NC Libertarians Pass Resolution Opposing LNC Invitation to Ron Paul
The Libertarian Party of North Carolina has just passed a resolution condemning the actions of the of the Libertarian National Committee when they encouraged Ron Paul to consider seeking the Libertarian Party nomination. I’ll provide the entire wording of the resolution, but interject some opinionated commentary at points.
For the purpose of disclosure, I do support the Paul campaign and have worked at a national level in various roles with the Libertarian Party for some time. I am not serving, nor have I served, on the Libertarian National Committee. I was witness to many of the events described in the resolution below.
It should also be indicated that I don’t know how many people (or who) voted for or against this resolution:
In December, the Libertarian National Committee voted unanimously to invite Dr. Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for president, to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.The members also voted unanimously to offer access to an LP Ballot Access database, paid for and supported by Libertarian Party members, to supporters of Dr. Paul’s campaign for the Republican nomination. These votes were taken after an executive session.
The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina believes these actions, and the secrecy of the deliberations leading up to them, were inappropriate because they violate the trust placed in the LNC by the LP Bylaws.
It’s true that there was (presumably, because of the length of time the doors were closed) considerable discussion of this issue behind closed doors. The other side of the coin is that many LNC members were discussing this topic openly the night before the vote. I probably spoke with six or eight board members myself that night about this particular topic.
I think it was a bad political call for the LNC to have conducted as much of the debate in Executive Session. While there may have been a few issues which needed airing in private, the general topic was political and there was no obvious need (from the perspective of an external observer) as to why most of the “official” debate was held behind closed doors. I was surprised when, of all people, Angela Keaton requested that the board meet in Executive Session, IAW the Libertarian National Committee Policy Manual Article 1 Section 2 Line 3v, for the purpose of “board self-evaluation.”
I’ll suggest that the self-evaluation clause should be stricken from the Policy Manual, because it is open to abuse by board members for about any conceivable issue. I seem to recall predicting to someone (perhaps Susan Hogarth) that discussing this topic in Executive Session would eventually backfire politically. This isn’t saying that I do, or don’t, support portions of the resolution—merely the way the debate was handled.
While we see it as within the authority of party officials to recruit Libertarian candidates when there is no Libertarian candidate for a given office, it is not the place of LP officials either to encourage or discourage individuals from entering into a race where a Libertarian is already seeking the party’s nomination.It is not within the authority of the LNC to encourage or discourage any individual to seek or from seeking a nomination from the LP for any office. The LNC should show no favoritism of this kind.
The North Carolina resolution may not “see” the authority for the LNC “to encourage or discourage individuals from entering into a race where a Libertarian is already seeking the party’s nomination,” but that doesn’t mean such authority doesn’t exist. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Bylaws or Policy Manual which indicates or even suggests this. To the contrary, the Bylaws read: “The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these Bylaws.” Candidate recruitment would seem a reasonable affair for a political party.
Unless someone can show me otherwise, this statement seems to be factually incorrect: “It is not within the authority of the LNC to encourage or discourage any individual to seek or from seeking a nomination from the LP for any office.”
We call on the LNC, before again offering such assistance, to establish standards under which the committee would consider any future proposal to offer assistance to anyone seeking to influence an outside political party or any other outside organization.
I don’t remember complaints about the LP trying to influence political parties when they actively worked to keep Bob Barr from winning an election. I’m currently trying to influence legislation on two bills in Alabama. Should I stop because of the influence it might have on either major political party or an outside organization (I’m assuming the state legislature counts as an outside organization)?
Further, we call on the LNC to allow commentary by individual LP members on any such standards before they are adopted.
First of all, there already is a mechanism for public commentary. At the beginning and end of every LNC meeting, there is time alloted for just this function. Is this resolution suggesting that when a motion is raised on the floor, individual party members should be able to debate the issue at hand? This would not only violate the Rules of Order, but very little would ever be accomplished at board meetings. There is a simple mechanism in place for this and that’s called running for (and winning) a position on the board.
Alternately, the resolution could be suggesting some long and public mechanism to discuss issues before a LNC meeting. This is problematic, as well. Sometimes not revealing one’s hand until the proper time can be a critical component in political strategy. Sometimes, an immediate action needs to be taken. Trying the LNC down to long periods of public discussion would restrict their ability to act quickly while removing any political element of surprise.
This issue has nothing to do with Dr. Paul’s campaign. We recognize many individual libertarians support him and that by working within the Republican Party they can advance the cause of liberty. They are free to do so, as individuals and with their own money and resources, and we wish them well.
