Campaigns/Elections

Huntsman vs. Ron Paul in a World That is Literally Collapsing

|

With Jon Huntsman's two votes doubling Ron Paul's one in New Hampshire's first-reporting Dixville Notch, the latest wave of media attempts to downplay the significance of the nearly or more than 20 percent of the electorate who seem interested in voting for the supposedly unquestionably unelectable and confusingly ideological Ron Paul is now about Jon Huntsman (who swept the early "earnestly intellectual middlebrow magazine feature writer" primary back before any American outside Utah had any idea who he was).

Our old Reason colleague Dave Weigel at Slate on Saturday noted that Huntsman seems to be fighting with Paul over winning over disaffected independents unhappy with Obama. Various other libertarians who can't quite tolerate Ron Paul for various reasons have seemed (largely in social networking mode rather than considered public statements) more interested in Huntsman than have this possible disaffected liberal/progressive band who might conceivably enter the GOP scrum to send Obama a message.

That Huntsman might pull ahead of Paul into second today in New Hampshire has been widely said with very little evidence, which certainly feeds into the Paul fan paranoid narrative that the media is desperate for anyone-but-Paul to become the anointed anyone-but-Romney. I am even now watching cable tv pundits, presenting the current 20-13 Paul-Huntsman polling, still talking as if Huntsman beating him is reasonable to expect today. I'm not saying it is impossible; I will say that as of now there is no good reason to believe it, even after Dixville Notch.

Weigel, similarly based on wishful thinking and no data, writes that liberals or moderates interested in the GOP race could "go with Huntsman, who can win, beat Barack Obama and shut down the last 11 years of foreign policy clown shows." It may be that Dave is summing up what he sees Huntsman as saying rather than saying he believes it himself; I hope so. Look at the most recent GOP vs. Obama polls yourself to see whether there is reason to believe Huntsman could beat Obama where Paul could not. I don't want to ruin the surprise.

Why do I think Huntsman can't pull Paul's people? (Huntsman won't even be on the ballot in Virginia or Arizona.) Paul, unlike Huntsman, has a coherent, wide-ranging, principled worldview about politics, a worldview expressed and acted on in a variety of existing institutions, books, news and commentary sites: Paul has a political movement. To paraphrase something Thomas Woods, author of the New York Times best-seller Meltdown promoting the Paulite view of Federal Reserve responsibility for the economic crisis, said Saturday night at a mini-Paul rally in a Manchester pool hall: no one says that discovering Jon Huntsman changed their whole view of the world and sent them on a life-changing intellectual odyssey through a coherent and thrilling world of books and ideas. (Woods said it about Romney. It applies equally to Huntsman, considered against Paul.) Even Huntsman's supposed anti-interventionism is more confused and weak than Paul's.

What Paul has that Huntsman does not have is, well, libertarianism. That's something, believe it or not libertarians punchdrunk from decades of being a hated tiny minority, that now has great electoral power. Enough electoral power yet to win the GOP nomination, or even caucuses or primaries? Doesn't seem like it yet, but I've learned over the past five years to not underestimate the strange electoral power of Ron Paul.

Someone out to help Huntsman wasn't underestimating it. I'm sure you are all familiar with one of those dominate-the-news-for-four-hours stories from last week, with a clumsily dumb attack ad on Huntsman made (absolutely unconvincingly, except of course for a wide variety of professional reporters who applied not a second of that famously mythical "if your mother says she loves you check it out" journalistic shoe leather) to seem as if Paul fans had made it.

There was never any reason to believe it. The ad arose from a YouTube account and group name "NHLiberty4Paul" that had never had any public presence before, no Paul fan had ever shown a sign of thinking Huntsman was of interest to them, it was circulated not through any of the many existing channels where Paul fans gather and talk but rather from Huntsman's own campaign, Huntsman made much anti-Paul hay from it. Although it's hard to learn who is responsible for things posted on YouTube, there is more reason to think a Huntsman partisan was responsible than that a Paul one was.

