As I've said before, I prefer using the capital L whenever it's a proper name (regardless of the person or group's attitude toward liberty) and a lower-case L whenever I'm referring generically to outlooks, individuals, or groups that place a high priority on liberty (without being tied to the particular vision of liberty involved in liberalism). Thus I can say that most of the Libertarian movement is not particularly libertarian.

Anyway, you all should know there's a strong and viable pro-defense/anti-Islamist wing of the libertarian movement. We don't like Ron Paul on foreign policy. And view his views in that area as entirely leftist and un-libertarian.

We ask simply to the Ron Paul-bots we meet, explain to us Sir/Madam, how your views on foreign policy differ at all from those of Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Sean Penn and Michael Moore? They don't. They are all what we like to call "Surrender-tarians."

Hi there.. As I am wont to do....

"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

The Republican party has alienated plenty of voters concerned about women's-rights, minority rights, and/or youth's viewpoint and employment.

I would say that this statement is accurate..

circa 2008

Since then Democrats have shown that they aren't the saviors that women, minorities and youths thought they were...

In the last year, the GOP has made large inroads in these demographics..

Just recently, Romney out-polled Obama in support from women..

Obama and the Democrats have taken too many groups for granted..

Now, they are striking back...

I don't think the Republican party can continue in its present form, because the divergence in interests of those three blocks can no longer be Wall-Street-papered over.

I am constrained to point out that Democrats suck the Wall Street teat much more than the GOP has recently...

I think you are giving the divisions within the GOP way too much credit...

If the GOP has proven anything, they have proven that they can herd cats...

Michale....

However, my quite-likely-to-be-incorrect opinion is that they have a mess in the making in 2012. The Republican party used to be able to count on a nationally unifying figure. Regan and Bush junior attracted small-government conservatives, social/religious conservatives, national-security and foreign-policy hawks, corporate self-interest, and well-off voters.

In power, the Republican's would do the bidding of The One Percent. They would be aided by Democrats also quite willing to do the bidding of The One Percent, because after all its The One Percent who funds the very expensive process of running for national or state-wide office. For example, Bush pushed through prescription-drug coverage, including a statutory prohibition on the U.S. government "negotiating" prices with their friends who run the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, those friends have bought more or less equal influence over Democratic members of Congress (but I digress, sorry). However, paying for prescription drug coverage, or the two Bush-initiated wars, would have made them less popular -- or called attention to the lack of wisdom of the high-end tax cuts (another giveaway to The One Percent).

I'd love to hear from Mr. Dondero which of those factions he's consider to be Paul supporters, and/or Libertarian Republicans. Or, perhaps he has other factions to suggest.

I don't think the Republican party can continue in its present form, because the divergence in interests of those three blocks can no longer be Wall-Street-papered over.

In 2012, Paul has totally realistic options of either continuing to run for President as a write-in candidate, or throwing his support behind Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party, which is likely to be on most if not all state ballots.

Either option, I think, has a realistic chance of doing better than Ralph Nader's 3% in 1990 -- which arguably tipped the election from Gore to Bush. With a ground swell of enthusiasm, "libertarians" (in some sense of that word) could beat Ross Perot's 19% in 1992.

Either way, Paul taking a "party unity my ass" stance is very likely to leave behind a third party very much in play for 2014 and 2016. He's retiring, but would PUMA really, really anger his supporters? Would it end his son's electability as a Republican?

My guesses: no, it would energize then; yes but he'd have equal electability running as a Libertarian.

I don't think Obama supporters can assume that Paul-influenced libertarians would only take 2012 votes away from Romney and state-level Republicans.

Sorry if this post is too long, and yes it does repeat some of what I've said here before.

Yer my new hero!! :D

Michale.....

That is an interesting question. At this point four years ago, it certainly looked like the Hillary/Obama race had damaged the Democratic Party as a whole, but by November people were seeing it differently.

I'm not sure if the extended primary season helped the GOP or not this year, but it did work pretty much exactly as designed: no nominee by early February, a lively primary race, but wrapping things up long before June. They got what they wanted, in other words. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing won't really become apparent until the general election truly gets underway, I think.

Romney has been damaged by the process -- see his likeability numbers for proof -- in a way Obama wasn't, back in 2004. But there's a LOT of time between now and November, and he could turn this around conceivably.

-CW

First off, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but you should be able to post from now on and see your comments immediately, as long as you don't post more than one link per comment.

The term "libertarian" is a tricky one, because it describes a number of things at once. I tend to use "small-L" libertarian to describe those of a libertarian bent or a libertarian outlook. I use "big-L" Libertarian to indicate the Libertarian Party, and its members.

I wrote this article trying to avoid usage of "Paulites" or other terms for his followers, because I think some of them are seen as disrespectful (although I did throw in a "Clintonistas" but that was more embraced, I think, back then... I could be wrong about that though). So I mostly used "Paul supporters" and the like.

There is indeed a "libertarian wing" of the GOP, and it is based mostly in the Mountain West and places like Texas, where Ron Paul hails from. These are Republicans whose main issues are libertarian issues, rather than social conservative issues or others. By definition, they are very independent folks, and as such resist being lumped together as a single demographic, you are right about that. But there can never be a "Libertarian wing" of the GOP, because it is contradictory -- it's a separate political party from the GOP, so it's a nonsense statement. I'm just giving you my personal definitions of how I use the two terms (capitalized and uncapitalized), here.

What I'm talking about in the article is the people who follow Ron Paul. Now, they're also a mixed bunch, and include (a) people who would follow Ron Paul no matter what he called himself, (b) people with libertarian ideologies who consistently vote Republican, (c) Libertarians who would normally vote Libertarian Party, but think Ron Paul has a better shot as a Republican, and (d) a whole bunch of other groups I haven't even identified.

You seem to be referring to a different slice of the electorate, either (forgive me if I get this wrong) (e) Libertarians who vote Republican, or (f) Republicans with a libertarian outlook (similar to (b) above, I guess).

Let me know if I'm off base with any of this, and how you would fit in, or define the group you're talking about.

-CW

Donna Summer, dead at 63

Michale.....

I kind of think it will be a pretty boring convention, unless the delegates get their water pistols and their real guns mixed up and start shooting each other on the convention floor.

My question to you, Chris, is: did the strategy of drawing out the Republican primary process hurt them or help them as a party?

This may shock you, but not all libertarians support Ron Paul. Many of us view his stance on foreign policy as abhorrent, and entirely un-libertarian.

We libertarians oppose Islamism. In short, we don't want our pretty wives/girlfriends to be forced to wear ugly black burkas from head to toe, our gay friends hung from lampposts and our marijuana smoking buddies jailed for life under Sharia Law.

Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are entirely consistent with tolerance and freedom. Muslim Sharia is the exact opposite of liberty, and Ron Paul coddles the Islamists.

What you miss, is a great many libertarians are enthusiastically supporting Mitt Romney. We switched to Romney after Cain dropped out. Of course, that didn't fit the liberal media template, so it went un-reported. And I can see you've fallen victim to liberal media spin.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican

My apologies for the massively long delay in posting your first comments. Somehow, you guys wound up in the "spam" folder instead of in the "moderate this comment" folder, for which I apologize.

Your comments have been posted, and I'm heading over to Monday's column to respond. From now on, you should be able to post here without delay (as long as you don't post more than one link per comment).

I do hope you see this, and I'm sorry for the delay.

-CW

Yeah, my gut tells me it'll probably all just fizzle, like the Clinton PUMAs, but hey, I was bored today...

:-)

-CW