I wanted to take a moment to clarify the latest press release, since you can't write a novel in a press release.
Let's start out again by reiterating that Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
Libertarians, as you all should already know, agree with Democrats and Republicans on certain issues, though not always for the same reasons.
We have classically agreed with Republicans on economic freedom. In the 1980's, Reagan preached a message of economic liberty that rang true for many of our members: Reducing taxes, eliminating barriers to entry, etc. The Republicans of the early 90's advocated returning power from the federal government to the states, and that also attracted Libertarians. This is our influence from Goldwater.
We have classically agreed with Democrats when it came to social freedom: Live and let live, people have a right to make their own lifestyle decisions as long as they don't force them upon others. This is our influence from the hippie movement.
The confusion is due to both the Republicans and Democrats having strayed from the points where we once classically agreed with them. Republicans voted for the Bank Bailout and ran massive deficits from 2000 through 2006. Democrats now want to force people into certain lifestyle choices, such national healthcare.
And make no mistake, our non-agression principle is what drives us to be economic conservatives and socially tolerant (formerly, liberal). So there are places where we haven't agreed with either party.
Real fiscal and social conservatives are rare these days, especially in politics. Omnibus bills are not a new development. They existed and were passed all through the GWB administration. Social conservativism lives on, but it's slightly different than 20 years ago. I can't quite pin-point the difference. Maybe someone else can tell me.
Just as rare are the true fiscal and social liberals. Today, a social "liberal" as defined by popular vernacular is one who wants to take all of your money redistribute it, and to take your personal healthcare choices and mandate a "minimum".
So, when a candidate like Rand Paul pops up, who is a fiscal and social conservative, in the way things used to be in the 1980s, his opponents label him a "Libertarian", for multiple reasons. And Rand Paul even more-so.
(1) Modern Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. That's led to the rise of the TEA Party movement. Perhaps you've heard of that (heh).
(2) His father is Ron Paul is/was a Libertarian. Ron was our 1988 Presidential Candidate. But does this mean that the son MUST believe everything that the father espouses? Of course not. That's what the media and his opponents are trying to make you believe, though.
(3) The opponents are losing, and they're losing traction fast. Recent polls show that TEA Party candidates are much more popular than establishment Republican candidates. Rand Paul is a TEA Party candidate.
Now, I will not fault the man for being a fiscal conservative. As I'm a fiscal conservative myself, I appreciate his stands on fiscal issues. This is where Libertarians and Republicans had traditionally agreed.
But we disagree on social issues. He is a social conservative and advocates the continued use of government to maintain that social conservativism. I'm socially tolerant, living a socially conservative lifestyle by choice. This is where we part company, and what definitively makes Rand Paul a "TEA Party" Republican, not a Libertarian.
I hope this is clear, and this is a thread open to discussion, so please feel free to comment.
For those within the LPKY party structure, that are confused about these statements and the FEC regulations I've been warning of, for the past year: I am defending the LPKY, not promoting Rand Paul. I did not ask for this fight, but we must defend our party. We are not Rand Paul, and Rand Paul is not us. It does not serve us well to allow the GOP smear machine to associate the two.
Rand Paul did say, at his exploratory meeting, that he is a Libertarian at heart and would have run as such but knew 3rd party candidates can't win in KY so I have decided to run as a Republican."
Once elected his father and he would "restructure" the GOP into a Libertarian principled party.
This sentiment is repreated in the "Libertarian Party of Kentucky addresses racism allegations against Rand Paul" thread (12-24-09).
One need only read the posts by Tim (Post 8) "Rand Paul and Chuck DeVore actually have a chance at winning.....we could use the Tea Party movement to our advantage and infiltrate the Republican Party with our own ideas. Now the neocons like David Frum are throwing a fit that we have an actual chance at taking back our party."
In Post 15, paulie goes on to write, "I've fixed my commentary to reflect that the person who left messages on Hightower's page was anonymous, and also clarified the identity of the accuser, as per Tom's suggestions. Any other suggestions?"
This statement suggests collusion on the part of The Libertarian Party of KY to frame and harm Hightower. Why? It worked to get Hightower out of the Paul campaign but to who's detriment in the long haul? This incrimenates the LPKY in criminal acivity and possible conspiracy against Hightower. Again, why"
Wes Wagner's Post 16 is tragic in condemning LP practices for this party's image, too.
Then at Post 11, paulie wrote, "I'm an anarchist libertarian, but not a captalist in political terms..Right now we could use the Tea Party movement to our advantage and infiltrate the Republican Party with our own ideas."
Paulie continues in Post 30, "(LP) Helped to poplarize libertarian ideas, which are now beginning to infiltrate the mainstream." Seems to be a common goal.
Greg observes, in Post 38, "Rand may not be a Libertarian but he is a libertarian."
My concern, personally, is the the LP is in a serious state of confusion at several levels. I registered here to get an better understanding of the LPKY apart from the MSM portrayals.
