Is this the end of the road for, Libertarian, Ron Paul?

21 posts / 0 new

It could be the end of the road for Libertarian Ron Paul – the only candidate left in the Republican race who has not won a single primary state yet. On Wednesday – the Paul campaign sent out a letter to supporters asking for $2.5 million in donations. In that letter – Paul writes that if they don’t raise the money then, “I am not sure our campaign can go on.”

It appears as though the Libertarian/Ayn Rand message of dismantling government as we know it – and leaving the poor and sick to die in the gutter alone – is losing its traction within the Republican Party.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

I got a call last night. It was a recording saying that "Mitt needs you!". They were asking for donations to Mitt's campaign. LOL Mitt needs money? I haven't heard anything from the Obama campaign yet.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

That is because as much as he hates rich people he needs them to survive. So he is telling us one thing while promising them something else. on a side note there are a lot of self hating liberals that will happily give him the money he needs.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

OOhh, it's "self-hating liberals" is it. You are so pitiful it is almost tempting to feel sorry for you. But then you go and say such ugly things the temptation passes. Wallow in your misery and projected self-hatred. Poor bossman.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What would you call some one that seems to not like what they have and votes for people to take it away from them?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Conservatives.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Would like to see Ron Paul stay in his foreign policy is pretty good. His social policy isn't bad either. The problem is his economic policy is dangerous. I wouldn't want him for President but like having some one put forward his ideas. As to the statement let people die that came from the audience. Paul never said and was clearly upset by the shout out. He suggested that he had and other doctors should do charity work. Don't think he understands the modern medical world but do think he'd try to help.

sbtbill's picture
sbtbill
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Conservatives.

How do you figure conservatives hate what they have and vote to take it away.

Lets see high net worth liberals hate that and vote huge tax hikes to take it away.

Freedom liberals hate that too they vote for more and more government control over their lives at the drop of a hat.

a consitutional republic nope they are trying to kill the constitution while screaming for democracy.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Conservatives defend the GOPimps and bash the fiscally conservative Progressives. They embrace wars, then complain about deficits. They want to be free of poor people and safe with criminals in jail while they endorse Wall St. and legalized theft. They were gung-ho for Bush and Cheney, and now they don't know who they are and want to blame Obama for not changing everything or for changing anything. It is hard to find any consistency that has anything to do with what has been done by those who use the brand, conservatives.

I get ideological citations of low taxes and deregulation of business. The policies created in the name of both have proved disastrous and failed. All we get in response is ignorant smears of what Liberals and Progressives have to be for the ideologues. If you had to deal with our actual beliefs and policies, you would not be able to continue in your ideological trance.

We all, Liberals and Progressives, think the problems are larger than the "solutions" on the duopoly table. We hate the flood of money masquerading as "speech" due to the ideological influence of the Supremes and the GOPimps, and we feel the frustration of entrenched "con" support for it. Why do you support plutocracy in the name of being a conservative? Or, do you think you are one of them?

We, Liberals and Progressives, may hope that elections will bring deeper and more fundamental change than we get, we may even wish for democracy to make it to the USA. We do not vote for people who advocate all the wrong things and have led us into this mess.

Nope, there is nothing like a "free market" conservative for being sold out by Free Trade World Order and to have personal freedom disappear in the authoritarianism of empire. I appreciate the need to project on your part and to call others what you are. When dealing with pathology, I think my perspective can include a recognition that reason has been kicked hard and fallen in the rhetorical battle. A lot of people outside America do not find "socialism" onerous. Nor does it stop them practicing democracy. Or even a good dose of capitalism.

Thank you for describing your delusions and paranioa so we can understand how nuts your are.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Conservatives defend the GOPimps and bash the fiscally conservative Progressives. They embrace wars, then complain about deficits. They want to be free of poor people and safe with criminals in jail while they endorse Wall St. and legalized theft. They were gung-ho for Bush and Cheney, and now they don't know who they are and want to blame Obama for not changing everything or for changing anything. It is hard to find any consistency that has anything to do with what has been done by those who use the brand, conservatives.

I get ideological citations of low taxes and deregulation of business. The policies created in the name of both have proved disastrous and failed. All we get in response is ignorant smears of what Liberals and Progressives have to be for the ideologues. If you had to deal with our actual beliefs and policies, you would not be able to continue in your ideological trance.

