Ron Paul Running for President Again?
I’ve been getting emails for the past 2-3 days of people telling me they’ve heard Ron Paul was going to run for President again… either as a Republican, a Libertarian, or some sort of independent or that he was planning to mount some sort of fusion campaign that would include 2 or more of the parties mentioned above.
One person, who requested to remain anonymous, sent me the following…
“During a talk-radio show live on WNJC 1360 am, Representative Ron Paul answered in the affirmative to a question that he was thinking of forming a coalition with the Libertarian & Constitution party, & running for President in 2008.He also said there was a wing in the Republican party that were trying to draft him into their primary to run for president. “
Lew Rockwell’s blog now has a single sentence item that states…
Today, incorporation papers were filed in Texas for a Ron Paul 2008 presidential exploratory committee. More news to come!
January 11th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Yes, he has filed as a Republican. This ought to be super interesting to see how the Libertarian Party folks take this. Their own past Presidential candidate now running as a Republican for President.
Ironically, Republicans Wayne Allyn Root and Michael Moriarty are flirting with candidacies on the Libertarian Party ticket.
The world is turned upside down.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
“This ought to be super interesting to see how the Libertarian Party folks take this.”
I think it’s fantastic. Any way you cut it, libertarians win.
If Paul is nominated, then the GOP shows that it’s genuinely interested in changing direction and moving toward becoming a limited government party. That may hurt the LP as an organization, at least in the short term as “Republican-leaning libertarians” decide it’s time to go back to the GOP, but it will be good for liberty.
But I’m betting that Paul won’t be nominated. Instead, the GOP will choose some warmongering big-government type like McCain or Romney, which will amount to finally and forever telling the party’s misguided libertarian supporters “yes, we want you in our party—as long as you sit down, shut up and do as you’re told. But nominate one of you for president? Get real. That would mean we’d have to actually cut spending, lower taxes, and stop running around the globe acting like a fucking horde of barbarians. No way. Now put that duct tape back over your mouth and get back to marking the box next to the elephant on those ballots. We love you, see?”
In which case we should see considerable numbers of non-rats fleeing the GOP’s sinking ship, many of whom are likely to come aboard the LP where they belong; and the GOP’s final decline gets accelerated a little.
Yay, Ron!
Regards,
Tom Knapp
January 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“Kn@ppster Says:
January 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
“This ought to be super interesting to see how the Libertarian Party folks take this.”
I think it’s fantastic. Any way you cut it, libertarians win.
If Paul is nominated, then the GOP shows that it’s genuinely interested in changing direction and moving toward becoming a limited government party. That may hurt the LP as an organization, at least in the short term as “Republican-leaning libertarians” decide it’s time to go back to the GOP, but it will be good for liberty.
But I’m betting that Paul won’t be nominated. Instead, the GOP will choose some warmongering big-government type like McCain or Romney, which will amount to finally and forever telling the party’s misguided libertarian supporters “yes, we want you in our party—as long as you sit down, shut up and do as you’re told. But nominate one of you for president? Get real. That would mean we’d have to actually cut spending, lower taxes, and stop running around the globe acting like a fucking horde of barbarians. No way. Now put that duct tape back over your mouth and get back to marking the box next to the elephant on those ballots. We love you, see?”
In which case we should see considerable numbers of non-rats fleeing the GOP’s sinking ship, many of whom are likely to come aboard the LP where they belong; and the GOP’s final decline gets accelerated a little.
Yay, Ron!
Regards,
Tom Knapp”
Good post Tom, I totally agree. As much as I’d love to see Ron Paul win the GOP nomination I know that the odds of it happening are slim to none.
If Ron Paul does end up running in the GOP primary I will donate money and work to promote his campaign.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
What are the rules for voting in the Republican primaries again? Do you have to be a registered Repug (in states with registration)? Also, if you vote for Ron Paul in the Repug primary, can you still vote Libertarian in the general? I thought there was some sort of restriction, maybe it was for candidates….
January 11th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
“What are the rules for voting in the Republican primaries again? Do you have to be a registered Repug (in states with registration)? Also, if you vote for Ron Paul in the Repug primary, can you still vote Libertarian in the general? I thought there was some sort of restriction, maybe it was for candidates….”
Mike, the rules vary from state to state. For instance, I know that in California you’d have to register as a Republican, I believe 30 days before the primary. I think that if you are registered as “Decline To State A Political Party” you can actually vote in any party’s primary (although this may have changed, somebody correct me if I’m wrong). You’d only be able to vote in one party’s primary. If you want to vote Libertarian or for whoever else in the general election you can still do that because in the general election the label that you are registered under does not effect how you vote. However, it would help the Libertarian Party if the person would re-register as a Libertarian after the primaries are over because being registered as a Libertarian helps keep the Libertarian Party on the ballot.
I remember Texas having non-partisan voter registration so things are probably done differently there.
Having a chance to vote for Ron Paul in a Presidential primary would be one of the only things that would get me to register Republican, and of course I’d switch right after the primaries were over.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I’m glad to hear someone wants Ron Paul to run for President, however he’d never win the Republican nomination. Congressman Paul is more what the Republican Party use to be (Party for small government and individual liberty). That party has lost it’s way and now they believe in large government and the nanny state. Those who think they can revert that party back to its limited government roots , I’m sorry to say are greatly mistaken. It would be nice for people like Wayne Allyn Root and Michael Moriarty to join the Libertarian Party. However, they are far from being libertarians.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
This is our chance, folks. We’ve got to do this thing. Paul has a slim chance by the time the vote fraud and unlimited money from thin air to oppose him get done, but we can make a big impact. I just found out and can hardly contain myself!
This can only be good, but it is us to US to make it reality. And we win no matter what. Knapp’s thought are exactly mine with respect to inflaming the fissure within the GOP. What libertarian or quasi-libertarian GOP monkey would stay with them if they clearly swore Paul off? Only the dumbest, most stubborn and most gullible, that’s who!
This isn’t about returning the GOP to something it never was. It’s about getting the best and only good candidate in office – a candidate who happens to be simply perfect for the job.
By the time the primaries get closer, Iraq will still be the same or worse and maybe the US will be dealing with a new war with Iran. None of that will go over well with the people and they will just get more unless they demand something different. By the time 2008 rolls around, perhaps enough people will be ready to refute the establishment. I just wish we had 4-6 more years to make sure of it!
January 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Ron Paul will not win the nomination. However, he has a lot better chance of winning the Republican nomination than the eventual LP nominee has of winning the presidency. And he’ll have a MUCH bigger stage to present libertarian ideas than the eventual LP nominee.
I see it as a no-lose situation. If he wins the nomination, then I’m a loyal Republican in 2008. If he loses, then at least Americans are a little more exposed to libertarian ideas and it helps the LP nominee.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
If Paul doesn’t win the nomination, perhaps he will endorse the LP candidate (assuming we don’t nominate some nutcase like Badnarik).
January 11th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Just imagine if you guys would …a Ron Paul upset in New Hampshire.
Just imagine those Free Staters and libertarian-leaning voters pull off a huge upset.
Just imagine that.
So Paul will be squeezed out by the McCain-Rudy-Romney factions, so what.
Ron Paul, please run for president. The NH primary is his to win!
January 11th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Joey, wont happen. He won’t win the Primary. Media will blackout him. However,there are MANY good possibilities here.
A.)He will expose many Republicans/Democrats/Independants to libertarian ideas.
B.)When he loses the nomination, we may back a third party candidate.
C.)When he loses the nomination, he may actually BECOME a third party/independant candidate.
D.)Perhaps he will switch to Libertarian or Constitution after the Presidential race, in order to give either party there first U.S. Congressman.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Or, here’s another scenario you didn’t consider Tom Knapp.
