Just Remember, Kids: CPAC is Wack When Libertarians Have a Good Showing

As Jesse Walker notes, Rep. Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual D.C.-based hoohah that was in the news this year mostly due to boycotts by folks discomfited by the presence of teh gays. The other hardcore libertarian in the field, former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.), finished third (and ahead of other folks such as former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour).

So that means...that CPAC doesn't mean anything. Got that? Surveying the results and the conference in general, the Wash Post's right-wing blogger Jennifer Rubin concludes that CPAC tells us that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) and Sen. Jon Thune (R-S.D.) "exceeded expectations" and that "there is, in fact, a rationale for a run by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton" and that, should Bolton choose not to run (is anyone asking?), then his kind words for Pawlenty mean that the Gopher State guy is in the catbird seat.

Rubin's Post colleague Chris Cillizza dubs Paul the big "loser" at CPAC, because he speechified about "defunding" the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and made "odd pronouncements such as 'Government should never be able to do anything you can't do.'" The big winner? Mitt Romney, in part due "to a strong second-place finish in the straw poll." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey similarly pooh-poohs the results though he at least notes that the libertarian vote "actually got split this year, and wound up taking two out of three spots on the straw poll anyway." 

You'd think that Ron Paul having a big showing for the second year in a row, in the wake of a couple of best-selling books and a midterm election whose star was Paul fils (whose politics didn't fall far from the tree) and stories about CPAC leaning increasingly libertarian over the past few years might kindle some vague interest about an, I don't know, Libertarian Moment or something.

Like all such things, CPAC's straw poll is a useless predictor of who will actually get the nod. But to the extent that it reflects the energy and motivation of the crowd at what gets called the big conservative event when the results fit into an MSM narrative, it strongly suggests that the GOP would do well to go libertarian as it figures out how to move forward into a 21st century they managed to screw up the last time they were in power.

Reason on CPAC here.

Watch this video from CPAC:

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.

  • Let 'er Rip||

    Paul/Johnson 2012.

  • No,||

    Johnson/Paul 2012.
    Or Johnson/Napolitano.

  • ||

    I prefer Johnson/Daniels with Paul as treasury secretary. NM and IN are swing states and both are more electable and have more executive experience than Paul. Paul could effectively end or mortally wound the Fed from his post.

    Today our debt reached 100% of GDP. By 2012 hopefully enough Americans can realize that we would all have to work for one whole year not taking one red cent home, to pay off decades of government incompetence, and elect someone with the seriousness such a situation requires.

  • Spoonman.||

    Grammatical question: When you put an appositive in between the indefinite article and the noun, and that appositive begins with a vowel but the noun the indefinite article refers to does not, do you change it to "an"?

    some vague interest about an, I don't know, Libertarian Moment or something
  • Rich||

    I'd say yes.

    Consider: some vague interest about an apparent Libertarian Moment or something

  • ||

    I'd say no. The equivalent sentence is "some vague interest about an Libertarian Moment or something." Adding apparent changes the rules since it's an adjective.

  • Devil Incohate||

    No, the comma serves as a pause and no need to use "an" before "I don't know".

  • ||

    Put me down for "an."

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I vote anarchy. Do whatever sounds best to you.

  • blizzard||

    +1

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

  • jacob||

    Who the fuck is the YAF? I read your link and still have no idea.

  • creech||

    YAF is the "Young Authoritarian Boot-Lickers."

  • jacob||

    :)

  • robc||

    The funny thing is, he isnt saying anything different than he was 4 years ago, so why now?

  • Bill||

    Hmmm,

    Maybe a horrible recession coming just a few years after another bad recession? Both caused by speculation fueled by government policy and then the election of Obama who has passed a National Health Insurance plan and at least in his first term was in many ways the exact opposite of what libertarians stand for?

  • robc||

    The why now was in reference to YAF kicking him out. How does any of that matter, since they kicked him out for being anti-war?

  • Mensan||

    The funny thing is, he isnt saying anything different than he was 4 [40] years ago, so why now?

    FTFY

  • Fluffy||

    I really like Benton's "Blow me" statement in response.

  • ||

    "The other hardcore libertarian in the field, former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.) finished third (and ahead of other folks such as former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour)."

    Who other than Haley Barbour thinks Haley Barbour should be President?

    Look the Tea Parties are real. And they have all the energy and momentum going into 2012. They are not going away. And no one in the establishment of either party is doing anything but condescending to them. The "libertarian candidates" are the only ones talking to them and showing any seriousness about doing something about spending.

    People like to come on here and bitch how the Tea Parties have been coopted by the SOCONS. The opposite seems to have occurred. The SOCON candidate Huckabee is doing about as well as he did last time and no better. Meanwhile people like Johnson and Paul are doing better than they ever have. That is because of the Tea Party.

  • Spoonman.||

    Seriously, who in their right mind thinks "This fat, old, unremarkable white guy from Mississippi could be the next president!"

  • ||

    No one. And his political career peaked in the 1990s. Yeah, he is governor of Mississippi. So what? He is also a former highly paid Washington lobbyist. It goes to show how tone def many in the GOP are if Barbour thinks that with his establishment background he has a chance in hell in 2012.

  • creech||

    Ben Stein said Barbour was his choice on "Sunday Morning." Anyone, Anyone, Barbour, Barbour....

  • Senator Sexton Hardcastle||

    Not to mention the fact that Haley is a fucking girl's name.

  • JB||

    Seriously, Haley Barbour?

    How much drugs are they doing?

    Newt is a better candidate and he is awful.

  • Mensan||

    Not to mention this.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Well, the Tea Party isn't strictly libertarian. Certainly, there are libertarians involved in it, but it's more of a synthesis of various right leaning factions that's mostly in agreement on a specific set of issues. It's certainly the closest thing to a populist libertarianism movement in decades, but it's also clearly a very right-leaning flavor of libertarianism.

    The major complaint of the cosmotarians appears to be that they the aren't the Special Snowflake at the party.

  • ||

    It is not that they are libertarian. They are not. It is that libertarian leaning candidates like Johnson and the Pauls are the only ones who are talking to the Tea Parties and taking them seriously and actually serious about cutting government. That to me is the definition of co-opting.

  • ||

    "The major complaint of the cosmotarians appears to be that they the aren't the Special Snowflake at the party."

    Pretty much. It is a cultural thing. See Jacob below. People on the unapproved cool list are in the Tea Parties, therefore they must be shunned.

  • Fluffy||

    My special complaint is that we already had an organization where people would pay lip service to small government issues while expanding the national security state and pandering to fundamentalists and bigots.

    It was called the GOP.

    Unless the Tea Party is going to be a small-government reaction to the failures of the GOP, it has no reason to exist.

    What possible function can the Tea Party have if it turns into "the part of the GOP where we yell even louder about how we hate teh gayz"?

  • ||

    When have the Tea Party said anything about hating the gays? Did I miss the part about the big march on Washington where they demanded a return to sodomy laws? Where do you even get this stuff.

    What is happening here is people who spent the 90s and 00s voting on social issues are waking up to the fact that we are broke and are starting to vote on small government issues instead. You should love that. And yes, they are taking over the GOP. That is a hell of a lot more effective way to get things done than starting a third party.

    You and EPI either one just can't get over the fucking culture war. Even though people in the Tea Party are willing to put the culture war aside and work for something you like, you can't get over that and imagine that they don't mean it or project onto them priorities that don't exist. Because if accomplishing something means working with people you hate and not having an excuse to hate them anymore, you would rather pass. And that goes a long ways to explaining why no Libertarian has ever been elected dog catcher in this country.

