Given the number of Libertarians who support Ron Paul, I have wondered whether it would be in violation of LP rules for state LPs to endorse a candidate from another party. I still haven’t looked into it, but Jake Porter has. Excerpted from his blog:
Another myth is that the Libertarian Party can support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. Now, we will take a look at what the Libertarian Party bylaws say about this issue.
Article 6, 4: No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of Principles or these Bylaws.
Libertarians often become very angry when Congress violates the United States Constitution. The Libertarian Party bylaws should be treated no differently. Additionally, I am told that many states have laws, not state party bylaws, but actual legislative law prohibiting one party endorsing a candidate of another party, or a candidate to be nominated by more than one party. I would need to look more into this to find out if it is true, but I have been told it is so. The Libertarian Party cannot, without violating our own bylaws, support a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.
I haven’t really thought this through, beyond that it might be a good topic for discussion, but …… perhaps the Libertarian Party should court Ron Paul for the LP presidential nomination, if and when he is denied the Republican nomination.
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
I think it would be a tactical mistake. RP triangulates between the NSGOP, LP and CP. I’ve written quite a bit about why the LP must triangulate between DP, GP and LP to grow in the long term. Too lazy to look it up right now, but it’s discussed at length in my previous articles and comments. Nor do I think RP’s higher name recognition is any guarantee of higher vote totals: witness Buchanan’s performance as the Reform Party candidate in 2000, or Ron Paul’s own in 1988.
However, I do still support RP for the Republican nomination, although I don’t believe there is any real chance he will get it. I don’t think the LP bylaws prevent us from endorsing candidates in other parties primaries, only against endorsing them over our own candidates in the general election, although I could be wrong.
Ron Paul has already stated that he will not run as an independent nor as a third-party candidate if he fails to win the GOP nomination.
Paulie, I basically agree with you that the LP probably has more to gain by trying to court folks from the left and it’s reasonable to focus their strategies accordingly. That said, if Ron Paul, who is perceived as more right-leaning, were to seek the LP nomination, I don’t think that should be held against him.
I think Robert is right, that Ron will not seek any third party nomination if he fails to get the GOP nomination.
He is running for re-election for his current Congressional seat, don’t forget (as a Republican).
Based on everything I have seen so far in the media, he really is emphasizing a message of “I am the only true Republican running” – attempting to secure some third party nod after losing the GOP bid would strike many as distasteful, and create resentment from the many seeking the LP nod right now.
I think Ron has too much integrity to go that route.
“pauliecannoli Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 8:47 am
I think it would be a tactical mistake. RP triangulates between the NSGOP, LP and CP. I’ve written quite a bit about why the LP must triangulate between DP, GP and LP to grow in the long term. Too lazy to look it up right now, but it’s discussed at length in my previous articles and comments. Nor do I think RP’s higher name recognition is any guarantee of higher vote totals: witness Buchanan’s performance as the Reform Party candidate in 2000, or Ron Paul’s own in 1988.”
While I’d agree that there is a lot of merit in doing more outreach to the left, I do NOT agree that nominating Ron Paul as the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate in 2008 would be a tactical mistake. The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is the BIGGEST and BEST thing going right now in the libertarian quadrant. Ron has a bigger following and more name recognition and more respect than anyone else who is currently seeking the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination, and than anyone who would be likely to seek it that hasn’t gotten in the race yet.
Just as I predicted Ron Paul has made a big splash in the Republican debates. Also, just as I predicted Ron Paul has raised FAR more money than anyone seeking the LP nomination, and also just as I predicted the candidates who are seeking the LP Presidential nomination are barely blips on the rader screen.
I think that if Ron were to seek the LP Presidential nomination he’d stand a realistic chance of breaking the million vote barrier, and possibly even getting a few million votes. This would be the BIGGEST thing to ever happen to the Libertarian Party.
I wouldn’t put Ron Paul in the same category as Pat Buchanan. There are different dynamics at work in the 2008 election cycle than there were when Pat Buchanan was the Reform Party Presidential candidate in 2000, and Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul have differences on several issues. When Buchanan ran in 2000 we were comming off of 8 years of Clinton Democrats, now we are comming off of 8 years of Bush Republicans. Also, Ron Paul has got more mass appeal than Pat Buchanan.
