Libertarian History/Philosophy

Ron Paul Roundup: The World Gazes on His Delegate Strategy in Wild Wonder

|

Lots of folk have had lots to say about Ron Paul's slow racking up of delegates and supporter influence in the Republican Party in the past couple of days. A sampling:

*Jon Ward at Huffington Post says some Iowan GOPers are peeved and distressed at the Paulian success in their state:

Conversations with numerous Iowa Republicans confirms the same thing: The state party establishment is dreading a Paul rout on June 15 and 16 at the two-day congressional district/state convention in Des Moines.

"Paul is costing the state a lot of credibility," said Bob Haus, a GOP consultant who most recently headed up Texas Gov. Rick Perry's campaign in the state.  

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is shown at a rally at the Green Valley Ranch Resort in Henderson on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012.

Another Republican operative who works for a statewide official sounded an even more despondent note.

"It does not sound encouraging. The Paul people are in a position to control the delegates, and the result would be chaotic for the Republican Party of Iowa and bring it to a screeching halt, rendering it completely irrelevant to our efforts here," the Republican aide told The Huffington Post. "Nobody would rely on [the state party] for anything.

After the fiasco earlier this year involving the caucus results, Iowans are nervous that if Paul gets a majority of the delegates, it will endanger their first-in-the-nation primary status. 

After a decent summation of where and how the Paul people are punching above their weight in other states such as Minnesota, Alaska, Colorado, and Nevada, Ward wonders: to what avail?

Despite the drama, it's still not clear what immediate tangible benefit these delegates will yield for Paul and his devoted followers. Romney still appears to be set to reach 1,144 delegates, the number he needs to clinch the nomination.

But at the very least, Paul's delegate total and the willingness of his supporters to vote for him on the floor in Tampa is certain to draw attention to his cause and his message of limited government. It seems somewhat unlikely that Paul would forego the chance to see his supporters give the GOP establishment fits on the convention floor, under a nationally televised microscope, simply to gain a better speaking slot at the four-day event.

So he may be simply building a movement with a view toward giving his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a head start for the 2016 race.

And some Republicans said he has already succeeded in pushing the Republican Party so far to the right on fiscal and budgetary matters that it has paid tangible dividends at the legislative level.

"There are a lot of establishment Republicans who need to thank Ron Paul for injecting a certain amount of courage to do what people always said needed to be done but where they also said, 'How do we do that?'" Iowa state Rep. Erik Helland said.

*Fox News calls the Paul strategy a "highjacking" of the Party and quotes a GOP strategist saying it will only in the end (for reasons unexplained) help Obama.  

*The Hill pushes the same "Paul's state level victories might help Obama" line, with some actual explanations of how that might be the case:

State Republican Party organizations are usually responsible for get out the vote efforts and other functions key to a successful election. If officials aren't in Romney's corner, the former Massachusetts governor and down-ticket Republicans could struggle due to weak voter registration efforts.

The story goes on to detail some bad blood between the very Paulite new establishment running the Iowa GOP and Romney folk, based not only in Paul fandom but in Romney's steadfast ignoring of the state in the early days of the campaign.

*I blogged yesterday about a lawyer for the national GOP warning Nevada that it better do what the popular caucus vote said and nominate a majority of Romney delegates. The Associated Press reports on the response from the chair of Paul's campaign in Nevada:

The Nevada chairman of Ron Paul's presidential campaign…Carl Bunce called the RNC opinion "creative writing" and maintained Paul supporters will abide by rules that first-round balloting at the national convention be apportioned based on the outcome of the Nevada caucuses….

Bunce countered that rules adopted by the state party last fall and forwarded to the RNC say that delegates are elected at the state convention, but the allotment of delegates to particular candidates happens afterward.

"If Romney's the guy, what are they worried about?" he said. "It's obvious to those of us in the Ron Paul campaign … Romney did not have the delegates or the force to get his delegates to the national convention."….

Bunce predicted the 50 percent to 60 percent of state convention attendees will be Paul backers.

"It's going to be a Ron Paul rally, that's what it's going to be," he said, adding, "It will be a lawyer fest, probably."

The Nevada GOP establishment shut down their own convention to avoid a Paul delegate victory back in 2008.

*Independent Voter Network thinks that what is most important coming out of the GOP primary season is that "Ron Paul has built a political machine. Judging by recent events in state and local GOP conventions across the country, it may not be at all presumptuous for Ron Paul's supporters to call their burgeoning movement a revolution."