Rachel Maddow won points from me for admitting in a segment on this mini controversy that political dirty tricks actually do exist:

It has been amusing to see the Huntsman-supporting PAC Our Destiny grab hard for some intellectual space that had until now been one of Paul's unique peculiarities as a politician. This point is discussed at length in my forthcoming book Ron Paul's Revolution: Paul's willingness to admit that America isn't the richest freest most wonderful nation on Earth that will do just fine if we just get rid of the other party, but that in fact we face some potentially very dark days ahead as the result of our profligate monetary, fiscal, and foreign policies. (Politico talks on this theme today.) Paul has pointed out to me that strangely his occasional quasi-apocalyptic gloom cheers up his young fans, because he also presents them with some solid history and theory explaining how things can get better with the application of free-markets and non-intervention.

But check out this pro-Huntsman Our Destiny ad in which they play the Paul circa 2008 "why haven't we heard of this guy before?" card and also claim that the world is literally–literally!!–collapsing!:

NEXT: Mike Godwin on Steve Jobs, the Inhumane Humanist

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.

  1. Why isn’t there coverage on Huntsmans company being fined and investigated? Seems corruption is not the talking heads points, if one goes with the flow.

    1. “Why isn’t there coverage on Huntsmans company being fined and investigated?”

      But …. but …. but … he speaks Chinese! He can speak to the Federal Government’s personal bankers in their own language!!!!

      1. “But …. but …. but … he speaks Chinese!”

        So does the crew of Firefly. Love that show. “That’s what governments are for: to get in a man’s way.” Mal

    2. Huntsman is UNELECTABLE literally.

      He’s not on the ballot in AZ, IL, and VA!

      Don’t waste a vote. Paul needs to take down Romney. He’s the only one who polls as well as Romney against Obama.

      1. Even then I think that if Paul clears the nomination he will poll even better. I remember during the last election cycle a bunch of Hillary supporters were loudly saying that they would not vote for Obama, well all but one ended up voting for him.

      2. No, those are the primary ballots. It’s still possible to win a nomination and then be on the regular general election ballot in all 50 states.

        Other than that, yes, Paul is the only one who polls as well as Romney.

        Huntsman is an interesting one in that he governed conservatively (and has a more conservative record than most of the other clowns), he just wants to identify culturally with the moderates and liberals, unlike the other clowns who prefer to vote moderate but identify culturally as conservative.

        It still doesn’t work as a strategy, though.

      3. Makes me wonder why he hasn’t dropped out of the Republican race. I think he plans to run as an independent to draw the votes away from viable candidates. Another Ross Perot. This in the end will help to secure Obama another 4 years.

    3. Or that Huntsman said he, like Obama, would have signed NDAA with its indefinite detention provisions, and he favored TARP. The problem with these ‘media bumps’ right before voting is they pick the unvetted and people are voting based on wishes, not records. I think it’s unethical of media to do that, personally.

  2. Pants off to Maddow for putting the dirty tricks angle out there, but can someone rip that pen out of her hand before she smashes it into the desk again?

    1. Pants off to Maddow for putting the dirty tricks angle out there…

      Putting aside the Pants off to Maddow part for a moment (I have no f#*&ing; idea what that means but I feel as tho I’ve got to wash my mind when I’m done here *shudder*), by the time this show aired, there was already pretty non-conjecture evidence that the vid was, at the very least, posted to the world wide intertubes on a brand spanking new page that linked straight back to site/tag called Jon2012 on the theendrun.com link in the post. Essentially, Hunstman’s getting a bump even days after it’s pretty clear that it’s his own team’s production. They’re voting today and, judging by some polls, he’s gaining ground in the race for third place.

      Slightly OT: Most here, I suspect, already acknowledge that the media’s as anti-RP as is Coke/Pepsi Dem/Repub establishment. But did anyone else notice in CNN(?) debate’s closing moments the other nite, when the Diane Sawyer *re-shudders* asked all soupily, what the candidates, if they were not out campaigning, or something, what they’d be doing at home like us little people. Or something. Anywho, the first 4 or so responded “FOOTBALL!!!! Because I’m a Manly Man who’s strong!” – or something – fully on camera, then when they got to RP (he made some “reading an economics text book” comment to some pretty swell applause and laughter) while camera was on Huntsman the whole freaking time. Then JH went all “praying for my sons in the Navy…what this country’s all about…” BS to close out.

