Rep. Paul Overshadows LP Fundraising

The recent financial disclosures released by Presidential candidates got quite a bit of media attention. Romey, Clinton, Obama, and Giuliani all out in front raising tens of millions of dollars.

However, if you dig a little deeper there were some unreported on reports that came out as well. We got a look at how much

At this time there doesn’t seem to have been a report filed for the Steve Kubby campaign, suggesting that they’ve yet to begin real major fundraising.

George Phillies reports having raised a total of $15,552 to date, of this amount $5,000 is in the form of a contribution from Phillies himself. The campaign reports having $9,373 of that amount still on hand and no debt at this time. The expenses included travel and campaign materials.

Libertarian candidate Christine Smith reported having raised $5,242 and spent all but $376 to date. Looking more closely at the numbers it appears much of that were inkind donations related to state conventions, and most of whatever wasn’t was spent on travel and bumperstickers.

I don’t see any reports for the active Green or Constitution party candidates at this time.

Probably the biggest news is the early fundraising success for Congressman Ron Paul’s bid to win the Republican nomination. In the race for only a couple of months, Paul’s campaign has raised $639,989 to date. Even more impressive, he still has a whopping $525,919 in cash on hand. This is more in the bank than other major candidates like Former Governor Huckabee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, or Former Governor Tommy Thompson.

If Paul can continue to raise money at this pace, he could put a very serious amount of it on television and would be very hard to ignore.

89 Responses to “Rep. Paul Overshadows LP Fundraising”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Austin, thank you for the good news about Rep. Paul.
    Are there any released numbers for Hagel or Tancredo?

    The reason there are no released numbers for CP or GP candidates yet, is because they rarely spend much money before the nominating conventions. My guess for how much the CP canddiate for President will raise before ‘08? 1,500,000.
    Peroutka’s total was over 700,000.

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    These LP candidates are jokes.

    I do not like Ron Paul, but I can’t blame conservative libertarians for abandoning the LP when the crop of wannabes is so pathetic.

    $5,000 from Phillies? Come on. Put your money where your mouth is. If you don’t have $50,000 to put into your own campaign, then run for dogcatcher. The LP is supposed to be a capitalist party, isn’t it?

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    On a certain level, I agree. Candidates need to have either money to put forward, or a large base of support to draw from. Obviously Phillies is depending on the LP-base to pool his money, and alot of them are already pouring their money into Ron Paul’s campaign.
    Phillies, Smith, Kubby. It doesn’t seem like any of them have much money to put up. Maybe Jingo should be looked at more closely?

  4. Deran Says:

    I really want to thank Austin Cassidy for doing the research and writing for this piece, I enjoy reading this sort of information. I feel odd to admit it, but to me, electoral politics, and especially third party and independent electoral politics, is almost like my favorite sport to follow, and fundraising reports are like player stats? I turn to Third Party Watch every morning like I might the sports page of a newspaper. Is that a bad thing? I hope not, I sure enjoy it. Thanks!

  5. Jake Porter Says:

    I believe that George is donating $0.50 for every $1.00 donation he receives. I find it odd that some people have nothing better to do than to attack people working very hard to build the Libertarian Party.

  6. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    I have started to send emails to well-known bloggers who mention Thompson, pointing out 2 things: 1) Paul is running and Thompson is not (yet), 2) according to the NYT, Paul has raised twice as much as Thompson.

    Also, if you check Wikipedia, there are many famous libertarians. Has there been any kind of coordinated appeal to them from any LP presidential candidates ? For money OR other sort of support ? Just a few who I notice include Drew Carey, Dan Fylstra, Penn & Teller, and Doug Casey. There are many more.

  7. Austin Cassidy Says:

    I’m talking about Tommy Thompson the former Governor of Wisconsin, not Fred Thompson the Former Tennessee Senator. Tommy Thompson is definitely in the race and has been for many months, well before Ron Paul declared his candidacy.

  8. rj Says:

    Will Paul be allowed in all the Republican debates? Anyone know?

    Really, if he could do what Sharpton did for the 04 nomination, that’s the best we can hope for (although maybe a little better results).

    All libertarians: make sure you get setup so you can vote for Paul in the primaries!

  9. Jason Gatties Says:

    I’m a libertarian and while I wish Ron Paul the best of luck, I will not vote for Ron in the Michigan primary. All my funds and resources will go towards the LP and whoever the LP nominee is.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Jake Porter,

    I am not attacking Phillies. Im just saying he doesn’t have enough money to run an effective campaign for the LP. You’re vote total will drop off the edge if you go with Phillies. Personally, I don’t mind—every vote you drop is a potential drop for my party. But, personally i’d rather you guys in the LP run a strong Prez campaign so you can continue to increase your amount of officials in local and state governments.

    Rj,

    Yes. Paul will be in the Republican Debates (at least, the first one. And i’d imagine that means all of them).
    I think Ron Paul will do alot to show voters that the three front runners (and indeed everyone else on the stage) are neither small government, nor a real conservative/libertarian.

    As for Ron Paul, I am not switching party affilliation to vote in the primary’s either. I have a late primary in a state that largely follows the cues of more influential states. Pat Buchanan won Louisiana in the 1992 Primaries, i’d imagine Ron Paul could win it in 2008. However, i’ll be donating money, time, and effort to his campaign.

  11. globalist_elitist Says:

    Jake – Look. Your guy is running for President of the United States. If the best he can do to convince me he’s serious is donate $0.50 per $1 donated; I’m not convinced. If the best he can do is front himself $5,000; I’m not convinced at all. This is not the Green Party or the Constitution Party, both of which think that money is evil. This is supposed to be a capitalist party. Instead of running for president, these candidates need to spend time making themselves better capitalists. Honestly, it is a joke that the LP candidate doesn’t have at least a million to contribute to his own cause, but $5,000? I’d be satisfied with maybe $50,000, which is still a joke. But it would be a step in the right direction.

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    Gatties – You can’t even show up on primary day? Or are you going to vote for someone else? In Michigan, you don’t have to switch party registration – there is no party registration. You don’t have to be a member of a party to vote in the primary. WTF?

  13. Jake Porter Says:

    Trent,

    I was actually talking about the “globalist_elitist.” I realize that you are not attacking Phillies.

    Phillies 2008 has announced a new fund-raising offer, 1-for-2 matching
    funds. For every 2 dollars you contribute to Phillies 2008, the
    candidate will match you with $1 of his own money, up to $50,000 of your
    contributions. To donate to the Phillies Presidential campaign,
    http://www.phillies2008.com and click on ‘donate’. As of this writing,
    Phillies 2008 has raised more than $15,000, and has slightly over $5000
    cash on hand. That money is going fast for critical campaign expenses:
    Travel. Mail outreach. Electronic advertising. Advertising that
    reaches the general public.

