Murray Sabrin: What do we really know?
Posted February 26th, 2008 by patriotfilms
output
I live in NJ and there is much discussion for and against Murray Sabrin within the Ron Paul revolution. Makes me wonder if he is the real deal or an impostor holding on to Ron Paul's coat tails. I was emailed the following article:
Any thoughts?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Do you trust Ron Paul? Ron
Do you trust Ron Paul?
Ron Paul endorsed Sabrin in person. I've seen the video. If you trust Ron Paul I believe his endorsement deserves equal trust as well.
Let's remember that Sabrin's
Let's remember that Sabrin's website has probably been around for about a month and the campaign is not well-funded enough to spend tons of resources on the web site and issue statements. It was not until late into Paul's campaign that he was able to hire the staff to write position statement that went up on the website. Anyone who knows Sabrin, KNOWS that he is a consistent libertarian and will do all in his power to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. That he has not written up all his positions and uploaded them onto the website should not be a reason to not support him.
Check out his YouTube...he speaks clearly about the importance of our Bill of Rights.
www.youtube.com/murraysab...
Sabrin for Senate
www.murraysabrin.com
found a working site for sabrin
That main site doesn’t work, I found this one: http://www.sabrinforsenat...
Is this the official site to support him?
Get With the Game
lets not forget, that it is Murray running for office, not Ron Paul. There is only one Ron Paul. they have different races with different circumstances. also, we learned alot about campaigns during RP's run.
like it or not, there is a system, club, game..that we have to play or we will never gain ground. first...RP has alot more freedom in what he can say, he is a 10 term congressman, he has clout. Murray is trying to break into this club. he cant come out yelling "ban the fed" and "end the war"...not in a Republican primary..perhaps if he makes it to the general, but not now.
i was there in iowa and NH and all i heard from people was "End the War"..."End the Fed"...and a few other fringe topics. I agree 100% that these are issues needing to be addressed, but in a Republican primary you MUST appeal to the base...or...you dont win. if Murray is to run a campaign just like Ron Paul, he will have the same results. we know what that is.
We need to get liberty minded, limited government, free market candidates into office and to do that we have to play thier game. otherwise we do not move forward.
i have met Murray a couple times now, seen him speak and i believe he is a candidate that reflects the principles of a libertarian republican. WE NEED MURRAY IN THE SENATE.
Hey, xntrk1...
I totally agree with your "no compromise" approach to supporting politicians and the belief that this "party adherance" crap is getting us no where. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on Ron Paul NOT running third party to continue this movement. I for one am incredibly disappointed by his insistence that the Republican Party can be saved and is indeed worth it.
He himself says repeatedly that time is of the essence, and if we don't make radical changes to this country SOON, we may not have one worth saving. Incrementalism is a path to nowhere.
As far as Murray Sabrin goes, if he is in any way going to be implicit in supporting McCain he is a wolf in sheeps clothing, or at best a "soft" Ron Paul Republican, with the emphasis on both soft and REPUBLICAN.
Next?
Libertarians are welcome, but
Fortune Favors the Bold
Why not have libertarian candidates, AND Republicans running for office? Better to build a coalition, no?
Expand, please.
What do you mean, exactly? I totally agree that there should be more than two parties (or is that really one??) with viable efforts/candidates.
I personally like the chances of reforming/streamlining/energizing the Libertarian Party with the Ron Paul movement better than being the ugly stepchild hidden under the stairs in the current Republican Party. "Honey, did you hear something? Under the stairs.....a mouse?" "Oh, that's nothing."
Ron Paul is the percieved leader of this revolution, whether he actually wants to be or not. It would be much more effective if he used his momentum to create "outside party" viability.
I hate to say it, but 6 months from now, America will be talking about Ralph Nader and we will be back to square one...............
"Who is Ron Paul?"
Doesn't exactly have that catchy ring to it after all we have been through, huh?
I am from Jersey, and supporting Sabrin
Fortune Favors the Bold
He is not my ideal candidate. And he is more of a politician then Paul, by a long shot. However, not all Ron Paul Republicans will have the exact same issues. You have to understand New Jersey. A pure Ron Paul type couldn't win here.
