And this year’s CPAC straw poll winner is … Update: YAF expels Paul from board

posted at 6:00 pm on February 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Alternate headline: CPAC straw poll plumbs depths of irrelevance yet again.  How meaningless was the straw poll for preferred GOP presidential nominee?  The bronze-medal winner is Gary Johnson, the libertarian former governor of New Mexico.  That means that the libertarian vote actually got split this year, and wound up taking two out of three spots on the straw poll anyway:

For the second year in a row, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, earning 30 percent of the vote.

The Texas congressman, known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 GOP candidate who is expected to run again, came in second place with 23 percent of the vote. Romney won the previous three presidential straw polls before Paul snapped his streak last year. …

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in a distant third with 6 percent of the vote, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 5 percent.

Considering the environment, Romney has to feel pretty good about gaining the silver medal.  After Christie, who’s not running, and Gingrich, who may be, the order of the poll results were:

  • Tim Pawlenty – 4%
  • Michele Bachmann – 4%
  • Mitch Daniels – 4%
  • Sarah Palin – 3%
  • Herman Cain – 2%

Of the five, only Palin didn’t appear at CPAC this year.  Finishing below them were two prominent potential candidates, Rick Santorum and Haly Barbour, who did and finished with 2% and 1% respectively for their efforts. When combining first and second choices, the onlychange in the order is that Bachmann and Pawlenty trade places.

In other straw poll results, a slim majority of straw poll respondents believe that Republican control of Congress will rein in federal spending (51%) and reduce government regulation (50%).  A plurality of 47% believe that the GOP can get Congress to cut federal taxes.  CPAC’s voters are more pessimistic about repealing ObamaCare and paying down the national debt, with a plurality of 40% on each question believing that Congress won’t accomplish either task.

Of course, when Ron Paul and Gary Johnson team up on the dream CPAC ticket, maybe they’ll get a little more optimistic ….

Update: Warner Todd Huston has more.

Update II, 2/13/11: Young Americans for Freedom (not to be confused with Young America’s Foundation) has expelled Ron Paul from their board over his positions on the war and his refusal to distance himself from 9/11 Truthers:

YAF’s concern with Rep. Paul stems from his delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” said YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks.

Paul, who had served on the YAF Advisory Board for more than two decades, was awarded with YAF’s highest honor, the Guardian of Freedom award, an honor Rep. Paul has touted on his biography for many years. Only a decade ago, Dr. Paul praised YAF’s work on the House floor. Paul called YAF’s founding document, the Sharon Statement “a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom.”

Marks doesn’t pull any punches in his statement, either:

“Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Marks continued.

“Rep. Paul has strayed to the left of Obama and allied himself with the radical anti-war left by laying the blame on America for the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11th. Additionally, Rep. Paul has not condemned the 9/11 “Truther” conspiracy theorists that support him, and he has repeatedly insisted, that the United States not bring justice to those who have murdered thousands of our civilians and soldiers at home and abroad. This is simply unacceptable. Clearly Rep. Paul cares more about a doomed presidential run than he does our country,” Marks added.

I didn’t add this to the post yesterday because I didn’t think it amounted to much, except for a chance to beat up Ron Paul a bit.  Commenters have noted the expulsion on other threads, however, and since this post will ride on top for a while, it seemed like a good place to note the expulsion.  It certainly qualifies as a stinging rebuke.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

our enemies were more just. So, yes or no, is what we did unjust? Ron Paul has said so in no uncertain terms he feels that way. Is he wrong in this one position?

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 4:19 PM

This is another thing that disgusts me abt Paul, his thinking that these people are trying to kill us bcs we are ‘messing’ with them somehow.
These people are nothing but evil, homicidal, ignorant, backward maniacs who hate infidels.
IMHO Paul is a DANGEROUS, ‘Useful Idiot’.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Please read my above post regarding libertarian-minded youth.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Ok, I read it. I see the answer as trying to educate those youth to your way of thinking; not all of them will agree, some may. But kicking them out doesn’t do anything to expand your numbers or compete with the Dems (who have a chapter on virtually every college campus). In fact, it will eventually make the GOP seem older and smaller.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Badger State Dave, I have to go, but I really do wish you would readdress that question I asked earlier. Like I said, in reading more of what you’ve written about Ron Paul’s stances on foreign policy, I get the impression you’re right there with him on all of his opinions. I’m surmising then that you think my involvement in this war is unjust and that our enemies were more just. So, yes or no, is what we did unjust? Ron Paul has said so in no uncertain terms he feels that way. Is he wrong in this one position?

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I’ve already answered it. Interpret that how you will.

You claim he’s saying that our enemies are justified in how they are responding to us. I say that isn’t what he’s saying, but rather, he’s simply acknowledging their point-of-view.

As long as you and I have that fundamental disagreement of his speech, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on his foreign policy. I used to see it the way that you do now. I used to believe there was no way we could have blowback, when all we were trying to do was liberate an oppressed people. As skeptical as I was in getting involved in Iraq, for example, the idea of liberation did sound good.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

scaling back our foreign involvement, and a constitutionally-consistent (as I’m gonna find) voting record. I support the moves to audit and/or eventually eliminate the federal reserve. Added bonus points for someone who isn’t pro-amnesty, or worse, pro-choice.

Give me THAT candidate, and you have my interest.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Like I said earlier-Paul has some great ideas.
It is good to limit some things overseas that are not of benefit to us.
But if you leave a vacuum, nature abhors one & if we do not have a presence somewhere where the necessity up & presents itself, a missed opportunity to help, or get involved, may become a deadly mistake.
There are despots all over the world waiting for us to leave certain places so they can move in.
Like South Korea. Like Israel.
So while every other thing you advocate is sensible, these things are not to much of America.
So much so that Paul gets very little nationwide support.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Well, thanks for answering. I think you’re holding back your whole opinion. Just my opinion. And you know what they say about them. But thanks.

Take care all.

“Even” MadCon.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Ok, I read it. I see the answer as trying to educate those youth to your way of thinking; not all of them will agree, some may. But kicking them out doesn’t do anything to expand your numbers or compete with the Dems (who have a chapter on virtually every college campus). In fact, it will eventually make the GOP seem older and smaller.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 4:25 PM

As of 2004 (most recent statistics I could find):

Democrat Party – 72 million registered voters
Republican Party – 55 million registered voters

I’m sure the numbers changed some in seven years, but I highly doubt Republicans made up that entire 17 million gap.

