A Revolution Betrayed?
This is the second installment in a symposium on the Ron Paul movement to be published in Taki’s magazine over the next two weeks. John Darbyshire’s contribution can be found here
The original title of this piece was to be “Which Way for the Paul Campaign?” but the candidate has preempted that by telling us, exactly, which way he is going. I’ll cite his statement in its entirety in order to give the reader the full flavor:
“Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans--and friends in many other countries--have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.”
With Romney out, and only the Huckster holding the fort (so far) against a total McCainiac takeover, it looks like the inspirer of the biggest eruption of old-fashionied Old Right populism since the campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan is taking his final bows:
“Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no 3rd party run. I do not denigrate third parties;just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.”
“I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.”
“In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.”
To summarize: the presidential campaign is in limbo, there will be no third party run, and we’ll get back to you later about what we’re going to do with all that money we raised ($6 million still unspent).
As Representative Paul put it: Whoa!
Let’s rewind, slowly: To begin with, there never was that much chance of a brokered convention. It isn’t the Republican way: and if Paul is saying he somehow hoped to at least wield influence on the process by parlaying his delegates as bargaining chips, then it’s hard to believe that’s what many thousands of Paulians nationwide were working for.
Secondly, we know Rep. Paul doesn’t denigrate third parties--after all, he ran as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988--but he doesn’t mention that, merely reiterating that “of course” he is “committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party.” One’s heart sinks: where has he been this whole campaign? Didn’t he notice that, in spite of the respectable crowds of thousands that flocked to hear him on the campaign trail, he rarely pulled more than 10 percent of the vote in mostly closed GOP primaries? His appeal is to younger, non-Republican independent voters, not to your typical GOP primary goer: he cannot realize his full electoral potential without running as a third-party candidate.
Indeed, the field has never been more inviting for a third-party candidate of the Right, as the man conservatives love to hate takes his place as the GOP standard-bearer in 2008. Such a run has been expected, and even welcomed by many right-wing activists, such as Mark Krikorian writing in National Review online:
“A third-party candidate for president may be essential for limiting the damage to Republicans in Congress. For instance, the Libertarian and Constitution parties, which are on the ballot in almost all states, could agree on a joint anti-McCain ticket (with one person from each party); yes, I’m sure they can’t stand each other, but the question is whether they fear McCain more. Such a ticket could conceivably get 1 or 2 percent of the vote, and some of those voters would otherwise have stayed home, potentially spelling the difference between congressional Republicans getting creamed like 1974 and merely suffering small losses that could be reversed in Hillary’s mid-term election, after she’s made a hash of things. Would such a strategy cost McCain the election, by siphoning away people who’d otherwise hold their noses and vote for him? Two things: first, I want him to lose, and second, he’s going to lose regardless. So congressional Republicans need to do whatever they can (and maybe that’s not much) to save themselves from the deluge.”
With the Krikorians of the world just waiting for the opportunity to cast a protest vote, Paul’s dismissal of the third-party option is mysterious and inexplicable. The idea that he would have to use up his millions to secure ballot status is nonsense: the Libertarians have ballot access in most states, and those few which are problematic could be managed just as they have been in the past.
Thirdly, this business about saving his congressional seat is just a lot of malarkey: Representative Paul has millions in cash on hand, which he can readily use for his congressional campaign. Furthermore, his opponent in the GOP primary--no Democratic candidate has bothered to file--is a Republican town councilman who hasn’t raised much money outside his own family circle and has mainly loaned money to himself. Another candidate, one Andy Mann, a NASA contractor, has also filed, although I can’t quite figure out why he’s running. In short: Paul has never had much trouble getting re-elected to Congress. So that’s not what’s really going on here.
The reality is that for Ron Paul to rule out a third-party run, at this point;when his announcement of just such a move would have had maximum impact;is a tragic error, one that we will look back on and regret all the more as time goes on. It is a major opportunity, forever lost--because the Paul campaign, for all its educational impact, in the end means nothing absent an effort to take it all the way to November, and beyond.
Paul’s presidential campaign galvanized so much energy and enthusiasm that, at times, it mimiced the dimensions and depth of a real mass movement, that is, of a serious effort to recapture the GOP from the neoconservatives and inaugurate a new era on the Right. The Paul campaign ignited interest at both ends of the political spectrum, and drew in a broad array of activists and more passive supporters (contributors and voters) that, despite their ideological diversity, showed remarkable cohesion and an amazing degree of self-organization. As a grassroots phenomenon, it has outpaced anything seen in the libertarian movement or, indeed, on the far right side of the political spectrum; since the storied days of Barry Goldwater.
Even as he was announcing the de facto suspension of his presidential campaign, Paul was garnering 21 percent of the vote in the Washington state primary. Aside from which, Paul’s dedicated activists have managed to pull off a number of similar coups in caucus states, where organization and dedication count for more. On Super Tuesday, a North Dakota newspaper reported, “In the northwestern corner of the state, a farmer spray-painted “RON PAUL” on seven large hay bales stacked beside a highway. The campaign set down roots in the Midwest, where the candidate’s staunch antiwar views and strict constitutionalism resonated in places like Montana” western plains. But this was no regional phenomenon: in cities and towns, as well as the rural bastions of “isolationism” and hillbilly anarchism, the Ron Paul Revolutionaries were on the march. In San Francisco, Paulistas went door-to-door soliciting votes, while, in New York, the candidate’s supporters rallied in Grand Central Station. Thousands flocked to his campaign rallies, and Ron Paul Meet-up groups have sprung up by the hundreds all across the country.
Furthermore, all this activity generated more publicity in the mainstream media than any comparable candidate: national newspapers, magazines, television, and the Internet have all featured interviews, profiles, stories, and editorials that have focused attention on Paul, and made him the subject of discussion from sea to shining sea. Two appearances on Jay Leno: more publicity than this no libertarian standard-bearer ever dreamed of.
The campaign seemed to have a lot going for it, at least initially, its most valuable asset being the candidate himself. Ron Paul emanates sincerity: it forms a veritable penumbra about his person. He is unique in Washington politics in that he is a man of principle: his stance is best described as intransigently libertarian. That he has become an unlikely kind of cult figure, especially among the younger set, is one of the most interesting aspects of the Paul phenomenon: his very modesty inspires adulation.
This Paul youth movement--a far more serious, and, in the long run, more significant phenomenon than the Obama fad in the same demographic--is a response, in part, to Paul’s unmitigated radicalism. The congressman they call ”Dr. No” isn’t some fellow-traveling conservative who sometimes mouths libertarian rhetoric, and even occasionally means it: this is someone who not only opposes the welfare state, but also speaks out against the warfare state. Paul goes out of his way to make the connection between his economic views and the most controversial aspect of his libertarian platform, an angular anti-imperialism. During the debates, for example, he rarely let an opportunity go by without referring to the rising material and moral costs of our overseas empire.
Paul set out, I think consciously, to recreate the Old Right coalition on contemporary terrain. Was he so astonished by his own success that he pulled back at the last moment? We can’t know that, but what we can ask is why he failed to give us the leadership implicit in his presidential bid. After all, when you run for president, and put yourself at the head of a movement, you have a responsibility to follow through: you’re asking your supporters to make a commitment, and, implicit in that, is an unwritten agreement on the candidate’s part to follow through.
It’s ironic, and telling, that in the wake of his scale-back announcement, Paul’s supporters pulled off a substantial achievement by garnering some 20-plus percent of the Washington state caucus vote. That result underscores an important point. The people who went through all the trouble to find the caucus locations, show up on time, and sit through the involved caucus procedures, where some kind of political commitment and even savvy is required, were and are serious about politics and about ideas. To now tell them to go home and await further orders is simply not wise: it is demoralizing, and it wastes the momentum--the intellectual momentum--enjoyed by Paul and the campaign to date.
What really scared the substantial anti-Paul contingent among the conservative GOP establishment is that they looked at the youth movement he had generated and saw that this was the future of their movement and their party--if it was to have a future. The venomous smear campaign organized by the Orange Line Mafia, and the hooligan-style assault launched by Bill Kristol and the worst of the neocons, such as David Frum, was simply a defensive war, at least on their part. After all, Paul has continually gone after the neoconservatives, explicitly pointing to them as the real source of the GOP’s problems. His campaign was and is a dagger pointed at the heart of the neocon network in the Republican party, and they responded in kind – that is, in the only way they could, not with a refutation of Paul’s ideas but with smears and a campaign based entirely on the “principle” of guilt-by-association. I’ve covered that campaign here, here, and here, and won’t get into specifics, except to say that, in assessing the effect of the Paul campaign, this chapter takes on special significance.
Every political movement that has an ounce of vitality in it evolves over time, it develops in response to events even as it tries to shape those events: new leaders arise, and other fall by the wayside, in a process of natural selection that keeps the movement healthy--or, conversely, causes it to decline. Up until the launching of the Paul campaign, the libertarian movement--and, more broadly, the paleoconservative-Constitutionalists who occupy the space to the right of National Review--had fallen into a precipitous degeneration. The various “far right” third parties were all fading into the woodwork, with the Libertarians a shadow of their former selves, having “reformed” their platform into the ideological equivalent of vaporware and nearly expired from a fatal dose of “pragmatism.”