We all, Liberals and Progressives, think the problems are larger than the "solutions" on the duopoly table. We hate the flood of money masquerading as "speech" due to the ideological influence of the Supremes and the GOPimps, and we feel the frustration of entrenched "con" support for it. Why do you support plutocracy in the name of being a conservative? Or, do you think you are one of them?

We, Liberals and Progressives, may hope that elections will bring deeper and more fundamental change than we get, we may even wish for democracy to make it to the USA. We do not vote for people who advocate all the wrong things and have led us into this mess.

Nope, there is nothing like a "free market" conservative for being sold out by Free Trade World Order and to have personal freedom disappear in the authoritarianism of empire. I appreciate the need to project on your part and to call others what you are. When dealing with pathology, I think my perspective can include a recognition that reason has been kicked hard and fallen in the rhetorical battle. A lot of people outside America do not find "socialism" onerous. Nor does it stop them practicing democracy. Or even a good dose of capitalism.

Thank you for describing your delusions and paranioa so we can understand how nuts your are.

The wars probably should not have happened but I blame that on both parties. True conservatives did not vote to go to war. They also voted against the bank bail outs.

They do vote to be free of the poor because they understand that by eliminating financial slavery they make it possible for everyone to succeed.

Where are progressives progressing to?

The progressive movment if I remember right came about because they had to change their name to get.away from the bad blood or bad reputation brought.on by the evils of communism and socialism.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Nope, progressives had to distinguish themselves from Cold War "liberals" who became the Neocons along with the GOPimps of Corporate and Free Market Theology.

I don't recall any deep bipartisan protest of the wars. I remember lots of us on the Left complaining about the Cheney/Pentagon lies that the Right united around. I really wish conservatives could be peace activists so we could have a real peace movement. I wish they had any fiscal conservative guts when it comes to real waste rather than programs that care for real people. It is the rich who are stealing the money, not the poor. But you want to bash the poor and reward the rich.

Progressives saw "liberals" as sell-outs to "anti-Communist" fear mongering. It is true that the Right has made Socialism the bogeyman they need to fear. But, it is paranoia, not fact or realism. We can be for neither Socialism or Capitalism and just for a mixed economy of "democratic" both where the Commons is publicly owned and free enterprise complements it. The bad reputation is the Robber Barons and Gilded Ages of Greed, not the New Deal. Of course your memory is different. So is your "thinking."

The whole rhetoric of "eliminating financial slavery" as if that makes it possible for everyone to succeed is a bad joke. If the slaveowner succeeds, can everyone be one? Where is the evidence of more people succeeding in a free for all? If you want to be taken seriously, do you consider credit card debt and the high price for the basics to compete financial freedom, or enslavement? Would it not be better to have everyone free from these financial constraints with free education, healthcare and decent housing and food so they could all succeed?

Meanwhile, where do you find those true conservatives and their record of standing tall against war and the extension of the national security state? They have been very private and quiet.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Credit card debt and the high cost of products is a bad thing but that goes along the lines of freedom. No one made you run up that credit card debt. The high cost of basic needs is because of high taxes placed on the business that produce the product all the way down to the farmer who grows your food. He has to pay gas tax, employment tax for his employees, sales tax when he buys his seeds, taxes when he sells his crops, transportation costs. The list goes on all the way up the ladder until it reaches the store where you purchase the product. This will not change unless we stop the government from doing things they are not supposed to do.

Who gets to decide what is free education can I go to Harvard for free or is that only for the elite? Does everyone get good health care or do we end up like socialist countries and communist countries where you have one hospital for the government leaders and one hospital for the rest of the people? Who gets to decide what decent housing is? My idea of the perfect house is a 10,000 square foot house overlooking the ocean in San Diego or maybe Hawaii, or is that only for the government leaders and inside people?

How do you make food free? Do you nationalize the farms, ranches, meat processors and all other food makers? Do you really want to let the government have that much power that they control your food production and distribution?

If a free for all if you work hard, enough you can succeed because it is up to you and no one else to succeed or fail. Can the same be said about socialism? For examples of this look at the results of the immigration boom in the early U.S. history before the government started getting involved, look at the outcomes of the roaring 20’s.

