Constitution Party Presidential Talk…

Well, it seems like we’ve come right out of the 2006 mid-term elections and gone straight into the 2008 Presidential election. With that in mind, here’s a piece from WorldNetDaily today that centers on the Constitution Party.

In this article, Howard Phillips states that the party expects to have a nominee by July of 2007 and several names are mentioned. Among those included are Alan Keyes, Jim Gilchrist, Chuck Baldwin, and Jerome Corsi. All familiar names with the party regulars except maybe Corsi, who is an author and columnist for…. yep… WorldNetDaily. Corsi also recently co-wrote a book with Ken Blackwell.

EDIT: Some have said that the plans are actually for it to be July of 2008. The article states “next July” which, to me, sounded like July of next year. I’m honestly not sure either way, but July of 2008 is probably the correct version. If anyone knows more info, please post in the comments.

Anyway, here’s the item from WND...

As Hillary Clinton begins her own preparations to run for the presidency, the deciding factor of who will be the next commander in chief may have less to do with whomever is chosen as the Democrat or Republican nominee, and more to do with the choice of the Constitution Party.

This weekend at a national committee meeting in Manchester, N.H., Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party he founded set in motion the plans to launch its own third party candidate for president.

“The time has never been better for a third party dark horse candidate to grab the White House,” Phillips told WND.

He affirmed that by next July, his party intends to nominate a presidential candidate, with possibilities for the ticket including Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist, former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, Baptist pastor Chuck Baldwin, and author and WND columnist Jerome Corsi.

The Constitution Party is also strongly supportive of Republican Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, but there is no decision yet that either would leave their home in the Republican Party to pursue a Constitution Party nomination. Tancredo has said numerous times he is considering a run for the presidency.

“The American public are angry at both the Democratic and Republican Party,” Phillips said. “If neither major party wants to listen to the American middle class, the Constitution Party is ready to enter center stage and get back to the basics that have made the republic established by our founding fathers work for over 230 years.”

The meeting was highlighted by a lineup of well-known conservative speakers, including those who may end up running.

“For six years, the Bush administration has refused to secure our borders,” Corsi told the group assembled at Friday’s dinner, “in a stealth plan to create a European Union-style North American Union under the cover of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that President Bush announced at the March 23, 2005, summit meeting with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Texas.”

Corsi warned the group that “as a result of the Bush administration obsession with NAFTA and unbridled free trade, the United States is on the verge of an international dollar collapse.”

Why?

“China now holds over $1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves as a direct result of our huge and growing trade deficit,” Corsi explained. “China sneezed over Thanksgiving, suggesting that a move might be made to hold fewer dollars and the dollar began dropping like a rock.”

Last night, speakers included Baldwin, a prominent pastor who hosts a weekly radio show from his congregation in Pensacola, Fla.

Baldwin told the group the “radical left” has an agenda to remove God from the United States of America.

“When both the Democratic and Republican parties join together agreeing that we should put ‘In God We Trust’ on the edge of our coins where nobody can read it,” Baldwin told WND, “then most Americans are ready for change.”

Baldwin told the conference “the 2006 mid-term elections sent a message that George W. Bush and Karl Rove have yet to hear, namely that if the Republican Party thinks they will succeed by abandoning conservative principles, then the great mass of red state America is ready to abandon the Republican Party.”

Also issuing a call to “renew America,” was Alan Keyes who told the assembled Constitution Party leaders that “we are on the verge of a sea change in American politics.”

Asked by WND whether he thought the Democrats had truly won the 2006 midterm elections, Keyes responded with a note of caution.

“In 2006, the American people were dissatisfied with George W. Bush, but Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were not given a blank check to pursue a far left agenda.”

Phillips concluded the conference by saying both major political parties face crises because “the core conservatives in the Republican Party are not ready to embrace pro-choice candidates like John McCain or Rudi Giuliani, and the Democratic Party of Howard Dean and John Kerry are not ready to embrace Hillary Clinton, especially not when she wants to portray herself as a moderate.”

“The political center of America remains conservative,” Phillips said. “We believe America is now ready to hear the message the Constitution Party has to deliver.”

60 Responses to “Constitution Party Presidential Talk…”

  1. NewFederalist Says:

    It would seem a shame to nominate so far in advance of the election. If anyone really cares who they nominate I would think it better to leave the door open for a Rep. Tancredo or even Jim Gilchrist after it becomes more clear who the major party nominees may be. July 2007 is just too soon.

