More Ron Paul Buzz…

NewsBlaze, SmallGovTimes,, Technocrat, and many other blogs and news sites have run items on the Ron Paul announcement.

Ballot Access News has a good piece on “sore loser” laws. Apparently it would be possible for Paul to run as a Republican and then eventually bolt and accept the Libertarian nomination.

Here’s a nice general summary from the New York Times and Congressional Quarterly...

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.

125 Responses to “More Ron Paul Buzz…”

  1. Matt Sterba Says:

    This is such great news! Let me go get my checkbook….

  2. Mike N. Says:

    I have my checkbook… but can’t figure out where to donate. Does he have a campaign site up?

  3. Mike N. Says:

    Ron Paul v. Hillary Clinton: a Mindblower

  4. George Whitfield Says:

    I pulled out my Ron Paul, Libertarian for President button that I had kept since 1988 and wore it around town yesterday. It looked great.

  5. Tim Says:

    Any comments on who you all want to be Paul’s running mate? In Montana we had a Democrat governor choose a fairly popular Republican for leutenant governor, creating in effect a bi-partisan ticket. The crossover appeal helped launch a Democrat into the Governorship for the first time in almost three decades. As much as we may all hold our nose’s at such an idea, Paul’s going to have to scratch & claw for every vote he can get. We’re going to need some votes from the left, & in states like Montana where you don’t register for a specific party in the primary, I think Paul’s going to have to go after some votes from the left wing because he’s going to relentlessly be portrayed as a “right-wing extremist,” by the media, any ads, and in the debates. Any thoughts?

  6. Jackcjackson Says:

    I thought being a right wing extremist was good in Montana…

  7. Matt Sterba Says:

    Mike N - You’re right this is an interesting article

    As far as picking a VP; what about the popular Arizona Congressman, Jeff Flake.

  8. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Well, Paul doesn’t need to pick a VP in the GOP Primaries… unless he feels like it. So, presuming he doesn’t win the nomination and decides to continue his campaign as the Libertarian nominee (the most ideal situation for the LP, since he’ll bring Republican defectors with him)... then who does the LP nominate for VP?

    Go with an established candidate like Phillies or Kubby? Pick someone with personal money (Koch-style)? Someone else?

  9. matt Says:

    My small-town college-age friends who never gave a crap about politics suddenly do. I told them about Ron Paul and sent them some links. That was all it took. This guy will bring people to the table who’ve never paid attention before.

  10. Tim Says:

    Let’s say Paul can take New Hampshire, first up in the primaries & one of our most libertarian states. If he hasn’t already been castigated by then in the media, he sure will be afterwards: probably from both the democrat & republican establishments. Having someone on the other side of the political fence as VP (rather than say a Tancredo) might shield him from the [email protected] that’s sure to follow.

    I’m talking about Paul actually winning NH, & being thrust into the national spotlight so the media will have to pay attention to him.

    Would having someone like a Kucinich (god help us all) help or hurt Paul at that juncture? Paul & Kucinich have stood together in the House floor many times.

    Again, I’m talking about Paul taking NH. I’m not sure figures like Phillies or Kubby would help Paul. In my opinion, & I sure may be wrong, folks like these would actually hurt Paul because the electorate wouldn’t vote for folks with so little national experience. Thoughts?

    (Jacksoncjackson, we’re not really a libertarian state anymore. An invasion from California over the last decade has many of us driving around with “Don’t Californicate me” bumper stickers.)

  11. Joey Dauben Says:

    What about a Ron Paul/Wayne Root ticket? Then again, what if Harry Browne were still around? You could then have a Browne and Root running against the war—ha, ok, I’ll stick to my day job.

    Anyway, let’s focus on getting Ron Paul support high enough so that he will announce, and then talk about what to do in New Hampshire, VP, etc.

    I didn’t know Paul defeated Bob Gammage. Are we talking about the same Gammage that lost to Democrat Chris Bell in the Texas Democratic Party primary last year?

  12. Mike N. Says:

    What about a Ron Paul/Bob Barr ticket? A Republican/Libertarian ticket would be interesting.

  13. Mike N. Says: and don’t even have an insult, let alone any coverage of Ron Paul. has one article. The corporate/government controlled media aren’t going to give him the time of day. Libertarianism isn’t profitable.

  14. Mike N. Says:

    So, presuming he doesn’t win the nomination and decides to continue his campaign as the Libertarian nominee (the most ideal situation for the LP, since he’ll bring Republican defectors with him)... then who does the LP nominate for VP?

    Hmm…. Bob Barr? This would be the best thing to ever happen to the LP in my opinion.

  15. matt Says:


  16. matt Says:

    My comment pertains to Mike N. (8:38)

  17. Tim Says:

    Thanks, Mike. I’m going to wonder aloud, so please don’t misunderstand my comments/questions as being critical to your point.

    I ask though, as attractive as a Paul/Barr ticket might be to those on this site, and it is to me too, how attractive would that be to the larger electorate?

    Would it siphon off any votes from the left & from the independents to have a guy best known for leading the impeachment against Clinton?

    Would it get more votes from the traditional Republicans?

    How would an impeach Bush guy & an impeach Clinton guy be written about in the media?

    My thoughts are running towards how Paul can win the Republican primary, what can help him, what would drive momentum in his direction? Yes, Paul has a shot in New Hampshire, but what about after that? How can Paul gets some wind at his back for NH & afterwards, probably with a total media blackout from the left media (newspapers, tv) & the right media (talk radio) unless he takes NH thanks to the Free Staters?

    Would a fusion candidacy announced right off the bat with someone on the left help deflate the media blackout & generate some grassroots & mainstream press before NH? Does Paul have a realistic shot unless he gins up some media attention?

    Can Paul realistically get some left-leaning independent voters & hard left voters to switch their affiliation in the primaries & vote for a Paul/whatever ticket? What, or who, would it take for that to happen? Is there any truthfully attractive candidate among the Democrats for the anti-war & hard lefties? Wouldn’t Paul be their go-to guy, & who can Paul make it even more enticing for them to switch hit in the Republican primaries?

    I’m asking these questions because I’m intent on Paul winning, not about Paul making some kind of statement, or “changing the debate.”

    I also realize most voters aren’t thinkers, & they rely on the media to do their thinking for them.

    If Paul does lose the Republican primary & moves over to the Libertarian or a fusion candidacy with the Constitution party, in all reality, he’s probably lost his shot at the presidency. Is America at large really ready for a third party candidate yet? At that time we can begin thinking about changing the debate and making statements.

    Paul actually winning the presidency would give third parties in the FUTURE a real hope, immediately rather than 40 years from now.

    Again, just wondering aloud. Thoughts/especially critical thoughts appreciated…

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    Obviously everyone wants Paul to do well. However, if (and probably when) he loses the nomination, then a fusion ticket between Libertarian and CP could be VERY profitable. Or maybe he’ll simply drop out of the race and advocate a different candidate (third party). This is all win-win. There IS no bad news that came from the Ron Paul announcement.

  19. Devious David Says:

    The point here at this moment is: could we mount a level of support that would overcome a deliberate blackout? If such a thing is even possible, then the answer is . That’s the purpose of the exploratory committee. Because a Paul candidacy would be 99% dependent upon grassroots level support for EVERYTHING. Let me remind you folks that all the special interests are heavily invested in him losing and in particular in him being IGNORED.

    It would take an incredible effort from US ALL to overcome that fact to the degree that Joe Bob average knew about Ron Paul even if the articles and stories weren’t being written. This means, for instance writing our own articles, etc and buying advertising space in the papers/tv/media to place those articles and outright ads.

    This isn’t just about Ron Paul’s personal sacrifice and “oh, isn’t that nice and honorable.” It’s about Ron Paul AND HIS SUPPORTERS UNPRECEDENTED personal sacrifice to make this thing work. Building a coalition to make these contributions is a total necessity. The CP, LP et al are going to have to at least unofficially work together with factions of the GOP and independents as well towards a single unified goal. The good news is that goal is clearly defined and easy to understand.

  20. Tim Says:

    Thanks, Trent.

