Remember, Remember... Ron Paul?

Yesterday I awoke to find my campus plastered with hundreds of flyers bearing the masked face of V, the terrorist-hero of Alan Moore's cult graphic novel V for Vendetta. "Remember, remember the 5th of November, the gunpowder, treason and plot… DONATE TO RON PAUL TODAY!" they read. A few calls to friends at other schools confirmed the situation wasn't unique. Ron Paul's student supporters had hit college campuses across the nation.

Turns out the posters were part of a massive internet campaign by a group called "Ron Paul Revolution," whose Guy Fawkes' day-themed fundraising drive earned Paul $4.2 million yesterday, setting a new record for Republican donations. The idea was to create a "moneybomb" in honor of Fawkes' 17th century plot to blow up the British parliament. The hero of V for Vendetta channels Fawkes in plotting to bring down an Orwellian English government of the future. The 2005 movie adaptation made V a symbol of resistance and cool. But where does Ron Paul fit in?

The National Review chalks up student support to "youthful idealism," but the underlying factors are more complex. His anti-war stance draws many supporters on campuses, as well as his talk of civil liberties. Perhaps that's the tie to V for Vendetta. It could be also about bucking the status quo--to say you support Paul is provocative. He is an irritant to established Republicans, and among his young fans, this translates to in-your-face tactics. Supporters mobbed recent Mitt Romney campaign stop and, at an anti-war rally I attended in Boston last week, students carrying "Ron Paul '08" signs ran laps around the stage, yelling during the speeches.

Paul obviously has enough supporters to bring in some serious cash, but it's too soon to see if this energy will mean anything at the polls. To many college students, Ron Paul might fall in the Steven Colbert category of novelty candidates. In the words of one supporter at the anti-war rally: "Why do I like Ron Paul? Because he's frickin' awesome!"

Comments (46)

1. I just find it fascinating that the guy the "campus vote" finds fascinating is NOT the LEFT-wing anti-war candidate (Kucinich).....

   but the RIGHT-wing anti-war candidate, Paul. Lest we forget Paul is a libertarian, who, despite his "pro-life" stance, has said he favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations; supports free trade, rejecting NAFTA as "managed trade"; and opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

   He's also pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, and gun control. (ref: wikipedia.org)

   Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 12:48pm

2. Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 12:48pm

   He's got John Birch Society's backing, arguably one of the most right-wing organizations around! But he's the one true fiscal conservative out there, for all those "fiscal" conservatives out there backing Romney, the man behind the plastic mask.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 1:45pm

3. Ron Paul's cult popularity is facinating in that he's apparently struck a chord with the Matrix meme that lives in the "V is for Vendetta" campaign.

   His, more than any other candidacy, represents the wrench in the machine mentality.

   I can easily see his appeal growing rapidly depending on how events play out in the near term.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/06/2007 @ 1:46pm

4. However the major question by MSM of Ron Paul, only to be fair, has got to be whether or not he's seen a UFO or believes, if the government has covered up the subject-- whether he'd open up the files on any contact with UFO's like Jimmy Carter tried to do.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 2:03pm

5. I could see the 'V for Vendetta' campaign flipped by the "real" conservatives out there by saying the movie is sympathetic to the concept of terrorism as a justifiable means to an end.

   But if his campaign does gain significant momentum, I'm curious how it would affect the staunch, anti-war demographic, the market for which the left has thus far cornered.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 2:04pm

6. Yes, Ron Paul's campaign has been interesting to watch. In addition to the John Birchers, he has supporters on Stormfront, which gives even more of a pause.

   I think the Bush presidency has pushed the right wing so far right that they've gone full circle back to the days of the American Revolution. Young people (and generally I find these are white males) who might have otherwise naturally fallen into the conservative groove believe that American values are no longer something to "conserve," but to demand.

   Posted by habiba at 11/06/2007 @ 2:13pm

7. Thanks for getting a word about good old UFO's in there, H-sub. ;)

   Posted by habiba at 11/06/2007 @ 2:14pm

8. Posted by HABIBA 11/06/2007 @ 2:13pm

   One of my students is a rabid Paul advocate, she's willing to march, work the phone bank, give some of her (parent) college savings, etc.-- in order to get him elected. Her biggest argument is the war, soc sec., taxes, and then sans soc. services, etc.-- a typical repub old time conservative. Yet she got cross-eye when I brought up the high cost of her tuition, health care, lowering of the middle class income status, etc. She's fairly well off-- parent wise, doesn't have many serious responsibilities, getting a little hot under her collar about a war she doesn't really want to deal with, like-- make it go away.