So where are the progressives progressing to? Freedom for all, Socialism, Communism, Or is it something different?

If it is freedom for all describe what you consider freedom for all.

What do you consider the commons? Land, food, hospitals, how much of your life do you want under the control of a central government?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:What would you call some one that seems to not like what they have and votes for people to take it away from them?
Quote DRC:

Conservatives.

KNOCKOUT!!!

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am

Let's see, "liberty and justice for all" is now something other than the end of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is now a measure of Marxism and that failed experiment of the Soviet Union, and the hellhole that Denmark has become.

The problem with defining "freedom" is that does not fit well within some common assumptions. We are not "free" to deny who we are or to evade the consequences of what we do. We are only free to be wrong in ignorance or denial, but not in consciousness and choice. And, the hand we are dealt in life or the story we belong to shape, constrain and enable choices "we" as individuals are so "free" to make that we must choose and have no choice not to. Beyond being "free to be responsible," it is a freedom that embraces our not being able to live up to being "responsible" without grace and forgiveness. Unless our freedom is bound by love, freedom will make us arrogant and narcissistic rather than humble and grateful about its blessings. Unless our justice includes "the least of these," we will excuse what is immoral and pay tribute to predators.

The definition of "freedom" that I find to say the most politically is that it is "participation in power." To be for the participation in power to be for all instead of the few--or even at the expense of minorities where majorities ignore human and civil rights. Freedom for all means all being equal as citizens under "participation in power." Nothing close to economic equality has been suggested by Progressives. The level differentiating economic coercion from economic freedom is debatable. But, if you are going to be for freedom as participation in power, you cannot allow money to declare virtue or give power too much weight. When your money harms other people's ability to participate as equal citizens "in power" your money is a problem. It messes with freedom.

Because it is "for all," freedom is not just "getting out of jail." Individuals have a lot of room and a lot fewer defined obligations in American individualism. For a few, this individualism allows an escape from others and makes being on one's own a great relief or liberation. There are successful "loners," but also more lonely people. They experience a treadmill where they work hard at school and then at work, or have to deal with bad breaks like jobs going away even when you have done well. Starting over and getting nowhere fast. Considering that it is taking forever.

Your brand has sold "Freedom is not Free" as military recruitment ads. I would add that a free society where human freedom is full participation in power is honored would require some investments of our common treasury in building. I see FDR's "Four Freedoms" included in real freedom for all instead of predatory freedom for some. Even if the Pledge did not tie liberty to justice, we can appreciate that human freedom is not well understood in a slogan slugfest. So, ye who invoke "economic freedom" as though it were the moral trump card, it is you with the illusion of freedom instead of the real thing.

Because human beings are complex and not easily reduced to simple definition, nothing as essential to their nature and being as "freedom" could be "simple." I find the same quality in our sense of "community." Full and universal participation in community, humanity, "familiy" and power is what I think "liberty and justice for all" means. It helps if you use the power of love, but I think it adds up to a good deal no matter how you cut it.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ron Paul has won a couple of states... look it up.

I like Ron Paul very much. I like him in the same way that I like Bernie Sanders.

I trust them. I do not think they are liars. They are so few... so few.

I don't agree (of course) with everything that they do, BUT... I at least believe that they are honest.

My DREAM would have been for Bernie Sanders to have challenged Obama in the primaries and at least made him defend some of the truly horrific executive orders that he's done recently.

I would give my left nut to see Bernie Sanders debate Obama.

I am hoping that Paul runs as an independent so that he spoils ANY hope of a Romney campaign and that he gets to debate REAL issues on the main stage.

I believe that if Ron Paul got a chance to debate Obama one on one... those debates would go down in history right up there with "Lincoln/Douglas".

Ron Paul drew 5000 in Illinois and 10000 in California... almost ALL young people.

But what we have to look forward to is Mr. Etch a Sketch vs. the 180 degree machine. Whoopee!

Here is a sample of what you can expect during the Romney/Obama debates, "You're a liar... no, you're a liar... You're a BIGGER liar, NO... you're a bigger liar..."

