Ron Paul for President Domain Names…

Looks like someone registered RonPaulForPresident.com and RonPaulForPresident.org on January 10th… yesterday.

Paul’s Congressional campaign site was RonPaulForCongress.com - so this seems in line with that.

In addition, whoever registered the domain names went to the extra trouble of using the DomainsByProxy.com service to conceal exactly who the new owner is.

114 Responses to “Ron Paul for President Domain Names…”

  1. Eric Dondero Says:

    What’s even more important about this story, particularly for Texans, is that this is a very clear sign, as to what has been suspected for a long time, that Ron Paul does not intend to run for reelection to Congress from Texas CD-14. That’s sad. But it’s a potential opportunity for a good libertarian Republican to replace him. The District is quite libertarian/conservative.

    It has long been speculated that this would be RP’s last term in office, due to health problems.

    Watch for some serious jockeying now by Texas Republicans to find a replacement to fill his seat.

    Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul
    Angleton, Texas

  2. Nigel Watt Says:

    This is awesome. If he gets the nomination, it’s a great forum for Libertarian views. If he doesn’t, it’ll create a large splinter within the GOP, inclining some to vote for the LP candidate.

  3. Andy Says:

    I’d love to see Ron Paul run for President again. However, I know that there were “Ron Paul for President” websites in 2000 and 2004 and those obviously never went anywhere.

    Ron Paul is a great American and a great freedom fighter. I wish him the best of luck in whatever he decides to do.

  4. Mike N. Says:

    What? This is his last term in congress?

    I am not so sure this is good news after all… I would rather have him in congress than in nothing at all…

  5. Tim Says:

    Representative Paul did indeed answer in the affirmative on WNJC last night to a direct question I posed whether he was seriously considering running or not.

    Afterwards he got fired up. Among the things I wrote down while he was speaking, he said (while I’m putting in quotes things by him I’m sure they’re not his exact words, I wasn’t recording on a mic, but writing down as fast as I could & losing some along the way):

    Ron just called the federal reserve a “vicious racket” creating money out of thin air & then transferring money from the poor & the middle class to the wealthy through the inflation created by printing money without any backing to it.

    Iraq, a “total disaster,” and an “absolute, useless sacrifice,” for oil & empire. Our “government is out of control.” He’s “pessimistic about Washington, optimistic about the people.” He says we have to stay positive, “because otherwise we’d have to go hide in a corner & hope the government doesn’t find us.”

    GO, RON, GO!

  6. Timothy West Says:

    I hope that Paul at some point afterward would switch back to the LP giving us our first congressman before his term ends. I advanced that a couple years ago and this is a logical extension for him to be able to do that.

  7. Devious David Says:

    Paul is emminently aware of all the major issues and how they are interconnected. Much more than any other Congressman. Good semi-quotes then, Tim.

    On another note, I did too sense that this would be the Dr.’s final hurrah. I’m very sorry folks, but people don’t live forever. I’m sure that he will continue to be active in the movement however.

    Besides, why be all sad? Thanks to the bravery, determination and principle of Ron Paul, we now have the fight of a lifetime to put up! It’s not over yet! Ron Paul has set a high benchmark, an example for us all to follow and aspire to. This is our chance. Let’s not let him down! Rise to this occasion!

  8. Tim Says:

    AP just reported that Ron Paul is to run as a Republican.

  9. Joey Dauben Says:

    Just imagine if you guys would …a Ron Paul upset in New Hampshire.

    Just imagine those Free Staters and libertarian-leaning voters pull off a huge upset.

    Just imagine that.

    So Paul will be squeezed out by the McCain-Rudy-Romney factions, so what.

    Ron Paul, please run for president. The NH primary is his to win!

  10. Joey Dauben Says:

    Photo I took of Dr. Paul taking the World’s Smallest Political Quiz:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/joeydauben/TakingtheQuiz_270×200.jpg

  11. Joey Dauben Says:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/joeydauben/TakingtheQuiz_270×200.jpg

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    Who’s to say he’d run as a Libertarian? Just because he ran as one in ‘80?
    The Libertarian party has taken a leftist turn since then, and is not the most likely third partt vehicle for one last Ron Paul run.

    As for Ron Paul running as a Republican…I think that was a bad move. He will most definetly get squeezed out of the race, and very likely will NOT fare well in any primaries. He would have done far better to run under a third party. Oh well. Too late now. Now Ron Paul is out for the CP Nomination, Tom Tancredo is the only really big name left.

  13. Brandon H. Says:

    I think Paul will run as a Republican, knowing the odds are against him, but this should get him some attention. If he fails to win the nomination, one of the less rich, more honest parties will nominate him.

    Now if he does win the Republican nomination, would smaller parties still be able to nominate him in states that do not allow fusion?

  14. Tim Says:

    Hi Trent,

    Remember that New Hampshire, home to the libertarian Free State Project, & “Live Free or Die,” & no state income tax or sales tax is first up in the Republican primaries. Will Ron appeal to these voters? You can bet the buttons on your coat he will. What happens if Paul takes New Hampshire? He’ll be in the media spotlight, which is the one thing he’s lacked his entire Congressional career. Then the debate is on!!

    We need New Hampshire to step up big time & then the fight for America’s future will be on…

  15. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ron Paul is definitely running as a Republican. Just confirmed by the Washington Post story. I have the link up on my site at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

    Like I said, I think the bigger story here is who will run for Ron’s Congressional seat now. We MUST get a libertarian Republican to replace him. There are already two prominent hardcore libertarian Republicans in his District. Stay tuned… I may be breaking the story of his replacement soon at MainstreamLibertarian.com

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    He IS definetly running as a Republican. Sadly.
    If he loses, I hope he seeks other parties’ nominations.
    I sincerely hope he DOES take NH. But,he won’t.

  17. Joey Dauben Says:

    Ron Paul for President yard sign logos:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/joeydauben/RonPaul2008.gif

    Thanks to my friend TK Archibald for the little re-design. Post these EVERYWHERE!

  18. Joey Dauben Says:

    Well, if he loses the primary, he could very well do a Lieberman and run in the general as a CP AND LP nominee.

    I think, personally, if Steve Kubby and George Phillies were smart, they would back out and endorse Dr. Paul.

    A multi-party Ron Paul effort would make 2008 one hell of a race.

  19. Joey Dauben Says:

    And I’m guessing Allen Hacker won’t be managing his campaign? lol

  20. Nick Wilson Says:

    I actually agree with Trent that maybe he’d be a better candidate for the Constitution Party than the LP (although he might be a good coalition candidate). However, I think he’d also be preferable to any of the other Presidential candidates on the LP table currently, despite the fact I disagree with his heavy Right-wing slant. I do end up seeing his name mentioned all the time in newspapers for his protest votes, so he would have better name recognition and qualification for the position.

    Also, seeking the Republican nomination might actually be a good strategy - it could give him vital press that would not be afforded to a third party candidate, and thus when he invariably loses, he can jump to the third parties but at least have more people and the media paying attention. If he announced for the LP or Constitution candidacy today, we could expect to see him ignored from now until election day.

  21. George Whitfield Says:

    This is great news. I will support Ron Paul wholeheartedly for President. I will start wearing my Ron Paul for President button that I got back in ‘88 tomorrow.

  22. Tim Says:

    Ron, “not intimidated by McCain.”

    http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/16438882.htm

  23. Tim Says:

    Repost, sorry everyone, but you don’t have to subscribe to Dallas/Fort Worth News this way.

    Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid
    JOE STINEBAKER
    Associated Press
    HOUSTON - Ron Paul, the iconoclastic nine-term congressman from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward launching a second presidential bid in 2008, this time as a Republican.

    Paul filed incorporation papers in Texas on Thursday to create a presidential exploratory committee that allows him and his supporters to collect money on behalf of his bid. This will be Paul’s second try for the White House; he was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988.

    Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul’s exploratory committee and a former staffer on Paul’s Libertarian campaign, said the congressman knows he’s a long shot.

    “There’s no question that it’s an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog,” Snyder said. “But we think it’s well worth doing and we’ll let the voters decide.”

    Paul, of Lake Jackson, acknowledges that the national GOP has never fully embraced him despite his nine terms in office under its banner. He gets little money from the GOP’s large traditional donors, but benefits from individual conservative and Libertarian donors outside Texas. He bills himself as “The Taxpayers’ Best Friend,” and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House of Representatives by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

    He describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican.

    Paul was not available for comment Thursday, Snyder said.

