Steve G.

Libertarian Debate on Google

In Libertarian on May 29, 2008 at 7:44 pm
  1. Jingozian is a man without an ounce of integrity to take tokens from Mary Ruwart and then use the platform SHE gave him to endorse another candidate.

    SCUMBAG.

  2. Well, GE, that’s politics.

  3. I guess that’s why someone with actual principles, like Mary Ruwart, cannot win then.

  4. Aren’t we the “party of principle?” No, we’re the party of Democratic and Republican infiltrators bringing their immoral and unethical practices to our convention and leaving with our nomination in tow.

  5. To be fair, Mary Ruwart didn’t play her cards very well.

    She entered the nomination contest much too late, didn’t have a rapid response team to battle the smear campaign launched against her, and didn’t reach out enough to fence-sitters who were supporting Root.

    Barr had more money and clinched about 2/3 of the Root supporters, by dealing with Root directly. Had Ruwart made a deal with Root on the floor, she would have won the final ballot.

    I’m also disappointed that she did not opt to serve as VP. Had she run, instead of Kubby, the ticket would have been well balanced and she would have won.

    I also don’t view former Democrats and former Republicans as “infiltrators.” Many of them, including Susan Hogarth and Rob Power, are some of our party’s most intelligent activists.

  6. Ruwart was too principled to make a deal with Root — the man who capitalized on the smear that originated on The Previous Website and whose campaign manager said Ruwart said “pedophelia is okay.” She was also too principled to run for VP with a candidate who supported the FairTax. She did a good thing for the party by not running, because had she run and won, the ticket would have been hurt by her inability to compromise her principles (a virtue, not a vice), and had she lost, the radicals would have taken it as an unbearable insult.

    I was not talking about Susan Hogarth or Rob Power, but former elected Republicans and Democrats who left their previous parties between 0 and 2 years ago.

  7. Aren’t we the “party of principle?” No, we’re the party of Democratic and Republican infiltrators bringing their immoral and unethical practices to our convention and leaving with our nomination in tow.

    Very true.

  8. I’m also disappointed that she did not opt to serve as VP.

    “I did my own investigation during the convention and it became clear to me that several of the key operatives in the Barr campaign simply did not want her on the ticket. Their idea of a “balanced” ticket was to have a VP candidate that let Barr call the tune on all political positions. Dr. Ruwart must have gotten wind of that also and realized that the VP nomination would mean great pressure on her to compromise several of her stances. She could not do that and thus made the wise choice not to go there.”

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/28/libertarian-party-media-reports/#comment-622328

  9. One of the more bizarre phenomena I’ve been seeing since convention are people running around screaming about Barr and DOMA.

    Well, that’s understandable — except that over half the people running around screaming about Bob Barr and DOMA were/are Ron Paul supporters.

    Barr authored DOMA, but has since renounced it in a series of “evolutions” on the issue.

    Ron Paul strongly supports DOMA as written and continues to state that he would have voted for it, as written.

    I got a lot of flack for calling out Ron Paul on this issue, from the same people now trying to use DOMA as a club to beat Barr with.

    Is that “principle?”

  10. I did not know Ron Paul supported DOMA for the longest time. In the end, when I did find out, I counted it among TWO deviations from strict constitutionalism on his record. The other being the federal partial-birth-abortion ban, which Paul admits is unconstitutional but, in one deviation from principle, voted for it anyway due to political concerns.

    I’m against state recognized marriage. But DOMA is a statute that overrules the Constitution, and thus, it is null and void.

  11. Well, GE, it’s indeed queer that when I talked about DOMA for a year and a half, it was a “non-issue” when it came to Paul, but now is front-and-center for the same Paul supporters who are slamming Barr and the LP.

    That’s not “principle,” plain and simple, that’s just more of the same old dirty politics.

  12. Once again, Mike Nelson (“disinter”) flip-flops on the issues.

    While many Outright Libertarians members (and executives) expressed concern about Barr’s membership, Nelson as an Outright Ex-Com member welcomed Barr with open arms on the Outright list.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OutrightLibertarians/message/2568

    “Congratulations to both Bob Barr and the LP!

    Carry-on with your bitching and moaing….”

    Yet now Nelson is carrying on as though Barr’s record prior to joining the LP makes him the worst politician on earth.

    I was one of the most concerned when Barr joined, and I still have some concerns. But I am accepting Barr’s conversion on the issues at face value — unlike Mike Nelson.

    Those choosing to work with Mike Nelson on Libertarian efforts in the future should carefully consider his history with Outright Libertarians, and Bob Barr. The same objections he’s making to the Barr candidacy today were made two years ago by his own constituents, and were completely ignored and downplayed!

  13. “Well, GE, that’s politics.”

    I was under the impression that libertarians sought to change the political system, not sustain it.

  14. Brian – I don’t think I ever said DOMA was a “non-issue.” It was a regrettable and yet mostly isolated deviation for Ron Paul.

  15. “She entered the nomination contest much too late, didn’t have a rapid response team to battle the smear campaign launched against her, and didn’t reach out enough to fence-sitters who were supporting Root.”

    First of all, Barr entered the race about a month after Ruwart did. Second, why do you attack Ruwart for not adequately responding to the smears, rather than attacking Root for starting the smears in the first place? Third, why should she compromise her principles to win Root’s support?

  16. “Well, GE, it’s indeed queer that when I talked about DOMA for a year and a half, it was a “non-issue” when it came to Paul, but now is front-and-center for the same Paul supporters who are slamming Barr and the LP.”

    For Paul, that was only one of two or three constitutional flaws in his campaign, with the others being federal partial-birth abortion and immigration. With Barr, not only does he change his position on it several times, it is one of many flaws, including marital hypocrisy, the Drug war, immigration, abortion, monetary policy, foreign policy, etc.

  17. Well, GE, it’s indeed queer that when I talked about DOMA for a year and a half, it was a “non-issue” when it came to Paul, but now is front-and-center for the same Paul supporters who are slamming Barr and the LP.

    Point taken. But do you think it might have a wee bit to do with the fact that Barr *wrote* DOMA?

  18. For Paul, that was only one of two or three constitutional flaws in his campaign

    Oh please. If it had been one of the pet issues of some of the people on this forum, it would have been unforgivable.

    But do you think it might have a wee bit to do with the fact that Barr *wrote* DOMA?

    Sure. But Barr has changed his position to a degree, if we take his apology at face value. And I was quite annoyed to see people shrugging off the Ron Paul criticisms apply it instead to Bob Barr — when Ron Paul is unquestionably less libertarian on this issue in his declaration than Barr is in his.

    I’m not apologizing for Barr — I am just pointing out that the average Libertarian isn’t buying the notion that Ron Paul supporters are “pure” Libertarians or even “radical” ones. I accept criticism of both candidates, but watching unrepentant Paultards like Mike Nelson scream at Barr about DOMA is just nauseating.

  19. Brian – I did not know Paul supported DOMA until after I was heavily invested in his campaign. It is the one issue I really can’t understand his reasoning on. It is clearly unconstitutional.

  20. “‘For Paul, that was only one of two or three constitutional flaws in his campaign’

    Oh please. If it had been one of the pet issues of some of the people on this forum, it would have been unforgivable.”

    So, rather than address the claim,you make an ad hominem attack against radicals. Very mature. I dont want to speak for othr radicals, but I’m willing to accept a candidate with a few flaws. Several flaws is a problem, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: