In this week’s “radio address,” Steve Kubby explains why it’s a bad idea for Libertarians to support those other parties:
I’ve heard from a number of you that you’re not supporting the Libertarian Party or its presidential candidate in 2008. That, instead, you’re giving your money and support to a candidate for another party’s presidential nomination.
I’m referring, of course, to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas — a sitting member of the US House of Representatives, and the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate.
Friends — you’re making a mistake.
I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul. He’s a fine man and a fine libertarian. But he’s affiliated himself with a party of big government … the party that brought us the war on Iraq. The party brought us “extraordinary rendition.” The party that can’t find habeas corpus in the Constitution. The party that, over the last six years, has grown government faster than at any time since the end of WWII.
If a candidate for the Nazi Party’s presidential nomination asked for your support, you’d laugh at him or turn away in disgust. You’d do so even if he said that he wasn’t one of “those Nazis” who wanted to herd all the Jews, homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses into gas chambers. You wouldn’t just walk away from that candidate, you’d run away. And you’d be right — because even if that candidate isn’t one of “those Nazis,” his party itself stands for things that you can’t support.
When you support a candidate, you support that candidate’s party. And as fine a man as Ron Paul is, his party is simply not worthy of your support. He may be a libertarian, but his party is not libertarian and it’s not going to become libertarian, no matter how much money you throw at it.
Tune in for more:
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
That’s absurd. Ron Paul voted against everything Kubby mentioned – judge the man, not his party. And this is the quickest victory for Godwin’s Law I’ve ever seen.
I just lost a lot of respect for Steve Kubby.
Ron Paul at a fundraising dinner in Phoenix:
Nigel caught the Godwin thing before I could, but I have to say, it’s a pretty poor argument on Kubby’s part. The point can be made without calling Ron Paul a Nazi.
The Libertarian Party must run a candidate for ballot access purposes. Not running a candidate in 2008 could destroy local and state organizations that people like me have worked very hard to develop. A Republican candidate cannot build the Libertarian Party.
Steve called Ron Paul a nazi? Please tell me where.
The fact is that supporting a candidate does in a way also support the party – even though the candidate dissents from the party on many issues.
Steve called the Republican Party the Nazi Party. Can’t say that’s far off, these days. Still an invocation of Godwin’s Law, though.
I’m a registered libertarian, and have been for years. I’m changing my party to Republican, so that I can support Paul in the primaries.
If the Libertarians must offer up a candidate (for ballot reasons,) why can’t we send up Ron Paul as well?
Also, it’s my understanding that most states with requirements on presidential votes have requirements way outside the realm of possibility anyways.
if the nazi party were in control and ron paul ran as a nazi, i’d vote nazi.
No, he did not. Listen or read again more carefully. He used the nazi party as an extreme example of his point; he did not actually call the Republicans nazis. Far from calling Ron Paul a nazi, he said he is a libertarian, a fine man and that he has a great deal of respect for him.
That’s unfortunate.
A) He’s not interested. He doesn’t even take calls from the LP right now.
B) Been there, done that. Why the obsession with Ron Paul?
C) For reasons I’ve spelled out at length elsewhere, the type of political triangulation Ron Paul offers (libertarian/constitutionalist/republican) is teh wrong direction for the purpose of party and movement growth. We should triangulate more with the Greens and Democrats, which Kubby does.
Immigration is a major issue this cycle. Although many libertarians think it it shouldn’t be, gay marriage is as well. Ron Paul is on the wrong side of these issues.
D) As a sitting member of Congress, I believe it is his moral duty to introduce Bush impeachment resolutions. He also (as of last year) remains proud of authorizing $40 billion of extorted tax money for an undeclared war in Afghanistan. Chuck Hagel, not Ron Paul, called for Alberto Gonzales to be fired.
I support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, which he is extremely unlikely to even come close to getting. However, I feel it is more important to support Kubby for the Libertarian nomination.
The Greens and Democrats have nothing to offer Libertarians but their stoners. If you believe that Republicans are the party of “big government” (and I’ll grant you they sure have been acting like it) then I’ll counter with an argument that the Dems and Greenies are the parties of “total government.”
I’ll take my chances with the loopy fundamentalists LONG BEFORE I hop in bed with the socialists.
