Third Party Watch

24 Responses to “Kubby Endorses Paul”

1. disinter Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

   Cool!

2. Lex Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 7:22 pm

   Not a bad strategic move by Kubby: give Ron Paul a big thumbs up, get yourself noticed by all the Ron Paul fans, and keep your campaign warm on the back burner in case he doesn’t get the Republican nomination.

   The only downside is if Ron Paul’s supporters (he already has more volunteers on Meetup.com than the LP has members) persuade Ron Paul to pursue an independent bid if the early primaries don’t go well (or “spam” Unity08 to draft Ron Paul as their own back-up plan.) Ron Paul has said in the past that he’s not interested in another third-party run, but maybe all the enthusiasm will change his mind.

   Personally, I think Ron Paul has a real chance to win the GOP nomination, given the weakness of the front-runners, and the typically low turnout in the primaries. A dedicated 5-10% fan base could be enough to win in a multi-candidate field with sub-20% turnout, if his supporters turnout at 80% levels.

   I suspect the LP candidate (Kubby or someone else) will get a huge boost from the energized Ron Paul supporters, if even half of them switch to the LP, in the event Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination.

3. Jay Matthews Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 7:31 pm

   I think Ron Paul would consider a third-party, but not independent, run. He frequently sites ballot access as a problem for independents but the LP had access in 48 out of 50 states in ‘04.

4. Gene Berkman Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

   We at “Libertarians for Ron Paul” welcome the support of Steve Kubby, who is joining with many other Libertarian activists in support of a candidate who truly represents the cause of Freedom, Capitalisma and Peace.”

   It is too early to decide on what to do after the Republican nomination is decided, but we know millions of Americans want a choice for peace and limited government.

5. disinter Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pm

   Personally, I think Ron Paul has a real chance to win the GOP nomination

   Me too. Here’s why:

   http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070718/cm_thenation/45215225

6. David Aitken Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

   I doubt seriously that Paul will win the GOP nomination. I suspect a lot of his support comes from independents and MoveOn types who will not register Republican and get chosen as delegates to the national convention to get him nominated.

7. Steve Kubby endorses Ron Paul for president « Capitalist Dove Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm

   [...] Steve Kubby endorses Ron Paul for president Paulie Cannoli broke the story: Steve Kubby Endorses Ron Paul. The news is also being covered at Kn@ppster (And now for something completely different) and Third Party Watch (Kubby Endorses Paul). [...]

8. Austin Cassidy Says:
   July 19th, 2007 at 11:32 pm

   Yeah, I generally agree… Paul is an interesting candidate but Republican primary voters aren’t going to come out for him in mass numbers.

   As a Unity 08 or LP candidate… he could do far better than Ed Clark. Maybe Steve Kubby would like to have a shot at being the VP candidate? Though I think the smarter money would be Paul asking a bigger name to appear on the ticket… someone like Bob Barr or Ed Thompson.

9. Anthony Distler Says:
   July 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am

   I certinally don’t think that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination, but he will be one of the only Republicans left standing when it gets towards the middle of primary season. Jim Gilmore is already gone, and I suspect John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback will all be out of the race, maybe even as early as the Iowa caucus. He has the money that can keep his campaign going, and it will really give him a publicity boost.

   I see a lot of similarities in the New Hampshire senate race and the Libetarian presidental race. In New Hampshire, you have a lot of Democrats clamering for a shot at Sununu, but if Jeanne Shaheen get’s into the race, they all said they’d drop out. I think, if Ron Paul decides to run as a Libetarian for president, all the other candidates would drop out and support him.

10. Lex Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 12:45 am

    I’ve heard that election laws would prevent him from running as a third party candidate in some states. Any truth to that?

11. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 2:03 am

    I think this is an excellent move for Kubby, both from ethical and utilitarian standpoints. On the ethical side of things, Kubby notes there are many issues on which he and Dr. Paul disagree — abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. — but even in light of these conflicts, libertarians have spoken loud and clear for Ron Paul, and Kubby respects that. Even I — a militantly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-immigration Libertarian — have said on numerous occasions that I would vote for Ron Paul if he made it to the general election ballot.