You’re already in the hole in every election. So maybe alienating an entire bloc of potential voters who historically have fit in the party ain’t such a hot idea.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

So much so that Paul gets very little nationwide support.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I get that. Freedom and minding one’s own business is harder than handouts and involvements.

Here’s the thing though. I still feel it’s the way to go, because we’ve tried the opposite approach, and that’s failed us time and again.

Right now, it’s Paul who says the most things I agree with. If there was a different, preferably younger, voice out there addressing these concerns, I’d be interested in that person as well, or perhaps, instead of Paul.

Just my opinion. And you know what they say about them. But thanks.

hawkdriver on February 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

LOL Now THERE’S something we agree on.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I see the answer as trying to educate those youth to your way of thinking; not all of them will agree, some may. But kicking them out doesn’t do anything to expand your numbers or compete with the Dems (who have a chapter on virtually every college campus). In fact, it will eventually make the GOP seem older and smaller.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Exactly. And we do not want people who would subvert the goals we hold dear.
Tell me, if you were a church pastor, & the youth in your congregation said they were going to leave if he didn’t accept adultery or sex out of wedlock, would you relax your standards of behavior so you could keep these parishoners?
And I didn’t say kick them out.
If they are so adamant about bucking the basic tenets of the GOP, perhaps they should go off & form their own 3rd party.
I know a lot of young people who are very wise & conservative.
I personally hold some Libertarian views, but I cannot abide by all of them.
I agree with West’s statement about what the GOP should be.
We do not want a total Democracy, mob rule where the govt is your mommy.
We also do not want a far right govt where everybody is in all of your business.
We also do not want a govt that thinks it’s OK to disrespect & murder future viable human beings.
We also do not want a govt so small that it cannot do it’s Const duties.
There is a middle ground.
Liberatarians are not in there.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:37 PM

I’m sure the numbers changed some in seven years, but I highly doubt Republicans made up that entire 17 million gap.

You’re already in the hole in every election. So maybe alienating an entire bloc of potential voters who historically have fit in the party ain’t such a hot idea.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

You have just realized that there are a lot of unregistered voters who are eligible to vote without saying it.
Potential voters are people who , for a number of various reasons, are not engaging in their privilege, as well as their DUTY as a citizen.
And this is shameful.
I was one of those morons until I turned 30. It was then I realized that everything wasn’t all abt me.
I had more liberal attitudes before that.
Now I understand freedom & its responsibilities.
Sorry-but your Paul man is one scary dude to me, & a lot of others here on HA.
I am not going to be suckered by him.
And just curious, why has this guy been a Congressman for HOW MANY YEARS?
Far as I’m concerned, he’s sucking off the teat just like the ones he rails about.
If you can’t get your $hit done in a reasonable amount of time, it’s time to move on to something else & push your agenda by encouraging others to take up the mantle of ‘community service’ AKA running for public office.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:43 PM

That’s not a trivial amount – most “spend and tax” democrats haven’t managed to cheat the taxpayers of even half that amount. When your “fiscal conservative’s” record would make even the most hard core redistributions blush, you might have put your faith in the wrong man.

Moreover, if you look at his fellow Texas reps, Michael McCaul(TX-10) and Jeb Hensarling (TX-5), they don’t request earmarks at all. They are the real fiscal conservatives, not the conman Ron Paul.

Rebar on February 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Thanks for that.
And all I hear is crickets.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Exactly. And we do not want people who would subvert the goals we hold dear.
Tell me, if you were a church pastor, & the youth in your congregation said they were going to leave if he didn’t accept adultery or sex out of wedlock, would you relax your standards of behavior so you could keep these parishoners?
And I didn’t say kick them out.
If they are so adamant about bucking the basic tenets of the GOP, perhaps they should go off & form their own 3rd party.
I know a lot of young people who are very wise & conservative.
I personally hold some Libertarian views, but I cannot abide by all of them.
I agree with West’s statement about what the GOP should be.
We do not want a total Democracy, mob rule where the govt is your mommy.
We also do not want a far right govt where everybody is in all of your business.
We also do not want a govt that thinks it’s OK to disrespect & murder future viable human beings.
We also do not want a govt so small that it cannot do it’s Const duties.
There is a middle ground.
Liberatarians are not in there.

But, instead of using arguments to try to demonstrate to those who see things different, what we libertarians here is were “baby-killers” “anti-American” “hate the troops” “hate cops” “love Muslims and gays” and other crap that you will find in many cases just simply isn’t true. Keep telling these young, impressionable potential voters they’re viewpoints aren’t wanted, or that they’re liberal, and guess where they go? It ain’t Team Elephant. It ain’t the party that’s supposed to be representative of the right side of the political spectrum.

We are more motivated by our fiscal concerns, and our involvements around the globe, as opposed to social causes. Some of us want those social issues left only for the state’s to decide, others want them nowhere at any level of government.

You want to win them over, without compromising your core beliefs? Show them how staying the hell out of our wallets and the hell out of our private business can mutually exist. Again, the gap between the conservative ideology and the libertarian-right ideology is a lot smaller than many would ever admit.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Seems pretty short sighted to kick libertarians out of the “big tent,” especially when that’s where all the youth energy is…

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Where were all these “libertarians” during the last primary? Because they sure weren’t at the polls voting for Dr. 5%.

Rebar on February 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM

There is a middle ground.
Liberatarians are not in there.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:37 PM

So, if someone doesn’t agree with 10 out of 10 things that are important to you, they can take their ball and go home? As a small “l” libertarian I’ve sucked it up so often now voting for progressive, big government, compassionate conservative, security state republicans I feel like a vaccuum.

