David Bernstein:
Rather, the point is that his campaign seems to be taking the same unfortunate position that Goldwater did in 1964; condemning racism in general on principled libertarian grounds, but providing winks and nods that support from racists for racist reasons would be welcome.

Paul and Thompson are the only major party Presidential candidates I would consider voting for in the primaries, although I have problems with both of them. Then again, I typically disagree with the Libertarian Party candidates on a couple of key issues, too. Point is, I wouldn't dismiss any candidate just for being imperfect.

Having said that, I wasn't aware that Paul had been accused of being racist, or of tolerating racism on the parts of others, but then I had never considered voting for him until this campaign. After reading the article (I had already visited Paul's website), I couldn't draw the same conclusions as you and Mr. Bernstein seem to have drawn. Maybe I just came in at the tail end of a longer issue, so I'm going to have to do some more homework. Thanks for the information.

Stefanie wrote:
Then again, I typically disagree with the Libertarian Party candidates on a couple of key issues, too. Point is, I wouldn't dismiss any candidate just for being imperfect.

I'm starting to get very critical of Paul. The language he uses is attractive to a lot of my friends and I don't think they should be supporting him. I think that they want to beleive that there is this person who is principled and beleives in individual freedom, but I don't think he actually shares the values that many of his supporters have.

He doesn't beleive the things that his supporters say he beleives.

People say that he is not anti-immigration, he is only against illegal immigration, but he has sponsored bills in the house this year that are targetted at legal immigrants and create substantial financial barriers for them.

He says he beleives in individual freedom, but his positions support the absolute power of state and local governments to impinge on Constitutionally protected rights.

In reality he is not a libertarian, he is a paleo-conservative. He wants to undo the financial structures created in response to the great depression, he wants to undo the international relationships that were created in response to the first and second world wars, and he wants to undo the civil liberties advances that were the product of the civil war. He wants to go back to the way things were in the 1830's wholesale, completely ignoring any and all hard lessons that we've learned along the way, and resurrecting numerous extremely evil systems in the process.

This is not just "imperfect" and I'm tired of hearing from apologists that we won't have the power to implement his entire agenda. His campaign is dangerous.

Decius wrote:
I think that they want to believe that there is this person who is principled and believes in individual freedom, but I don't think he actually shares the values that many of his supporters have.

Fair enough. That's exactly how Paul comes across.

Decius wrote:
This is not just "imperfect" and I'm tired of hearing from apologists that we won't have the power to implement his entire agenda. His campaign is dangerous.

I wasn't applying the term "imperfect" to the racism charge or other charges of yours, regarding Paul. I simply meant that a candidate doesn't have to be my clone to get my vote, and I stated so as a preface to my comments that followed. Much of what you've posted about Paul is new to me, so it's not as though I'm considering voting for someone whom I know is supporting/sponsoring racist policies (or any policies that I would consider anti-freedom). Racism is a serious charge, though, so I've got some research ahead of me.

If, after digging around, I conclude that Paul (or any other candidate I'm considering for any office) is either racist himself, or looks the other way when it comes to racism, then I'll have a major problem with him, just as you do. Perhaps you weren't referring to me, but just in case, I'm not an apologist, nor have I ever used a candidate's not having "the power to implement his entire agenda" as an excuse to vote for him and/or support him in spite of flaws that are much more than "imperfect."

Decius wrote:
The language he uses is attractive to a lot of my friends and I don't think they should be supporting him.

He doesn't believe the things that his supporters say he believes.

If that's the case, then I need to know that, and I'm glad you brought it to my attention. I'll be looking into it, so in that regard, you've achieved your goal. :)

Stefanie wrote:
Perhaps you weren't referring to me, but just in case, I'm not an apologist.

No, I don't mean you personally. Sorry if I came across that way. These rants are the product of a deluge of Ron Paul support from numerous people in my life and the different perspectives they each have. I appreciate the amount of thought you are putting into your decision. For many people, politics is more about beleifs and identity than about careful open minded consideration.

