to vote for Paul in my primary. It seems futile, though, to go thru the trouble of registering GOP to do so when he won't win.

I don't know.

He's my man, though....flaws and all. His flaws pale in comparison to those of others and his major agenda is far better than anyone else's taken as whole.

I may abstain from the presidential vote next fall unless the Dems nominate someone worthy of at least slow hand clapping...like Richardson. But that won't happen.

I'm just not enthused about this election. The state and local stuff will matter more to me.

Where have you been, man?
Ron Paul has the ONLY grassroots campaign on the ground. Everywhere he goes the crowds get bigger. He's starting to pull in money at a rate similar to the "big boys." Don't count him out.

I still don't think Ron Paul will win. The GOP has strong gatekeepers in their nomination process. Dr. Paul's supporters would have to work the GOP machine very hard to get around that. On top of that a lot of the GOP doesn't support his libertarian ideas, and most of them still support whatever is going on in Iraq.

On the chance that Paul won the Republican nod, there's a decent chance that I would vote for him (especially if we seem assured of having a strong Democratic majority in Congress). But it really depends on who the Democrats nominate. If they nominate someone who is likely to start meddling in every aspect of our society (with the support of a Dem Congress) then I will likely vote for Paul.

However, there's no other Republican candidate that I would consider voting for under any conditions. Hagel seemed like a decent guy (though clearly a conservative), but he's made it clear that he's not running...the rest of them are scum. 

For libertarians, Paul is the best choice and when seen in the context of a Dem congress, he's the clear and only choice IMO.

Sadly, this is all unlikely and one of those "scum" you mention will get the nod. I would never vote for any of them.

Actually, I'll take that back. I don't htink that McCain is scummy, but I think he's nuts.

I have no problem allowing the states to determine the legality of abortion, as long as it is part of a thurough and principled policy of federalism. I wouldn't vote for Paul for state legislator because of his views on abortion, but I think it's clear that he wouldn't use the Federal government to enforce these views.

However, his views on immigration do bother me, so support for him would depend on the lay of the land (views of Congress and Dem candidate) regarding that issue.

BTW, this illustrates some of the idiocy of our current party system: you register for the same party for local, state, and federal elections--even though the issues can be radically different at each level. 

There was an interesting thread about this recently on Usenet alt.anarchism. This isn't it, but was a later thread with some of the same people participating. I find Anarcissie's argument compelling. If the Federal government can't protect your {privacy|property|speech|etc} rights from violation by the States, what good is it?

At some level, the Feds should provide protection against the state. However, in this situation I think that reasonable arguments can be made for prohibiting abortion (I don't buy these arguments, and their proponents often have authoritarian motives, but they aren't inherently authoritarian). Also, I think this is a "secondary right"--meaning that if it is abridged, you still have the recourse of leaving the state or petitioning to have the law changed (unlike restrictions on speech or the absence of due process).

I'm a libertarian through and through. To me, it doesn't matter whether you approach it from the left or the right: if you're a libertarian, you are quite fine in my book. (And I very much like lefties who like free markets, just as much as I like "toppies" like myself as well as "righties" who like free markets. ;))

As a libertarian, I would like the reduction in size of pretty much all government, but the top priority is reduction in the federal government. Doing so, as a first step, requires a return of the federal government to its Constitutionally-limited power and scope. That much I think we can all agree on, and that is why strict-constructionism is a major part of my philosophy. (And, I suspect, Ron's as well, and he's hinted at as much.)

I am a registered Republican, and have been for a while, but my first commitment is to libertarianism and its spread, both in my party and in society (the latter reason is why I am associating myself with a libertarian Democratic site). From my perspective, I really think it would help us all out as libertarians to at least lend some support for Dr. No, regardless of party affiliation.

Paul is not perfect. But if we're going to use the same bar for other candidates that we use for Paul, they are much, much further from perfect.