He is, however,
A non-interventionist
Wants to restore Civil Liberties
Wants to kill the FED- This is the big one. Untill we get rid of the central bank, everything else will be like hacking at branches and limbs.
Does he still have ties to
Does he still have ties to Hal Turner?
I live in NJ
AND OUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS!!!!
We have been destroyed by the state level government. Absolutely crushed with corruption. Now we have a Govenor that WON'T cut anything. No. His plan is to raise tolls by 500% and sell our highways. Property taxes are out of control. A decent one bedroom apt. runs for $1000 per month plus utiliites. Car insurance is outta control. Traffic gets worse wevery day. My town is a friggen city now.
I would love to move but I have my family here.
Anyway, I saw Murray speak for the Doc at a Straw Poll. Anything is better then the Dems. They are ruining this state.
When's the primary anyway?
When's the primary anyway?
Let me show you nj...
This was a in a recent article. Ya ready?
Corzine set aside $60.9 million to place hundreds of people living in psychiatric hospitals and institutions into community housing, state officials said.
We are going pay to house insane people in our own communities.
Then this is in the delegate selection rules
."..prior to the Tuesday next after the first Monday in February in any year."
NEXT AFTER THE FIRST? Sorry. I do not understand that. Just like I do not understand this state.
Agreed. this place is choking on its own corruption
Fortune Favors the Bold
Lol
Yeah, but things aren't any better here in NY.
And all those insane people now in your community will be voting, presumably for Corzine. Although I'm sure many will wind up on the subways in NYC.
Why Did Sabrin Endorse?
Admittedly, I don't know much of anything about this person (except I somehow got on a mailing list of his -- don't know how this happened; was the RP supporter mailing list sold? -- and am now receiving tons of email from his campaign). I've skimmed through the comments below, but haven't seen this question addressed:
Why did Sabrin endorse anyone at this point? Did he have to? Did he, in fact, endorse McCain by name, or did he say he would endorse "the Republican nominee"? Why lay any cards on the table this early if you don't have to? Does publicly supporting McCain help Sabrin in campaigning in his neck of the woods?
My attentions have been more directed toward supporting Paul, so although I've seen the name Sabrin bandied about (and popping up in my email box like so many meerkats), I am not yet educated on him, and feel like I've just walked into the middle of a soap opera's convoluted plot...
http://tinyurl.com/27jxvx
“As a proud conservative Republican who has donated to, campaigned for, and supported such solid conservatives like Scott Garrett, Steve Lonegan, Jay Webber and Bret Schundler, I will support the Republican Presidential nominee if it is John McCain."
He said he'd support McCain
He said he'd support McCain (by name) if he got the nomination. Not the worst thing in the world, but certainly not as principled a response as Ron Paul would make. If I lived in NJ I'd certainly vote for him, but I haven't decided if I'm going to send him any money due to reservations that have also been expressed by others . . . Anyway, yes, the thread has become a soap opera. You ask a valid question, and my opinion is that at this point you're better off investigating him elsewhere.
McCain by Name...but, Why Endorse At All?
Thanks, xntryk1 and DC. Still...I don't see any reason why Sabrin felt he "needed" to endorse any one individual at this point. Who knows -- Romney may yet dip his toe back into the candidacy waters.
Was there some suspicion Sabrin might endorse, oh, I don't know, Hillama, or maybe even Nader? I would think that a D would support the D nominee, and an R would support the R nominee, without having to overtly state such allegiance.
Ah -- unless it's because Sabrin is being colored as a "Ron Paul" Republican...and since RP said he wouldn't support McCain...ohhhhhhhh...
Still, Sabrin could merely say that he would support the eventual Rep. nominee, without naming names. Keeps the Reps happy; keeps his options open.
: shrug :
yes
that is essentially what he said...its not an endorsement at all like when he actually endorsed Ron Paul. All he is saying is that he will support John McCain if he receives the Republican nomination. Probably a good position to take when in the republican party seaking its nomination.
Technically
Fortune Favors the Bold
According to RNC rules, you are suppossed to support the candidate who gets the nomination. Like i said, Sabrin is a politician, and he wants to win. He doesn't want to get blacklisted by the New Jersey State Party.
