Skip to main content

Forbes: How Ron Paul's announcement will affect both Rand Paul and Gary Johnson

For Gary Johnson supporters there are two aspects to the news that Ron Paul has conceded the GOP nomination to Mitt Romney.

First, it means that the hard work of courting Dr. Paul's supporters (especially those who are more Libertarian than Libertarian Republican).

Secon, it means the chance for some more earned media, as writers do bring the Libertarian presidential candidate's name into speculations about Number One:

Ala Forbes:

The anti-war, anti-spending, small government message that Ron Paul stumps from state to state is still unpopular. A hawkish “defense” is still more popular than a humble admission that our own involvement overseas may have consequences to our national security. For many liberals who might agree with Paul’s anti-war position, the prospect of major cuts to domestic programs is a huge turn-off. Even libertarians have their doubts about Paul, whose paleo-libertarian roots and murky role in the Ron Paul Newsletter controversy have created a widespread bitter taste in the mouths of many libertarians – many of whom have turned to Gary Johnson instead.
One might have suspected a more welcoming GOP in 2012 with the rise of the Tea Party paving a welcome road for Mr. Paul. But Paul’s lack of chest-thumping over US military efforts, his humility and foreign policy realism, represents a serious threat to both the Republican and Democratic establishment, and the Tea Party never posed a threat or an objection to big military spending.
Paul may have paved the way for his son, Rand Paul, to make a presidential bid sometime in the future. The more charismatic – and, let’s face it, more watered-down – Rand could have a shot at the nomination that his father never had.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...