Third Partying On Hold?

I attended a Ron Paul MeetUp Saturday in Plano. Sixty people packed a library conference room for about two hours. That’s 60 more than a George Phillies, Steve Kubby(hole) or Jerome Corsi campaign MeetUp can attract. Perhaps the campaigns should put on hold their operations for a while to allow for the activism to spill into the Republican primaries in New Hampshire and other states? Ron Paul is a Constitution/LP/Third Party dream team just in of himself.

58 Responses to “Third Partying On Hold?”

  1. matt Says:

    If Ron Paul wins the nomination, then perhaps it would be time to put opposing presidential (I am thinking of the LP and CP specifically) bids on hold, but the fields are still ripe for 3rd parties to pick up legislative seats.

    Perhaps Ron Paul can be a talking point for these campaigns if he has a good showing in the primaries. All those angry republicans, and freedom democrats won’t really want to vote for the same old crap after a breath of fresh air like the Paul campaign, will they?

    Kubby’s legit, by the way. I just heard an interview/debate, and he tore it down.

  2. Carl Says:

    Absolutely agree! Ron Paul has already generated more press for libertarian ideas that several LP presidential candidates put together.

    What about building local affiliates? You might ask. Simple: get your local affiliate to host Ron Paul meetups. Drink some beers. Take some names. This holds for either the LP or the CP.

  3. Michael Says:

    Carl, you are right on the money! (Gold standard, for course.) I only remember seeing Ron Paul one time on television in 1988, on the PBS NewsHour. As a Republican, I see him at least once a week on the network and/or cable news.

  4. Timothy West Says:

    Pauls got to focus everything he has at the New Hamster primary. If he can win that or come in 2 or 3% points under the winner, he gets a free pass as a legit contender for the next 2 primaries.

    There’s no other state better suited for Røn Paul than NH. I’d use it to my advantage if I were him. Forget Iowa. Forget any state that has significant military industrial complex facilities. too concerned about their jobs being lost - they wont vote for him.

  5. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Yeah, Iowa is a waste of time for him. It’s New Hampshire or bust.

    Although I think a showing of even 15% or better would be enough to people to really stand up and take a whole lot of notice. He could build on that.

    The other scenario might be Nevada. I know the Dems are having early caucuses there, if the GOP does as well… there could be a natural audience. And it’s a smaller state.

  6. Gene Berkman Says:

    I am active in the Libertarian Party, and an active supporter of Ron Paul - see www.libertariansforpaul.com

    Neither Kubby nor Phillies has the credentials, name recognition or financial backing to have any impact on this election. We should adopt a two part strategy - backing Ron Paul in any way we can, while preparing to run active Libertarian campaigns for Congress and state legislature.

    Perhaps our local candidates can take advantage of the publicity for libertarian views that Ron Paul’s campaign is generating.

  7. Carl Says:

    Paul’s best bets are states that allow independents to vote in primaries and/or crossover voting. Stay out of Iowa!

    Just heard Ron Paul on Air America Radio (Stephanie Miller). Stephanie Miller fawned on him. Ron Paul is getting the treatment (for his foreign policy stances) that John McCain used to get (for BCRA).

  8. [email protected] Says:

    The rumor mill says that Paul has raised $4-5 million. With that kind of money, he shouldn’t be writing off the Iowa straw poll. The voters in that poll are people who attend a GOP fundraising event, and candidates buy tickets and bus their supporters in.

    With McCain and Giuliani out of the straw poll, if Paul can come in second and in double-digit percentages there, he has a chance at making it the “top four” instead of the “top three” in the Iowa caucus and in New Hampshire. A strong straw poll performance would probably MUCH more than make him back the money he spent on it—with $2 million he could put a coordinator in every county in Iowa, charter buses to bring supporters in for the event, buy them tickets and slop them with barbecue and beer. Then keep raising funds while throwing the REST of his existing warchest into New Hampshire and South Carolina.

    I still don’t think he has a shot at the nomination (thank God), but he could certainly make it interesting.

  9. Bill Wood Says:

    Ron Paul stated that his campaign picked up a $100,000.00 after the debates.

  10. matt Says:

    With the meetup.com scene working the way it is, Ron Paul might be able to make a dent in Iowa on the cheap. I hope so. I also hope that the phrases Ron Paul Republican and Ron Paul Democrat get bandied about in the congressional primaries. Also, the Ron Paul meetup groups will be an awesome forum for LP campaigning as things move on.

  11. Devious David Says:

    I am unsure why anyone would thank god that Ron Paul doesn’t have a shot a the nomination. Anyway, he definitely does have a shot. I do expect the powers that be to pull whatever levers are necessary to make it not happen should it become a distinct or imminent possibility.