    But he said the campaign will test its ability to attract financial and political support before deciding whether to launch a full-fledged campaign. Snyder said Paul is not running just to make a point or to try to ensure that his issues are addressed, but to win.

    Paul is expected to formally announce his bid in the next week or two, Snyder said.

    Snyder said Paul and his supporters are not intimidated by the presence of nationally known and better-financed candidates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

    “This is going to be a grassroots American campaign,” he said. “For us, it’s either going to happen at the grassroots level or it’s not.”

    Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the U.S. Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes that appear at odds with his constituents and other Republicans. He was the only Republican congressman to vote against Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2007.

    The vote against the defense appropriations bill, he said, was because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he said was “not necessary for our actual security.”

  24. Trent Hill Says:

    Ron Paul is an amazing politician, and i’d love to see him run in any fashion. I will be somehwat dissapointed,however, if he does lose the primaries,and then doesn’t go third party.

  25. Joey Dauben Says:

    Quorum Report is saying that MARK HENRY is looking at Paul’s CD-14 seat.

    http://www.quorumreport.com/buzz/buzz.cfm

  26. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 11th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
    Ron Paul is definitely running as a Republican. Just confirmed by the Washington Post story. I have the link up on my site at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

    Like I said, I think the bigger story here is who will run for Ron’s Congressional seat now. We MUST get a libertarian Republican to replace him. There are already two prominent hardcore libertarian Republicans in his District. Stay tuned… I may be breaking the story of his replacement soon at MainstreamLibertarian.com”

    I just hope that Ron’s replacement isn’t an Eric Dondero-Rittberg style “libertarian” Republican. Congress needs another Ron Paul!

  27. Andy Says:

    “Nick Wilson Says:

    January 12th, 2007 at 12:16 am
    I actually agree with Trent that maybe he’d be a better candidate for the Constitution Party than the LP (although he might be a good coalition candidate).”

    Ron Paul has some differences with the Constitution Party, most notably on the Drug War and protectionist tarriffs.

  28. Andy Says:

    “I think, personally, if Steve Kubby and George Phillies were smart, they would back out and endorse Dr. Paul.”

    Assuming that Ron Paul runs as a Republican, Steve Kubby and George Phillies should definetely keep campaigning. As much as I’d love to see Ron Paul win the Republican nomination the reality is that this is a long shot. If Ron Paul fails to win the Republican nomination I think that it would probably be too late for him to jump in the race for any other parties nomination and I’m not sure that he’d be able to run as an independent either at that point (somebody correct me if I’m wrong). Us pro-liberty people still need a candidate to vote for if Ron Paul’s Republican “coo” attempt fails.

  29. Anthony Distler Says:

    Even though everyone says he doesn’t stand a chance of winning, there are a lot of people talking about him. I have a tough time thinking that, if he were to lose in the primaries, he wouldn’t jump to a third party.

    The Reform Party is looking to rebuild. Ron Paul may just be our key.

  30. Trent Hill Says:

    Um. Ron Paul doesn’t line up with the Reform Party so well. Also, it only has ballot access in like 2 states.

    Andy,
    It won’t be too late for Ron to jump ship to a Third Party. I know the CP isnt choosing its candidate til July, long after the first Rep. Primaries are over.

  31. Nick Wilson Says:

    I think Ron Paul stands in a position where he could be a candidate for a lot of third parties - from the LP to the Constitution Party to the Reform Party to the America First Party. Andy, you are right about those issues in which he differs from the CP. But he’s basically on the right wing of the LP and the libertarian wing of the CP.

    I could see all these parties building a coalition that could co-nominate him at their conventions, if he accepts it, either as a fallback plan for after he most likely fails at the Republican nomination or as a throwing of support if he succeeds. If he somehow succeeds, either party would be idiotic to nominate someone to compete against him. Maybe the leadership of both parties should meet with him and his campaign and ask him in advance to run for our parties if he does not win the Republican primaries (and thus he should put his name in our hats at our 2008 conventions). If he does not accept the parties’ offer, the parties will continue to run candidates as usual, expecting that he will drop out of the race completely after losing the GOP nomination.

    I really do think that the media generated from his running for the GOP will be better than if he ran third party. A coalition of third parties nominating him would also bolster his chances with the GOP nomination and bring much more media attention to his campaign, which could keep him above water even if he loses every GOP primary. It also better guarantees him ballot access, as he could automatically be on the ballot in states where either the LP or the CP are qualified already. This saves money for the actual campaign.

    While I am very, very hesitant about having libertarians permanently labelled “right-wing” by joining in coalition with right wing parties, I think he’s got a better chance than almost anyone to put libertarianism on the national map, get in the national debates and get his message through if we have all the parties working together, and he gets in the media a lot during the GOP primaries.

    It would basically be the libertarian-right equivalent of Kucinich if Kucinich sought the nomination of the Green Party and a coalition of other leftist parties after losing the Democratic nomination. If the left organized a similar tactic, maybe third parties can really take advantage of the media attention on the major parties for once and even get third party candidates in the debates and qualified for future ballot access.

  32. Andy Says:

    “Andy,
    It won’t be too late for Ron to jump ship to a Third Party. I know the CP isnt choosing its candidate til July, long after the first Rep. Primaries are over.”

    Are there any “sore loser” laws for Presidential candidates? I know that in some states a person who loses a primary is disqualified for running under another party banner or as an independent.

    Also, what about ballot access? I know that the Libertarian Party stills needs to petition for ballot access in quite a few states and that at this point it’s not clear that the party will achieve 50 state plus DC ballot status for 2008. The Constitution Party is even further behind than the LP in this area as is every other party. If Ron Paul decided to run as an independent he’d need at least 690,000 valid signatures, not to mention a bunch of extra signatures just in case various state election offices disqualify some of his petition signatures, so we are talking over 1 million raw signatures. To make things even more difficult there are different state deadlines for petition signatures and various weird/stupid rules in some states that would have to be complied with reguarding petitions. So I wouldn’t just ASSUME that Ron Paul could get on the ballot nationally with a minor party or as an independent. It would take a hell of a lot of work and even then there is no gaurentee for success.

  33. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    January 12th, 2007 at 1:38 am
    Um. Ron Paul doesn’t line up with the Reform Party so well. Also, it only has ballot access in like 2 states.”

    Considering that Reform Party is basically an empty shell I think that just about ANYONE could line up with them.

  34. Andy Says:

    “While I am very, very hesitant about having libertarians permanently labelled “right-wing” by joining in coalition with right wing parties, I think he’s got a better chance than almost anyone to put libertarianism on the national map, get in the national debates and get his message through if we have all the parties working together, and he gets in the media a lot during the GOP primaries.

    It would basically be the libertarian-right equivalent of Kucinich if Kucinich sought the nomination of the Green Party and a coalition of other leftist parties after losing the Democratic nomination. If the left organized a similar tactic, maybe third parties can really take advantage of the media attention on the major parties for once and even get third party candidates in the debates and qualified for future ballot access.”

    While it’s true that Ron Paul can come off as a conservative-libertarian, I know people who were former leftists that were converted to libertarianism after being exposed to Ron Paul. I don’t want to name drop but some of them are dedictated Libertarian Party activists. There are people on the left who respect Ron Paul for his pricipled stances against war and for civil liberties.

  35. Chris Says:

    Ron Paul ahs been courted by Texas Cp-unfortunately, he is content to stay in the GOP for that all important “R” after the name, the only thing mattering to voters.

    He-like Alan Keyes-refuse to leave the GOP, despite the fact they are the proverbial “red headed step chidl”.

  36. Eric Dondero Says:

    You all are forgetting that my former boss has very strong ties, personally to the Republican Party. And personal friendships count for a great deal.

    Even George W. Bush helped Ron Paul win his election in 1996 through Carl Rove. And also GWB said some very nice things about Ron at various fundraisers throughout his district. But that’s just the tip of the iceburg.

    Ron is close friends with Tom DeLay who campaigned his ass off for run, and raised mucho dinero for his election runs. He’s also close friends with Senator Kay B. Huthcison. Carole Keeton-Strayhorn is tight with Ron and helped him in his campaigns.

    Ron is not a Republican so much because he views having an R by one’s name as an asset. He’s a Republican cause that’s where his friends, colleagues and supporters are.

    No offense, but very few Libertarian Party people helped us out in Ron Paul’s early Congressional Campaigns in the 1990s. His efforts were almost ENTIRELY put forth by Republican Liberty Caucus members. Now, there were a handful of LPers who helped out. But very few of them.