Guys this is what I love about the free market. Support who you want.Of course you have to worry about the long term effects. Ron Paul would be a great choice if he was running under our banner but he is not.What do you think his chances are of being on the ballot in Nov. They are close to zero.The sad thing is he a great Libertarian but what happens to the resorces that you use on his campaign will they benifit the freedom movement long term or as far as that goes short term. If Ron Paul was running as a Libertarian he would be on the ballot in Nov. but he is not . So when all is said and done where will you resources best be used. Sometimes the best candidate is not the answer.It is also about the long term effects. If all Libertarians tomorrow decided to back Ron Paul and gave him double what we have given any other Libertarian candidate it would not make a differnce to Ron Paul. But it might kill the Libertarian Party if we did that.So in the end would have backed the repubilican that is going to come in below forth place in the primarys and killed our party in about 10- 20 states.You have to ask yourself why is Ron Paul doing this to us or has he miscalculated. Have many Libertarian have been called to help him bring in more Libertarian. I have called his office to see if wanted to speak at our convention or some other event in Georgia. They did not seem interested and did not ask me if I would like to help with his campaign.Thre next question is who would you like to run and have YOU call them and ask them to run. Just my two cents
Doug Craig
Kubby committed to come to New Mexico’s LP convention
and then waffled, demonstrating that he doesn’t keep
committments and isn’t a viable campaigner. Shall we
nominate someone who might get into the debates and
then not show up? Or will only conduct a “podcast”
campaign with multiple excuses of why he can’t
campaign outside of California? The LP deserves
better.
THANK YOU, Mr. Kubby, for you contribution to the
freedom movement, but we need a CAMPAIGNER for the
nominee and sir, that role isn’t for you.
You’re argument is based on the idea that Paul can’t win the Republican Primaries ~ I’ll admit, the odds aren’t stellar. But if he does, it would be foolish to vote Libertarian “party” over principle, as so many of us have done for “Republicans” in the past. Paul may not be a “perfect” libertarian, but he’s by Reagan’s talking points a damned near “perfect” Republican ~ one who has the “soul” of a Libertarian.
I’m onboard with Paul in the Primary, because I believe 90+ percent of what he preaches and practices, it would be my honor to have him as my President. I know he’s a “dark horse” ~ but my personal experience is that he’s selling like hotcakes here in Kansas. You go ahead and hash out the “libertarian” party stuff, I’m trying to get one elected to the White House. I’ll be by to help you guys out should I fail in my quest to see Paul nominated. I’d just like you to keep in mind ~ if Paul wins the nomination you can vote for a Republican, and know he’s not completely full of “it” when he’s spouting libertarian talking points.
This is a serious and touchy subject. As someone who doesn’t know what exactly to identify with aat the moment I really like Ron Paul, he is the only decent member of the Republlcons that I’m aware of. I don’t believe people should be judged by party affiliation however, if the LP is going to stay alive this may not be good.
To his credit Ron Paul has been the voice of the voiceless, the defense of the defenseless. He is the anomoly in the government matrix.
I’m on the fence right now.
We have been in communication repeatedly about the possibility
that either the money or time to make it there in person may not
happen. Still don’t know why you don’t want to do the teleconference.
Steve keeps his commitments, and let you know ahead of time if
and why he is not able to. Having to change plans is not the same
thing as not keeping commitments.
If Steve gets the nomination, there will easily be enough money
available to get him to the debate if he were to somehow get into it.
And at that point, it would take precedence over local matters or
other jobs.
Steve has already campaigned in Colorado, Oregon and Washington
State. He has made tentative plans to be in Illinois in October.
Unfortunately, a combination of temporary financial circumstance and
urgent, unforeseen local political matters precluded him from being in
New Mexico in person.
The offer for a teleconference remains open. Who is blowing whom off?
I disagree. Steve is most definitely a campaigner.
Unfortunately, he can’t be two places at once, except through modern
technology, which you unfortunately dismiss as an option.
Not true at all. Antiwar, pro-immigration, and many other movements we should be building bridges with are huge. Artists, musicians, professors, students, creative people of all sorts, the gay community, even many environmentalists – there are a lot of people on the left-libertarian border, and there has been a continuing lack of outreach in that direction.
Many of their voters and supporters are actually closer to libertarian, but have never been presented libertarianism in the right way. I meet them all the time.
You have your preferences, I have mine, although I’ll note that many of the people I’m talking about are not socialists at all – or if they are, only because they bought it as a secondary part of a package deal with peace and civil liberties issues being most important.
No. Only a few.