If you really are not interested in compromising with libertarians on some issues — namely restoring civil as well as economic liberties — they will sit home in 2012. Scoff, but their numbers are growing…

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 4:50 PM

You have just realized that there are a lot of unregistered voters who are eligible to vote without saying it.
Potential voters are people who , for a number of various reasons, are not engaging in their privilege, as well as their DUTY as a citizen.
And this is shameful.
I was one of those morons until I turned 30. It was then I realized that everything wasn’t all abt me.
I had more liberal attitudes before that.
Now I understand freedom & its responsibilities.
Sorry-but your Paul man is one scary dude to me, & a lot of others here on HA.
I am not going to be suckered by him.
And just curious, why has this guy been a Congressman for HOW MANY YEARS?
Far as I’m concerned, he’s sucking off the teat just like the ones he rails about.
If you can’t get your $hit done in a reasonable amount of time, it’s time to move on to something else & push your agenda by encouraging others to take up the mantle of ‘community service’ AKA running for public office.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 4:43 PM

About Paul still being in Congress…Not an entirely unfair critique.

About people not exercising their civic duty by voting…you know, that used to bother me a hell of a lot more. But when I hear from people why they didn’t vote, how can I argue with them.

No matter who we send up, it seems they end up in the pockets of lobbyists, bankers, Wall St., unions, ACORNs, etc. All we get is more government in our wallets, and in our private lives. How many of us here even want half of that part of it?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:51 PM

So, if someone doesn’t agree with 10 out of 10 things that are important to you, they can take their ball and go home? As a small “l” libertarian I’ve sucked it up so often now voting for progressive, big government, compassionate conservative, security state republicans I feel like a vaccuum.

If you really are not interested in compromising with libertarians on some issues — namely restoring civil as well as economic liberties — they will sit home in 2012. Scoff, but their numbers are growing…

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 4:50 PM

This right here.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM

72 million registered Donkeys.
55 million registered Elephants.

Like it or lump it, if every registered Donkey and Elephant votes like they’re registered, you lose big.

How do you plan on making up that gap? How can it even be done?

To start with, don’t turn away a new crop of people who can and may register that first time around, shoving a bunch of issues down their throat they don’t care about, with no offer to compromise on second-tier ones (to you) to help them get what they want.

Compromising in and of itself isn’t a dirty word, so long as everyone gives up something they can live without to get something they need or really want.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason

Ugh.

Grow Fins on February 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Thank you YAF.

AshleyTKing on February 13, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Those numbers are misleading. In some states, such as my state, I don’t have to register with a party.

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Petard. Own. Hoist.

Some assembly required.

Y-not on February 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Ron Paul is a loon.

That being said, I agree with a lot of his domestic stances. Except for getting rid of the Fed.

therightwinger on February 13, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Ugh.

Grow Fins on February 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Yeah, it’s hard to take a group seriously when they talk like that. Of course, as I recall it was a YAF leader who was booed off the stage last year for condemning CPAC for including GOProud, so apparently the only way they can get in the news these days is by rhetorical bomb-throwing.

Inkblots on February 13, 2011 at 5:27 PM

If Libertarians are so influential why can they never have any success? Like it or not, there’s always going to be a social safety net, America is always going to have a powerful military. And people are generally not in favor of “open borders” or legalizing dope.

therightwinger on February 13, 2011 at 5:28 PM

BadgerSD & Firefly:
Listen guys, I can handle compromise on some things.
And if you are Libertarians, then there are candidates I am sure we could agree on in some arenas.
But if you are adamant to opposing on what many Conservatives are staunch on, like babies & foreign policy, then you are certainly free to leave the GOP.
I never called any of you baby killers or gay or cop haters military haters etc.
Are you thinking the shoe fits or something?
Sorry, but I don’t want to belong to an organization, or vote for a person who waffles or ‘compromises’ on those major things.
It is not enough for me to consider smaller govt & fiscalness.
I have in the past been open to leaving all social issues with the states, as Libertarians seem wont to do.
But abortion I just cannot leave that to.
And I am all for a smaller govt, but I am not for a bare bones govt.
The federal govt has a legitimate role regarding the states.
And I believe in keeping a foreign presence whenever possible bcs it is important to know who your ‘friends’ are, even if they are not really your ‘friends’.
Libertarians, as far as I am concerned, have some great qualities, but the things that you are advocating I find too extreme & I will not go for it.
Period.
Our opinions differ & that is that.
There are social issues worth pursuing.
You are in the extreme on that.
We are a moral nation, formed on Judeo-Christian values.
I do not advocate a total bare bones govt.
If Libertarians want to stay home & pout bcs the GOP does not like your offerings, i.e. Paul, then stay home.
Or vote Dem.
It really doesn’t matter.
I am tired of holding my nose on principle issues.
If you are,too, keep running Paul & put him on the Libertarian ticket.
If your numbers are so damned high, then maybe you’ll win.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Like it or not, there’s always going to be a social safety net, America is always going to have a powerful military.

Kinda like Rome, eh?

AshleyTKing on February 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Ugh.

Grow Fins on February 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM

I am simply overwhelmed by the intellectual depth of this commentary. *rolling eyes*

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Well said. You and I are on the same page.

JannyMae on February 13, 2011 at 5:35 PM

If Ron Paul is so dadgum popular, why has he never been elected President any time that he has ran for the office?

kingsjester on February 13, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Badger:

As of 2004 (most recent statistics I could find):

Democrat Party – 72 million registered voters
Republican Party – 55 million registered voters

I’m sure the numbers changed some in seven years, but I highly doubt Republicans made up that entire 17 million gap.

Those are really old numbers. Even these:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122693/democratic-advantage-party-affiliation-shrinks.aspx

are out of date and they show a HUGE narrowing. These would be closer to 72M to 64M. And I suspect that this has closed more in the last year and a half.

One other item that has to be considered is turnout rate. I cannot find anything on this but I would suspect that there may be a significant difference in the historic turnout rate of D vs R voters. That was certainly the case in the ’10 elections.

OBQuiet on February 13, 2011 at 5:39 PM

If Ron Paul is so dadgum popular, why has he never been elected President any time that he has ran for the office?

kingsjester on February 13, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Because he’s seen as a wackadoodle by many!

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Sometimes simple expression is best: Ron Paul is a crank and his supporters are jerks.

SurferDoc on February 13, 2011 at 5:46 PM

“What Muslim Brotherhood? I don’t see no Muslim Brotherhood in America!” -Suhail Khan, member of the American Conservative Union’s board of directors.

ACU hosts and operates the CPAC. Khan has come under fire for alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood. During a panel on conservative inclusion at CPAC on Saturday, Khan flatly declared that there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

Ron Paul wins the CPAC straw poll… CPAC has a sodomy booth this year… What’s next? I mean really, what’s next?