    I agree that a fusion ticket with Paul at the helm of the CP & Libertarian party “could be VERY profitable,” but only if Paul got in the debates nationally. History has shown us he will not be able to running CP & Libertarian. Running around the country talking to 70 people at State Fairs won’t do anyone third party-leaning any good for a long time.

    Unless there is some mass grassroots movement among American voters for him to be at the debates we’ll be looking at half percent again when it’s all said & done. Getting him in the debates will take media attention, because as I said above, I believe most voters have their political attention focused on sound bites & spoon fed commentary. They’re not political junkies like those of us who have fun on sites such as this & do our research.

    Would a fusion ticket right off the bat with a left-leaning political insider generate media attention for Paul? & then the question is would it help or hurt him in the Republican primaries?

    If it can help him let’s go after the whole ball of wacks (ie. the presidency) & worry later about consolation prizes and moving forward in increments.

    I may be woefully wrong, but the media is a kind of 4th branch of government anymore, & we’ll need to generate a whole lot of it if Paul is to make a good run.

  21. Tim Says:


    I think you have right on target. Perot had a personal fortune to mount the last semi-serious attempt to the establishment government. He also generated a lot of media publicity with his shot.

    How do we got Ron that shot at media publicity? Which will give him wind at his back…

    What would MAKE the media talk about Paul instead of ignoring or blacking him out?

    We need to generate some ideas here, act as a kind of local think tank for his exploratory committee.

  22. Tim Says:

    You know what, & “f” the “quixotic” crap from the AP about Paul’s run for the presidency.

    Let’s embarass the idiot who wrote that!

  23. Tim Says:

    Ron Paul for President bumper stickers up on cafe-express, $4.

  24. Trent Hill Says:,2933,243200,00.html

    Fox News, the Washington Post, and the AP all reported him FILING, but I doubt they’ll be very supportive beyond that. =(

  25. Nick Wilson Says:

    Yeah, CNN did too. Probably the same story.

  26. Tim Says:

    Hey Trent,

    I think you’re right. As soon as the news of Ron Paul’s run began breaking over thirdpartywatch & elsewhere on the internet, I sent several “tips” into Drudge who supposedly is a libertarian leaning conservative. Nothing at all on his website for the past three days about Paul.

    How do we at the grassroots level, & how does Paul at the political level, drum up media publicity & generate a wave?

  27. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Hey Tim,

    Dennis Kucinich is a very cool cat but, unfortunately, it is very unlikely that he will ever leave the Democratic Party.

    Furthermore, some of you people are getting too far ahead of things on this. Ron Paul is not even an official candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination yet - let alone the Libertarian Party. I do admire his courage, though, for considering a run for president against the Establishment. Shades of 1968 and Eugene J. McCarthy!

    As for me, I am going to be voting in the Green Party’s presidential primary, in California, in 2008.

    Member: CUIP; GPUS; Unity08

  28. Nick Wilson Says:

    As far as running mates are concerned, what about that Frank Gonzales guy from the Democratic Freedom Caucus? He didn’t win, but it would make the ticket bipartisan.

    What I’m really interested in is whether a Paul candidacy for the LP down the road would bring many erstwhile Libertarians back into the fold. I would hope that the Cato Institute people might become active in the party again. Someone like David Boaz or Ed Clark would be a great running mate.

  29. Matt Sterba Says: also has Ron Paul ‘08 stickers

  30. Tim Says:

    Thanks Phil,

    Would Kucinich or someone of his ilk (Frank Gonzales maybe) HAVE to leave the Democrat Party? I’m asking because I don’t honestly know. In Montana, the ticket was split, Democrat Governor/Republican Leutenant Governor. I think that’s how it appeared on the ballot. Does anyone know if there is any precedent at the federal level?

    Phil, can I ask you a question outright? I assume you’re on the more progressive end of political ideology, considering your support of the Green Party.

    Would you swing toward Paul & vote for him for President, if Kucinich or another major progressive or Green party guy was his declared VP?

    Thanks, again, Phil. Look forward to your response to this question!

  31. Bill Wood Says:

    I remember listening to one of the speeches made by Kucinich. He was wanting government to pay for everyone to have “Free” health care and “Free” college education. This meaning taxpayers would be paying for “womb” to “tomb”. This doesn’t sound very Libertarian to me, when did he change his views on large government and the nanny state?

  32. Tim Says:

    Thanks, Bill,

    I was using Kucinich more as an example of what might be done to unify the right & the left in voting, as well as generating mainstream media attention for Paul, & I don’t think I implied Kucinich was libertarian in any way. If I did, I apologize.

    Kucinich in reality is to the thinking left in this country what Paul is to the thinking right. Kind of heroic in a way. Not really democrat, more Green, in the same way Paul isn’t really republican, more Libertarian. & so I’m using right & left a bit loosely to make a point.

    Someone like Kucinich on his own will never ever have a shot in this country. I think if we’re to be honest, Paul won’t either. If Paul chooses someone like Tancredo, my guess is that’s going to kiss the presidency goodbye for Paul. Yes, individually a Paul or a Kucinich can agitate the establishment or attempt to change the debate—& that’s about it when vote by vote of all Americans comes in at the end of the day.

    My hypothesis is what could they do together? & it doesn’t need to be Kucinich necessarily, I was using him as an example because he’s poster child left. My larger point is how to draw the left & right together to get Paul media exposure & even to help him win the Republican primary. And for laughs, imagine something like a Paul/Kucinich ticket against a Clinton2/Obama ticket for the presidency. The post someone listed above on Lew Rockwell is a good start in thinking about the flanking everyone will have to do at this dichotomy.

    If Paul takes a libertarian NH & then the media begins covering him because it has to, do we really & honestly feel he’s going to get a fair shake from either tv, talk-radio, or the papers? How do we blunt their bias’?

    Will a Phillies or Root or Flake or Tancredo on a ticket with Paul, or Paul not declaring a VP at all at that point, help or hurt Paul if he takes NH? My conjecture, & that’s all it is because I’m attempting to generate ideas, is that the media will castigate him in front of an American electorate that doesn’t really pay attention beyond beer & chips & a click through on a news station pumping their fist at an absurd soundbite.

    My largest point is generating ideas on how to get Paul actually WINNING the Republican primary & then going on to actually TAKE the presidency.

    At that point third party America has really & truly arrived, rather that being mud the establishment steps in on its way to more power, while we keep debating how to go from .5% to 2% in national voting.

    Paul is our best shot since Perot, in my opinion.

  33. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ron Paul has a great many Republican supporters, particularly here in Texas, and most especially here in his Congressional District. (I live in Angleton right in the heart of CD 14). Many of these Republicans are big Bush supporters. This is solid George Bush country here. I’m not sure that Ron Paul wants to anger his neighbors by going the third party route and dissing the GOP.

    Given the fact that he’s already got a reputation as sort of the “Party flip-flopper” going from Republican to Libertarian to Republican again, I think it would be add to add “Libertarian” to that, yet again.

    I think his best bet is to run as a Fusion candidate. Make it clear that he is running in the Republican primaries, but he is also a Proud Member of the Libertarian Party and hopes to attract Libertarian voters into the Republican Party. If he does that Republicans will be very pleased with his effort. They’ll see it as a campaign to win the Libertarians, who cost them the elections in Montana and Missouri this year, out of Third Party politics and into the GOP’s Big Tent.

    If he flips back to the LP, people are going to think that’s just too wierd, and especially Republicans are going to be furious with him, for leaving the GOP yet again, after he assured them that he was a loyal GOPer and won their confidence back.

    Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

  34. Eric Dondero Says:

    You know Republicans, particularly Republican strategists are pretty clever folks. They read the numbers. They look at the election stats. They are fully aware that in 2006 the Libertarian Party cost them a number of key elections, most especially the Missouri and Montana Senate races.

    I just wonder if the top GOP echelon maybe have gotten to Ron Paul, who has the reputation of being the Leader of the nationwide Libertarian movement, and convinced him to do this so that Libertarian Party people would get all excited and jump back into the Republican Party?

    They know that the Presidential race could be super tight in 2008. Having the Libertarian Party field a strong candidate could spoil their chances.

    All this recent talk and media attention about Wayne Root running for President as a Libertarian, probably crossed their desks. The last thing the GOP leadership wants is a strong, well-funded, agressive Libertarian 3rd party candidate like Wayne Root.