I know for a fact that Rand Paul courted Libertarians in the spring meeting. I was there. Then it appears an LPKY framed Hightower and later Christie reveals Paul cut all libertarian ties in order to persuade Mitch for the almighty influence and $$$.
The 9.12 Tea Party DOES NOT endorse Rand Paul as their candidate regardless of how he represents himself in NY in front of Mitch.
Trust and character are the two qualifiers I look for in a candidate. Rand fails both. I don't want him in the GOP. He's no more than a low ball manipulator for personal agrandisement and has less than honorable intentions...ulterior motives.
LP rejects Paul. Tea Party rejects Paul. Let's hope KY Republicans will too.
Liberty1956
Rand Paul did say, at his exploratory meeting, that he is a Libertarian at heart and would have run as such but knew 3rd party candidates can't win in KY so I have decided to run as a Republican."
Once elected his father and he would "restructure" the GOP into a Libertarian principled party.
This sentiment is repreated in the "Libertarian Party of Kentucky addresses racism allegations against Rand Paul" thread (12-24-09).
One need only read the posts by Tim (Post 8) "Rand Paul and Chuck DeVore actually have a chance at winning.....we could use the Tea Party movement to our advantage and infiltrate the Republican Party with our own ideas. Now the neocons like David Frum are throwing a fit that we have an actual chance at taking back our party."
In Post 15, paulie goes on to write, "I've fixed my commentary to reflect that the person who left messages on Hightower's page was anonymous, and also clarified the identity of the accuser, as per Tom's suggestions. Any other suggestions?"
This statement suggests collusion on the part of The Libertarian Party of KY to frame and harm Hightower. Why? It worked to get Hightower out of the Paul campaign but to who's detriment in the long haul? This incrimenates the LPKY in criminal acivity and possible conspiracy against Hightower. Again, why"
Wes Wagner's Post 16 is tragic in condemning LP practices for this party's image, too.
Then at Post 11, paulie wrote, "I'm an anarchist libertarian, but not a captalist in political terms..Right now we could use the Tea Party movement to our advantage and infiltrate the Republican Party with our own ideas."
Paulie continues in Post 30, "(LP) Helped to poplarize libertarian ideas, which are now beginning to infiltrate the mainstream." Seems to be a common goal.
Greg observes, in Post 38, "Rand may not be a Libertarian but he is a libertarian."
My concern, personally, is the the LP is in a serious state of confusion at several levels. I registered here to get an better understanding of the LPKY apart from the MSM portrayals.
I know for a fact that Rand Paul courted Libertarians in the spring meeting. I was there. Then it appears an LPKY framed Hightower and later Christie reveals Paul cut all libertarian ties in order to persuade Mitch for the almighty influence and $$$.
The 9.12 Tea Party DOES NOT endorse Rand Paul as their candidate regardless of how he represents himself in NY in front of Mitch.
Trust and character are the two qualifiers I look for in a candidate. Rand fails both. I don't want him in the GOP. He's no more than a low ball manipulator for personal agrandisement and has less than honorable intentions...ulterior motives.
LP rejects Paul. Tea Party rejects Paul. Let's hope KY Republicans will too.
Liberty1956
I apologize, but for some reason your comments were not posted publicly originally. I have made them public. It's not our intention to hide comments, and I'm not sure why that happened. we were under attack from spammers a few weeks ago, and perhaps something was changed at that time. I'll try to fix that now.
In the mean time, I would simply say this:
1. LPKY played no role in the Hightower situation, or any other aspect of Rand's campaign, other than to directly disassociate ourselves from it.
2. Christi left the campaign specifically because Rand has no plans to "reform" the GOP. This was in some release of hers I read on the web.
3. Libertarians, as part of the "Other/Independent" vote, as a block vote more often than any other Independents. So it makes sense, in an election, to court our vote.
4. I don't really care about the primary race. It's not my party, and until the candidates are decided in an election in which I both pay for AND get to participate (unlike primaries, where I just pay for them), I am not paying any attention.
5. Libertarians have been courted by the GOP in the past. 1994, 1980, and 1968, specifically. The problem is that they just pay our principles lip-service, and that's why I disagree with anyone who says small-l libertarians should be trying to "infect" other parties.
6. FreedomWorks, who funds a number of the Tea Parties out there, recently endorsed Rand Paul, which goes to my previous statements.
There had been talk about LPKY running a candidate for this office, but it's a lot of time and money, having to collect 5000 (really, 7500) signatures. So unless someone steps forward who can't be dissuaded and does the work, we won't have a candidate in the Senate race.
I have no ill-will toward any of the candidates in this race, and while I see the flaws of each campaign, I am restricted by law from giving that opinion (frickin' McCain).
Update: Apparently Rand Paul gave a speech in Frankfort, as part of his officially filing to become a candidate, attributing himself to the TEA Party movement. So there you go. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a TEA Party Republican.