ZZZZzzzzzz... Wake me up when our Republic is over.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

You can't have freedom in any capitalist society because the people who "make it" have to do so at the expense of the real work of other people, so the term freedom in that sense is really just a hollow shell that masquerades singular ambition that can never translate to the general populace. The only way to have freedom for real for the whole society is for every child to have an equal start in life where all of their basic needs are guaranteed so that they all start out healthy. And the only way to do that is to have a very strong government instead of the weak government that the conservatives espouse. All that a weak government does is facilitate it's being ignored by corporations that are allowed to grow to a type of power which can have them dictate how the government will work, and, as everyone can plainly see by now, that is a model which could never translate into a just society.

As DRC noted above, in most of the world socialism isn't regarded as the evil that it is within the far-right capitalist societies. All socialism means is taking care of the real social needs of the whole populace and that is all. It is just putting limitations on the amount of capitalism which is allowed to be conducted within a regulated society. And communism is essentially the same thing, where the primary needs of society are controlled and run by the government of the people chosen by the people, and individually owned businesses fill in all the gaps that the government doesn't provide. The only successful communist nation in history is in Cuba and now they are gradually allowing private business to flourish now that they've got most everything working properly. They would have done the same long before if they didn't have to continually maintain a virtual war state to combat the real terrorism that has been perpetrated against them by the U.S. and it's lackeys for the past half century. So they are history's model going forward. And the people in other capitalist countries recognize that achievement as is evidenced by the amount of tourist visitors that Cuba receives from said capitalist countries such as Canada, Germany, Russia and so on, which have already surpassed a million visitor in the first quarter of this year.

The way that the unrestrained capitalists wish for the world to be ordered is so that their small sect are the ones who control the rest of the world going forward and that clearly is an old way of operating that can never operate satisfactorily in the future of population saturation. So it is inevitable that their kind are going to be removed from power no matter how hard they resist or how much they think they can influence the future. Plain and simple, the imperialist capitalists are the real dead-enders of history because their idea of a controlled society can never work. And it is in that realization that politicians such as Ron Paul are just outmoded for the current times no matter how popular is their appeal amongst the young voters and no matter how honest they are personally. The only way to survive in the future is to take care of everybody and that means no more wars and no more armies.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 7:24 pm

I think you are confused about communism, under communism there is no private property, no individually owned small business, no right to vote, no right to question the government, and no right to escape if you choose to.

Lets look at Cuba since you brought them up, before Castro Cuba had a thriving economy that rivaled the U.S. it was the vacation paradise of the rich and famous. All the latest fashions, products were all available to everyone.

50 years after Castro took power the average wage of the worker is 17 dollars a month, the W.H.O. said that malnutrition and starvation were a huge problem up until Castro started to allow private ownership of companies; he started to back off communism on his way towards capitalism.

Russia was a capitalist country before communism and again after communism failed. Now that they are allowing for more capitalism, they are growing very fast.

Under communism, the government controls the production of everything so they can decide who eats and who does not. The present government might allow the food to flow evenly to everyone but the next one may not.

The founding fathers knew that a big over powerful controlling government to take away rights or even starve you to death if they deem needed. That is why they wanted a small central government with stronger state government, because state governments are easier to control than the central federal one.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote Thom Hartmann Administrator:

It could be the end of the road for Libertarian Ron Paul – the only candidate left in the Republican race who has not won a single primary state yet. On Wednesday – the Paul campaign sent out a letter to supporters asking for $2.5 million in donations. In that letter – Paul writes that if they don’t raise the money then, “I am not sure our campaign can go on.”

It appears as though the Libertarian/Ayn Rand message of dismantling government as we know it – and leaving the poor and sick to die in the gutter alone – is losing its traction within the Republican Party.

With the exception of Ron Paul, NO Republican supports dismantling government. They may say it, but they don't do it. What makes you think that people would die in the gutter if there weren't government programs? Are you saying that the population at large would not help out their fellow man unless they are forced to? If you had all of your income taxes back, would you let anyone starve? If people are so bad and selfish, why do they vote for politicians who supporting increasing the welfare state?

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm
Quote Thom Hartmann Administrator:

It could be the end of the road for Libertarian Ron Paul – the only candidate left in the Republican race who has not won a single primary state yet. On Wednesday – the Paul campaign sent out a letter to supporters asking for $2.5 million in donations. In that letter – Paul writes that if they don’t raise the money then, “I am not sure our campaign can go on.”

