LP: Don’t Vote in GOP Primary!

I recently received a letter from Libertarian Party of Texas chairman Pat Dixon. It was, like most of the literature I receive from the state LP office, informative. It was also warning Libertarians across the state that a primary vote for Ron Paul in the March Super Tuesday Primary next year will have negative results for potential LP candidates.

Texas has outrageous laws pertaining to primaries and third parties, but the TX LP message is this: if you’re a Texas Libertarian planning to run for office as a Libertarian candidate in November, don’t bother voting in the GOP primary.

Wes Benedict drove around the entire state last year and the year before rounding up candidates for the LP in Texas. With Ron Paul’s historic candidacy, the candidate pool might be slim, but who knows. Perhaps the TX LP has a “plan” in place. I hope so.

Full disclosure: I am a member of both the LP and Republican Liberty Caucus and plan to vote in the GOP primary next year. To be fair, I also subscribe to all third party/major party newsletters and newspapers.

68 Responses to “LP: Don’t Vote in GOP Primary!”

  1. Matt Sterba Says:

    Very Good Article

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=18555

  2. Tom Blanton Says:

    In the article linked above, Bruce Bartlett writes:

    “C-SPAN runs Libertarian conventions, and viewers can see for themselves how unserious and childish they are.”

    Apparently, Bartlett has never watched the Republican or Democrat conventions.

  3. Gene Berkman Says:

    As a local officer of the Libertarian Party, and activist in Libertarians for Ron Paul, I urge people to register and support the Libertarian Party. You can help Ron Paul with contributions and volunteer work without affiliating as a Republican.

    It is important to continue building the Libertarian Party. It is clear that the strategy of the Republican Liberty Caucus to build a strong pro-freedom faction in the Republican Party has not been able to overcome the blind party loyalty of most Republican officeholders.

    The Ron Paul campaign is clearly separate from the RLC strategy. Ron Paul is taking advantage of publicity opportunities available to someone who seeks the Republican nomination. But I have not seen Ron Paul urge anyone to join the Republican Party or to quit their involvement in the Libertarian Party.

  4. Robert Milnes Says:

    Gene, you are asking libertarians to do 2 mutually exclusive things. To support Ron Paul & NOT vote for him? To support Ron Paul AND support the LP & NOT the GOP? It is asking too much. It is too complicated. Remember we have the FEC & ballot access laws to deal with. To simplify: NEVER AGAIN vote republican. Stop supporting Ron Paul. You know sooner or later he will lose. Support the LP. (Think what the LP Presidential campaigns would be like if they had Ron Paul’s support- even divided amongst them.) Alliance with GP. Win in 2008.

  5. Robert Milnes Says:

    libertarians, remember, you have something “to die for”: near 100% ballot access.

  6. Gene Berkman Says:

    I am asking Libertarians to support their local Libertarian group, to support the Libertarian Party of their state, and to contribute to and do volunteer work for the Ron Paul campaign. They are not mutually exclusive.

    It is pretty clear that none of the candidates for the Libertarian nomination for President can mount a serious campaign. But I have been involved in local libertarian campaigns that have gotten media coverage, local Libertarian candidates have been invited to campaign forums, and local Libertarian campaigns can print brochures and do mailings with the amount of money available to Libertarian candidates.

    I support a division of labor. Ron Paul’s campaign is the national campaign to back, while you work to build your local Libertarian group. This is how the left-wing third parties thrived in the 1930s - they ran third party candidates for Congress while they backed FDR as the Democrat for President. We can learn something from them.

  7. disinter Says:

    Screw that. All Libertarians in Texas that support Ron Paul should vote for… Ron Paul.

  8. Robert Milnes Says:

    Gene, & how many leftist presidents & congress members have we had? (I’m asking). Teddy R. was supposedly “progressive”. None of the real libertarian candidates can mount a serious campaign-because most of their support has gone to the elephant in the room.

  9. Andy Says:

    “To support Ron Paul AND support the LP & NOT the GOP? It is asking too much. It is too complicated. Remember we have the FEC & ballot access laws to deal with. To simplify: NEVER AGAIN vote republican. Stop supporting Ron Paul. You know sooner or later he will lose. Support the LP.”

    If the socialist had had this attitude in regaurds to FDR they never would have gotten their agenda enacted.