Yeah, Ron has a more conservative personality and image, however, there are a lot of people on the left who respect him for his anti-war and pro-civil liberties positions. In fact, I know several people who used to be Democrats but who became Libertarians after being exposed to Ron Paul’s campaign for President back in 1988. I could see Ron building a coalition of Libertarians, Constitution Party supporters, pissed off Republicans, independents, and yes, civil liberties and anti-war focused people from the left.
I know that you prefer Steve Kubby but the fact of the matter is that Steve Kubby is barely a blip on the political radar screen. If Ron Paul decides to seek the LP Presidential nomination, he should win it, hands down. If this happens maybe Steve Kubby could get the Vice Presidential nominee slot.
I don’t think that we’ve got the time to wait around and build up a left-Libertarian coalition and not jump on this opportunity that Ron Paul has created. It’s a nice idea, but the fact of the matter is that having a well respected sitting US Congressman who has a large cult following and who has been an activist in the libertarian movement for many years as a Presidential candidate would be the BIGGEST thing to happen to the LP in years. It may also be the last good chance that we’ve got to turn things around peacefully in this country. To pass up an opportunity like this would be foolish.
Well said, Andy.
Paul/Barr 2008
Bob Barr would make a great running mate for RP.
I posted my opinions on the Paul campaign on my blog here.
http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-600-says-ron-paul-presidential.html
It’s okay for individuals to support Ron Paul, but no Libertarian Party state affiliate should endorse someone from another party per our by-laws. Additionally, I find short-term support of so-called “good” Republicans or Democrats may decrease support for the Libertarian Party in the short and long-term.
Ron Paul is an exceptional case.
So if you’re dedicated to building the Libertarian Party, support for non-Libertarians should be done sparingly and almost never against a Libertarian Party candidate in a general election.
When you support a Republican, any Republican, for Federal office, you are giving legitimacy to Republican Party policies, by strengthening that party’s public presence. And what are the Republican Party policies? Homophobia, consigning women to back-alley abortions, warrantless wiretaps, persecution of religious minorities, changing coinage in ways leading to huge personal profits for the Congressmen advocating the change, warrantless searches, highways to nowhere, extraordinary rendition, lying us into war, bridges to nowhere, bombing of unprotected cities, and torture. For starters. When you listen to a Libertarian say they are giving money to a Republican campaign that would cheer elimination of Roe v Wade you are listening to a Libertarian who wants our Party to turn its back on women.
Recalling that there are several primaries in which D L R etc candidates will be competing for the block of independent voters, when you see a Libertarian donate to a Republican Presidential candidate you are watching a Libertarian actively donating in opposition to his party’s candidates.
Tell you what, all: If Ron Paul gets the GOP nod, I’ll work my butt off for him (unless he comes out for the “Fair” tax – he’s a fence sitter on that one at the moment). But it ain’t gonna happen. I’ve ALREADY endorsed him for the GOP nomination personally, but the LP should act as though he’s not even there, because by the time the election gets here, he won’t be.
Andy,
You write:
“I know that you prefer Steve Kubby but the fact of the matter is that Steve Kubby is barely a blip on the political radar screen. If Ron Paul decides to seek the LP Presidential nomination, he should win it, hands down.”
I don’t think there’s much doubt that he WOULD win it hands down …
… and although I’m one of those who believes that the LP should be reaching “left” rather than “right,” and emphasizing libertarian, rather than conservative, policies on immigration and equal rights regardless of sexual orientiation, I think that Paul would do quite well at the polls, and bring in quite a few “left” anti-war votes in addition to conservative “disgruntled Republican” votes.
I fear the long-term effect another Paul LP candidacy would have on the party in terms of its image (as a third party versus an extension of the GOP, and as a “third way” versus “left” or “right”), but I’m not stupid — I know that if he comes knocking at the LP’s door, that door is going to open whether I like it or not.
