Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Why You Should Nominate Mary Ruwart The election coming up will realign American politics forever. Will national politics even exist after election day? How about a candidate who can do the job that really needs doing?by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
(libertarian)
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
If the Heartland's 5-state straw poll is any indication, the LP has sadly lost its way and forgotten the core values that brought it into existence nearly two generations ago now. Some few of us still remember the tears that welled in our eyes when we came together to work for the vision that is America. Like no other nomination in our history this one matters and this is why.
The original idea was freedom for all of us, man and woman, every race, every kind and part of that cantankerous collation of living, beating spirits who comprise humanity. We felt that in those opening days, saw ourselves as new revolutionaries fighting a new battle for a war never truly won. It was all about the individual; it was never about playing into the frame of corporate glitz that is strangling America today. Now, at a time when the make up of those seeking our nomination clearly indicates that American politics faces a realignment of political parties, we need to choose for principle. This is the time for which we have been waited so long. Everything tells us so.
No one anticipated that a cantankerous family doctor from Texas, his words ignored for so long, would become an icon. But it happened. It happened because America is ready to hear the truth about freedom from the Party that made freedom its unifying goal. Dr. Paul gave Americans the thing for which they most hunger, hope and the promise of a renewed freedom. That ground swell awakened hundreds of thousands of Americans to the reasons America lost its way. War, corporate greed, rapacious government, the strangling of hope from all sides. Some among us decided that efficiency was a greater virtue than individual rights. Some of us came with only one issue clutched to our heart, the other issues we shrugged off as irrelevant. Too often we ignored the always present truth that until all are free no one is.
In all of these ways we went a long way down the path to losing everything that really matters. Now, we can redeem all the errors. This is the moment when we rediscover freedom for ourselves and help all Americans find it for the first time. We need the right candidate, and when you finish reading this the right candidate will be obvious.
To be a Libertarian is to understand that the people must govern themselves. To be a Libertarian is to know, down to your innermost being, that you own yourself. When you realize that you stand up a little straighter, feel the ease of tension across your back.
We have settled for words, rhetoric, that while well honed, was empty of the truth found only in action. It is actions, not words, that matter. True liberty is what we live. Ron Paul's message resonated because his actions, a full measure, speak his truth. That is the message for which Americans hunger; Not words but a life-time of proven truth.
We need a candidate we can trust, who understands us because they have withstood the terrible temptations of power. We need a candidate with honor we can take to the bank, not just another practiced salesman with eyes on the potential for publicity this nomination could bring. Most of all, we need a candidate who understands what it means to be a Libertarian.
And because this is a realigning campaign we need a candidate who can do the job if elected. If we ever had the opportunity to smash the two party system this is the moment. To grasp that opportunity we need a candidate who has been a consistent Libertarian and who can bring into their campaign people from both Right and Left. By so doing we could, finally, elect a Libertarian president. That is not an opportunity to be wasted.
That said, these are the candidates who offered themselves.
Wayne Allen Root, who received 22 votes is a polished speaker. He has practiced speaking the words of freedom. But what does his life say to us when examined? His professional association is with the gambling industry and he intends to recruit on-line gamblers who are angry with the government for Internet restrictions on their favorite pastime. Root has been a LP member for only a short time and has no record of activity with his state party. Root's presidential run is his first LP campaign ever.
Until late February, Root told delegates that we needed to be in Iraq, but has recently changed his tune. Root uses his initials (WAR) proudly all over his web site. Root has been getting prime radio spots and some TV exposure because of his reputation in the gambling industry. Root might play well in Nevada, his home state, but how is the LP going to play to the public with a gambler at the top of our ticket? For years we've fought the image of gun-toting pot heads who advocate prostitution. The kind of media coverage we're going to get with Root may brand us for decades. It will speak a powerful negative to our allies in the anti-war and peace movements.
The candidate is not words. The candidate is the message Americans will hear.
Next in line was Bob Barr, who has not formally announced his candidacy, but is expected to do so shortly. A former Republican congressman, Barr's reputation as a drug warrior, Patriot Act supporter, and homophile have all been well-documented. Barr converted to the LP a couple years ago and currently serves on the LNC.
Barr probably has the most name recognition of any candidate, except Mike Gravel. He also has the most checkered past. Barr is actively hated by the gay community for his authorship of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The LP will alienate the gay community, one of the LP's strongest support bases, with Barr.