    Libertarians should support Ron Paul any way they can. LP members in Texas who are thinking about running for office obviously should not vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because due to the screwed up laws in that state they can’t run for office as Libertarians if they vote in a Republican primary, however, LP members in Texas who are not planning to run for office could still vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, and for that matter the ones who are planning for run for office could help the Ron Paul campaign in other ways.

  10. Andy Says:

    “I support a division of labor. Ron Paul’s campaign is the national campaign to back, while you work to build your local Libertarian group. This is how the left-wing third parties thrived in the 1930s - they ran third party candidates for Congress while they backed FDR as the Democrat for President. We can learn something from them.”

    Exactly.

  11. Mike Gillis Says:

    It’s also worth mentioning that many state ballot access laws depend on a party’s number of registered members.

    If Libertarians are planning on voting for Ron Paul, in many states that means re-registering as a Republican and out of the Libertarian Party. If enough people do this - and there are always a handful of states where a third party will have only a 1,000 or so surplus registered members, Paul voters from the LP could cost the LP a handful of ballot lines in 2008.

    Or worse yet, make it harder to get on the ballot in places like Texas.

    As a Green who consistently warns fellow Greens about support for candidates like Dennis Kucinich, I am definitely sympathetic with the Libertarian gentleman from Texas and want to echo his warning to fellow third party activists.

  12. Bill Wood Says:

    Thanks for stating that Mike. Bill Redpath LP Chairman, talks about this very thing in the LP News. The LP could possibly lose ballot access in some States if to many of its Members reregister as republicans. This could prove to be very costly in time and money, in regaining ballot access.

  13. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth Andy:

    “If the socialist had had this attitude in regaurds to FDR they never would have gotten their agenda enacted.”

    I’ve corrected Andy on this before. “This attitude” (supporting their own party rather than a Democrat) is PRECISELY how the Socialists got their agenda enacted.

    In 1932, FDR ran on a platform of balancing the federal budget and cutting the size of the federal government by 25%. The Socialist Party’s presidential candidate polled more than three quarters of a million votes, four times as many as he had polled in 1928.

    Then FDR reversed himself and implemented a series of New Deal acts that mirrored huge portions of the Socialist platform. In 1936, the Socialist Party split, with its mainstream backing FDR and its militants deserting to the Communist Party (which then endorsed FDR as well on orders from the Comintern pursuant to Stalin’s “united front” policy).

  14. Andy Says:

    [email protected] Says:

    July 28th, 2007 at 10:56 am
    Quoth Andy:

    “If the socialist had had this attitude in regaurds to FDR they never would have gotten their agenda enacted.”

    I’ve corrected Andy on this before. “This attitude” (supporting their own party rather than a Democrat) is PRECISELY how the Socialists got their agenda enacted.

    In 1932, FDR ran on a platform of balancing the federal budget and cutting the size of the federal government by 25%. The Socialist Party’s presidential candidate polled more than three quarters of a million votes, four times as many as he had polled in 1928.”

    I’ve corrected Tom on this before. The Democratic Party was filled with members of the Council On Foreign Relations. It is the CFR that pushed the Democrats into socialism.

    FDR was LYING when he ran on a platform of limited government, just as George W. Bush was LYING when he ran for office and claimed to be a “strict constructionist of the Constitution” and claimed that he did not believe in engaging in nation building. FDR and Bush both KNEW exactly what they were doing and both INTENTIONALLY LIED.

    The Socialist were funded by the big bankers who control the Federal Reserve and who also founded the Council On Foreign Relations and who were also behind the failed League of Nations and then the United Nations and who also took control of the Democratic and Republican parties.

    This is all documented and I’ve posted links about this before. It is incredibly naive to believe that the Democrats were merely playing “copycat” when they enacted the Socialist agenda. Tom Knapp doesn’t know about which he is speaking. Study the history of the CFR, Tom.

  15. Andy Says:

    Check out this video of a speech from G. Edward Griffin at a Ron Paul for President rally in California. Mr. Griffin hits the nail on the head in this speech. Make special note of the part where the talks about a book by one of Bill Clinton’s mentors, Professor Carroll Quigley. The name of the book is Tragedy and Hope. The book is a historical record of the movement towards a world socialist government. In the book he talks about how the globalist gained control of both of the major political parties to present the people with false choices that always move towards world government. This was a planned agenda and they accomplished this by getting “their people” into influencial positions within the media, academia, THE MAJOR POLITICAL parties, and other power centers of society. Anyway, here’s the link to the speech.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg

  16. Eric Dondero Says:

    Gene Berkman is also suggesting that Libertarians support Ron Paul, but no other libertarian Republican candidates like say a Sarah Palin, Gov. of Alaska, a Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman from California who just sponsored the Medical Marijuana bill in Congress, or a Butch Otter, Gov. of Idaho featured in Reason Magazine as a “rising star” of the libertarian movement last Fall.

    I guess according to Gene Berkman the RLC has been a “failure” since it’s only helped to elect scores of Congressmen, Governors and State Legislators over the years, many of whom have proved to be MORE CONSISTENTLY LIBERTARIAN THAN RON PAUL.

    But hey, if you were like Gene, with a mind clouded by decades of Marijuana smoke, anythings possible, ‘eh?

  17. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Gene, does that include Dana Rohrabacher?

    It was Dana NOT RON PAUL, who was the very prominent sponsor of the Medical Marijuana bill last week. It was Dana NOT RON PAUL, who was out front in all those media interviews all over the Nation about legalized Medical Marijuana.

    Why all this enthusiasm for Ron Paul, who has very questionable libertarian views at best, and none for the very guy who founded the Modern Libertarian Movement Dana Rohrabacher?

    And for those of you on this Board who are not aware, Gene Berkman lives a County over from Dana - approx. a 45 minute drive on the freeway from his District. He could quite easily go over to Orange County from Riverside (San Bernadino Cty.), to pass our flyers for Rohrabachers Re-election effort.

  18. Eric Dondero Says:

    Here’s a question for you all Ron Paul enthusiasts here?

    Why should any Republican in their right mind allow you non-loyal usurpers into the Big Tent?

    You say you want to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, yet have no intention of supporting the eventual GOP Nominee be it Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson.

    Yet, you all rant and rave about how “unfair” the Republicans have been in Iowa or South Carolina and about how they’ve “excluded our champion Ron Paul” from such and such a Forum.

    HELL’S BELLS!

    Don’t you think the Libertarian Party would act in entirely the same way, if some guy had supporters who were announcing all over the internet that “we’re just here to use the LP, and do not intend to support the LP’s eventual Nominee…”

    Life is a two-way street. Especially political life.

    If you’re just in it to support Ron Paul, and have no intention of supporting the eventual Republican Nominee, than the GOP and GOP activists have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD, to exclude you ungrateful fuckers from any and all forums in the coming months.

    That may sound tough. But fair is fair.

  19. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wow! I’m shocked. Do I sense a complete reversal from our friend Andy here?

    For years California Dude “Andy” has been blasting the libertarian Republican strategy. He’s badmouthed every candidate backed by the RLC and claimed that they were “not real libertarians.”

    Now Andy is saying “Exactly” to a strategy of keeping the LP as insurance on the side, but backing good libertarians for office under the Republican banner.

    Who’d have ever thunk it.

    I’d say that’s about as good as a Mea Culpa as we could ever have asked for.

    Thanks Andy!

    You were wrong all along, and those of us at ThirdPartyWatch who have been clammoring for such an “RLC” type strategy for years, have been right. I’m glad you’ve finally admitted as such.

  20. Robert Milnes Says:

    OMG. I’m on the same side of the Ron Paul debate as Eric Dondero?

  21. [email protected] Says:

    Quoth Andy:

    “I’ve corrected Tom on this before. The Democratic Party was filled with members of the Council On Foreign Relations.”

    [snip]

    “Study the history of the CFR, Tom.”

    I’ve studied enough of the history of the CFR to know that as of 1939 it had grown to a total of only 663 members. Far from “filling the Democratic Party” with its members, as of 1932 the CFR probably couldn’t have filled the seats on a healthy urban Democratic Party county committee.

    Griffin’s Ghostly Tales of Terror make nice bedtime stories, but confusing them with reality probably isn’t a good idea.

  22. Jackcjackson Says:

    If you support Ron Paul, you have to VOTE for Ron Paul. The VOTE in the Republican primary is the support that he NEEDS. Otherwise why pretend to suppport him if you aren’t going to vote for him?

    What is the point of contributing to Ron Paul if he ends up with Badnarikian vote totals in the actual primaries? Since he is running for POTUS as a Republican, he needs votes in the primary. Period. Otherwise, what’s the point.

  23. Gene Berkman Says:

    Just FYI, Ron Paul was the only other Republican co-sponsor of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher bill to stop the federal government harassment of states that allow medical marijuana.

