Ron Paul Fan (kind of a libertarian) Running for Congress in PA

[rossl]

Hello,
I wanted to tell you about an independent running for Congress in Pennsylvania's 16th District. He is a Green Party member and currently supports Ralph Nader for president, but I know that he has a lot of respect for Ron Paul and agrees with him on some key issues.

His name is John Murphy. I've been doing some volunteer work for him. He's a very nice man, and would really be an ally of the Revolution if he were elected to Congress.

Yes, some of his positions are closing in on socialist, but some of his positions are also pretty libertarian (civil liberties, the war on drugs, the war in Iraq). In general, he is just an honest man who supports individual liberties and honest politics, and from that I see him as a man who could help the Revolution, especially if he were elected to Congress.

His website is http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org, his Youtube channel (we haven't gotten any videos up yet) is http://www.youtube.com/jandrewmurphy, and his Facebook is this. (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/John-A-Murphy/14983232554)

Thoughts?

Ross

[Carehn]

Yes, some of his positions are closing in on socialist, but some of his positions are also pretty libertarian (civil liberties, the war on drugs, the war in Iraq). In general, he is just an honest man who supports individual liberties and honest politics, and from that I see him as a man who could help the Revolution, especially if he were elected to Congress.

Ross
compromise got us into this mess.

[Kludge]

He is a Green Party member and currently supports Ralph Nader for president

No. Never. Ever. Never.

No.

No.
No.
No.

No.

[rossl]

compromise got us into this mess.

Compromise got us into this mess? I thought Paul supporters were supposed to be champions of the Constitution and Founding Fathers.

If you act so exclusively, you'll get nowhere. You have to join together with people that you don't agree with on everything, and work together on what you agree with them on. Why do you think this Ralph Nader supporter likes Ron Paul so much? He certainly isn't a purebred libertarian.

[Kludge]

Compromise got us into this mess? I thought Paul supporters were supposed to be champions of the Constitution and Founding Fathers.

If you act so exclusively, you'll get nowhere. You have to join together with people that you don't agree with on everything, and work together on what you agree with them on. Why do you think this Ralph Nader supporter likes Ron Paul so much? He certainly isn't a purebred libertarian.

You either believe in civil liberties, Common Good, or are confused and compromise.

The Green Party is nothing more then a union of confused bleeding heart liberal-authoritarians.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

compromise got us into this mess.How can you make a statement like this, when Paul himself has long been an ally of Kucinich, and spoke positively of Gravel in his book? Not to mention that he's shown a willingness to let domestic welfare slide as long as we curb our violent empire-building.

Find another movement to hijack, kthx.

[Kludge]

How can you make a statement like this, when Paul himself has long been an ally of Kucinich, and spoke positively of Gravel in his book?

Find another movement to hijack, kthx.

How is Dr. Paul an "ally" of Kucinich? He stated they tend to stand alone on the foreign issues they agree with.

He spoke well of Gravel on some of his views on foreign policy, not the man or his overall ideology.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

How is Dr. Paul an "ally" of Kucinich? He stated they tend to stand alone on the foreign issues they agree with.http://youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM

Citing him as potential running-mate doesn't make him an ally?

[Kludge]

Citing him as potential running-mate doesn't make him an ally?

"Dennis Kucinich is a good person" - Dr. Paul

Not only did he say nothing implying him as an "ally", he also never said anything about him being his running-mate.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Pardon me, I mixed up Ron's statements about Kucinich with Kucinich's statements about Ron. My original point still stands, though, that we can't afford to be so exclusionary. And I'm sure Paul would agree with me on this.

Besides, you guys need to learn to differentiate between the handwringing populists like Hillary and Obama, and principled mildly-socialist environmentalists like Gravel and Kucinich, whom we desperately need to lock arms with if there's to be any hope of taking down the military machine. Instead, so many of you have chosen to lock the gate on anyone who isn't a strict Misesian capitalist, which I'm sure only helps to inflame our image as esoteric, cultish wackos. Lumping the entire left-wing together into one singular, nebulous enemy is as disingenuous as placing Pat Robertson and Chuck Baldwin side-by-side.

And finally, just imagine for a moment that our country were magically revamped into the spitting image of what Gravel, Kucinich, or Nader would want out of America. Certainly not perfect by Paul's standards, but tell me with a straight face that we still wouldn't be far better off than we are now.

[Carehn]

How can you make a statement like this, when Paul himself has long been an ally of Kucinich, and spoke positively of Gravel in his book? Not to mention that he's shown a willingness to let domestic welfare slide as long as we curb our violent empire-building.

