Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here
- Red_Dragon - Jun 26, 2024 - 10:10am
What is your favorite music video?
- Steely_D - Jun 26, 2024 - 9:41am
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 9:13am
NY Times Strands
- maryte - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:43am
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:30am
Wordle - daily game
- JrzyTmata - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:24am
SCOTUS
- Red_Dragon - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:10am
Russia
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 8:02am
NYTimes Connections
- rgio - Jun 26, 2024 - 7:45am
WikiLeaks
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:50am
Trump
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:21am
Anti-War
- R_P - Jun 26, 2024 - 6:11am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:52am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:15am
Ukraine
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 26, 2024 - 5:11am
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Jun 25, 2024 - 9:24pm
Hockey + Fantasy Hockey
- GeneP59 - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:59pm
::odd but intriguing::
- Beaker - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:09pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 2:42pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 12:08pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:26am
*** PUNS *** FRUIT
- Proclivities - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:23am
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 25, 2024 - 11:10am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 25, 2024 - 9:45am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2024 - 9:40am
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:37am
Music Videos
- miamizsun - Jun 25, 2024 - 8:11am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- wossName - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:47am
China
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 25, 2024 - 4:44am
MTV's The Real World
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 11:11pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 7:14pm
Breaking News
- Red_Dragon - Jun 24, 2024 - 5:35pm
Baseball, anyone?
- rgio - Jun 24, 2024 - 5:02pm
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Jun 24, 2024 - 10:45am
Little known information... maybe even facts
- Proclivities - Jun 24, 2024 - 8:56am
How do you create optimism?
- R_P - Jun 24, 2024 - 8:27am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:04pm
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 7:49pm
favorite love songs
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 3:35pm
Prog Rockers Anonymous
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:24pm
The Dragons' Roost
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:01pm
Dumb Laws
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 1:51pm
BEATLES Make History AGAIN!!
- thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 9:12am
TV shows you watch
- R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:57am
Congress
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 5:53pm
Song of the Day
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:32pm
What do you snack on?
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:20pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:44pm
What did you have for dinner?
- triskele - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:31pm
Jam! (why should a song stop)
- thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:53pm
Things I Saw Today...
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:38pm
Some bands or songs are recurring too much in Rock channe...
- mlebihan29 - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:26am
Fox Spews
- R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:19am
Sonos
- thatslongformud - Jun 22, 2024 - 6:18am
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 22, 2024 - 4:44am
Too much classic rock lately?
- thisbody - Jun 21, 2024 - 4:01pm
Girls Just Want to Have Fun
- oldviolin - Jun 21, 2024 - 2:22pm
Musky Mythology
- R_P - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:26pm
Electronic Music
- Manbird - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:14pm
LeftWingNutZ
- Steely_D - Jun 21, 2024 - 8:07am
The Obituary Page
- ColdMiser - Jun 21, 2024 - 7:56am
Basketball
- GeneP59 - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:53pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:04pm
Shall We Dance?
- Steely_D - Jun 20, 2024 - 1:18pm
Predictions
- oldviolin - Jun 20, 2024 - 11:18am
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Jun 20, 2024 - 11:10am
Just Wrong
- ColdMiser - Jun 20, 2024 - 7:43am
Pink Floyd Set?
- Coaxial - Jun 20, 2024 - 5:46am
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon?
- Coaxial - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:14pm
20+ year listeners?
- islander - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:41pm
Other Medical Stuff
- miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
Hello from Greece!
- miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
Europe
- R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:33am
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
What Did You See Today?
- Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Mitt Romney
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
bokey
![bokey Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/46797-1393638269.gif)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Aug 23, 2012 - 11:40am |
|
Mitt Romney rhymes with shit hominy. Obama rhymes with, hmm can't think of one. I'll just put him in the "shit hominy" category also. ![](http://t0. gstatic. com/images? q=tbn:ANd9GcSuPnz-p9MuyRt0LtA8OoYedUehgP-gqEFhIspBuHVNZ3-UsPkr_Q) Pick your poison. It's all gonna be more of the same.
|
|
Manbird
![Manbird Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/25877-1407307273.jpg)
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Aug 23, 2012 - 11:19am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
![Red_Dragon Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/18168-1646400561.png)
Location: Dumbf*ckistan ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 6:31pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Gosh, thanks.
I got what you're saying, I just disagree. Everyone is "evolved enough" to engineer their own life. No one is "evolved enough" to engineer someone else's.
I've seen some examples that put the lie to that.
|
|
Lazy8
![Lazy8 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23094.jpg)
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 6:03pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:I should have said a large percentage of...
Pretty sure you are evolved enough to get what I was saying. Gosh, thanks. I got what you're saying, I just disagree. Everyone is "evolved enough" to engineer their own life. No one is "evolved enough" to engineer someone else's.
|
|
hippiechick
![hippiechick Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/29866.png)
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 5:28pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Speak for yourself.
I should have said a large percentage of... Pretty sure you are evolved enough to get what I was saying.
|
|
Lazy8
![Lazy8 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23094.jpg)
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 5:26pm |
|
hippiechick wrote:US citizens are currently not evolved enough to be engineers. Speak for yourself.
|
|
hippiechick
![hippiechick Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/29866.png)
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: ![Female](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_female.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 5:16pm |
|
Romulus wrote: The question is, do we want power centralized in the hands of a few, or do we want decentralized, localized power in the hands of many, closer to the people where it is fluid, adjusting and changing as needed based on the will of the people.
Do we want to be engineered, or collectively, voluntarily be engineers? Huge difference.
US citizens are currently not evolved enough to be engineers.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 8, 2012 - 10:53am |
|
RichardPrins wrote: You wanting a hands-off approach to society isn't a form of engineering to match what you'd want to see? Seems to me the only difference is in who's doing the engineering (top-down vs. bottom-up). In the end both all sides want the power to produce a desired outcome.
PS: The engineering being in all cases driven by political ideology (however strong, weak, good or bad it might be in the eyes of the followers)
The question is, do we want power centralized in the hands of a few, or do we want decentralized, localized power in the hands of many, closer to the people where it is fluid, adjusting and changing as needed based on the will of the people. Do we want to be engineered, or collectively, voluntarily be engineers? Huge difference.
|
|
R_P
![R_P Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/16186-1605488112.jpg)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:41pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Yes, hands-off really means hands-off. Change via evolution rather than threat of violence.
It remains (to be) engineering based on ideology.
|
|
Lazy8
![Lazy8 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23094.jpg)
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:36pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote:You wanting a hands-off approach to society isn't a form of engineering to match what you'd want to see? Seems to me the only difference is in who's doing the engineering (top-down vs. bottom-up). In the end both all sides want the power to produce a desired outcome. Yes, hands-off really means hands-off. Change via evolution rather than threat of violence.
|
|
Lazy8
![Lazy8 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23094.jpg)
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:34pm |
|
Beaker wrote:Ah. I get it just fine, thanks. This is perhaps where you misunderstand the electorate masses. Yes, there are hordes of sheep in both GOP and Dem camps. And whatever the total number of sheep plus the swayed Indies that can be convinced to go along with the sheep, are what a winning race makes.
Want to be different and truly stand out? Put up a flag called Libertarian, run a stellar candidate with impeccable credentials, and watch the potential for sea-change in American politics truly have an opportunity to make an impact, as voters finally en mass choose person over party. Ron Paul is not the stellar candidate the Libertarians should be looking for. IMO, your typical and most numerous type of voter would rather be a sheep than vote for a nutty discredited guy like Ron Paul.
And thanks for the reply. I feel so worthy that you would take 1.5 minutes out of your day to respond to me directly. I'm thrilled. Really.
I'm afraid this really isn't getting thru. I don't want a stellar candidate to overwhelm people's political preferences with his personality, I want to change those preferences. I want lasting change, not a personality cult. And I don't care if my party ever wins an election. I'm in this for the long haul. You're welcome. Just one of many services I offer.
|
|
R_P
![R_P Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/16186-1605488112.jpg)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:33pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:... (I want a hands-off approach to society in general so it can evolve, they want to engineer it to match what they want to see) ... You wanting a hands-off approach to society isn't a form of engineering to match what you'd want to see? Seems to me the only difference is in who's doing the engineering (top-down vs. bottom-up). In the end both all sides want the power to produce a desired outcome. PS: The engineering being in all cases driven by political ideology (however strong, weak, good or bad it might be in the eyes of the followers)
|
|
Lazy8
![Lazy8 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23094.jpg)
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:15pm |
|
Beaker wrote:I agree. Which was my point about building credibility for the Libertarian movement by electing solid, respected folk, to congressional and state office.
As for Ron Paul, I'm sorry, he's a fail - a non-starter. By mere virtue of being in office for a bunch of sessions is not of itself suitable qualification to be seen as a credible candidate for your highest office. Not unless your electorate intentionally wants to roll your economy, global trade, and place on the world stage backwards in time many decades. I get it—you don't like him. I really, honestly understand that. I'll understand it the next time too. You aren't getting something tho: it isn't about him, and it isn't about winning this election. When that sinks in maybe we can have a civil discussion about the matter.
|
|
Lazy8
![Lazy8 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23094.jpg)
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 1:13pm |
|
steeler wrote:Only one question: Ron Paul is carrying the banner for Libertarian beliefs, but he is running as a Republican. I've heard his explanations for that, and for why he won't run in General Election if not the Republican nominee.
