Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

Expand Messages
  • Joe Liberty
    I think that President Paul would make a better America than we are now. He has a pro- free-trade rating from CATO so certainly there is no reason for RLC not
    Message 1 of 35 , Apr 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that President Paul would make a better America than we are now.  He has a pro- free-trade rating from CATO so certainly there is no reason for RLC not to endorse him on that issue.

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: steven s. <crestln@...>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:32:01 PM
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

      It is my opinion that Ron takes the typical IMPRACTICAL  and libertarian philosophical position here,  just as he does in 'HESITATING'  to support FairTax [H.B.25] as a replacement for the income tax.   Certainly it is desirable to  end all restrictions on trade and subsidies for trade, as it is to just end the income tax -- BUT NEITHER is going to happen from our current starting point.  Unions and environmentalist get their stooges in congress to tie down trade agreements until  foreign pay and environmental standards meet U.S. criteria -- meaning of course that unions maintain their stranglehold and the environment is 'protected'  by having less production/consumpt ion. 
      Ron's position on trade and tax reform, coupled with the real world  do NOT make the world better,  but play into the hands of the Neanderthals and even the islamics.

      John Mitchel, LtCol, USAF (Ret wrote:

      I have to agree with Ron Paul on his opposition to managed trade.  First,  Congress abdicated their responsibility to implement trade treaties by handing over to the executive branch Fast Track Trade Negotiation authority, hence the unconstitutional aspect Mr. Paul alludes to.  Second, a true free trader opposes both barriers to trade and also subsidies, and considering most of Congress never met a subsidy they didn't like, they really can't be considered "Free Traders" in the first place.
      reformcongress. com

      Joe Liberty <joe_liberty@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      I am glad that you are supporting Ron Paul, but I do not see how that is "risky" considering that RLC previously elected him chairman and endorsed his congressional campaigns.  Do you view those as having been risky decisions as well?  If so, what was the downside?  If RLC were going to be tagged as pro-life, protectionist, and/or conspiracy theorists, wouldn't they already have been so given the long association between Ron Paul and RLC?
      From where I sit it seems to me that the risky decision would be not to endorse Ron Paul. 

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: "westmiller@ aol.com" <westmiller@aol. com>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
      Sent: Friday, April 6, 2007 5:49:19 PM
      Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

      Posted by: "Joe Liberty" joe_liberty@ yahoo.com
      > Can you explain in more detail what you mean ...
          Thomas Sewell (National RLC Secretary and Board
      Member) gave a comprehensive response, with which
      I agree. However, let m! e be more specific on issues:

          1. Ron is adamantly "pro-life". Nothing wrong with that,
      but the RLC is neutral on that issue (see our Statement).
      Since it may be a major plank in his campaign, granting
      him an endorsement might imply that we also endorsed
      his position. We don't (and Ron regularly mentions that
      many libertarians disagree with his stand).

          2. Ron has opposed every "Free Trade Agreement"
      on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, actually
      impose "managed trade", and are a threat to sovereignty.
      The RLC respectfully disagrees and has official taken
      a position in favor of them:
      http://www.republic anliberty. org/news/ release/rlc- cafta.doc
          This is one of the issues where our "Liberty Index"
      faults Ron, even though he still ranks at the top because
      of the other 38 votes considered:
      http://www.republic anliberty. org/libdex/ li2005_over. htm

          3. Ron has associated himself with many groups that
      promote conspiracy theories or false anti-tax gimmicks.
      While he may not endorse those ideas (he has told me
      that a lot of them are "silly"), a large portion of those
      who support him believe that he agrees with their view.
      Although "guilt by association" is wrong, we have to
      recognize that we will be "tagged" as another element
      of that group, which we are not.

          Having said all that, and recognizing the risks, I'm
      supporting Ron and hope that the RLC Boards agree
      to make an endorsement. As my initial post indicated,
      each Director will make their own decision (or none),
      based on the issues, viability, and credibility.

      Bill Westmiller
      RLC National Chairman
      ============ ========= ========= ========
       Re: Candidate Fact Sheet
          Posted by: "Thomas Sewell" sharper@booksunderr eview.com sharper_
          Date: Thu Apr 5, 2007 1:26 pm ((PDT))

      In general, a candidate may be a perfect ideological match for the RLC, but
      will also be considered for viability and credibility.

      Viability: If a candidate isn't a "serious" contender for a nomination, it
      just hurts the RLC to be associated with them. For example, if a candidate
      plans to file for a primary race, but not actually spend time/money/etc. ..
      campaigning and has no chance of coming remotely close to placing well in
      the primary, they would definitely fail the viability test for me.

      Credibility: Personal attributes that a candidate has may make it so that
      the RLC might agree with them on issues, but still doesn't want to be
      associated with them. For example, a candidate that thinks the best way to
      campaign is in a clown suit, or who is a convicted murderer, or whatever
      personal attributes you can think of that would cause a candidate to not
      have a lot of credibility.

      Now, most of those above are more extreme examples in order to make the
      point obvious, but while issues stances are very important, they aren't the
      only consideration we have to take to decide if the RLC should endorse a
      candidate in a specific race.

      The other issue that Bill raises is that if we endorse a candidate that
      agrees with us 90% of the time, but is running his campaign as primarily
      being about an issue that is opposite our stance, or even something we are
      neutral on, we should also weigh how much we think the public will take our
      endorsement as also endorsing that primary campaign issue. For example, if
      we endorsed the leader of the Minuteman border group for an office, it would
      be foolish not to take into account that most people would also see that as
      an RLC endorsement of his immigration stance, since that's likely to be the
      main thrust of his campaign.