But that's just the beginning. Barr is also the author of the legislation, which has effectively ended the possibility of medical marijuana in DC. The MPP recently paid the newly-reformed Barr big bucks to unsuccessfully lobby against his own legislation. Barr is likely to alienate yet another of the LP's staunchest allies, those who want to end drug prohibition.
Barr now regrets his support for the Patriot Act, as do many others. I realize that he says he has had a change of heart and I am thrilled to have Bob in our party. However, we all must live with the consequences of our actions. Bob voted for the most egregious piece of legislation to pass through Congress in our lifetimes without even seeing it. He has been a typical Republican for many years, and only flip-flopped to the LP recently when the Republicans no longer had any use for him. His candidacy only serves to divide this party.
This background gives the media carte blanche to blacken the LP's name. I can just see the headlines now: "Drug Warrior Receives LP Presidential Nomination." "Patriot Act Supporter Nominated by Libertarians." "Author of Marriage Defense Act to head the Libertarian ticket."
Since Barr got 19 votes, when not even present, he could possibly, according to the straw poll, be the LP's leading contender. The LP should welcome former evil-doers with open arms once they sincerely reject their past. Should they become the LP's standard-bearer, when that same past will alienate large segments of the LP? Isn't that a steep price to pay a little more media exposure, and potentially damaging exposure at that? We have fallen for the promises of big money and huge media attention before, and what did it get us? Nothing! It is time we stop believing in empty promises and select the best Libertarian nominee we can. We should have a messenger at the top of the ticket that we can be proud of, not one that we will have to make excuses for during the whole campaign!
Does Barr send a message that says NO to the concentration of power in Washington DC? Ask yourself and be honest.
Placing third was former Democrat Gravel, party member for all of 7 days. Gravel supports universal health care, a subject which he carefully avoided during the debate. As stated in the debate, he wants to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax (which appears to be about the only thing he and Bob Barr agree upon), rather than do away with it altogether. Two-time LP candidate Harry Browne used "eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing" as his signature issue. Republican candidate and former LP nominee Ron Paul garnered a lot of support pledging to do the same thing. Will Libertarians back off from their "taxation is theft" stand in the hopes that Gravel's, or Barr's, name recognition will garner them a few new votes?
And what about Gravel's signature issue, total democratic referendum, where every piece of legislation is passed not by Congress, but by direct vote of the people? The Constitution is out the window if a slick ad campaign can convince a majority of the voters to do so, an easy sell in the days of public education. Ron Paul has demonstrated that a large segment of our population is set on fire by the Constitution, but it looks like the LP is ready to throw the Constitution to the flames in the hopes for a bit of media.
Mike Gravel has done heroic things for America – but he has not even begun to understand freedom.
Running fourth in a field of over a dozen candidates is Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, long-term libertarian author and activist. Ruwart, a cancer survivor, has claimed for years that she would rather write than campaign. She has lived freedom, showing her courage in quiet ways that last, speaking loudly to those who know her. Eloquent and yet able to touch her audience, she is the author of Healing Our World, Short Answers to the Tough Questions, and an Advocates for Self-Government web-column. Through a career decades long she, like Ron Paul, has stayed on message in her own life as well as in what she says.
No other candidate has campaign books while Ruwart has a comprehensive libertarian primer and a short version for our public school graduates. Her life proves that what matters to her is freedom. She is one of the few who have extended the reach of the freedom message to the Left, and there she also has a following.
Ruwart decided to run not because one person asked her but because many veteran LPers asked saying they desperately needed an experienced, principled candidate. Ruwart, a veteran of close to a dozen state and local races, garnered one of the first major news endorsements (The Detroit News for State Board of Ed).
You may well be one of the many she has brought to the LP.
Ruwart brings the people together. She sees every person is a potential libertarian because everyone benefits from liberty and her fervor is tangible. She not only explains Libertarianism, she has lived it. When someone sits down with her to listen they understand our message from both heart and mind. They learn the same things by watching her live her own life. Man, woman and child, they get the message.
Mary is what we need. We must stop acting out of desperation. We must never fear that Americans cannot understand that vital, inner need to be free. The Ron Paul Revolution has proven the opposite to be true. Self doubt has made us weak just when we most need to be strong.
