Ron Paul's Presidential Endorsement. For Real, This Time.

Two weeks after his "third party alliance" press conference, three weeks after the Rally for the Republic, Ron Paul finally dives in and endorses a presidential candidate. This guy.

Paul's reasoning had a lot to do with Bob Barr's snub of the third party presser.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.   It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman.  It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well.  The more votes they get, the better.  I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Thanks to commenter GG. My interview with Baldwin is here. But if you want some unfiltered Chuck, go to his column site. You can read opinions like this:

If America wishes to remain a free and independent republic, if this nation truly desires future peace and prosperity, and if we genuinely aspire to remain a blessed and protected land, we must quickly throw off this foolish infatuation with multiculturalism, which is nothing more than an attempt to de- Christianize our country, and humbly return to the God of our fathers!

And this:

Call it what you want - "New World Order," "International Order," "International Community," "World Law." It all means the end of U.S. sovereignty and independence. Americans need to be aware that power hungry politicians from both parties along with money hungry executives from multinational corporations pose a much greater threat to our liberties than any foreign terrorist does.

And this, from 9/14/01:

For nearly a half-century, we have forsaken the moral principles of Heaven. We have legally murdered too many unborn babies. We have too readily accepted aberrant, sexual behavior. We kicked Heaven out of our schools, out of our homes, and out of our hearts. As a result, God is giving us a little taste of Hell.

And so on.

UPDATE: I talked to Barr campaign manager Russ Verney about the tiff.

reason: What's your reaction to Paul's statement?

Verney: That's what leadership is all about: Making decisions. On election day Bob Barr's going to offer a mesage that appeals to Ron Paul's voters, and we're confident we'll win them.

reason: Are you disappointed to lose Paul's endorsement like this?

Verney: No, and this should have been a long time ago if Ron Paul wanted to help Chuck Baldwin. The time to do this was right at the Rally for the Republic, when there was focused attention on what Paul was doing, right in front of the doors of the Republican convention.

reason: Do you regret skipping Paul's press conference and holding your own? That was clearly the impetus for Paul's decision.

Verney: No, it wasn't a mistake. We stand by our position. This is all about liberty, and liberty-minded voters need to know that concentrating their support in the Libertarian Party.

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.

  • The Democratic Republican||

    Paul continues to demonstrate his pathetic lack of judgment in character and his total lack of political skill. He has squandered every bit of momentum in his so-called "revolution" thanks to his long-term association with racists and completely brainless minions who were left to squander our donations to the campaign. Where does Paul mention that Barr snubbed the press conference thanks to thugs who were organizing the event? Thanks, Ron. I wish you could see my middle finger right now.

  • The Democratic Republican||

    I hope Paul knows that by doing this he has allowed a petty feud, fueled by Lew Rockwell and his gangsters, to snuff out any hope we had for real change this year. I hope all of you who still support that old racist know that you're just giving your energy and money to Lew Rockwell and his goons.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Ugh. This just confirms my opinion that Paul's press conference was a mistake but so was Barr's decision not to attend.

  • ||

    I would've preferred he remained neutral but Baldwin is fine. There is no perfect candidate.

  • Lefiti||

    Who gives a flying fuck who Ron Paul endorses? Queen Elizabeth's bowel movements are more relevant.

  • The Democratic Republican||

    His endorsement could have mattered before he pissed away his financial and political capital with the idiotic "Campaign for Liberty"

  • Joey||

    "I hope all of you who still support that old racist"

    - bwahahaha

  • ||

    I hope Paul knows that by doing this he has allowed a petty feud, fueled by Lew Rockwell and his gangsters[...]

    I was JUST about to take you seriously, when I saw this overtly absurd comment.

  • Joey||

    "His endorsement could have mattered before he pissed away his financial and political capital with the idiotic "Campaign for Liberty""

    - Why would that have mattered? I don't think it would. You seem awfully bitter. Did Paul not shake your hand firm enough when you went to a meet & greet or something? LOL

  • ||

    1) Baldwin and the "Constitution" Party are about getting the Federal government out of the way only so they can legislate their Biblical morality at the state level.

    2) While Paul has farked up just about everything post-primary campaign, Barr deserves a large share of the blame here, too. His arrogance and ineptitude have killed what should have been the best year ever for the LP.


    Ultimately, the Great Ron Paul Revolution of 2008 has amounted to nothing.

  • Tom||

    I think The Libertarian case for Chuck Baldwin would actually be pretty strong. I think a lot of people here don't like Baldwin's style or background. That being said, he's in our boat on taxes, foreign policy, the drug war, and civil liberties.
    Paul's endorsement is relevant I'd say for a few percentage points, which are a big deal in third party politics.
    As far as chances for real change, Barr would of been lucky to outperform Nader.

  • a name before submitting the f||

    I've never seen an anonymous blog post here before.

  • ||

    Most bizarre failure to push forward a Libertarian/Constitutional agenda I have ever seen. Despite having a legitimate candidate for the first time in years, a public that is disgusted with both major parties and an opportunity to put a stake through the heart of NeoConservatism instead it will be another election where the two buffons get all themedia spotlight and the "minor" parties end up debating at a Holiday Inn in Paducah, KY

  • texas_libertarian||

    I think Dr. Paul should have endorsed Barr.

    Although the Constituion Party does in many ways live up to its name, they believe in America as a "Christian Nation" and are most certainly anti-civil libertarian. Just take a look at their platform.

  • ||

    There already is a party for the Endtimers- it is called the Republican Party. How hard is it to find a political party that believes in limited government AND fossils?

  • Elemenope||

    Ultimately, the Great Ron Paul Revolution of 2008 has amounted to nothing.

    It was too soon. A revolution is the shit you're supposed to pull *after* the bottom falls out. Once people are gnashing their teeth and rending their garments, because they did not heed your years' long Cassandra song, that's when they are vulnerable to crazy talk about re-examining their behavior and beliefs and charting a new direction.

    It was just the wrong moment.

  • ||

    Tom-

    On a strictly Federal level, there is a good case to be made for a libertarian vote for the CP. (Off the top of my head, the problem areas would be free trade, abortion, immigration, and judicial review of state actions). But they also come with the baggage of the state-level CPs, which are *far* worse than even the Democrats and Republicans if you're worried about freedom and liberty. And that's even trusting them to stick to their hard-line view of the 10th Amendment, which I'm less than confident of.

    Then there's also the general eau d'Alex Jones hanging around the CP and Chuck Baldwin, whose main talking points are the New World Order, the North American Union, and 9/11 Trooferism.

  • texas_libertarian||

    SORRY. FUCKED UP THE LINK. THIS ONE WORKS.

    I think Dr. Paul should have endorsed Barr.

    Although the Constituion Party does in many ways live up to its name, they believe in America as a "Christian Nation" and are most certainly anti-civil libertarian. Just take a look at their platform.

  • ||

    so, all the Paultards told me that he was still a member of the Libertarian Party. Can we kick him out now?

    The Constitution Party may as well be the Yokel Party. Bad on trade, bad on immigration, bad on social tolerance. How "libertarian" of the Good Dr. to endorse a party that wants to raise tariffs. Thanks Paul; the Constitution Party can suck it.

  • ||

    Barr pushed him to make a decision, and he made one. Sometimes when you act like a pushy asshole, you don't get what you want.

    I hope the LP chooses a better candidate next time. A warmed-over drug war pusher certainly wasn't their best option.

    Now I need to decide whether to write in Ron Paul or Steve Kubby.

    -jcr

  • ||

    yes, because writing in ineligible candidates - that's the hallmark of success!

    Sorry the LP didn't maintain the Flames of Holy Anarchy like everybody wanted this time.

  • ||

    1) Baldwin and the "Constitution" Party are about getting the Federal government out of the way only so they can legislate their Biblical morality at the state level.

    Maybe - does it matter? It would still be up to each State to legislate such things. Either it helps the people on those states, or makes them vote with their feet. Even under a Libertarian government, you would still have States legislating whatever the people prefer, so what would be the difference? It is still unconstitutional to impose a centrally mandated position or law on the States, that is not indicated specifically in the Constitution, whether you like a certain state's politics or not.

  • Dagny T.||

    A revolution is the shit you're supposed to pull *after* the bottom falls out.

    OMG, Elemenope *totally* supports "disaster libertarianism"! Alert Naomi Klein!

  • ||

    Yep, Ron Paul just endorsed the Christo-fascist Party.

    I still like him but his political instinct is pure shit.

  • ||

    The Constitution Party may as well be the Yokel Party. Bad on trade, bad on immigration, bad on social tolerance. How "libertarian" of the Good Dr. to endorse a party that wants to raise tariffs.

    I agree that the Constitution party is not terribly libertarian, but Dr. Paul wanted to endorse someone closer to his platform that did not shun him in the same way as Barr did, stupidly.