Find another movement to hijack, kthx.

Domestic welfare must be turned off slowly or people will starve. This is why you don't feed the bears in Yellowstone. They will forget how to take care of them selfs and starve when the tourists go back to Japan.

I am not a one issue voter. I want it all and i want it now!

[Kludge]

Pardon me, I mixed up Ron's statements about Kucinich with Kucinich's statements about Ron. My original point still stands, though, that we can't afford to be so exclusionary. And I'm sure Paul would agree with me on this.

Besides, you guys need to learn to differentiate between the handwringing populists like Hillary and Obama, and principled mildly-socialist environmentalists like Gravel and Kucinich, whom we desperately need to lock arms with if there's to be any hope of taking down the military machine. Instead, so many of you have chosen to lock the gate on anyone who isn't a strict Misesian capitalist, which I'm sure only helps to inflame our image as esoteric, cultish wackos. Lumping the entire left-wing together into one singular, nebulous enemy is as disingenuous as placing Pat Robertson and Chuck Baldwin side-by-side.

And finally, just imagine for a moment that our country were magically revamped into the spitting image of what Gravel, Kucinich, or Nader would want out of America. Certainly not perfect by Paul's standards, but tell me with a straight face that we still wouldn't be far better off than we are now.

You really can't compromise with civil liberties. Once someone tells me that I don't own my property, they've lost my vote.

[rossl]

Thank you, Grimnir. I'm a long-time Gravel supporter, and let me tell you that his switch to the Libertarian party did a lot for me. I realized that the ideas of freedom and peace and overcoming the various industrial complexes were not exclusive to the left (the real left, not the corporate left like the Clintons). I realized that, like you said, to overcome them and to achieve peace and freedom, we have to band together to achieve our common goals rather than dividing over the specific issues we disagree upon.

[Kludge]

Thank you, Grimnir. I'm a long-time Gravel supporter, and let me tell you that his switch to the Libertarian party did a lot for me. I realized that the ideas of freedom and peace and overcoming the various industrial complexes were not exclusive to the left (the real left, not the corporate left like the Clintons). I realized that, like you said, to overcome them and to achieve peace and freedom, we have to band together to achieve our common goals rather than dividing over the specific issues we disagree upon.

Civil liberties aren't a specific issue. To tell me that the government owns my property or my life is not someone I'd ever want to "represent" me.

[AutoDas]

How about the Green Party support Libertarian candidates if our goals are really that so entwined. At least the LP is the third largest party in America.

[rossl]

The Green, Reform, and Libertarian parties all endorsed John Murphy.

And there is no compromise on civil liberties, Kludge.

[Kludge]

The Green, Reform, and Libertarian parties all endorsed John Murphy.

And there is no compromise on civil liberties, Kludge.

I was programmed to believe that the Green Party claimed to own earth, and could tell others where they're allowed to put their equipment and what they're allowed to do with it.

I was programmed to believe that the Reform Party claimed to own the wealth of the world, and that they could tell me when and on what I could spend it.

I was programmed to believe that the Libertarian Party does not compromise on civil liberties. Can't be right all the time though, I suppose.

[Kludge]

I dare you to try and argue "Healthcare - like education - is a human right, not a privilege." here...

The campaign website is amateurish at best.

[yongrel]

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1382/facepalm2ly3.jpg

[rossl]

I dare you to try and argue "Healthcare - like education - is a human right, not a privilege." here...

The campaign website is amateurish at best.


Wow, he doesn't have much experience with computers and doesn't have a flashy website so you don't like him as a candidate? Grow up, please.

[Kludge]

Wow, he doesn't have much experience with computers and doesn't have a flashy website so you don't like him as a candidate? Grow up, please.

I was surprised that you only defended that petty point of the argument. Well - maybe not.

[yongrel]

Wow, he doesn't have much experience with computers and doesn't have a flashy website so you don't like him as a candidate? Grow up, please.

A campaign website is a very good indication of the quality of the campaign staff, the candidate's funding, and the seriousness of the candidate.

Also, a professional and well-made site is crucial to donor confidence. I feel a lot more comfortable donating to this (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) website than I do to this (http://www.archangelmichael.info/)one.

[rossl]

He doesn't have a lot of funding. That's about it.

But I do understand what you're saying about the website.

[werdd]

nader = statist

[rossl]

You might not agree with him, but you can't deny that he stands for standing up to the status quo of corporatism, and that is a very important thing.

But John Murphy is not Nader.

[Kludge]

Come on....