So, is the attempt here to change the thinking within the Republican party to move it more in line with Libertarian philsophies, or is it to establish the Libertarian Party as a brand? Is Paul stumping for a split in the Republican party — does not seem like it; in fact, he seems to be saying that he himself is not leaving the party.
Sorry. Another question that just popped in my head: I've read and heard the points about Paul positing views that are neither squarely in Republican or Democrat camps; that Paul offers planks that should appeal to some of those in both parties (anti-war for Dems; steep budget cuts for Repubs, etc). Do the Libertarians feel more kinship with Republicans (obviously, Paul does), and if so, why? One at a time: There are people withing the libertarian movement who want to not just advance the agenda but reform politics in general, and they don't think they can do it from within the incumbent parties. They want to build a party and challenge the incumbents head-to-head, and they need to break their monopoly (on things like ballot access) to do it. This is a long, exhausting slog. Others have less patience and are willing to be co-opted to get the agenda advanced. Both have good points, both have their hearts in the right place. Dr. Paul is trying to subvert the Republican party from within and he has to make Republican noises to do it. Libertarians have an actual political philosophy. Neither of the incumbent parties do; they are coalitions of interests with no unifying philosophy but a desire for power. We really don't have a home in either place, but when I talk to Republicans I can usually finish my sentences. They often pay lip service to the idea of liberty (at least on economic issues) but don't back it in practice. Democrats are (in general, and in my experience) overtly hostile to the idea of liberty and for the most part can't even imagine the world I want to build. There are issues we can work together on (issues of personal freedom sometimes have some common ground) but our basic approaches are so different (I want a hands-off approach to society in general so it can evolve, they want to engineer it to match what they want to see) it's hard to make even that work. Both claim to want my support. One tells me he's with me, but he's lying. The other tells me he opposes everything I believe in and means it. In that respect we are more welcome in the Republican camp...so long as we don't wear too much tie-dye when we tiptoe thru the never-ending tent revival.
|
|
miamizsun
![miamizsun Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/9227.jpg)
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:55pm |
|
Beaker wrote: I agree. Which was my point about building credibility for the Libertarian movement by electing solid, respected folk, to congressional and state office.
As for Ron Paul, I'm sorry, he's a fail - a non-starter. By mere virtue of being in office for a bunch of sessions is not of itself suitable qualification to be seen as a credible candidate for your highest office. Not unless your electorate intentionally wants to roll your economy, global trade, and place on the world stage backwards in time many decades.
i only glanced at the results last night and he was like 10% or close across the board better than i thought politics is force which is why RP doesn't fit in regards
|
|
steeler
![steeler Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/a4529003424b285578cba.gif)
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:32pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Surely the Republicans could have put better candidates forward, since they have a lot more members. But they didn't.
The process we have now where other candidates and surrogates and enemies in the media do everything in their power to destroy anybody they disagree with has left us with meager choices. I would rather see Colin Powell vs. Alan Simpson vying for the Republican nomination, but they aren't running. They aren't willing to put themselves thru it, or to put their families thru it (OK and Simpson's too old, but you get the idea).
Every election this same argument happens within the party: do we spend the vast resources necessary to put forth a presidential candidate or do we concentrate on school board races? The answer is always the same: a presidential candidate gets vastly more attention than a roomful of city councilmen. We won't attract candidates to lesser races unless they know we exist, and running a presidential candidate is the best way to make that happen.
For the first time in a long time the libertarian movement has two first-class candidates in the presidential race. No, neither one will win. That isn't the point. Until people see and alternative they can't choose it. Ron Paul is on his third presidential campaign. The first two times he was ignored and openly mocked by the press. Now he is seen as a serious contender in some areas. He may come to the Republican convention with enough delegates in tow to have some influence on the result.
This takes time, and it takes more than one try. You can't wait for momentum, you have to build it.
I think you are right about a third party needing to build its brand by competing in Presidential elections. It does become a bit of a chicken-or-egg decision. Only one question: Ron Paul is carrying the banner for Libertarian beliefs, but he is running as a Republican. I've heard his explanations for that, and for why he won't run in General Election if not the Republican nominee. So, is the attempt here to change the thinking within the Republican party to move it more in line with Libertarian philosophies, or is it to establish the Libertarian Party as a brand? If it is the latter, running as a Republican seems to be a roundabout way of establishing the Libertarian Party brand. Is Paul stumping for a split in the Republican party — does not seem like it; in fact, he seems to be saying that he himself is not leaving the party. Sorry. Another question that just popped in my head: I've read and heard the points about Paul positing views that are neither squarely in Republican or Democrat camps; that Paul offers planks that should appeal to some of those in both parties (anti-war for Dems; steep budget cuts for Repubs, etc). Do the Libertarians feel more kinship with Republicans (obviously, Paul does), and if so, why?
|
|
sirdroseph
![sirdroseph Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/78797-1637776963.png)
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:16pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Surely the Republicans could have put better candidates forward, since they have a lot more members. But they didn't.
