Are you suggesting winning is all that matters?

Principle matters.

#####

And then the LP nominates Barr.

PEACE
Steve

Yes.

First, Ron Paul raised that money and got thousands of people engaged in actual activism because of his stand on the Iraq War…AND, because Giuliani helped to clarify the distinction Paul represented vs all other R candidates on the stage.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected Paul and there are as many reasons for that as there are voters who rejected Paul. Some common themes are Paul opposed the war, Republican base voters support the war. Paul got almost no mainstream coverage.

And to turn your question around, what of Giuliani. Spent far more than Paul and Paul largely kicked Giuliani’s butt…or, at least Giuliani got his butt kicked by each of the other R candidates.

Are you suggesting winning is all that matters?

Principle matters.

First, voters are transient so and so’s when it comes to ANY issue…consider the Iraq War, Ron Paul’s main issue and main attention getter…Voters who now despise Bush originally were flag waving bufoons following the bufoon.

Voters typically support ANY stupid economic policy as long as they think they are doing ok…many, and often most voters will think “give me my big screen, a full fridge and air conditioning, and sure, I think more taxes are what we need”. Logic has very little to do with it.

So, should candidates play to that stupidity, that illogic? That’s what D’s and R’s do. They win, so should those in minor parties do that as well?

That’s the REASON small parties exist.

As for Huckabee vs. Paul…Huckabee campaigned on very little in the way of philosophy or issues…he was a Christian and plugged some nonsense called “family values” and had a record as a big spender and more scandal (accepting payoffs via wedding fund, etc) than most major candidates.

Since Huckabee got more votes, should he be emulated by minor party candidates?

Voters typically are uninformed, bigoted and so fickle their behavior cannot be predicted outside a very narrow window of time. Most voters have no philosophy and can’t or won’t follow any philosophical bent.

Proof of that is the last several presidents, the last several congresses. Or, are you under the impression that worthy, principled people get elected?

I don’t think the basis for Huckabee’s statement had as much to do with current vote totals as it had to do with the momentum of the libertarian movement within the GOP and his fear of it spreading to an “unsafe” level. I think he’s quite aware of that possibility and is using this whole “soulless” approach to frighten religious voters who might consider a libertarian-leaning candidate if they thought he/she was also a “god fearing” individual.

I’m not knocking what Paul did accomplish, which was more than I expected, but it’s not like he was McCain’s main rival for the nomination or anything.

Either way, I agree that the “soulless” comment was over the line.

The rest, as they say, is history. And yes, Libertarian ideas can catch on.

I believe in giving the reformers a chance, but after that, I would have to say their efforts reforming the GOP are wasted.

Stop posting the same comment in multiple threads.