Milnes Not Endorsing Paul
The latest from Robert Milnes:
See: http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/steve-kubby-endorses-ron-paul/ and http://www.kubby2008.com/node/54First I’d like to say that by far the most important development in the libertarian race thus far is “The Libertarian Vote” study published by The Cato Institute. See: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735 Briefly, 20% of voters are libertarian leaning at the beginning of the election cycle (Gallup Governance Survey). 13% are reliably libertarian. 1% wind up actually voting Libertarian. My own conclusion is that 7% of the 20% are leftists. Further, I estimate the leftist vote as 27% which leaves 20% left, 20% right i.e. 40% possible progressive vote. If you understand this study, you understand a lot about the Progressive Alliance Strategy and what is happening with Ron Paul. Paul has tapped into this initial cycle 20%. It represents a kind of “glass ceiling” which no Libertarian can penetrate. This is why I believe it cannot last and Ron Paul cannot get the GOP nomination. Now, I believe, and I have read others about this, that Ron Paul’ s positions actually fit best in the Constitution Party. Kubby correctly describes Paul as a “right-wing libertarian” & I enjoyed his description of the Libertarian Party as like a plane with only a right wing. Kubby wants to reach out to leftists but he wants their vote and support but offers them little compared to an actual agreement (alliance).
The Progressive Alliance Strategy calls for a left-libertarian presidential candidate OR a Green. Briefly, this strategy calls for cooperation between the inclusive Green and Libertarian Parties in order to garner the 40% progressive vote. One Green OR Libertarian on EVERY ballot, so as not to split the vote; first come, first served. The executive ticket is more complicated but the most simple strategy would be for the Green Party to endorse the Libertarian ticket as it will probably garner more ballot access. Clearly in all this Paul’s candidacy is an anomaly and an unfortunate complication. He is drawing libertarian support from the libertarians to the GOP. If we further assume a working hypothesis that there are about 50% right and left libertarians, Paul is getting most right and many left libertarian support (70%). I am convinced the LibertarianLists poll is fairly accurate. See: http://www.libertarianlists.com/surveyresult1 In all of this in my opinion Kubby’s endorsement of Ron Paul’s candidacy is a huge strategic blunder. He should call for, as I do, for libertarians to cease their support for Ron Paul. He is diverting libertarian support to the GOP. He is not a good progressive alliance candidate.
In fact, if he gets the LP and/or the Constitution Party nomination, he could ruin (spoiler) a Progressive Alliance attempt at victory.”All Together Now” should mean all the LP candidates call for libertarians to cease support for Ron Paul. Kubby wants his cake & eat it too. He endorses Ron Paul yet says”I’m still running for president”. Also that if Paul wins the GOP nomination, he “...will withdraw, ask the party to nominate “None of the Above”... and work as a volunteer on Paul’s…campaign.” If not, he will”...continue preparing to give the LP the best presidential campaign I can…”. I, on the other hand, will not endorse Ron Paul and continue to offer all progressives the reasonable chance of election victory. For further information about my candidacy, See; http://www.robertmilnes.net
WE ARE IN TO WIN.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Interesting.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I thought Milnes didn’t exist?
July 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Libertarians for Ron Paul welcomes the non-support from Robert Milnes, who represents nobody but himself in either the Libertarian or Green Parties.
Ron Paul has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and opposed the Patriot Act. Many antiwar liberals are coming to see Paul as a principled alternative to the pro-interventionist Democrats such as Hillary Clinton.
As for seeking a Progressive Alliance between the Libertarian Party and the Green Party behind a single candidate – that is not going to happen. Libertarians should work with Greens in areas of common interest – legalizing Marijuana, opposing the war, etc. But since Ralph Nader left the Green Party, not enough is left to matter.
July 21st, 2007 at 1:22 am
That’s ludicrous on so many levels.
1. How would you ever organize it?
2. Why would small government libs want to vote for big government greens? And vice versa?
3. Combine the 0.3% Libertarian vote with the 0.1% Green vote and now you have 0.4%. Big whip.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:34 am
Reports of my non-existance are greatly exaggerated.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:44 am
Least.Newsworthy.Story.Ever.
July 21st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Who is Robert Milnes and why should we give a rats @ss?
July 21st, 2007 at 11:10 am
I will note that in some states, Maine for example, Greens are in fact a strong and viable party. We garnered about 10% of the vote in the last gubernatorial election in a four way race, until last year we had a member of the state house and have 2 of nine council seats in our biggest city of Portland. Every tally since regaining ballot access in 1998 has shown our party enrollment increasing.
July 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Illinois, Maine, and a couple other states have a decent Green vote.
However, alot of Greens are already flocking to Ron Paul’s campaign. In my meetup group (baton rouge), there are 45 members. 4 are greens. Mind you,they are not socialists…they are anti-establishment, small government, environmentalists. But they DO exist.