Also, most people learn of the LP in the first place through presidential campaigns and they get a lot more media coverage than local races alone.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WasItWorthIt.htm
Not only are his odds not stellar. He was the least organized of all 15 Republican candidates at CPAC, according to Richard Viguerie.
Mr. Viguerie also said Ron Paul failed the “Reagan test” (having a group of movement stalwarts he always “walked” with) as well as the “Goldwater test” (taking an unpopular stance against his party leadership; in this case, because RP had not come out against Alberto Gonzales).
I’m not sure the second part is completely correct, since RP has taken many stances against his party leadership, including his Libertarian run.
But the chances of him getting the Republican nomination are about the same as Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton getting the Democrats’.
The fact that many libertarians, like you, are putting all their time and energy into the Republican race until this is proven is troubling. It will hurt the LP greatly for many years to come.
I don’t believe that there is a “left Libertarian border” unless you’re talking about folks who are otherwise socialist, but who like to smoke pot. Since when is the Libertarian party about “issues?” I’ve always thought it was about the Constitution and the Liberty it guarantees. That’s why we take the “seemingly incoherent” ~ pro-constitution, pro-2nd amendment, pro-drug, pro-privacy, pro-trade, pro-immigration, anti-welfare, anti-governmental interference, anti-offensive war, position we take ~ not because they are “negotiated platform planks.” I think there is a bit of a disconnect between those who consider themselves to be libertarians, and those who are trying to make a “party” of it.
I’m not going to turn your blog into a campaign thread, but I don’t agree that Paul is on the wrong side of either “immigration” or the “war.” The “Libertarian” position on immigration should not ignore the caveat that there should not be “publicly funded welfare” guaranteed to those immigrants.
What you believe and reality are two different things. If you have ever conducted OPH on a mass scale, as I have, you know there is a big left-libertarian border. They are (mostly) not socialists, and only some of them smoke pot.
http://leftlibertarian.org/
You’ve always thought wrong.
Rather than retyping a lot of stuff I’ve written before, I’ll advise you to a search for immigration on the front page and read the archived threads.
Nah, I’m not really impressed with what you have to say. Fact is, I probably wouldn’t be here if I didn’t see the blog in my Google news search for “Ron Paul.”
Good luck with that “libertarian in ’08″ thing, I’ll keep an eye out and see how that goes. Like I said, I might be back if the primaries don’t go my way.
Quoth Joseph Knight:
“Kubby committed to come to New Mexico’s LP convention
and then waffled”
Um, no. Kubby’s campaign manager committed him to come to New Mexico’s LP convention, and then Kubby’s campaign manager realized that it wasn’t possible to keep that commitment. While a candidate is, of course, responsible to a degree for his campaign manager’s decisions, Kubby never “waffled.”
I’m sorry that you’re bitter about this, Mr. Knight (and to others, Mr. Knight made a personal financial pledge toward getting Kubby to the convention — he isn’t just bellyaching without having put forth his own effort), but you’re leaving out one simple fact:
Right now, Kubby is the only even remotely plausible candidate for the Libertarian Party’s nomination. He’s the only one with ANY name recognition (albeit not that much), he’s the only one with ANY successful political experience, and he’s the only running on a platform that meets BOTH tests for being worth of support (element #1: It’s libertarian; element #2: It’s coherent).
FWIW, I just wrote Kubby — not for the first time — urging him to find a campaign manager who can make things happen, if there is such a thing. I have no problem acknowledging that I’m not that guy, and indeed I never wanted the job.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s just me (and I know damn well it’s not Kubby) that’s the problem. Other than the Ron Paul defectors, Libertarians continue to say that they want a presidential campaign … but they’re not expressing that desire in the form of the cash required to operate one.
And no, Kubby did not call Ron Paul a Nazi, nor did he call the GOP the Nazi Party. Shame on the spinners for trying to spin it that way — you guys know better. He was simply pointing out that supporting a candidate is supporting that candidate’s party — for better or for worse.
Ron Paul is an exemplar of party loyalty, and that should be taken as both a negative campaign statement, and a positive lesson:
A few election cycles back — I think it was 2000, but it may have been 2002 — registered Libertarian voters in two California US House districts received letters urging them to support threatened anti-liberty Republican incumbents over their Democratic AND LIBERTARIAN opponents. Those letters were signed by US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX). Ron Paul will say the right things, and he’ll often do the right things … but at the end of the day, he’s a Republican and there’s just no getting around it.