Ron Paul runs as a libertarian and legitamizes Libertarian Republicans. He helps build up the Republican Liberty Caucus, a strong libertaian wing of the GOP.
He doesn’t win the GOP nomination. Ron Paul supporters realize a hardcore libertarian can’t win, but a libertarian-leaner can.
The libertarian wing remains and backs a libertarian-leaning Repubilcan like Rudy Giuliani for President, and helps to put Rudy over the top over McCain and Romney.
Yeah Ron!
January 11th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Take a look at our poll up at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com It gives a good indication as to where libertarians are leaning in the GOP Primaries. (And no, one cannot vote twice, so it’s quite accurate.)
Wayne Root is way ahead with 34%
Ron Paul is second with 18%
Rudy Giuliani is third with 14%
Other showers include Newt Gingrich, Romney and Jesse Ventura.
Now what does that tell you?
Libertarian Republicans like Wayne Root, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani.
Lots of possibilities could occur given that information. Root could end up backing Rudy. Paul could end up going 3rd party and Paul Republican supporters could swing Rudy. Giuliani could get crushed by McCain or Romney, libertarian Republicans would be demoralized and then back Ron Paul as a Libertarian.
This is sooooo fun and exciting.
One thing is for sure. This is the absolute end of George Phillies vs. Steve Kubby.
To think we even wasted time debating these 3rd tier candidates when we have Ron Paul, Wayne Root, Rudy Giuliani and now even Michael Moriarty.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
The Ron Paul for President meme has been usurped by a weird Guliani-is-a libertarian-leaner idea from space. What shall we do?
January 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Um. Bad news Eric.
None of those guys will win.
Guliani, McCain, Romney. They have the money, the backing of the establishment, and the media.
Wayne Root and Michael Moriarty….aren’t worth talking about.
Guliani, is not a libertarian. He is a big government supporter. Just because he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and a “fiscal conservative” does not mean he is Libertarian. He is for BIG government. He is a moderate-Rockefeller-Republican, not a Libertarian.
I wish Paul would win. Instead,he might make a decent showing in NH, and then go third party,or drop out alltogether. Personally, I hope he makes a decent showing,then drops out to a Third Party coalition of CP/LP.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:01 am
In any case, this is the best piece of news in a long time!
January 12th, 2007 at 12:01 am
And once again, Wayne Root is a CON MAN!
January 12th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Guiliani is not even closse to libertarian, one of the worst GOP candidates.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Also, I am not sure about the exact timeline of these things, but would it even be POSSIBLE for Paul to campaign in GOP primaries and still have time to seek a CP and/or LP nomination after losing/dropping out of the primaries? Not that he would anyway, but wouldn’t he have to seek a 3rd party nomination earlier in the game?
January 12th, 2007 at 12:22 am
What a conicidence! Yesterday, on the Sloan Ranger talkshow on WGNU AM 920 in St. Louis being interviewed on my book Beating the Powers that Be, I talked up Ron Paul as being the only person out there capable of unting desperate groups outside of and on the fringes of the two major parties. I was hoping, and we had talked about this here first, a fusion candidacy of the LP and CP with Paul at the head of that ticket. But I think Paul is going to take his shot with the GOP and see what he can accomplish. He’s certainly to have a better chance of winning than Brownback, Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter, Cox and the other jokers in the GOP field. To me, Paul is in tier one with Romney, McCain and Guliani.
Of course, by doing this, Paul foreswears running a Third Party candidacy because sore loser laws prevent this from happening. This is why Buchanan had to jump to the Reform Party when he did. Good luck Ron! We’re right behind you!
January 12th, 2007 at 12:31 am
I just want to know what kind of libertarian has wet dreams of a Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich Presidency? That’s sick beyond comprehension. Those guys are hardcore, dyed in the wool statists and unlimited government proponents. I just utterly fail to understand how they even distantly approach being libertarian by a longshot. If they are libertarian or even libertarian leaning in the slightest, than maybe we can consider Pol Pot and Mao as moderate centrists?
January 12th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Ron Paul running for President is great news. I will support him wholeheartedly.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:38 am
“This isn’t about returning the GOP to something it never was. It’s about getting the best and only good candidate in office – a candidate who happens to be simply perfect for the job.”
Exactly. The Republican Party from it’s inception has NEVER really been about smaller government. Yes, there have been some exceptions to this but for the most part the Republican Party has been a big government party since it was founded.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:42 am
“Devious David Says:
January 12th, 2007 at 12:31 am
I just want to know what kind of libertarian has wet dreams of a Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich Presidency? That’s sick beyond comprehension. Those guys are hardcore, dyed in the wool statists and unlimited government proponents. I just utterly fail to understand how they even distantly approach being libertarian by a longshot. If they are libertarian or even libertarian leaning in the slightest, than maybe we can consider Pol Pot and Mao as moderate centrists?”
You hit the nail on the head! Eric Dondero-Rittberg must either have mental problems or be a paid plant, or possibly both. Claiming that Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian is completely absurd.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Sean,
Can you explain the “Loser Laws” you mentioned.
Timing could be worked out. If Paul fared INCREDIBLY bad in the first primary or two, he could still drop out,and EASILY be available for the CP nomination (which isnt til July). The first primaries are in Febuary this year correct?
Also, Ron Paul stated in that article from the Washington Post, that he isnt even sure if he’s going to run for Nomination yet, he is exploring how much fund raising and support could be gotten from this. (There may yet be time for us to sway him. I propose this. Every member here send him an email supporting a Third Party Fusion Ticket.)
January 12th, 2007 at 2:01 am
I’ll stick with Kubby, thanks.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:35 am
“paulie cannoli Says:
January 12th, 2007 at 2:01 am
I’ll stick with Kubby, thanks.”
Kubby is a good guy but you have to admitt that if Ron Paul seeks the Republican Presidential nomination it will be great for the cause of liberty. I understand why you want to support Steve Kubby but there’s no reason that you can’t support Ron Paul too.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Here’s an article that should appeal to anti-war leftists. I think that Paulie underestimates Ron Paul’s ability to reach out to the anti-war crowd.
Saddam Is Dead – So Are 3,000 Americans
by Rep. Ron Paul
Saddam Hussein is dead. So are three thousand Americans.
The regime in Iraq has been changed. Yet victory will not be declared: not only does the war go on, it’s about to escalate. Obviously the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever, and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war.
We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months of our war in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. That war went on for another decade, and by the time we finally got out 60,000 Americans had died. God knows we should have gotten out ten years earlier. “Troop surge” meant serious escalation.
The election is over and Americans have spoken. Enough is enough! They want the war ended and our troops brought home. But the opposite likely will occur, with bipartisan support. Up to 50,000 more troops will be sent. The goal no longer is to win, but simply to secure Baghdad! So much has been spent with so little to show for it.
Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the turmoil in Iraq, as have the Iranian Shi’ites who now are better positioned to take control of southern Iraq.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead, and only the Sunnis mourn. The Shi’ites and Kurds celebrate his death, as do the Iranians and especially bin Laden – all enemies of Saddam Hussein. We have performed a tremendous service for both bin Laden and Ahmadinejad, and it will cost us plenty. The violent reaction to our complicity in the execution of Saddam Hussein is yet to come.
Three thousand American military personnel are dead, more than 22,000 are wounded, and tens of thousands will be psychologically traumatized by their tours of duty in Iraq. Little concern is given to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. We’ve spent $400 billion so far, with no end in sight.
This is money we don’t have. It is all borrowed from countries like China, that increasingly succeed in the global economy while we drain wealth from our citizens through heavy taxation and insidious inflation. Our manufacturing base is now nearly extinct.
