Posts tagged libertarians

Rise of the Libertarians, 10 reasons why Slate, Salon and the progressive media are afraid

0

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

Rise of the Libertarians, 10 reasons why Slate, Salon and the progressive media are afraid

 

liberty-freedom-cc-565x265

 

Attached is an extremely well done article which lays out why it is that today’s political establishment, especially the “progressives” are so afraid of libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a logical evolution from statism. Statism is a 20th Century ideology based in the idea that systems were closed and if the right smart people ran society an egalitarian Utopia would bloom. If we could create an atom bomb with concerted government directed efforts why could we not also engineer the society (many) people wanted? In the dark days of a rising Soviet Union and expanding a New Deal, very few thought of the economy as a living breathing thing. Something which was alive and composed of billions and billions of exchanges and human decisions. Society was instead a machine, a factory. From this factory we could create the dream which had so long eluded humanity.

But this kind of thinking, contrary to what people thought at the time, was not a revolution against oppressive feudalism and the industrial revolution. Statism was and is an extension of it. Government as a massive corporation, nominally “owned by the workers of the world” but always controlled by a group of lever pullers who look remarkably like the group of lever pullers they replaced.

Libertarianism in contrast embraces an open source society. People, every day people, are valued as individuals. In a world where individuals are more educated than ever – and I don’t mean in the sense that people have more degrees than in the past, I mean in the sense that through the Internet people know much more about the world around them – individuals demand respect. People are not cogs to be placed in a machine by self designated social engineers. People are living entities who come together, or choose not to depending on perceived value.

Progressivism, statism, in contrast is about force. It is about a failed top down 20th Century religion based in the fever dreams of Marx and Hegel from the 19th Century. Seriously, it is a religion.

For those looking forward. For those who despise coercion. Who value human dignity. Who have faith in their abilities and a healthy fear of bureaucrats who say they know best when the data shows over and over that they don’t. For those who believe that each person should be given the chance to actualize his or her gifts to the maximum degree possible. For those who believe that society to the degree possible should be VOLUNTARY. For those who believe that they know how to manage their lives better than some government employee sitting in a stone building somewhere. Well, libertarianism has quite a lot to offer.

And to think Rachael Maddow said that the “era of small government was over” right after the government shutdown in October, and right before Obamacare blew up. And I think she honestly believed it, along with the rest of the establishment. Only 5 months ago.

For the record since this particularly sweet moment her ratings have tanked, though she does now have a wealthy new sponsor for her show, Exxon Mobile. Kudos to her on that.

So welcome to the (peaceful) revolution America and it’s just beginning. Welcome to ACTUAL CHANGE. It is an exciting time, and take absolutely nothing for granted.

(From FEE.org)
 
8.   Libertarians really don’t like crony capitalism. For all the lip service progressives pay to the “problem” of income inequality, they consistently back the most illiberal and inegalitarian policies. Is there anything fair about showering taxpayer resources upon this energy company or that—and making their CEOs’ wealth more secure in the process? Is there anything equitable about shoring up the U.S. banking cartel with permanent legislation like Dodd-Frank? And what chosen “one-percenters” are benefitting from the crony-infested Obamacare legislation, which rains goodies down on drug-makers, healthcare providers, and insurance companies in equal measure? On the other hand, while libertarians don’t mind the sort of inequality that comes from people successfully creating happy customers, wealth, and jobs, we really—no really—don’t like collusion between business interests and government power.

Click here for the article.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

 

Crony capitalist website Think Progress says “progregssives” shouldn’t work with libertarians to fight the NSA, Could threaten The New Deal

1

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

Crony capitalist website Think Progress says “progregssives” shouldn’t work with libertarians to fight the NSA, Could threaten The New Deal

 

UTAH-NSA-CC-565x112

 

Fundamentally the author’s concern is about the federal government losing control over the states. If the states reassert their historical, and it should be said – constitutional authority the whole big government dream could unravel even more rapidly than it is unraveling now.

