William Redpath is Amazing

Redpath, the Libertarian Party national chair, was on Dallas’ KLIF 570 AM today, and I’ve gotta hand it to the guy: of all of the Libertarians I’ve heard on the radio—Redpath steals the show. He’s got more “policy wonk” in his voice than utter enthusiasm, but that’s ok…he did great in discussing the 18% increase in membership to the Libertarian Party since January.

Speaking of radio, Libertarian Politics Live! will be discussing this very thing, as well as get into the debate over the 9/11 Truth movement “hijacking” the Ron Paul campaign.

Even a major Texas conservative blog has accused and/or affiliated Ron Paul with the “9/11 Was An Inside Job” crowd.

That’s not good, folks. That’s not good.

33 Responses to “William Redpath is Amazing”

  1. Jay Matthews Says:

    Joey, maybe RP and the Truth crowd are affiliated because RP is the only candidate (I think) who has publicly stated he thinks 9/11 deserves an independent investigation.

  2. matt Says:

    You crashed an otherwise good post with the last three sentences. What are you trying to pull?

  3. Carl Says:

    Redpath is a Cato type of libertarian. When he ran for governor of Virginia a few years ago, he got a great deal of flack for not being pure on the gun issue. Gotta hand it to him for still plugging away…

  4. Jackcjackson Says:

    So, do you spend your time looking around for any throw-away negative blog comments? I’m sure if you read every blog out there that mentions Ron Paul and every comment you will find a lot of negative ( and stupid) ones.

    Where do you even see any mention of this other than some comment 20 odd comments down.

    If some spammer happens to get a Viagra spam comment buried somewhere on my blog, does that make me a Viagra salesman?

    Also, are you Dondero’s son? I can’t believe there is any way you can’t be related.

  5. Joey Dauben Says:

    What am I trying to “pull?”

    My opinion perhaps?

    Or credibility?

    The fact that a major conservative blog labeling Ron Paul’s campaign as one that endorses the 9/11 Was An Inside Job theory doesn’t bother you?

    Matt, do you even vote?

  6. Jackcjackson Says:

    Also, I dont read that blog or know how “major” it is, but it seems to cater to bigots, intellectual lightweights, etc. I’m sure Ron Paul has been criticized by much more formidable opponents.

  7. Jackcjackson Says:

    “The fact that a major conservative blog labeling Ron Paul’s campaign as one that endorses the 9/11 Was An Inside Job theory ”

    Where is this post, why didnt you link to it? You linked to something that mentions the fundraising without further comment.

  8. matt Says:

    I do vote, and I’m not to keen on your doing opposition publicity on the guy you claim to back, since I also plan to vote for him.

    I don’t trust Dondero and I’m trying to trust you, but you seem intent on trashtalking Ron Paul while purporting to back him, so that’s making it difficult.

  9. Joey Dauben Says:

    Allow me to give you the intent of what I’m trying to do in this entire 9/11 debate: (a) the 9/11 Truth people are a deterrent and a negative; (b) Ron Paul’s campaign is actually appealing to other people not in the libertarian camp; (c) having the Fox News’ of the world proclaim that Ron Paul blamed 9/11 on America is having a huge negative impact on the campaign due to the corresponding diatribes of these 9/11 “truth” people.

    Now, if you want to call this trashtalking against Ron Paul, please go over what I have just said.

    I’m in with Paul until the nominee is picked, but meanwhile, I have got to keep from these 9/11 “truth” people from destroying an already-fledging campaign.

    We can talk about it if you want…10 pm CST.

  10. matt Says:

    If you’re trying to “pull” credibility, you’d better find someone a little less slippery than Dondero to hang onto.

    I don’t have a problem with you and never did, but your comments and your alliegances make you look questionable at best, and someone needs to point it out.

  11. matt Says:

    In light of what you just said, I’d like to (tentatively) apologize. I can’t know your motives, and will withhold judgement for the time being, I suppose.

  12. Joey Dauben Says:

    No need in apologizing. This is a blog. It’s for opinions.

    But I’ll be the first to admit that Eric and I disagree on many points of political philosophy, but he’s a friend and I’m happy for the opportunity to be filling in for him on his show.

    Now, the 9/11 topic…will get a hearing tonight at 10.

  13. Chris Bennett Says:

    I don’t trust Joey nor Eric they are both cut from the same cloth…

  14. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    Yeah, but the opinions should be interesting.

  15. matt Says:

    The halfhour I spent on the line with Libertarian Politics Live was rather frustrating. There were like three guests at a time and no real way to get anything said without interrupting like crazy. I was so flustered that I even said “of course the earth is flat” rather than “of course the earth is round”.

    What I wanted to get said was that perhaps the very way the issue was framed reveals some bias. The owner of the show (eric, not joey) apparently thinks Guliani is a libertarian, so why not have a show topic like the following:

    Will support from mafia families hurt Guliani?

    Will the allegations of closeted homosexuality hurt Guliani?

    My point being, talking about whether or not something that could hurt your candidate is self-defeating since it gives ammo to the other side in a huge way.