Intellectually, the situation was even worse: the Reason crowd and the Cato Institute types constituted the Beltway fraction of a “libertarian” movement that had basically made its peace with the welfare-warfare state. A significant proportion, albeit not all, of these Beltway types rationalize their ideological adaptation to Washington politics-as-usual with a grand over-arching Panglossian theory of increased wealth guaranteeing a very long-term triumph of libertarian principles.
When the Paul campaign appeared on the scene, the instinctive reaction of this crowd was repulsion: after gauging that their libertarian readers and supporters were strongly favorable, they abruptly switched their line--but merely bided their time. When the smear campaign started, the Beltway battalions of the “official” libertarian movement went into action, with statements from Cato bigwigs as well as vitriolic attacks on Paul in the online edition of Reason.
Of course, when anyone looked at the alleged “hate” in his infamous newsletters, and at the accusations leveled in The New Republic and by Marty Peretz’s “libertarian” cohorts, as I did, it became all to clear that the big objection had nothing to do with what was actually written. Paul’s real crime, in the view of his critics, was the very idea of appealing to what is, after all, Ron Paul’s mass base: rural, white, home-schooling, primarily Midwestern farmers and lower-middle class small business owners and blue- collar workers. For the Beltway “libertarians,” this simply will not do. As Radley Balko, of the Cato Institute, lamented: “The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.”
The Ann Althouses of this world amount to a very small percentage of the general population: after all, what if we got together all the cranky, neoconnish know-it-all female lawyers--;would we even have enough to fill a small room?
Yet it is unfair to apply this argument to the Beltway types, who couldn’t care less about building a real political movement outside the confines of the Georgetown cocktail party circuit. That’s why they care more about the Ann Althouses of this world than they do about that North Dakota farmer who spray-painted “RON PAUL” on hay bales. Heck, they’re embarrassed that Paul won his highest vote totals in rural districts like North Dakota and Montana. Why, those places are nowhere, they don’t matter: only the Washington-New York-Hollywood axis matters: the rest is fly-over country, which, if it isn’t exactly uninhabited, is certainly empty intellectually, as least as far as the Orange Line Mafia is concerned.
This “scandal” was actually a good thing for libertarians, and the broader “freedom movement” that Paul often refers to: in separating out the professional boot-lickers and careerists in Washington, and showing them up for what they are--basically a tame “libertarian” side-show, run and maintained financially by neocons--the newsletter controversy had a salutary effect on the movement. In struggling to identify itself, and refine its sense of who are its friends, and who are its enemies, the emerging right-wing populist tendency represented by the Paul campaign received an intensive education that it will not soon forget.
Ron Paul’s great achievement has been to inspire a veritable army of Myrmidons, who seemingly rose up out of the earth in response to his summons, and whose numbers and fervor astonished the candidate--and this writer, who has been laboring in the vineyard of the “movement,” lo these many years now, and has never seen its like.
Paul’s great error, on the other hand, is to literally throw this army away, demobilize and demoralize it, with a curt announcement: surely they deserve--we all deserve--a little more than that.
Finally, the Paul campaign needs to reconsider its summary rejection of the third-party route. This is an historic opportunity that will not reoccur any time soon. McCain is enormously unpopular with conservatives who will turn to Paul in increasing numbers--if only there is something for them to turn to. Concerns about Paul’s congressional seat are overblown: that cannot be the real reason for the sudden drawing in. It is a question of what will be the legacy of the Paul campaign: will it be yet another ephemeral right-wing populist effort that, in the end, came to nothing--or will it lay the basis for a new organization, perhaps a new party of the Right--or, in any event, a vehicle for the movement to take a more activist form?
As Murray N. Rothbard, the founder of the modern libertarian movement, put it in the scintillating final chapter of The Ethics of Liberty:
“The Marxists have correctly perceived that two sets of conditions are necessary for the victory of any program of radical social change; what they call the ‘objective’ and the ‘subjective’ conditions. The subjective conditions are the existence of a self-conscious movement dedicated to the triumph of the particular social ideal--conditions which we have been discussing above. The objective conditions are the objective fact of a ‘crisis situation’ in the existing system, a crisis stark enough to be generally perceived, and to be perceived as the fault of the system itself.
“It is such a breakdown that stimulates a sudden search for new social alternatives and it is then that the cadres of the alternative movement (the ‘subjective conditions’) must be available to supply that alternative, to relate the crisis to the inherent defects of the system itself, and to point out how the alternative system would solve the existing crisis and prevent similar breakdowns in the future. Hopefully, the alternative cadre would have provided a track record of predicting and warning against the existing crisis.”
The crisis, as anyone can see, is all around us: the objective conditions are not only ripe, they are over-ripe. Ron Paul has indeed been a prophetic voice: his warnings that we’re headed for a financial 1930s-style meltdown are well-known, and, yes, he and his movement do relate the crisis to the inherent defects of a financial system and foreign policy regime that is pushing us into bankruptcy. Yet without an organized movement--not only an electorally-oriented party, but the sort of literary and activist apparatus that provides the institutional and political basis for the rest--the opportunity to change the world, instead of simply analyzing it from the sidelines, is irretrievably lost.
Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and author of the soon to be republished Reclaiming the American Right.
[Photo Courtesy of Ron Paul 2008]
Comments
Justin, Justin. I was pretty mad reading this. You think he is “throwing” away the movement? And you jump to conclusions that he is dropping out, when he clearly rejected that notion already. You misread the letter and, in fact, I think a ghostwriter wrote it anyways (gotta love Paul and his ghostwriters!)
And instead of defending Paul’s position, which is he did not write those letters, you defend the letters.
Justin, watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As this presidential cycle begins to wind towards its conclusion, many have asked if Ron Paul is still in the race. The answer is an emphatic yes, but to ask this question really misses the bigger picture. Dr. Paul has made it clear that he will continue to compete for every delegate in order to wield maximum influence at the convention and to make positive changes in the platform.
The influence that we can have is hardly limited to winning the nomination and there is still much work to do. By putting the maximum number of delegates on the convention floor, we can get our people in the rules committee and the platform committee as well as having a voice in the decision-making that can only be done by delegates. The power of having as many Ron Paul Republicans on the floor as possible — in order to talk to other delegates, make our case, debate, and convince them that our message is a true conservative message — cannot be overstated. Delegates represent the most influential and active members of the party.
Dr. Paul has said from day one that this campaign was not about him, but rather about ideas. He has carried the message with great dignity and clarity. We have listened, acted, and shared those ideas with millions of our fellow Americans. He has infused the national debate with monetary policy, Constitutionalism, non-interventionism, and hope. But changing the national dialogue is only one measure of the success of this movement.
In Alaska, Ron Paul supporters have put forward new planks to the state party platform that will alter the philosophical and policy direction of the party and its candidates. In many states, hundreds of newly-minted Ron Paul Republicans have taken up positions within their local party apparatus, in roles ranging from precinct officers to county and state party leaders. Some have joined Young Republicans and Republican women’s groups; others have made the commitment to run for office at all levels. Have no doubt, the R3volution is in full swing!
Already, commentators have begun to pick up on the actual scope and power of what we are accomplishing. Newsmax has Dr. Paul on the cover with an article that says, in part, that like Goldwater he may change the GOP forever. This is also the prediction of former Bush I advisor Doug Wead, who wrote, “…the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan.”
The bottom line is this: This is not Ron Paul’s revolution, it is ours. Dr. Paul has shown us the path, but it is up to us to take it. We must continue to fight to make our voice heard within the GOP by remaining engaged, promoting our ideas and the candidates that embody those ideas. We must keep the issues in the public debate. We must fund, promote, and work tirelessly for the organizations and individuals who have and will emerge as the leadership of our movement in the months and years ahead.
This is not the end, it is only the beginning. GOP dinosaurs roared their frustration that a bunch of previously disengaged citizens would show up at their meetings and caucuses to make their voices heard and demand change in the direction of the party. The old guard believe that they have weathered the storm, beaten back our efforts, and can now return to the business of promoting welfare, warfare, and graft without the light of day being shown on their hypocritical and failing worldview. They are wrong.
We are Ron Paul Republicans. We are Constitutionalists. We are the future and we will not be silenced.
Don Rasmussen
Special Assistant
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jumped the gun a bit there Raimondo…
See you in DC?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oh, I forgot about that. Ron Paul is planning a huge rally in Washington D.C., with hopes to get as big as it did the 60s. Well, at least half that big :). We need to make a statement, be believes, and what better way than a March on Washington?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ron Paul is serving his function nicely. He is getting the word out (although I would have liked to have seen him interject himself into the debates a bit more aggressively, but I recognize that that is not his country gentleman style).
But more importantly, he is bringing dignity and integrity to the process. Anyone watching the debates, whether they agree with Paul or not, has to recognize: hey, this guy has principles and class. And those are qualities that voters remember.