   I'd say a lot of these college kids are similar and are doing what I did at 16--rebelling, but not against their parents authority, don't want to endanger their monetary umbilical cord, it's a safe way to go about voicing their ‘anxiety' about simply having to know about it. Being for the anti-candidate is cool and a way for them to ‘deal' with their dependency and lack of power.

   I hope it becomes a real big ‘deal'.

   A real old time repub conservative type would kick the plump soft stuffing out of the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy. Yeah, let's see what the cowardly reptiles do to Paul when he becomes a big obvious threat to them.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 3:08pm

9. Posted by MATTMAN 11/06/2007 @ 1:45pm

   Didn't know there were still Birchers out there. Figured they had all died off or were in the 90s by now.

   But notice the appeal of Paul...over Kucinich. Why?

   Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 3:10pm

10. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 3:08pm

    She should have asked YOU how exactly Al Gore wins the Democratic nomination or wins as a write-in/3rd party candidate and watch YOU go "cross-eyed"!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 3:11pm

11. Frita, here I'll give you a little turd to play around with: Al Gore will not enter the presidential race on November 12, 2007.

    (Considering what happened when I predict that in 2007 thousands of our US troops would be killed in the ME war... and being really glad it did not happen.)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 3:20pm

12. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 3:20pm

    HSUB...I don't care about your predictions. They've been shown useless time after time now, with over a week passing since both your impeachment prediction of January 2007, and your "Gore in '08" prediction to NOVA on October 12th.

    At this point a straight answer on HOW Gore supposedly runs for President (let's not even debate that he will win...go ahead and grant it)....HOW, under what, if any party affiliation, does the doe it?

    Again, Democratic Party nominee?....he's got less than a month now until the cut-off for the California Primary. Or do the delegates abandon their chosen candidate sometime between August 25th and 27th, 2008 at the Pepsi Center in Denver?

    3rd Party?....okay, which one. Write-in?...okay, which states allow that?

    See, the most worrisome thing is what I just read in that other post....

    "One of my students is a rabid Paul advocate..."---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 3:08pm

    Holy Crap!....you're a teacher?!?!?!!? Those kids are doomed!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 3:33pm

13. HSUB...I don't care about your predictions. They've been shown useless time after time..

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 3:33pm

    Frita, kinda like your prediction that your AG Frito would never be let go by hsuB, nor that Pelosi would put impeachment back on the table for him... so she did and hsuB let your Frito go, but on the good side you two have more time together. Happy ending.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 3:47pm

14. Oh, about your repeating the same questions over and over again like a psycho-chick that can't take a hint or says she doesn't want it and then comes back asking for it again. Look, you can't finagle your way back into my good graces after going psycho so many times, be happy with your Frito.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 3:53pm

15. But notice the appeal of Paul...over Kucinich. Why?

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 3:10pm

    A reasonable answer to your query, Maskot:

    Ron Paul's cult popularity is facinating in that he's apparently struck a chord with the Matrix meme that lives in the "V is for Vendetta" campaign.

    His, more than any other candidacy, represents the wrench in the machine mentality.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/06/2007 @ 3:54pm

16. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 3:53pm

    I ask the same questions, because I don't get an answer, HSUB.

    Oh, you CLAIM you've answered it, but you really don't.

    Look, quite simple, I gave three options (maybe you have a fourth)...so

    is it A. Gore wins the Dem nomination. (if so, how?)

    B. Gore runs on a 3rd party ticket. (if so, which?)

    C. Gore runs on a write-in campaign. (if so, which states allow that?)

    Now the next question is...Do you not answer, Teacher, because

    A. you don't know

    B. you know the answer you'd give would be incomplete or based on false assumptions

    C. you would have to lie

    Any of which would indicate that you have no REAL basis for this continueing assertion, but obsessively cannot free yourself from it or (as was promised, but also never delivered) cannot admit you were and ARE wrong?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 4:01pm

17. Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/06/2007 @ 3:54pm

    Well, as discussed just above (heheh), cultish following of political figures takes all forms. Whether in supporting fringe candidates with no hope of winning their party's nomination (Paul has less chance among Repubs, than Kucinich has among Dems)....or believing that said political figure is going to ride in like a knight on a white horse (at the last minute no less) and "save the world".

    But I find it interesting that on this campus Ms Currier cited, that the attraction is to the more libertarian, than the liberal or "progressive" candidate, given we read quite often here at "The Nation" of the "return of the progressive campus activists".