  • Fluffy||

    John, that's not it at all.

    If the SoCons want to put the rest of their agenda aside and work on small government issues for a while, AWESOME. Sign me up.

    My complaint is when people like Palin step up to give the "Tea Party perspective" on issues, and their version of doing so is, "Why haven't we assassinated Assange yet?" or "You can't be an economic conservative without being a social conservative" or "The Tea Party stands for a militarized border" and what have you.

    I don't have to "project...priorities that don't exist" on to anyone. There's this invention called the internet, see, and it's like a series of tubes that brings real-time statements about the priorities of these folks right to me in my home. It's a fantastic new invention, you should check it out.

  • ||

    Show me the link where Palin ever said that you have to be a social conservative to be economic conservative? I have never seen it. And she has been very pro gay and pretty reasonable about marijuana.

    As far as the border goes, yes the Tea Party is pro closed borders. But so is the vast majority of the country. You and other open border advocates have lost that fight. It is over. They are willing to put aside social conservatism, you are going to have to give up on open borders. Open borders are like gun control, a dead issue in this country. You may not like that, but that is reality. But hey the people who want to bring back the sodomy laws don't like that either. But sometimes you have to live with political reality.

  • Fluffy||

    I said "people like Palin" said those things. Jim DeMint said it. He's routinely described as being a "Tea Party" figure and he said exactly that.

    If it was about culture, John, I wouldn't like the Pauls. They're Texans, and Ron is a pretty religious guy. If I was shunning all people who are culturally not like me, I would be shunning them, too, right?

    I can't believe you would come here and try to seriously dispute that to the Palin brigade the words "Tea Party" mean "holding exaggerated versions of all GOP positions". You really don't see that? That they see the Tea Party's mission as holding the GOP accountable, not just for their lies about spending and regulation, but also for their failure to nuke Mecca, arrest everyone at McClatchy, and put prayer back in schools?

  • ||

    If it is all about the failure to nuke Macca, why are the Tea Party caucus in congress willing to cut defense spending?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P.....-budget-ax

    That puts lie to your whole point doesn't it?

    And where is the effort in the New Congress to bring prayer back in schools? if there is one, i haven't seen it.

    And what about the Tea Party caucus voting against the Patriot Act renewal?

    http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....patri.html

    You have the ideas about the Tea Party that just are not true.

  • Fluffy||

    There are Tea Party politicians doing things that I like, and Tea Party politicians doing things that I don't like.

    You wanted to know why I had a problem with certain figures who are put forth as "Tea Party", and I think I've explained it to you pretty clearly.

    I was here on Election Night reveling in Tea Party victories right along with you.

    The question on the table is not "Is the Tea Party valuable?" It's "Should we trust the SoCons who want to tell us that they're on board with the Tea Party now?" These are quite different questions.

  • ||

    As I said below Fluffy, the SOCONs would love to coopt the Tea party. But i don't think they will because I don't think people give a shit about social issues when there is a trillion and a half dollar deficit and 10% unemployment.

    It is almost sad out of our touch and tone deaf someone like Huckabee or Barbour sound. Yeah, they are going to get some votes. But they won't get the nomination and few are going to give a shit if the GOP nominee is too soft on social issues.

    P Brooks makes a good point below that once the immediate crisis has passed they will go back to fighting about stupid cultural shit. But not this election.

  • creech||

    Senator Jim DeMint said it. Guess he didn't care about pissing off the libertarian wing of the GOP.

  • ||

    De Mint is an assclown. And yes, the SOCONS are trying to coopt the Tea Party. But right now, I would say the Libertarians are having the better of it.

  • ||

    More than anything, the Tea Party movement is about cutting spending. Yes, there are some cultural issues, but they are the fringe (and, no doubt, trying to coopt the Tea Party further).

    To put it in physics terms, the Tea Party has a vector whose main component is in the direction of the "Cut spending, damn it!"-axis. Not all tea partiers are aligned perfectly, but they all have a large component in that direction. Without it, the tea party movement wouldn't be a movement at all.

  • jacob||

    Meanwhile people like Johnson and Paul are doing better than they ever have. That is because of the Tea Party.

    Well, if the Tea Party had their druthers, Rep. Paul would be retired by now.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news.....s-9282.ece

  • ||

    RTFA

    Paul's opponents tried to claim they were "Tea Party".

    "Paul's opponents don't dispute that last point. But both Graney and Gerald Wall said they were inspired to run by their Tea Party involvement, and all three challengers are trying to tap into the movement's passion and enthusiasm.

    "The Republican Party left its principles," Wall said. "And these Tea Parties are filled with people who want to take back our party."

    John Gay, Paul's third opponent, said he has attended several Tea Parties and related meetings. Both Wall, a machine supervisor, and Graney, a former small-business owner, have helped organize local rallies."

    That hardly strikes me as saying that the Tea Party wanted Paul retired.

  • jacob||

    In the last primary that Paul was in, he had three opponents. ALL THREE WERE TEA PARTY CANDIDATES.

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

  • ||

    That is not what your article says. His opponents were "inspired to run by their Tea Party involvement," So what? That doesn't mean the Tea Parties at large were out to get Paul. That just means three people who attended some Tea Parties ran against him. And they lost.

    Don't you get tired of being stupid?

  • jacob||

    So because three Tea Party candidates ran against him...that proves the Tea Party is behind him?

    Sorry, you fail again.

    I know you want to support the Tea party, but they are no different than the other Republicans who dislike Paul.

  • ||

    They were not "Tea Party Candidates" in any meaningful sense of the word. Did they attract significant support? No. The Tea Party is not a real party dipshit. Any moron can claim to be a "Tea Party" candidate. And that is what these people did. You can't ascribe them to the Tea Party at large or even a large section of the Tea Party. If they represented that large of a voting block in the Republican primary, Paul would have lost.

  • jacob||

    Wow you're fucking stupid.

    "You can't ascribe them to the Tea Party at large or even a large section of the Tea Party"

    Really? Why not?

    " Did they attract significant support? No. "

    What the fuck does this prove?

    If you can provide any significant evidence that the Tea Party is supporting Ron Paul, please prove me wrong and provide it. Otherwise, you fail. Sorry to burst your bubble.....

  • robc||

    See my post below from 3 minutes before yours.

  • robc||

    The tea party was behind him. He started the fucking thing with his tea party moneybomb.

    All 4 candidates in the primary were tea partiers of one sort or another. And T-P Paul won over the other 3 T-Pers. So the tea party was obviously not out to remove him.

  • jacob||

    "The tea party was behind him. He started the fucking thing with his tea party moneybomb."

    I disagree that the Tea party en masse supports him. However, I will grant you that he did host a tea part(ies) in 2007. But the new crop of Tea partiers are not the same people.

    If today's Tea Party was the same as the original Paul followers from '07, why did he do so poorly in the 2008 primaries? Most estimates I've read is that the Tea Party makes up 20-25% of the electorate. Please explain how Paul got single digit results in much of the GOP primaries if THAT MANY of his followers are out there.

  • robc||

    The Tea Party didnt blow up to 20-25 percent until post 2008. At least post primaries, it really boomed with the TARP discussions in fall of 2008. In the spring, he was a relatively unknown "wacko".

    There is no way the tea party makes up 20-25% of the electorate either. If they did, that would be 60-70% of the GOP.

    Also, if it is that large a number, how come he easily won his primary, if they dont support him?