    From a utilitarian standpoint, this endorsement will hopefully earn Kubby the support of Paul backers “if” (when) Paul fails to win the GOP nomination. It’s clear that Ron Paul has galvanized small-government, anti-war, and pro-liberty activists, and it’s important for big-L Libertarians to network with these “Paulines” and bring them into the broader liberty movement (via a new and stronger Libertarian Party) for 2009 and beyond. Kudos to Steve Kubby for recognizing this.

12. Carl Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am

    Finally, a prominent Libertarian who is making some sense! Go for the coattails, fellas!

    BTW, at the meetup I attended, independents and disaffiliated Libertarians predominated.

    Forget the polls of “likely voters”. In crossover friendly states, build up a local database of interested independents and get them out on primary day! It’s time for some shock and awe!

13. Trent Hill Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    I disagree that most of Ron Paul’s support comes from MoveOn types and whatever else.

    I’v been on the ground. The 22,000 meetup group members are almost entirely Republican-registered. The ones who arent (like me), will be soon so they can vote for Paul in the primaries.
    Iowa is being phone banked like hell, and there are about 350 activists on the ground there (judging by meetup group numbers) which is more than any other Republican campaign in Iowa. As for NH, Ron Paul has more activists than anyone—Republican or Democrat.
    If the Paul campaign can get 10,000 votes in the Ames Straw Poll, he will win the nomination (or at least make a REALLY strong run at it).

14. Anthony Distler Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Just think, if the Ames Strw Poll goes Romney/F.Thompson/Paul, then both Tommy Thompson and Mike Huckabee will both be out of the race. Opens things up a little bit.

15. matt Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    We don’t want things opened TOO far, remember that Ron Paul is benefitting from the split warmonger vote. I don’t think he’ strong enough to win a 2-way primary yet.

16. Allen Hacker Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Lex,

    So far as I noticed while researching for the recent CD10 race in Texas, the state laws here that restrict candidates by qualifications specifically exempt candidates for President and Vice-president from the restrictions. Further, and generally, where there are declared federal constitutional qualifications, state laws do not apply.

    The Tom DeLay case was a good example. He withdrew after the replacement deadline, and the court barred the Rs from replacing him under state laws that prohibited it, but that was an administrative scheduling law and not a qualifications law.

    On the other hand, state laws that require a candidate to be a resident of the area s/he proposes to be elected from do not apply to candidates for US Congress; that’s a qualifications requirement, and the federal constitution says all that can be said on the issue.

    Basically, states are the judges of their own elections, which covers adminstrivia like timelines and dates, and polling rules, etc. But they have no say in the qualifications of federal candidates.

    On a completely different note….

    One potential problem I have heard of, but not seen verified or refuted, is that in some states, if a person is on the ballot from two parties, he is considered two distinct candidates for the purpose of vote tallying, and the votes are not totaled together: he is running against himself and may split his own vote.

    I haven’t pondered how such a rule might fare in federal court in the case of a federal candidate. But since we do not have a parliamentary form of government, it is likely that the Rs and Ls would not be allowed to combine votes to gain a state-wide Electoral College majority in a presidential election, even if they represented the same candidate, unless a federal court struck down the state restriction by finding that the constitutional provisions for the electoral college indeed provided enough guidance toward the college’s electors being bound to the majority of votes rather than to the candidate personally. However, I doubt that happening: I suspect that Article II, Section 1.2 allows the states to sever the votes by defining the electors’ responses to the election: 2.1.2 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,...”, whereby the states can (and do) appoint electors based on majorty result by party alone (where an Independed is considered a “party” for the specific purpose of assigning electors).

    Yes, the electors can freely vote their personal choices, as Roger McBride did in 1972 by voting for the LP candidates despite being a Republican elector, but it’s unlikely that an entire state’s delegation would bolt just because their candidate didn’t get more votes than a multi-line fusion candidate did. (That level of electoral integrity would be unprecedented.)