I'm not sure, btw, if Ron Paul is racist. The problem there stems from the fact that he has presented a platform position on racism which he could still hold were he racist.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
Then again, I typically disagree with the Libertarian Party candidates on a couple of key issues, too. Point is, I wouldn't dismiss any candidate just for being imperfect.

I'm starting to get very critical of Paul. The language he uses is attractive to a lot of my friends and I don't think they should be supporting him. I think that they want to beleive that there is this person who is principled and beleives in individual freedom, but I don't think he actually shares the values that many of his supporters have.

He doesn't beleive the things that his supporters say he beleives.

People say that he is not anti-immigration, he is only against illegal immigration, but he has sponsored bills in the house this year that are targetted at legal immigrants and create substantial financial barriers for them.

He says he beleives in individual freedom, but his positions support the absolute power of state and local governments to impinge on Constitutionally protected rights.

In reality he is not a libertarian, he is a paleo-conservative. He wants to undo the financial structures created in response to the great depression, he wants to undo the international relationships that were created in response to the first and second world wars, and he wants to undo the civil liberties advances that were the product of the civil war. He wants to go back to the way things were in the 1830's wholesale, completely ignoring any and all hard lessons that we've learned along the way, and resurrecting numerous extremely evil systems in the process.

This is not just "imperfect" and I'm tired of hearing from apologists that we won't have the power to implement his entire agenda. His campaign is dangerous.

Maybe. But do you think that his gaining support will force other candidates to moderate their stances? Much like earlier dark horse candidates (Perot, Forbes, etc), their real value might be in raising consciousness and/or forcing particular issues. I'm not sure that he's as much of a snake as you purport, but even if he's disingenuous (likely, he's a politician), his rhetoric cannot be simply cast aside any longer.

flynn23 wrote:
Maybe. But do you think that his gaining support will force other candidates to moderate their stances? Much like earlier dark horse candidates (Perot, Forbes, etc), their real value might be in raising consciousness and/or forcing particular issues. I'm not sure that he's as much of a snake as you purport, but even if he's disingenuous (likely, he's a politician), his rhetoric cannot be simply cast aside any longer.

First I want to say that I think the rules have changed a bit. The old analysis that these people are unelectable may no longer be correct because the Internet has changed how opinions are made. In this regard I think Ron Paul's campaign is more similar to Howard Dean's than Pat Buchanan's. I think Dean was a surprise, and I think Paul will be surprising.

As far as what the campaign that supports him will teach the mainstream candidates, as he is a radical I'm not sure any of those impacts would be moderating. Perhaps this question would be better answered by a supporter of his who can see good in his campaign. I'm very cynical about him at the moment. Here are the possibilities I'd raise:

Major impacts:

- A harder line on immigration. Obviously the Republican voter wants a harder line on immigration than the leadership of the party is willing to stomach. Paul's success is just the latest in a collection of political signals in this regard. Some favored Paul policy positions may find their way into the Republican platform, including attacks on legal immigrants.

- Spend less money. The success of Paul indicates that there is a lot of money out there that is willing to fund a candidate who will cut taxes regardless of the circumstances. This might make the Republican party take a harder line on healthcare, social security, etc...

Minor impacts:

- Judicial appointments. Paul's position on the Constitution is more conservative than any sitting justice. There are people in the federalist society who are sympathetic to his perspective. His campaign will embolden them that they can talk openly about what they want and they can even color it as advocacy of greater freedom.

- Isolationsim. Paul's success indicates that there is still a roll for isolationism in the modern republican party after 9/11. I think pro war republicans are the force that is most likely to block Paul's progress, but prior to this, the old school isolationism was completely gone from the Republican dialog and its clearly back now.

The sum is that the Republican party becomes, well, more Republican... Low taxes, fewer civil liberties. How thats different from what the Republican party has been offering for decades I'm not sure.