As far as Kubby in the VP slot goes, he’s already said that he’s more interested in being useful to the party than he is in a particular nomination, etc. I don’t think he’d say “no” if asked in such a situation.and I’d personally be ESPECIALLY interested in the LP nominating a VP candidate with “left” cachet if the top slot goes to a more conservative type like Paul or perhaps Bob Barr.
If you want to support a Republican then join the GOP. Paul is a Republican and has said he will not abandon HIS party to run as a 3rd party candidate. Support for Paul is support for the GOP.
“I fear the long-term effect another Paul LP candidacy would have on the party in terms of its image (as a third party versus an extension of the GOP, and as a ‘third way’ versus ‘left’ or ‘right’),”
There is a very real possibility that WE MAY NOT HAVE A LONG TERM. We are closer to a dictatorship/total police state than most people realize.
“but I’m not stupid — I know that if he comes knocking at the LP’s door, that door is going to open whether I like it or not.”
I’m glad to see that you recognize the opportunity that Ron Paul is creating.
“As far as Kubby in the VP slot goes, he’s already said that he’s more interested in being useful to the party than he is in a particular nomination, etc. I don’t think he’d say ‘no’ if asked in such a situation.and I’d personally be ESPECIALLY interested in the LP nominating a VP candidate with “left” cachet if the top slot goes to a more conservative type like Paul or perhaps Bob Barr.”
I think that Steve Kubby could be very useful to the LP in a Vice Presidential slot if the LP nominates a Presidential candidate with a conservative image.
“MRJarrell Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
If you want to support a Republican then join the GOP. Paul is a Republican and has said he will not abandon HIS party to run as a 3rd party candidate. Support for Paul is support for the GOP.”
No, support for Ron Paul is support for Ron Paul.
“Support for Paul is support for the GOP.”
Then since support for Giuliani, McCain, Romney, etc… is also “support for the GOP”, do you see supporting Ron Paul as no difference?
I don’t see it that way at all. What if Ron Paul’s presence in the election were able to begin a shift in the way the GOP operates? What if the GOP began to reverse course and started moving back in the direction of “smaller government” like they used to always talk about? That’s not to say that the GOP qualified as libertarian in the days of Reagan or even Goldwater, for that matter, but they’ve been much worse in recent years than probably ever.
I would say that most, and perhaps nearly all, Ron Paul supporters would still be supporting him if he were running as an independent or even as a Democrat. They are NOT supporting him because he is with the GOP. They are supporting the man, period.
I think we should remember that the LP was created because the Republican and Democratic parties had been steadily abandoning any remaining vestiges of traditional libertarian ideas that Americans once took for granted. It was hoped that this new party would put pressure on the other parties to begin reclaiming these principles or lose votes.
Personally, I don’t care whether it’s the LP or some other party that is ultimately responsible for returning liberty to we Americans. If, by some miracle, it happens to be the GOP because of Ron Paul’s efforts, then I’m all for it.
Robert,
I just found the best response to the questions you raise that I’ve ever read anywhere — so instead of arguing with you about it, I’ll just point you there:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Synthesis time:
Supporting Ron Paul for president is really nothing more — or less — than a variation on the theme of “the lesser of two evils”. In this case, that “lesser evil” is also basically “good.” As to RP’s chances of LP nomination, let us not forget that he is also a lifetime LP member, and has referred to himself as libertarian time and again.
While I fully support the LP and have no intention to vote anything but Libertarian, even if that means holding my nose in a few cases (as I have done in the past; despite my vocalizing against Barry Hess I did, in fact, vote for him for Governor of AZ).
One thing keeps recurring in my mind, though, and it is somewhat interesting that it has yet to come up here. So instead I’ll just refer to it:
I really have to wonder if the nation isn’t starting to warm to the idea of de-factioned politics. ‘course, that is really just a pipe-dream.
Yes he does. And yet, it would further cement “libertarian” together with conservative, rightwing, Republican. Which is the absolute last thing we need.