    His call to the people to take a look at 3rd party candidates is in my view a good call. If you're a leftists, then you have two candidates who are closer to that platform than fascistic Obama. If you're conservative, there is Baldwin, who's closer to you than fascistic McCain. Libertarians could probably vote for Barr.

  • Picture vs. 1,000 words||

    I was trying to illustrate the difference between a cosmo and a paleo to someone today. This endorsement has said it far more eloquently than I could ever imagine doing with my feeble words.

  • ||

    "Maybe - does it matter? It would still be up to each State to legislate such things. Either it helps the people on those states, or makes them vote with their feet. Even under a Libertarian government, you would still have States legislating whatever the people prefer, so what would be the difference?"

    It makes a huge difference, because government in this country does not just exist in DC. State governments can, and at times have been, just as big a threat to liberty as the Feds. Supporting the CP means supporting state-level oppression and theocracy.

    You people miss the point of the 10th Amendment. It's not "the states can do whatever they want", it's "states are the primary level of government". That means you should be MORE concerned and MORE involved with the actions of your state government.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    ...fascistic Obama....fascistic McCain....

    I do not think you know what this word means.

  • dodsworth||

    Paul should have stayed neutral bu sad to say, there was no good choice here for voters (and Paul is no non-voter). Bailout, ego-driven Bob Barr is not trustworthy.

  • ||

  • Joey||

    The Angry Optimist said

    "all the Paultards"


    - Maybe your first and next child will be born with Downs Syndrome or have a major disability and then lets see you throw around words like "tard", you fuck.

  • Mad Max||

    O, no, Dr. Paul has acted like a politician, endorsing his friends and repudiating (albeit reluctabtly) his enemies. It's almost like he was a Congressman, or someone who has some real familiarity with the political process!

    If Barr wanted Ron Paul's endorsement, or at least neutrality, he could have chosen not to insult the guy who actually voted *against* all those laws and war resolutions Barr now regrets supporting.

    I say this as someone who believes that Barr is sincerely repentant about his Drug War history, is an opponent of the present course of the Bush administration, and is genuinely pro-life. I say this as someone who supports Barr in my own state - and even might support him if the state legislature allowed me to vote for Baldwin, which it won't.

  • Mad Max||

    More discussion of the difference between cosmos and paleos:

    "For nearly a half-century, we have forsaken the moral principles of Heaven. We have legally murdered too many unborn babies. We have too readily accepted aberrant, sexual behavior. We kicked Heaven out of our schools, out of our homes, and out of our hearts. As a result, God is giving us a little taste of Hell."

    A paleo is someone who reads the above and says, "why is Baldwin wasting time pointing out the obvious?"

    A cosmo is someone who reads the same quote and says, "Whoa - what a fascist! This quote is certain to sink the Baldwin candidacy!"

  • ||

    The Libertarian Party would've received more votes by nominating Ruwart or Kubby, after all, they are libertarians.

    But you all sold out to a pretty mustache with CIA experience, who made the ultimate gaffe by standing up the very man who's coatails he was hopeful to be riding on.

    And I'm not even going to start with Barr's choice of staff...meh.

    The LP deserves this, they fucked up with their nominee and now Baldwin's gonna get more votes. I can only chortle.

    PS...for all you haters...Lew Rockwell is the man.

  • Orange Line Special||

    COSMO MELTDOWN!!!!!!

    On a happier note, there are three left, so Reason can feel free to endorse Cynthia McKinney.

  • DrewT||

    He's a Political Insider from Texas for fuck's sake! What in Hell did you expect?

  • Bingo||

    Libertarians are idiots.

  • David Axelrod||

  • David Weigel||

    now Baldwin's gonna get more votes

    I think this might ensure that Nader beats Barr for third place, but it would be difficult for Baldwin to get more votes than the LP since he's on fewer ballots. Alan Keyes took his ballot line in California, for example.

    After three months of dithering I don't know how many Paul voters are going to follow his edict, unless he gets on the road and stumps for Baldwin. And we're talking about a guy who barely campaigned after the field was cut to him and McCain, so I don't think he will.

  • David Weigel||

    COSMO MELTDOWN!!!!!!

    You don't have to be a "cosmo" to think that endorsing a guy who thinks 9/11 was God's punishment on us might be... counterproductive.

  • ||

    From the Constitution Party Platform. Looks pretty good to me.

    Terrorism and Personal Liberty

    The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
    Because we will refer to the fourth and fifth amendments, let's read them in their entirety:

    Amendment IV:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Amendment V:
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    Note there is no exception to these rights provided for war or public danger.

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
    The threat of Terrorism has not been claimed to be a rebellion or an invasion.

    America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.

    The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.

    We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II"), and the Military Commissions Act.

    The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.

    The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

    Since we will no longer have a free nation while the federal government (or the governments of the several states, as the federal government may authorize) can violate our historic rights under such laws, we call for the rejection of all such laws and the ceasing of any such further proposals including the aforementioned Domestic Securities Enhancement Act.

    The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, these United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward these United States and its people; and

    In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of these United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.

  • ||

    I understand the importance of getting evangelicals to reject fiat currency and massive levels of debt.

    However, this could have been achieved by still remaining neutral... which I wish Ron Paul had remained.

    I really wish Paul had just stayed above Barr's lame snub. That said, Barr behaved foolishly too.

    A lot of anarcho-libertarians - like Rockwell - think Barr isn't hardcore libertarian enough. This fed into the thinking that somehow the CP and Baldwin was a "libertarian alternative". One quick look at the CP platform, and it's clear they're really not very libertarian at all. Certainly much less so than Barr.

    So I can only deduct that Rockwell's criticism of Barr was more personal, rather than principled. And the anarcho's distaste for Barr was just bitterness and a preference towards remaining radical outsiders, rather than actual reformers.

    I think Ron Paul is great but he's demonstrated poor leadership on this one.

    Unfortunately, many Paul supporters will vote for Baldwin not for his ideas but just because Paul endorsed him. This actually gives some validity to Barr calling the Paul Revolution a "personality cult".

    I'm now going to have a difficult time explaining to my liberal friends that most libertarians are really not theocratic, racist, xenophobic, etc.

  • Paleotarian Underlord||

    Chuck Baldwin is protecting real, red-blooded Americans from the influx of the multi-cult, atheism, and international government.

  • Paleotarian Underlord||

    No kidding, William R! Sounds great! Check out this gem too:

    We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.

  • Mad Max||

    John Galt (whoever you are),

    "The Libertarian Party would've received more votes by nominating Ruwart or Kubby, after all, they are libertarians."

    Kubby seems nice (in some respects), but as to Ruwart, she believes children have the right to consent to sex with adults.

    To explain the outrageousness of this position in H&R terms, Ruwarts' position means that a priest accused of molesting a child could defend himself by claiming that the child consented.

    Even I, a notorious Catholic apologist, haven't gone that far. My own views are more in line with Matthew 18:6.

    I suppose that makes Ruwart the untramontane candidate.

  • The phrase ||

    "aberrant, sexual behavior" should not have a comma

  • ||

    The Constitution Party is great if your libertarianism consists of supporting the freedom to be a white, suburban, Protestant with an opposite-sex spouse, two children, and who never drinks, gambles, does drugs, or uses profanity.

  • BDB||

    Mad Max--

    I read that and think "Save it for Church, Rev."

  • ||

    Democratic Republican and Strike-

    What skillset must one have to get elected to congress ten times on a libertarian platform?

    Guys, you can do better. If anything, RP's political skills or instincts, by definition, are superior. Could BIll Clinton have got elected to congress ten times running on a libertarian agenda?

  • ||

    The "libertarians" - be they LP, CP, RP supporters, whatever - are demonstrating that they're idealists but in no position to actually be in government anytime soon.

    The Dem's and Republicans are irredeemable but libertarians have been split along religious and cultural lines, not unlike the two big parties.

    The chances of libertarians having any real influence on policy has just been set back a decade or more because of this mind boggling stupid "snubgate".

    Libertarians - whatever banner they get behind - will still be around. But the Ron Paul Revolution is tainted and the LP is adrift at sea.

  • Mad Max||

    "The Constitution Party is great if your libertarianism consists of supporting the freedom to be a white, suburban, Protestant with an opposite-sex spouse, two children, and who never drinks, gambles, does drugs, or uses profanity."

    OMG, Protestant?

  • ||

    Why can't we all just get along?

    I want my kids to be able to grow up in a peaceful, free, republic.

    Stop dividing us Reason.

  • ||

    Andy Craig | September 22, 2008, 7:15pm | #
    The Constitution Party is great if your libertarianism consists of supporting the freedom to be a white, suburban, Protestant with an opposite-sex spouse, two children, and who never drinks, gambles, does drugs, or uses profanity.


    I've read the entire platform and see nothing that indicates it would be like any of the above.