    Just speculating here, but is it a coincidence that all this Ron Paul stuff happened merely 3 weeks after the buzz about Root started to break?

    Ron Paul has old ties to some very top GOP big shots. One of his best friends is Tom DeLay. Ron Paul has even been to the White House at the President’s invitation a couple times. And Karl Rove assisted Paul in his early Campaigns for Congress deep behind the scenes. There’s another Texas Political Consultant who has very, very close ties to Rove, who calls himself a “libertarian” who has been extremely helpful to Paul in all his efforts. He’s practically a member of RP’s inner circle. I can’t give you all his name, but let’s just say everybody who is anybody in Texas politics knows who this gentleman is.

    I’m wondering out loud here if this may all be an effort to get the 3rd Party Libertarians to come back home into the Repulblican fold?

    It seems to be working after all.

    Look at how many diehard Libertarian Party people are all of a sudden super excited about the prospects of Ron Paul, REPUBLICAN for President. These are people who would have NEVER dreamed of supporting the Republican Party. And all of a sudden they’re on message boards talking about how they’re gonna donate to REPUBLICAN Ron Paul, and put a bumper sticker on their trucks for REPUBLICAN Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul makes a run in the early GOP primaries, New Hampshire and Iowa, maybe a couple more like South Carolina and Delaware. He gets 3 to 4%. And then he drops out. He then endorses one of the top GOP Presidential candidates. While, as a Giuliani supporter I would hope it would be Rudy. I strongly suspect though it will be Mitt Romney. Romney makes a few remarks about how “libertarian he considers himself to be.” And valah! The Libertarians are back in the GOP fold.

    Here’s another very interesting tidbit to consider. I can’t give you all the details. But, Mitt Romney made a big effort to win over a very top Libertarian Republican politician in the late days of the 2006 election in a northern state. Gave the guy a big campaign contribution. Met with him at a campaign event.

    Romney is from Mass. He is friends with former Gov. William Weld, a libertrarian. You don’t think Romney is smart enough to know how important the libertarian vote is?

    I’d rather see Ron Paul back Rudy Giuliani. But my hunch is, if anything is at work here behind the scenes, knowing that little story about Romney, I suspect he might be involved in this effort.

    Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

  35. George Phillies Says:

    For once Mr. Dondero has said something that is actually sensible. While I believe it may well be incorrect, the point where it is incorrect is ‘motive’; which is the point where you can make an educated guess, but not know.

    As Mr. Dondero correctly notes, the Republican Party has a long history of trying to break up the Libertarian party and disrupt its growth with various stunts. Thus at one time Miriam Luce ran a very successful Liberarian campaign in NH. She was offered a position on, iirc, the state board that runs the liquor stores in the state. Runs? In New Hampshire, the socialists took government ownership of booze retailing. Similarly, several years ago, the LPNH appeared to be on a growth curve. The Republican governor cleverly disrupted this by giving a stack of LP people positions on a state commission, so that they would spend their time not building our party.

    Now, I have a somewhat higher impression of Ron Paul than I do of many other Republicans. I think he is an honorable man, and therefore am not inclined to believe that Ron Paul is launching his campaign to disrupt our party. However, to give credit where credit is due, Mr. Dondero’s speculation:

    “I just wonder if the top GOP echelon maybe have gotten to Ron Paul, who has the reputation of being the Leader of the nationwide Libertarian movement, and convinced him to do this so that Libertarian Party people would get all excited and jump back into the Republican Party?” may well describe the motive behind some of Ron Paul’s friends. (Mind you, I do not think they are concerned about Wayne Root, since they have likely figured out that a Republican warmonger who thinks McCain-Lieberman is a good Presidential ticket has no chance of getting the Libertarian nomination.

    Of course, we have a long history of political movements based on ‘the Presidential candidate is a cool guy’, including the George Wallace Party, the John Andersen party, and the Ross Perot Party (twice). The historical record is clear: that approach to party building does not work, and wastes the energy and time that could have gone into building a stronger party. Libertairans who hare off after a Republican will do nothing to advance Libertarianism in America.

    And if Congressman Paul changes his mind and wants to pursue the Libertarian Party nomination, I look forward to some exciting debates with him on drug legalization, a woman’s right to abortions, gay marriage, America’s Central Bank—the Federal Reserve Bank, and other topics.

    George Phillies
    P.S. Unlike most of our candidates, I’ve been in three-way Federal debates, when I ran for Congress in 1998. One of the other candidates was Jim McGovern (D-MA), who is now one of the most senior members of the Rules Committee. The press, when it said anything, said that I won, so I am certainly not afraid of debating a sitting Congressman again.

  36. Tim Says:

    Texan has eye on White House, but it’s long haul from Surfside

    12:00 AM CST on Sunday, January 14, 2007
    TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News

    WASHINGTON - As hard as it is to become president, House members have long had an especially difficult time making the leap. Think Dennis Kucinich.

    Rep. Ron Paul wants to give it a shot, again. Back in 1988, the iconoclastic obstetrician from Surfside, Texas - known as Dr. No for voting so often against the Republican line - was the Libertarian Party nominee, collecting 432,000 votes nationwide.

    Last week, he created an exploratory committee, with the intention of joining a Republican field already packed with the likes of Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

    “Dr. Paul’s effort is going to be an uphill battle. We all know that. But there was also a time when Jimmy Carter was not well known at all, when Bill Clinton was not well known at all. Dr. Paul has a large national following. Probably more than anyone in the House,” said spokesman Kent Snyder.

    The decision could further erode GOP gains in the Texas delegation.

    Dr. Paul was first elected to Congress in 1976, serving four terms before running for the Senate and losing badly to Phil Gramm in the 1984 GOP primary. Tom DeLay - who went on to become House majority leader - won his old seat, so when Dr. Paul decided he wanted to return to Congress in 1996, he ran in a neighboring district and won.

    He beat his last opponent, Democrat Shane Sklar, 60 percent to 40 percent, and Mr. Snyder said Dr. Paul intends to stay in the House unless he wins the presidency. He’ll have to decide by next January whether to file for re-election to the House.

    “There are certainly issues driving him. He’s not doing this just to make a point,” Mr. Snyder said, though it’ll be another couple of weeks before Dr. Paul - known for supporting a far more limited government, a return to the gold standard and the legalization of marijuana - specifies those issues.

    Texas Democratic strategist Matt Angle, who heads the Lone Star Project, said Democrats would have a good shot at winning the district without a Republican incumbent and suggested that Dr. Paul might be doing this to refill campaign coffers drained in 2006, his toughest campaign in years.

    “There is a market within the Republican Party for the kind of whack, out-of-touch points of view he represents,” Mr. Angle said.

    Besides, he added, now that the Democrats have taken control of the House: “If you are Ron Paul in the majority, you’re irrelevant. In the minority, you are no more than an oddity.”

  37. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    For a Paul/??? crossparty ticket idea, Tim, I suggest that lone vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act while groundzero still smouldered, first Senator to call for withdrawal from Iraq, hero of the Democratic Freedom Caucus, Russ Feingold.

  38. Tim Says:

    I hate to be this blunt, but, here goes:

    Are we already at that point, after three days of a potential Paul candidacy, of pursuing the conspiracies of why Ron Paul is running, rather than trying to set aside our differences, come together & pursuing a path for him to actually WIN the Republican nod?

    Just because he hasn’t put an L next to his name, does that diminish his record for what L stands for while he’s been in the House?

    Has he been a “perfect” libertarian, no. I don’t even know what a perfect libertarian is, except perhaps another lockstep guy with a more palatable political philosophy.

    Does ANYONE out there have any ideas for a Paul win that we can bounce around here?

  39. Nigel Watt Says:

    Paul might win NH. Paul will not win the GOP nomination. What he can do is split the GOP, endorsing the LP candidate after it’s clear that he has lost. This is much more likely to be helpful if we nominate George Phillies than another, more “eccentric” candidate. Phillies is by no means a “rightist”, but Republicans are more likely to like him than any of the other LP candidates.

  40. Eric Dondero Says:

    This is real scary. Alright guys, strike everything that I previously said on this thread. If George Phillies is agreeing with me, I must have been delusional, in hangover mode, or without my first cup of coffee this Sunday morning, when I wrote my previous post. Kindly disregard.