It appears as though the Libertarian/Ayn Rand message of dismantling government as we know it – and leaving the poor and sick to die in the gutter alone – is losing its traction within the Republican Party.

I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand, although "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal" was good reading. Rand was not a libertarian. The Ayn Rand Institute is not a libertarian organization. Rand didn't invent free market economics. Trying to discredit the economic program she supported by stating that she based a character on a sociopath is a smear. Greenspan is not a libertarian,nowadays. He did support a Gold Standard in the 60's. But he obviously sold out.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny how any system that is different than your own is ridiculed by the people who wish to profit from the misery of others. But that can't entirely be blamed on the individuals themselves since most of everyone who has been raised up within a criminal state have been completely indoctrinated for all of their lives by a constant barrage of lies and misinformation that is designed to turn them into simple automatons. And breaking free of such ingrained subordinative indoctrination requires a great effort at obtaining truth which is not readily available when the criminal state owns most of all the media. Fortunately for us there is a medium that has essentially come to the rescue, and that is the interconnectability that modern travel, communication and the internet provide.

One of the great fallacies that fascist regimes have promoted about communism is that there can be no private property. There is no example of that anywhere in history in any communist nation so it is completely bogus, something that the criminal capitalists know full well but they promulgate the lie anyway because, in fact, the criminal capitalist society is totally dependent on lies so it is easy for them to come up with new lies whenever they want to make a counterpoint.

The idea that there can be no private land in communism is also bogus, as anyone who studied Cuba in any compacity would know, as giving private land to the populace in agrarian reform was one of the first major undertakings of the Cuban Revolution, and it would have to be a major undertaking in the U.S. as well when sanity is brought to bear on a reformed government. The criminal capitalists are the ones who don't want private land, as is easily seen by their agro-industrial operations taking over all of the farmland by getting rid of the small landowners. And it is in criminal capitalist societies where no one owns their land no matter if they had the original purchase price paid off for decades and had no debt, because if you don't pay property taxes that land can be confiscated and that means you are only ever paying rent, something that doesn't happen in communist countries. So when uninformed people, and that is not to blame them for their systemitized ignorance, complain about communism it is found that most of their bad beliefs about communism are actually not reflective of communism but are reflective of the true state of the criminal capitalist society in which they have been indoctrinated.

As for voting; in criminal capitalism representative "democracy" voting, the general citizenry have absolutely no choice in who the candidates are that they vote for and all of those candidates are picked by the criminal capitalist gang themselves and then are presented on the ticket as a fait accompli, so it doesn't matter in the least who gets elected because they are going to be doing what their masters tell them and not what the electors might think is best for them and/or society. In Cuban communism, as the prime example, the citizenry decide who is going to be eligible to be voted into office and they actively choose people who are the most responsible from within their community, and if any such person gets into office and doesn't fulfill the task in a proper or suficient manner then they are recalled, without recrimination, and someone more suitable is given the task. In Cuba they generally have a voter turnout in the high nineties whereas in the U.S. the turnout is generally half of that. In Cuba they have what a real democracy should be and in the U.S. the "democracy" is a farce.

The misunderstanding of what communism really means is undoubtably a product of the criminal capitalists not wanting their "consumers" to know of anything better because that would ultimately lead to a loss of control. The criminal capitalists are against big government because that would restrict their evil management of society and threaten their very existence, but they are only against big government whereas it would better the life of the citizenry, as far as big government in the sphere of the police state, well, they're always gung ho for that.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 7:24 pm

Since it is evident, especially in the U.S., that many people don't know the truth of the remarkable achievements that have transformed Cuba into the only Humanist nation and, as such, into the most respected nation in history, I will list several websites so that those who are interested can get started on learning about Cuba and it's wonderful accomplishments.

www.ain.cu

www.cubadebate.cu

www.granma.cu

If anyone doesn't read spanish then AIN has a small British flag in the top right corner which will switch to an english translation and Granma has a translator top left. I would especially recommend religiously reading Fidel's reflections as he is far and away the smartest and most knowledgeable world leader that history has known, even though he is now officially retired and Raul is leading the country.

And if anyone doesn't know spanish then it might be a good time to learn because it is an easy language to pick up and because there are more spanish speaking people in the western hemisphere than english, and because latinamerica is in the ascendant.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 7:24 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system