  • ||

    Well, I was an LP delegate to the national convention in 1987 (for the '88 race), and I didn't vote for Paul, so now I guess we're even.

  • Mad Max||

    "Save it for church, Rev."

    A church can't endorse political candidates - it's illegalm and the IRS might go after the church.

  • ||

    Mad Max-

    Check out ShootingBaseballStar's 2:43 AM post on Aprile 24, 2008 at the threas to which you allude. His post is rational and reasonable.

  • ktc2||

    Pauls biggest weakness IMO has always been his sad devotion to that mythology. I'd hoped on some level that he just used it as smokescreen for the masses without actually believing it(like George Washington did IMO).

    Sadly he's supporting another theocrat party and just lost any respect I ever had for him.

  • ||

    "I've read the entire platform and see nothing that indicates it would be like any of the above"

    Right, it just favors making the Bible legally binding precedence in court, banning drugs, gambling, and "offensive sexual behavior", among other things.

    It's true, they don't want to impose those policies at the Federal level. But that doesn't make supporting them at the state level acceptable.

  • ||

    Paul,

    The flaw in your argument is that you compare Barr to the platform of the Constitution Party. The platform of the CP does indeed suck. But as much as Barr makes a mockery of the LP Platform, Baldwin is a candidate who really manages to rise above his platform. Yeah he's a preacher, but for a CP candidate he's pretty damn libertarian, and on issues where he isn't at least he maintains a principled Federalist rejection of Federal interference. The thing that probably most impressed me about Baldwin watching him at a variety of Paul events was how careful he was to avoid the issue of religion. Maybe that was just pandering to the sensibilities of his audience, but even if that's all it was, it just proves how lousy a pol Barr was.

    I live in Florida, so I'm one of the lucky few who gets to vote for the Boston Tea Party candidate. But if I were stuck between the choice of Baldwin or Barr, I'd go with Baldwin too, and it would be as much about opposing Barr as it would be supporting Baldwin.

    Important Detail- Is Baldwin even on the Texas ballot? Will Paul just leave the Presidential vote blank when he votes?

  • ||

    Maybe your first and next child will be born with Downs Syndrome or have a major disability and then lets see you throw around words like "tard", you fuck.

    mm, so one "intolerant" joke and you've condemned my child?

    how rational of you.

  • ||

    Mad Max-

    You do know that what is in Matthew is not the inspired word of god. Ditto Mark, Luke and John. To suggest otherwise, is blasphemy.

  • .||

    Thanks a lot Ron. I've spent the last fucking year trying to convince people that you aren't crazy, but you just keep making it harder and harder.

  • ||

    Baldwin is a certified write-in candidate in Texas.

    Which kind of just highlights the stupidity of Paul's endorsement.

    Obviously, neither Barr or Baldwin is going to win. What it comes down to is which *party* you want to support, because that's all your vote is going to affect.

  • ||

    fucking shit I just looked at the The Constitution Partys platform...here is there take on pornography:

    "we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards."

    Fuck them and fuck ron paul for supporting them

  • ||

    seriously, folks, just because someone's a good federalist doesn't make him worthy of libertarian support. I encourage federalism, only because it furthers libertarian goals. I support home rule, because it makes it easier to influence localities to libertarianism.

  • ||

  • ||

    "Important Detail- Is Baldwin even on the Texas ballot? Will Paul just leave the Presidential vote blank when he votes?"


    Baldwin's a write-in candidate in Texas. And you pretty much summed up the way I feel about it FatDrunkAndStupid.

  • ||

    Mad Max-

    Okay, you are scoring some points on the IRS harassing churches. However, the crybabies and rats who run to the IRS deserve nothing but disdain, scorn amd ridicule. I'll leave to others what else they may have coming.

  • ||

    "
    Lets see what the platform says about religion!"

    Indeed, look at what it says- hardline 10th Amendment talk about how the *Federal* government shouldn't infringe on the "religious liberties ... of the states".

  • ||

    William - STOP! Provide the link to the rebuttable portion and quit mass posting. It makes me less inclined to read what you're saying.

  • ||

    yeah, how is it exactly that a "state" has religious liberties, again?

    Constitution indeed...someone over there apparently hasn't heard of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine.

  • ||

    The Angry Optimist | September 22, 2008, 7:40pm | #
    William - STOP! Provide the link to the rebuttable portion and quit mass posting. It makes me less inclined to read what you're saying.


    sorry!

  • ||

    Or the state constitutions. You know, they all have one, too. Though the way they're followed makes George Bush look like Ron Paul.

  • ||

    eh....s'alright.

  • Tom||

    Paul is almost a constitutional government savant, blessed with the ability to foresee monetary collapse and disastrous intervention, but socially unaware. His distaste for the opinion and thinking processes of the majority has made him an unlikely success but left him unable to detect that Baldwin is just like Alex Jones except he goes to church. Or more likely he detects it, but doesn't realize its a big deal. I'm from a religious background but still wince at Baldwins views.

  • ||

    If a twelve year old boy wants to look at pornography, it is his right to do so. His parents may not like it, but too bad.

  • ||

    Andy Craig | September 22, 2008, 7:40pm | #
    "
    Lets see what the platform says about religion!"

    Indeed, look at what it says- hardline 10th Amendment talk about how the *Federal* government shouldn't infringe on the "religious liberties ... of the states".


    And the Federal government shouldn't! States have their own constitution dealing with Religion. STATE CONSTITUTIONS

  • ||

    I think it's also just *peachy* that the CP wants to carve out a special exception for churches in terms of taxes.

    Whatever happened to "equality before the law"?

  • ||

    States rights philosophy suffers from a fatal conceptual flaw-state's don't have rights.

  • ||

    William - the question is: why is the CP talking about the "religious liberties" of the STATES when no such liberty exists, according to the Federal Constitution?

  • ||

    Sometimes people forget that one of the strengths of Bob Barr is that he is less kooky than your usual libertarian politician, less kooky than even Ron Paul.

    This should remind people of that.

  • ||

    If you want a taste of what life under the CP would be like, have a look at one of the few state platforms I could find online. Suitably enough, from the Texas CP-

    http://www.cptexas.org/cptxplatform.shtml#aids

    A few highlights-

    "The spread of AIDS is attributable to various causes, but principally to promiscuous homosexual conduct and drug abuse."

    "The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies, including embargoes, sanctions and tariffs, should be considered"

    "We affirm that the law of the Creator creates and defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and the family. We further affirm that no state may authorize marriage and family relations contrary to that law. Therefore, no state is obliged by the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution to enforce any state law governing marriage the family which conflicts with the law of the Creator."

    "We commend the good intentions of Congress to pass a law "allowing" the Ten Commandments to be posted in public schools following the outbreak of mass murder in public schools."


    Unfortunately, most of it still seems copied-and-pasted from the national platform, and focuses more on railing against the Federal government than setting in detail what policies the CP supports at the state level.

  • Happy Jack||

    Just take a look at their platform.

    Panama Canal? WTF?

  • ||

    TAO-

    On this topic, I tend to side with the churches as the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  • Kolohe||

    More fun from the Const party platform:
    ---
    "We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."[..but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. / Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...]

    ---
    "Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country...We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states" ['The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.']

    -----

    "No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body."

    and

    "We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2."

    but...

    "We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government.

  • It could be worse||

    Ron Paul endorses John McCain.

  • And equally bad||

    Ron Paul throws his support to Barack Obama

  • And would it really matter?||

    Ron Paul says: "Bob Barr for president".

  • ||

    Angry, in the early some days states had their own established churches. Since then states have well defined constitutions dealing with Religious liberties. I don't think anyone has to worry about states establishing a church. Read some of the state constitutions.

  • Barack Obama||

    What,
    as bad as endorsing John McCain or as bad as endorsing Baldwin?

  • And equally bad||

    Both

  • Peter||

    Ron Paul is clearly becoming senile. Whatever happened to this guy?...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k

  • BDB||

    William R, do they think the 14th Amendment wasn't really ratified? If they're in that boat, then it follows they believe the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to state governments, which is bad.

  • ||

    will nobody rid me of these meddlesome Yokels?

  • ||

    Happy Jack-

    Panama Canal? That issue divided Hollywood's two most famous conservatives of all times: The Duke and Dutch. I agreed with Wayne-who, btw, had a very strong and strident rugged individual/libertarian streak. Yeah, Reagan talked some of that, but Wayne's was more authentic.

  • Paleotarian Underlord||

    TAO, you're just an intolerant bigoted baby killer!

  • ||

    Strange, but where does the platform call for banning gambling. It just says government shouldn't subsidize it. So if local communities favor building flashy Casinos I just don't see any problem.

  • Paleotarian Underlord||

    Don't you want to stop the multi-cult and North American Union so we can preserve our sovereignty from the New World Order.