  41. Eric Dondero Says:

    I can assure you Nigel, that a United States Congressman is not going to endorse a guy for President of the United States who has never even been elected Dog Catcher or has any other Fame or Celebrity or accomplishments outside of “Libertarian Party Activist and National Committee member.”

    If the LP nominates someone with some celebrity or qualifications, you could see a Ron Paul endorsement: Michael Moriarty, Wayne Root, Bob Barr, Art Olivier, Ed Thompson, Jess Ventura,

    But you ain’t gonna see it for a George Phillies, and most certainly not for a Steve Kubby.

    Ron never publicly endorsed Browne or Badnarik. And arguably, at least Browne had a tiny bit of celebrity and a tiny bit of name recognition. Badnarik zero. But Browne had more credentials by far than Phillies. Still not much, but far more than Phillies.

    If RP did not endorse Browne, what makes you think he’d endorse Phillies?

    No, far more likely Ron Paul will endorse the GOP nominee, and my hunch is that he’d lean Romney, Sam Brownback or maybe his old friend Newt Gingrich.

  42. Joey Dauben Says:

    Hey Eric, is that Republican political consultant you didn’t identify Royal Masset?

    If so, I win $100 ;)

  43. Chuck Says:

    Eric - HI!

    Not everybody who is a republican is a libertarian. Why do you keep calling all these random people whose voting record in no way looks libertarian at all “libertarians”?


  44. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Yes, Tim, there is plenty of precedent: The National Unity Campaign by John B. Anderson and Patrick Lucey in 1980 - just to name one example (one of the most energizing and exciting presidential and vice-presidential campaigns in United States history).

    Dennis Kucinich, of course, would not have to leave the Democratic Party to run on a fusion ticket (to answer another one of your questions). While I do not know Mr. Kucinich personally, I have followed his activities for a long time. Furthermore, while I would never presume to speak for the man, I do think that it would probably take a lot of convincing (and some evidence of real movement) to get him involved in something like the Unity08 Campaign or a potential Ron Paul fusion ticket. Yes, those two (Ron and Dennis) would be great together. Would Dennis go for it, though? Well, I would “never say never” but I certainly am not going to hold my breath - given his long time, died-in-the-wool, loyalty to the Democratic Party.

    Thanks for asking my opinion on these things. It is very flattering since it is so seldom that anyone (left, center, or right) asks me for my thoughts on these matters. Yes, I am on the “progressive” end of the political spectrum (although I do not use that word very much anymore because it has lost its real meaning - since 1976 - and become corrupted with too much liberalism and political correctness, in my humble opinion). Actually, I am a socialist (looking for the perfect socialist political party) in political philosophy. Would I support a Ron Paul fusion ticket with a leftist in certain circumstances? Yes, of course. It would depend upon those circumstances, though. For a long time, I have thought that “third parties” should get together and challenge the Bourgeois Establishment in a big way. I have never seen any real movement in that direction and, there again, it just seems very unlikely to me that it will happen (in the near future).

    Something like the Anderson-Lucey ticket could easily (soon) happen again, though. Especially with the Unity-08 organization energizing so many young people these days. We shall see!

    Member (of the garden variety type):

    CUIP; GPUS; Unity08

  45. Joey Dauben Says:

    Charges dismissed against Texas Libertarian senate candidate

  46. matt Says:

    Tim’s right.

    I’m having decent success getting my high-school college-age crowd interested in him. This crowd will eat up anyone who’s anti-war and not a drug-war madman. I’m going to pump them full of info and drag them to the Michigan primary if he’s in it.

    His message really resonates with the young. Try it out on the young voters in your circle of friends.

    Wait until they’re done grousing about Bush.
    Thenremind them how hawkish the major Dems are.
    Then mention taxes.
    And industrial hemp,
    Wait for a response.

  47. Tim Says:

    Paul’s weekly column up a day early. I was hoping he might say something about his run, but as usual he put his country before himself.

  48. Eric Dondero Says:

    Chuck, is that you? Chuck Moulton or Chuck Muth? Anyway Hi back at ya.

    Because my definition of “libertarian” is much more expansive than the definition of radical libertarians.

    I don’t get it. Why is it that “Liberal” and “Conservative” and “Moderate” is allowed to describe a HUGE section of the Political Spectrum, yet some people want to limit the use of the term “Libertarian” to a tiny little corner?

    Libertarian should be JUST AS LARGE as the Conservative, Liberal and Moderate Groupings, no more, no less. All four Quadrants, if you will, should be of equal size.

  49. Eric Dondero Says:

    BTW Chuck, I’m not nearly as “Expanisive” as some people. I’ve got some friends who are trying to convince me that Mitt Romney is “really a libertarian.” I scoff at them.

    I chuckled when Arlen Specter and Bill Clinton called themselves “libertarians” in the 1990s. And I cringed when David Duke called himself a “libertarian on drugs and prostitution.”

    And I disagreed when Jeff Birnbaum of Fortune Magazine called George Bush essentially a limited government “libertarian” in the 2004 Presidential race.

    No, I think the furthest that the “Libertarian Quadrant” goes to is maybe William Weld. Weld is on the tippy-ity-tip-tip of the line between Centrist and Libertarian. Ventura too. And maybe Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Giuliani is in this area too. They represent the ultimate Centrist/Libertarians.

    What really pisses me off is that Radical Libertarians just absolutely refuse to acknowlege that Moderate Libertarians exist. You know there’s even a couple web sites for Moderate Libertarians. One Blog is called simply “Moderate Libertarian.” (Type that in at Google). The other one of course is Liz Mair’s

    Moderate Libertarians are just as legitamate as Radical Libertarians. It’s a big movement of ours, and we ought to keep it that way.

  50. Eric Dondero Says:

    Joey, now I have to kick your ass. Shhhhhhhhush!!

  51. Timothy West Says:

    the fracture line is between no force adherents and anyone else. If you don’t agree with them, you’re not a libertarian to them.

  52. Bill Wood Says:

    Sorry this is off topic, but the Winchester Star newspaper for the Winchester Virginia area ran a large article about the Draft, in Saturdays edition. This can be viewed at and you have to ahh jee register to read.

    Do you feel a draft? The Selective Service stays ready.
    The system is dormant, but young men still sign up

    By Robert Igoe
    The Winchester Star

  53. Tim Says:

    There was an article in the New York Daily News today that says there is a $100 million dollar entry fee into the primaries, & the winner of the democrat & republican primaries are going to need $500 million apiece by election day.

    I see Ron Paul is going to be marching down in Texas for Martin Luther King day.

    My questions are these:

    1) Can Paul overcome the huge amount of money needed to basically buy the election by instead using the media as a “free” vehicle to “spend” the money for him he won’t have?

    2) How effective can Paul be as a Non Violent Peace candidate in the fashion of a King or a Ghandhi? I’ve never met him, does he have the charisma to fire up the anti-war grassroots folks at street level?

    3) If Paul can be effective in such a role, will the media then pay attention to him and prop him up (think about how they did, and continue to do, to an utterly ineloquent Cindy Sheehan)? Certainly there is no other major candidate who has the votes & speeches to back up a true non-violence campaign theme.

    4) Are there any other ways Paul can use the media to, for all intents and purposes, pay for his primary run for him?

    5) If as I suppose they will, the media does blackout him anyway, is there a VP candidate that the media adores that Paul can choose right off the bat to act as a wedge into the media $$$ spotlight?

  54. Tim Says:

    Hey Devin,

    I think Russ Feingold would be a pretty darn good choice. He’s not quite as “hot button” as a Kucinich, has some charisma, has some leverage in the media, has some name recognition already, & would bring over some votes from the left almost certainly.

    Hey Phil, Would the left consider a Paul/Feingold fusion ticket?

    Think of it this way. Paul should certainly be able to drum up 10-15% from the libertarian wing of the Republican party & the libertarian/Constitution third party folks. Would Feingold, or someone like him, be able to pull over to Paul an additional 10-15% of the more progressive side of the Democrat/Green party folks who wouldn’t want to vote for either a Clinton 2 or an Obama?