  14. Tom Gellhaus Says:

    Austin – sorry, I see that you meant Tommy Thompson. But the bloggers to whom I am sending emails are NOT mentioning Tommy at all, but rather Fred. Yes, this includes Sullivan and Reynolds, both of whom have mentioned Fred several times in the last few months but have never mentioned Tommy, and barely/never discuss Ron Paul.

  15. Jake Porter Says:

    I know the bylaws here in Iowa would not allow me, an At Large Representative of the party, to support a Republican candidate. This may be what Jason is talking about.

  16. Kn@ppster Says:

    Austin,

    You write:

    “At this time there doesn’t seem to have been a report filed for the Steve Kubby campaign, suggesting that they’ve yet to begin real major fundraising.”

    The first quarter report must have hit the FEC web site after you wrote the article. It’s there now—1st quarter receipts of about $5600, total receipts of about $12k.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  17. globalist_elitist Says:

    I highly doubt the loose band of angry white men who constitute the LP of Michigan have similar bylaws.

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    ...how is 1$ for every 2$ donated any better than .50$ for every 1$ donated?

  19. Bill Wood Says:

    Hey Eric!

    Wayne Allen Roots message on your site looks good. Tell him to start a Root for President site and a MySpace page also. Time for him to gear up and get his campaign moving.

  20. Freeman Says:

    I’ll gleefully vote for Ron Paul in the Wisconsin Primary!

  21. Bill Wood Says:

    Great FOX News story on Bob Barr, you can catch it at www.lp.org

  22. Sean Scallon Says:

    I think along with fundraising, local LP organization and other non-major parties can help the Paul campaign by organizing in their own respective states. The Paul campaign is just getting off the ground at this point but time is not on its side, especially in places like Iowa and New Hampshire which have early contests. The time to organize is now and here’s where say the Iowa LP or CP and the LP in New Hampshire can use their activists to set up independent committee’s to campaign for Paul. The national campaign isn’t going to get too close to such committees to make sure they’re not violating elections laws and would appreciate having someone put together a camapaign infrastructure that’s already on the ground instead of building one from scratch.

    If the LP or CP really want to make an impact in next year’s election, instead of doing the same old, same old, organizing for Paul is the way to go.

  23. Jake Porter Says:

    A few months ago I contacted the Paul campaign about possibly helping them. In fact, I have some knowledge about advertising. They did not contact me back, and have waited until I can no longer help them as I am now an At Large Representative of the state Party. Additionally, the Iowa LP cannot endorse or promote a Republican candidate.

    Section 4. Executive Committee Members shall be prohibited from holding office in, or taking part in a working committee of, another political party; and from being members of a campaign committee for candidates affiliated with any other political party.

  24. Sam Marsh Says:

    Looking at those bylaws, it looks like you can support Dr. Paul, and vote for him in the primaries, as long as you don’t work for him directly.

    Ron Paul is still a member of the LP according to his own words, and he certainly has the same agenda. I wish he would actively seek the LP and CP nominations as well as the GOP. Is there something stopping him from doing that?

  25. SovereignMN Says:

    “I wish he would actively seek the LP and CP nominations as well as the GOP. Is there something stopping him from doing that?”

    Some party bylaws state that they won’t endorse candidates who are seeking endorsements of other parties. Some/Most states only allow 1 political party to appear on the ballot, meaning a candidate who did manage to secure multiple nominations would have to leave 1 or more parties off the ballot which is unacceptable to some entities.

  26. Michael Says:

    Three predictions. 1) The CP will only raise $1.5M or more should they nominate a big name like Alan Keyes. If not, then it will stay around $700,000. 2) Look for at least two or three Republican candidates to leave the race before Iowa and N.H. because they couldn’t raise enough money. 3) Ron Paul will not be one of them. He’ll be in until the convention.

  27. Carl Says:

    I agree with Michael’s points 2 and 3. I think Ron Paul will get far more airing of libertarian ideas as a contender for the Republican nod than any LP presidential candidate has ever done. And I think he will get quite a bit of press coverage for at least one good reason: the press dislikes the RP, and if covering Ron Paul makes the RP look divided, then…

  28. Trent Hill Says:

    1.)Alan Keyes can’t pull in enough money I don’t think. But I think 1.5 million is going to happen no matter what.

  29. SovereignMN Says:

    CP website has a preference poll:
    http://www.constitutionparty.com/surveys/index.php

    You are prompted to enter your first, second and third preference. If you total up the 3 preferences here are the results of how many times a candidate was selected:

    Ron Paul 75%
    Ton Tancredo 67%
    Alan Keys 45%
    Roy Moore 27%
    Duncan Hunter 24%
    Chuck Baldwin 20%
    Howard Phillips 17%
    Jim Gilchrist 16%
    Rick Jore 7%
    Jerome Corsi 4%

  30. Trent Hill Says:

    Tancredo just reported to the FEC
    He raised way more than I thought he would.
    $1,256,089

  31. Eric Dondero Says:

    Bill, I can’t give you inside details.

    But let’s just say Wayne is very close to announcing a run. I’d say at this point it looks 65% to 70% “yes” to 30 to 35% “no.” It has to do with something major coming through for Wayne. He should know within a few weeks. If it comes through, he will run. If not, more doubtful.

    Latest word from him is that things look positive.

    I’ll give you one single hint: Something to do with Hollywood.

  32. Eric Dondero Says:

    I assume you all have heard the big news on the Libertarian Party front, right?

    It now appears that the Libertarian Party has a State Legislator in New Hampshire. They nominated Republican State Rep. Bea Francoeur for Governor over the weekend and she accepted.

    Full story and link to Manchester Union Leader article at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

  33. Trent Hill Says:

    If Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, Roy Moore, Duncan Hunter, or Jim Gilchrist become the nominee…then they will raise substantially more than any LP candidate can. (and more than a million).

    Jerome Corsi is a fallback guy. As is Chuck Baldwin. Don’t get me wrong, both great candidates…just no name recognition.
    Rick Jore, we won’t put him under that pressure. We want him to keep his seat.
    Howard Phillips is done running,he has said so.

    Something tells me, that something big is going to happen for the CP this year.
    Ron Paul is basically my dream-choice. But for some reason…im doubting him.
    However, Tancredo is angry at his own party. And he has had some MAJOR conflicts with the party heads. I think he actually might cross over.
    Duncan Hunter could also cross over—he is bad on the war, but significantly better on every other issue than every other candidate it seems.

  34. globalist_elitist Says:

    Duncan Hunter is a true conservative – the kind who expects complete and total obedience to the government no matter what. You CP types with your anti-Patriot Act, anti-war, etc., beliefs are “liberals” in the eyes of a true fascist like Hunter.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    Hunter, I believe, is misinformed on those issues. I would need to hear from him that would reform his positions on those subjects.

    You must also remember that he may be voting in line with his party. Im not saying it is right to play party lines in order to move up…but it happens.

  36. Bill Wood Says:

    Thanks Eric!

  37. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Tancredo might have a future in Colorado politics. He was considered a serious possibility to run for Senate and any bolting of the GOP would kill his prospects.