    Note: I am not making those two statements about Guliani, nor am I attatching value judgements to them. I’m just innocently talking about what might help or hurt ;)

  16. Andy Says:

    The 9/11 Truth people are one of the main reasons why Ron Paul has gotten so far. I know for a fact that Alex Jones has known Ron Paul for years and that he is one of the people that urged Ron Paul to run for President again.

  17. timothy west Says:

    I got to take Redpath to lunch here to discuss West Virginia and other related topics shortly before I decided to leave the party. We dont agree on some important things but it’s never personal. He’s a class act - but he just does not need to run “2008 in 2008”. He’s repeating past election strategy that did not work.

    paper candidates hurt the party. running 2008 candidates will not help the LP one iota. This strategy/policy was one of the things that convinced me to not invest another 2+ years in the LP, among others.

  18. Andy Says:

    There are occassions where paper candidates can actually help. A few years ago in Alabama the Libertarian Party ran a paper candidate for some statewide office and that paper candidate ended up getting enough votes for the Libertarian Party of Alabama to retain ballot status for 2 more years.

  19. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    ... so it could run more paper candidates the next election?

  20. timothy west Says:

    if there is an obvious reason to run them, then run them. I’ve never been against running them for express strategic purposes. The problem is that in my experience, thats not the reason for them being there.

  21. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Paper candidates are the absolute worst thing a party can waste time on.

  22. Tom Bryant Says:

    The study of voting patterns conducted in my neck of the woods show that the more candidates on the ballot, the more votes all the candidates receive. It’s a psychological factor which is often ignored. If a party has a candidate for every office, the party appears larger, organized, and credible. I believe that this holds true nationwide.

    The downside of this is the risk of a goofball representing the party to the media/public.

    Austin, by definition, a paper candidate does not use up time/resources, so it’s hard for them to waste something they don’t use.

  23. Roscoe Says:

    Tom Bryant is correct. Paper candidates can answer the questions in the League’s election guide, if nothing else. Next time you are in the voting booth, see if you can figure out who many of the major party candidates are for local and county offices. Most are unknown to the vast majority of voters who have no knowledge which are paper and which aren’t.
    Having a Libertarian candidate seeking every office on the ballot is far superior a tactic to having one “real” candidate and blanks in all the other spots.

  24. timothy west Says:


    Is there an example in the last election? I would submit that

    ‘Next time you are in the voting booth, see if you can figure out who many of the major party candidates are for local and county offices. Most are unknown to the vast majority of voters who have no knowledge which are paper and which aren’t.’

    I dont have to wait until I am in the voting booth. They have full page local paper ads, radio spots, in some cases TV ads. They also are the winners of their party’s primary.

    maybe if you added “but they never vote anyways” to it. But those that vote do know. If running useless candidates got you elected, you an bet the R’s and D’s would be running scores of them. They dont. That’s why they have primaries.

  25. timothy west Says:

    ......submit the exact opposite is true. (to finish that fragment that slipped by)

  26. wes benedict Says:

    As a Libertarian Party of Texas hack, I sure hope the Green and Constitution parties don’t run paper candidates in Texas (not that I think they’ll actually get the opportunity). Check out this double top secret report:


    I’m quoting from it below:

    “Matt Finkel, candidate for Travis County Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, got the highest percentage (34.5%, receiving 19,932 votes in a two-way race) of any candidate in the U.S. appearing on the ballot as a Libertarian,
    with the exception of two unopposed candidates in San Miguel County, Colorado. (Sheriff and coroner—they each got around 2,000 votes.)
    Eight non-partisan candidates (in that preliminary report) got higher percentages than Matt Finkel. Two other Libertarians won in multi-seat races in townships in Indiana. (One got 222 votes for 22.8%, and the
    other 127 votes for 16.8%.) The total number of candidates appearing on the ballot as Libertarians was 566. Texas had 168, or 30% of the
    total. States with Libertarian candidates who are winning partisan races are winning in very tiny races. I doubt most Libertarians realize how tiny these winning races are.”

    Finkel got the highest percentage in American and was a paper candidate. Of course, definition of “paper candidate” varies. I think he filled out LOWV forms and did some campaigning but spent at most a couple hundred bucks.

    I don’t think the West Virginia LP had any paper candidates. How’d the WV LP do in 2006?

    If you’re anti-paper candidate, does that mean you supported the alternative of putting all your funds into one 2006 congressional campaign? How’d that work out? Positive?

    Again, I hope the Constitution Party of Texas follows Austin Cassidy’s advice and doesn’t run paper candidates (no offense—I just don’t know you guys). While I’m a hard core Libertarian, I actually like lots of the Greens in Texas so I’ll hold back on my bad advice for them. Actually, knowing the Greens in Texas, I’m confident they won’t be inclined to take advice from Austin Cassidy or Timothy West Virginia LP doesn’t exist.

  27. timothy west Says:

    which campaign? The one in your state where 400K was raised and spent and they didnt even get a single TV ad on the air? What kind of paper candidate raises and blows though 400K buying little or no media except for 3 billboards and marching some college students around wearing masks?

    Your highest profile candidate and his campaign mangler did this under your aegis as ED. What did you direct, exactly?

    The WVLP and I parted company in 2002. I did nothing for them afterwards. In 2000, we ran more candidates (the majority of which campaigned) than the Republicans did. Our Secretary of State (a major office here) candidate got somewhere around 55K votes.

    No longer being a LP member, it’s all academic.

  28. Carl Says:

    Even running paper candidates for strategic purposes is debatable. Might be better to re-petition instead. It is possible to use petitioning as an outreach tool. Takes longer/petition sig but it’s a lot more fun. And it is more productive in the long run. (Go after names for your database, and then ask them to sign your petition. Much more honest; petition sigs should be people who are favorable to your message—not merely people signing to make you happy.)

    Were I still in the LP, the only reason I would advocate a top-ticket candidate is if there was a respectable person willing to accept the nomination. The purpose of such a candidate is not to win votes. The purpose is to provide a face for the party. And if the face is not impressive, ‘tis better to not have anyone. (LP North Carolina has someone credible seeking the gubernatorial nomination this time around, so it makes sense for LPNC to run a gubernatorial candidate. However, expecting that campaign to replace petitioning is delusional given the 10%requirements…)

  29. Robert Milnes Says:

    Carl, you say you quit the lp; you support Ron Paul. What’s wrong with you?

  30. timothy west Says:

    One does not have to be a LP member to support Paul, he is drawing from a number of Democrats as well as Inds. At this point, I think he has more support from outside he GOP than inside it. The bible thumpers dont really care for him that much, and the Neo Cons will start a smear campaign against him if he starts getting traction.

    The Neo Cons are as big a threat to the country as terrorism - I believe they will create a Gulf of Tonkin type of incident if need be to maintain the hold they have on our military and security apparatus. Dick Cheney is calling the shots. Bush is way too stupid, but he makes a good puppet.

    And the financial meltdown of the country is coming. The entire economy is based on speculation and debt instead of ownership and capital, just as it was in 1929. The higher stocks go, the worse it will be when the bottom drops out.

    I keep wondering what they are going to call it; The Greater Depression? The Greatest Depression?

  31. Robert Milnes Says:

    Timothy, sorry, my words were written literally-what’s wrong with you Carl, you are supporting Ron Paul? Joining this misguided misadventure. Ron Paul is flying false colors. Operating within and through the gop is not real libertarian. He would not make a good progressive candidate either what with his overturn Roe v Wade position disguised in the cloak of states’ rights. It is precisely because the states denied women their rights that the Supreme Court had to intervene. Paul is a dinosaur.

  32. Carl Says:

    Robert: I agree with Ron Paul on abortion. The pro-murder stance of the LP is one of many factors that got me to leave.

    I find it ironic that it’s the liberals who favor legal abortion. In general, liberals favor the weak, and are generally willing to force the strong to take care of the weak. Outlawing abortion fits into this mold perfectly. Also, according to Roe v. Wade, government meddling on medical decisions is a violation of privacy. If so, how can there be a single-payer healthcare system? Such would be a complete violation of medical privacy!

    Legal abortion is perhaps philosophically compatible with Objectivism—everyone for themselves. (But even there, some would argue that abortion violates the rights of the fetus, and that the fetus is where it is due to voluntary actions on the part of the parents…)

    It is also ironic that many of the same people who favor organic farming, oppose GMO foods, etc. favor legal abortion. If you can legally dispose of an embryo, why can’t you tinker with it? Brave New World, anyone? Were I an atheist, I would still oppose abortion on this ground alone. Frank Herbert’s Destination Void sold me on the need to clamp down early on such tinkering with humanity.

    Anyway, Roe v. Wade is an incorrect ruling, regardless of the merits of legal abortion. The entire Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Note the word “Congress” in many of the statements. The first amendment prohibits Congress from establishing churches; whether states can do so depends on individual state constitutions. (The 2nd amendment can be construed to apply to the states, since it uses the passive voice instead of a prohibition on Congress.)

    The 14th amendment did demand that states follow due process. This was to crack down on arbitrary harassing of negroes. Ironically, this original purpose of this clause in the 14th amendment is still routinely ignored, cf. “driving while black.” Outlawing abortion is not a violation of due process. Neither is prayer in school, or even state funded churches. (Not saying the latter two are good to have, only that they are legal under the 14th.)

    A federal law against abortion is unconstitutional under the original Constitution. Under the original Constitution it is up to the states.

    However, one could argue under the 14th amendment that abortion violates equal protection under the law(!) If successfully argued, the federal government could then mandate that the states make abortion illegal except in self-defense.

  33. Robert Milnes Says:

    Carl, Where did you go awry? You had it going on-lrc, lp. Gone, now RP? You are hung up on this one issue? Actually my position is similar to Giuliani’s-respect choice but implement policies to try to reduce the need for abortion. I don’t know which I’m more disappointed in-you or Tom.

Leave a Reply