Well Lord help us if the genuine progressives come to power. The superiority of private retirement funds that I outlined would still stand in that case.
The speech points that special interests don’t dominate his coffers, calls out a congressman turned lobbyist, and denounces a smear campaign by a potentially racist warmongering crony capitalist, while simultaneously celebrating a victory over the political “elite” . Seems like something Salon would cheer. But alas libertarians represent a threat to the stale offerings of modern progressives, therefore he must be demagogued as a “Tea Party Nut”.
No what surprised people was the vast sums of money he raised. What also surprised people was the fervor of his supporters. The third thing that surprised people about his campaign was the level of success in the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary.
The last thing that surprised them was the effectiveness of delegate strategy in turning low primary vote totals into substantial numbers of delegates.
This last surprise did in fact represent a challenge to the party, in particular a challenge to their desire to mimic the Democrats’ stalinesque solidarity at the convention. This is evident in the rule changes that took place during and after the primaries and convention. Whether or not the Paulians will change the party is impossible to say. Did William Jennings Bryan change the Democratic party in his failed bids? History shows that he did
History also shows that Bryan was a three-time presidential candidate, and thus hardly failed in his bids for the nomination.
The problem is that defined benefit plans have been on the decline about private retirement funds: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/abolish_the_401k/
Bryan was never going to win the presidency. His failed bids were more important historically in how he changed the party.
Hm, government takes over the retirement savings business and private savings suffers? No way! 401k is inferior as well because it has too many regulations with what can be done with the money and when.
How did he change the party?
So I take it you’re still pushing the theory that a guy who won his party’s nomination three times and a guy who repeatedly ran for the nomination without breaking into double digit %ages of support are equally likely to change their party.
Yeah, that’s preposterous. What’s more libertarian than banning abortion, flag burning, gay adoption, and same-sex marriage? Or supporting the death penalty? Paul is like every other GOP “libertarian”: he’s an economic crank who gets labeled a libertarian because he breaks with the GOP on one or two foreign policy and law enforcement issues.
Ron Paul ran for President as the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 1988. I think it’s reasonably fair to call him a libertarian, even if he doesn’t completely pass a purity test.
That’s ridiculous. The Libertarian Party’s candidates are almost invariably mainstream Republicans who don’t mind pot.
Care to elaborate on your thesis, or should I just take it on your good word?
Not sure where I said they were equally likely. Could you point it out for me. I’m used to having words put in my mouth but that’s a bit much.
There is a very very simple concept that comes up in libertarianism often enough that even amateur wise-crackers should be familiar with by now. That concept is decentralization of political power. Now it is not libertarian per se to favor a decentralized power structure, but many libertarians believe it will lead to a “blossoming of liberty”. Now go away and find Paul’s actual positions on these matters. That is something he has said or written. Do not come to me with a lengthy diatribe from Salon where they lack the integrity to quote from the man. Once you have done that, we can discuss whether these are libertarian positions, or one of the few times Paul has deviated from a pure libertarian position.
As to your last sentence.
Paul was against all Iraq wars, including the one Obama is brewing up with encouragement from GOP hawks. That alone exceeds the “one or two” limit you placed on his foreign policy disagreements with the GOP. I could go on all day in this vein but it would be easier for you to admit that you hastily threw that last sentence together while you were preoccupied with deciding what was for dinner. Preposterous indeed.
Grover Cleveland- hard money non-interventionist at home and abroad
Then comes Bryan. Democrats never looked back.
So, then
was just random bloviating and not an attempt at equivalency. Sorry to have mistakenly taken you seriously.
Bryan was interventionist abroad?
Well, if you ignore the minor technical detail that one of the main planks of his 1900 campaign was ‘anti-imperialism,’ then sure.
That’s some pretty precise cherry picking. How’d he score in 2011? What about 2013?
Aside from the fact that he scored poorly in years other than 2012, it was noted earlier that he doesn’t agree with his Democratic counterparts as much as he occasionally reaches the same decision for entirely different reasons.
For example, you and I agree that ACA isn’t a very good long-term solution to our healthcare problems, but I’m pretty sure our replacement solutions are about as opposite as is possible.