    Duncan Hunter’s son is running to replace him in Congress. So, Hunter will not leave the Republican Party because his son would pay the price for it.

    Ron Paul would anger many of his Republican supporters if he were to leave his party… it’s not impossible, but he seems like an unlikely candidate past the GOP primaries.

    Alan Keyes should be recruited heavily. He doesn’t have much to lose, he’s kind of a household name, and he could raise a decent amount of money. Same for Roy Moore and Jim Gilchrist. The most ideal ticket for the CP might be something like Moore/Gilchrist, actually. That’s a pair that could win an easy 1 million votes if they campaigned hard.

  38. Darcy Richardson Says:

    While the fundraising totals for the LP presidential hopefuls might appear to be somewhat anemic compared to the amount raised by Ron Paul’s fledgling campaign, it’s important to keep things in perspective. Comparing Rep. Paul’s figures to those of the Libertarian candidates is a false and highly misleading comparison, not unlike comparing apples to oranges.

    Unlike Ron Paul, the Libertarian aspirants don’t have to raise an exorbitant amount at this point to compete in a costly, compacted, and media-intensive primary campaign, a frontrunner-rigged system featuring as many as twelve (and perhaps as many as twenty) states — including the prohibitively expensive media markets of California, New York, and New Jersey — holding primaries on what’s been dubbed “Super-Duper Tuesday” on February 5, only two weeks after the New Hampshire primary. Rep. Paul will literally need tens of millions of dollars just to compete in those states, not to mention Florida, another expensive media state, a week earlier.

    Even if Congressman Paul miraculously pulled off an upset in New Hampshire — a la Gene McCarthy’s unexpectedly strong showing against LBJ in 1968 — there wouldn’t be enough time to raise the necessary funds for him to compete effectively in Florida seven days later, nor to raise the kind of substantial money needed to campaign in as many as twenty additional states a week after that. Like it or not, the primary system has been perversely manipulated to benefit those with the largest war-chests and with the front-loaded primary system firmly in place, it’s just not feasible for a dark-horse candidate like Paul, or anyone else, to emerge as a major-party nominee in 2008. Unless he’s running a strictly “educational” campaign, Paul’s candidacy is doomed from the outset.

    All of this brings us back to the Libertarians and those who might actually still be running in November 2008. While the amounts raised by Steve Kubby and George Phillies pale in comparison to the amount raised by the late Harry Browne in the first quarter of 1999 (Browne, of course, had the benefit of a built-in donor list from his previous campaign), the fundraising totals for both gentlemen at this point are certainly comparable to the $11,500 raised by radio talk-show host Gary Nolan in the first quarter of 2003. As some of you may recall, Nolan began raising money in January 2003 and was considered a top tier candidate, if not a frontrunner, for the Libertarian presidential nomination. (Aaron Russo didn’t enter the race until later in the year.)

    The amounts raised by Kubby and Phillies also exceed the $8,860 reported by Michael Badnarik, the party’s eventual nominee, at this point in the 2004 race.

  39. George Phillies Says:

    Harry Browne also had, in both 1995 and 1999, the advantage of being able to rent the LNC mailing list and the ability to buy advertising space in LP News, both of which put his name in front of the Libertarian body politic. The 1995 and 1999 LNCs were willing to coorperate, not always perfectly, with their candidates.

    The current LNC as an organization has taken an actively antagonistic position toward all of its Presidential candidates, myself included. (Some memebrs are very definitely not antagonistic.) It refuses to rent list use. It refuses to rent LP News advertising space. At this late date in the campaign, changes in those policies would probably be too late to be really effective. It, in the person of its National Director, has a circulated letter attacking most of its major candidates, urging the elected members of the LNC to recruit additional candidates, or at least hire an actor to pretend to be the candidate. It has made an offer for Presidential candidates to have their names appear on the LP web pages—if we raised large amounts of money at our expense for the National Committee. The amounts of money needed for minimal web page access are large relative to the historical-record cost of renting advertising ad space or renting the mailing list.

    The unfortunate position of the LNC, relative to the Presidential campaigns, has had a negative effect on Presidential fundraising.

    George Phillies
    http://www.phillies2008.com

  40. Roscoe Says:

    Sounds like the LNC - the elected representatives of the delegates – are embarrassed by the “quality” of the candidates who have presented themselves so far. Maybe an actor Michael Moriarity, onetime star of Law & Order comes to mind (and he once appealed to the LNC to make him the presidential candidate) – isn’t such an outlandish idea.

  41. Bill Wood Says:

    Interesting….I have not received any letter from LNC about our current Candidates. I have received the usual letters asking for money( thats expected) and another thanking me for running for Office in the past and asking if I’d be interested in running for Office again, with an application for LPHQ name address phone number office interested in running for etc. Nothing attacking any current Candidates.

  42. Jake Porter Says:

    Bill,

    This was a secret memo and not intended to be made public; however, I was e-mailed the following leaked memo which I call LNC Memogate. I will probably not renew my membership because of this memo, the advertising, and mailing lists. I will probably just pay the Iowa LP twice as much.

    > From: shane.cory@lp.org

    > To: lnc-discuss@lp.org
    > Subject: [Lnc-discuss] Presidential Candidates
    > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:32:43 -0500 (EST)
    >
    > Dear LNC Members,
    >
    > If you have not already seen this, it is a recount of the first
    > Libertarian presidential debate held in Nevada this past weekend.
    >
    > After reading it, I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry.
    >
    > The lady who wrote the piece summarizes her thoughts with this:
    >
    > In conclusion, here’s how I’d personally rank those candidates for the
    > Libertarian presidential nomination:
    > 1. Someone better, please!
    > 2. George Phillies
    > 3. Steve Kubby
    > 4. None of the above (don’t run a presidential candidate at all)
    > 5. Dave Hollist
    > 6. Gene Chapman
    >
    > Sigh.
    >
    > As far as the debate performance, she rated and described our current
    > batch of candidates as “whackjob”, “incoherent whackjob”, “charisma of a
    > wet towel”, and the third one she could not really rate as he debated
    > over the phone as he was not allowed to leave his state per the terms of
    > his parole.
    >
    > I’m speechless. . .
    >
    > Read it for yourself here:
    > http://www.jacquelinepassey.com/blog/2007/02/two_whackjobs_a_convicted_felon_and_george_phillies.html
    >
    > To add even more humor to our 2008 presidential dreams, while those
    > above where wowing the crowds, another one of our candidates was on the
    > radio in Colorado Springs (one of the largest populations of
    > Evangelicals in the nation) plugging LP.org along with
    > StonewallLibertarians.com which, of course, features a photo from “Naked
    > Boys Singing” on their front page.
    >
    > I saw another of our candidates on late night television not too long
    > ago. . . in a commercial for Girls Gone Wild.
    >
    > My hands are tied here guys, yours are not.
    >
    > Please correct me if I’m wrong, but LNC members are permitted to recruit
    > presidential candidates.
    >
    > At the very least, could you pay some poor, starving actor or actress to
    > play the role of a candidate?
    >
    > Admittedly, it could be worse.
    >
    > Hillary could be our candidate.
    >
    > Pulling out my hair,
    >
    > Shane

  43. Sean Scallon Says:

    John Kerry had to mortgage his own home to just to have enough money to compete in the Iowa caucuses while Howard Dean had $50 mil in the bank and yet who won the Dem nomination in 2004? If money meant everything in presidential primary politics we would have President Connally, President Forbes or President Dean. It’s momentum that is the main factor and if Paul can string together wins in the early states it will carry him far.