Here's an image he has posted under "Immigration" (actually, it's supposed to be "Sustainable Jobs". Whoops)

http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org/images/jobs3.bmp

[rossl]

So you personally don't agree with his politics on certain issues. That's not why I posted this here. I knew there would be disagreement. But I think you can find agreement just as easily, on things like the war on drugs and the war in Iraq. Not only that, but he is an honest, principled man running for Congress who admires Ron Paul. How can you really ask for more than that? If you're that exclusive here at the Revolution, you'll be lucky to get one candidate elected in 2008!

[yongrel]

Come on....

Here's an image he has posted under "Immigration" (actually, it's supposed to be "Sustainable Jobs". Whoops)

http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org/images/jobs3.bmp

*facepalm*

[Kludge]

So you personally don't agree with his politics on certain issues. That's not why I posted this here. I knew there would be disagreement. But I think you can find agreement just as easily, on things like the war on drugs and the war in Iraq. Not only that, but he is an honest, principled man running for Congress who admires Ron Paul. How can you really ask for more than that? If you're that exclusive here at the Revolution, you'll be lucky to get one candidate elected in 2008!

THAT exclusive...? How many liberties am I supposed to sacrifice? You note him as "kind of a libertarian". The Revolution is a libertarian-conservative movement, not a liberal-libertarian movement. Neoconservatism usually at least has some type of misguided justification. "Socialist Libertarians" are just confused.

[rossl]

From his website:

"I demand the repeal of the USA Patriot Act and the restoration of civil liberties."

"I demand the repeal of the "Military Commissions Act"."

"I support equal rights for gays and lesbians, including equal rights for same-sex couples."

"I favor legalization, and not just of marijuana but of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD."

"It was wrong to invade Iraq; it is wrong to remain there as an army of occupation. The United States and its allies should withdraw their armed forces immediately."

Those are the more libertarian points of his platform. You can't get behind those?

[Kraig]

So you personally don't agree with his politics on certain issues. That's not why I posted this here. I knew there would be disagreement. But I think you can find agreement just as easily, on things like the war on drugs and the war in Iraq. Not only that, but he is an honest, principled man running for Congress who admires Ron Paul. How can you really ask for more than that? If you're that exclusive here at the Revolution, you'll be lucky to get one candidate elected in 2008!

Voting is a personal choice and therefore so called "personal differences" are everything. Who cares if there are "some things" that we can agree on. Yes sometimes, like it or not, you have to compromise. But some things you cannot comprimise, some things are even worth dying for to avoid all compromise. For example, the idiotic idea that "healthcare is human right" - until you can practice healthcare entirely BY YOURSELF, without forcing ANYONE to help you, then it isn't a human right. A socialized healthcare program at best will destroy whatever is left of cost and time efficiency in the healthcare system we have today, and at worst be the first step to the United Socialist States of America. Regardless of if that politician who supports such a stupid idea is an honest fool or a conspiring bastard, I will avoid him like the plague. To me, any many others here, socialism is one of those things. Socialism brings big government and loss of freedom. Politicians all over the world have used it and versions of it to gain power and destroy liberty. Sure, there may be an honest solcialist out there, but that doesn't mean he isn't a fool. Fool's don't make good leaders.

[Kludge]

From his website:

"I demand the repeal of the USA Patriot Act and the restoration of civil liberties."

"I demand the repeal of the "Military Commissions Act"."

"I support equal rights for gays and lesbians, including equal rights for same-sex couples."

"I favor legalization, and not just of marijuana but of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD."

"It was wrong to invade Iraq; it is wrong to remain there as an army of occupation. The United States and its allies should withdraw their armed forces immediately."

Those are the more libertarian points of his platform. You can't get behind those?

Sure.

However, I can't get behind his positions on these :
Sustainable Jobs (http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org/jobs.htm)


Tuition Free Education (http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org/freeeducation.htm)


Universal Single-Payer Health Care (http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org/healthcare.htm)


I support full equal rights for gays and lesbians. While civil unions as supported by the Democratic candidate Lois Herr, are a step in the right direction under current federal and state law they do not afford equal rights. A liberal talking point... Eliminate State-sponsored marriage and give it back to the churches.


Preferential quotas based on race, class, and ideology should be abandoned for immigration policies that promote fairness, non-discrimination and family reunification.And then just two bullet points after...
Particular attention should be given to those minorities who are political exiles and refugees.
Our relationship with our neighbor to the south, Mexico, needs to be given added attention due to the special historical and cultural relation it has with the southwest portion of the United States.And then, on all of his issue pages, sensationalism screams for your attention.

http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org/images/child%2520running2.jpeg
Four-year-old Iraqi child experiences the shock and awe sponsored by the US government and its allies.