    On the other side, the Republicans came in with Big Money, and walked precincts for Ron. They were like the Calvary in our very NASTY campaign with Democrat Lefty Morris in 1996. Morris almost one that race. Ron beat him with only 51 to 48%. The Dems threw everything they had at Ron. Accused him of being a “Drug Legalizer who wanted to give Crack Cocaine to School Children.”

    Who was it who came to our defense? Did the Libertarian Party run any ads attacking the Democrats for their nasty campaign tactics in defense of Ron?

    Nooooo! It was the Republicans who pulled out all stops to get Ron Paul elected.

  37. Eric Dondero Says:

    Joey, everyone is abuzz here in Texas Congressional District 14 as to who will replace Ron Paul is Congress. It’s strange. I’m not hearing anyone talk about RP’s run for President, just about who will take his Congressional seat.

    Already some Hellicopter pilot Republican Millionaire has said he’s going to run for the seat. No word on his views.

    But I’ve got it from a very good source that a well-known Young Republican from Houston is seriously considering the race. This guy is enegertic, appealing and has a wide network of supporters. And he’s a “libertarian conservative.”

    Stay tuned…

  38. Tom Bryant Says:

    With the $2000 that the Republican Liberty Caucus raises every year, Ron Paul will certainly do well in the GOP primaries!

    Too bad the RLC wasn’t a real political organization, backed with more than 1500 members and $2000, or else maybe Ron Paul would stand a chance. After nearly 15 years, this is the best the “libertarian-Republican” could muster up.

    If Ron Paul does well, it will not be because of the RLC, but because of better libertarian groups out there.

    On the other hand…if the Libertarian Party was doing well enough to “cost” Republicans electoral votes, the LP could work out a deal with the GOP. Something to the effect of “If you nomination Ron Paul, we will not run a candidate. If you don’t nominate Ron Paul, we will run a candidate with the sole purpose of taking electoral votes away from McCain/Romney. If you don’t want to see a Democrat in the White House in 2008, you have to nominate Ron Paul.”

  39. Carl Says:

    Methinks the LP would do well to nominate Ron Paul even though Paul is running as a Republican.

    1. It sends a message to the major parties that if they run acceptable candidates the LP will get out of the way.
    2. If Paul gets the nomination from the RP, many LP candidates can ride the coattails of the resulting fusion ticket.
    3. If Paul fails to get the RP nomination, he could use the LP ballot access to keep going.
    4. Even if Paul opts not to do option 3, the press coverage of the mere possibility of his doing option 3 would far surpass what typical Libertarian party presidential campaigns muster.

    Remember John Anderson back in 1980. He was a low budget candidate in the RP primaries, but quickly became the number 3 guy as all the conservative support went to Reagan and the remora support went to Bush. As the only remaining candidate with a support base, he got coverage far beyond what his base merited.

    Ron Paul could be in the same situation. If the primary fills up with squishes like McCain and Guliani, then Paul could well be the only interestingly different candidate standing after the first couple of rounds.

  40. Timothy West Says:

    and it would further divide the RP into the 3 camps - the country clubbers, the bible thumpers, and the neo cons - as well.

  41. [email protected] Says:

    Carl writes:

    “Methinks the LP would do well to nominate Ron Paul even though Paul is running as a Republican.”

    That would certainly be interesting.

    Of course, he’d have to be willing to accept the nomination (LP Bylaws, Article 12, Section 2).

    And if by some weird chance he gets the GOP nomination, the state LPs technically won’t be able to do support him (“No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election”—LP Bylaws, Article 6, Section 4). Of course, that provision has generally been ignored, or at least not enforced, for “fusion” candidates, and technically I guess Paul could be on a state LP’s ballot line without it “endorsing” him.

    I think the best thing for all sectors of the movement, except possibly for the LP in the short term, i.e. this election cycle would be if he just went straight GOP. That would allow the GOP to sort out whether or not it wants to become a party of limited government or not, and it would leave the LP more free to pursue new constituencies on the left, which it very much needs to do (which, in turn, would help the GOP even if it nominated Paul, as “right-leaning libertarians” would be likely to vote for Paul and “left-leaning libertarians” could vote LP instead of for the Democrat (assuming we nominate a candidate who can appeal to them, i.e. Kubby).

    As I said before, though, any way you cut it, this is good for the movement and, at least for the moment, for the LP. The Wayne Root types just got royally and completely screwed. Without Paul running for president, their potential base in the LP included the miniscule “liberventionist” contingent, plus “right-leaning Republican libertarian types” who aren’t necessarily pro-war, but might accept a pro-aggression candidate. That latter part—the majority of any prospective base for a Root type—just evaporated in favor of Paul. If Wayne Root realistically assesses his own odds for the LP nomination today, he won’t be putting any money on it. 20-1 against, at the very outside best.

    Tom Knapp

  42. Carl Says:

    Tom: you bring up very important bylaws issues, for which I have no response at this time.

    Regarding Ron Paul being on the Right, I am not so sure. I have encountered many lefty types who admire Ron Paul for his stances on on war and the Patriot Act. Also, his Bircherite rhetoric is economically populist, which is compatible with many leftists.

    A Boortz type of Libertarian would be far more alienating to the left than Ron Paul.

  43. Eric Dondero Says:

    Boy Knapp you have this whole thing bass-ackwards. “Right-leaning libertarians” are inclined to support Rudy Giuliani, Wayne Root and Michael Moriarty.

    If anything it’s the Lefty Libertarians who are screwed all around with all these latest developments.

    Who do the Lefty Libertarians have? Steve Kubby and George Phillies.

    The Righty Libertarians have a myriad of choices: 4 to be exact, some would say 5 like Liz Mair over at GOPProgress who is a “libertarian for Mitt Romney.”

    But I say 4: Wayne Root, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Moriarty and Ron Paul.

    I’ll take that team, regardless of whether those 4 run LP or GOP over Kubby/Phillies any day of the week. As I suspect most of the folks here would agree.

    And what I find very interesting about all your posts is that so far, you’ve completely ignored the even larger development of yesterdy: Michael Moriarty’s intentions to run for President.

    Does a Moriarty run not fit your Template Knapp? Kind of throwing you for a loop, eh?

  44. Eric Dondero Says:

    As for Wayne Root, I’ll just say you ain’t see nuttin’ yet.

    When he decides to run, watch out. It will be the biggest well-financed full force media and campaign blitz the Libertarian movement has ever seen.

    It will blow you away.

    I watched his DVD last night, of all his media appearances and his Motivational Speaking tour (He speaks to literally tens of thousands of people at these gigs.)

    He is the most passionate, well-spoken, sharply-worded and articulate spokesmen for libertarian values I’ve ever seen in my life.

    On O’Reilly, and on Tucker Carlson, practically ever other word out of his mouth, was “I’m a libertarian…” “I’m a Goldwaterite…” “I’m a libertarian on that…”

    It was music to the ears.

  45. Tom Blanton Says:

    I doubt Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. I’m not even sure Dr. Paul wants to run for president. It is entirely possible that he wants an opportunity to debate the Republican candidates during the nomination process in order to advance libertarian issues.

    I think the best thing Dr. Paul could do if he does want to run for president (and does not get the GOP nomination) would be for him to run as an independent. He should not seek the nomination of the LP or the CP. They carry too much baggage. There are more people in America who call themselves independents than there are Republicans and Democrats anyway - and a lot of people are just sick of political parties.

    Running as an independent would allow many third parties to endorse Dr. Paul and not run a candidate themselves - thereby freeing up many activists and party structures to campaign for him and to get him (electoral college slate) on the state ballots.

    I can see a number of third parties endorsing Dr. Paul: LP, CP, Reform, Boston Tea, Populist - and perhaps even the Greens. I can also see a wide spectrum of voters from left to right, including Republicans and Democrats, voting for Paul. If several third parties and a wide spectrum of activists endorsed the good doctor, he might be able to get into the national presidential debates.

    Imagine, Ron Paul, Independent, for President in 2008. Endorsed by all major third parties. The Presidential Debate Commission forced to let him in the debates. The media forced to pay at least some attention to a huge grassroots phenomenon. Imagine the ideas that people would hear in the debates. Imagine the number of eligible voters who haven’t voted in years turning out.

    I have followed Dr. Paul since 1988 and generally agree with him 90% of the time. Even when I disagree, I’ve never questioned his motives or sincerity. Generally, Dr. Paul explains the positions he takes very well and even when I have disagreed with him, I can at least understand why he takes a particular position and can respect it. I have also observed that those who always disagree with Dr. Paul do not malign him and respect his positions.