As the mad-dog mainstream Republicans and Democrats inevitably reveal themselves for the classless curs that they are in the coming years, Paul has the opportunity to function as a paleocon-libertarian kingmaker. And the American people will remember his class, and respect his judgment.
As I think you yourself, Justin, observed, it took a Goldwater to produce a Reagan. Who will Paul’s candidacy produce? I think he’s laying the groundwork for something big.
He should run as a Republican to the bitter end in order to maximize the cause’s publicity, but should also stay true to his pledge not jump ship to another party. His integrity is his most valuable commodity.
(Now having said this, Paul NOT running as a Libertarian is sure to help McCain, and that is not a good thing.)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Don Rasmussen, I appreciate your comments and concerns, and I believe I have answered them here:
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_march_to_nowhere/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There is a Danish adage to the effect that every man’s death is another man’s bread. There will be an election to replace the late Tom Lantos, a leftist warmonger. The odds on favorite had already been anointed by the dying solon and probably mirrors his positions. The district is heavily Democratic. It is likely ripe for an antiwar pitch. It is in the Bay area. Special elections are prone to upsets. A GOP contender in Massachusetts recently scared the hopelessly entrenched Democratic machine out of its wits. It is in your neighborhood, Justin, why not give it a whirl? It could be made into a high profile contest. Congressman Raimondo, it has a nice ring to it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Betrayal is a very strong word.
First, we may win the war by winning the argument. That is how we lost, when we started arguing how much regulation, how much war, how much security instead of if we should regulate, if we should go to war, etc.
Second, we cannot win America by making the same mistakes the current administration is making in Iraq. I would defer to William Sturgis Lind on both fronts, so if he says a march is useless or a 3rd party run would accomplish something (I would reverse your titles, a run to nowhere v.s. a march to victory).
Do we need “a surge”? Shock and Awe? What?
Super Tuesday is over, so the one big battle day is past. Maintaining a super-tuesday sized campaign doesn’t make sense.
Meanwhile, the Paulite insurgency is taking over the county, then district, and eventually the state conventions. There may be some surprises in St. Paul.
Sometimes you just have to retire to valley forge and wait the winter to fight the next battle - of your choice of time and place.
I expect the economy, markets, etc. to crash. Had it happened in January, Paul would have enough delegates to be nominated. It will happen.
But not unlike Bush, you want the big photo-ops, to have some kind of “Mission Accomplished” banner. Is the march that? No. Is it more press? Yes, but the troops need to know they aren’t some small force on the side.
If Sabrin and a few others get into the house and senate holding the margin over a divided congress - where every bill is brokered - it might have even more impact.
The Revolution will live. As to how to make it thrive, I doubt either of us know. But some things we need to let play out. Forget the push-button instant gratification society. It took years to disconnect from King George III, emperor George XLIII might take just as long.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Once again
1. Americans, unlike Europeans, lack the skills to form political parties. Gringos tend to be attracted to telegenic and charismatic personalities both in religion and politics, instead of creed and ideology/program/platform.
Of course the author is correct about 3rd party. We could do well indeed with 6 or 10 parties.
2. It’s a sad fact that Libertarians, libertarians, Austrian Schoolmen, and Ron Paulistas are such free spirits that they especially are unable to do the work of party formation. Such formation involves temporary compromises for the sake of long range goals. Such formation involves even more having a leader (local, provincial, country) and followers following the leader.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ron Paul is the Eugene McCarthy of the Right...I’ve always thought that Ron Paul’s popularity is more “populist” then “libertarian”, for instance the opossition to a “National BanK”, ie, the FED, has been a populist position since Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. His anti-interventionist, anti-internationalist position seems more like the old anti-imperialism of the People’s Party or the Progressive Party then some imagined “Old Right”...that never existed except in Justin’s fevered imagination.
The Ron Paul campaign has failed to influence the direction of the country as I predicted, although Ron Paul has been tremendously successful compared to the so-called “antiwar” Left, like Kuchinch or Nader.
It’s a beginning, but it’s main problem is the main problem the “right has faced from the beginning, this blend of “fusionism"---trying to combine Wall Street econommics with populist sentiments on social and foreign policy issues.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hey, Sid:
“Gringos” put men on the moon and got them back alive. About half a dozen times. More that 35 years ago. “Gringos” are THE reason you live in the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world – and not some bongo confederacy of Greater Ooga Booga.
“Gringos” have the intellectual power and depth of courage to accomplish anything – ANYTHING – they DAMN well please, if their passions are aroused.
Of course, that contradicts all the rules of the up-is-down, night-is-day ga-ga world in which you live - a jumbled parallel universe where any ass-backwards wish becomes historical reality.
Dr. Paul SAID he would not run on a third-party ticket. Astoundingly – breathtakingly – he is keeping his word. I’m disappointed. But he hasn’t “betrayed” anything or anyone.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Americans, unlike Europeans, lack the skills to form political parties.”
Sid:
You might fancy yourself a one-man reverse dialectic, wearing whatever socio-historical ideological hat that fits the occasion, but this is pure ignorance.
Do yourself a favor and take a course about electoral politics at your local community college. It’s all about the electoral system.
Europeans form more political parties because of the electoral systems there, particularly proportional representation. Not single-member districts. It’s pure logic.
For an example of a country with a functioning three-party system, take the UK, which in many ways falls somewhere between America and Europe in its electoral system.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
We can’t know that, but what we can ask is why he failed to give us the leadership implicit in his presidential bid. After all, when you run for president, and put yourself at the head of a movement, you have a responsibility to follow through: you’re asking your supporters to make a commitment, and, implicit in that, is an unwritten agreement on the candidate’s part to follow through.
Mr. Raimondo is spot on and, of course, he must now be vilified for writing the truth.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A candidate who references Trotsky in a campaign statement isn’t fit to be president of anything. Later in this column, Justin inserts a quote about the correct perception of Marxists. No surprise. Anybody who reads Raimondo knows he’s a barely-closeted commie.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Question to the group here; does Ron Paul have to agree to run as a third party candidate to be the nominee for a third party? In other words could a third party not nominate him against his will or acceptance? In this way he could receive votes on a third without breaking his vow to not run as a third party. Or there is also the possibillity that the Constitution Party Candidate could vow to step down in favor of Ron Paul should he win the election, which is still a longshot but it leaves us with the Ron Paul momentum and machine in place with something to support into November.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The last time a 3rd party posed a credible threat to the two-party system was the Bull Moose campaign of TR, whose popularity among Republicans was great enough to split the vote and deliver the republic into the hands of the leftist Woodrow Wilson. I doubt that the good doctor can pull that off this November.
Dr. Paul can have a greater impact by staying in the GOP. For one thing, he can serve to remind voters with an inferior knowledge of history (hardly a minority!) that the party once opposed crusades for democracy (until the neocon wing of the Democrats migrated to the GOP).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m pretty sure Justin is wrong about Dr Paul being able to draw from his presidential war chest for his Congressional bid but I’m no FEC lawyer.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This movement is far from over. One of the rallying points for this movements was at the ron paul forums. They are going to keep this movement going at LibertyForest.com
Ron Paul has put up a long hard fight. I do not blame him for wanting to go back to Congress.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin Raimondo is absolutely correct. Moments such as these are rare, indeed. Listen, enough with the GOP, for God’s sake: Clyde Wilson is right, they have been the biggest impediment to the implementation of serious conservative ideas. Kudos, too, to Mr. Maruska: the biggest mistake of Pat Buchanan’s career was failing to pursue a third party run. PJB has never been able to overcome his visceral loyalty to party. Let us hope Dr. Paul can and will.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Delusion runs rampant. Ron Paul has proved very little, sadly. Any revolution will be from Obama. So sit back and allow four years of Obama. The wreck that four years of those administrations will guarantee abortion on demand continues unabated, and worse, partial birth abortions, even worse quite probably. McCain is clearly the lesser of evils. Not voting, or voting for Obama, in any way allowing an Obama presidency, is unacceptable to me. And should be to all who care. McCain’s faults be damned.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Excellent article and analysis Justin. In reading the discussion, I’m reminded of a Ron Paul quote in one of the last debates: “they are arguing over technicalities of a policy they both agree with.” All of us realize we are witnessing something monumental, but we differ on where to go from here. The important thing is to remember what has brought us all together, and not devolve into factions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The complaints are well stated and fair in their logic to a point, but I would not call Dr. Paul’s decision not to run third part a mistake--and certainly not “a revolution betrayed"--it is just an alternate course which time might show was the best course. As many of the comments note above, the political system is completely rigged against third parties. Does Mr. Raimondo really think Dr. Paul could have done any better with a third party run than Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, or Ross Perot? Nader, Buchanan, and Perot all had devoted followings, good name recognition--and, in the case of Perot, billions in the bank to spend on a campaign. Yet, despite all valiant efforts of these and many other very worthy candidates, the two party system is nevertheless alive, well, and thriving as of 2008. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who runs the largest city in the country, has billions in the bank, and owns a media company was considering running third party, but according to recent news reports he appears to have given the idea up as it requires too daunting an effort. Realistically, with Dr. Paul running third party, we were looking at a candidacy which would have carried no states and which would have had, at best, just a few percentage points of voter support in the general election. This is not the fault of Dr. Paul or the Paulian message. This is the system--a system which belittles third party candidates, starves them of funds, gives them media coverage, and throws every possible legalistic barrier in their way just to run for office. As the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, knew the well the huge obstacles involved and passed to fight another day on a more even battlefield.
