Login
  • Username:

    Password:
  • Remember my login on this computer
  • Register
Users online
  • Users: 1 Guest
  • 1 User Browsing This Page.
    Users: 1 Guest

  • Most Users Ever Online Is On June 12, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

Ron Paul could use a bump in this poll

A friend sent me this presidential selector. You’ve seen things like this before. However, this is the best one I’ve ever seen, as almost all of the questions had answers with which I could disagree. In the past, I’ve seen selectors wherein the two possible choices on Iraq are

  • (a) More bombs, more killing!, and
  • (b) No more bombs! Spend our money on socialism at home instead!

What I’m surprised and frankly disappointed by, however, is the fact that Ron Paul is the top match of only 4% of people who’ve taken the test. Xenophobic Border Nazi, Tom Tancredo, is tied with “World’s Most Boring Man,” Chris Dodd, for #1. The Communist triumvirate of Obama, Kucinich, and Edwards are tied for third. Since this test is accurate, it’s clear that the test-takers thus far are fans of mass-scale interventionism. That’s bad. But then again, it is a poll sponsored by Amerikkan Pravda, aka NPR, so the results probably shouldn’t be too surprising.

Take the test and see if Ron Paul is your #1. If not, you probably have problems. I scored a 26.0 for Ron Paul, with a tie for second among Dennis Kucinich and Rudy Giuliani with 13.0, both of whom I detest. Let’s see if we can get Ron Paul up to double digits and ahead of his neo-fascist competitors.

Print This Post Print This Post
2,880 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

56 Responses to “Ron Paul could use a bump in this poll”

  1. pauliecannoli Says:

    GE,

    I like “Ron Paul GE” better than “monetarist GE” better - for the most part, with some exceptions.

    But he’s not the Messiah (or second coming, for those of you who are Christians).

    I think maybe too many of your posts are about Ron Paul. Just a suggestion, of course.

    Also, where a candidate ranks in self-selecting internet polls is one of the least useful activities associated with bolstering campaigns, especially ones that are not extremely marginal.

  2. G.E. Smith Says:

    Yessir, bossiree, sir.

  3. Robert Milnes Says:

    GES & Steve Gordon both write a LOT about RP favorably. This poll only has the top dems & reps as possible choices. NEVER AGAIN vote republican- RP/RP.

  4. zrated Says:

    i like your posts, g.e. you’re probably my favorite contributor at this point (subject to change). i love the strong anti-collectivist rhetoric.

    i scored a 26 for paul, 13 for gravel. mitt rommel was last.

  5. Nick Says:

    I got a 22 for Ron Paul as my #1. I had to restrain myself from choosing my position just because I knew his position. I answered the test honestly. I would be surprised if everyone who took this quiz with a candidate of choice already on their mind didn’t sway the results of their own choices to match the candidate. It makes people feel better to think they chose the right person all along.

    A more disturbing part of those responses was that some candidate or another holds each of those positions. Some of those positions are whacked out and for some of the questions I would reject a candidate because they held the whacked out position, even if I thought they had no chance of passing such legislation.

    GE, I see no problem with writing about Ron Paul as much as you choose to do. It is a relevant political topic for a libertarian website at this time. It would be relevant even if you didn’t support him.

    And your writing style doesn’t suck, so good for you.

  6. G.E. Smith Says:

    Thanks.

    I just took the test and put in the most statist answer for each question I could muster. The results: Not surprisingly, most of the candidates are clustered together.

    Biden 18
    Obama 18
    Romney 17
    Hunter 16
    Richardson 16
    Tancredo 16
    Thompson 16
    Clinton 15
    Dodd 15
    Edwards 15

    Ron Paul 4

  7. G.E. Smith Says:

    Yeah, I’m just another one of those “Ron Paul spammers.”

  8. Old Guard Says:

    Geez, RP barely beat out Huckabee in my choices. Still, the questions weren’t as nuanced as I would like. Only thing confirmed is that Richardson got my highest rating of all the Dems and Obama the lowest.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    These “presidential selectors” are interesting, but I think they’re of limited utility. It’s hard to come up with a set of questions that cover all situations.

    My “top two” were Paul (22) and Giuliani/Huckabee (tied at 17), none of whom I would under any circumstances vote for and two of whom I wouldn’t piss on to put out if they spontaneously combusted in my presence.

