Ron Paul

Ron Paul! Gary Johnson! Fusionism! Liberaltarians! Reason!

|

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!

When it comes to the premature, shoot-your-own-darn-self-in-the-foot game of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson?, I'm squarely in the Jesse Walker camp–"for now, let them double-team all the authoritarians on the stage." But that doesn't mean it's not interesting to read people play along at home! Here's Will Wilkinson, picking up on Ilya Somin's and Shikha Dalmia's recent pro-Johnson raps, and making some broader points about libertarian politics and political coalitions:

As governor, Mr Johnson showed that a non-ideological, pragmatic libertarianism can work as a governing philosophy. But neither full-blooded libertarians nor allegedly liberty-loving tea-party enthusiasts really care much about governing. Libertarians, accustomed to dwelling on the margins of American politics, participate in elections without hope of electoral success, if they participate at all. For them, presidential campaigns offer at best an occasion to preach the libertarian gospel to the wary public, and the more table-pounding the better. As for the tea partiers, they seem less interested in practical policy solutions to America's problems and rather more interested in fighting a culture war over what it means to be authentically American. Unless ostensibly liberty-loving conservative voters become convinced that the sensible liberalisation of drug and immigration policy is implied by the inspired language of the Constitution of Independence, the eagle will not soar for Mr Johnson.  

The liberaltarian! After him!

The elements of Mr Paul's past and creed that Mr Somin, Ms Dalmia, and I find objectionable are not really liabilities. They are an important part what makes "Dr No" a candidate capable of generating surprising amounts of enthusiasm and campaign cash, if not votes. Mr Paul and the tea-party movement are each in their separate ways creatures of Cold War-era conservative-libertarian "fusionism", which remains a powerful ideological and institutional force on the right. In contrast, Mr Johnson comes off as a post-fusionist, libertarian-leaning fiscal conservative. The very existence of such a creature heartens me, but it remains that there exists in our culture no popular, pre-packaged political identity that celebrates and defines itself in terms of these laudable tendencies. "Liberaltarian" pragmatism has no electoral future in the absence of support from social movements and institutions dedicated to promoting it. Mr Johnson's main contribution during the race for the Republican nomination may be simply to show voters that the lonely ground on which he stands is there to stand on.

Across the pond, Alex Massie comments:

Would it make it any better if I told you this was at a marijuana party?

In the end, Gary Johnson appeals to Reason subscribers*, the people who attend events hosted by the Cato Institute and other middle-class enlightened types distressed by the parade of grotesques offered by the "mainstream" parties. That's a lovely constituency and one that contains many fine people but it's not enough to make much of an impression on anything. […]

Nevertheless, if he does nothing other than bring attention to the miseries and injustices of the War on Drugs, Gary Johnson will have done his country some service during the course of his noble, doomed campaign.

*After you have subscribed to the Spectator you should subscribe to Reason too.

I wholeheartedly agree with Massie's last point, anyway….

"CUT"? You mean I have to *cut* government? Well, waste fraud and abuse!

Much as I enjoy the view of my own navel, let me adjust the periscope a bit. Americans as a whole–not just Republicans, or Tea Parties, or Reason subscribers, or the liberaltarian jackalope–are significantly more hardass than their elected representatives from either party about cutting the size of government and bringing the Bush-Obama Bailout Era to a screeching halt. There is a palpable hunger, particularly though not only in the GOP/Tea Party camps, for brutally frank discussions about reforming big-ticket spending items before the big-ticket spending items reform us; if you don't believe me, just ask Newt Gingrich. Everything in American politics has been trending in this direction since that first TARP vote in September 2008.

What does this mean for the GOP presidential race? With the usual caveats that I'm neither Republican nor particularly prescient, I think it means that the Party must nominate someone who has a history of being significantly more radical about cutting the size of government than your run-of-the-mill John Boehner. Is Mitt Romney really that guy? T-Paw? As long as you can count the number of truly limited-government GOP candidates on one hand, there will be room for the very different approaches of both Gary Johnson and Ron Paul in these debates, and probably extra space left open for other as-yet-unannounced candidates who are good on the only real domestic policy issue worth talking about.

As Paul himself told Senior Editor Brian Doherty late last month:

You know, Reason subscribers like *all sorts* of politicians! Well, at least two. Maybe one.

The other side has dominated for years. Everyone represented their views as modified Keynesianism, and they don't present an alternative on foreign policy. But the Republican Party had a history where we had less interventionist foreign policy and sound money and personal liberties [were valued], so having two, three, or four candidates who believe in them is good.

My goal in life is getting those ideas out, not even having it be a partisan thing.

A Reason primer on Johnson here; his topic page here. Similar drills for Paul here and here.

