OK this is going to be painful (just warning you)

I received an email from Libertarian Republican's Eric Dondero (who has been carpet bombing some of my posts objecting to the identification of Paul Ryan as a Libertarian), that contains one "challenge" and several (rather bizarre, honestly) contentions.

But, hey, let's see what happens . . . .

Eric says,

Steve I dare you to run this at Del. Libt.  I double dare you.

The "this" in question is the political video below criticizing Paul Ryan as a Libertarian.  Be forewarned:  content aside, this is the WORST political video I have EVER seen.  There is a chance it may induce seizures, permanent impotence, stomach lesions, or worse if you actually watch it through.

You will probably at least bleed from your eyes if you watch the first thirty seconds.

But, hey, this is what you come here for, right?



OK that's out of the way (good thing Eric is so mature that he didn't double-dog dare me).

Now for Eric's next points; first . . .

Answer me this question, please.  How is it that Paul Ryan is getting hammered, slammed, criticized, shellacked, brutalized, attacked every hour on the hour in the liberal media for being a "libertarian," yet Libertarians are attacking him for "not being a libertarian." 

Do a Google search of "Paul Ryan libertarian."  You will be amazed.  

OK, let's answer the question:  short answer is that the Liberal media doesn't even know what "Libertarian" means.

They think it has something to do with Ayn Rand and smoking pot, and tend to assign any serious attempt at fiscal conservatism to libertarianism because . . . well, there aren't actually too many fiscal conservatives left.  The whole GOP kinda screwed the pooch on that one under GW Bush, and gave up any right to an association with the idea of small government when they voted in a whole new raft of social programs they didn't pay for.

Besides, Libertarian has become the new opposite in the media world for Socialism.

You call Barack Obama a socialist, they sling back Libertarian.

In neither case do the people using the words actually have the definitions correct because it doesn't really matter.

So no, the fact that Paul Ryan is categorized by the media as Libertarian is (a) not evidence that he IS a Libertarian, and (b) might actually be evidence that he's not.

Eric continues . . . .

Either, our teensy weensy minority of a movement is right, or the humoungous political talking head class and the mainstream media are right.  My feeling, Ryan's a mostly libertarian Republican.  Too bad, purist Libertarians can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that. 

OK Eric, you sort of got that right--Paul Ryan is a Libertarian-leaning Republican on budget issues (many but not all).  And I stress "leaning."

He does have a long history of voting for bail-outs, which is about as non-Libertarian as you can get.

He is a war hawk, which (despite your fantasies about the existence of a right-libertarian movement) makes him far more Republican than Libertarian.

I have seen no evidence that Ryan is Libertarian on social issues; care to show me some?

I'm hardly a purist, but I do think what separates a fiscal conservative from a libertarian is that while both my agree on budget issues, they will not be on the same page with social issues.

If all you want to do is cut and balance the budget, but not pursue individual freedom in other ways, you may be a fellow-traveler (libertarian Republican) on some issues, but you are NOT a Libertarian.

Again, Eric . . . .

Don't you think we make our movement out to be petty and insignificant when we can't even acknowledge something that's staring us right in our faces? 

Eric, cut the crap.  You are not fighting for the idea of Paul Ryan as a Libertarian, you are fighting for the election of Mitt Romney.  And it's not even because you love Mitt all that much, but because you honestly worry that the country won't survive four more years under Obama's policies.  I get that.  You are in the bag for Romney ("Libertarians for Romney!").

As for our movement, it's alive and well, and driving the national agenda.

If not for Libertarians, pot legalization and medical marijuana wouldn't be on the ballot in so many places.

If not for Libertarians, we wouldn't be talking at all about serious budget cuts.

If not for Libertarians, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and advances in marriage equality would not be happening.

If not for Libertarians, NOBODY would be discussing America's switch to an imperial foreign policy, and the need to cut the defense budget and get the hell out of Afghanistan.

Here's the difference between us (well, aside from the fact that I have a better mustache):

I believe that the next four years will be disastrous under EITHER Obama or Romney.

I also believe that Gary Johnson's candidacy provides the perfect vehicle to mobilize Libertarians around a real, viable candidate (whose latest money bomb just cracked $250K) and that this is our chance to push for some legitimacy and break some barriers.

But you believe that we have to elect Romney and a strong GOP majority in Congress, where they will promptly gorge themselves on more Defense spending and more intrusive social legislation.

The tinfoil in your hat is showing around the edges.