William Lawson wins GOP primary in North Carolina

[MicroBalrog]

This is yet another of these people brought forth by Ron Paul's movement.

More about this here.

[Waitone]

A libertarian leaning republican winning in the area of Berkley on the Neuse (aka UNC Chapel Hill / Duke Univ. / Wake Forest).  Wow! 
Waiting for news of 4 horsemen galloping toward DC.

[MrRezister]

This is yet another of these people brought forth by Ron Paul's movement.

Does that mean we all have to call him insane or unelectable and pretend like he doesn't exist?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I hate to say it, but he is unelectable.  The last election in this district went 70/30 for the Dem candidate, iirc.

This is my current congressional district.  I've met Frank Roche and I didn't like the man one bit.  So I voted for Lawson.  I've also met David Price, the incumbent, and I don't doubt that he'll win easily in November.

Edit:  The 2008 election was Lawson vs Price, so 2010 is a direct rematch between the same two candidates.  Lawson lost 2 to 1 (63% vs 37%) back in 2008.

[Jeff B.]

I hate to say it, but he is unelectable.  The last election in this district went 70/30 for the Dem candidate, iirc.

This is my current congressional district.  I've met Frank Roche and I didn't like the man one bit.  So I voted for Lawson.  I've also met David Price, the incumbent, and I don't doubt that he'll win easily in November.

Jeez.

What a demoralizing message, although I surely believe you.

I guess we can hope for miracles?

Jeff B.

[MicroBalrog]

I hate to say it, but he is unelectable.  The last election in this district went 70/30 for the Dem candidate, iirc.

This is my current congressional district.  I've met Frank Roche and I didn't like the man one bit.  So I voted for Lawson.  I've also met David Price, the incumbent, and I don't doubt that he'll win easily in November.

So, will you be voting in November?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, will you be voting in November?

Umm, yes...?

Why do you ask?

[MrRezister]

Don't bother voting for him, we already established that he's unelectable.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ok.

[AJ Dual]

Sigh...

If Ron Paul had merely kept his mouth shut about 9/11 and his opinions on Islamist terrorism, and done a few lip-service things to distance himself from the truthers and NORML types... He'd be going so far right now... 

[MicroBalrog]

He's gone very far. He'd be a far better President than any of the other guys, but give him credit, he's done more for libertarianism than anybody else in the last 20 years. Consider:

1. He's raised a lot of money that's now being used to help libertarian candidates win. Think Rand Paul. There wouldn't BE a Rand Paul if not for the 2008 primary.

2. He's spurred the creation of several activist organizations, (like YaL, CfL, etc.) some run by himself, others only inspired by his example, that help candidates and issues throughout.

[AJ Dual]

All very true.

However, if it weren't for his 9/11 opinions.. he'd be even farther. 

[MicroBalrog]

All very true.

However, if it weren't for his 9/11 opinions.. he'd be even farther. 

You realize that Ron Paul has never 'blamed America for 9/11' as he has been accused of?

[AJ Dual]

You realize that Ron Paul has never 'blamed America for 9/11' as he has been accused of?

I know what Ron Paul said. And considered carefully, there's merit in what he says. Essentially he had the audacity to state they oppose us for a slew of policy decisions and actions on America's part that makes them feel aggrieved. From Saudi Arabia, the Shaw of Iran, Israel, and others...

And he said so at a time when anything other than "They hate us JUST BECAUSE!" was deemed unpatriotic. And was further misconstrued to be either apologist or some variation of "we deserved it". Which as far as I can tell NOT what he said.

(Although I would argue that there definitely is a whole slew of cultural/religious reasons behind it as well. A more nuanced variation of "JUST BECAUSE!" if you will...)

Even with that being the case, he should have had the smarts to "not go there", at least when and where he did, knowing that there were those on both the Left and the Right who want to see him stumble.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i think lil incidents like the coins with his image on them color folks opinion a bit.  it did mine  i waited for him to distance himself from the paul money.  and i waited  and waited.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, it seems I've made a mistake in voting for Lawson.  I voted for him because friends assured me he was "one of those crazy conservatives", and because I personally disliked his opponent Frank Roche.

Well, turns out my friends were only half right.  Lawson is crazy, but he isn't crazy conservative, he's more crazy libertarian or crazy Paulian.  Along with all of the common sense stuff shared by both conservatism and libertarianism such as lower taxes and smaller government and more freedom, Lawson brings a good helping of the kook.  For instance, he supports local currencies and thinks the Iraq war was never properly approved by congress.

I shoulda looked up policy positions on both Roche and Lawson and voted on that basis.  Instead I let my emotions cloud my judgment.

[taurusowner]

I'm glad the Republicans in Mass. didn't think Kennedy's former seat was a shoe in for the (D)s.

[MicroBalrog]

OMG not the local currencies.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My family runs a business.  Multiple local currencies would be a disaster for us (and everyone else, too, but that's besides the point).  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its a shame isn't it? we need another party for a viable third menu choice its becoming more apparent this one has no desire to ever be more than a footnote

[MicroBalrog]

My family runs a business.  Multiple local currencies would be a disaster for us (and everyone else, too, but that's besides the point). 

I operated as a de-jure small business from 2007 and up to early 2009. I've taken payments in euro, dollars, and shekels. Why would it be harder for me to operate in a universe with a few more currencies? THe modern computerized banking system allows the existence of multiple currencies without major issues, far easier than the (stable) multiple-currency systems that existed in the 19th and 18th centuries.

But regardless, there's not going to be a vote in Congress to abolish the Federal money press in the near future, so I don't see how this is relevant.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It goes to competence and judgment.  Currency is supposed to be a clearinghouse for all trade.  If there are many competing currencies in circulation, then the currency isn't a clearinghouse at all.  It's merely a token you take to the real clearinghouse, which in your example would be the bank that decides what you can convert your various currencies into.  The accounting alone would be an unnecessary burden (read that 'expense') on our business and on the economy at large.

And while I don't know what your business was, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it didn't involve any inventory.  That's the only way you can say multiple currencies from multiple locations wouldn't involve "major issues".

The local currencies thing also dovetails into Lawson's opposition to the Fed.  Any politician who wants to reduce the Fed's autonomy and bring them more under the control of Congress is seriously suspect.  The absolute last thing we need is to have politcritters in control of the printing presses.  Lawson's eager support of the Fed audit bill gives me doubts.  And that certainly is up for vote in Congress.

[MicroBalrog]

Are you saying auditing the Fed is a bad idea?

You're saying you want to have an agency that not only controls the value of currency, but also writes new regulations for the financial sector - as in, like all regulators, has a touch of a semi-lawmaking power to it - be unaccountable entirely to the public?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If the alternative is to have Congress control the value of currency and decide how to run banks, then the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes'.  

We've seen what happens when Congress gets involved banking/money/regulatory/financial decisions.  We've seen what happens when Congress tries to make the financial world more accountable.  

The financial mess we're in right now is the direct result of Congress (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) dabbling in the banking/mortgage industry "for the good of the people".  It wasn't good at all.

[MicroBalrog]

Unelected officials, entirely unaccountable to the public - to the point of refusing to publish key economic data or even tell people who got trillion-dollar loans (which is what the audit bill is about), is an entirely undemocratic, and unrepubilcan process.