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 am
Over at Last Free Voice, they have an expose on Milnes’s (surprise, surprise!) criminal background. Turns out he is mentally unstable—what a shock!
http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/07/20/robert-milnes-steve-kubby-ron-paul-fan-letters-and-prison/
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 am
Yea, I’v heard about this. Milnes has pretty openly claimed that he is mentally unstable in the past.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Trent, no, I stated that I was diagnosed long ago with “severe reactive depression”. & I have found that I also have neurasthenia. Symptoms: fatigue, difficulty concentrating, occasional headaches, backaches & drawing pains in the extremities & sleep disorder. I have no “mental instability”.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 am
Trent, actually I consider myself surprisingly lucid despite the pain & discomfort I live with every day.
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
With an unpopular war going on and the fascist USA PATRIOT act in effect, Ron Paul’s message is very appealing to many on the left. He is getting good press from Air America. If Hillary gets the DP nod, then many on the left would vote for Ron Paul should he get the RP nod.
Under other conditions, Ron Paul would not be able to build such a coalition. But today these conditions exist. Those of us who cherish liberty should play the hand we are currently dealt.
In the longer run, I think a new party which includes workable elements of smaller government, more economic equality and a greener environment is the way to go. I once harbored hopes that the LP could be that party, but now think it is time to start from scratch. (Could still happily be proven wrong, however.)
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Perhaps Milnes should hire Hacker to run his campaign. They both appear to be on the same “level”.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
“He should call for, as I do, for libertarians to cease their support for Ron Paul. He is diverting libertarian support to the GOP.”
Is this guy serious? Unfortunately he is.
Libertarian support is NOT being diverted to the GOP, only to Ron Paul himself. What percentage of libertarian voters are supporting any of the other GOP candidates, I think most would agree that percentage is very small.
Mr. Milnes is hung up on letters after one’s name instead of focusing on platform.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Jay: Actually, you’re wrong. 10.8% of Libertarians are supporting Republicans other than Ron Paul. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuiliani each have more support from libertarians than do George Phillies or Steve Kubby.
http://capitalistdove.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/libertarian-presidential-poll-results/
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
G.E., even still that’s 10.8% spread out among nine other GOP candidates / possible candidates.
That’s very small.
July 22nd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
10.8% of “libertarians” supporting fascist Republicans is a pretty high percentage. That’s like 10.8% of the NAACP supporting David Duke for Congress.
July 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Carl, we’ve been dealt two hands.
July 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
If 10.8% is a lot I’ll take your word for it. I don’t have any previous election data for comparision.
On its own merit though it’s a small percentage and very spread out. Furthermore, it’s hard to take anyone calling themselves a libertarian seriously if they are supporting any candidate not named Ron Paul.
Kudos to Kubby for putting platform (and common sense) ahead of party affiliation.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
That’s 10.8% in addition to 70% supporting Paul.
In other words, there are 10.8% of libertarians for whom a Libertarian isn’t good enough—and neither is Ron Paul.
that’s pretty bad, imo.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Yes, I understand. It makes little sense. And makes you wonder if they know what libertarian principles.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
“Trent, actually I consider myself surprisingly lucid despite the pain & discomfort I live with every day.”
Super duper.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I feel sorry for Mr. Milnes. Really, I do. Just like I feel sorry for Gene Chapman; Randy Crowe, etc. This “presidential syndrome” is very prevalent. Jonathan Sharkey is another exibitor.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Trent, what does ‘super duper” mean? G.E. Smith, sorry, I don’t have “presidential syndrome”. I’ve made it clear I would step aside for someone more electable who tried the Strategy.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
So in other words, if ANYONE wanted to try to strategy other than you?
Doesn’t the fact that no one’s stepping up prove that your strategy is stupid?
I think it does.
I honestly feel sorry for you, Robert. You were probably abused as a kid or had some traumatic event in life. I hope there is a way for you to get help.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:13 am
G.E. Smith, no. It must be a left libertarian or green. Most of the present candidates are left libertarians. But all the past nominees are believed to have been right libertarians. & look at what has happened. & Now a right libertarian-Ron Paul-is running away with libertarian support & a left libertarian-Kubby-has endorsed him. You wonder why I came out against this? The other possibility, a green, would require a green to try-which I am-for the nomination & actually get support. That’s not happening, is it? So the strategy is not proved stupid, just is being proved lacking support. By a bunch of losers. What else is to be expected? No, I was not abused as a child except living in poverty much of it. I did not have a traumatic event. I do not need or want the kind of help you are patronizingly talking about, thank you.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Robert,
Greens and Libertarians are diametrically opposed. Big Government vs. Small Government. Socialist vs. Freedom.
And the Greens who ARENT Socialists, have already been attracted by Paul’s campaign. There are two small-government Greens in my meetup group.
Oh,and “super duper” means I think you are off your rocker.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Trent, yes, greens & libertarians are diametrically opposed. But if you notice on the political graph, left libertarian scores are in the same vicinity as leftist (green) scores. The libertarian vote-7% of 27% =about 1/4 leftists lean libertarian. Yet both greens & libs wind up voting dem & rep. or not voting. & what is the goal or ideal for libs & greens? Self reliance, little or no government, laissaiz-fare or barter/functionalism economics. Some form of anarchism. Look at the commonality & goals & ideals, not the differences. Last poll I saw-Ron Paul 2%. I guarantee it won’t go up. Thank god.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:13 am
keyboard ocean see boat ugly america car yahoo