  • ||

    "why is the CP talking about the "religious liberties" of the STATES when no such liberty exists, according to the Federal Constitution?"

    The liberty of the state governments to trample on the liberty of any citizens who cannot get a majority in the electorate, that's what it's all about. So 'Labama can get back to some good ol' fashioned Bible learning in elementary schools and put the Ten Commandments in the courtrooms so the heathen criminals can learn a thing or two.

    This was a bad event for libertarianism. I've said it before, libertarianism can't grow any further to the right than it has. It's been making its home there for decades now and got very little from it. It's too easy for the GOP to co-opt them.

    It can expand its numbers and influence better by selling itself to the left stressing what the left likes about it (the unyielding stance on civil liberties (no immunity for telecoms, anti-torture), anti-war (talk about big government spending), drug decriminalization and the like.

  • Thomas L. Knapp||

    "Sometimes people forget that one of the strengths of Bob Barr is that he is less kooky than your usual libertarian politician, less kooky than even Ron Paul."

    You're kidding, right?

    I mean, I agree that Paul can definitely come off as kooky, but ...

    Bob Barr is the guy who wanted to outlaw non-Christian religious services on military bases because (he publicly stated) he was afraid that they would end up with the army running around with sacrificial goats tied to their tanks.

    Bob Barr is the guy who wrote an Atlanta Journal Constitution Op-Ed last year in which he called for the state government to distribute child pornography on demand.

    Kooky is Bob Barr's middle name.

  • ||

    Pauls biggest weakness IMO has always been his sad devotion to that mythology. I'd hoped on some level that he just used it as smokescreen for the masses without actually believing it



    I've tried to stay open to the possibility that Paul was using a smokescreen for the cosmo-masses, to appear tolerant of OUR mythology.

  • ||

    Oh for crap's sake, Ron! To think that I donated a little cash to his money bombs. If I had only known.

    Yeah, I guess the CP is not bad, except for their distaste for free minds and free markets! Those guys are total Christianist freaks. Reminds me very much of the guys over at the League of the South.

    Bob Barr should have played along at Ron Paul's third party press conference. Even so, after this endorsement by Paul, I'm putting a Bob Barr sticker on my car. (Whoo-hoo! I'm going to change history -- just me and my trusty sticker against the world!)

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    FOOLISH PALEOTARIAN UNDERLORD. TAO NEEDS THE INTOLERANT BIGOTED BABIES FOR HIS FAVORITE SOUP.

    WE SHALL CALL YOU A YOKEL-PC-TERM FOR YOUR TARDEDNESS. YOU ARE NOW A "JOEY".

  • ||

    TAO
    I'm very angry at you for demeaning so many of our fellow H&R posters, our probable VP of the United States and the majority of hardworking Americans by calling their educational attainment "increasingly worthless" on the SAT thread. You intellectual elitist and asshole!

  • ||

    TAO-

    Just because I don't have the stones to tell the IRS to go screw does not mean I should be cheering on the persecution of a church upon the pretext that it is making political statements allegedy in violation of a regulation authored by the Treasury Department. Even if the same church advocates statist policies. If the taxman loses-we win.

  • WilliamR||

    BDB | September 22, 2008, 7:57pm | #
    William R, do they think the 14th Amendment wasn't really ratified? If they're in that boat, then it follows they believe the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to state governments, which is bad.


    Here's Catoite Gene Healy on the squalid 14th amendment

  • ||

    "he was afraid that they would end up with the army running around with sacrificial goats tied to their tanks."

    You know, that might freak the fuck out of our enemies...

    Ahmed: Here come the Americans. Death to the Great Satan!
    Abdul: Wait a minute, what is that tied to their tanks?
    Mohammed: Holy Allah, it appears to be the fucking corpse of a goat!
    Ahmed: WTF? Those bastards are crazy, I'm getting the hell out of here!

  • ||

    That all depends on whether you view "taxation" as an inherently persecutorial (?word?) activity, libertymike.

    Bob Barr is the guy who wrote an Atlanta Journal Constitution Op-Ed last year in which he called for the state government to distribute child pornography on demand.

    I'd have to see this to believe it. And I am about 99% sure you're taking that out of context.

  • ||

    oh, libertymike, I see what you're saying.

    I'm saying that churches as a rule should be taxed as businesses. That's what they do, is make money.

  • QJS||

    If you want a taste of what life under the CP would be like, have a look at one of the few state platforms I could find online.

    I've heard what life would be like under the Cosmotarians, too. If I have to choose between the "freedom" to be virtuous, and the "freedom" to be politically correct, I'll vote for the virtuous guys. At least they don't seem to make a point of spitting in the faces of the majority of Americans.

  • BDB||

    Ah yes, "ratified at the point of a bayonett" thanks William R now we know which side you were on in the Civil War.

    Tell us about the LincolnCult next.

  • ||

    MNG-

    I thought you and TAO were buds? Caveat: I may be missing some sarcasm.

  • Paleotarian Underlord||

    We believe in freedom from the PC POLICE, unlike you cosmos!

  • Paleotarian Underlord||

    Jeff Davis was RIGHT!

  • Happy Jack||

    Panama Canal? That issue divided Hollywood's two most famous conservatives of all times

    So, Baldwin wants to settle a dispute between two dead guys ... why?

  • ||

    I am lovin' me some Paleotarian Underlord right now.

  • BDB||

    I think the right to life, liberty, and property should be enforced at the point of a gun. Isn't that what government is for, damnit?

  • ||

    libertymike
    Here's the provision from the CP's platform:

    "We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
    "

    No tax on the church, period, not just the regulation you speak of.

    It explicitly says corporations can be taxed under their goofy reading of the 16th, but they insist none can levy on churches...

  • ||

    TAO-

    Obviously, many of the churches are hypocritical. They want to be free from government harassment but have no problem beseeching the big beast to impose their will on the rest of us. But, if they are resisting the IRS, how can I root against them?

  • BDB||

    Churches should be free to endorse political candidates.

    Churches should also have to pay local property taxes like everyone else.

  • ||

    "If I have to choose between the "freedom" to be virtuous, and the "freedom" to be politically correct, I'll vote for the virtuous guys."

    Exactly how are cosmotarians (I'm guessing you mean Reason writers) advocating the freedom to be politically correct? Specifics, please.

  • texas_libertarian||

    The Angry Optimist

    Not to change the subject, but should civil libertarians support legalizing child pornography?

  • Peter||

    Why have we been putting so much stock in a guy who is so old he probably can't even take a solid stool anymore? Let's be real, Ron Paul has been taking nothing but chocolate chip diarrheas for the past 4 1/2 years, and it's just getting worse.

    My guess is Ron has bad memories of Bob Barr from back in the day when Bob Barr was a little moustached republican turd who almost never stood for Libertarian ideals.

    I'll probably vote for Bob just to support the Libertarian party, but truthfully he's pretty irritating. I will say this though; he was clearly the best choice that the Libertarian Party had to offer. Steve Kubby? Probably a decent guy but not someone with any influence at all. And Mary Ruwart? I don't respect anyone with "wart" in their name. Do you really think Americans are going to want to see signs that say "ruWART" for President?

  • ||

    But, if they are resisting the IRS, how can I root against them?

    So, if tomorrow we passed a law that said Christians are not subject to the same (immoral and wrong, IMHO) drug penalties as non-Christians, you would support that law?

    "After all, if the Christians are resisting the DEA, how can you root against them?"

  • Reason Sucks||

    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks
    Reason Sucks Reason Sucks Reason Sucks

  • BDB||

    I don't know how anyone with a straight face can say that Churches aren't, at the end of the day, money making organizations (not that there's anything wrong with that at all).

  • ||

    BDB | September 22, 2008, 8:08pm | #
    Ah yes, "ratified at the point of a bayonett" thanks William R now we know which side you were on in the Civil War.

    Tell us about the LincolnCult next.


    I think Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy is from Chicago

  • ||

    Perhaps Jeff Davis was right, but that does not mean that you have to be a backward redneck.

  • ||

    BOB-

    Not on my dime.

  • ||

    Re-posted around the spamming troll:

    So, if tomorrow we passed a law that said Christians are not subject to the same (immoral and wrong, IMHO) drug penalties as non-Christians, you would support that law?

    "After all, if the Christians are resisting the DEA, how can you root against them?"

  • BDB||

    LM-

    Don't call the police when you get robbed, then.

    I mean if you're an anarchist there's an honest argument for that, but if you do believe in even a limited role for government, it's to enforce the rights to life, liberty, and property--at the point of a gun if necessary.

  • ||

    No Big Surprise, big L libertarians are really just frustrated fundies anyhow. (Frustrated because the Repubs temper their Jesus-centric in-your-face governance more than they would prefer).

    It is simply incompatible to speak of liberty out of one side of one's mouth while claiming an adherence to intolerant dogma out of the other side.