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.

168 responses to “Ron Paul! Gary Johnson! Fusionism! Liberaltarians! Reason!

  1. Better alt-text for the Gingrich pic would have been “there are at least 20 Republican candidates in the car just like him.”

    1. That’s Gingrich? I was trying to figure out why Beck was pictured in this article.

    2. Minor correction: “There are at least 20 Republican candidates in the car just like Newcular Titties.”

        1. Its amazing that they can actually tow a lion with such a small car filled to the brim with clowns.

          1. It’s the clown shoes they wear; extra traction.

        2. Mow the Lyon.

          1. Blow Paul Ryan

            1. Flow the cryin’.

              1. Pro at Lyin’

                1. Hoes be cryin’

                  1. You are all fabulous…and will be taking home a selection of wonderful parting gifts……….!

                    Johnny…tell them what they’ve won!

                    1. Hit & Run: The Game? My kids will love that!

    3. Matt was too baked from his pot party with Gary Johnson to call upon such wit.

  2. …the inspired language of the Constitution of Independence???

    Who wrote that document, James Jefferson?

    1. I think that’s a leftie meme for the instant due to some GOP presidential candidate mistakenly attributing a line from the Declaration to the Constitution.

    2. The Articles of Confederalist Papers.

      1. Magna Cartographer

        1. Or Magnum Cartograforce.

          1. Cartmans sporting a Magnum

            1. Cartmans sporting a Magnum

              If that were true, he wouldn’t be so pissed off.

      2. The Declination of Transcendence.

    3. Do you think Thomas Paine had a drinking game anytime someone said “For a pamphlet called common sense…”

      1. The Age of Drinkin’.

  3. Sorry Matt, but it looks like more of a messy/missing hair party than anything else. Minoxidil and combs all around!

    1. You sure seem to know a lot about hair loss treatments, Commodore.

      1. That’s Decker, right? Not Hornblower or someone else.

  4. Gary Johnson should run on his record. Compared to the other governors in the race, he’s golden.

    Ron Paul should run on his best issue — cutting government spending. Answer the other questions unapologetically, then steer the debate back to the one people care about.

    1. If Johnson wanted to win he should be the principled “let me run my own life” individualist right now. Then, if he managed to win the nomination, tone that down and turn up the pragmatic stuff to attract some liberals. Since he won’t win, I think he should just say what he really thinks and rock the GOP boat. Let er rip!!

      1. Presidential campaigns are serious business, and not something a person should enter as a lark. The voting public deserves not to have its time wasted.

        No, but seriously, that’s a lot of money to spend and abuse to take just to get the drug war message out there.

        1. Presidential campaigns are serious business, and not something a person should enter as a lark. The voting public deserves not to have its time wasted.

          Comedy gold

  5. I have no problem with Johnson, and would love to see him win the nom (though his chances are even more slim than Ron’s).

    But I can’t stand these editorial-izers who are supporting him (Willy Will especially). They detest the grassroots. They detest any passion, or anger, or fear directed toward government.

    I can imagine them sitting around drinkin’ cocktails and laughing at those “silly militias stockpiling guns”. They use words like “unserious” when talking about certain policy prescriptions, but never against the people in power. Only against radicals who actually want the system to change. They have no appreciation of history.

    In short, fuck them.

    1. “Raaaaacist!!”

    2. Round 18 of Cosmotarians v. Yokeltarians.

      1. Notice that I didn’t use those words. Wilkinson and his ilk started the fight

        1. So this:

          I can imagine them sitting around drinkin’ cocktails and laughing at those “silly militias stockpiling guns”.

          was not a product of your overactive imagination and was therefore not a strawman for you to lay into?

            1. There is no “fight”, sheesh. It’s perfectly acceptable to prefer Johnson or Paul. Both would be leaps and bounds better than any president since Coolidge. Though I’d prefer Johnson, I’m strongly supporting Paul too, and I don’t see any major badmouthing of Paul in those articles.

              1. and I don’t see any major badmouthing of Paul in those articles.

                You don’t consider intentionally misrepresenting someone’s position “major badmouthing” as in InIlya Somin’s piece.

                1. So what is Ron Paul’s position on Kelo vs New London?

  6. There is a palpable hunger, particularly though not only in the GOP/Tea Party camps, for brutally frank discussions about reforming big-ticket spending items before the big-ticket spending items reform us;

    Sort of, though there’s this AP poll saying that:

    In the poll, 54 percent said it’s possible to balance the budget without cutting spending for Medicare, and 59 percent said the same about Social Security.
    Taking both programs together, 48 percent said the government could balance the budget without cutting either one. Democrats and political independents were far more likely than Republicans to say that neither program will have to be cut.

