http://www.rockymountainnews.com/…

With America fighting two wars, the 9/11 terrorists still at large, Iran pursuing nuclear weapons

and Russia in Georgia, America needs a president who gets it right the first time. That president will be Barack Obama. With a vision of foreign policy that has ranged far beyond Iraq, Barack Obama has found a kindred spirit in another leader of great strength and wisdom Joe Biden.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must fight the terrorists not where we imagine them to be, but where we know them to belike Afghanistan and Pakistan. We must lead a global effort to secure loose nuclear materials, not where we imagine them to be, but where we know them to be, in Russia, and the countries of the former Soviet Union.

It’s time we had a president committed to fighting poverty in the Third World and ending the genocide in Darfur; who leads international efforts to stop global warming, strengthens our friendship with Mexico and Latin America, and stands behind Israel with full-time diplomacy to achieve peace in the Middle East; a president who ends the global scourge of AIDS in our time and sets an example of moral leadership by following our constitution, shutting down Guantanamo, and ending torture.

They don’t care that we are trampling around the global like a kid hyped up on sugar and a baseball bat. They just want to make sure we do it in a softer manner. They want to make sure the public doesn’t see it so obviously. They are all on the same team though. They all pepetrate the lie about Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia. They all wish to make enemies of people who pose no harm to us and in cases where they may its deserved in that they have been threating them. They all want larger government both domestically and internationally. When the USA sumbles as a result of it’s global adventures and money minipulation don’t be supprised when the rest of the world gangs up on us and gives us (unfortunately they won’t differenciate between the public and the government, just as our government doesn’t) some of our own medicine.

Perhaps we should show US 8-15 y/o’s videos like this so they know who they will be shooting at in 10 years.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/…

minutes after losing the V.P. nomination to Wayne Root on Sunday, Steve Kubby spoke to an angry crowd of about 100 near the Radical Caucus booth challenging them to stay in the LP and work to make it stronger than ever.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/…

Christine Smith, who recently sought the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, has left the party.

Following a very angry C-SPAN interview on the convention floor in Denver, which followed an angrier concession speech targeting Bob Barr, Christine Smith wrote the following:

Two very different responses. I understand Kubby’s but I feel more like Smith’s. At least at the moment. After this I can understand her anger. The Barr/Root ticket may have name but it doesn’t have principle. They have till November to convince me otherwise.

Free Talk Live’s Monday show was practically a postmortem of the convention and a lot of ranting and raving about the end of LP. I find it difficult to disagree.

2nd vote:

Root: 289
Kubby: 255
Williams: 14
NOTA: 6

1st vote:

Root 276
Kubby 209
Williams 40
Burns 20
Lightfoot 14
Schwartz 1

Bob Barr had endorsed Root for VP. It will go to a second ballot.

After 6 rounds of voting Bob Barr has been nominated as the 2008 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States.The final results:

Bob Barr: 324
Mary Ruwart: 276
NOTA: 4

I was hoping for Ruwart. At this point I do not believe Barr to be authentically libertarian. This may be the end of the LP as we knew it if the conservative takeover conspiracy is to be believed.

5th vote:

Ruwart: 229
Barr: 223
Root: 165
NOTA: 6

Root will be dropped from the next ballot. Even though there are only two candidates left, they must get a majority of delegate votes to be nominated. “None of the above” and write-ins are included in the total.

Root just endorsed Barr and said he hopes to be the VP candidate.

4th vote:

Barr: 202
Ruwart: 202
Root: 149
Gravel: 76
NOTA: 2

Gravel will dropped from the next ballot.

3rd vote:

Barr: 186
Ruwart: 186
Root: 146
Gravel: 76
Phillies: 31
NOTA: 2

Phillies will be dropped off the next ballot. Phillies got up and declined to endorse anyone.

2nd vote:

Barr: 188
Ruwart: 162
Root: 138
Gravel: 71
Phillies: 36
Kubby: 32
NOTA: 1

Kubby will now be eliminated on the next ballot. Kubby got up and endorsed Ruwart.

1st vote:

Bob Barr: 153
Mary Ruwart: 152
Wayne Root: 123
Mike Gravel: 71
Geo. Phillies: 49
Steve Kubby: 41
Mike Jingozian: 23
Ron Paul (WI): 6
Christine Smith: 6
NOTA: 2

Jingozian and Smith will be dropped from the next ballot. Following the vote announcement, Mike Jingozian spoke and endorsed Mike Gravel. Christine Smith got up and gave an anti-endorsement of Bob Barr.

http://www.opednews.com/…

I must admit that I am extremely dismayed at the constant fawning over Ron Paul here on a progressive political discussion site. I have always thought that progressives have great difficulty in prioritizing their efforts, and the fact that we are talking about who is the best Republican candidate seems to prove that point.

If half this much effort had been put in here in discussing and supporting Dennis “Could Finish” Kucinich, or trying to draft Al Gore in the New Hampshire primaries, we might actually be making some headway as progressives. Instead, we are floundering in endless and fruitless discussions about whether a libertarian corporatist Republican would put business interests above the interests of citizens. Of course he would, that is the definition of a libertarian Republican. Get the government out of the way so that corporations can do their thing.

After what the Republican Congress and Bush administration have put us through over those fateful six years, for progressives to spend 1 nanosecond discussing the virtues of Ron Paul is ludicrous. Do you really want more corporatist Republicans running our country? Republicans that despise the concept of a public commons and a public good?

I generally agree with Mr. Moffett. As a statist egalitarian socialist it seems counter productive to support the libertarian with the best chance of winning next November. However, if you were a libertarian socialist or a voluntarist who believes socialist social systems are the best than Ron Paul would be the best candidate to back. Increasing personal freedom and decreasing centralized control means that it would be easier for socialists to migrate to the same state or county and attempt to implement there system. I suppose they may argue that it requires a particular number of individuals to reach some critical mass to make things work but unless they advocate the use of coercive force to get people to participate than I fail to see how that can be helped. I would hope though most socialists are not the statist type but the libertarian type. However, Mr. Moffett appears to be the former as he’s advocating placing Dennis Kucinich or Al Gore into the Oval Office. Both of who are statists.

As many “progressives” mistakenly claim libertarians are in no way shape or form corporatists. Or as Ron Paul recently called softer term for facsism. To claim that a libertarian could be for such a system is just as ridiculous as to claim a libertarian could be politically racist. Moffett does say “corporatist Republicans” but the article is about supporting Dr. Paul who is a libertarian Republican. Also to claim that he or libertarians despise the concept of a public commons and a public good was done only to get progressives’ blood going. We don’t despise the concept of public commons. We may despise what generally occurs because of commons but we simply disagree with the idea. As for “public good” he obviously doesn’t understand that there are consequentialist utilitarian libertarians. He should perhaps take a look at John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. There are those who believe that maximum public good or utility can and must result by maximizing personal and economic liberty.