  2. Gary Odom Says:

    The article is erroneous if it says that. The reference by Howard was clearly meant to be July 2008. We are in the early stages of planning our national convention and it is very possible that it will be held on the July 4 weekend of ‘08 or perhaps slighlty earlier. We are not picking a presidential candiate in July of ‘07! There is absolutely no consideration of making a selection that soon. That is simply an error.

  3. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Well, I could see it going either way. If you nominate someone relatively decent, but unknown… they could use all that extra time to (in theory) raise substantial money and put into place all of the campaign elements that will be needed.

    If you aren’t going to attract a really big name, it makes sense to nominate earlier… I’d rather have an unknown and mediocre candidate with a well developed campaign and a bunch of cash than a mediocre candidate with no campaign and no cash. Trying to pull together a credible campaign in 2-3 months is not possible. Not for President.

  4. Austin Cassidy Says:

    It says in the article “next July”—seeing how it is December of 2006, that would seem to imply July of 2007, not July of 2008. However, you’re probably right and WND screwed up how it was worded.

    I’ll change the headline and add a note to the post. Thanks.

  5. Ted Says:

    I think the short term emphasis should be on putting the party back together and reconciling with or replacing (if possible) those state parties which have disaffiliated. I will be interested to see what happened over the weekend at the national meeting. I have seen some references to Phillips supposedly giving the boot to Hansen in an apparent attempt to sooth the ruffled feelings so many people have over the abortion issue.

  6. Joe Says:

    I decided many years ago never to knowingly vote for a candidate that is not pro-life. So when Jim Gilchrist told John Lofton,

    Q: Okay, what about in the case of rape?
    A: (pause) I could not say that, yes, abort the fetus

    and

    “I will take that stand, but it doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t give into something like incest.

    he lost my vote.

  7. Gary Odom Says:

    I am on the convention committee. We have about 5 possible locations in mind for our National Convention. The date and time will almost certainly be determined by the time of our Boise, Idaho National Committee meeting at the end of April. As I said, the date of the Convention will probably be in June or July ‘08.

    By the way there is a new and much larger Missouri Constitution Party whose affiliation status was approved by the national committee at the Concord meeting. Look for similar announcements concerning Ohio and New York by the time of the Boise meeting.

    Thanks for the correction. As one who ran with the Illinois write-in story I know how mistakes can easily be transmitted unintentionally.

  8. Gary Odom Says:

    I should let, and I think will, let others who were at the Concord meeting (if any of them read this site) talk about the meeting. I will only say that, in 35 years of working in politics, this was one of the best, most positive and most productive meetings I have ever attended.

    The Constitution Party today is in far better shape than it has ever been before.

    No “boot” was given to anyone, by the way.

  9. RCAIP Says:

    Gilchrist lost my vote also,

    Not because of the abortion issue, but because he endorsed the Libertarian candidate for Calif. Governor instead of ours. And he endorsed GOP’er Bruce Campbell, for Congress (he ran against him earier on).

    I’m already hearing rumors that he went back to the GOP. If so, I doubt he’ll ever be given another chance in the Party.

    We already have plenty of chioces on who to make our next Presidential candidate.
    Peroutka isn’t one of them, however.

  10. RCAIP Says:

    Howard wanted Chris Hansen out of the Nevada IAP- didn’t happen and isn’t going to happen. And after the Nevada Party’s election successes, I’m pretty sure Phillips has his foot in his mouth right now.

    As the Nevada IAP/CP candidate, Chris got the highest % of votes for Governor, after Mary Starett in Oregon. And IAP candidates for their state legislature got between 5% and 33% of the votes in their districts.
    Winning two offices puts the icing on the cake, with a IAP’er already serving on the Elko School Board (elected in 2004). The Nevada IAP not only has the highest percentage of registered votes then any other CP state Party, but they now have the most Party members serving in offices as of present.

    Any future or near-future attempts to remove Chris from State Chair or the IAP from the national Party would be outright political-suicide, or a political blunder worse the Ross Perot dropping out temporary in the 92’ presidential race. The Nevada Party is nearly untouchable now.

  11. Gary Odom Says:

    Cody, God love ya, get your Campbells straight. The person you are referring to is John Campbell, the representative, for better or worse, in California’s 48th District.

