GOP Debates on May 3rd will Feature Nine Candidates, Including Ron Paul

Sandy Price sizes up the candidates who have accepted invitations, and had this to say about Ron Paul: 

Congressman Ron Paul is the sole candidate who believes in a limited government and a “hands off” position as far as our individual choices goes. Dr. Paul has also stated that he is against the Iraqi war and will close it down when possible.

Who will ask the questions to these men about the level of lies and deceit that has developed since the Bush Administration was organized? I have never seen a weaker group of men running for any position with the exception of Dr. Paul. I cannot even imagine any Republican trying to clean up the current mess.

I’m really looking forward to this.  Hopefully Dr. Paul will remind fiscal conservatives where their roots lie while also making some headway with anti-war Democrats.  I look forward to seeing him challenge the other candidates directly on their positions.  As was evident in his interview with Maher, even the slickest debaters have a tough time refuting rational thought and common sense.  Politicians in general, especially today’s Republicans, are woefully void of both.

Alaska Libertarians for Ron Paul

Mainstream Libertarian says that the Alaskan Libertarian Party is considering an endorsement of Ron Paul for president.

I would be pretty surprised to see any state party officially endorse a candidate in another party this early on.  Whether or not it is official is really trivial though.  Quite a few LPers are already behind Paul because he has a chance to make some noise.

My one disappointment with the Ron Paul campaign so far is that they aren’t making it as easy as they should to get the word out.  There is a lot of support for him in the blogosphere, and plenty of people who would provide free ads/endorsements on their sites.  I’ve asked for some “official” information to post here, but to no avail.

If anyone knows of any available, please pass it on.

Real Social Security

The LA Times has an op-ed on the growing Libertarian undercurrent. This made me laugh.

Lane was investigated by the FBI in the early postwar years for daring to write on a postcard that Social Security was the sort of socialistic government management of people’s lives we fought wars against. True Social Security, she insisted, was canned vegetables and slaughtered pigs in your cellar. She and Paterson refused to accept anything from the Social Security system.

Hilarious! A friend and I were talking a few months ago about the wrongs of the socialist security system, and how we would thankfully opt out immediately and let them keep what we’ve already “invested” so long as we never have to contribute again.

Another good idea he had was to send all socialist security benefit checks to the wealthiest people in the country attached with a ‘thank you’ note for supporting so many people in this country.

Why the National Libertarian Party Should Pack It In

It’s very interesting to read so much on the web about the buzz Ron Paul is creating in his presidential run. Sure, it’s early still, and I’m not unrealistic about his chances, but I’ve heard more people mention his name already this year than I heard discussing Badnarik in 2004. Although many hardline libertarians would disagree, the fact that he’s a libertarian (basically) running as a Republican is all the more encouraging to me. I believe the Libertarian Party should cease pursuing offices at the national level.Like it or not, a great number of Americans think that there are only two political parties in this country, and that they are diametrically opposed to one another. Even those who are aware that other parties exist seem partial to believing that “other” parties are full of nuts/extremists. Most of those who don’t share this belief think that voting for anything other than a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote, since this vote cannot possibly contribute to a potential win for a candidate.

By running as a Republican, Ron Paul will do more for the libertarian movement than he could ever do by running as a libertarian candidate. First of all, he will not be shut out of nationally broadcast debates. This will give him the opportunity to not only get his own ideas across, but also give him the opportunity to call other candidates on their BS to be seen by a large audience. Remember when Alan Keyes got the opportunity to say this on Fox News in 1999:

And so what are we supposed to do again, get down on our knees and thank “Master Bush” now because he’s going to let us keep a little bit more of our own money? And we’ll thank “Master So-and-so” when they do it.

I think it’s time we realized that that kind of thinking is for slaves.

My ancestors were slaves. I abhor to think like one today.

The tax system for a free people is not a tax that gives the government a preemptive claim to a single penny of your income, and the right reform of this system is to get rid of the 16th Amendment, abolish the income tax, and return to the original Constitution of our country which funded the federal government with tariffs, duties, and excise taxes.

It would be tough to get a statement such as this out to such a broad audience without being affiliated with one of the two major parties.  Keyes didn’t get the nomination, but he did get that message across and made an attempt to push the tax debate in the right direction.

Another problem the LP has to overcome to win a national election is that this is a big nation with lots of people. Even if several libertarian strongholds like the Free State Project were established, it would be very difficult to win even one state, much less enough to compete for the presidency.  While some would argue that it is important to get the message out at the national level, wouldn’t it make more sense to concentrate efforts at the local level where the possibility of winning is reasonable?

All or Nothing Libertarians

The Volokh Conspiracy has some interesting thoughts (again) on why libertarians are destined to suffer perpetually.

My realistic side believes that it would be so much easier to infiltrate someone else’s party (cough cough Republicans cough cough) and point it in the “correct” direction instead of trying to reverse the brainwashing of a mass of people indoctrinated, err educated, in the public school system.

Realistically, people have a hard time comprehending anything Thomas Jefferson ever wrote, much less see how it applies to their lives 200 years later.   And truth be told, he’s one of the biggest reasons we are now stuck in a two party system–200 years later.

Tolerance of Smokers

American Thinker has a pretty humorous take on the Left’s tolerance agenda

Perhaps schools should have smoking education courses where students pretend to smoke and can learn a lesson about intolerance and bigotry towards smokers?


100 to 1

From The Liberty Papers on Ron Paul’s election chances:

I’m going to support Ron Paul for as long as he’s in the field. I have my concerns about a few of his positions, but he is far and away better than any other Republican or Democrat currently under discussion. Most candidates will force us to hold our noses simply to keep from retching if we vote for them; Ron Paul’s odorous positions are like mild B.O. in comparison. If he’s running when the primaries come to my state, I’ll vote for Paul. If he manages to secure the nomination, I’ll vote for him in the general election. And I’m not doing so simply to vote for the “best” Republican over other Republicans, because I will likely vote Libertarian if Ron Paul is out of the race. I’d rather vote for Ron Paul, a 95% libertarian running as a Republican, than vote for a 100% Libertarian Party candidate who doesn’t have a chance of even being invited to the debates.

I’d have to agree with this. I have a tough time with his hard stand on immigration, but I can live with it. If we’d stop giving our country away we wouldn’t have to worry about immigration. The people who want to work and succeed would come here and thrive. The others would starve or go home.