*Talking Points Memo thinks that "Ron Paul Supporters Antics Could Spell Trouble for GOP Convention."

*Thomas Mullen writing at a Washington Times "communities" page thinks the Paul strategy is perfectly legitimate, indeed a great hat tip to our traditions as a Republic-not-a-democracy:

Ron Paul's strategy takes advantage of the republican nature of the nomination process. That process does not rely purely on a popular vote to determine who will be the nominee. Instead, voters must go through a multi-tiered vetting process of successive elections in order to become a delegate to the RNC.  

This does not remove all of the dangers inherent in a pure democracy, but it helps. At least a delegate has been forced to hear the arguments of other candidates before blindly casting a vote. He also must have the commitment necessary to endure the long delegate selection process.   

Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired

That the process is republican rather than democratic does not disenfranchise anyone. Everyone has an equal opportunity to become a delegate. Everyone has an equal opportunity to read the rules. That supporters of some candidates choose not to go through the process does not "nullify their wishes." That they choose not to become informed on how candidates are actually nominated does not represent a deception. On the contrary, the whole process is intentionally designed to ensure that uninformed or uncommitted people do not directly choose the nominee.

*TV journalist Ben Swann from a Fox affiliate in Cincinnati thinks the RNC is violating its own rules by already behaving as if Romney won and supporting him; he also wonders if his reading of RNC "rule 38" means that delegates thought bound to the winner of state caucuses and primaries might not be after all; writers at the Daily Paul say he's wrong.

*At the College Fix, former Reason intern Julie Ershadi checks in with the latest of Paul's multi-thousand college campus appearences, at Cal State Fullerton, where he talks up civil liberties and fears government surveillance of us all.

*Robin Koerner at Huffington Post sees a media confused by the paradigm shift the Ron Paul revolution portends.

*As you might know, I have a book coming out within a couple of weeks called Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired, and it got a very nice write-up at RealClearBooks by W. James Antle III, a journalist with a great deal of experience writing and thinking about the modern American right.

Advertisement

NEXT: Netanyahu Calling Early Elections for Possible October War With Iran?

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. The state party establishment is dreading a Paul rout on June 15 and 16 at the two-day congressional district/state convention in Des Moines.

    Because they already stole if fair and square.

    1. These pigfuckers are absolutely 100% unwilling to even consider the notion that people might actually want someone like Ron Paul to be president.

      “Well, no one *I* know voted for him!”

      How dare you registered republicans come in here and come to the conventions and think you have any say in what’s going on. Your job is to vote for who we tell you to vote for!

  2. The photo begged for alt text. Suggestions?

    1. Ron Paul’s sidekick Goldbug!

    2. Why is Brian using a picture of RP on his book cover that has a badly photoshopped Pinocchio nose attached? If anything, RP is honest.

    3. “Please, please, I’m begging you: buy my book!”

  3. Paul’s delegate total and the willingness of his supporters to vote for him on the floor in Tampa is certain to draw attention to his cause and his message of limited government.

    A very wise man (Brian Doherty) once wrote something to the effect that the purpose of libertarianism has always been to create more libertarians.

    People who are obsessed with the idea of politics as the struggle to seize the levers of power and force their will on the rest of us are always mystified whey they discover libertarians who aren’t trying to do that.

    People’s minds won’t change after we elect libertarian minded politicians; we’ll elect libertarian minded politicians once people like Paul change enough people’s minds.

    I’m not a fan of Ron Paul for a number of reasons, but insofar as he’s out there preachin’ the libertarian gospel truth and givin’ the Republicans headaches in the process? I guess you could call me a Ron Paul supporter.

    1. A very wise man (Brian Doherty) once wrote something to the effect that the purpose of libertarianism has always been to create more libertarians.

      It’s not working.

      1. Whadya mean it’s not working.

        There was a time several decades ago, when you could fit all the lights of libertarianism in the restaurant at small diner.

        Today, the same exercise would require all the restaurants in a large town.

        Libertarianism is so much on people’s minds that progressives, conservatives and Trotskyites are regularly either calling themselves libertarian or condemning libertarians for the failures of wars and economic policies etc.

        Politics attracts anti-libertarians because they thrive there. I doubt that you will see libertarian politicians succeed at the ballot box ever, even as society will likely lurch in ever more libertarian directions.

        1. Whadya mean it’s not working.

          There was a time several decades ago, when you could fit all the lights of libertarianism in the restaurant at small diner.