  12. Sean Scallon Says:

    Like it or not Ron Paul has to compete in Iowa. Yes I know all about farm programs and what not but since the ag economy is booming right now, that’s not going to be an issue really. The issue is the war. 54 percent of Iowa Republicans want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq. If Ron Paul can’t sell his message in Iowa, he can’t sell it anywhere, even New Hampshire.

    If Paul can win or at least beat about out the other candidates in the “second tier” at the Iowa Straw Poll, then it will set off a chain reaction of support to his camapaign, because instead of winning internet polls, Paul will have actually won real votes and his campaign will have real credibility.

    The January primary and caucus calendar is perfect for Paul. With the exception of Florida, there’s Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, Wyoming and New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and then South Carolina on Feb. 2. If Paul can sweep all of these small state primaries and caucuses, then he will be the GOP nominee, the momentum he would get would sweep aside the other candidates just like it did for John Kerry three years ago.

    My advice for non-major party activists is to first change your registration to Republican just for 2008 and help Ron Paul by either voting for him in your state’s primary or caucus and working for him. If he wins the GOP nomination, you know as well as I do the CP and LP will endorse him. If he loses, well then go back regularly scheduled program. But his candidiacy gives the non-majors a chance to do something constructive in this presidential cycle.

  13. Eric Dondero Says:

    All this talk about Ron Paul, and not one of you here, has even mentioned the poll numbers.

    Zogby had Paul at 3% in March. For May he dropped down to 0%. Now admittedly, that’s within the margin of error. But it’s not a very positive trend line.

    Remember that movie from the 1990s? Reality Bites?

    With Ron Paul supporters that Reality Bites them in the ass.

  14. SovereignMN Says:

    “If he loses, well then go back regularly scheduled program. ”

    We need to do both. We can’t abandon all 3rd party work and hope that Paul will emerge at the GOP candidate. It’s 99% likely that he won’t be the GOP nominee so when this likely scenario plays out then the LP and CP candidates will have campaigns still in the infant stages.

  15. SovereignMN Says:

    Paul is so unpopular that he’s a non-factor in the polls, yet he’s going to wipe the floor with you when you “challenge” him for his seat. What’s that say about you?

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Eric Dondero,

    Show me these polls. Because they are incorrect.
    In May he went UP, and indeed in June also.
    In March he had 3% in NEW HAMPSHIRE (but only 1% nationally).
    Now he has 2-3%

  17. Sean Scallon Says:

    Uh oh, another drive by anti-Paul statement by Dondero the Great

    That’s funny Eric, I’ve seen other national polls that have him at 3%, so I think I’ll take their word for it over an outfit as dubious as Zogby. Besides such national polls at this point are meaningless anyway. Any campaign consultant worth their salt (which excludes you Eric) will tell you all these polls are about are name ID. The real polls to focus on are state polls and those you have to wait until six weeks before the primary or caucus to gage true candidate strength at that point in time.

    In the meantime, over 11,000 meetup.com participants and over $5 mil in contributions can’t be wrong Eric can they? How many meetup.com people does Rudy have?

    Oh wait a minute, todays Tuesday, you’re supporting WAR today. Boy does he have the perferct initials to what you are all about: WAR.

    Here’s some biting reality for you Eric: You no longer Ron Paul’s aide. He fired your arse. You don’t have a job. And most libertarians you claim solidarity with are backing and supporting Paul. And if you do decide to challenge Paul in the primary if things don’t work out, all that money he’s raising will be used against you.

    As Ron said “If Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, I don’t have a lot to worry about.”

    I think that sums it up well don’t you?

  18. Sean Scallon Says:

    Sovereign, since the primary calendar is so early, there should be enough time to switch gears if necessary

    As I said, whomever is the CP or LP nominee they should be people who can best articulate the party’s message to attract future supporters who will work for the party locally.

  19. Robert Milnes Says:

    I guess we will just have to let this Ron Paul foolish wishful thinking play itself out until he loses. Then the real libertarians’ campaigns can get their rightful support. Unless the lp finds the wherewithall to take advantage of having 10 candidates & conduct its own debate/forum. I guess that is MY wishful thinking.

  20. [email protected] Says:

    Devious David,

    You write: “I am unsure why anyone would thank god that Ron Paul doesn’t have a shot a the nomination.”

    Because as the GOP nominee, Paul would do even more damage to the libertarian movement than he’s doing now.

    He’s going to go down; this we can be pretty sure of.

    If he goes down early and quietly, we can get back to rebuilding more quickly and more successfully. The damage is mostly short-term fundraising and such.

    If he goes down late and loud—in Prussian Blue flames, so to speak— it will take longer and be harder, because the more mileage he gets, the more the libertarian movement and the LP get tagged as at best cranky conservatives and at worst as klansmen in mufti. Either of those things is harder to recover from than a short-term hit to the bank account.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  21. matt Says:

    “With Ron Paul supporters that Reality Bites them in the ass”

    Are we paying $50 per hour for this service like you or Guliani would?