    I hope Dr. Paul does run as an independent - this would be very exciting.

  46. paulie cannoli Says:

    The Green Party will endorse Ron Paul? How do you see that happening?

  47. Tom Blanton Says:

    Hey Pauli - I think there are a number of issues that Greens can agree with Dr. Paul on: foreign policy, drug policy, privacy issues, decentralization, corporate welfare, etc.

    Granted, to most Greens Dr. Paul might be considered the lesser of the evils, but I think the issues upon which there is agreement are very important issues and the issues which there may not be agreement are not so important.

    There are good cases to be made for using libertarian principles to further most of the Green’s 10 key values (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml).

    I know there are a number of people on the left who like Ron Paul and a number of left-leaning websites like Truthout.com have run his articles on the war and foreign policy.

    The Kevin Zeese campaign for senate in Maryland in 2006 is one example of a green with a few libertarian ideas being backed by libertarians and greens. I don’t think the idea of Greens backing Ron Paul is that farfetched - especially these days.

    Like the LP, the Greens are somewhat disunited and have had little electoral success. Also like the LP, they don’t like Republicrats and might back an independent if there is a chance of winning and important issues are predominant.

  48. Trent Hill Says:

    Im with Paulie for once. A Green endorsement of Ron Paul is even less likely than him winning the GOP Primaries.

  49. Doug Craig Says:

    Tom

    Ballot access is to crazy to run as an independent. He would not get on the ballot in my state unless he wanted to spend lots of money. We have not had a third party or independent run for US House since 1943. And we are not the hardest state. I do not know if this a good thing for the Libertarian party but I believe it might be for the Libertarian movement.I could see us losing activist to his campaign ( I do not know if I could blame them). I have seen people say it could bring more people to the party. It could also get people involved with the republican party and we could lose them to the republicans.

  50. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
    As for Wayne Root, I’ll just say you ain’t see nuttin’ yet.

    When he decides to run, watch out. It will be the biggest well-financed full force media and campaign blitz the Libertarian movement has ever seen.

    It will blow you away.”

    It sounds to me like Wayne Root is style of substance. As much as I’d love to have a flashy, weatlthy, celebrity LP candidate, it seems to me that Wayne Root’s “roots” are not libertarian enough.

  51. Andy Says:

    “Tom Blanton Says:

    January 12th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
    Hey Pauli - I think there are a number of issues that Greens can agree with Dr. Paul on: foreign policy, drug policy, privacy issues, decentralization, corporate welfare, etc.

    Granted, to most Greens Dr. Paul might be considered the lesser of the evils, but I think the issues upon which there is agreement are very important issues and the issues which there may not be agreement are not so important.

    There are good cases to be made for using libertarian principles to further most of the Green’s 10 key values (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml).

    I know there are a number of people on the left who like Ron Paul and a number of left-leaning websites like Truthout.com have run his articles on the war and foreign policy.”

    I’ve talked to a lot of people on the left who respect Ron Paul. I know people who were leftists at one time and are now hardcore Libertarian activists because of Ron Paul.

  52. paulie cannoli Says:

    I think there are a number of issues that Greens can agree with Dr. Paul on: foreign policy, drug policy, privacy issues, decentralization, corporate welfare, etc.

    Certainly. But most GP activists are statist socialist, and if that was not hard enough to overcome, Ron Paul’s positions on immigration, abortion, and gay marriage will make it even harder for him to get support from Greens than most libertarians would have, since most libertarians actually agree with Greens on those issues.

    Granted, to most Greens Dr. Paul might be considered the lesser of the evils, but I think the issues upon which there is agreement are very important issues and the issues which there may not be agreement are not so important.

    I tend to think immigration will be very important this cycle. Abortion and gay marriage might be too, since the NSGOP may be trying to use them heavily as wedge/base issues again.

    Taxes and the economy are always important in any cycle, and all of us - not just Ron Paul - will have a hard time getting watermelon Greens to see us as any kind of allies because our ways of cahieving the Key Values are so different from theirs when it comes to many economic issues - corporate welfare notwithstanding.

    There are good cases to be made for using libertarian principles to further most of the Green’s 10 key values (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml).

    As I’ve often pointed out. But getting many Greens to see the light on that, especially within the space of barely over one year, is a whole other ball of wax.

    For that matter, it’s damn difficult getting many libertarians to see it either.

    I know there are a number of people on the left who like Ron Paul and a number of left-leaning websites like Truthout.com have run his articles on the war and foreign policy.

    True, but that’s differnt from actually endorsing him for President.

    The Kevin Zeese campaign for senate in Maryland in 2006 is one example of a green with a few libertarian ideas being backed by libertarians and greens. I don’t think the idea of Greens backing Ron Paul is that farfetched - especially these days.

    I loved that the LP was able to back Zeese and Murphy (PA). But knowing the GP as I do, I have a harder time seeing them endorse him especially for President.

    Like the LP, the Greens are somewhat disunited and have had little electoral success. Also like the LP, they don’t like Republicrats and might back an independent if there is a chance of winning and important issues are predominant.

    Good luck with that, but I see so little chance of progress that I will be very, very impressed if there’s any measurable headway at all.

    BTW Pauli is here

    http://pauli.net/

    whereas I’m here

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/

    This message brought to you by the letter E

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E

  53. Anthony Distler Says:

    I think this is the first time I’ve heard the Green Party mentioned in this cycle. It’s almost like they’re letting the Libetarian and Constitution Party come out strong early, and then eventually they’re going to to jump out with a huge announcement.

    ...or they’re lazy. Either or.

  54. matt Says:

    Ron Paul 2008 is the subject of 2 threads and over 500 posts in 24 hours at freerepublic.com.

    Bear in mind this is at a site that’s woefully neo-con dominated. My account was frozen after 3 posts for criticizing the war. No foul language, no racism, just opinions. They’re Fox-Newsers to the core.

    And Paul in 08 is their hottest story of the day, apparently.

    BTW, you guys should peruse their message boards sometime. It’s like a college-level class in how to be a bad person.

  55. Tom Blanton Says:

    Paulie - I tend to agree with the points you made about the Greens. But, these are weird times. We may be at war with Iran in 2008. We have witnessed the total erosion of privacy rights. Torture and the suspension of habeas corpus are not rejected but debated. America has become a gulag with the highest number of prisoners in the world, meanwhile KBR is building detention centers.

    On the other hand, Ron Paul may not have the positions on immigration and gay marriage that appeal to Greens, his positions on these issues are better than some of the ideas floating around and the downright hostility to gays displayed by the right.

    It may be a long shot for Dr. Paul to win an endorsement from the GP, that’s why I originally said “perhaps even the Greens”, but Greens have been split before on independent Nader. Some Greens will back Paul - maybe they can convince others to do the same. Paul sure as hell beats Kerry on a lot of important issues from a GP perspective.

  56. Nick Wilson Says:

    Doug’s right, Tom. Running as an independent would bury the Ron Paul campaign with ballot access restrictions. Making a run in the GOP primaries and then falling back on the LP and CP, who already have ballot access in quite a few states - as well as the organization to get ballot access in most of the others - is a much better idea.

    I think Dr. Paul stands in a position perfectly centered between quite a few third parties, which is why he has enough broad appeal to put forth a respectable effort if the parties can combine their efforts and push him as a fusion candidate. If the parties combine their efforts, the threat of a strong candidate of united third parties with prior media attention gaining ground and “stealing votes” from the GOP candidate will pull the GOP candidate towards libertarianism, in the same way that Nader’s strong candidacy pulled the Democrats towards socialism. Like I said, I think Kucinich should do the same thing for the Left. Then, candidates from the anti-war Right and anti-war Left third parties would be better representing the beliefs of the majority over the major parties than the major parties themselves for once.

    While I don’t the right is the best market for libertarianism, I frankly am willing to take whatever libertarian turns I can get from the major parties, so pulling one side or the other towards libertarian rhetoric would be an improvement over the current religious right’s social authoritarian corporatists vs. the current left’s socialistic well intentioned idiots.

    By the way, Dondero, how can you seriously believe that Giuliani is on the right? He’s pretty much as centrist as it gets - not left, not right and not libertarian.

  57. matt Says:

    Wait. That sounded bad. I’m not trying to call anyone here a bad person.

  58. Andy Says:

    “in the same way that Nader’s strong candidacy pulled the Democrats towards socialism.”