    Others whom I MIGHT vote for if driven into the booth at gunpoint and told to choose a D/R or have my brains blown out (Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, Richardson) were lower on the list. Richardson was below Fred Thompson, who is in the “no urination for fire rescue purposes” category.

  10. Tom Blanton Says:

    Thomas, I had no idea you were so mean spirited.

    Personally, I would gladly piss all over Giuliani, Huckabee or Thompson if they burst into flames.

    Just because you don’t agree with someone is no reason not to piss on them.

  11. Michael H Wilson Says:

    Burn baby, burn!

  12. Andy Says:

    So Tom Knapp would vote for Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, or Richardson over Ron Paul. OK, this proves it, Tom Knapp is NOT a libertarian. Either this, or he’s just really fucked up.

  13. Andy Says:

    I just helped give Ron Paul a bump by sending donation today. I sent it by mail so it should be recieved by the 5th of November. A bunch of people are supposed to be sending Ron Paul donations that day in reference to the 5th of November as mentioned in the movie “V For Vendetta”.

  14. pauliecannoli Says:

    Yessir, bossiree, sir.

    Jeez, did you miss the “just a suggestion” part? You can post about Ron Paul all you want…I’d just be interested in seeing you write on other subjects, too.

  15. pauliecannoli Says:

    Others whom I MIGHT vote for if driven into the booth at gunpoint and told to choose a D/R or have my brains blown out (Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, Richardson) were lower on the list. Richardson was below Fred Thompson, who is in the “no urination for fire rescue purposes” category.

    McCain?!

  16. pauliecannoli Says:

    Looked at this just for the hell of it.

    I don’t like tests which exclude my viewpoint from the available options.

    None of the answers to the immigration question are similar to my position (get rid of border security and immigration quotas, yesterday).

    None of the answers on education match my view (no vouchers or tax credits, being that there would be no taxes).

    Privatization of social security? I guess that depends on what you mean. I don’t favor regime-directed investments.

  17. Robert Mayer Says:

    Tom K, I won’t question your libertarian credentials - you’re solid. But, I must say I’m baffled how you could consider Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson or McCain (!) as better candidates than Ron Paul. I certainly have respect for Kucinich and Gravel for their anti-war and civil liberties views, but Kucinich isn’t even remotely libertarian on the economic side of the equation while Gravel isn’t a whole lot better. Richardson seems like a respectable moderate (if that can be considered not to be an oxymoron), but McCain…?!? I have no idea what you see in him. (OK, he’s the only GOP candidate not named Ron Paul who is against torture.)

  18. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Andy:

    “So Tom Knapp would vote for Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, or Richardson over Ron Paul.”

    I’m not sure where you got that idea. I said no such thing, and intended no such thing.

    Quoth Robert:

    “I won’t question your libertarian credentials - you’re solid. But, I must say I’m baffled how you could consider Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson or McCain (!) as better candidates than Ron Paul.”

    Once again, I said no such thing.

    What I said was that I would not vote for Ron Paul under any circumstances, but that I might vote for one of those other candidates under certain circumstances. I did not state that that means any of them are “better” candidates than Ron Paul, nor did I state that the possible circumstances under which I might vote for one of them included a head to head matchup between any of them and Ron Paul.

    Among the even remotely possible circumstances in real life is the very slight possibility that Ron Paul might be the GOP nominee AND the very slight possibility that one of the aforementioned candidates whom I might under some circumstances vote for might be the Democratic nominee, AND the very slight possibility that the LP might not nominate a presidential candidate. In that case, I won’t be voting for Ron Paul, nor will I be voting against Ron Paul, because I won’t be voting.

  19. Robert Mayer Says:

    Tom, I’m not sure that really cleared up anything for me. So, perhaps you could explain why you could possibly be convinced to vote for, say, McCain at gunpoint, but not Ron Paul, whom I’m sure you would agree is much closer to the libertarian ideal.

  20. Robert Milnes Says:

    At the risk of Tom saying again “I said no such thing”, perhaps he is expressing a sense of betrayal by RP/RP. At best, RP could be trying to get the RP back to the good old days of Goldwater type libertarian/republicans. But, what about the LP in that scenario? Are libs expected to abandon the LP in favor of “taking over the GOP”? No, it just is no good. The Lp has evolved. That makes RP/RP a dinosaur.

  21. pauliecannoli Says:

    So what does that make you…a leprechaun?