And he’s doing a great job there. I’m supporting him for the Republican nomination. I do not support him for the LP nomination, although (a) I take him at his word that he does not want it and (b) unless something major changes, he would get it if he wants it.
The first is regrettably true; the second can, should, and hopfully will in fact change.
History indicates otherwise. Pat Buchanan in 2000 is a good parallel IMO.
Quite a few issues, but not relevant to my point. Buchanan was a media celebrity for over 30 years, had worked at high level positions in several administrations, had an eight figure budget complete with matching funds, a party which had elected a governor two years before and received almost 10% of the presidential vote the previous cycle, knew most political journalists and broadcast personalities covering the race personally, and had been a high profile Republican primary candidate for President (I think he may have won NH one time, or at least come close). Yet he only managed to barely beat Harry Browne, who had none of those things.
I don’t think whether we are coming off a Bush or a Clinton makes much difference here. Either way there will be some people disgusted with both branches of the Major Party, and friends and family convincing them that “this election is too important to let (fill in the blank) win.” What do you base RP having more mass appeal on?
Buchanan had a lot of people on the left who respected him for his pro-union, economic populist rhetoric. War was less of an issue then, but he was pretty left-friendly on that too. I’m sure that if you had been active in the Reform Party in 2000 you would have known former Democrats (especially socially conservative union worker types) who became Buchanan supporters.
It would be nice. But the fact is, that as a third party candidate he would lose most of his primary supporters and coverage, and why exactly would antiwar leftists support Ron Paul over, say, Cynthia McKinney, if they decide to vote third party? They might respect Ron Paul, but let’s not get carried away…there are significant differences, even more so than they would have with most libertarians.
That can, should, and hopefully will in fact change.
Should, no. Would, yes.
I could live with that. I like it much better than Chris Moore’s suggestion of a Paul/Barr ticket (TWO republitarians? About the only likely scenario that would be worse for the direction the LP should be moving in would be Wayne Root). I’d rather have Kubby in the top slot. But a RP or Barr nomination would be a lot more palatable with Kubby in the #2 spot, provided Kubby campaigned hard and visibly the whole time from the nomination to the election. Caveat: I would not vote for or support a LP ticket with a warmonger – say, Boortz – at the top, even if Kubby agreed to run as a VP on such a ticket. For that matter, I would be less than thrilled with Kubby as a nominee if the delegates select a warmonger as the VP.
You might be right about timeframes, but I just don’t see the opportunity as that huge.
Why? He was a sitting US Congressman last time he ran, too. John Schmitz was a sitting US Congressman before running as the AIP nominee in 1972, had a large cult following and had been an activist in the Bircher/”patriot”/far right movement for many years. Oh yeah, the previous cycle his party had run a popular former Governor and got double digits and a significant block of electoral votes. Schmitz got barely over a million votes.
How would it turn things around peacefully? If you think he will win as a LP candidate, you’ve been smoking more herb than Kubby, and Steve smokes an ounce a day (he has a good reason though).
Only if that’s the Republican or CP ticket. As LP? No. Make that hell no.
Tom, thanks for the link. I’ve read quite a bit Stefan Molyneux’s writings – he’s one of the very best at making the case for anarchism.
But, the obvious point he’s making is about well-meaning people supporting the political system, government being a “necessary evil”, instead of abandoning it completely. You could replace the Ron Paul (GOP) reference at the end of the article with Steve Kubby (LP) and the effect is exactly the same.
I’ve read enough from you to know that you also claim to be an anarchist, which I thoroughly respect, by the way. Yet you still justify supporting LP candidates who also hope to fight within the system. Whether Ron Paul, who has essentially the same views on government as any other Libertarian, runs with an “R” or “L” next to his name, the conundrum Stefan paints still remains.
Whether it’s even possible for liberty to be restored by working within the belly of the beast or not, I do not know, so for now I support attacks on all fronts, political, educational, civil disobedience, etc… As for the political front, I think Ron Paul running on a GOP ticket is currently our best (yet not very good) shot at effecting some positive change.
Great discussion, /wave
I don’t think Ron Paul or the LP can help each other. Ron Paul has to stick it out with the Republican Party and the LP has to maintain their integrity as a political organization.