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 4:04pm

18. Oh, you CLAIM you've answered it, but you really don't.

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 4:01pm

    Just because it's not the answer you want-- doesn't mean it's not the answer you're gonna get.

    Too bad so sad. Oh hum.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 4:18pm

19. You know, MASK, I'm not sure I find it so odd that campuses would support a conservative anti-war candidate. If my daughters campus is any indicator, (and there really is a significant quiet in the college world) many are opposed to the war, but are not prepared to engage in the nonsense (my opinion) of the 60's crowd: They are much more practical, care about their careers. They are not just "anti establishment" for its own sake. The war's been screwed up by the Gov., and they know it. From talking to her its more of a "time to know when to cut your losses" mentality. Therefore, being anti-war doesn't necessarily mean your anti republican, especially when the guy shows some objectivity and isn't afraid to buck the system. I might vote for him myself if he gets far enough.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/06/2007 @ 4:21pm

20. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Yes, oddly, HSUB...."no answer" is rarely the answer I want.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 4:22pm

21. Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 4:04pm

    Didn't I hear you say before that you felt that the youth vote was a "non-factor"? If so, neither candidate will ultimately matter. Well, in electoral terms, they don't. They matter in the ideas they represent, and the factions of society that support them.

    I just checked a random poll (I rarely do any research) and saw that Paul sits at 5% among republicans, whereas Kucinich is at 2% among democrats. So a 3% difference with a +/- 5% margin of error is not a significant difference.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 4:22pm

22. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/06/2007 @ 4:21pm

    A Paul 3rd party/indy run would be interesting, if doubtful to happen. With Hillary dislike thick on the Left, and perhaps a fair share of the Middle and some Right sick of a Romney or Giuliani promising "more of the same Bush'ism"....he might pull a Perot.

    Not win, of course, but pull enough from the Dem and Repub to throw it to one or the other with a 45% "mandate", significantly weakening their agenda as President, even amongst (in the case of a Dem Prez) a "friendly" Dem Congress.

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 4:24pm

23. Posted by MATTMAN 11/06/2007 @ 4:22pm

    I still contend that the "youth vote" is a phantom, with no solidity to it, despite the protests of Ari Berman and Peter Rothberg every so often.

    But they do GROW UP, and interesting is all I'm saying as to the way they are breaking (atleast at Ms Currier's campus).

    As for Paul and Kucinich...neither truly going anywhere. Paul is anti-war in a GOP with a "rah-rah, Nuke the bastards" base like RIO and LVLIB....Kucinich, beloved on the Blogs, just got his impeachment resolution (the 2nd, I think) shot down.

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 4:27pm

24. 45% "mandate". Ha! I like that. Yeah, we've a few of those of late.

    Have a good evening

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/06/2007 @ 4:32pm

25. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/06/2007 @ 4:21pm

    A big difference between the political orientations of college kids today vs. the 60's is the economics of the times. The 60's college kids were baby boomers during a time when the middle class was biggest and strongest in history, yielding a demographic cross section representative of our nation at large. Today, with an elusive middle class at best, (I'm admittedly guessing, and I admittedly THINK I'm right) we have political attitudes that correlate to socioeconomic status. We also have stratified tuition levels, with record high tuition levels for top tier universities. I'd be interested how political attitudes are differently represented based on tuition costs.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 4:35pm

26. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/06/2007 @ 4:32pm

    SHIT! Is it evening all ready?? I'd better get some work done!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 4:36pm

27. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/06/2007 @ 4:21pm

    Anecdote time: My alma matter is CSULA, the cheapest of the cheap for tuition. Also the most radically left-wing place I've ever set foot, having grown up in Spokane, WA. USC is a few miles away (East LA to Westwood via the 10/101)and turns out the likes of USC1 with every graduation!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 4:41pm

28. Yes, oddly, HSUB...."no answer" is rarely the answer I want.

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 4:22pm

    Frita, one can lead a whore, er, horse to water but you can't make her drink it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 4:48pm

29. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 4:48pm

    Like so often, HSUB, easiest way to shoot down my argument is to...

    answer it.

    Again, only two possibilities--

    A. You don't KNOW how Gore is going to have his name put on the ballot (and likely don't care, you just "know" it's going to happen, the way a creationist "knows" that we didn't evolve from "apes").

    B. You CAN'T answer, because you know that any response you give with be shot so full of holes it'll look like a collander made from a water bucket.