    Actually, I think your “particularly though not only” is a decent qualifier, considering that that’s actually a lower number for the delusional position than I’d expect. (And the poll states that Republican supporters are far better, but doesn’t break out the number in the story.)

    1. In the poll, 54 percent said it’s possible to balance the budget without cutting spending for Medicare, and 59 percent said the same about Social Security.
      Taking both programs together, 48 percent said the government could balance the budget without cutting either one.

      At what point does the interviewer tell the respondants “Sorry, you’re actually wrong. There is no way to balance the budget without cutting these two programs, and that includes removing literally every single other program from the federal budget and issuing a massive tax upon teh rich!”

      1. Only if you accept the Democrat definition of a “cut.” We could easily balance the budget without real cuts to Medicare and SS by simply freezing spending for 6-7 years, or by slowing their rate of growth for a longer period of time.

        1. When most people consider a reduction in the rate of increase of spending to be a cut, we are truly fucked.

    2. Total revenue in 2010 was ~$2.4 trillion. Total non-discretionary spending was ~$2.2 trillion. So if we eliminated every discretionary program, and cut the military budget to $200 billion, we’d balance the budget without cutting spending for Medicare or Social Security. Booyah!

      Actually, maybe it’s like that riddle that goes, “I have two coins in pocket worth a total of thirty-five cents, and one of them isn’t a quarter. What coins do I have?” The answer, of course, being a quarter and dime, since the other one was the quarter.

      This is like that. We can balance the budget without cutting Social Security (by cutting Medicare) and we can balance the budget without cutting Medicare (by cutting Social Security). Those poll-responders are just too clever for us.

      1. That only explains 17% of the responders. It really doesn’t explain the 48% who definitely said we could get away with cutting neither.

        1. Well, like I showed, it is theoretically possible to balance the budget without cutting either, but I doubt that 48% was thinking in such terms.

    3. Sure it’s possible. Just add hyperinflation.

  7. In the end, Gary Johnson appeals to Reason subscribers*, the people who attend events hosted by the Cato Institute and other middle-class enlightened types distressed by the parade of grotesques offered by the “mainstream” parties. That’s a lovely constituency and one that contains many fine people but it’s not enough to make much of an impression on anything.

    Alex Massie thinks we’re fine people. He must hate the elderly and Teh Chilrunz

  8. KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS KOCHTOPUS

    1. +11 Kochtopus’s for you.

      1. That would be “Kochtopussies”.

        For those that love Koch and pussy.

        1. Kochtopodes

    2. MUSHROOM! MUSHROOM!

  9. Columnists like Alex Massie and Will Wilkinson always make me think of a slinky. Basically useless, but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs…

    1. Now, *thats* funny!

  10. rather more interested in fighting a culture war over what it means to be authentically American.

    If you take away all the false accusations that the left has made at Tea Partiers is this even remotely true?

    Last I check their main issues were stopping Obamacare, stopping TARP and other bail outs, stopping stimulus and balancing the budget through cuts.

    They may have wrapped themselves in the American flag and the constitution when pushing their issues but i would hardly call that a cultural war….what group does not wrap themselves in the American flag and the constitution?

    1. To some extent its true. I recently watched the author of “What Would the Founders Say” on CSPAN2’s book tv. He self-identified as a tea-partier, and seemed rather rank and file for the tea party ranks. He addressed some of the fiscal issues, but also spent a great deal of time talking about the religious, specifically and uniquely Christian, inclinations of th founders and claimed it as a mantle that Americans needed to rediscover their Christian heritage. If that ain’t Teh Kulture War, I don’t know what is.

      1. If that ain’t Teh Kulture War, I don’t know what is.

        I can find democrats who claim Christianity supports their positions as well….also it would not be very hard to find an atheist tea pirate right here in these comments.

        Hell i am not a tea pirate but I am an atheist who believes that liberal democracy owes its roots to the Judao-christian tradition.

        Are you going to find Christians among the tea pirates? Yes

        but you are going to find a shit load of other people as well.

        I think a political group should be defined by what they are consistent on….not on the small outliers that the left digs up.

        You may as well be claiming they are a bunch of under educated over educated racists AstroTurf rich poor white people…or some other inconsistent Bullshit.

      2. Yes, and a bunch of Catholic scholars and bishops signed a letter saying that John Boehner was being unChristian for wanting to cut spending.

        1. Catholics and Protestants are frequently on opposing sides in what could be described as “culture war”.

    2. Yep, Sudden is correct. Hell, I’ve only ever been to one TP event, and there was a Christian Identity group there with a small booth, handing out literature for their group to all and sundry and fielding questions from passersby.

      That doesn’t mean anything in and of itself, of course. But since they made the effort to try and recruit there, they must believe it to be a fertile audience for their message.