    I may be crazy, but I don’t think this is as farfetched as it might seem on the surface. Yes, a lot of folks, both politicians & voters, would have to compromise some, but so what? Is America’s future worth a little bit of compromising to stop the establishment from destroying us any further?

  55. Joey Dauben Says:

    You guys are weird proposing all these fusion tickets with avowed socialists.

    Feingold and Kucinich are socialists.

    Tim, a $100 million entry fee? Can you get some URL sources for that?

    I’ve always wondered how much it cost to even file as a Republican or Democrat in the presidential election(s), or how much it took to get on a primary ballot in states.

    You guys really need to cut out with the fusion-socialism thing, though.

    That’s like saying you want Allen Hacker to manage Paul’s campaign. They just don’t mix.

  56. Tim Says:


    Great job working the grass-roots. I just talked to an older gentleman who I’d discussed Ron Paul with when we were out hunting this autumn. He’d mentioned that he’d seen Paul on some tv show once & that he really liked the guy. I told him Paul was running. He said “Really? I hadn’t heard anything. I’m going to be voting for that guy.”

    Person to person, that’s how we’re going to need to begin for sure.

  57. Mike N. Says:

    Ron Paul Confounds the Political Spectrum

  58. Tim Says:


    Thanks for the comment. The Daily News wasn’t talking about a “literal” entry fee, but an amount of money that any realistic campaign is going to need to get up & running.

    I’m keenly aware that Feingold & Kucinich are socialists.

    I’m also keenly aware that Paul’s never going to realistically have any kind of shot whatsoever running with a Tancredo or a Flake or Phillies or any other similar minded person as him. He has a 0 shot with those folks. They’ll be excorciated in the press, if they’re talked about at all, & without any money to overcome that they might as well not even bother to ask us to waste our money in supporting them. If you disagree with this assessment, let’s hear why.

    & I repeat, yet again, I’m trying to come up with ideas to help Paul overcome media & monetary blackouts, & actually win the primary. I’m not real interested in him dropping out & then backing Phillies or Kubby or Moriarty, who’ll get what the libertarians always get, a couple of hundred thousand principled votes.

    The libertarian philosophy & political canon has it’s best shot ever at recognition with Paul running. I think compromising in the short time to achieve long term success is a real good thing. & fox smart.

    Principle is fine, but America is being literally destroyed while the Libertarian party has spent 40 years building up the party to keep puffing out our chests & counting how many Justices of the Peace we just elected.

    If you have any ideas, throw them out there OK? Let’s discuss them. & let’s have a reasoning behind the ideas.

    Thanks, again…

  59. Tim Says:


    There is also a fairly long history of sorts of the libertarian left & associations between the radical left and libertarianism:

  60. Eric Sundwall Says: is the first place to go first if you like the man. They need 10K+ to get there website upgraded. Statim.

  61. Mike N. Says:

    Eric - thanks for the link:

  62. Tim Says:

    Thanks, Eric!

    For all those Jeff Flake running mate fans, or other so called Liberty Caucus members who supposedly support Ron Paul (& I have one of the LC traitors here in Montana—Denny Rehberg who when he voted FOR the soviet-style REAL ID act & I wrote a letter to the editor to expose him, Denny wrote & got an OP-ED in the Billings Gazette a week later saying he DID NOT vote for the REAL-ID; Denny, the liar, had the last word)

    Thanks again for the research, Logan

  63. Nigel Watt Says:

    “If the LP nominates someone with some celebrity or qualifications, you could see a Ron Paul endorsement: Michael Moriarty, Wayne Root, Bob Barr, Art Olivier, Ed Thompson, Jess Ventura,”

    I’ve never heard of Moriarty or Root. Ventura is not a libertarian. Barr, meh. Olivier and Thompson would be great, but they’re not interested.

  64. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ventura IS ABSOULTELY A LIBERTARIAN He tens time more Libertarian than you are. How dare you! You ain’t friggin King of the Libertarians. Nobody died and left you boss.

    You represent everything that’s wrong with the Libertarian movement. Go away.

    And to have never heard of Michael Moriarty just shows your complete disconnect with Mainstream America.

    Hey dumbass, he’s a two-time Emmy Award winner. He was the star of the 1990s hit Law & Order. He was featured on the front page of the Libertarian Party News. He’s been listed on the Advocates for Self-Government site for 6 years as a “Celebrity Libertarian.”

    Get away from that computer screen, put down them books, crawl out of your Ivory Tower and start associating with Real America and Joe Sixpack.

    Sheesh! No wonder our libertarian movement has such a hard time getting ahead. We are innundated with out of touch with reality dumbasses like you.

  65. Eric Dondero Says:

    Olivier is not “really interested.” But he most certainly could be persuaded.

    As for Thompson, spoke with him myself back in October. His exact words to me at his downtown bar in Tomah, as were reported right here at ThirdPartyWatch, “Yeah Eric, that sounds really interested… We ought to move forward with that.” This in response to my querty over a beer, “Hey Ed, what do you think about running for President as a Libertarian.”

  66. Roscoe Says:

    What the heck is everyone smoking? Wake up to the reality that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee.

  67. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Eric D.: The way that I see it, the libertarian philosophy does not comprise a Quadrant; it is on the right of the political spectrum along with the laissez-faire capitalists and the anarchists (some of whom call themselves socialists but they are not that in reality).

    Since I never watched “Law and Order” on television, I did not know who Michael Moriarty was either. Does that make me “dumb” also?

    Joey: As a person who considers himself to be a socialist, I must say that I do not consider Sen. Feingold and Rep. Kucinich to be in my political camp (“avowed” or otherwise). Both of them are great men. They are also very loyal members of the Democratic Party - which has always been (and probably always will be) capitalist. There are organized socialist groups that work primarily within the Donkey Party. One of them is a group called the Democratic Socialists of America (born as a merger between the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committe and the New American Movement). Neither Russ nor Dennis are members of that group, as far as I know. I have belonged (more than once) in the past - but not anymore. I have decided that it is futile to try to work within the Democratic Party (although I had some wonderful experiences and learned a lot and I’m grateful for the good times).

    Tim: It is difficult to say what “the left” would do in regard to a Ron Paul and Russ Feingold ticket. The left, just like the center and the right, is very fractured. The question is moot at this point anyway. Dr. Paul is not an official candidate yet for the Republican nomination - let alone the Libertarian nomination. Senator Feingold is not a candiate for president or vice president at all. The Unity08 organization is planning on running just such a type of ticket. However, I have not heard of Ron, Russ, Dennis, or any other of the potential candidates mentioned above as being interested in that sort of thing. So, yes and maybe. There almost surely will be a ticket very much like what you mentioned. It is possible that I will be supporting the Unity08 ticket. It is also just as possible that I will be supporting the ticket of the Green Party of the United States. It is too early to tell how it is going to go. Naturally, I want to leverage things as to how I think that they should turn out. After all, this is politics! Everyone else (except the party hacks of the various parties) will be doing the same thing.

    Roscoe: It is always possible that lightening could strike. Even if Ron Paul has very little chance of obtaining the Republican nomination, he might be persuaded to pull a John Anderson and go independent. That could really shake things up!

  68. matt Says:

    What the heck is everyone smoking? Wake up to the reality that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee.
    You’re probably right, Roscoe. There’s a small possibility that the GOP’s upper echelon will sense how out of touch they are and let a maverick like Paul run to dodge the national embarrasment of a lopsided defeat. Like I said, unlikely. But this year could be surprising for various reasons.

  69. Nigel Watt Says:

    Ventura IS ABSOULTELY A LIBERTARIAN He tens time more Libertarian than you are. How dare you! You ain’t friggin King of the Libertarians. Nobody died and left you boss.

    Not only do you suck at English, but would you care to prove how Libertarian Ventura is? Care to explain how he’s “tens time more Libertarian” than I am?

    You represent everything that’s wrong with the Libertarian movement. Go away.
    And that is…commitment to principle? Accomplishing things? Volunteering for campaigns? Getting people to vote Libertarian? What exactly is your problem with people who actually want to help liberty, not apply the word “Libertarian” to everybody they see?

    And to have never heard of Michael Moriarty just shows your complete disconnect with Mainstream America.