    Im not saying the TPers today are the same group as the Paul supports in the prez race. And the added on group are much less libertarian than the originals. But he is still popular with that group.

    I live in KY, and Paul 2 doesnt get elected without "en masse" support from the tea partiers, especially in the primary. No reason to assume pops isnt getting the same support (or more).

  • jacob||

    To robc

    I think you have some valid points (unlike that dipshit John) but until Paul gets top billing at national Tea party events (like Michelle Bachmann or Palin) I don't think you can say that the TP is fully behind Ron Paul. THis discussion started because John said that the reason RP was doing well was the Tea Party, which is bullshit. He won CPAC last year without their support as well.

    Now, his son (I think) is a different story. Remember, Ron Paul has drawn the most criticism from "true conservatives" because he voted against the authorization of force in Iraq. From 2002 onwards, he was the face of the antiwar right. He was constantly being called a RINO. His son is not that different from him, but Rand was not in the public eye and did not draw the shitstorm of ire from the Right. i will concede you may have more knowledge about Kentucky politics than I do.

    I consider myself to be a proud Paul supporter and have donated over a thousand dollars to both his and his son's campaigns over the years. I do not see today's Tea Party crowds as die hard Ron Paul supporters.

  • ||

    Jacob you are an idiot. To be considered a dipshit by someone as stupid as you is a badge of honor. Whatever little was left of your point when I got through with it was destroyed by Rob. I really don't know what the fuck you want from the Tea Party voters. They funded Ron Paul's presidential campaign before there was a Tea Party. They elected him and his son to Congress, despite three primary challengers againt Ron claiming to be "Tea Party". But they are not "real supporters" whatever the fuck that means.

    And the classic bit of stupid in your posts was

    " Did they attract significant support? No. "

    What the fuck does this prove?

    It proves that the Tea Party voters, unlike the challengers against people like Mike Caslte and Bob Bennett, didn't support the challengers and did support Ron Paul. Jesus, I do my best here to make things simple. But there is some stupid even I can't cure.

  • jacob||

    I really don't know what the fuck you want from the Tea Party voters.

    I don't want anything from them you fucking moron. It was YOU that made the bullshit claim that the Tea Party is the reason that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are doing better than ever, not me. You can't provide a single link or coherent argument that supports this. You made this idiotic claim, and then tried to use name-calling to support your assertion. You fail as usual.

    I asked you to provide one shred of evidence that the Tea Party supports Ron Paul. You STILL can't provide a link. Sorry, your moronic, poorly written posts don't count.

    They funded Ron Paul's presidential campaign before there was a Tea Party

    [citation needed]

    They elected him to Congress

    [citation needed]

    despite three primary challengers againt Ron claiming to be "Tea Party".

    Ah, the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

    John: The Tea Party is behind Ron Paul!

    Jacob: They sent three candidates to take him out of the primary election.

    John: B-b-but those aren't real Tea Partiers!

  • ||

    Jacob, you are an idiot. "They" didn't send three anything. You act like the Tea Party is some vast conspiracy. No, three challengers claimed to be Tea Party but didn't get any Tea Party votes and put Ron PAul into Congress. If the Tea Party hadn't supported Paul, he wouldn't be in Congress. If you don't believe me, go as Mike Castle and Bob Bennett.

    Stop embarassing yourself. You are just messing up the conversation.

    And you want a link about the Tea Party and Ron Paul, here you go

    "Politico ran an exit poll on Thursday's massive tax day protest on the Washington Mall and found that about 43% said that the government needed to promote traditional values. Their favorite Tea Party leader was, naturally, Sarah Palin. A virtually identical 42% said the government shouldn't promote any particular value set. Their favorite politician: Ron Paul."

    http://www.newser.com/story/86.....-paul.html

    Now go away you fucking troll.

  • Matt||

    Jacob: They sent three candidates to take him out of the primary election.

    Jacob, I think what John is trying to say is that "they" didn't -- "they" being the Tea Party PACs or official groups, like the Tea Party Patriots, The National Tea Party Federation or Tea Party Express.

    Unless there was designated Tea Party PAC money behind those candidates, it's not correct to state that "they" (Tea Party organizations) "sent three candidates to take him out of the primary election."

    It appears that those candidates sent themselves ;-)

    On a related note, Ron Paul is actually one of the "big five" (you have mentioned Bachmann and Palin), according to the organizers themselves:

    "On October 2010 Washington Post canvass of 647 local Tea Party organizers asked "which national figure best represents your groups?" and got the following responses: no one 34%, Sarah Palin 14%, Glenn Beck 7%, Jim DeMint 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Michele Bachmann 4%."

    Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....y-canvass/

    Hope that helps.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    6% counts as "big five"?

  • Matt||

    Sean, it does if Bachmann's 4% counts as "big two" ;-)

  • robc||

    They funded Ron Paul's presidential campaign before there was a Tea Party

    [citation needed]

    I already fucking provided the citation. The Tea Party moneybomb was tea partiers funding his campaign. By definition, anyone sending him money on that day was a tea partier.

  • robc||

    He got TOP BILLING (only actually) at the very first (21st century) tea party event.

    Done and done.

  • robc||

    I do not see today's Tea Party crowds as die hard Ron Paul supporters.

    I didnt say that. But Venn diagram RP supporters and you will find that most of them are TPers too. And, within his district, most TPers are also RP supporters.

    Hence the fact that 3 TP guys ran against him and combined for approximately zero percent of the vote means absolutely nothing.

  • CE||

    Easy. Many supported him in 2008, but didn't want to "waste their vote". I was out there at gun shows and heard it from them first hand. Also, the economy hadn't yet crashed, and he was running against Bush's wars, instead of Obama's.

  • jacob||

    I'm not talking about the general election, I'm talking about the primaries.

  • robc||

    I'm not talking about the general election, I'm talking about the primaries.

    So is CE. It was a "race" between McCain and Romney and people didnt want to "waste" their vote on a 3rd candidate. There wasnt an opportunity to vote for him in general, he wasnt on the ballot.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Jacob, we get it. You want to hate the TP, and you will, even if you have to grasp at straws 'till they're bloody.

  • CE||

    I figure any vote that doesn't indicate my first choice among the candidates listed is a wasted vote.

  • Robert||

    In the last primary that Paul was in, he had three opponents. ALL THREE WERE TEA PARTY CANDIDATES.


    ...which also "means" the Tea Party candidates were against each other. If the Tea Party locally can't unify against Ron Paul, that means they're not in any more meaningful sense against him than they are against each other. It just means the Tea Parties attract a lot of activist types.

  • jacob||

  • ||

    Doesn't say anything different than the other one.

  • ||

    I see that the search for a single, unified, Tea Party Position goes on.

    Check over by the unicorn corrals, guys. I think that's the last place I saw it.

  • Skip||

    People on here whine about the SOCONS co-opting the Tea Parties because that is all the nutroots say.

  • JB||

    Those are the leftist fucks that many of the cosmos hang out with.

    No surprise they pick up their diseased memes.

  • ||

    Libertarians are only for co-opting. You should know that by now...

  • AlmightyJB||

    Iowa and New Hamphire will decide the candidate so all else means nothing.

  • ||

    Not so much anymore.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    More like, they weed out the ones who have no chance of winning.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Like Ron Paul

  • RonPaul.se||

    I'm trying to understand why people keep saying Ron Paul is a libertarian?

    He try to follow the constitution...the very thing the republican party was based on.

  • robc||

    You realize he was the LP candidate for Prez in 1988? And is a lifetime member of the LP?