    Seems to answer your question, and then seems to say that there’s a different reason in a different situation that the same unwanted result might occur anyway, doesn’t it? Well… that’s the politics of power.

    0

17. SovereignMN Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    “If the Paul campaign can get 10,000 votes in the Ames Straw Poll, he will win the nomination (or at least make a REALLY strong run at it).”

    That’s a pretty bold statement, Trent. I hope you are right.

    In 1996 I was on the ground in Iowa for Buchanan. We went from 2% in the August-1995 polls to losing Iowa by 1 point in the caucus. After winning NH we came within an eyelash of winning the nomination. I don’t think people realize just how much the GOP establishment sabotaged Buchanan’s campaign. They were filled with fear that an anti-establishment candidate could win.

    After NH was Arizona and then SC a few days later. Buchanan was leading all the Arizona polls by 5 points in the days leading up to the election. Then he ended up finishing a shocking 3rd, behind Forbes and Dole, derailing his momentum and giving the nomination to Dole. Had Buchanan won Arizona he would have probably won SC and had a good chance to earn the nomination.

    Here’s an article about some shady politicking that took place in Iowa and Arizona that year. IMHO it would be worse for Ron Paul.

    http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Bulletins/tim96-03a.html

18. Kris Overstreet Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    You’re all neglecting the fact that Ron Paul is also running for re-election to Congress as a Republican. He won’t bolt the party for an independent campaign and jeopardize that.

19. Kn@ppster Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    I agree with SovereignMN on this. Paul’s campaign is going to have to play itself a lot further down the field than the Iowa straw poll for his nomination to become an obvious, or even likely, thing.

    BUT … a strong performance in the Iowa poll would be a great start.

    1) It would make it possible for him to raise a LOT more money nationwide.

    2) If he places a strong second (or, if Fred Thompson is participating, which I hadn’t heard, even a strong third) in the straw poll, then he’ll probably do at LEAST that well or better in the December caucus, because he’ll be able to get over the “Paul can’t win or I’d support him” wall.

    He’s already got advantages in New Hampshire. It’s a small enough state for him to reach the voters even with limited funds, those voters tend to be libertarian-leaning already, and there are organized libertarian presences in the state capable of swaing elections.

    If he can do well in the December Iowa caucus, he can win in the January New Hampshire primary. If he can do well in next month’s Iowa straw poll, he can raise the money to be ready to compete in South Carolina with that New Hampshire win under his belt. And if he can win New Hampshire and place or show in Iowa and South Carolina, then people are going to stop thinking of him as a long shot and start thinking of him as a contender.

20. G.E Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    Question for the Paul experts: Ron Paul was an advocate for drug legalization in 1988. Has his position changed? I understand why he’s not highlighting the issue, but if asked flat out, does he still oppose the war on drugs? More importantly, would he pardon all non-violent drug offenders if he were made president? I have convinced my leftist wife that Paul is worth supporting on these grounds.

    Kubby’s endorsement of Paul makes me feel much better about supporting Paul, because in doing so, I’m supporting a real libertarian (Kubby), and not just a “sorta” libertarian with a lot of right-wing authoritarian ideas that partially offset his wonderful pro-liberty ideas. Kubby’s endorsement is quite liberating.

21. Carl Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Paul came out against the War on Drugs on the Colbert Report.

22. Gene Trosper Says:
    July 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Gene Berkman mentions “Libertarians For Ron Paul” in an above post, so I would like to provide the URL: http://www.libertariansforpaul.com

    I proudly help run the site.

23. Trent Hill Says:
    July 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    “Question for the Paul experts: Ron Paul was an advocate for drug legalization in 1988. Has his position changed? I understand why he’s not highlighting the issue, but if asked flat out, does he still oppose the war on drugs? More importantly, would he pardon all non-violent drug offenders if he were made president? I have convinced my leftist wife that Paul is worth supporting on these grounds.”

    He is still viruntly anti-Drug War. Has stated so many times in many different articles and shows.

24. texas holdem gratis spielen Says:
    July 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    software poker gratis

    Zwei poker tour gioco free video poker game download free kyocera ringtones online casino bonus gluck spiel

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.