  22. Sean Scallon Says:

    In other words [email protected] you and your fellow Libertarians wish to remain anonymous? That’s no way to build a party. Are you going to run stealth campaigns? I didn’t know libertarianism was that unpopular.

  23. matt Says:

    The type of people who would have a propensity to believe that libertarians are just extreme conservatives already think so, and they aren’t the mind-changing kind. The conservative movement is going to break apart, and the LP can absorb a lot of those people without turning into the Klan or something.

  24. [email protected] Says:

    Sean,

    There are different kinds of non-anonymity—and some of them are worse than anonymity.

  25. Cody Quirk Says:

    Ron Paul isn’t going to get the nomination, or even come close, especially with tp voters and parties trying to help him.

    It would be the stupidest thing for third parties to do.

  26. Carl Says:

    Tom: your contention that Ron Paul is hurting the libertarian movement is downright insane. Ron Paul is not tarring libertarianism as a branch of conservatism. He is a darling of the far LEFT right now.

    Eric: got a link to that Zogby poll? And is that a poll of “likely Republican primary voters?” If so, the poll may well not reflect actual vote totals. We could well see a storm of cross-overs. Not saying that Paul is a likely winner, only that he is likely to do better than a “likely voter” poll will indicate.

  27. Gene Berkman Says:

    I second Carl’s comment to Tom Knapp.

    Someone mentioned Iowa and farm subsidies - indicating that Ron Paul’s opposition to farm subsidies would hurt him in the Iowa caucus. Maybe, but in 1988, Gov. Michael Dukakis went to Iowa, and advocated ending farm subsidied, suggesting that farmers grow Belgian endive and other profitable crops.

    The media widely ridiculed Dukakis for the Belgian endive remark. but Dukakis carried Iowa in November 1988 and, until 2004, Iowa voted for every Democrat nominee for President. So maybe Ron Paul can be successfulin Iowa, where 52% of Republicans want to bring the troops home, according to Rasmussen.

  28. Robert Milnes Says:

    Carl, again you refer to left support of Ron Paul. Are you sure? If so, it is temporary as they grasp for an anti-war candidate. But when they look at some of his other positions more consistent with the CP (Constitution not Communist), they will look elsewhere. Tom is right about Ron Paul, thank god. Because I’ve been wondering about him since he jumped on the Kubby bandwagon. In any event all this talk of hundreds of thousands-millions of campaign dollars and 3 (or 4) % of the vote sounds familiar.

  29. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Yet another point against supporting Ron Paul: if Libertarians endorse Ron Paul as he currently is- a REPUBLICAN candidate- we validate his statement that Libertarians are wasting their time as a separate party and should join and support the Republican Party as a vehicle of positive change.

  30. Carl Says:

    Kris: Libertarians—and all third party members—are indeed wasting their time trying to elect a non-billionaire for president. The electoral college rules make it double-hard to win as a third party candidate. Third parties can be viable down-ticket.

    Correction: a third party that has a true base—as in holding close to a quarter or more legislative seats nationwide—might be able to field a credible non-billionaire candidate for pres.

    Otherwise, the purpose of a third-party presidential candidate is to be a figurehead for the party, to personify the ideals and perhaps, put together a shadow cabinet after the election.

    Another correction: if one of the major party campaigns truly implodes—on the order of a pedophilia scandal—a third party candidate could become candidate number 2 and be considered seriously. This is a very unlikely scenario.

  31. Andy Says:

    “Robert Milnes Says:

    June 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
    Carl, again you refer to left support of Ron Paul. Are you sure? If so, it is temporary as they grasp for an anti-war candidate. But when they look at some of his other positions more consistent with the CP (Constitution not Communist), they will look elsewhere.”

    I know several Libertarians who used to be Democrats up until they got exposed to Ron Paul. I think that a lot of people underestimate Ron Paul’s ability to reach out to those on the “left”.

  32. Tom Blanton Says:

    Ron Paul is the last thing the LP should be worrying about.

    I simply can’t understand why the LP does not worry about Boortz who is often nominated by Olbermann as the Worst Person In The World for his truly racist comments. Millions of people listen to this “libertarian” jackass every week. Or, why not worry about the racist warmongering liar Glenn Beck - millions more listen to this idiot as he proclaims that he is a libertarian at heart, but libertarianism can’t work until Jesus returns? I have heard this meme more than once from this clown.

    Then there are all the knee-jerk conservatives ranging from Bob Barr in the LNC to pundits like Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough who throw around the term “libertarian”, usually followed by “but”. And why not worry about many rank and file LP members who think libertarianism is all about tax cuts and “gun rights”?