Ron Paul has definitely been loyal to his chosen party since returning to it — and he continues to be loyal to it even in the age of the Patriot Act and “extraordinary rendition.” Would that his supporters in the LP could bring themselves to be equally loyal to theirs. Make no mistake about it: Support for Ron Paul is support for the GOP, and if you claim to be a libertarian who seeks change through the political process, that support necessarily comes at the expense of the LP.
If you’re going to be a Republican, be a Republican, and godspeed to you. At least when I made the mistake of going Democrat, I wore it on my sleeve and left the LP instead of trying to have it both ways.
“Immigration is a major issue this cycle. Although many libertarians think it it shouldn’t be, gay marriage is as well. Ron Paul is on the wrong side of these issues.”
How is Ron Paul on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue when Ron Paul OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments? I repeat, Ron Paul OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments. Yes, Ron did vote for a bill saying that states that don’t have gay marriage do not have to recognize gay marriages from states that have it, but this is because gays could get married in one state and then travel to another state that doesn’t have gay marriage and file lawsuits against businesses and other entities that didn’t want to recognize their marriage. This would create all kinds of BS lawsuits. I don’t think that Ron Paul really believes in state marriage licenses and if he could do away with them he probably would, but since he’s in a federal office and since he’s running for another federal office he does not have any authority to do so.
As for immigration, some of you people act like if Ron Paul were elected President there would be zero immigration and this is a bunch of crap. There are over around 2 million immigrants who come to this country every year. This is more immigrants who have immigrated anywhere in history. During the great waves of immigration in the past in to this country the most people who ever came here in one year was around 250,000, and most years is was quite a bit lower than this. The amount of immigration we have today is more of a tsunami than a regular wave. The country was less populated back in the 1800′s and early 1900′s and there was also no welfare state back then. So comparing the “great waves” of immigration in the past to the TSUNAMI of today is not a valid comparison. Yes, Ron Paul wants to cut out the illegal immigration and he wants to keep the criminals and welfare recipients out, but he does NOT want to end all immigration. Anyone who says that Ron Paul wants to end all immigration is a LIAR. There would still be plenty of immigrants if Ron Paul were elected President.
Steve Kubby’s profound comments regarding Ron Paul’s candidacy are certainly worth pondering. Drowned in a cacophony of voices on the Right — from unabashed militarist Duncan Hunter and xenophobic immigrant-basher Tom Tancredo to stubborn neo-con John McCain and the villainously slimy Newt Gingrich, each trying to out-Attila the other — Paul’s long-shot candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination will probably have only a negligible effect, if any, in advancing the overall cause of liberty, and will almost certainly do nothing to promote the Libertarian Party.
In the long run, Ron Paul’s candidacy might actually do more harm than good to the libertarian movement as a whole by unwittingly — yet inextricably — linking the concept of libertarianism to the most authoritarian political party in American history. At least that’s what millions of ordinary Americans are likely to glean from it.
What a travesty…
Quoth Andy:
“How is Ron Paul on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue when Ron Paul OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments? I repeat, Ron Paul OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments. Yes, Ron did vote for a bill saying that states that don’t have gay marriage do not have to recognize gay marriages from states that have it, but this is because gays could get married in one state and then travel to another state that doesn’t have gay marriage and file lawsuits against businesses and other entities that didn’t want to recognize their marriage.”
The key phrase here is “other entities.” Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, there’s one particular “other entity” which is required to recognize marriages performed in other states, and that’s the state itself. So, in answer to your question, “how is Ron Paul on the wrong side of gay marriage,” the answer is “he was willing to support — as a matter of fact, sponsor” — a blatantly unconstitutional bill over it. So much for his constitutionalist credentials. If the Constitution doesn’t say what Ron Paul thinks it should say, he’s fine with Congress just overriding it.
Of course, some will say that the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn’t mean what it says (and I believe that’s Paul’s exact argument) … but if that’s the case, then the “problem” the bill was intended to address doesn’t exist anyway, so why would he bother?
“And no, Kubby did not call Ron Paul a Nazi, nor did he call the GOP the Nazi Party. Shame on the spinners for trying to spin it that way — you guys know better. He was simply pointing out that supporting a candidate is supporting that candidate’s party — for better or for worse.”
In a prior radio interview Steve Kubby said that if Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination for President that he’d drop out of the race and go to work for Ron Paul.