      2008 Election

      For President

      Who are the


      Yahoo! News

      Kevin Sites

      Get coverage of

      world crises.

      Yahoo! TV

      Staying in tonight?

      Check listings to

      see what is on.


    • George Blumel
      You ve got a lot more formal training than I have on the subject but I still wonder at the comments you made that I challenged. I won t be at a Libertarian
      Message 35 of 35 , Apr 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        You've got a lot more formal training than I have on the subject but I still wonder at the comments you made that I challenged. I won't be at a Libertarian convention because I don't think there is anything to be gained in that party. We are trying to advance free market libertarian  principles through the Republican party where it can have some effect.  I trust you worked for Ken Blackwell in his gubernatorial bid --I had the pleasure of dining with him recently here in Florida --he is a wonderful man and certainly a comrade of ours. 
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:50 AM
        Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

        Actually I am an economist and I did write a book on economics, foreign policy and an assortment of other subjects.  I have an advanced degree from Wright State University in Social and Applied Economics and published America at the Abyss: A View from the Heartland back in December.  I'll be attending the Ohio Libertarian Party convention on April 21st and I invite you to join me to discuss today's political economy.  Having said that, although a masters degree in Economics and writing a book doesn't necessarily make me an expert, it at least opened my horizons to some degree, just as opposing Bob Taft as a third party candidate for governor in 1998.  In any case, Thomas Sowell put it in focus better than anyone when he quipped " The first lesson in economics is scarcity; there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.  The first lesson in politics is to disregard the first lesson in economics."  I think we need to re-educate our elected officials on the latter, and quickly.
        Hope to see you on the 21st.
        patriotpressohio. com

        George Blumel <gblumel@bellsouth. net> wrote:
        Col., I have no doubt that you are fine soldier and a patriot but, alas, not an economist.  What you describe is not a subsidy.  Trade benefits all concerned --or they wouldn't make the trade.  It is not trade surpluses that finance their military it is their profits that they chose to spend on their military.  We have huge trade profits in the US and we have a negative trade balance. Capitalizing offshore is not a subsidy, either. How could it be?  You could probably write a book on military matters but you need to read a good one on economics. And I don't mean that in any disrespect --none of us know every subject.
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 9:33 PM
        Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

        O.K., "exporting hard currency" was a bad choice of words, but that does not undermine the point that China's trade surpluses are helping finance their military build-up.  I'm also compelled to mention that when corporations recapitalize offshore, the U.S. corporate tax code allows them to write off that investment.  That is a subsidy that is in direct conflict with our national security. Subsidies are bad enough on their face, but when subsidies put our warfighters at risk, that is criminal, in my opinion.
        John Mitchel
        patriotpressohio. com

        George Blumel <gblumel@bellsouth. net> wrote:
        Early on in this discussion we made the point that national security must be considered with regard to sensitive technology and scarce resources. I am sure there is no argument on that point in this group. We don't "export" hard currency to China or anywhere else --we trade and settlements are made in the appropriate currencies -that is not in itself a security problem.
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 6:32 PM
        Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

        National defense is one aspect of global trade that often gets lost in the shuffle.
        Let's say congress achieved a perfect "free trade" equilibrium, i.e., zero barriers to trade and zero subsidies.  There would still be a compelling argument for government intervention, and that would be national security.  With the U.S. industrial base moving more and more offshore, we are losing the capability to mobilize in the event of war.  There are other dangers including exporting hard currency to China, for example, that uses their trade surpluses to expand and modernize their military.  And let's not forget exporting sensitive technology that we continue to rely on as a force multiplier.  Another example is foreign military sales to allies that turn adversary like Venezuela. Both defense contractors and Congress promote exporting military technology to spread out costs, but often ignor the unintended consequences that in the long term will prove more costly in terms of lives lost as well as national treasure.
        John Mitchel
        LtCol, USAF, (Ret)
        patriotpressohio. com       

        "steven s." <crestln@erols. com> wrote:
        I think these figures SHOW Ron  is NOT  that good on  free trade.  Not only does McCain score comparable,  Maryland's liberal Democrat, Cris van Hollen gets 91   and 100!  --- Cato does not even put Ron in the Free Trade category!

        Joe Liberty wrote:
        CATO trade scores can be found at
        Since '93 Ron Paul has a 63% score at reducing trade barriers and a 100% at reducing trade subsidies.  By comparison, during the same time period, Duncan Hunter has scores of 16% and 50% respectively. McCain 85% and 75%.  Of all the declared candidates I could think of, only Sam Brownback has higher scores than Ron Paul. 

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: steven s. <crestln@erols. com>
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
        Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2007 12:03:35 PM
        Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

        I am not sure,  but I believe CATO endorses the Free Trade agreements for NAFTA  and the Caribbean  as well as the 'quick'  trade agreement system that by passes the political games of  congress.   These are contrary to Ron's positions.   He would still be a better President than many many others,  but  trade and PRACTICAL politics are not his strong points.   Where do you see his 'pro free trade rating from Cato,  and how does it compare with others as well as CATO optimum?


        Joe Liberty wrote:
        I think that President Paul would make a better America than we are now.  He has a pro- free-trade rating from CATO so certainly there is no reason for RLC not to endorse him on that issue.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.