    I am glad Dana Rohrabacher is better on the Marijuana issue, but it does not make up for his support of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and the military spending boondoggle.

  24. Jay Matthews Says:

    “Here’s a question for you all Ron Paul enthusiasts here?

    Why should any Republican in their right mind allow you non-loyal usurpers into the Big Tent?”

    Again Eric, is this really a serious question? Ron Paul supporters are just that. Not GOP/neo-con supporters. Last I checked people vote for candidates during primaries, not parties. And last I checked intelligent voters actually look at platforms and vote according to what appeals to them.

    No serious Ron Paul supporter would wish to be in the same tent as Romney, etc.

    But be sure to keep telling us how libertarian Rudy is and is even moreso than Ron Paul. It’s entertaining.

  25. Eric Dondero Says:

    So, you are admitting that if Romney is the GOP Nominee you have no intention of supporting the Republican Party, right?

    That said, than how can you be at all justified in claiming that there’s some sort of “Big Republican Conspiracy” to exclude Ron Paul?

    They have every right to exclude Ron Paul, given the views of his supporters displayed by your total lack of loyalty to the GOP.

  26. Robert Milnes Says:

    Why bother to conspire against Ron Paul? Sooner or later he will not get the nomination/lose.

  27. Jay Matthews Says:

    Yes, my loyalty lies to principles not parties. I think that would hold true for many of the LP and CP supporters on TPW. This would also explain why RP has the mass crossover appeal he has garnered. (And of course his message.)

    If you choose to be a party pawn and vote based on party affiliation instead of platform that’s your business. I prefer not to be the bitch of any party.

    If parties alienate supporters you’re suggesting the party deserves their support regardless???

  28. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jay, I appreciate a principled stand. But I give reality priority over principle. Primaries are for party members. What is Ron Paul doing in the GOP? He chose his party; let him deal with it. Evidently his positions place him best in the Constitution party. But noooooooo, the CP doesn’t have a lot of that pesky ballot access. Which is beneath him to go out & get evidently. Libertarians, stick with the LP.

  29. Jay Matthews Says:

    Robert, Ron Paul is very Republican. The only issue for some is Republicans like him aren’t an everyday occurance. Who is more conservative in congress? Who is more taxpayer-friendly? Who defends civil-liberties more consistently than RP? Who votes for the least amount of spending and against the expansion of gov’t more regularly than RP? And maybe more notable than anything else which encompasses the above and then some,......HE TAKES HIS OATH SERIOUSLY,........ and his oath is not to the GOP, the president, whips, etc. Don’t fault him for it, commend him for it. I could go on, this is covered elsewhere.

    If all elected officials in D.C. took their oath as seriously as he does the LP and CP probably wouldn’t exist.

    If you don’t think he’s even remotely a Republican your beef should be with the Texas GOP whose rules were such that he was allowed to register and run as a Republican way back when.

  30. Jay Matthews Says:

    The LP platform is in large part what the GOP platform used to be. Ron Paul could be considered a Libertarian or throwback Republican.

    From ushistory.org:

    The Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: “We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated ‘Whig,’ ‘Free Democrat’ or something else; though we think some simple name like ‘Republican’ would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery.”

  31. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jay, don’t you think Dubya considers himself a “...promulgator of Liberty…”? What with spreading democracy around the world?

  32. Jay Matthews Says:

    Robert, my post is missing the following link. This is the original Republican platform:

    http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm

    Do those platform points not reflect Ron Paul’s views?

    Do I think Dubya considers himself that and really believes it? Not really but who knows. Maybe he’s repeated, “they want to kill us for our freedoms” so many times he’s actually managed to brainwash himself. Does it matter? We were discussing whether or not RP can be considered a Republican.

    The whole “spreading democracy” diatribe is a front to continue his Dad’s new world order. Notice it’s only being “spread” where oil reserves are and to date at the cost of over 3,600 American lives and roughly 71,000 Iraqi civilian lives. You can’t spread anything to dead people or their families or people who have seen how their country was better off under Hussein’s rule. Don’t forget the ginormous embassy.

  33. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jay, “We were discussing whether or not RP can be considered a Republican.” OK. Then your position is that the gop has morphed into what it is & the LP took its place as it were? Again I ask, (if so), what is Ron Paul doing in the GOP?

  34. Jay Matthews Says:

    Well again I’ll say he can be considered a republican, just not a neo-conservative.