Instead of waging an inherently futile effort to gain the presidency via a third party (or coalition of third parties), Dr. Paul and the rEVOLution are going to wage a guerrilla fight inside the party for its soul against the neocons. The neocons have control of the party, but there are many pockets of opposition within the party and its institutions that the Paulites can ally with. And if, as anticipated, Obama and the Dems crush McCain and the GOP in the November elections opposition to the neocons will skyrocket like never before within the party, and the party will be seeking to rebuild from the ground up in the aftermath. It is in this latter scenario that Dr. Paul could actually become the party’s nominee come 2012.
One last point. As acknowledged by Mr. Raimondo, the freedom movement which Dr. Paul and the rEVOLution have sparked is bigger than Dr. Paul or any one candidate. Former Congressman Bob Barr is increasing being talked about as a Libertarian Party and/or fusionist Libertarian-Constitution Party presidential candidate. Congressman Barr, who introduced Dr. Paul at the recent CPAC conference, looks a good, media savvy candidate who is more than able to carry the torch of the freedom movement in the general election. I really think Mr. Raimondo should redirect his efforts away from criticizing Dr. Paul for not running third party, and rather refocus his efforts to convincing former Congressman Barr to run Libertarian-Constitution Party as its presidential nominee.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Dr. Paul has tried that whole 3rd party thing before (Libertarian Party, 1988) and it didn’t work out so well. Not to mention the “Sore Loser” law in Texas. In Texas, you can run for President/VP and your seat in Congress at the same time, but if you do, you will lose your seat if you run for president on a 3rd party ticket. (think of it as the “Lloyd Bensen Law”.
Perhaps he wants to stay in Congress. If he ran 3rd party, he’d lose, and lose his congressional seat as well.
Unfortunately, the American electoral system is really stacked against 3rd party candidates. Whether this Sore Loser law would be in effect if, say, the Libertarian or Constitution parties decided to put Dr. Paul on the ballot without his say-so remains to be seen.
There is some sort of group or movement which is working getting like-minded people elected to Congress. I think this is worthwhile. Even if by some miracle, Paul would be elected, he couldn’t do much without liberty-loving congresspeople, of which there are unfortunately few.
Also there’s some noise over at lewrockwell.com about drafting Bob Barr to run for Prez as 3rd party. (He introduced Ron at CPAC and has come a long way since his old standard right wing Republican congressman days and is now a civil libertarian).
I’d rather have Obama than McCain. McCain is not temperamentally suited to be president. I’d be worried that he’d go off on one of his rages and nuke Iran or Russia or something. The idea of his finger on the nuclear button is scary. My plan is to write in Dr. Paul unless Virginia is close, then’d I’d vote for Hilary or Obama to keep Dr. Strangelove out of the White House.
Basically, most people in America want the government to take care of them and it will take awhile, if ever, to get people back to the idea of freedom and self-determination. I think it’s the work of a generation, not just an election cycle or two. Like some comedian recently noted about Paul’s 5% polling in many places “5% of the American people want freedom, the other 95% want free stuff!”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s pretty funny to us mainstream Republicans. Paul sure loves that fiat money he doth protest too much. At least he’ll use that money to maintain his Congressional seat, where he remains rather innocuous. His unwillingness to work within the current political framework is perhaps our greatest asset, i.e. he’s absolutely harmless on the fringe.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
McCain is not temperamentally suited to be president. I’d be worried that he’d go off on one of his rages and nuke Iran or Russia or something. The idea of his finger on the nuclear button is scary
I am still afraid Bush will sit on it by accident
Click to flag this comment as abusive
How does this public display of dissatisfaction with a movement’s leader possibly help the movement? This has always been a problem in libertarianism- group action to promote individualism is almost a contradiction in terms.
Too many chiefs and not enough indians.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Really Doug H., funny? I hope you find a McCain, Obama, or Clinton presidency funny too. Unfortunately they will be far from unable to cause us any harm. No, harm will be a ridiculous understatement. We will be looking for words that will describe a bigger disaster than Bush.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Bottom line:
Whatever happens from here on out, Ron Paul has overcome all odds and is now a national voice with a national following.
The best way to keep that voice viable and focal is to keep him in the House and in the party. Out of the ashes of the ass-kicking the Pubs will get in 2008, Ron Paul will lead the restoration of genuine paleo/libertarian/conservatism.
Using up his hard won national influence in a wasted, quixotic third party run would be disastrous.
It is time to support his decision and trust his judgement. While doing that we must unite to elect Ron Paul candidates to the House and Senate.
As few as 5-6 Ron Pauls in the House and 2-3 in the Senate and this nation would be on a different course.
It is time for Paulites to pull together and get to work. Find a candidate or two...or three, who are Ron Paul politicians and lets get them elected!
http://www.paulcongress.com
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
Where do you get your facts? It is against the law for Ron Paul to use any of the money from his Presidential Campaign for his Congressional Campaign unless he drops out of the race. He has not done that officially and so, both he and his opponent in the Congressional race are very close in funds.
I just hope your readers are better educated and will know that Ron Paul needs a lot of cash for his Congressional bid and the primary for that race is March 4th - right around the corner. I hope your inaccuracies have not hurt his chances at getting enough money to get his house seat back.
Or are you so angry at him that you don’t even want him back in Congress?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I read Don Rasmussen’s comment above and it seemed to back everything that Justin has written. Perhaps Dr. Paul’s campaign didn’t realize that those of us giving him MONEY did so, not because we wanted some twisted version of Libertarianism spewed on the public, we did it because we wanted Ron Paul to win the candidacy. We supported him because he was the best, not perfect, not always right, but best hope any of us have seen in our lifetimes.
Mr. Rasmussen seems to make it clear that Ron Paul never really wanted to win, that all he wanted to do was teach, and for that, I am sorry, but I must call him a conman. He conned millions out of millions of dollars. He conned his supporters into thinking he really wanted to win, when he sabotaged his campaign’s chances at every turn.
He demoralized his supporters in Washington and the other states that were holding primaries and caucuses the day after he sent out that schizophrenic letter that said I quit, but I am still in the race, I can’t win, but send me money.
Mr. Rasmussen - if you folks were only in this for an educational experience, it would have been nice to tell your supporters. Did you really need more than twenty million dollars to go on a tour and give some lectures?
I call foul on Dr. Paul, Mr. Rasmussen and everyone else working for that campaign. Obviously, you never had any intention of winning and you took money away from people who need it the most because they believed in you. Many of those supporters will be paying back those donations on their credit cards for the many many years. Shame on you men.
Your actions are thoughtless and cruel to those that were looking for hope. That letter was the cruelest thing I have ever seen in print and to then request additional dollars on top of it, well, that shows a lack of decorum and borders on evil.
I could have overlooked the letter had Mr. Rasmussen not posted here making it clear that they never once made any attempt to win. Apparently, that was not the agenda for this con man’s agenda.
Perhaps Dr. Paul should have written that letter at the beginning of his campaign. If he didn’t want to win, don’t you think his supporters had the right to know?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
San Fernando Curt joins Delcassé, Treitschke, Cecil Rhodes, Beveridge, and Mazzini as a comical Nationalist blowhard. Mencken correctly analyzed this tendency among Gringos as a sign of their attempt to cover up their own sense of their real inferiority. His On Being an America and The Anglo-Saxon are required reading.
“DW” should do himself a favor and take a course on formal logic, informal logic, and fallacies at his local community college, as well as a course on contemporary Europe. For he has been the conclusion the premise, and put the proverbial horse before the proverbial cart. Those few European states that do have proportional representation have such BECAUSE Europeans have skills in forming parties, and thus demand proportional representation from the constitutions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great article Justin, except:
“This Paul youth movement--a far more serious, and, in the long run, more significant phenomenon than the Obama fad in the same demographic..”
You fail to show any proof for this assertion, nor could you in all likelihood.
The youth movement for both in question is as varied as the two candidates themselves.
The democrats are - especially for Obama, seeing large numbers of young and new voters. With nearly 40% of eligible American voters not casting votes in the 2004 election(which was the highest since 1968) - any increase for any party going ahead is a welcome outcome.
Don’t discount that ‘fad’, as it shows at least some health in the tired and sick American federal elections.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You were right for the most part, but you lost me when you jumped from his “base” being the “young people” to “white lower class farmers.”?
Which is it? FWIW, NONE of the young people I know who support Ron Paul are “farmers” and most of them are not comfortable with race-baiting and “paleo” class/racial-warfare that you, Rothbard, Buchanan seem so fond of.