  44. Bill Wood Says:

    Jake, Thanks for the copy. Looks like Jacqueline Passey wasn’t excited about the current group of Candidates.

  45. Winston Smith Says:

    I worry that paul will take any steam building in CP out of sails, esp as he has said he has no interest-at present-in CP.

    We will see.

  46. globalist_elitist Says:

    The point is that Kerry DID mortgage his own home. What is Phillies willing to do? Or Kubby? They can’t even coff up a few weeks pay. They don’t believe in themselves, so why should we believe in them?

    Would it be appropriate for the LNC to give/rent membership lists before a canddiate is chosen? The Democratic Party doesn’t do that. State parties don’t. Why should the LP? You are a loser who can’t raise money – don’t blame external forces.

    I mean, for God’s sake – should the LNC have given mailing address info to psycho-child-molestor Gene Chapman?

  47. matt Says:

    “I worry that paul will take any steam building in CP out of sails, esp as he has said he has no interest-at present-in CP.”

    Granted, I’m not as politically experienced as many here, but I don’t see why everything must be about the presidency. Ron Paul will get a 3rd party ballot line if he wants/needs one. On the off chance that he wins the GOP primary, personal freedom will be represented in any case.

    Neither the CP nor the LP gets large turnouts for presidential campaigns EVER. What both have done is won legislative seats. The CP plans to win more seats in 08, especially out west, from what I hear. The LP may or may not be able to win one as well. I certainly hope they can, and if they do, it will be newsworthy and a great platform for spreading libertarian ideas and influencing policy.

    That influence, plus knowing that an ideological cousin (brother?) did well in the runup to the Presidential election will keep the CP and LP solvent for quite some time.

  48. Chris Says:

    Ron Paul out-raised John McCain and Rundy Giuliani in New Hampshire:

    http://www.wmur.com/news/12508249/detail.html

  49. George Phillies Says:

    With respect to Mr. Global Elitist, I’ve committed more than two years’ salary, after-tax. I suspect Mr. Kubby has also made a large commitment, albeit on a far more limited base, involving opportunity costs.

  50. Michael Says:

    If Rudy gets the GOP nomination and Alan Keyes the CP nomination, then look for Keyes to get votes big time. At least 5 percent plus. I doubt Hunter or Paul will leave the GOP. The LP needs a halfway decent candidate, Gary Nolan or Aaron Russo, to at least keep their vote at the 2004 level.

  51. globalist_elitist Says:

    Every candidate contributes “opportunity cost.” Gene Chapman did that. If you don’t have cash or the ability to raise it, just quit. Everyone can donate their time. You’re no different from “President Adams” in that regard.

  52. Trent Hill Says:

    Austin,

    Duncan Hunter is retiring,that is the point. His kid running for his seat, probably won’t be affected. Contrary to popular belief, association (or family even) doesn’t always mean losing votes. See: John Breaux, Jeb Bush.

    Tancredo, although he HAD the chance to run for a Senate seat…passed that up to run for President. That proves that he isn’t interested in playing nice and moving up through the ranks. He is sick and tired of the party rank-and-file. He even got into a screaming match with Karl Rove. I consider him the second best option for our candidate, but I consider him the most likely of the three Congressmen to bolt from the GOP.

    Paul is/always will be an undependable Republican. He votes by himself sometimes. Honestly, i’m not sure he would be too concerned about losing his “republican supporters”.
    And im not sure he would lose them at all. The people that are supporting him right now know his maverick history, and his libertarian bent.

    Keyes, alot of people don’t like. No. It isn’t because he is black. It’s because he supports the war, and has been vocal about it. I believe Hunter and Tancredo do too, but they have made it seem more like an obligatory party-line thing. Personally, I like Keyes—he is certainly better than a bunch of no-name candidates (*ahem* LP).

    As for Gilchrist…he definetly won’t be the Presidential candidate. And probably not the VP either. He ran for a House seat under the California CP but then switched over to GOP. We don’t like that.

  53. Bill Wood Says:

    More good news for the Libertarian Party, another campaign win.

    “Karen Richardson, city councilwoman (Post 3) in the newly formed north metro-Atlanta city of Johns Creek, and the latest Libertarian to be elected to office in the state of Georgia. ” She won about 65% of the vote beating out a Republican. Read the latest at www.lp.org

  54. Bill Wood Says:

    I believe this makes the 7th win in the last two weeks for Libertarians in non-partison races.

  55. globalist_elitist Says:

    No, people ONLY like Keyes because he’s black. He lets them say, “Look, we’re not racist, we like Keyes!”

    Keyes is a nutjob whose own daughter hates him and vice versa. If you can’t even manage your family life, you have no business running for president. Giuliani.

    Keyes is also a thief. In ‘96, he took his donors for $100k that he paid himself in “salary.” It’s bad enough that people like Phillies think they can get away with donating “opportunity cost” – Keyes thinks he needs to be PAID to run. He’s no different from other parasites like Jackson and Sharpton – politics is Keyes’s means of enrichment, not a matter of principal.

  56. Devious David Says:

    In the ‘04 Senatorial debate with Obama, Keyes said he wants to absolve blacks of taxes (for 20 years?) as a form of reparations. I saw it with my own two eyes and also surmised that Obama was dangerous.

    Pretty disappointed that the LNC is willing to behave in such a way vis-a-vis that email. They are probably going to force the first GOP-lite candidate that comes along with a little money down our throats. Anyone wanna give me odds?

  57. Trent Hill Says:

    Ya,he says that crap in front of a CP audience…we’ll make him our candidate for Dog-catcher….if hes lucky.

  58. Sean Scallon Says:

    Beware of eloquent former UN ambassadors bearing celebriity candidacies….

    Alan Keyes is bad news and if the CP really wants to throw itself into turmoil all it has to do is nominate that neocon. Beyond the fact he supports the Iraq war and slave reparations, he has lost every electoral race he has ever contested badly and embarrasses himself every time he does run for office, not to mention the fact his campaigns are sloppily run, deep in debt and usually have some sort of FEC investigation around them after its over with.

    The only reasons Keyes is even interested in CP nomination is it gives him forum he doesn’t have anymore at the GOP.

    After emerging from the turmoil of disaffilation, the last thing the CP is the turmoil of a Keyes camapaign.

