George Phillies, one of the Libertarian candidates for president, just lamented on POTUS08 that “Ron Paul is a Republican, and as such, he gets the level of attention you would expect a Republican candidate to get.”
It must be a blue moon tonight, because I think I’m going to line up with the Ron Paul crowd and observe that their man has gotten a lot less coverage than most of the other candidates. Maybe compared to Phillies, he’s getting a lot of coverage. But the idea that Paul has gotten the coverage he’s gotten simply because he’s a Republican suggests that maybe longshot third party candidates are longshots for a reason. If a Libertarian candidate can’t see that Ron Paul has gotten the attention he has because of how he differs from the rest of the GOP field, not because of his similarities to the rest of the GOP field… then he might as well say, ‘libertarians ought to vote against anybody with an R after his name, no matter how much they agree with him.’
Without his libertarian and antiwar leanings, Ron Paul would be Duncan Hunter.
I see Phillies has also lamented:
“Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is lending credence to a party that is anti-libertarian,” said George Phillies of Massachusetts, who is seeking the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.
What’s worse, Phillies said, Paul is siphoning off campaign funds that are critical to the Libertarian Party’s nominee.
Anybody smelling a whiff of entitlement coming off of this complaint?
“I believe at this point we’re in the ballot in 26 states,” Phillies says, and adds thinks the party can get to 45 states.