“The key phrase here is “other entities.” Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, there’s one particular “other entity” which is required to recognize marriages performed in other states, and that’s the state itself. So, in answer to your question, “how is Ron Paul on the wrong side of gay marriage,” the answer is “he was willing to support — as a matter of fact, sponsor” — a blatantly unconstitutional bill over it. So much for his constitutionalist credentials. If the Constitution doesn’t say what Ron Paul thinks it should say, he’s fine with Congress just overriding it.”
Under this line of thinking if a person were a slave in one state, and then the slave escaped to another state, that slave would have to be returned to the state where they are a slave since slavery is legal in that state. There was a Supreme Court decision that said this in the 1800′s.
Also, you are acting as though it is legitimate for the state to recognize marriage in the first place. You are expressing outrage over a state recognizing something in which the state shouldn’t even have involvement.
I’m supporting Ron Paul because he is the highest profile “pure” libertarian ever to seek a major party nomination. I’m also supporting him because he has crossover appeal to both the antiwar left and the paleoconservative movement. Nobody else can say that.
Kubby’s presidential campaign will turn people on to liberty, but he would have done that anyway, with or without running for president.
Ah, once again, Libertarian party members act rationally, and the leadership gets annoyed.
There are two reasons to have a Libertarian Party than runs candidates:
1. To win. To put libertarians into public office.
2. To promote the ideas of liberty.
Party building is not a purpose of the party; it is a means of enabling the party to do one or both of the above.
Well, the LP candidate for president will not win. Ron Paul probably won’t either. However, Ron Paul will get more press coverage, more opportunities to promote the message of liberty.
Ergo, Ron Paul’s candidacy is the most exciting thing going in libertarian circles today.
—
Of course, a Ron Paul campaign does not build the LP. But given that the LP has been around 35 years, it is safe to say that it has hit its mature size. Without a significant change in its modus operandi, any party building effort will hit the same wall the LP has bounced against twice now.
A partial attempt to change the LP MO has been accomplished — sufficient to annoy those who prefer the status quo and insufficient to reap the benefits of a true rebranding. For party building to trump short term promotion of liberty, the party must be made worth building. Either:
A. The reform effort must be completed and staff instructed to do a rebranding effort.
B. The reform effort must be undone and the Rothbardians brought back in.
But do note that in the event of option B, the LP is already close to its maximum size. There isn’t that much building to be done. Instead, efforts should be made in the direction of enthusiasm and efficiency. Emphasis should be put on educational materials and efforts and away from ballot access, paper candidates, and attempted-credibility overhead.
Take your pick.
I think Ron Paul should be seeking support from every avenue even if it is not from Republicans or Libertarians. Someone without Hilary money needs all the dollars and votes they can get. And if Dr. Paul is just trying to sell a message then he should do what Gingrich is doing (of course the message is different, thank God) and just go around speaking publicly and forget the campaign stuff.
Every candidate should seek support from every avenue.
If we stipultate that the LP should run a presidential candidate in order to hold or gain ballot status in certain states, and if we stipulate that person be a campaigner, why is it necessary that the candidate be the same one in all states? As noted above, gathering the resources to campaign in all states is very difficult. But what if Kubby could campaign in ten Western states, and Mary Ruwart in ten central states, and George Phillies in ten New England-midAtlantic states, and so forth. Let each state LP nominate whomever it wished for President – and we might get a half dozen candidates who are able to campaign more broadly than if one tried to cover the whole country. Because voters vote for electors, not a specific candidate, it shouldn’t matter that the LP has six candidates for president.
It may even be a novel enough strategy to gain media attention which is surely more than our one candidate usually gets.
You know, that is an interesting strategy, OG. I like that it cements the idea that principles are more important than big names. This is a welcome counterpoint to the celebrity obsession of mainstream politicians.
That being said, it blows my mind that people can’t see past RP’s party affiliation. It’s like people are willing to give up the opportunity of having the most libertarian president since Jefferson just because they want to see a 5% growth in their political party.
Matt:
There is no “opportunity of having the most libertarian president since Jefferson” in this election.
First of all, Ron Paul isn’t going to win either the GOP nomination or the election. That’s just a fact of reality. Get used to it.
Secondly, Ron Paul probably isn’t any more especially libertarian than Grover Cleveland was.
The real question is whether Ron Paul’s effect on the prospects of the libertarian movement — including, but not limited to, the LP — will be positive or negative. In my opinion, it will be almost wholly negative.