Currently there are anti-NSA “lights out” bills moving through state legislatures. In essence the states seek to penalize utilities and other contractors which supply NSA facilities with water and electricity and so on. The bills would make it illegal to do business with the NSA within the borders of the state.

This is throwing up red flags in the statist camp. Even if the NSA is spying on US citizens, addressing the constitutional violations in this way, in a way which might actually work, could undermine the New Deal which for 70 years has sought to centralize ever more power in Washington DC.

Basically what it comes down to for Think Progress is that liberty, freedom, and human dignity, are less important than an all encompassing state and the dream of what is essentially a socialist United States. Think Progress makes the case that the welfare state is a worthy price for one’s soul.

Better a police state than to have an America which is decentralized and closer to the will of the people.

Pathetic.

Click here for the article.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

The Real Reason Libertarians Aren’t Settling For Conservatism

1

 

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

The Real Reason Libertarians Aren’t Settling For Conservatism

 

For_A_New_Liberty-cc

It is often assumed by many who do not know better that libertarians are just conservatives who like to smoke pot and really like guns. There is something to this simple minded assessment, but it is very simple minded. Libertarians are for liberty on both the social and the economic front. It is a forward looking ethos. It does not cling to tradition per se, but believes that solutions for society are best found using an uncoerced marketplace of ideas. Sometimes age old traditions are the best solution, sometimes they are not.

Fundamentally libertarians believe that they own their own lives. The government can not lay claim arbitrarily to one’s life or livelihood. A government must earn trust from its citizens in the same way we must earn trust from our neighbors and how companies earn the trust of their customers. The goal is to make society as voluntary as humanly possible.

Where liberals and conservatives see areas of society which demand coercion from the state, the draft, taxes, Obamacare, drug laws, etc, libertarians see none.

Libertarians are also fundamentally opposed to the mixing of state and business, which invariably ends in some form of crony capitalism (the friendliest form of fascism – which is not too friendly).

Libertarianism is the most important movement in American politics today. It might be the most important movement in the world. And we are still in very early days.

(From TownHall.com)
 
Let’s have a look at some numbers of the people who call themselves “libertarian.” A few weeks ago, a think tank called the Public Religion Research Institute released a big data report on those who describe themselves as “libertarian.” There are some big consistencies; for example, 96 percent oppose Obamacare. But what is most striking is that a majority (39 percent) consider themselves “moderates”—not conservatives or liberals.
 
To be sure, this report notes that most libertarians are registered Republicans (45 percent). However, more libertarians are independent (35 percent), third party (15 percent), or Democrats (five percent) when combined. It is a misinterpretation of libertarian values to assume that all would vastly prefer Republican candidates. If we were just looking at party affiliation, Republican libertarians do not represent even half of the libertarian demographic.

Click here for the article.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

 

George Will: If he thinks libertarianism a “dangerous thought,” people may think Christie himself is “dangerous”

0

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

 

George Will: If he thinks libertarianism a “dangerous thought,” people may think Christie himself is “dangerous”

 

G-will-cc1

 

It is no secret that this site is a fan of small government. In our opinion the only real way to fight crony capitalism, the collusion of business, special interests, and government, is to shrink the government. Crony capitalism only happens with an intrusive state. It only happens when government is big enough to pick winners and losers. Intrusive government is the catalyst for crony capitalism.

Can corporations be corrupt without government? Absolutely.

Can unions be corrupt without government? Absolutely.

But the power of the corrupt expands when the corrupt can use law to compel the marketplace.

Libertarianism, as Will points out has many variations and strains, but generally it is about protecting the dignity of the individual, and advocates for a very limited government. Libertarians believe that transactions should be voluntary, and win win. This is how society has always progressed. This is how technology and food and societies and everything get better.

It is typically when vested interests (large companies, government agencies, unions) seek to disrupt this great experiment that things such as wars, bailouts for giant banks, and segregation of people by race happens. People freely trading with one another, respecting each other’s differences, tend not to kill one another despite what Hobbes said. Free people, secure in their property, tend to make their societies better.