Now really, political parties just suck balls and create problems, but this is the road we have to hoe here and we got to see it through.
Here are some possibilities for the Repubican Party:
1.) It is going to be reborn and changed substantially
2.) It will have a melt down and fracture
3.) It will undergo a mixture of 1 & 2.
More importantly, I think this election may be the last true chance our nation has to redeem itself. Once it becomes apparent that the system is incapable of change via a civil process, people may start realizing that their backs are truly up against the wall. And, we all know what possibilities can arise from that situation.
On Molyneux’s Fable:
Self Government is the ideal, but I view government like fire, it’s useful and indispensable and often dangerous when allowed to get out of hand.
==========================================
I posted my critique of Molyneux’s fable in his blog, I’ll post it here for reference.
A nice parable, but I respectfully disagree with your overall point. The challenge for me is to explain why.
Let’s go with original sin, if you will. The “Klan” in the fable was founded for the purpose of lynching. The United States was founded under a Constitution meant to prohibit the abuses of power and government. The Klan was acting true to its nature, our government is acting unconstitutionally. So, there is a disconnect between the parable and reality in this regard. The Klan was never without sin, our nation, at least by design, started on a virtuous principle and can be redeemed by that measure. There is no redemption for the Klan.
The Constitution is by no means ideal or perfect, but it’s much better than what we have right now.
I humbly submit that in order to achieve your idea of “perfection” moving back to limited government is a rational action. I realize government equals force and coercion, but it is currently not operating under its stated principles thus restoring it to its founding principles is a worth while effort because the momentum is truly in the direction of where you want to go: self-government.
Although Molyneux is certainly an anarchist (as I am), I did not read his piece as comparing the Klan to the US government, I read it as comparing the Klan to the Republican Party.
Such a comparison is apt. The Klan is a little younger than the GOP — by 15 years or so — and hasn’t murdered nearly as many people, but both are evil organizations with long criminal histories.
Ron Paul can’t redeem the GOP any more than he could redeem the Klan, and I’m not going to vote Republican just because Ron Paul’s tilting at that windmill any more than I would put on a white sheet and burn a cross if Ron Paul turned up over there trying to talk them out of killing black people.
As a consistent and principled anarchist, it would be quite peculiar for Stefan to single out one particular political party as inherently evil, thus implying that others are perfectly acceptable.
I was kidding.
Personally, I consider Ron Paul a “lesser of evils” in the same way Ian does. I’m not a fan of his positions on immigration, nor am I really that hot on his “from the right” approach. However, for the Republican nomination I will support him all the way. If he wins the nomination, then I will probably vote for him.
If he decided to run for the LP nomination, I would not support him since there is currently a better option closer to my views. However, if he won the LP nomination, then I would vote for him.
Dr. Paul is much better positioned to drag the Republicans an inch upwards on the Nolan chart, and force a debate within the Republican Party over the war. He can only do that as a GOP man.
No. He left congress in 1984 to run for Senate in Texas. He was simply a practicing OB/GYN when he ran for President in 1988. But the point remains — if Ron Paul switches to the LP, he would probably receive between 500,000-800,000 votes. That is a respectable number for a Libertarian, but it doesn’t make my panties wet.
@Thomas L. Knapp
I agree with your point.
But, I don’t really associate Paul’s Campaign with the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is the vehicle he is using, I agree, but his run is about restoring the republic to my mind. If some Republicans are redeemed along the way, we can consider that an added benefit.
I acknowledge that organized politics in government under our current system is outright force; but we must not forget that once force is taken off the table, politics are the means by which we persuade others to consider our point of view.
I guess what I am admitting to is that I feel no moral qualms about my support for Ron Paul’s campaign.
I am not ready to grab my gun and start shooting Klansmen, so to speak. Supporting Paul is the most efficient and productive way I can work within the system in under to effect change. Ultimately, even though many anarchist deny it, there has to be a cultural/philosophical world-view changing revolution in order for their world to be fully realized.
I think Ron Paul is a move in that direction.