    I don’t think that the Democrats needed to be “pulled” towards socialism. The positive thing that Nader did (from a libertarian standpoint) was bringing up anti-war and pro-civil liberties issues.

  59. Tom Blanton Says:

    I disagree that running as an independent would bury Ron Paul’s campaign. Ballot access in most states is obtained by getting signatures. The LP has managed to do this many times. Imagine if you have the organization of a few third parties collecting signatures - it might not be so difficult.

    It would certainly be great for the LP if Dr. Paul were to run as a Libertarian, but would it be good for Dr. Paul? Would the baggage of the LP or the CP hurt him more than help him in a general election and in raising funds?

    From my perspective, running as anything other than an independent might destroy any chance Ron Paul might have of actually winning an election. Again, I think people are sick of self-serving political parties.

    Running as an independent would also give Dr. Paul the ability to select his running mate.

    Frankly, I have no confidence in either the LP or the CP to not totally botch a campaign by sacrificing it to opportunism and party building. If Dr. Paul ran as a Republican, I imagine the LP and the CP would also run candidates and Dems (and the greens) would be scared away. God only knows who the GOP would pick as a VP candidate - it could easily be someone who is horrible.

  60. Trent Hill Says:

    If the CP and LP cross-endorsed him, the he would already have ballot access in at least 28 states. He would probably make it in 50 states plus D.C.

  61. Andy Says:

    “Tom Blanton Says:

    January 12th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
    I disagree that running as an independent would bury Ron Paul’s campaign. Ballot access in most states is obtained by getting signatures. The LP has managed to do this many times. Imagine if you have the organization of a few third parties collecting signatures - it might not be so difficult.”

    I think that you underestimate the difficulty of this task. To get on the ballot nationally as an independent candidate Ron Paul would need at least 690,000 valid signatures, well over a million when you take into consideration that padding would be needed to survive challenges.

    At this time we don’t know if Ron Paul even wants the Libertarian or Constitution Party nomination.

  62. Mike N. Says:

    Sore Loser Laws Don’t Generally Apply to Presidential Candidates

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/

  63. Mike N. Says:

    Why in the hell did Ron Paul vote for Price Fixing Prescription Drugs??

    http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/12/ron-paul-votes-for-price-fixing-prescription-drugs/

  64. Tom Blanton Says:

    Andy says: I think that you underestimate the difficulty of this task.

    Not really, Andy. The LPVA got Badnarik on the ballot in Virginia with about 15,000 signatures. Some states are easier than Virginia - some are harder.

    It would have been easier with more people than just Virginia libertarians.

    Some states (like Virginia) are going to require many signatures regardless of what party a candidate is in - or not in in the case of an independent.

    The deal is that Ron Paul will probably not get the GOP nomination. I’m just saying that if he seeks the nomination by the LP or CP, he will have less of a chance of winning than if he runs as an independent with the backing of several third parties. Plus, with the organization structure of several third parties, getting signatures for ballot access would be easier than if only the LP or CP were collecting signatures.

    Of course, as I stated in my original post, Ron Paul may not want to run for President - he may be only interested in advancing his issues in the nomination process. After all, forming an exploratory committee is just to explore the waters. He may find that he doesn’t want to run at all.

  65. Tom Blanton Says:

    Andy says: At this time we don’t know if Ron Paul even wants the Libertarian or Constitution Party nomination.

    I think we know he wants the GOP nomination as that is how he has filed. The LP or CP is obviously not his first choice. I think it would be a big mistake for him to align himself with either the LP or CP as it would most likely assure that he would be pidgeon-holed, maligned, marginalized, and ignored.

  66. Eric Dondero Says:

    Response to Nick Wilson.

    He told that Saudi Prince to ‘F’ off and stick his $10 million up his rear. That’s hardly “Centrist.”

    And btw, apparently you haven’t been reading www.mainstreamlibertarian.com, the hottest site on the web for libertarian news.

    If you had, you would know that the London Times just called Giuliani a “libertarian conservative” and that a nationally syndicated columnist compared him to “libertarian hero” Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn.

    Rudy is a libertarian, plain and simple. He may be a moderate-leaning libertarian, but he’s libertarian.

    I can’t help it if the Anarchist wing of the libertarian movement hates him cause he doesn’t pass their purity test. Not my problem.

    But I’ll tell you what… This 25 year Libertarian activist will be busting his behind to get Giuliani elected!

  67. Mike N. Says:

    Dondero, I think you need a refresher on what Libertarianism means… Here is a good start:

    http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

  68. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “He told that Saudi Prince to ‘F’ off and stick his $10 million up his rear. That’s hardly ‘Centrist.’”

    You’re right. It’s not “centrist.” It’s just balls-out stupid. Giuliani decided that it was worth turning down $10 million in freely offered reconstruction money for the opportunity to do a little grandstanding … and then he went straight to Washington, screaming at them to pull that $10 million, and then some, out of the American taxpayer’s pocket.

    Giuliani is a gun-grabbing drug warrior and cheapjack grifter who’s spent his whole career sucking at the taxpayer teat as either a government thug or a sweetheart pork contractor “consultant” (read: Influence peddler). New York hasn’t seen graft like his scams since Tammany fell apart—he makes the old Daley machine in Chicago look like a combination Sunday school and mom-n-pop ice cream parlor.

    He’s not a libertarian, he’s not anything like a libertarian*, and the association of his name with that word sullies it—which is probably precisely why the association is being made by people like you who have previously publicly evinced a desire to destroy the Libertarian Party. Associating creeps like Giuliani with the word “libertarian” is the equivalent of throwing shit at any entity bearing that name and hoping some of it will stick.

    Tom Knapp

    • No, nobody died and made me The God of Defining Libertarianism. We all get to define libertarianism however we like, including you. However, it doesn’t take a whole lot of work to figure out, between your definitions and mine, which ones are more in line with the historically understood meanings and associations. Remember, you’re the guy who’s sworn up and down for at least three years that the Religious Right and the neoconservatives are the same group, for no better reason than that you have a copy of a 1970s book on the Religious Right, titled The New Right, on your bookshelf, and fancy yourself a linguist.
  69. Nick Wilson Says:

    “And btw, apparently you haven’t been reading www.mainstreamlibertarian.com, the hottest site on the web for libertarian news.”

    I always knew Allen Hacker must have graduated from the Eric Dondero School of Egotistical Self-Inflation. I’m a mainstream libertarian, I’ve seen your site, and I’m not impressed.

    “He may be a moderate-leaning libertarian, but he’s libertarian.”

    No, he’s a moderate social liberal and economic conservative. That doesn’t mean that he’s in the libertarian quadrant, however, as these are so weakly held. In this case, it puts him squarely in the center. I’d take Giuliani over Bush or Hillary, but that doesn’t make him a libertarian. Moderates tend not to be ideologues, which may be preferable to someone in the extreme right or left.

    “This 25 year Libertarian activist will be busting his behind to get Giuliani elected!”

    Wait? Which candidate are you going to get elected? Maybe Wayne Root, Joe Lieberman and Rudy Guiliani can be co-presidents?

  70. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “And what I find very interesting about all your posts is that so far, you’ve completely ignored the even larger development of yesterdy: Michael Moriarty’s intentions to run for President.”

    Actually, I’ve addressed it elsewhere. I’ll respond to it briefly, though, if you like:

    Read Moriarty’s interviews—it’s not really worth debating whether or not he’s “really a libertarian,” because we can’t, and don’t have to, reach that issue.

    We can’t reach that issue because he’s a raving whackjob. Read some of his columns or interviews some time. Yeah, he throws out the word “libertarian” now and again, but there’s not really any way to tell what he means by it. It’s just one word in a continuous stream of bizarre gibberish that makes Lyndon LaRouche and that “Impaler for President” dude look mainstream.

    We don’t have to reach that issue for … the same reason.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  71. Andy Says:

    “But I’ll tell you what… This 25 year Libertarian activist will be busting his behind to get Giuliani elected!”

    Why aren’t you going to bust your ass to get Ron Paul elected?

  72. Andy Says:

    [email protected] Says:

    January 13th, 2007 at 1:52 am
    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “He told that Saudi Prince to ‘F’ off and stick his $10 million up his rear. That’s hardly ‘Centrist.’”

    You’re right. It’s not “centrist.” It’s just balls-out stupid. Giuliani decided that it was worth turning down $10 million in freely offered reconstruction money for the opportunity to do a little grandstanding … and then he went straight to Washington, screaming at them to pull that $10 million, and then some, out of the American taxpayer’s pocket.”