Chris Christie is a big government guy. He has no idea how the average everyday people of the world could order themselves without wise and benevolent overlords. This is why he has attacked libertarianism. Basically he fears a free society. George Will has called him out.

Click here for the article.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

 


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

Who voted in Congress yesterday to defund the NSA domestic spying program, and who didn’t. (List and graph)

0

Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

By

Who voted in Congress yesterday to defund the NSA domestic spying program, and who didn’t.

 

 

It was a very interesting vote with a majority of Republicans joining the Obama Administration and many Dems in support of the continued funding of the NSA spying program which dragnets the data of American citizens without a warrant.

 

But a large minority of the GOP voted to limit funding. In fact, the Amash Amendment nearly passed with help from a good number on the other side of the aisle.

Whether your congressperson voted to continue funding or not is probably a good determiner of whether your “small government” congressperson is actually for small government. I am sad to say that only 1 member from my home state (more properly the Commonwealth) of Virginia voted for the amendment.

One aside. On the way into Washington DC this morning I was entertained by the ranting of one Republican in the House (on the radio) complaining that too many members of the GOP were acting like “libertarians” in voting to defund the NSA domestic spying program.

If only.

Click here for the list of votes and the geographical breakout. 


Nick Sorrentino
About Nick Sorrentino

Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

Senate panel: DHS fusion centers produce ‘predominantly useless information’ and ‘a bunch of crap’

0

Source: http://endthelie.com

By Madison Ruppert

Editor of End the Lie

 Senate panel: DHS fusion centers produce ‘predominantly useless information’ and ‘a bunch of crap’  More at EndtheLie.com - http://EndtheLie.com/2012/10/03/senate-panel-dhs-fusion-centers-produce-predominantly-useless-information-and-a-bunch-of-crap/#ixzz29Q8eg28qA newly released report from the Senate’s bipartisan Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reveals that the claims of Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the behemoth Department of Homeland Security (DHS), surrounding the United States’ so-called fusion centers are nothing short of outright lies.This is far from surprising to me since in September of last year a report from the Homeland Security Policy Institute revealed the fact that information received from fusion centers “often lacks value.”

Fusion centers are also involved in rolling out nationwide biometrics systems as well as centralized biometrics databases coordinated by the federal government.

In the past, Napolitano has claimed that fusion centers are “one of the centerpieces of our counterterrorism strategy,” while reality paints a completely different picture.

The Senate panel, which combed over 80,000 fusion center documents, determined that they could not “identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot.”

Furthermore, unnamed DHS officials told the senate panel that fusion centers put out “predominantly useless information” and “a bunch of crap,” according to Danger Room.

This is somewhat surprising coming from any DHS official given that their official risk assessments have a tendency to wildly underestimate actual risks, but perhaps even DHS employees are beginning to see the absurdity of these fusion centers.

Hilariously, an internal assessment from 2010 – which DHS unsurprisingly did not share with Congress – reveals that a whopping third of all fusion centers do not even have defined procedures for sharing intelligence, which is “one of the prime reasons for their existence.”

Even more troubling is the fact that the Senate has found that at least four fusion centers identified by DHS “do not exist.”

The sad reality is that the Senate’s finding, as noted above, is not in any way shocking. For instance, the Constitution Project (TCP), a national, bipartisan think tank determined, “without effective limits on data collection, storage and use, fusion centers can pose serious risks to civil liberties, including rights of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, racial and religious equality, privacy and the right to be free from unnecessary government intrusion.”

(more…)

Judge Napolitano on the 2012 Election, Obamacare, and The Future of Liberty

0
YouTube Preview Image

“Those of us who really yearn for a return to first principles, the natural law, the Constitution, a government that only has powers that we have consented it may have… are frustrated by the choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,” says Judge Andrew Napolitano, author of the upcoming book “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Your Constitutional Freedoms,” Fox Business contributor, and former host of “Freedom Watch.”

Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch sat down with Napolitano at FreedomFest 2012 and discussed the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the individual mandate and whether or not there’s a substantive difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney from a libertarian perspective.