Where the additional U.S. troops in Iraq will come from is anybody’s guess. But surely they won’t be redeployed from Japan, Korea, or Europe. We at least must pretend that our bankrupt empire is intact. But then again, the Soviet empire appeared intact in 1988.
Some Members of Congress, intent on equitably distributing the suffering among all Americans, want to bring back the draft. Administration officials vehemently deny making any concrete plans for a draft. But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq.
Selective Service officials admit running a check of their lists of available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the god of “equality.” Conscription is slavery, plain and simple. And it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement.
Instead of testing the efficacy of the Selective Service System and sending more troops off to a war we’re losing, we ought to revive our love of liberty. We should repeal the Selective Service Act. A free society should never depend on compulsory conscription to defend itself.
We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or obeying the rule of law. Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never would have been fought. If we did not create credit out of thin air as the Constitution prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war directly from their pockets. How long this financial charade can go on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes it will not go unnoticed by any American.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Quoth Eric Dondero:
“Or, here’s another scenario you didn’t consider Tom Knapp.
“Ron Paul runs as a libertarian and legitamizes Libertarian Republicans. He helps build up the Republican Liberty Caucus, a strong libertaian wing of the GOP.”
Well, that’s the roll of the dice, isn’t it? This is a make or break moment for “libertarian Republicans.” Their absolute best representative since Barry Goldwater is seeking the GOP nomination, and the GOP gets to either prove it’s capable of supporting a libertarian,or that it’s incapable of supporting a libertarian.
“He doesn’t win the GOP nomination. Ron Paul supporters realize a hardcore libertarian can’t win, but a libertarian-leaner can.
“The libertarian wing remains and backs a libertarian-leaning Repubilcan like Rudy Giuliani for President, and helps to put Rudy over the top over McCain and Romney.”
Even aside from the fact that Rudy Giuliani is about as “libertarian-leaning” as Agosto Pinochet, he has as much chance of being the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee as Pinochet’s decaying corpse does. He’s the Pigpen of politics—everywhere he goes, a cloud of dirt follows. Once McCain or Romney decide that it’s time to publicly point at the cloud and say “what’s that?” the remaining lifespan of Giuliani’s candidacy will be approximately the same as the delivery time of a Domino’s pizza.
Tom Knapp
January 12th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Andy,
All comments strictly on my own behalf only:
Ron Paul’s solid on the war issue.
He’s solid on privacy-from-regime snooping issue.
I’d love to see him introduce an impeachment resolution in Congress.
Now, that would shake things up. Also, I would consider it the moral duty of any sitting member of Congress right now to formally call for impeachment of Bush, Cheney and their top henchmen. Obviously, that would not endear him to most of the GOP, but then again it would propel him into the news and give the growing number of antiwar Republicans a choice in the primaries.
He’s also the single best member of Congress on those issues where conservatives and libertarians agree.
Unfortunately, to many people on the left, he is anti-immigrant, “anti-gay,”
“anti-woman” (pro-life), “anti-environment,” etc. I wouldn’t characterize his views that way, although they do leave that impression, and that perception is going to be mighty hard to overcome if we truly wanted to reach out to libertarians on the left.
Ron Paul is also as close to a consistent ideological libertarian as we can get elected to Congress. Unfortunately, one of the very few areas where his position diverges from traditional libertarian logic, and from the left, is immigration, which just so happens to be one of the top three issues right in the national debate now.
The spin he puts on selling libertarianism is definitely, strongly to the right.
In my view, that is precisely the wrong direction to spin libertarianism right now. It has already worked all too well, which led to the LP being split on issues like immigration. Paradoxically, it also led to us being split on the war.
Ron Paul himself, of course, is one of the very best members of Congress on the war issue – better than the vast majority of the Democrats. But, unfortunately, before the war started, many Republitarians who supported him joined the LP, and more or less became the LP - and many of those turned out to be warmongers. Because of that, the LP hemmed and hawed on the war issue early on, and to some extent is still doing it. That was a huge disaster and a massive missed opportunity to expand libertarianism.
Today, it is virtually impossible to draw a clear distinction between Conservative Constitutionalism and Libertarianism in the minds of most libertarians – or most people on the left. Until we change that, which it may be too late to do before America becomes a full blown totalitarian dictatorship, we can’t reach our natural constituency and become the much larger and much more vital movement we should become.
In my views Kubby is the only candidate who stands any chance whatsoever of breaking through that barrier. His biggest problem is getting past the starting gate of the libertarian nomination. It’s a perverse process, as we saw with the LP failing to pick Aaron Russo in 2004.
I think Ron Paul will be great for the Republican Party. No question, he will be far better than the other Republican candidates. I don’t expect him to get very far in the primaries, given the nature of the machine that rules the NSGOP.
So long as he stays in the Republican or Constitution Parties, he could in a way be good for the growth potential of the LP, because he will draw those on the right/libertarian border away from the LP and into those other parties, thus clearing some of the anchor that’s keeping us from reaching out to the left/libertarian border.
Unfortunately, if that happened, it would be likely to happen so quickly that there would be very difficult to build nearly enough new party infrastructure in the coming cycle. The practical effect is that the left would still not trust us because of the spin we’ve been putting on libertarianism for the last few decades, especially the last two; and those who are libertarian(ish) already will devote their energies to a GOP primary campaign rather than the LP. So, if that fire doesn’t light, it could actually hurt the LP.
Overcoming the impression we’ve created would take a lot of work – and I don’t know if we have enough time left that we will be allowed to do it in.
I’m not interested in a Republican/Constitution/Libertarian fusion for reasons I’ve made amply clear.
I support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. I support Ron Paul for the Constitution Party nomination. I don’t support Ron Paul for the Libertarian nomination, although I would welcome him in the race and the opportunity to debate him and his supporters.
I also support potential candidates such as Rich Whitney or Kevin Zeese for the Green Party nomination, and I don’t know who I support for the Democratic nomination at this time, except that it is not Hillary Clinton (or anyone with any chance in hell of winning it).
I’m not going to be putting my energy into helping those other candidates win their nomination at this time. If the LP nomination starts to look like a lock for someone like Boortz, I might defect to the Greens and start working for someone like Whitney, or the Democrats for an as yet unknown candidate, or the Republicans for Ron Paul. Maybe a little of all those, although I’d probably spend more time on the Greens and Democrats – I just don’t like being around Republicans too much, and I don’t like selling Republitarianism.
I could, conceivably, vote for Ron Paul in the general election, but the scenario for that to come about would be difficult to omagine being reallistic: if he were the GOP candidate, Boortz was the LP candidate, Hillary or perhaps Obama for the Democrats, and a watermelon for the Greens, I’d vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. The scary thing is that the hardest part of that to imagine being realistic is Ron Paul as the Republican nominee.
As far as the LP nomination, I’m sticking with Kubby even if Ron Paul does decide to seek the Libertarian nomination again. I like Kubby better on the issues, I like his style more, and I don’t think that Ron Paul would cause any kind of massive breakthrough for the LP any more than happened in 1988.