[rossl]

Okay, Kraig. I can understand that, if you really disagree with universal healthcare that much.

But Kludge. I guess the main problem I have with you, and taking you seriously, is that you're really disrespectful.

I mean, here's a guy who has some very libertarian positions and likes Ron Paul, so I posted it here. I'm not asking you to vote for him, if you even live in his district. Yeah, a contribution would be nice, but I was just telling you about him.

[Kludge]

I mean, here's a guy who has some very libertarian positions and likes Ron Paul, so I posted it here. I'm not asking you to vote for him, if you even live in his district. Yeah, a contribution would be nice, but I was just telling you about him.

You have been defending him and that which he stands for the entirety of this thread.

You suggest compromise, but this man compromises on some of the most important issues, which does definitely mean he fails to grasp libertarianism's principles.

[rossl]

Okay, that's all you needed to say. The man doesn't claim to be a libertarian, but he does have a few libertarian views.

But here's the real reason to vote for him: he's running against a GOPer who is one of the most corrupt in Congress. He took money from Jack Abramoff, and has over $500,000 for his campaign already - mostly from PACs and lobbyists.

[Cowlesy]

Okay, that's all you needed to say. The man doesn't claim to be a libertarian, but he does have a few libertarian views.

But here's the real reason to vote for him: he's running against a GOPer who is one of the most corrupt in Congress. He took money from Jack Abramoff, and has over $500,000 for his campaign already - mostly from PACs and lobbyists.

rossl --- Thanks for making us aware of this candidate. While many probably do not agree with him on every issue, to think everyone will mirror Ron Paul is a somewhat of an unreasonable expectation. Civil discussion is important to the board.

That being said, how is this gentleman's local support? From my own perspective, it seems that a candidate who has a strong local support base that get the candidate off to a start are the ones who end up succeeding in gaining some support from a national/international board such as this one. Unfortunately you'll have a difficult time convincing a lot of people who are already more than tapped out to rally behind someone who hasn't appeared to have any material evidence of local support. I am by no means saying there isn't any, it just really isn't apparent. It's difficult for 3rd parties. Maybe contact the heads of the other third parties and seek endorsements?

[Kludge]

rossl --- Thanks for making us aware of this candidate. While many probably do not agree with him on every issue, to think everyone will mirror Ron Paul is a somewhat of an unreasonable expectation. Civil discussion is important to the board.

That being said, how is this gentleman's local support? From my own perspective, it seems that a candidate who has a strong local support base that get the candidate off to a start are the ones who end up succeeding in gaining some support from a national/international board such as this one. Unfortunately you'll have a difficult time convincing a lot of people who are already more than tapped out to rally behind someone who hasn't appeared to have any material evidence of local support. I am by no means saying there isn't any, it just really isn't apparent. It's difficult for 3rd parties. Maybe contact the heads of the other third parties and seek endorsements?

In 2006, he took under 4% running indy.

[rossl]

He got almost 8,000 votes and 3.9% of the vote in 2006. However, I've talked to him about this and he said it's really a learning curve, so he expects to be a lot more effective this year. He's also said that so far his fundraising is going a lot better this year, which tends to mean that he has a lot more support.

And he has the endorsement of the Green, Reform, and Libertarian parties. He's seeking a few individuals' endorsements right now as well.

[DealzOnWheelz]

how does ron paul saying "DENNIS KUCINICH IS A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE" not imply that he is an ALLY

[constituent]

Thank you, Grimnir. I'm a long-time Gravel supporter, and let me tell you that his switch to the Libertarian party did a lot for me. I realized that the ideas of freedom and peace and overcoming the various industrial complexes were not exclusive to the left (the real left, not the corporate left like the Clintons). I realized that, like you said, to overcome them and to achieve peace and freedom, we have to band together to achieve our common goals rather than dividing over the specific issues we disagree upon.

couldn't disagree more.

to overcome "them" and "achieve peace and freedom" we have to stop worrying about what is going on in D.C., who is on the "left," who is on the "right."

"banding together" is non-sense.

[rossl]

Not sure what you're saying, constituent. That post was a bit cryptic.

[Kludge]

Not sure what you're saying, constituent. That post was a bit cryptic.

I believe he's arguing that grouping together with third party factions just to try and beat a partisan politician who allows for the military industrial complex to expand is too much of a compromise and that it would be, at best, marginally better to have Murphy in office.

[rossl]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'll keep helping hardline libertarians, even though I'm not one, and you guys can just keep on doing what you do.