As for the immigration thing. I agree that his position is not ideal by any means. But he did give a strangley satisfying answer at one of the debates on this matter. I don't remember exactly what he said but it was a very free market answer that totally reframed the issue.

I guess the main point is that whoever it might be, is not as important as the government staying divided, since the heavy Dem majority will be a big moderating influence.

But to grudgingly answer the question directly ... If push came to shove... Romney's seeming ability to to get away with wholesale changes in core Republican positions would make him my current second. His political platform is determined at the intersection of his ambition and the polls. His Clintonesque sincere-ish quality while explaining 180 degree flip-flops in core convictions means that, like Bill Clinton, he will govern based on the polls and continuous compromise. Not an altogether bad thing in a divided government. I am not opposed to a President that pays attention to the will of the American people. We will probably be in the range of 70% of America wanting us out of Iraq by the time the next President takes office. As president, Romney will get us out of Iraq, and there is no reason to pay attention to whatever he says now to get the nomination. He can be trusted to blow with wind. Out of this batch of Republican candidates, that would have to be good enough.

I have to go throw up now.

"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson

As a Republican, while my hero since 9th grade is a candidate and I am (perhaps overly) excited about him, I've never really been more disgusted with my party than I have been this year by the overall menu of candidates offered for President excluding Dr. No. Going through them point by point:

* Tancredo: While he has very little chance, this is the endgame scenario for me. He is a shame to the party, from his asinine white supremecism to his Armageddon foreign policy views. (Bomb Mecca and Medina if al-Qaeda nukes us? I can't decide if he's nuts or just plain evil, or perhaps both, based on that statement.)

* Giuliani: He stops short of bombing Mecca and Medina, but his foreign policy is just a tad less destructive. He is also a documented fascist executive who is the enemy of civil liberties, and I see him as basically another corporate socialist who will do nothing to move the economy toward a true free market.

* Romney: Can you say no integrity? I could semi-live with him, due to his business credentials and his demonstrated ability as an executive (I do feel his commitment to ending deficits is genuine), but he is still a corporate socialist who will not institute true free market reform. And he also has about the least integrity of any politician I have ever encountered, which alone keeps me from voting for him.

* Huckabee: This guy scares the crap out of me on economic policy. His rhetoric on "corporate greed" (which I agree has produced excesses, but very much as a result of government intervention that is conducive to it) implies that this is a guy who will institute massive regulation and will look to throw up large trade barriers, which will destroy our economy. He will institute large spending proposals and increase the size of government massively. By no means is he a small government conservative. (Oh, and the Fair Tax is a terrible idea. If you want a truly effective tax reform, go with the Hall-Rabushka flat tax, which accomplishes the same thing that the Fair Tax seeks to accomplish while not having the implementation problems and regressivity of it (H-R is actually progressive, with the exemption). The tax rate is also way to low, and the rate that is presented is deceptive because it is a "price-inclusive" rate.) In other words, Huckabee will drive the US into complete financial meltdown and third-world nation status. Oh, he's also gone the way of the Armageddon neocons.

* Thompson: His persistance on Iraq alone loses my vote. Have I referenced anyone with the moniker "Armageddon neocon" yet? His staunch support for McCain-Feingold and his anti-gun voting record are also non-starters for me. He voted to get us into Iraq, so that automatically disqualifies him in my book.

* McCain: I genuinely believe that he is a good man at heart. However, I simply cannot support his stance on Iraq or his acceptance of the neocon foreign policy doctrine. Like Thompson, the fact that he voted to authorize the Iraq invasion disqualifies him, in my book. This is a shame, because I've liked him genuinely for a long time. I like his commitment to ending waste and pork spending, his budget-hawkery, and his honesty on a number of levels and issues, even when I do disagree with him. And I will say that Rove's character savagery of McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was the most disgusting event in American political history.