Had North Carolina gone after the LNC for the use of BallotBase by Paul supporters, they may have received a different response from me. In my opinion, there is some potential gray area there and it’s a matter for reasonable and rational debate. However, they seem to be complaining about an issue which seems to be within the authority and domain of the Libertarian National Committee.
In closing I’ll note that North Carolina is one of the key recipients of LNC “welfare”: around $47,000 of ballot access money. I don’t recall having ever seen a “Thank You” resolution to the Libertarian National Committee. However, I do see a resolution with the filename of “No confidence.rtf” about an issue which seems to be well within the purview of the board.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I have been trying to get people to join the LP for years. And I have said many times before the LP did anything, that they would lose my support if they could not look past the party and support Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is doing wonders for both the conservative and the libertarian movements. Need I remind libertarians that it is only when we get down to state issues, where Republicans wish to keep control that we have differences. At the federal level, the conservative movement is pretty much in line with the republican party(or atleast, what it claims to stand for, which Ron Paul does).
The GOP is basically falling apart, and everyone with a brain knows Ron Paul is the only chance they have in the future. I think some people are looking more at the LP than at what is going on. Because if the GOP loses, or is continued to be allowed to be such an authoritarian party then us libertarians have lost all federal power. While it may lead to a stronger LP eventually, who knows what kind of government we will have by then.
It is only when you get down to a state level that there become big difference in the LP and the real conservative movement. Obviously, we have big issues with the GOP and their so called front runners, because they are more authoritarian now than the democrats.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Dear NC Libertarian Party,
Enjoy going the way of the Dinosaur and the Dodo. Enjoy garnering 1-4% of the vote in every election. Enjoy your ivory tower politics.
Go Ron Paul!
January 24th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Here’s a good idea. Alienate all of the Ron Paul supporters which is the biggest force in the freedom movement today. Yeah, great way to grow the Libertarian Party. LOL!
January 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am
At least the LNC had the balls to act. Too bad Libertarians in North Carolina don’t get what the LNC does get.
If SG is correct in his assessment of the rules, NC stepped in two big piles of doodoo:
1) Major technical errors with their resolution.
2) Not having the political common sense to know when to shut the “eff” up. There’s a rEVOLution going on and those people are too stupid to realize it.
Fortunately, it seems that the people at the top in the LP do get it.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:18 am
BJT,
When issues like these are raised, there is generally some reasonable debate on the topic. I’m waiting for the guys on the other side of the issue to justify their case; they will probably have some rational arguments. I just don’t see them the way I read the bylaws and policy manual.
You raised a good point about the timing of their resolution. I’m working strongly with Ron Paul supporters here. Casual observation of their resolution would make it appear (on the surface, not necessarily the substance) that they are doing quite the opposite.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Andy,
Most (I mean well over 90 percent now) Libertarians that I know support Ron Paul. The actions of the few aren’t necessarily the desires of most Libertarians.
Additionally, the Libertarians I know who don’t support Paul at least do it for some principled reason. Even if we disagree on a few issues, I can’t help but respect these folks for being willing to do what they think is right. It’s not like they are supporting Rudy or Hillary.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:54 am
“Stephen Gordon Says:
January 24th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Andy,
Most (I mean well over 90 percent now) Libertarians that I know support Ron Paul. The actions of the few aren’t necessarily the desires of most Libertarians.”
Yes, that’s right that the actions of the few are not the desires of the many in this case, however, word of this resolution getting out will make it LOOK LIKE this is a point of view that is held by most Libertarian Party members when it is clearly not a view that is held by most Libertarian Party members. In fact, most Libertarian Party members hold the opposite view and want Ron Paul to seek the LP Presidential nomination.
If Ron Paul does decide to seek the LP Presidential nomination it will be the biggest and best thing to ever happen to the Libertarian Party. Anyone who does not recognize this and/or tries to prevent Ron Paul from getting the LP Presidential nomination is a FOOL.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:15 am
The big ‘L’ Libertarian Party has a great chance to grow by riding the coattails of small ‘l’ libertarian Ron Paul.
Who could be against this? Dummies?
January 24th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Andy writes:
[W]ord of this resolution getting out will make it LOOK LIKE this is a point of view that is held by most Libertarian Party members when it is clearly not a view that is held by most Libertarian Party members. In fact, most Libertarian Party members hold the opposite view and want Ron Paul to seek the LP Presidential nomination.