      Again, I realize this is thin stuff that “proves” nothing, but you don’t see the Klan running recruiting drives outside the local NAACP; they recruit where people are more likely to be open to the message. Again, before people attack me, this is not proof of anything, just an anecdote suggesting there may be some crossover of these populations.

      1. just an anecdote suggesting there may be some crossover of these populations.

        never said there was no crossover.

        There is also a large crossover between libertarians and the tea party as well…

        But you don’t see the left claiming that the tea party is for ending the drug war and opening our borders now do you.

        1. No, but the Christian Identity philosophy is so fucked up (Jesus only saves white people), I’d be pretty worried about any group that crosses over with them.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity

          1. So your issue is that tea party politics may appeal to Christians?

            ummmm

            yeah……

            I hate to break it to you but if a political movement in this county does not appeal to Christians then it may as well throw in the towel.

            The godless atheist liberty party is going to get elected to jack shit.

            1. Did you read the fucking link? It’s not that they appeal to christians…Christian Identity is a totally different philosophy espousing race-based salvation. And yes, a movement can and should succeed in this nation without appealing to that kind of filth.

              1. NewzletterZ!!!!

                Teh Rasicm!!1!1!!!1!!!1

              2. Wow…so you are just another asshole calling “teh tea baggers!!!!” racists.

                wow

                sorry i even got in a conversation with you.

                1. “Joshua corning|5.25.11 @ 12:27AM|#
                  Wow…so you are just another asshole calling “teh tea baggers!!!!” racists.

                  wow

                  sorry i even got in a conversation with you.”

                  So you’re just going to ignore the MULTIPLE times I said that I understand the CI presence there does not indict the entire group? Let me repaste some of that for you, and you tell me if I’m just “another asshole” calling “tea baggers” (which term I never used, btw, thanks for putting words in my mouth) racist:

                  “Again, before people attack me, this is not proof of anything, just an anecdote suggesting there may be some crossover of these populations.”

            2. My whole point wasn’t that there is a crossover between Christians and Tea Partiers. It was more that many of the most outspoken Tea Partiers are also outspoken advocates and promoters of Christian values enshrined in law. That I think it problematic.

              We principled libertarians don’t need to co-sign on the tea party movement, much the same way it would be a mistake to become rank and file GOPers. We can work with them on issues of common sentiment, cordially accept their votes for our ideal candidates, and try to convince them of the merit of socially liberal policies (decriminalization, marriage freedom, etc.) when those issues arise. But we don’t need to, nor should we, let our distinct message get lost in their chorus because our message is both more perfect and more consistent (we were bitching about deficits and war and entitlement spending in 2004).

              1. This is to Sudden’s last comment.

                I agree with you for the most part, but do you think the Tea party is really different than rank and file GOPers?

                1. No, with one caveat. I think the tea party is a segment of the rank and file GOP. There are others within the GOP who are less concerned about fiscal issues and more foreign policy (read: let’s killz us sum brown folk) and some who don’t care so much about spending but love to demonize them some Gheyz!!1!1

                  1. The Tea party is a true grass roots movement about govt spending. Palin and others see the parade going by and jump out in front, but they ain’t leading it.

          2. Retarded fucks like that always think they can appeal to plenty of people to whom they don’t appeal. It’s all part of being a retarded fuck, and it has nothing to do with the people they’re courting.

      2. I saw communist at an anti-war rally. I know that this doesn’t prove anything. I’m just sayin.

  11. In the end, Gary Johnson appeals to Reason subscribers*

    I think there may be some confusion between a Reason Subscriber and Reason staff member.

    As much as I love the reason staff and reason readers i think both groups would agree they are not the same thing.

  12. I think that’s a leftie meme for the instant due to some GOP presidential candidate mistakenly attributing a line from the Declaration to the Constitution.

    Nope. Obvious joke made obviously, most famously by Stephen King.

    The jackalope is a literary sophisticate.

    1. Are you sure? The misquote was on Gawker yesterday.

  13. When’t the last time someone ran one of those focus group simulations where they arrive at a US budget?

  14. If Gary Johnson wants my vote, he better be ready to promise me a bunch of free shit. Double goes for Ron Paul.

    1. I have a cunning plan. He should offer Americans some free dom. All the free dom they want.

      1. I don’t know what dom is, but now I want some! And any candidate who will promise me free dom-

        Hey, wait a minute…

        1. I was thinking “free dumb”, but Americans might see through that.

          1. E plebneesta…

            1. I think that’s already happened.

  15. I think it means that the Party must nominate someone who has a history of being significantly more radical about cutting the size of government than your run-of-the-mill John Boehner.

