During an appearance on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, Rep. Ron Paul was asked, “Why did you decide to stick with the Republican Party right through the primaries and not try to be the nominee of the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party this year?” Paul replied, “Mainly because the laws are very biased against people doing that. Some states won’t even allow you to do it. But this system is not very democratic for third parties and alternate choices. All the rules and all the laws are written by Republicans and Democrats, so it’s very hard to get in the debate. If I hadn’t been in the Republican primary, I wouldn’t get into the debates.”
37 Comments
Comments are closed.
What’s so nutty about us?
Tea Party nut bags = Tea Bags
A case can be made. I’m not sure something like that is “definite”. In fact, I’m certain many people would disagree.
Paulie,
Phillies is definetly more statist than Barr.
You’ll find in many aspects their candidates are more statist than the LP & Barr.
How so?
Newbie, ignore the Tea Party nutbags that are over-represented here. You’ll find in many aspects their candidates are more statist than the LP & Barr. You’ll find the Libertarian movement to be viper’s next of vicious ego-freaks, so enjoy that. Barr is pretty much the only competent, eligible, and qualified candidate for the job of President that you’ll find on the ballot.
Thanks for the advise Steve and songster7. I really appreciate it.
I am a registered republican but have been increasingly disappointed in their choices of politicians. SO now I think I am voting for Chuck Baldwin and he is Endorsed by Ron Paul. What I want to know is why didn’t Paul do the Republican Primaries, like he did then switch to a third party like Alan Keyes did. He could do a Ross Perot thing.
You talk a lot, John Lowell, but you keep avoiding the issue I raised.
What have you done for the libertarian movement that’s comparable to what Ron Paul has done?
Nothing? I thought so.
I’m immensely enjoying watching the GOP crash and burn. I don’t know if a Paulian-libertarian coalition will rise from the ashes; if it doesn’t, we won’t be any worse than before; if it does, we won’t be any worse than before. Same difference. Politics marches onward.
I will second that, Cortney. This is the first time I did not vote for the LP nominee since … well, since the first time I could vote for President (which was coincidentally 1972, when the LP first had such a nominee in John Hospers). I not only voted for Charles Jay & Tom Knapp of the BTP, I am one of the electors here in Tennessee for the ticket. (What’s more, I just somehow got myself on the party’s NatCom, go figure!)
If you have no TRUE libertarian to vote for, at least choose a non-incumbent (preferably one of the Independents on the ballot, who could be anything from Green to Constitution, but at least they aren’t already in office). The most important function of 3rd parties, until we at least begin to reach some critical mass, is to register the NO (or HELL, NO!) vote of those of us who have recognized the fallacy of the GOPocrat War Party … Ron Paul’s press conference said exactly this, but Bob Barr’s crowd was just too obtuse to recognize it — or they simply had another agenda …
Cortney,
May I first ask, what is is about Barr that incentivizes you to vote FOR Bob Barr?
If it is because you agree with the Libertarian Party, may I say that Barr, though he IS the nominee of the LP, he is at odds with libertarianism in general on several fronts, with the traditional LP platform positions, and he directly contradicts views expressed by many LP members.
May I suggest that if your ballot includes Charles Jay or Ron Paul, that you cast your ballot for either of them instead. If not, then I would recommend researching if either Jay or Paul are “official” write-ins” on your state ballot, and if either is, then write-in either Ron Paul or Charles Jay.
Mind you , this is only a suggestion, but I maintain that both Jay and Paul are demonstrably more libertarian than Bob Barr. So, if you are looking to cast a vote for president, which is for a REAL libertarian, I suggest voting for Charles Jay or Ron Paul, in either of the fashions I have described above.
NOTE: I suggest this vote even though I am an alternate representative to the Libertarian National Committee. I am not voting for Bob Barr.
2nd NOTE: I have not voted for president, anyone other than the Libertarian candidate since 1980, but this year, I refuse to vote for Barr.
This is my first election, and I must say I am extemely nervous. Let me start off by saying that I was raised republican. When I moved out on my own last year I had to reregister to vote instead of automatically checking the republican box, I decieded to do some research… And I found the LP and I am very happy with my choice. But where do I go from here? It is hard for me to find information and I feel very strongly about what is going on with the election. With only 3 days left, I am more confused after reading information from this site. Can someone help me or point on the right direction to find good, reliable information. Because at this point it looks like I am voting for Barr… and I dont even know if that is a good idea.
Thomas Sipos,
“Someone who’s literate and can use English to explain his views, without reaching for crude and vapid terms like ‘douche-nozzle’.”
You don’t mind if I correct your punctuation for the above use, do you Thomas? I wasn’t sure whether doing so would offend your exquisitely tuned sensibilities. Either that or reach through the superciliousness to what remains of the human being underneath.
There’s a word for every occasion,Thomas, and for Paul, take your pick, its schmegeggie or douche-nozzle. For you its chamoole.
With it seeming more and more likely that Obama will probably get at least 50% of the popular vote, and more importantly will clean up in the electoral college, Ron Paul’s claim that the Republican Party is going down this year unless it changes it’s course, now ought to be viewed as prophetic.