          I mean it’s not working because ala Tim Cavanaugh, I too am convinced that my voting machines aren’t plugged into anything.

          The No-er I vote, the Yes-er we get.

          Politics attracts anti-libertarians because they thrive there.

          This is extremely well put. Have one internet on me.

          1. “I mean it’s not working because ala Tim Cavanaugh, I too am convinced that my voting machines aren’t plugged into anything.”

            Well, when it’s just you, you can chalk it up to being an ideological loner. When it’s a sizeable minority being disenfranchised, then people are going to start to look outside of democratic action to pursue their ideal world.

      2. Maybe not.

        If it isn’t, we should figure out why.

        I think we gotta start taking this stuff personally. Get evangelical about it.

        Go ye unto the world and preach the gospel. Jesus’ ideas eventually took over the Roman Empire. He only had 12 guys to start with, and one of them sold him out…

        We’ve got a lot more to start with than he did, and we’ve got a pretty good message, too. If we’re not getting it across, then the question is why.

        1. …we should figure out why.

          Because governing is about telling people what to do (unfortunately), which is diametrically opposed to our philosophy.

          Or it could be that we use the word “cunt”.

          Sorry Ken, couldn’t help myself. 😉

          1. Being associated with neandertals certainly doesn’t help any.

            That’s how we get smeared already. If that’s holding us back, it’s a legitimate point.

            I think what you’re saying about governing is certainly true, too. And we probably need to assess our effectiveness in terms that aren’t necessarily about putting people in power, too.

            If the country is getting more tolerant, then we are making progress in that one way. If people are more against bailouts now than they were in 2006, then maybe we’ve made some progress in that way, too.

            I wish they were already more intolerant of fiscal irresponsibility and loathed taxes like I do, and if we aren’t making progress on that point, then I’d hate to think it’s because we’re associated in a lot of people’s minds with stupid shit.

            I read on a post on another news site today about how the GOP can’t be trusted with a mandate–because it’s so libertarian. If to some people’s minds, we’ve become the bad name other people smear the GOP with? Then we need to figure out why.

            1. I actually see a lot of promise for libertarians in the next decade+. I think there is a fairly good chance to take over the Republican party, as the Socons did under Reagan. The yutes seem to be leaning in our direction and if Rand Paul gets a haircut, we might just get a libertarian president in several years.

            2. Being associated with neandertals certainly doesn’t help any.

              Yeah, it’s much better to be associated with the kind of smug douches friendly inclusive individuals who think it’s ok to say things like “Screw Texas, it’s full of ignorant rednecks. We don’t need them in our movement.”

              1. That’s not exactly what I said. I said that I’m not afraid of alienating people who are proud of being stupid.

                Get over it.

                1. From wikipedia:

                  Neanderthal cranial capacity is thought to have been as large as that of modern humans, perhaps larger, indicating their brain size may have been comparable, or larger, as well. In 2008, a group of scientists created a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria. The study showed Neanderthal and modern human brains were the same size at birth, but by adulthood, the Neandertal brain was larger than the modern human brain.

                  1. In my defense, when I was referring to neandertals, I meant only those who are proud of being stupid, specifically.

                    That being said, I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize to any neandertals I may have offended with my insensitive comments.

                    The people in Texas who are proud of being stupid, though? They can still kiss my ass. …and there are herds of them all over Texas. Seen ’em with my own eyes.

                    1. Consider me the Neaderthal Defense League.

                      And btw, you realize due to cross-breeding, there are plenty of descendents of neanderthals roaming the earth right now. Probably all of us.

                    2. Interesting note: While 1 to 4% of European/Asian nuclear DNA is neanderthal in origin, there is none in mitochondrial DNA.

                    3. So, you’re saying that neanderthal men liked knocking up cro-magnon women?

                    4. Are you ever just going to say you over-reacted and then STFU? Your credibility is shrinking by the minute, Ken.

                    5. He still defends the Libya “action”, sloopy. So the answer appears to be no.

                  2. Brain size, penis size. It’s how you use it that counts.

          2. Oddly enough, the Bible deals with similar questions, IIRC. Basically, Paul was preaching a message of theological liberation, but recognized that just because you could engage in all sorts of behaviors without sinning against God, didn’t mean you wouldn’t be making other people uncomfortable and driving them away from salvation.

            1. Yeah, I still say there’s no more fundamental, concise, and self-explanatory expression of libertarianism than “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

              If everyone willingly chose to start living that way tomorrow?

              Instant Libertopia.

