The support of the war among big-government cross-dressers, neolibertarians, crypto-fascists and zionist extremists is probably 100%.

I’m not so impressed by Chuck Muth’s willingness to throw libertarians a bone. That bone is probably made of rubber and he would be the first one to yank the bone back with the string attached to it. Funny how conservatives just hate big government but always support it while still being “critical” of it.

As an aside, isn’t chuck muth the term for upchuck that has dried up on the floor?

It motivated me to wrap up my unfinished business and leave a party which apparently doesn’t understand that its purpose is to COMPETE with other parties… not to AID them.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running for president that has the vision of the founding fathers of this country ingrained in his heart. Core Character Counts. He is the only one in the field that I would trust my money and my family’s safety with.

The honesty and integrity displayed by Ron Paul coupled with the message he espouses is the glue that binds the support together. The word could not do it alone and this is precisely why the media and the others are baffled. The Ron Paul Supporters Value Substance Over Symbolism. We fully believe that Ron Paul will follow his words as his record shows. He is not as the others with Pandering Platitudes.

The commonality with all Americans is the Constitution. This is why his support group can not be pigeon holed in to a specific category. We Are Diverse And Many. There is no singular stereotype that even comes close to the specification of the group.

To help with your education here are some sites I recommend:

www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

www.ronpaullibrary.org

www.house.gov/paul/

www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Think For Yourself; Do Not Be Easily Led.

Views Untested Are Worthless.

Excellent question. Where’s that 40% now?

I imagine the LPers view on the War in Iraq, mirrors that of Republicans.

Gallup poll released last week – link up at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com – showed that Republican support for the War over last Spring was at 54%. Now it’s up to 77%.

Everyone wants to be a winner. Nobody wants to be on the side of losers.

We’re winning with the Surge; Spectacularly so. Better than anyone anticipated.

I imaging the LP support for the War dropped real low, perhaps as low as 10% in early 2007.

Now it’s probably back up to 35 or 40%.

Opportunistic yes. Everyone wants to be with a winner.

Paul’s solution to fighting Islamo-Fascism is to ignore it.

Wait til it shows up on our doorstep in Matamoros. (Strange, cause Paul’s Congressional District – most southern point in Refugio & Aransas Countys – is literally only two hours away from Matamoros.)

Oops, I plum forgot. Paul is also in favor of allowing Orange-Spandex wearing ex-WWF Wrestlers chase the “Al Qaeda bad boys” all around the mountains of the Middle East on Camel back, with the promise of a $1 million bounty.

How quaint.

Possibly YES - a lack of skeletons in their closet does not make them, by default, viable candidates. My job as state chair is to find a winning candidate, if possible.

note: I hold no delusions that I will find a winning gov candidate in KS anytime soon, that does not however, preclude me from working to put the best candidate to the LP’ers of Kansas I can find and if that means finding a 4th or 5th candidate, so be it.

When a party’s executive director complains about the existing candidates, and then the party’s national committee invites a candidate of another party to enter the nomination race, there’s no reasonable way to construe that as anything but an endorsement of the invited candidate versus the complained-about candidates.

Rob: If you already had—to pick a number out of a hat— three LPKS members, none of whom were closet Kluxers, convicted axe-murderers or spitting Druids, who had filed to run in your state’s Libertarian primary for nomination as the party’s candidate for governor, would you consider it necessary for your legitimate “candidate recruitment” work to include finding a fourth?

Last time I noticed, there were far more than three candidates for the LP’s presidential nomination who, whatever one may think of their viability or positions, are a) not Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan and b) have taken significant action in pursuit of that nomination.

If the LNC wants to do “candidate recruitment,” there are ~478 other federal offices which the LP needs candidates to run for (435 US House seats and 33 or 34 US Senate seats), and I’m willing to bet that as of this date a majority of those offices have no declared LP candidate seeking them.

“Candidate recruitment” my ass—the LNC wanted to endorse Ron Paul, and that’s exactly what the LNC did. I’ve concluded that that bell can’t be un-rung, and indeed I’m actually starting to warm up to the whole idea of Paul as an LP presidential candidate … but don’t piss on my back and then try to tell me I was mistaken, it was just raining.

“Unity is important too. You don’t nominate a Pro-Defense Libertarian on the ticket, no problem. Pro-Defense Libertarians will go over to the GOP en masse.”

In other words “unity should be important enough to YOU to give in to US —but not the other way around. If WE don’t get what WE want, fuck all that unity noise—we’re outta here.”

Sorry, no sale.

Besides, so far as I can tell, most of the candidates for the LP’s presidential nomination—including Ron Paul—are “Pro-Defense,” far more so than Wayne Root. There’s a difference between “Pro-Defense” and “Pro-Aggression,” and indeed the latter tends to cancel out the former. The war on Iraq was not defensive, and it has substantially degraded the ability of the United States to defend itself against any enemy, real or imagined. Supporting the continuation of that kind of policy is ANTI-defense.

We need to build the Libertarian Party locally, and elect some real Libertarians to Congress, instead of just griping about the stands that Ron Paul or Bob Barr take that we disagree with.

If this was the first action I would probably agree; however, Shane Cory has sent out a memo attacking our own candidates, acknowledged that they used a silhouette of Ron Paul, a Republican Presidential candidate, as a potential “Future Candidate” for the LP’s Liberty Decides fundraising mailing, promoted Ron Paul in many e-mails, and then the LNC had the audacity to give a Republican campaign access to party resources.

As Tom Knapp pointed out before:

It took months for alleged issues of BCRA compliance to be sorted out and the LP’s pre-nomination presidential candidates allowed to buy advertising in LP News.

Yet, somehow, it seems to have taken mere minutes to deal with the BCRA implications of making a gigantic in-kind contribution from the party to a candidate of another party.

Or maybe it’s that when it comes to Ron Paul, LNC members care about BCRA about as much as they care about honoring the trust reposed in their offices and fulfilling their fiduciary duty to protect, and not misuse, the party’s assets (i.e. not one damn bit).

It is not really competition when the party officials are shotting you in the back while you try to campaign.

Paul/Barr would be as compelling as it gets.

“Mr. Dondero describes the recent LNC action as an “endorsement”, an interpretation that almost everyone I hear from, other than LNC members, agrees with.”

I disagree with Eric (and you) that the LNC statement was an endorsement. I believe that it was simply making it clear that the LNC would welcome Ron if he wants to run as a Libertarian.

As State Chair, I am recruiting candidates for 2008 and asking both currently registered republicans and democrats to change their registration and run as a LP candidate in Kansas. The LNC statement is the same in intent and action to what I am doing. It is not an endorsement of another political party; it is simply looking for viable candidates to help us grow.

Wayne Root’s comment that “competition is good” is what I want to hear from a candidate – not whining about an LNC action. If you are really that peeved at the LNC – drum up enough support to make a radical personnel change in the LNC at Denver.

So that means that 60% are not….
and it’s now 4 years into that war…

wonder where that 40% is now?