“Yes he does. And yet, it would further cement “libertarian” together with conservative, rightwing, Republican. Which is the absolute last thing we need.”
You underestimate Ron Pual’s mass appeal. I know several people who used to be Democrats until they heard Ron Paul. When Ron was on Bill Maher’s show he got a good response from this “liberal” leaning crowd.
“Quite a few issues, but not relevant to my point. Buchanan was a media celebrity for over 30 years, had worked at high level positions in several administrations, had an eight figure budget complete with matching funds, a party which had elected a governor two years before and received almost 10% of the presidential vote the previous cycle, knew most political journalists and broadcast personalities covering the race personally, and had been a high profile Republican primary candidate for President (I think he may have won NH one time, or at least come close). Yet he only managed to barely beat Harry Browne, who had none of those things.”
You are missing several points in comparing Pat Buchanan’s run with the Reform Party in 2000 and a possibility of Ron Paul as the LP candidate in 2008.
#1) A lot of people who sick of the Clinton administration and they didn’t want to see it continue with Vice President Al Gore being elected President. So a lot of the people who WANTED to vote for Pat Buchanan held their breath and voted for George W. Bush instead as they percieved him to be lesser of two evils as compared to Gore.
#2) The Reform Party wasn’t a much of a real party. What I mean by this is that it was basically such an empty shell that was propped up to promote Ross Perot. The party had no real ideaology, they were just a bunch of people who wanted reform, nevermind the fact that they all had a different idea of what that meant. Some factions of the Reform Party actually left after Pat Buchanan became their Presidential candidate.
#3) Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are both known from Republican circles, and yes, Buchanan does have a lot of name recognition, but when you look at POSITIVE name recognition I’d bet that you’d find that Ron Paul’s name has more positive name recognition (in that more people who know who he is like him).
“Buchanan had a lot of people on the left who respected him for his pro-union, economic populist rhetoric. War was less of an issue then, but he was pretty left-friendly on that too. I’m sure that if you had been active in the Reform Party in 2000 you would have known former Democrats (especially socially conservative union worker types) who became Buchanan supporters.”
The war in Iraq is one of the biggest issues right now. Ron Paul is the only person seeking the Republican nomination that is against it, and the leading Democrat – Hillary Clinton – is pro-war. Ron’s debate appearances have really increased his name recognition and if he were to end up swithcing to Libertarian ticket he could pull in a lot of the anti-war vote, particularly if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton or some other warmonger.
If Ron Paul were to run under as the Libertarian Party’s candidate again, he’d have the support of a REAL party with a REAL ideaology and that has grass roots support on a nationwide level.
“It would be nice. But the fact is, that as a third party candidate he would lose most of his primary supporters and coverage, and why exactly would antiwar leftists support Ron Paul over, say, Cynthia McKinney, if they decide to vote third party? They might respect Ron Paul, but let’s not get carried away…there are significant differences, even more so than they would have with most libertarians.”
Ron may not get as much coverage if he loses the Republican primary and runs as a Libertarian, but he could still generate more publicity than any other Libertarian candidate could. Ron could also bring his following with him which could cause a big increase in votes for the LP.
Cynthia McKinney has not even declared as to whether or not she is running. Yes, she’s got a following, and yes she’s a FORMER member of Congress (unlike Ron Paul who is a CURRENT member of Congress), but her following isn’t as large and since she is not running in a major party primary right now she’s not getting the same level of publicity that Ron Paul is getting. Also, she’s considering running as a Green and it should be mentioned that the Green Party is not on as many state ballots as the LP and has less of a chance of getting national ballot status as the LP has.
“I could live with that. I like it much better than Chris Moore’s suggestion of a Paul/Barr ticket (TWO republitarians? About the only likely scenario that would be worse for the direction the LP should be moving in would be Wayne Root). I’d rather have Kubby in the top slot. But a RP or Barr nomination would be a lot more palatable with Kubby in the #2 spot, provided Kubby campaigned hard and visibly the whole time from the nomination to the election. Caveat: I would not vote for or support a LP ticket with a warmonger – say, Boortz – at the top, even if Kubby agreed to run as a VP on such a ticket. For that matter, I would be less than thrilled with Kubby as a nominee if the delegates select a warmonger as the VP.”