  22. pauliecannoli Says:

    Speaking of Ron Paul, have you checked out Liv Films?

    http://livfilms.com

    Here’s her latest…

  23. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Robert,

    You write:

    “Tom, I’m not sure that really cleared up anything for me. So, perhaps you could explain why you could possibly be convinced to vote for, say, McCain at gunpoint, but not Ron Paul, whom I’m sure you would agree is much closer to the libertarian ideal.”

    I was trying to clarify a very narrow point: That saying I would not vote for X under any circumstances, but that I might vote for Y under some circumstances is not the same as saying that I necessarily would vote for Y over X.

    The “why” you’re asking for is fairly complicated, but I’ll express it as simply as I can: I might vote for McCain versus Hillary Clinton if forced to do so at gunpoint, because I don’t see a huge distinction there. I prefer McCain slightly to Hillary, but I don’t like either one of them.

    In a Ron Paul versus Hillary Clinton (for example) matchup, however, there is a huge distinction. Ron Paul is simply not an option for me for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere — but I wouldn’t vote for Hillary against him either.

    Tom Knapp

  24. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob,

    You’ve come fairly close, at any rate.

    So far as I’m concerned, the GOP is a dry hole, a dead-end tunnel, and no good can come from the libertarian movement going down it — so I decline to join the line forming to do just that behind Ron Paul.

    Voting for McCain versus Obama would just be an expression of mild preference for one bad candidate over the other. Voting for Paul on the Republican ticket, on the other hand, is a statement of a higher order — it’s an affirmation of the belief that, in the right hands, the GOP could be made into an instrument of liberty. I don’t believe that statement, so I’m not going to make that statement.

  25. Michael H Wilson Says:

    I’m voting for Kucinich. His wife has Red Hair. Its that simple.
    Damn Hot!
    MHW

  26. Tom Blanton Says:

    Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “So far as I’m concerned, the GOP is a dry hole, a dead-end tunnel, and no good can come from the libertarian movement going down it — so I decline to join the line forming to do just that behind Ron Paul.”

    Thomas, the LP and other “libertarian” groups have been leading many in the libertarian movement through this dead-end tunnel, in the philosophical sense, for years.

    Let me point out a few things: CATO; acceptance of Neal Boortz, Glenn Reynolds, Grover Norquist, Wayne Root, et al as “libertarians”; the tactic of targeting conservatives through outreach to join the LP (recruitment at gun shows, joining with GOP hacks to end the “death tax”, LP action item: call right-wing talk radio shows); the failure of the LP to address major issues in a timely manner and then going wobbly ( the Iraq Exit Strategy); the rash of LP candidates for Congress in 2006 running as conservatives; LP refusal to help its own candidates by sharing lists and the failure to hold the LNC accountable for this type of conduct; the alienation of libertarian organizations such as the Future of Freedom Foundation by the LP while cozying up to CPAC; rejection of any form of “education” to further libertarianism in favor of “electing candidates”; groups within the LP that insist on changing the definition of libertarianism in order to appeal to non-libertarians instead of winning their hearts and minds through rational argument.

    This god damned list could go on and on.

    On the other hand, Ron Paul has at least been winning the hearts and minds of many on some important issues. On the issue of noninterventionism, he has done better than any candidate in my lifetime. I suggest, no I insist, that it has been the myopia and denial of LP members that has already rendered the LP nearly irrelevant rather than external factors such as Ron Paul.

    When the dust settles, this Ron Paul “revolution” will have done more for the libertarian movement than the LP has done - and the LP could benefit from this if it chooses to (I am not confident that it will try). Further, it is unlikely that once Ron Paul loses the GOP nomination (the GOP would nuke its own convention rather than allow this), his supporters will remain in the GOP and vote for Giuliani, Romney or McCain. If I am wrong and Dr. Paul wins the nomination, fine. And if he wins the White House, this wouldn’t be a bad thing.

    The question regarding the LP is whether a large group of radical libertarians without much money and without the primal lust for lording over others can win control over the LP from the smaller group of wealthier individuals who seem to desire power and are often genetically encoded to reject anything more radical than a small tax cut.

    As we stare into the face shields of the police state and into the abyss of national bankruptcy, and as our government stands on the door-step of World War III, is it any wonder that those who seek to fight back this monster have chosen Ron Paul as their weapon as the LP attempts to make an end run around tyranny with baby steps, blogs and candidates that can’t muster even a few thousand supporters within the LP?

