Steve G.

Outreach, or Outhouse?

In Libertarian Party-US on July 18, 2008 at 1:04 am

Just click here, check out the comments at the bottom from R3OVLUTIONaries, and pop back to tell me how I’m supposed to sell such a campaign, and a “libertarian” brand associated with that campaign, with such opinions representing the majority of supporters.

Bonus points for apologies or claims that I “took the posts out of context.”

Extra bonus points if you can somehow spin it into happy-happy joy-joy.

Mucho mega bonus points if you can find comments from the Barr campaign, its prominent staffers, or LP staffers that are anywhere near as ridiculous.

Extra mucho mega bonus points if you can understand why associating the “libertarian” brand with such dreck is bad for the movement and the LP as a whole.

  1. Honestly, I don’t know what your point is. I see exactly TWO comments there. Let’s review them:

    1) “What the hell is the relevence even if he was? This is the kind of thing that makes people creep out about in your face gays. Get over it.”

    This comment is obviously in reference to this snippet from the article: “Though his death was reported in The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, his sexual orientation was never mentioned.”

    So, tell me, why *should* the WSJ bother mentioning Kent’s sexual orientation? Apparently the Advocate thinks it’s essential that any news item about a gay person must point out the fact that the subject is gay (unless of course the story is about something terrible the subject did such as molest some young children). All of this, of course, assumes that the WSJ even knew Kent was gay. Being a Ron Paul supporter, I’ve known of Kent for a number of years yet this is the first time I’ve heard that he was gay. So why should WSJ know of this? Why should they even care?

    2) “I wonder how rich his family is going to be after they sue everyone who is reporting erroneously that Kent is GAY? I hope they hit you with a huge libel suit.”

    Obviously I’m not the only one who is a bit surprised to hear about Kent being gay. Apparently this person seems to think it’s untrue. I have no idea one way or the other, and quite frankly, I don’t care.

    So, you’re freaking out about how these two extremely tame comments are somehow going to damage the libertarian brand name? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. How do you even know these two people are either libertarians or “R3OVLUTIONaries”? I might assume that the second commenter has some association with Ron Paul since he/she seems to know a bit about Kent Snyder. But, nothing the first commenter wrote indicates any such thing. Like he said, “get over it.”

    And you can save your Extra much mega bonus points for the next person.

  2. “You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.”

    Sadly, he’s not.

    tell me how I’m supposed to sell such a campaign, and a “libertarian” brand associated with Outright Libertarians.

  3. I’ll agree with Brian that the small number of commenters at the Advocate site referred here are unenlightened. I’m going to guess that they are not regular Advocate readers (in fairness to them, neither am I), but were drawn there by some link on a Ron Paul message board of some sort.

    I don’t think they represent everyone who supports Ron Paul. Some Ron Paul supporters are socially conservative, anti-imperialist and anti-big government on economic matters. Some of those may keep their social conservatism personal, while others do think government needs to be involved in these areas.

    There are other Ron Paul supporters who are mainly such for anti-imperialist reasons, tend to be very socially liberal, and somewhat clueless on economics. Greens, Nader and Obama are likely to eventually get the support of many of these if they end up voting at all.

    There are even Ron Paul supporters who tend to agree with him on domestic issues, but not foreign policy. Bruce Cohen, for instance.

    They are far from being a monolithic group. There’s no common thread other than that they find some areas of overlap between their views and Ron Paul’s, and find him to be the most prominent politician expressing those views publicly, or anything like them.

  4. Hopefully, he doesn’t homeschool

    This guy was amusing for a different reason though. He probably ought to use spell-checker if he’s going to brag about teaching his children how to read:

    “…Openly gay people, who parade their sexuality, usually do it in very offencive way. As if they were better than straight people. Because they have the so-called guts to admit it. I, who is straight, find this sort of behavior to be offencive to me and my parental responsibility. I teach my kids to read and get involved in politics. Especially about political education issue. I have gotten them involved in Ron Paul and the Campaign for liberty. They recieve email alerts on Ron Paul. And they recieved this story. And, as it was ment to be, took the focus off Ron Paul and his fight, to something homosexual.

    How does it go?
    I before E except after…

  5. OOOOOHHHH, I know!!! C!

    Kidding, Paulie PDSA (Paulie, I’m thinking of you…); I “ment” to say that I disagree with Brian on a bunch of stuff but still think he’s good for the libertarian brand. God knows we’ve no standards where branding is concerned. The “herding cats” mentality and individualism is what makes those inclined toward liberty strong- we recognize that everyone is different in that regard. Yes, even Bob Barr. But damn, it would have been great to have a standard bearer that didn’t push the opposite issue on some fronts.

    In fact, I think it would be GREAT if Bob Barr actually had the balls to say that we all have a different view of liberty and that no government has any right to usurp ours. He could then honestly admit that he’s selling his knock off version of the brand in hope that the masses can afford to buy.

  6. Oh, sorry for the Barr rant when we were talking about Paul branding. I’m heat fatigued from golf and into a bottle damned the consequence. ;o)

  7. Well, I’m encouraged to see at least one person gets where I am going with this, Michelle. 🙂

    Compare and contrast the situation here.

    We’ve got a bunch of gay voters who have little to no contact with “libertarians,” except when a bunch of anti-gay Paul supporters post on boards frequented by them to excoriate them for covering a story that is of interest to LGBT people.

    Then, six months later, we demand gay support.

    This post has doubtlessly been reviewed by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Ron Paul supporters — yet not a single one of them posted a retort to the Ron Paul supporters’ anti-gay rants on the gay site.

    That’s disappointing.

    So I, as a non-Ron-Paul supporter, will have to once again go in and clean up a mess that “libertarians” have created in my back yard. Without pay.

    I’m getting tired of this. So are most other gay libertarians, including prominent long-time LP people.

    At some point, libertarians are going to have to start walking the walk. That means treating this anti-gay shit with the same level of sternness that an anti-prostitution or anti-drug-use screed by various Paul supporters would attract.

    My response on the Advocate board will be short and sweet, and will be a lot different than what I would have posted had I seen *some* semblance of support from the small-l libertarian contingent.

    Oh well.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: