Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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?
|6.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
WTF??? I just got done reading a slew of reader comments in my local paper about him, and they were ALL positive.
Grotius|6.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Are you suggesting that Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican party politics?
|6.12.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Looks like Paul is getting the Dick Lugar/Jerry Brown/Bob Graham treatment from the corporate media.
|6.12.07 @ 11:09AM|#
And what happened to the (breaking?) story about Paul's fundraising? Any confirmation?
|6.12.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Looks like the LAT wants to test its web server security and capacity. Or don't they know who their fool'n with?
|6.12.07 @ 11:11AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:11AM|#
I commented on their exclusion of Paul here:
http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-national-cf2,0,5329431.customform?sId=National
|6.12.07 @ 11:12AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:14AM|#
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%.
|6.12.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Warren,
Yeah, I was looking at the bar below the name of the candidate, not
the one above the name.
|6.12.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Of course they wouldn't include Ron Paul. We can game even scientific polls with our psychic libertarian powers.
|6.12.07 @ 11:19AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Mc,
We're not talking about "the Dem biased media." This is about the
LA Times, not the American Prospect.
|6.12.07 @ 11:20AM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 11:21AM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 11:21AM|#
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?
|6.12.07 @ 11:21AM|#
I am a star. I'm a star, I'm a star, I'm a star. I am a big, bright, shining star.
|6.12.07 @ 11:23AM|#
"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?
Fluffy|6.12.07 @ 11:28AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:30AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Boy, does JasonL=Edwards $400 haircut?
It's apparently worth your time to comment on it.
miche|6.12.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market system so who are we to complain?
Dan, haven't you paid attention all these months? We don't truly
have a free-market system.
fyodor|6.12.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a
free-market system so who are we to complain?
Yeah, all the calls for media regulation on this thread really show
what hypocrites libertarians are.
Stephen|6.12.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Paul needs to lawyer up and start covering these pollsters up
with FEC investigations into illegal in-kind contributions.
($ 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|6.12.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a
free-market system so who are we to complain?
The customers?
|6.12.07 @ 11:47AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:47AM|#
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*
|6.12.07 @ 11:49AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:50AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:51AM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:51AM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 11:52AM|#
"I'm just saying that the Market has spoken."
And what it says is against what the market participants
want.
Fluffy|6.12.07 @ 11:52AM|#
The ombudsman at the LA Times can also be reached at readers.rep@latimes.com.
Stephen|6.12.07 @ 11:54AM|#
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*).
|6.12.07 @ 11:56AM|#
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?
|6.12.07 @ 11:56AM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 12:04PM|#
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!
|6.12.07 @ 12:07PM|#
How can you guys be against the Death Penalty with Dan T. around
here? I'm confused.
CB
|6.12.07 @ 12:12PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 12:13PM|#
I see Gilmore didn't make the list either, just as he didn't make the Reason candidates roundup a while back.
|6.12.07 @ 12:20PM|#
I guess what's disconcerting about it is that I was just thinking, yeah, the statements are similar, but a free market works!
Lupito41|6.12.07 @ 12:35PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 12:43PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 12:59PM|#
Plus, his actual support ( and cash on hand) is higher than or at least equal to 5 of the candidates listed.
|6.12.07 @ 1:13PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 1:51PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 1:56PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:12PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:12PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:19PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:20PM|#
In case there's any confusion, by "quasi mainstream candidate", I meant Congressman Ron Paul.
|6.12.07 @ 2:26PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:38PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 2:43PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:48PM|#
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?
|6.12.07 @ 2:52PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:56PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 2:58PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 3:02PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 3:04PM|#
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.
Edward|6.12.07 @ 3:29PM|#
"There is no silver bullet for getting libertarian policies
enacted into law."
Not even wishful thinking?
|6.12.07 @ 3:53PM|#
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.|6.12.07 @ 4:00PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 4:03PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:22PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:26PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:31PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:33PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:37PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:38PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:40PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:44PM|#
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?
|6.12.07 @ 4:50PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:52PM|#
"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|6.12.07 @ 4:55PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 4:57PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 5:03PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 5:07PM|#
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?
|6.12.07 @ 5:11PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 5:12PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 5:17PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 5:22PM|#
I'm still curious how clinging to gun control as one's single issue advances "any sort of libertarian vision".
|6.12.07 @ 5:27PM|#
"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".)
|6.12.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Wrong -- I nominate Crimethink, if he runs with that actual
name on the ballot.
Um, thanks...I think.
|6.12.07 @ 5:36PM|#
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.
Jennifer|6.12.07 @ 5:41PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 5:57PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 5:59PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 6:00PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 6:04PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 6:11PM|#
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?
|6.12.07 @ 6:15PM|#
And frankly, a bunch of armed people uninterested in the erosion of any other freedoms accomplishes roughly jack shit.
|6.12.07 @ 6:18PM|#
"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.
|6.12.07 @ 6:19PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 6:24PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 6:25PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 6:30PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 6:31PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Now, Eric, to be fair, we "pinks" support trying genocidists for their crimes, too.
|6.12.07 @ 7:02PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 7:50PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 8:09PM|#
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?
|6.12.07 @ 8:12PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 8:12PM|#
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.
|6.12.07 @ 8:23PM|#
You guys keep up your Ron Paul sensorship !!
It is going to blow back on you .
Vote Ron Paul 2008
|6.12.07 @ 10:24PM|#
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|6.12.07 @ 11:44PM|#
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.
|6.13.07 @ 2:58AM|#
"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.
|6.13.07 @ 8:23AM|#
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?
|6.13.07 @ 12:34PM|#
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.
|6.13.07 @ 12:36PM|#
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|6.13.07 @ 12:40PM|#
"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...
|6.13.07 @ 1:05PM|#
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.
|6.13.07 @ 1:07PM|#
...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.
|6.13.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"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.
|6.13.07 @ 2:37PM|#
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.
|6.13.07 @ 5:09PM|#
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.
|6.13.07 @ 5:16PM|#
... 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.
Eric|6.15.07 @ 10:14AM|#
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
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245