  27. Michael H Wilson Says:

    Mr. Blanton is right on many of this points he bring to this issue. In my book the LP getting cozy with the conservatives will eventually kill the organization, much in the way the the Republican Party has been harmed by getting to cozy with the religious Right.

    The LP needs a balanced approach. How that comes about is not something I am able to figure out, or wish into existence.

    I think it is worth remembering that John Stuart Mill, who laid down many of the tracks for this philosophy, was and still is defined as a liberal.

    MHW

  28. Tom Blanton Says:

    A recent posting to the LP website:

    http://www.lp.org/media/article_530.shtml

    Some highlights:

    Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory says “the United States should pursue more dialogue and less saber-rattling when dealing with Iran.”

    “Tough talk from Iran has been a trademark of their foreign policy for the last few decades,” says William Redpath, national chairman for the Libertarian Party. “But it rarely goes further than words.”

    “A basic premise of warfare is to ‘know thy enemy,’ and I’m afraid that the President is rushing to war with an enemy he knows nothing about,” says Cory, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran.

    According to a Google search, this press release containing a measured response based on the received wisdom of the pro-war media was published by two websites:

    fourfreedomsblog.com

    smallgovtimes.com

    (see: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/thenest/about/index.html)

    So, we have a little less saber-rattling and an admonition to not take Iran’s “tough talk” (threats to defend itself?) seriously. Why, if we would only learn more about our “enemy”, then it would be prudent to go to war with them.

    Obama couldn’t have said it better.

  29. Michael H Wilson Says:

    I’ll add a thing, or two on this and then I am out of here. The LP is the party of principle, or so we are told. However, I am not sure what those priciples are. Do you know what specifically they are? Some claim that Libertarians are socially tolerant.

    If Libertarians believe in the right to privacy how is it that we can claim to be socially tolerant when we may not know enough about the habits of others to be tolerant of them.

    Libertarians also claim to be fiscally conservative. Does that tell us one bit where Libertarians stand on the issue of occupational licensing? I’ll bet that I could develop an stand on nationalized health care that would be more fiscally conservative then the healthcare system we now have.

    Some Libertarians tell me that responsibilty is the other side of Liberty. You have to be responsible to be free. Is this the Libertarian form of the Nanny State, or the Daddy State? The Resonsible State is a Libertarian State I presume. How do we define responsible and who will define it?
    No more beer. Its not responsible. Sorry and no bourbon for breakfast. That surely is not responsible.

  30. Wes Benedict Says:

    My view of the responsibility side of liberty is that you are personally responsible for the consequences of your actions, even if you harm yourself (by some measure) with your liberty. Sound bites are sound bites. Sometimes they help. Sometimes they hurt. Sometimes they have no impact. Sometimes they can be misinterpreted. Sound bites or slogans are not comprehensive contracts or position papers.

    While the entire Constitution and Declaration of Independence (newly revised to be completely libertarian) could be printed on a yard sign if a small enough font were used, it would be hard to read at a 50 foot distance while driving 30 MPH. Therefore, sometimes shorter slogans are used.

  31. Michael H Wilson Says:

    Okay Wes you win. :)
    MHW

  32. Wes Benedict Says:

    Michael,

    What do you mean I won? Do you mean that I won the best and most accurate interpreter of “personal responsibility,” or did I win the position of “speaker of the truth on all things important,” –just kidding.

    cheers.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Tom (Blanton),

    You’re contradicting yourself.

    On the one hand, you (correctly) point out that the LP’s attempts to identify itself with conservatives and Republicans have been counter-productive both to itself and to the libertarian movement.

    Then you turn around and say that when the dust settles the most prominent attempt to identify the libertarian movement with conservative Republicanism since 1964 “will have done more for the libertarian movement than the LP has done.”

    Which is it going to be?

    The LP — in my opinion –has tons of unfulfilled potential to advance the libertarian movement. The Ron Paul campaign — in my opinion — not only has no such potential, but is essentially and in nearly every particular operationally counter to that goal.

    Because I am of this opinion, I won’t be supporting Paul’s campaign. Because I don’t regard error as evil, I won’t hold a grudge against those of my fellow libertarians who fall into this particular instance of what I deem to be error, and hope that most of them will similarly respect the fact that I have to reach my own conclusions and to act in accordance with those conclusions, even if they deem those conclusions to be in error.