      Dog Nmaddit, I hate the media.

      1. Sorry, I lapsed into an obscure Australianism. It means “hats off”. Sorta.

        1. That’s not as much of a defense as you seem to think. Do you *know* any Australians?

          1. Yep. Me.

      2. Interesting. CNN must have had their own cameras for the debate. I watched on the local channel and if anything, I’d say they focused on Paul this time, which was nice to see.

  3. Since you mentioned Weigel:

    David Weigel

    ….I’m voting for Barack Obama [in 2008], the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground with stupid and erratic decisions,…

    E-mails reveal Post reporter savaging conservatives, rooting for Democrats

    …In the e-mails, Weigel appeared particularly invested in the President’s health care law, expressing undisguised scorn for moderate Democrats who seemed fearful about voting for it….

    1. When liberty lost Dave Weigel, Libertarians lost the war.

      1. Libertarians bring spoons to a knife fight.

        1. Libertarians don’t go to knife fights.

        2. The spoons are for gouging out the eyes after you shot the mother fucker with your gun(s).

          1. That’s why we wear monocles, to protect us from spoons

            1. NO SPOONS FOR YOU!!!

        3. Libertarians own guns. Duh.

      2. You are kidding right?

    2. Weigel is a joke. He’s a socialist.

  4. BTW: This H&R page froze my browser for an inordinately long time trying to download some widget from widgets.outbrain.com or somesuch. Can you folks please look into what it is that’s making H&R such a severe memory hog?

    1. This came up on another thread, and one suggestion was to switch browsers. I’m using Chrome and not having any problems.

      1. Agreed. Chrome and H&R work well together for me.

      2. I’m the one who brought it up. I figured I better keep bringing it up until the people running H&R actually do something about the problem.

        And at least it’s more relevant than the WI crap.

      3. I am using Firefox, works fine in Win7.

    2. Mozilla with a script blocker add-on. I pretty much block the ads and other junk on Reason – it makes for a more pleasant experience.

      1. You can also edit your hosts file to map annoying websites to localhost.

      2. I have images turned off and plug-ins set not to load, and still have memory problems. Widgets can cause problems elsewhere, but the problems seem much worse here than anywhere else.

        1. Sometimes if it stalls I’ll click google then use the back button. Don’t know why but it seems to work a lot of the time.

  5. According to John you have latent homosexual tendencies if you find AnnaLynne McCord to be attractive because she does not have sufficient tits and ass.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..lmart.html

    1. I don’t necessarily agree with John’s sentiment, but ribs are gross.

      1. Yeah, she’s not all that, sorry. Skeletor.

    2. I have to go a little John here and say that her ribs just really aren’t that appealing.

      Put her in a cute LBD and I would probably go nuts for her, but bikinis just aren’t a good look for this girl.

      There are girls like that – usually anorexic or bulimic ones – who look tres hot in clothes but are essentially mutant untouchables as soon as you get them naked. And yes, I have unfortunately dated one of those.

      1. I certainly wouldn’t kick her out of bed.

    3. I think this was a poor example to disprove John’s thesis.

      1. The third picture was just scary. Carrot Top with a sex change.

    4. Non repulsive face and poccessing a pussy are the only things a heterosexual has to consider when he fucks someone. The former is optional. Anything else is bullshit jackassery unworthy of a sentient species.

    5. I disagree with the homosexual tendencies declaration. I would just say you have poor taste in womens’ physical appearance.

  6. Sorry, Huntsman is no go. It’s Paul or nobody.
    So, it’ll probably end up being nobody. But I actually have some hope for the first time since the 90s.

  7. Huntsman told Israeli newspaper Haaretz that he would use “all the elements of power of my country,” including military options, “to ensure that [Iran] didn’t become a nuclear power.”

    http://thehill.com/video/campa…..his-decade

    Granted, this isn’t as war-mongery as Santorum or Gingrich.

    I think Huntsman has a bit of that blank projection screen factor that the media loved so much about Obama. Combine it with a soft tone and a below-the-surface disdain for the dumber elements of red staters and you have a picture perfect candidate for them.

    And yet, I still probably find him the 2nd least objectionable of the candidates left.