    Does either necessarily make him a libertarian? No. But in any big tent libertarian sense there is no way he isnt included. And he is more libertarian than Barr, for example.

  • ||

    There are no libertarians in the Republican party.
    There are no libertarians in the Republican party.
    There are no libertarians in the Republican party.
    [Clicks heels and goes home to Kansas, where they've never even heard of these bad, bad libertarian people.]

  • Gregory Smith||

    Are there any libertarians in the Democratic party? No, so what's your beef? At least libertarians are welcomed with open arms at CPAC, try getting that welcome at the DNC.

    At least the GOP hates big government, Democrats LOVE big government, they worship bastards like FDR and Woodrow Wilson, may they burn in hell for what they did.

  • robc||

    At least the GOP hates big government

    Do they?

    Then why the fuck is it so hard for the GOP to pass $100B in cuts, much less the $500B that Sen Paul has requested, or the $1.5T that are needed to balance the budget? Much less the $3T needed to end big government.

    And why are so many GOPers dissing CPAC if they hate big government?

  • ||

    They love Big Government®, of course. That's the problem--no one who has held power in this country in many decades has wanted to restore limited government. Even people like Reagan, who at least paid lip service to the concept of limited government, had some exception (like fighting the Cold War) that ate up and regurgitated the rule.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    Harry Reid said it best: "Americans love government."

    They SAY they don't, but you deduct entitlement spending, student loans, minority directed initiatives, hell, even the earned income tax credit (one of the most nefarious wealth redistribution schemes) and see how quickly they backpedal.

  • Nancy Reagan||

    Drug War, too.

    (Just Say No, motherfuckers! Aaaahhhh haaaahhh!)

  • Robert||

    why the fuck is it so hard for the GOP to pass $100B in cuts, much less the $500B that Sen Paul has requested, or the $1.5T that are needed to balance the budget? Much less the $3T needed to end big government.


    Because they're in a 2 party democracy. If the Democrats were identified and deprived of their rights to vote, gov't would be much smaller. Not as small as you'd like, but much.

  • robc||

    The House controls the purse strings. The GOP has a majority in the House. The Dems have absolutely no say in the matter. If the GOP wants to defund things (like they are talking about doing with ObamaCare) then NO ONE can stop them.

  • ||

    I'm in the RLC, and it is not welcomed with open arms. The opposite, in fact.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure that there are libertarians who vote for Democrats because of gay marriage and other social issues that turn many libertarians away from the Republican party.

  • Bill||

    Half of the Reason staff voted for Obama, remember?

  • ||

    Libertarians get quite a bit of love amongst the Kucinich/anti-war/anti-Patriot Act wing (at least they did under Bush). It all depends on which party is in power.

  • ||

    Don't forget that Gary Johnson also took first place in the straw poll at the Republican Liberty Caucus convention on Saturday!

  • ||

    Republican Liberty Caucus? I don't think it exists.

  • Creed||

    If I can't scuba, what's this all been about?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    They went into the Fire Swamp!

  • CE||

    The funniest part of the mainstream media's attempt at spin is their painting of no-chancers like Pawlenty, Thune, Daniels, et al as more serious contenders than the much better known Ron Paul, who already has a national grassroots organization in place.

    Note to media hacks: 2011 is not 2007, and Ron Paul is not trying to sell an anti-war message to pro-war conservatives in the primaries. He's selling an anti-big government message to a nation fed up with spending and taxes and bailouts, and he has the best voting record in the field on the biggest issue.

  • ||

    That's why so many want to pooh-pooh him and his message. Few in the mainstream of either party want a stake driven into the heart of Leviathan.

  • jacob||

    +1000

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Now I want to play Metroid.

  • mr simple||

    I was thinking Castlevania. Probably II, Simon's Quest.

  • Ska||

    In the future we will make more Metroid-centric cliches, such as "launch an assload of missiles into the Mother Brain of" Big Government.

  • pancakes||

    SpOILER ALERT: Samus is a chick and Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is not trying to sell an anti-war message to pro-war conservatives in the primaries.

    It doesn't matter. If you believe that Islamism is a threat, you simply couldn't vote for Ron Paul.

    While Islam is the religion of peace around these parts, most Americans don't feel that way. Something to do with mass murder. Yeah, I know that was so last decade and we are all completely safe now, but much of the Nation thinks that "we had it coming" or "give them the Jews and they will go away" aren't exactly proper foreign policy positions.

  • Fluffy||

    Islamism is a threat to do...what, exactly?

    Please, give me your scenario where the United States is conquered by Islamists. Or even loses a square foot of territory to Islamists.

  • ||

    Whether it's a threat or not, it's certainly not so much of a threat that we should be letting our government run amok in size, scope, reach, and spending, nor does it justify tossing out civil liberties. It's not like the Cold War, where there was a real threat to our existence (and even that didn't justify all of the crap that occurred back then).

  • ||

    Please, give me your scenario where the United States is conquered by Islamists. Or even loses a square foot of territory to Islamists.

    While I realize that there is none in this world who you love, I have a family. Just because Islam won't conquer America, that doesn't mean some PoS won't murder my children in the name of Allah.

    Perhaps you could give me a scenario where millions of violent Islamists simply go away? Some rock concerts?

  • Fluffy||

    If there are millions of them, give me the military scenario that eliminates every last one of them, and doesn't leave behind any group large enough to pull off a 9/11 attack again ["large enough" being defined as 19 men].

  • ||

    give me the military scenario that eliminates every last one of them

    You have convinced me. If we can't eliminate very single one of them, we must bury our heads in the sand and do nothing.

    Should I assume that you are opposed to any actions toward murder? We can't eliminate every murderer in the World so let's do nothing?

  • Fluffy||

    Considering the fact that during the entire period of time that we did little or nothing on a foreign policy basis, our biggest problem was Tecumseh, yeah - we might want to give that a shot again.

    Consider Egypt today. Which course of action do you think is more likely to produce acts of terrorist violence against the US by Egyptians?

    1. Not interfering in their affairs and maintaining friendly relations with any government that results from their transition

    2. Strolling into Cairo and announcing that the US is going to decide who rules Egypt, that we're going to pick one Egyptian figure and make him President and give him lots of aid, and that if anyone steps out of line the CIA will help the new guy's secret police torture the fuck out of them.

    Which one?

    Because #2 has been our foreign policy to date, and is apparently the one you want to continue.

  • nekoxgirl||

    So you support the government's strategy of spending billions of dollars a year, sending most of our military over to the Middle East for an indefinite amount of time, so they can act as walking targets thereby hopefully distracting Muslims from attacking us in the United States?

  • guy in the back row||

    Dude, I live in New York and had to run when I saw the dust coming up the street at me on 9/11.

    I think I and my kids are currently in more danger from low IQ cops and security guards in the US than from low IQ Jihadists 10,000 miles away.

  • CE||

    Just because Islam won't conquer America, that doesn't mean some PoS won't murder my children in the name of Allah.

    And are they more likely to do so, or less likely to do so, if your government invades their country, occupies it, and accidentally kills a few thousand of their countrymen?

  • ||

    They won't conquer the country. They will just pull of some huge terror attack and kill a few thousand people very few years. You don't think that is a big deal. most people disagree.

  • Fluffy||

    Once again - since it took 19 men to accomplish the 9/11 attacks, now you need to give me your scenario where an aggressive [but not genocidal] foreign policy gets rid of all groups of Islamists that are capable of fielding teams of 19 men.