    Hey dumbass, he’s a two-time Emmy Award winner. He was the star of the 1990s hit Law & Order. He was featured on the front page of the Libertarian Party News. He’s been listed on the Advocates for Self-Government site for 6 years as a “Celebrity Libertarian.”

    Great. I have no idea who he is and neither do most random people one could ask.

    Get away from that computer screen, put down them books, crawl out of your Ivory Tower and start associating with Real America and Joe Sixpack.

    Sheesh! No wonder our libertarian movement has such a hard time getting ahead. We are innundated with out of touch with reality dumbasses like you.

    Wait…you call me a dumbass? I’m an Environmental Engineering major at Cornell University. You graduated from Florida State University - not exactly a pinnacle of excellence - in political science. I win.

    “Yeah Eric, that sounds really interested… We ought to move forward with that.” This in response to my querty over a beer, “Hey Ed, what do you think about running for President as a Libertarian.”
    Maybe you should stop learning all about B-list celebrities and calling them “libertarians” and learn to type.

  70. Nigel Watt Says:

    ...And I screw up the tags. Meh. Point still stands.

  71. Nick Wilson Says:

    “The way that I see it, the libertarian philosophy does not comprise a Quadrant; it is on the right of the political spectrum along with the laissez-faire capitalists and the anarchists”

    Unfortunately, that’s the way libertarianism has been marketed but is not accurate. Many libertarians, indeed myself and many others on this site, are “left wing” progressive environmentalists who hate socialism and see it as counterproductive to all the progressive ends it wants to accomplish. We DO want more economic equality, and do not believe that increasing government acheives that. I came to libertarianism from the Green Party, after the Cato Institute convinced me that state solutions were usually less progressive than market solutions.

    If you want to control corporations, you need a thriving small business sector. Small businesses can’t compete in a socialist-capitalist hybrid economy like we have, because they can’t afford the barriers to entry. Big corporations might be hit by regulations, taxes, etc., but usually this won’t force them out of business - in fact, the destruction of the small business sector grants big corporations an oligopoly on the market. This is on top of the fact that the political and economic elite run and are in the same circles, and thus prop each other up. Thus counterintuitively, democratic socialism leads to corporate dominance. Down the road, as the corporations are drawn to the politicians to help them get exemptions, handouts and privileges in a regulated economy, the blending of state and corporate lines leads to the very things the socialists wanted to avoid: fascism, regressivism and the military-industrial complex.

    In a free market society, it becomes much easier to establish a new small business, which can devote its resources to competing with corporations instead of complying with excessive regulations and still competing with corporations. Basic regulations obviously need to exist, but many of the qualms of environmentalists can be solved simply by enforcing property rights - another thing that socialists oppose, ignoring the fact that if people don’t have responsibility for their own property, they will have little incentive to take care of it. Polluters should pay the FULL cost of pollution, plus punitive damages. We need to pin societal costs to the people committing them, instead of expecting the biggest polluter in the country, the state, to fix the problem.

    Spawning a strong small business sector automatically benefits the poor and minorities, by both creating more jobs and giving them a better way out of the welfare dependency that is not solving their problems, but instead exacerbating them. While starting a business requires capital, the immediate government regulation compliance eats in to what little capital low-income entrepreneurs have. Also, reducing regulations will make it less profitable for factories to outsource, as the reason most do is because excessive regulation is a major factor in contributing to why corporations are moving to less regulated places like China. Unfortunately, American unions seem to prefer vanity over keeping their jobs.

    Some of us who recognize that anarchism is a pipe dream support land value taxes as the ideal tax form, with exemptions for small, low value plots of land (exempting the poor) and farmland. This is a Georgist idea with progressive and environmental implications, becuase it breaks down the monopolization of a value-accruing, limited resource. Others prefer the FairTax, which creates a high national sales tax, and then gives everyone a rebate equal to the average amount of sales tax spent below the poverty line - thus the poorest people in society actually make money, while those who live wasteful, extravagant lifestyles have to pay.

    Libertarianism is very compatible with the values of the left, as it is with the values of the right. If you look at a Nolan chart, you’ll see that libertarianism is a quadrant theoretically divided in half between the left and the right, if you drew a line down the center. The left and right are theoretically divided in half between authoritarian and libertarian.

    Also, look at a Milsted chart, which demostrates the compatibility between freedom and economics.

    I think the failure of libertarians to market to the left is partially because the right was looking for allies against socialism back in the Cold War when the movement was gaining momentum. Also, the radical anarchocapitalism is an obvious factor - convincing socialists that the state is always evil and that unregulated capitalism will solve all your problems just doesn’t happen very often. However, when I market libertarianism on a moderate perspective focusing on the progressive nature of classical liberalism, leftists listen - or at least those who actually care about helping the poor and reducing the corporate oligopoly and control instead of adhering to rigid ideology, partisanship and simplistic, stopgap solutions. The left needs to have a better understanding of economics and to work economics into their policies instead of ignoring them if they want their policies to quit being so counterproductive to their values.

  72. Tim Says:

    Aaron Russo says, & I think he’s damn right that everyone involved in Third Parties should be uniting right now behind Ron Paul instead of splintering & fracturing & bickering into theoretical quadrants,

    “You may have heard that the Honorable Congressman Ron Paul is exploring running for the Republican nomination in 2008. Congressman Paul will be the only uncompromising defender of the Constitution in the race. I can’t tell you how grateful I felt, how full of heartfelt joy, and how much enthusiasm I felt when I heard the news of his Candidacy. I am 1000% behind him! Ron Paul has stepped up to the plate because he knows what we all know: the noose is tightening, and there isn’t much time if we hope to restore to Constitutional Government.

    I called Ron yesterday to tell him I am on board to do ANYTHING it takes to support his campaign. NOW is the time for the ENTIRE Freedom Movement, all Third Parties, ALL GOOD AMERICANS EVERYWHERE, from all political stripes and persuasions, to unite to overtake the weakened Republican Party. Stand firmly behind Ron Paul, and work to restore our Constitutional Republic.”

  73. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nick & Tim, your proposals have merit and parallel the progressive alliance strategy IF you include “...counterproductive…” leftists & slim down to 2 parties-libertarian & Green so as to not split/splinter the vote. Matt, I’m not smoking anything so-agreed, RP very probably will not get the gop nomination. So, if he then goes for the Lib nomination, there should be a green as vp or an agreement for green endorsement of the lp ticket in exchange for cooperation. Freedom Platform has a rightist slant. Cooperation/communication/inclusion with greens is very important. Their votes & their support are much needed as are many of their ideas/positions. Can somebody tell RP before he fumbles?

  74. Andy Says:

    Ron Paul Fears ‘Gulf Of Tonkin’ Incident to Provoke War with Iran

  75. Devious David Says:

    The best way to present Ron Paul is simple:

    He’s the only Republican that stands a strong shot at defeating Hillary.

    It’s true too. I don’t care what the average or hard core Republican thinks on him or what their position on the war is. The American people aren’t behind the war. The war is an election losing proposition. Hillary is pro-war, spin machine on high. Her base is fracturing as a result. Giuliani would LOSE to Hillary. McCain could make it close. Paul could potentially landslide the swing states, holding soundly on to the red states.

    Think of how well he would do on John Stewart, et al. It would be huge! Conservatives can have wet Tancredo and Newt dreams all they want, but those guys have a snowball’s chance in hell with their positions and the Republican’s deservedly damaged brand. Paul really could cause a liberal crossover and effective fusion among third parties. And we all know that one third party member is equal to about ten old party members when it comes to activism.

    Having Paul would officially or otherwise shut down third party opposition and bring those votes, money and activism to the fold which is not to be at all underestimated. Only Paul can build to coalition necessary to defeat Hillary.

    This race is will come down to Hillary versus Hillary if Paul doesn’t get the nomination. Otherwise it’s Ron Paul versus Hillary. Hillary would NOT last long in the sunlight. I think marketing these ideas and getting people to the primary would be a winning combo. No Republican in his halfway right mind would want to nominate some Tancredo or Newt or Giuliani at the expense of a Hillary Presidency - which is EXACTLY what would happen.

  76. Tim Says:

    Way to get pumped up David!

    Bring that enthusiasm to the street, all of us bring that enthusiasm to the street, and Paul is going to be a huge upset to the establishment!