              So, anyway, that message sells. If that’s our message, and it isn’t selling, then we need to figure out why. If it’s because, like Christianity, we’ve got some branding problems, because certain elements have coopted the brand and associated it with something that doesn’t sell? Then we need to address that.

              1. Emulating the transformational ideologies that have worked in the past, adapted for our belief system, isn’t a bad strategy. Christianity isn’t the only one like that. Taking over the Roman Empire was impressive; the communists taking over the Soviet Union, China and various places around the rest of the world was pretty impressive, too.

                We shouldn’t emulate their ideology–but we should definitely look at their outreach tactics. The strategy of marketing libertarianism as the solution for the poor and downtrodden is underutilized.

                I smacked someone down quoting Singer recently, with the observation that people have never been lifted out of poverty faster or on a wider scale than they have over the past 30 years.

                …and that’s primarily attributable to people in the developed world doing something Singer condemns as fundamentally immoral–making frivolous purchases with their discretionary income to buy things manufactured in places like China.

                A message that’s ideologically similar to 1st century Christianity and the appeal of offering more opportunities to the poor–grounded in the patriotic ideals of the American Revolution? Should be a lot more influential than it is.

                We’re doin’ somethin’ wrong.

                1. We shouldn’t emulate their ideology–but we should definitely look at their outreach tactics.

                  Careful Ken. It is almost starting to sound like you wish to manipulate people. That’s not very libertarian. Do the ends justify the means? At which point, I reference my comment up-thread.

                  …governing is about telling people what to do (unfortunately), which is diametrically opposed to our philosophy.

                  I think the best “tactic” for lack of a better word, is to educate via rational discussion. I think that’s what Ron Paul is attempting and there are signs it is working. The fact that a lot of folks have become disillusioned with the current establishment parties isn’t hurting. But I think we can all agree, the time is now. We won’t have this opportunity again in our lifetimes.

                  1. They’re marketing is better than ours.

                    We need a Steve Jobs, type. Nick’s like that, but he’s only one guy. He’s gotta overcome the image all the willfully stupid people are putting out there. We all need to do our part.

                    The communists are really good at marketing. I’m not talking about manipulating people so much, but I do want to convert them to the libertarian cause. The communists were really good at converting people. If emphasizing the part of our message that’s about liberating the poor from hopelessness and poverty is part of the solution, then that’s not manipulation.

                    Not if libertarian capitalism really is the solution for the poor and downtrodden.

                    1. If emphasizing the part of our message that’s about liberating the poor from hopelessness and poverty is part of the solution, then that’s not manipulation.

                      Provided it is done completely truthfully and no one is temped to “spin” the truth to obtain their end. Tricky.

                    2. Provided it is done completely truthfully and no one is temped to “spin” the truth to obtain their end. Tricky.

                      So you’re going to enter battle against the statists with one hand tied behind your back?

                      If the lovers of liberty in history had only spoke the pure unvarnished, unselective truth… we’d be eating cruddy bacon, riding in lorries, and singing “God Save the Queen” today.

                  2. It is almost starting to sound like you wish to manipulate people. That’s not very libertarian.

                    There’s nothing unlibertarian about manipulating people, so long as you don’t cross into fraud territory. Half of rhetoric is manipulation.

                2. I guess you don’t know how Xtianity took over the Roman Empire: from the top down. There was no great groundswell for it; it caught the fancy of some courtiers who claimed the Emperor went for it before he died, and then subsequent emporers made it official, imposing it in a way the previous, nebulous official religion of the empire never had been.

                  Then the Popes exceeded their own power, taking a centralized top-down approach the Eastern church never did, and further imposed Xtianity in a top-down manner via the rulers of Europe, and froze pagans out of commerce. That’s why the Vikings were organized around piracy — it was the only economic and social avenue remaining available.

                  Basically what the Xtian church did was revive, in the context of Semitic monotheism, the sort of arrangement that hadn’t existed since the Pharaohs.

                  1. I dispute that.

                    The Edict of Milan was a pragmatic policy; it was a recognition of reality.

                    Persecuting X-tians, refusing to allow them to profess their faith, confiscating their property, etc. became about as workable as our Drug War is today. How long could the emperors enforce absurd laws, when people kept converting to and professing Christianity anyway?

                    That’s bottom-up in action.

                    The emperor is always the last one on board. That’s the way abolitionism worked, too. Getting an anti-slavery president in the White House didn’t presage abolitionism.

                    Abolitionism grew for decades before they got an anti-slavery president in the White House, and once they got an anti-slavery president in the White House, the battle for public opinion was won.

