance priortized issues?

  • Roy||

    "Not sure I understand. I would have thought that the Dem-biased MSM would relish the presence of a curmudgeonly candidate making life uncomfortable for the traditional GOP hacks. Esp after his strong showing in the debates and esp considering his position on the war. Hmm."

    --As Ron Paul is the only Republican that will be able to beat Hillary/Obama, it seems obvious that Dem-biased MSM would not want him (Paul) in the race...

  • ||

    There is no situation being discussed in which guns are on one side and every other issue on the planet is on the other.


    When you're bending knee to the Reds after the last 8 years of knowing what they do, it looks a lot less gray than you're suggesting.

  • ||

    ...Not to mention all the current Red candidates aside from Paul promising to continue or broaden the policies you dismiss as being an aberration of this administration.

  • ||

    "In other words, if all other freedoms slowly go down the toilet because it is popular to do so, it won't be Ron Paul who saves us. There will be no ideologically driven libertarian revolution. If you choose to put your energy there, you are choosing to be ineffectual in the face of declining freedom."

    The service that Ron Paul is providing is bringing a non-interventionist foreign policy option to people's attention. No other candidates of either party are doing that. The Democrat candidates are only talking about withdrawing from Iraq, they don't question an intervetionist foreign policy.

  • ||

    What gets me, Jason, as as you declare your support on the basis of gun control, you pretend that nobody else here has an hierarchy, just rote ideology. On the other hand, your hierarchy drops off precipitously after guns, to the point where you refuse to act to protect your other freedoms if it means displeasing the Reds...even as you try to fix blame on everyone else who fails to replicate your monomania.

  • Wesley||

    Did anyone who emailed the LA Times get a reply?

  • ||

    Giuliani is the BEST!!! Paul Sucks!!! HAHAHA!!!

  • ||

    Eric:

    I don't think we are on the same page. A vote for Ron Paul because he is the Ron Paul we all know is blatantly a vote not to prioritize anything, presumably so one can bask in the purity of 'no compromises'.

    Whereas strategic participation in a coalition can successfully advance one or two issues, opting out of every significant coalition because you don't want to compromise your principles, because you don't see any tradeoff you can swallow in either major coalition, is just saying you don't want to be at all effective.

    Again, regarding guns and my participation in team red, I have to get to maybe my fourth issue before I find one the Dems clearly own. Republicans own self defense, they own medical care reform in the least harmful way, and they own pension reform in the least harmful way. Bush passed two extraordinary pieces of pension legislation in his tenure, and I happen to think that matters more than 90% of everything else being discussed.

    If people save their own money, they won't have to demand socialism. Pension reform done right can create the right incentives to save, and that may help us more in the long run than you would at first guess.

    I don't think the habeus situation is as clear cut as many suggest and I don't think it is clear that a Dem run administration wouldn't be doing the same crap given the same attack.

  • ||

    ... and as VM suggests above, I don't happen to believe that nonintervention is derivable from libertarian principles otherwise applied. Paul's non interventionist stance is absolutely neutral from where I'm sitting, perhaps a slight negative if he is really serious about it.

  • ||

    No, Jason, we're not on the same page. I don't have anything further to add.

  • Eric||

    Paul surely won't win if he's not a choice! Make sure your voice is heard - enter your zip code and vote online at www.primary-poll.us

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