It sounds so sleazy.
Though I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, I don't think it should be all that "welcoming" of Ron Paul, though it will as he is a lifetime member. If Libertarianism by name is now associated with xenophobia and the Apostle Paul, then it kind of ruins... everything in the public eye, I think.
The bait-and-switch strategy (and I do believe that has always been the intention) could only work if Paul acheived some actual success in the Republican primaries. He has. No one expected him to raise millions, pull 10% in Iowa and come in second in a slew of caucuses.
At this point, the press is literally salivating over the prospect of a well-financed Paul 3rd party run. The conspiracy theorists can complain all they want about MSM compicity to keep their man down. However, the MSM is a business that thrives on ratings. They want a brokered convention on both sides, and they would LOVE a 3rd party candidate that could poll 10% or more.
Had Paul merely thrown his hat in the LP ring from day one, there would be ZERO story. Now the story could be spun as Paul walking away from the Republican Party and carrying with him a small, but dedicated chunk of its activists. And if he continues to poll around 10% for the general as he has, I would not be surprised if the media attention he received actually went up. He would actually be a real factor in the general election race. Right now, he is becoming less and less of a factor in the Republican race.
If his strategy was bait-and-switch all along, then you have to admit, it was a pretty good strategy. Even if he left the Republican race having raised little money and scoring Duncan Hunter numbers, he'd still have been the LP favorite if he wanted the nomination (though he would go on to win 0.5% of the general election vote). Now with a bankroll and actual buzz, he's a 99.8% lock for the LP nomination doing nothing other than walking on the convention floor. I'd put money on a 3%+ finish in the general, and I wouldn't be surprised by something close to 10%.
Chris,
I agree that it's a sound strategy for Paul, for exactly the reasons you state.
On the other hand, I also think it's a strategy that, if followed through on, will provide minimal benefits to the both the freedom movement in general and the LP specifically in the short term, and do maximal damage to both in the long term. I'm sure there will be ample opportunity to discuss why that is (AGAIN) in the near future.
$20 million is an impressive haul for some one without the big time MSM connections...thing is...
Mitt Romney. Presidential candidate, or time-traveling android?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...NU&
feature=user
The Romneybot looks like what our future robot overlords imagine we humans want in a president after researching hours of "The West Wing."
If Paul were to run with the LP, I say he needs to bring certain planks of his platform into line with the LP, like his immigration plank.
Some would say his abortion plank as well, but being a pro-life libertarian myself I think that would be a mistake.
I'd certainly vote for him, but he's most definitely a "libertarian lite" candidate. I share your preference for Kubby as an LP candidate.
Make no mistake. Paul can talk a good radical libertarian line in front of the right crowd. Watch his interview on MTV. He was laying down some good, heavy libertarianism that would make Harry Browne proud.
You'd be amazed at how fast Paul can go from the "only real conservative" to radical libertarian. Those that suggest Paul doesn't pander don't know what they are talking about.
Don't worry. You'll see it happen in Denver.
Tom--this is the difference between Kubby (and Phillies and the rest) and Paul:
With Kubby (or one of the others) as presidential candidate, the LP once again will be a fringe, slightly lunatic party that no one will pay attention to.
With Paul as presidential candidate, the LP will be a fringe, slightly lunatic party that people will pay attention to.
And some of those people will realize we may be fringy but we're not lunatic.
Niccolo Adami: "Though I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, I don't think it should be all that "welcoming" of Ron Paul"
While I do not support Ron Paul at this time, I do believe the Libertarian Party, in keeping with its own ideology, should welcome anyone into the race. You don't have to support that person, but a seat at the table shouldn't be denied to anyone based on ideology. (Hell, Imperato is in the race, and he's one of the most un-libertarian candidate in the LP in a while)
And what of Ron Paul's Congressional seat? He has a credible GOP contender in the Primary - Chris Peden. I even got a mailing from Peden the other day attacking Paul's record. And I'm starting to see Peden signs throughout the District.
You think Paul would sacrifice his Congressional seat? No way in hell Texas Republicans would let him keep his seat if he goes 3rd party.
And another thing. Wayne Root just won the Missouri Libertarian Party primary on Super Tuesday. If Paul were to jump in, does that mean he would be on the ballot in 49 other states beside Missouri as a Libertarian, with Root on the ballot in Missouri?
Paul said in our local paper here in South Texas 3 weeks ago, that if he were to run 3rd party, it would most likely "not be on the Libertarian ticekt." That signals to me that he may be considering Constitution Party or Independent. That's a better fit for the Pro-Life, Anti-Mexican, Socially intolerant on Gays Ron Paul.
Wayne Root is much closer to the LP's tradition of "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant."
Paul,
First of all, Root didn't win the primary in Missouri. He came in second, nearly 30% behind "uncommitted."