Any “smaller government” rhetoric will be muted in the media because even though Paul may be the only one of the GOP candidates who means it, he’s not the only one who’s saying it. The average American will never know that Paul is ACTUALLY the real thing next to Mitt McGiuliani’s act.
What Ron Paul will be known for, if he manages to get noticed at all, is his xenophobic and homophic anti-libertarian positions — and if he really makes noise, “libertarianism” will be tarred with those positions.
To put it bluntly, if you support Ron Paul’s GOP candidacy, what you’re supporting is public identification of “libertarianism” as xenophobic, homophobic Republicanism. And I just don’t believe that positioning the libertarian movement as representative of a dying political party and some of that party’s worst (and continually less popular) positions is a sound strategy for either the short or long term.
“Secondly, Ron Paul probably isn’t any more especially libertarian than Grover Cleveland was.”
Bullshit. Who was the LP Presidential candidate in 1988? Hint: It’s wasn’t Grover Cleveland.
This was not one of Kubby’s better radio addresses. There are ways to argue against voting against a Republican candidate without the Nazi analogy.
This whole debate about whether to support Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party candidate in 2008 is practically a mute point since the two will never be running against one another. Let’s be honest here. Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination. It would nice if he did, and I’m rooting for him to do so, but we all know that a pro-liberty, pro-Constitution, anti-war candidate has no chance of winning the Republican nomination.
Come November 2008, the LP’s Republican opponent isn’t going to be Ron Paul. It’s going to be Giuliani, Romney, or McCain. Not a very tough decision there.
The ‘xenophobe’ Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who doesn’t vilify Muslims to gain political points. The ‘homophobe’ Ron Paul must be very secretive indeed. I’ve never heard a single anti-gay slur escape his lips and he isn’t introducing anti-sodomy legislation either. Oh, yeah, the gay marriage thing; I guess insistence on separation of powers is tantamount to homophobia now.
It would make me very happy indeed if the Republican Party fell off the map entirely. It isn’t happening this cycle, though, so why not use the party (flawed though it is) as a vehicle for someone who has Libertarian credentials Kubby can only dream of at this point? I’m no fool; I know Ron Paul is a long shot, but liberty is too at this point, and he is certainly our best bet.
Wait, does this have anything to do with the fact that you work for the Kubby campaign?
Matt,
You write:
“I guess insistence on separation of powers is tantamount to homophobia now.”
Quite the contrary. Paul sponsored legislation intended to legislatively invalidate (rather than amend or repeal) part of the Constitution. That has nothing to do with “separation of powers,” except to the extent that it’s an attempt to have the federal government assume a power it does not and cannot have under the Constitution.
“Wait, does this have anything to do with the fact that you work for the Kubby campaign?”
Absolutely! I support a candidate for a particular party’s nomination. Naturally, I oppose that candidate’s opponents for the party’s nomination, as well as his prospective opponents in the general election.
If you’re using “the fact that [I] work for the Kubby campaign” as code for “you’re making money from one campaign, that’s why you oppose a different campaign,” well, sorry to burst your bubble … the only money I’ve received from the Kubby campaign was reimbursement of half the cost of an ad I purchased on that campaign’s behalf (the other half was an in-kind donation from me and my significant other). If this was about money, I’d be working for a major party candidate (presumably in a lower-level race).
When I signed on with Kubby’s campaign, I had no way of knowing that Ron Paul would be running … but I was reasonably certain that there would be someone playing the worn-out “libertarian Republican” card in the GOP nomination race. I just wasn’t interested in supporting an anti-liberty party under the illusion that it could be magically changed by one also-ran player (I’ve already been down that road once, and there’s nothing worthwhile at the other end of it).
If Kubby wasn’t in the race, I still wouldn’t be supporting Paul — I’d be trying to recruit Kubby [1] or some other credible candidate to seek the LP’s nomination.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
[1] Actually, when I learned that Kubby was considering entering the race, I advised him not to. I suggested that since foreign policy would be the top-shelf issue in 2008, and that since his primary political credentials were on the drug war, he should wait for 2012, and run again for governor of California in 2010. Fortunately, he ignored that advice (and immediately proved the “single issue” concerns to be entirely without basis). If he had listened to me at that point, the LP would be stuck without so much as one single, solitary credible candidate for its nomination right now.
Tom,
I wasn’t trying to imply that you were in the pay of Steve Kubby. I do think, however, that you are irrationally biased against Ron Paul. Time will tell whether or not he is just another dead-end candidate. His small-government, anti-war, and libertarian positions explode the wall of BS that the GOP uses as an ideological cover. He can explode their consensus from the inside out. Doesn’t that sound like a good investment?