    Michele Bachmann comes to mind.

    1. I’m still trying to figure out your infatuation with her. Do you have pics of her in her undies, and hope to make a fortune if she gets the nomination?

      1. It’s not an infatuation. Bachmann says very libertarian things although she holds herself out as a “constitutional conservative”.I think she is reasonably sincere (for a politician) in believing what she says. She is reminiscent of the late Helen Chenoweth. Her voting record isn’t perfect over her whole political career but it looks pretty damn good as a US Congressperson*. Michele is not my ideal choice by far but I think the GOP nomination is within her grasp this cycle as is the Presidency. I’m a Ron Paul supporter but I’d rather see a Bachmann, Cain or even Palin as the nominee than some establishment douche like Romney, Huntsman, T-Paw…

        1. Yeah, that’s about where I’m at, too.

          It probably doesn’t matter in the end. None of them are actually going to cut spending or stop the slide towards authoritarianism if they get elected.

  16. I always wondered if Newt Gingrich just kept the same wedding band. I heard he had the first wife’s ring engraved with Love is forever eternalish has term limits, bitch

    1. I hate to break it to you rather…

      But people of all political persuasions get divorced.

      It is a shocker I know.

      But not to worry love our union will last until the universe implodes….or until i find a hot 27 year old doctor. Whichever comes first.

      1. Yes, but many people who get divorced are not also serial adulterers who exhort other people to be more moral.

        1. my guess is that out of every two poeple who get a diverse at least one is a serial adulteress who exhort other poeple to be moral….

          But that is only from anecdotal evidence of my break ups.

          1. Sorry you’ve had some bad experiences. That completely exonerates politicians from being held to any sort of standards in this regard.

          2. This makes sense to me. It seems that more often than not these days, the cheater is the female. All that women’s lib and whatnot.

        2. I have a question.

          Who is worse newt who cheated on his wife then left her or Clinton who cheated, then cheated then cheated again but never seems to get around to divorcing his wife.

          I honestly don’t give a shit either way…but you and Rather seem to care.

          I am wondering if you care because you are hacks or because you actually care.

          1. Why are you so obsessed with defending this stooge? Was Clinton running around trumping up being a good christian as a political issue while he was cheating? Was Clinton leading the charge to attack other politicians for having affairs, while he himself was having one?

            That isn’t meant as a defense of the Great Dumbass Bill, I care when someone is a blathering statist hypocrite, regardless of the particular issue they’re being a blathering hypocrite about. I’m sorry that you don’t; you will be more than welcome in the mainstream GOP, where you may still have a hard time defending Newt, since a lot of them seem to find him a blathering hypocrite as well.

            1. Was Clinton leading the charge to attack other politicians for having affairs, while he himself was having one?

              Technically, the whole impeachment proceedings weren’t about the affair but rather the obstruction and perjury that accompanied it. Of course, the affair being the inciting incident that was being investigated shouldn’t have been an issue to begin with, except for that is was an element of discovery relating to a sexual assault charge levied against the then POTUS.

            2. Why are you so obsessed with defending this stooge? Was Clinton running around trumping up being a good christian as a political issue while he was cheating?

              I hate to be the one to break it to you but Clinton is a Christian….one that even went to church and put out press releases about it.

              In fact after it was obvious that he was cheating the white house did a whole press release about how he was consulting with his Pastor for guidance.

              I know, the horror, right?

              Anyway i am not really defending him…

              I think I am defending the institution of cheating on your wife then getting a divorce.

              Full disclosure: I have never been married never been divorced and never cheated on my wife…I have cheated on a girlfriend once.

              In the future though I may want to get married cheat on my wife then divorce her.

              1. Clinton may be a christian, and may have had a press release about it; I don’t know and will assume you’re accurate about that. But you can’t with a straight face claim that he and Newt are on the same level with promoting their religiosity to the masses.

                I would defend cheating on my wife and then getting divorced if I never laid claim to pushing a system of morality and behavior which heavily frowns on such practices. For example, athiests or satanists may never claim to find it “wrong” to cheat on a spouse. If so, that’s between them and their spouse.

                But if someone on the national stage, seeking political power, uses his version of morality as part of his plank in pursuit of that power, and then is found to be violating that philosophy on a regular basis, I am going to hold it against that person as being someone I cannot trust (hence why there are practically no politicians which I trust).

                *I have never cheated on my wife, and never intend to. Not being able to forsee the future, I can’t say “will never”, but despite having had a couple of opportunities over the years, I have not. I’m sure the temptation is much greater for someone with a shit-ton of money, power, and access – of which I am the opposite.

            3. Was Clinton running around trumping up being a good christian as a political issue while he was cheating?

              He was sexually harassing women while preening as a defender of women’s rights. Close enough?