  34. Tom Blanton Says:

    Thomas, I don’t think I’m contradicting myself. Ron Paul is giving voice to a perspective that is more libertarian in nature than many LP candidates and prominent members - for example Mr. Root.

    When the dust settles, and when Ron Paul does not support the GOP nominee, assuming people want to continue on a libertarian track, they may well become interested in the LP and/or become involved in some sort of movement that is libertarian in nature.

    For me, it is the ideas that matter - not the party label. The media has spared no opportunity to point out that Ron Paul is completely at odds with the GOP and I don’t think people will become confused over what the GOP stands for as opposed to what Ron Paul stands for. I don’t think the people who support Ron Paul will confuse libertarianism with the GOP

    I have problems with some of Ron Paul’s, and I don’t put him on a large pedestal. However, I’m happy to see him on his soapbox addressing ideas that some are hearing for the first time.

    I’m of the opinion that the LP has just about run its course as a political party that represents libertarian principles (see the press release on Iran above), having instead chosen to win elections (somehow without ever winning). As a result, the LP has become ineffective at advancing issues.

    The answer to the question, “which is it going to be?”, is Ron Paul is doing an effective job at advancing some libertarian issues vs the LP doing a remarkably ineffective job at doing the same.

  35. Nick Says:

    TLK, you say you would rather not vote than vote for Ron Paul even if he is up against Hillary or Obama in a general election. I don’t know where you live so maybe it doesn’t matter if you vote or not (like DC where it will most assuredly support Hillary or Texas which would likely vote for Paul and your vote won’t matter. But if you lived in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin or a number of other swing states where in that matchup could be VERY close, you would still stay home? Out of principle? I respect principle, but I disagree that a Hillary victory because you didn’t vote because you don’t like Ron Paul is worth it so he doesn’t win. If he is president, not only would that mean a government stand still or at least smaller in general because of vetoes, vs a Hillary presidency which will mean more war, more welfare spending and a million other new programs that she, with a Dem Congress would ram down our throats. But, regardless of all that, what a Ron Paul presidency would mean is that he would have four years to talk about libertarian ideas in general as opposed to becoming a footnote in history where the “movement failed.” Then if you or me or Paulie or Steve Kubby could talk about how we disagree on some of those ideas like immigration or whatever and people might actually listen for a change instead of blowing us off as having unworkable ideals. Not voting for any of the other GOP candidates because they continue the Bush doctrine is understandable, but not voting for RP against a Dem seems like the reason the LP never takes off. No pragmatism at all.

  36. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nick, pragmatism? That’s practically my middle name. TK’s rationale sounds sound to me.

  37. Nick Says:

    Robert, I don’t think it’s pragmatic to try to form a libertarian/progressive alliance to run for president when it’s an oil and water combo. I understand TLK’s rationale more than I understand yours. I understand him and simply disagree. There’s a difference.

  38. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nick, trying to stay with your analogy, it is not 100% pure oil & water. There are some common ingredients.

  39. Nick Says:

    What are the common ingredients? I can think of a few civil liberty ingredients I suppose but the statism required for progressives to take from people to redistribute is a big difference.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Nick,

    My decision not to vote for Paul is entirely pragmatic. Nobody would mistake a Hillary Clinton presidency for a libertarian presidency.

    Many, maybe even most, would mistake a Ron Paul presidency for a libertarian presidency — and I think that perception would indeed be a mistake. NB this is not the same thing as saying that Ron Paul “is not a libertarian.”

    Tom Knapp

  41. Robert Milnes Says:

    Think Teddy Roosevelt. Although, like RP he was a republican. He went to progressivism from there, not libertarianism.

  42. Old Guard Says:

    Tom Blanton is certainly on the right track. Apres Paul, the LP will either have to turn itself back into an education/activist grassroots organization or the thousands of RP supporters and others who want to advance libertarianism in their communities will find other organizations to do so.
    Many libertarians would rather be engaging their communities in a foreign policy debate or a global warming debate than worrying about petitioning to get their fringe candidate on the ballot so she can poll 1% of the vote.