Unless he really shakes up the GOP primaries first, say by introducing articles of impeachment in Congress.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Trent, sore loser laws prevent candidates that lose in a primary running independent or non-major party bids in the general election. For example, had Conneticut had a sore-loser law, which it does not, Joe Lieberman would not have been able to run as an independent in the fall election when he lost the August primary to Ned Lamont. This was the dilemma Buchanan faced in 2000, run for the GOP nomination, lose and be finished or go for the Reform Party nomination.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am
In 1972 George Wallace had a two-track strategy of running in the primaries as a Democrat while being prepared to accept the nomination of the American Party at the national convention in Louisville, Kentucky in early August. Of course, after he was shot in Maryland on May 15, everything changed. The point is the strategy of running in major party primaries for attention and planning to run as a 3rd party nominee in the General Election is not unprecedented. The main thing Ron Paul, or whoever, might have to watch out for, if they chose to do that, would be states with sore loser laws that operate to prevent someone from running in the general election after they have lost a primary.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Bad news Trent, numerous legitamate sources strongly disagree with your assertion that “Rudy is not a libertarian.”
The NY Times called Rudy a “welfare slashing, privatizing, Ayn Randian.” The London Times just called Rudy a “libertarian conservative.” Jonah Goldberg of National Review just had a nationally synidcated column in which he compared Rudy to libertarian hero, deceased Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn.
Go ahead, Google this: Rudy Giuliani libertarian.
And for the record “Fiscaly Conservative IS by definition libertarian.” No offense, but that was a pretty stupid statement you made above saying that just because one is a Fiscal Conservative does not make one a libertarian.
That’s almost like saying: Just because one is a libertarian does not make one a libertarian.
Nonsensical.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:05 am
This is hilarious. Looks like Italian Pastry Boy is squirming over this Ron Paul run. He’s beside himself. Can’t figure out how to take it. He flails all around in his extra-long winded post, “Well, I’d support him, but no I wouldn’t support him… I’ll continue to support Kubby… No, maybe Ron Paul running is a good thing.”
I’m lovin’ life.
Hey Italian Pastry Boy. You’re worst nightmare may come true.
Wayne Allyn Root or Michael Moriarty will easily win the Libertarian Party nomination. Kubby will be relegated to kook status at the convention along with the other Losertarians like Phillies.
Ron Paul will do well in the GOP primaries thereby legitamizing the “Libertarians are Right Wingers and aligned with Conservatives” view. And he will ultimately back out and endorse the Republican Presidential Nominee, probably libertarian-leaning Rudy Giuliani.
You’ll be shut out on all counts. We’ll have a Pro-Defense Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, and a Pro-Defense libertarian-leaning GOP candidate.
You’ll have to change your name to Pretzel Boy.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Au contrair mon bonne homme Mssr. Knapp.
I strongly disagree. Ron Paul is NOT the best representative the Libertarian Republican movement could come up with. Dana Rohrabacher or Jeff Flake or Gary Johnson would be far superior.
Look, Ron has some serious health problems. His knees are completely shot. He barely gets around. I luv the guy. But that’s the plain honest truth. I honestly do not see how he’s going to be able to slosh through the snows of New Hampshire.
We did it in 1988. But he’s now 70 years old, and he looks his age and then some.
I strongly suspect Ron is doing this as a “last hurrah” exit gracefully sort of deal.
The success of the libertarian wing of the GOP will not be judged by Ron Paul’s campaign. It will be judged by the success of Rudy Giuliani’s campaign.
Even those libertarian Republicans who do not like Rudy will be forced to admit that he’s a close ally when the media tags him with the libertarian label, something they’re already doing.
And YES, I most certainly believe Rudy can win. He’s currently ahead of the field in all the polls.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Question; Wouldn’t Ron Paul do better for Libertarians, and Libertarian Ideas if he ran for the Libertarian nomination? I look at it this way, lets say he runs for the Republican nod. He’ll get some press, then he’ll get blown out because of lack of money and support within the Republican Party, he packs his bags and goes home after the first inning. and no more press and pr for libertarian ideas. If he runs and wins the LP nomination, he’ll be in the Ballgame for all nine innings. More press and pr etc. I think this would be much better for libertarians and more important the Country.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Mexican Gigolo boy, none of my remarks were addressed to you, and your spin on them isn’t even close to correct.
I’m supporting Kubby and will continue to do so. If Kubby is the LP candidate and Ron Paul is the Republican candidate, I’ll support Kubby. If Ron Paul runs against Kubby for the Libertarian nomination, I’ll support Kubby.
If the libertarians shoot themselves, not in the foot but directly in the head this time, by nominating someone like Boortz, Root or Moriarty, I’ll be happy to oppose that candidate. Maybe we can get the Greens to nominate someone decent, but probably not.
Do you think I have a problem with not voting? LOL. I didn’t vote for Badnarik, either. Or anyone that year for that matter. And it wasn’t because I was lazy.
If Ron Paul endorses a fascist like Giuliani or McCain I bet a lot of libertarians who supported him in the primaries would feel really stupid for having done so, as well, so we’ll see what happens.
Lots of possibilities here, some good, some bad.
For the moment, I’m hoping it means a bunch of confused Republitarians leave the LP, Kubby gets the nomination, and we have enough infrastructure to really start building. I can see it happening – but the second part will be a lot harder.
Then you can change your name to Erik Estrada’s boy and go help the National Action Party fuck up everything good about Mexico some more.
“The success of the libertarian wing of the GOP will not be judged by Ron Paul’s campaign. It will be judged by the success of Rudy Giuliani’s campaign.”
True, but not in the way Erik Estrada Boy wants you to think. Judged as in – military commission, rendition, Gunatanamo, Abu Ghraib – that kind of judged.
Giuliani is a fascist, and so is his little doggie, Erik Estrada boy.
If we have a warmonger
January 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
a blast from the past: my post on liberty for sale on June 1st 2005….
Timothy West wrote this at 3:14
I just read a report on the newly examined mass graves found in Iraq of thousands of Kurds, helping the new government build a case against Saddam and Chemical Ali for crimes against humanity. I think that’s great. What I dont think is great is such things being used as justification for the war itself after the fact.
The Iraqi war is a lie, from start to finish. It was based on lies, justified with lies, and the entire U.S. government is complicit in it’s failure to abide by The Constitution in the matter. ( I know, it sounds rather quaint and old fashioned to say, does’nt it? ) Now that the war’s history is being written by the victors, no one dares say that somehow the world is not better off for this war. Look at all the bad stuff we found – look at Lebanon, Syria – etc, etc. Why, if it were not for our great adventure, the world would be a worse place!
Bush’s version of manifest destiny in the new century is no more justifiable than the old version was in the last. Wars fought for any other reason besides DEFENSE OF THE NATION, which it can be proven, and has been proven many time over to my satisfaction, is NOT the case in Iraq, are morally bankrupt and legally indefensable. The Congress’ refusal to accept it’s mandate to be the sole declarer of war is a direct result of the lack of political will, a tyranny of corporation induced apathy towards government. Not only to people not give a damn if government is small, they dont even care if that government lies through it’s teeth and kills thousands of Americans as a result. The disconnect between Americans and their government policies is, more than ever in my lifetime, ASTOUNDING in it’s breadth.
I believe this is becuase Americans rightly know that their government no longer either represents them or their concerns, and have taken the position of the ostrich, with it’s head buried deep, in order not to consider fundamental truths about themselves that they really dont want to consider. Like how they enjoy cheap consumer goods made with slave labor in the third world, and dont want to know about the system that makes this possible. Or how the goverment they elected can use a mass market campaign made out of smears, allegations, half truths, and outright lies to justify a foreign invasion and takeover of a country that, while run by a mass murderer, represented no threat to America.
Between the corporation-induced “free trade” agreements that have produced this state of affairs, and the mass abandonment of the guiding documents and the principals behind them ( which are not the same principals as a large portion of the current LP enshrines ) , the United States now is a mere enabler for the global corporate mafia to expand everywhere in the world. Remember, the globalist’s version of “freedom” is the “freedom to spend until you are broke” model, where you cant actually ever afford to save enough money to buy anything more expensive than your roof and food unless it is on CREDIT. This makes freedom impossible, and citizen control over government very unlikely.
