There's no damn-near about it. He was the Libertarian presidential candidate in '88 for a reason. The only reason he's in the Republican party, as he said in his Daily Show appearance, is because a third party can't win in the U.S. His positions are definitionally libertarian. He is not a Republican, nor is he (for the same reason) a true adherent to conservatism.
If you're for minimalist everything policy, he's your man. That makes him libertarian, though, not conservative.
Of course, I am one of those that don't particularly like tilting the scales of social interaction back farther toward the "nasty, brutish, and short" line, but that's a whole different discussion altogether.
I am aware that he identifies with the libertarian party, but he seems to understand better than most of the others I've heard, that a timeline and a gradual change are important.
I agree that we have government agencies and programs that we do need, but even most of those don't work as-is, given that the nature of government is to create something out of need and then never adapt it as needs change. Thus, the FDA is nearly useless towards protecting us from food or approving drugs.
Maybe we need to look at a fresh start in some of these areas. Patches just aren't cutting it. That is the real issue: What we have doesn't work and costs us a ton.
Sure; I was just pointing out that he's textbook Libertarian. Whether a particular Libertarian calls for a graduate or immediate change to the Libertarian ideal is a separate issue
( ... )
And while I would gladly turn everything over to the government if it would be better, it hasn't been. Who cares about the cost when we are talking about safe food? I want safe food. I don't care how cost effective the FDA is if they can't deliver safe food and prohibit effective drugs from hitting the market place (while letting all kinds of things in
( ... )
Oops. Accidentally submitted this anonymously. Hey, dgtlghost, could you kill the old one from the moderation queue?
He's definitely one of the most interesting candidates, and one of the few that are both well outside of party lines and don't come across as loons. (Perhaps the only one, in fact, now that I think about it. Tancredo comes across as a bigot, Gravel as a bomb-thrower, and I love Denny K, but he really needs to stop talking about crystal power and the Age of Aquarius if he ever wants to get elected. Hot wife, though.)
I'm interested to see this quarter's fundraising returns. As interesting as he is, he's going to need a *snotload* more money to be competitive. American media markets are very very pricey. And he's not at the pace right now where he's going to hit that practical minimum of fundraising where he's viable, especially with a campaign season starting as early as this one has. This quarter's results will say a lot as to viability.
I agree with slinkygn a fair amount, but I am still very impressed with RP, if for no other reason than that he is willing to say that the reason we're doing so horribly in the middle east, including people hating us, is because we've been messing with their politics for years, and supplying them with half the bombs they've been fighting each other with. I'm still in shock that a politician said something along the lines of it being America's fault that we have so many terrorists against us.
Especially from the Republican camp. Plenty of Democrats have said the same (there was one remarkable Senate speech that kicked this off a couple or three years ago; wish I remembered who made it), but of course, Democrats are weak on the war, so it doesn't count.
What I like most about RP's willing to state a reason for wanting to pull out of the war is that he basically does so by saying the other Republicans aren't Republican enough. Citing the classic conservative non-interventionist policies to blast everybody else in the Republican race is very clever. And it doesn't come across as scheming, or trying to pull some excuse, probably because it's most likely not -- it is exactly in line with the policies he's been espousing all along. Why the Libertarian party continues to run Harry Browne the Libertarian Wannabe as their candidate is beyond me -- here's a guy that walks the walk.
Comments 8
If you're for minimalist everything policy, he's your man. That makes him libertarian, though, not conservative.
Of course, I am one of those that don't particularly like tilting the scales of social interaction back farther toward the "nasty, brutish, and short" line, but that's a whole different discussion altogether.
Reply
I agree that we have government agencies and programs that we do need, but even most of those don't work as-is, given that the nature of government is to create something out of need and then never adapt it as needs change. Thus, the FDA is nearly useless towards protecting us from food or approving drugs.
Maybe we need to look at a fresh start in some of these areas. Patches just aren't cutting it. That is the real issue: What we have doesn't work and costs us a ton.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
He's definitely one of the most interesting candidates, and one of the few that are both well outside of party lines and don't come across as loons. (Perhaps the only one, in fact, now that I think about it. Tancredo comes across as a bigot, Gravel as a bomb-thrower, and I love Denny K, but he really needs to stop talking about crystal power and the Age of Aquarius if he ever wants to get elected. Hot wife, though.)
I'm interested to see this quarter's fundraising returns. As interesting as he is, he's going to need a *snotload* more money to be competitive. American media markets are very very pricey. And he's not at the pace right now where he's going to hit that practical minimum of fundraising where he's viable, especially with a campaign season starting as early as this one has. This quarter's results will say a lot as to viability.
Reply
Reply
What I like most about RP's willing to state a reason for wanting to pull out of the war is that he basically does so by saying the other Republicans aren't Republican enough. Citing the classic conservative non-interventionist policies to blast everybody else in the Republican race is very clever. And it doesn't come across as scheming, or trying to pull some excuse, probably because it's most likely not -- it is exactly in line with the policies he's been espousing all along. Why the Libertarian party continues to run Harry Browne the Libertarian Wannabe as their candidate is beyond me -- here's a guy that walks the walk.
Reply
Leave a comment