    Saying the states can legislate all kinds of personal, private activities, but the feds must stay out of our lives is a disengenuous "back-door" argument for CONTROL by the bible-thumping thought police.

    Jesus was a man who mocked the then-current church with his words of total tolerance and love. Only thing was, he was so right that the mockery took wings. So, sorry Mr. Baldwin and all you other narcissistic members of the "chosen tribe", there are no voices in the sky.

  • PAULTARD ALERT||

    AWOOGA!

    AWOOGA!

    ATTENTION NORTH AMERICAN UNION ARMED FORCES!

    PAULTARD ALERT!

    AWOOGA!

    AWOOGA!

    SET READINESS TO CONDITION GOLD: I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT A DRILL, CONDITION: GOLD.

  • ||

    If the taxman loses-we win.



    It is REALLY entertaining to hear you guys debating your version of how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

    The good news...you're completely irrelevant! That makes a nice switch from the equally crazy but rather powerful Bush administration.

  • ||

    TAO-

    I think you left out an important detail in your hypothetical: do the christians face stiffer or more lenient penalties?

    Let me answer. Either way, I'm against such a law. But, if the penalties were more harsh, I would not be inconsistent in cheering on the resistance of christians to dea persecutions. If the penalties were less for Christians, I would not cheer on the arrest of a christian for drug possession-even if it was a christian who enthusiastically supported the two tiered approach to drug policy envisioned by your hypothetical.

  • Jebadiah||

    Everybody, let's erase all of these posts and start over

  • ||

    Hyperton-

    How powerful was the Bush administration vis a vis The Russian Federation?

  • ||

    BOB-

    I know. Today I saw Lake View Terrace.

  • TAO_CHOW||

    Libertymike-

    How powerful was the Bush administration vis a vis The Russian Federation?

  • ||

    Someone's getting inventive.

    Given all this financial meltdown and news and neoconfederate folk heroes showing themselves to be dedicated to the forces of yokelism, doesn't everyone miss the days (i.e. last week) of the Palingasm?

    I know I do.

  • ||

    What the fuck is Ron Paul smoking? And where can I get some?

  • ||

    The Angry Optimist | September 22, 2008, 8:34pm | #
    Someone's getting inventive.

    Given all this financial meltdown and news and neoconfederate folk heroes showing themselves to be dedicated to the forces of yokelism, doesn't everyone miss the days (i.e. last week) of the Palingasm


    I know I do.

    So the Cato Institute employs a Neoconfederate??

  • ||

    TAO-

    You know that I am a pretty hard core individual liberty kind of guy. Thus, I must always ask myself the question of what position best advances the cause of individual liberty. When it comes to churches, be they of the religious right variety or of the liberation theology school, if they are being harassed by the IRS upon the pretext that the church in question is engaging in political activity, I just can't see how supporting the IRS helps the cause of individual freedom. Even if the church supports statist policies.

  • BDB||

    "doesn't everyone miss the days (i.e. last week) of the Palingasm?"

    No.

    "So the Cato Institute employs a Neoconfederate??"

    Maybe. Your point?

  • BDB||

    You can point out that Lincoln took executive power to some pretty far excesses without saying THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!!!

    Just like you can say firebombing Dresden was a horrible crime without being a neo-Nazi.

  • ||

    A lot of anarcho-libertarians - like Rockwell - think Barr isn't hardcore libertarian enough.

    Probably because he isn't.

    -jcr

  • ||

    BDB | September 22, 2008, 8:43pm | #
    "doesn't everyone miss the days (i.e. last week) of the Palingasm?"

    No.

    "So the Cato Institute employs a Neoconfederate??"

    Maybe. Your point?


    That you and Angry don't have a clue

  • BDB||

    How come nobody writes books on free speech in the South before the Civil War?

    (Hint: even criticizing slavery was punishable by prison).

  • ||

    When it comes to churches, be they of the religious right variety or of the liberation theology school, if they are being harassed by the IRS upon the pretext that the church in question is engaging in political activity

    libertymike - I'm not talking about that anymore. I'm talking about the tax-exempt status of the church in general.

    That you and Angry don't have a clue

    A clue about what? State a premise and evidence, plzkthx.

  • BDB||

    See TAO, because the North committed atrocities and Constitutional excesses in the prosecution of the Civil War, that means the south was right.

    That's the "point" we're not getting.

  • ||

    oh of course! The freedom-loving South...where the Lovings lived in peaceful, wedded bliss. Where John Lawrence never had to go the Supreme Court because Texas arrested him for sodomy. Ditto Mr. Bowers.

    The South...where Bull Connor and George Wallace never existed.

  • BDB||

    See, George Wallace was on the side of liberty because he stood up for States' Rights.

  • ||

  • ||

    I haven't read the thread. Just wanted to say: Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

  • ||

    William R - I'm not here to debate Gene Healy, unless you're claiming his viewpoints as, without reservation and in totality, speaking for yours.

  • Kolohe||

    more CP platform:
    ---
    "We oppose the unconstitutional transfer of authority over copyright and patent policy from Congress to other agencies, domestic or foreign."
    But
    "We favor more vigorous efforts in both domestic and foreign markets to protect the interests of owners in their copyrights and patents." ??
    ----
    "All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith"
    ----
    "The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. ... No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted."
    emp added (to their credit "We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.")

    " We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity..."

  • Zenith||

    Gene Healy's work on the fourteenth amendment is excellent.

    "Libertarian centralism" truly is foolish.

  • Paleotarian Underlord||

    Authoritarian federalism--now that's the way to go!!

  • Josh||

    Nice t-shirt in the background!

    Thanks to Barr for pushing it, if he didn't people would be neutral and both Barr and Baldwin would win some votes. Now that Paul has shown his leaning towards Baldwin, Barr is sure to lose votes in states Baldwin is available.

  • KyleG||

    I was hoping Ron would remain neutral, as well. Oh well, I'm still writing him in.

  • Dwayne Mayor||

    Excerpt from a the Cornerstone speech delivered by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy in March of 1861 where he describes the superiority of the new libertarian constitution which corrects the mistakes of the one establishing the Union:
    "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal...

    ...With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."

  • Kolohe||

    Have I mentioned how much I hate, loathe, detest, despise Christian Dominionists?

    There are the exact same thing as the Islamic Republicans of Ayatollah Khomeni.

  • Kolohe||

    All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning.

    Drink?

  • ||

    GODDAMNIT SON OF A FUCKING BITCH!

    This is just just just... Arrrrgh!
    Somebody buy me a drink!

    That's IT. I don't want to hear another word from any of you reformers. You know who you are.

    FUCK!

  • ||

    Guys,

    Just a thought:

    Could it be that Paul sees Barr as an opportunist and doesn't trust him? If this is the case, I can fully see why he's endorsed Baldwin. Baldwin is a friend of his, and while he's not a libertarian, he's at least trustworthy and honest and will allow for a temporary stopgap.

    I'm sticking with my party, which is the LP.

  • JB||

    So how many Reason posts have their been about that religious nutjob Obama?

    I mean the guy claims to hear voices for crying out loud. He makes these other guys look sane.

  • Mad Max||

    "How come nobody writes books on free speech in the South before the Civil War?"

    If you're interested, here is Clement Eaton's standard work on the subject. And of course there are plenty of other studies of free speech in America, including the antebellum South.

    Why do we need to take sides in the Civil War? I will say, to paraphrase ex-Confederate Supreme Court Justice John Marshal Harlan (the elder), that constitutional protection for nonwhites is one of the legitimate results of that war (not that I agree with *all* of Harlan's opinions, but I agree with his dissent in *Plessy v. Ferguson*).

  • ||

    Has anyone else actually read the blog item in question over at the "Campaign for Liberty" where RP endorses Baldwin? It seems overly obsessed with Barr's snub of RP's precious press conference, and vindictive to boot.

    Ron Paul wrote that? If so, senility is setting in quick.

    Whats the diff, anyway? If this "alliance" makes it past the elections this year, it will be a miracle. An alliance of Constitution Party members, Paulbots, and Troofers is like locking a bunch of heroin addicts in a room together. All that John Birch, MIHOP, LIHOP, New World Order, Apocalypse Pretty Soon, and abortion-is-murder talk will have them in such a state of pseudo-sexual frenzy, they'll be in Lord of the Rings mode in no time.

  • james_joyce||

    oh snap, our tempest in a teapot just got downgraded to a tropical storm!

  • Franklin Harris||

    The Libertarian Party would've received more votes by nominating Ruwart or Kubby, after all, they are libertarians.



    As if nominating libertarians has ever gotten the LP a lot of votes.

  • ||

    "Paul continues to demonstrate his pathetic lack of judgment in character and his total lack of political skill. He has squandered every bit of momentum in his so-called "revolution" thanks to his long-term association with racists and completely brainless minions who were left to squander our donations to the campaign."

