Note: This story is based on reporting from Richard Winger of Ballot Access News. The report is being actively challenged by at least one leader of the VA Indy Greens.
Says Lew Rockwell: “All that talk of a Bloomberg-Paul ticket in Virginia turns out to be wrong. The Independent Green party plans to run the Christian right Constitution party candidates instead. Yawn.”
Ballot Access News reports:
The recent publicity that Mike Bloomberg and Ron Paul will appear on the Virginia ballot as candidates for president and vice-president is wrong. Although the Independent Green Party of Virginia did circulate a petition for president with those candidates’ names on it, Virginia law explicitly gives the petitioning group the right to substitute. The Independent Green Party of Virginia has promised to place the Constitution Party national ticket on the ballot, via substitution. Meanwhile, the Independent Green Party of Virginia has been enjoying the publicity.
Also, reports that the Independent Green Party of Virginia got 70,000 signatures on its presidential petition are also wrong. The party got 70,000 raw signatures for all its candidates put together. Virginia requires separate petitions for each candidate, so the 70,000 figure was arrived at by totaling the party’s presidential petition, its U.S. Senate petition, and its various petitions for U.S. House.
In related news, it appears Ron Paul may be on the ballot — as a presidential candidate — in Louisiana. Louisiana is one of those states wherein a candidate need not give his approval to appear on the ballot and must actively resist in order to have his name removed. Possible “running mates” for Paul include Lew Rockwell, Chuck Baldwin, and Barry Goldwater, Jr.
UPDATE: Fred Church points says B.A.N.’s report is being challenged.
William Grogan of the Indy Greens says: “Richard, your story is incorrect. Ron Paul has essentially accepted the nomination. We intend to keep him on the ballot. If Mayor Bloomberg does the same, we’ll do the same. We have had conversations with the Constitution Party, and in fact put them on the ballot for President in 2004 in Virginia by collecting about 16,000 signatures. Now we are calling for a Unity Alliance with the major-minor parties to put Bloomberg/Paul on the ballot nationwide in the next two weeks.”
Richard Winger of Ballot Access News says he’s sticking by his story.
He knew that the LP could feasibly get him ballot access. I honestly think he would of refused in the long run. He has an agenda to reform the Republican party. (The fact that he won’t endorse anyone running against an incumbent republican kind of confirms that for me.).
“Or you could have drafted him for the Libertarian nomination and made ballot access that much easier.”
Good point, Mike. We probably should have not been so eager to flock to new candidates once it became apparent that Ron would not be the GOP nominee.
Well, as the whole Bloomberg incident shows, he probably woudn’t have asked to be off the ballot in the states where a statement of candidacy isn’t required. That leaves the question as to whether he would have made a statement of candidacy to appease the draft movements in the states where a statement of candidacy was required. I suppose he could have simply chosen not to suspend his campaign, and let that serve as a compromise, whereby his supporters could have their statement of candidacy without Paul having to face additional political repercussions in the House. But, then again, Paul never did drop out, he merely suspended his campaign, so that might leave open a legal loophole to be exploited in other states.
Or you could have drafted him for the Libertarian nomination and made ballot access that much easier.
I don’t think a draft campaign is possible in many states. RP cited ballot-access, but I think the bigger reason was the potential repercussions to him in the GOP caucus if he actively ran third party, or it as it seems, even explicitly endorsed one.
The main reason Paul cited to not continue his campaign as a third-party was ballot access. If we had started getting Paul’s name on as many ballots as physically and legally possible when McCain wrapped up the nomination in March, it would have been impossible for him to refuse.
Amen, brother!
OR, you can stop working on the presidential race and start working with one of your local candidates.
Though I won’t be able to vote for him here, he’d have to fill out some forms himself to even get his write-ins counted.
We thought we had other options.
You know, we Paulites really should have thought of this much sooner, before most of the states’ deadlines had passed.
That sounds like a pretty bad idea, no cheating. Better to see if a normal draft is legal.
Wait, just had a light-bulb pop up in my head! Ron Paul has already declared his candidacy for president on March 13, 2007, but I’m not sure if that counts. If it does, we could just use that as a statement of candidacy.