    NY Times headline, mid november 08, “Um, Uhh, O Shit! Ron Paul Sweeps to Victory”

  77. Devious David Says:

    Arf! Pardon my horrible grammar in that prior post! I was in a hurry. Glad you guys get the picture though.

    Of course, there could well be some conspiracy in there and we all know that the establishment Republican that does win the nomination would make all kinds of (lies) concessions to the Paul supporters if we gain momentum. Expect massive amounts of duplicitous smoke and mirrors. Lots of pretenders. Accept only the genuine article!

    Let’s be realistic: the establishment, no matter their political affiliation is HEAVILY invested in a Hillary victory should Paul win the nomination. A Paul nomination carries with it GREAT risk to them! Many different kinds of attempts would and will be made to coopt this campaign and steer it over a cliff, to ignore it etc etc. They always use the same tactics and patterns. See the above Gulf of Tonkin link… I don’t even have to read the article.

    With all that said, even making a dent would be quite an effective achievement and the (some) Republicans may be willing to concede to their true level of desperation and see the necessity of Paul to prevent an otherwise bonafide, preordained Hillary victory. However, once the truth is revealed, some people may well risk losing their grip on the situation. Expect them to guard it jealously!

  78. Robert Milnes Says:

    Correction: Upon reflection, if all parties agree to first come first served on ballot access & CP etc.-non dem, rep or centrist e.g. Unity08 party- gets ballot access, it looks workable to me. Andy, I agree. Such a contingency (Iran pretext) has probably been studied & may very well already be in the works.

  79. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Nick: Actually Jack London accurately predicted the continuing rise of monopoly capitalism and the difficulty of survival for small businesses decades ago. As a socialist, he recognized the need for the people to fight for the interests of the petite bourgeoisie even while knowing that - eventually - it would be a losing battle. (See his novel, “The Iron Heel.” The war will be won, however, when the proletariat comes to power!

    Tim: The Republican Party is going down whether or not all third parties and independents get behind Ron Paul (which is very unlikey to begin with). The GOP will be a minor-sized political organization by 2012. You are correct, though, to point out how a strong campaign by Dr. Paul would really hurt the Republican Party (especially the Rudy/McCain Old Gaurd block).

    Matt: Ron Paul may have a slim chance of obtaining the Republican Party nomination. Then again, lightening could actually strike. More likely, though, a Republican presidential campaign would set things up better for a run on the Libertarian Party or Unity08 ticket.

    By the way, does anyone know if there is any way to do a spell check in this little chat room?

  80. Andy Says:

    “While, as a Giuliani supporter I would hope it would be Rudy. I strongly suspect though it will be Mitt Romney. Romney makes a few remarks about how ‘libertarian he considers himself to be.’”

    Neither Giuliani or Mitt Romney are even remotely close to being libertarians and anyone who says that they are is either a liar or has mental problems.

    Bill Clinton once referred to himself as a “libertarian” and said that “The era of big government is over.” Just because Bill Clinton said it did this make it true?

  81. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 15th, 2007 at 9:45 am
    Ventura IS ABSOULTELY A LIBERTARIAN He tens time more Libertarian than you are. How dare you! You ain’t friggin King of the Libertarians. Nobody died and left you boss.”

    You are aware of the fact that Jesse Ventura opposes the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act and Bush and that he agree with the 9/11 Truth Movement that 9/11 was an inside job?

    Jesse Ventura Questions 9/11 Part 1

    Jesse Ventura Questions 9/11 Part 2

    Former Govenor Jesse Ventura Questions Official 9/11 Story

    This makes Jesse Ventura more of a libertarian than you are however I still don’t consider Jesse to be a true libertarian, although I will say that he leans libertarian and that I’ve got hope for him.

  82. Nick Wilson Says:

    “Nick: Actually Jack London accurately predicted the continuing rise of monopoly capitalism and the difficulty of survival for small businesses decades ago. As a socialist, he recognized the need for the people to fight for the interests of the petite bourgeoisie even while knowing that - eventually - it would be a losing battle. (See his novel, “The Iron Heel.” The war will be won, however, when the proletariat comes to power!”

    Many of my best friends are socialist and I am a former socialist. Adam Smith created capitalism to decentralize control of capital from the monarchists, who operated much like corporations do today. In Victorian England, during the time of Marx, even Marx admitted that England’s economy could be decribed as “nation of shopkeepers.” Small businesses WERE thriving in the most laissez faire era of modern history. There were many social problems which were helped by one of the most expansive eras of social charitable giving to match. However, it was a time of industrialization, before modern environmentalism. With today’s technology and awareness of things like the environment and civil rights, such shortcomings would be a stimulus for market forces to fill. It has been proven that market economy works.

    However, by inserting government control on the economy, you automatically empower the people whom the government favors - who tend to be wealthy corporate donors - and inadvertantly pushes the “petite bouguoisie” out of the market.

    Answer me this question: the US has adopted 36 of 38 planks from the 1930s Socialist Party platform - with universal healthcare being one of the only remaining planks not adopted. The government has undoubtedly grown over the past 75 years, and now wields more regulatory power (from environmental standards to labor issues to workplace safety to minimum wages) than ever in history. Why do corporations have more market control than ever? Why are small businesses bought out or forced out of business when at one point in history, small businesses were the lifeblood of the American economy, despite corporate competition? How has adopting socialism into the control of the economy actually accomplished anything that socialists claim to want? And in fact, hasn’t it enabled the right to set up a literally fascist state as we currently have by using the infrastructure established by socialist left to achieve their own economic, political and moral ends?

    We don’t need a revolution to achieve more economic equality. We just need committed progressives who really understand economics. Socialists are so scared of the market economy that they refuse to study how it actually works with an open mind and find ways to use it for good.

    One last point - I’ve met a lot of libertarians who have come to the LP from the Green Party - once again, including myself - but I have yet to meet a Green who came from the LP. I think that’s a telling sign.

  83. matt Says:

    Way to get pumped up David!

    Bring that enthusiasm to the street, all of us bring that enthusiasm to the street, and Paul is going to be a huge upset to the establishment
    That IS cool, David, and I hope you’re right. Now get on over to (THE consevative message board) and make the same case there. We need to play all sides of this thing. Don’t count anybody out in advance.

    Later today I’m networking with some leftist law students, and you can be sure RP’s name will come up at some point. I’d go back on FreeRepublic myself but I’m banned for life.

  84. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Nick: Adam Smith did not create capitalism; he merely described it. The victory of capitalism came about due to the fact that it finally replaced feudalism as the new social order (and the rising bourgeoisie took over the dominance of power from the aristocracy) in the industrialized world.

    You are incorrect to imply that the economic and political system of the United States is comprised of socialism. Technically, it is referred to as “mixed capitalism.” A socialist system is where the proletariat owns and manages the systems of production and distribution. As a very first significant step, a society would have to own the commanding heights of industry even before it could start to call itself a socialist country.

    Regarding your mention of political parties, I must say that of the parties that are (or were at one time) qualified for the ballot in California, I have been a member of (in this order): Republican Party; Democratic Party (more than one episode); Peace and Freedom Party (more than one episode); Reform Party; American Independent Party; Natural Law Party; and Green Party. Never have I been interested in joining up with the Libertarian Party. The bottom line is that I am opposed to anarchism and capitalism of all shades and hues. You will never convince me to get involved in that stuff. However, I am willing to work with people of all political persuasions (except for those who promote such things as racism, sexism, violence, and so forth).

  85. Devious David Says:

    Phil, we are heading back towards feudalism thanks to government intervention within the economy and enforcement of a monopoly private monetary/banking system. The “commanding heights of industry”, as you put it, are largely concentrated in very few hands as a direct result. In fact the distribution of wealth is becoming more unequal in every way.

    Your idea of “the proletariat’s” ownership of everything is bunk. Your imaginary “proletariat” is utterly incapable of determining how the distribution of resources is best applied. Furthermore, human nature dictates that The State in such a case has a tremendous incentive to distribute resources in a way that benefits itself. An economy cannot be planned by some committee. And what of a person’s free will?