Akzed on February 13, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Sometimes simple expression is best: Ron Paul is a crank and his supporters are jerks.

SurferDoc on February 13, 2011 at 5:46 PM

I certainly agree with the 1st sentiment, & am teetering toward giving the 2nd some consideration.

Well said. You and I are on the same page.

JannyMae on February 13, 2011 at 5:35 PM

;)

If Ron Paul is so dadgum popular, why has he never been elected President any time that he has ran for the office?

kingsjester on February 13, 2011 at 5:37 PM

THIS.

Because he’s seen as a wackadoodle by many!

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Isn’t funny how you start out really liking someone, then you find out they are certifiably insane?
Like, Oooh he’s really a great guy. Then you wake up one morning & he’s constructing a tinfoil hat in the closet.

What’s next? I mean really, what’s next?

Akzed on February 13, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Get a foot in the door, & some think the ‘compromises’ should never end.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Get a foot in the door, & some think the ‘compromises’ should never end.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Yep.

kingsjester on February 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Those numbers are misleading. In some states, such as my state, I don’t have to register with a party.

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Admittedly old, and like your state, my state also don’t require a registration.

Misleading? Yeah, but I’d say the true numbers for both parties has to be higher, simply for the fact of state’s like yours and mine that have no affiliation requirement.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 6:05 PM

this has got to be the right-wings WTF moment!

leave ron paul ALONE!!!

moonbatkiller on February 13, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Wasn’t Rothbard Jewish? So was Mises.

Murray Rothbard a Jew? Yes.

Ludwig von Mises a Jew? Yes.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 3:53 PM

. Self-loathing Jew turned atheist anarchist

He also was highly critical of Hayek and Von Moses…classical liberals

jp on February 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 6:05 PM

‘my state also don’t require’?

Anyhoo, I agree that both numbers will change, but, due to the voting record of my state, I know which number increases more.

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Listen guys, I can handle compromise on some things.
And if you are Libertarians, then there are candidates I am sure we could agree on in some arenas.
But if you are adamant to opposing on what many Conservatives are staunch on, like babies & foreign policy, then you are certainly free to leave the GOP.
I never called any of you baby killers or gay or cop haters military haters etc.
Are you thinking the shoe fits or something?
Sorry, but I don’t want to belong to an organization, or vote for a person who waffles or ‘compromises’ on those major things.
It is not enough for me to consider smaller govt & fiscalness.
I have in the past been open to leaving all social issues with the states, as Libertarians seem wont to do.
But abortion I just cannot leave that to.
And I am all for a smaller govt, but I am not for a bare bones govt.
The federal govt has a legitimate role regarding the states.
And I believe in keeping a foreign presence whenever possible bcs it is important to know who your ‘friends’ are, even if they are not really your ‘friends’.
Libertarians, as far as I am concerned, have some great qualities, but the things that you are advocating I find too extreme & I will not go for it.
Period.
Our opinions differ & that is that.
There are social issues worth pursuing.
You are in the extreme on that.
We are a moral nation, formed on Judeo-Christian values.
I do not advocate a total bare bones govt.
If Libertarians want to stay home & pout bcs the GOP does not like your offerings, i.e. Paul, then stay home.
Or vote Dem.
It really doesn’t matter.
I am tired of holding my nose on principle issues.
If you are,too, keep running Paul & put him on the Libertarian ticket.
If your numbers are so damned high, then maybe you’ll win.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Well, for me, it’s more the issues that are important than the man (or woman) behind them. Since I ain’t running in 2012, I already have to accept I’m not going to be voting for the perfect candidate (in my opinion, for whatever the hell that’s worth).

Anyways, back to compromise…

Believe it or not, I do have to remind fellow libertarians of this fact if we want to get anywhere with what we want to accomplish. Then I get called a “pragmatist” or even a “conservative” for that. lol It is what it is.

So, the real questions become, where can we find some common ground where both of us can accept what we have to work with, both in regards to policy, and in regards to who we elect?

Nothing wrong with wanting any of the things you want. I agree with some, and not with others. I may be libertarian, but I am also pro-life. Yes, we exist. Many others are, or at least will let it be settled at the state level, and many others aren’t.

I dunno. I guess what “conservative” position would you be willing to punt on? What “conservative” position would you like to keep in place because you compromised on something? I direct those questions to myself as well (from my ideology, of course).

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 6:13 PM

I just love newbies….

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 6:14 PM

‘my state also don’t require’?

Anyhoo, I agree that both numbers will change, but, due to the voting record of my state, I know which number increases more.

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM

I’m sure you can guess my state. lol It holds true for both parties here in America’s Dairyland.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Frankly, I vote based on one single issue…SCOTUS appointees…

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Time for Paul to win Iowa now.

Spathi on February 13, 2011 at 6:15 PM

He also was highly critical of Hayek and Von Moses…classical liberals

jp on February 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Two writers who I prefer to Rothbard, anyways.

I’m sure there’s (considered) conservative voices you really like, you can deal with, and you could live without, right?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason

I don’t think I’ve heard a stupider comment. Look at the Founding Father’s stance and the YAF would have to call them traitors.

MrX on February 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Yes I prefer reasonable classical liberals over anarchist like Paul and his idol rothbard. Sane people in general who haven’t lost. All honor grace and sensibilities

jp on February 13, 2011 at 6:21 PM

MrX on February 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM

The founding fathers were socialistic warmonger imperialist by paultard logic and historical Lies

jp on February 13, 2011 at 6:25 PM

……and Paul’s position on the upcoming Caliphate?

PappyD61 on February 13, 2011 at 6:48 PM

You have to remember that Paul is a Cult leader whose seduction is the pride felt by his converts in being portrayed as “the only ones who know the truth”.So when he stakes out his positions on 9/11 and on wars, he is playing that role. Paul will not give up control over the minds of his followers just to be like the rest of us Conservatives who play the dupes, who unlike his followers, are lost people. For Paul’s leadership his converts pay him money for subscriptions and donations. Every false cult has to have its false prophet.

jimw on February 13, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Isn’t funny how you start out really liking someone, then you find out they are certifiably insane?
Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 5:53 PM

What is funny is that, until I started mixing up with some Ronulans, prior to the 2008 election, I actually thought I agreed with Ron Paul on most things, except for his arguably insane take on foreign policy. As a result of arguing with these guys, I started reading what Paul actually said, and what he’d actually wrote, and I realized that he wasn’t just crazy on foreign policy.

