The Ron Paul Surge?

FreeMarketNews.com is reporting a dramatic surge in post-debate campaign contributions to Ron Paul, putting him in a near-tie with McCain behind Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Paul had about $500,000 on hand at the end of March, but sources in his campaign told FMN he now has $3-4 million, and is closing fast on $5 million.

I've sent an email to a Paul staffer asking for confirmation.

Comments

Leif | June 9, 2007, 1:33pm | #

holy shit

Joe Majsterski | June 9, 2007, 1:38pm | #

You mean there's hope? Woohoo!

Nikolaj | June 9, 2007, 1:39pm | #

Nice one!

Sam McManus | June 9, 2007, 1:46pm | #

I hope you guys don't think I'm too into the whole libertarian thing because of this, but this "Ron Paul isn't a chump" stuff gives me hope for the world. Seriously.

Zach | June 9, 2007, 1:52pm | #

This is divine intervention vic.

Matt | June 9, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Whoa.

Bee | June 9, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Heh. I contributed. A little. My first ever political contribution. And ya know what? I might just do it again.

I saw some stat once that showed Paul has a tremendously high percentage of small, out-of-district campaign contributions.

Eric Dondero | June 9, 2007, 2:11pm | #

And the latest Zogby poll now has Paul at 0%, down from a high of 3% in March.

Boy, let's hope that definition of "Surge" is applied to other libertarian hopefuls. We'd be out of existence as a movement in months.

Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 2:13pm | #

The only way Paul can get in the white house is if he wins the Republican primary. How to make this happen? Switch your registration to Republican and vote for him! Also try to get elected as a delegate to the RNC, so your vote has more weight...

I'm usually a Public Choice, rational ignorance, non-voter kind of guy, but if people actually vote for him, he might win. Rather than just talking about how he can't win...

Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 2:14pm | #

Eric,
"We" doesn't include you. sorry, buddy.

Kwix | June 9, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Hey Eric,
Just think, if Paul is actually elected president you might have a chance, however slim, of winning that House seat.

tomwright | June 9, 2007, 2:23pm | #

I sent $500 to him a couple weeks ago.

In most states I think you can vote in primaries whether you are registered to that party or not, but your registration is switched to that of the party primary you vote in. At least that is how I htink it works here in NJ.

I plan to try to vote for him in the NJ primary, if I can.

Neu Mejican | June 9, 2007, 2:24pm | #

As much as I see the reason Ron Paul is loved by the libertarians, I was interested in the response to this from his positions on his website...

"End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

Seems at odds with his stated position to base policy on the constitution.

Eric Dondero | June 9, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Hey, whatever happened to all those Ron Paul fanatics screaming a couple weeks ago that he "won the debate" and would soon "surge ahead of the other contenders."

Now he's down in the polls to 0%.

Where are they all now?

Where are all those who said, "Ron Paul kicked Giuliani's ass..."?

Now Giuliani is clearly ahead in all the polls, and now many are claiming he's got a lock on the nomination.

Thanks Ron Paul for boosting up Rudy Giuliani. Sorry it smacked you back down to 0% in the polls. But we True Libertarians appreciate your help for Rudy!

Bill Woolsey | June 9, 2007, 2:31pm | #

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

This is a list of national poll results. The ones listed here have Paul between 0% and 2% during the last week. 1% looks like the mode result.

Eric Dondero | June 9, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Two MAJOR PUBLICATIONS just called Rudy Giuliani a "libertarian" in the last couple days: US News & World Report, and the Chicago Sun-Times.

US News even headlined their story on Rudy with the word "Libertarian".

Here's a question for ya.

Do you see the media applying the label "libertarian" to any of the other 21 major contendors for President, Dem or Republican?

Gotta be some reason as to why the media applies the label "libertarian" ONLY to Rudy, (save Ron Paul, of course), and not to Fred Thompson, McCain, Romney, Hillary, Tancredo, et.al.

Bill Woolsey | June 9, 2007, 2:35pm | #

I prefer allowing more people to live and work in the U.S. without their children becoming automatic citizens to prohibiting people from living and working here.

Eric Dondero | June 9, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Thanks for the poll numbers Bill.

So where's the "Ron Paul surge"??

Remember 3 weeks ago, when all the Ron Paul fanatics were spamming every Blog and Website on the entire Internet with threats that "Ron Paul kicked Rudy's ass, and will win the
GOP nomination and go on to win the Presidency"?

'Member that?

Where are they all now?

I'd like someone to please explain to me how steady poll numbers since a candidate announced in the range of 0% to 2%, can be called a "Surge"?

Bramblyspam | June 9, 2007, 2:37pm | #

Paul still has no chance of winning. He won't be able to stand up against the smear machines if they start seriously targeting him, and in any event the majority of the GOP voters are still solidly pro-war. As the lone anti-war candidate, Paul will naturally gather a lot of support from a vocal minority - but it remains a clear minority in his party. Eventually the pro-war GOP voters will unite behind one guy. That guy will win the GOP nomination, and it sure as hell won't be Paul.

The best part about Paul's campaign is that it's getting the anti-war/libertarian republicans organized and active. That has potential to transform the republican party, but don't start talking about Paul as the next Goldwater yet. Remember, Goldwater was supported by most of his party, and he won his party's nomination.

For 2008, I think the best we can hope for is that Paul will get enough support to warrant a prime time speaking slot at the republican convention. Now that would be worth watching, if only to see the warbots squirm. It would all slip out of public consciousness within a week, but I'll happily enjoy my momentary pleasures while they last.

In the longer run, I think the best we can hope for is a crushing republican defeat on all levels in 2008, followed by a bloodbath in the GOP. That's the only way I see the republican party turning in a more Paul-like direction. The religious nuts are still solidly entrenched in that party though, I have a hard time seeing how they could get booted out in less than a decade.

For 2008, I think the only way an anti-war candidate can win is if we get a solidly anti-war "unity ticket" candidacy in a 3-way race. I'd love to see it, but I'm not holding my breath.

Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Eric,
We're right here. And he did kick Giuliani's ass all over the stage. I'm not going to get in to polling methodology with you, but there are a number of reasons why Paul is underrepresented in the polls, not the least of which is that he's not one of the ordained "big three" candidates yet.
But 5 million dollars in donations, that's something of a show of support, no?
Also, how did you get here from Bizarro World?

Dondero after Giuliani tells us that freedom is submission to arbitrary authority: Me... So... Happy!

Neu Mejican | June 9, 2007, 2:41pm | #

Bill W,

So you support a constitutional amendment?

Fluffy | June 9, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Dondero, you're an idiot. I don't care if the US News and World Report calls Giuliani a fucking gorilla, it doesn't make him one. No sane person considers Giuliani a libertarian, unless the party opened up a "slobbering torturer" wing at some point in the last year. Is that your caucus or something?

crimethink | June 9, 2007, 2:45pm | #

US News even headlined their story on Rudy with the word "Libertarian".

Was the headline "Rudy Giuliani is not a Libertarian"?

Otherwise, they're smoking crack.

miche | June 9, 2007, 2:49pm | #

I'm a 54 year old housewife from the Midwest. I've voted in every Presidential election since I was 20 and I've always voted for the candidate I hated the least. This is the first time I'm voting for a candidate I love. In my mind, Ron Paul is a modern day Thomas Jefferson. He is an "honest" politician...the ultimate oxymoron. God knows we've had a lot of plain morons to deal with; and we're tired of it.

If a man is a liar, nothing… absolutely nothing he says is worth a hill of beans...and our political system has been inundated with liars for decades. They have taken our great nation and driven it into the ground, spiritually, economically and societaly. They have made it an embarrassment (because they themselves are an embarrassment). Just look around when the national anthem is played. People don't hold their hands on their hearts, they show little respect and pride. Our country is reflecting the moral lacking of decades of poor leaders.

Ron Paul will give this country its pride back because we will be a morally responsible leader of the free world, leading by example instead of leading through fear.

Not only will I switch parties to vote for Ron Paul, I'm signing up at my local www.meetup.com group and I'm working on his campaign. I have never offered to work in any political capacity before. Ron Paul is America's last chance to wrest our shredded Constitution from the death spiral the men in Washington (both Democrat and Republican) have put it in.

JEFFREY TROCHELMAN
Saturday, June 09, 2007
[reply] [delete]59 yo and never sent a dime to any politician, however I have donated three times to Dr Paul and will continue to send him my hundred bucks a week. I would rather piss it away on fun stuff but better to give now, then have those SOBs in DC rape me later.

Just two of the many comments on Ron Paul.

http://usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-natural-boost.html

miche | June 9, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Should have indicated that the comments were from somewhere before I quoted them. I'm not a 54YO housewife.

Kwix | June 9, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Two MAJOR PUBLICATIONS just called Rudy Giuliani a "libertarian" in the last couple days: US News & World Report, and the Chicago Sun-Times.

US News even headlined their story on Rudy with the word "Libertarian".

Hrrm, I just did a search of the Chicago Sun-Times site and found no mention of "Giuliani" and "libertarian" in the same article. As for US N&WR, the only "Libertarian" mention from the past week was a (apparently now removed) blog entry about "Giuliani's Libertarian Health Care Reform", whatever that fucking means.

Anonymo the Anonymous | June 9, 2007, 3:04pm | #

I hope to God Mr. Dondero's campaign is as annoying as his behavior here.

Jim Bob | June 9, 2007, 3:10pm | #

Romney McRudy could kick Eric Dondero's ass.

Thornton | June 9, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Here is a good piece on why Giuliani is not a libertarian: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/05/30/2007-05-30_libertarians_beware_the_rigid_reign_of_r.html

severin | June 9, 2007, 3:16pm | #

I still don't think he stands a chance of getting the nomination, but I like the fact that as a primary candidate he has already gotten more attention than he did as the LP presidential nominee. I also read that gaming sites have changed the odds on his winning the presidency from 100 to 1 to 15 to 1, I think those guys have a better feel for these things than any polling company out there.

Eric Dondero | June 9, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Remember, Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York or 9/11. 9/11 9/11 9/11

Thornton | June 9, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Eric,

I searched the Zogby site and the latest Republican nomination poll they have is for May 16 2007. Ron Paul is in at 3%, which puts him in 5th place out of 11 candidates listed. I'm not sure what you have been looking at but the polls I see have Dr. Paul gaining support (from none in Jan/Feb to 1-3% now).

I don't understand why you can't see that Rudy is possibly the most UN-libertarian of all the candidates. I would chose anyone on that stage over Rudy. Maybe you should actually check out his record.

LatexSolarBeef | June 9, 2007, 3:34pm | #

Dr. Paul's gonna win.

Wait until you see the first-time-voter numbers come in from the party primaries. Behold, as the unwashed masses commandeer the Republican Party.

tomwright | June 9, 2007, 3:35pm | #

So far as Ron Pauls position on birthright citizenship, I understand that he supports a Constitutional Amendment to change the rules, not just ignoring them as so many have.

I do not know about any of you, but I was once called on a political poll. (years ago when I still had a hardwired line). I was given the choice of the R or D and I said I supported the Libertarian. I do not know what kind of group it was but they kept trying to get me to choose either the R or D candidate until they gave up after a minute or two of questions. I have no idea how they scored that call, or if they just circular-filed it.

So I am not certain how good the polls are, especially this far out and this early.

I believe there are 7 more debates scheduled, so there is time for things to shake out a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Presidential_Debates,_2008

Cesr | June 9, 2007, 3:36pm | #

I think it all depends on which party primary more independents in New Hampshire vote in.

If they choose to vote in the Republican primary, they could at least give Paul a much bigger vote than anyone would expect.

The Unregistered Voter | June 9, 2007, 3:43pm | #

I'll vote for anyone who promises to give Eric Dondero a kick in the balls.

tomwright | June 9, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Cesr, There are people making a living doing that. Maybe you can point them in E.D.'s direction. They may find an eager customer. :-)

WillyPete | June 9, 2007, 3:55pm | #

This is promising news, but a very recent article from Bowling Green which quoted Dr. Paul's son stated that he was closer to two million than 5. Hey, every million for Dr. Paul is comparable to many millions for the other candidates. He is very thrifty, his campaign is very thrifty and his supporters are extremely dedicated. The Internet has really changed things and so far Ron Paul is doing the most to take advantage of that.

Seer | June 9, 2007, 3:55pm | #

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1181277534326&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670

What's that? Oh nothing, nothing except an article that points out that the methodology of "scientific" polls have a 3 to 5 point bias against Ron Paul.

Eric, you're an imbicile if you believe Rudy is a libertarian just because USN&WR was dumb enough to say so. I think when figuring out who a libertarian is I'll look at who writes for libertarian websites like antiwar.com, or maybe I'll look at who libertarians like Lew Rockwell are supporting, or maybe I'll look at people who are life members of the Libertarian Party and former presidential candidates.

Rudy isn't libertarian. He's not even conservative. He's fascist. He's "Freedom is Authority." Anyone ever see those games where you match the quote to the world leaders and FDR ends up having the most authoritarian quote? That's Rudy "Il Duce" Giuliani if he wins.

matt | June 9, 2007, 3:59pm | #

It is interesting how far campaign dollars will stretch when a candidate isn't paying people to support him a la Mitt Romney.

Grotius | June 9, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Not to be the turd in the punch bowl, but when Paul does well in a primary or a caucus or rises above 10% in the polls will be a time to get excited.

Cesar | June 9, 2007, 4:12pm | #

Don't worry, Ron Paul's supporters are so omnipotent and omnipresent they can game anything (including the primaries!)

You cannot defeat our magical powers.

tomwright | June 9, 2007, 4:14pm | #

WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul
WOOOooooOOOOooooo You WILL vote for Ron Paul

Grotius | June 9, 2007, 4:30pm | #

How does Paul's campaign compare to Dean's at this point in 2003 (or Carter's in 1975)? As far as I can recall Paul is far behind where Dean was.