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks. For an ever-growing playlist, go here now:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1ECFFDA94AA8AA05

Non-Aggression Is Not Pacifism (Libertarians Hit Back)

0

Source: http://www.dailypaul.com

By Tom Mullen on Mon, 03/05/2012

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Non-Aggression Is Not Pacifism (Libertarians Hit Back)

Non-Aggression Is Not Pacifism (Libertarians Hit Back)Heading into “Super Tuesday,” many conservatives lament that they do not like any of the remaining Republican candidates for president. Romney is too moderate, Gingrich too much a “Washington insider,” and Santorum both an insider and a guaranteed loser against Obama thanks to his willingness to bare his soul about some of his more outlandish socially conservative views.

That leaves Ron Paul, who would seem to be the ideal conservative candidate. Paul’s Plan to Restore America actually cuts $1 trillion from the federal budget in his first year as president, including eliminating the Department of Education that Ronald Reagan promised to abolish.

 

Paul is the only candidate that actually disagrees with President Obama in principle on “spreading the wealth around.” Paul doesn’t just nibble a few pennies away from financially insignificant welfare programs. He actually has a funded plan to let young people opt out of Medicare and Social Security. This is really a plan to responsibly end these programs. Government-mandated programs only survive because people are forced to participate. If conservatives really do oppose socialism, they should agree with Paul on this. Where do they think Social Security got its name?

 

For a large group of conservatives, they are with Paul right up until he explains his foreign policy. Suddenly, not only does the courtship end, they stop taking calls and change their phone numbers. That’s unfortunate because most conservatives make this decision upon a completely distorted view of Paul’s foreign policy.

 

All of Ron Paul’s policy decisions are based upon the same underlying principle: the libertarian principle of non-aggression. As he stated during my own interview with him last year (about the 7:30 mark here), “That’s the moral principle. The legislative principle is really in the Constitution.” Based upon this principle, the government is never allowed to initiate force against the innocent. That means that it cannot redistribute wealth, it cannot stop you from harming yourself with drugs or other vices, and it cannot start a war with another nation.

This is not some new age idea from the early libertarian movement of the 1970’s. This is the foundation of the founders’ philosophy of government. Thomas Jefferson made it explicit when he said, “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”[1]

Jefferson’s first order of business upon reaching the White House was to cut military spending dramatically. His goal was a military establishment adequate to defend the nation but inadequate to the imperial designs of Federalists like Alexander Hamilton. However, when the Pasha of Tripoli declared war upon the United States, Jefferson did not hesitate to send in the Marines for a quick and decisive win.

The confusion starts when Paul’s policies are described as “dovish” or “soft” on Iran or other supposedly belligerent nations. People unfamiliar with libertarian ideas may honestly misunderstand them. Others deliberately distort them. Let there be no confusion. Non-aggression is not pacifism. Libertarians hit back.

Indeed, Paul has said that if the people really do want to go to war, then he would ask the Congress for a declaration of war. He rarely gets time to explain why this is important. The declaration of war involves a debate about whether a state of war already exists. That’s why it’s so important. The declaration of war power doesn’t authorize Congress to start a war. It allows them to direct the president to end it. Check the language of every declaration of war that Congress has ever made. They all support this interpretation.

Active duty military seem to understand this implicitly, which is why they overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. They are ready to risk their lives for their country, but only when their country is truly in danger. Why don’t most conservative voters agree with them? They decorate their vehicles with stickers saying “Support Our Troops” but do not support the candidate that the troops want to be president.

It is no accident that the United States has never really won a war since Congress stopped declaring them. Instead, we send our troops into some far-off land for decades at a time with no clear definition of victory. Their hands are tied with confusing rules of engagement that keep them from winning and prolong the war. This is good for those who profit from war but bad for the troops who risk or lose their lives.

None of this happens in a Ron Paul presidency. Instead, war is far less likely to come at all, which is a good thing. If it is forced upon us, Ron Paul will have it properly declared by the Congress and then will fight it to win. Make no mistake. Of all of the Republican candidates for president, only Ron Paul will win the next war.