    1. If Huntsman is so worried about Iran why is he wasting time on the campaign trail? Shouldn’t he be parachuting into Iran with a Bowie knife between his teeth and an M-16 strapped to his back to take care of this “most challenging, transcendent threat of this decade.”

    2. I’m sure Cytotoxic will turn up to say that “only Iran” threatens anyone else with the possibility of a nuke strike, but strictly speaking when you say that you would use “all the elements of power of” the United States to do something, you are threatening another nation with nuclear, biological and chemical attack, since unless those options are on the table you aren’t really employing “all the elements of power” of the United States.

      1. I have a hypothetical for the candidates (Note: I hate hypotheticals):

        What if there was strong evidence that Iran stole nuclear materials from the US in order to kickstart their nuclear program? What this be an act of war? Would we ally with them? Would we send them billions of dollars in foreign aid?

        1. “What if there was strong evidence that Iran stole nuclear materials from the US in order to kickstart their nuclear program? What this be an act of war? Would we ally with them? Would we send them billions of dollars in foreign aid?”

          Nah, that only holds with countries that wrote big parts of our Holy Book.

          1. joooos!

          2. like Saudi Arabia and Eygpt?

        2. By stole, do you mean bought from the CIA“?

    3. “Granted, this isn’t as war-mongery as Santorum or Gingrich.”

      I think you’d have to include Romney in that list.

    4. And yet, I still probably find him the 2nd least objectionable of the candidates left.

      I agree. I just wish they’d not done the Manchurian Candidate ad themselves.

    5. I think Huntsman has a bit of that blank projection screen factor that the media loved so much about Obama.

      This. The blank slate allows the middlebrow intellectuals to riff their own beloved thought processes like they were playing the sax onto the printed page. A known quantity like Paul, like Romney for that matter, forces them to deal with what is actually there. Analysis is more difficult than just using one’s imagination. Essentially daydreaming your ideal candidate. Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks were particularly repulsive offenders in this regard in the last election cycle.

      1. Essentially daydreaming your ideal candidate.

        An ‘about’ and an end phrase got cut off there.

  8. NH liberals want to vote for Huntsman, just to agitate Romney a bit. And Huntsman gets help from the media: suddenly he got much more airtime during the last two debates. The media -left or -right- just doesn’t like cover the Paul campaign, because it wouldn’t fit the pre-agreed narrative about what presidential primaries should be about. And when they cover him it is all about trivialities.

  9. Jon Hunstman denies that it was HIS supporters who made the video yet believes without question or ANY actual evidence that it was a Ron Paul suppoter?

    Sounds suspicious to me.

    1. Why the hell would anyone care about Huntsman? It was a black flag.

    2. Let me re-state that. Why would any Paul follower care enough about Huntsman and his 1% to make an anti-Huntsman video? It was a Huntsman camp black flag to discredit Paul.

      1. Why would any Paul anybody’s follower care enough about Huntsman and his 1% to make an anti-Huntsman video? It was a Huntsman camp black flag to discredit Paul.

        FIFY

  10. The world is literally collapsing. Only John Huntsman has the power to thwart gravity!

    1. Speaks fluent Mandarin and General Relativity?

      Damn. One smart feller.

    2. I live in MA where this commercial is playing almost around the clock now. That line always makes me cringe but I haven’t noticed the sidewalks starting to split open or anything.

  11. BTW: This H&R page froze my browser for an inordinately long time trying to download some widget from widgets.outbrain.com or somesuch. Can you folks please look into what it is that’s making H&R such a severe memory hog?

    I forbid reason from running scripts in my browser. Much faster, and eliminates the ability to do a threaded comment.

  12. Kathyrn Jean Lopez: Who Says Conservatives Are Talking About Birth Control? Now, Let’s Talk About Birth Control!

    Rick Santorum is after your birth control, according to a recent article in Salon, which speculates that the surging candidate for the Republican nomination could make contraceptives of any kind illegal, if he were elected president. The problem with these headlines and comments is that they are untrue.
    What Santorum has said is that the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision was a bad precedent, bad law. It declared a constitutional right for married persons to use contraceptives. Santorum’s is a perfectly sound opinion? Many of these headline foofaraws were fueled by his words to a blogger earlier this week, when he said that as president, he would talk about the “dangers of contraception.”
    But in recent years, we’ve seen the testimony of women who realize the damage that contraception has done in their lives, in their relationships? The family unit is one that can help keep us out of poverty and keep us healthy and happy. And the changes that law and technology have made in our lives are part of that discussion. Contraception may not be the priority of the commander in chief, but let’s not pretend it’s irrelevant to who we are and where we are going as a people.