People that are DEBTORS are never actually FREE. We have set ourselves up to be permanent debtors, both as citizens and as a nation. If the LP ever actually wants reverse this trend, it can engage the public in this truth – both about the Iraq war and the multiple behind the scenes motivations and the lies that accompanied the drumbeat to it. Even if you consider the world a better place today becuase of the war, it’s not separable from the fact that the government you elected lied through it’s teeth to you in order to do it.
Thats why using government policy as a moral compass for humanity sucks. Which was more immoral, a Saddam led Iraq, or the lies we told the world and ourselves to go get him and conquer the country?
January 12th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Yeah, Rudy Giuliani is a real libertarian.
1) Rose to prominence as a vicious prohibitionist drug warrior DA.
2) Supports victim disarmament/gun confiscation.
3) Boesky and Milken cases, for those who remember.
4) As mayor, cracked down on drugs, porn, and everything else that made New York City livable.
5) Appointed Police Department leadership widely known for their numerous civil rights and civil liberties violations, such as the toilet plunger incident and shooting an unarmed man 41 times, but lots more that did not make the news.
6) Wikipedia: In a case less nationally-publicized than those of Louima and Diallo, unarmed bar patron Patrick Dorismond was killed shortly after declining the overtures of what turned out to be an undercover officer soliciting illegal drugs. Even while hundreds of outraged New Yorkers protested, Giuliani staunchly supported the New York City Police Department, going so far as to take the unprecedented step of releasing Dorismond’s “extensive criminal record” to the public.
7) Well known for abusing eminent domain on behalf of corporate interests to destroy the lives of small business owners and poor folks.
8) Somehow was “lucky” (?) enough not to have been in WTC 7 when it collapsed.
9) Exploited the hell out of the attacks for publicity and fame, and threatened to call of the election that year and rule NYC as absolute dictator.
10) Then exploued it some more to make a ton of money for himself and his friends in the uber-lucrative field of Heimland Security contracting.
11) Caused a lot of people to get sick and die by downplaying the toxicity in the environment around Ground Zero.
12) Has continued to shill for his corrupt cronies such as Kerik.
13) Has continued top explot 9/11 and support every warmongering and domestic fascist measure taken in its name, as well as a tool to promote himself personally.
with libertarians like that, who needs fascists?
Now, if Ron Paul was to back someone like that, that would be truly funny to see what his supporters here would say then.
BTW, Giuliani is unlikely to win in the NSGOP because he is pro-choice on abortion, an absolute no-no to the Evangelicals who excercise disproportionate influence in the NSGOP.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
A great advocate of Liberty finding a bigger stage for his advocacy is always a good thing. My first reaction was very similar to Tom’s – it’s win-win. The most likely scenario is that he puts Libertarian issues in play just in time for the Libertarian nominee to pick them up and run with them. He will also energize people to become active in politics, and they will be looking for a new political home when we are best able to offer them one. It’s a beautiful thing Ron Paul is doing, and God bless him for it. I’m as partisan a Libertarian as they come and will always support the Libertarian nominee over anyone else in any race, but that won’t keep me from loving and cheering for Ron Paul.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
No offense Italian Pastry Boy, but I’ll take the words of the NY Times and the London Times and National Review Magazine and the LA Times over your opinions any day of the week.
Let’s see now:
NY Times said of Giuliani – “he’s a welfare slashing, privatizing Ayn Randian.”
London Times called Giuliani last week a “libertarian conservative”
NR and LA Times said the same and compared him to libertarian Dutch politician/hero Pim Fortuyn.
Hey, anyone who gets compared to the greatest libertarian of all time – Pim Fortuyn, is a libertairan in my book.
Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, whomever, are great libertarians, but they all pale in comparison to the greatness of Forrtuyn.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
The most interesting thing is the possibility of Paul running as the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidate. He may also seek the nomination of other minor parties. He is the one person that I can think of that could pull this off. By also running in the Republican primary he will elevate his profile.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I lived in NYC. Rudi Giuliani is a fascist pig. (I apologize for the insult to pigs.) Everything our favorite anthropromorphized pastry reports is 100% accurate, and he only scratched the surface. And he didn’t even mention Donna Hanover.
January 12th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“4) As mayor, cracked down on drugs, porn, and everything else that made New York City livable.”
Guiliani also shut down a Mixed Martial Arts fighting (MMA) event (similiar to the Ultimate Fighting Championship) that was going be held in New York City called Extreme Fighting and broadcast on pay per view. The promoters had already rented the arena and sold tickets and Guiliani shut them down about a day or two before the event was to happen. They had to do a last minute scramble to find a venue to hold the event and they ended up having to fly all of the fighters and their entourages, their production crew and equipment, and their cage to a small TV studio in North Carolina. Since it was done at the last minute they had to give away tickets to the event to fill up the few seats that were available. The promoters lost millions of dollars because of Guiliani and this lead to them going out of business. Guiliani then got MMA banned in New York City.
Guiliani’s actions showed ZERO respect for the rights of the promoters, the fighters, or the fans who were all engaged in voluntary actions. And Eric Dondero-Rittberg considers Guiliani to be a “libertarian”?
?
?! WTF??? What kind of libertarian would ban a voluntary Mixed Martial Arts fighting competition???
January 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Eric Dondero / Eric Rittenberg (or whichever name he uses today) has publicly called George W. Bush the greatest living libertarian many times.
January 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Eric,
I said JUST because he is a fiscal conservative does not make him a libertarian. This is absolutely, 100% true. For example, if I were 100% fiscally libertarian, but 100% pro-life, 100% anti-gay-marriage, 100% supportive of the Drug War, and 100% in support of outlawing cigarettes, that wouldn’t make me a very good Libertarian now would it jackass?
Secondly, Rudy Guliani is a NOTORIOUS gun control advocate. This is INCREDIBLY anti-libertarian.
Lastly, since when has the NY Times, or LA Times, or London Times EVER been an expert on Libertarianism? The NY Times also has called Bush a “True Conservative”. Do you eat everything the media feeds you Dondero?
As much as me and my favorite Pastry disagree on certain issues, im with him on this one. Rudy Guliani is neither Libertarian, nor Conservative.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
To paraphrase Tom Knapp:
How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it one.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Mexican Gigolo boy, of course you would – you’re a statist just like them.
Of course those esteemed sources always tell us the truth.
Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Eric’s idea of the greatest libertarian ever.
From wikipedia:
A word or two about Fortuyn’s heros
Yep, no wonder thinks Fortuyn was the greatest ever libertarian.
Four legs good, two legs bad.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
There’s a lot of things the cannoli did not mention.
Some of them are covered by non-disclosure agreements, and some are public knowledge.
I’ll go with one that is neither.
After a debate about the drug war in the 1980s, a friend of mine asked Giuliani just how far would he go in escalating the war on drugs – would there ever be a final solution to the drug problem?
Giuliani’s answer was that “the difference between Hitler and me is that he didn’t finish the job and I will.” Anonymous source.
You can believe who you want, I believe he did say it, and meant it.
Go ahead, Google this: Rudy Giuliani fascist.
Rudy Giuliani libertarian?
Fuggedaboutit!
January 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Rudy Guliani is considered a libertarian now, and some of you are buying it? WTF? This looks to me like the powers that be are trying to infiltrate Libertarian Party with this gun grabbing fascist. I applaud Ron Paul’s attempt at running for president. But, I really can’t see him winning the primaries on the Republican ticket. The corporate controlled mainstream media will destroy him before he even gets a chance to debate. But, hey I hope he does make it!