  12. RCAIP Says:

    Oh, sorry bout that, was right on the last name though

  13. Anonymous Says:

    I would have agreed that 2008 was the perfect time for a Third Party candidate, and may still - unless Obama gets in. The presence of Sen. Obama as the nominee of a national ticket will suck much of the wind out of any independent’s sails.

    This doesn’t really apply to conservative third parties like the CP - but let’s be honest - they don’t have a shot if there’s a conservative GOP nominee. If they do nominate a big name, and if the GOP nominates Giuliani, a CP nominee could peel off some electoral votes in the Deep South.

  14. Joe Says:

    During a speech at McGonigal Canyon Gilchrist announced that he has now joined the Republican Party. Of course another possible Constitution Party presidential candidate that Howard mentioned in the article was Alan Keyes who is also a Republican - so apparently being a Republican won’t eliminate anyone from consideration. Keyes even endorsed President Bush twice. Michael Peroutka is my ideal candidate but it does not sound like there is much possibility that the Constitution Party will nominate him again and I will be surprised if he runs again in ‘08. I would prefer him over any of the four possible candidates mentioned in the article. I did vote for Chuck Baldwin for vice-president in ‘04. At least he is not a Republican.

  15. bobcucimm Says:

    slryuqly

    qhoknyadhqk bqzbaaenei pkabfabega sqhxvcigy

  16. Vincent Darrah Says:

    I see that for me, I made the right choice leaving the CP.

  17. Sean Scallon Says:

    My guess is Baldwin will run and probably win given that he was the VP candidate the last time around and has good profile and knowlege of those who would be deleagtes at the CP nominating convention. Alan Keyes would be intruguing only in sense if he’s renounced his neocon views and has acutal plans of being a candidate rather than just run his mouth.

    Give the non-major parties some credit for actually having conventions that pick their nominees instead of being tax payer funded dog and pony shows like the major party conventions.

  18. Eric Dondero Says:

    As Ron Paul’s former Senior Aide, I can tell you that I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to “go for it” on the CP ticket for 2008. He leans heavily in that direction ideologically. And I suspect he’s in what could be his last term in Congress. He could see 2008 as an opportunity to “go out with a bang.”

    But even with RP at the helm, I doubt the CP will manage to attract much libertarian support, if Rudy Giuliani, or my personal favorite Sports Oddsmaker Wayne Root, runs on the GOP ticket.

  19. Gary Odom Says:

    With Eric having said this I feel somewhat less constrained to say that what he mentions in his first paragraph is exactly what we are hearing and was very much the topic of interest at the Concord Constitution Party meeting.

    Chuck Baldwin, by the way, is actively encouraging Ron Paul to run on the CP ticket as is evidenced by his most recent article which was released today.

  20. paulie cannoli Says:

    The article is erroneous if it says that. The reference by Howard was clearly meant to be July 2008. We are in the early stages of planning our national convention and it is very possible that it will be held on the July 4 weekend of ‘08 or perhaps slighlty earlier. We are not picking a presidential candiate in July of ‘07! There is absolutely no consideration of making a selection that soon. That is simply an error.

    I think that might be too late to get on the ballot in some states if it’s July ‘08. You may want to check if you haven’t already.

    On the other hand, July ‘07 might be so early that you could pick a nominee before some potential campaigns even ramp up.

  21. paulie cannoli Says:

    The presence of Sen. Obama as the nominee of a national ticket will suck much of the wind out of any independent’s sails.

    Why, what’s so special about Obama?

    I could see an Obama nomination perhaps being less favorable to the chances of a Green Party nominee than, say, a Hillary Clinton nomination, but neither choice by the Donkey Show Party would likely have much impact on a Libertarian or, espcially, Constitution Party nominee’s chances, except perhaps indirectly (i.e., in how close the major parties’ nominees will be in the polls right before election day).

  22. paulie cannoli Says:

    But even with RP at the helm, I doubt the CP will manage to attract much libertarian support, if Rudy Giuliani, or my personal favorite Sports Oddsmaker Wayne Root, runs on the GOP ticket.

    Eric, you are quite possibly the only “libertarian” who likes the fascist pig Benito Giuliani - or for that matter, Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.

    If Ron Paul was to run for President again (which he said he would never do quite a few times) why wouldn’t he run as a Libertarian?

    As for Root: what on earth gives you the idea that the NSGOP would seriously consider nominating a sports oddsmaker? That seems like an oddball statement even for you.

