[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Just a few pages ago you were singing the praises of Paul's Libertarian inclinations.

What is it about what I'm saying that is so confusing? I realize I'm no Churchill, but I don't think what I'm saying is befuddling. All I have been doing is disputing an assertion, made by Gahid, that the purpose -- the SOLE purpose -- of Paul's campaign is to garner publicity for the Libertarian Party. This is a specious and deleterious accusation. That is all I have been trying to show.

Why are you backing away from his Libertarian ties now?

I am backing away from nothing. I have praised Ron Paul's libertarianism -- his belief in the philosophy of liberty. I have never praised -- nor have I slighted him for -- his erstwhile attachment to the Libertarian Party. It is an irrelevancy, neither good nor ill.

I think it's worthwhile that Ron Paul becomes the voice of the Libertarian agenda, if only to bring their platform into mainstream consciousness for this generation. Don't you?

I think my problem is that I take for granted what I am familiar with, having run in libertarian circles for many years. The Libertarian Party comprises only a fraction of the libertarian movement. Again, it may seem like semantics, but it is crucial: note the capital L as contrasted with the lower case l. I think the best thing that will come from Ron Paul's campaign if he does not secure the Republican nomination -- and I harbor no illusions about how unlikely his acquisition of that is -- is to spread the message of liberty (libertarianism). If he makes no more progress on that front from here on out, he will still have done an absolutely breathtaking job. But again, the crucial thing, as far as this ridiculous argument goes, is that he is spreading the message of liberty, not shilling for the Libertarian Party, which is not even close to representative of the entirety of the libertarian polity.

Wait, do you think whether or not he's seen as a Libertarian will have a significant impact on his performance in the GOP primaries?

I will assume you mean what you typed: Libertarian -- as in, a member of the Libertarian Party. If that is what you mean, then yes, that would certainly affect him. It would not stop his devotees from supporting him, but it would certainly close off a segment of the voting population that is Republican through and through. They will not consider voting for someone they perceive to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Republicans are ideologically savvy, and they know what they want to see in their candidates: sincerity, consistency and experience and Paul has more of those three than any other candidate. I don't think he'll win the primary, far from it, but I don't think his libertarian convictions could bear any blame for his loss.

I agree wholeheartedly. Him being seen as a small-l libertarian -- as a lover of liberty, a champion of the constitution -- will, on the whole, make him attractive to many (though not even close to all) Republicans. It's just the issue of his ties to the Libertarian Party itself that Gahid has foolishly and incorrectly made reference to.