    Ron Paul is Ron Paul. He’s running as a paleoconservative. He has distanced himself from the LP stating he has his differences with the party over immigration and abortion. The crazy thing is that Dr. Paul is more libertarian than a lot of LP candidates. Smither, who also ran as a conservative, was the darling of LPHQ and nobody seemed upset about that (except maybe me).

    And what about Phillies appeal to Goldwater conservatives? Most of these people are over 60 and think Ronald Reagan was the greatest President ever. I guess this is better than Dr. Paul’s appeal to Taft Republicans - they are all over 80 and live in nursing homes.

    The libertarian movement needs to start worrying about a profound identity crisis that exists, if not in the movement itself, within the public perception. I’d suggest getting back to advancing basic principles and forgetting about amateurish strategies.

  33. Robert Milnes Says:

    Andy, thanks to The Libertarian Vote/Cato Institute I did the math. Gallup Governance Survey 20%. Libertarian Vote 13%. I estimate the leftist vote as 27%. Evidently 7% of the 20% comes from the left, leaving about 20% left, 20% right. But eventually all but 1% vote for the rep. or dems. So Ron Paul or whoever will get about 1%. Mostly because voters know they will lose so wind up chosing the lesser of 2 evils. Ask your dem/Paul friends how they finally voted.

  34. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Milnes - What evidence do you use to base your “ASSumptions?”

  35. Robert Milnes Says:

    globalist-elitist, you deign to question one who you have consigned non-existance? Are you mad?

  36. john holmes Says:

    Yes, yes he is and so are you.

    BTW in regards to farm subsidies Knapp’s blog says Ron Paul actually voted FOR them (also, for an anti-flag burning amendment). Would love to hear more about this.

  37. Sean Scallon Says:

    Non-major parties can work helping their canddiates win at the local level an affectting change from the bottom up. So yes, the LP, CP and Greens have a reason to exist.

    Of course on the national and state level, we’ve seen how such parties fare. Let’s face up to that reality.

    Ron Paul has done more to advance libertarian ideas running for the GOP nomination than LP candidate has done since 1980 and certainly has doen more to advance some paleo ideas than any CP candidate has done. There’s no reason why, with the early primary calendar activists from both parties can’t help Paul right now in this NATIONAL campaign. None at all.

    To simply do what you’ve been doing for last 30 years is self-defeating. It’s time for a new way of think about non-major parties.

  38. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Sean: Politics is not about “advancing ideas.” Most libertarian ideas are anathema to those currently in power, those who benefit and benefit heavily from ever-expanding government. These people control both the Democratic and Republican Parties, and they will not yield control of either party unless the party is destroyed beyond all usefulness. Libertarianism can only succeed by electing Libertarians to office against the resistance of the existing elite- and Libertarian support of Ron Paul runs counter to that.

    Also: how many bills authored by Ron Paul have been enacted into law? (My guess- 0.) How many Libertarians have been elected thanks to Ron Paul being in Congress? 0- and this is no guess at all. How many votes can Ron Paul deliver in Congress on a consistent basis? Only one- his own.

    Ron Paul is a pariah in the Republican Party, whose leadership not only rejects but ridicules his small-government beliefs. Despite this, he has worked consistently over the past decade to recruit liberty-minded people into the GOP. His Presidential campaign deceives voters into thinking that there might be room for people like Ron Paul in the GOP, that he and his views have substantial representation. There isn’t, and they don’t.

    Despite all this, there are people who state that Ron Paul, as a Republican, accomplishes more than the Libertarian Party ever can. To these people I say: if you support Ron Paul for President as a Republican, and favor the LP rejecting any Presidential candidate, we may as well disband the party altogether and all get GOP membership cards. Don’t tell me about local races- the GOP exists at the local level too, and it’s vastly more successful in supporting nonpartisan candidates than the LP is. Supporting Ron Paul now is an admission that he’s been right all along- that the LP is, in and of itself, a waste of time.

    I reject that argument, and I reject Ron Paul, no matter what party he runs under.

  39. [email protected] Says:

    Wow … I never thought I’d see the day when Kris Overstreet and I agreed on anything. Maybe I’d better re-think my position ;-)

    John, there’s a link from my blog to Ron Paul’s press release bragging to his constituents that he brought them the farm pork.

    I encourage people to look at ALL of Paul’s releases. They can be found at:

    http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2006/pr092506.htm

    There’s a lot of good stuff in there, and some stuff that would raise a few libertarian eyebrows (“I brought home the money for airport improvements! I made the federal government pay for tearing down an obselete bridge, and passed it off as defense funding! I won’t let the government close down the obsolete naval base at Ingleside—that might cost my constituents jobs!”).

    I don’t think the archive above goes back as far as the farm pork release, but like I said, it’s somewhere on my blog.