  23. Gary Odom Says:

    We will not be waiting until July ‘08 to petition for President. I can assure you of that. We are already, for example, started in West Virginia using a stand-in. We will be starting in Arizona soon. Do you think we are not paying very close attention to ballot qualification deadlines?

  24. paulie cannoli Says:

    Good to hear.

    I know the LP had July-presidential year nominating conventions for a couple of cycles, but moved it back a few months this last time…I thought it may have been because of legal changes in some states about qualification deadlines.

    Are your WV and AZ affiliates hiring petitioners? We may have some people available in January.

    -p

  25. Michael Says:

    The nominee in 2008 will be who ever Phillips says it will be. It’s his party he keeps in his vest pocket to take out every four years.

  26. RCAIP Says:

    “During a speech at McGonigal Canyon Gilchrist announced that he has now joined the Republican Party. Of course another possible Constitution Party presidential candidate that Howard mentioned in the article was Alan Keyes who is also a Republican - so apparently being a Republican won’t eliminate anyone from consideration. Keyes even endorsed President Bush twice. Michael Peroutka is my ideal candidate but it does not sound like there is much possibility that the Constitution Party will nominate him again and I will be surprised if he runs again in ‘08. I would prefer him over any of the four possible candidates mentioned in the article. I did vote for Chuck Baldwin for vice-president in ‘04. At least he is not a Republican.”

    =Not suprised by that. Even if Gilchrist didn’t go back, he killed his chances in the Party by endorsing Art Olivier over Ed Noonan for Governor.
    I doubt Keyes would be the CP candidate for President, he’s ran in the GOP Primaries many times, he’s a little too unpredicable.
    Peroutka doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell running for Prez. again in our Party, he caused a lot of problems, and his state affiliate is gone from the CP- so there’s a better chance of me winning the lottery twice, then Peroutka running as a CP’er again, ever.
    Chuck Baldwin is OK, but I doubt he’ll be our presidential candidate, most likely he’ll be another running mate again.

  27. RCAIP Says:

    Good riddence then, Vince

  28. Christopher Hansen Says:

    My Number 1 pick would be BYU Professor Steven E Jones. Talk about shaking up the system! We need controversy not a conservative candidate. How about Jones and Russo! ROCK MY WORLD! ROCK THE SYSTEM!

    Listen to these two guys and tell me they do not love liberty!

    http://www.independentamerican.org/blog.php?blog=292
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism&hl=en

    I would love to see Joe Banister run or Sherry Jackson or John Turner. Hey Federal Thugs! IN YOUR FACE!

    I could support Baldwin. I could support Peroutka over any demo or repub in the race now. I do not vote on a single issue and even though Peroutka is a religious bigot he is a better man than any Republican in Congress or the Senate.

    I could also support Gilchrist, Keyes or Corsi.

    I would not support Mr. Howard Phillips for MANY personal and political reasons. I would however vote for him if he was our candidate.

    I have many disagreements with Ron Paul but I could vote for him also over any Republican (Fascist) or Democrat (Socialist).

    I doubt I could support anyone who would not vote for someone if they disagreed on a single issue no matter what the single issue was. Such people want to lose so why bother trying to win. You may as well run a cardboard cut out. I disagree with every one of these men (above) on several issues but any of them are better than the current list of Republicrats.

    Romney is a pro-choice Mormon and a supporter of Socialism and Fascism so I could not vote for him.

    The candidate for President is nothing more than a figurehead anyway. We must build from the bottom (State level) to the top if we expect to ever accomplish anything so what does it really matter who we run for president?

    In Nevada we are working to have a candidate in every assembly (lower house) and Senate seat. That would be 63 candidates. The Democrats and Republicans have been unable to do that for years so that would be great.

    We will also be working to get many local candidates. We will be shooting for 100 but that is very hard because there are far less offices to run for in Nevada in the presidential years. We will not have a US Senate race and only 3 Congressional races. Often times we cannot run candidates because four or in one case 10 live in the same district and only one can run.

    We are working to get 60,000 members by 2008 AD. We are at 44,000 now which is just over 3.5 %. Our main goal is 10% so we become a major party by law. We want that by 2010 AD if America is still a country by then.