Ironically, the guys that were arguing me ended up having the opposite effect that they’d hoped. :D

JannyMae on February 13, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Paulitology. Face it, it is only a matter of time. Instead of ‘E’meters they’ll have ‘L’meters.

Limerick on February 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM

You have to remember that Paul is a Cult leader whose seduction is the pride felt by his converts in being portrayed as “the only ones who know the truth”.So when he stakes out his positions on 9/11 and on wars, he is playing that role. Paul will not give up control over the minds of his followers just to be like the rest of us Conservatives who play the dupes, who unlike his followers, are lost people. For Paul’s leadership his converts pay him money for subscriptions and donations. Every false cult has to have its false prophet.

jimw on February 13, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Boy, am I glad you cleared that up for me. WHEW!

And to think, this whole time, I liked his positions on several important issues. Wow. Guess I better find my Kool-aid pitcher, my tinfoil hat, and look for an Alex Jones broadcast somewhere. Because that’s what this is really all about. lol

/sarcasm
/

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 7:18 PM

If Libertarians are so influential why can they never have any success? Like it or not, there’s always going to be a social safety net, America is always going to have a powerful military. And people are generally not in favor of “open borders” or legalizing dope.

therightwinger on February 13, 2011 at 5:28 PM

We’ll never has as much success because most people love voting themselves money even if it means going against their principles.

Notorious GOP on February 13, 2011 at 7:21 PM

It’s called the Folsom St. fair…….
http://www.folsomstreetfair.com/photos/

Baxter Greene on February 12, 2011 at 7:40 PM

OK, that was just gratuitous cruelty.

Siddhartha Vicious on February 13, 2011 at 7:22 PM

If Ron Paul is so dadgum popular, why has he never been elected President any time that he has ran for the office?

kingsjester on February 13, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Because in politics, you gotta play to the lowest common denominator. You think most Americans want to rid themselves of their free Medicare or SS? Hahah, yeah right.

Notorious GOP on February 13, 2011 at 7:23 PM

One of the reasons conservatives keep losing elections they should be winning: isolating those that agree with them on most issues; you know, those like libertarians. Keep up your doctrinal purity and see how many more elections are lost by less than 1%.

Fools.

JSGreg3 on February 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM

One of the reasons conservatives keep losing elections they should be winning: isolating those that agree with them on most issues; you know, those like libertarians. Keep up your doctrinal purity and see how many more elections are lost by less than 1%.

Fools.

JSGreg3 on February 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Yeah, Mike Castle would’ve been a fiscal blessing to the GOP.

Notorious GOP on February 13, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Come on, it isn’t libertarian that is the problem. It is Paul. The man isn’t sane. Dump Paul and come back to the table and talk.

Limerick on February 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Wasn’t Rothbard Jewish? So was Mises.

Murray Rothbard a Jew? Yes.

Ludwig von Mises a Jew? Yes.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 3:53 PM

. Self-loathing Jew turned atheist anarchist

He also was highly critical of Hayek and Von Moses…classical liberals

jp on February 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Rothbard parents were extreme leftists. He learned hate America from the womb and never forgave the U.S. for not living up to its ideals 100%. He was an extreme idealist.

Kermit on February 13, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Come on, it isn’t libertarian that is the problem. It is Paul. The man isn’t sane. Dump Paul and come back to the table and talk.

Limerick on February 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Well, anecdotally its sort of like when someone not in your family insults your eccentric aunt. You know your aunt is eccentric, but you’re going to defend her.

We’ll gladly sit at the table, but we’re done with the kiddie table in the corner of the room. Fact of the matter is, conservatives kinda need us. And for the record (and the zillionth time), libertarian =/= libertine. Many of us are pro-life (we prefer to treat it as a State’s rights issue).

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Frankly, I vote based on one single issue…SCOTUS appointees…

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Most of the time, that’s the way I go.
That’s why McCain was loads better over Obama.
Unfortunately, the states are morons that won’t ever stand up for themselves via the 10th.
So this is what we’re reduced to.
And it is very important.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM

States’ rights

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Its gonna be really demeaning to hear Paul at the primary espousing his paranoid delusional, dystopian view of American policy as he currently sees it.

TonyR on February 13, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Many of us are pro-life (we prefer to treat it as a State’s rights issue).

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM

I used to feel that way, too.
That is until I realized that a viable fetus = a person who will grow up into an adult citizen.
No matter how you look at it, a person = a person.
Abortion means that some persons are not as = to others.
Children that are physically born into the world are still under their parents’ control, but it isn’t legal to kill them if they pi$$ you off.
So why is a child who has not been born yet worth any less?
Yeah yeah rape, incest, life of the mother, safe legal & rare blah blah blah.
All straw men to avoid the real point.
All men are created equal.
They meant everybody.
Our founding fathers sure as hell considered unborn fetuses actual human beings.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Yeah, I know you folks are out there, willing to hammer out something that works. But that auntie is really dragging you back and you all need to rethink giving her your national microphone.

Limerick on February 13, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 8:14 PM

But Badger, most criminal laws, including murder, are State laws. What’s wrong with leaving it to the States to determine how to deal with the abortion issue?

Fact is, you need to convince more people that abortion = murder. I agree, but too many have been indoctrinated with a cartoonish view (“but its MY body” “you just want women to be baby factories, you don’t care if women die!!11!!” “abortion is just late birth control,” or “its just a glob of cells”). Thankfully, polls show that people are gradually maturing and changing their minds on this issue.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Limerick on February 13, 2011 at 8:15 PM

*sigh* I hear you. There are just so few libertarians that get any buzz or following; its hard to excommunicate them. I honestly have a LOT more in common with his son’s positions, and I hold out hope that someone like Rand can help bridge the divide.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:24 PM

When Ron Paul bought the Muslim lie (and publicly announced) that the underwear bomber was just an innocent kid, forced into trying to kill civilians in response to a particuar US military action… only to discover later that the guy bought his tickets BEFORE the said action…and then refused to apologize for his America-bashing… He lost me FOREVER.