  • ||

    You cna't. but you can limit them and you can keep them from getting national support. You can never stop the odd car bomb. But you can stop the dirty bomb or the chem or the nuke. And that is the real threat.

  • ||

    John, I really hate to break this to you, but Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

  • ||

    Yeah, generic, the threat of chem and bio and nuclear terrorism is just fictional. Can I live in your world for a while? I know the sky is purple and all. But it sounds a lot better than where the rest of us live.

  • ||

    Fox news just had a piece on a San Diego port security guy admitting that they found some kind of weapon of mass effect somewhere in San Diego.

  • Fluffy||

    You don't need nation-state support to build a dirty bomb.

    You just need the desire.

    Gunpowder plus radioactive medical waste = dirty bomb.

    Those two things are pretty easy to get.

    You could gin up a chemical attack with the contents of a pool supply store.

    If those idiot cultists in Japan can launch a sarin attack, anyone can.

    The problem, John, is that increases in technology continue to shrink the numbers and assets needed to launch an effective asymmetric attack. What the 9/11 terrorists did with 19 men in 2001, some Dylan Klebold of the future will be able to do all by himself in 25 years with "nanotech in a can" or "Genesplicing for Dummies".

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's easy! Just invade Iran with overwhelming force and thus get rid of the main sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

  • RyanXXX||

    Iran has more beef with Al Qaeda than we do, Mr. Easy Solutions

  • ||

    The Wahabists in Saudi Arabia are not the problem. They help keep stability in the mid-east. The real problem is Iran and Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to keep fighting so we can WIN that war!

    If we don't keep fighting there, we will have to fight here! This current war is the only thing keeping us safe!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Marshall Gill,

    It doesn't matter. If you believe that Islamism is a threat, you simply couldn't vote for Ron Paul.


    Au contraire, Marshall - if one believed that islamism is a threat, *I* would vote for Paul, so the troops are brought HOME to defend the ACTUAL COUNTRY for a fucking change, instead of having them spread across the globe eating away at our precious and scarce savings!

    While Islam is the religion of peace around these parts, most Americans don't feel that way.


    It's NOT a religion of peace. It never was, never will. PEOPLE want peace, but Islam ain't about it.

  • ||

    OM, if our foreign policy is the root cause of violent Islamism, you would be correct. Basically, we asked to get raped by dressing sexy? Is that your belief? That whole Koran thingy doesn't have anything to do with it? Centuries of violent Jihad are a result of a future American foreign policy that didn't even exist when it began?

  • Fluffy||

    "Centuries"?

    Detail for me the Islamist threat to the US that existed before 1945. Or before 1917, for that matter.

    Betty Grable dressed sexy, but somehow there was no jihad directed at the US in 1938.

    The Koran was written before 1945, right? Just checking.

  • ||

    Are you really so ignorant of the violent expansion of Islam?

    The Barbary Pirates were just some guys from Africa? No relation to Islam to see here, move along?

    Nazism hasn't killed many or threatened our National survival in decades so it must not be dangerous?

    there was no jihad directed at the US in 1938.

    Citation? Oh, you mean that because we put them down militarily in WWI we CAN effect their actions?

  • Fluffy||

    The Barbary pirates were not an expression of jihad. The absurd historical fable put forth by NeoCon asswipes insisting that they somehow were is one of the more offensive things about your faction. Please stop insulting my intelligence, OK?

    Was Jean Lafitte part of the jihad, too?

    Oh, you mean that because we put them down militarily in WWI we CAN effect their actions?

    Actually, in WWI we were allied with the Arab revolt against the Turks, and between those two groups the Turks were vastly more secular.

    But the Arabs loved and admired the United States in 1919, because we were the one major power in the West who didn't want to rule them in the Turk's place. If jihad is about our decadent western culture, that should have been impossible.

  • ||

    Please stop insulting my intelligence, OK?

    You actually have to express some before I could ever insult it.

    If jihad is about our decadent western culture

    If? The violent expansion of Islam precedes western culture.

    How is everything about us? Any chance, ANY chance that people are actually evil on their own? According to you and Ron Paul, these people aren't really evil as a result of their own personal decisions, but because we drove them to it.

    Fluffy: We believe in personal responsibility EXCEPT when violence is directed at America by Islam, in which case it is all our fault?

  • Fluffy||

    Hey, it's perfectly possible they're evil on their own.

    There were evil men in the world in 1890, as well.

    How many of them spent any of their time thinking of ways to attack the United States?

    Imperial powers face violent acts from peripheral groups. This has been true for millennia.

    There was no violence directed at America by Islam when Britain and France were the imperial powers in the Middle East. There was, however, violence directed at British and French interests.

    So if we passed from a time period when we weren't an imperial power in the Middle East, to a time period where we were the major imperial power in the Middle East, and ALL OF A SUDDEN eeeeeevil Islamists start attacking the US and its interests...wow, what a coincidence! How very, very shocking!

  • Ray Pew||

    How is everything about us? Any chance, ANY chance that people are actually evil on their own? According to you and Ron Paul, these people aren't really evil as a result of their own personal decisions, but because we drove them to it.

    Fluffy: We believe in personal responsibility EXCEPT when violence is directed at America by Islam, in which case it is all our fault?

    Pure Strawman. Who the hell claimed that Islamist terrorists are just "victims", compelled to act, because of U.S. policy? No one. This is a cartoonish mischaracterization of the real argument.

    In most cities of the U.S., there are "bad" areas; areas with greater criminal elements present. Do you personally go to these areas and attempt to manipulate the individuals present into becoming less criminal? Do you charge into these areas, ready to do battle with them? Or do you simply stay away from such areas, knowing that your presence increases your risk of personal harm?

    No action is guaranteed to prevent harm from befalling oneself, but poking a snake and then whining that the snake bit you deserves no sympathy.

  • yonemoto||

    "The violent expansion of Islam precedes western culture."

    WTF? You do realize that Islam did not exist until about 1400 years ago?

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Was Jean Lafitte part of the jihad, too?

    Yes, a jihad for ass.

  • ||

    fluffy,
    Are you so ignorant as not remember the Crusades? Those islamofacists were beheading our most gentlemanly knights even back then. We eventually had to go over to their stinking urine soaked countries three or four times to get those people to understand that our god was not fucking around.

  • Ray Pew||

    OM, if our foreign policy is the root cause of violent Islamism, you would be correct. Basically, we asked to get raped by dressing sexy? Is that your belief? That whole Koran thingy doesn't have anything to do with it? Centuries of violent Jihad are a result of a future American foreign policy that didn't even exist when it began?

    Foreign policy is to the Right what Social Engineering is to the Left. They are both hubristic notions that a small group of people can manipulate the masses like chess pieces. Just as the Left does, the Right continuously appeal to the fallacy that if only we elect the "right people", then foreign policy will work.

  • nekoxgirl||

    +1

  • ||

    nicely put, Ray. I'm going to have to steal that idea, or borrow it indefinitely, perhaps...

  • ||

    Dude, Marshall's right. These people are willing to kill themselves in terrorist attacks because they don't like Pamela Anderson Lee and Billy Graham. It certainly can't be out of revenge for us killing their families and friends, propping up other countries that do the same and selecting the brutal dictators that repress them.

  • Mensan||

    "It certainly can't be out of revenge for us killing their families and friends, propping up other countries that do the same and selecting the brutal dictators that repress them."

    HCB, comeon now, what could possibly make you think that is their motivation? Besides, you know, them outright stating that it is their motivation.

  • ||

    you are exactly right. And that is why I say they are "co opting" the tea party. The Tea Party voters are not libertarians in the strict sense and disagree with Paul about the war. But they consider the need to cut government more important than the war. And Paul and Johnson are the only two guys are seem serious about cutting government. That is why they are getting support.

  • Robert||

    Is it really an attempt at spin? I think it's their sincere judgment. They know they have to allow against the activist factor in weighing Ron Paul; probably many of them simply discount too heavily for it.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

  • robc||

    See the 9:19 AM post above.

  • ||

    Romney? Really? The guy who signed ObamaCare Lite into law in Massachusetts?* A viable Republican candidate?

    Speaking of tone-deaf . . . .

    *Can we call it MassaCare?

  • robc||

    RomneyCare.
    Dont let him escape it at all.

  • Mike in PA||

    How about Romney's MassaCare?

    Seems to serve both functions.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Romney's apparently the MSM chosen front-runner. It will be funny to watch him ripped apart in the debates on the health care issue. No way any of the other candidates will let him get away with pretending Obama-care isn't Romney-care.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    And as well they shouldn't; if he were the nominee, I would seriously consider voting for Obama. Romney may know how to make money, but what's the point if you can spend it just as fast, if not faster.

  • ||

    Oh, this is good. A slavery comment rolled into widespread death. Very clever.

  • ||

    I just don't get the love for Mitt "Mandate" Romney.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    All this stuff is for naught; I still maintain that the monarch-in-chief cannot be beaten.

    Hell, look at the stupid GOP budget proposals: it proves that the GOP, even with the Tea Party flavor, shows that the entitlement minded people have won. Remember, "How are you going to buy my vote, Mr./Ms. Congresscritter, and make me feel guiltless about it?"

    Even if St. Ron Paul were to be the nominee, he cannot win. No GOP'er can, libertarian/Tea Party flavored or not. People are not willing to have their personal oxen gored until it is too late.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    No GOP'er can, libertarian/Tea Party flavored or not.

    That is the first time I've seen anyone call Obama a lock for a second term in a long time.

  • ||

    It comes down to the economy. If unemployment is below 8% and the Fed's manipulation of interest rates hasn't been broken by the markets, he'll probably win.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    That would have to be below 8% in real numbers, not the hokum that passes for statistical accuracy; plus, when the HC entitlements kick in full bore, it will be more candy to bribe votes. Think the old people and their social security and medicare, except on steroids with the entitlement masses. Even Bernanke himself (and probably one of the few truthful statements he has uttered) said that the official 9% unemployment number is pretty much the baseline for the next 4-5 years.

    The Fed's monetary treason will be the final arbiter: it just depends on when it breaks.

    And I think he will be the first pres since FDR to be re-elected with such an unemployment figure.

  • ||

    Most of the entitlements wouldn't kick in until 2014 though, 2 years after the presidential election.

    I personally would love to see a viable challenge to Obama for the Democratic nod, even if it came from someone further left who is pissed off by Obama's "moderation." Happened to Jimmy in 1980, so there's still hope for that in my book.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    Most of the entitlements wouldn't kick in until 2014 though, 2 years after the presidential election.

    True, but you have implementation happening now, AKA bolstering Medicaid to the states, not to mention the backdoor bailouts already commencing. People who do pay for their own insurance are seeing premiums rise and will seriously consider "hey, single payer might not be so bad after all."

    Another trend to watch is the decimated housing market, as well as fuel and food prices.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Some people at Daily Kos were throwing out Howard Dean as a possible challenger...

  • ||

    Some dumb fuck on one of the fox business shows (I was too lazy to get up and change the channel) was braying about what a great speech The Trump gave, and how a President trump could be just what this great nation of strivers needs.

    My teevee is on borrowed time, I fear.

  • ||

    Trump? He's a total joke. In all ways imaginable.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I'd get behind him if he agreed to have a new Apprentice: Cabinet edition.

  • Devil Incohate||

    I think that was Eric Bolling and it was the dumbest thing I've heard on TV in a long time.

  • ||

    But just think, with Trump's history of bankrupting businesses and then selling off the assets, he could be just what the American economy needs.

  • ||

    When The Hairpiece for runs for Teleprompter of the United States, Idiocracy has arrived.

  • Tony||

    Ron Paul is an idiot who embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth. Who cares what buffoon the 'conservatives' nominate? They're all dangerous, nihilistic morons to whom facts are a liberal conspiracy and who should be kept as far from power as possible.

  • ||

    I know Tony, if they get into power they might run a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit, borrow more money in two years than Bush did in eight, keep GUITMO open, continueing fighting two wars and continue all of Bush's anti-terror policies. My god that would be horrible wouldn't it?

    Tony it never gets old pointing out what a chump Obama made of you and all of your ilk. You really don't understand what a fool he has made of you do you?

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Meet the new boss, the same as or worse than the old boss.

  • Tony||

    Shame on him. At least the Dems believe in reality and facts. We're not talking about a choice between bad and perfect here.

  • ||

    Part of being nuts Tony is thinking you are sane.

  • JoshInHB||

    Shame on him. At least the Dems believe in reality and facts.

    Now that's genuinely funny.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Ron Paul is an idiot who embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth.


    The donkey talking about ears...

  • Devil Incohate||

    I bet Tony's lips move as he types his brain flatulence.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Even Gary Johnson, Tony?

    Shit, what's it gonna take to make you happy... the zombified corpse of FDR?

  • fish||

    Only if gets to have sex with it.

  • ||

    The so-called Tea Party is not a hard core libertarian phenomenon; most of those people are Republicans who just happened to raise their heads far enough out of the feeding trough to see the impending fiscal disaster, and decided to re-order their priorities.

    Given a little breathing room on the budget and the debt, I'm pretty sure the majority of them will go right back to hyperventilating about moral decay and terror.

  • jacob||

    THIS

  • creech||

    You are probably right about this. But one major libertarian purpose is to say and do things that get the troughers to raise their heads and look around. Some will revert, and others won't. So let's stop bashing them for being wrong for so many years and instead help them to do right for many future years.

  • Warty||

    Disrespectful Libertarians Hijack CPAC Poll -- And Its Mission

    Libertarian elements, because of their strange combination of policies that add up to anarchy without moral limits, don't mix with conservative ideals. And, because of that, perhaps they should have their own conference and let all the pot-smokers and gay marriage supporters come and complain about how the U.S. shouldn't be fighting terrorists, while they slander public servants.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Warty||

    Has anyone ever played the Commando drinking game? Playing the reason drinking game with this column would be even more suicidal.

  • ||

    I'm never a fan of this style of drinking game. There are always way too many rules, which you are increasingly likely to forget as you drink more. The best drinking game has always been one with limited rules, like one or two phrases or the Dallas drinking game where a slap equals a shot.

  • ||

    I don't think it was episodes of Dallas, but my point still stands.

    Before he retired, an NFL game called by John Madden where a shot is taken every time he says Brett Favre would have been a good one.

  • Warty||

    The version I played had three rules. 1)Drink when Arnold shows his muscles, 2)Drink when Arnold kills someone, 3)Drink when Arnold says a one-liner. You go through a six-pack in the final battle alone.

  • Warty||

    Oh, and 4)Drink when Arnold does something physically impossible.

  • robc||

    I didnt click the link, but I thought the Commando drinking game had one rule: Drink every time Arnold kills someone. That is pretty much a guarantee of alcohol poisoning.

  • ||

    Really, the only valid drinking/viewing game is "Hi, Bob."

  • sarcasmic||

    Kevin builds one heck of a straw man, doesn't he?

  • Thorbie||

    "Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers."

    Classic. At least this guy understands that libertarians are different from liberals AND conservatives. He for some reason thinks that the Founding Fathers were evangelical socialists though lol. Also doesn't "ballot stuffing" require people to vote multiple times? I'm pretty sure that all the votes Ron Paul and Gary Johnson received were all from actual people at CPAC and not just a few people who voted again and again. If it's so easy for libertarians to get people to CPAC (did anyone here see all the Reason/Cato/Koch Foundation adverts asking us to go? I sure didn't.), why doesn't Mitt Romney just send out a mass email asking supporters to go to CPAC? If you're trying to run for president, you'd think you'd do something like that so you won't be embarrassed when the straw poll comes out.

  • omg||

    Oh man that was a whole awesome article of what the denizens of 4chan would call "butthurt".

    And why is a conference where gay pot smokers talk about how public servants are lazy useless morons who do nothing outside of consuming oxygen considered a "bad thing"?

  • ||

    It is the libertarian in attendance that proclaimed the war to prevent terrorists from regathering strength and coming after our homeland as "illegal."

    Is that what we're calling it now?

  • ||

    The Neo Conservative crowd must be stopped.

  • ||

    I like Gary Johnson, but the man needs a PR coach. In that picture above his forehead is overexposed and he has a cheapskate haircut.

    And in interviews he's got this wide-eye flare he does. Distracting.

    He'd make a great candidate. But he has to sell it. And his fiscal conservativism / pot legalization, without the 'big L' libertarian baggage could be a good recipe for electoral victory.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "I like Gary Johnson, but the man needs a PR coach. In that picture above his forehead is overexposed and he has a cheapskate haircut.

    And in interviews he's got this wide-eye flare he does. Distracting."

    Dude, aren't you thinking of Nick Gillespie? It doesn't matter to me, because I'm a John Bolton guy all the way. You want a rationale? I'll give you a rationale! The 'stache!

  • Thorbie||

    Nick Gillespie's stache > John Bolton's stache

  • ||

    He looked way older than I remembered him being during his speech at CPAC. I was very surprised. I realize he wants to end the drug war, but I don't think going up on stage looking like you just did a few lines of coke is the best way to get your message across.

  • ||

    At least the GOP hates big government

    Wheeee!

  • dave c||

    is that guy a spoof? "slander public servants", lol

  • ||

    They're all dangerous, nihilistic morons to whom facts are a liberal conspiracy and who should be kept as far from power as possible.

    Sometimes, I'll think, "THAT one's unquestionably a spoof" and Tony will spend two hours elaborating on it.

  • ||

    Please, give me your scenario where the United States is conquered by Islamists. Or even loses a square foot of territory to Islamists.

    Jeepers, Fluffy, don't you get it?

    Every Mosque and Community Center is a little patch of MECCA defiling our sacred shores.

  • Doctor K||

    from reading the above the headline of this article should read...

    Just Remember, Nick Gillespie: CPAC is Wack When Reason readers discuss it no matter what they do.

    Of course it doesn't help when Reason's primary focus of CPAC is how gay it was.

    You have a movement and now a party on a pendulum towards Libertarian values. Everyday people for the first time in their lives taking political action, reading the Constitution, discovering Hayek, Rand, Cloward-Piven etc...(thanks in part to that ahem loon Glenn Beck) and the cool aloof libertarians sneer at them. The Tea Party despite all the slander took the libertarian cause and advanced it significantly.

    Get off your ass and help.

    Not a big Trump fan but he is right...Ron Paul is unelectable as POTUS.

    Doesn't mean he can't serve his Nader like role to keep the other candidates "honest"

    At this moment in time you have more to fear from the Dems than the GOP.

    If you Obama for another 4 years keep up the snootiness. If not get to work and get 80% of what you want instead of 10%.

  • ||

    Libertarians haven't stayed a fringe party for nothing. They have earned that status.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    THIS!

  • Warty||

    TEAM RED will give us 80% of what we want, sure. Do you have trouble remembering to breathe?

  • ||

    Why not just take over Team Red and get 100%? Or even 50%? That sound better than the zero percent we are getting now.

  • Warty||

    That would be nice. I applaud the people who try.

  • nekoxgirl||

    I'm all for that! The local GOP in my area is all So-Cons though...

    But I do think that taking over one of the two main parties is where it has to go if we ever want limited government. And obviously the Democrats are a lost cause.

  • guy in the back row||

    this

  • Old Mexican||

    Neo-cons, not liking the new libertarian streak among new conservatives?

    Say it ain't so, Shoeless!

  • ||

    Just because Islam won't conquer America, that doesn't mean some PoS won't murder my children in the name of Allah.

    And this will make them somehow deader than if an eighty-six-year-old woman runs over them on a sidewalk?

    Or if they die of carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty heater?

    Or contract an infection at the doctor's office?

    Or a tree limb falls on them in a storm?

  • ||

    I'd rather have Joe Biden as President than Donald Trump; although I doubt there is enough difference between them to fill a teacup.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    Which one has the better hair?

  • Warty||

    I had to think about this for a while. I think Joe Biden would be more embarrassing, but it would be close.

  • Old Mexican||

    Classic case of "missing the point"

    Forbes Magazine blog "The Policy Page"
    Ron Paul Pushes Financial Crack To America's Working Youth
    By Rick Unger

    Excerpt:

    Speaking to his loyal minions at CPAC, Ron Paul made an offer to his youthful devotees that they could not refuse –

    Look, we are not doing such a good job being government these days. We make promises and we don’t know about the future. Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10% of your income, but you take care of yourself. Dont ask the government for anything.

    Predictably, the young in attendance went crazy in appreciation.

    Why not?

    Paul's proposal has all the earmarks of those credit card offers flooding into the mailboxes of college students, promising instant purchasing power today by using debt to be paid back at sometime in the 'future'.

    How many kids at 18 years of age don't enjoy that opportunity?

    Anyone who can still recall being young knows that the 'future' is a pretty abstract concept. Most kids intellectually grasp that the day will come – but the day is so conceptually remote that it is certainly not something the young worry about in the present.

    After all, what's more important- spending a fortune you don't have to impress a girl with front row concert seats or worrying about how you are going to pay for it sometime in that all too nebulous 'future'?

    Yet, Rep. Paul wants to take advantage of our youthful desire to please ourselves in the now at the cost of forfeiting the future.

    If you doubt the inherent inability of the young to plan for life's many challenges that they simply cannot relate to until they get older, consider the reality of the 'young immortals' – the millions of young adults who are certain that they have no need to participate in health insurance programs because they are young and healthy and expect to stay that way for a very long time. Why spend all that money on insurance premiums when they can spend it on something more relevant to present wants and needs?


    In a nutshell: Unger believes that giving more to government is an investment into the future, so Paul is wrong.

    That's it - that's all Mr. Unger says. He goes on to show through anecdotical evidence that Paul is nuts or something.

  • ||

    What old man wouldn't want the opportunity to siphon off the productive labour of a young college kid?

  • ||

    The paternalism is strong with this one. All those adults who just can't run their own lives. Obviously, the solution is an insolvent government.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Wow. It's sad there are people running around that really think that government takes a third of your income to invest it wisely for you or something.

  • Old Mexican||

    UPDATE: Take a look at one of the replies from Ungar to another poster:

    "I always like to point out that libertarians rely heavily on the economic ideas of the Austrian economists. Yet, take a look at Austria's health care system today and then tell me if it bears any semblance of the libertarian philosophy."
  • ||

    You know who else was Austrian?