I think that Ron Paul for President and Steve Kubby for Vice President would be a great ticket. It’s got the name recognition of Ron Paul, and if anyone accuses Ron Paul of being too “coservative” he can point to his Vice Presidential candidate who smokes pot every day!
I hope that Bob Barr’s conversion to the Libertarian Party is for real, and if it is perhaps he should run for some kind of office, but I’m not sure that I’d trust him in the Presidential or Vice Presidential slot. If he’s going to run for something he ought to try to get regain his seat in Congress. I know that the Georgia LP has been wanting to put a candidate on the ballot for Congress for years, but the signature requirement to do it is so difficult that they haven’t been able to accomplish it yet. Bob Barr could be just the right person to smash through that ballot access barrier.
I don’t want any warmongers as candidates, period.
“You might be right about timeframes, but I just don’t see the opportunity as that huge.”
I think that the opportunity that Ron Paul has created is huge. This is the most publicity that I’ve ever seen a libertarian create. Ron Paul is the biggest libertarian star that there is right now. If Ron were to run as the LP candidate it will probably be the best chance that we’ve got of breaking the million vote barrier. It also may help get some Libertarians elected to state legislatures and perhaps some other offices, and maybe we could even get a Libertarian elected to Congress under the LP label for the first time.
There are a lot of people out there that are hearing Ron Paul for the first time. A lot of them are thinking, “Hey, I like this Ron Paul guy.”
“Why? He was a sitting US Congressman last time he ran, too. John Schmitz was a sitting US Congressman before running as the AIP nominee in 1972, had a large cult following and had been an activist in the Bircher/”patriot”/far right movement for many years. Oh yeah, the previous cycle his party had run a popular former Governor and got double digits and a significant block of electoral votes. Schmitz got barely over a million votes.”
Ron Paul was NOT a sitting Congressman the when he ran for President in ’88. Ron left Congress in ’84 and he did not return to Congress until ’96.
Another thing that you are overlooking is the internet. There was no internet when this Schmitz guy ran back in the ’70s. Ron has got a big following on the internet, and internet support can spread like wildfire.
“How would it turn things around peacefully? If you think he will win as a LP candidate, you’ve been smoking more herb than Kubby, and Steve smokes an ounce a day (he has a good reason though).”
I didn’t say that Ron Paul was going to be elected President. However, by running for President he is getting his message out to a lot of people. If Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate he has the potential to get the largest vote total ever for an LP Presidential candidate and he could bring a lot of people into the libertarian movement. Waking more people up is what could turn things around.
Chris,
That’s pretty much how I feel, too.
If Ron Paul finishes, say second, at the end of the day in the Republican Party a couple different things could happen.
1) He could be asked to be Vice-President, although unlikely, because of his anti-war stance despite the fact he has crossover appeal that would help the Republican in the general election. I think only Romney would consider him at all. His tendancy to flip-flop allows him great latitude in explaining any Veep choice he makes.
2) There will be a tremendous shift in prevailing idealogy in the Republican Party away from neoconservatism to more paleoconservatism. Although not a best case scenario, all things considered it is a step in the right direction. His social issues many of us disagree with would not be remembered because they are fairly common I Republican circles, but his economic and foreign policy positions may take root again. That is a good thing.
3) People that jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon will hear the term libertarian perhaps for the first time. When the Google the term, the LP shows up first. That is going to direct people to our party to explore and they might just realize that what Ron Paul was talking about during this election is actually our general position all the time. That will also be a good thing.
Ron Paul may do very well in New Hampshire. That is either going to give him a big boost in the GOP and knock out some of the top contenders earlier than expected so the positive dialogue will continue longer than the negative. Or, it is going to hasten the contenders into spouting off more neo-con rhetoric which I think will backfire on the GOP in the general election. Spending too much time cheering on the War in Iraq will elminate them from the general election unless Hilary wins the Democratic nod. Otherwise you can expect John Edwards or Barack Obama to be the next president, or perhaps even an Edwards/Obama ticket. We might get our civil liberties back and see some transparency in the White House. As for universal health care, I don’t think it makes it out of the Senate.