* Brownback: Just a complete RR dufus. He seems to be most lacking among the Republican candidates in the mental faculties. His Biden plan for Iraq is just another idiotic policy proposal that assumes we can actually resolve this mess, when the plain truth is we can't.

* Hunter: While a very sharp man, he is also, perhaps next to Tancredo, the nutiest neocon of the bunch. When he proposed nuking Iran in the first New Hampshire debate on CNN back in June (and seemed very enthusiastic), my jaw dropped. What's even worse is that every candidate besides Dr. No pretty much de facto endorsed his view. However, I will say that I think he does make honest attempts to study and understand issues very deeply, so I do respect him a lot.

I can't see myself supporting any of these guys if Paul doesn't get the nomination. Depending upon the LP's success in court here to get back on the NC ballot, I may or may not vote Libertarian this time out if Paul isn't the Republican nominee. If not, then it would depend on who the Democrats nominate. If Edwards (aka, the devil), Hillary, Dodd, or Biden are the nominees, then they're completely out of the question for me for the simple reason, to start with, that they voted to authorize the Iraq war. (Although I have a great many other objections to each of them.) I've gained a lot of respect for Obama over the campaign season, as he has had the courage to say correct things and stand by them while getting chastized (talking to "evil doers," sending the Army into Pakistan to get bin Laden, etc.), although I do disagree with the vast majority of his economic platform and believe that he is even quite unsuitable on Civil Liberties. (He's voted for the Patriot Act, the national ID card, wants to continue marijuana ban, etc.) I don't like that he's not going all the way for military non-interventionism, either. However, I believe he is suitably committed to ending the Iraq occupation, and if I am pissed off enough about that next time, and the Republicans nominate a neocon (and Paul is not the LP nominee; and I can't vote for the LP nominee), then I may just vote for him. I like Richardson a lot, and I have the utmost respect for both Gravel and Kucinich: I could see myself voting for any of those three in the event of a neocon Republican nominee and I can't vote for the LP nominee.

Yeah, I also had a question. Does this website place Democratic party loyalty above principles of freedom, or does it put principles of freedom above Democratic party loyalty?

No answer needed.

Purely rhetorical.

"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson

There is no "rule" about what can be discussed and in what context. The "FREEDOM" in Freedom Democrats is more important than Democrats.

So don't get all simplistic along party lines. that doesn't work here.

John wrote:

There is no "rule" about what can be discussed and in what context. The "FREEDOM" in Freedom Democrats is more important than Democrats.

So don't get all simplistic along party lines. that doesn't work here.

Well, John, I have a right to my opinion as well, so I will speak my mind without the implicit threat of censorship. Look, I wouldn't put "party lines" above freedom but I have read the mission statement of the Democratic Freedom Caucus, and it talks about citizen's dividends and the use of vouchers. Ron Paul doesn't believe in those things. He's just another conservative Republican who happens to be against the war and a little bit more liberal on social issues. He's anti-choice as well, which I believe is a human rights issue, not a "state" issue.

I think it is most important to work within the framework of the Democratic Party and the DFC to achieve the freedoms we desire. 'Nuff said.

I've been pleased with how often we can debate and discuss topics but still keep things civil and focused on a common cause of freedom.

I, however, AM a "conservative libertarian" (as opposed to a progressive libertarian, I guess), and am voting, funding, and volunteering for Paul. He's doing more to bring the libertarian message to the mainstream political debate than anybody has in a long, long time. To my mind, we can demand perfection that never comes, or we can take our opportunities as they arise, and Paul is one of the best opportunities to shine the freedom light in some pretty dark corners (Republicanism circa today) to come along in a great while.

I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not he can win. He probably won't, of course, but that doesn't make the effort futile. If he can inject his brand of conservatism back into the GOP, even if just to a degree, then he's done some good for everybody. If he can be an ambassador for libertarianism to mainstream political audiences, so much the better.

All that said, OUTSIDE of Paul, I don't think there's a Republican running that I would vote for matched up against any Democrat running.