Secondly, the Missouri LP primary is non-binding even as far as instructing delegates, let alone determining who will be on the ballot in November. Your question there makes even less sense than asking if Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for president in Michigan (after all, that was a BINDING primary, Romney actually won it instead of coming in second like Root, etc.).
Regards,
Tom
Eric,
I don't know why I called you "Paul." Sorry about that.
If Paul would be able of winning somes states, he would get real power. In the case of a tie, he would decide the winner.
It would be interesting.
RP might get BOTH the Libertarian and Constitution Party nods......He'd have to choose the same VP for both tickets....Andrew Napolitano fits the bill nicely.... The key is the debates.... If he can get in, then he could get maybe 5%....and might get a million votes on both the Constitution and Libertarian party lines...a major coup for both parties.
Eric: "And another thing. Wayne Root just won the Missouri Libertarian Party primary on Super Tuesday."
This is completely incorrect.
Let's cut to the chase. Garris and Raimondo are part of the Rockwell crowd. And the newsletter scandal showed what type of people Rockwell attracts. It certainly showed his bigoted viewpoints. Rockwell has been poisoning the libertarian movement since he first crawled out of the Far Right where he had previously worked. And his big thing has been his ultra fundamentalist Catholicism, and his desire to "save" the white race -- does he only sleep in his sheets? Part of that campaign has been pushing the racist ideas of Hoppe and pushing hatred for immigration
Paul is still part of that crowd. He can dismiss the racist crap from his newsletters but he is still pandering to that group with his current campaign emphasizing an anti-immigrant view. If Rockwell and the former "radical caucus" sell-outs get their way the LP would be running Paul along with the anti-liberty, pro-theocracy Constitution Party. Rockwell has done everything in his power to destroy the libertarian ideas of our movement and replace them with his Far Right, moralisit, racist views. And stupid libertarians are falling into line and helping him. If Paul gets the LP nomination the Libertarian Party is dead.
Since the Rondroids are pushing the idea of a joint LP/Constitution Party run for Paul I thought people should know what the Constitution Party supports.
" abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. "
"The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered."
"No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted."
"We...affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior."
"we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."
"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states."
"We favor a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration."
"We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion." Note that the "invasion" they speak of is immigration. So they want federal troops sent into the states to wage war on immigrants.
"We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy." Talk about dishonest rhetoric. To support the first amendment they demand censorship.
"we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards." They are socialists of the soul.
"Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. ...We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America's economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America's capacity for economic self-reliance, and the pro
I do hope that Paul does run under the LP banner. Not only will it bring in lots of people to the LP that otherwise wouldn't have voted for them, but I don't have to drink a gallon of pepto-bismaul before I vote for a candidate from the party that put George W. Bush in a position of power.
If the majority of Ron Paul supporters would join the Libertarian Party, they could easily dominate it. I would encourage them to do this to ensure ballot access for RP if he decides to go third party. Getting ballot access must be accomplished before certain deadlines set by states, and it is costly and time consuming. This is one thing the LP is good at and it would allow RP and his supporters to allocate resources towards campaigning instead of collecting petitions for ballot access. Besides, some state deadlines may have already passed or will before RP makes his decision.
My hope is that Paul will run as an independent. Many are pushing for that since the LP has so many problems. I seriously doubt he will go after the LP nomination. He has been there & done that & knows how meaningless LP candidates are. Badnarik's race in 2004 was the last stand for the LP nationally. We are running out of time to save our country and our constitution. Many Paul supporters need to work in non-partisan organizations. We need to end the party labels - they have all become meaningless.
Tom et. al.,
If any of you think that Lew Rockwell or any of those guys want anything to do with the LP you are involved in some serious navel gazing. I sent Lew e-mail yesterday looking to get some reaction from him about yesterday's Garris article he published and got no response. And, Lew nearly always responds, unless he seriously disagrees with me.
He's never expressed anything to me except complete and utter hostility and frustration with the LP, I don't think reclaiming the shell of the organization that rejected him nearly 20 years ago is on his agenda.
What I find both funny and sad is that no one is a worse enemy to the cause of liberty than the various macho factions within the libertarian movement, forever picking people apart over not being good enough (wmb) instead of looking at the results of awakening and educating people at their own pace. I've been on both sides of this, having been the target of and engaging in character assassination within the LP, so I know it when I see it. Grow up and know that LRC and RP are working for the same things you are, but may be prioritizing things differently.
Ta,
It is WAYYY too early to think about RP as the LP candidate.
RP is the last candidate standing in the republican party against McCain, besides the Huckster.
RP should have plenty of money left over for a real campaign in the remaining republican primary states. He has barely spent any money, so far. The Huckster is said to be out of money, and unlikely to be able to appeal for much more.
