Blogcritics Comments on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Comment by JC on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:11:50 EDT

You know guys, I was very skeptical of Ron Paul and I still am. I just support him on principle. I cannot see him getting the republican party nomination though. I can see him actually getting elected IF he gets the nomination of both the Libertarian and Constitutional parties and a good helping of republican and democrat voters who are young and restless. Ron Paul, just raised an amazing amount of money (considering) and is going to get a lot more free publicity from it. Please tell me your thoughts.

Comment by NedJames on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:42:49 EDT

Ron Paul is a nice guy, but I think Daniel Imperato would be better.

Comment by Robert Lanning on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:19:45 EDT

Ron Paul should run as a libertarian. A huge step for the party

Comment by Bobby Ramsey on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:52:40 EDT

Also, I disagree with Dr. Dreadful (#9) about the intent of a vote for a Libertarian. The intent for me is not to make all third parties more mainstream. Voting Libertarian is not some kind of tacit support for the Greens and Reformers. I voted Libertarian in 2000 and 2004 for the simple reason(s) that 1) the Republican and Democratic candidates were both terrible, and 2) I simply wanted, and still want, to return our American Empire to a Constitutionally bound Republic. I don't think somehow "having more parties" is the way to do that. The ideal way is to change both of the major parties through infiltration and the spread of good ideas, as we saw Ron Paul doing in the GOP Debates at the Reagan Library. Ideally we should have people of libertarian leanings infiltrating BOTH parties, changing the terms of the debate.

Comment by Bobby Ramsey on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:02 EDT

I agree with Hyrum Berg (#8 and #10). I voted Libertarian in 2004 and 2000, and I'm sorry, but what earthly good did it do? I lean libertarian in all of my views, and here we have Paul actually making a serious, credible run for the Oval Office. If you capital-L Libertarians really care about getting rid of the Patriot Act, getting out of Iraq, not having a National ID Card, and restoring Habeas Corpus, you should vote for the candidate who best has a chance of winning. I think that is obviously Paul.

Comment by Hyrum Berg on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:04:48 EDT

I agree that the two party system is a poor contraption that I believe is cheating us out of representative choices. But Ron Paul as you probably recall ran as the Libertarian Party's candidate. His platform has not changed so he is what the Libertarians want. So why not support a perfect Libertarian candidate who has a good chance of winning even though he is running in a main stream political party? So far Ron Paul has a better chance then any other libertarian candidate.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Tue, 29 May 2007 01:14:39 EDT

#8: Because the Libertarian Party is, as discussed, a viable political party, and one of the things political parties tend to like to do is field candidates in elections - as is their democratic right. Hailing as I do from a country with three major political parties and literally hundreds of regional and minor ones, many of which do have representation in Parliament, I think that the two-party system you have here is a bit unhealthy. While I appreciate that both the Republicans and the Democratics are structured to allow for a broad church of opinion under the general party umbrella - hence the apparently contradictory talk of 'conservative Democrats' and 'liberal Republicans' - these fine distinctions aren't always apparent to Joe Voter, who perceives himself faced at the ballot box with a stark choice between Existing Disaster and New Disaster. When a strong third-party presidential candidate does emerge - e.g. Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 - he/she is promptly rounded upon by angry supporters of the two main parties who blame him/her for stealing their voters and losing them the election: as if their very presence on the ballot paper were somehow unfair. Small wonder there is such public cynicism for the democratic process. All the more reason why third party candidates need to be encouraged: they mean fewer votes for the 'Big Two' to take for granted, making them work harder and encouraging more debate of the actual issues, rather than the two-way mudslinging that tends to occur. All power to the Libertarians, the Greens, the Reform Party and anyone else who cares to throw a spanner in the works, I say.

Comment by Hyrum Berg on First Look 2008: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate George Phillies

Tue, 29 May 2007 00:31:51 EDT

Why is the Libertarian Party not supporting Ron Paul? Him becoming President would be just like having a Libertarian President. And he has a better chance of becoming President that one running as a Libertarian.