    And of course again....PLEASE somebody, if you know of anybody who has their kids in HSUB's classroom...rescue them now, before Bush leaves office in January 2009 and Al Gore is NOT sworn in...and he goes nutty on the poor kids.

    Do it for the children....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 5:03pm

30. Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 5:03pm

    Er, Fita,

    Here-- I made some corrections:

    A. You, 'Frita', don't KNOW how Gore is 'not' going to have his name put on the ballot (and likely don't care, you just "know" it's going to 'not' happen, the way a creationist "knows" that we didn't evolve from "apes").

    B. You CAN'T answer, because you know that any response you give 'will' be shot so full of holes it'll look like a 'colander' made from a water bucket.

    And yes, I find my students much smarter... You'd have to get at least a GED and pass some lower division coasework to get into one of my classes. Keep working hard-- not hardly working.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 5:16pm

31. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 3:08pm

    Considering how drippy the other Republican candidates are, I don't really see many young people getting "excited" about voting for them. It would be interesting to see how many of Paul's supporters are traditional Republicans-- he seems to be attracting a lot of moderate and even left-leaning supporters.

    I tend to agree with you about these young conservative voters wanting to rebel. . .safely. And I think Bush and his people have contributed a lot to this quiet feeling of panic.

    Posted by habiba at 11/06/2007 @ 5:16pm

32. Posted by HABIBA 11/06/2007 @ 5:16pm

    Well Romny does come across as a used car salesman. Thompson as an old used up car salesman. Guili as an old used up crossdressing mobster wannabe. And poor McCave-and-up-agAin, he should've kept going after hsuB about torture and never thought about making deals for the presidencial run... Huckabee lost weight and those brain cells that explained the part about when the earth was flat and that part about evolution,,, Paul does seem to stand out some. Being against the war is substantial, but for these 18-21 yr olds, it's kinda like being vegan for a few months.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 5:28pm

33. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 5:28pm

    Romney comes across as a total douche...an absolute shell of a man. At least Giuliani seems to have a better character, which frightens me because of course, I want him to lose. I'd so much rather see Romney get the nod! Shitt Ronmey...Shitt Onmey...I don't think I can make that joke happen.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/06/2007 @ 6:09pm

34. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 5:16pm

    HSUB, I gave THREE ways that Gore can run for President...which is three more than YOU.

    I've merely asked WHICH ONE you think will happen...and oddly, for somebody who thinks he will, you can't pick ONE!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 7:43pm

35. In answer to the question of why students would choose Paul as an anti-war candidate over Kucinich:

    Rarely have I heard of a liberal crossing over by way of Paul. Ron Paul is garnering the support of conservative-leaning, or apolitical students, not liberals who disagree with him on taxes, social security, abortion, etc.

    On the flip side, can you imagine a conservative student aligning with Kucinich just because of the war?

    Kucinich does have a strong following among young campus liberals, but much in the same way as Paul, he's considered something of a novelty candidate.

    Posted by Cora Currier at 11/06/2007 @ 8:00pm

36. Posted by CORA CURRIER 11/06/2007 @ 8:00pm

    Ms Currier, if Ron Paul is winning over the "apolitical students"...and Kucinich is not...

    what does that seem to indicate?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2007 @ 8:01pm

37. Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 3:10pm

    Shoot, Mask. It's no mystery. If I HAD to vote Republican, I'd vote for Ron Paul. If the race were between Clinton and Paul, I'd vote for Paul.

    How could someone as far left as I am say that? Let's do a little compare and contrast with Dennis and Ron:

    Trade

    Dennis: "As President, Dennis Kucinich will end America's participation in NAFTA and the WTO. Huge, multi-national corporations ship American jobs overseas, turn a blind eye to human rights abuses and hide behind their lobbyists in Washington."

    Ron: "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites."

    War

    Dennis: "He has proposed a bold, new policy to re-establish America's place in the world. Diplomacy and a return to statesmanship as the path to strong international leadership. A new policy of investing in our communities and our infrastructure."

    Ron: "We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home...At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

    Freedom

    Dennis: "As President, Dennis will protect individual liberty and privacy and restore balance and fairness in America's electoral system."

    Ron: "The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters."

    Granted, there are important differences. I don't particularly care for his stance against abortion and his focus on sovereignty (mostly because I think it often supports the notion of American exceptionalism). But I do like his stances on education, 2nd amendment, limiting the power of the federal government and his fiscal responsibility.