                    That’s the way change happens. Ron Paul may never be the president of a libertarian U.S., but if he’s made more libertarians, if he can spark some people to turn more libertarian, we may still see a more libertarian United States in our lifetimes.

                    In the meantime, we shouldn’t let our long term dreams get in the way of goals. Our dream may be a libertarian president, but if a critical mass of the American people aren’t libertarian by then, having a libertarian president wouldn’t make any difference anyway.

                    Our goal should be convincing enough people to think in a more libertarian way. Once we achieve that goal, it won’t matter who the emperor is–he’ll find religion. Just like Constantine did.

                  2. I guess you don’t know how Xtianity took over the Roman Empire

                    Ah yes, another edition of “Robert rewrites history”. We get that you don’t like Christians, you don’t have to keep emphasizing it.

        2. Go ye unto the world and preach the gospel. Jesus’ ideas eventually took over the Roman Empire. He only had 12 guys to start with, and one of them sold him out…

          We’ve got 25 or 30 guys, twitter, the internet, tv, radio, electricity and coffee pots… and we still can’t do it.

          1. We’re not making the progress on tax cutting and fiscal responsibility, but we are making progress in other areas–even if people don’t necessarily consciously associate the ideas they have with libertarianism.

            But don’t take my word for it. That’s the case Gillespie and Welch made in their book so well, isn’t it? We’re still making progress–libertarian politicians will get power after people’s minds have been changed.

            Just because we’re still in the mind changing phase doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress. Christianity made a lot of progress before Constantine converted. Anybody who thought Christianity wasn’t making any progress so long as the emperor wasn’t a Christian would have been way off the mark.

            1. Jesus Christ was dead and alive again by 33. We’d better get cracking.

              1. For what it’s worth, I do sometimes wonder if a religious strategy might be more effective…

                People are always accusing Randians, Paultards and Transhumanists of being cultish; maybe instead of taking that as an insult, we should look at it as an opportunity.

                With all our modern science, we’ve come to associate “religion” with believing in something without any rational basis, but back in Jesus’ day, the supernatural explanation may have been a legitimate inference to the best explanation!

                In other words, when religions like Christianity started, believing in the creation story didn’t require one to ignore modern science–and that’s when they were really effective. …at spreading their gospel truth, and at growing from eleven guys and a traitor–to taking over the Roman Empire.

                Randians, Paultards and Transhumanists bristle at being characterized as “religious”, but that’s just because of the association of that word with irrationality.

                Religious convictions can be highly contagious–and just because libertarians really believe their beliefs about where wealth, abundance and happiness come from–are really true and can be demonstrated from scientific, economic and rationally ethical principles? Doesn’t mean it can’t be a religion.

                Again, Christianity had all of that legitimacy with its converts back in 33 CE, too. Maybe we libertarians shouldn’t have formed a political party; maybe we should have formed a church.

                1. I worship at the church of Reason.

                  Praise be unto The Jacket!

                  1. Yeah, the high priests will wear leather jackets; we’ll read hadiths from Radicals for Capitalism

                    Transhumanism helps, too, in that it scratches the “What happens to us when we die?” itch. Waiting for the singularity is a bit like waiting for Jesus, too. …except it has a rational basis to rely on–rather than an ancient text.

                    How best to live one’s life is another important point, and Libertarianism, the religion, has something to offer its adherents, there, too. Free to fulfill ourselves as individuals has a number of benefits over gender, race and religious identities telling us how to live have, traditionally. We replace the American dream with an individual one.

                    If people want to describe our economic theories as “faith in the markets”, then maybe that’s just the right approach. Our benediction prayer could be the Litany Against Fear.

  4. Ron Paul knows perfectly well that his effort will ultimately not get him the nomination. So do most of his supporters. Success equals respect and the right to give some speeches at the convention. Lots of old line Republicans do not want to grant it. They like their power and the ability to pretend the the Libertarian wing of the party is irrelevant.

    It is all about the future.. Not even necessarily Rand Paul.

    1. It is all about the future.. Not even necessarily Rand Paul.

      I just wish the future would happen a little sooner.

      1. I hope I live long enough to see it.

  5. “Paul is costing the state a lot of credibility,” said Bob Haus, a GOP consultant who most recently headed up Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign in the state.

    Because Rick Perry is so credible. Die in a fire, you fucking nitwit.