            4. “Was Clinton leading the charge to attack other politicians for having affairs, while he himself was having one?”

              Clinton was a supporter of the changes in the rules of evidence in sexual harassment suits that made his dalliance with Lewinsky relevent to the harassment suit brought against him. Clinton then tried to claim that such rules should not apply to the president. Clinton was a huge hypocrite on this issue.

          2. Probably Clinton was worse. Fortunately Clinton isn’t running in the Republican primary and two non-adulterous, non-shitty candidates are. Seriously, you bring up “b-b-but Bill Clinton” and call us hacks? Did you forget what website you’re on and reach into your DailyKos Troll Mad Libs bag by mistake?

            1. What the fuck?!?!

              look i started whole conversation trying to pull Rather’s tail and then Jim jumped in with his bullshit which i ended on a pretty funny note i may add.

              Anyway the whole point was i don’t give a shit who cheats on who and who divorces who….and there is plenty to bitch about on Newt without getting into his private life and furthermore Divorce is pure AWESOME!! and its name should not be sullied just to throw ad hominin barbs at the likes of Newt.

              1. Anyway the whole point was i don’t give a shit who cheats on who and who divorces who…

                Well you should, if the person explicitely makes an issue of not being an immoral person. It makes them a liar. Which means you have to question what else they’re lying about. This would apply equally to Bill Clinton, and Newt.

                1. Well you should, if the person explicitely makes an issue of not being an immoral person.

                  Well, not necessarily. Now, if they define cheating on a spouse as immoral, and publicly condemn it, while they are cheating on their spouse, then they are a liar.

                  Being someone who has been tempted but not yet engaged in extramarital sex, apparently due in part to not being rich enough or powerful enough to have had adequate opportunity, and thus claiming some sort of personal marital moral purity, would seem to indicate someone who hasn’t read Mark Twain’s “The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg.”

                  1. and thus claiming some sort of personal marital moral purity…

                    I’ve done no such thing. I can only state that I have never cheated on my wife, but I believe I was careful to state that I don’t know the future.

                    But I would think that Newt’s constant pushing of Christian values would incorporate defining cheating on a spouse as immoral. If you’re really going to split hairs and say that he pushes Christian morality, but never specifically stated that cheating is wrong, then I would consider that a ludicrous defense of the man, and the conversation is probably over.

              2. I’ve never had a tail orgasm 😉

                1. I’ve never had a tail orgasm 😉

                  Sure now you slink back around…

                  And with a joke that doesn’t even make any sense.

                  Wonderful.

                  1. look i started whole conversation trying to pull Rather’s tail

                    You mean this isn’t some caveman technique to give me pleasure?
                    You disappoint!

          3. What’s worse is lying under oath. They’re both cheating scumbags, but Clinton actually broke the law.

            -jcr

      2. But not everyone hands their soon-to-be ex-wife divorce papers in the hospital when she comes out of anaesthesia after cancer surgery a la Newt.

    2. Yeah and with those fat fingers I’m guessing that there was more than enough room for the inscription…..verbatim!

  17. Mr. Ron Paul for 2012 Republican Nom and President.
    -Strengthen our USD
    -No Inflation
    -Balance the Budget
    -No Mandated Healthcare
    -Creates MANY JOBS
    -New Crop Industries
    -Free Market
    -Very Pro Life
    -No Bailout
    -No Patriot Act
    -Stays out of foreign DOMESTIC AFFAIRS, but contract/trade with all
    -No Unjustified War with no objectives (Currently they are the longest lasting, most expensive, most unproductive wars in American History)
    -Brings our Troops Home after over 10 YEARS OF FIGHTING!!!!
    The USA could have fought WWII twice in 10 years!
    Please, let’s bring America’s Troops home. They deserve it.
    Leave the Middle East, and all other Nations that are agreed to be sovereign, ALONE with regard to DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.

    American Lives are NOT toys.

    Bring our Troops Home
    I am a Ron Paul Republican
    Mr. Ron Paul 2012 for Republican Nom and President