January 12th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“I strongly disagree. Ron Paul is NOT the best representative the Libertarian Republican movement could come up with. Dana Rohrabacher or Jeff Flake or Gary Johnson would be far superior.
Look, Ron has some serious health problems. His knees are completely shot. He barely gets around. I luv the guy. But that’s the plain honest truth. I honestly do not see how he’s going to be able to slosh through the snows of New Hampshire.
We did it in 1988. But he’s now 70 years old, and he looks his age and then some.”
Ron Paul in a wheel chair is better than any of those guys. FDR became President in a wheel chair so there’s no reason Ron Paul couldn’t, and Ron Paul is a hell of a lot better than FDR who was one of the worst Presidents ever.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
“I’m supporting Kubby and will continue to do so. If Kubby is the LP candidate and Ron Paul is the Republican candidate, I’ll support Kubby. If Ron Paul runs against Kubby for the Libertarian nomination, I’ll support Kubby.”
If by some miracle Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination that means that he’d stand a real chance of becoming President. At that point I’d say that you’d be a fool to support Kubby.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Sore Loser Laws Don’t Generally Apply to Presidential Candidates
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/
January 13th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Hey, real nice of all you Newbies here to COME INTO MY MOVEMENT and start spouting off what is and what is not “really libertarian.”
Look assholes, I was collecting petition signatures for the Libertarian Party in bumfuck Western Nebraska when all of you fuckheads were still in diapers. How the fuck dare you come into MY MOVEMENT, and tell me that I don’t know what “libertarian” is.
I have worked for Ron Paul for 12 years. I worked for Roger MacBride for 5 years. Karl Hess was a friend of mine. I knew Murray Rothbard well.
You fuckers are just Newbie wannabees. So shut the fuck up and get out of my movement. Go off into Cindy Sheehan/ Michael Moore-land. You’ll be a lot happier.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Dondero – make yourself useful and ask Ron Paul why he voted to Price Fix Prescription Drugs…. since you know him so well.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/12/ron-paul-votes-for-price-fixing-prescription-drugs/
January 13th, 2007 at 2:09 am
“Eric Dondero Says:
January 13th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Hey, real nice of all you Newbies here to COME INTO MY MOVEMENT and start spouting off what is and what is not “really libertarian.”
Look assholes, I was collecting petition signatures for the Libertarian Party in bumfuck Western Nebraska when all of you fuckheads were still in diapers. How the fuck dare you come into MY MOVEMENT, and tell me that I don’t know what “libertarian” is.
I have worked for Ron Paul for 12 years. I worked for Roger MacBride for 5 years. Karl Hess was a friend of mine. I knew Murray Rothbard well.”
Well you must have brain damage then.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:11 am
“Eric Dondero Says:
January 13th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Hey, real nice of all you Newbies here to COME INTO MY MOVEMENT and start spouting off what is and what is not “really libertarian.”
Look assholes, I was collecting petition signatures for the Libertarian Party in bumfuck Western Nebraska when all of you fuckheads were still in diapers. How the fuck dare you come into MY MOVEMENT, and tell me that I don’t know what “libertarian” is.”
I didn’t know that the libertarian movement was “YOUR MOVEMENT.” From the sounds of your posts, the only movements that you can lay claim to are the ones that come out of your bowels.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:09 am
No, the libertarian movement was founded by Rohrabacher, and Rothbard was a student and disciple of Rohrabacher.
So were Mises, Rand, and Milton Friedman.
It all started with Rohrabacher.
We’re liberals, because we want to get rid of the state to any extent possible.
True libertarians support aggressive wars, a domestic police state in the name of those wars, the corporate military-industrial complex, embrace drug warriors and gun grabbers as felow libertarians, and love to shout down, beat up and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.
True libertarians support the biggest and most rapid expansion of government since FDR, torture, executive dictatorship, undeclared wars, secret prisons, unauthorized wiretapping, the use of depleted uranium in warfare, stolen and/or cancelled elections, among other things.
True libertarians don’t respect other people’s privacy or property rights.
True libertarians rest the definition of libertarian on appeals to authority.
Us fake libertarians should just go back to calling ourselves liberals, like we used to before another gang of “true liberals” redefined that term, as well.
Really, actually, we shouldn’t even be allowed to call ourselves anything at all. If there’s no word for what we are, we don’t exist. That would be best.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:12 am
“If by some miracle Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination that means that he’d stand a real chance of becoming President. At that point I’d say that you’d be a fool to support Kubby.”
If I vote in 2008, it would probably be in a non-swing state.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:28 am
And those movements outside of my bowells are firmly planted on the heads of Leftist Anarchists like you Surfer Boy.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“Eric Dondero Says:
January 13th, 2007 at 10:28 am
And those movements outside of my bowells are firmly planted on the heads of Leftist Anarchists like you Surfer Boy.”
If I’m a “leftist” then so are Ron Paul and Aaron Russo according to your “logic.”
January 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I don’t know about Ron Paul. He’s got one persona in his District here in Texas which I like, and he’s got quite another in extremist events.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
One aspect of Ron Paul’s candidacy hasn’t been mentioned yet—his funding base will likely stick with him til the end, which means he won’t be forced out the race early. The final debates could be him and the eventual Republican nominee one-on-one. What a forum!
If he doesn’t get the Republican nomination, he’ll still probably control a block of delegates at the Republican convention. Or, he could withdraw in March or early April and seek the nomination of the LP (which nominates at the end of May). That could produce a similar result to John Anderson’s jump to independent in 1980.
I have to agree with Tom Knapp—a Paul candidacy is win-win for the libertarian movement.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Paul’s candidacy is win-win for most of the Third Parties (with the exception of the Green,although even they would be helped by increased media exposure for third parties).
Eric, Libertarianism is not YOUR MOVEMENT. It existed before you, and will be here long after you. You claim to be such an amazing activist for Libertarianism, yet the fact is, in the “35 years” you’ve been working to advance the libertarian issue, its still not a word that most people recognize when they hear. Even though you are working within the Republican Party, which affords you massive media exposure, oyu have sold out and backed the candidacy of people like Guliani. Nonethless, even though we disagreed as to what level of Libertarianism ought to be supported, before I always respected you.
However, calling Left-wing people “fuckheads” and saying you would drop your “bowel movements on” their heads is INCREDIBLY immature, and if it is indicative of your character, then I now understand why Libertarianism has not been advanced by your efforts very much. Lastly, to claim that it is your movement may be the single most retarded and arrogant statement i have EVER heard. Shove off.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Stop the non-sense. If he runs (Ron Paul) than support him…frankly, his strengths outway his weaknesses which more than I can say of the LP/CP effort or the Republican candidates mentioned above.
As a former candidate of US House, I can attest to the need for people to do more than bicker over possibilities for themselves (or secondary efforts) and instead put their walking shoes on and start knocking on doors.
If Ron runs…I will be walking door to door and state to state…having influence in SC, UT, CA and my present state HI. Where will you help?
January 14th, 2007 at 4:14 am
LA, I’ll stand proudly. Door to door also.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Mr. Hill, I am an honorably discharged Veteran of the United States Armed Forces. This entitles me to speak whatever the fuck way I want for the rest of my life. That’s how us Military guys communicate. We don’t use “wussy language.” We are not soft-hearted girly men.
My guess here, and if I am wrong on this my sincerest and strongest apologies, but my guess is that you never served a day of your life in the Military. Am I correct?
If so, nuff said.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:59 am
My old friend Steve Dasbach is correct. Ron Paul’s fundraising base will stick with him til the very end, even if he’s polling just 3 to 4% in late primaries.