    1. Yeah, you’d think Bob Haus would be more worried about the Republican Party losing a lot of credibility with Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters, seeing as that’s pretty much the only enthusiastic strain in the Republican Party today.

      Unless you want to count bible-thumping Neandertals, who aren’t exactly lending the Republican Party much in the way of credibility either.

      1. bible-thumping Neandertals

        We get it dude. You’ve picked a side in the culture war, decided that you’re better than us ignorant Southerners, and you’ll tell anyone who’ll listen.

        1. For the last time, I’ve long considered myself a Southerner. Graduated from high school in the Shenandoah Valley.

          Just for the record, I don’t consider Texas the South. hmmmm, east Texas, maybe, but not the rest of it. …and I’ve been everywhere there is to go in Texas.

          I think people who are proud of being stupid are pathetic–wherever I find them. But I do NOT equate that with the South. That association is just something weird that’s happening in your mind, apparently.

          Most people I meet think I still have a bit of a Southern accent–because I do. I wear it like a badge of honor.

          They taught me not to use foul language in mixed company in the South. Can’t say I’m absolutely perfect in that regard, but treating women with respect is certainly an extension of that. …it’s something you learn when you grow up in the South.

          Too bad the rest of you heathen didn’t have the privilege of growing up in the South.

          1. You need to go back and re-read your “redneck” rant again. Your selective memory IRT what you wrote is pretty fucked up.

            And BTW:
            Cunt
            Fuck
            Ass
            Titties
            Buttholes
            Dick
            Shit
            Pussy
            Santorum

          2. and I’ve been everywhere there is to go in Texas.

            Why?

          3. I said it up above, but Im going to be more blunt here: You are the one showing his stupidity, the Neanderthals were the smart branch of humanity.

            1. So natural selection failed?

              1. Who said intelligence leads to offspring?

                Natural selection succeeded. It saved the group better at fucking?

                1. Not sure why there is a question mark after fucking. No question about it.

                2. So does that mean there is still hope that the Southern SoCon species will die out (even if they are so much more intelligent than the rest of us)?

                  All we need to do is fuck more.

                  1. Fucking more does help if you use protection.

                    1. DOESNT help.

                      Sigh.

                  2. All we need is fuck
                    All we need is fuck
                    All we need is fuck
                    Fuck is all we need

              2. Natural selection failures == Market failure

                Both are, by definition, impossible

                1. Natural selection, like markets, doesn’t move in a straight line.

                  Also, bigger isn’t always better. It’s the way you use it. Whales, walruses, and elephants have brains as big or bigger than homo sapiens. Doesn’t mean they’re smarter.

                  Incidentally, Tthere was a study I read about a few years ago, done by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and their researchers confirmed something I’ve suspected for a long time, now…

                  Which is that sloopyinca and Atanarjuat are the decedents of neandertals!

                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie…..ans-genome

            2. the Neanderthals were the smart branch of humanity

              Explain.

    2. I’m very impressed with this guys credentials. The head of a campaign that didn’t exist until after the caucus was over.

    3. ^THIS^

  6. *Robin Koerner at Huffington Post sees a media confused by the paradigm shift the Ron Paul revolution portends.

    For my money, that’s the most interesting link in this whole thing.

    1. Agreed. The guy appears to have actually put some thought into it.

    2. Great article.

    3. …GREAT article!

    4. Wow, that guy can actually write and stuff.

    5. Great article. But it left me with a bit of a “huh” feeling. But it may just be me. I’m fresh out of hope.

      1. Wait, which “huh” do you mean?

        “Huh. That gives me something to think about.”

        or

        “Huh? I don’t understand.”

        or

        “Huh? This guy is a total idiot!”

  7. The World Gazes on His Delegate Strategy in Wild Wonder
    At the joy they had found
    The head pol spoke up
    Said, leave this one alone
    He could tell right away
    Paul was bad to the bone!

    Well, it didn’t really work, but that the way I read the title!

  8. “Ron Paul Supporters Antics Could Spell Trouble for GOP Convention.”

    So the elected candidate is trouble?

    Maybe for the Northeastern liberal wing of the GOP?

  9. “It does not sound encouraging. The Paul people are in a position to control the delegates, and the result would be chaotic for the Republican Party of Iowa and bring it to a screeching halt, rendering it completely irrelevant to our efforts here,”

    This is awesome.

  10. I guess registration scared ol’ Max away?
    Where’s the “R.P. is a racist!” rants?

    1. I don’t miss him.

    2. Go suck Ron Pual’s koch, Steve-o!!11!

  11. Whoa – Brian, you have a book coming out about The Paul? Do please shill for it here so we know when/where it’s available.