Go to Denver and nominate Mary Ruwart as your candidate for president. Give Americans the opportunity to see what freedom means when someone has lived it all of their life, in every way. If you really believe in freedom then believe in Mary.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 37 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Melinda Pillsbury-Foster only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Excellent article. I agree with you on the meaning of libertarianism and concur for the most part with your criticms of Root, Barr and Gravel. Both Bob Barr and Mike Gravel benefit from the feeling that widespread name recognition for the party's camdodate would benefit the party. This is true, but as you point out, the loss of the party's mission is too much to pay, particularly with Gravel. I am willing to believe that Bob Barr is a genuine libertarian, but I am not happy about his making the "Fair Tax" , which I consider atrocious, a central part of his fiscal program. I am sorry that you did not include in your list Christine Smith who also has an attractive program.
Great article. I'm not 'really' a libertarian (yet, anyhow, getting a bit fed up w/ GOP). However as a Ron Paul Republican, if we don't have RP on the ballot this year, I am increasingly looking to the Libertarian candidate. It is your nominee, but to me, Barr's vote on the Patriot act was a huge problem. Ron Paul has the enthusiasm he has because of his RECORD. I may have differences of opinion with him here and there but can absolutely predict how he would vote or veto, and it is at least acceptable to me. I don't know much about MR except a rumor that RP thinks highly of her, but what you say here is very pertinent to my own enthusiasm. I will definitely check her out.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-04-09 09:35:40
Good article. I agree with rtbohan about your omission of Christine Smith, who has a greater passion for the task of running for office than Ruwart but otherwise is very much the same kind of candidate on the issues.
Ruwart has consistently expressed disinterest in running in the past. It's interesting to note she wasn't originally planning to run this year either. Apparently, someone within the party came to her and urged her to run anyway. Given that there was already a pro-Ruwart candidate on the LP ballot, it makes me wonder why they did that. Perhaps trying to water down the Ruwart-leaning wing of the party via splitting its votes?
Smith isn't the prolific book writer that Ruwart is, so that's definitely in Ruwart's favor, but running for office is a lot more arduous and demanding than writing a book. I wonder if Ruwart's heart is really in it? I know for sure that Smith's heart is in it.
The Libertarian Party has no hope of winning an election. They may be right on a lot of issues, but in Centrist America, real workable solutions are not always popular. If anything the Libertarian Party brings Libertarian ideas to the forefront.
And none of us thought Ron Paul would do more than make some speaking engagements and augment his mailing list last January. We were wrong. Reality instructs our ingorance and provides insight into what is possible.
If not for the stolen votes, something the Official Campaign did everything in their power to ensure went unnoticed, the present positioning would be very different. But the individuals Ron hired and failed to oversee and remove managed to marginalize him. Can the present Revolution reverse that and deliver enough delegates to the convention to stage an upset? The verdict is out on that. But with Mary we can be guaranteed a freedom candidate on the ballot in November.
If you think it is impossible to win then you should rethink where you are putting your efforts. It is possible; this is how realigning campaigns play out. This can only happen if we take back the vote. Visit Black Box Voting and our Show site at therevolutionnottelevisted.blogspot.com for information on resources. Other links are there, they are all important. Link up in your state through RP groups, LP groups and clean election groups. This builds momentum and also provides more avenues for coalition.
I am sure that the reason that Mary was asked is that candidates are individuals who bring with them the whole of their life's experience. It is not what they say while standing at the podium, it is what those experiences say about them. Mary's life speaks volumns. The LP has had enough time to be sure of who Mary is and what she will do. There is trust and trust is something we need.
Christine is not a bad candidate, just not the one we need now. Visit the org that gave her the award in 2000 for info on them. They are doing good work on such issues as trafficking in women and children. Women's Peace Power Foundation. omenspeacepower.org
Two issues make this year the best opportunity for a third party campaign. One is, obviously, the Iraq war, which both of the established parties have supported (despite Obama's 'opposition'). The other issue is the impoding financial system which could mean the beginning of a deflationary depression. The Libertarians have always had the answer to the second - get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. This year, it is vitally important that the LP candidate deliver this message or else the coming mess will be falsely blamed on the 'free' market as was the Great Depression. Unfortunately, Wayne Root doesn't think this is very important because, he says on his blog, Americans "don't care" about the gold standard. While this has been true for much of the past, this election year (or the next) may be the ones where Americans start to care.
I don't know where other LP candidates stand on the Federal Reserve/gold standard but I would prefer anyone who supports gold over anyone who does not.
Very well said (although I'm pretty sure you meant that Barr was a homophobe, not homophile).