    Clinton on the other hand? More NAFTA style trade, more war and less freedom (Clinton put more people in jail than Reagan and Bush I combined). No thanks.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/06/2007 @ 11:15pm

38. Posted by CORA CURRIER 11/06/2007 @ 8:00pm

    Rarely have I heard of a liberal crossing over by way of Paul.

    Not my first choice - but he's not as bad as most of the others running in the major parties either.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/06/2007 @ 11:19pm

39. HSUB, I gave THREE ways that Gore can run for President...which is three more than YOU.

    Posted by MASK 11/06/2007 @ 7:43pm

    Frita truly has a head of straw, no wonder the need for a mask...

    Al Gore can enter the race however he chooses to. How many times do you need to be reminded that the real question that YOU never want answer and continually avoid, dodge, is-- why is it, as you contend, that Al Gore cannot run for president? Please be specific.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2007 @ 11:40pm

40. Al Gore can enter the race however he chooses to. How many times do you need to be reminded that the real question that YOU never want answer and continually avoid, dodge, is-- why is it, as you contend, that Al Gore cannot run for president? Please be specific----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2007 @ 11:40pm

    Specific, sure. I can, where you cannot.

    "Al Gore can enter the race however he chooses to."???...okay-

    1. Gore as Dem nominee. He would have to win the primaries as a Democrat. If he misses the December 4th deadline, he will NOT be on the ballot of the California primary and therefore logistically cannot win enough delegates to have the majority at the Convention in late August 2008.

    1B. Gore as Dem nominee if the delegates abandon their chosen candidates and vote for him at the Convention? Sorry, that would be unprecedented and would essentially tell the Democratic primary voters that their votes DON'T MATTER.

    2. Gore as a 3rd party candidate? Fine, which one? You have YET to name any that are ready to endorse him or have discussed him as their candidate, not even what should be his home, the Greens. Provide some evidence, happy to read it.

    3. Gore as write-in candidate?

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2004/nf2004112_5680_ db038.htm

    Read this article on write-ins. Then, ignore it because it doesn't figure into your religious views.

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 08:55am

41. so I guess on December forth... we'll know

    Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 09:25am

42. Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2007 @ 09:25am

    WILL, love to hear YOUR opinion of a Gore run in '08....fer it or agin it?

    (BTW, I doubt I'll get an answer from you either. Got to support Her Majesty, but can't diss HSUB's dream...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 11/07/2007 @ 09:42am

43. WILL, love to hear YOUR opinion of a Gore run in '08....fer it or agin it?

    Posted by MASK 11/07/2007 @ 09:42am

    false accusations. you drink.

    I take the man at his word. He's not running.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2007 @ 10:15am

44. I think all of the Ron Paul-hyping the left has engaged in is irresponsible. The fact that he opposes the Iraq War does not make him our ideological soul mate. The philosophical justification for his antiwar stance is very philosophically divergent from antiwar progressivism. Paul is an isolationist and a libertarian, and he opposes everything from immigration to the UN to the income tax. We should be pointing out that he is a man of the right-wing fringe now so progressives are not enticed by him when he runs as a third party candidate.

    Posted by binkyping at 11/07/2007 @ 3:01pm

45. i'm not sure what the end of her piece was meant to mean:

    i mean, in the end, why do you (hopefully) vote for someone? well, because "they're frickin' awesome" is about the best reason one can think of, really. i mean, what other reason would someone need, besides, maybe direct political patronage of some sort?

    i still think a "kucinich/paul" or "paul/kucinich" national salvation ticket might be the best way to go. the far left can meet the wild right once and for all, and we can all sail off into the future with the best engines we've got, together, constitution in hand.

    don't bother to skewer me like "binkyping" might think of doing given his or her (largely proper) left-wing analysis of paul. but these are desperate times. sometimes desperate measures such as a "kucinich/paul/paul/kucinich" ticket might be the best one.

    just throwing it out there, really. not sure where else true hope would come from...

    Posted by Scrub at 11/07/2007 @ 5:05pm

46. Posted by BINKYPING 11/07/2007 @ 3:01pm

    For one, his philosophy is anti-authoritarian. This philosophy can include both right-wing and left-wing perspectives. It's a damn shame that libertarian has been co-opted as some ring-wing exclusive, it isn't - but there is much common ground that I, and people like me, can agree on with those folks.

    As a practical matter, if he does the right thing, I don't care that his justifications for doing it are different from mine. In the end, it doesn't make much difference.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/07/2007 @ 11:30pm