    Why do you assume it is a lack of judgment in character?

    Isn't the evidence mounting, between Paul's newsletter, his chosen associates, and now this, that maybe just maybe he isn't making a mistake in judgment about their character, but rather that he shares their views?

  • ||

    "Queen Elizabeth's bowel movements are more relevant."

    Only if you are Lyndon LaRouche. Whatever happened to him?

  • Joel||

    Wow.

    Y'know, it's true what people say. Libertarians really are idiots.

  • ||

    Well, I wasn't all that excited to vote for Barr in the first place. Neither has a chance at the presidency. It really doesn't matter which gets the protest vote.

    Now that the mantle of small government/State's rights has been dropped completely it should be open game for whoever wants to pick it up. I really don't care what the stationary says, I just want out from the Federal madness. Whoever can do that, or at the very least symbolize it, will get my vote.

  • ||

    I'm curious; what kind of person would donate to Reason magazine? It can't be libertarians, since Reason writers tend to shit over any actual ones who run for office (instead of quoting Nozick to each other at a DC cocktail party). It can't be modern liberals, as they would be turned off by the "McCain and Palin aren't that bad" posts that fill the front page. Who's left?

  • ||

    From exactly which high ground is it that libertarians are positioned to complain about this? From Cato on the East Coast to Reason on the West, the libertarian intellectual leadership worked tirelessly to undermine Dr. Paul. And, heaven only knows the damage that Jamie Kirchick did, so Gay libertarians certainly have no position to complain either. Libertarians who are dissatisfied with this end game result should, rather than complain about Dr. Paul, be considering moving to the Boston Tea Party (at least until Shane Cory, Russ Verney and Mike Ferguson are all slinging fries at the Wendy's in Poughkeepsie), reconsidering their support of Cato, and canceling their subscriptions to Reason and The New Republic. This clusterf**k started at the top, not at the bottom. At least Ron Paul has put an end to it in a civil manner. I can't support Chuck Baldwin either, but it sure is enjoyable see the would-be endorsement extortionist Bob Barr get what he had coming to him.

  • ||

    If you don't like Reason Magazine, why even bother reading the article. The problem with so many Libertarians is that we find one thing to complain about with a candidate, an article, or anything else and just throw all support out the window. As if to say "if it's not my Libertarianism, then it's wrong!" Reason is still the most libertarian publication out there, sorry if you don't agree with everything they print. Clean the sand out of our vagina and get the fuck over it. Sorry if Barr changed his mind on a lot of things over time to bring him to his libertarianism. I guess no one else has ever changed their mind on anything. Sorry if Ron Paul makes one decision you don't agree with. I guess for some assholes it negates everything that he was right about.

  • ||

    The problem with Bob Barr, is not that he changed his mind on political positions over time. Indeed, we have to allow for the political and philosophical growth into libertarianism, or where is the point? The problem with Barr is that he broke a contract (to show up at the press conference) and then he attempted to extort an endorsement. In the case of the press conference, he clearly had his own conference planned (booked through the Press Club) prior to advising the Paul people that he was withdrawing from the contract, which makes his actions, from the point of changing his mind to the moment he advised Paul, the perpetration of a fraud. The very foundation of libertarianism is the we do not advocate the initiation of force (extortion) or fraud in order to achieve personal or political goals. Barr, by his very actions, clearly demonstrated that he is not yet a libertarian, even though he may yet be on the path. In short, he clearly does not yet "get it." Apparently, a lot of Reason readers don't either, although, hopefully, they are, and will remain, on the path. Reason could, however, be a better guide for them than it is.

  • Doing Weigel\'s job for him. ||

    Forget about Reason. They don't call it Hit and Run for no reason. David Weigel, stop trying to spin this. If you're gonna report, report the whole thing. Read RP's full briefing.

    A New Alliance - By Dr. Ron Paul

    The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

    Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one's only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

    In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. "Talking to the choir" alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a "missionary" zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

    This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

    This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

    This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can't we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won't address?

    Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty -freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it's realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I'm convinced we win by working with others. Those who don't want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

    In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

    Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the "anarchists" and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That's progress.

    Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That's exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can't beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

    Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

    Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

    Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I'm convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I'm convinced they are. That's what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

    The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for "remaining neutral" in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It's true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I'm a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

    I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

    In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

    I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

  • JMR||

    The Constitution party seems to be full of conservative side libertarians who are residually too hysterical about hippies smokin' weed (the horror!!!!) to vote Libertarian, and for that reason I can't trust 'em even though I like Baldwin in many ways. Since the media hates 'em the most, I feeling like a cup of Boston Tea...

  • ||

    I don't believe Barr was extorting an endorsement. He just didn't think a "Campaign for Liberty" should involve a socialist like McKinney or Ralph Nader. He backed out when he realized they were going to be there. And I don't blame him. Too many people read into this scenario and created their own back ground story.

    Paul may have backed Baldwin because Barr had the audacity to ask Paul to be his running mate, which I will admit was a dumbass move. But picking Palin and Biden were dumbass moves too. I don't pretend to know for sure what the motivations were for anyone's actions and what opinions any of these people have for each other. Anyone who claims to know for sure who did what and why is a liar.

    Ultimately, I find that so many libertarians are self defeating. And I speculate that a lot of us are that way because its easier to do that then to try to come together and make a step in the right direction.

  • ||

    Many people like to bash Ron Paul at Reason, but he is always on the correct side on all votes in Congress. He is everything a Libertarian could hope for in a politician.

  • timothy moriarty||

    [Subject] StateDemocracy.org Equips You for the 2008 Elections

    Dear Citizen:
    Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors?
    More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don't be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions:
     Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration?
     Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason?
     Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time?
    The answers to these questions -- and all your voting needs -- can be found at www.StateDemocracy.org -- the FREE 1-Stop citizen empowerment portal that Delivers Democracy to your Desktop! StateDemocracy is among the Internet's first (since 2001) and most encompassing civic empowerment tools.
    In order to boost voter participation this year, StateDemocracy.org is offering FREE widgets for all 50 states. You can simply download and embed these widgets into your own website so your visitors can register to vote, get an absentee ballot or find their local polling place.
    Lobby Congress Via StateDemocracy
    StateDemocracy.org also equips you to maintain an active dialog with your state and federal lawmakers once they are elected. And RIGHT NOW is an especially opportune time to contact your U.S. Senators and House Member, as Congress takes up major legislation on such issues as offshore oil drilling, another economic stimulus package and all federal appropriations bills over the next few weeks.
    As you lobby your elected officials, remember that lawmakers view your constituent input as reflective of scores of other citizens who felt similarly, but didn't have (or take) the time to share their opinions.
    LobbyDelegates.com Further Empowered Grassroots Voices
    Over the past 5 months, you may have visited www.LobbyDelegates.com, along with 26,000 other visitors. This latest public interest portal by the StateDemocracy Foundation remained the only online tool enabling rank-and-file Democrats to lobby all 800+ Super Delegates on which candidate to back for the party's Presidential nomination.
    StateDemocracy Foundation Website Users Unite!
    Many of you have used our StateDemocracy.org and LobbyDelegates.com tools in recent times, and have hopefully found your experience uplifting and empowering. I encourage all of you to help spread the news about StateDemocracy.org to enable more of our fellow citizens to Connect! Engage! And Empower!
    Sincerely,
    Ken Laureys, Executive Director
    StateDemocracy Foundation
    Ken.Laureys@StateDemocracy.org

    P.S. If you are interested in becoming more involved in our StateDemocracy Foundation -- including volunteering as an Advisory Board Member -- please contact me.

  • ||

    Please keep all these nutjobs away from any real power. Thanks.

  • ||

    Ron,
    Thanks for the guidance on how to vote this year. But perhaps you overlooked Marvin the Martian? I think he has a better chance to be elected POTUS than the candidate you've endorsed. Oh well, I guess it feels good to stand on principle, even when the effect is to empower your ideological opposites. If we can't have true Libertarianism, shall we instead help the Socialists among us gain power by flushing our votes down the toilet in a fit of pique? I guess it felt good for Ralph Nader (aka St. Ralph). Jeesh.
    Tom

  • Bingo||

    Just to put in perspective how unbelievably stupid Ron Paul was, here is a youtube comment (yeah yeah, lowest form of discourse on the internet, whatever)

    I will have to keep my eye on him, for I was a Ron Paul supporter, and now support Cynthia McKinney, for she knows that the that fire can't turn concret into powder. And show stood up to Rumsfield and he band of evil do'ers. She also stood up for voter fraud, so right now she has my vote for she, in my mind, is the best person for the job to get America back in the hands of the people. But I will be watching this guy to see if he stands up for us, and those that died on 9/11. watch?v=65-vfc40pcc



    Jesus fucking christ.