  40. Joseph Says:

    Sigh. If Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination, I’ll probably vote for him unless he endorses the Fairtax. BUT, the party of war and tyranny is NOT going to nominate a man of peace and freedom.

    I just hope we can harvest some of those disgruntled libertarian-leaning Republicans after the Paul campaign crashes (and it will). The LP nominee, whoever that may be, will get nowhere either but can perhaps build the party some on the way.

    SO, all you Paulies, give it your best shot and I’ll hope there’s still a Libertarian Party for you to come back too when it’s all over.

  41. Timm Knibbs Says:

    If Ron Paul is the nominee the CP and LP will probably support him. If he is not and chooses to go the third party route they will probably nominate him. These though have to prepare for that not to be the case.

  42. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    This argument is getting old.

    Ron Paul is running in the GOP primary. Good for Ron Paul! There’s nothing wrong with backing a horse in the GOP race. There’s nothing wrong with supporting the candidate who is CLOSEST to your ideals. There’s nothing wrong with supporting the candidate who best advocates limited government and non-intervention, etc. Why are you people so covetous of others’ money? If they want to give to Ron Paul and not to you (Phillies) then too bad. Be a better candidate and they would give to you. You don’t control their money, as much as you might want to. Who are you, Hillary?

    I think Libertarians should also support Bill Richardson in his (much more realistic) efforts to grab the Dem nomination. I can understand if you can’t get riled up and excited for Richardson—niether can I (nor Ron Paul for that matter), but I think it is wise to back the best candidate in each primary. Why not?

    The “wasted dollars” argument is as bad as the “wasted vote.” Are people who give $100 to Ron Paul REALLY not going to have another $100 to give to Kubby/Phillies? If so, they shouldn’t be giving Ron Paul any money either.

    But here’s the thing: It is literally impossible for Ron Paul to get the GOP nod. Please realize this and don’t entertain any other fantasies. It is more likely that Steve Kubby will be elected PRESIDENT than Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination. The delegate system will not allow it. And even if there were a delegate coup (impossible, but…), then the GOP would run an independent against Paul and would do everything they could to destroy him.

    Get some perspective. Support Paul but recognize him for what he is—a complete pariah among his party mates. Way more so than Kucinich; probably more so even than Gravel.

  43. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    People contribute to campaigns primarily for the psychic satisfaction. If people are satisfied by giving to Ron Paul, then that’s capitalism at work. Don’t begrudge them their happiness.

  44. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
    This argument is getting old.

    Ron Paul is running in the GOP primary. Good for Ron Paul! There’s nothing wrong with backing a horse in the GOP race. There’s nothing wrong with supporting the candidate who is CLOSEST to your ideals. There’s nothing wrong with supporting the candidate who best advocates limited government and non-intervention, etc. Why are you people so covetous of others’ money? If they want to give to Ron Paul and not to you (Phillies) then too bad. Be a better candidate and they would give to you. You don’t control their money, as much as you might want to. Who are you, Hillary?”

    I agree with GE here.

    “The ‘wasted dollars’ argument is as bad as the ‘wasted vote.’ Are people who give $100 to Ron Paul REALLY not going to have another $100 to give to Kubby/Phillies? If so, they shouldn’t be giving Ron Paul any money either.”

    I agree with GE again!

    “But here’s the thing: It is literally impossible for Ron Paul to get the GOP nod. Please realize this and don’t entertain any other fantasies. It is more likely that Steve Kubby will be elected PRESIDENT than Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination. The delegate system will not allow it. And even if there were a delegate coup (impossible, but…), then the GOP would run an independent against Paul and would do everything they could to destroy him.”

    I wouldn’t say that it would be impossible for Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination - but it would be very difficult. It would be necessary to stage a coup and to stack the convention with Libertarian & Constitution Party types as delegates. To do this would require a lot of planning and I don’t know if there is enough time left to do this.

    If the Ron Paul campaign did manage to pull off a successful coup, then I’d bet that you are are right that the Republican Party bosses would do everything they could to destroy him. In fact, they may even try to assassinate him. They would also likely back an independent candidate for President, like perhaps Michael Bloomberg.

    “Get some perspective. Support Paul but recognize him for what he is—a complete pariah among his party mates. Way more so than Kucinich; probably more so even than Gravel.”

    I’m glad to see Ron Paul in there fucking things up for the big government RepubliCON fascists.

  45. [email protected] Says:

    GE,

    No, it is not “literally impossible” for Paul to get the GOP nod. If he won a sufficient number of delegate-binding primaries, he could get past the “super-delegate” barricade. And if he looked like he was set to do that, the barricade would fall down anyway, since many of the “super-delegates” are the kind of people who want to be thought of kindly when it comes time to hand out cabinet posts and other appointments.

    It’s pretty damn CLOSE to impossible for him to be nominated, though, even if he isn’t Gary Harted in one way or another.