Thornton | June 9, 2007, 4:32pm | #

As long as Ron doesn't scream then I think he can beat out Dean

Grotius | June 9, 2007, 4:37pm | #

Thornton,

Well, that was later on in 2004. ;)

douglas westerman | June 9, 2007, 4:50pm | #

The psychic twins are predicting that Hillary will be the next Prez........sorry guys, I'd love to see Paul get into the White House, too! They say she beats Guliani, not surprising.......it's the non-political stuff......she "kept the faith" through public humiliation and infidelity wheras he's a sleaze on his third marriage...........

Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 5:24pm | #

Were people even talking about the presidential race in 2003? I feel like the whole election season has moved back significantly this cycle. Maybe because everyone's so pumped that it won't be George Bush.

Gryphon | June 9, 2007, 5:26pm | #

I sent him $25 just the other day.

How 'bout the rest of you Ron Paul supporters? Cough up some didge if you wanna make it happen.

Let's blow Judy McRomneyson outta the water!!!

Edward | June 9, 2007, 5:30pm | #

Homer Simpson would probably have a better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul.

miche | June 9, 2007, 6:00pm | #

"I do not know about any of you, but I was once called on a political poll. (years ago when I still had a hardwired line). I was given the choice of the R or D and I said I supported the Libertarian. I do not know what kind of group it was but they kept trying to get me to choose either the R or D candidate until they gave up after a minute or two of questions. I have no idea how they scored that call, or if they just circular-filed it."

Same thing happened to me in the TX governor race.

Sanderson Davis | June 9, 2007, 6:03pm | #

Edward,
I am sure that's true because Homer Simpson is a better choice than all the other candidates "known" by the public. Once they become aware of RP I look for HS to drop in the polls.

Bill Woolsey | June 9, 2007, 6:05pm | #

If the reports are correct that he is over $4 million, then that is wonderful news.

I believe that the poll results are our best information about how he is doing right now among likely Republican voters. And it isn't very good.

I think he has a lot of room for improvement. If he sticks with a simple, "get out of Iraq," "let's not invade Iran" message, then there are maybe 25% of likely Republican voters who agree and who clearly have no alternative.

If he can get a majority of those votes, he will be out of the second tier (and at the bottom of the top tier.)

Something like 25% of Republicans have abandoned the Republican Party in the last few years. Perhaps some of them might be willing to return. (Some may have left for reasons other than opposition to Bush's crazy war, of course.)

And, further, independents can be drawn into the process.

I think Paul's positions on all issues (including foriegn policy) are going to make winning the nomination (and the general election) very difficult.

Harley | June 9, 2007, 6:07pm | #

Eric,

So what if he was the Mayor on 9/11? I did not see anything that really stood out. I mean, the firefighters, paramedics, and police did their job and Rudy didn't fuck it up. Is that his major qualification? "I let them do their job!" Okay, more than what the Mayor of New Orleans can claim, but if NOT being a major fuck up is somehow something that means you should be President, it is just a sign that the politics of the US has slide to a very low point.

Oh, you are also a douchecoptor.

GILMORE | June 9, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Other people have pointed out that Paul has no chance at all of winning the primary - so isnt this like getting excited over your horse breaking from last to...third from last? It will have no impact on the eventual outcome.

It may have some longer term effect on helping consolidate a republican 'minority' constituency, but as far as national politics for the next 5 years... fart in wind...

Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 5:24pm | #
Were people even talking about the presidential race in 2003?

Uh. Yes, I assume so. The 2004 presidential race, probably

I think you mean 2006?

people have been hyped about the 2008 election since very early on because it's clearly a transition moment = ending ~8 years of management that few people can honestly defend without caveat. Naming Bush's "major achievements" is a tough job. On nearly every subject other than his tax cuts (and even to some degree on those), he's proved unable to deliver anything fruitful.

Republicans are in a weird identity crisis because many of the issues they've tied their cart to have drifted so far out of control...

they talked so brazenly tough on Immigration and Terror and Humble Leadership and Reforming Entitlements and God and Family and protecting Fetuses and children from sex predators and Leaving no Children Alone For Too Long etc etc that they find their base unwilling to hear anything other than I AM SO MUCH MORE AMERICAN THAN ANYONE THAT THIS NATION WILL IMPLODE WITHOUT MY LEADERSHIP.

Of course, on almost all these issues they've got little to show for their talk, after ~8 years of complete control of govt.

The uberconservative base is becoming the anchor pulling the party away from a winnable center. I think it's fascinating how there's this clear need to pander to the "I am a man of God" people, and claim to be a "right-to-lifer", but the clear frontrunners in the GOP are

A)Romney, B)Giuliani and C)McCain...

a)former pro-life democrat

b)pro gay-rights divorcee, occasional crossdresser, catholic mayor of the Heart of Godless Liberalism

c)openly reviled Bible Belt types for years even though he now kisses their ass.

I think there's a big question of uber conservatives staying home on election day if they dont get any chance at a candidate MORE hardcore than bush on at least 2 of their big issues. That hands the White House back to the dems. I suspect that they'd almost be happier with an Enemy democrat president in power, rather than a wishy washy republican. Just my thoughts as of today.

I think the republicans best hope is if Hilary wins the Dem nomination. *Then* they will bleed off some independents and dems who simply can't abide by her. I'm personally gunning for Obama. Call me a fan of 'inexperience', which i consider a plus in his case.

Hayekian Dreamer | June 9, 2007, 6:28pm | #

Since when did Mr. Dondero care what the mainstream media thinks? This is a truly remarkable day, suddenly a "libertarian" like Mr. Dondero is giving props to the media?

John Howard | June 9, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Could someone let me know exactly where, in the bible, The Zogby Poll is named, as the Definitive Word on all of mankind's opinions? Or is it not the bible, but the government-licensed MSM that is always telling us what we think - er - what we zogby?

I note three premises of the Ignore-Ron-Paul School of Political Commentary:

1) He has few supporters

2) His Mainstrean Supporters are beyond count

3) His few supporters are able to consistently out-spam the beyond count Mainstream Supporters in nearly all online polls.

Conclusion: We can ignore Ron Paul because his supporters are dishonest and clever - unlike the Mainstream Supporters, who are not so clever, but ever-so honest.

Mainstream Zogby tells us so. Who could doubt?

John Howard | June 9, 2007, 6:33pm | #

Correction: Premise 2 should have read:

2) THE Mainstrean Supporters are beyond count

Rob | June 9, 2007, 6:36pm | #

I'm a 40 year old WASP sort of guy, registered republican and I vote, though never straight ticket. I abstained from casting a vote for president the past 2 cycles. Ron Paul is voicing what I've been waiting to hear. I'm excited about it. I sent him $100.00 after the 2nd debate. The first time sending a politician money for me too, and I'm going to send more. I think the rest of the pack, republican and democrat, are in for a big surprise over the next few months.. Go Ron Go!

GoRonPaul | June 9, 2007, 6:50pm | #

I am concerned that the $5M figure is quite exaggerated... There have been some whispers from the Paul campaign indicating as much...

But if the number is indeed around $2M, that is still some real financial traction and enough to earn a bit of credibility with MSM hacks, and keep him in the race for a while longer...

I gave $500 the other day and persuaded a wealthy libertarian friend to give the max $2,300... that felt great. Reason readers who can, should do the same...

This is a fantastic, perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime, chance to advance some libertarian ideas in front of a mainstream audience.

I mean, he's been rocking the boat in those debates... and getting some attention from people who probably don't even know what a libertarian is...

Even if Paul does not win, his candidacy can have a significant influence on politics, particularly in the Republican party for a long time to come...

Go Ron Paul!!!

Doug | June 9, 2007, 6:54pm | #

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL. Im behind you DOC...... LETS TRY SOMEONE THAT TELLS US THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!

Lost_In_Translation | June 9, 2007, 6:59pm | #

I gave Ron $50 the other week. I feel that lack of money shouldn't be what knocks Ron out. He should make it atleast to the primaries with his message, regardless of how he does.

The important thing about our democracy is that every perspective has a voice and Ron is my perspective, so hand him the megaphone.

John reading | June 9, 2007, 7:04pm | #

The problem with Ron Paul's success is that it demonstrates what so many of us have feared - that the Mainsteam Media is actually quite stupid and dishonest. We are up against small, ignorant, petty minds that were comfortable and are now being disturbed.

Small, ignorant, and petty minds can be very ruthless when their comforts are disturbed. They will make war and destroy the earth before admitting to being wrong.

Ron Paul has done his part - he is right. Now it's our turn to be right (effective) in how we support him.

Rob | June 9, 2007, 7:19pm | #

Well I don't want that $5M to be quite exaggerated so I just sent Ron Paul $500.00 more. I'm getting pretty fervent about this fellow, the more I research the more I like. He's the man.

Angela T | June 9, 2007, 7:20pm | #

Wow. I can't believe there's actually a human alive that thinks Rudy G is a libertarian.

That aside - I am skeptical of the FMNN story. I think that 5 Mil is a rumor and we're going to look silly if we run around the web bragging about it then it does not pan out.

But I am sending him more money too.

Bill Woolsey | June 9, 2007, 7:27pm | #

Some online polls make multiple voting easy. Some Paul supporters (and supporters of other candidates) have done this. I suppose this is a bit like Spam. Just as in Spam, a person sends many emails, in this situation, a person makes many votes.

Paul supporters communicate the existence of online polls to other Paul suppoters, go visit the polls and vote for Paul.

This causes some consternation to those putting on the polls. Rather than getting those of their regular readers who are interesting in voting, they are getting people who just visit to vote in the poll.

It is interesting that Fox Network promoted its own poll during the debate, and even that was dominated by Paul supporters (well, he came in second.) There are enough Paul supporters to dominate even high volume websites.

But still, it is only a few thousand votes, right?

Most Americans don't care to vote in online polls.

Perhaps Paul supporters are a bunch of oddballs, and so they aren't reached in random sample pollng. But these pollsters do a pretty good job of predicting elections. You don't see very often that someone is at zero percent in the polls, but then they win the election because all of their supporters just consistently refuse to answer pollsters.

A lot of people who are not very engaged in the process, and will vote out of a sense of duty for someone they have heard of and who doesn't seem too bad, will often be too busy to answer a pollster. They would rather continue watching the ball game.

Those of us familiar with Libertarian Party polling results and final election results should be well aware that polls tend to overestimate support, not underestimate it.

jh | June 9, 2007, 7:28pm | #

I'm with Grotius on this one. When Ron Paul gets within striking distance of Fred McRomliani, then I'll get excited:

6/5-6/07 5/15-16/07

Rudy Giuliani 24 25

John McCain 15 18

Fred Thompson 14 9

Mitt Romney 12 10

Mike Huckabee 3 1

Tommy Thompson 3 2

Ron Paul 2 1

Al Newberry | June 9, 2007, 7:33pm | #

Eric Dondero shows his true colors.
Wow. Someone described Rudy as a libertarian, that means it must be true.

Eric, when you decide to actually BE a libertarian rather than just CALL yourself one, let us know.

Lost_In_Translation | June 9, 2007, 7:41pm | #

Sick of knowing that I would never be randomly selected for a national poll because I only have a cell phone, I signed up online for Zogby's polling list so sometime in the future they might at some point ask my opinion. Ha!!

crimethink | June 9, 2007, 7:41pm | #

Small, ignorant, and petty minds can be very ruthless when their comforts are disturbed. They will make war and destroy the earth before admitting to being wrong.

'The truth will always seem insane to those comfortable with lies.' --George William Rutler

As I've said before, the only conclusion I can come to from the MSM's dismissive treatment of Paul in the debates, is that they don't have nerve endings for his message. When he talks about keeping govt within the bounds of the Constitution, and letting states make decisions on contentious issues like abortion and gay marriage, he may as well be speaking Esperanto. He doesn't fit into the left-center-right continuum, so they toss him into the eccentric 3rd-tier candidate bin.

I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy afoot...it's in the media's best interest to play up division inside the parties (note how they've exaggerated the minor differences between Rudy, John, and Mitt, and act as if they expected a major brawl in the NH debate between these three very similar candidates). I simply think they interpret Ron Paul's positions as little more than crazy-talk.

Seer | June 9, 2007, 7:43pm | #

Bill, not all Paul supporters organize. I spontaneously vote once for him whenever I find an online poll. Of course, unlike most of his supporters I also give others their due (in CNN's recent online Poll I gave Tommy Thompson props for his improvement).

It's also very early. Yeah, if he's at 3% in December he'll probably lose, but being at 6-8% when land lines and other variables come into play is pretty good at this point. It's also good to have dedicated, hardcore support so early in the race. No one else has this kind of grass roots support (maybe Fred, but we'll see), they just have name recognition and money.

Seer | June 9, 2007, 7:46pm | #

I just saw the above post. He's got a point: the media doesn't want Ron Paul because he goes against the storyline for '08: that Dems are antiwar and the GOP is prowar. It's not a conspiracy, its just that he messes the story line. I mean, even right after MSNBC and CNN's debates I heard analysts say that the whole field was pro-Iraq (no one made that mistake after the fire works in the FOX debate). Clinton on Sunday night claimed they were all pro-war.

Edward | June 9, 2007, 7:50pm | #

Those who thinks Ron Paul is going to have a major impact on politics are marginally dumber than the dumbos who actually think he can win.

Gillmore should be getting paid to do political commentary. A Hillary win is the Reublicans' only chance. A woman for president violates the psychology of male status, and we're psychologically closer to the evolutionary environment than most other nations.

GoRonPaul | June 9, 2007, 8:00pm | #

Yes, Edward. We're idiots for thinking that Ron Paul's mainstream campaigning might have some effect on politics... Since when has a libertarian politician been given air-time on every major news outlet, however reluctantly?

But your evolutionary psychology idea is riveting... The only flaw is that it pre-supposes that we care whether or not the Republicrats win again...

Lost_In_Translation | June 9, 2007, 8:00pm | #

Edward,

What are you talking about?

dj_of_raleigh | June 9, 2007, 8:08pm | #

Paul, at 2% in the current Fox poll,
is becoming a haven for default voting,
where one can't stand the leaders.
I'm figuring libertians are about 1/2%.