The next few months could prove interesting. The boost he has given to libertarian ideas (at least libertarian lite) is something the LP has been attempting for thirty plus years.
RP, while I find his republican campaign to be interesting, is hardly my first choice for POTUS. Never has been. He was my THIRD choice (behind Russell Means and Jim Lewis) in Seattle '87. I did end up campaigning for him in '88 and was a candidate to the Ohio Electoral College pledged to him.
I would much rather he continue his republican campaign to the republican convention, by which time it will be too late for him to switch to the LP.
My only hope is that the LP will find a competent, credible candidate in the next couple of months until the LP convention.
PEACE
Steve
Ed Clark's campaign brough me into libertarianism, on the strength on one commercial that I say during the Reagan-Carter debate.
If Ron Paul jumps to the LP, we will receive more publicity in a few months than we've gotten in 35 years.
He will bring with him an army of activists.
He will bring millions of dollars, and those of us who are maxxed out will get to reset, so there's tens of millions more out there. He will be running, by far, the best financed Libertarian campaign since Ed Clarke at least, and will probably far outpace the Koch money (even figuring inflation).
If he doesn't come over, a lot of activists who jumped to the GOP will consider the idea of staying to "take over" the Republican party. This will be an uphill battle, but so has working to advance the LP been one.
Sounds like more Libertarian mental masturbation doesn't it? Your party is the appendix on the colon of the political landscape. Stop trying to hijack a candidate who can make the libertarian ideology (constitutional ideology)retake it's role in guiding the national conscience. That victory is bigger than the Libertarian party. Country first, Party last.
CollegeRepublican,
I hate to say this, but I like how you think. Even if you are a Republican 
2-cents on RP joining the LP..
For the LP:
Sure, great scads of resources and some extra volunteers at the end of the day, but the message of libertarianism is going to be pureed some to “fit” the ideology Ron Paul's is running on.
For RP:
What benefit will it give him? He'd lose more votes in the general election because he's associated with the LP than he'd gain from either going completely independent, or starting up a “Ron Paul” party.
So, hopefully, he selects the option that does the most benefit for the country as a whole.
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
ReasonToFreedom.com
After the way many of the so-called Beltway members of the Libertarian Party treated Ron Paul, I would be very surprised if he ran on the LP ticket. Reason Magazine and the New Republic pretty much killed that idea.
Besides, ever since the LP started breaking up into groups that have railed agianst classic libertarianism, who wants to be associated with them anyway? I left the LP two years ago and haven't looked back.
Ron Paul will go to the GOP convention. If he goes third party, the Constitution Party is far more closer to his platform than the LP platform, which no seems to embrace free-trade-at-any-cost and the so-called war on terror.
OMG, I sure do hope Paul runs for the LP nomination in Denver. Since the biggest delegation (California) and several other delegations will be made up entirely of people who did not register Republican, Paul would almost certainly lose the nomination. This would do more than anything else to officially distance the LP from Paul's 19th century views on race, abortion, gay rights, etc.
Unfortunately, I think he can do delegate math well enough to realize this, and will almost certainly go to the Constitution Party if he leaves the GOP. But I really think that's unlikely. He still has millions saved up that he can use to keep him in Congress as a Republican until the day he dies without lifting another finger to do campaign fundraising.
I voted for Ron Paul in the Missouri primary. Not enough other people did to win though unless they switched Ron Paul's & McCain's places on the ballots. I'll vote for him again if he runs on the Libertarian ticket or had considered a write in vote for him
A couple quotes from the Ron Paul newsletter that I just got:
"Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican."
"I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen."
Sounds like he won't run on the LP ticket.
Assuming he's correct that the Paul's people have always had an "Plan B" LP nomination, . . . SO WHAT?
That Paul is running as a Republican in the primary is what allowed him so much national press in the first place, and even that was often marginalized.
Had Paul begun his campaign in the LP, he'd have never gotten any debate exposure until _after_ the primaries, and even then such wouldn't have been likely as 3rd party candidates don't get in the debates unless they are billionaires (e.g., DuPont, Perot).
What LP candidate EVER made it on The Tonight Show to decry the worthless Federal Reserve Note and call for the end of the coercive "Social Security" program?
Ron Paul (regardless of party moniker) is the best candidate we've had in decades--maybe ever.
His electability factor far makes up for any quibbling libertarian failures alleged by some. He may be a "libertarian lite" but he'll certainly suffice in office as a "stair-step" for your perfect Libertarian.
The proper goal is to get Paul into the White House, regardless of party vehicle--GOP, LP, or even something else.
I'd rather see in office an 85% libertarian vs. support a 100% Libertarian who has utterly NO chance of winning at all through the LP.