What ‘opposite view’? I think most NC Libs – including most if not all of the LPNC’s Executive Committee – would like to see Paul seek the LP’s nomination. No doubt that’s why the resolutions author(s) included the sentence “This issue has nothing to do with Dr. Paul’s campaign.”
Incidentally, since Stephen mentioned my name in this post and since I am an activist in NC, I’d like to be clear that I am not on the LPNC Executive Committee and did not participate in this vote (although I was present at the meeting).
This Ron Paul issue has big implications for the LP - and they extend well beyond this election, and beyond Ron Paul. I well understand that Paul is exceptional – but the next few cases may be a bit more marginal. If a precedent is established that the LNC or the LP’s staff can pick and choose which Republicans get the support (in staff time and Party resources) of the LP, I fear we are headed for serious trouble. Will the LP allow, for instance, folks billing themselves as “Ron Paul Republicans” the use of BallotBase and other resources (including staff time and effort)? What if such Republicans are running in primaries against simply despicable Republicans and are also members of the LP by virtue of a contribution or contributions? When we get to that point, we have to question whether we are a ‘separate and distinct’ political party, or simply an advocacy group for getting less-bad Republicans into office.
These are serious questions, and should be answered now by the LNC. They should have been answered before the Paul resolution, and I suspect that feeling was much the motivator for the LPNC’s resolution.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:49 am
As a North Carolina Libertarian, I’d like to say that the LPNC Executive Committee resolution doesn’t speak for me. I think the LNC Resolution congratulating Ron Paul for “his success in spreading a message of peace, prosperity and freedom” was a good thing. I also think it is appropriate for the LNC to invite, encourage, and urge individuals to seek the party’s nomination.
The LPNC Executive Committee resolution was passed at a poorly attended meeting. There were only 7 executive committee members attending, even though there are 13 positions on that committee when all positions are filled. Of the 7 members attending, only 3 of them voted in favor of the resolution. Three others abstained. My point being that there’s little evidence that the LPNC-EC resolution had much support by LPNC members. It also didn’t have the support of the LPNC Chair.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Lest I add to the confusion, the LPNC Executive Committee issued a “statement”, not a resolution. I should have written:
As a North Carolina Libertarian, I’d like to say that the LPNC Executive Committee statement doesn’t speak for me. I think the LNC Resolution congratulating Ron Paul for “his success in spreading a message of peace, prosperity and freedom” was a good thing. I also think it is appropriate for the LNC to invite, encourage, and urge individuals to seek the party’s nomination.
The LPNC Executive Committee statement was passed at a poorly attended meeting. There were only 7 executive committee members attending, even though there are 13 positions on that committee when all positions are filled. Of the 7 members attending, only 3 of them voted in favor of the statement. Three others abstained. My point being that there’s little evidence that the LPNC-EC statement had much support by LPNC members.
The LPNC Chair expressed opposition to the statement.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Beam me up. I yield back the fact that we are a political party and party officials should not be giving party resources to candidates of other parties and promoting candidates of other parties while refusing our own candidates advertising in LP news, mailing lists, and having LP Staff attack our own candidates. If I knew my money was going to be used to influence the dying Republican Party I would have taken the money and invested it in a company that understands the importance of following their own damn rules and actually uses my money to promote their own company which is the only reason why I invested my money with them.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Jake,
If you will note, I didn’t address the use of resources issue, as the resolution was focused on the candidate recruitment angle. Again, with this specific issue, what rule was violated?
January 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Stephen,
I was not responding to you. I was giving my opinion of the LNC resolution and actions towards our own candidates. I do not see any specific rule violated by the recruitment angle at this time.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Gordon:
I don’t recall having ever seen a “Thank You” resolution to the Libertarian National Committee.
On the other hand, the LPNC’s chair, Barbara Howe, did avail herself of the public comment period at the last LNC meeting to personally thank the LNC.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Susan:
Valid point and I had forgotten that.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
As a North Carolina Libertarian, I’ll just say that I did not have much issue with the LNC attempting to recruit Ron Paul. I have personally supported the Ron Paul campaign already with time, money, blog posts, etc. And I hope that Ron does decide to seek the Libertarian nomination if he fails to gain the Republican nomination.
What I had issues with was the secrecy / excessive use of Executive Session. I remain unconvinced that there is anything the LNC should do which is not totally transparent to the membership; and in this case I definitely think the secrecy was inappropriate. And I wish the LPNC resolution had been aimed more at that aspect, rather than the overall act of trying to recruit Ron.
But in the end, it is what it is. Let’s quit arguing about this and worry about getting Libertarians / libertarians elected to office.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“Jake Porter Says:
January 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Beam me up. I yield back the fact that we are a political party and party officials should not be giving party resources to candidates of other parties”
The candidate in question – Ron Paul – happens to still be a Life Member of the Libertarian Party and is a past LP Presidential candidate.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Andy,
The job of the LNC is not to promote the Republican Party or it’s candidates. They have set a dangerous precedent where future LNC’s could endorse and give party resources to Republican and Democratic candidates who are not libertarians. Additionally, the LNC and LP Staff should not be promoting candidates from other organizations while at the same time working against our own candidates.
I believe that like our Bill of Rights and Constitution our By-Laws are important and should not be violated just because the LNC wants to change the rules. That is a decision for the members to make not the LNC. Violating party by-laws is a dangerous position to take.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
The LNC was wrong, and the manner in which they acted tells me that they
knewthey were wrong when they secretly agreed to effectively endorse a Republican who won’t even describe himself as a libertarian.The core of the Libertarian Party is Pro-Choice on everything.
The LNC, however, and Cory, whether allowed by the bylaws to do so or not, decided to use the resources of the LP to promote their own agenda.
Even if you are
nota Ron Paul supporter,you should be repulsed by this act of fraud.
Last time I looked, we have a Convention
scheduled in May for all interested Candidates.
A duty of the LNC is to promote Libertarian Party Candidates.
They have failed, partly because they have showed their personal bias,
and have abused their position of trust,
in the pursuit of their own interests.
Let’s be honest.
Ron Paul left our Party and has never looked back.
He almost shrinks from the question when asked about
his libertarian roots.
He chose to be Republican.
If you choose to support him,
you should become a Republican, too.
Paul says that the issue of reproductive choice
should be decided at the State level, but,
he didn’t think so when he authored a bill, that,
if had become law, would have treated every American fetus,
as an actual American citizen.
Ron Paul is a successful REPUBLICAN politician,
and he is
notexactly an honest man, is he?Paul says that abortion is murder.
Of course, he won’t say that MURDER IS A CRIME
that requires punishment.
Relax, though, he doesn’t want the federal government
to imprison your daughters and wives…
LET THE STATES DECIDE!
If he was a
reallibertarian, he would saythat the decision should be allowed to be made
by the Body-Owner!
Besides, how can we respect a doctor that will not recognize,
or admit, the danger of a world filled with unwanted children?
How can we respect a politician who refuses to admit
that no government, at
anylevel, should ever involveitself, by force, or threat of force, in private Body-Ownership
issues, including lifestyle and reproductive choices?
HOW CAN WE BE FREE IF WE DON’T OWN OUR BODIES?
Some ronpaulicans believe that the RP is falling apart,
and that they are going to take over in the name of Constitutional liberty.
Good luck with that.
Anyone who thinks this just simply does not understand
what a huge political machine that is set against this fantasy.
Republicans are not voting for Paul because
Republicans are mostly Pro-War.
Libertarians are not voting for Paul because,
Libertarians are mostly Pro-Choice.
Ronpaulicans will fail, because, in their fanaticism,
they choose to ignore the
reasonswhy mostRepublicans, and most Libertarians,
reject Ron Paul.
I have been told that Paul is our last great hope for Liberty.
This is absurd.
How can someone who is clearly against Choice,
be the hope for
anyPro-Choice libertarian?Here is a message to all ronpaulicans:
those who disagree with you are not stupid.
THEY JUST SIMPLY DON’T AGREE WITH YOU.
You are
notthe biggest forcein the freedom movement today.
Stop pretending that you are.
What I have noticed about most of you
is what the media has noticed about you.
Being passionate is one thing,
being fanatical is another.
You are quick to engage in namecalling
with anyone that disagrees with you.
Rational conversation doesn’t seem to serve you.
You are angry and desperate.
YOU ARE IMPORTANT.
...but you are wasting your time and energy.
I would rather vote for a Pro-Choice Anti-War LP Candidate
that has no chance at winning,
then vote for an Anti-abortion Republican
that has no chance at winning.
Thank you for listening.
In Pursuit of Liberty and Respect for All,
~Ron Boozell
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyBandwagon/
founder and host of the largest libertarian yahoo!group
I am libertarian, not ronpaulican.