I've met and talked to
I've met and talked to Sabrin three times and HE IS THE REAL DEAL! He would be such a wonderful person to have in the Senate.
To me, Sabrin winning this senatorial race would be the ultimate (other than an RP presidential victory) victory for the Ron Paul revolution.
PLEASE DONATE TO HIM!!! HE IS FRIGGIN' AWESOME!!!
In 2004, Ron Paul was asked on live TV
if he would be endorsing Bush for re-election. Ron's answer was not a quick and decisive "No way!", but rather he said "Oh, I don't know. Maybe if he called me and we could talk about my possible support". He then said he was pretty sure that GWB wouldn't even want Ron Paul's support though.
The point is that not everything is black and white. There are some grey areas.
we know
Ron Paul would have an ally in the Senate.
Holy crap people!
Are we going to nitpick every candidate to the point where he has to adhere to some impossible ideal standard? We might as well pack it in right now. (In fact, I wonder if that isn't the intent of some of the critics in this movement.) If YOU think you're ideologically "purer" than Sabrin then get off your behind and run for office. Maybe I'll vote for YOU or contribute to YOUR campaign.
The fascist globalists have been winning for almost 100 years by using the "divide and conquer" strategy. Don't you see that fighting over emotionally inflammatory but endless "no win" issues like abortion, flag burning, gay marriage, etc. is playing into THEIR hands? THEY would love to see our movement fragmented over issues like that.
I agree 100%
We need "like minded" individuals in this fight, not "exactly alike" minded. Ron Paul is one of a kind. Rare, and almost impossible to find. We will have variances in our candidates, but the foundation of the constitution and their individual interpretation of the constitution is vital. There is always room for change, open discussions and debates. This is what freedom is. It is the blatant ignorance and CFR motives that we fight, we can not turn this fight in on itself. We will need tolerance.
Look at Kucinich, he is a democrat, but he stands by Ron many times over in congress. Do I agree with him? No, but he is a vital role in our fight.
Murray could stop....
....S 1959 if he gets in the Senate.
If I lived in NJ
I would vote for him in an instant.
Quit attacking folks who we need to support.
What, do you want to keep closing the tent down smaller and smaller?
Fools, Sabrin is on our side.
He's the best GOP candidate
He's the best GOP candidate running in NJ, and he has a reasonable chance of winning against an ancient Frank Lautenberg.
I'm going to vote for Sabrin in June, unless he does something stupid.
He's a different breed of libertarian than Ron Paul. This is true. He plays party politics a little better. What he isn't is a Rockefeller Republican, or a neocon, and that is what makes him a great candidate.
Who's Attacking Him?
I have yet to see an "attack" on this thread. We're discussing him. Are we supposed to just blindly follow anyone who wants to tap into the Ron Paul voter pool? Chill out, he's got to prove himself like everyone else.
xntryk1
That's who.
Shit, the guy is running for a GOP nomination and says he would support McCain over the democrat. I'm not voting for McCain, and think he's an idiot, but Sabrin wouldn't lose my vote for making such a statement probably needed within the political reality of NJ or any state for that matter to get enough votes to win a GOP senate nomination.
It is one thing to do research and think within your own mind, it is another to spout off in a manner that will potentially kill votes and support in a public forum.
One thing I would say many folks lack on DP is a virtue called tact.
Screw "tact" and "political reality"...
One either sticks to principles, or not. The only reason Ron Paul (FINALLY) made such a big splash is because he doesn't try to be "tactful" or play to "political reality." Every single problem this country faces right now is the result of FAR too many people trying to be "tactful" and play to BS "political reality" for FAR too long. It SHOULD be obvious that continuing down that same road will NOT achieve the results "we" desire. Never has, never will. Those who can't see that, are doomed to repeat history over and over and over again - playing right into our masters' hands. I for one, jumped off that freakin' insane merry-go-round years ago. Everyone else is free to continue spinning right along to their heart's content. Just so long as you don't try to drag me along with you....
