Persuading Ron Paul to Run as a Libertarian Party Candidate

Eric Garris and Anthony Gregory have co-written an article over at LRC which provides a compelling case for Ron Paul to consider running for the Libertarian Party nomination. Here’s the main thrust of their argument:

Ron Paul should run as a third-party candidate. He has already done an immeasurable amount of good and he could retire now, with us owing him an enormous debt for his tireless efforts and sacrifice. But we ask Ron to continue his run. For the sake of his supporters, the movement, and American liberty, this country needs a credible alternative on the November ballot to the bipartisan policies of ever-expanding government and perpetual war.

Ron Paul should seek the Libertarian nomination for president. It is his logical home. He is a member of the Libertarian Party, he ran in 1988, and an overwhelming majority of party members want a chance to support him again. Should he run as an independent, he would not have the ballot access that the LP offers. He would also have less of a chance of leaving behind a cohesive mass movement for liberty.

The Libertarian Party has never had an opportunity like this. Ron Paul has polled 8% in a hypothetical general election against a Republican, Democrat and other candidate (Nader), and he gets most of those votes from non-Republicans. This poll result is gigantic, surpassing past LP results many times over. Such a turnout would benefit the movement for many years to come. Some seasoned electoral libertarians might be reluctant, thinking it cannot turn out so well, given past experience, but they must understand that this is an entirely anomalous opportunity. Nothing in the past compares. Perhaps this would explain why a plurality of LP voters have made write-in votes in California and declared themselves “uncommitted” in Missouri, instead of picking from the long list of LP candidates: A good number of them might very well be holding out for Ron.

Here’s one point about which I’d like to add some additional information:

This would not mean he would have to abandon his congressional seat. Texas has a sore loser law, meaning he would not be able to appear on the state ballot as a Libertarian running for president. But in Texas the party could nominate his wife, Carol Paul, and everybody would know what it meant.

It’s important to keep in mind that under the rules currently in place in this Republic, citizens actually cast their votes for presidential electors, not directly to the candidate. The “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” approach would certainly work in this case.

Garris and Gregory discuss the areas where there might be some perceied deviance from the LP platform:

Some might object on the grounds that Paul is not like most Libertarians on certain social issues. And yet this incongruity is not nearly as significant as it may seem. Paul’s federal plank on abortion, for example - the relegation of the issue back to the states - is identical to that of the last three Libertarian presidential campaigns. His position on immigration is nuanced, shared by a huge portion of LP members, and focused more on slashing welfare than building a Tancredo-style police state.

Indeed, in practical terms, running as a “true conservative” has not worked, regardless of how much stress was put on his pro-life and pro-borders positions. In fact, Paul has polled much better among pro-choicers - who are two to three times as likely to support him as pro-lifers - and other moderates. Conservatives, Christians and other traditional constituencies on the right are far, far more likely to back the typical candidates; it is the self-described liberals, the antiwar constituency, the moderates and other non-red-state Fascists who have been enthusiastic about the Paul campaign.

While Ron Paul should certainly not abandon cultural conservatives, or any of his natural constituencies, his campaign’s rightward strategy has failed. The Republican establishment and most GOP voters hardly gave Paul a chance. Most folks who really want less government probably left the party long ago. Every exit poll and detailed pre-polls showed Republicans were the least likely to vote for Ron Paul. States with open primaries showed him getting three to five times as many votes from Democrats and independents as from Republicans.

As one might expect from Garris and Anthony, they also addressed the war issue:

War alone explains why so many conservatives who agree with Ron Paul on everything from taxes and gun rights to immigration and abortion have been willing to pull the lever for candidates who promise more big government, more central administration from Washington DC and piles of social spending. For them and Ron Paul alike, war is the single most important issue. It just so happens that they’re wrong on it, and he’s right.

It is telling that while these conservatives who ostensibly agree with Paul on most things except the war oppose him, many Americans who disagree with him on abortion, immigration, and other domestic policy questions energetically support him. It is the sign of a political realignment - bigger government and much smaller government finally being pitted against each other, with the paramount issue of foreign policy at last getting the central importance it deserves.

From my practical experience, the Iraq War issue has easily been the deciding factor in keeping most Republicans from any consideration of supporting Dr. Paul. I strongly suspected this would be the case from the moment there were rumors of a Ron Paul exploratory committee, and every bit of work I’ve done for the campaign since this has verified my speculation. Most Republicans love them some war, whether the war is justified or not.