    Stay away from this man…far away!

  59. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    April 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
    No, people ONLY like Keyes because he’s black. He lets them say, ‘Look, we’re not racist, we like Keyes!’”

    The same could be said of people who like Barrack Obama.

  60. Andy Says:

    “SovereignMN Says:

    April 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
    CP website has a preference poll:
    http://www.constitutionparty.com/surveys/index.php

    You are prompted to enter your first, second and third preference. If you total up the 3 preferences here are the results of how many times a candidate was selected:

    Ron Paul 75%
    Ton Tancredo 67%
    Alan Keys 45%
    Roy Moore 27%
    Duncan Hunter 24%
    Chuck Baldwin 20%
    Howard Phillips 17%
    Jim Gilchrist 16%
    Rick Jore 7%
    Jerome Corsi 4%”

    I’m suprised that so many people in the Constitution Party are so “hot” for Ron Paul. Don’t these people realize that Ron is more libertarian than ANYONE in the Constitution Party?

  61. Trent Hill Says:

    Wrong. He isn’t more libertarian than ANYONE in the CP. Just more libertarian than MOST in the CP.
    Also, most people know about his drug policy, policy on prostitution and gambling. But they don’t care. They’re willing to accept that those are minor issues beside stuff like the size and scope of government, national debt, and federal reserve.

    I think it is interesting that Jerome Corsi gets such low numbers…

  62. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Even if by some miracle Ron Paul were elected… The Federal Reserve isn’t going anywhere. So unfortunately for you regressivists, everybody is just going to get richer.

  63. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    April 20th, 2007 at 1:40 am
    Wrong. He isn’t more libertarian than ANYONE in the CP. Just more libertarian than MOST in the CP.
    Also, most people know about his drug policy, policy on prostitution and gambling. But they don’t care. They’re willing to accept that those are minor issues beside stuff like the size and scope of government, national debt, and federal reserve.”

    Ron is more libertarian than anyone that I know of in the Constitution Party. He’s certainly more libertarian than any of the other people who are being discussed for the Constitution Party Presidential nomination.

  64. Andy Says:

    “undercover_anarchist Says:

    April 20th, 2007 at 2:04 am
    Even if by some miracle Ron Paul were elected… The Federal Reserve isn’t going anywhere. So unfortunately for you regressivists, everybody is just going to get richer.”

    If Ron Paul were elected we’d finally have some opposition to the Federal Reserve & IRS scam.

    Even G. Edward Griffin – author of “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Loot at the Federal Reserve” (available at www.realityzone.com ) -acknowledges that it would not be possible to eliminate the Federal Reserve overnight. Towards the end of the book, Mr. Griffin outlines a plan to PHASE OUT the Federal Reserve in several steps.

    The Federal Reserve only makes the corrupt bankers & politicians rich. It screws over the general population.

  65. JR Says:

    Re: “I think it is interesting that Jerome Corsi gets such low numbers…”

    If he were an announced member of the party dedicated to help build for the future, I think those numbers would be different. And if he were to announce his intent to seek the nomination, he would begin with probably as much name recognition as anyone on the list other than Keyes. Certainly more than former CP presidential candidates in their prime.

    JR

  66. SovereignMN Says:

    As someone who likes to play on-line poker, I welcome Ron Paul to overturn that federal ban. :-)

    I don’t like the idea of legalized prostitution or drugs or gambling but I believe that the issue should be decided by the States. Paul may be in favor of letting those things be legal but he also believes it should be up to each of the States. Since he’s running for President I don’t consider my views with him to be in conflict.

  67. globalist_elitist Says:

    “As someone who likes to play on-line poker …I don’t like the idea of legalized prostitution or drugs or gambling.”

    Nice.

    You only want to legalize the things that you personally “like.”

    How about you stop caring about what other people do and let them run their own lives? I think online gambling is for degenerate losers, but I welcome your right to blow your money anyway you please. I don’t do drugs or utilize the services of prostitutes, but if that’s your bag, I have no interest in stopping you.

    Leaving them up to the states? Of course that would be preferable to the unconstitutional federal bans (prostitution and most forms of gambling are left up to states). However, I would favor a “non-aggression” amendment to the Constitution that basically states that whatever I do is my business, and whatever you do is your business. I think this is kind of inherent in the 9th amendment, but it certainly has not been interpretted that way.

  68. SovereignMN Says:

    Don’t confuse poker with gambling. Poker is a game of skill where everyone at the table has the same odds but the results in the long run are determined by the skill of the player. I consider it a lot like making stock market investments. You’d like it…it’s very capitalistic in nature. It would require you to make rational thoughts though so maybe not.

    When I refer to gambling I’m mainly talking about games of chance against a “house” where the odds dictate that you can’t win in the long run. And don’t worry about me “blowing away my money”. I’m doing just fine thanks.

    If you want to call me a hypocrite then that’s your right. Unlike you, I can admit when my thoughts and opinions haven’t been fully thought out. This is one of those issues that I’m still evaluating in my mind and haven’t come to any definite conclusions.

    I think the CP platform on gambling is pretty good. It says government should not sponsor, get involved, promote and subsidize gambling. Can we at least agree on that?

    “However, I would favor a “non-aggression” amendment to the Constitution that basically states that whatever I do is my business, and whatever you do is your business. ”

    I would tend to agree with this but the question is ‘where do you draw the line’ because IMHO there IS a line to be drawn. My neighbor can’t just turn his backyard into a public landfill. The results of his actions cause my property to smell, get polluted and have lower property values. So we allow the government to regulate where/when landfills can be placed.

  69. matt Says:

    “However, I would favor a “non-aggression” amendment to the Constitution that basically states that whatever I do is my business, and whatever you do is your business. ”

    Amendments 9 and 10 already exist. There’s no reason to be redundant. Having a President who understands how to execute the law constitutionally would do a lot more good than a “non-agression” amendment.

  70. Andy Says:

    SovereignMN Says:

    “April 20th, 2007 at 9:41 am
    As someone who likes to play on-line poker, I welcome Ron Paul to overturn that federal ban.

    I don’t like the idea of legalized prostitution or drugs or gambling but I believe that the issue should be decided by the States. Paul may be in favor of letting those things be legal but he also believes it should be up to each of the States. Since he’s running for President I don’t consider my views with him to be in conflict.”

    If you like to play poker then you are obviously NOT completely against legalized gambling, you just want to dictate what kind of gambling people can do.

    Ron Paul is also for free trade which the Constitution Party is against. Ron does oppose NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, FTAA, etc…, but he opposes these things not because he’s against free trade, but rather because they are NOT really free trade. The Constitution Party is in favor of protectionist tarriffs (ie-high tarriffs) and Ron Paul opposes this as he knows that a tarriff is just another tax that gets passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

  71. Andy Says:

    “I would tend to agree with this but the question is ‘where do you draw the line’ because IMHO there IS a line to be drawn. My neighbor can’t just turn his backyard into a public landfill. The results of his actions cause my property to smell, get polluted and have lower property values. So we allow the government to regulate where/when landfills can be placed.”