Mike Laursen | June 9, 2007, 8:24pm | #

Question for someone who knows way more about international law/typical citizenship laws throughout the world: if we don't confer automatic citizenship on children who are born here, how likely are some of those children to end up having no citizenship whatsoever?

James Anderson Merritt | June 9, 2007, 8:31pm | #

If you are registered Libertarian, I wouldn't rush to switch to GOP just so you could vote for Ron Paul. There aren't enough registered Libertarians to make a difference for him except in the most Florida-2000-ish of circumstances. On the other hand, desertion in the LP ranks could harm the party's ballot access status, forcing it to spend more money to regain ballot status or simply give up on certain states altogether. In the event that Dr. Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, it would be nice for there still to be at least one true libertarian on most or all state ballots in November of 2008. As long as the LP has access, it can nominate its own candidate, or even draft Dr. Paul. But if it has little or no ballot access, neither of those options will be open.

To me, it makes more sense for the great mass of independents to register GOP temporarily for purposes of promoting Dr. Paul's candidacy in the Republican Party. There are a lot more independents than all third-parties combined. If the Libertarian-leaning faction rushed the GOP on behalf of Dr. Paul, he might actually get somewhere. And assuming that Libertarians remained faithful to their own party, we could conceivably have TWO truly libertarian candidates for President next year. Wouldn't that be outstanding?

skeptic | June 9, 2007, 8:34pm | #

I certainly hope all the people throwing money at this political campaaign will later support libertarian causes that will actually make a difference especially those educating young people.

I'm a big skeptic on Paul. He's got too many conservative positions for me to get really thrilled and enough kooky positions (and friends) to worry me.

And I suspect the money raised is being exaggerated. It is floated by an anonymous person at the Paul campaign. But the rumor varies. I've seen $5 million, up to $4 million and then $2 million, etc. This was posted hours ago and at the time Radley asked the Paul campaign to confirm and so far nothing. Surely they would know. So why the delay? Why the vast differences in the sums?

GILMORE | June 9, 2007, 8:38pm | #

Edward | June 9, 2007, 7:50pm | #
Those who thinks Ron Paul is going to have a major impact on politics are marginally dumber than the dumbos who actually think he can win.

Gillmore should be getting paid to do political commentary....

thanks for the kudos

Only one "l" BTW

I dont think RP supporters are deluded, or that Paul's candidacy isnt meaningful or a good thing for the political landscape - at least to give the mainstream a real taste of how much support even *minor* libertarian cred can garnish... but I agree, he's got an snowballs chance in hell at actually ever receiving the nomination, and even less beating hilary in that kind of matchup. too many GOP would only remember Paul being the Blame America candidate, even though thats a false characterization. He got "swifted" in like 30 seconds in the first debate, which was unfortunate... even though he did well and is getting more support now

WillyPete | June 9, 2007, 9:03pm | #

RP will stand firm on his beliefs and America will come to him. That's how I found him. That's how most folks I know found him. Now that he is actually getting some face time on TV even more folks are being drawn in by his message.

NH | June 9, 2007, 9:10pm | #

Funny, Ron made more money than Rudy in NH right from the first fundraiser, and had more than 3 times as many rally-goers as Rudy did at this last debate. He won the WMUR bloggers poll, topping the list at 6 with Romney, garnering NOT ONE VOTE.

Rudy is a liberal and no different from Hillary.

NH | June 9, 2007, 9:11pm | #

PS - I just handed him and envelope with $10K in it at the debate...that was just from NH. Rudy and McCain have not done that! Nor have they gotten 182 people at a house party either.

GILMORE | June 9, 2007, 9:50pm | #

WillyPete | June 9, 2007, 9:03pm | #
RP will stand firm on his beliefs and America will come to him.

"here boy! here boy! Ronny has a cookie!"

whirrrrrrr, whirrrr, arp

"You stupid fucking dog! Come to me!"

----------------------------------

RonPaul Cheerleaders? Listen: you will win more supporters by engaging in conversation that by sniping boards with Sloganeer Crews

Seriously.

RPFAN | June 9, 2007, 9:53pm | #

Ron Paul came to my party last week and did fucking kegstands, then grabbed the mic and did a perfect rap of "Follow the Leader" by Erik B and Rakim WHILE beatboxing!!! the mfr' has like a double larynx and like 2 stomachs or something. I gave him the deed to my house and my youngest sister to sell on the black market. See ROmney pull that shit off!!

ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE | June 9, 2007, 10:00pm | #

I hope Ron Paul does well. I sent him a few bucks myself. First time I've sent money to a campaign in a long long time.

But, we have tunnel vision. Listen to the crap on conservative talk radio and the junk on Fox News for a change.

Even Neal Boortz has gone off the deep end with his pro-war and anti immigrant shallowness. I finally had to just turn him off.

Then you'll understand why Ron Paul has no chance to win the nomination.

IDL

Chris Welton | June 9, 2007, 10:08pm | #

Note to Progressives...

One thing that is critical to remeber about Ron Paul is that while his beliefs on progressive issues are not considered by many people to be "good", he is still firmly in favor of giving that power back to the states. I live in Seattle, Washington... I would like to see universal healthcare, evironmental reform, and a safety net to help people in hard times. I have come to the realization, however, that these are NEVER going to come so long as we live in a police state with federal laws preventing change at the state level and a bureaucracy intent of the status quo. The system is rigged... Period.

Every year we send hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal government and then bitch when it doesn't come back to us. It's time to quit sending the money out in the first place, and use it instead to fix the problems in the states in which we now stand.

The simple fact is, the positions of his which could be considered "ridiculous" are positions which he does not attempt to dictate to the people.

With Ron Paul you will be able to affect real change where you live. Without him, you won't be able to affect it at any level.

America Needs Ron Paul!

WillyPete | June 9, 2007, 10:11pm | #

@Gilmore

Yeah, and personal attacks really make you look like a charmer. Who is your candidate, Obama? Yeah, duly noted. Lots of Obama fans have been on the attack. I already added conversation to the piece above by stating that Ron Paul's son recently mentioned donations being nearer $2 million than 5. My second comment about RP remaining consistent and supporters coming to him is truthful. He hasn't been advertised to his fans like the other candidates.

Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 10:16pm | #

WillyPete,
Gilmore is an intelligent regular commenter here, and i don't think he supports Obama. No big deal if EVERY SINGLE PERSON doesn't want to get a hard-on over Ron Paul - and it is somewhat annoying when his supporters (myself included) have an I-love-Ron-Paul posting orgy.

mw | June 9, 2007, 10:27pm | #

Can't we libertarians all get along?

The 3% RP poll and the RP contribution surge can both be correct. My understanding is that any money contributed to RP's presidential campaign can be used by RP in his congressional re-election campaign if he drops out/loses the Republican presidential nomination.

Consider this fact: The Ron Paul contribution surge started on the very day that Eric Dondero declared himself a candidate for Paul's congressional seat.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Clearly the RP contribution surge is directly attributable to Operation B.U.T.T.H.E.A.D.

Bloggers
United
To
Thoroughly
Head off the
Election of
Asshats like
Dondero.

For additional fun, how about a game of "spot the sock puppet" in this comment thread.

TallDave | June 9, 2007, 10:30pm | #

With that kind of cash, he might break 1%!

TallDave | June 9, 2007, 10:35pm | #

Seriously though, while I agree with what a lot of Ron says he has zero chance of winning either the nomination or the general election.

Probably the best he can hope for is to build a large enough constituency that his endorsement of a major candidate is meaningful enough to extract some significant concession(s) from the frontrunner.

Isaac Bartram | June 9, 2007, 10:35pm | #

I find it worth noting that every LP activist in Fla that I know has been bitching about Rittberg/Dondero and his asshole attempts to hijack libertarianism since about 1987.


C'm'on, Benito Giuliani is a 'Libertarian"? Give me a fucking break!

TallDave | June 9, 2007, 10:38pm | #

Giuliani is a 'Libertarian"?

Probably the best you'll get among major candidates. Dems all want national health care and other big-gov stuff, and he's the only social liberal on the GOP side.

Lost_In_Translation | June 9, 2007, 10:47pm | #

TallDave,

Guliani is not a libertarian. That doesn't mean that he will tax us to death or wonder who's sleeping in our beds, but he'd suffer no qualms about taking an innocent man out and cutting him into little tiny pieces until he told guliani what Guliani wants to hear. Nor would he be afraid to bomb other countries indiscriminately. He's a bully first and foremost regardless of his qualities and only people that want to see a Putin "strongman" in the whitehouse should vote for him.

WillyPete | June 9, 2007, 10:51pm | #

@Randolph Carter

Here is a quote from Gilmore that gave me the impression that Gilmore is gunning for Obama... "I'm personally gunning for Obama."

Also, I did not simply make a 'Go Ron Paul 2008!' post, merely noted that RP remains firm on his message, doesn't get advertised and that a lot of his supporters find him. If that is too much for Gilmore or anyone else to take, it is not my problem. I'm not the one who made it personal.

Detractors toss around their catch phrase slogans like 'RP doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win' and that's fine. What they don't realize is that for many people hell might not be a hot place but rather a very cold one and a snowball would have a damn good chance there.

Randolph Carter | June 9, 2007, 11:41pm | #

haha, ok, I didn't read his full post. I was just defending him because most of what he's written in the past has been well thought out, etc.

GoRonPaul | June 9, 2007, 11:44pm | #

As a long-time Reason reader I find it difficult to conceive of not getting a raging hard-on for a candidate like Paul... Perhaps he doesn't have all the socially-liberal creds we'd like, but, come on... Are you going to wait till Jesus returns and tells everyone to chill-out and persue their individual happiness while respecting the property rights of others, then support his campaign!?? Hhaaaa!

But do forgive the cheerleading...

JM | June 9, 2007, 11:44pm | #

These posts are awesome Dondero bait.

jh | June 9, 2007, 11:45pm | #

Chris Welton says: "Note to Progressives... One thing that is critical to remeber about Ron Paul is that while his beliefs on progressive issues are not considered by many people to be "good", he is still firmly in favor of giving that power back to the states. I live in Seattle, Washington... I would like to see universal healthcare, evironmental reform, and a safety net to help people in hard times ... Every year we send hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal government and then bitch when it doesn't come back to us. It's time to quit sending the money out in the first place, and use it instead to fix the problems in the states in which we now stand.

The simple fact is, the positions of his which could be considered "ridiculous" are positions which he does not attempt to dictate to the people."

Chris, I appreciate your support, but are you aware this is a libertarian website, not a "progressive" one? "Universal healthcare" means the government forcing businesses and individuals to purchase health care, and/or extracting taxes to transfer money from some citizens to pay for health care for others. "Environmental reform" generally seems to mean passing a bunch of regulations about how businesses can be run, and how people can use their private property. And "a safety net to help people in hard times" is almost invariably NOT voluntary donations, but compulsory confiscation of taxes to transfer wealth from one group of people to another.

These are the kind of "ridiculous" notions Ron Paul holds. along with most of the people who post here. Perhaps you should consider whether these compulsory programs you'd like to "attempt to dictate to the people" (your words) are fair, humane, or in any way likely to enhance freedom? (Hint: No. Gawd no. Did I mention "no"? If not, my bad. P.S. No.)

You seem like a nice person who doesn't realize that the socialist beliefs you hold lead to utter misery if pursued to their logical end. Please reconsider.

J. Goard | June 10, 2007, 12:06am | #

God damn it, people. Try to think like gamblers, not like suckers.

Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning, because the (private voting booth) bias against her gender doesn't have to be very large at all to kill her in all of the critical swing states. She probably wouldn't completely embarrass herself in the popular vote, but she wouldn't win the election.

Goes triple for Obama, except for the not embarrassing part.

Same for Romney, if he's matched against affable southerner Edwards (the formula for Democrat victory).

So, unless the thread has been hijacked by cosmologists, let's please not talk about infinitesimal odds. There is a much greater chance of a nuclear attack causing GWB to be appointed dictator for life, than of Ron Paul winning the presidential election.

Neu Mejican | June 10, 2007, 12:11am | #

"You seem like a nice person who doesn't realize that the socialist beliefs you hold lead to utter misery if pursued to their logical end. Please reconsider."

Thank god no idea/belief ever held is pursued to their logical end in reality...including those that you hold jh.
In the real world principles are used to guide policy ... caveats and adjustments for the insufficiencies of the abstracted/schematic model included.

Eric Dondero | June 10, 2007, 12:13am | #

lol libertarians for fascism

FatDrunkAndStupid | June 10, 2007, 12:14am | #

Looking at National Polls isn't very productive. Rudy is winning the national polls at this point*, and nobody thinks he has a chance in hell at the nomination. Indeed, when you look at Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, he isn't in first place in any of the polls in those states. National polls are just registering name recognition at this point, and what some of you have to remember is that even though we all know who Ron Paul was, 99% of America didn't. Contrast that to the 99% that did know who Rudy and John McCain were. Ron started from nowhere. To be where he is at right now, and to have raised even 2 million dollars, would be an astounding accomplishment. Doom and gloom all you want- none of us expected this. He's still a long shot, but his campaign is absolutely on fire.

*And some websites are posting national results complied from the polls in individual states. But when you looked behind the numbers, Ron wasn't even included in the choices of half the states they used to make the meta-poll. So not only are national polls useless, some forms of them highly discriminate against Paul too.

Roy Haddad | June 10, 2007, 12:15am | #

Chris didn't seem to take a position either way. In any case, he has a point. Whether you believe in modern economic liberalism or not, you can support state's rights. Whichever it is, if you are right, the track record of the various states will start to show it - states with more, or less, regulation will begin to do better in statistically noticeable ways, and your views will either be vindicated or (justifiably) demolished or modified. In any case, the world is a better place as more people begin to implement the winning policies (particularly since only a few states will have gone to pot, or have begun going to pot, rather than the whole country).