  12. Oh, meant to add, “you know who else used H&R to shill for their book….”

    1. Hitler?

      1. Damn your quick fingers!!!

        1. I am very sneaky, sir.

    2. Hitler?

  13. OT:
    “Your comment contains a word that is too long (50 characters).”

    Fuck you, reason squirrels.

    1. Yes, I know you can open some other ap, copy, paste, hold your mouth right, give the magic sign and….

      Fuck you, reason squirrels.

      1. It’s cut-and-pasted quotes and apostrophes. Trust me, I spent the first week of post-registration figuring it out.

        After pasting text, remove any quotes and apostrophes which are ‘slanted’. You can see the difference as they’re from a different character set. And it’s not consistent. I’ll cut a section and one or two quotes will be the alt-character set, one or two won’t be.

        If you’re not sure, just remove and retype every quote and apostrophe you see. You’ll be good.

        1. I spent the first week of post-registration figuring it out.

          Or, you could have saved about 6 days and listened to me.

      2. Also, be sure to check for other punctuation like hypens. There’s a non-ASCII longer style dash that triggers the squirrels

    1. “Fuckers” can refer to Mary Stack and her troll army of one.

      1. Shit [kicks pebble] – I thought y’all liked us.

    2. OK, you have yet to answer the first question of any LP gathering near CA:
      What is Starchild wearing?

      1. Not much I’ll bet! LOL

      2. I managed to avert my eyes all night. Maybe I’ll find out today.

  14. A try without quoting; here’s a FOOD truck:
    http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.co…..ing#4953-1

    1. That’s fucking awesome. We have a pizza truck here in Houston, Pi Pizza Truck, that is delicious but not nearly as beautiful.

    2. I haven’t had a problem linking (using “link” in Reasonable) and when I quote I just copy/paste. But I rarely do both at once.

      Are you using Reasonable? If so are you using “quote” or copy/paste?

      1. FdA,
        IMO, posting ‘blind’ links is rude.
        Usually, I’ll copy/paste (with quotation marks) the headline, ditto a line or two of the article, maybe a comment and then the link.
        Per above, when I tried that re: “cops sniffing dope in a hotel hall-way”, I got the damn ’50 characters’ no-no sign, and of course no suggestion of what the squirrels mis-identified.
        Not sure what “Reasonable” is, but fuck the reason squirrels; it’s their problem unless they’d like to spring a buck seventy five an hour for assistance.

        1. see my response to you above. Cut and retype quotes and apostrophes. I never get the 50 character error anymore.

          1. Paul,
            No snark, I appreciate your effort and info.
            But ya know, fuck ’em if any of us has to go through that sort of crap to post information.
            I’m not about to ‘weed’ various punctuation to support a sloppy filter; it’s no’ my yob.

            1. Understood, Sevo. I bitched and moaned about it too, but gosh darn it, sometimes what I was pasting needed to preceed my comment so it would make sense, and I didn’t want to type a whole narrative myself.

              I hope that Reason eventually fixes this, but in the meantime, I can yank out a few quotes and apostrophes pretty quick, it’s not that bad.

              The wheels of libertarianism turn slowly and its goals remain elusive. I’ve learned to make-do.

            2. Paste your comment into word/Liber office writer. Save it as a text file with MS-DOS encoding/ASCII.

              Open it notepad.

              And you are done!

              1. terran,
                Also appreciate it, but I have a hard time remembering the magic words when I’d just like to post something.
                If the squirrels wish to communicate with me, I’ll be happy to require a vibratory analysis of crankshaft loads at varying RPM.
                Fuck ’em.

                1. Sevo

                  Chrome + Reasonable!

                  See below

        2. Reasonable is an app for Chrome designed to make your H&R experience ultimately enjoyable.

          Reasonable

          It allows you to link, quote, bold, italic and strike by highlighting and clicking. It automatically incerts the HTML code. It shows you who the last five posters were (and you can click to the post directly). It provides markers to your posts so you can click directly to them to see if anyone responded to you. You can also click on the “-” to determine exactly who a commenter was responding to in the threaded comments. AND you can block trolls.

          I just swithced from Firefox to Chrome and I love it.

          Here is a link describing HTML linking, if you are unfamiliar, and Reasonable sets up the format with a click of the mouse.

          1. No thanks.
            Firefox does just fine for my purposes, and I’m just here to pass on info.
            Fuck ’em. It’s no my yob.