    I’m confident many if not most in the GOP establishment would still tell you they are the party of small gov’t, low taxes, and low spending. (Only now that is by comparision to Democrats.) But if that’s the case RP fits right in. Of course talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. RP’s voting record speaks quite loudly.

  35. Eric Dondero Says:

    Milnes is completely correct.

    Ron Paul’s views fit most comfortably with the Constitition Party. He was an uncomfortable fit for the Libertarian Party.

    But as Milnes points out, the CP’s ballot status sucks. Ron Paul being the opportunist that he is, is using the GOP to further his efforts.

    That’s fine by me. However, how can you expect the Republican Party leaders to give Ron Paul as much standing, when he is clearly not a loyal team player?

    They have every right in the world to give him the shaft, and that includes excluding him from debates.

  36. Eric Dondero Says:

    What I’m about to say will prove to be a bombshell. I was hoping to save this for a later date. But since we’re on the subject, here it goes…

    Someone in the media or the Republican Party leadership, perhaps at the next debate, should ask Ron Paul one simple question:

    “Congressman Paul, do you intend to support the eventual Republican Nominee for President no matter who that may be?”

  37. Eric Dondero Says:

    So Jay, do you consider all Republicans who are not like Ron Paul to be NeoConservatives?

    Does that include everyone from Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter all the way to Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn and Tom Tacredo?

    That’s quite a large coalition those pesky NeoCons have. Who would have ever thunk it. There’s no longer such a thing as a Moderate Republican or a Conservative Republican. All Republicans except Ron Paul are “NeoCons.”

  38. titaniumgirl Says:

    I’m with Jay on this one. I think it is more honorable to vote for principle as opposed to party affiliation. Good is good, bad is bad, a=a, however you want to put it. I’m not a shill for any group.

  39. Jay Matthews Says:

    “That’s fine by me. However, how can you expect the Republican Party leaders to give Ron Paul as much standing, when he is clearly not a loyal team player?”

    “Someone in the media or the Republican Party leadership, perhaps at the next debate, should ask Ron Paul one simple question:

    “Congressman Paul, do you intend to support the eventual Republican Nominee for President no matter who that may be?”

    Eric, again your position of “if he doesn’t vote along party lines that warrants excluding him from debates” is downright scary. If that’s the sort of gov’t you envision, where party members only vote along party lines w/o question or dissent, why bother having a congress and why bother having multiple candidates vying for their parties nomination? They’d all be the same.

    Again, and try to follow along, the oath is not to party leaders. But you’d obviously prefer it that way.

  40. Eric Dondero Says:

    You’re avoiding the question. Every so slyly, but I’ve gotcha! I ain’t letting it slide.

    Do you or do you not think that Ron Paul will endorse the Republican Nominee for President for 2008 if he does not win the Nomination?

    He will get called on this at some point. Maybe not in the debates. But I can bet you dollars to donuts it will come up in his Congressional District in his reelection campaign. Trust me on this. It will come up. And I dare say his Conservative loyal Republican George Bush supporting South Texas District would not be pleased with any other answer from Paul besides, “Yes, I will support the GOP Nominee.”

  41. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Jay, do you understand the concept of property rights? Here’s a flash for ya! They apply to private organizations, as well.

    Last time I checked the Republican Party USA was a private entity, not an arm of the US Government. They have every right in the world to make their own rules, and run their organization, as they please.

    Any organization in their right minds, would not include someone in their functions who tells the group, “Hey, I’m just here for the time being, and have no intention of supporting you all, after I’ve made my point.”

    If I was the leader of such a group, I’d tell that person to Make like a Tree and Leave, and to make sure that the door doesn’t hit his ass on the way out.

    Now I’m not saying this example applies to Ron Paul. I dunno? He hasn’t been asked the question “Do you intend to support the eventual GOP Nominee” yet.

    But he will be asked. Trust me on this.

  42. Carl Says:

    Regarding loss of ballot access: how many offices does this jeopardize? How many partisan races does the LP win, anyway?

    Last I checked 90+% of LP victories were non-partisan. (Might be closer to 100%, but I am being generous.) So, does the LP throw its money into non-partisan races or ballot access? Or, how about throwing some of that ballot-access money into building the party somewhere to the point where having partisan ballot access is actually worthwhile?

    Or, how about opening up the party enough so that when it does win a partisan election (think Vermont), the party doesn’t disown its own as soon as he disagrees with the party on one issue?