I am Libertarian, not Republican.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Listen…
Ron Paul is a good and decent man. The support he has built is admirable.
However, opposing the LNC resolution has NOTHING to do with Ron Paul. WHATSOEVER.
This has to do with understand the American political system. The Libertarian Party is a political party. The job of the LNC is to direct a political party, not just be an advocate for liberty regardless of party affiliation. That is the job of an interest group or a research institution, like Cato and LvMI, etc. The Libertarian Party is a political party, not a research institution.
The Libertarian Party should not be supporting or aiding candidates from other political parties, regardless of how small l-libertarian they are.
I reflect back to the Joe Lieberman situation in Conn., the Republicans love him and he votes their way most of the time, but the GOP officials never came out fully supported him because they understand how a political party fits in to the American political system.
I also hope that the LNC is aware that they are giving aid and comfort to people who want to destroy the LP, like Eric Dondero. Dondero now believes that a precedent has been set for the LP to support candidates who he believes, in his warped mind, are libertarian—like Rudy Giuliani.
Gordon: “Most (I mean well over 90 percent now) Libertarians that I know support Ron Paul.”
I don’t have any problem with that. Individuals can support whomever they want, regardless of party affiliation. But there is a difference between individuals supporting Ron Paul and the LNC taking the public position that they did. There was no official endorsement—but that resolution is as close to a de-facto endorsement as you can get without being overtly official. Let me also make clear—some Libertarians love Ron Paul, some absolutely hate him. I don’t hate him at all. I think he is definately the closest thing to true justice and reason in the U.S. Congress right now. However, I choose to support the LP in Presidential elections in most cases.
Phillip: “What I had issues with was the secrecy / excessive use of Executive Session. I remain unconvinced that there is anything the LNC should do which is not totally transparent to the membership; and in this case I definitely think the secrecy was inappropriate.”
I agree. It is certainly completely against the spirit of what our party stands for.
Andy: “The candidate in question – Ron Paul – happens to still be a Life Member of the Libertarian Party and is a past LP Presidential candidate.”
That is completely irrelevant. He is a current Republican officeholder, running in the Republican primary for President. He attempts to distance himself from the term “libertarian” and only refers to himself as a “constitutionalist”.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Jeff you are absolutely right in your reasoning in opposition to the LNC/Paul invitation. It
shouldhave nothing to do with Paul, but,t-o-o—l-a-t-e!
I do, however, challenge your positive characterization of a politician
who is
whollyand intentionally dishonest and misleading on Abortion, Choice, and Body-Ownership issues.Most of the ronpaulicans I have met are fanatics,
and fanatics are incapable of reason,
or rational conversation.
Fanatics will abandon everything they
saythey believe in,and will only listen to words of support, as long as it serves
their ultimate goals.
90% of libertarians don’t support Paul,
as some ronpaulicans insist.
Most Pro-Choice libertarians are simply not outspoken
about Paul, and would rather wait 2 more weeks,
(2/5) avoid confrontation with the fanatics,
and move on after the whole ‘revolution’ quietly comes to an end.
I have encountered so much anger and hostility,
and of course, namecalling, because I recognize Paul
as a DANGER to Liberty, because he is a poser,
and does not represent Liberty at all.
Not once have I received a rational response
to my legitimate concerns about Paul
from his supporters.
So, I ask simply this of the ronpaulicans:
When the Ron Paul campaign fails,
try not to think of me as an enemy,
because I am not.
When the Ron Paul campaign fails,
don’t blame me as the reason,
because I am not.
~R
January 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Steve,
You write:
“Again, with this specific issue, what rule was violated?”
The rule that gives the LNC control over the party apparatus “consistent with these bylaws.”
Those bylaws posit the LP as a “separate and distinct” political entity, not a booster club for the Republican Party or the Republican Party’s candidates. They also explicitly forbid state affiliates from endorsing candidates of other parties—a prohibition which implicitly acknowledges that doing so is contrary to the “separate and distinct” clause, which in turn also applies to the LNC.
I wish that prohibition had been EXplicitly extended to the LNC as well. The only reason I can think of why it wouldn’t be is that nobody in their wildest dreams believed that a majority, let alone the entirety, of the LNC could possibly become so unhinged from reality as to think for a moment that endorsing[1] a Republican candidate for president was within that body’s purview.