Here are the concluding arguments of their article:

Now that the Republican Party has reminded us, once again, this time decisively, that it is not a party for liberty or small government - and especially not a party of peace - it is time for Ron Paul to leave that bloodthirsty, corporatist coalition and lead our movement to future victories.

We’ve all loved seeing him in the debates. Imagine him in the national spotlight in the general election. Picture him against McCain and Hillary, the one man standing for freedom and peace with two other choices clearly on the same side - the side of bureaucracy, entitlements, the prison-industrial complex and aggressive militarism.

As the primaries end, it is up to Ron Paul to ensure that it is only the beginning for his Revolution. Let us hope he decides to keep up the fight.

UPDATE: Mark Thornton and Thomas Woods have just published a similar article over at LRC.

47 Responses to “Persuading Ron Paul to Run as a Libertarian Party Candidate”

  1. TheOneLaw Says:

    While I would support his move to the Libertarian Party and perceive this to be the best, the Libertarian Party is (at this time) a ridiculously top-down command and control organization - a distinct contradiction to the very philosophy it purports to advance.
    Unless the Libertarian Party is ready to become more open and supportive (compare websites - lp.org vs ronpaulforums.com for a blatant example of how the LP exerts an iron-fist control over public discussion) it will remain a weak option.
    The Libertarian Party is Libertarian in name only - it is a den of hyenas who continue to bay at the moon rather than embrace and support the very people it attracts.

  2. Stephen Gordon Says:

    OneLaw,

    As someone who has run an LP presidential campaign and done communications for another, I can say that an open forum at the LP site wouldn’t be all that important. Mostly, the LP would be a good conduit for ballot access operations, additional funding for a campaign (though coordinated expenditures), and serve some administrative functions. However, for the most part, there isn’t so much aside from these (major, in the case of ballot access and coordinated expenditures) things that the national office can do for a campaign.

    I always ran open comments on those websites, BTW.

    I’ll bet, if the Ron Paul Revolution insisted upon it, they would open some sort of forum, though. Having worked in that office, I will say they are responsive to the requests of a lot of organized people.

    It’s not as much about having iron-fist control (they steer people to this site for conversation, as an example), but about the mission and role of that particular office.

  3. [email protected] Says:

    Ron Paul: Is the switch in play?

    Over at Third Party Watch, Steve Gordon notes a sudden change of line from the Ron Paul R3VOLution crowd: From urging Libertarians to re-register as Republicans and support Paul in the GOP primaries, to urging Paul to run for the Libertarian Party’s …

  4. johncjackson Says:

    Why do you need LP forums, when you have Ronpaulforums or whatever. Any grassroots support of Ron Paul can continue regardless of his party.

    Despite the LP’s faults, I can’t imagine it being worse in any way than the GOP.

  5. Robert Capozzi Says:

    We’ve all loved seeing him in the debates. Imagine him in the national spotlight in the general election.

    My thoughts precisely, pre 1/08/08.

    Since then, RP has been largely out of the spotlight, which is a blessing in disguise. He doesn’t have to answer questions about those newsletters.

    It’d be great for the LP and RP and his message if he comes back to the LP to run for Prez…IF he ventilates NewsletterGate.

    Otherwise, to the extent he gets coverage, he’d be dogged on the issue. Each and every time.

  6. jp Says:

    why on earth would any party want to take on his baggage and get labeled the crackpot conspiratorial and racist group. with all the ugly dirt he has on him??? short answer would be short term money making scam that his contributions will turn into after not being spent, a la 1988

  7. Robert Capozzi Says:

    JP, good question. Hopefully, the former will be ventilated. The latter: I hope he’s learned from that experience.

    RP may not be my ideal. In fact, he’s not. Everyone has baggage of some sort. But he’s a sitting congressman, has a brand name, and is surely pro-liberty. We’ve never had anything even close to that.

    On balance, all things considered, our best shot to date IF the newsletters are ventilated, IMO.

  8. Richie Says:

    The newsletters already have been ventilated:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w (Part #1)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg (Part #2)

    I felt that Dr. Paul’s response was amazing.

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    Dr. Paul shoud persue a fusion ticket. CP/LP.

  10. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Richie, saw that appearance. I found that ventilation insufficient. He dodged the key question: Who wrote them? He says he doesn’t know.

    That answer lacks credibility IMO. He says it doesn’t matter who wrote them. I find that to be poor judgment.

    I want to know that whoever wrote that bigotry is no longer on the Paul team. Or, I’d want that person to have apologized and asked for forgiveness. Otherwise, we can’t know if that person won’t do it again.