  • Bingo||

    I suppose the one positive thing is that it breaks the libertarians from having monopoly on truthers.

  • Tom Walls||

    That's what Barr gets for skipping Ron's press conference. It's ultimately Barr's fault for not being there, but from what I understand former Perot campaign manager Russ Verney was the main man behind the no-show. Is that correct, David?

    Nonetheless, a silly misjudgement on Barr's part is not what will guide me come November - while I would prefer to be voting for Ron, I'm still voting for Barr, with no reservations.

  • ||

    This problem goes far beyond the personalities of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Godless libertarians and Christian theonomists need to understand that they have to stand together against the power of the Democrat and Republican parties. And they can do so on the basis of the Constitution, which, if enforced, will prevent Washington from running any of our lives, while allowing the people of each of the 50 states to build their communities according to laws as strict or as lax as they see fit to choose for themselves. United we stand, divided we fall. Why is this so hard for so called "principled" people to comprehend?

  • ||

    Why do you assume it is a lack of judgment in character?

    Isn't the evidence mounting, between Paul's newsletter, his chosen associates, and now this, that maybe just maybe he isn't making a mistake in judgment about their character, but rather that he shares their views?

    Gerry,

    You must have missed this part from his written statement:

    This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree.

    If Dr. Paul doesn't consider himself a libertarian and thus doesn't care whether or not more people become libertarians, why would he make a statement like this in relation to himself, Nader, and McKinney?

    Oh, and there's this:

    I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I'm a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.

    If he doesn't consider himself to be a libertarian, then why did he feel the need to note that he is a Life Member of the Libertarian Party?

    He's a libertarian. Period. He's wrong on immigration, and he takes a stance on abortion that most libertarians don't share, but he's still solidly a libertarian.

    This endorsement, in my view, is motivated by two things:

    1) Anger at, and possibly mistrust of, Bob Barr; and

    2) Friendship with, and personal trust of, Chuck Baldwin.

    I'm still supporting the LP and Bob Barr. But I understand Dr. Paul's decision, even if I don't support it.

  • Tom Walls||

    Paige is entirely correct. RP's endorsement has much less to do with Baldwin's strengths as a candidate than it does with friendship, trust and loyalty. That goes a long way in politics. Baldwin did really pull hard for Ron during his primary campaign. I don't agree with Ron's endorsement, but I respect it.

    It's Barr's loss for calling in sick to the press conference, and it is a short-sighted blunder that dissipate any excitement there was on the part of RP supporters. I bet Paul would have remained neutral on an endorsement if Barr hadn't dissed him. This is going to help shift support to Nader if anyone. The unknown Baldwin is only on the ballot is 30-odd states, and the well-known Nader is on in 46.

    Nonetheless, the public at large is shielded from these internecine spats. The best we can hope for is that Barr gets decent coverage and a sizeable vote percentage.

  • ||

    So principled Dr. Paul threw a snit-fit when Barr refused to endorse quasi-socialists with him? He endorsed "loyalty" to his silly "VOTE ANY THIRD PARTY" over principle?

    Mein gott. the horror.

  • Lou Barlow||

    Now it is official: Ron Paul is himself a Paultard. I am ashamed to say it, having been sucked in by his campaign, sending it money, attending its rallies, etc. During the primary, the campaign attracted all sorts. Post-primary, only the Paultards remained. And it turns out that Ron Pauls move into the populist corner of his constituency is complete. If they existed, the 9-11 and NAU traitors would really be up the creek now!

  • jtuf||

    According to Baldwin's website, he wants to reduce legal immigration, tailor immigration policiy to manage the jobs market, and compromise birthright citizenship. He is a bit down (towards the statist end) of Barr on this issue. Looks like the libertarian movement has to have some internal advicacy to promote immigration legalization.

  • ||

    Baldwin sounds just like Jerry Falwell!

  • <strike>Cosmotarians</strike>||

    I think it's a wonderful endorsement! It manages to give a nice cold slap in the face to Republicans, Democrats and Cosmotarians all at once, all of whom richly deserve it. Truly, a brilliant move on Paul's part! Hats off for Ron Paul!

  • Eric Dondero||

    How ironic. Ron Paul used to severely criticize those who didn't support him in his 1988 Libertarian Presidential run, like Howard Phillips who rebuffed him in front of a crowd of Young Conservatives in Austin, when he had been expected to endorse him.

    Paul was furious with Phillips for years after that.

    Now, here he is doing the exact same thing that Howard Phillips did to him.

  • VM||

    DUMDEROOOOOOOOOOOO

  • JMR||

    So Ron somehow massively dissed Howard Phillips? Oh, nevermind, it's Dondero, single standards don't exist for Ron Paul (hint: he's not perfect, but you try too hard sometimes, and it detracts from any legitimate arguments you have).

  • ||

    1. Ron Paul is back-handing Bob Barr. Given that Barr's campaign is going nowhere, it's not going to cost Ron Paul much in the long run.

    2. Ron Paul knows where his money is coming from. I have no idea if Ron Paul is a Christianist like the guys in CP, but he does get a lot of money from that crowd.

    Lew Rockwell is the same. Ever notice how Lew's articles are very libertarian in nature, but he allows others to throw some paleo-christianist scraps to feed on? It's probably what pays the bills.

    I think that originally Lew and Rothbard had a legitimate strategy to see if they could pull protestant Southerners in to the libertarian fold. It was worth a try, but it did not work. Lew so much as said so in an interview that I heard a few months ago.

    BUT, I suspect that it is what drives the traffic at LRC and drives donations.

    Besides, the more the "Forget Hell" types learn of Hayek the better, right?

    While I think that Ron Paul has sympathies with the CP crowd and probably originally came from that line of thinking, I seriously doubt that he is one of them today.

    Nonetheless, if the Ron Paul movement continues then it will be the Washington-weary bible crowd that gives it life.

  • ||

    "I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I'm a ten-term Republican Congressman."

    There's something deeply wrong with this statement. Dr. Paul should pick a party that he truly believes in and stick with it. Maintaining a membership in the Libertarian Party while claiming to represent the Republican Party in Congress is wrong. It means he's really just an opportunist who's willing to fly whatever flag will get him elected.

  • ||

    It means he's really just an opportunist who's willing to fly whatever flag will get him elected

    Well, he is a politician. As politicians go, he's about as good as you can expect, but you can't expect too much. I man, Bub is a pretty good zombie but he's still a zombie if you know what I mean.

  • ||

    Barr's problem was the brazenness with which he took libertarians for granted. I get that was the plan. You take libertarians for granted and run a campaign appealing to the disaffected Right. But when you pursue such a strategy, you still have to remember to throw some crumbs towards the people you are taking for granted every now and then. Bush is a master of that with respect to his treatment of the religious right. But Barr never threw us any crumbs. One by one libertarians who had decided after the convention to give him the benefit of the doubt threw their hands up in disgust. The Paul debacle was the final nail in what had to be one of the most inept campaigns in the history of politics.

  • ||

    The final nail in the RP movement? Many of us thought the RP movement would splinter into three or four ideological corners once RP's nomination run was over. Now it is happening.
    Only RP could have held it together, and he chose to stay Republican. Imagine he had accepted the LNC's plea to run as a Libertarian. Given the financial crisis, and his long time warnings that this would happen,
    LP Candidate RP would be on all the media shows arguing that it was time to seriously reform Washington. Maybe it would be a three way race now, or at least RP would spoil McCain or Obama's party. [I know three colleagues who would have voted for Ron Paul as a Libertarian or Independent, who won't consider Barr, and will now vote for Obama.]
    So now RP is largely absent in the public eye,
    his supporters are splitting six ways to Sunday and hurling insults at each other instead of the turds running our country. Karl Rove couldn't have scripted it better.
    Politics is about alliances and compromises.
    Libertarians don't do that very well, so we had better just retreat to education.

  • idiotface||

    The Paul debacle was the final nail in what had to be one of the most inept campaigns in the history of politics.

    If you're talking about the Ron Paul campaign, then I agree. The only success that he had sprung up around him. Not due to his campaign itself. I'd like my donations back. Is he giving refunds? After his showing in New Hampshire, he should.

    Now his endorsement of Baldwin is a slap in the face to any libertarian. Sorry, the CP platform spells it out (as quoted above). I don't care how nice of a guy Baldwin is and how much of a douche Barr is. Paul has taken a big shit on the LP. Fuck Ron Paul.

  • Damian P.||

    When Andrew Sullivan was asked about his preferred candidate endorsing a hardcore Christianist, he responded, "hey, look over there!" and ran away.