  43. Jay Matthews Says:

    I’m not avoiding the question, I was ignoring it. They way you have with mine here and the others at the link down below.

    Do I think he’ll endorse the nominee if it’s not himself? I don’t know and really don’t care. If I had to bet I’d say probably not since a reason cited by him as to why he’s running (besides to win) is he’s not happy with any of the other GOP candidates. In a WMUR interview this year he did give a mild endorsement to Chuck Hagel if he were to run mainly based on Hagel’s realization Bush’s foreign policy is a train-wreck.

    Hagel also isn’t showing “party loyalty,” should he be excluded from future debates if he were to run?

    Furthermore what does he owe the GOP? The GOP supported his opponent, a former Democrat, in the ‘96 primary.

  44. Jay Matthews Says:

    RP has been asked if he’d support Giuliani and he straight up said “no.”

    “If I was the leader of such a group, I’d tell that person to Make like a Tree and Leave, and to make sure that the door doesn’t hit his ass on the way out.”

    If you were the leader of such a group it would be named the BAP-Blind Allegiance Party.

    If the LP is considered “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” the BAP slogan would be “brain optional, pulse imperative.”

  45. Robert Milnes Says:

    Candidates have an obligation to support the eventual nominee. They make use of the party. Hopefully they contribute. Ron Paul can not like the other candidates all he wants. If he doesn’t support the eventual nominee, that makes him-fill in the blank.

  46. Trent Hill Says:

    Milnes,

    Then why should the Green party endorse you for the Progressive Alliance?
    You’re not a member of the Green party are you? Do you support them financially? Are you a delegate?

    Just kidding, I dont care in the slightest.

  47. Jay Matthews Says:

    Eric, I’d like your thoughts on the question regarding Chuck Hagel above.

  48. Mike Smith Says:

    Let’s see if I have this straight. According to Dumbdero, Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian and Rudy Giuliani is.
    It’s funny how personal vendettas can get in the way of the truth.
    As for the GOP, if they put up a pro-Bush, pro-Iraq candidate, they might as well quit before they start.

  49. Robert Milnes Says:

    Trent, that you don’t care in the slightest I couldn’t care less. I personally identify more with the greens. However I am letting my green membership lapse. My position is the GP should endorse the lp ticket. The lp should accomodate the gp as much as possible with the executive ticket. Mike, I wouldn’t be so sure. Whoever the reps nominate will have the full support of the party. Except those that do not support their party.

  50. Jay Matthews Says:

    Hey Eric, still waiting,......I’ll help you, here again is the question:

    “Hagel also isn’t showing “party loyalty,” should he be excluded from future debates if he were to run?”

    Well what’s the deal Eric, shoud Hagel stay or go?

  51. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hagel? He’s not even a candidate, and the chances of him jumping in are slim to none. The GOP primary race is coming to a close. It looks like Giuliani all the way, with a very slight chance for Romney or Thompson. But any others ought to just drop out.

    And Hagel is hardly what I would call a Republican. He’s a RINO.

  52. Eric Dondero Says:

    Jay, do you have some more details on RP saying he would not support Giuliani?

    I think the folks at the RNC and the hosts of all these debates in the State GOP Parties, would find that comment of great interest. I will not bring it to their attentions, until I get it confirmed.

    Kindly help. Time, Date, Witnesses. Thanks.

  53. Eric Dondero Says:

    Check out this website. A Financial Expert for the Health Care Industry, MBA, has an article on his Blog today, analyzing Ron Paul’s Health Care plan compared to Giuliani’s. His conclusion: “Giuliani is a libertarian on health care, and Ron Paul is not.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200304/r2532_5850.jpg

  54. Eric Dondero Says:

    Oh, and here’s a bit of breaking news…

    Sally Pipes, longtime Director of the libertarian Pacific Research Institute, has just been appointed as a Top Advisor to the Rudy Giuliani for President Campaign on Health Care Reform.

  55. Eric Dondero Says:

    Jay, to correct the record, The GOP did indeed support Ron Paul’s opponent in the GOP primary and run-off in 1996. I served as Campaign Coordinator for Ron Paul at that time.

    Now, that said, as soon as the run-off was over, the GOP en masse quickly backed Paul with everything they had.

    First to jump on board was Kay Baily Hutchison. As soon as she called Ron to congratulate him, and offer to campaign for him, it was like a flood gate. All of a sudden EVERY TOP TEXAS REPUBLICAN was calling Ron and offering assistance, most notably Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, and George W. Bush.