As for the rumor that RP thinks highly of Ruwart, it's no rumor. He nominated Dr. Ruwart to be the FDA Commissioner in 2002 and gave a rave review of Healing Our World that is on the back cover of her book. In her turn, Ruwart voted for RP in the LP nomination battle in 1988, and contributed the legal maximum to his current presidential run. Perhaps she didn't enter the race until March because Ron Paul didn't make the announcement that was viewed as a suspension of his campaign until March.
Dr. Ruwart first made a try for the LP nomination in 1983, and shows an ability to persuade people to libertarianism that reflects her quarter century of study and practice. Christine Smith may be today what Mary Ruwart was in 1983, and have a very bright future with the party, but in 2008, there's something about Mary Ruwart that nobody else can offer (and that includes the personal respect of Ron Paul).
Barr is no homophile but a homophobe. Check your words since you used one that is the opposite of what you meant. Certainly Barr is no libertarian. But then the anti-aborition, anti-immigration, anti-free trade, pro state's rights views of Ron Paul weren't libertarian either -- and that isn't mentioning his paranoid delusions about banking conspiracies and "North American Union" crap. However, I agree that Root is no libertarian but a conservative. Barr is even more of a conservative and less libertarian.
I have the same position as you do on all the issues you mentioned, but I do think that those taking the anti-abortion position have a plausible enough argument for it on libertarian grounds to be considered sincere libertarians (although they ought to look at the strong evidence that the laws don't actually stop abortions and that increased availability of birth control plus the elimination of restrictions on adoptions do far more to reduce the frequency of abortion). I won't defend Paul's views on immigration: I think you are absolutely right in calling them unlibertarian. Libertarians are for free trade, but there is some legitimate question as to whether the so-called "free trade agreements" are such: it doesn't take several hundred pages merely to remove tariffs and quotas, and many of them create trade blocs and add intellectual property demands that are anti-free trade. Nonetheless, Paul's challenge to these agreements on the grounds of "national sovereignty" are not libertarian arguments. Paul supports states' rights in the sense of opposing federal government attempts to override state laws: some libertarians feel this is the best strategy to limit the power of the most dangerous level of government (I think it depends on the circumstances, but generally dislike the states' rights strategy as much as you). I also think conspiracy theories are unhelpful, but those are not strictly speaking issues of libertarian principle.
Of course, Ruwart is a solid libertarian to the core and is free of the problems you cited. And Barr is not.
I agree with the others who've posted here -- Mary Ruwart for President! Very well and passionately written, Melinda. But when you wrote...
"...how is the LP going to play to the public with a gambler at the top of our ticket? For years we've fought the image of gun-toting pot heads who advocate prostitution,"
...It seems to me that you are being tempted by the same self-doubt that you decried when you wrote:
"We must never fear that Americans cannot understand that vital, inner need to be free. The Ron Paul Revolution has proven the opposite to be true. Self doubt has made us weak just when we most need to be strong."
By all means express your skepticism over Wayne Allyn Root for his "millionaire Republican" and "WAR" personas, his recent apparent conversion to a more libertarian set of positions, etc. But to distance ourselves from him because he is known in the gambling world is different. That would be running away from our own ideas.
Sex workers, gun owners, gamblers, and cannabis users are all people who are having their rights severely violated by government. Let's stand with them proudly and not run away from the image of being seen as defenders of these things. That's who we are -- defenders of freedom. Even freedoms that some people find unsavory. If it's voluntary, it should be legal.
We have no disagreements. The messge should be, freedom, plain and simple. Root sends ONLY a message of predatory behavior. His prosperity is predicated on laws that limit the rights of others to do as they please with the capital of their own lives. He became wealthy using that system. I have always objected to making heroes of those who operate for profit in this 'mandated sin zone' without pushing for real freedom. There is NO freedom until all are free and far too many ignore the virtual slavery of others because it suits them.
While in any free society there would be some people who earn their living in gambling and as sex workers these professions, in our society, are criminal and that is wrong. The laws are intended to marginalize and control those who are then made vulnerable. There should be NO LAWS regarding our pesonal behavior and ALL that exist must be rescinded.
One the abortion issue: Less, you may know since we have been acquainted for so long that I am strongly prolife. In fact, I answered the Right to Life Line and counseled women on other means for some time. However, women own their bodies absolutely. The only acceptable methods of changing a woman's mind is giving her options. Today we treat women as second class citizens, virtual property. Fixing the foundational problem means ratifying the ERA and rescinding all legislation having to do with personal choice. There should be no marriage law; there should be no family law. Free Markets do not exist until all of us can exercise our full rights.