There’s been a lot of theorizing here about what the LP “should” do re Ron Paul. I’m more interested in what the LP WILL do with various factions that might or who already have endorsed Ron Paul. What is the penalty for bylaws violations? Would a state LP disaffiliate a county or regional party that endorsed Paul? Would National disaffiliate a state party that endorsed Paul?
:-]
A lot of opinion above, and at least one major misstatement of fact. Here’s my own thinking to date.
Fact: Ron can’t run for the LP nomination if he loses the R nomination because we do ours first (LP = May 23-26; R = September 1-4).
Reliable hearsay: Ron will not ask for and does not want the LP nod.
Opinion: The LP nomination would ensure no R nomination for Ron Paul.
Irrelevant fact: Ron Paul is an LP Life Member.
Fact: Registration with a political party does not constitute membership in that party.
Fact: Voting for, running on or getting elected on a party’s ticket in Texas, a no-party registration state, doesn’t make one a member of that party.
Verifiable hearsay: Ron Paul is not a member of the R party, never has been.
Fact: The LP is bylaws-mandated to nominate either an individual or NOTA (None of the Above) to both the Prez and VP spots.
Fact: If an individual is nominated, then because almost every state LP’s bylaws prohibit endorsing an other-party candidate over an LP candidate, those state parties may not endorse an other-party candidate.
Opinion: If NOTA wins the LP presidential nomination, LP state parties would be free to endorse any other-party candidate, subject to the guidance of the LP Statement of Principles and any restrictions within their own bylaws.
Opinion: The previously-cited national LP bylaw doesn’t apply to candidates from other parties who are not members of that party, and is in any case irrelevant if the LP has no candidate in the race.
Opinion: There may be some applicability of some of the state laws regarding partisan elections to the question of one party endorsing another party’s candidate, which laws would be controlling in those states beyond that state’s LP party bylaws, BUT most of those laws apply only to state-level and state-nominated candidates and not to Prez and VP candidates (e.g., Texas explicitly exempts those two races from its regulations).
Opinion: Given that the LP will not nominate Ron Paul and he gets the R nomination, and the LP hasn’t gotten itself together and performed heroically behind a phenomenal ticket, almost every Libertarian in the country will vote the lesser of two Evils for Ron Paul and the LP will be electorally humiliated beyond all past results, perhaps never to recover.
Opinion: We may find ourselves finally having to whether and in which circumstances the LP or the Movement is the higher priority.
Fact: Within the hierarchy of the LP, senior units have the power to censure, suspend, or even disaffiliate their subordinate entities for violating the terms of their charters.
Opinion: An organization that does not defend its integrity voids itself.
Disclaimer: I’m a state-level founder and current county- state- and national-level Judicial Committee(s) member; I have not endorsed anyone for the LP nomination, and intend not to become electorally involved before the close of the 2008 convention.
Assertion: I’m watching this one on the merits as it develops.
Opinion: Way too many smart people confound intelligent discussion by stating opinions as though they are facts.
-0-
…find ourselves finally having to decide whether and in which circumstances the…
There is actual scientific polling data on Republican and Democratic candidates, not to be confused with internet polling. You can see the graphs yourself at http://pollster.com . Ron Paul is in approximately tenth place.
In the aggregate average, Paul is at 0.6% support, that is, he is polling slightly worse than Harry Browne did until quite close to the 2000 general election. The likelihood that Giuliani will choose Paul as his Vice President, after their last exchange, is too small to represent in normal math notation.
The serious difficulty that I see with the Paul campaign is not that we have individual Libertarians doing what they see fit but that we have people on the Libertarian National Committee who are supporting a Republican, and correspondingly that there are identifiable LNC actions that are substantially damaging all of our Libertarian Presidential candidates. If you do not believe me, look for the ads in LP News or the notice on LP.org that there are Presidential campaigns.