Brian,
If the exact same standards should be applied to people seeking
office as Republicans or as Libertarians, and if we should be no more
concerned about the message being promoted under then LP name than
under the GOP name, then what you say here makes good sense.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
You'd almost have me agree with that argument, Starchild, except that Ron Paul's supporters were promoting Ron Paul as both a small-l and Big-L Libertarian right up until he announced his "refocusing."
There was also a significant drive underway at one point to have the LP nominate "none of the above" if Ron Paul was the GOP nomination.
If Paul's supporters in the LP were opting to bolt for the GOP to get a limited collection of policies passed with which they agree, principle be damned, then I'd have had utterly no quarrel with them. The problem was that they promoted Paul as "libertarian in all things," including citing his life party membership, yet now are dismissing him as "just another Republican" now that his train is well off the tracks.
One of the ironies in the entire debate was that, prior to Paul's run, I was considered "too pragmatic and unprincipled" -- yet after the Paul controversy, I was branded a "purist." In reality, I just want a progression towards more liberty for everyone.
While Root is not a purist, a Root presidency would provide more liberty to the country than any of the Democrats or Republicans in the race, including Ron Paul. Considering the great passion and endless adulation for Paul from large quarters of the LP (including a drive to appoint his campaign marketing guy as the head of the LP), I continue to find the double-standard a bit confusing.
If it's OK for LPers to support Ron Paul to the point of calling for a NOTA vote in Denver, and to try and hire in his campaign guru as chair of the party, why is it *not* OK for a more-Libertarian-than-Paul candidate to be the nominee? The Ron Paul folks, once again, get a mulligan while everyone else is held to the standards of Rothbardian sacrosanctness.
It's a double standard, in my book, and unfair to those candidates in the LP from the "impure" crowd who are evolving on the issues.
It's certainly not going to grow the party if people who are evolving on the issues, as Root appears to be (and as former Congressman Barr arguably is) get tossed out of the party or marginalized by folks who were clamoring for a Republican just months earlier.
Cheers,
Brian
Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote: Brian,
If the exact same standards should be applied to people seeking
office as Republicans or as Libertarians, and if we should be no more
concerned about the message being promoted under then LP name than
under the GOP name, then what you say here makes good sense.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))