The “future” movement has little to do with “populist” old white farmers ( or other old angry white guys who tend to scapegoat minorities and immigrants, and people who are literate). Sounds more like a John Edwards campaign to me. Let’s appeal to the angry people who can’t compete in the market. Aint nothing libertarian about that.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Carol:
Comments like these, though I am sure heartfelt, are unfair, overwrought and...disgraceful.
“Mr. Rasmussen seems to make it clear that Ron Paul never really wanted to win, that all he wanted to do was teach, and for that, I am sorry, but I must call him a conman. He conned millions out of millions of dollars. He conned his supporters into thinking he really wanted to win, when he sabotaged his campaign’s chances at every turn.”
Ron Paul is no conman and it is shameful to call him one. This 72 year old man has spent hours and hours, day and night, month after month pushing himself on cramped flights and buses, eating on the run, pursuing a schedule that would challenge a thirty year old. He has made appearance after appearance to seek votes and spread his message. And you have the gall to accuse him of not trying to win! Shame on you.
You call him a conman? Shame.
Take your money and go on a long hike...support like yours is unneeded.
An aside to Justin:
This is what happens when you hype up your opinions with words like “betrayel”.
Your own years ago experiences with the Libertarian Party should remind you of the futility of third party candidates. As you well know, the LP has done nothing more than elect a local dogcatcher or two and...provide cushy well paying jobs for the “National” directors.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Carol: The Ron Paul campaign may have made tactical and strategic errors, but it has run as competitive a campaign as anybody. We started with 11 candidates with Rudy Guiliani as the frontrunner and Fred Thompson as the party’s savior. Where are they all now? Except for McCain, Huckabee, and Dr. Paul they are all gone. Even moneybags, Mitt Romney. And the Ron Paul campaign continues all the way to the Republican convention. Dr. Paul is also running to retain his Congressional seat, so we will have his much needed voice in Congress. Dr. Paul (along with the rEVOLution) also will work his tail off to get other like-minded candidates elected in races across the country. This could include the general election. Dr. Paul won’t be endorsing McCain, but he may not just sit on the sidelines either. Perhaps endorses and campaigns enthusiastically for the Libertarian or Libertarian-Constitution Party presidential candidate, Bob Barr. And under the right circumstances such as say double digit or near double digit support for Barr in the polls, I think he could be persuaded to run as Barr’s VP.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s always a bad sign when a second press release is needed to clarify the first, as Lieutenant McCarthy deemed necessary. Make that three now, with Don Rasmussen’s in the mix.
Betrayal is accurate. I regard candidate Paul’s message as shockingly duplicitous, in every sense of the word.
“Let me get this straight”, after telling all these young people for months that we are on the verge of financial Armageddon, that the US government is essentially practicing “soft fascism”, that a military draft is inevitable, that with these and other looming threats the campaign needs your thousands of volunteer man-hours and millions of hard-earned dollars and it needs them now. Then suddenly, in the blink of an eye, the goalpost is moved. Hey, forget all that impending mayhem, it’s the message that counts! You and me, we can promote ideas, and educate, forever! Oh, and by the way, it’s not you, America, in need of my urgent care, but the Texas 14th.
Thinking Americans, you do not need a translator. Listen clearly to what this man said: “...there will be no Third Party run. I...have another priority… I am a Republican and will remain a Republican.”
For reasons privy only to conscience, Congressman Paul, a man of obvious intellect and apparent integrity, chooses to hang with a very bad crowd. The Republican party, jut like the other evil, is entirely corrupt.
Young patriots, move on. The fight is early and urgent; your resources and energy are needed elsewhere.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
JR’s RP movement was a delusion built upon trolls. And a lot of us had a lot of fun.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Samizdat: I don’t disagree with you that the Republican party establishment and its flacks in the media are “a very bad crowd” and so on but Dr. Paul won’t be on the invite list to their DC cocktail parties anytime soon (unlike say the CATO/Reason crowd), nor is Fox News about to abandon their position that Dr. Paul doesn’t exist/never existed. Look, I love the idea of third parties, but the cold reality of the matter is that third parties always fail and their candidates are almost always forgotten. The GOP has been half of two party duopoly system we have for 150 years. This won’t be changing this election cycle, or in the near future, and we need people like Dr. Paul and the rEVOLution fighting inside the GOP to change it before it destroys the country and world further. And barring a miraculous transformation of McCain from a champion of war to a champion of peace, Dr. Paul won’t be endorsing and campaigning for McCain in the general election. But I bet he would endorse and campaign with zeal for say a Bob Barr if he were to run third party.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Betrayed yes.
By whom… I would suggest Mssrs. Snyder and Moore as the main culprits (though you can toss in most of the rest of the staff “leadership” as well—the ones who seem incapable of replying to emails, returning phone calls, etc).
But it is the “management” (if such a word can be used) of the “campaign” (ditto) by Snyder, Moore & Co. that spent $17 MILLION of supporters hard earned dollars in the 4th quarter. Did I say spent… I meant squandered on worthless overpriced horribly amateurish TV, Radio and Printed mailers (at insane weights and mailing costs $4.5 MILLION for NH mailers???).
And as far as the “MSM conspiracy”—PUHLEASE stop the BS. If the campaign managers had two brain cells between them and bothered to rub them together, then they just *might* have hired someone, anyone (even part timer) as a Public Relations and Media Relations director. It’s NOT like they lacked the funds… thy had an extra $8 MILLION from 4th Qtr sitting around that they had absolutely NO CLUE how to spend. Just a single PR person could have done wonders for making contact with media, buttering them up a little (instead of p*ing them off continuously with accusations of “bias”—I mean you can accuse people just so much before they say F you and make the prophecy self-fulfilling).
But at it’s root… in many ways you ARE correct, Justin—it was RON’S responsibility to fire his “friends” and hire some COMPETENT PR and advertising people (plenty of professionals out there that are NOT Beltway “politicos") when the campaign started raising the kind of funds to be serious.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Paul has served in congress for what, 20 years? He knows how the system works and no doubt understands what is required in order to change its direction. Such a change requires committed people working from without and within the system we have. He’s done a fantastic job as a rally point for millions of us on the outside. What’s needed from here on out is his tutelage, encouragement, and resourcefulness in teaching us how to operate successfully from within. If we cannot be bothered to set down the television or computer or library books long enough to earn election to and serve on the local school board, village council or county board, then we’re doomed. It’s as simple as that. Politics, like life, is about active participation. Everything else is passive, perhaps even self-destructive, spectating.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Yes, yes,
The scary thing is that the GOP is a going to get smashed next fall, and then the Democrats are going to think that they are the people’s mandate for
making the government, ever so bigger, and ever so wasteful.
Already Paul was around double digits in national polls, and those
people who support him will still vote for him if he went
third party. With a third party announcement Paulites would
start the ballot process “now”, and begin to convert
as many as they can until Nov 4th.
His chances of winning would be slim, but he would be able
to garner a sizable vote that would make the other twp parties look
at what Paul stands for and absorb that into their platforms.
Plus it would create a stronger, bigger, group of liberty
loving fans that would branch out in every which way across the country
GREEN PARTY GUY: The Obama “thing” is just a fad because he is deviod
of any real change. A vote for Obama is a vote for
more Job Corp, more Peace Corp, and more Empire.
How is that change? Haven’t we been doing that for decades now?
Ron Paul is(was) the only change candidate.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
FYI. Please take note, none of Ron Paul’s
bumper stickers, buttons, lawn signs,
have ‘Republican’ printed anywhere. The official website does not mention ‘Republican’. Of the multiple ‘slim jim’ flyers, only one has ‘Republican’ on it.[the one with Ronald Reagan’s picture] It seems clear that the third party avenue was, at least early on, in the mix. Possibly because of his Republican Primary, he feels obligated to shun the third party route right now. I believe that there is strong sentiment within the Libertarians to draft Ron Paul. Better to ask forgiveness, than to ask permission.
The Libertarian Party would receive great benefits in terms of’coattailing’ for local candidates, and a surge in volunteers who are frustrated with the corrupt treatment by the Republicans. Even if he does not actively campaign as a Libertarian, at least those of us who will NEVER vote for any other candidate this time around, will be able to cast a principled vote.
The Libertarians do not have any other candidate who
could draw even a small percentage that Ron Paul will
receive in November. There is no downside with this scenario. Hey, it is only February. Lots can happen
before either convention!! Do not be surprised if McCain
self destructs soon. His liabilities far exceed his appeal.
This is the first classic idealogical battle of the Information Age. Who really knows how a three way race will turn out.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
CAROL’S comments are spot on.
With the way the campaign’s money was squandered (and I mean squandered… $17 MILLION was spent in the 4th Qtr—majority of it on NH—all the while the supporters thinking they were “sitting” on the cash and going to make a grand splash—instead we got a “splooch” or “sploit” of a couple REALLY BAD, amateurish TV ads and a whole lot of NOTHING in return.)
And then the audacity of the campaign leadership in REFUSING TO ADMIT that they had screwed up. They had wasted the cash, they had screwed up the strategy, and in losing NH they had NO PLANS WHATSOEVER for anything beyond that.