    If your neighbor turns his backyard into a public landfill and it causes your property to smell, get polluted, and have a lower property value then that would be a clear act of aggression from your neighbor and you should have the right to defend yourself from such aggression.

  72. Andy Says:

    I can see how Ron Paul has a lot of crossover appeal to Constitution Party members, however, he still holds some libertarian views that would put him at odds with a lot of Constitution Party people as well.

    Ron has already said that he’s going to drop out of the race if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination. I don’t know if he’ll change his mind about this or not, but if he does decide to run as a minor party or indepedent candidate it would make the most sense for him to run as the Libertarian Party candidate (again). Why? Because of ballot access. The Libertarian Party currently has ballot status in 26 states, and the Libertarian Party is almost finished collecting petition signatures for ballot access in Nebraska and they are a little over half way finished in North Carolina. Contrast this with the Constitution Party which only has ballot status in 14 states. If Ron were to run as an independent this would mean that he’d have to conduct petition drives in all 50 states plus Washington DC. This would be very expensive and time consuming and he may not even make it. The Libertarian Party has ballot status in 12 more states than the Constitution Party has and once Nebraska and North Carolina are finished that will boost it to 14 more states (unless of course the Constitution Party finishes some petition drives before then, but from what I’ve heard I doubt that they will). Here are a few states that have signifigant petition signature requirements where the Libertarian Party is ALREADY on the ballot and the Constitution Party is not on the ballot.

    Arizona – 20,449 valid signatures.

    Georgia – 44,089 valid signatures.

    Indiana – 32,742 valid signatures.

    Maryland – 10,000 valid signatures.

    Texas – 43,991 valid signatures. It should be noted there are some rules in Texas that make petition signature gathering for ballot access more difficult than it should be. One is that they only allow you 75 days to gather the signatures. Another is that if a person votes in a primary election they are prohibited from signing a petition to put a candidate or party on the ballot, and the petition drive can’t start until after the primaries. This is known as a Primary Screenout. Yet another thing that makes Texas difficult is that a registered voter is only allowed to sign a petition for one political party and one independent. This means that if the Constitution Party and the Green Party were both conducting petition drives in Texas for the same election that a voter could only sign one of the petitions. In addition to this, I was told that you can’t register people to vote and have them sign a petition the same day in Texas (you can do this in some other states like California and Washington and it boosts up the number of signatures one can collect as well as the validity of those signatures). And as if all of this stuff wasn’t bad enough, getting access to locations where you can collect signatures is very difficult in Texas. I know that in 2004 in Texas people who were petitioning for the Libertarian Party and for Ralph Nader where getting kicked out of locations just about everywhere they went (more so than usual for a petition drive), including most of the state universities and community colleges (both of which are owned by the government and supported with tax dollars).

    So just for the above 5 states the Constitution Party will need 151,271 valid signatures. When I say valid signatures this means that the person who signs the petition has to be registered to vote, they have to fill in the information correctly, and the election office has to be able to find them on the voter roles. In order to make up for invalid signatures, you’ve got to collect more than necessary. It is not uncommon for campaigns to double the signature requirement so you are then talking like 300,000 raw signatures just for these 5 states. Even if your validity is good you’ll still probably need a good 235,000 raw signatures to make it.

    Ron Paul is still a Life Member of the Libertarian Party and he’s never disavowed his membership. He also still shows up at Libertarian Party Conventions from time to time. So when you factor this in with the ballot access that the Libertarian Party has, it would make the most sense for him to run as the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate again than it would make for him to run as the Constitution Party candidate or as an independent.

  73. globalist_elitist Says:

    I can’t believe it, but I’m actually finding myself in agreement with Andy here. I don’t need to make any rebuttals. He covered all of the ground.

    And hey, if you’re a good poker player, then you’re not the one blowing your money. You’re the one taking the money from the idiots. They don’t deserve to have it anyway, so more power to you. But the time, mental energy, committment, and discipline required to become a good or especially great poker player could be much better spent studying the world of finance. Options are much more lucrative than poker.

  74. Bill Wood Says:

    LP News reports the current number of Members in the Libertarian Party.

    Member/Subscribers 11792
    Zero Dues Members 104,732

    Total Membership 116524

    They report the number of dues paying Members is on the rise.

    Its great to see the Membership numbers and I like it. Not only do we need to continue growth in both Membership classes, but we need to double the “Dues Paying” Membership. If you are not a “dues paying” Please visit www.lp.org and upgrade your membership.

    Bill

  75. Andy Says:

    “Bill Wood Says:

    April 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
    LP News reports the current number of Members in the Libertarian Party.

    Member/Subscribers 11792
    Zero Dues Members 104,732

    Total Membership 116524

    They report the number of dues paying Members is on the rise.

    Its great to see the Membership numbers and I like it. Not only do we need to continue growth in both Membership classes, but we need to double the “Dues Paying” Membership. If you are not a “dues paying” Please visit www.lp.org and upgrade your membership.

    Bill”

    This is actually not that good. The Zero Dues members don’t amount for much because they haven’t donated any money to the party. 11,792 dues paying members is WAY lower than it was a few years ago. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that the number of dues paying members was over 3 times that. Now if we could find a way to get those 104,732 Zero Dues members to donate some money, that would be fantastic, but unfortunately this is easier said than done.

    The Constitution Party waves around some inflated numbers as bragging rights in the number of registered voters they have as they are #3 for partisan voter registrations behind the Democrats and Republicans. However, the reason that I say that this is inflated is because the main reason that they have so many voter registrations is because in California they are known as the American Independent Party and when a lot of people registered to vote they checked that box by mistake thinking that it made them independents. In California if you want to be an independent you are SUPPOSED to check the Decline To State A Policital Party box. Very few people in California who are registered to vote under the American Independent Party banner know what the party is or agree with it. The same situation exsists in Nevada where the Constitution Party is called the Independent American Party. I think that there might be a few other states where similiar situations exsist. Just taking out all of the people in California and Nevada who registered under the American Independent Party and Independent American Party banners would knock the Constitution Party’s voter registration totals to below the number of registered voters that the Libertarian Party has.

  76. Trent Hill Says:

    When you say “very few” do you mean “Between 75,000 and 142,771”?
    That is the range of votes for Senatorial elections from 1994-2006.

    Between 1990 and 2006, vote totals have varied from year to year for the AIP.
    -In the 1992 Senatorial Election – Jerome McCready recieved 373,051 votes.
    That is more votes for our Senatorial candidate in ONE state, than the LP has registered members in the Country.
    -After that, numbers drop off significantly. In the last few presidential elections,the AIP hasn’t put the vote out. But they are capable of getting more than 100,000 to an election on any given year. They can’t turn out the Presidential vote because they are known by a different name. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the clout of that 1992 Senatorial election (with 373,051 votes) is gone, because it isn’t.