    Everyone will think I’m crazy, but right now I think the GOP nod will go to McCain.

  46. Carl Says:

    Whether Ron Paul gets the nomination or not is irrelevant to the important point: Ron Paul is getting the message out, which is the main purpose of a third party presidential candidate.

    Oh yes, there is that party building aspect as well. You can do that as well! Hold Ron Paul meetups; make friends and take names. If Paul loses the nomination, you have a bunch of names useful for party building. DUH! SUPPORTING RON PAUL NOW IS THE BEST WAY TO BUILD YOUR LOCAL LP OR CP

    In my state, the dumarchists are having a hissy fit over this strategy. This may result in my county affiliate becoming disaffiliated. Fine by me. If the LP leadership is this clueless and legalistic, then let the ship sink sooner rather than later.

    (Speaking for myself only. Not sure what the others will opt for.)

  47. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    Folks,
    There is no way Ron Paul or Tancredo or Duncan Hunter will ever win the Republican nomination. Why? The “CFR” (Council on Foreign Relations)
    back-room power elites, in the smoke-filled rooms control the ‘leadership’ of BOTH monopoly , corrupt republican & democrat parties. They will make darn sure whomever is nominated it will be a CFR globalist-friendly
    politician that wins the nomination. It is good that Ron Paul and the others are keeping the REAL ISSUES up front, perhaps all the way to the nominating convention however, when the dust settles, a CFR friendly stooge will get the nomination. THAT IS WHY there is a CONSTITUTION party…as an America First party, waiting in the wings , for America, with a REAL patriot like Dr. Jerome Corsi talking about the REAL issues like
    ‘closing the borders’, ‘no amnesty’, and the ‘North American Union’ plot.
    NO ONE ELSE will come close!

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAFR,
    Vice Chairman of the National Veterans
    Coalition of the CONSTITUTION party,
    www.nvets.org

  48. Andy Says:

    “Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    June 21st, 2007 at 1:43 am
    Folks,
    There is no way Ron Paul or Tancredo or Duncan Hunter will ever win the Republican nomination. Why? The “CFR” (Council on Foreign Relations)
    back-room power elites, in the smoke-filled rooms control the ‘leadership’ of BOTH monopoly , corrupt republican & democrat parties. They will make darn sure whomever is nominated it will be a CFR globalist-friendly
    politician that wins the nomination.”

    You brought up a valid point, but I just want to point out that the CFR crowd is not omnipitent. The reason that they’ve gotten their way for so long is because there hasn’t been enough organized opposition against them. Countering their actions is a matter of enough good people getting off of their asses and getting involved. I can’t recall who said it off hand, but there’s a saying that goes, “Tyranny is always better organized than liberty.” (or something like that). Well, it is past time for liberty to get better organized.

  49. Sean Scallon Says:

    In 1964 Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater and his supporters were able to sieze control of hollow GOP from Nelson Rockefeller and all his family’s money and Establishment support and won his party’s nomination. Likewise in 1972, South Dakota Senator George McGovern, who in 1971 was running at 3% in national polls, won the Democratic Party nomination using grass roots activists and taking advantage of new rules about delegate selection to defy the party bosses.

    The point is insurgency campaigns can win party nominations. It’s happened before and it can happen again. Yes. Ron Paul bid is longshot but there is a chance it can happen through two things: 1). Support for the Iraq war collapses in the GOP by the fall; 2). Paul is able to win all the early state contests and build up enough momentum to carry him through Super Tuesday. I think its chance worth taking and non-major party activists can provide a lot of help in this endavor and claim a share of Ron Paul’s success if it happens. And besides, if you want to talk about longshots, just look at a non-major party’s chance of winning the White House.

    Yet some persist in the belief that someday it can happen. I don’t believe the LP, CP or the Greens are a waste of time if they are structured right and proper to affect change on the local level where their candidiates can win elections. This is what I’ve been trying preach to non-major party activists through my book Beating the Powers that Be and by posting here. Kris is right that politics is not about ideas alone. Its about stacking together coaltions of different groups of voters together for a winning majority which is also why I’ve urged non-major parties not to focus so much on ideology and more on finding groups of likeminded voters that will support them. The Veterans Coalition of the Constitution Party is an example of this.

    But politics isn’t just about the lust for power either. Voters tend to reject canddidates who have no rational for public office other than wanting the job. Ideas are the fuel for a camapign. Do you want to be the candidate like Robert Redford in the movie “The Candidate” after winning an election and saying “Now what?” You want to see what a party looks like that has no ideas and just clings on to power for its own sake, look at the GOP today. Not pretty is it?