Screw all this “gray area” noise. The LNC was out of line. I know they were wrong, you know they were wrong, and they know they were wrong. The rest is just dodging and making excuses.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
[1] Yes, it WAS an endorsement. When a party has no fewer than 14 declared candidates for its nomination whom its board can barely be prevailed upon to acknowledge and who that board declines to allow to access the most basic elements of intra-party campaigning, and whom its executive director dismisses in a scathing email, and that board then picks a 15th candidate, of another political party, to “invite” to seek its nomination, there’s just no possible way to construe it as anything BUT an endorsement.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
What happened with that ballot base issue? Was it successful?
January 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Ballot base apparently crapped out after the first 1000 calls.
On another issue:
LNC members have reassured me that it was not an endorsement. I want to take them at their word.
At the next LNC meeting, I call on one or more of the members to introduce a resolution thanking those who are already seeking the nomination and asking more people, in the spirit of more choices being good for the members and resulting in the strongest possible nominee, to consider joining the race.
Let’s make it perfectly clear for the record that the LNC is not endorsing one candidate who might seek the nomination against others.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” When they allow staff members to attack our current Presidential candidates, deny current Libertarian Party Presidential candidates LP news advertising, and use Libertarian Party mailings to promote a candidate they have asked to seek our Presidential nomination while not mentioning our current candidates I have no reason to believe them and refuse to do so. Please ask yourself if they ever considered letting our current Libertarian Presidential campaign use Ballot Base before they decided Ron Paul could use it.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Those bylaws posit the LP as a “separate and distinct” political entity…
Republican and Democrats are distinct political entities, however, they frequently try to get elected office holders to swap parties.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Tom,
Read my lips (or re-read the resolution). It was not an endorsement.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Do they spend time and money giving them party resources and “Pimp them out” in party mailings also?
January 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Do they spend time and money giving them party resources and “Pimp them out” in party mailings also?
They do when they think they’ll get a financial return off of it. Not for promotion, but for profit. I don’t think any of the current crop of candidates would provide enough reason for people to donate. Simply look at the abysmal fundraising by the campaigns themselves.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
...deny current Libertarian Party Presidential candidates LP news advertising
My understanding is that, at this time, any federally filed candidate can run advertisements.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Stephen,
That is correct, but as Tom Knapp once said:
January 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Political parties exist to elect candidates to public office to implement the polices and beliefs of that party. The Republican Party was founded in part to work for the abolishing of slavery. The Socialist Party was founded to expand socialism in the United States. The Constitution Party was founded so the United States could be governed as required by the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic can be restored.
There has been no political party (that I know of) at any time in our country’s history that has existed to elect candidates of another political party or to implement the policies and beliefs of another party. From the Whig, Republican, Populist, Confederate, and Green parties this has been so. Four years ago I had the pleasure of hearing Constitution Party candidate for President, Michael Peroutka give a speech. He talked about liberty and the American way of life. He mentioned the purpose of government was not to educate our children (the state has never been pregnant). He mentioned the purpose of government is not to spread democracy to other nations. He mentioned the purpose of government is not to redistribute wealth (your wealth). He said these are socialist ideals.
He talked about Washington’s men at Valley Forge and the purpose for which they fought and died for. He mentioned they did not fight and die for a New World Order, gun control, Social Security, or the income tax.
As I was hearing him speak I realized he was the anti Badnarik. He was not talking about conspiracies. He was not talking about driving a car without a drivers license and being proud of it. He was not presenting himself in a way which did the his party or the movement harm. He was not presenting himself in a way which brought ridicule and shame to the movement.
Yet even having realized this for me as an officer in Los Angeles County it would have been wrong for me to recommend to others that we should support Michael Peroutka. It would have been wrong for the Executive Committee of Los Angeles to endorse Michael Peroutka. It would have been wrong and unethical for the Executive Committee of Los Angeles to suggest to others that instead of supporting and voting for Badnarik they should support and vote for Michael Peroutka for President.
There was a scene in a movie about George Washington that still moves me. George Washington was realizing one of his friends, Benedict Arnold was betraying the cause for which he fought. The actor showed the anger and rage George Washington felt. If this is possible and happening what does that mean to the cause for which we fight? Last year when talk of supporting or voting for Ron Paul first surfaced I felt similar rage and anger.