Eric Dondero | June 10, 2007, 12:17am | #

Hey guys, all you need to know is Bush was right!

Chris Welton | June 10, 2007, 12:18am | #

jh - Yes, I realize this is a libertarian websiite: and I respect your views on all of the points you just made, and I thank you for the rebuttal, as I think it is very important to talk about such things.

What I am saying is that I believe (morally) healthcare should be available to all, but any attempt to do it at the federal level will end up with the exact problems you refer to. It has to be done at a local level (by people who really give a damn and aren't taking bribes), where those who make mistakes can be held accountable, and where real criticisms can be raised. Please note that this is also the level at which oponents of this idea will have the greatest voice.

As for the environment, it seems to me that there are quite a few practices of major corporations that really do impede on the rights of others by polluting the air they breath and the water they drink (without compensation). Once again, however, any attempt to force these issues at a federal level as opposed to local action is bound to end up as inefficiency, incompetence, and the destruction of rights.

'"Environmental reform" generally seems to mean passing a bunch of regulations about how businesses can be run'

But it doesn't have to mean that. There is a difference between telling a company they must use scrubbers (how to run it), and individual states issuing guidelines for sane emissions (where the market would be allowed to find the best way to produce things without destroying the environment, whether it is by using horribly inefficient overpriced scrubbers, or by finding a newer better way)

And even with the last point what I am talking about is finding ways to make sure people aren't sleeping in the streets in my own neighborhood, not an overarching welfare state. It will take a mixture of private charity and local government action, but even as I said before, those who oppose it will be able to directly join in the debate.

All that aside, I am talking about what i want to do here in Washington State, and the Seattle area specifically. I'm not advocating forcing these issues onto anyone else. Do you see this as rampant socialism or community action?

Derrick | June 10, 2007, 12:47am | #

Enough already from the "Ron Paul doesn't have a chance" crowd. If that's even true, it's due largely to self-fulfilling statements from defeatists - people who are destined to lose because they don't even bother trying.

Winners say "this is possible" and then find ways to make something happen. Not to sound like Tony Robbins, but that's pretty much how things work.

Andrew | June 10, 2007, 1:01am | #

In the Utah GOP Straw Poll only Romney finished ahead of Paul which is a given considering he's a Mormon in Utah.

It's funny how whenever a liberty oriented message gets popular, the label attached to it gets hijacked by big government types. The term liberal got hijacked way back when and now we say classical liberal. It looks like the same is being done with libertarian. If Dondero and Rudy are libertarians then so is Hillary Clinton.

Marc Scott Emery | June 10, 2007, 1:02am | #

This talk that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning is ridiculous. Who cares? Only one person wins the presidency, so should everyone who supports a candidate not polling 25% right now abandon their ideal choice and confirm the leading contender? Remember, every vote for any candidate that doesn't win is, in reality, a wasted vote. So if you don't want to waste your vote, that would mean voting for the inevitable winner. And what exactly, would the point of that be?

Hillary-Obama-Rudy-McCain-Romney-Edwards, the differences between these 6 candidates is trivial. 90% of all voters, Democratic & Republican, currently support one of these 6 candidates. Should we join in, forget our principles and our intense devotion and admiration for Dr. Paul's advocacy, and support a "winner". Will the nation be greater for that?

No! The nation will be greater if we all re-double our efforts, give more money, make more posters, wear Ron Paul T-shirts, put Ron Paul flags & bumber stickers on our cars, sign up voters, join a Ron Paul regional or state campaign office, tell everyone you know, or even put a sign on your balcony that says GOOGLE RON PAUL.

Derrick | June 10, 2007, 1:06am | #

And even with the last point what I am talking about is finding ways to make sure people aren't sleeping in the streets in my own neighborhood, not an overarching welfare state. It will take a mixture of private charity and local government action, but even as I said before, those who oppose it will be able to directly join in the debate.

Reduce the rate at which we are all taxed, and this problem will largely solve itself. More income means each of us can buy more goods and services, which means companies can employ more people, which leaves fewer people jobless, which leaves fewer people homeless.

There will still be a very small handful of people who are left homeless due to severe mental illness, but we'll be in a better position to help them because we'll all have more money in our pockets.

Lost_In_Translation | June 10, 2007, 1:11am | #

Chris,

I agree with your thoughts on regulation. Thoughtful, scientifically based "environmental reform" is an overall good. One caveat, however, is that I've rarely seen government produce something thoughtful and scientifically based. After all, how many scientists do you see in government. Yeah...

So instead of immediately thinking "what can the government do....", think "how can the free market fix this....". Its a fundamental change that defines the difference between nannyism and libertarianism. Essentially, its my belief the government may "make you do the right thing" briefly, as it goes against your interests usually, but the market can "get you to want to do the right thing" as long as you continue to benefit

There are times when its hard to think of a market-oriented solution, but if your default is asking those questions first, you're on the right track.

Pig Mannix | June 10, 2007, 1:14am | #

@TallDave

Seriously though, while I agree with what a lot of Ron says he has zero chance of winning either the nomination or the general election.

That's probably true. And that was true of Howard Dean in the Democratic party, too. But note that while Dean didn't get to be king, he still wound up in an excellent position to be a king-maker within his party. I wouldn't mind seeing Ron Paul end up with a similar influence in the Republican party.

@Isaac Bartram

I find it worth noting that every LP activist in Fla that I know has been bitching about Rittberg/Dondero and his asshole attempts to hijack libertarianism since about 1987.

Separated at birth?

I don't know about you, but I see a distinct resemblance!

@Roy Haddad

Chris didn't seem to take a position either way. In any case, he has a point. Whether you believe in modern economic liberalism or not, you can support state's rights.

True enough, and I think it needs to be recognized that different populations will prefer different political institutions. If Washington state wants state-wide health care, social safety nets and stringent environmental protections, fine with me, as long as I have the option of living in a state that has different ideas about the role of government.

Federalism is libertarianism's (and everyone else's) friend!

Eric the .5b | June 10, 2007, 1:44am | #

Boy, let's hope that definition of "Surge" is applied to other libertarian hopefuls. We'd be out of existence as a movement in months.

Wow, Eric Dondero rooting for the end of libertarianism.

I'm just surprised that he'd actually admit he was just a Red shill here.

John Rhoads | June 10, 2007, 2:34am | #

I actually think Ron Paul's chances of winning a general election are far greater than his chances of winning the nomination (which I agree are not good). If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination this is doubly true. In a Ron Paul/Hillary Clinton matchup, RP is clearly the best anti-war candidate, and it is likely that this election is essentially going to be a referendum on the war. Oddly enough, I do believe that Ron Paul is the Republican party's best chance to win the presidency, because a pro-war candidate really has no chance in '08. Unfortunately, he probably wont win the nomination, but I'll be happy if he gets 10-20% of the vote. Say what you want about Kucinich, but his importance in politics clearly increased as a result of his reasonable showing in the Democratic primary.

The one possible reason for optimism I can see with Ron Paul in the primary is that primaries, like off-year elections, tend to have poor turnouts. This is only an advantage to someone like Paul who has fewer general supporters, but ones that are more likely to go out of their way to vote in a primary.

jh | June 10, 2007, 3:29am | #

I said: "You seem like a nice person who doesn't realize that the socialist beliefs you hold lead to utter misery if pursued to their logical end. Please reconsider."

Neu Mejican said: "Thank god no idea/belief ever held is pursued to their logical end in reality...including those that you hold jh.
In the real world principles are used to guide policy ... caveats and adjustments for the insufficiencies of the abstracted/schematic model included."

Neu Mejican (and Chris Welton, too): Have you read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"? Have you read how Hitler's national socialism was pursued to its logical bitter end, with concentration camps, little kids given Panzerschrecks and sent out against tanks, and the near-complete ruin of Germany? Have you read about the starvation and complete subjection of North Koreans under that regime's version of communism? The tens of millions who perished in Mao's Great Leap Forward? The millions killed in China's Cultural Revolution? The murder of any non-proletarian in Cambodia's killing fields under the Khmer Rouge? Or Stalin's purges? Or ...

Fer chrissakes, how many times must the awful, bitter logic of every possible permutation of socialism be carried out to its logical, horrifying end before we finally say, "Never again?"

cfountain72 | June 10, 2007, 3:50am | #

Amen, Brother Emery!
Why even hard-core Libertarians would not support Ron Paul is beyond me. The LP needs to just continue its slow roll up the food chain through county commissions and state houses. Sure, Rep. Paul is not pure LP material. But for now, he has schrewdly used the Republican Party to get the liberty message out to more Americans in 3 debates than have heard it in years. Even without the nomination, a good showing by Paul should encourage more in the LP to make serious runs in the US House. Folks at Cato could come down from the ivory tower and encourage change from WITHIN the gov't.

Personally, even though I have voted LP in the past two cycles, I didn't even know who the man was before last month. Now, I just made my first contribution to a candidate (EVER) this week. While we may follow this stuff pretty close, we can safely assume that the 90% of the 98% who didn't select Paul in polling don't even know who is, or think that he's Ru Paul's dad.

Fox polling also shows an interesting trend. Benito Guiliani falls from 35 to 22 from April to June. Who picks up the slack? Well, Rep. Paul goes from 0 to 2 and Unsure goes up from 11 to 19?! Obviously, the more they learn about Benito, the less they like him. There is no reason we can't pick up 5% to 8% of the Unsure's. If we can get in the 8% to 10% range by Fall, RP's name will have to be mentioned along with the top tier, based on momentum alone. Then we can avoid the premature 'thinning of the herd' so loved by the MSM. Keep the faith! Go ahead and try the Kool-Aid...tastes pretty good to me!

www.ronpaul2008.com

jh | June 10, 2007, 3:53am | #

Chris Welton -- thank you for your courteous, thoughtful reply. My comments on your remarks:

You said: "What I am saying is that I believe (morally) healthcare should be available to all, but any attempt to do it at the federal level will end up with the exact problems you refer to. It has to be done at a local level (by people who really give a damn and aren't taking bribes), where those who make mistakes can be held accountable, and where real criticisms can be raised. Please note that this is also the level at which oponents of this idea will have the greatest voice."

I have worked at Hawaii's state legislature for seven years now as a legislative aide. I started off as center-rightist who thought government was basically good, but a bit too large. The experience has turned me into a hardcore libertarian. The problem is this: politicians are scum. They can't be trusted. They can and will do anything to get votes, and they have an insatiable appetite for other people's money. So, yes, it seems at first glance that morally, how can any with a heart be opposed to healthcare for everyone? The problem is, what you're proposing is to accomplish this by an incredi bly immoral act -- forcibly confiscating money from citizens, with fines and jail time for anyone who resists. Is this OK to serve the purportedly moral end you seek? Ask yourself this -- are you willing to personally pick up a gun and go to your neighbors' houses and demand they give you money so you can give it to others so they can buy health care? If not, does that become somehow moral if you instead hire strangers to do the same thing?

Chris says: "As for the environment, it seems to me that there are quite a few practices of major corporations that really do impede on the rights of others by polluting the air they breath and the water they drink (without compensation). Once again, however, any attempt to force these issues at a federal level as opposed to local action is bound to end up as inefficiency, incompetence, and the destruction of rights."

As a libertarian, I have no problem with holding corporations responsible for the harm they do to others via the pollution they emit. I thought you were talking about something more sinister. In practice, though, the environmental lobbyists I've met at the state legislature do not stop at the reasonable problem you've outlined -- they have this radical, no-growth of any kind agenda. So, be careful, since the people you appoint may go far beyond the laudable goal you raised.

Chris says: "And even with the last point what I am talking about is finding ways to make sure people aren't sleeping in the streets in my own neighborhood, not an overarching welfare state. It will take a mixture of private charity and local government action, but even as I said before, those who oppose it will be able to directly join in the debate."

I'm all for the private charity solution. The local government action you talk about is morally wrong, for the reasons pointed out above about forcible extraction of taxes.

Chris says: "All that aside, I am talking about what i want to do here in Washington State, and the Seattle area specifically. I'm not advocating forcing these issues onto anyone else. Do you see this as rampant socialism or community action?"

You're talking about socialism on a smaller scale (except for the pollution amelioration), but it's still socialism. You're still talking about forcing your solutions on members of the local community. It's not as bad as doing that to the entire nation, but please remember -- the politicians you entrust this to, no matter how pleasant they may seem when you meet them one-on-one, are still scum -- and the policies you want them to carry out are probably not policies that a pleasant, nice person like you would ever contemplate personally imposing on your neighbors.

Again, thank you for your cordial, thoughtful answers -- something that is often missing on these oftentimes rancorous threads at Reason.

kwais | June 10, 2007, 5:03am | #

For me too. I also contributed money to Ron Paul. Also first time I have ever contributed money to a political campaign. (but I have given money to the NRA before).

Gilmore, good post. I do not think Obama would be worse than any of the top three republicans. I think he might even be better for the Republican party than any of the top 3. Specially Guliani.

jh | June 10, 2007, 5:16am | #

kwais -- which top 3 Republicans? The latest polls show Giuliani in the lead, with the next three -- McCain, Romney, and Fred Thompson -- essentially in a statistical dead heat, with the ranking of 2nd thru 4th place depending on which poll you look at.

As for Obama being better than those top four -- on which issues? He has the more libertarian stance on Iraq and social issues in general, but like all the Democratic candidates he's a hard core statist on economic issues. And for anyone who falls for the notion that a politician who sounds moderate on positions where they're lacking a political track record, look no further than GWB prior to the 2000 election. Put Obama in office, and I guarantee that the rhetoric will get flung out the window on a lot of issues once his supporters start cashing in their chips.

I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primary, then after he loses, whatever no-chance masochist is running on the Libertarian Party ticket. I've fallen for the R/D siren song too many times -- won't get sucked into that again.

Chris Welton | June 10, 2007, 5:21am | #

jh - I can understand why you feel the way you do about polititians (belvieve me I can.. I had an uncle who worked as an aide in the UN who died of a stress heart attack around the end of the Iran/Contra scandal.. It was my first real look into politics.... Suffice it to say I was not impressed)

Two quick questions though...