    “No sir Bubba in Iowa, you will NOT grow and produce that corn no matter how good you are at it or how badly you want to. It mucks up our plan! The Plan says you are going to have to be a painter! And we expect you to be a damn fine one at that, for our nation must be one of fine and cultured arts! And of course, you agree with this plan, Bubba… because you are the proletariat and there is nothing you can do about it anyway because we outnumber you and your rights are derived by majority decree. Your rights are subject to change, depending on whatever benefits the most people at any time. And all these people need what you have, Bubba, so give it up. Now be a good boy and slip these electrodes on your testicles.”

  86. Phil Sawyer Says:

    “Devious David”:

    Even though you are confusing feudalism with monopoly capitalism, you are correct to imply that our current economic and political system is not good. It is very, very bad!

    Your disdain and disregard for the honor and intelligence of the proletariat is nothing new. It is typical bourgeois propaganda. Furthermore, your attacks on socialism are not based on facts but are mere ad hominem arguments.

  87. matt Says:

    Warning: Idle speculation below…

    Having NH as the first primary is GREAT for Dr. Paul. As a matter of fact, that’s the source of much of our excitement on the issue. As good as it is for us, it’s equally concerning for the GOP brass. Other states have long wanted to be first. NH has resisted.The NH Secretary of State is part of the GOP establishment. Will he now allow another state to leapfrog his? Could the GOP convince/induce/bribe him to do so?

  88. Eric Dondero Says:

    I am aware that Jesse Ventura, is also a fierce opponent of Islamo-Fascism and is a former Navy Seal. One can oppose the War in Iraq on grounds that it hasn’t been fought correctly, or is a burden on the taxpayer. That’s fine with me. But to oppose the War in Iraq cause one does not see Islamo-Fascism or Islamic Terrorism as a threat to the United States is idiotic and virtually treasonous.

  89. Eric Dondero Says:

    I’m amused that Phil thinks the Republican Party is “going down” and will be a minor party by 2012.

    I guess Phil doesn’t read or pay attention to C-SPAN. He just listens to leftwing anti-Republican propoganda. If he read/listened to les bias sources like RCP or C-SPAN he would know that in Mississippi, a Democrat State Senator just switched parties to Republican, thereby turning that body over to the Republican Party for the first time in 120 years. Didn’t see that reported anywheres in the liberal media now did ya?

    You also didn’t hear about a Florida Legislator who just switched parties from Democrat to Republican. You probably also did not hear about how the Montana State House of Representatives switched control from Democrat to Republican.

    When it comes to the leftwing media, all Republican victories are completely ignored. The tiniest of Democrat victories get splashed all over the front pages of every newspaper and website around.

  90. Eric Dondero Says:

    Andy, we finally agree on something. I too do not believe that Romney is a “libertarian.” I’ve been fighting with folks on other sites who are trying to convince me that he is. He may have some tiny libertarian leanings, but that’s about as far as it goes. I’ve seen zero evidence that Romney is a hardcore Warrior in the fight against Islamo-Fascism like Giuliani is. And until I see that evidence I will NOT count Romney as a “libertarian-leaner” like Giuliani is.

  91. Eric Dondero Says:

    Devious Dave, you’ve been listening too much to leftwing propaganda polling data. Where’d you get that from? NBC? CBS, maybe? Or, NPR?

    Yes, the majority of Americans are not in favor of the War the way it’s currently being fought. But the vast majority of people who answer those polls answer “I’m opposed to the War in Iraq,” not because they are opposed to War and support a soft line on Islamo-Fascism, but conversely, cause they think Bush is too much of a liberal, and is not fighting the War on Islamo-Fascism tough enough.

    I too would answer a polling question, “Are you in favor of the War in Iraq?” in the negative, simply because I think Bush is a weenie on the War. I’m in favor of a beefed up War in Iraq and across the Islamo-Fascist sphere.

  92. Eric Dondero Says:

    Tim, you say Ron Paul can “fire up the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.” Too late. The libertarian wing of the GOP is already mired in a Mitt Romney versus Rudy Giuliani decision. Some, believe it or not, are even supporting John McCain. There’s a libertarian Republican guy from Maryland, former state legislator, who is a total marijuana legalization advocate, and he’s also a John McCain fanatic.

    At our Republican Liberty Caucus Convention in Orlando back in September, we had a straw poll at the Banquet. (Stephen Moore was guest speaker, and about 80 were in attendance to hear him, including Kartherine Harris and two state legislators.)

    Ther results, as best as I can remember were as follows:

    Jeb Bush was way out ahead.

    George Allen was second.

    Rudy Giuliani was third.

    Mitt Romney was fourth.

    John McCain was fifth.

    Ron Paul will get some support from libertarian Republicans. But he’s coming into this thing way too late. Many libertarian Republicans are already committed. He should have announced back last Fall.

  93. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 17th, 2007 at 11:45 am
    I am aware that Jesse Ventura, is also a fierce opponent of Islamo-Fascism and is a former Navy Seal. One can oppose the War in Iraq on grounds that it hasn’t been fought correctly, or is a burden on the taxpayer. That’s fine with me. But to oppose the War in Iraq cause one does not see Islamo-Fascism or Islamic Terrorism as a threat to the United States is idiotic and virtually treasonous.”

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Did you read the post or click the links? If you do have a reading comprehension problem two of the links that I posted were video/audio links where Jesse talks about 9/11 being an inside job that was carried out by elements within the US government.

    Yes, Jesse is a former Navy Seal and he knows that Vietnam was a sham. As a former Navy Seal he has referred to members of the Bush administration as “chickenhawks” because they send others to fight when they never fought themselves.

    “Islamic terrorism” is ALL the fault of the US government. al Queda is a CIA controlled front group. Do some homework instead of spouting off like a fool.

  94. Andy Says:

    “At our Republican Liberty Caucus Convention in Orlando back in September, we had a straw poll at the Banquet. (Stephen Moore was guest speaker, and about 80 were in attendance to hear him, including Kartherine Harris and two state legislators.)

    Ther results, as best as I can remember were as follows:

    Jeb Bush was way out ahead.

    George Allen was second.

    Rudy Giuliani was third.

    Mitt Romney was fourth.

    John McCain was fifth.”

    This list of candidates illustrates what little credibility the RLC has.

  95. Andy Says:

    Here is a little bit of dirt that exposes that Mitt Romney is NOT a libertarian.

    “Gun control: According to his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney ‘is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Romney also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.’[25] On July 1, 2002, Romney signed a permanent ban on assault weapons. ‘Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,’ Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. ‘These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.’”

    What kind of libertarian supports banning assult weapons? A PHONEY! Anyone who wants to take away your right to a gun is not your friend and is certainly no friend of liberty.

    Is Mitt Romeny going to take assult weapons away from the Massachusetts National Gaurd or police departments in Massachusetts or from his own security gaurds? Hell no! Just the people as he views the people as peons or serfs.

    The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or recreation, it’s about being able to defend personal freedom against tyranny, including tyranny from ones own government.

  96. Tim Says:


    Thanks for the comment.

    I don’t much care who the RLC has already decided will be there pick because I believe most of America, and that’s who will decide the Republican primary in 50 separate state elections, will get a look at Paul’s philosophy & say to themselves, “hey, that guy thinks like me.”

    Out on the road at work the past couple of days I picked Paul up a possible dozen votes from folks who’d never heard of him. All it took were asking them a few questions about the IRS, the UN, and the Iraq war & then my saying, hey there’s a candidate who believes those exact same things.

    I plan on continuing this man to man, woman to woman campaign in Montana, as well as in a letter to the editor campaign. The press, as illegal 4th branch of government, I hope to make crap their pants when Paul takes NH.

    As for Mitt Romney & Rudi Giuliani well they might be better politicians, but they’re not better men than Ron Paul is.

    Romney & Giuliani as far as I’m concerned are a political satyr, half crook, half clown, & that classic satyr’s erect penis they run around with is for whoring the elite & the media for money & self-serving press. A whore might make one feel good in the short term, till that terrible itch & those red welts begin forming…

  97. matt Says:

    I like your style, Tim.
    I think it’s obvious to most of the LP and CP types (and others?) here that Ron Paul is the guy to get behind. The question now is whether or not we can build a movement.

    I remember when I was a kid watching the election returns with my dad the night Clinton was first elected. We were dissapointed, and my dad said something I’ve never forgotten. He said