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:21 PM

So you think it okay for a state to abolish murder laws?

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

But Badger, most criminal laws, including murder, are State laws. What’s wrong with leaving it to the States to determine how to deal with the abortion issue?

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:21 PM

This:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I guess if you feel that the Declaration of Independence is not some sort of binding document upon the citizens of the US, then I could see your point.
I think you should consider what it means when you recognize the rights of one human being over another.
I think this actually needs to go through the Amendment process. I feel this is the only way to secure the rights of these people who would be aborted.
For this to work, you probably need an official scientific ‘definition’ regarding current technology & scientific understanding regarding who is & who is not a person, with the rape, incest & mother’s life crap thrown in.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 8:32 PM

One of the reasons conservatives keep losing elections they should be winning: isolating those that agree with them on most issues; you know, those like libertarians. Keep up your doctrinal purity and see how many more elections are lost by less than 1%.

Fools.

JSGreg3 on February 13, 2011 at 7:25 PM

A “pure” Libertarian who is right on a score of economic issues, but insists on arguing that access to pornography is a core Constitutional right as envisioned by the Founders… will lose by more than 1% here in the South.

My problem is that I am Libertarian on economic issues and support “local standards” as a legitimate position for a number of social issues. Unfortunately, I have never found in the LP a candidate who was not extreme on some worthless issue.

Access to Pot, Prostitution and Pornography… apparently the reason the Constitution was framed… are LP “core values” alond with a knee-jerk desire to blame any US military action for all animosity in the world toward the US.

Small federal government, local control of most things… live where you want. That is Libertarianism… not the “3 Ps” and blaming the US (and Israel) for every terrorist on the planet.

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 8:35 PM

I agree with Ron Paul on many things, but his “blame america” shtick is a fatal position for any rational or serious person to make. Also his associations with countless lunatics from Alex Jones to the Stormfront goons.

Bleed_thelizard on February 13, 2011 at 8:35 PM

So you think it okay for a state to abolish murder laws?

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I didn’t say that. I said pro-lifers need to convince more people that abortion=murder so that — ideally — all States would treat it as such.

Theoretically, I guess a State could abolish murder laws, but since States have plenary police power (and in fact such power is reserved to the States and not the federal government) and are expected to exercise that power to protect their citizens, I can’t see that situation ever occurring in reality. If any State legislature tried that, they’d be run out on a rail.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Your argument is circular because it depends on what “life” means (not to you or me, but the population at large). I wholeheartedly agree with you. Unfortunately about half the population does not. We need to educate and convince more people.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Its gonna be really demeaning to hear Paul at the primary espousing his paranoid delusional, dystopian view of American policy as he currently sees it.

TonyR on February 13, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Not really.

Everyone will see that he hasn’t anything new ideas,he hasn’t grown politically, ideologically or morally, still spouts the same pap and is still batsh!t crazy.

catmman on February 13, 2011 at 8:47 PM

I think this actually needs to go through the Amendment process. I feel this is the only way to secure the rights of these people who would be aborted.
For this to work, you probably need an official scientific ‘definition’ regarding current technology & scientific understanding regarding who is & who is not a person, with the rape, incest & mother’s life crap thrown in.

Badger40 on February 13, 2011 at 8:32 PM

This is one part where you can get some agreement with some true pro-lifers, and with some state’s rights pro-lifers.

Think of it this way…

If you leave this argument to the states, you only potentially need to get 38 of them to agree with you to get your amendment.

Much as we hate to admit it, we ain’t winning this one in one shot. Those of us with pro-life points-of-view may have to settle for taking the longer route to get to where we wanna go.

Win this battle in 38 states, push for an amendment, get it to pass, and you won.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 8:48 PM

I don’t think I’ve heard a stupider comment. Look at the

Founding Father’s stance and the YAF would have to call them traitors.
MrX on February 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Agreed. The YAF sounds too much like the heretic hunters on the Left who cried Treason! Treason! whenever people dared to voice their opposition to Democratic domestic policies.

Ron Paul’s positions on foreign policy may be wrong-headed or even disastrous, but they are born from a consistent (too consistent?) application of limited government principles. The man actually thinks that our national security interests would be better served with different foreign policy. He is not just saying those “crazy” things because he hates America or something. He may be wrong but that does not make him a traitor.

Threshing Flora on February 13, 2011 at 8:53 PM

A “pure” Libertarian who is right on a score of economic issues, but insists on arguing that access to pornography is a core Constitutional right as envisioned by the Founders… will lose by more than 1% here in the South.

My problem is that I am Libertarian on economic issues and support “local standards” as a legitimate position for a number of social issues. Unfortunately, I have never found in the LP a candidate who was not extreme on some worthless issue.

Access to Pot, Prostitution and Pornography… apparently the reason the Constitution was framed… are LP “core values” alond with a knee-jerk desire to blame any US military action for all animosity in the world toward the US.

Small federal government, local control of most things… live where you want. That is Libertarianism… not the “3 Ps” and blaming the US (and Israel) for every terrorist on the planet.

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Of course, all we want is our weed and smut and hookers. It helps us blame Israel and America for everything. Good God, talk about ignorance and regurgitating talking points.

There’s a lot more to us than “Pot, prostitutes, and porn.” It’s about the silly idea that an adult, and grown man or woman is capable of making the decisions on these issues without my input being necessary. Really, why should I care even just a little bit if an adult wants to spend his life and money on pot, porn, and prostitutes? Why is it my business what consenting adults do in their private lives?

It isn’t.

You don’t like weed, well, neither do I. Here’s a crazy thought. Keep it out of your house. It’s what I do. And, you know, it works. :) Don’t like hookers? Don’t solicit them. Don’t like porn? Don’t buy it. Is it really that hard? Do you really need me to define what your standards of decency should be? Do I really need you to define mine?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Ron Paul’s positions on foreign policy may be wrong-headed or even disastrous, but they are born from a consistent (too consistent?) application of limited government principles. The man actually thinks that our national security interests would be better served with different foreign policy. He is not just saying those “crazy” things because he hates America or something. He may be wrong but that does not make him a traitor.

Threshing Flora on February 13, 2011 at 8:53 PM

WINNER!