Don’t believe me? Look at the man’s event schedule. Lots of “rallies” (aka preaching to the choir) around the country pre-primaries. A few minor trips to Iowa, and a focus on New Hampshire…
After New Hampshire? Just about NOTHING. No real campaigning in South Carolina (how can RP fail to get Mark Sanford’s endorsement? Jeez, offer his the VP spot already, anoint him as your “Elisha” and give the supporters someone to rally around NEXT time… someone with some executive experience, etc.)
But back to the task… they had $8 MILLION left over—money they NEVER intended to raise, and never had a clue what to do with (because the plan—if it can be called that—was to WIN BIG in NEW HAMPSHIRE and then roll on to victory after victory from there) hence the foolishly spoken request for $23 MILLION MORE.
Of course the $23 MILLION was NOT forthcoming… because all the supporters said “HUH? WTF happened to the $20M?” and the campaign gave NO ANSWER. No answer at all, no explanation, nothing beyond “well, we made mistakes”—we had to wait for the FEC reports to even find out HOW MUCH had been spent (and finally lay to rest this ignorant idea that $20 M was going to be spent on Feb 5th, or that some huge amount had already been spent, but as a media PRE-BUY. HA!)
I dug through that FEC data like you wouldn’t believe—because if there had been any OUTRIGHT FRAUD then I would have started a class action suit. I still think one would be warranted—but alas doomed, because while it is outrageous that so much of so many people’s hard earned cash was squandered so wastefully, so amateurishly—well, the law says INTENT is all that is important, and even if they were completely incompetent, as long as they actually used the money on the campaign (which they DID do, however ineptly) then no crime was committed.
But on the ETHICAL level—I believe Carol is correct. A crime, a “con” was in fact committed. Promises were made by people incompetent to carry them out; unfortunately the money was DONATED, and there was no formal contract. So the incompetent “Snyder, Moore & Co” will continue to draw salaries until the campaign is dry, and then they will be free to walk away.
The only recompense is for the supporters to MEMORIZE the names of those men, and give them no quarter should they ever run into them in the future.
Like Justin’s Beltway Libertarians, Snyder, Moore & Co never showed anything but DISDAIN and DISGUST for the “blue-collar” and “small businessmen” who made up the RP movement—that should be, that MUST BE understood AND remembered by those who were so “conned.”
Again, Carol’s statements were (alas) all to apropos.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
So, Dr. Paul turns out to be a Republican, first and foremost. It’s disappointing that he rules out a run as a 3rd party candidate so that he can continue his career in the House .
That makes him look more like the career politicians he opposes there than he may realize.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m with Carol and JK on this one, sadly. It wasn’t just donations squandered, it was the the young couple I spotted outside my home one day. They were in their car with a baby and Arizona license plates. I noticed as my dog was barking and thought it unusual for this neck of the woods. The woman finally got out of her car and came to my door and left an RP leaflet. I called out to her as she was getting back in her car and she came back to speak to me, by now she knew I was a supporter. They had driven here from Arizona to campaign, they had little money but lots of enthusiasm, I wonder where they are today and how they feel. I was at RP campaign Hqs in Concord, our capitol. I was phone banking and mentioned to the office manager that I had telemarketing experience and would be willing to train folks to do that properly (it was set up completely wrong and the script was annoying and not worded to our advantage). They weren’t interested much. A group of 3 came in one day, 16 year old son, 40 something Mom, and 70 something Grandma. They were handed the script and told to work the phones. I looked at them occasionally and saw that they weren’t making any calls so wandered over to them and they related to me that they were anxious and intimidated to make the calls. I got them going, no one on the staff could have cared less and would have let them sit there till they got up and left. Ardent supporters, they were just timid folks. I wonder where they are today and how they feel. On Primary day my girlfriend went to the polls early before going to work. She called me to tell me that there were no Ron Paul supporters there holding signs but all the other candidates were represented. So, I grabbed my sign and went and stood there by myself. I got tired as I had no signpost so went home to make one and also emailed Hqs to tell them we needed folks here in Exeter, they never showed up. Another lone woman in Derry did the same thing, she too stood alone. Supposedly there were hundreds if not a thousand campaign workers, many from out of state, and they all congregated in Concord. RP got 601 votes in Concord and 167 votes here in Exeter. Concord had hundreds or workers, we had one here for most of the day and finally two Exeter guys showed up on the middle of the afternoon, surprised that there was only one other RP person.
I still support RP. Perhaps McCain will screw it up, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he did. But, much momentum has been lost and I don’t think a march on Washington will help much. How are these dedicated young folks going to get there after donating so much money and time, particularly here in NH. I don’t blame RP but I sure am not happy with how his staff managed the money and the campaign. I’ll wait for the miracle.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Do we have any chance at all of changing Ron Paul’s mind about running 3rd party? If yes, how do we change it? If no, where do we go from here? Some have mentioned drafting Bob Barr, but Bob Barr is no Ron Paul. After giving up my life since last June, I am totally devastated. I didn’t do this to educate the public or change the republican platform. I would be happy if the movement could have gotten the LP and the CP to merge. I would be happy if we could get whatever percentage we need to have the LP-CP become a major party. I would be happy if Ron Paul could have gotten more votes than McCain on an LP-CP ticket so that the republican party would die. The republican party stands for pre-emptive, perpetual war, torture, and the police state. The brand has been ruined and it’s a waste of effort to try to change it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Bill W., NH: I understand your disappointment, but let me make two points. First, the RP campaign is continues and is going to all the way to the national convention. And hey, with McCain’s famous temper, a McCain meltdown can happen at any time. Second, for all the people disappointed that RP didn’t run third party, many more within the Republican Party who supported the campaign--and who in some cases are running for office themselves--would have been upset and much worse had he left the party. This is a bigger movement than one man, and there are many people working within the GOP to push it in the direction of peace and liberty that need to be supported.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
Your reaction is overblown and incorrect.
As has been noted in other comments, Ron can’t use his presidential money for his congressional campaign unless he ends it first.
Ron has only temporarily redirected his time and attention to his congressional primary, which conveniently is also in an upcoming presidential primary state where the GOP awards delegates based on congressional district votes. Ads in the Houston/Galveston media market serve dual purposes.
Also noted above correctly, Texas’ “sore loser” law would likely prohibit him from running in Texas on some 3rd party presidential ticket.
Scaling down the campaign staff and spending is a rational response to the current circumstances. McCain’s near completion of the delegate majority means that Ron’s role in the primary will be largely symbolic and educational. You don’t need a huge operation for that.
Plus with donations waning, you have to conserve cash.
Finally, this talk of the Libertarian Party is easy for somelike like Justin who was last active there in the mid 80s. Raimondo was a prominent opponent of Ron’s 1988 LP bid if I recall.
The 3rd party route would be a step backward for the Ron Paul revolution.
The LP has former Republican congressman Bob Barr available and currently active in their leadership. There is a movement to draft Barr for the LP nomination (which will happen in May).
Barr would be a better choice to carry on that effort, a younger and fresher face.
Ron might very well endorse Barr on the LP ticket in September if McCain is nominated. But there is no good reason why Ron has to bear this burden again and many reasons for him to stay in the GOP.
Not the least of which is to maintain the Ron Paul revolution inside, not outside of the Republican Party.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The President has not been elected YET!!
There is a LONG WAY to go between now and November – when we will vote for the President. A lot of things can happen.
Ron Paul did not betray ANYBODY and he is still in the race.
Did anyone watch the Main Stream Media (MSM) EVERYTIME they talked about the Republican Candidates?
Lou Dobbs spouts off on the Immigration Problem and the War on the Middle Class. I have been listening to “Lou” for a while now and agree with 99% of this views. BUT…
The views he espoused ARE EXACTLY THE VIEWS RON PAUL SPOKE OF.
Open borders, Financial irresponsibility, runaway government spending… Yet every time I heard “Lou” before Super Tuesday, and even TODAY…HE ALWAYS spouts off as how “NONE OF THE REPUBLICANS”. Well, there is One, There has always been One, and There is ONLY One. RON PAUL.
I would watch the T.V. waiting for a chance to hear Ron Paul. Whenever these political EXPERTS spoke of Ron Paul – They always smirked and Laughed. Well they have just LAUGHED us into a SERIOUS financial crisis.
In every debate he was basically asked “Why are you running as a Republican?” “Are you going to run as a Third Party”. NEVER given any time.
He has been “censored” from the T.V. Every Day we were ‘BOMBARDED” with Campaign speeches From Mitt, John, Mike, Barack and Hillary. (Free TV time). All the expert political pundits went around “interviewing:” all these idiots.
Yet with even all the “censorship” his word got out.
Ron Paul WON EVERY REPUBLICAN DEBATE by the On-line polls. What was the MSM’s reaction: dismissed as “spammers”. Sean Hannity (Guliani backer), a supposed conservative gave VERY HOSTILE interviews with the good doctor…and GOT SLAMMED.
AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.
He has had to suffer all this hostility from the MSM and it just isn’t right.
Then we went into the voting…..Talk about Fraud and Deception. Goodness!