The process we have now where other candidates and surrogates and enemies in the media do everything in their power to destroy anybody they disagree with has left us with meager choices. I would rather see Colin Powell vs. Alan Simpson vying for the Republican nomination, but they aren't running. They aren't willing to put themselves thru it, or to put their families thru it (OK and Simpson's too old, but you get the idea).
Every election this same argument happens within the party: do we spend the vast resources necessary to put forth a presidential candidate or do we concentrate on school board races? The answer is always the same: a presidential candidate gets vastly more attention than a roomful of city councilmen. We won't attract candidates to lesser races unless they know we exist, and running a presidential candidate is the best way to make that happen.
For the first time in a long time the libertarian movement has two first-class candidates in the presidential race. No, neither one will win. That isn't the point. Until people see and alternative they can't choose it. Ron Paul is on his third presidential campaign. The first two times he was ignored and openly mocked by the press. Now he is seen as a serious contender in some areas. He may come to the Republican convention with enough delegates in tow to have some influence on the result.
This takes time, and it takes more than one try. You can't wait for momentum, you have to build it.
That would be awesome! He'd sure get my vote! However the culture warriors would have none of it.
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:10pm |
|
Beaker wrote: If given only those two choices, then, most certainly YES.
Lolwut! At least you're honest. I think a lot of other 'R's' feel the same. It's very amusing to hear that an R would vote for Obama as the lesser evil against Ron Paul. lol
|
|
Romulus
![Romulus Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/96918.png)
Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:05pm |
|
Beaker wrote: Aww. Don't get testy now! We truly do want to get into the head of a Luap Nor Ron Paul supporter.
Newsflash: There are 435 House of Representative seats and 100 senate seats. Not to mention the opportunity for Libertarians to become your state Governors.
Having Ron Paul occupy one of those seats for a whole bunch of years does not make a significant, credible libertarian presence in the slate of folks currently elected and/or in office.
And your suggestion that there's a conspiracy at work to keep Libertarians away from public office says a bunch about your ability to have a realistic and reasoned look at the picture without a jaundiced view.
Fruit is good for you.. don't be offended! 3rd parties can't compete. It's like expecting Fred tackle shop to do well next to a Wal-Mart. It's not a conspiracy, just a fact. They don't have the resources and the house rules are made by the duopoly. Nor do they have any backing. But I'm not a party guy anyway.. Yes L's could do better, but I don't care about party, I vote based on issues. It's too bad to get along in a party people are pushed to compromise their beliefs and voters are all to willing to ignore that. Party is meaningless..its just a vessel.
|
|
Lazy8
![Lazy8 Avatar](https://img.radioparadise.com/avatars/23094.jpg)
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender: ![Male](graphics/icons/icon_minigender_male.gif) ![](graphics/clear.gif)
|
Posted:
Mar 7, 2012 - 12:04pm |
|
Beaker wrote:Libertarians will be taken seriously when they've got a successful track record of effective representation as witnessed by significant numbers of them holding senate and congressional seats over the course of several election cycles. Pushing a nutcase such as Ron Paul into the bright spotlight that is a run for POTUS seems counter-productive. Surely for the good of the Libertarian movement, they could have found a better representative for this (and last) contest. Put a serious candidate forward, and the Libertarians will be taken seriously. Until then,its just a waste.
my 2cents Surely the Republicans could have put better candidates forward, since they have a lot more members. But they didn't. The process we have now where other candidates and surrogates and enemies in the media do everything in their power to destroy anybody they disagree with has left us with meager choices. I would rather see Colin Powell vs. Alan Simpson vying for the Republican nomination, but they aren't running. They aren't willing to put themselves thru it, or to put their families thru it (OK and Simpson's too old, but you get the idea). Every election this same argument happens within the party: do we spend the vast resources necessary to put forth a presidential candidate or do we concentrate on school board races? The answer is always the same: a presidential candidate gets vastly more attention than a roomful of city councilmen. We won't attract candidates to lesser races unless they know we exist, and running a presidential candidate is the best way to make that happen. For the first time in a long time the libertarian movement has two first-class candidates in the presidential race. No, neither one will win. That isn't the point. Until people see and alternative they can't choose it. Ron Paul is on his third presidential campaign. The first two times he was ignored and openly mocked by the press. Now he is seen as a serious contender in some areas. He may come to the Republican convention with enough delegates in tow to have some influence on the result. This takes time, and it takes more than one try. You can't wait for momentum, you have to build it.
|
|
|