    In the last two Senatorial elections in California, Don Grunddman recieved 81,224 and 75,350 respectively for 2004 and 2006. While that is only about
    25.5 percent of their claimed registrants—it is still a force to be reckoned with. And let’s not forget that Don Grunddman (although a tireless worker) is not the best candidate. He is basically just ballot-access fodder until they can court a real candidate.

    Actually, I agree that IF Ron Paul switched,he would probably switch to the LP. But I see a few holes in your logic.
    You pointed to his problems with our drug, gambling, and prostitution policy. I would point to HIS problems with the LP’s border policy.

    You also point to the ballot-access problem. I just sat in on a meeting in which the committee for Ballot-access has made a “rational guess” at having 45-50 state ballot access (oh. And did I mention a new group in American Somoa)? Arizona is under way right now, with Indiana close behind. Those are basically locked up as far the Executive Committee in concerned. In Georgia there is significant financial help which is specifically for ballot access,they anticipate getting on the ballot there also. Maryland is the one that is in question. I would guess 43-46 states in ‘08.

    You also mentioned that Ron Paul still attends conventions from time to time. This honestly means nothing, he has attended Nevada IAP (CP affilliate) meetings, Texas CP meetings, and is scheduled to attend the next Nevada IAP Convention.
    He also donated money to the ‘04 Peroutka campaign.

  77. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    April 21st, 2007 at 12:48 am
    When you say “very few” do you mean “Between 75,000 and 142,771”?
    That is the range of votes for Senatorial elections from 1994-2006.”

    I’d have to check on the current numbers, but from what I recall the number of people registered under the American Independent Party in California is a lot higher than that. Also, it is quite possible that many of the people who voted for the American Independent Party in those Senate races didn’t know anything about the candidates or the party, they could have just gone into the polling place and thought something like, “Well, I’m an independent and so is this guy so I’ll vote for him.” To somebody who really follows politics like yourself this may sound ridiculous, but I can tell you for a fact that there are many people who think that way.

    I’ve personally registered THOUSANDS of people to vote in California and I can tell you that I NEVER ran into one person who knew what the American Independent Party was. I’ve talked to other people who’ve registered THOUSANDS of people to vote in California and they’ve said the same thing. The times that people marked the American Independent Party box they all thought that it meant that they were registering as indepedents, which as I said before in California is Decline To State A Political Party. I told a few people what the American Independent Party was (and no, I did not say it in a negative way, remember, I actually like you guys as I said that you all are my 2nd favorite party) and the people requested another registration form so they could mark the Decline To State A Political Party box. When I told other people what it was they just said something like, “The heck with it, it doesn’t matter anyway and I’m in a hurry so I’ll just leave it like that.”

    I’m not saying that there’s no real support in California for the American Independent Party, I’m just saying that the REAL supporters of that party are nowhere near the number of registered voters for that party.

    “Actually, I agree that IF Ron Paul switched,he would probably switch to the LP. But I see a few holes in your logic.
    You pointed to his problems with our drug, gambling, and prostitution policy. I would point to HIS problems with the LP’s border policy.”

    There is a lot of debate in the LP over border policy and there are many people in the LP that agree with Ron Paul on this issue, including current LP Presidential candidate George Phillies (who at this time is probably the leading candidate).

    I agree that it COULD be a problem with people in the party who I consider to be unrealistic and who can’t tell the difference between an immigrant and an invader (as in peaceful vs. non-peaceful), however, I’d be willing to bet that if Ron Paul went for the LP nomination that he’d probably win it in spite of this.

    IF Ron Paul were to swing towards the Constitution Party that would be the one issue that could push him to it, but given other issues, and given Ron’s history with the LP, and given that the LP is on the ballot in more states, I would not say that Ron going to the Constitution Party is a strong bet. I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, I’m just saying that it’s not the most likely scenario.

    Incidentily, if Ron did decide to go to the Constitution Party for some reason I’d probably still vote for him because I doubt that the LP will come up with as strong a candidate (in terms of name recognition, ability to raise money, credibility, and overall ability to get the message out). So in this scenario I’d probably vote Ron Paul for President and vote for the Libertarian candidates for any other offices where a Libertarian candidate was on the ballot.

    One issue you neglected to mention is trade. I posted several articles by Ron Paul about this in the past that clearly showed Ron Paul being in support of free trade. Ron opposes NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, CAFTA, and the FTAA because they are NOT real free trade, but instead government managed trade for the benifit of select corporations, and also because they grant governmental powers to unelected international entities. The Constitution Party also opposes these agreements but they want to go further than just getting out of them, they want to increase tarriffs which is protectionism. Ron has clearly opposed increasing tarriffs and if he were President he’d veto any bill that Congress sent him to increase them.

    “You also point to the ballot-access problem. I just sat in on a meeting in which the committee for Ballot-access has made a “rational guess” at having 45-50 state ballot access (oh. And did I mention a new group in American Somoa)? Arizona is under way right now, with Indiana close behind. Those are basically locked up as far the Executive Committee in concerned. In Georgia there is significant financial help which is specifically for ballot access,they anticipate getting on the ballot there also. Maryland is the one that is in question. I would guess 43-46 states in ‘08.”

    If this committee really thinks they are going to get 50 state ballot access, plus Washington DC I assume, I wonder if they realize how much work it is. I can tell you that getting national ballot access is VERY difficult. It can be done but it takes a lot of hard work and a lot of money, and even then it is not a gaurentee that you’ll make it.

    You mentioned getting on the ballot in 43-46 states. I think that Ron Paul would PREFER to be on the ballot in all 50 states plus Washington DC and to do that the LP would be his best bet.

    The fact is that the Libertarian Party is way ahead of the Constitution Party with ballot access. The Constitution Party has several big petition drives to do where the Libertarian Party is already on the ballot, and while the Constitution Party is doing this the Libertarian Party will be working on other states. Therefore the Libertarian Party has a better chance of getting 50 state plus Washington DC ballot status than the Constitution Party does.

    Interesting that you brought up American Samoa. That would be a cool place to do a petition drive!

    “You also mentioned that Ron Paul still attends conventions from time to time. This honestly means nothing, he has attended Nevada IAP (CP affilliate) meetings, Texas CP meetings, and is scheduled to attend the next Nevada IAP Convention.
    He also donated money to the ‘04 Peroutka campaign.”

    Yeah, I already knew that Ron Paul has attened some Constitution Party conventions/meetings. There are other LP members that have done this and there are Constitution Party members who’ve attended LP conventions/meetings. Ron has also donated money to Libertarian candidates & causes. I hadn’t heard anything about Ron having donated money to the Peroutka campaign, but I know that Ron knows Michael Badnarik and apparently thinks favorably of him and in fact wrote a forward in Badnarik’s book “It’s Good To Be King”.