    If any member of the LP, CP or the Greens does not have any idea of translating their ideas into policy and has no concept what a community under LP or CP rule would look like, they should not be running for dog catcher, let alone the county commission. You can make change happen from the bottom up. The Greens have proven this. Look at all the anti-smoking bans popping up, where do you think those came from? Look at the homosexual-marriage proposals or what about restrictions against illegal immigrants in towns like Hazelton, PA or states that are now opposing REAL ID or No Child Left Behind. None of this has happened by accident.

    As I said, if the LP, CP or the Greens want to run candidates for high office that’s fine so long as people are realistic at what such candidates can accomplish 1). ballot access for future elections, 2). articulation of party platform fo voters to shape the debate, 3). recruting converts to become new party activists and contributors and 4). Potentially screwing one of the major parties and showing influence.

    Mayor Bloomberg will find out rudely what we already know, this is a two-party system like it or not. But there are ways to be effective within that system and beat the powers that be at their own game. You can either learn how to do so or bang your head into the wall again. Its your choice.

  50. Robert Milnes Says:

    Carl, Andy, Sean, While I concede Ron Paul has a remote chance to win the nomination,he is the wrong candidate for a possible win of the election. Tom has already pointed out the vast reservoir of leftist voters. What is needed is a left-libertarian to appeal-or at least not alienate-them. Paul & the CP do that. We have several left-libertarian candidates. Actually, I find my position to address the abortion issue by implementing policies & programs to lessen the need and/or desire for abortion to be better than overturn Roe v Wade. This is Guilani’s position also & takes an issue from the CP. This translates to reach out to the Green party. A a left-libertarian or green lp nominee followed by green endorsement of the lp executive ticket is the best strategy.

  51. [email protected] Says:

    Bob,

    You write:

    “This is Guilani’s position also & takes an issue from the CP.”

    Actually, no, it doesn’t.

    Here’s the thing about abortion:

    Yes, it can swing an election, IF the candidate appealing to single-issue abortion voters is already at 48% and clawing for those last few votes.

    What it can’t do is take a party/candidate who’s in single digits and put that party or candidate over the top.

    There are five categories of “abortion voters”—
    1) Single issue pro-lifers who would vote for Attila the Hun if he promised them a Human Life Amendment and the execution of any Supreme Court justice who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade.

    2) Pro-lifers who certainly have that issue on their agenda and, all candidates being otherwise equal, would vote for the pro-life candidate … but who may place a higher priority on another issue, or on an overall set of issues.

    3) Voters who may lean pro-life or pro-choice, but just don’t commit their vote on the basis of the issue—pretty much EVERY issue is more important to them than abortion.

    4) Pro-choicers who certainly have that issue on their agenda and, all candidates being otherwise equal, would vote for the pro-choice candidate … but who may place a higher priority on another issue, or on an overall set of issues.

    5) Single issue pro-choicers who would vote for Agusto Pinochet if he promised to to protect an absolute right to access to abortion for anyone and everyone, at public expense, and to execute any Supreme Court justice who hasn’t proven his or her dedication to the issue by having personally either had or performed a slash-n-vac on the courthouse steps at noon.

    Categories 1 and 5 are never going to be the foundation of a successful political party. Those two categories represent low single-digit percentages of voters, and they severely alienate the voters in categories 2, 3 and 4. That’s why the “major party” candidates do their damnedest to avoid being pigeonholed in categories 1 and 5, and try to pigeonhole their opponents into those categories.

    You can’t take the issue away from the Constitution Party, because they represent the few hundred thousand voters in Category 1. Those voters aren’t looking for policy proposals to reduce the incidence of abortion or to mitigate its “necessity”—because they don’t believe that abortion is ever necessary or justifiable, or that cutting the number of abortions from 10 to 5 is a worthy goal . They’re looking for candidates who will promise to end it, 100%, pronto, whatever it takes.

    The GOP would like to have those few hundred thousand voters in Category 1, but it’s not willing to give up the millions of voters in Categories 2 and 3 to get them.

    The Democrats have been more successful in currying the favor of Category 5 voters without alienating Categories 4 and 3, because they’re slicker about it. They quack about making abortion “safe, legal and rare,” while resisting any policy proposal that’s not acceptable to the Category 5 voters. They deliver the policy without the rhetoric. The Category 1 voters, for whatever reason, demand both from the GOP, have a greater tendency to leave the reservation if they don’t GET both, and are more discriminating about looking at whether record and rhetoric match when a Republican starts throwing around his pro-life credentials.

  52. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, wow, why’d you come out of cloaked cyberspace to deliver that public broadside? I just happened to mention the abortion issue; it wasn’t my main one. & you validated my point-the abortion issue makes Ron Paul association with CP a liability. & why didn’t you deliver a plug for your guy in that fusilade in my direction?

  53. matt Says:

    Maybe because “his guy” has the LP nomination all but sewn up. I’m no insider, but it sure seems to me like Kubby is unstoppable in his quest to get the LP nomination. Since they can’t legally cross-nominate Ron Paul anyway, that’s OK with me.