  • PC||

    This isn't Ron's fault, this is all Barr. Those jackasses should be blacklisted from any further Libertarian campaigns because they are 100% clueless. Best opportunity in 14 years wasted. Do they even know they're base? Do they not know the people that could potentially vote for them? So they snub Paul when Baldwin has been busting his balls the whole time to be attached to everything Paul. Just because the Libertarians are the third largest party doesn't mean they can't drop under bad stewardship. And it isn't just Barr and his horrible staff, it is the whole LP. I hope the people who reelected Redpath are happy with the bed they made as well. This is a mess, I wish Barr would have run on the implosion platform so we would have known what we're getting. Big fish in a small pond? No way, I am still trying to figure out how this guppy was able to get into the big pond in the first place, and for a spook he's a real amateur.

    All that being said I think that the Constitution Party is ridiculous with their religious nonsense. They can celebrate their ignorance every Sunday to their heart's content but don't insult my intelligence with the stupidity found in their platform. They talk about all these things that are not conducive to Liberty and Freedom, when they omit one of the biggest from their list, the State's predecessor, fables and superstitions.

  • ||

    creech,

    Ron Paul isn't the messiah. He was reluctantly convinced to run for the Republican nomination. He's 73 years old and his wife of over 50 years seems to be in pretty bad shape health wise. He's also not a particularly great campaigner. So to expect him to have jumped in to the Presidential race as a Libertarian at the end of his long GOP campaign would have been both unrealistic and unfair. It's not the LP's fault that they couldn't field a candidate capable of mobilizing what Ron Paul built. Chuck Baldwin, flawed as he is, at least made the effort. And attacking Baldwin because of the CP's platform is a cop out. If you want to attack Baldwin, attack Baldwin. God knows Barr doesn't pay much heed to the LP platform, so why do you assume Baldwin is so faithful to his?

  • Tom Walls||

    Well, they couldn't pull dumb Protestant Southerners into the libertarian fold. It's Wal-Mart, NASCAR and Tim McGraw for them, not Mises Institute podcasts. Thinking Southerners are too small in number to sway elections.

    Ron only got 3 to 5% of the vote across the South.





    > I think that originally Lew and Rothbard had a legitimate strategy to see if they could pull protestant Southerners in to the libertarian fold. It was worth a try, but it did not work. Lew so much as said so in an interview that I heard a few months ago.

  • PC||

    "It's not the LP's fault that they couldn't field a candidate capable of mobilizing what Ron Paul built."

    That much is true, but the fact that they didn't field a candidate WILLING to mobilize anything that Ron built is their fault.

  • NotABarrFan||

    I can't believe H&R would post this without checking the facts first! Where is the PUBLIC statement from RP himself? RP was on TV twice yesterday and a couple times this morning and said nothing on this. I do not believe as many do that this is just a CFL staff member who took matters into their own hands.

    PLEASE CALL RP's office numbers and INSIST RP comes out with a PUBLIC statement endorsing Baldwin TODAY so these nut cases can stop pretending he doesn't support the CP and Baldwin. Here are the numbers: 202-225-2831 or 979-285-0231 or his chief of staff's office at 202-225-2831 (ask for Tony).

    Get them to tell you the TRUTH that RP does support Baldwin TODAY! He is scheduled to be on TV at least two more times and he can clear the air NOW!

  • ||

    Barr has been a horrible candidate but we knew that going into this -- but his crew took over the LP. But Baldwin is horrible. All Ron Paul did was out himself as the fundamentalist theorcrat that he really is. Ron Paul is not libertarian. He endorsed the candidate most closely tied to his conspiracy-paranoia and theocratic tendencies. Unfortunately the LP offers us nothing this year. But thankfully Ron has now exposed his true nature -- he wants God pushed down the throats of people by the force of law. He is a fake who used libertarian rhetoric to raise millions from libertarian fools unwilling to see him for what he was.

  • The Democratic Republican||

    This whole thread (except for my posts) has assumed that Paul actually endorsed Baldwin. But if the newsletters taught us anything, it's that Paul just puts his name on what other people write. Why won't someone just state the obvious that this is what Lew Rockwell wanted to do to spite the LP? Or do you Baldwin-ites want Ron himself to take credit for the way Barr was treated leading up to the oh-so-important-press conference/sweet 16 party where Barr just didn't tell Ron that his dress was beautiful enough times?

    As for Barr's campaign, I blame everyone who stood by and did nothing while he ran a decent, competent campaign without all the insanity surrounding Paul. He brought more respectability to the LP than it had in the first 30 years combined. Fuck all of you who blame Barr for your own inaction because, wah wah wah, Barr wasn't libertarian enough for all you big babies. And now Mr. Libertarian Ron Paul has gone and endorsed the biggest nutjob of them all, so I hope all the lemmmings enjoy jumping off the cliff.

  • johnl||

    I voted for Paul twice. Not again.

  • ||

    This whole Paul vs. Barr dustup reminds me of a junior high cafeteria food fight. Both camps are acting like adolescents; Paul and Barr are getting splattered with tomato seeds and chocolate pudding, and so are numerous bystanders. Barr looked like a jerk for the way he handled the press conference - if he did not want to participate, he should have politely declined when first invited - and RP has now diminished his credibility by endorsing a religious nut who will only be on the ballot in 37 states or fewer.

  • ||

    These third-party theocrats and their racist agenda will never win a valuable position in American politics. I'm glad they speak their mind so their agenda can be seen for what it is, and shunned.

    I'm supportive of third-parties, but the so-called "libertarians" and "constitutionals" are a bunch of bible thumping racists and need to grow the fvck up.

  • ||

    Libertarians are bible-thumpers?

    Let me know when you get back from your Total Recall vacation.

  • ||

    Its not hard to understand the appeal. Right wing Americans were appalled at the nomination of McCain. Yes, he is marginally better than Obama - but thats it. Yes, Palin gave a bit of hope. But the bottom line is that McCain is only using her to get where he wants to be and then he will surround himself with some pretty f ed up individuals. Like the same ones who have advised him to copulate with Kennedy on their bs legislation.

    We have 300 million+ people in this country, easily over half of them right wing.

    How did we end up with the sorry bunch of misfits from which we had to choose?

  • Daniel Williams||

    I was one of few Libertarians, and the only 2008 LP candidate running for president (then VP), that felt Ron Paul was not the best messenger for our cause - and said so at the first LP state convention I attended as a candidate (Florida). And now, with Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin, I feel vindicated, even though it's cold comfort.

    Yes, Bob Barr and his campaign could have handled the whole press conference thing better, as well as his overall campaign. And, as a result, Bob and I do have our differences. That said, Bob will likely garner more votes than any other LP presidential nominee to date - a good thing no matter how you slice it.

    The Libertarian Party National Convention in 2012 will certainly be interesting, to say the least.

  • Patrick||

    I thought libertarians were supposed to be so tolerant. All this rabid anti-religious fervor really proves that wrong.

    You guys are kidding yourselves if you think libertarianism is going to make any gains without the social conservatism that Ron Paul brought to the table. It was the combination of pro-life, Christian values and libertarianism that propelled Ron Paul further than any other libertarian candidate before.

    But keep identifying with the cultural left and be a political non-entity like you have for the last 3 plus decades.

  • ||

    There is hope for America. Vote for Chuck Baldwin.

  • ||

    You know what's funny?

    Paul has been warning for years about the financial meltdown we're currently experiencing, and I suppose the only reward Paul supporters are going to get from all this, is that they are prepared for it, and the rest of you aren't.

    It's easy to call Paul a racist, he's not, he got fucked by that. He's correct about the Iraq war, government expenditures and federal abuse of power and the unconstitutionality of most of it's powers. His Christianity is not relevant, because of his constitutional principles which he's never broken, and the nation is about to collapse because we're "electing" 2 clones.

    Can any of you name 5 bills that Obama and McCain voted differently on?

    You still don't get it yet. We have evil #1 and evil #2 because Americans are too lazy and too stupid to make an informed vote, or even bother to get informed at all. People believe it's a patriotic duty to vote, but an unformed vote I call by another name:

    Treason.

    And 99% of voters are guilty of it. I can see plenty of people here that are.

  • sathi2000||

    Believe it or not, I've never actually played D&D, either classic or D20. My gaming interests primarily lie in science fiction, so Traveller and Star Frontiers were my RPGs of choice. However, you can't deny the foundation D&D created for role-playing and Gygax's part in it.
    http://www.mirei.com

  • Austin Remodeling Contractors||

    That quote has changed my life for years. Thanks Bob and bridge that quantum space/spirit/time gap and give us a couple more laughs.

  • ||

    i have metal parts in me when they patch me up and send me home. now, you want me to let them slip their hands up my butt? you're nuts.
    Austin Roofing Contractors

  • ||

    hope Paul knows that by doing this he has allowed a petty feud, fueled by Lew Rockwell and his gangsters[...]
    I was JUST about to take you seriously, when I saw this overtly absurd comment.
    Mother's Day Flowers

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement