Ron Paul Elected President of Comedy Central

If the folks who show up at live comedy news tapings hold their own primary, Ron Paul's got it in the bag. First Bill Maher's show, now:

Has any brawl in a presidential debate done so much for both of the brawlers as the Rudy-Ron mudfight?

Comments

[thoreau]

I thought he did a fine job with Jon Stewart.

[Warren]

Daily Show Cancelled! Now 'The Ron Paul Show'

[tarran]

Damn! Stewart handed him a hanging fast-ball and he didn't swing!

After the Giuliani zinger ("You love the war on terror so much, maybe you should marry it... no, you'd only divorce it after a few years"), I found myself saying,

"yeah, but that's one kind of divorce I would support"

[Pro Libertate]

What a difference it makes when a libertarian runs under the aegis of a major party rather than as a Libertarian. Paul's received more press already than the LP in its entire history. Despite his otherwise being treated as a nothing candidate. Weird.

The media should be ashamed of its collective self.

[John]

Ron did well and gave good, honest answers. I also liked how Jon asked him about things other than foreign policy and made the conversations more interesting.

[Warren]

Pro Lib,
Yup, running under the aegis of the GOP gets you invited to the debates. When people actually hear libertarian ideas they get an enthusiastic response.

[Duckman]

I think overall Jon Stewart was really trying to help Ron Paul. Jon didn't ask any hard hitting questions about Ron's stances which might have been more controversial (although he did get Ron Paul to admit he's in favor of scrapping Medicare). But Jon could have tried to probe Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve, or his opposition to the drug war. I'm behind Ron on both of those fronts, but positions like that are easy to exploit as being "kook" positions (although ending the drug war might have been popular with the Daily Show audience). But hey, the last time someone implied Ron Paul was a kook (as Guiliani did during the 2nd debate) it seemed to help Ron Paul quite a bit.

But getting back to big government, I think Ron's answer that a generation has been raised with a dependency on big government and that there needs to be a gradual rollback was SPOT ON, a really, really good answer which helps defuse attacks on libertarian positions by suggesting that the first thing a libertarian is going to do when he comes to power is send pink slips to all current government employees and make everyone who was recieving government services fend for themselves immediately. I think such an attitude, while perhaps popular here, is a non-starter among the general public. I just hope Ron has good ways of handling questions about his other libertarian positions which might be a hard sell to the general public...

[Chucklehead]

So, Weigel, do you actually work for reason or youtube?

[stephen the goldberger]

Ron Paul was trying to play politics but Stewart kept him focused on ideas which wouldn't play to the left leaning crowd. The difference between Bill Maher's legitimate respect for Paul as an individual and Stewart/Daily show writers' respect for Paul as a spoiler in Republican Debates was obvious.

I personally enjoyed the fact that Paul was able to discuss other concerns but it'll alienate a lot of people and his words might lose some meaning to them. A great appearance though anyways, with some charming moments.

[Edward]

All fanatics are principled, and goofy ones make good guests on comedy shows. I guess the tide is turning.

[mk]

I was glad that Ron seemed relaxed and friendly instead of awkward and/or angry as he has seemed in the past.

Bill Maher went from trying to paint Paul as a kook to practically gushing over him. It was kind of embarrassing for Maher. Stewart seemed genuinely friendly, but he also seemed like he was gently trying to maneuver Ron into saying something outrageous. Paul did impart quite a bit of what he stands for, but he did it without losing the audience. It was a good interview for him.

Now if he could just do as well on some right-wing shows, he may have something. If anything, all the applause he is getting from the lefty shows will probably work against him with his own party. Not for any good reason, but that's kinda how it plays out usually.

[Michael Pack]

IF THE CROWD THERE KNEW THE AMOUNT OF CUTS A PRESIDENT PAUL WOULD WANT TO MAKE[JUSTIFIED IN MY OPINION] THEY WOULD THROW EGGS AT THE STAGE.

[Urkobold?]

EDWARD,

URKOBOLD WANTS TO KNOW WHY YOU FEAR RON PAUL. IF HE WERE SO UNIMPORTANT, WHY WOULD YOU FEEL THE NEED TO POST SNIDE REMARKS ABOUT HIM SO OFTEN? NAH, YOU'RE SCARED, MONKEY BOY.

[thoreau]

I'm glad that when talking about economics he talked about competition, and got a chance to distinguish between crony capitalism and competitive markets. And I'm glad that Stewart allowed him to make that distinction.

That played well with the audience. If Stewart had wanted to, he could have worked on portraying Paul as an apologist for every bad thing ever done by a corporation. But he didn't do that. He let Paul show his strengths. And even when talking about Medicare and Medicaid, he brought up the fact that Paul's principles carry over into his own private medical practice.

Overall, I think he was very fair to Paul.

[Chris]

The best moment of the interview was when Ron cogently and calmly explained that corporations and profit are not evil (as Stewart and his audience tend to believe) until the Government gives a corporation more market power than it would otherwise have (which he called "corporatism"). This is something more Americans (and of course the world) need to understand, and Ron did a great job of making the distinction between a free market and a market corrupted by government influences. Well done sir!

[pdog]

I think it went over too, especially the bit about being someone with consistant principles and how thats so unusual for a politician today.

And I'm glad he was allowed to go into some of his other domestic agenda points. While the au dience might not agree with the idea of cutting of social services and taxes, I think most agree that growing deficiets are a bad thing and a president who would veto outrages spending bills might be a good thing.

[Didja Get Any Onya?]

Contrary to the feel of things, the election's 17 months away, and the first primaries are still 7 months out.

Dr. Paul's campaign has to take care to preserve his rhetorical ammo for the coming autumn/winter.

Sure and steady, not frenetic and frantic (like some Libertarians I know)

[Kris]

I think the important thing is that Paul seemed like a genuine cool guy, not a crazy kook. That goofy smile of his can go miles if he uses it right.

[Warren]

I'm shickled titless over Ron's positive exposure. However, being fawned over by Hollywood lefties and their minions, is not going to put much life into a GOP candidate. Still, I'm encouraged to see libertarian ideas playing well in Peoria.

[Ryo]

I think a few of your are mistaken that success in venues like the Daily Show will not carry over into the GOP. I think a substantial part of McCain's mainstream awareness, if not popularity, is that he's already made numerous appearances on venues like the Daily Show over the past ten years. That spills over into the rest of the MSM, which are far more likely to report on the well known candidates than the ones who haven't had much national exposure prior to any campaign or debate. Being a senator from 1970s Alaska or the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate don't really raise your MSM profile. You have to be a media whore for the past few years to stand a chance.

[Edward]

Stewart was indeed fair to Paul, fair and light in the way one is fair and light with a symapthetic person who isn't to be taken seriously. Libertarian ideas don't play well in Peoria, but mildly likeable non-threatening kooks do. Libertarians should be deeply depressed, not encouraged, by Stewart's interview. Unless, of course, self-delusion is just part of the libertarian package.

[ed]

tarran | June 5, 2007, 11:11am | #

Damn! Stewart handed him a hanging fast-ball and he didn't swing!

Curve-balls hang. The fast-ball in question was merely slow.

[Randolph Carter]

Reason's readers were indeed fair to Edward, fair and light in the way one is fair and light with a mouthbreathing trauma patient who isn't to be taken seriously. Edward's ideas don't exist, and therefore don't play well in Peoria. Edward should be depressed, not encouraged, that he spends his time posting comments on web sites with his panties in a bunch. Unless, of course, self-delusion is just part of Edward's tiny package.

[Edward]

Ron Paul's veiws on race and crime:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

[Marcvs]

Damn! Stewart handed him a hanging fast-ball and he didn't swing!.

Just to nitpick, you also don't hand someone a fast ball, you throw it.

[Randolph Carter]

Edward's views on race and crime:

mmph mrgh mffmfmmmms

*unable to speak while fellating Leviathan*

[joe]

You know who else commites violent crime all out of proportion to their numbers, Congressman Paul?

Texans. You can look it up.

[creech]

I was skeptical about Ron Paul's race. What could it accomplish? Now we see how it has been able to get libertarian (I know, some disagree) ideas out there to millions of people, just like David Nolan hoped would happen when he called for a Libertarian Party to use politics as a soapbox. What will help to make such ideas less strange and more mainstream is if libertarians, and their groups, start putting these ideas out there daily and weekly in their communities. We have to be part of the on-going debate, not just some group that runs a mess of candidates every so often and gets 2% of the vote.

[ryan]

"All fanatics are principled, and goofy ones make good guests on comedy shows. I guess the tide is turning."
fa?nat?ic (f?-n?t'?k) Pronunciation Key
n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Sorry, but Ron Paul is just the opposite - his enthusiasm is based upon reason, unlike his demagogue opponents who blather on about their 'faith in God' and the 'evil terrorists' that are out to destroy liberty in America.

News flash: terrorists terrorize Americans because of their government's hegemonic stranglehold around the world, not because they let women walk around without head-scarfs, speak their minds, and vote in a democratic process.

[Edward]

Ron Paul is a political joke with absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, and his participation in the process will do absolutley nothing to advance a libertarian agenda. That he has excited the libertaian troops is a sad testimony to libertaianism's delusional marginality.

[fish]

Okay, Edward I'll bite who out there would be a better president?

[Marcvs]

fish:

Obviously anyone who is "sensible" that believes in growing the government only 4%/year, instead of 5%/year like those crazy liberals!

[fish]

Marcvs,

Ah...okay! Now it becomes clear!

Thanks I feel better.

[Urkobold?]

AND THEN THERE'S ZOD.

[Brian Defferding]

For cripes sakes, the lot of you negative nancies posting here should be ashamed of yourselves. Ron Paul has done more for the libertarian cause than any living person out there and has brought libertarian ideas to the mainstream more than anyone I know; it shouldn't matter what chances Ron has of winning or if he's a got a few knicks in his libertarian record.

Be thankful he got on the show and offered his ideas and perhaps converted voters out there to smaller-government public policies instead of doing this incessant caterwauling on the internet.

And go Ron Paul!

[Alex]

The RonPaul2008 website last night had an announcement that Ron Paul would also be Colbert on June 13th. As much as I enjoyed the Stewart interview, I'm anxiously awaiting the Colbert one. Should be an interesting interview.

[Vissud Ajhatan]

Um, it seemed like a fluff interview. Check these slants on Ron Paul:

http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul
http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/05/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul-part-ii/

[boston]

Um, it seemed like a fluff interview.

and you were expecting something else from the Daily Show?

[sage]

If (when?) he doesn't win the nomination, perhaps he should pull a Lieberman.

[fish]

Vissud,

You do realize that "The Daily Show" is a fluff show. You will need to do far more than post Mr Brady's opinion about congressman Paul to change my mind that he would still be the best president!

[Didja Get Any Onya?]

[i]Edward | June 5, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Ron Paul is a political joke with absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, and his participation in the process will do absolutley nothing to advance a libertarian agenda. That he has excited the libertaian troops is a sad testimony to libertaianism's delusional marginality.[/i]

You sound like dour old Minnesotans holding forth about Jesse "The Body" Ventura's chances at getting elected governor back in the day.

and we all know how that ended.

btw, it's kinda Bush league that you'd post the race quotes from an old Paul campaign newsletter without noting that he's said that he didn't write, nor did he approve, those quotes. I bet you snagged them from Salon's "Ron Paul is blowing up real good" story, and cherry picked the defamatory part because it's all you want.

Chumpy, that.

[VM]

Vissud - thx for the heads up there.

[Edward]

Fish

Who knows who would be a better president? My point is that Ron Paul isn't going to be and that he isn't greaatly advancing the libertarian cause. Maybe the real question is who would advance the libertarian cause any better than Ron Paul? If you can't come up with an answer to that one...

[Fluffy]

You gotta advance the cause a little before you can advance the cause "greatly", Edward.

Our other choice this election cycle is to not advance the cause at all. Or, to have it retreat, as it has in just about every other election cycle other than 80 since I've been alive.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Dr. Paul's campaign has to take care to preserve his rhetorical ammo for the coming autumn/winter."

He needs to bring it out every chance he gets because he won't be given too many opportunities to do so.

[Marcvs]

Maybe the real question is who would advance the libertarian cause any better than Ron Paul? If you can't come up with an answer to that one...

If right now the answer is "no one", what's so wrong with that?

[Taktix?]

Has no one else noticed that...

EDWARD IS A TROLL!!!

He hasn't contributed to the debate other than calling Paul a kook.

By the way, what was up with Dr. Paul running off the stage after the interview?

[Edward]

Here's an "anti-racist" statement by Ron Paul that toes the anti-collectivist line but flies in the face of everything we know from evoltuionary psychology. There are real and substantial differences between groups--between men and women, for example. Racism isn't a form of "collectivism"; it's a nasty reaction to those who really are different. To deny group identity is to deny human nature. Marxists also thought that the human mind is a blank slate.

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

[fish]

Edward

Ron Paul is a political joke with absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, and his participation in the process will do absolutley nothing to advance a libertarian agenda. That he has excited the libertaian troops is a sad testimony to libertaianism's delusional marginality.

Ron Paul is a political joke.....

He's a sitting member of congress and is running for president by espousing very definite Libertarian positions.

Absolutely no chance of winning.....

I suspect you are correct about this but who knows. There is still plenty of time between now and the election for the United States to come to its collective senses (That said, they probably won't).

his participation in the process will do absolutley nothing to advance a libertarian agenda.

How does speaking in forums where your ideas might be heard do nothing to advance the Libertarian cause?

Who knows who would be a better president? From the tone of your earlier posts you seem to think that you do so why don't you answer my question?

[Edward]

Marcus

What's wrong with that?? You mean you're satisfied that Ron Paul is the best libertarians have? Amazing.

[Jon C Jackson 3]

I hate Reason- eating up the book I just wrote ( Cliffs: I wish Ron Paul would get a little more into the compassionate choice and charitable aspects of free market healthcare, competition,etc. And libertarians in general need to do a better job with the progressive " Ron Paul wants poor sick people to die" stuff)

[Edward]

Fish

Ron Paul is a political joke.....

He's a sitting member of congress and is running for president by espousing very definite Libertarian positions.

The congress is full of political jokes who have been elected by espousing all sorts of nonsense. So what your point?

[fish]

I'll ask you one more time. WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD DO A BETTER JOB AS PRESIDENT? There I've typed very slowly.

At least attem

[Edward]

Fluffy

Some causes never make it.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"You know who else commites violent crime all out of proportion to their numbers, Congressman Paul?"

At the risk of sounding like a bigot, let me say Texas has a large percentage of blacks and Hispanics who commit a big portion of the crimes in Texas.

[R C Dean]

Racism isn't a form of "collectivism"; it's a nasty reaction to those who really are different. To deny group identity is to deny human nature.

Is'm wondering, Edward: isn't it hard to type wearing a sheet?

[fish]

Shit, finger slipped!

At least attempt to answer a direct question once!

[gaijin]

Hello Edward...

everything we know from evoltuionary psychology.

What, exactly, do 'we' know?

[JW]

I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but Edward's unassailable logic has moved me.

I'm votin' stright down the nasty and bitter turd platform. Hillary in the primary and Giuliani in the end!

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"I wish Ron Paul would get a little more into the compassionate choice and charitable aspects of free market healthcare"

I do too. The public needs to know that socialized medicine isn't the only alternative to our present system.

[Edward]

Fish

Who would make a better president? Many, many other able men and women and just about any of the other candidates from either party. As a fringe zealot, Ron Paul just isn't presidential material. It's a sign of the--dare I say it?--collective wisdom of the American electorate that wingnuts like Ron Paul never make it. Well, okay, Reagan made it. Morons are okay, but fringe extremists? Never.

I doubt very much that you really think he's electable. You think he's giving a big boost to libertarianism. I think you're mistaken

[Fluffy]

Edward, I personally don't think he's electable. I'm happy if he merely serves to help the Republican party continue its implosion. By standing there to be a pinata, he will help the major candidates drive every last person who is against the war out of the party. That will pretty much doom the party of torture and the party of theocracy to a defeat of historic proportions, and that will be good enough for me this time around.

I'm even willing to accept that the Democrats, when they take power, will probably do things that I won't like as a libertarian. That's not really as important to me right now as seeing the party of Bush go down in flames.

There aren't enough libertarians out there to make the Republican abuse of Paul make any difference - but there are still quite a few anti-war Republicans, and they might see Paul's treatment as one more sign that they should hit the road. That'll do.

[zeiner the lurker]

thoreau | June 5, 2007, 11:49am | #
I'm glad that when talking about economics he talked about competition, and got a chance to distinguish between crony capitalism and competitive markets. And I'm glad that Stewart allowed him to make that distinction.

I agree. I can't tell you how many times that I had to explain to my friends the difference between "pro-business" (as the Republicans view it) and being for free markets.

[Taktix?]

Edward,

I was looking forward to an intelligent discussion on last night's Daily Show, but since that isn't the case, I guess I'll go back to work now.

And Ed, enjoy going on these threads and ruining them for juvenile gratification. It's likely beat your only alternative, namely jerking off to World of Warcraft in grandma's basement.

It's a sign of the--dare I say it?--collective wisdom of the American electorate that wingnuts like Ron Paul never make it.

Ed, you are a shining example of the collective wisdom of the American electorate.

[thoreau]

The RonPaul2008 website last night had an announcement that Ron Paul would also be Colbert on June 13th. As much as I enjoyed the Stewart interview, I'm anxiously awaiting the Colbert one. Should be an interesting interview.

Oh. My. God. This. Will. Be. Awesome.

Colbert, the man whose viewers vandalize Wikipedia on command, with Paul, whose followers hack online polls.

Teh intarnetz might just pass through a singularity when they meet.

[Edward]

Fluffy

All very good points. If you're right and Ron Paul helps destroy the Republican party, then I guess I have to say that I'm glad he's there. I never thought of it that way. Thanks

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said."

"Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

If Edward knew Ron Paul or had ever read his writings or followed his career, he would know that Ron Paul didn't write any of the above.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"All very good points. If you're right and Ron Paul helps destroy the Republican party, then I guess I have to say that I'm glad he's there. I never thought of it that way. Thanks"

I think the Republican Party is doing a good job of destroying themselves without Ron Paul's help.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Miche has last night's Ron Paul clip from the Daily Show up here.

[Pro Libertate]

Right or wrong, useful or useless, good or evil--all such comparisons fade to the point of obscurity when put up against the only question that matters to most people: electable or unelectable? It's this horse-race mentality that gets us the current crop of losers as candidates.

[Edward]

Rattlesnake Jake

How did those statements get in his newsletter? Must have some racists on staff, huh?

[Edward]

Pro Libertate

All "electable" means is accpetable to American voters. Isn't it a good thing that we American voters have the final say?

[Didja Get Any Onya?]

The party primaries are where the rubber meets the road. Everything until then is merely jockeying for position.

[Hugh Akston]

You think he's giving a big boost to libertarianism. I think you're mistaken

Ron Paul is putting a message out there that you can oppose our occupation of Iraq without having to lump in affirmative action, socialized medicine, and high taxes.

Many people who are not exposed to a libertarian message might not ever conclude that those two positions are compatible.

[Edward]

Taktix?

No, what you were looking for was comforting verification of your own illusions. Sorry to disappoint you. You probably shouldn't be getting your ears tickled on work time anyway.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"How did those statements get in his newsletter? Must have some racists on staff, huh?"

Yes, one racist that I know of who has written for him is Lewellan Rockwell. Some have suspected that he is the one who wrote those remarks. That's also my suspicion judging from what I've read from Rockwell in the past.

[Average Voter]

Hugh

You mean I can oppose the Iraq war and socialized medicine at the same time? I never knew that. I guess I'm a libertarian. Where do I sign up?

[miche]

TWC,
Nobody's linking to that clip- they all seem to be fixated on my new t-shirt.

[Edward]

Rattlesnake Jake

So what's Ron Paul's association with Lewellan Rockwell?

[fish]

Who would make a better president? Many, many other able men and women and just about any of the other candidates from either party.

Thanks for finally getting around to only sort of evading the question! You can go home to Pandgon now!

[Pro Libertate]

Ah, the lowest common denominator is the best choice. Right. That kind of thinking got us Bush and, to a lesser extent, Clinton. And Zeus knows how much lower we can go.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Many people who are not exposed to a libertarian message might not ever conclude that those two positions are compatible."

It's like me when I gave up Chrisianity. I started feeling out of place in the Republican Party because of their position on social issues, but I knew I couldn't accept the Democrats' economic issues. I was glad to find out there was a philosophy that I fit into.

[miche]

I was happy that the congressman was able to say a little something about third parties, debates, and ballot access.

[Jake Boone]

Rattlesnake Jake -

I've read some Lew Rockwell articles in the past, but never ran across anything that triggered my "racist!" alarm. Can you link to any of the racist stuff you're talking about?

(I'm not callin' you a liar - I'm just genuinely curious.)

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"I've read some Lew Rockwell articles in the past, but never ran across anything that triggered my "racist!" alarm. Can you link to any of the racist stuff you're talking about?"

No, I can't link to anything. I just remember he had some racist writings in the "RR Report" that I used to subscribe to. In fact, that was one of the reasons I stopped subscribing to it.

[goldenequity]

Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

[Jake Boone]

Y'know what's worse than comment spam that one disagrees with? Comment spam that espouses a viewpoint one holds, because it makes one look bad.

Come on, goldenequity... quit spamming. That's no way to win converts - it just annoys folks.

[Taktix?]

Jake Boone,

Definite article, please...

[Jake Boone]

Here you go:

the

[Taktix?]

Drat! Foiled again!

[Edward]

Okay, as long as we're going to cheer for an unelectable candidate,how about Noam Chomsky? Chomsky for President. He's opposed to an interventionist foreign policy and he's extremely intelligent. There is the little problem that he's not running, but Ron Paul might just as well be not running. How do libertarians feel about Chomsky?

[fish]

Yeah that does tend to be a problem if one aspires to political office......not running.

[Jake Boone]

Wait, are you talking about the real Chomsky or the well-loved inflatable version?

[daddym2000]

Hi Edward....are you a CFR member,(Council on Foreign Relations)?
That would explain why you don't care who wins as long as it is not Mr Ron Paul...
...loaded dice comes to mind.

[Reinmoose]

Anyone have any predictions for tonight's "debate" on CNN? I think Mitt Romney is going to look tall and presidential again and John McCain will pound his fist on the podium and stutter while trying to drive home that he will veto pork spending. That's about all I got

[Reinmoose]

oh, and Mike Huckabee will continue to look like a muppet

[Fluffy]

Edward, here's a short list of other candidates who are not going to be the President of the United States:

Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Huckabee
Brownback
Hunter
Gilmore
Thompson, T.
Edwards
Gravel
Dodd
Biden
Richardson
Kucinich

Should all of the supporters of these zero-chance candidates immediately switch to someone else?

[miche]

In an effort to get the focus off Ron Paul's recent attention, Rudy will dress in drag and insist on being called Ruby.

[fish]

In an effort to get the focus off Ron Paul's recent attention, Rudy will dress in drag and insist on being called Ruby.

I've said all along that I would chuck every last libertarian principle and impulse if Rudi/Rubi would conduct his presidency in drag!

[Tom Walls]

I'd love to see Beatle Bob dancing onstage while the candidates are debating tonight in New Hampshire.

[fish]

"The Scottish kilt was just for everyday wear... for battle, we donned full-sequinned dresses adorned with frills and lace!"

-Groundskeeper Willy for Prez in 2008:

[Duckman]

Well, I think Noam Chomsky might not be as bad as some other options... he is anti-imperialism, he is anti-drug war, he has somewhat anarchist sympathies (some libertarians are sympathetic to anarchism, as in the "no government" aspect of anarchism as opposed to the "violent insurrection" aspect).

Where Chomsky loses me is in his "libertarian socialism" idea in which all existing businesses and governments will be reformed by the state and given to direct popular control. This sounds like "kinder, gentler" communism to me, and I am opposed to that on the grounds that it can't work (no state can be wise or fair enough to control everything) and because I believe you need an ownership society so that you can strive for and keep wealth and security in life. As you can see from the U.S. government, an institution left soley to democratic control (as Chomsky suggests everything be converted to) can be corrupted and not end up serving anyone's interests except for those of the powerful. In fact, it is for these sorts of reasons that I have noticed that in general libertarians take a somewhat more dim view of democracy than do other people on the political spectrum; we believe democracy is generally good, but far, far from perfect, and that there need to be adequate safeguards for minority points of view which are not provided by straight majority-rule democracy. I believe only a government which provides absolute personal liberty (which actually goes beyond the human rights fought for on the left) can adequately correct for some deficiencies inherint in democracy.

[Warren]

fish,
I understand the motivation behind your comment. But you need to ask yourself - What then? Do you imagine politics could return to something like what they resembled before the Rubi administration? And if not, Who would wish to bear witness to what followed.

[Marcvs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARaNEE66xuw

[Sean]

Edward is sad about Ron Paul's growing popularity.

It makes him sad because he's become so used to sucking on the big boner of life that is the welfare federal government.

Weening isn't that tough, I promise.

[fish]

I've heard aphorism recently that says, in essence, that each president serves only to burnish the reputation of his predecessor. This seems to hold pretty well for at least for the last 30 or so years. Bush the 1st was made to look more statesmanlike by the Clinton administrations various hijinks. Clinton is looking positively founding fatherlike by the clown currently serving! Following this line of thought the next president will either be the recently BoToxed Hillary or Rudi in drag. Between these two choices, I'll take; "La Cage aux Folles"!

[lunchstealer]

Why not Chomsky? Because libertarian noninterventionist != wacky (if intelligent) leftist kook. But then again Edward != !troll, so who gives a shit?

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"dward, here's a short list of other candidates who are not going to be the President of the United States:

Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Huckabee
Brownback
Hunter
Gilmore
Thompson, T.
Edwards
Gravel
Dodd
Biden
Richardson
Kucinich"

You don't think Guiliani has a chance? He is way out in front in the polls of the Republicans and the latest general election polls showed both Guiliani and McCain beating Hillary.

[Reinmoose]

Face it RJ, Hillary is going to be the next President of the United States, and it will officially be no longer worth living.

[Duckman]

The way I see it, Guiliani only has a chance if Hillary gets the nod. In fact, except for Ron Paul, who has crossover appeal because of his principled war opposition, NONE of the other Republicans can win the general election UNLESS Hillary (or maybe Kucinich) gets the nod. I hope the Democrats realize this.

[Fluffy]

Giuliani ran screaming from a contest with Hillary last time and he's in no shape to face her again.**

I don't think McCain or Giuliani will ultimately get the nomination. That makes it hard to win the general.

Anyway, at most I can only be wrong with one of the names on that list. That means I'm right with all the others. :->

**I know, I know, he had a note from his doctor. I still think he bailed because he knew he would lose, and the prostate thing gave him an out.

[lunchstealer]

Seriously, Hillary is popular among democrats, and relatively popular among the apolitical, but there are a lot of people who would vote for anybody but her. There are people who'd consider voting for Obama or Edwards, but wouldn't give Hillary the time of day.

Kinda like me. If it's a hawk like Giuliani or McCain, I can't see myself voting GOP, but I might vote democratic unless it is Clinton or Edwards. Edwards I'm probably more alone on, but Clinton brings a lot of baggage that doesn't play as well outside traditional blue states.

Then again, she's a really good campaigner, so she might just be able to do it.

While we're on the subject, can we have a rule stating that no one related by direct blood (sibling/parent/offspring) or by direct marriage at any time during the term of a sitting president may be president for at least 10 years? That will at least mean that we've got to come up with three families to rotate the hereditary presidency between, instead of just two.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Face it RJ, Hillary is going to be the next President of the United States, and it will officially be no longer worth living."

I haven't given up. The latest USA Today poll has her and Obama in a virtual tie and I'm expecting her to continue to fall.

[Warren]

I haven't given up. The latest USA Today poll has her and Obama in a virtual tie and I'm expecting her to continue to fall.

Not a chance. We're still what, forty months away from the primaries? Obama's one-time supporters will wither in the coming weeks. Hillary's war chest has no bottom.

Like I've been telling you all along, no force on heaven or earth, save a felony conviction, can stop HRC from being the Democratic nominee.

[Pro Libertate]

Warren,

I predict that she gets hammered early on. Money alone can't help a poor early primary performance. In fact, it might make things worse--what, all that cash and you still are a loser? Bah.

Florida's move to a January primary may rock some worlds, too. Will there be a Hispanic lift for Richardson? Mexican, etc. doesn't equate to Cuban, but it might be close enough for election purposes, especially given his more moderate posture. I'm still convinced that he's going to take off in the primaries. But I've been wrong before.

Anyway, Clinton still rubs too many people within the Democratic ranks the wrong way, not to mention the perception that she'll get about zero swing voters. I think Obama is a long shot for different reasons. Besides, everyone hates Senators.

[Edward]

Has Ron Paul ever declared his position on evolution?

[Fluffy]

When the question was asked about who didn't believe in it, he was not one of the candidates to raise his hand.

[Edward]

Duckman

Absolute personal liberty is a pipe dream. Absolute silliness, however, is evidently quite attainable.

[Edward]

I suspect Congressman Paul was exercising his personal freedom not to answer the question. I belive he's a funadmentalist Christian, isn't he?

[Pro Libertate]

My understanding is that he prays to the Greek gods.

[Fluffy]

My understanding is that when he travelled through time to the year 3010 to fight the evil robot king, he learned from the scientists there that evolution had, in fact, been proven.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Miche: I saw the tee shirt. 🙂 Okay, moving right along....

I'm about to make a nuisance of myself by shilling, once again, for the Ron Paul video you posted, by posting the link to it on another thread here at H&R.

Fish:

What, exactly, does it mean when you say your shit finger slipped?

[Meh]

Edward | June 5, 2007, 5:50pm | #
Duckman

Absolute personal liberty is a pipe dream. Absolute silliness, however, is evidently quite attainable.

Your posts do a great job of proving that...

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Miche's Ron Paul tee shirt is here

[fish]

Commonsewer,

I leave you to draw your own conclusion.....now I got to go wash my hands.....and the mouse.

[Vanessa]

Edward, there is something really creepy about you. You express your hostility in a measured and understated way that is most unpleasant. It makes a person wonder exactly what is lurking under there.

And by the way, I don't think that Paul's statement is an endorsement of the blank slate. Humans can have an evolved nature and still create a dizzying array of social constructions to reinforce that nature, for better or worse. Race might be biologically meaningful, but group identities and racist ideologies are still social constructions.

Yes, there might be small but distinct differences between races other than superficial physical characteristics. It is also likely that the human tendency to form in-groups and out-groups, such that persons in out-groups are devalued, is a biologically evolved tendency.

These factors do not justify racism. One can acknowledge both that races are different and humans are inclined to devalue out-groups, and still decry racialist ideologies. In fact, I would argue that knowing these facts about us creates a moral imperative to try and overcome them. So I think Paul's statement about race and collectivism is pretty much right on. We need expand our ideas of inclusiveness rather than reinforcing divisiveness.

There are races, but there is only one human species. If there are slight differences in the distribution of certain characteristics across races, the similarities vastly outweigh them.

You know, Steven Pinker talked about all of this in The Blank Slate. Based on your comments, it seems like you might have read it. If so, I think overlooked a few things.

Here's a quote from an interview of Pinker, expressing many of the ideas he wrote about in The Blank Slate.

Our moral sense may?have a free parameter? People in all cultures have an ability to respect and sympathize with other people. The question is, with which other people? The default setting of our moral sense may be to sympathize only with members of our clan or village. Over the course of history, a knob or a slider has been adjusted so that a larger and larger portion of humanity is admitted into the circle of people whose interests we consider as comparable to our own. From the village or clan the moral circle has been expanded to the tribe, the nation, and most recently to all of humanity, as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It's an example of how we can enjoy social improvement and moral progress even if we are fitted with certain faculties, as long as those faculties can respond to inputs."

From:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_print.html

[Sean]

Wow, it seems there's a lot of "libertarians" that are freakishly specific about what a real libertarian has to believe in. With this kind of fanatical demands of orthodoxy it's no wonder the libertarian party is inconsequential. Where do you guys get this notion that to be libertarian you have to totally object to international borders, or any kind of control over immigration?

Seems to me the fanatical libertarians should take a page from the repub party's "big tent" rhetoric.