  18. Johnson is not a libertarian. The fact that he designates himself as such and that establishment libertarian organizations and publications take it upon themselves to award him his libertarian bona fides doesn’t change reality. Lets examine his record as governor in actually instituting a libertarian agenda. How many pardons of non-violent drug users/sellers did Johnson grant? How many pardons did Johnson issue to prostitutes, pimps, gamblers, or tax protesters? The fact that Johnson admitted smoking marijuana and “began the conversation” on legalization is rhetorically good but when Johnson had the chance to pardon non-violent political prisoners he showed he didn’t have the courage of his convictions. Indeed he doesn’t want to legalize all drugs (except marijuana) and doesn’t want to abolish the FDA, CIA, department of homeland security, Federal Reserve, Department of Education, Department of Energy, etc. Ron Paul has promised to pardon all non-violent drug war victims and tax protesters. He has promised to work to end all of the above unconstitutional departments and direct those executive agencies, if not abolished, to cease engaging in non-libertarian actions. In the final analysis, Johnson respects and admires the state while Paul views leviathan for what it is: legalized coercion that must be limited, restrained, and watched with a suspicious eye. Johnson has foreseen a coming libertarian age among the internet generation and is apparently the establishment’s wolf in libertarian clothing meant to talk a good game in maybe legalize pot while continuing the welfare/warfare banking state that has controlled America for well over a century. Nobody except the establishment “libertarians” who “respect” the warmongering drug warriors in the Republican Party think Johnson is a libertarian.

    1. Splitter!

      1. At least Gary Johnson supports the right of men to have babies.

        1. Will Wilkinson likely thinks it should be mandatory. So men would support abortion-on-demand, family leave, and free birth control.

    2. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the barely acceptable!

      1. Let the perfect be the enemy of the acceptable!

        1. I don’t accept the perfect enemy

    3. Hypothetical President Ron Paul can’t pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Most of them are in state prisons, not federal prisons. As far as Paul is concerned a state could set up death camps for drug offenders and he wouldn’t lift a finger.

      Also in the future please sprinkle your hysterical talking points with the occasional paragraph break.

      1. Correct; the point is that Ron Paul would pardon non-violent Federal drug war victims and tax protesters at least he’s said as much. Johnson hasn’t promised to do the same and, aside from some rhetoric during the end of his second term, didn’t do anything to oppose the drug war. Ron Paul has always been philosophically against the drug war, the Federal and State drug war. Watch the first 2012 Republican debate when he philosophically defended heroin use. The point is that Ron Paul is a dedicated libertarian whereas Johnson is an unproven politician who doesn’t want abolish the all the various unconstitutional federal departments.

        1. How is a two-term governor of New Mexico an “unproven politician”? If anything Paul is the unproven one since his experience has exclusively been legislative; casting “philosophical” votes from an incumbent seat is as easy as it gets.

          Also, a policy of pardoning tax protestors is untenable. If people can get out of paying their taxes by writing some rambling word salad about the ratification of the 16th Amendment then why would anyone pay anything under the first fiscal year of a Paul administration? Even most anarchists would probably want a slightly more gradualistic approach than that.

  19. I hate to eat our own young, but I don’t know if I can survive another year-and-half replay of the Paultard invasion of 2008. I seem to remember a suggestion that reason start a permanent Ron Paul thread where the Paultards could pimp their boy to their heart’s content.

    1. I seem to remember a suggestion that reason start a permanent Ron Paul thread where the Paultards libertarians could pimp their boy to their heart’s content.

      Methinks you’re at the wrong website.

    2. Ah, I should have known you were a troll from your response to me above.

      1. Just wait, bubba. You may be a Paul fan, but you’re not a Paultard (I hope).

        1. Yeah, “Paultard” doesn’t necessarily mean “someone who likes Ron Paul.” There’s a certain kind of robotic, tone-deaf attitude that makes some Paul supporters juuuuust a bit more annoying, especially here.

        2. REv. Blue Moon doesn’t like “Paultards”. He only likes people like himself-retards.

      2. Paul supporters are great. But the people who show up on blogs and post long comments that are basically campaign material get pretty annoying.

  20. Asking “who’s a better libertarian, Paul or Johnson”, is like asking whether the Enterprise or an Imperial Star Destroyer would win in a fight. I am glad (so glad!) to see more libertarian views getting air time in the Republican world. But right nwo the question of Paul vs. Johnson is inappropriate. The correct answer is “both.” We need both of them not attacking each other, but competing with the status quo of statist bullshit perpetuated by establishment Republicans.

    1. Enterprise A, B, C, D, or E?

      Because while I might be on the fence about A & B, I don’t think those puny lasers get through the shields on the more advanced models. And photon torpedoes would probably do more damage than the lasers used by the rebels, which were still enough to take down a Star Destroyer.

      Enterprise in 5 (maybe 6, if the SD can defend home).

      1. I so knew this question would be asked. The standard is 1701-D.

      2. Trek makes it pretty clear that lasers are a joke, so even the original Enterprise should not have a problem.

        1. Yeah but their shields were awful, and the lasers on the SD are much larger than what the Enterprise would be accustomed to. Just playing devil’s advocate.

          And @ db: if we’re going with D, then it’s Enterprise, no doubt.