You see the Libertarian Party exists to elect Libertarians to office. This is not about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is just a name. He means nothing. The issue is about the principle. The principle that an officer of the Libertarian Party, or the Executive Committee of a state Party, or the National Committee of the Party should urge others to support and vote for a candidate of another political party. The principle that resources of the Party should be spend in the furtherance of a campaign of a candidate of another political party. The principle that Libertarians should change registration “just this once” to that of the Republican Party. To do any of these things is wrong and unethical.
This is why I work hard to insure that Ron Paul does not get the nomination for President of the Libertarian Party. This is not about the man this is about the principle. If those in the Party want us to become the libertarian wing of the Republican Party they should say so. They should make no pretense of what they seek. They should make it plain to those (of us) who have worked tirelessly by spending time and money to make the Libertarian Party a success that they do not think we can succeed. They should make it plain they wish for us to become a part of the Republican Party and seek it’s success.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
The candidate in question – Ron Paul – happens to still be a Life Member of the Libertarian Party and is a past LP Presidential candidate.
The same argument could be made for, oh, say, Daniel Imperato. But he didn’t get a laudatory resolution (despite his multiple illibertarian stands), nor did he get cost-free ballot-base access.
In fact, in my understanding, the LP’s decision to implement ballot-base in the presidential race to date was done to support only one candidate, and a Republican one at that—not a Libertarian.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Ron Paul is just a name. He means nothing.
Pretty much. He’ll be out of the game soon enough, and if the revelations of his past unsavory activities continue to stack up, his brand will be tarnished beyond redemption.
Many Paul supporters have long since abandoned common sense and reason in this election season. They’re like a clumsier, less-well-funded and slightly more deranged version of the Deaniacs of the 2004 campaign. Just like the Deaniacs, in a year or two after the primaries end, they won’t even exist as a coherent force, and many of them will be on to the next Ross Perot/Ralph Nader “independent of the moment.”
That’s the thing that ultimately undermines the questionable logic of “party building by attracting Ron Paul voters.” For the most part, his new voters aren’t interested in libertarianism or the LP —just look at the red meat emotional appeals on social issues (“protect marriage,” “stop the terrorists at the border,” etc.)
They should rename the Ron Paul rEVOLution the Ron Paul REVOlution. Because it is.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Ron Boozell
they secretly agreed to effectively endorse a Republican who won’t even describe himself as a libertarian.
Not true. I’ve heard Ron Paul describe himself as a libertarian several times this year.
The core of the Libertarian Party is Pro-Choice on everything.
Not everything. We are not pro-choice on murder. A minority of libertarians consider abortion to be murder, so of course they are not pro-choice on it.
Ron Paul left our Party and has never looked back.
He has never left the party and continues to speak at many LP events.
Ron Paul is a successful REPUBLICAN politician,
and he is not exactly an honest man, is he?
More honest than anyone else I know of in big league politics.
Besides, how can we respect a doctor that will not recognize,
or admit, the danger of a world filled with unwanted children?
I think you meant unwanted fetuses. You’re not for allowing parents to kill children they don’t want after they have been already born, are you?
Libertarians are not voting for Paul because,
Libertarians are mostly Pro-Choice.
Despite being mostly pro-choice, most Libertarians are in fact voting for Ron Paul.
How can someone who is clearly against Choice,
be the hope for any Pro-Choice libertarian?
Because not every Libertarian considers it a litmus test issue.
I would rather vote for a Pro-Choice Anti-War LP Candidate
that has no chance at winning,
You will probably get a chance to do just that.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Steve
Read my lips (or re-read the resolution). It was not an endorsement.
Great! So will you join me in calling for something along these lines?
At the next LNC meeting, I call on one or more of the members to introduce a resolution thanking those who are already seeking the nomination and asking more people, in the spirit of more choices being good for the members and resulting in the strongest possible nominee, to consider joining the race.
Let’s make it perfectly clear for the record that the LNC is not endorsing one candidate who might seek the nomination against others.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” When they allow staff members to attack our current Presidential candidates, deny current Libertarian Party Presidential candidates LP news advertising, and use Libertarian Party mailings to promote a candidate they have asked to seek our Presidential nomination while not mentioning our current candidates I have no reason to believe them and refuse to do so. Please ask yourself if they ever considered letting our current Libertarian Presidential campaign use Ballot Base before they decided Ron Paul could use it.
Fine. You don’t want to take them at their word. How about supporting something that would make them go on the record that they are not endorsing anyone, while conforming perfectly with the stated explanation that it was recruitment, not endorsement?
At the next LNC meeting, I call on one or more of the members to introduce a resolution thanking those who are already seeking the nomination and asking more people, in the spirit of more choices being good for the members and resulting in the strongest possible nominee, to consider joining the race.