OK
You will never build a coalition by alienating every last person to the point of you sitting alone in your own room thinking you are the most principled individual on earth.
YOU are playing right into the "masters" hands by not doing what it takes to build a coalition of relatively like-minded people. Attacking Murray Sabrin is DEFINITELY NOT the route to go unless you ARE a complete loon.
One reason the liberty movement has often failed to gain traction is because it is like herding cats. Everyone is inherently more concerned with principle and whatnot. Look, to be successful in regaining control of our own lives, we need to be willing to coalesce with people who may be 90% perfect in our eyes, but who are much better than the 50% and lessers that now inhabit D.C.
BTW, I ain't trying to drag you no where other than the tactical spot of actually achieving some goals. Thinking that using wise tactics is somehow a bad thing is just plain ignorant on your part.
herding cats
I like it.
I will add this to my vocabulary immediately. Thanks!
It perfectly demonstrates the frustration felt within.
Stupid cats...
“My goal is to someday be the person my dog thinks I am.”
Unknown
Perhaps you think this is some kind of brand "new" idea...
...that's never, ever been tried before? Tactically support less-than-perfect candidates in hopes of incrementally achieving our goals of peace, freedom and prosperity - right? Well, if you really believe that's feasible, I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you. Because that "tactic" of compromise is the exact same "tactic" that's been tried over and over and over again - probably since the dawn of time. And it's precisely that tactic which has resulted in the current HUGE government that we all suffer under (or most of us, anyway). Compromise only leads to more compromise, and so on and so on, until principles (and Constitutions) are left so far behind as to be completely forgotten. Same tactic, same results, time after time, rinse and repeat. All I'm saying is it is time to hold people to a HIGHER standard - like Dr. Paul's. That means NO supporting of statist, socialist warmongers like McCain - regardless of "tact" or political expediency. And NO support for those who support their ilk. No compromise, period.
Well
I really hope a lot of these candidates show up and fast. I'd support them too. Meanwhile I support the likes of Ron Paul and Murray Sabrin, who I know are not perfect, but are pretty damn awesome all things considered.
Well, one of them is "pretty damn awesome" anyway...
The other one would support a scumbag like McCain, so his "awesomeness" is somewhat suspect, to say the least. I guess all I could hope for, for those who insist on supporting these kinds of candidates, is that they NOT act all shocked and amazed when their wishy-washy candidates eventually show their true colors (after being elected, of course). But I've hoped for that every single election of my adult life, and been disappointed every single time. Santayana really nailed it with, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." He just forgot the over and over and over part......
asshole
why do you, xntryk1, continue to baselessly attack Sabrin? Are you even from NJ? Notice just about everybody from NJ has heard of him and has good things to say.
xntryk1 is absolutely RIGHT
Shouldn't shemptopher's post I'm responding to be flagged as offensive?
xntryk1 is exactly right.
Apparently there are so many newbies in the Ron Paul movement that they think such compromise as endorsing people who violently disagree with everything you stand for is a good idea. This has been tried for FORTY YEARS and has us into almost a socialist-communistic state. It is the way to PERMANENT LOSING, --- as well as to the end of the United States as a sovereign country.
Let me see -- Murray Sabrin has said he will endorse John McCain. John McCain has said we will be in Iraq for maybe 100 years. He has also said we will likely have more wars in the near future (and he plans to start them, under directions from the NeoCons). He is admanantly for amnesty for illegal aliens. He is the author of McCain-Feingold which absurdly and unconstitutionally limits free speech for Americans banding together in special issue groups to advertise on TV or radio within 60 days before an election. (The Judges who have upheld this clear broach of free speech should be thrown in jail for treason, like a lot of other judges now infesting the bench.)
This just scratches the surface of McCain's treachery and treason as a US Senator. ------ So how is endorsing John McCain not a complete and sad violation of everything that Murray Sabrin said he stands for? Ron Paul said he would NOT endorse any of the other candidates unless that candidate CHANGED his positions. Ron Paul said that an endorsement from President George W. Bush would ruin his (Paul's) credibility.