    There will be a Supreme Court race that is non-partisan and my brother may run for that. He has great support from Pro-lifers, Anti-IRSers, anti-tyrannical governmenters, (is that a word?) civil libertarians; and Mormons, Protestants and Catholics so he could win. The powers at be will oppose him but there is great discontent with the current court so that may hurt whoever they support.

    I hope to be in Boise.

  29. Brandon H. Says:

    Ron Paul is on top of my list of people whom I would vote for if given the option, but I was always under the impression that he would make another run.

    If he were to run, with the right VP how likely would he be to get both the LP and CP nomination? Or is there any running mate that could win the LP, CP, and GP nomination in a united coalition against the Republicrats? (Yeah, I doubt that would happen.)

    While most conservatives find Bush acceptable, and a little less though still most find McCain acceptable, I doubt most will find Guiliani acceptable. If Guiliani gets the nomination, this could help the CP a lot. On the other hand, if the Dems go with Hillary, it could have the exact opposite effect on conservatives, regardless of who the Republicans go with.

  30. Brandon H. Says:

    [i]Ron Paul is on top of my list of people whom I would vote for if given the option, but I was always under the impression that he would make another run.[/i]

    That should be

    “that he would NOT make another run.”

  31. Rebel Says:

    Wasting our time worrying about a pres candidate over two years early is counterproductive to achieving liberty. Join the Free State Project and actually get liberty in your lifetime. If any state is go third party in the presidential primary season, it will be NH. NH is the most densely packed state of libertarians/pro-freedom types. And, I do agree that the LP and the CP should join ranks. Our combined resources and votes will send a strong message to the statists. If the CP can just leave their Bibles at home, LP support would be no problem

  32. torah Says:

    “If the CP can just leave their Bibles at home, LP support would be no problem.”

    After having seen the joke campaigns down in two Texas congressional districts - one being the $400,000 campaign that resulted in 4% - I would highly caution any other third party affiliating with the LP.

  33. Nigel Watt Says:

    Why, exactly, are third parties paying attention to the Presidential race at all? Our presidential candidates won’t win in 2008. They won’t get more than five or six electoral votes at max either.

    LP strategy in general needs a major revamping. Our strongest candidates should be running for mayor, city council, and county commission, not Congress. Libertarians couldn’t even make a difference once elected to Congress - the Republicrat power structure is too ingrained. We have to start at the bottom, making positive changes for liberty in the lowest layers of government, and then work up.

  34. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home (founded 1998) Says:

    Not quite a Dem, not quite a GOP New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg
    [via Unity08] with Lou [CCN] Dobbs as possible vice president?

  35. Doug Craig Says:

    BTW George Phillies for president already has bumper stickers, they came in on Monday. If you email me I will send you one for free.
    [email protected]

  36. Mike Smith Says:

    Ron Paul is the one guy who could be a fusion candidate, getting both the LP and CP nomination. There would have to be cooperation between the two parties, especially in the states where both have an equal or near equal presence, and doesn’t allow fusion candidates. In most states, though, it is obvious which party is stronger.
    In the gulf states, for example, the CP is stronger; in states like TX, GA or NC, the LP has the stronger presence. Ballot access could also be divided up.
    Having a sitting congressman run for president would be difficult for the media to overlook. Depending on the major party nominees, and whether a gazillionaire like Bloomberg runs, this could be an opening for a guy like Ron Paul, the only man fit to be president…..

  37. Michael Says:

    The media can overlook a sitting congressman. Once John Anderson started going downhill in the polls there was hardly any coverage of him by the networks. Kevin Phillips wrote a column on how the networks overlooked John Schmitz, wondering how they could explain overlooking the person who was taking over for Governor Wallace and was polling 5-10 percent in many states.

  38. Gary Odom Says:

    The news media did black out John Schmitz, but he ended up being a pretty poor candidate, though he was right on most of the issues. He was light years behind George Wallace as a campaigner and as a candidate overall.

    The Constitution Party of 2006 is far advanced as far as organization and leadership is concerned, compared to the American Party of 1972. The one advantage the American Party had was the Wallace legacy and residue of his support and Schmitz blew it. I was a delegate at the American Party Convention in Louisville in ‘72 and an active worker in the Schmitz-Anderson campaign.

    The one advantage that all third parties have now is the internet. While a media black-out still hurts, its possible to end run it now to some extent. It wasn’t then.

  39. Andy Says:

    “In the gulf states, for example, the CP is stronger; in states like TX, GA or NC, the LP has the stronger presence. Ballot access could also be divided up.”

