Ron Paul has been on CNN, Fox News, Comedy Central,
etc .... way more than any recent Libertarian I can
think of since Harry Browne in 2000, maybe briefly
during Badnarik's campaign he got on a few. Ron Paul
has also been spending money on advertising in Iowa
and Texas for their respective staw polls but he is
saving his biggest ad salvos for right before primary
votes in the respective states.
It's clear you know nothing of what is really going on
with Ron Paul, but yet commenting on your lack of
knowledge on Ron Paul gives me joy. As for big
government, he has never mentioned (in the hundreds of
blurbs I've seen of him on YouTube and in person here
in Mountain View) a ban on abortion or gay marriage at
the federal level. What positions he may have held in
the past I do not know, but he has been pretty
consistent with his message since I heard about him in
1997 and pretty consistent with what has been dug up
on him over the last 30 years.
I did a fun thing the other day. I asked my
libertarian brother if he knew George Phillies,
Christine Smith or Steve Kubby or Wayne Allen Root
(btw my brother is a big gambler who goes to vegas a
lot and plays poker etc, so you would think he knows
Root) and he had no clue. I said, do you know about
Ron Paul. He said yes. Now, he knows about Paul
because of me, so I asked him if he would have heard
of him had I not been here and he said of course, as
Ron Paul is in many major news feeds he reads on the
presidential election.
So basically, Ron Paul is helping with the libertarian
message, even if it isn't the purist 100 percent by
the platform message, on a much more broad national
base than our pitiful candidates will ever get.
Peace,
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
Incidentally, you *are* aware that Art Bell is a
program that makes fun of "kooks," right? When it's
not making fun of black helicopter people, guys who
have "recordings of hell" taken from fissures, or
guys who believe they're alien hybrids, they're
interviewing "kooky" politicians.
Exposure on AM radio fringe talk shows isn't
"getting the message out" -- heck, it's no different
than what the weakest Libertarian Party campaign
could do.
The Ron Paul campaign has a lot to learn not only
about liberty, but also effective media strategy.
Then again, they've not spent a dime on campaign
advertising despite racking up all those millions,
so perhaps the final joke is on all the donors!
Cheers,
Brian
defliberty@... wrote:
Brian,
Because Ron Paul participates in the national
debates, his libertarian
ideas, whether they are liked or not, are presented
to a huge national
and international audience. After each debate, I've
heard liberal and
neo-conservative radio talk show hosts and callers
discuss at great
length the ideas Ron Paul has presented in the
national debates. I've
even heard George Noory and Art Bell's huge
Coast-to-Coast talk show
discuss Ron Paul for at least an hour or more, on
several occasions.
Some hosts and callers despise Ron Paul's ideas,
others like his ideas;
regardless of whether Ron Paul's ideas are liked or
not, regardless of
Ron Paul's chances of winning the election, Ron
Paul's ideas are talked
about by a national and international audience.
Though Ron Paul is
affiliated with the Republican Party, all talk show
hosts and callers
that I have heard (I've been in Naples, Florida for
the past few
months) refer to Ron Paul as a RINO libertarian.
These factors have
created awareness of libertarian philosophy and have
promoted the
Libertarian Party's name.
Among the talk shows that I've heard that debated
Ron Paul's ideas,
none of them cast Ron Paul as anti-gay or
anti-immigrant and Ron Paul
did not cast himself as anti-gay or anti-immigrant.
On those shows, Ron
Paul's anti-IRS, anti-war and anti-Big Government
ideas were discussed.
Without Ron Paul in the debates as a member of the
Republican Party, I
seriously doubt any of these ideas would be
discussed at the national
level, even for one minute.
All the best,
Don Fields
From: Brian Miller <hightechfella@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Why I'm Supporting Ron
Paul
Ron Paul doesn't have a national platform to spread
any ideas.
At 2%, he's a statistical zero and has arguably less
impact to "spread libertarian ideas" than the LP
candidate -- who at least will get a voice in the
general election.
The fervent wishes of Paul supporters aside, I've
seen
no verifiable evidence he's been even marginally
more
successful than the LP in that regard -- certainly
not
from his support numbers.
Not to mention that the positions that get the most
attention for Ron Paul -- his anti-gay and
anti-immigrant positions -- aren't that libertarian
to
begin with.
Cheers,
Brian
--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
> Ron Paul at the moment has a national platform to
> spread the most
> Libertarian ideas on a national level than at
least
> back to Goldwater, and
> probably much further back than that.
>
> Christine Smith, Steve Kubby, Wayne Root and other
> assorted candidates never
> will have this audience. That's what makes it so
> important to support Ron
> Paul as much as we can as long as he can stay in
the
> race.
>
> >
> > Am I the only one tiring of false dichotomies?
> >
> > Ron Paul has no chance to win the GOP nomination
> -- which means the choice
> > clearly isn't going to be Paul vs. Clinton. He's
> polling at a statistical
> > zero in the GOP primary.
> >
> > Giuliani is the favorite to win the GOP
> nomination, with Romney running a
> > distant second. Clinton is the favorite to win
> the Democratic nomination,
> > with Obama a distant second.
> >
> > The likely race is Giuliani vs. Clinton, with
one
> or both of the players
> > replaced by Romney and Obama respectively. In
> other words, libertarians
> > cannot win.
> >
> > The front runners in the Libertarian Party
> nomination are all relatively
> > pro-libertarian people. All four are vastly more
> so than Ron Paul. That's
> > a "can't lose" proposition.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > *Robert Parkhurst <rmparkhurst@...>*
> wrote:
> >
> > If Hillary Clinton had done her job during the
> Clinton Administration,
> > we could have had the government completely
> responsible for our medical
> > health care. I wonder if this would have made
any
> of the people who are
> > now complaining about how the government is
> handling the Iraq War, the new
> > tax policies, appointing judges, dismissing
> federal attorneys or our
> > immigration policies feel healthier and more
> secure. If it does, give her
> > another chance.
> >
> > Robert Parkhurst
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* <dredelstein@...>
> > *To: *Dr. Michael R. Edelstein
> <DrEdelstein@...>
> > *Sent:* 8/16/2007 5:42:16 PM
> > *Subject:* [lpsf-discuss] Why I'm Supporting Ron
> Paul
> >
> > One terrific minute of Ron Paul in the Iowa
> debates.
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship
> answers
=== message truncated ===