Ron Paul has said that he will not run as a Third Party Candidate. Good for him.
There are still a lot more states that haven’t had a chance to vote for the good doctor and if he changed parties….they wouldn’t be able too. That would be betrayal.
The Economy is about to tank. The “war” is not going well, especially in Afghanistan,
The Money Borrowing from China – will end in disaster.
McCain, Huckabee, Obama are members of the Counsel on Foreign Relations. (An elite group promoting World Government and the demise of the United States.
Clinton is CFR and attends meetings of Bilderburg and they are even more powerful than the CFR.
These people ARE CONTROL FREAKS. It is all about POWER AND CONTROL.
Yet the message of Ron Paul has gotten out and it is getting STRONGER!!!
The Global elites are now trying to control the Internet!!! Without the Internet Ron Paul’s message would have been “snuffed” out months ago.
Like I said, WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE NOVEMBER.
I think McCain will CRACK UP before November.
I think Huckabee will be broke.
When the Economy sinks there will be ONLY ONE ANSWER.
RON PAUL
GO RON PAUL
See everyone in WASHINGTON!!!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Betrayed”
???
Be very careful, Justin.
Don’t go over to the dark side.
It’s a lie.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Many of us real combat veterans always knew Dr. Paul was a gatekeeper, bless his heart. He had my support but not my brain. Thinking for yourself and doing the required study is important these days, more than ever. Democracy is dangerous, it stops folks from responding and slowly boils them alive in false hope. I know folks around Dr. Paul and they enjoy the work on judicial-inc.biz and jewwatch.com read many books and prepare for action not hope.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m afraid that if he did go third party, the media would dog-pile him about this supposed “breaking of his word”. I also think that even if McCain imploded and lost, which will probably happen anyway, Dr. Paul would get the blame for being another “Texas kook” who saddled us with yet another Clinton in office. And then, any of the Republicans which might still be convinced about the true nature of the present Republican party would never again heed the Siren’s call of freedom and responsible economics.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
An interesting and thoughful discussion. Some points to consider:
1) the information from the Ron Paul campaign has been consistently that the Republican Presidential campaign is in full swing and will continue. So the perception that campaign is in “limbo” or is being given up on is wrong.
2) While Paul’s opponents in his Texas primary may be “weak”, the first rule in politics is never underestimate your opponent. If Paul loses the primary, it will be pointed to as a weakness of Paul, which is what the MSM will focus on. Paul’s viability, to a certain extent, depends on winning his primary.
3) The decision to run or not run on a Third Party ticket is a tactical one. I don’t know what the Paul campaign’s assessment was. It may have simply been that, judging by recent history, it is much easier to work within an already established Party than to build an entire third party. The Republican Party is a bigger brand name and has a larger base than the Libertarian or other parties. Plus, if Paul were to run on a third party ticket, and it would have to be an established third party such as the Libertarians, this would probably be spun by the MSM, and may be perceived by some libertarians, as Paul’s effort to hijack the Libertarian Party to serve his own presidential ambitions. There are disadvantages to a third party run that have to be considered.
4) The bottom line is that a new movement has to be developed (and as you emphasize, a comprehensive social movement, not just a political organization). This can be attempted by using either the Republican Party or a third party as the political arm. But the attempt must be made either way.
All indications are that Paul has decided that the best tactical route to the strategic goal of a genuine constitutional party is through the Republican Party. We shouldn’t prejudge whether this is an error or not. If the movement doesn’t unite behind Paul, then there isn’t a movement. It may be that the third party route becomes the best option in the future, but second-guessing Paul at this point essentially dooms his effort to failure.
5) One could just as easily focus on getting all the third parties to join the Republican Party in support of Paul’s campaign and the movement developing around him. This would involve efforts to work with progressive/Left groups that are anti-war and anti-corporate welfare. In other words, a hijacking of the Republican Party, combined with some mutiny from within the Party (by disaffected conservatives), so that the Party’s apparatus etc can be leveraged for liberty. Yes, it is a long-shot, but not anymore of a long-shot than a third party run.
6) The $6 million, and other funds raised by Paul as a Republican, can be used to help elect constitutionalists to Congress on the Republican ticket. Part of the long-term goal is not simply to get someone elected president, but to begin to get more constitutionalists elected to Congress. Or, in Marxist jargon (while they didn’t know anything about economics, the Marxists did know a few things about revolution): The long march through the institutions has to begin somewhere, and while the correlation of forces is not presently in the Revolution’s favor, dedicated work by a cadre of committed Party members can continue to improve the subjective conditions while we wait for the objective conditions to ripen.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
With respect to your column here, this is all déjà vu from eight years ago.
In 2000,m you said the same things about the Buchanan Revolution. Pat needed to get out of the GOP because his OPld Right themes would only appeal to the young independent voters that don’t vote Republican.
Buchanan got 0.04% of the vote as the Reform Party in 2000.
What makes you think Ron Paul will do any better, after all, Paul is nothing more then a free trader Buchanan
Click to flag this comment as abusive
At the convention the Republican Party will take Ron Paul’s ideas and
ideas and following and will chew them up and spit them
out. The GOP is a country club and Ron Paul and his
followers are not members. For heaven’s sake they tried to
defeat him in his own primary a few years back by running
a retread Democrat against him. The national GOP has no
use for libertarians, only for faux libertarians. Ron and
his followers will be doing the national GOP a favor by
coming to the convention so they can be marginalized and
forgotten.This is not to say though that Ron should abandon
his seat in Congress. He can be more effective as a
presidential candidate by running for Congress and by being
adopted by another party. The media would try to make a
circus out of it which would give Ron all kinds of star
personality by being the “bad boy” of the campaign. All
Ron needs is publicity and surely running in two races at
once would do the trick. Heck, they might even have to
ask him to join their staged debates if his star rose
high enough. He can’t help it if people want to adopt
him, can he ?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sure we are alll dissappointed but people are getting carried away with some of the accusations that I am hearing. Terry has got it right. I did the same watching like a fool thinking that they have to mention Ron Paul now. They refused to mention his name as he was coming in second in Nevada. People are so led by the media that they think it is an advertisement for something on the screen for a product called Paul or something. People complain about FOX but C-Span looked like it had been bought by the other candidates prior to Iowa and New Hampshire and then Super Tuesday also. Ron Paul supporters did amazing things to get his name out there and none of it got any coverage by the bought media. They want to continue feeding at the trough and are openly hostile to Ron Paul. The other candidates received in free publicity what would amount to well over $200 million or more EACH with stories, poundits, interviews, etc. It was a non-stop push to run these guys into the White House and yet Ron Paul continued to show up even in the face of voter fraud that has still not been completely researched and probably never will be. I have worked long and hard for Ron Paul and contributed every penny I can afford. I will contribute to his congressional campaign and support whatever candidate he supports in the election and beyond. In my meetup group we already have a man running for congress. Meanwhile we need to keep pushing Ron Paul’s message because he is being proved a prophet and the more people know about it the better.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin
Both your recent articles about RP are spot on - I find most all of what you write to be so. But I’ve come to the personal conclusion that a guy like RP at his phase in life wants to “show the light” and not necc be the guy “in charge”—it’s simply too demanding.
I’ve driven out some 700mi to meet Dr. Paul and consider him to be an unbelievable success story given his philosophy and positions in light of the corrupt politicos that he has to deal with.
Given all this I think people should take away the message and carry the torch forward despite our disappointment that he would not be the one carrying it.
When I saw him I just sensed that he is trying to relay the message and in fact if I was in his shoes I would say I’d be fully aware of the real repercussions of gaining office to him and/or his family members (remember that MN senator.. forgot his name .. that died in the plane crash with his family?) and I do not blame him for it. I’m just glad to have known that such a genuine person exists and am thankful for his helping us be more aware of the more purist politics that we need to work towards.
peace
Click to flag this comment as abusive
With Romney giving his support to McCain today there’s still hope. Huckabee is proving to be a real thorn in his side so perhaps there will be some more televised debates. I haven’t given up on Ron Paul but am none too happy with the way the campaign has spent the money and the time of those who can least afford it. And, as others have said, there’s a lot of months left and McCain could blow it. I’ll continue to hope.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am not in Dr. Paul’s district (CD-14), I am in CD-22.
Justin, I would not presume that Dr.Paul’s seat in CD-14
is not under threat. I am a long time listener of talk
radio and a local radio, which I began to listen back in
early 1989, has been mercilessly and virulent in their
denunciations against Dr. Paul. I emailed Dr. Paul’s
office in the Houston area emphatically suggesting that
Dr. Paul go for an interview. I am the one who forwarded
to Mr. Rockwell a link to the ausion of the interview
conducted by that radio station with Dr. Paul. That
interview was so unprofessional, on the side of the
radio station, that it caused me to cut back in my
“listeningship” more than 95%, so to speak.
This radio station influences the “conservatives” in the
area and their continual mocking of Dr. Paul and his
supporters as kooks, I am afraid, has taken its toll.