    Read more: http://auburnpub.com/news/opin…..z1j3w9rqEg

    1. Heh. Yeah, having more kids always helps keep you out of poverty.

      1. No, but it can help the country if you raise them right and they get jobs to help deal with the worker-to-retiree ratio for our social spending.

  13. This is the perfect article to keep in mind while people like Santorum ruminate on the evils of birth control and privacy rights and folks like Romney and our own Johmney try to deflect criticism of him and it. Their deflections are “who’s talking about birth contro, nobody’s talking about that. Yeah, OK, we’re opposed or not willing to defend the SCOTUS decision protecting birth control (and the precedent for the right to privacy in general), but we’re not after birth control! But oh, btw, birth control is a bad thing and needs to become part of the national discussion.”

    1. It’s relevant to the economy. Though it’s a problem laws can’t do much about.

    2. Though, even if Griswold were overturned it would make no difference. It would be suicidal for conservatives to actually do anything against birth control (they haven’t tried to do anything significant against abortion when they had control either– certainly nothing more on emergency abortifacient birth control than the Obama Administration had done.)

      The law addressed in Griswold was a dead letter when the SCOTUS struck it down. The people in the case demanded to be arrested just so that they could take it to the court (making it less relevant than Lawrence v. Texas, where a hateful neighbor called the cops and lied to get people arrested.)

  14. Many people who watch this video change their vote
    http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/t…..-vote.html

  15. I saw Huntsman’s daughters on CNN yesterday and I must say they swayed me to liking him a little more.

    1. His wife swayed me
      http://www1.pictures.zimbio.co…..7b1Jxl.jpg

    2. You may like him but he’s Unelectable because he’s not even on the ballot in VA, IL, and AZ!!

      Vote Paul to take out Romney!

      1. Isn’t it a shame that we may end up with Romney as the winner even though 65% do NOT want him? I say we have a runoff!

        In other news, Hart’s Location voted, all nine of them. They had 5 Mitt, 4 Ron, and the rest had one….

        1. I think that makes 12. I don’t know why all of the national news outlets report Dixville Notch and not Hart’s Location which also votes at midnight.

    3. They don’t call him the Cuntsman for nothing.

  16. Huntsman has been recruited by cousin Mitt to be a Ron Paul spoiler.

  17. I figured I better keep bringing it up until the people running H&R actually do something about the problem.

    Good luck with that.

    Every “web designer” or whatever they call themselves should test their pages on an outdated computer with a slow connection.

    At least H&R doesn’t suck as bad as all-things-Gawker.

    1. Oh god Gawker. That redesign like 6 months ago just shows how much their management plays the ostrich card. That is the worst page design I’ve ever seen. I had just started to like Jalopnik better than Autoblog and then they pulled that Cleveland steamer.

      1. Gawker doesn’t even work on my Android phone anymore, and since that’s what I used to read those pages, I no longer read anything Gawker.

  18. Huntsman — just another globalist shill with no party loyalty…. elitist and not for us in NH. Most voters supporting him are Democrats. He should not even have been on the GOP ticket.

    1. Wouldn’t want anyone who has a global perspective or is smart or anything…

      Intellectuals can still support Ron Paul, you know. You don’t have to be a willful yokel.

    2. — just another globalist shill with no party loyalty….

      Another false flag operation, Huntsman camp? There are so few party loyalist here, you can probably count them on one finger.

      1. And that is only if joe is still lurking.

        1. Oh yeah, forgot. To be rooting for Romney, you kind of have to be a party over everything else kind of guy.

  19. I like Huntsman. I could be compelled to vote for him if he had gathered any sort of traction before primary season began, and if I wasn’t already all-in for Paul. Huntsman would be my third choice, after Paul and Johnson of course. Unfortunately for him he has less traction than my preferred candidates. It was nice to hear him call out Mitt for trade-war-baiting against China at the Saturday NH debate.