Posted By: John David Christensen
Date: 2008-04-14 12:56:56
Dr. Mary J. Ruwart’s recently announced candidacy for the Libertarian Party’s (LP) presidential nomination should be cause for celebration by libertarian activists everywhere. Or at least by those who desire a movement that is as broadly-based and spirited as the revolution Ron Paul inspired.
Dr. Ruwart is the Libertarian presidential candidate most likely to rally a larger constituency amidst growing disaffection with the McCain/Obama/Clinton redux Russian roulette. She is the candidate who can yet recapture the now leaderless legions of Ron Paul supporters, particularly Dr. Paul’s younger enthusiasts. Dr. Ruwart’s candidacy has the potential to revitalize Libertarian presidential politics and energize the libertarian base constituency.
Candidly, Mary Ruwart does disagree with Ron Paul on the issues of abortion and immigration. But these are issues on which many libertarians, while still supporting Paul, also parted company with him. And these are the issues that distinguish, or ought to distinguish, libertarians from garden-variety Republican conservatives. Where Ron Paul’s anti-war positions drew liberals to libertarianism, Dr. Ruwart casts her net wider still, and without compromising libertarian principles.
At the Vermont Libertarians’ recent state convention LP member and Ron Paul supporter Steven Howard described the libertarian challenge as, “changing the conversation.” More than any candidate seeking the LP presidential nomination Mary Ruwart will certainly change the conversation and build a campaign, a movement, that is truly beyond left and right while drawing support from both camps.
In the 1940s when libertarians were thin on the ground and the movement was yet in its infancy it was three women—Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand—who charted the course to freedom at a time when the prospects for liberty looked remote indeed. Rand’s novel The Fountainhead, Lane’s book The Discovery of Freedom and Paterson’s The God of the Machine inspired the modern libertarian movement. Perhaps it’s time for a woman to again lead libertarianism out of the wilderness.
Yes, Melinda, I remember one long and pleasant conversation on the topic (I even mentioned it in that roast in 1982 that was held to honor you for your extraordinary level of activism on behalf of libertarianism).
My opening line today when talking to people about abortion is "I'm pro-choice, my wife is pro-life, yet we have identical positions on the government: it should have no involvement whatsoever in the matter."
The data on the topic is utterly fascinating: the country with the lowest documented rate of abortion in the world is The Netherlands, the same Holland famous for its free attitude toward sex and its Amsterdam brothels. They completely respect a women's right to control her own body and to terminate a pregnancy, yet it virtually never takes place for anything other than medical reasons because:
(1) Information on sex has long been widely available, and teenage girls have access to both information about contraception and the birth control products themselves.
(2) Adoption is less of a hassle, and they don't interfere with interracial adoptions and adoptions by same-sex couples.
(3) There is no stigma attached to single mothers, so there isn't the type of termination that results from social attitudes.
The data isn't a fluke, since the second lowest rate of abortion in the world is Belgium, with similar attitudes.
Even in the US, Roe v Wade or no Roe v Wade, pro-life is winning in the battle of ideas.
(1) The rate of abortion has dropped every year for more than 20 years, including all 8 of the Clinton years.
(2) Abortions are unavailable in 87% of all counties in the US, because there aren't any doctors who want to be abortion providers in those areas (social pressure works). In fact, if Roe v Wade is overturned, abortions will probably be outlawed in areas where legal abortions already are unobtainable, and legal in the areas where it is available. Never has so much fighting occurred over a matter of such irrelevance.
(3) The best thing the government can do is to stop interfering with the process: the FDA should stop interfering with the flow of birth control information and products (actually, the FDA should stop, period.), all restrictions on interracial adoptions and adoptions by same sex couples should be removed, Medicaid should stop paying for abortions (actually, Medicaid should stop, period.), and the government should stop funding Planned Parenthood. Actually, government should ... ;
Although there is some dispute over when a life becomes a human life, everyone appears to agree that the woman is a human being. She has the right to refuse to support someone else. But the lesson of Holland and even the US is that respecting a woman's right to choose is NOT inconsistent with reducing the rate of abortion to the absolute minimum. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute studies, the rate of abortion is, on average, higher in countries where it is prohibited or severely restricted. Prohibition never works when it involves a behavior many people believe should be permissible, whether it involves alcohol, drugs, or abortions.
I remember the conversation, which was delightful. Nice to chat again, even at this remove.
As you might remember the Solvency Day Roast was held to roast me for the purpose of clearing the debts the LPC had then accrued. It was a curious moment since the money went to enable John Fund's further career. See Sex, Lies, and the Tape.