[1] Jefferson, Thomas Letter to Francis Walker Gilmer June 7, 1816 from The Works of Thomas Jefferson edited by Paul Leicester Ford G.P. Putnam’s Sons New York and London The Knickerbocker Press 1905 pg. 533-34

 


 

NDAA Is Now Law, and Libertarians Are Now Anti-Government Extremists!

0

Source: http://lewrockwell.com

by Gary D. Barnett

Democracy, which I consider to be the first step or beginning of socialism, thrives on propaganda, and uses this propaganda to indoctrinate the people. Once this indoctrination is complete, totalitarianism is the end result, and then propaganda is replaced by the razor’s edge of the state’s sword. This is our lot today. Propaganda has labeled those of us who desire to protect freedom as dissenters, and as enemies of the State. Given the now “legal” ability of the State to imprison indefinitely or murder any it chooses to, the sword has become the state’s weapon of choice. The circle is nearly complete!

According to a Reuter’s article published recently, the “FBI warns of threat from anti-government extremists.” “Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.” The article went on to say that: “These extremists, sometimes known as “sovereign citizens,” believe they can live outside any type of government authority.

Pay careful attention to who is now considered to be an extremist according to the FBI. Those who refuse to pay or even those who oppose taxation, those who defy government environmental regulations, and those who believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard, are now all considered to be extremists!

To expand on this matter, it is a point of fact that any real libertarian is opposed to forced government taxation, is opposed to government mandated environmental regulations, and all real libertarians fully understand that the creation of the Federal Reserve and the destruction of the gold standard have bankrupted this country. Or is losing 97% of the value on our money not considered bankruptcy?

One thing that was correct in this article was this statement: “Routine encounters with police can turn violent “at the drop of a hat,” said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI’s counterterrorism division.” Yes, any wrong look or posture by any citizen can result in extreme violence against that innocent citizen by police. This is proven every single day around this country, but I should mention that McArthur was mistakenly referring to violence by the citizen against police. What a queer position to take!

State and local police departments are inundating the FBI with requests for training to protect themselves from sovereign citizens. This statement has obviously been reversed, as I always thought that the sovereign citizen was to be protected by local and state police, not the other way around. It seems the idea of sovereignty is now reserved only to the nation state and its agents of force. This of course is backward, but then again, what in this country remains proper, and in the interest of liberty? Little or nothing remains, as the U.S. has become nothing more than a tyrannical, fascist oligarchy!

We are very close to the bottom of the sleigh run on our way down that slippery slope toward a total police state. Most of the pieces of the puzzle are now in place, and all that is left for the government authorities to do is to round up those “extremist sovereigns” still practicing their anti-government ways. With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), and the now new expanded FBI definition of an extremist, all that remains to be done is to actually capture and incarcerate all those who believe themselves to be sovereign individuals.

Consider that being anti-government, or even speaking out against the government, or wanting to protect your hard earned property by insisting on real money, or not agreeing with government regulations, can now literally lead to indefinite military detention without any due process or trial. Consider that any who believe in individual sovereignty can now be sent away to black sites around the world, tortured, or worse, via the rendition process. Consider that any resistance to the State can now lead to arrest, imprisonment, beatings, or death. Consider that this once (so-called) free country is now a total police state bent on the destruction of all natural rights of individuals, and the U.S. government is desirous of total power and control over the entire population.

In reality these things do not have to be considered, because they are already happening! Some of the state’s indiscretions are still partially isolated at this time, but the fact of the matter is that legally, nothing stands in the way of this government’s desire to reach a dictatorial pinnacle.

The NDAA gives the government, mainly the executive branch, Carte blanche power in its march toward rounding up any American that it deems as a threat to its false sovereignty. This power not only extends to the capture and detention of citizens, but the president also claims the power to assassinate any he chooses to on his say so alone. He claims this power without fear of law, and without fear of judicial scrutiny. The powerful in government you see, are now in a position that puts them “legally” above the law, and therefore they answer to no one. This situation is a travesty beyond imagination, but it is real, and it is firmly in place.