Steve Kubby is incredible and I will probably end up voting for him and even probably volunteering for him of the Ron Paul nomination falls through. That being said, I don’t see how the internecine hostility is helping.
“If he had listened to me at that point, the LP would be stuck without so much as one single, solitary credible candidate for its nomination right now.”
You’re stating directly that Dr. Phillies is not a credible candidate. Care to explain why?
Mr. X:
I’ve stated numerous times that Dr. Phillies is not a credible candidate. And I’ve explained why numerous times as well. But, if we must re-hash:
- Small favorable base and large unfavorable base within the party. To put it bluntly, if the candidates were Phillies and NOTA, NOTA would likely be the nominee.
- Absolutely zero national political name recognition outside the LP (Kubby doesn’t have a lot, but he has some).
- Absolutely zero successful political experience outside the LP (Kubby at least has a reputation as a successful political fighter with one non-LP constituency).
- Poor public speaker in general, and especially poor at speaking in the short sound bytes which are most likely to lead to public broadcast of, or interest in, one’s remarks.
- Poor campaign platform. If I wanted to write a platform with the goal of alienating a large portion of the LP’s tiny presidential “base” vote, while simultaneously failing to attract any new, unrepresented constituencies to the polling place for the LP, I’d use his as a model.
George has done a lot of good work for the party, which is why I’ve supported him for chair several times. Running for president is not part of that good work. Supporting George for the nomination is effectively supporting a 2008 LP presidential performance in the sub-Bergland range, when we should be doing our damnedest to at least achieve a level of performance above that of 1996, 2000 and 2004. I regard supporting a sub-1992 performance as “not a credible strategy,” and a candidate which promises a sub-Bergland performance as “not a credible candidate.”
I might be misunderstanding what you mean by “left Libertarian border”, but I would politely disagree with you on this point.
I happen to consider myself a libertarian-liberal (or liberal-libertarian). I’m simply a “socialist” who “likes to smoke pot”, nor am I a liberal or an anti-Republican hack pretending to be a libertarian (i.e. Bill Maher).
I grant you that the Democratic Party is practically unsalvageable right now, but I don’t think you should be so quick to give up on the left. Just as there are those on the right who have become fed up with the Republicans, I think there are those on the left who are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Democrats.
I think some on the left are a lost cause, particularly if their “leftness” is solidly rooted in economic populism. But I suspect that some on the left base their beliefs more on a “live and let live” position on social policy and are more “agnostic” in terms of economic policy. These are the people that libertarians ought to be focusing their resources on. The libertarian message to them ought to be clear: the Democrats sold them ought on the war and on civil liberties.
Obviously, the first clause should read: I’m not simply a “socialist” who “likes to smoke pot.” Otherwise, I’d simply be proving Michael Nolan’s point for him.
Well, with what Kubby stated he lost my vote in 08. That was something I dont want our President to ever go into, especially in dealing with foreign affairs or such. A ridiculously childish comment was made, and that in my book just lost a ton of votes towards his demise as any chance of successfully growing the party vote for the future. Forget that Ron Paul is running on a Republican ticket because Ron Paul is now the only hope for any Libertarian to gain more benefit to the party.
Kubby I assume made this comment out of fear more than anything else and shot himself in the foot with this comment. Foolish move, Kubby. You just dropped the Party back a few years on the lack of scholarship and integrity meter.
Balamand,
An interesting dilemma. Kubby observes that Libertarians are shooting themselves in the feet … but if he says so, he’s shooting himself in the foot. I’m not sure there’s any way out of that one. I’m just glad that Kubby’s willing to take one in the foot for the party instead of standing silently by as it shoots its own feet completely off.
Yes, a ridiculously childish comment has been made, numerous times: “Hey, everyone, let’s support a Republican for President! That should do a lot to build the Libertarian Party!”
If Kubby lost your vote by asking you to support a Libertarian instead of a Republican, your vote was never his to lose in the first place. And if Kubby lost your vote by telling you the truth, well … in my experience if he has to choose between truth and popularity, truth will win every time. Hopefully that will remain the rule, rather than the exception, with Libertarians.
Interestingly, in terms of actual content, Kubby didn’t say anything that Phillies hasn’t said as well:
Kubby didn’t lose my vote by saying what he said; if he’s the best guy on the ballot in Novoember, I’ll vote for him and help him out in other ways too. What he did do is convince me to focus all my pre-primary energy on someone other than him. That would be Ron Paul, since Phillies is rather underwhelming, and Christine Smith is out of the race, I think.