  43. G.E. Smith Says:

    Tedd Roosevelt was a racist murderer and an imperialist… And a grand centralist. He was a Progressive to the core, for sure. He was in no way “libertarian.” I really want to ignore you, but that is such an idiotic statement, I can’t resist. T.R. would be rated just behind FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln as one of the worst presidents ever, from a libertarian perspective.

  44. Robert Milnes Says:

    GES, again, you don’t get it. I’m not saying TR was ideal. I’m saying the progressive route is the only way I see to get election victories for libs & greens under present circumstances. it is a compromise on every aspect. But it has a reasonable chance of winning & working from there. Rather than insising on the ideal & getting nowhere.

  45. G.E. Smith Says:

    BTW: I’ve tried to post a new post about Ron Paul’s fundraising today, TWICE, and some system glitch has erased it both times.

  46. Chris Says:

    BTW: I’ve tried to post a new post about Ron Paul’s fundraising today, TWICE, and some system glitch has erased it both times.

    What? Did something significant happen with his fundraising today?
    ;)

  47. Robert Mayer Says:

    No, not really. Only about $3.25 million with a few hours left to go.

    Of course this is peanuts compared to what Robert Milnes’ super-green-cryptomarxoid-libertarian candidate will be able to raise once the LP finally comes to its senses and starts listening to him.

  48. Chris Says:

    Robert could have easily raised over $3 million for his campaign today if Ron Paul had not decided to run and his supporters would have just given the money to him instead. He could easily have raised $1 billion if only 1,000,000 people would have given him $1,000. They didn’t because they are stupid.

    In fact, Robert would win 100% of the vote on election day if only all the other candidates would drop out and state laws were changed to ban write-ins.

    If it wasn’t for all the silly hurdles thrown in his way, like competitors, and actually having to get supporters, having to raise money, and actually having to leave the house, then Milnes would be President Milnes in January of 2009.

  49. Robert Mayer Says:

    Chris, sometimes life is just so unfair.

  50. Michael H Wilson Says:

    Tom Blanton writes: “A recent posting to the LP website:

    http://www.lp.org/media/article_530.shtml

    Some highlights:

    Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory says “the United States should pursue more dialogue and less saber-rattling when dealing with Iran.”

    And then you note that only two places have run the release. Am I understanding this correctly?

    Thanks,

    MHW

  51. Tom Blanton Says:

    Michael - I took a segment of the text from the LP press release and googled it and found two hits, besides the lp.org site. Then I tried it with another segment and got the same results.

    I think you are understanding what I posted correctly.

    What do you make of this?

  52. Robert Mayer Says:

    Ron Paul fund-raising scam EXPOSED! (WARNING: salty language ahead)

    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=21529611

  53. Michael H Wilson Says:

    “Tom Blanton Says:

    November 5th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
    Michael - I took a segment of the text from the LP press release and googled it and found two hits, besides the lp.org site. Then I tried it with another segment and got the same results.

    I think you are understanding what I posted correctly.

    What do you make of this?”

    Tom I don’t know what to make of it, but it sure does raise lots of questions.
    1. How are press releases being sent out?
    2. To whom are they being sent?
    3. How many media outlets are being sent to?
    4. How often are they picked up?
    5. Does anyone follow up on any of this?

    Comment please.

    MHW

  54. Tom Blanton Says:

    Those are good questions, Michael. I don’t have the answers, but these are the questions that LP members should be asking LPHQ and the LNC.

    I rarely see any LP press releases anywhere - even on libertarian websites. The release in question didn’t even come up on PR Newsline.

    This all demonstrates ineffectiveness in getting out a message by the LP and the message they are trying to get out sounds uninformed and doesn’t particularly reflect the libertarian principle of nonintervention. Of course, I seriously doubt that Cory or Redpath ever said these things.

    A “communications” hack most likely wrote the press release. It appears the message is designed to give the impression that the LP is offering moderate proposals regarding Iran policy without really saying anything at all. None of the statements make a lot of sense within the context of what is actually going on between the US and Iran.

    The statements sound no different than what one might expect to hear from any number of moderate Republicans or Democrats.

  55. Michael H Wilson Says:

    Tom I don’t get it. I do understand not knowing how to do something, but for gawd’s sake if you need help ask. Apparently someone doesn’t want to admit to not knowing.

    MHW

  56. gravel kucinich paul nader Says:

    Gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

    The people know too much,
    democracy rising democracy now.
    Rage against the machine.

    Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

    No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
    Divided we fall.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.