    DeLay even held 3 big fundraisers in the District for Ron. Kay came down and spent a whole day on a “Cessna Tour” of the District with Ron.

    Bush (though Karl Rove) put the word out to the entire Texas GOP, particularly big money donors in Houston, to support Ron Paul!

    I dare say, without their help, and money, Ron Paul would have never been elected to Congress in 1996.

    Keep in mind that in the General against Lefty Morris we only won 51% to 47.5%. It was much closer than the victories over Laughlin in the primaries. The Democrats were much tougher and meaner on Ron Paul than the Republicans ever were. Wasn’t even close.

  56. Robert Milnes Says:

    If Hegel runs as gop, he should be in debates. If he runs independent he should not. Unity08 is unprecedented. I would assume the dems & reps would not endorse Unity08, so he’d be out. The question remains now with Eric’s information that the gop supported Ron Paul after he won the congressional primary: Will Ron Paul support the eventual gop presidential nominee? & how does that affect the Ron Paul devolution?

  57. Ken Says:

    RP will not support some neocon hack for the GOP nod. He is the only conservative/libertarian in Congress period. I’ve been a member of the LP for over ten years and after reading the main point of this article, I’m canceling my membership forever and never giving another dime to this party of no principle. Oh, and if RP doesn’t get the GOP nod, then Hillary will be the next pres. No one that supports Paul will ever endorse Rudy McRomney/Thompson, and these missing RP votes will cost the GOP the next round. If ya care about the GOP winning, then RP is the only person to support in any way you can. Oh and Dondero, you just sunk whatever political career you thought you had by alienating the RP supporters. We never forget who our enemies are. Why don’t you just rejoin the military and go get your ass shot over in your lovable war in Iraq, better yet get your knee-caps blown off by an RPG.

  58. Jay Matthews Says:

    Eric, again I’ll ask you, Hagel also isn’t showing “party loyalty,” should he be excluded from future debates if he were to run? Yes or no?

    About RP stating he wouldn’t support Giuliani,...this isn’t a big secret, I’m reasonably certain I heard him say that to Alan Colmes after the debate on Fox news. If not it was a TV interview sometime within a week or two after that debate.

    In regards to the ‘96 primary, I know I’ve heard this story elsewhere on more than one occassion and I seem to recall Art Olivier discussing the situation during a radio interview years ago. Anyhow after a little bit of searching I found this story which is what I’m referring to:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n6_v17/ai_18535311/pg_2

    And specifically paragraphs two and three.

  59. Robert Milnes Says:

    Ken, the problem is not the LP. It is Ron Paul is in the wrong party.

  60. Jay Matthews Says:

    Robert, assuming for a moment you’ve seen the same RP footage I have defending his various position as not only constitutional but also republican, citing the examples he has to back up his stance, you still think he’s in the wrong party or do you think it’s possible there is creedence to what he says when he says, “I think the party has lost its way.”

  61. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jay, agreed, “I think the party has lost its way.” & we’ve already agreed the gop has morphed from its original platform to what it is today. That still leaves RP in the wrong party. i.e. it is not what it should be & what Ron Paul says it should be. But it is what it is nevertheless. RP’s positions put him in the Constitution party. He should have no problem getting the CP nomination OR endorsing the evental CP nominee. in other words the fact that he cannot or will not endorse the eventual gop nominee demonstrates at least proves actuallythat he is in the wrong party. Agreed?

  62. matt Says:

    Robert,
    You are in the wrong party, and I can say that without even being sure what party you’re in.

  63. Jay Matthews Says:

    Robert, I think at the core of this discussion is this issue:

    Should loyalty to the oath come before loyalty to the party?

    I say it should.

    With that in mind I don’t think I’d say he’s in the wrong party. After all, all the other candidates take an oath to uphold the constitution too. The fact they refuse to should make them the black sheep, not RP.

  64. Eric Dondero Says:

    From a human perspective, not a necessarily political perspective, do you all think that “You scratch my back, and you continue to scratch mine, though I won’t commit to scratching yours,” is a good practice?

    That’s what we are witnessing here with Ron Paul supporters, and perhaps even Ron Paul himself, if we can ever get our hands on the evidence of him actually saying that he would not support the eventual GOP Nominee. (BTW, I’m very, very anxious to get that quote, anyone??)