But there are a couple problems with the scenario of jumping to the LP. Number One, Ron Paul has a huge amount of Republican/Bush-type Texas supporters. They will turn on him hard if he jumps to a 3rd Party after he has run in the GOP Primaries. I really don’t think that RP wants to piss off his very own neighbors. As important as his nationwide base of Libertarian supporters are, his hometown Republican friends are even more important to him.
A major chunk of his fundraising base, particularly Houston-area donors will dry up immediately if he goes 3rd party. I’m sure some of them are already warning him, Ron “yes, I’ll give you $1,000 contribution for your effort, but as you well know I’m also a Republican Party supporter, and you better not turn around and use this money to run as a Libertarian.”
Second problem is that many people will see him as a disloyal flip-flopper. There are tons of people who will back him as a Republican, who will turn on him and not vote for him on a 3rd party ticket. Not because they don’t like the Libertarian Party, but rather they will view Ron Paul as not a loyal team player, and not a trustworthy individual.
Third problem is that it will be way too late in the game on the Libertarian Party side. Steve, you’re assuming that no other prominent Libertarian Party candidates will seek the LP nomination. We’ve already got three potentially big celebrities, who are bigger celebrities than Ron Paul and have access to even more money than Ron Paul could ever dream of raising, who are heavily rumored to be candidates for the LP Nomination: Bob Barr, Wayne Root and now Michael Moriarty. Anyone of them would run a stronger campaign on the Libertarian ticke than Ron.
And bear in mind, Ron is now quite old, 71 or 72, and he’s not in the best of health, whereas Barr, Root and Moriarty are still quite young and energetic.
With your scenario, very well-thought out I might add, you are assuming that the Libertarian Party is going to sit this all out til the bitter end and not allow anyone to seek their nomination, and just hold the door wide open for Ron to come on it when he’s good and ready.
Let’s assume that were to occur. Highly unlikely. But for the sake of argument, let’s give it a go.
Steve, you don’t think at that point, Republican Presidential Nominee-elect Mitt Romney would be smart enough to woo Ron Paul from not jumping ship to the LP?
I’m starting to already suspect that Ron Paul’s candidacy is not accidental. That something more may be at work here. That perhaps the Republicans themselves put him up to it to win the Libertarian vote back to the GOP. We know that RP has very close ties to top Republican strategists like Karl Rove, Tom DeLay and an un-named Top Republican Political Consultant here in Texas.
No Steve, I’d be very surprised if what you say is how this thing is going to all play out.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Andy,
Ron Paul is a 6-year former Air Force Flight Surgeon. He is a proud member of the VFW and American Legion. Here in his Congressional District he regularly holds Awards ceremonies for Veterans and returning Troops from Iraq. He wraps himself in the red, white and blue every chance he gets.
Further, Ron Paul is passionately Pro-Life on Abortion. He’s also quite strongly against Open Borders on Immigration Policy. He’s also got very mixed views on issues of Gay Rights.
I would suspect, correctly me if I’m wrong here, but I believe you don’t hold to those Pro-Militarly, Pro-Life, Anti-Immigration stances, non-advocacy of Gay Rights, right?
Which means that you could easily be a Leftist, and Ron Paul could easily be described as a Rightest.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Quoth Eric Dondero:
“Mr. Hill, I am an honorably discharged Veteran of the United States Armed Forces. This entitles me to speak whatever the fuck way I want for the rest of my life.”
Your prior military service doesn’t entitle you to speak however you want for the rest of your life—you have that right whether you’ve ever served in the military or not …
... and others likewise have the right to judge whether or not what you say is worth listening to, and whether or not your tone deserves to be rewarded or disparaged.
I served more than twice as long in the military as you did, and I served in the real military, the Marine Corps, the service that you sailor-boys exist to give a ride to when we need to get to a fight. Like you, I was honorably discharged. And I can also creatively cuss a blue streak in circles around your weak language skills of both the profane and non-profane varieties.
What of it? It’s not a matter of being a wuss or a non-wuss. It’s a matter of whether you’re convincing or not. You’re not. It’s not really the profanity as such, it’s your tone.
You seem to think that the approach you used to bully your subordinate swabbies into the whiskey locker for a blowjob will be effective with libertarians. It won’t. We aren’t impressed or awed that you were the E-3 in charge of the paint-chipping and head-cleaning detail, or afraid that you’ll come up with a fake charge to give us an Article 15/Captain’s Mast on if we don’t put out. If you want us to let you fellate us, you have to ask nice.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
January 14th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Touche’. LOL.
Alright Jarhead. We gonna be throwin’ down next time I’m in St. Louie. That’s after I buy you that steak dinner I owe you, of course. I haven’t forgotten.
Does the parking lot of the Golden Corral work for you?
January 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
RE: Sore Loser Laws. On any issue concerning ballot laws, I learned long ago the best policy is to defer to the wisdom of Richard Winger.
So, hopefully this is one less impediment to his crossing over from the GOP.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Eric,
Sounds good to me. I’ve always enjoyed beating up a squid after a good steak and a beer or three. I hope you can bring a couple of Master Chiefs, or five or six regular swabbies with you to even up the odds, though*
Tom Knapp
January 14th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Seriously Tom, stay tuned. Something huge may be breaking this week on the Libertarian Party front. And it’s yours truly yet again who pulled it off. No, I’m not talking Wayne Root or Moriarty. And it has nothing to do with the Presidential race.
Let’s just say the LP could be getting a new prominent member.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Eric,
“Mr. Hill, I am an honorably discharged Veteran of the United States Armed Forces. This entitles me to speak whatever the fuck way I want for the rest of my life. That’s how us Military guys communicate. We don’t use “wussy language.” We are not soft-hearted girly men.
My guess here, and if I am wrong on this my sincerest and strongest apologies, but my guess is that you never served a day of your life in the Military. Am I correct?
If so, nuff said.”
Your speaking again. Remember what we said about that? How it makes everyone all throwy-uppy and stuff? Yea,try and avoid that speaking thing form now on? k?
Furthermore, I have never served in the millitary, nor will I ever (Unless the draft is reinstated). Why? Because i’m better fit for home battle. I do not need to fight muslims in Iran to prove I am a man. I can dance proverbial circles around you.
As someone noted earlier, I neither need to have served in the military, nor eaten ROCKS (manly, GRRR) to deserve a right to free speech. It is a right garuanteed to me by the Constitution (even if the Duopoly DOES want to rob me of it). I have quite a colorful vocabulary, and being in college, am probably more prone to demonstrating versatility of the many different cuss words. However, this is neither here nor there. I digress.
What day can we expect this prominent member Eric?
What did you do to bring him over to the LP?
Why did you bring him to the LP instead of the RLC?
The most obvious question, who the hell is it?
January 15th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Another words what you’re saying here is basically “Fuck the United States of America.”
As for the prominent member for the LP, there are actually two. I’d advise you to stay tuned to my web site at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com. Some higher-ups are already privvy to the information.
Should be able to release all the details soon.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:13 am
“Another words what you’re saying here is basically “Fuck the United States of America.””
A.)That sentence doesn’t even make sense. Lending further credence to the fact that your vocabulary is limited. Or maybe I should say “You do not like the big words”?!?
B.)I never said anything like that. Again you are attempting to demonize your opponents in order to achieve success.
C.)You’re an idiot.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“Eric Dondero Says:
January 14th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Andy,
Ron Paul is a 6-year former Air Force Flight Surgeon. He is a proud member of the VFW and American Legion. Here in his Congressional District he regularly holds Awards ceremonies for Veterans and returning Troops from Iraq. He wraps himself in the red, white and blue every chance he gets.