    Ron is still a member of the Libertarian Party and as I said before he’s never disavowed his membership in the LP. Ron is also a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute ( www.Mises.org ) which is a libertarian educational organization/think tank. Also, in every interview that I’ve seen since Ron has announced that he’s running for President the word “libertarian” has been used.

    The most likely scenario is that Ron Paul will fail to get the Republican nomination and then he’ll drop out of the race. If he decides to continue he MIGHT go the independent or Constitution Party route, but I’d say the most likely scenario in that case would be that he seeks the Libertarian Party nomination again.

  78. Trent Hill Says:

    The LP isn’t garaunteed 50 state ballot-access. I would guess 45-48. Plus D.C. and Guam.

    The Committee I mentioned is well educated on matters of ballot-access. And that wasn’t an optimistic number,it was a realistic one. The truth is, there should’ve been a substantial increase in states in 2004, but Peroutka (as well as some others) dropped the ball.

    Here is where we can agree:

    It would be far more likely for Ron Paul to goto the LP than the CP.

    He won’t goto either. He will lose the Republican nomination…then go back to congress. Hopefully in his last term he will switch to LP or CP.

  79. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    April 21st, 2007 at 2:23 am
    The LP isn’t garaunteed 50 state ballot-access. I would guess 45-48. Plus D.C. and Guam.”

    You are right that the LP isn’t gaurenteed 50 state plus DC ballot status. It is attainable but it depends on how organized the party is over the next few months and how much of a priority the party puts on ballot access. The LP COULD have and SHOULD have gotten national ballot access in 2004, but the New Hampshire LP SCREWED UP on their petition drive and the LP gave up too early in Oklahoma and went for a “Hail Mary” law suit instead. I talked to them about starting Oklahoma in 2003 but nobody ever followed through with it and they went for that law suit which I thought they would probably lose which they did.

    National ballot status for the LP in 2008 IS within reach, it just depends on whether or not enough people in the party are willing to reach for it by laying down the necessary groundwork in 2007.

    “It would be far more likely for Ron Paul to goto the LP than the CP.

    He won’t goto either. He will lose the Republican nomination…then go back to congress. Hopefully in his last term he will switch to LP or CP.”

    Ron is getting old, I think he’s 71. I’ve heard that as of now he plans to run to retain his seat in Congress if he fails to win the Republican nomination. If he ever plans to run as a Libertarian again, or run under the Constitution Party banner or as an independent one would think that he should do it before he gets too much older.

  80. Kn@ppster Says:

    “The Zero Dues members don’t amount for much because they haven’t donated any money to the party. 11,792 dues paying members is WAY lower than it was a few years ago. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that the number of dues paying members was over 3 times that. Now if we could find a way to get those 104,732 Zero Dues members to donate some money, that would be fantastic, but unfortunately this is easier said than done.”

    Actually, many “zero dues” members HAVE donated money to the party in the past—they just haven’t done so this year.

    The dues-paying membership topped out at a little under three times the current amount, but much of that additional membership was essentially “dead weight” financially for the national organization insofar as a) half their dues went to the state parties under the Unified Membership Program, b) much of the rest was spent sending them their monthly edition of LP News and six fundraising letters a year, and c) in one or both of the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections, contributions to the presidential campaign were counted toward “dues,” even though the money went directly into the presidential campaign, not into the party’s accounts.

    It’s probably not a coincidence that the current number of dues-paying members is about the same as in 1994, the year that heavy direct mail recruiting operations to purchased “affinity group” lists began (said operations stopped in 2000, and dues-paying membership began an immediate drop back toward the old numbers).

    George Phillies’s book Funding Liberty covers this phenomenon in considerable detail, btw.

  81. Eric Dondero Says:

    Trent,

    What makes you so sure Ron Paul can win reelection to his Congressional seat? Constituents in our District are hoppin’ mad over his opposition to the War in Iraq. There’s at least one major GOP contender already spreading the word that he’s planning to run. And this guy is pretty damn good from a libertarian perspective. He’s hardcore anti-Tax.

    Ron’s District has changed. It’s closer to Houston now. And Houston Republicans have always been suspicious of him. Add to that, Ron has managed to anger many of his rural constituents because of his anti-Iraq War stance.

    I’d say, he’s in serious trouble. My guess, he doesn’t run for reelection to the seat.

  82. Trent Hill Says:

    Eric.

    Thanks for the half good, half bad news.

    Half-good: Ron Paul may swtich to LP or CP for his presidential run, or failing that, he may switch to LP or CP affilliation while holding his current seat.

    Half-bad: Ron Paul will no longer be in Congress.

  83. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    April 21st, 2007 at 11:19 am
    Trent,

    What makes you so sure Ron Paul can win reelection to his Congressional seat? Constituents in our District are hoppin’ mad over his opposition to the War in Iraq. There’s at least one major GOP contender already spreading the word that he’s planning to run. And this guy is pretty damn good from a libertarian perspective. He’s hardcore anti-Tax.”

    This guy can’t be too anti-tax if he supports the war in Iraq since the war in Iraq is a big tax boondoggle.

    “Ron’s District has changed. It’s closer to Houston now. And Houston Republicans have always been suspicious of him. Add to that, Ron has managed to anger many of his rural constituents because of his anti-Iraq War stance.

    I’d say, he’s in serious trouble. My guess, he doesn’t run for reelection to the seat.”

    Maybe Ron will lose his seat in Congress. Who knows? It’s still early so we’ll see what happens.

  84. Trent Hill Says:

    And Eric…

    Just because you don’t like Ron Paul anymore doesn’t mean that he won’t get re-elected. He is a powerful figure with nationwide support.

  85. Sean Scallon Says:

    Eric, Ron Paul’s constitutents were so mad at him for opposing the war last year you know what they did?

    They re-elected him.

    Now go find Rudy Guliani so you can go kiss his arese again.

  86. Trent Hill Says:

    LMAO.

    Sean,well said.

  87. david Says:

    Alan Key’s would be a disaster for the Consitution Party. He is interested in only one thing—- promoting Alan Key’s. Look at all his campaigns, total disastures everyone and full of questionable ethics regarding finances. My younger brother lived in Maryland at the time of his first Senate run and helped in his campaign, he told be it was the first and last time he ever saw a candidate make money off his own campaign. I have voted Constitution Party 3 of the last 4 presidential elections – the exeception I voted for Pat in 2000 -and have given them hundreds of dollars over that time. If Keys is the nominee I am totally finished with the Consitution Party.

  88. Trent Hill Says:

    David,

    Alan Keyes WILL NOT make it to our Presidential candidacy. He might run, but he won’t get it. Most of us already favor Jerome Corsi over him.

    I might be willing to nominate him for VEEP, in order to get his name recognition on the ticket,and his money into the campaign…but avoid the obvious issues.

  89. Trent Hill Says:

    However….you never know. Alan Keyes and Jerome Corsi would have to REALLY impress the convention.

Leave a Reply