Obama will win several states that neither Gore or Kerry could win. I predict that Obama will get at least 325 electoral votes.
I really believe that Ron Paul’s legacy will be one of moving the libertarian movement forward tremendously. It seems to be slow moving, but remember that the modern libertarian movement is only about 40 years in the making. In the grand scheme of things, that is a split second. Libertarians owe Ron Paul a debt of gratitude for making such an impact, even though he is wrong (from a pure libertarian perspective) on a few things.
I for one, do not fault Paul for not running for president as a Libertarian.
Ron Paul ran as the LP presidential nominee in 1988. since then, he has been able to get his house seat back, get on the banking committee, and get in the Republican debates.
Do I wish he tried to get to this success as a Libertarian? I’m not sure, as his chance for success would have been severely limited, but I do wish that he COULD have done them as a Libertarian. Unfortunately, the country is not ready for the “Libertarian” label yet, though under the guise of “Republican” or “Democrat” it certainly is somewhat more acceptable.
So I say to the nay-sayers, with the faults that Ron Paul has, understand that his strategy is well thought out in that the stature that he has obtained would have been nearly impossible as a Libertarian, so he could pepper in the “L” word while pushing several libertarian ideas into the limelight.
My personal view is that he has been reasonably successful with this strategy. Can Bob Barr, as a recent congressman who is the LP nominee, claim as much impact? Hardly.
Ron Paul has succeeded in effecting the direction and tone of the political debate. The debate is now decidedly more libertarian “friendly” than before Ron Paul’s efforts over the last 10 years.
John Lowell: “Someone who doesn’t tolerate douche-nozzles, Thomas. What does that make you?”
Someone who’s literate and can use English to explain his views, without reaching for crude and vapid terms like “douche-nozzle.”
Ron Paul is your better, by far. He’s achieved much for liberty and for the antiwar movement, as I’d explained above.
You have no accomplishments comparable to that of Paul’s. You can only hurl crude insults at him.
Thomas M. Sipos,
“What does that make you?”
Someone who doesn’t tolerate douche-nozzles, Thomas. What does that make you?
John Lowell: “Ron Paul is a douche-nozzle.”
What does that make you?
Ron Paul has done more for the freedom movement — and the antiwar movement — over the past year than has any other individual.
Paul showed America that you don’t have to be a radical leftist to be antiwar. Paul taught America that the antiwar movement has wide support across the political spectrum.
By contrast, here is what Johen Lowell has done:
All of Paul’s rationalizing notwithstanding, translated, he simply lacked the guts to make a run for President and anyone concerned about life, peace and privacy should be grateful that such a shmendrik was so easily discouraged. Baldwin and Nader faced the same obstacles yet were courageous enough to make the attempt. Paul’s effort at uniting the four anti-system candidates around certain common “principles” and his endorsement of Baldwin were noble enough but insufficient to erase the stain of his precious cowardice. Ron Paul is a douche-nozzle.
Anthony,
That’s precisely what I thought would happen – Paul would get out and make a few speeches, attract a small following, and hopefully they would find their way to the LP. I agree with you about wanting liberty regardless of the source. If there is hope for liberty, its best chance will be in the circular firing squad following the GOP losses next week. After a few years of President O-bomb’em, opposing the wars in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Darfur may be the most Republican thing one can do. Perhaps its a dream, but the delegate process stripped away a lot of my cynicism about politics.
And if it fails, hopefully I can come home to the LP and bring some others with me.
Steve,
As a supporter of liberty and not necessarily the Libertarian Party, your report on the success you have had in the Republican Party is heartening. I really do not care what the source of a return to liberty is, as long as it happens. My post was a prediction, not what I hope would happen.
As I am sure you know, “War is the health of the state,” and the fact that you were unable to get a change in the platform on the war issue is no small point. To me, the idea that the Republican Party will abandon its war stance and go to a non-interventionist foreign policy position is less likely to happen than the break-up of the party itself.
In my opinion, johncjackson is right in post #8: The GOP establishment is too wedded to statism to back off now; they are past the point of no return.
This is, however, not to say that the work you are doing in the GOP is in vain. On the contrary, it is of obvious importance. It is just my opnion that the GOP (not the fight for liberty) is in an irreversable decline and you are helping to build a significant faction that will wind up back in the LP.
Senate would make much more sense for Paul if he wanted to leave his Congressional seat.
Some forget that Ron Paul has been down the “third party” road before and was the nominee of the Libertarian Party back in 1988.
He still maintains quite a bit of capital in his war chest. Perhaps he is eyeing a Senate run in Texas.
BJ Lawson is a really good example. If this werent an overwhelmingly Democratic year–he’s likely get David Price, despite the fact that NC-4 is a very progressive district that has been represented by David Price for 10 terms.
johnc,
Ron Paul Republicans will score a slew of victories in NH state legislative races (see the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance) and elsewhere–but you are right, in all these Congressional districts they’re mostly putting themselves out to slaughter in dominantly Democratic districts in a dominant Democratic year.