1. What do you think about "things like roads"?
2. How would you feel about like live feeds from legislators' offices and lie detector tests for elected officials?

Kaligula | June 10, 2007, 5:27am | #

Me, too. i contributed to the Paul Campaign. First time in a long time for a politician, that's for sure.

I do however support libertarian outfits (like Reason, Libertarian Party, ACLU).

However, if Rudy or Fred get the GOP, I'm crossing over to vote for the democrat, I don't care even it's likely to be Hillary.

If it's Mitt, I vote for the libertarian candidate.

I'm still a registered republican, so I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

kwais | June 10, 2007, 6:26am | #

JH,
To answer your question:
The three I don't want to see elected are
Romney, McCain, and Guliani.

So you know where I am coming from, I am not opposed to the war. I support it and I think it is winnable, and we should win it.

I think the candidate who is most right about the war is McCain.

BUT, I think that Ron Paul is right about every other issue.

I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and if he doesn't win, and Fred Thompson does, I will be ok with voting for Fred Thompson.

If any of the three I mentioned before win, I will vote Libertarian, or not vote.

I think that the actual positions that Obama or Hillary would take while in office are probably worse than those of any Republican candidate, but that they would be opposed by the republicans.

There would actually be a place to go to for people who oppose big government. There would be no place for voters to go if Guliani, Romney, or McCain won.

kwais | June 10, 2007, 6:32am | #

I mean yeah there would still be the libertarian party.

But if the posters here are any indication, the libertarian party has no hopes.

It seems there is no compromise with big L libertarians, so no one could get elected to a group of 8 of them, let alone to a whole country.

I mean by that, that I hear people wont vote for Ron Paul because of where he stands on abortion (even though it won't affect their personal freedom at all) So they would by their inaction or lack of support allow someone who will continue the actual aggressive violation of their rights that is the drug war and the income tax.

They don't like that he is personally opposed to abortion. Or that he is christian, or whatever else.

So our rights will continue to be violated, and our constitution desecrated because the socialists and the theocons constantly are able to vote for a lesser of two evils.

Fluffy | June 10, 2007, 7:22am | #

That Utah thing surprised me. I think the 2nd place finish can be chalked up to Romney sucking all the oxygen out of the air on the Republican side, because the other "big names" drew pathetic numbers. But the 5% number is high. It's state party delegates at a convention, which means it's the MOST conventional Republican sample available. It's also in Utah, which is the MOST pro-Bush sample still left in the country. If Paul can get 5% of those people at this point in the campaign, it's at least something to be pleased about.

skeptic | June 10, 2007, 7:30am | #

Ilan Dunlap Little said Boortz “has gone off the deep end” with “anti immigrant shallowness.” I don’t listen to Boortz but will assume this is true. However, how does Boortz differ from Ron Paul’s anti immigrant shallowness? Paul voted for walling in America.

Andrew complains about the libertarian lable being hijacked by moronslike Dondero and Rudy. True. But what about anti-immigrant, social conservatives? What about a candidate who is anti-abortion, anti-immigration and wants to go so far as to change the Constitution to make citizenship determined, not by birth place as has been the US tradition but on the citizenship of one’s parents. Funny the same candidate claims he supports the Constitution while wanting to delete sections. And where does the Constitution give the Feds the right to set up a wall around America -- a literal wall costing billions. But this expenditure of billions comes from a man who claims to be the taxpayer’s friend.

If I wanted a social conservative in the White House I’d join the Republican Party --- oh, wait, that is what the Ron Paul supporters are suggesting. Count me out of this debacle. All that will happen is that a large sum of money will be flushed down the electoral toilet and libertarianism will be associated with xenophobic anti-immigrant Know-Nothingism. I half suspect he’ll end the campaign after a couple of primaries with a huge sum in the bank which will go to other projects he has in mind. So it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if most the funds raised for this “Presidential” bid gets spent elsewhere. Only time will see.

But Bircher-like banking conspiracies, anti-immigrant rants and walls around America -- hell, that’s not libertarian to me. But the mere faintest whiff of political power and libertarians go gaa-gaa.

Fluffy | June 10, 2007, 7:38am | #

Skeptic -

While I don't agree with the Wall, the Constitution plainly allows the federal government the powers both of defense and of regulating cross-border trade. If that government decides it wants to militarize the southern border and prevent the movement of foreign nationals across that border, I may not like it but it has the authority to do so.

I see the merit of both sides of the birthright citizenship argument. [I personally favor leaving things as they are - but I can also understand that when the birthright citizenship rule was established, it wasn't really feasible for more than a tiny number of people to make a trip to the US solely and specifically for the purpose of securing birthright citizenship for a child.] And since the Constitution provides a mechanism for amending itself, if you use that mechanism to pass an Amendment changing the requirements for citizenship you can't really be accused of undermining the Constitution.

The gold standard thing is more important to Paul than it is to me, but I think that's partially generational. I never lived in an America that actually had a gold standard. That might make me miss it less. So if he rides that particular hobby horse more than I would, I'll try to tolerate it.

Jon C Jackson 3 | June 10, 2007, 7:46am | #

A question about Ron Paul'ss contributions..

Ok, I understand he can transfer the money to his Congressional re-election account.

But what about a non-GOP Presidential account? ( note: I don't think this scenario is likely. I am just curiousif it is possible). Could he stack up like $ 10 million by early 2008, lose/drop-out in time to run as an Independent/LP/whatever, and take that money with him?

kwais | June 10, 2007, 7:48am | #

Skeptic,
I wholly disagree with Ron Paul on immigration also.

But I think that without socialism the opposers of immigration would not get so riled up.

Of course the alternative to Ron Paul is not your dream candidate, but Guliani or Hillary or some such. Really no improvement on immigration or anything else.

I am not telling you to become republican, or hold your nose or anything. By all means do your thing. You are part of this entertaining tea party, of our country continuing down this road of socialism.

kwais | June 10, 2007, 7:51am | #

OK,
I take back my last comment. Fluffy made a much better point, and argument than me. On all counts.

tomwright | June 10, 2007, 8:04am | #

Stop with the "he can't win so why support him" crap.

Most of us seem to vote out of fear of who may win if we do not vote for the lesser of two evils.

The point of supporting someone that carries your views is to get those views recognition, and to grow support until someone down the road does win. If not this this year, maybe next, or the year after....

In addition, supporting and voting for those with your views sends a message to those that DO win.
A message that may mitigate the damage they do, and maybe stop some of it.

Sitting on your ass and waiting for a political messiah is just passive aggressive apathy. You deserve what you get. The problem is that those that are trying to do something, whether great or small, get it too, because YOU sat on your ass. So get off your ass an go flip a lever or punch a button in a voting booth for someone that you actually agree with, even if they are not perfect.

We need to stop waiting for a political messiah, stop voting out of fear and vote what we believe. Vote what you believe and send a message to those that do win, that their support is not as great as they think it is. Send a message to others that may agree with you that there are others out there.

Allowing fear of one candidate to make you abandon the one you agree with, to support someone you do not, just plays into the hands of the cynical power mongers that are running our government now.

What does a dishonest vote for a politician you dislike get you other than dishonest politicians and a government you dislike?
What does sitting on your ass and refusing to vote get you other than an ass in office?

Guy Montag | June 10, 2007, 8:17am | #

I guess this never became the weekend open thread. Will post in the previous one.

Gongratulations Ron Paul and to your supporters! I still see this shaping up as a John Anderson replay, but you never know.

Eddy | June 10, 2007, 8:38am | #

Most of the polls claim a 3.5 to 6 % margin of error (MoE). If the margin of error is 6% and Paul is sitting at 2% then the MoE indicates he could actually be as high as 8% putting him right up there with Newt. Then again it could mean he is also as low as 0 but that is only because negative numbers are not allowed.

Edward | June 10, 2007, 9:25am | #

If any of the three I mentioned before win, I will vote Libertarian, or not vote.

What's the difference?

Fluffy | June 10, 2007, 9:37am | #

Well, this $5 million rumor is all over the place now, but the absence of confirmation makes me a little skeptical.

Bill Woolsey | June 10, 2007, 9:42am | #

The margin of error reported for the poll only applies to a candidate reported at near 50%.

I'm not sure why they do it this way, but the reported error would apply to a close two way race. I think the most likely reason is that using the poll to forecast who is in the lead is involves a smaller error when it isn't so close (in a two way race.)

I don't remember the formula, exactly, but it generally results in candidates with one or two percent with an error of less than one percent.

So, it is unlikely that if he gets 2% in the poll that he has more support than 3% or less than 1%. (Using the reported standard error, would mean that there is only a 5% chance that Paul has more than 7% support. No! The truth is more like that there is only a 5% chance that he has more than 2.6%...)

Again, I don't remember the exact formula or know where to find it off hand. I will check it out and report it later.

Those of us who are long time LP supporters discovered this a long time ago. We are quite used to candidates who poll in the low single digits.

tomwright | June 10, 2007, 10:01am | #

Edward, The difference between voting and non-voting is the message it sends.

Voting sends a positive message, either a true one if you vote your conscience, or a false one if you vote out of fear of a particular candidate.

Not voting sends a negative message, either that you are satisfies and see no need to vote or you are complacent or disgusted and will not vote. Any of those messages means that you are unimportant to the rulers and therefore you need not be addressed.

GoRonPaul | June 10, 2007, 10:03am | #

Paul Running Second in Utah GOP Straw Poll

Deep within mormon country one would expect Romney to lead... But, Paul coming in 2nd?!!! Ron Paul doubters take notice...

Mitt Romney 1042 (80.46%)
Ron Paul 70 (5.41%)
Rudy Giuliani 57 (4.40%)
John McCain 54 (4.17%)
Tom Tancredo 19 (1.47%)
Tommy Thompson 16 (1.24%)
Fred Thompson (write-in) 15 (1.16%)
Mike Huckabee 12 (0.93%)
Sam Brownback 8 (0.62%)
Stan Lockhart (write-in) 1 (0.08%)
Newt Gingrich (write-in) 1 (0.08%)

http://home.utgop.org/page.php?page_id=4

mw | June 10, 2007, 10:38am | #

"If any of the three I mentioned before win, I will vote Libertarian, or not vote. What's the difference?"- ed
"The difference between voting and non-voting is the message it sends." - tw

There is another voting heuristic that furthers a libertarian agenda, can have practical positive results (by at least minimizing the growth rate of the state), and has the potential of investing libertarians with actual political clout.

Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block for divided government, they immediately become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block.

Divided Government is documented by Niskanen et.al. to work in a practical real-world manner to restrain the growth of the state. As a voting strategy it can be implemented immediately. More importantly, it can collectively be implemented individually as we sit in our hot tubs and ponder the sorry state of the world.

In the mid-terms I voted straight Democratic (for federal offices). In 2008 I'll vote for the Republican nominee for president. In the primaries I'll vote for the Republican candidate I prefer, either Paul or Hagel.

It is a practical libertarian way to vote.

Cesar | June 10, 2007, 10:41am | #

I'll tell you guys one thing, if Ron Paul is still in the race and I'm able to vote for him in my states primary it will be the first time in my life where I don't feel like I need to take a shower after voting.

Jennifer | June 10, 2007, 10:52am | #

I'm switching from registered Independent to registered Republican so I can vote for Paul in the GOP primary. (At least in the primary my vote has a chance of counting for something; due to electoral-college bullshit, voting for Paul in the presidential race would likely be wasted, since my state generally goes Democrat.)

VM | June 10, 2007, 10:56am | #

wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube men

[ambles off]

matt | June 10, 2007, 11:21am | #

"Gongratulations Ron Paul and to your supporters! I still see this shaping up as a John Anderson replay, but you never know."

Well, I think that it will be a bigger deal than that, but let's not forget that maybe the Anderson campaign pushed Reagan to the right.

Vast Mainstream Media Conspiracy | June 10, 2007, 11:45am | #

Deep within mormon country one would expect Romney to lead... But, Paul coming in 2nd?!!! Ron Paul doubters take notice...

Obviously, Ron Paul's supporters have rigged this poll just like they do with everything. So clearly, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, as the only candidates with (legitimately) more than 4% in the poll are separating themselves from the rest of the pack.

Jay D | June 10, 2007, 11:56am | #

"'End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.'

Seems at odds with his stated position to base policy on the constitution."
Neu Mejican

The applicable part of the Constitution is:
All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US.

If it were just a matter of birthright, why the "and" part? Why "born" and "subject to..."?

If it were only a matter of being born here the amendment would read "All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US"

GoRonPaul | June 10, 2007, 11:57am | #

Go back to your neocon forums conspiracy troll...

Brian Defferding | June 10, 2007, 12:36pm | #

The mainstream polls are often something as debatable as those non-scientific online polls.

The flaws of the online polls are:

a.) They could be subject to spammers
b.) People may have the opportunity to vote more than once (depending on if the poll binds the vote to the IP address, some don't).
c.) They may not be from registered voters.

However the mainstream polls like Rasmussen, Zogby, etc. flaws are:

a.) Their sample base is miniscule - no more than 1,000 people usually.
b.) Can come from areas with strong support of certain parties (i.e., half the sample could come from a highly-Democratic southern part of California).
c.) They don't usually call cellphone users, wiping out a MASSIVE sample base.

I think they both have their pros and cons. It seems, however, that the traditional mainstream polls is what still matters with big corporate media. We'll find out if they're wrong in the forthcoming year.

Lost_In_Translation | June 10, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Jay D.

You do realize that there are plenty of people born in the US that have accepted residence and citizenship in other countries and therefore "not subject to the jurisdiction " of the US.

To me, that statement implies you can't have dual citizenship, not that the US can reject you being within their jurisdiction. Of course, you can interpret it however you feel like to justify shipping infants back to mexico or wherever, but I believe my interpretation is what the founders were talking about.