    I’ve spent time in Alabama and Florida. The Constitution Party didn’t seem to have much presence in either of those Gulf states. I’d say that the Libertarian Party has a greater presence in Alabama than the Constitution Party does.

    Texas is a Gulf state and the Libertarian Party is actually on the ballot there unlike the Constitution Party.

  40. matt Says:

    Ron Paul for President on a CPL/LP ticket! That’d be amazing!

    5 Electoral votes would be amazing too.

  41. matt Says:

    Maybe I sounded sarcastic. That’s a problem I have. I am totally not. This, I’d vote for in a second and raise money too. This would be a best-case scenario. Thanks for the headsup, Eric D.

  42. Jackcjackson Says:

    I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul if somehow ran on both the CP and LP. Not that he will run for either.

  43. RCAIP Says:

    Chris, I think I would count out Peroutka.
    Yes I did vote for him, but now I regret it.
    Peroutka as Prez. wouldn’t restore our Constitutional Republic at all- he would abolish the First Amendment, infringe on the Tenth, make Reformed Christianity the Official Religion of the USA, and put Mormons, Jews, and possibly Catholics in internment camps. Or Simply Outlaw the LDS Church.
    As P-U-ka and his cronies are psychotic wackos, I don’t even want to imagine what they would do if they had power- they would probably make Stalin cringe.
    Thank the Good Lord they are weak and out of the CP!

  44. RCAIP Says:

    The only states where the CP is strong is in the West, especially the Rocky Mountain States.

    I know in Nevada, A lot of the LP power-base went to the IAP. In fact the IAP is the main dominant Third=Party out of all in Nevada. The only state back east where the CP is large and organized is Michigan.

  45. matt Says:

    Here in Michigan, the CP is a little stronger than the LP. They run fewer candidates but get higher vote totals. Ron Paul would really resonate here. I’m something of a libertarian purist myself, but if this was available and we screwed it up by quibbling over some details, we would truly deserve to be called losertarians.

  46. Sean Scallon Says:

    I remember writing Ron Paul about the possibility of a fusion presidential candidiacy with the LP and CP back in 2003 (which I’m sure Eric Dondero remembers because he was kind enough to replay back to me). If Paul decides this is his last term in Congress (and being in his 70s probably so) this truly would be going out with a bang. Instead of being trapped in our respective enclaves, we could work together for a campaign that would truly be memorable instead of another one percent effort. No matter who wins the GOP or Democratic nominations, there will be a vacumn of opinion that Paul candidacy would fill nicely for a whole year.

    If Paul is seriously thinking about this then he needs to spend all of next year talking to leaders with both party’s about it and working out the logistics so that he can spend 2008 running for the White House with party’s nominations wrapped up instead having to compete for them the way Pat Buchanan had to spend the majority of his time wasted winning the Reform Party nomination.

    Granted the LP and CP are the least likely parties to be working together and people are going to have disagreements with Rep. Paul on a variety of issues. But considering the alternatives in 2008, I think a fusion campaign would be the most exciting thing to happen on the non major party front in decade and could make an impact on the issues we all care about.

    Go Ron Go! You have my vote.

  47. Gary Odom Says:

    I personally disagree that the LP and the CP are the least likely parties to be working together—but that is my personal attitude, not my empirical assessment. I agree that a fusion ticket would be very exciting, but except for fusion states like New York, I’m not sure how it would work.

    Being a CP partisan I see a lot of the same roadblocks that an LP partisan, but I could certainly live with a Ron Paul-Bob Barr fusion ticket to shake up the political establishment, since we’re just kinda dreaming here.

    By the way, Gene Berkman…I’m coming home for Christmas and will stop by book store.

  48. Mike Smith Says:

    A Paul/Barr ticket, for example, may also attract the attention of Unity08. It will take this kind of cooperation to create the Perfect Storm the media simply cannot ignore. Unfortunately, there is only room for one “third” candidate, and if Bloomberg runs, this whole discussion is moot.

    There are currently 7 states that allow fusion candidates. So no problem there. There are several other states that are considering it. There are several states, (LA, MS, UT) that the CP seems to have a leg up on the LP, if you look at past presidential vote totals. There are a number of states where the opposite is true. The states that have a somewhat equal representation would have to be negotiated, taking current ballot access into account.

    It could be done - with the right ticket and a willingness to cooperate….