    I am of course just one person, but that’s my view. Liberty should not be equated with bigotry, and efforts need to be made to assure that the public not form a different impression.

  11. jp Says:

    No they haven’t, he’s been caught lying about them and admitted to writing the things in 1996 when the same newsletters, except different editions came up. Plus its been proven that he paid out his Wife and Daughter from the proceeds, which brings them into this. And trying to claim 17 years of no knowledge of the contents by them is an even bigger stretch that Paul himself. This is why sane Libertarians jumped ship long ago on him.

  12. jp Says:

    then on top of that, much of it was wrote in the first person with details of his personal life, which makes the ” i had no idea of the contents for 17 years” line even more unbeleivable.

    then factor in he routinely goes on Truther radio shows like Alex Jones, accepts money from Neo-Nazi’s who are universally considered evil and then refuses to return it when called on it….

    his record is just ripe for being absolutely torn to shreds in the public arena. He only has 2 things going for him, being a non-factor so the media has devoted its time to the major candidates. And having a chomsky view of foreign policy, which the media love and they think he hurts the gop.

  13. jp Says:

    “Liberty should not be equated with bigotry,”

    Or crackpot Conspiracy theories, which his recent actions back up those portions of the newsletters.

  14. Wes Benedict Says:

    I sure do hope Ron Paul seeks the LP nomination again.

    I don’t mind if the newsletters that are almost as offensive as Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz are on a daily basis, stay in the news, even on the LP blogs. It will give all you politically correct non-Texans something to whine about and cry about all day.

  15. Sean Scallon Says:

    LP leaders should approach Ron Paul after the Texas primary on March 4 (CP leader should do the same) and seek his consent to have his name put up for nomination at the LP convention. And if LP members want him they can vote for him there in an honest draft.

  16. Sam Says:

    Ron Paul has raised a lot of money, and he’s not gotten enough attention for that. Another question…

    Mitt Romney. Presidential candidate, or time-traveling android?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz2xwTNTUNU&feature=user

    The Romneybot looks like what our future robot overlords imagine we humans want in a president after researching hours of “The West Wing.”

  17. Robert Capozzi Says:

    JP,

    It’s not that those other issues don’t give me some pause, they do. Still, NewsletterGate is a smoking gun, the others aren’t.

    Personally, my read is RP’s a good man, but one who will associate with unsavory characters, perhaps knowingly, perhaps unknowingly…I dunno.

    Payments to family members of a for-profit business don’t trouble me at all.

    I try to keep my eye on the big picture. As a LP candidate, sans Newsletters, RP could lead to bigger things. The rest of the field all seem pretty much sub 1% vote getters, minimal media, etc.

  18. Nigel Watt Says:

    It will give all you politically correct non-Texans something to whine about and cry about all day.
    This. There is no reason to believe Ron Paul is racist. End of story.

  19. Lex Says:

    The reason the LP doesn’t have a public discussion forum is that they think they would be embarrassed by the results. Having open comments on blog posts isn’t the same thing at all—the comments have to be related to the post (sort of) and effectively disappear as the post ages. An open discussion forum is self-organizing, and important topics stay in view.

    The Ron Paul newsletter issue is mostly a concern to the few libertarians and web-addicted liberals who have heard about it. I can assure you that most Americans barely know anything about Ron Paul, and the newsletter issue is not what’s holding him back. Anyone who has heard him speak or read any of his actual writings can tell that he is not a racist, and that he is not running on a racist platform.

  20. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Lex,

    Do you REALLY believe that IF RP ran as an L that the issue would not dog his campaign? Haven’t you noticed that since NewsletterGate, MSM coverage has fallen to a trickle? Do you really believe that’s a coincidence?

  21. johncjackson Says:

    The newsletter thing won’t dog his campaign because no one talks about the LP candidate. He will be invited on a few MSNBC shows a couple times and if he’s lucky he will be invited to debate the Green, Socialist, and Prohibition Party candidates on CSPAN2.

    The newsletters will be discussed in the mainstream just about as much as Michael Badnarik’s prison reform policies.

  22. Robert Capozzi Says:

    John C.

    That’s occurred to me as a possibility. But RP could represent a 10-fold increase in coverage and interest. If he starts to become a real factor, the GOP will turn their opposition research machine on him, for fear that he might throw the election to the Ds. I can even imagine the Ds doing the same, as RP might drain away the anti-war vote.