Mike Laursen | June 10, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Sigh, I hate answering my own question:

Many countries do not grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born on their "soil". There are estimated to be about 11 million people in the world who have no citizenship or "effective nationality". Many of them are refugees, but some have fallen through the cracks.

Personally, I would like to see mankind evolve beyond drawing border lines all over and classifying everyone in the world according to their citizenship. I'm not talking world government here, either. We need a new paradigm that goes beyond the nation-state, where good people can be free citizens of the world, traveling around freely. With the Internet and jet travel, some people already effectively live in this world.

jh | June 10, 2007, 1:32pm | #

In response to the various posts on the Utah GOP straw poll showing Ron Paul running second in Utah: I'm a Mormon convert and a libertarian, and so for the past three years I've had an upclose and personal view of how Mormons think.

I think the second place Utah finish, while possibly gamed somehow by Ron Paul supporters, is probably legit. Mormons are mostly very very very conservative (did I mention "very"?), but there is a libertarian strain to them. They specifically moved to the Salt Lake Valley in the mid-1800s to escape massive violent religious persecution in Ohio, then Missouri, then Illinois. So they have this libertarian, leave-me-the-heck-alone undercurrent, like much of the Rocky Mountain West. Also, the more thoughtful members of this tight-knit bunch are aware of the implications of "agency" (what most others call "free agency"). Mormon scriptures have a story of Jesus advocating for free agency, and the devil advocating for coercion and force -- that is, Jesus said he'd come to earth and let us all choose whether to behave in such a way as to return to God, while the devil said he'd force everyone to be good whether we wanted to or not, and make sure everyone returned to God.

What I'm getting at here is this -- it's a tremendously unlikely long shot, but if Romney wins the Republican nomination, and Ron Paul pulls in a respectible showing, and one or two influential libertarian-leaning Mormons join Romney's campaign, Romney might pick Ron Paul as VP to poach on Democratic and independent territory by picking up that libertarian-leaning bloc.

Jay D | June 10, 2007, 1:45pm | #

...you can interpret it however you feel like to justify shipping infants back to mexico or wherever, but I believe my interpretation is what the founders were talking about.
Lost_In_Translation

Technical point: The language on US citizenship was introduced in the 14th amendment certified A.D. 1868 (i.e. not of "the founders").

Before that there was no such thing as a citizen of the "United States". You were a citizen of one of the several States. How they determined citizenship--I don't happen to know. I imagine various ways.

jh | June 10, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Chris Welton said: "jh - I can understand why you feel the way you do about polititians (belvieve me I can.. I had an uncle who worked as an aide in the UN who died of a stress heart attack around the end of the Iran/Contra scandal.. It was my first real look into politics.... Suffice it to say I was not impressed)

Two quick questions though...

1. What do you think about "things like roads"?
2. How would you feel about like live feeds from legislators' offices and lie detector tests for elected officials?"

1. Regarding "Things like roads" -- we live in a very statist society, so in order to gradually change public opinion to get to a more libertarian society we'd have to first demonstrate that libertarianism works for some of the less difficult things, and to get partial solutions to the trickier stuff. We already have libertarian partial solutions to roads -- we have some private, or public-private, toll roads or freeways. Even in a thoroughly statist place like Hawaii, the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature is looking at a toll freeway to relieve horrendous traffic congestion in the Ewa plain.

A more general answer to your question -- a more libertarian approach would be to finance most if not everything government does by voluntary donations, not mandated taxation. For example, if you wanted to use the roads, you'd pay user fees or gasoline taxes directly targeted to the actual users. So, if you didn't want to pay those fees, you could choose to ride a bike or take one of the private buses that would replace public buses in a libertarian society. The trickest problem to voluntary fees is national defense. One possibility is that subscription to our military would be done through voluntary donations, but any free-riders who declined to pay would be listed on a website that declared these people were not protected by the federal government, and any foreign country or foreign national that wanted to kidnap, enslave, torture, or rob them could do so -- and the federal government would not lift a finger to protect them. Social shaming could also be used to reign in the free riders via such a website.

An example of a real-life libertarian solution is the Mormon church, to which I belong. I voluntarily tithe 10% of my income to the church to pay for all of its functions and charitable programs, and serve in an unpaid job for the church (aka a "calling"), because I believe in most of what the church is doing. If I were to quit being a full tithe payer, some social shaming would kick in -- I wouldn't be eligible to enter the various temples, I would be stripped of any significant callings, I wouldn't be able to purchase the temple garments that serve as a visible mark of integrity, etc.

2. Live feeds and lie detector tests for legislators -- good question. Such intrusive, civil-rights-violating things seem like anathema to my libertarian sensibilities, and lie detector tests can be gamed by extreme sociopaths. (Also, this would infringe on the civil rights of staffers who aren't decision-makers.) Do we really want politics to be dominated by politicians who are such good liars that they can fake out a polygraph? A more libertarian approach would be getting more "sunshine" in deliberative meetings -- in Hawaii, all hearings and decision-making meetings are theoretically open to the public, but the real decisions get made in closed-door caucuses or private conversations. In effect, the public meetings turn into Kabuki theatre, where the decisions that have already been privately made are given a show of stilted public debate. Forcing any or all discussions of legislative business by two or more lawmakers to be in a public meeting would be a big libertarian change for the better.

James Maynard | June 10, 2007, 2:13pm | #

If the money rumor is even close to true, then this alone would gain SERIOUS credibility for RP.
Using some to advertise in NH and Iowa (I'm thinking cable TV, $20/shot) could build major name recognition. NH will certainly be very receptive to his low-tax/anti-war/pro-liberty viewpoints. A top 3 finish in NH and we are at frontrunner status, baby! Yeah!

JM

crimethink | June 10, 2007, 2:14pm | #

Before that there was no such thing as a citizen of the "United States".

Considering one of the requirements in Articles 1 & 2, for members of Congress and the President, was a certain length of time as "a Citizen of the United States", I don't think the concept was as nebulous as you make it out to be.

crimethink | June 10, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Actually, now that I think of it, shouldn't the Paul campaign be publishing their donation figures in ounces of gold rather than a fiat currency? What hypocrites!

db | June 10, 2007, 2:24pm | #

Dondero:

I'm glad you're wasting all your effort on smearing Ron Paul and trying to deny the real support he has among a large number of people. It's heartening to see that the only appeal you might have is among fans of schadenfreude, who are enjoying you embarrass yourself.

crimethink | June 10, 2007, 2:25pm | #

If it were only a matter of being born here the amendment would read "All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US"

I think the idea is that if you are born in the US and then leave to live permanently outside of US jurisdiction in another country, then you are no longer considered a US citizen.

I'm not sure how the "subject to the jurisdiction of" could be used to exclude children born to illegal aliens. So long as they reside in the US, they are indeed subject to US jurisdiction.

Andrew | June 10, 2007, 2:26pm | #

RE: skeptic

"Andrew complains about the libertarian label being hijacked by morons like Dondero and Rudy. True. But what about anti-immigrant, social conservatives?"

You must not be paying attention. Everytime Paul gets asked by the media why he's running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, he makes it clear he is a Repubublican, not a Libertarian. He'll occasionally say he's a Libertarian-leaning Republican but that's not saying you're a Libertarian. It's people other than Paul saying this so you implying that Paul is hijacking the Libertarian name is 100% false.

"What about a candidate who is anti-abortion..."

As someone who would ideally like to see a stateless society with no government at any level (I guess I would describe myself as a market-anarchist), I also consider myself pro-choice. However, that doesn't mean I have anything against someone who has a different opinion. You don't need to look at Ron's personal opinion on that matter, you need to look at his position on how the Federal government should deal with abortion and that position is 100% Constitutional. Whether you agree with Roe v. Wade or not, it's not Constitutional. The Constitution clearly leaves those type of decisions to the state.

"But Bircher-like banking conspiracies..."

Are you referring to his position on the Federal Reserve? If so, I'm confused. The rest of your comments seem to come from the point of view of a true libertarian (the less gov't the better) but if you think that the Federal Reserve does not have a negative impact on the economy, is not a threat to a minimal state and/or is Constitutional then I'm not sure where you're coming from. Also, can you point me to one of Paul's "anti-immigrant rants"?

Like I said earlier, ideally, I'd like to see a completely stateless society but I still feel a Constitutional federal government would be exponentionally better than our current situtation. At the very least, it would give states the ability to start minimizing government without federal interference. IMO, it's the only chance (however small) that we'll have to start a serious trend towards liberty in any meaningful way w/o waiting for it to completely hit the fan.

RE: jh

"I think the second place Utah finish, while possibly gamed somehow by Ron Paul supporters, is probably legit."

How would Paul supporters game a vote that was only open to convention delegates?

crimethink | June 10, 2007, 2:34pm | #

Uh, "Vast MSM Conspiracy" is actually me, and that was supposed to be a parody of CNN/FoxNews/MSNBC's reaction to their debate polls. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Hey guys, all you need to know is Bush was right!

And the proof that "Bush was right" is an email* from Dondero/Rittberg to HarryBrowne.org.

Holy fuck!!! I'm sold. How could I have been so wrong?

*In March, 2005 no less. Wow, now two years later, how's Georgie's fabulous Mesopotamian adventure going?

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 4:07pm | #

I think the idea is that if you are born in the US and then leave to live permanently outside of US jurisdiction in another country, then you are no longer considered a US citizen.

No, you are a US citizen until you formally renounce your US citizenship or the US government through due process strips you of your citizenship.

There are only a few causes by which the government revoke your citizenship.

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Correction:

There are only a few causes by which the government can revoke your citizenship.

crimethink | June 10, 2007, 4:11pm | #

*In March, 2005 no less. Wow, now two years later, how's Georgie's fabulous Mesopotamian adventure going?

IIRC, it was already quite the clusterfuck at that point. Anyone who said Bush's Iraq policy had been vindicated at anytime after July 2003 was either lying or high on the broccoli-flavored Bush Kool-aid.

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 4:17pm | #

crimethink, surely you can understand the impulse to be charitable.

Is not the Good Book full of admonitions to be so?

:)

Whatchu talkinbout Willis? | June 10, 2007, 4:28pm | #

re: Dondero's argument "Bush Was Right"

"From: Eric Dondero
To: Joe Dehn
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Rockwell, Raimondo, biggest libertarian losers in Bush Doctrine success
by Eric Dondero R.

...all Anti-War libertarians are incredibly big losers in the recent successes of the Bush Doctrine — Democracy breaking out with lightening speed in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi and even Israel/Palestine post-Iraqi Elections...

[they said] that the entire Middle East was going to explode over our invasion of Iraq. That it would NEVER cause democracy and freedom to flourish in other Nations in the Region. (Some would say that it even has had coat- tails outside of the Region, witness Ukraine)...
...
[so] Why is it that they [critics] are getting a free pass. Nobody is questioning them to explain why it is that all their predictions were DEAD WRONG???

hmm.

The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is... this guy must be some kind of special fucking idiot to have not hidden this comment in shame, hoping that it would vanish down the memory hole...

but no = he LINKS to it. In 2007.

I mean, that takes balls. Big balls of stupid.

recent assessment of state of Democracy in ME

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/middleeast/07democracy.html

Snippets

"CAIRO, June 6 — This is election season in the Middle East. Syria just held presidential and parliamentary elections. Algeria held parliamentary elections. Egyptians will be asked to vote next week on a new upper house of Parliament. There will soon be elections in Jordan, Morocco and Oman, followed by elections in Qatar. So is democracy suddenly taking root in the strongman’s last regional stronghold?

The consensus among democracy advocates, diplomats and citizens interviewed around the Middle East is that the reverse is true. Elections, it appears, have increasingly become a tool used by authoritarian leaders to claim legitimacy.

“There is a state of depression and lack of trust, or faith, among the Arab masses in the regimes and little belief that these elections can lead to the change aspired to,” said Jaffar al-Shayeb, a member of the municipal council in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, an advisory body without legislative authority."

[snip]

"In Egypt’s parliamentary elections last year, witnesses reported that the police fired live ammunition at voters — killing some — to keep them from casting ballots for candidates aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. As Egypt gears up for elections to the upper house of Parliament next week, security agents have imprisoned more than 150 members of the Brotherhood, which although officially banned is the only viable political opposition in the country.

In Syria the presidential election was a referendum on one candidate, President Bashar al-Assad, in a country that has sentenced democracy advocates to several years in prison for signing a petition asking for political reforms and recently handed down a 12-year sentence to one man for membership in the Muslim Brotherhood.

“The system is rigged to bring to power people who are already in power,” said Daoud Kuttab, director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in the West Bank city of Ramallah. “That is what explains low voter turnout and why elections are turning people away.

With the outcome almost always certain and the manipulation so evident, why do the leaders even bother? From Syria to Bahrain, elections have helped bleed off some internal and external pressure for change without making any substantial alteration to the power structure, opposition political leaders and diplomats said.""

Dennis | June 10, 2007, 4:35pm | #

From Eric's e-mail to harrybrowne.org...

Note — Eric Dondero is a former top staffer for US Congressman Ron Paul

You were his driver, right?

He is also one of the Co-Founders of the Neo-libertarian movement,

How does one "found" a "movement"?

which supports free market economics, civil liberties, but a hawkish/pro- military foreign policy,

"Pro-military foreign policy"? Meaningless. You're really in favor of using a tool, but you have no opinion or idea when or where or how it should it be used. That's great.

"Hey, Eric, should I get new windows for my home to save on my energy bills? And where can I learn how to install those?"

"I really like my hammer."

ala P.J. O’Rourke.

How childlike. "We're like P.J. O'Rourke! He's funny! People like him!"

crimethink | June 10, 2007, 4:37pm | #

crimethink, surely you can understand the impulse to be charitable.

Understand? Yes.

Act on? Not in this case! ;-)

In any event, don't forget that God gave Rudy the proverbial shot across the bow at the last debate with the lightning. If he doesn't repent and cling to the ways of limited govt, I fully expect, at the next debate, for the lights to go out and a giant, ghostly finger to write condemnations of Rudy on the wall behind him, in a language only Ron Paul can decipher.

That would be SOOOOOOOO cool.

GoRonPaul | June 10, 2007, 5:00pm | #

I hadn't seen that Dondero letter before... my gawd that's hysterical...

And a new verb has entered my vocabulary...

"I can't believe he donderode himself in front of all those people!"

Jay D | June 10, 2007, 5:23pm | #

I'm not sure how the "subject to the jurisdiction of" could be used to exclude children born to illegal aliens. So long as they reside in the US, they are indeed subject to US jurisdiction.
crimethink

If there is such a thing as "born in and subject to the jurisdiction of", it stands to reason there must be such a thing as "born in and not subject to the jurisdiction of".

"DJ," Rendered Legible And Without The Affectation | June 10, 2007, 5:32pm | #

Ron Paul, drawing two percent in the latest Fox News poll, is becoming a magnet for disaffected voters, those who can't stand the current front runners.

I figure libertarians comprise one or two percent of the voting bloc.

Eddy | June 10, 2007, 5:38pm | #

"No, you are a US citizen until you formally renounce your US citizenship or the US government through due process strips you of your citizenship."

Sure but you still have to pay your taxes...
"persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations"

crimethink | June 10, 2007, 5:47pm | #

If there is such a thing as "born in and subject to the jurisdiction of", it stands to reason there must be such a thing as "born in and not subject to the jurisdiction of".

Logically speaking, that actually doesn't stand to reason. Speaking of the intersection of A and B doesn't prohibit B from being a subset of A.

Legally, you have a point. It makes sense that they were trying to exclude some people who were born in the US. I'm not sure which; my question is, how does the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" exclude children born to illegal immigrants? Are such children (and their parents) not subject to US laws while they are present within the US?

James Anderson Merritt | June 10, 2007, 6:58pm | #

Crimethink said, "When he talks about keeping govt within the bounds of the Constitution, and letting states make decisions on contentious issues like abortion and gay marriage, he may as well be speaking Esperanto."

La Usona registaro devas resti interne de konstitucia limoj! La Usonaj sxtatoj devas findecidi polemikajn temojn pri ekzemple abortigo, samseksemula edzigxo, ktp!

Elektu Ron Paul kai elektu vian propran liberecon! Iru Ron, Iru!

Cxu vi komprenas?

skeptic | June 10, 2007, 7:56pm | #

Andrew:

I’ve spoke to Paul enough times to know he calls himself a libertarian often. He is often identified as such in the media. Now pay attention. I said small l libertarian not big L Libertarian. I am describing his alleged philosophy not his party status. That he ran as a big L Libertarian Party candidate in the past doesn’t help either. He says he is a libertarian. I’ve heard him say it.

I find it bizarre to have you defend anarchism and then say Pauls positions is consistent with the Constitution (of “no authority” as Spooner put it). But then I’m not interested in whether he’s a Constitutionalist but whether he is a libertarian.

As for the Fed, no I am not talking about opposition to the Fed. To his talks about secret plots by international bankers I am referring. He believes in a conspiracy of international bankers to install one world government. That is straight from the Birch Society, which he has praised and which, in return, gives hinm a 100% rating.

As for him attacks on immigration see his close affiliation with the racist Minutement and his speaking at their conference. They are a one-issue group, anti-immigration to the core (especially brown immigrants) and they are in love with Ron Paul. His support for this policy is why he voted to spend billions to build a wall locking you inside the US.

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 8:28pm | #

James Anderson Merritt

Oh, wow. You know Esperanto?

I took two years of it way back (I went to a very "progressive" school, don't you know? I wanted to type my response in Esperanto but couldn't for the life of me do it.

All I remember is the opening line from my speech in our end-of-term school play "Mi estas spazhomo" (I am a spaceman). Where it went from there (or what came before) I have no freakin' idea.

stopdrugwar | June 10, 2007, 9:20pm | #

Is Ron paul perfectly aligned with libertarians 100 per cent? Not with me. But he is the only GOP candidate that even scores above 50%. And he scores around 90 plus. Rudy isn't even in third place.

The second closest major party candidate to the libertarian position is democrat Mike Gravel formerly of Alaska.

Rudy is so far from libertarian that the application of that label to him is ludicrous. Rudy is less libertarian than Bill Clinton, another to whom the label was wrongly applied.

Mike Laursen | June 10, 2007, 9:42pm | #

Mi estas spazhomo

So, are all Esperanto nouns borrowed from the vocabulary we used to taunt each other in junior high? Donde es su queerdork?

Tom Walls | June 10, 2007, 10:12pm | #

One thing about the landline/housewife polls - almost all of them say those polled are registered Republicans or Republican leaners. They do not include people who are ashamed to admit they're still in the GOP, or ever were. By definition they would exclude half of independents and third-party registrants. So my hunch is that they're under-reporting support for RP another couple of percent.

Now he knows I don't agree with him on Ron vs. Rudy, but let me point out something in my good friend Eric's favor - he can win an election. He won a seat on the Soil and Water Conservation District board going up against a popular incumbent who owned a fish camp in a district of 200,000.

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 10:13pm | #

Laursen, you bastard.

James Anderson Merritt | June 10, 2007, 10:15pm | #

"Mi estas spazhomo?" Nobody would ever have dared to make such a "confession" at my high school, which was anything BUT "progressive." ;-)

I think the word you are thinking of is spelled "spachomo," pronounced "spats-HO-mo" -- literally, "space-man." However, this is the first time I have seen it, probably because the word I usually encounter for "spaceman" sounds less like a schoolyard taunt: astronauxto (pronounced ah-stroh-NOW-toe).

I'm no great Esperanto expert, but after playing around with the language for a couple of years, I can understand much of what I hear and read, and can form correct sentences on simple topics if I have the luxury of taking my time to respond. :-) On the other hand, I tend to make an English-speaker's mistakes when putting my speech into writing. For example, in the material I wrote above, my proofreading didn't catch that I had mispelled the word for "and" (kaj). To my English-reading eye, the finger-slip on the keyboard that produced "kai" led to something that still sounded correct in my mind's ear. Oh well.

With so many "natural" languages vying for mindshare in the world today (here in CA, of course, the next largest gorilla after English is Spanish -- but one day it could easily be Mandarin Chinese!), I have never understood why there isn't more of a push to learn Esperanto right off the bat, simply to enable intercommunication with foreigners when it counts. I have also studied several other languages (putting serious time into Spanish, German, Japanese, French, and Swedish over the years), for reasons of travel, business, or personal curiosity, but I'm likely never to be truly fluent in any of them. I came a long way fairly quickly in Esperanto, however, so I am convinced that it really is as easy to learn and use -- at least for everyday life -- as people say. The point being that the investment to learn Esperanto is much lower than for other "natural" languages; for utility's sake alone, why not master a language that you can learn more easily than someone else's national language, and which they have a fighting chance of understanding more completely than YOUR national language? If everybody learned only their own national language and Esperanto, everybody could talk to and write for everyone else in the world. That's a goal worth pursuing, I think.

Our societies spend so much time, effort, and money going along with so many silly fads, not to mention translating between difficult languages, or worse, paying for mistakes caused by a lack of competent translation. You'd think that people would just get sick and tired of the waste at some point, and would do something for themselves that would yield substantial benefit. Just two years of studying this particular "foreign language" could open the door to the world of direct, person-to-person communication. But then again, you'd think that people would get sick and tired of government's empty promises, horrendous waste, and innumerable unintended consequences, too, and would at least vote for their own freedom now and then, as it costs them nothing to do so and the potential costs of remaining silent are high. The reports of a Ron Paul "surge" give me hope that people are realizing that they must act in the own best interests, and not just trust in the system or the leadership to do the right thing as a matter of course. If this campaign is in any way successful, perhaps there is also reason to hope that more people will someday decide that two years to master "the easiest foreign language" is a worthwhile investment to make in themselves. You never know. I guess I'll believe it when longshot Presidential bids fly.

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 10:24pm | #

I think the word you are thinking of is spelled "spachomo," pronounced "spats-HO-mo"

I thought I had the spelling right, but I could be wrong.

You are correct, though, the pronunciation is in fact "spats-HO-mo". For some reason I have this recollection that Esperanto uses Z as in naZi.

Hey, c'mon, it's been over forty years. I'm an old man. Leave me alone. :)

joe | June 10, 2007, 10:43pm | #

"Eric Dondero | June 10, 2007, 12:17am | #

Hey guys, all you need to know is Bush was right!"

Clearly, this is somebody who needs to be taken seriously.

Somebody whose opinion about elections is ignored at your peril.

James Anderson Merritt | June 10, 2007, 10:47pm | #

Isaac- I wasn't trying to give you a hard time; only to pre-empt the spaz-homo jokers (though I see that I was too late in Laursen's case ;-).

To refresh your memory and for others' FYI:

"Z" is pronounced as English speakers do in "buzz."
"C" is pronounced as "ts." The English/German word "Nazi" would be rendered phonetically in Esperanto as "naci." In fact, the phrase for "national language" -- "nacia lingvo" -- is pronounced "not-SEE-uh LIN-g'voh." Learning to pronounce ALL of the vowels and consonants consistently was hard for me, especially the hard g at the end of what my eye sees as "ING" and the hard K in such a word as "knabo" (boy). You have to pronounce the latter as k'NAW-boh, such that the k sounds almost like the click from an African language. If you sneak a vowel in there -- kuh-NAW-boh -- you have just said "hemp" (kanabo), which is of course what wags will accuse you of smoking if you believe in either the utility and value of Esperanto, or the viability of the Ron Paul campaign.

But let them wag. I'm getting to be an old guy too, Isaac, and if I've learned anything, it's this: Doing what we personally think is right is never a mistake, regardless of the taunts received.

Iru, Ron, Iru!

Eddy | June 10, 2007, 11:08pm | #

"Iru, Ron, Iru!"

我不明白

Chris Welton | June 10, 2007, 11:17pm | #

jh -You said..

"-- a more libertarian approach would be to finance most if not everything government does by voluntary donations, not mandated taxation. For example, if you wanted to use the roads, you'd pay user fees or gasoline taxes directly targeted to the actual users."

You might be interested to learn that Washington State has no income tax, no capital gains tax, no inventory tax, and the tax rate on manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing are kept under 1/2 of 1% (literally the bare minimum to make sure people aren't "dumping stuff in the river")
http://www.choosewashington.com/state_data/Taxes.asp

We have no sales tax on unprepared food, and sales taxes on machinery used in manufacturing, advanced computing, energy production, and biotech are all waived. http://choosewashington.com/state_data/Incentives.asp

We also really, really, really pissed off the banking system (read bleeding out their asses) by opening up credit union membership to all residents. http://www.becu.org/default.asp?pid=joinbecu

In addition, I happen to know for a fact that there is no "Labor and Industries" (aka workman's comp tax) on contractors. (We actually have a real difference in how we treat people who hire Peons Vs. how we treat people who work with Partners.)

We have the most profitable software company.. In the history on mankind.
We have the most profitable aerospace company.. In the history on mankind.

We have for profit energy production...
http://www.pse.com/
..and ended up in the top 10 for lowest Co2 per capita because of it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/02/state/n094611D25.DTL

Oh, and this is was our official response to the "World Trade Organization" stopping by for a chat. (They don't like us much...) http://www.mega.nu/ampp/national_emergency_img/400bullets.jpg

That said, we had the highest cigarette tax in the country as of 2002, all liquor is taxed by the state, as is gambling. Funny thing about that is that you only have to pay those if you are too lazy to drive down the road to your nearest reservation.

Vehicle registration is taxed, as are emissions for internal combustion engines, and we have parking fees for people to lazy to walk to the park, ect.

Our biggest "tax" problem is far and away our property tax, but it (unfortunately) garners wide public support as it keeps property values high by making stagnation physically impossible. That said, we still managed to lower property taxes by 1.25 percent between 1999 and 2003.

There are many here who would like to end the "War on Drugs" so we can tax those too and lower the property tax further (possibly eliminate).

Would you say this is more sane than what most state governments are doing right now?

p.s. I agree with "sunshine" laws, but it'll be a bitch to enforce.

Regards, Chris

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 11:33pm | #

Merritt, old chap, I confess that many years ago I believed in the point of Esperanto. But then I also once briefly believed in World Federalism, which is quite different from One World Government, but in ways that are much too subtle to discuss here.

However I have since come to realize that if you speak English you can speak to a large part of the world's population and that if you speak English and French or English and Spanish you can speak to close to half of the inhabitants of planet Earth. That might sound chauvinistic but its a lot more than you'll find who can speak Esperanto,

Sorry, but frankly Esperanto seems like so much pointless bullshit to me. But I am fascinated by the fact that you have taken the time to learn. For me it is something in the distant past (as evidenced by my poor recollection of it). :)

ПьяницаПингвйн | June 10, 2007, 11:39pm | #

"Iru, Ron, Iru!"

Выствлять, Рон!

Isaac Bartram | June 10, 2007, 11:41pm | #

The Soviet Union put heavier and heavier restrictions on the use of Esperanto by private citizens from 1930 on, culminating in 1938 when all registered speakers of Esperanto in the U.S.S.R. were rounded up and either deported to Siberia or shot. Esperanto was effectively banned in the Soviet Union until 1956, discouraged until 1979, and kept under strict governmental control until the late 1980s.

That's from an Esperanto website. Interesting to me.

When I was taking Esperanto at my high school we were encouraged to sign up for penpals in the Soviet Union. Problem was after the first contact none of the wanted to communicate in Esperanto. What they wanted to do was learn English. :)

James Anderson Merritt | June 11, 2007, 12:03am | #

Isaac Bertram said, "However I have since come to realize that if you speak English you can speak to a large part of the world's population and that if you speak English and French or English and Spanish you can speak to close to half of the inhabitants of planet Earth. That might sound chauvinistic but its a lot more than you'll find who can speak Esperanto..."