Is there anyone here from Mississippi or Vermont who could research the legality of drafting a candidate? Do they have the same laws as Louisiana and Virginia do? As far as requirements, the ballot access chart says that 1,000 signatures are required in both states, with Sept 5 (Mississippi) and Sept 12 (Vermont) being the deadlines.
Pretty much. Unless his supporters get cracking in Mississippi and Vermont (and the laws allow him to be drafted)
Is Louisiana the only state where Ron Paul stands a chance at qualifying for the ballot in time?
Oh. I thought it was some inventive diss against IPR.
The Independent Green Party of Virginia. I assume they got the initials wrong.
What is IGVP?
Oh, and about the “implied bias” of IPR: IPR has a lot of writers, some of whom have no dog in the radical/reform fight. I try to be objective in my reporting, but if I fall short, then you can judge me — at least you know from my comments where I do stand, which can help you better judge if I am letting bias seep into my coverage.
Deran – Plus, you’re an irresponsible poster… We’ve NEVER removed ANY threads EVER. To suggest that and impugn the site’s character just because you’re not smart enough to look on Page 2… Well, that tells me all I need to know regarding the value of your opinion.
“Do you know if Brandon Henricks is willing to serve as an elector, if he isn’t already?”
I imagine Hendricks is a CP elector.
NewFed and Deran – Read what I said.
“I don’t think I can view anything he says independently of these facts.”
I don’t believe in sacred cows.
I was expressing a thought, not telling you how to think. So if you don’t like my thought, feel free to ignore it — or condemn me for it, as you have. But I’ll keep on expressing them. I mean, jeez… We’re talking about a fairly faint criticism if it can even be called that.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page, click “previous entries”, they’re on page 2 right now.
And I meant Winger’s reporting being “conservative” in the since that he never puts anyone on his chart of ballot status until the state itself has affirmed that status, etc.
Richard Winger is a supporter of the Libertarian Party, but he gives equal coverage to those candidates of the Left and Right.
And it is unfortunate that IPR seems to have removed the threads to do with the putative Bloomberg/Paul on the VA ballot. While it did not play out as initially presented, blogs are a stream of news and ideas, and editing that stream seems unnecessary. I can’t imagine IPR is over using bandwidth?
Or, are the threads there, and I haven’t figured out to tell my screen reader where to search for them?
I guess that proves his point, langa.
“…Henry Clay was right when he said that a good compromise leaves no one happy.”
To my knowledge, Henry Clay was never right about anything.
I totally agree with Deran about Richard Winger. He is as unbiased in his reporting as they come. I wish G.E. would take lessons from his style. Richard , to my knowledge, never blasts anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican.
You would have to have someone who is famous enough that a lot of people outside of third party politics know their name, and they would have to be a nonpartisan figure. They would have to focus on noncontroversial (within third parties, that is) issues like civil liberties, ending the war, balancing the budget/getting rid of wasteful spending, and more than anything ending the corporatism and disrespect for the rule of law that has dominated the Bush Administration and subsequent campaigns.
Anyone come to mind?
As for the people of the parties, they would just have to step up, grow up, and realize that Henry Clay was right when he said that a good compromise leaves no one happy.
“I don’t think I can view anything he says independently of these facts.”
G.E., you become more and more maoist everyday! The Red Guard would have out you to good use in parsing out the evil-doers!
As far as I can tell (I’ve been reading BAN since ’96, or before?), and I don’t think any being with the ability to reason can make a logical argument that Richard Winger has ever biased his reporting. As far as I’ve read, his approach has always been the most scrupulous and conservative.
The IGVP seem very akin to the LaRouchian and Fulani-Newmanite approach to politics; always running various sorts of perhaps dubious ventures? Or is the IGVP just innocent hyperbole?
On the Constitution Party website they say they are on the ballot as the Independent Green Party candidates.
No, Steve — Libertarians could.
I just have to say, getting all the third parties to nominate one candidate for president would be brilliant. That is, if they could ever agree on someone.
Libertarians can’t even agree on their candidate!
PEACE
Steve
“When I have more info,definetly.
I have the names of the 4 electors found so far. Only 5 more are needed.”
Trent,
Do you know if Brandon Henricks is willing to serve as an elector, if he isn’t already?
I think I’m up to the task. Former Green, radical Rockwellian libertarian, pro-life constitutionalist… There’s something for everybody.
And if drafted, I will nominate Robert Milnes as my VP.