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    Arnold?

  • ||

    That's a Democratic lie! He was born in Massachusetts.

  • nekoxgirl||

    That may be one of the funniest things I've ever read.

  • omg||

    Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

    Is this guy for real?

  • Brett L||

    I always like to point out that we are completely dependent on Germans for our rocket program. And how many orbital rockets does Germany have now?

  • ||

    Unger has framed this in a silly way, but he touches on a key point for libertarians.

    I've yet to hear any libertarian anywhere, anytime say what they're willing to sacrifice to cut back on the size of government.
    Offer to pay an retired person's medical bills so that Medicare doesn't have to? Forego student aid? Walk, instead of drive, to reduce the expenditure of traffic law enforcement.
    The possibilities are virtually limitless, but no one is surprised that libertarians shun them resoundingly.
    I consider myself a committed advocate of personal liberty, civil liberties and limited government. I share the basic goals of libertarians 100 percent, I just have a different idea about how to achieve them.
    The GOP has made a science out of winning elections by chanting anti-government slogans while expanding government apace. Libertarians need a strategy to deal with that first and foremost, given that whatever potential "market share" they have is now being consumed by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who lol all the way to the bank.
    As several on this thread have already noted, libertarians have resoundingly lost the political argument in the U.S. They've failed to win hearts and minds. Which is really too bad, given that America, if anywhere, should be the best place for such an ideology to flourish.
    Perhaps the failure comes because libertarians fail to recognize and appreciate the need for the maintanence of civil institutions.
    Freedom is surely not as simple as the absence of restriction. Where there is no security, freedom has no meaning and no real value. Of course the converse is equally true, where there is no freedom, security means little or nothing.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    They're called Professor Emeritus.

  • robc||

    If you doubt the inherent inability of the young to plan for life's many challenges that they simply cannot relate to until they get older, consider the reality of the 'young immortals' – the millions of young adults who are certain that they have no need to participate in health insurance programs because they are young and healthy and expect to stay that way for a very long time. Why spend all that money on insurance premiums when they can spend it on something more relevant to present wants and needs?

    And they are mostly right. They should probably have a cheap ass catastrophic policy, but they sure as hell dont need anything more than that.

  • ||

    I don't know, rob. It's possible that the young might be well served with being able to buy a policy now at a higher rate that carried a guarantee that they could continue to get that same policy in their golden years. Sort of like getting a whole life life insurance policy.

    But such a policy doesn't exist and never will, unless, possibly, health insurance gets eparated from employment.

    I do agree with you that most people, even geezers, would be better served by catastrophic policies. In addition to getting employment out of the picture, we need to get away from the notion that insurance should be paying what should be predictable out of pocket costs that can be budgeted for.

  • robc||

    Yeah, separation from employment is they biggest change that needs to be made. The weird thing is, people on all sides of health care issues agree on this, and yet it cant be passed.

    Eliminating the employment connection and let things shake out for a few years makes the next step much more clear, IMO.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    robc 2012

  • Fluffy||

    This guy is stupid enough that he thinks that health insurance premiums are a savings plan for the future.

    "Silly youth! Refusing to piss away excessive, uneconomic premiums for coverage they don't need! Premium payments that instantly disappear on the 31st of the month, resetting you to zero each time, with absolutely no savings component whatsoever! Damn those rapscallions!"

  • ||

    They should probably have a cheap ass catastrophic policy, but they sure as hell dont need anything more than that.

    That's just crazy talk; every twenty-five year old male child needs a fifteen hundred dollar per month comprehensive medical insurance policy to save him from spending a hundred bucks annually on Alka-Seltzer.

  • robc||

    ObamaCare wont allow OTC products to be covered. So, no coverage from Alka-Seltzer. Now, prescription strength Alka-Seltzer, THAT would be covered. :)

  • ||

    Boo to CNN

    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/.....p.cnn.html

    Johnson is coming out of no where and they can't at least acknowledge a 3rd place finish. Was their logic, "Oh, out of the real candidates, Newt Gingrich was third because Christie isn't running and I've never heard of this Johnson fellow."

    Also, does anyone think that Ron Paul and Johnson are working together. From what I've heard, Paul's campaigning in 2008 was a little half hearted, with canceled events and a lackluster campaign schedule. Any chance he is firing up his supporters before he hands them over to Gary Johnson when Paul gives him his full support.

    I'm thinkin' that's what is gonna happen.

  • ||

    That would be my take as well. RP has finally landed a cherished chairmanship, is not likely to lose it in 2012 and has always claimed it was the message and not the man that he wanted in the White house. I can see RP as kingmaker, giving the nod and throwing his support behind Johnson. Johnson should pick up the Christie support as well -- Christie is just the eastern version (and thus a media sensation -- did he really just say that? My!) of Johnson anyway, a governor who says "NO!" and means it. Does anyone see Christie followers being excited by Romney?

  • Tim||

    I thought the people who didn't show up because of GOPproud was complete bull. The social conservatives act like they own the entire party.

  • ||

    Congrats to Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the straw poll. Sadly, come Primary season voters will chicken out and pick one of these neo-con ideologues like Barbour of Santorum.

  • dave c||

    I really doubt it will be Santorum. Clown lost his Senate seat by about 20 percentage points.

  • ||

    He won't risk victimizing his family again.

  • T||

    The squirrels should just save us the trouble and automatically link that thread every time his name is mentioned.

  • ||

    I'm surprised that they don't. After all, it was the wisdom of the squirrels that brought the thread back to life in the first place.

  • nekoxgirl||

    I'm not sure if Paul or Johnson will get the nomination but they'll at least have a chance. People are politically engaged, even more so than in 2008, and that wasn't a cake walk like the previous elections.
    It's likely going to be a knock out, drag down fight to the convention.

  • Chrissy Teigen||

    Some guy just asked me for my credentials. Apparently saying ‘deez titties’ doesn’t work.

  • ||

    John Bolton?! 'Cause you always want to run a completely unlikeable guy as your Presidential candidate?

  • Old Liberal Fascist||

    There are days, somedays, where I really do feel kinda bad for the libertarians. After all that wingnut ass-kissing, and tea-partying, and shouting "statism!" at everyone who signs up for Medicaid... the wingnuts still don't like the libertarians.

    And in a way, they have a point. I mean, is there any way libertarians won't vote straight wingnut in 2012?

  • GILMORE||

    Dude, you can't even figure out who's more wingnuntter, the socialcons or the libertoids. Your definition of 'wingnut' seems to be, "not you".

    Is there something 'wingnut' about *not* wanting a multi-trillon dollar deficit? Please explain.

  • GILMORE||

    ... a 21st century they managed to screw up the last time they were in power.

    While i bring this up to the social-cons frequently, they don't really seem to admit there was any failure at all... that's whats so aggravating about those dicks... they screw up royally, then pretend it was all a glowing success, and its just people who fail to see it.

    Which, i suppose, is no different than the Obamalytes, who consider his record a stunning success thus far.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Freepers hate Paul and Johnson, so there must be something good in both men.

  • ||

    "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
    -Ronald Reagan

    Ron Paul is the only Republican nominee who can steal Independent/Democrat votes from Obama. You want Obama out of the White House? Yes to Ron Paul!

  • ||

    Ron Paul is for liberty. This should get democrats and republicans to vote for him. He thinks marriage is your right, and shouldn't be government sanctioned. You don't need the government to accept your homosexual marriage, unless you want a handout.

    Vote for Ron Paul in 2012. He wants us literally out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he'll do it.

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