  49. Michael Says:

    In Tennessee and Indiana, its the LP. In Kentucky, the CP. It would be a case of each state party deciding which party. In states where they have both, one president ballot would be blank. Both could still run their local and state candidates. However, lets face it, until things are more settled later on, its all just talk.

  50. matt Says:

    If the draft didn’t violate every libertarian principle, I’d start a Draft Ron Paul chant!

  51. Mike Smith Says:

    Amen brother..

  52. Gary Odom Says:

    Michael,

    I agree that it is just talk at the moment, but it is kind of refreshing, considering all that the CP and LP have been through this year respectively, that it is talk where, at least, we’re not bitching at each other and are considering ways, far-fetched as they may be, to slay the two-headed dragon.

  53. Geoff Oatman Says:

    Gentleman ; I heard the talk . You have history. You’ve been there. Many you understand the system well enough to know what it takes to make a viable run at the beast. Unity is not just a winning strategy; it may be our last and only hope to stop the dismantling of America. Take our best candidates coddle them, beat them , make them believe whatever it takes we will support them. Door to door, Face to face The American people need to know there’s someone else besides Hillary and Guliani . I’m a rookie. I know that. There’s thousands out there like me. Call us in. Time to start the wheels of liberty rolling. amen

  54. paulie cannoli Says:

    I remember writing Ron Paul about the possibility of a fusion presidential candidiacy with the LP and CP back in 2003

    I would be more interested in Steve Kubby getting both the Libertarian and Green nominations.

    Aside from the fact that the Constitution Party was not around in 1988, what’s changed?

  55. paulie cannoli Says:

    While most conservatives find Bush acceptable, and a little less though still most find McCain acceptable, I doubt most will find Guiliani acceptable. If Guiliani gets the nomination, this could help the CP a lot. On the other hand, if the Dems go with Hillary, it could have the exact opposite effect on conservatives, regardless of who the Republicans go with.

    What if Hillary is the Democrats’ nominee and a warmongering, big spending, socially and economically fascist NSGOPer like McCain or even Giuliani is the Rapepublicneocon nominee as now seems likely?

  56. paulie cannoli Says:

    In the gulf states, for example, the CP is stronger;

    Perhaps in Mississippi.

    In Texas, Alabama, Florida and Louisiana it is the other way around.

  57. paulie cannoli Says:

    If the CP can just leave their Bibles at home, LP support would be no problem

    Sure, and if the LP came out for outlawing abortion, immigration, some drugs (albeit only at the non-federal level), and sodomy it would be the other way around.

    But then it wouldn’t be the LP.

    I happen to think those differences are important. Several decades of right-leaning outreach by Libertarians have convinced too many people they aren’t.

  58. Andy Says:

    “I would be more interested in Steve Kubby getting both the Libertarian and Green nominations.”

    Given the fact that the Green Party advocates socialism I don’t think that there’d be any chance of Kubby or any other libertarian minded person recieving their Presidential nomination. I know that a lot of people who identify themselves as Greens are well meaning people who are simply not informed about some issues (primarily economic issues) but the people who run the Green Party are hardcore socialists. These people will never nominate a libertarian for office. The best we could hope for would be for them to endorse a Libertarian candidate for a lower level office where one of their own is not in the race and where they believe that the Libertarian candidate is less toxic than they other candidates.

    I know that the Libertarian Party of Maryland endorsed Green Party candidate for US Senate Kevin Zeese, but this was because no Libertarian ran for that office and Zeese was the least toxic candidate of those in that race. I would have preferred to see a Libertarian candidate in that race but considering that there wasn’t one and considering that Zeese was better than the Democrat and Republican in that race and considering that there was nobody else to vote for in that race I don’t have a problem with them having endorsed him. However, next time I hope that they have their own candidate.

  59. doc holliday Says:

    That’s true. But the people who run the Green Party can be replaced.

    Their 2002 national convention had 58 people. I’m not sure whether that was just delegates or also included the non-greens there (journalists and at least one Libertarian observer).

  60. Geoff Oatman Says:

    International Corporate Industry is behind almost all of what happening in the present political arena. They want fascism.They will live with socialism until they get fascism. Too much time spent talking liberal and conservative leanings on candidates. Forget the hype. Hillary spent a massive effort in NY convincing the female voter to for her because she is a “woman” It worked. Women represent the majority. We need to get them on board.

Leave a Reply