Given the horrible USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, and all the other rights destroying legislation passed since September 11th, 2001, what chance do we have to regain freedom? Given the massive power now evident in the Department of Homeland Security, the military, the TSA, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, does liberty have a chance? Can freedom be regained in an environment tainted by the malignancy of this monster we call the U.S. government?

Who among us could be considered by this government’s definition to be an enemy belligerent, an enemy combatant, an unlawful combatant, a terrorist, an extremist, a believer in gold as money, a survivalist, or a libertarian? If you answered yes to any of these things, you could be subject to arrest, prosecution, incarceration, indefinite detention, citizenship loss, torture, or assassination. This is the country that has been built by all those who support this flawed system of government, and who continue to allow its aggressive march toward totalitarianism by their implied consent and apathetic behavior. Those I speak of have no understanding of freedom or liberty, and have not the courage to fight for right. They either worship authority, or fear it, but either way brings a deserved slavery.

Those of us who fight for freedom will never accept slavery. Those of us who believe in the sovereignty of the individual will never bow to the state apparatus. Those of us who seek the truth will never hide from it. Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life and liberty will continue to fight.

The State understands this courage and commitment, and will take every step to stop it. But if those who are willing to fight for the liberty of all are no longer present due to government mandate, what will become of the rest of society? What will become of freedom?

February 10, 2012

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana. Visit his website.

Ron Paul’s New Hampshire Rise : Young Voters Reached Out to

0

Source: http://www.onlykent.com

We’ve been following developments in the Republican presidential campaign bids and last week we told how among all the candidates Ron Paul has been shown to have the most solid support. A recent poll suggested that four of the candidates were pretty level in Iowa, Paul, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich and today we have news that New Hampshire voters also seem to be paying more attention to Ron Paul.

Although much of the mainstream media continues to write off Paul’s chances, recent indications suggest that the 76-year-old Texan congressman could surprise people when the first primary takes place in just seven weeks. Although Mitt Romney has been the favorite in New Hampshire all year, it seems the race for second is far from over. Last week numbers from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center’s Andy Smith showed that Ron Paul is now in third on 12%, an increase on last month.

This has led Smith, a long-time pollster to say, “I could very well see Ron Paul coming in second place.” Key advantages that Smith feels Paul has are “more money than other candidates, and he seems to have a more committed young following. Those young voters [are] always important on the campaign trail because they essentially will work for free and they’re very enthusiastic about Paul,” as reported by Jon Greenburg over on NPR. The enthusiasm of young voters for Ron Paul was illustrated last week when a town hall meeting at Keene State College was packed out, with the majority being young students.

NPR predicts that the outcome for Ron Paul could be very different this time from the 2008 New Hampshire primary where he gathered less than 8% of the vote, especially as Paul is making distinct efforts to get his message out to wider areas of the electorate. Paul’s base now includes not only hard-core libertarians but he also has a substantial amount of younger voters on his side. Although registered independents have often been a favorable part of the electorate for Ron Paul, this time around it seems that increasing amounts of registered Republicans are also considering voting for him.

However former state Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen notes that while voters are feeling good about Paul because of his ability to sidestep the usual campaign attacks, his gut instinct is that many primary voters won’t go as far as Paul hopes. NPR notes, “that’s probably true for the race for first place. But in the race for second, Paul might be the one to watch in the home stretch. Over on USA Today another report tells how The New Hampshire Union Leader paper came out with an endorsement of Newt Gingrich on Sunday, signaling that Mitt Romney may not be such a clear winner of the January 10 primary as has been suggested. Joseph McQuaid, editor of the paper, was interviewed by C-Span yesterday and predicted the winner will come down to just three of the candidates, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.

It’s certainly intriguing to be following the Republican presidential campaigns and we know from response to our previous articles that support for Ron Paul is widespread and passionate so we’d like to know what you think of these latest insights. Are you a younger voter who Ron Paul has successfully reached out to? What do you think is the main reason for his increasing popularity? Young or old we’d like to hear from you on this so let us have your comments.

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!

Go to Top