    So turning down charity in favor of government welfare is libertarian?

  73. paulie cannoli Says:

    Why aren’t you going to bust your ass to get Ron Paul elected?

    Because Ron Paul is not a warmonger. Thus, by Planet Eric’s definition as can be heard on the Harry Browne and George Phillies call-in archives, Ron Paul is not a libertarian, either.

    On Planet Eric the definition of libertarian rests on the authority of non-libertarian publications, perhaps because on Planet Eric libertarianism is the same thing as authoritarianism.

    Therefore, it would be natural to conclude that a corrupt, warmongering, gun grabbing, drug warrior, corporate/police state apparatchik is the very essence of a libertarian, and to be his water carrier.

    After all, logic, history, reason are no guide in determining who is a libertarian - no, the natural libertarian thing to do is to disregard all evidence and follow establishment media authority blindly, including when it comes to defining us.

    For example, if the Detroit Free Press and other media outlets wrote that Lyndon LaRouche is a libertarian, and the nominee of the Libertarian Party for President, it must have been true - why, the LP should have called an emergency meeting and in fact nominated him for President.

    Libertarians, after all, are best known for not allowing our minds, reason, logic, and the evidence of our senses trick us into losing faith in what our devinely ordained leaders tell us. No, when doubt like this enters our minds, we must chase it out by redoubling our efforts to serve our wise masters even more viciously, and to destroy their enemies at any cost.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rudy+giuliani+fascist&btnG=Google+Search

  74. Eric Dondero Says:

    LOL, boy Knapp, you’ve really just stepped into a steamin’ pile of prime Missouri-bred horse shit.

    Here it goes…

    Tom Knapp says that Michael Moriarty is “no libertarian.” He says that his views are incomprehensible. And that while he may throw out the “libertarian” label once in a while, his views are “clearly not libertarian.”

    Really Tom. You absolutely sure you want to stand by that statement?

    What the hell…

    For the Newbies to our Movement, who know absolutely nothing about Libertarian Party history, you should know that in 1998, Law & Order Actor Michael Moriarty was featured on a front page interview of Libertarian Party News. The entire Libertarian movement was abuzz, some even wanting to recruit him to run for President. Ever since Moriarty has been listed in the very reliable Advocates for Self-Government Listing of “Libertarian Celebrities” and has been regarded as one of the Top Hollywood Movie Actors who is also a “libertarian” along with Tom Selleck, Kurt Russell, James Woods and Clint Eastwood.

    Tom Knapp, I do believe a retraction is now in order on your part.

  75. Eric Dondero Says:

    Cannoli-Frankel, actually I’m not quite sure what Ron Paul’s views are on foreign policy and defense. He seems to have two different personas.

    On conspiracy theory radio talk shows, and at Libertarian Party conventions, and on LewRockwell.com, Ron Paul is Mr. Non-Intervention/Bring the Boys home/Bush is a dangerous Warmonger.

    Here in Texas in his Congressional District he’s Mr. “I support our Troops,” Red, White and Blue campaign Mailings, Visits to the VFW/American Legion Halls, Let’s get as many Medals as we can for our Brave returning Troops, Let’s send Eric - our only Veteran on staff to every single rinky dink Veterans function in the District and let the Vets know how much of a true supporter of the Troops RP is.

    Now, he’s not the first politicians to play both sides of the coin. But it’s kind of funny that the Radicals who think Ron Paul is soooo one of them, are completely clueless as to who he really is inside his own hometown, home district and home state.

    This is a very conservative/patriotic area of Texas. No way in hell Ron Paul could get reelected without wrapping himself in the ole’ red, white and blue, and painting himself as a patriotic American who supports the Troops.

    Again, Ron Paul fully supported George W. Bush in 2000. I was there at the events, right by his side. He has a photo of him and Bush on his Congressional District office in Lake Jackson. He relied on extensive help from Gov. Bush for his first election effort in 1996 through Carl Rove. I know, I’m the one who fielded Rove’s phone calls.

    You won’t see all that on LewRockwell.com.

  76. Eric Dondero Says:

    Nick Wilson, that has truly got to be one of the most hilariously idiotic statements ever made here on Third Party Watch.

    “He may be a fiscal conservative and social moderate but that doens’t make him a libertarian….”

    That’s like saying, “he may be a libertarian, but he’s not a libertarian.”

    Duuuuuude. “Fiscally conservative/Socially moderate” IS PRECISELY THE DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN. Were you like born yesterday or something.

    My God, Cannoli-head has said some pretty stupid things here, but nothing compared to that. That’s a real dooozie. Next you’ll be telling us, “Well the dog is black, but he’s really not black.” Or, “yes, the ice cream tastes good, but it doesn’t really taste good.”

  77. Eric Dondero Says:

    Mike N. I think you need a refresher on what the term libertarian means.

    It does not mean Anarchist, nor is it limited to just Radical Libertarians either.

    This is a very, very broad-based movement. It includes everyone from the most Moderate of libertarians like my friend Liz Mair over at GOPProgress.com who proudly proclaims herself a “libertarian” but worked on Lincoln Chaffee’s campaign and is now working for Mitt Romney, and the Mainstream Libertarians like me, Cato, Reason, Club for Growth, Americans for Limited Government, Republican Liberty Caucus, to the general Libertarian Party population, to the Radical Wing of the Libertarian Party, all the way to the Anarcho-Libertarians in the Boston Tea Party, and even the Radical Escapists Libertarians.

    What you and your co-horts are attempting to do here is to define the Libertarian movement as only those who are in the Anarcho-Libertarian movement, with maybe a few Libertarian Party regulars sprinkled in.

    No way in hell will I ever let that happen. I’m planning on another 40 years on this planet, maybe 50? I’m in excellent health. And until my dying breath I will fight you all with every muscle and bone in my body, as Churchill said:

    We will fight them on the land, we will fight them on the sea, we will fight them on the streets of London.

  78. Eric Dondero Says:

    Golly gee Knapp, I sincerely hope you will forgive me for this. But, geez I don’t know how quite to say this.

    You’re a fine Missouri political activist and all, but could you kindly excuse me for…

    TAKING THE FRIGGIN WORD OF THE LONDON TIMES OVER THAT OF A MISSOURI POLITICAL ACTIVIST AS TO WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN?

    Again, I really don’t mean to put you down or nothing. But, how should I say this… I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong here, please… but I believe the London Times has been around for over 300 years now.

    You may recall, that a couple of weeks ago, they called Rudy Giuliani a “libertarian conservative”.

    I know the NY Times is not to be trusted, but it is worth noting that they called Giuliani a “welfare slashing, privatizing, Ayn Randian.”

    And most recently, National Review, a well-respected political journal that has been in existence for over 40 years now, called Giuliani a “Pim Fortuyn-style libertarian.”

    I truly hope you will forgive me for taking the opinions of such respected journals of the 300-year old London Times, and the nearly 200-year old NY Times, and the 40 year old National Review Magazine, over yours.

    I mean, you being a Missouri political activist and all. I don’t mean to demean your credentials in contrast to those publications and all. I hope you’ll understand.

  79. Tim Says:

    To get this blog off name-calling & back about Ron Paul, the New York Times has a nice write up on him this morning concerning the upcoming Republican debates in New Hamshire—where Paul certainly has a shot to pull out a huge upset in that most libertarian of states:

    http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/01/13/cq_2120.html

    Excerpt here:

    House Contrarian Ron Paul Mulls White House Bid. Nearly two decades after he was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, maverick Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul is weighing another White House bid — this time for the GOP nod in 2008.

    Paul on Thursday filed paperwork with the Texas Secretary of State establishing a nonprofit corporation, the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee, which can accept funds Paul can use to “test the waters” for a full-fledged bid.

    Should he decide to forge ahead with a campaign, Paul would file paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Paul intends to elaborate on his intentions in a couple of weeks, said Kent Snyder, who is chairing Paul’s exploratory effort.

    Paul is well-known on Capitol Hill for his frequent lone “no” votes on many spending bills and other legislation, much of which wins overwhelming support among both Republicans and Democrats alike.

    This a voting pattern that has earned the obstetrician-turned-politician the nickname of “Dr. No.” Paul explains that he votes only for measures he views as specifically authorized by the Constitution.

    In 2006, Paul voted against the Bush administration’s stated position 64 percent of the time, more than any House Republican. His highest-profile departure from President Bush is on the Iraq war, which the congressman vigorously opposes.