    Flying under the radar is likely, but the closer Ls get to prime time, the more scrutiny we can expect. NewsletterGate was as non-prime-time move as I’ve ever seen.

    I can even imagine RP in the debates, esp. if Bloomberg goes independent.

    What’s he gonna say if asked if MLK was a gay pedophile? His answer has to be crisp and credible.

  23. johncjackson Says:

    Chris Wallace: Congressman Paul. Was martin Luther King, Jr a “gay pedophile”?

    Ron Paul: ( Pointing Pen) NOOOOOO! What I am saying is we need to follow the Constitution and stop printing money. If we followed the Constitution and stopped spending money we wouldn’t have any more gay pedophiles. And if we stopped printing money and sending to Iraq after importing our paper from China our presence wouldn’t create the pedophiles. The real issue, what they are really saying/asking ” is Ron paul a racist homophobe who hates pedophiles?” No. They don’t want me to talk about the Constitution. The states should handle the gay pedophiles and we need to use marque and reprisal for the pedophiles the state can’t hunt down. This is all really just a smear because the blacks and the young people support me because I want to abolish the Fed. The young people really are excited about abolishing the Fed, and my monetary policy is so simplistic even the young people and blacks can understand it!”

  24. jp Says:

    I can assure you that most Americans barely know anything about Ron Paul, and the newsletter issue is not what’s holding him back.—-

    if he runs, and gets any type of poll traction that swings the election. The Newsletters and his shady dealings with Alex Jones among others, will be very well known and the last thing you want to be associated with.

  25. Sean Scallon Says:

    Only the cosmos care about the newsletter issue because it only concerns their petty fights with the provos. No doubt they’ll be dispatched to try and take down RP but they’ve been discredited for being neocon suckups. Noboby buys STATO’s act anymore.

  26. Wes Benedict Says:

    Newsletter gate will help Ron Paul attract Republican votes. Capo, let’s keep it alive. Dondero, need your help on this too.

    Q1: Why did the L.A. riots end? A1: They had to pick up their welfare checks.

    Q2: Enough of the sarcasm. In any case, how many L.A. rioters actually were on welfare? Capozzi, do you know the answer to that question?

  27. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “The Ron Paul newsletter issue is mostly a concern to the few libertarians and web-addicted liberals who have heard about it.”

    “The newsletter thing won’t dog his campaign because no one talks about the LP candidate.”

    “Only the cosmos care about the newsletter issue”

    “Newsletter gate will help Ron Paul attract Republican votes.”

    Translation into English:

    “We should nominate a lying, xenophobic, homophobic pork-mongering anti-libertarian scumbag who may or may not be a racist, but who has been established beyond any reasonable doubt to have played footsie with racists to fund his past campaigns, because if we do, nobody will notice any of those things about him—they’ll only notice what we WANT them to notice. and then we’ll be in fat city … we might even pull five percent of the vote instead of POINT five percent of the vote. You go, Party of Principle!”

  28. Tony Torres Says:

    The fact of the matter is, Ron Paul knowingly colluded in a strategy to pander to some of the worst elements of American society and profited handsomely from it. The likely author of the newsletters is still close to the Paul and active at a high level in his campaign. Paul feels he owes voters no explanation for his inconsistent explanations. I don’t think Paul is a racist, but his judgment is awful and he’s a liar. I strongly disagree with socialism, but I truly detest racism and bigotry. I want no part of a party or movement that plays apologist to those who play footsie with these types of people. I felt so strongly about it that I left the LP after giving most of my free time to the party for three of the last four years. The Republican’s wink-wink-nudge-nudge pandering to racists with the Southern Strategy was bad enough, Paul’s newsletter is even more disgusting.

  29. Deran Says:

    I find the Newslettergate discussion very interesting, because on the left there is the Cop Slapping-gat for McKinney, and how much does that impede her campaign. At this point in history, I am prety sure that anyone of any public stature taht would make a really serious indie/third party run for president is going to have some issues. Independent and third party politics is still too out of the mainstream for most politically active people.

    So, we sort have to take what we can get, and hope the campaigns can create that magic critical mass in membership of the party, where the more, er, eccentric members, and various cults of personality, and structural leadership problems, are overcome by the volume of new people coming in to the party in the wake of teh campaign.

    maybe the key for the LP is to right now, reinforce in public their long time opposition to racism, etc, and so taht the party is focused on not letting anything like taht damage the party itself?

  30. Gene Berkman Says:

    If Ron Paul runs as the Libertarian candidate, I will support him, and campaign for him.