Let’s make it perfectly clear for the record that the LNC is not endorsing one candidate who might seek the nomination against others.
Either they will support such a motion, and be on the record as explicitly not endorsing one candidate. Or they will oppose it, thus confirming your suspicions.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
The same argument could be made for, oh, say, Daniel Imperato.
True, but he’s not a ten-term member of Congress (three times elected as a non-incumbent), hasn’t raised over $30 million for his campaign, hasn’t been on the stage with some of the leading contenders, etc.
I also think Imperato varies with many more LP views than Ron Paul does.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
“Libertarians are not voting for Paul because,
Libertarians are mostly Pro-Choice.”
“Despite being mostly pro-choice, most Libertarians are in fact voting for Ron Paul.”
THE LAST TWO LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - HARRY BROWNE AND MICHAEL BADNARIK - HAD THE EXACT SAME VIEW ON ABORTION AS RON PAUL!
January 25th, 2008 at 12:05 am
No, not exactly. But their views had some similarities.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:34 am
“paulie Says:
January 25th, 2008 at 12:05 am
No, not exactly. But their views had some similarities.”
Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik both said that they were pro-life. They also said that it is an issue that should be left for the states to decide.
I know that Harry Browne said that anti-abortion people would be better off looking for private solutions to reduce abortions than running to government, but since he was running for a federal office he thought that the President should stay out of it and leave it for the states to decide.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:13 am
to paulie:
No offense dude but the reason that ballot base crapped out after a 1000 calls was because it was forced online. the program was in transition from one server to another and was not ready to go online yet…however the powers that be said throw it to the dogs. The system went down because the system was running on a back up server.
Secondly, I don’t know what to make of these Ron Paul people. I can’t really tell you what is going on in your areas but in my state there are 2 meet up groups. a regular group with 200 members and a late night group with 50 members. I started a local libertarian meetup group about a year ago that had about 35 members that has shrunk down to 5 members because of the ron paul thing. They all said that they would come back after Ron Paul won our states primary. Well the primary happened and Paul only got 4 percent of the vote. I have been in regular communication with both Paul meetup groups to get them involved with the libertarian party and our meetup group after the Paul camp fizzeled in our state. They are all now wanting to follow Paul like deadheads.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:20 am
I have disassociated myself from the LP after having run for office three times, worked in petition drives, and been involved since 1978. I did so because Ron Paul is not a libertarian but a conservative and one with some really disgusting opinions. If the LP wants Paul then I don’t want the LP. If I wanted a Pat Buchanan imitation I would have voted for the original one not this knock-down imitation.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Quoth Andy:
“THE LAST TWO LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - HARRY BROWNE AND MICHAEL BADNARIK - HAD THE EXACT SAME VIEW ON ABORTION AS RON PAUL!”
I’m sure that Badnarik DID have the same view on abortion as Ron Paul. The question is, at what time did he have that view? In his pre-nomination campaign at least as late as March 2004, he was a “from conception” pro-lifer. By the time of the national convention he was musing about viability and the beginning of detectible electrical brain activity as the cutoff point in a print interview in The Free Liberal. And midway between nomination and the general election, he changed his position to the LP’s platform plank position.
On most issues, Badnarik had a position and that was that. On abortion, it depended on what day of the damn week you asked.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
No offense dude but the reason that ballot base crapped out after a 1000 calls was because it was forced online. the program was in transition from one server to another and was not ready to go online yet…however the powers that be said throw it to the dogs. The system went down because the system was running on a back up server.
Why would I take offense? I was just saying it did…not taking any position about it or saying why.
Secondly, I don’t know what to make of these Ron Paul people. I can’t really tell you what is going on in your areas but in my state there are 2 meet up groups. a regular group with 200 members and a late night group with 50 members. I started a local libertarian meetup group about a year ago that had about 35 members that has shrunk down to 5 members because of the ron paul thing. They all said that they would come back after Ron Paul won our states primary. Well the primary happened and Paul only got 4 percent of the vote. I have been in regular communication with both Paul meetup groups to get them involved with the libertarian party and our meetup group after the Paul camp fizzeled in our state. They are all now wanting to follow Paul like deadheads.
Good luck.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Ron Paul has said that life should be defined as starting at conception by federal law, but enforcement would be upto the states. Whereas Harry Browne said if we make abortion illegal, men will start having abortions.