Of course, unless you agree to a status quo that is NOT working, you have to be a short-sighted traitor, or simply a Jew-hating anti-semite or pro-Islamic terrorist. Or perhaps you’re just wrong, because of course America has the right to tell others how to live, same as how Washington has the right to tell Americans how to live, what to buy, where to go, what’s go for them, etc.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 9:02 PM

The only thing I loathe more then Ron Paul are his idiot supporters.

Boxy_Brown on February 13, 2011 at 9:11 PM

If any State legislature tried that, they’d be run out on a rail.

Firefly_76 on February 13, 2011 at 8:37 PM

That’s not the point, and you know it.

ladyingray on February 13, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Of course, all we want is our weed and smut and hookers. It helps us blame Israel and America for everything. Good God, talk about ignorance and regurgitating talking points.

It’s neither, it’s personal experience. Anecdotal, yes, but consistent over the last 11 years since I first inquired of the LP nationally and locally.

There’s a lot more to us than “Pot, prostitutes, and porn.” It’s about the silly idea that an adult, and grown man or woman is capable of making the decisions on these issues without my input being necessary. Really, why should I care even just a little bit if an adult wants to spend his life and money on pot, porn, and prostitutes? Why is it my business what consenting adults do in their private lives? It isn’t.

It’s not about Pot, Prostitution and Pornography!! Except that it is!!!

The Founders believed in self-rule, not anarchy or liscentiousness. I would think that it would be impossible for you to find any Founder who would agree that liberty meant that men were free to do anything in regard to sexual trade (2 of the Ps).

How do we determine what an “adult” is? What if I believe that my child is an “adult” at age 13? What if my neighbor sees his 16 year old as an adult and sells her for sex (with her permission) to make a few bucks? Surely that is a vision what Madison dreamed America would someday grasp!

Honestly, if everything comes down to Hookers, Heroin and Hustler, you’re on shaky ground (and consequently why the LP can’y break 2% in any election). And it is a certainty that it will eventually come down to these things.

Why stop at pot? Legalize ALL drugs. Who needs prescriptions?

You don’t like weed, well, neither do I. Here’s a crazy thought. Keep it out of your house. It’s what I do. And, you know, it works. :) Don’t like hookers? Don’t solicit them. Don’t like porn? Don’t buy it. Is it really that hard? Do you really need me to define what your standards of decency should be? Do I really need you to define mine?

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 8:56 PM

This is why the LP will never break the magic 4% they dream about.

Personally, I wish a few states would legalize pot just so the other states can see the pros and cons. But if I want to live in a community that does not tolerate pornography or prostitution, I should be able to create such a structure. That is what the Founders envisioned.

Libertarians can’t just argue that they’d like to be able to form a local or state society which tolerates those vices, they have to argue that Hustler is essential to a Jeffersonian Republic. Insanity.

I say go for it. Move to VT in droves. Get the state to legalize crack, meth, heroin, prostitution, sex rooms, pornography on every corner, gambling, etc. While you’re at it, why don’t you remove the requirement for prescriptions for pharmaceuticals? How dare the state mandate commerce between a private company and adults! I’d LOVE for you Libertines to take over VT and try it. Your society would collapse in short order.

The notion that these things are core American liberties for which the Declaration was written and the Constitution ratified is why the LP will always be a fringe political spoiler (the reason the GOP loses by 1% here or there).

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 9:38 PM

How dare the state mandate REGULATE commerce between a private company and adults!

FIFM

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM

I’d LOVE for you Libertines to take over VT and try it.

Yep, that’s it. You busted us. We’re really just libertines and we should all go to Vermont to be around other like-minded left-wingers.

We just pretend to care about government regulations, the debt, spending and taxes. Nope, it’s all just about letting us future Vermont residents having our drugs. lol

Why stop at pot? Legalize ALL drugs

Why not? Unless you like the War on Drugs, the growth of the police state, the growth of violent gangs in our inner cities, our national border with Mexico being a near war zone, and the civil rights violations that have gone with it?

Me, I don’t like those things any more than I don’t like drugs. Since civil liberties are protected, I think I’d like to defer to those.

If the founders wanted drugs, and prostitution, and pornography to be issues addressed by the federal government, those issues would have found their way into Article I Section 8. I highly doubt there was no such thing as drugs, prostitution, or pornography (in the mediums available) back in the 18th Century.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 9:50 PM

If the founders wanted drugs, and prostitution, and pornography to be issues addressed by the federal government, those issues would have found their way into Article I Section 8. I highly doubt there was no such thing as drugs, prostitution, or pornography (in the mediums available) back in the 18th Century.

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Um, yes, they left those issues to the states (“local standards”) to decide for themselves. That’s true Libertarianism.

If Libertarians think that the availability of such things are the true measure of a society’s “liberty” (along with the legalization of all drugs… prescription, hallucinogenic or otherwise) then the only answer is to move to a state and try it. I fully support state’s rights.

The LP argument is not for state’s rights, but rather they believe that these things are somehow enshrined in the Constitution and envisoned somewhere in the Federalist papers.

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Where did Huck come in? I thought he’d at least be in the running.

flataffect on February 13, 2011 at 10:26 PM

You think most Americans want to rid themselves of their free Medicare or SS? Hahah, yeah right.

Notorious GOP on February 13, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Surely you are not talking about those Americans who have had government take their money right out of their checks for… say thirty – forty years… so what about these people?

tinkerthinker on February 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Yeah, Mike Castle would’ve been a fiscal blessing to the GOP.

Notorious GOP on February 13, 2011 at 7:29 PM

75% of the time, yes he would have been. And even if it would have been only 50% of the time, that’s a whole lot better than 0% of the time that we’re getting with the Democrat.

JSGreg3 on February 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

A “pure” Libertarian who is right on a score of economic issues, but insists on arguing that access to pornography is a core Constitutional right as envisioned by the Founders… will lose by more than 1% here in the South.

My problem is that I am Libertarian on economic issues and support “local standards” as a legitimate position for a number of social issues. Unfortunately, I have never found in the LP a candidate who was not extreme on some worthless issue.

Access to Pot, Prostitution and Pornography… apparently the reason the Constitution was framed… are LP “core values” alond with a knee-jerk desire to blame any US military action for all animosity in the world toward the US.

Small federal government, local control of most things… live where you want. That is Libertarianism… not the “3 Ps” and blaming the US (and Israel) for every terrorist on the planet.