  20. Sutton NH in 2008 simply did not count Ron Paul votes. This town is trying to get away with reporting ONE vote?

    1. Dude, pick a different handle, we already have a John here.

  21. Sigh… there may not be a “conspiracy” but there sure are people conspiring to take down Ron Paul…

    Of course the Huntsman did not create the video. Plausible deniability, duh! Whoever created it most certainly did not ask “Hey John, what do you think of this video for your new strategy?”

    Aside from the fact that NHLiberty4Paul user REFUSED to take the video down when asked by Ron Paul’s campaign and the fact that Hunstman’s site was the very first referral are these very suspicious things:

    http://www.theendrun.com/hunts…..ainst-paul

    UPDATE #1: Some anonymous person (“AN APPARENT SANTORUM SUPPORTER”!) has now created the YouTube account NH4Santorum and uploaded the same video there, calling on viewers to vote for Santorum. NH4freedomRomney has also appeared (OBVIOUSLY CREATED BY A ROMNEY SUPPORTER!). It too features the “China Jon” ad, and calls on viewers to vote for Mitt Romney. Will the media now ask these candidates to disown the video, or will they suddenly be perfectly capable of seeing how ridiculous that is? The answer is obvious.

    UPDATE #2: A couple months ago, Huntsman’s daughters made a viral video spoofing Herman Cain’s “smoking” ad:

    UPDATE #3: A reader has e-mailed me to point out that the offending “Jon Huntsman’s Values” video was tagged “jon2012girls” by whoever operates the “NHLiberty4Paul” account.

    jon2012girls is the online moniker of Huntsman’s daughters, which they use on YouTube and Twitter. Their Cain “spoof” video carries the same tag. (Like the info in Update #2, these are just facts ? take from them what you will.)

    UPDATE #5: On Friday, Huntsman’s daughters retweeted Cindy McCain saying “@ronpaul shame on you” to their 20,000+ followers via their “Jon2012girls” Twitter account. Do you think they’re incapable of understanding that Ron Paul is not responsible for anonymously-created internet videos?

    UPDATE #6: Actually, On JANUARY 5TH, Huntsman’s daughters were already using Twitter to disseminate a Wonkette.com article entitled “Paultards Hate Huntsman for Knowing Chinese, Adopting Foreigners” to their 20,000+ followers. This was one of the very first attack articles written based on the video, if not THE first. Before linking to the hit-piece, the Huntsman’s daughters wrote the following message, addressed to Ron Paul and his campaign personally: “@RonPaul this crosses the line and should be condemned. Hurtful, spiteful, and un-American.” This was the day after the video was uploaded and before the media, or even most (if any) Ron Paul supporters were aware of its existence. In the next tweet they say they are on their way to a 6pm media appearance, so this tweet to Paul was no later than late afternoon/early evening. Here is a screenshot of the relevant tweets.

    UPDATE #6:
    [… lots of details …]

    It also appears that BuzzFeed.com political reporter Zeke Miller may be on their mailing list. On January 5, the same day BuzzFeed posted the “China Jon” video, Miller tweeted: “In other fundraising news, @Jon2012girls email asking for help supporting “the Huntsman surge”.

    Earlier today, the Editor-in-Chief of Buzzfeed tweeted that Paul’s camp “thinks (not unreasonably) that offensive video was a set-up.”

    1. (cont’d) think about it, why would a video designed to attack Jon Huntsman also be tagged with “jon2012girls” and “jon 2012 girls” .. the same moniker used by the daughters (Mary et. al.)? If this is from a supposed Ron Paul supporter, why isn’t there a ronpaul2012 tag instead, or something promoting RP?

  22. If Paul doesn’t get the nod then I’m going third party. AGAIN, living in NY my vote in the GE counts for absolute shit. NY will go to Obama anyway. But we need to hang on to the electoral college, right? Gun to my head; I would take Huntsman over Obama. That’s not saying much. I still don’t think Huntsman has much of a spine to stand up for limited government. Chances are I’m going third party come Nov.