All of the facts you cite are true and prove the point that I could never get across to Libertarians, that women's freedom was essential, not just on the issue of abortion but for all issues of freedom. Again I repeat, "Until all of us are free none of us can be."
Of course, the Left did not get it either and are only now making some small moves in that direction. Fascism comes in all flavors.
The LP itself became a bastion of oppression for women by harboring the fascist tendencies of the those who asserted the right of the State to pass laws mandating the contractual relations between men and women.
But freedom remains the goal and is well worth the fight, not and always. Hope all is well with you! Melinda
Excellent essay. I also support Mary Ruwart for president.
I was a strong Ron Paul supporter, but Mary Ruwart represents my views even better than Ron Paul -- and that is saying a lot. If Mary does get the nomination, I hope that she asks Ron Paul to be an advisor on monetary policy.
I agree with the person who mentioned Christine Smith. She is also a great candidate and would make a great running mate.
Please check out www.votemary2008.com for more on this wonderful candidate. And please read Mary Ruwart's book, "Healing Our World." I wholeheartedly recommend it.
The Libertarian Party needs to nominate a candidate who will not confuse the American public as to what it means to be a Libertarian. Mary Ruwart is that candidate.
As you might remember the Solvency Day Roast was held to roast me for the purpose of clearing the debts the LPC had then accrued. It was a curious moment since the money went to enable John Fund's further career.
------------------
I didn't realize the full implications when they told me it was a Fund-raising event. Okay, okay, but I know I was funny that night.
I am disappointed so far in the quality of the discussion of the issues raised about Mary's statement, "Children who willingly participate in sex acts have the right to make that decision...."
It is inconsistent to argue that rights are absolute and then dismiss potential concerns over this statement by pointing to other sentences and saying that they mitigate the right. Particularly when a careful reading of them shows that they don't.
Starchild is correct: you must be consistent.
The argument for purism cannot be supported by excluding pot smokers, gamblers and gun toters as candidates.
The argument that Ron Paul's activation of a movement proves the validity of our own movement fails where we reject so many of his positions.
Defending teen sexuality and debating the propriety of an age of consent doesn't properly addresses the obvious incompetence questions involved with children and life-defining decisions. The voting public makes a clear distinction between teens and children. This is easily apparent where children are defined in the biological sense rather than relationship-wise by many dictionaries. In those definitions children are people aged between birth and puberty, not teens.
Given the inconsistencies of the assertions in this flap and the apparent inability or unwillingness of so many in this discussion to stay on point and address the merits of the challenges, it's not suprising that so many people think there's little connection between having a high IQ and being smart. Nor so surprising that they so freely dismiss us.
I'm not saking a position on Mary's statement here. I'm just pointing out that the acrobatics in the discussion indicate an integrity issue.
Allen, your partial quote from the Ruwart book moves your 'discussion' on this issue from open and intended to invoke a dialogue on the topic of children and their inherent rights to something that looks more like a thumb-fingered attack on Mary through effective misquoting or an attack on me for my comments directed to Star Child. Those comments took place long before this issue was raised. Star Child's post was dated 2008-04-14 05:20:31.
Those remarks have nothing to do with children but with the right of individual autonomy expressed in various ways, some sexual, some not. They go to the long term perception of Libertarians as focused on a limited set of issues, a subset of the whole issue of individual rights.
Clearly, you do not know anything about my history of activism. For the record, I have consistently supported, with my own efforts and money, all movements and choices in alignment with the right of individual autonomy. Work trumps words.
Your timing lends the reader to question your intentions and your personal ethics.
I f you knew many of the Ron Paul Activists you would know that few agree with all of his positions. I, for instance, favor competing currencies based locally on bundled commodities instead of gold, a single commodity.
As someone attempting to make a living as a political consultant you well might have had little to do with the Ron Paul effort and so be speaking from ignorance.
If you think that the main stream would dismiss Mary as the nominee in the general election you should consider another field of endeavor. Mary provides potential cross-over appeal that greatly enlarges our support base. Mary is green with a market attitude, a woman who supports the ERA, a grandmother who is committed to the affirmation of the individual rights of all humanity, family, living in non-violent community with others and the realization of the American vision of government as a tool in the hands of the people at the most local level.
Shame on you. You're walking the edge of ad hominem with all your misattributions.
Since you have accused me of misquoting Mary, I challenge you to prove it. As for your deflections into the politics of personal destruction, I will not dignify.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