          Now let’s talk Borg cube v. Death Star…

          1. And just for additional clarification and additional nerdery, the original question should have been Original, A, B, C, D, E, or J (no just kidding about that J). Nut A was a refit of the Original NCC-1701.

            As for the present question, I always assumed that the Death Star lacked a lot of defensive abilities (sort of like how a cannon can blow up a building but is totally ineffective against an enemy 10 feet away), so the relevant follow-up: Does the Death Star have its fleet of defensive TIEs?

            1. Criticism accepted; I quite forgot that there was the vanilla 1701, then A introduced in the films.

              I would say yes, it has defensive wings of TIEs. But they wouldn’t be much more than gnats to a cube. I think the question comes down to, does the DS get a main shot off? If so, and it’s on target, then Borg go bye-bye. If not, they’ll be sluggish assimilating all that tech for a few weeks, like a python that just ate a deer.

              1. If the Borg captured a Death Star, would they move into it?

          2. This. Those fucking shields went down in 15 seconds near the end of every goddamn episode.

            1. And yet, the SIF never gave up the ghost, even when they had to eject the core. Thank god for that auxiliary fusion reactor.

      3. I would note that the Star Wars Ion Cannon has the ability to draw down shield power quite rapidly. Presumably, it would also work against the Star Trek SIF (Structural Integrity Field–the most inane dodge around structural and material engineering problems ever). If so, a couple of TIE fighters would make mincemeat of Enterprise. I think you do have to spot the Federation on having more potent offensive weapons, however. It doesn’t get much more badass than matter/antimatter reactions in your weapons, much less your engines. Star Wars tech stil apparently relies on basic reaction engines.

        1. Presumably, it would also work against the Star Trek SIF (Structural Integrity Field–the most inane dodge around structural and material engineering problems ever).

          Apparently you’ve never heard of transparent aluminum.

        2. Johnson did a pretty shitty job in the last debate too.

        3. BAh!!!

          The Enterprise has a transporter and tie fighters have no defense against transporters.

          Just transport a a guy with a phaser to every tie attacking you and kill the pilots.

          The same can be said about the death star. Hell transport a bunch of phton torpedoes inside the Death star and boom!!!

          Plus the enterprise has a shit load of scanning technology and could find vulnerabilities to any Star War tech put up against them.

      4. I think if Kirk was commanding the ‘D’ it would win even quicker.

        1. Kirk would win with a shuttlecraft and a hand phaser.

    2. Are you suggesting that Paul and Johnson are fictional?

      1. Are you threatening me?

    3. Does a Cylon basestar/ship get the winner? (new series, let’s say)

      1. Please. This is a serious discussion.

        1. Sorry. Good think I didn’t follow up with the question about the Sleestak.

          1. No, that would’ve been okay. Ever see a Sleestak laugh?

            1. Ever see a Sleestak laugh?

              Didn’t know that was allowed by the Altrusian code of honor.

      2. Cylon’s used homing missiles with nuke warheads.

        Cylon’s would win.

        1. Also Cylon’s can hack computers.

          If it was the Enterprise the halo deck would be spilling out robots killing it from the inside.

          The Death Star would be dealing with a full on droid rebellion while the basestar nukes it from orbit.

          1. I guess they don’t teach appropriate use of the apostrophe in the future.

  21. for now, let them double-team all the authoritarians on the stage

    Hear, hear! I’d like to have seen that stage loaded up with Ron and Rand Paul, Andrew Napolitano, Peter Schiff, Murray Sabrin, Debra Medina, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, and anyone else who could be convinced to show up. The next time one of those neocon slimeballs floats a hare-brained idea like staying in Iraq for a hundred years, I want a whole chorus of libertarians ready to shred him.

    -jcr

    1. I’m happy to see the love for Medina. I donated to her failed campaign for governor of Texas. Would love to see her in office, possibly nationally.

  22. At the minimum, we have a better selection of libertarian-ish Republicans than we did in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, and 1988.

  23. I like how the author points out that the topics which have become important to Americans also happen to line up with what Ron Paul and G. Johnson are saying. I think this is a fairly well thought out commentary on this subject.

    I happen to be one of those people who considers myself not to be a republican or democrat, but rather simply an American who demands a reduction and focusing in federal spending.

    I support Ron Paul, and I will work for him in his campaigning.

  24. There is no contest between Johnson and Paul, the choice is obvious and anyone that chooses the wrong guy is an complete idiot who should be dismissed or ridiculed. For me in 2012 all my efforts will be aimed at smashing the fools who make the wrong choice. That means you, you faker, sellout, cultist, joker, embarrassment!

  25. RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

  26. Good article. Did anyone see the funny article about Ron Paul’s new stance on the Gold Standard?

    http://milkthebull.com/2011/05…..-standard/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.