    We have Paul supporters saying essentially, that everyone should support Paul, that he should be included in all the GOP debates, but that if he fails to win the nomination they won’t support the GOP nominee at all.

    Like I said, classic, “You scratch my back and keep on scratchin’.”

  65. Eric Dondero Says:

    On Hagel? It’s too late. Today is August 1st. No more GOP candidates PLEASE!! It’s way too late in the game.

    There’s an article this morning over at RealClearPolitics.com asserting that Fred Thompson has missed his chance; that it’s already too late for him to jump in. I believe the author is correct. The very latest polls had Thompson down at only 14%.

    He also raised only $3.4 million in the last 2 months, not the $5 million he was hoping for.

    He better jump in this week, or don’t even bother.

    Now, I ask you, if this nomination is too late for Fred Thompson, do you think Chuck Hagel would have any chance whatsoever?

  66. Jay Matthews Says:

    Eric, I’ve now posed the Hagel question to you 3-4 times. Each time you’ve come up with more red herrings in an attempt to dodge the question which is what I thought you’d do. Thanks for not disappointing.

    The fact is you cannot answer it w/o sounding bad. If you say “yes he should be excluded from future debates for being anti-war” you sound like a fascist and if you say “no” you sound like a hypocrite.

    Note: Thompson is “down” to 14% and he’s not officially in the race yet. Reason dictates that percentage would increase if/when he jumps in as people would see he’s serious.

    Of course you’re hoping he doesn’t jump in because he’d pull votes from Giuliani.

    And your thoughts on the link I sent you? Conveniently none.

  67. Last Free Voice » Blog Archive » LFV Bloggers Convene In Plano Texas Says:

    [...] I finally had the opportunity to meet Paulie Cannoli at Kelly’s East Side in Plano (where Guinness is on tap!) I also had the pleasure to chill with Mike who rocks the casbah! We had a great time, I only wish it could have lasted longer. There was a lot of great discussion which revolved around online threads posted at Third Party Watch and introspective on Ayn Rand’s, We The Living. Being around such awesome people made me realize how much fun Denver 2008 is going to be. Here is a photo of Paulie and I acting goofy with some Guinness! [...]

  68. Ron Boozell Says:

    “I do not believe in or advocate
    the initiation of force (or fraud)
    as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

    Libertarians, please consider this~
    As a member of the Libertarian Party,
    and an officer of my local county LP,
    I have agreed to support LP Candidates.
    IT IS OUR STATED GOAL.

    We have worked hard to invite and cultivate
    good libertarians to run for office,
    and now, officers of our own party
    are turning their backs, and their wallets,
    on them to support a Republican, that IMO
    is not the best libertarian candidate running.

    IT IS SHAMEFUL that Shane Corey, and others,
    on the LNC have decided to betray the LP,
    and our Candidates, by financially supporting Paul, while ignoring our own.

    The Libertarian Party is in crisis!
    Our leadership has no vision,
    and without vision, the people perish.

    After speaking with each of our Candidates at least once, as recently as last week, I have discovered that they are having difficulty reaching libertarians with their message.

    Their campaigns have been overshadowed by the Ron Paul campaign, which has been getting some coverage as a libertarian-Republican Candidate.

    Libertarians are confused and excited by Paul and his message because of the national spotlight on issues relating to Liberty and Individual Rights. Great.

    The problem is, he is not the best libertarian Candidate, as he does not support your Body-Ownership-Rights.

    Steve & Christine & George do.

    The issue at hand is that many registered Libertarians are giving money to Paul, while our Candidates are struggling to keep their campaigns alive.

    NOTA? What an insult!
    We ask them to run and then we disrespect them when they do? What kind of assholes are we?

    They support our Body-Ownership-Rights,
    and we need to support them!

    My thinking is this;
    Ron Paul has no real chance to win, so,
    if we are going to spend our time and money supporting a “longshot” candidate, then we should do so to promote real libertarians that support real choice.

    How can we be free if we cannot own and control our own bodies?

    SUPPORT THE CANDIDATES THAT SUPPORT YOU!

    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    PLEASE DONATE TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS TODAY!

    ~Ron Boozell aka stoneman76
    founder and host of Liberty Bandwagon
    also LP of Oregon Board Member
    and LPDC Secretary

    Over 1000 libertarian members:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyBandwagon/
    including all 3 LP Presidential Candidates:
    Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, & George Phillies!

Leave a Reply