    But seriously, he won’t get as much publicity as a third party candidate as he has gotten so far. And after he loses, it will be seen as a repudiation of the antiwar libertarian viewpoints he has espoused.

    If he is re-elected to Congress after takeing a strong antiwar position at the Republican debates, it will be a stronger vindication than getting 3 to 5% as a third party candidate for President.

  31. Eric Dondero Says:

    Took you all 30 posts to even mention Ron Paul’s Congressional seat.

    Don’t you all see what’s happening here? If Paul were to jump ship he’d have to resign his seat in Congress. If he did it before the March 8 Texas Primary, he’d be crushed by his GOP opponent Chris Peden in the Primary. But even if he does it afterwards, the Texas Republicans will not stand for it, at all. They’d boot him out of the Party.

    And Paul has said, that even if he were to do it, he most likely wouldn’t run on the Libertarian ticket but rather as an Independent. He was quoted as saying this 3 weeks ago in the Brazoria Facts, our local newspaper.

  32. Eric Dondero Says:

    My gosh that was some seriously harsh words from our friend Thomas Knapp a few posts above. I agree with his sentiments, but quite nastily stated.

    Next time some SOB talks about how harsh I can be, I’m gonna just smile and send them Knapp’s quote above.

  33. Eric Dondero Says:

    Did Thomas Knapp just call Ron Paul a “scumbag”?

    I’ve called Ron Paul a lot of things, but I’ve never said anything close to that. My gosh Tom. My computer screen is literally smokin’.

  34. severin Says:

    I have supported Ron Paul’s run as a republican. I will support whomever gets the LP nomination. However, I really don’t want Ron Paul to run under the LP banner. My issue is not with the newsletters or any skeletons he may have buried in his closet. Rather my issue is his message. He does get to libertarian conclusions about most of the issues we face, but he sites the constitution as the basis for his position. I would rather him take the moral and practical position of liberty on every issue.

    For instance lets say he gets a question about ending the war on drugs RP’s answer is: “I would end the federal war on drugs as there is no constitutional authority that allows the federal government to regulate drugs.”. However a more liberty oriented response is something more along the lines of “I would end the war on drugs because the government has no authority to tell people what they may or may not do with, or put into their bodies”. The distinction might be slight to a lot of people, but a question Libertarians should be asking themselves is “do we want to be a party about liberty or a party about returning to the constitution?” I say liberty, as a return to the constitution does nothing to prevent the states from all adopting the onerous laws that are currently enforced on a federal level if we were ever able to return to a constitutional government. However if we were to win on a platform of liberty, then there would be an understanding of liberty at all levels of government, even though this seems wholly unobtainable at this point in history it should not prevent us from taking the moral high ground.

  35. Andy Says:

    Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    February 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
    “The Ron Paul newsletter issue is mostly a concern to the few libertarians and web-addicted liberals who have heard about it.”

    “The newsletter thing won’t dog his campaign because no one talks about the LP candidate.”

    “Only the cosmos care about the newsletter issue”

    “Newsletter gate will help Ron Paul attract Republican votes.”

    Translation into English:

    “We should nominate a lying, xenophobic, homophobic pork-mongering anti-libertarian scumbag who may or may not be a racist, but who has been established beyond any reasonable doubt to have played footsie with racists to fund his past campaigns, because if we do, nobody will notice any of those things about him—they’ll only notice what we WANT them to notice. and then we’ll be in fat city … we might even pull five percent of the vote instead of POINT five percent of the vote. You go, Party of Principle!”

    ===========================================

    Yes, the Libertarian Party SHOULD MOST DEFINITELY nominate Ron Paul as its Presidential candidate, if only to drive Tom Knapp out of the party.

  36. Tom Bryant Says:

    I thought Tom Knapp left the Libertarian Party to form the Boston Tea Party. Did he come back to the LP?

  37. Jose C. Says:

    I have heard that if Ron Paul announces he is seeking the nomination for President of the Libertarian Party copies of the article “Angry White Man” published in New Republic will be distributed to the attendees at the convention in Denver.

    Ron Paul should not seek the nomination for President of the Libertarian Party. Nothing good can come of this.

  38. Wes Benedict Says:

    I heard George Phillies would show up in a cartoon picture flailing sharpened brass knuckles all about.

    Oops! That should read “I hoped.”

    Are brass knuckles racist? And to whom?

    Oops! That should read “I’ve hoped.”

    Oops! That should read “I’ve asked for.”