            1. Your call, obviously.

              I had lots of problems with FF towards the end. They pushed updates about every other day and I was having a lot of trouble with it locking up. My wife suggested Chrome and I couldn’t be happier with it.

              1. FdA,
                When difficulties of this sort come up (with the reason squirrels, not FF), it seems best to consider the question:
                Who is the customer in this case?
                Obviously your call, too, about the choice of a browser, but fuck ’em.

                1. Has anyone complained directly? Who at Reason is in charge of the censorship division?

                  My point is, do they even know they have a problem? I haven’t bitched since my setup works, but it seems like everybody else is having issues.

              2. FdA,
                Ignoring a Chrome/FF question, the one that matters is:
                Who is the customer?
                Fuck ’em.

    3. It’ll be banned soon.

  15. And some Republicans said he has already succeeded in pushing the Republican Party so far to the right on fiscal and budgetary matters that it has paid tangible dividends at the legislative level

    Could someone more steeped in the subtle language of politics please explain to my provincial ass how what Ron Paul preaches is to the “far right”?

    Taking, oh, Nazi Germany, Mussolini et al as “far right”, I’m having trouble making the connection between the laissez-faire stylings of Ron Paul and what Il Duce preached.

    1. Agreed and:
      …”fiscal and budgetary matters that it has paid tangible dividends at the legislative level”
      WHAT “tangible dividends”?! Paul Ryan’s budget that ‘slashes’ spending by one or two percent, ‘starves the childrunz’ and isn’t going anywhere anyhow?
      (and you left out Hitler, but, hey, who wants to godwin a thread?)

      1. I think they mean a younger crop of “Ron Paul” republicans are winning elections they were expected to lose.

        1. I hope so, but that sort of leaves “fiscal and budgetary matters […] tangible dividends” as a lie.

    2. He needs to be put somewhere, and since the average idiot believes the political spectrum is two dimensional (left/right), where else would they put him except far right. Except that since, generally, libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, one might think they’d be considered centrist (on a two dimensional continuum).

      Explaining the Nolan chart to Team Blue/Red is difficult.

      1. By modern msm standards, Hitler would have been at the very top corner of the Nolan Chart. I just know it. All that live-and-let-live shit he used to preach. Disgusting.

        1. They’d be exactly the opposite of correct.

          Hitler bottom center

      2. Projection onto a one dimensional subspace is not invertible.

    3. Yeah, I’m pretty tired of that stupid canard of claiming that fascists are right-wing. They were always extreme leftists. The right-wingers in their day were all about restoring the monarchies.

      -jcr

    4. Could someone more steeped in the subtle language of politics please explain to my provincial ass how what Ron Paul preaches is to the “far right”?

      Left, Center, and Right are little more than political dog whistles. For their respective TEAMS, when you say Left/Right they are supposed to Drool/Boo. When you say Far Left/Right, they are supposed to Cheer Loudly/Curse and Scream. When you say Center, they are supposed to get a warm, fuzzy feeling of inclusiveness.

      All of that, of course, has nothing to do with what the Left-Right political spectrum originally referred to (classical liberal-monarchist) back in days of monarchial France.

      1. Serious people only Curse and Scream when it comes to Far Left/Far Right.

  16. Paul is costing the state a lot of credibility

    He’s the only candidate who has any intention at all of making the Republican party fulfill the promises in their platform. Willard’s credibility is rather less than nil.

    -jcr

    1. Seriously, I LOL’d at that statement. It’s the political parties that suffer from a lack of credibility, not the people supporting one of the few principled presidential candidates we’ve seen in decades.

  17. I guess now they’ll have to come up with a new system that allows for a managed competition between a few major contenders and a smattering of also-rans and flameouts, followed by an orderly rally around the most boring possible choice.

  18. Sounds to me like they know what they are doing.

    http://www.Privacy-Dudes.tk

  19. Ron Paul coming in third in Iowa and winning a majority of the delegates is a national disaster. Mitt Romney coming in third in North Dakota and winning a majority of the delegates is good political maneuvering.

  20. The sad part is that Ron Paul could have won most of the primaries outright if all of his supporters had just turned out to vote. Primary turnout is so low, even someone with 8-10 percent national support could have won the nomination.

    1. Shoulda relaxed on the newsletters then.

      The guy got creamed by the MSM for that stuff.

  21. as Kim replied I’m startled that you able to earn $8479 in one month on the internet. have you seen this website makecash16.c?m

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.