Mr. X,
I meant to reply to you earlier, and forgot. So here goes.
Matt referred to “the opportunity of having the most libertarian president since Jefferson,” referring to Ron Paul.
I responded:
To which you in turn responded: “Bullshit. Who was the LP Presidential candidate in 1988? Hint: It’s wasn’t Grover Cleveland.”
To which I respond:
Um … your point?
At this point, Grover Cleveland is, in my opinion, the most libertarian president we’ve had since Jefferson.
I don’t believe that Ron Paul would be more libertarian in the White House than he has been in Congress; and I don’t believe that Ron Paul has been more libertarian in Congress than Grover Cleveland was in the White House[1]; therefore I don’t believe that Ron Paul would be more libertarian in the White House than Grover Cleveland was; and finally therefore, I don’t believe that Ron Paul would be “the most libertarian president since Thomas Jefferson” even if there was any likelihood that he could be elected to the presidency.
You seem to be arguing that having been nominated for the presidency by the LP is proof positive that one is “more libertarian than Grover Cleveland.” I don’t see any reason to believe that that’s the case.
Tom Knapp
[1] Admittedly, even Cleveland’s record was mixed (he signed the Interstate Commerce Act).
On the other hand, I am unaware that as president (he never served in Congress, so there’s no basis for comparison) he ever pushed legislation designed to invalidate portions of the Constitution, as Paul has with the Marriage Protection Act.
While Cleveland vetoed $10,000 in “emergency farm relief,” I know of at least one case in which Paul not only supported, but co-sponsored, a $5.5 billion of it. Here are some selected remarks:
Cleveland:
Paul:
Which one of those guys sounds more libertarian to you?
Daniel Imperato showed up in NM. Nice guy, great attitude. Innovative ideas. They just aren’t LIBERTARIAN ideas.
Kubby didn’t care enough about NM to show.
Phillies did a credible job. I disagree with him on some issues, but could support him as the nominee.
But Christine Smith won the debate according to everybody I’ve talked with. Before the week is out, I will be issuing a formal statement endorsing her for the nomination.
Mr. Knight:
Once again, I apologize that Kubby couldn’t (not wouldn’t) attend your party’s state convention in person. Of course, I did offer to have Kubby there live, via video. Your refusal to accept that offer is somewhat understandable, but it gives lie to your contention that he “didn’t care” about your convention.
If you want to make this into a fake “didn’t care enough” argument, then you should take notice of the fact that it was not Kubby who made the call. It was me — one of my conditions for accepting the job of campaign manager was that I have full authority to approve or veto campaign travel, and I vetoed New Mexico. That was not a decision that I took lightly, but rather one that I considered regrettably necessary.
Hopefully the majority of the party will judge its candidates on a range of criteria, including but not limited to issues positions, prior political experience/success, name recognition, speaking ability, etc. Whether or not a candidate is willing to get on a plane and fly to New Mexico to kiss Joseph Knight’s ass should probably be low on most people’s list of qualifications.
TK, you may be the hired gun but directly or indirectly, Kubby is ultimately responsible for the decision. You aren’t trying to sell us a candidate who can’t think for himself, are you?
One criterion we will choose a candidate on is how we think he will campaign and declining to debate Phillies, Smith, and that other guy in NM didn’t make him any points in that regard.
We did not “video in” Kubby because (1) it wouldn’t have been fair to the candidates who showed in person, (2) it would have been a bad precedent for future debates, and (3) we were too busy just putting on the convention to make all of those special technical arrangements for sombody who wasn’t even going to be there.
Joseph,
“TK, you may be the hired gun but directly or indirectly, Kubby is ultimately responsible for the decision. You aren’t trying to sell us a candidate who can’t think for himself, are you?”
Of course not. You are correct — Kubby is ultimately responsible for everything his campaign does. And you’re responsible for everything you say and do as well.
Bottom line: Your case of redass is an excuse, and nothing but an excuse, for your decision to deprive your fellow New Mexico Libertarians of the full hearing of all the candidates that would have allowed them to make informed decisions as to who merits their support.
You were fully entitled to take such a position, but the fact remains that you were unwilling to make a far smaller effort than you were demanding others make … so please, don’t give me any “Kubby doesn’t care” trash talk.