    In 2002, Paul was among just six House Republicans who voted against giving Bush authority to wage war in Iraq. Paul opposed the resolution for numerous reasons — including his position that it was an unconstitutional transfer, from Congress to the executive branch, of the power to declare war.

    In a Jan. 5 speech on the House floor, Paul also criticized the administration’s then-tentative plans to increase troop levels in Iraq, which Bush confirmed in a speech to the nation Wednesday.

    Paul has served in the House for nearly 17 years, but in three separate tenures. He started out on the wrong foot, losing badly in 1974 to Democratic Rep. Bob Casey, but rebounded to win an April 1976 special election after Casey resigned to accept an appointment to the Federal Maritime Commission.

    That tour in Congress was brief for Paul. The Democrat whom he defeated in the special election, Bob Gammage, exacted revenge in the November 1976 contest for a full House term. But Paul won their personal rubber match, ousting Gammage in the 1978 election.

    Paul left his House seat open in 1984 to pursue a bid for the Republican Senate nomination that failed. He then strayed briefly from the GOP fold, leading to his third-party campaign for president: As the 1988 Libertarian nominee for president, he won about 432,000 votes nationally — roughly 0.5 percent of the total in a race won by fellow Texan, Republican George H.W. Bush.

    Paul returned to the Republican Party, then returned to the House in 1996 after unseating Rep. Greg Laughlin — who had switched from the Democratic Party after the GOP’s 1994 House takeover — in the Republican primary.

    His mainly conservative constituents in the 14th District, which includes Victoria, Galveston and a 200-mile border with the Gulf of Mexico, are Republican loyalists for president: George W. Bush took 67 percent of the district’s votes in 2004. But Paul’s contrariness evidently plays well at home: He ran unopposed in 2004 and was re-elected with 60 percent last November.

  80. Andy Says:

    “Here in Texas in his Congressional District he’s Mr. “I support our Troops,” Red, White and Blue campaign Mailings, Visits to the VFW/American Legion Halls, Let’s get as many Medals as we can for our Brave returning Troops, Let’s send Eric - our only Veteran on staff to every single rinky dink Veterans function in the District and let the Vets know how much of a true supporter of the Troops RP is.”

    There’s a big difference between just “supporting the troops” and supporting wars of aggression.

    I support the troops in that I think that they should be brought home and I don’t want to see those who were wounded screwed out of their healthcare or disability. A lot of the troops are decent people who just got suckered into a bad situation. I think that some of them are scum as well but I don’t believe that the majority of them are.

    One can support the troops without supporting the war.

  81. Andy Says:

    “Again, Ron Paul fully supported George W. Bush in 2000. I was there at the events, right by his side. He has a photo of him and Bush on his Congressional District office in Lake Jackson. He relied on extensive help from Gov. Bush for his first election effort in 1996 through Carl Rove. I know, I’m the one who fielded Rove’s phone calls.

    You won’t see all that on LewRockwell.com.”

    I’ve worked on enough campaigns to know that there are plenty of lowlifes who work in the sewer that is politics. Just because Ron Paul had some sewer rats around him it doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s one of them.

  82. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “Tom Knapp says that Michael Moriarty is ‘no libertarian.’ He says that his views are incomprehensible. And that while he may throw out the ‘libertarian’ label once in a while, his views are ‘clearly not libertarian.’

    “Really Tom. You absolutely sure you want to stand by that statement?”

    You have a really bad record of asking people if they want to stand by statements … that they never made. This is just another instance of that. I just went over my own statements regarding Michael Moriarty to make sure that you I hadn’t said what you say I said—and guess what? I didn’t say what you say I said.

    At this point, after many years of such BS —including falsely attributing statements to Michael Badnarik, among others—it’s reasonably to ask whether you’re a congenital liar, or just completely dissociated from reality.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  83. Eric Dondero Says:

    Clever trick to avoid the question.

    Let me try to be a bit more specific.

    Will you acknowledge that Moriarty was interviewed in LP News in the late 1990s, and hailed as a “libertarian hero” and has been listed by the Advocates for Self-Government as a “Celebrity Libertarian” for about 6 or 7 years now?

    Second question: If you do indeed acknowledge that, do you find your previous statements, paraphrased here, that you don’t regard Mr. Moriarty to be a libertarian to be in conflict with the evidence of his LP News interview, the brief “Draft Moriarty for President movement in the late 1990s” and the Advocates listing?

  84. Eric Dondero Says:

    Fair enough Andy. You want to call me a sewer rat, that’s fine and all. Excuse me if I don’t hold you as the standard for descriptions of me or my person.

    But how do you explain Ron Paul himself grabbing the mic at a couple “Governor Bush for President” functions, like in Wharton and Corpus Christi urging the gathered cheering audience of hardcore Republicans that “we need to elect our Governor as President…” ?

  85. SMadewell Says:

    Ron Paul in 2008 or Oceania by 2012…. You decide! The Two Party system is a facade used by the Globalists! You might just as well believe in a WWF championship match as go on supporting the Two Party facade! Let’s take back this country! This is literally our last chance! If we fail this time, then … our future will be nothing more than the image of a boot stomping on a human face forever!

  86. matt Says:

    Dr. Paul has as much right to wrap himself in the flag as anyone. More, probably, since he’s going to bat for the concepts the flag used to stand for. Ditto on the “supporting the troops”

  87. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “Clever trick to avoid the question.”

    How is pointing out that I didn’t say what you say I said a “clever trick?” I didn’t say what you say I said.

    “Let me try to be a bit more specific.”

    How about being a bit more truthful instead?

    “Will you acknowledge that Moriarty was interviewed in LP News in the late 1990s”

    I’m willing to provisionally take your word for it.

    “and hailed as a ‘libertarian hero’”

    I’ve only ever seen one person designate people “libertarian heroes,” and that person is you. Sorry, but somewhere between the “Libertarians [sic] for Bush” and “Libertarians [sic] for Lieberman” fiascoes, I finally wrote you off as a judge of such matters.

    “and has been listed by the Advocates for Self-Government as a ‘Celebrity Libertarian’ for about 6 or 7 years now?”

    I have no idea how long he’s been listed there, but once again I’m willing to provisionally take your word on it.

    “Second question: If you do indeed acknowledge that, do you find your previous statements, paraphrased here, that you don’t regard Mr. Moriarty to be a libertarian to be in conflict with the evidence of his LP News interview, the brief ‘Draft Moriarty for President movement in the late 1990s’ and the Advocates listing?”

    Since I’ve made no such statements, I can’t speak to whether or not they “conflict” with the opinions of the editors of LP News, the opinions of whomever might have been behind this alleged “draft” effort I never heard about, or the opinions of whomever placed him on the Advocates’ “libertarian celebrities” page.

    I haven’t said that Moriarty “isn’t a libertarian.” As a matter of fact, elsewhere, I said that if he wasn’t an out-there, incoherent whackjob, he’d be worth a look as a potential candidate if he’s even remotely libertarian. However, since he is an out-there, incoherent whackjob, it really doesn’t matter whether he’s a libertarian or not, a) because running an out-there, incoherent whackjob as the LP’s presidential nominee probably isn’t the best idea, and b) because we have plenty of libertarians who aren’t out-there, incoherent whackjobs to choose from.

    Now—if you want to discuss whether or not Moriarty is a libertarian, feel free. It’s a subject I suspect I’m better factually equipped than you to argue—but I’m not the one who wants to argue about. You are. So argue away. If I fell like rebutting, I will. If I don’t, I won’t.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  88. Tom Blanton Says:

    So, it has come to this. Being libertarian means one is socially moderate and fiscally conservative. I believe this is how most politicians in America describe themselves. I, and many others, disliked the previous definition of “conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues”, but this new definition would indicate that we already have a number of libertarians in office.

    In fact, the new definition describes virtually all Democrats now that the Dems have proven themselves to be more fiscally conservative than the Republicans.

    Of course, I’m one of those anarchists hell bent on not “doing real politics” and letting al Qaida destroy western civilization, but from here (way outside of the mainstream libertarian world we are now living in) it seems the word “libertarian” no longer has any meaning.

  89. Timothy West Says:

    lib·er·tar·i·an audio (lbr-târ-n) KEY

    NOUN:

    1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
    2. One who believes in free will.

    There’s your sign.