If Dr. Paul runs in a third party he cannot be a candidate
in the GOP primaries. And, regardless of Dr. Paul’s
support he will not be elected as a Representative if he
ran outside the GOP.
PS: I deliberately did not mention the station and the
interviewers so that I would not give them publicity.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Ron Paul is playing it smart. He wants to make sure that he’s the Republican nominee in his congressional district. If he were to announce that he’s running on the LP ticket for president, that may be enough to give his opponent the edge in the congressional primary. Once he’s won that primary, however, then he’s free to announce that he’s campaigning for the LP nomination. The LP nominating convention isn’t until early May. The Constitution Party’s convention isn’t until late April. Let’s just see how things play out over the next couple of months.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
Rothbard in that in that same book said,
“In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price.”
Not only is that view in sharp contrast to Ron Paul but to 2,000 years of Christian ethics.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“or reasons privy only to conscience, Congressman Paul, a man of obvious intellect and apparent integrity, chooses to hang with a very bad crowd. The Republican party, jut like the other evil, is entirely corrupt.”
I agree with you, samizdat. I would venture a guess that a large majority of people who support Dr. Paul have never, and would never vote republican under any circumstances other than a Ron Paul candidacy.
I have never voted for a republican or a democrat and probably never will.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let’s face it. those of us who supported Ron Paul have been had. His loyalty to the Republican party is like the loyalty the battered wife has to the husband--she keeps coming back with the hope that some day he will love her. However, The Republican Party dispises the ideas that Dr. Paul so eloquently speaks of. The Founding Fathers pledged their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred homor, a pledge that could have put them at the end of a rope.Ron Paul did not even have the courage to abandon his party, a party that long ago abandoned his ideas of limited government, non intervention abroad, and expansion of liberties at home. In the end Ron Paul put the good of The Republican Party above the good of the nation. If you are unwilling to fight for your ideas, one wonders how enthusiastic you really are about them. You fight all the way, or you stay home. Go home Ron, and stay there.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
KHALED:
You may not be too far off the mark…
People who have visited the RP campaign HQ in Arlington have reported that the staff there are literally “paranoid” at the prospect of someone identifying them—to the point that they do not put (some have said are not ALLOWED to put) bumper stickers on their cars, etc.
At this point in time, there is no reason for them to be paranoid anymore; the campaign has been entirely marginalized.
...but what you state has often made me wonder as well, was a lot of that marginalization BECAUSE of (rather than in spite of) the efforts of the campaign? Certainly the TV ads were inept and incompetent—but perhaps that was done on purpose? After all, Paranoid people do strange things, and that would certainly be a pertinent term to describe the efforts of this campaign: “strange.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I found no evidence of paranoia at the Concord office. Everyone working there had signs and bumper stickers on their cars. Ron Paul’s mantra stays the same, “I’ll keep running if my supporters keep supporting me”. That just doesn’t hack it. He should come out with a “mission” statement and tell us what he intends to do and whether or not he intends to win this thing. Something along the lines of: “I am running for President of the United States and I intend to win”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
We have NOT been had. Do we attempt to advance a
constituionalist/libertarian goal inside the GOP or
outside the GOP? That is a tactic.
The Libertarian Party, from what I have observed in
videos of their conventions and from conversations
with a friend of mine, is not going to accomplish a thing.
The LP seems destined to die for an ant hill when the
Himalayas are in front of them. And, it also seems to me
that, the LPers lack a sense of humor to see their own
absudities.
Will RP accomplish more in the GOP? I do not know but,
at least, he has been elected a few times as a
GOP Representative. How many Libertarians in the House?
Another option was, for Christians anyways, the
Constitution Party, which self-destructed.
I’ll take RP doing his best under the not the best of
circumstances.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Yes, Pat Buchanan lost the presidential election. But he wasn’t running on an anti-war, anti-FED platform. Now that’s populist!
Ron Paul Campaign, wake up and smell the napalm! Our country needs you to run Independent. Use the third parties for ballot access and I and hundreds of thousands more will open up our wallets!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree with Abe.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Abe,
Yes Buchanan did. Read Raimodno’s nominating speech at the Reform Party in 2000.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the choice before us is clear: it is either a foreign policy that puts America first, or else one that guarantees perpetual war. It is Buchananism – or barbarism.”
Sound familiar??
http://www.buchanan.org/no-00-0811-raimondospeech.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If RP is not on the ballot in November I will write his name.
His chances of becoming POTUS by write-in are still better than electing an LP to any office.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My goodness, Justin, you are quick to find fault and condemn.
“Oh ye men of little faith.”
Justin, learn one of the characteristics of the Globalists: patience.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
You are prophetic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
ll of this bitching and complaining makes me sick.you all sound like a bunch of old lADIES. SO THINGS DIDNT GO EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WANTED THEM
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If you are insisting that Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, then he sacrifices what we trust about him—his true blue consistent core. He would become, one of them, a flip flopper.
Dr. Paul has thrown the gauntlet to us. How can we serve the freedom message? It may be a different party for each of us. Let’s move EVERY party toward freedom.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The cons continue. Ron Paul sent out an email yesterday. Now he is complaining that he is going to lose his Congressional seat and it your fault, loyal supporter for giving money to his Presidential campaign rather than his Congressional campaign.
How many things are his supporters going to be blamed for while being demanded to fork over more money? Who writes this junk? Hasn’t anyone there ever heard of manners?
I am so tired of being told that ceiling is crashing. I am so tired of being asked for money. Doesn’t the campaign - either of them, have a fund raiser? Why go back to the same bone dry well over and over.
We know you have quit. If you haven’t you sent out the dumbest email I have ever seen on 2/8. The media thinks you have quit. Your opponents think you quit. Most of your supporters think you quit. So, quit already and stop stealing money for the most expensive educational tour in history. Use the money you have, after you quit, to secure your Congressional seat. Or are you going to blame that loss on all of us too?
This back and forth is getting me seasick. If you are so doubtful, get a shrink, but stop advertising it to the general public. If you think that is endearing, Dr. Paul, you have another think coming.
What kind of fear mongering tactic is this: They think they can defeat me in the Republican congressional primary in Texas on March 4th. And you know what? They may be right.
Well, if they do, then you were a fool.
You cannot win the Presidential election. You have admitted as much. You also write: The congressional campaign has to stand on its own. But so far, we have raised only about a third of what a well-funded effort would need.
So then grow up, drop out of the race, use the money you do have and win the only race you have a chance at winning.
You think you are doing us a favor by droning on and on with poorly written speeches, impossible off the cuff ramblings, an ego too large to hire a staff to teach you anything, and begging for money to continue a lost effort?
Finally, you write: I hesitated to ask you, since you have already done so much. But my wife Carol said, “When you need help, you ask your best friends.” So I do ask you, to hold out your hand in support.
Please give today http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com, as generously and as quickly as you can.
Well, we did give to you. We gave our heart, our soul, our blood, and our savings. We are in debt up to our eyeballs supporting you for what was obviously a lark to you. I hope you got your kicks.
Now take me off your mailing list.
Your actions at this point are a con. Pure and simple. Or worse, an attempt to feed your overblown ego.
Do you really think anyone is still donating to you with the idea that you have 0 chance? Of course not, they are not that stupid. But you do have 0% chance. So, why take their money?
Sir, this campaign at this point is cruel and disgusting. I am stunned at your behaviour. I thought you had better character than this.
“I will still run as long as my supporters want me to.” No one wants you to run, they want you to win. Will you still run with no chance of winning? If so, why are you breaking people’s hearts?
Dr. Paul, go on a book tour, get your congressional seat back and get over yourself.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Heh not surprizing to see alot of of non Ron Paul supporters agree with the ‘betrayal’ part. I wonder why? lol
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree with everything that Justin Raimondo wrote. I voted
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree with everything that Justin Raimondo wrote. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, which was good since it was an open primary in my state. Although I still like his powerful message of liberty, I must say I was disappointed when he announced he would not continue to run as a third party candidate. I also believe that one of the primary mistakes of his campaign was to appeal to Conservatives, which was a lost cause from the beginning.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory154.html
I know that right now, there are pro-war “libertarians” criticizing Raimondo for rejecting the idea that the Republican Party is somehow our natural home. I would remind them that Murray N. Rothbard, the great Libertarian theorist, expressed his frustration with the direction of the Republican Party and even joined the Democratic Party and supported the New Left anti-war movement in the late 1960’s.
“Politically, I had ceased being a right-winger. I had determined that the crucial issue was peace or war; and that on that question the only viable political movement was the ‘left’ wing of the Democratic Party. By consistently following an antiwar and isolationist star, I had shifted – or rather been shifted – from right-wing Republican to left-wing Democrat.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/betrayal/13.html
With the ultimate nomination of Statist, pro-war candidates on both the Republican and Democratic parties, and given Ron Paul’s expressed plan to eventually abandon his Presidential run and devote himself to keeping his Congressional seat, I have now endorsed Ralph Nader as President and plan to vote for him as one who is consistently anti-Corporate and pro-Peace.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
N7Zq9J U cool ))
Click to flag this comment as abusive
camG7i U cool