  54. [email protected] Says:

    Bob,

    It wasn’t intended to be a broadside. You just struck a theme that I wanted to discuss, that’s all. I don’t believe I even criticized your abortion position—I just wanted to explain why it doesn’t steal a march on the CP, that’s all.

    I agree with you that Paul’s association with the CP is a liability, for that and other reasons.

    Matt,

    I’m glad SOMEONE is confident that Kubby has the nomination sewn up! I’m less optimistic, but then it’s my job to be. If the convention was held tomorrow, I think Kubby would be nominated on the first or second ballot[1], but we still haven’t seen whether or not Root can crank up a medicine show to sell himself, and there’s plenty of time for more candidates to enter the race.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

    [1] First ballot prediction if the LP’s presidential nomination delegate vote was held today: Kubby 45-55%; Root, 15-20%; Phillies, 10-15%; Smith, less than 10%; all others, 1-5 votes. Second ballot, if necessary: Kubby, 50-60%; Root, 15-25%; Phillies, less than 10%; Smith, less than 5%; all others, same 1-5 diehard votes.

  55. matt Says:

    Kubby
    Other candidates entering the race may or may not be a problem for Kubby, as might wholesale defection to the Ron Paul camp (will it still exist by nomination time? I hope so), but unless Wayne Root heals the sick and raises the dead, he will NOT win. Kubby is hotter than Phillies or anyone else. Then again, you’re an insider, and I just know the internet. We’ll see. Good luck, though.

  56. Kris Overstreet Says:

    On abortion, my experience is there are only three factions to speak of:

    (1) “Abortion is a fundamental right! Anyone who says otherwise wants to enslave women and keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!”

    (2) “Abortion is murder! Anyone who says otherwise has the blood of millions of cute adorable Jesus-loving little babies on their hands!”

    (3) “For God’s sake SHUT UP ABOUT ABORTION ALREADY!”

    Since (1) and (2) have already chosen their political parties, and (3) turns away from anyone who make abortion a cornerstone of their campaign, I’ve advocated taking the LP position on abortion from lukewarm pro-abortion to total silence, leaving it to the candidates to follow their own conscience. As even the Constitutional Theocrats have found, abortion is a divisive and destructive issue- one which just doesn’t help anyone on the national level.

  57. Andy Says:

    “(3) ‘For God’s sake SHUT UP ABOUT ABORTION ALREADY!’

    Since (1) and (2) have already chosen their political parties, and (3) turns away from anyone who make abortion a cornerstone of their campaign, I’ve advocated taking the LP position on abortion from lukewarm pro-abortion to total silence, leaving it to the candidates to follow their own conscience.”

    I agree with this!

  58. [email protected] Says:

    Matt,

    Actually, I don’t think that “wholesale defections to the Ron Paul camp” hurt Kubby for the nomination. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, that may hit the LP hard in the general election, of course, but I think that Paul’s GOP candidacy makes it EASIER for Kubby to win the nomination. Here’s why:

    1) Those LP members who tend to think that the LP is a sort of “shadow Republican Party” that embodies “what the Republicans are SUPPOSED to stand for” might be inclined to support Root for the LP’s nomination … if they weren’t fleeing the LP for Paul in this election cycle. But they are.

    2) Those LP members who agree with Paul, and disagree with Kubby, on immigration might be inclined to support Phillies for the LP’s nomination … if they weren’t fleeing the LP for Paul in this election cycle. But they are.

    I’m not saying that all LP members who are supporting Paul instead of the LP fall into those two classes. But it’s reasonable to assume that those two classes are disproportionatey representative of LP members supporting Paul and walking away from the LP right now. That leaves an LP whose “sticking with my party” members are likewise proportionately more enamored of Kubby than of Root or Phillies than they otherwise would have been. How big is the skew? I don’t know. But it’s there.

    On the down side, there’s the possibility of:

    1) Paul losing the GOP nomination and seeking the LP nomination. There’s not much reason to doubt that if he did so, he’d be the nominee.

    2) Paul losing the GOP and accepting the CP nomination. If that happens, there could be a strong “nominate NOTA and suspend the rules to allow the convention and the LP’s state affiliates to endorse Paul” effort in the LP. I would consider that outcome disastrous for the LP, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

    3) Paul winning the GOP nomination and the same NOTA/endorse thing as in (2).

    I agree that right now, Kubby would beat Root like a red-headed stepchild in a nomination vote. And I think that Root has a much tougher row to hoe than he thinks he does to close that gap. But I’m not going to make the mistake of writing him—or the other three “real candidates”—off. I’d rather get them into the debate ring with Kubby as often as possible. The more he mauls them in these early rounds, the less likely they are to go the distance to Denver and the worse shape they’ll be in if they do.

Leave a Reply