  90. Tom Blanton Says:

    lib·er·tar·i·an (libbah-tairy-uhn - north) (libber-tairn - south)

    NOUN:

    1. One who spends years arguing with others about the definition of libertarian
    2. One who is to the left of Adolph Hitler and to the right of Fidel Castro
    3. A member of a political party that defines libertarian as anyone who will send in $25 and sign a pledge they disagree with.

    Yo, baby, what’s your sign?

  91. Timothy West Says:

    I’m a Taurus with head cancer ascending, bro.

  92. Steve Trinward Says:

    A libertarian is someone who believes that the advancement of social, personal and political goals can and should be accomplished without the initiation of coercive force or fraud … and who then lives by that credo, and within those “circumscribed means”! Anyone who behaves in this manner is a libertarian, anyone who does not, is not.

    Pretty much the whole country, and most of the world, believes in this concept when they are dealing with their neighbors and families, and shuns or scorns those who do not. The problem lies in explaining to and convincing others that merely delegating such coercion to a government agent does not abrogate one’s responsibility for causing it.

    ***

    And getting back to the alleged topic of this thread, I have mentioned Ron Paul’s potential candidacy to several friends and acquaintances over the last few days. All of them (including the ones who do not self-identify as libertarian) have responded very positively; the vast majority of them consider themselves to be liberal-progressive types …

  93. Tim Says:

    Great job, Steve! Keep it going…

    I experience the same thing. Every time I mention some of Paul’s bills (which sit in committee with 3 co-sponsers), folks say to me something along the lines of, “A politician actually believes that? That’s what I think too.”

    The media blackout is what we need to overcome, more than anything else at this point.

  94. Timothy West Says:

    neighbors and families

    yes, it’s a great principle for them, as well as individuals. But there is no state that can exist without the power to tax.

  95. Nick Wilson Says:

    “Nick Wilson, that has truly got to be one of the most hilariously idiotic statements ever made here on Third Party Watch.

    “He may be a fiscal conservative and social moderate but that doens’t make him a libertarian….”

    That’s like saying, “he may be a libertarian, but he’s not a libertarian.”

    Duuuuuude. “Fiscally conservative/Socially moderate” IS PRECISELY THE DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN. Were you like born yesterday or something.”

    Duuuuuude. Do you want to stand by a statement that you cut off the rest of my sentence and paragraph so you could commit the logical fallacy of turning my argument into one that does not actually represent my argument? Giuliani is a moderate fiscal conservative and social liberal who holds these beliefs so weakly that he’s still standing on the halfway dividing line between libertarian and authoritarian. He’s just a pure moderate, not a libertarian. But I never do expect either reason nor accurate representation from Mr. “Libertarians for Bush” anyway.

  96. Tim Says:

    Timothy West,

    Thanks for the comment. If I remember correctly the federal income tax accounts for approximately 30% of federal revenues in any given year. The rest comes out of corporate taxes, tariffs, etc. No, you won’t hear this in the NY Times because they view the federal income tax as a somehow ‘just’ & punitive onslaught of the “wealthy.” Does anyone know the definition of “wealthy” as held in the mainstream media? Is it not possible to cut this 30 percent from a multi-trillion dollar budget that includes wars for every president going back decades & programs like “free condoms for porn-stars” to supposedly stop the spread of AIDS?

  97. Timothy West Says:

    Yes, if you stop fucking around with who the “true libertarians” are and allow the “free market” of libertarians who may or may not be as true as you fully engage in the political process.

    I fully believe the income tax is reversible - but before we can do that, we have to build enough of a political coalition to matter. That cant be done by measuring all party would be’s to the cross of ZAP/NAP. You’ll never get enough people to agree that a government-less USA is better than even what we have now, never mind the 1911-1913 era sized government I’d like to see come bout.

    But some people clearly are not libertarian’s, and those people should not be given a pass, they must stand for less government and corporate control over the individual ALWAYS.

  98. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wrong Nick Wilson on Rudy Giuliani. Again, the NY Times described him as a “welfare slashing privatizing Ayn Randian.”

    How is it conceivable that someone described as an “Ayn Randian” could be straddling the line of Authoritarian and Centrist.

    Yes, Giuliani is Centrist. But he firmly straddles the line of “Libertarian” and Centrist, just like his Twin Brother William Weld.

    You know, come to think of it that’s a good point. Does anyone here see any differences at all between William Weld and Rudy Giuliani? No, they’re virtually identical: Northeasterners who are generally sociall liberal, pro-choice and fiscally conservative, yet relatively strong on defense.

    We can all agree on that here, right? Everybody with me? William Weld and Giuliani are virtually identical, right?

    Now, let’s go back a year or two. Remember all that fanfare about William Weld running for Governor of New York on the Libertarian Party ticket?

    Aha! Gotcha!!

    The NY LPers were practically creaming in their pants at the prospects of running Weld for Governor.

    Now why is it that Libertarians are so vehemently opposed to Rudy Giuliani, but were just fine with his ideological twin Bill Weld?

    Little hypocrisy at work here??

  99. Nick Wilson Says:

    “Wrong Nick Wilson on Rudy Giuliani. Again, the NY Times described him as a “welfare slashing privatizing Ayn Randian.””

    A.) F—- Ayn Rand.

    B.) No, my point stands. He’s a moderate fiscal conservative and social moderate. Under your definition of “libertarian,” anyone in the top half of the Nolan chart (and even below if you count Lieberman, Bush, and other politicians you have endorsed) counts as libertarian. More accurately, anyone on the rightwing half seems to count as a libertarian. Giuliani is JUST a centrist, NOT a libertarian. He’s preferable to a lot of other options, but you’re totally fooling yourself if you think libertarianism = centrism. I’m a moderate libertarian myself, but there’s still a distinction between the libertarian quadrant and the center, where there is no real defining ideology.

    Do you think Russ Feingold is a libertarian, Eric? On a chart last year published on HoT, Feingold was the most libertarian Senator. All the Republicans except McCain were firmly in the authoritarian quadrant, and McCain was a moderate conservative. Quite a few Democrats made it over the halfway line, but I doubt you’d come to their defense as “libertarians.” Double standards, anyone?

  100. Tim Says:

    I wanted to be 100th.

    Though I can’t figure out if this thread is about Eric Dondero or Ron Paul, I’ll keep promoting Ron Paul as best I can for President of the United States.

  101. Eric Dondero Says:

    Feingold is a Fascist. The best Democrats are Bill Richardson of NM, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Lieberman.

  102. Eric Dondero Says:

    By my definition anyone who scores above 66/66 on the WSPQ, or the Quiz that I much, much prefer at www.politicalquiz.us (above 6 on that scale), is a libertarian. Anyone below is not. So, Lieberman and Bush would not qualify. I score Bush at about 55/50. Lieberman is almost identical.

    But in my book other things are important than just ideology. For instance, I like both Lieberman and Bush personally. They’re just nice guys, regular Joes.

    You seem to be completely clueless of the RLC’s longstanding Liberty Index. On that most all the Democrats come out as Authoritarians, and the Republicans are split Libertarian and Conservative. www.rlc.org

  103. Tim Says:

    Hi Eric,

    I think you’re addressing me, so I’ll comment.

    I don’t particularly really care who Paul runs with. As I’ve explained elsewhere ad nauseum, I’m merely attempting (and I fully admit I may be completely wrong) to come up with ideas to pick up media exposure & votes for Paul by scratching & clawing for them. A Feingold or a Kucinich-like figure, I believe, would bring votes to Paul. Why? Because they are perceived by the left in the same light as Paul is perceived to the right. There is ample precedent in libertarian politics for the libertarian left. There is also precedent for Paul standing with Kucinich & Feingold against things like the Iraq War & the Patriot Act, etc. Besides, it is not like even the so called “libertarian republican” members of Paul’s own Liberty Caucus vote with him more than a fraction of the time (except perhaps on YOUR political quiz) on the most important issues concerning that caucus, while a part of the far left of the democratic party does in fact vote with Paul & the Liberty Caucus often. If the research below is incorrect, please let me know how it is incorrect. Statistically, please, not by calling the guy who did the research a name:

    http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/384

    Further, you’ve expressed elsewhere you DO NOT SUPPORT a Paul bid at all, yet you post on & on, on a Paul for President thread about mostly yourself & name-calling everyone that disagrees with you. Which is just about everybody. You’ve had nothing constructive to add about a Paul campaign whatsoever in umpteen posts. Not one single idea that could be debated or thrown around among the members of this forum. Not one. If however, you’d give the Paul exploratory committee a buck for every time you’ve tried to tie Ron Paul to Tom Delay here & elsewhere, that WOULD be con