I'm not saying people shouldn't vote for or donate to Murray Sabrin if they think he is the best man in the NJ Senate race. I'm just saying that if Sabrin endorses the likes of McCain -- it is the same road that has led us to where we are: hurtling towards the end of the USA as a sovereign country.
Regarding the Republican "requirement" to endorse the party nominee: that assumes the Republican candidate is upholding the US constitution, which the GOP is supposed to be sworn to uphold, as are all their candidates; their elected officials (with GOP affiliation) have taken this oath, quite literally.
The NeoCons run the 5 Big TV Networks and all their local affiliates, the DNC, the RNC, -- and the computerized voting machines. Until these issues are addressed, we can expect to be frustrated at every turn. Those who don't understand these realities are the "blind leading the blind" -- and, sadly, the state of the Ron Paul Presidential campaign today proves what Jim Condit Jr. of TheTruth247.com and votefraud.org -- and a few of us -- have been saying since the Iowa Straw Poll in August 2007.
Ron Paul endorsed him.
Ron Paul endorsed him. period.
Ron Paul endorsed him. nuff
Ron Paul endorsed him. nuff said.
The most important issue
is getting us to HONEST MONEY. Without that there can be no real liberty.
And Ron Paul also said....
...that, unlike Sabrin, he WON'T support McCain, if he becomes the GOP nominee. So what does that say about this supposed "Ron Paul Republican"...?
Some of you are funny...
You act as if the Ron Paul voter base is huge or something... Unfortunately it is not. I'm guessing Sabrin has to play politics a little bit more than Dr. Paul does. Obviously Ron's no nonsense approach hasn't translated to great numbers in the polls.
The message both men speak is a great one, but it means little unless we get these people in office. I'd vote for Sabrin in a heartbeat.
Yeah....
I think he (Sabrin) kind of shot himself in the foot with that one....
stupidity
why are we attacking friends? I'm sorry is Murray Sabrin not Libertarian enough for some a-hole out there. Great we'll just take our ball go play alone and Lautenburg can have another 6 year term unopposed...please people lets stop working against eachother hear and work together...please do not buy into this nit-picking (at best) or intentional spiking by neocon leftists (at worst)
FYI - It is through Murray Sabrin that I first heard of Ron Paul and I'm sure many others in the NJ tri-state area share a similar experience.
Who's Attacking Him?
Everyone on this thread simply seems to say they need to hear more, which they do. Have I missed something?
I guess John Quincy Adams...
...must've been some "a-hole Libertarian" then. What seems really stupid is to keep doing the same thing over and over and over again (voting for lesser evils), and expecting different results. Isn't that the definition of insanity.....?
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."...John Quincy Adams
John Quincy Adams
was no libertarian, a-hole or otherwise.
he was sore loser as well. Not like this type of pettyness caused any trouble down the road a few years or anything though...
"Departure from Office
John Quincy Adams left office on March 4, 1829 after losing the election of 1828 to Andrew Jackson. Adams did not attend the inauguration of his successor. He was one of only three Presidents who chose not to attend their respective successor's inauguration, the others were his father and Andrew Johnson."
Good point.
Good point.
Old Question.
The problem that the writer of this article has with Sabrin is an issue that libertarians have debated for a long time, namely, should we support candidates and compromises that move us incrementally toward a freer society, or do we only support those who are uncompromising? That's a very sticky issue. Though I am a (small-l) libertarian who definitely believes in limited government, I tend to believe we need to be willing to accept compromises as long as they move us in the direction we need to go. Think about this country's march toward fascism. Do you think this has happened overnight? No. No one would accept it. It's incremental changes toward a closed society that have gotten us in the mess we are in now, and small steps in the right direction can get us out again. I believe that if we are uncompromising on every issue then we risk scaring people into thinking we are trying to destroy their way of life. Then they run back to the liberals and the neo-cons that promise to give, give, give.
I confess I haven't had a chance to really look into Sabrin beyond reading this article, so I don't know his positions on most issues and I can't comment on whether or not this one man should be put into Senate. But it sounds to me like he is a heck of a lot better than most of the pork-barrel war-mongerers we have in there right now. I would personally support a candidate who wants to take incremental steps in the right direction over a candidate who will lead us ever further into the dark.