  23. That video story is based 100% on the retarded idea that pseudonyms identify their authors.

    Which kind of misses the point. We’ve had the internet for, what, 3,000 years now, and reporters still don’t know this?

  24. When will Jon Huntsman repeatedly disavow his campaign spokesman, Tim Miller, for falsly accusing Ron Paul’s campaign of engaging in conspiracy theories (for commissioning an independent web company to look into the youtube ad) and for calling Ron Paul’s supporters racists?

    I want to see FOXCNNMSNBCABCCBS all ask him about a thousand times if he will disavow Tim Miller for calling Ron Paul supporters racists.

    I will hold my breath….

    1. You can contact the Huntman campaign here http://jon2012.com/contact#. Let’s all ask him when he will disavow Tim Miller’s statements!

  25. I voted this morning. I voted for Paul.

    I noted at my polling place the only sign holders held Perry and Huntsman signs. There were campaign signs stuck in the grass all over the place on the road going to the parking lot and around the parking lot. In order of most common to least common, the signs were Romney, Perry, and Huntsman. I saw only one Paul sign.

    I use the number of signs and sign holders to guess the outcome of an election. So far it has steered me well. I was at the poll early, Past performance is no guarantee of future results, one data point, and all other standard disclaimers apply. I have a feeling Huntsman will do well, and might even take second. Despite the number of signs and sign holders, I have a hard time believing Perry will do well in NH. I hope I am wrong about Huntsman.

  26. DUde really seems to know what he is talking about.

    http://www.Plus-Privacy.tk

  27. You can say indepedents. Libertarians go for Ron Paul or were for Gary Johnson. Even then Gary Johnson is having trouble getting on the Libertarian ticket.

    1. The actual Libertarians of the activist Libertarian Party will take their sweet time picking their nominee in their convention. They will want to be convinced by Gary Johnson or anyone else. But if Ron Paul gets the Rep nomination, they will not nominate anyone. Ron Paul will pick up about .35% of the vote that would go to no other Republican.

  28. Can Reason please just not post any more Doherty writings on Paul? He cannot write objectively about his electoral chances. Seriously, since when has a cogent worldview ever worked to a candidates favor?

  29. They need to tell the Huntsman campaign that I cannot vote for any candidate whose hired “supporter” actors use the word “literally” to mean “emphatically figuratively”.

  30. Why haven’t we heard of Huntsman? Because he supports banker bailouts, cap-and-trade taxes, individual healthcare mandates, brought China into the World Trade Organization, and his top contributor is JP Morgan, and most voters to these scams. No one should shed a tear when this guy leaves.

  31. How can anyone think Ron Paul is actually a libertarian?? The man has been in office for 30 years!! Most libertarians would rather jump off a cliff than be part of government for that long. And what has he done in all that time to expand the “cause of liberty?” NOT vote for things?? That’s constructive. The government has grown by leaps and bounds with Ron Paul on board, well done…

    1. The government has grown by leaps and bounds with Ron Paul on board, well done…

      That’s what happens in a “democracy.” It’s kind of why I taste rust whenever I hear people espouse the virtues of democracy. Not that the alternatives are any better… but I digress. Idiots(90+% of people) vote for bullshit and the lone dissenters are dubbed crazy uncles because they have problems with handing out “free shit” and blowing up foreigners.

      Part of me wants the whole system to crash so we can wallow in a Fallout 3 style hell for a couple of centuries…but I think we will (if we aren’t already) descend into the bureaucratic dystopia of Brazil first. Either way I’ll be killed at some point. C’est la vie.

      1. You could always leave, right now, while you still can.

    2. How can anyone think that Reason is actually a libertarian? Ever since its founding, the country has seen a growth of government.

      1. typo – “actually libertarian”

  32. According to that CBS poll, the only reason Paul wouldn’t beat Obama by an even bigger margin than Romney is because more Republicans would vote for Obama over Paul than they would over Romney.

    Seriously, Republicans? Are you really so in love with war that you’d rather reelect Obama?

  33. yes

  34. Government like the porn. it not all bad. OK?

  35. The Huntsman harem speaks to me.
    All of these womens make me filled over with the joy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.