Further, Ron Paul is passionately Pro-Life on Abortion. He’s also quite strongly against Open Borders on Immigration Policy. He’s also got very mixed views on issues of Gay Rights.
I would suspect, correctly me if I’m wrong here, but I believe you don’t hold to those Pro-Militarly, Pro-Life, Anti-Immigration stances, non-advocacy of Gay Rights, right?”
Ron Paul may support the troops but this does not mean that he supports unconstitutional wars of aggression that are based on lies. I’ve got no problem with this.
I don’t consider abortion to be a definitional libertarian issue and I’m actually sympathetic with Ron Paul’s pro-life stance. Also, note that Ron Paul has said that abortion should be left for the states to decide.
I don’t really care for illegal immigration since we have a welfare state and lots of communal property and since a lot of illegal immigrants are hostile criminals.
I don’t know what you mean by a “non-advocacy of gay rights.” I think that gays should have the same rights as everyone else but not special rights. I know that Ron Paul opposes anti-gay marriage amendments. I also know that Ron Paul voted against gay adoptions is Washington DC but given the number of gay pedophiles out there (do a search on the Finders Case and the Franklin Coverup) I can see why he voted this way.
My views are very close to Ron Paul’s.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
“Eric Dondero Says:
January 15th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Another words what you’re saying here is basically “Fuck the United States of America.”
No, this is what the neo-con supporters like yourself are saying.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
“Eric Dondero Says:
January 13th, 2007 at 10:28 am
And those movements outside of my bowells are firmly planted on the heads of Leftist Anarchists like you Surfer Boy.”
Sorry, but I’m not into scat. Try one of your Mexican of Philipino prostitutes.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I believe the bottom line question the supporters of Ron Paul need to address and answer is: how do they gain a majority of American Voters to support Ron Paul during election time.
Before this question can be answered, one must be able to identify a significant goal which a majority of voters consider is a worthy one and one important enough for them to work toward accomplishing.
Since we live in a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government [see Art. 4, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitution] and are ruled by written constitutions, state and federal, I believe I have identified a common factor responsible for the complaints of a significant number of single interest voters _ folks in government violating the most fundamental rule of Constitution law which is, a sworn duty to carry out the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, as they are documented from the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified!
The irrefutable fact is, there are those who support and defend our written Constitution [the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to], and, there are those on the left and right who work to subjugate our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to, and, this subjugation has created a very subtle dividing line in politics that spans across the extreme left wing and extreme right wing who vote during America’s elections.
I believe that a political movement with a fundamental goal to compel folks in government abide by our Constitution, that is, abide by the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, would have very wide appeal and cuts across political party lines. Who are potential participants in such a movement? The list appears to be very, very long and includes a number of single interest voters, e.g.: those who support and defend the right to keep and bear arms; those who support the federal government protecting our borders from invasion; those who were outraged over the Kelo decision and the SCOTUS subjugating the intentions for which eminent domain power is granted to government; those who believe the Americans With Disability Act is a usurpation of federal power and nothing more than a clever “lawyers full employment act”; those who believe Congress and not an un-elected majority on a NAFTA panel, the majority of who may be foreigners, are delegated the power to regulate America’s commerce with foreign nation. This of course covers the NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and other un-constitutional creations by which America’s commerce is no longer regulated by the people’s elected representatives. And, let us not forget all those who believe that Roe vs. Wade was an outright usurpation of state authority by the federal government and that the abortion issue is one retained by the people of the various states via the Tenth Amendment and also includes the No Child left Behind Act which is another federal power grab with a dangerous intention by the existing leadership of the Republican and Democrat parties intended by them to be used to control the minds of each succeeding generation’s children, teaching them to be good little tax slaves and subservient to the federal establishment in Washington . And, let us include all those who see the American Civil Liberties Union for what it really is…a domestic enemy of our Constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government which seeks to subjugate the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted! Like I correctly said, the list is very, very long!
A solution to our misery can start right here, right now, by organizing a movement to create the largest demonstration on Capitol Hill in our nation’s history___ a demonstration to demand our federal government abide by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as they may be documented from the words of those who framed and ratified our written Constitution which can be documented from historical records, and, the primary speaker could be candidate Ron Paul!
NOTE: documenting the intentions of our Constitution from the historical record slams the door shut on and smokes out all those [left and right] who would attempt to peddle their own personal agenda by making the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean!
Now, how do we start such a movement, a political movement to support and defend our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or, is it that we are happy to appease ourselves by engaging in table talk and consider talk our contribution in taking back our Country? Would you participate? Would anyone here participate? Any suggestions?
If the defenders of our country and our constitutional system want to make a difference, they must do so before the overwhelming voting public has been made dependant upon government for its subsistence, and they must take quick action to identify themselves as a powerful political force in America with a clearly defined objective which draws significant public support. I believe I have identified a clearly defined objective which all freedom loving people would have an interest in seeing accomplished _ compelling our public servants, our hired employees, to abide by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as they may be documented from the words of those who framed and ratified our written Constitution, which can be documented from historical records!
Sincerely,
JWK
The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
It would behoove all those interested in liberty to start beating the drums on the internet. Post frequently on Dr. Paul, call radio shows that like to ignore him (like that hack, Hannity.) Ron may not win the primary, but it would certainly send a message if he did really well.
Fill up those search engines with mention of Ron Paul, write letters to the editor, call those talk show hosts that think only Rudy, Romney Y McCain are running.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
If the Libertarian Party does not get behind® Ron Paul, I will no longer associate with this Party. Ron Paul should get support from All that Means Republicans, Constitution Party , and Republican as well as some democrat’s, this is America’s last chance in 2008 to take our Republic Back, there is no time for Child’s games as the New World Order is making headway at a alarming rate. I will cast my vote for® Ron Paul and again if the Libertarians decide to ad competetition to this race you can count me out of this Political Party!!
John Gilbert
USN 1987-1995
Gulf War 1 Vet
March 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I agree with him on almost everything, except I think his stance on immigration is a little too extreme.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
GEEZ Guys,
This place looks like DoomsdayBlog.com
“ron paul can’t win”, not a chance, but it would be nice if he could…
For cryin out LOUD.
Your right the media is NOT going to do it, like they did for Carter and Clinton scum.
BUT YOU CAN.
Blog it, Newsgroup it, chat room it, letters to the editor it, tell everyone on the phone.
Ron paul is the only Statesman politicial this country has seen for nearly 100 years+/-.
And he is right on, on ALL the Issues.
He is the only on out of the MOB of 537 on the Hill that does follow the rule book.
The whole rest of the MOB calls in a just a G-damn piece of paper, and they do whatever the most money pays them to do.
The u S of A became the greatest nation building experiment in human history, because what was put in the instruction manual by the framers that studied and knew history.
When will all the Stupidos realize history repeats, can’t all the morons learn from the errors of the past.
Once upon a time, There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about this, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.
So, Everybody, lets gitter done.
GO-GO-GO
Ron Paul is Americas Braveheart
Lets get him in the whitehouse and then keep him alive.
http://americasbraveheart.blogspot.com/
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Please allow me to suggest a website for Ron Paul supporters. It’s a fundraising search engine where the owner contributes 50% of his site’s monthly earnings to help elect Ron Paul the next President of the United States in 2008.
Ron Paul Donations
Thank you.
June 11th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Why do some people think porn should be used to get a point across? Joey Dauben’s recent use of a photo of two men engaged in sex on his blog may garner attention, but I don’t think it’s the kind Mr. Paul is seeking. Either Mr. Dauben needs to quit mentioning his admiration for Mr. Paul, or do so without adding pornographic materials to his site. I think they are in bad taste and Mr. Paul doesn’t need this type of endorsement site.