In fact, the fact that I haven’t been drafted is obviously part of some CIA conspiracy.
I just have to say, getting all the third parties to nominate one candidate for president would be brilliant. That is, if they could ever agree on someone.
Oh,and a number of Greens were backing Ron Paul’s candidacy. I interviewed several for my book.
Ron Paul represents the best effort at a fusion candidacy I’v ever seen. He could’ve united the CP, LP, and various Reform Party affilliates. His extremely active activists would’ve likely taken over the Peace and Freedom Party, New York Conservative Party, etc etc.
I can’t think of a single ticket that could unite all three larger third parties.
Me either, although if Ron Paul were interested in continuing his presidential run, I could see both the LP and CP nominating him.
However, since Ron Paul is clearly NOT interested in running for president anymore (and probably never was, actually) I don’t understand why so many people refuse to just let it go and move on to more productive things……..
Or maybe someone from Vermont. You’d think the Vermont leftists would see the value of decentralism and federalism!
Like say if Kucinich had a Swiss epiphany…
If the Greens would embrace their decentralist past, then there could be a compromise candidate. Someone very much like Ron Paul with a leftier running mate could unite all but the fringes of the three parties, and more importantly, win over a lot of other people.
“Mike,
Maybe true. But what is the point of a Bloomberg/Paul ticket? It has no ideological consistency.”
True, but it doesn’t involve Paul having to appear to endorse an active presidential candidate.
There is no point to the ticket, really.
“Oh–and the Independent Greens may NOT be putting Baldwin/Castle on the ballot. They just sent out a press release stating that they wanted the LP,CP,and GP to nominate the same ticket.”
I can’t think of a single ticket that could unite all three larger third parties. And even if you got all three parties to nominate someone as a compromise, alot of activists would flee that campaign.
The Greens would never support a hardline pro-life campaign and the CP would never support a hardline pro-choice one. The LP would likely split over the issue. The Greens would demand universal healthcare and the LP and CP would oppose it. The list of problems with such a ticket would go on and on.
I certainly hope that the Indy Greens aren’t dumb enough to think that Bloomberg would have been that candidate. He’s ardently pro-war and you expect three anti-war parties to rally behind that?
They just sent out a press release stating that they wanted the LP,CP,and GP to nominate the same ticket.
See also:
http://i-want-a-pony.com/
Mike Gillis is right… And I also would not be shocked to see Paul object to having his name at the top of the ticket. There is a difference.
When I have more info,definetly.
I have the names of the 4 electors found so far. Only 5 more are needed.
Trent – Write a story about it if you have the time.
Oh–and the effort in LA to put Paul/Someone on the ballot is no longer really just a plan or discussion, it is an active effort.
Mike,
Maybe true. But what is the point of a Bloomberg/Paul ticket? It has no ideological consistency.
Oh–and the Independent Greens may NOT be putting Baldwin/Castle on the ballot. They just sent out a press release stating that they wanted the LP,CP,and GP to nominate the same ticket.
I could see Paul saying no to being on a ticket with Baldwin (or Barr) in a way that he wouldn’t with the Bloomberg ticket.
With Bloomberg, who isn’t running for president, either, it looks like a draft effort. If he’s paired with Baldwin, it looks alot more like an endorsement.
I do believe the plan for the IGVA to place Baldwin/Castle on the ballot.
I hope, instead, that they place Baldwin/Paul or Paul/Baldwin.
Send them an email [email protected]
Asking them to do it.
Richard is a Barr and Redpath supporter who supports the tyrannical actions of the LPHQ. I don’t think I can view anything he says independently of these facts.
Oh, and if this really is Sean Haugh, that criminal broke his blog silence at B.A.N.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/20/why-the-new-hampshire-libertarian-party-ought-to-sue-over-substitution/#comment-481412
Richard’s story is being challenged on the BAN comments, but he’s sticking with it. It seems to me they didn’t expect Bloomberg & RP to accept it passively, which it seems both are ready to.
How stupid of the Indy Greens. “Yay! Now Baldwin-Castle can get another 0.5% of the vote in VA!”
Oh, you just loved taking my story down, didn’t you?
And let’s applaud the MSM venues like the Huffington Post and various newspapers for doing stellar reporting on this story! You can always trust them to wreak havoc on things they don’t understand…