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 8:35 PM

You misunderstood me. I’m merely stating that libertarians are more closely aligned with conservatives than liberals. Let them have some kooky views … just make sure they vote Republican in each election. You can only do that if you don’t isolate them like many in this thread are doing. Too many elections are lost to liberals by too close a margin.

JSGreg3 on February 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

75% of the time, yes he would have been. And even if it would have been only 50% of the time, that’s a whole lot better than 0% of the time that we’re getting with the Democrat.

JSGreg3 on February 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

The dude wanted Crap and Trade. . . .possibly the most fiscally liberal piece of legislation in this country’s history. If he’d vote for that, why would on trust him on any other major fiscal issue?

Notorious GOP on February 14, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Surely you are not talking about those Americans who have had government take their money right out of their checks for… say thirty – forty years… so what about these people?

tinkerthinker on February 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Which is why someone has to stand up and say that there should be no more of that or some kind of cut off. Someone has to sacrifice some pain for the greater pleasure of this country. Unfortunately, not many are principled enough to do it.

Notorious GOP on February 14, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Badger State Dave on February 13, 2011 at 9:50 PM

What you have to understand is that the social conservatives are the ones who really ruined the GOP. Any GOP candidate has to pander to them to win any national primary which is why you have a guy like Huck leading a lot of polls even though this country is begging for SOMEONE, ANYONE with a lick of fiscal sense. Hell, Mitt faced the ‘Can a Mormon win a national primary?’ questions for a long time until people realized he was a fraud.

I’m not saying religion is ‘dumb,’ but the fact that it matters to so many people in politics says a lot.

Notorious GOP on February 14, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Ron Paul is unelectable. I like Mitt but the Mormon factor will impede him again. Palin is a no-go. Christie is not going to run. All in all we have yet to see a viable candidate from the right to take on msm’s Obama supported by legions of liberal lemmings rushing to the sea and intent on carrying us with them. No, Bachmann is hopeless as well. We had better find someone viable and find him/her fast.
Of course ceding both California and New England back to Mexico and England, respectively, would be good for putting a proper president in office but sadly this is a dream….Escape from California, anyone?? Heck, we can’t even build a fence along the border with Mexico to keep out all those illegal imm–I mean undocumented workers.

Sherman1864 on February 14, 2011 at 2:46 AM

Simply proves that you can gather up a collection of nuts with just enough nutbait.

TiminPhx on February 14, 2011 at 5:34 AM

I’ll say one thing, the Paulyps get out and vote at these functions…

golfer1 on February 14, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Um, yes, they left those issues to the states (“local standards”) to decide for themselves. That’s true Libertarianism.

If Libertarians think that the availability of such things are the true measure of a society’s “liberty” (along with the legalization of all drugs… prescription, hallucinogenic or otherwise) then the only answer is to move to a state and try it. I fully support state’s rights.

The LP argument is not for state’s rights, but rather they believe that these things are somehow enshrined in the Constitution and envisoned somewhere in the Federalist papers.

mankai on February 13, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Leaving these issues for the states is a far more reasonable position than having them decided at the federal level.

Badger State Dave on February 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM

What you have to understand is that the social conservatives are the ones who really ruined the GOP. Any GOP candidate has to pander to them to win any national primary which is why you have a guy like Huck leading a lot of polls even though this country is begging for SOMEONE, ANYONE with a lick of fiscal sense. Hell, Mitt faced the ‘Can a Mormon win a national primary?’ questions for a long time until people realized he was a fraud.

I’m not saying religion is ‘dumb,’ but the fact that it matters to so many people in politics says a lot.

Notorious GOP on February 14, 2011 at 12:17 AM

I have to agree.

Religion is fine. It is one thing people use to guide them towards responsible behavior, helping the less fortunate, defending the right to life, etc. All perfectly good things.

It’s using that religion to rule that I consider unacceptable.

We may or may not have been founded based on Judeo-christian values, but that don’t mean we need to (or are even authorized to)legislate that way. At least not at the federal level.

Badger State Dave on February 14, 2011 at 9:15 AM

It certainly qualifies as a stinging rebuke.

Of a foreign policy position Ron Paul has for over 30 years. Little slow on the uptake, aren’t they?

Not for nothing but, Young Americans for Fascism don’t like teh gheyz, or YAL.

YAF’s Ryan Sorba at CPAC in 2010 getting booed off stage: “Yeah, YAL is my enemy. Jeff Frazee, guess what, you just made an enemy out of me, buddy.”

“Why be this inflammatory?” laughed Jeff Frazee, executive director of YAL. “It’s a publicity stunt, but it’s nice to see them say they agree with Obama.”

Heh.

Of course, when Ron Paul and Gary Johnson team up on the dream CPAC ticket, maybe they’ll get a little more optimistic ….

Yuk yuk yuk.

I hope Gary Johnson runs third party. A majority are with him on the issues, and I think he can win. Paul can be his Treasury Secretary.

Rae on February 14, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Badger State Dave on February 14, 2011 at 9:15 AM

I have to disagree. Moderate to Liberal Republicans and Libertarians have so blurred the difference between them and Democrats, that they have in fact caused the damage that you’re crying about. I’m tired of this dishonest argument. You have your social issues too. They’re just in line with the Liberals.

hawkdriver on February 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM

remove the requirement for prescriptions for pharmaceuticals? How dare the state mandate commerce between a private company and adults!

+1
The slippery slope of TOO much liberty.
Happy medium somewhere. And that scenario surely ain’t it.

Surely you are not talking about those Americans who have had government take their money right out of their checks for… say thirty – forty years… so what about these people?

tinkerthinker on February 13, 2011 at 10:38 PM

I sometimes think it would be better, & much cheaper, if they would just give us what we paid over the years in one big lump sum (with interest!).
They do this with the Indians around here & their tribe money-give 18yos the wad of cash they’re entitled to.
Most of them go out & blow it.
But some go to college, etc.
I would prefer that. Then the govt could slowly get people weaned off of Medicare/caid, get out of the health care business, then prices would get cheaper, do some real tort reform, & wa la! Medical care ends up being more reasonably priced-like you see in the dental industry & the plastic surgery & lasik surgery fields!
I know I am dreaming.

Badger40 on February 14, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7