There are Libertarians who would not support Paul because of _______. Never mind the fact that Paul would abolish both the FED and the IRS! These Libertarians are an ideal example of "The perfect is the enemy of the (very) good."
One thing that the Reform Party truly understood was the value of sufficiently large consensus. They didn't expect every RP candidate to rate 100% on their platform, and considered 80% a passing grade. This strikes me as highly realistic. It worked well enough to win the governor's house for Ventura.
No perfect Libertarian candidate will ever be elected from the start, primarily because the voting majority will never hear of him (QED). We must arrive there by stages. Ron Paul is an excellent first stage.
The "Judean People's Front" and the "People's Front of Judea" need to get behind the most electable Judean candidate we've ever had--a nationally known/respected, skeleton-free, 10-term Congressman who is _vastly_ libertarian although not perfectly so.
WHICH DO YOU PREFER:
1) libertarian principles finally enacted from the White House?
or
2) endless Libertarian puritanism?
We've tried the latter for decades.
We all know the results by now.
ZERO.
Boston T. Party
javelinpress.com
freestatewyoming.org
Boston,
You write:
"I'd rather see in office an 85% libertarian vs. support a 100% Libertarian who has utterly NO chance of winning at all through the LP."
So would I -- but the highest "libertarian" rating John McCain has ever received (from the Republican Liberty Caucus) was 75, and I don't believe he's any more likely to "enact libertarian principles from the White House" than Paul would have been.
"Interestingly, a lot of the extreme right criticism of McCain comes from those who support libertarian-Republican Ron Paul. Yet ironically, according to yearly legislator ratings of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a pro-libertarian group within the GOP, John McCain was rated higher on both issues of civil libertarianism and economic liberty than Ron Paul was and had a higher overall rating as well. In their yearly survey McCain is consistently ranked in the top 5% on libertarian issues."
http://blogcritics.org/archives/...2/04/
101701.php
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_r...l.php?
r_id=3197
scores (with unspecified criteria) both McCain and Ron Paul at 82%, which I believe absurdedly high for McCain.
So high, in fact, to be intellectually criminal.
The resistance of some "libertarian Republicans" against Ron Paul baffles me. For example:
_____
With John McCain as the GOP Nominee; Where Libertarian Republicans go from here, by Eric Dondero
"It's been a long Presidential race. And it's pretty much come to an end for libertarian Republicans.
"Most of us were backing Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. Libertarians for Giuliani/Thompson/Romney failed. It's not a pleasant feeling to lose. But we must move on.
[He prefers Giuliani or Romney or Thompson over _Paul_? THIS is a "libertarian Republican"?]
"I am personally uninspired on the Presidential level now. I will not be backing John McCain (unless he picks a fantastic libertarian-leaning VP candidate like Michael Steele, JC Watts, Steve Forbes, Sarah Palin, Butch Otter, Mark Sanford, Tom Coburn or Dana Rohrabacher.)
"[My choice of Wayne Root is] not a fringe Ron Paul type. No Military bashing. No long tirades about obscure issues like the Gold Standard."
[Yeah, sure, the money issue is "obscure." What a buffoon.]
"Let me also announce, that we have a new Co-Host for "Libertarian Politics Live." It's been a months long process. As you may know, I had to let Andre Traversa go back in October as Co-Host due to his ludicrous backing of Ron Paul . . ."
http://www.zimbio.com/
2008+Presi...ian+Republicans
_____
Tom, you wrote:
". . . and I don't believe [McCain]'s any more likely to "enact libertarian principles from the White House" than Paul would have been."
If you truly believe THAT of the co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, then I consider it futile to try to convince you otherwise.
When Libertarians and "libertarian Republicans" cannot back somebody like Ron Paul and/or believe that McCain is a _more_ libertarian candidate, we might as all well just pack it up and go home.
There is clearly no longer any point to l/Libertarian efforts in presidential elections. "Thanks" for further persuading me that this country hasn't a chance of saving itself.
Boston T. Party
javelinpress.com
freestatewyoming.org
Unfortunately, I don't have the pull or influence that Tom implies I might have.
I am glad to agree with Boston, whom I've long admired, on Ron, though I am also one of those pro-purity libertarians, when it comes to the LP platform, etc. I think Ron is more libertarian than some of his critics claim, however (although I disagree with him on some matters).
If Kubby is the best, most libertarian candidate on the 2008 general ballot, I'll vote for him. But I think Ron Paul is clearly as principled as many LP candidates and has focused on the most important issues. He's done a lot of good, even if Tom thinks his movement has been a setback for the movement.
In the last several months, I've met dozens of college-aged folk who have become libertarians, thanks to Ron. This is a great benefit. I think when Tom thinks of the ways this phenomenon has supposedly hurt the movement, he fails to think of the many ways it has benefited it.
Commenting by HaloScan