    Oops! That should read “I’ve asked for George Phillies to.”

    Drop all that. Apparently Hillary and Barrack both got ‘em:
    http://www.examiner.com/a-1167904~Clinton__Obama_don_brass_knuckles.html?cid=rss-Washington_DC

    Brass knuckles OK. I’ll have to find another line of unreason.

  39. Andy Says:

    “Jose C. Says:

    February 8th, 2008 at 12:14 am
    I have heard that if Ron Paul announces he is seeking the nomination for President of the Libertarian Party copies of the article “Angry White Man” published in New Republic will be distributed to the attendees at the convention in Denver.”

    So what? I’ll be in Denver and I’ll vote for Ron. In fact, I may even vote for Ron if he’s not even seeking the LP nomination.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Andy:

    “Yes, the Libertarian Party SHOULD MOST DEFINITELY nominate Ron Paul as its Presidential candidate, if only to drive Tom Knapp out of the party.”

    Only in your dreams. I will remain in, and active in, the LP regardless of who is nominated in Denver. If the party nominates a presidential candidate I can’t support, then I’ll just invest my 2008 time and effort in down-ticket candidates whom I can support, and my post-2008 effort to working against similar fiascoes in the future.

    Mr. Bryant:

    “I thought Tom Knapp left the Libertarian Party to form the Boston Tea Party. Did he come back to the LP?”

    I didn’t leave the LP to form the Boston Tea Party, so there was no need to return.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  41. Kevin Houston Says:

    With Romney gone, Ron Paul’s chances just got upgraded from “slim and none” to “not likely and slim.” He has a chance now of capturing the “real conservative” vote. So they don’t agree with his stance on the war, they agree with a lot less of McCain and Huckabee.

    Ron should stay in until the convention and get the free airtime that a convention speech would afford him.

    But if Dr. Paul is going to leave the GOP then Ron Paul should not run third party.

    He should run as a write-in.

    This would:
    Side step sore loser laws.
    Side step ballot access laws.
    Side step LP and Ron Paul baggage issues. (both directions)
    Side step machine-counted vote problems.

    Any negative of write-in (no debates, no media attention) will be true of running as a 3rd party also.

    Ron Paul will have little chance of winning as a write-in, but he will have little chance of winning as an LP candidate either.

    Later.

  42. Robert Capozzi Says:

    write-ins will spend a lot more resources on ballot access. RP has the funds, but the opportunity costs are high.

  43. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Kevin,

    In some states (NC is one; I am fairly certain there are others) you need to petition just to have your write-in vote for a candidate counted. I think in NC Paul voters would need to get 500 signatures. Not as bad as getting on the ballot in NC, but still not exactly sidestepping ballot access laws.

  44. Andy Says:

    “Only in your dreams. I will remain in, and active in, the LP regardless of who is nominated in Denver. If the party nominates a presidential candidate I can’t support, then I’ll just invest my 2008 time and effort in down-ticket candidates whom I can support, and my post-2008 effort to working against similar fiascoes in the future.”

    The biggest fiasco possible at the LP National Convetion in Denver would be if Ron Paul were up for the nomination and didn’t get it. That would be a fuck up of epic proportions.

  45. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Andy,

    Another scenario is he gets it, but there’s MAJOR dissension. Most of that goes away with ventilation, handled properly.

    Is personal loyalty going to trump the import of the message? We may find out.

  46. taskmaster Says:

    Ron Paul may be the inevitable leader for a third party opportunity but the reality of such a run as futile is still a real and overpowering obstacle to overcome. The wasted vote scenario is perhaps the biggest incentive against a third party, especially with the risks of loosing to such a level of liberalism as we have in Hillary and Obama.

    With Ron Paul the place of most effectiveness may be to stay within the Republican Party and hope for the best with the delegates he can muster. Leaving the Party will inevitably place him in a level of obscurity that only a third party can accomplish. The only other alternative is for he and another, more well known conservative to join forces in speaking out against the common angst within the conservative movement and attempt to rally the support for McCain’s withdrawal (not likely). A third party would only serve to bolster the chances of our liberal friends and ensure at least four years of disgrace.

    The option of a third party is unrealistic at this point but the opportunity to impose ideas and policies into the existing Republican Party, through forceful rhetoric is more plausible and may be the only way to exact the needed changes to save our country.

  47. exlp Says:

    Can’t the LP find libertarian candidates anymore?

    Just say no to anti-immigration bigotry.

Leave a Reply