Still, there appear to be several million around the planet who can have a conversation in Esperanto, or at least catch your meaning if you use it with them. You are certainly right to say "if you can speak English AND xyx..." The problem is that you really need to understand xyz fluently, or the person you're interacting with needs to understand your language fluently, to avoid frustration and misunderstanding.

National languages are hard to learn, as I have seen for myself. So you put ten or twenty years into French or Spanish, and the native speakers still patronize you (sort of like trying to mount a libertarian takeover of the GOP or Democrats from the inside). People elsewhere put ten or twenty years into English, and we still make fun of their accents and malapropisms, while we talk to them slowly, in too-loud voices. Put ten or twenty years into Esperanto, and you're a world-renowned expert in it (sort of like getting involved with your local LP and not too many years later running for Congress, Senate, or the White House). I don't say this mockingly. In each context, the pond is small, but your opportunities to flourish and make a difference in it are much greater than in the "big ponds" of the national languages or major political parties. Continued demonstrated usefulness of Esperanto draws more people into that movement all the time -- the Chinese have produced tens of thousands of speakers, I am told, from a fairly recent push to expand use of the language. They broadcast news and cultural information in Esperanto on a regular basis. So the pond is getting bigger. Continued demonstrations of electoral victory and success in office by libertarians (both of the small-l and large L type) have enlarged that pond since I first became aware of the LP, and promise to enlarge it even further in the years ahead.

I took the time to learn it because I like languages, and was curious about what needed to be in an "artificial" language to make it truly useful for people. I kept at it as I became aware that it isn't just pointless BS. Real people have used this language for real purposes for a long time, and they have created quite a body of literature and resources. There does seem to be a "heart" to Esperanto, just as there is a "heart" to libertarianism, naysayers to the contrary. Whether that will lead to big things in either case, is yet to be seen.

Andrew | June 11, 2007, 12:14am | #

RE: skeptic

I've spoke to Paul enough times to know he calls himself a libertarian often. He is often identified as such in the media... That he ran as a big L Libertarian Party candidate in the past doesn't help either. He says he is a libertarian. I've heard him say it.

Maybe I should have been more clear. Since the people who would be confused as to what a libertarian is have heard of him (after the first debate), he has not called himself a libertarian. In fact, the few times I've seen it come up, he has always corrected the interviewer and, in at least one case, cited immigration as an example of a difference. Obviously he was referred to as a Libertarian when he ran as a member of the LP (that's how I first heard of him) but any perceived damage by that falls on the shoulders of the LP. They're constantly skewing the meaning of libertarian. An example; after Neal Boortz was allowed to speak at the convention here in Atlanta, many people came to believe that all libertarians were completely behind the invasion of Iraq. The differences between big "L" and little "l" are meaningless to the people who could be confused. To them, they're one in the same. So, even if Ron Paul is damaging the word "libertarian" which you hold so dear (I'm still not convinced he is), you have a lot more to worry about from people like Boortz, Dondero and Maher who will openly proclaim they are libertarians to anyone that will listen.

I find it bizarre to have you defend anarchism and then say Pauls positions is consistent with the Constitution (of "no authority" as Spooner put it). But then I'm not interested in whether he's a Constitutionalist but whether he is a libertarian.

I could see how you could feel that way if you had only read that one paragraph but if you had read the last paragraph I addressed to you, when I said...

Like I said earlier, ideally, I'd like to see a completely stateless society but I still feel a Constitutional federal government would be exponentionally better than our current situtation. At the very least, it would give states the ability to start minimizing government without federal interference. IMO, it's the only chance (however small) that we'll have to start a serious trend towards liberty in any meaningful way w/o waiting for it to completely hit the fan.

...that should have been enough for you to understand why I would defend market-anarchism while only caring that "Pauls positions is consistent with the Constitution".

As for him attacks on immigration see his close affiliation with the racist Minutement and his speaking at their conference. They are a one-issue group, anti-immigration to the core (especially brown immigrants) and they are in love with Ron Paul.

I'll do some searching for the things you mention (I wish you could provide a link) but I find it hard to believe Ron is saying anything racist. I've been following his career for over a decade, his voting, his speaches and statements and have heard him speak in person a couple times and never have I read anything by him or heard him say anything that I would consider unreasonable, crazy or racist. If you're implying that your opinion of Paul changes because there may be questionable people who support him, that's stupid. What, is he going to grant racist favors from the Oval Office?!?!

It's fine if you don't agree with Paul or support him to be the President but don't be mad at him. The word libertarian lost it's meaning a long time ago.

matt | June 11, 2007, 12:25am | #

When it comes to awesome universal languages that ought to be revived for ease of communication, I see your Esperanto and raise you a Latin.

crimethink | June 11, 2007, 3:07am | #

Heh, it's funny how one word can cause the thread to go off on a tangent. I learned Esperanto as a kid too, but my problem with it is that despite its pretentions of being a universal language, its structure is heavily based on Central European and Slavic languages (understandable, since its inventor was Polish). And while it is far easier to learn than any natural language, it has many oddities of its own. For instance, you're supposed to be able to convert a verb (ending in i) to a noun by replacing the i with an o. Problem is, what relation does the resulting noun have to the original verb? For instance, ami means "to love", and amo means "love". But then mangxi means "to eat" and mangxo means "food". Why doesn't mangxo mean "eating", or amo mean "lovable thing"? It seems so arbitrary.

Anyway, if you want a really logical artificial language, look at Lojban. They tried to divorce that language from every known language and from human habits of thought completely. The result is an airtight logical structure, but it's really tough to learn because the patterns of thought you have to get used to in order to express yourself well are so strange.

jh | June 11, 2007, 5:04am | #

Chris -- I used to live in Washington state. My wife was born and raised there. It's a lovely place, though quite a bit too cold for me, which is why I moved to Hawaii.

Washington is a rather highly taxed state according to taxfoundation.org, or by googling "tax burden by state". The tax foundation website lists it at #16 for combined state and local tax burden, mostly due to the 6.5% sales tax. I live in the state that's #3 on the list, a real tax hell, so obviously tax burden isn't the only criteria for where a libertarian would live. Other things matter, such as climate, culture, people, employment etc.

So, yeah, I agree with you that Washington is a desirable place to live, and obviously so do the droves of people moving there. I think it is somewhat poorly governed, in particular by my mother-in-law, who is a state senator there, but the politicians have enough common sense to more or less leave Boeing and Microsoft alone, so that covers up for a multitude of other sins. In any case, the strength of a representative republic is that you can have complete idiots in power and things can still progress despite them. I mean, if we can survive the Harding and FDR administrations, then we can survive virtually anyone. My point in the previous posts is that if we can have a good life despite a screwed-up statist system, imagine how great things would be if we got the government to pretty much leave us alone. I suspect you don't really agree with that, but if you hang around on this website long enough perhaps you'll come around to my POV a bit more. Anyhow, I've enjoyed talking to you -- you're obviously a perceptive and good-hearted person -- and I hope you can pop in and weight in on these threads from time to time. Anyhow, enjoy your lovely state!

skeptic | June 11, 2007, 7:38am | #

Andrew:

I still disagree. I’ve seen clips of Ron Paul being inteviewed recently where he used the term libertarian to describe himself contrary to what you claim. I suspect you are right and so am I. He is a poltiician and can say two different things at two different times. But he has used the term to describe himself. And I see over 500 artilces on google news which refer to him as a libertarian.

By the way I do worry about people like Boortz and Maher. Dondero is a nobody who mainly trolls libertarian websites stirring up crap so I don’t worry about him.

You find it hard to believe Ron Paul would say anything racist. Remember his Ron Paul newsletter published a rather racist piece which was discussed here. It was put out under Paul’s name but he says he didn’t write it. The actually author seems to be Lew Rockwell who has strong racist tendencies from what I can see. But Paul published it under his own name though he later claimed he didn’t support it after it became an issue. Apparently he wants us to believe he didn’t read his own newsletter published in his name.

I still note that there is no confirmation from the Paul people about the story that set off this discussion (which had nothing to do with Esperanto). I remain a skeptic as to the truth about the claim. And with each passing day my skepticism seems confirmed.

M | June 11, 2007, 9:31am | #

you put ten or twenty years into French or Spanish, and the native speakers still patronize you (sort of like trying to mount a libertarian takeover of the GOP or Democrats from the inside)

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

(Shakespeare, History of Henry IV, Part I, Act III, Scene 1)

M | June 11, 2007, 9:46am | #

skeptic - you wrote that "Lew Rockwell ... has strong racist tendencies from what I can see."

I would be grateful for you to indicate evidence supporting that claim, with apologies if I've overlooked some obvious source myself.

Pro Libertate | June 11, 2007, 9:46am | #

I sent money to the campaign, too--the first time I've ever donated to a candidate.

Paul may have little chance of winning, but it isn't no chance. There's plenty of time for more voter disenchantment, and who knows what will happen between now and the primaries? At least Paul is getting some attention and is running within a major party, which should give him some additional hope. I think his message is appealing to a larger segment of America than, say, Kucinich's.

Duane | June 11, 2007, 10:35am | #

I donated for my first time too, and plan to make a habit of it in the coming months.

FYI: Eric Dondero used to be Ron Paul's driver, even though he calls himself a "former senior aide". Heh.

Josh | June 11, 2007, 11:03am | #

Ron Paul will be getting my primary vote and I will work my ass off to get him elected.

Don't underestimate strength in numbers. We are a large group. Check out the grassroots on meetup.com

No one has more passionate supporters.

Eric Dondero, you are a fool. Study up on foreign policy cause and effect aka blowback.

conrad | June 11, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Ron Paul is the only one using his brain. Period. That makes a huge difference.

Sad cauliflower | June 11, 2007, 12:34pm | #

I thought libertarianism stood for economic _as well_ as social liberalism?

How come, then, that anyone calling for limited state involvement in specific sectors (the health care system and security forces) is castigated by the same libertarians who commend the openly anti-abortionist Ron Paul as being representative of the ideology?

I don't write this to troll the thread ; but I honestly feel like there is a double-standard in this regard.

G. Perry | June 11, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Eric Dondero is a disenchanted former staffer of Dr. Paul. Nothing he says has credibility.

The reason why Dr. Paul is ranking in at 0% on the various "official" polls is because Dr. Paul is not includes as a poll response.

Any poll that has Dr. Paul included has him scoring several points above Romney, and miles ahead of Rudy.

Drew | June 11, 2007, 1:40pm | #

I've contributed $200 so far and intend to keep contributing. The media can keep ignoring him and saying that he doesn't have a chance but they don't control Ron's supporters and their donations.
Once the republicans figure out that a pro-war candidate can't win the Presidency then Paul will emerge as the obvious candidate.

James Anderson Merritt | June 11, 2007, 2:25pm | #

A few comments on various points:

Universal languages: My interest in Esperanto was in trying to see what kept it alive for over 100 years and in the minds, hearts, and mouths of millions throughout that time -- something that other proposed universal languages failed to do. I wondered how much was social phenomenon, and how much may have been due to the design. Latin is just too hard to learn, and it is worthwhile to note that Esperanto's inventor originally conceived a "simplified Latin" -- you can see many similarities in the grammar and vocabulary of the two languages. If Lobjan is so difficult for a human being to wrap his or her mind around, why would anyone consider it as a practical tool for communication between people? Also, even though Esperanto is Euro-centric, that hasn't stopped thousands of Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese from learning it and using it in significant ways. From what I can see, the Esperanto movement's biggest momentum is now in Asia. Go figure.

Ron Paul a Libertarian? The thing about Paul is that, when he disagrees with Libertarian orthodoxy, I've found him to have a principled and well-articulated reason for it, which harkens back to libertarian principle. In my book, that makes him more than libertarian enough to have been a credible LP Presidential candidate with no apologies necessary. On abortion, for instance, Paul believes that the government exists to, among other things, defend right to life. All Libertarians agree with this, but they don't always agree on who is a person that should receive the government's protection, and against whom in which circumstances. Paul draws the line prior to birth, and this is completely consistent with his actual experience as an obstetrician, well apart from any religious beliefs he holds. On the other hand, he surely appreciates the pragmatic difficulties for legislation and enforcement that recognition of pre-natal people as legal entities separate from their mothers could cause. He uses his pragmatism in addressing the immigration issue, as well. In general, he favors free trade and -- if you take the entirety of things he has said on the subject -- essentially free passage of people back and forth over borders. On the other hand, he points out that as long as we are going to bestow citizens and legal residents with entitlements, we need to cap our largesse (that is, the takings from some to give to others) by capping the influx of people. He wants to downsize or eliminate the entitlements, as well. If successful in that latter endeavor, it would be interesting to see what President Paul would say about immigration then. My guess -- and this is just my opinion after having read and heard many of his columns and speeches -- is that he would want to streamline the process for letting people through as tourists, students, and even long-term workers, but he might tighten up on actual citizenship applications.

I've heard Paul call himself a Libertarian, too, and not just during his earlier Presidential run.

Cicero | June 11, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Latin is just too hard to learn

O tempora, o mores!

James Anderson Merritt | June 11, 2007, 7:51pm | #

# Cicero | June 11, 2007, 3:35pm | #

"Latin is just too hard to learn"

# O tempora, o mores!

I said that from actually having given it a shot, trying to help my son with it when he was studying it in high school. I think the point of an auxilliary language should be the ease and speed with which it can be employed to say the things you need to say. In that regard, Latin seems like chess. Esperanto seems like checkers, or even Othello. You get up to speed with the basic game rather quickly, but becoming really GOOD takes time and experience, as does attaining fluency in any language. In my opinion, Esperanto's achievement is to simplify and accelerate one's attainment of basic functionality.

BTW, here is my favorite bit of latin, which would serve well as a motto for any libertarian activists, especially the Ron Paul crew:

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Cicero's teacher | June 11, 2007, 7:56pm | #

Xalepa ta kala / no pain, no gain.

Jibbity | June 12, 2007, 12:54am | #

skeptic, have you seend this?

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822