However–in 2-4 years there is likely to be a huge reversal towards Republican congressmen. When that happens, if these same people run for the same seats they’ll be the frontrunners for the Republican nomination and then they’ll have the momentum WITH them, as opposed to AGAINST them.
Ron Paul Republicans can certainly achieve some local victories. Don’t get me wrong. For the most part I see it more as “winning” the right to be trounced by Democrats 80-20 in districts where the GOP Powers that Be don’t care about contesting races, though.
Anthony D – don’t forget than many, though certainly not all, of Paul’s people are evangelicals. And not all of Huck’s people share his “John Edwards with a Bible” economic views. We’ve worked quite well with the Religious Wrong in our state, even if we don’t share their love of gay-bashing.
I’m a Libertarian who never thought the GOP could be successfully hijacked either. I chaired Paul’s campaign in my little, rural county. I figured I’d cast my vote then go in and change back my registration the next day. Instead, those Republicans voting me as a county delegate then kept voting me all the way to the National Convention. As a bloc, Ron Paulians got almost everything we wanted in the platform except ending the war, thanks to 4 of our own on the state platform committee. The committee chair, even praised “2 or 3 them” as “real Constitutional scholars” in front of the state GOP convention. The GOP chair in my county invited me to consider being on the county central committee even though he knows I’m a Libertarian who only crossed over for Paul. The leadership and many activists within the CFL are some bright, attractive, and potentially very electable people.
Add to that the fact that the LP is likely to tear itself apart post-Barr with moderates attracted to the new Ron Paul-wing of the GOP and radicals out for blood after Barr-Root commit the great crime of winning more popular votes than any other POTUS ticket (save perhaps Clark-Koch).
This isn’t Goldwater/Reagan. When the GOP loses this time, they will react not by going back to their “roots” but by becoming even more statist. The “intellectual leaders” favor big government Republicanism and their reaction will not be that the GOP went too far away from Reagan/Goldwater but that they didn’t go far enough.
It will just be more of the same: 2 un-American socialist parties arguing over who is more socialist and un-American.
Trent is right, at least in post #4. Paul would have been a pariah in the GOP had he decided to run on the LP or CP ticket, and he could have kissed his banking committee seat goodbye. He is just too old for the viciousness and pressure a third party run would entail, and will definitely be too old in 4 years.
On the other hand, I disagree with the proposition that the Republican Party is salvagable from the inside. (Of course, I should indicate at this time that I am a member of the LP). Far from indicating a possible route to the takeover of the GOP, Anti-Corporate’s post #5 points to a coalition that will be unable to hold itself together. Indeed, the GOP has been a rudderless behemouth ever since its bete noire, the USSR broke up. There is nothing to hold that party’s factions together, and this election cycle’s nominating process only proves that :
Huckabee (religious right)
Romney(business class)
McCain(hawks)
Guiliani(rockerfellers)
Paul(libertarians).
Ron Paul’s supporters can’t have it both ways: on the one hand arguing it would be easier to take over the GOP, on the other hand noting how well the R3VOLution drew from the anti-war/privacy left.
No political party lasts forever. The Demopublicans effective efforts at nixing 3rd party politics only delays the inevitable, in the same fashion that protectionist policies for the domestic automotive industry prevented competition from Japan/Korea.
Ron Paul and Bob Barr are canaries in the coal mine. Pro-FISA, pro-war Obama proves the democrats offer nothing to the anti-war privacy left. All the current political climate is waiting for is a younger version of Ron Paul, without the shady past (racist newsletters) and conspiracy theory sympathies. If the right person comes along, the seeming behemouth that is the GOP will fall apart as easily as Enron did, another organization that most people thought could not go out of business.
Anti-Corporate,
Exactly. And keep in mind that although lots of Ron Paul Republicans are running for Congress this year and will likely lose, if they choose to run again in 2010 in the same districts,they’ll be the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party and likely have MUCH better chances at unseating the Democratic incumbents.
Ron Paul’s idea of taking over the Republican Party from the inside doesn’t seem to me nearly as far-fetched today as it did three or four months ago. If McCain loses, the GOP is going to have a serious identity crisis. There will be Palin and Huckabee types that want to go in one direction; there will be small government and fiscal conservatives that want to distance themselves from religious fundamentalism; there will be several people vying for the mantle of GOP leader: Palin, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and certainly some new-comers, too. With the future and identity of the GOP in chaos, I thing Ron Paul could assemble a very strong faction.
Most importantly, Ron Paul’s position on the banking committee would’ve been docked and he would have been further marginalized. Now, if he decides to run in 2012, he can. Or, if someone like Gov. Gary Johnson runs, then Paul can back him with some credentials.
Ron Paul’s had a deal with the Republican Party for years. So what? He is a Republican.
I was pretty strongly in favor an RP running third party, but the more I think about it the more likely it seems he’d get it worse from the courts and SoSs than Nader did four years ago. Precedents and straight readings would have made him favorable to win any of those challenges, but they’re blackholes for time and money. The fact that Barr and Nader have been (mostly) left alone this time testifies to their minimal relevance. I’m sure Ron Paul would have done better, but coming in third’s not worth the pain in the ass when you beat 4th by a mile.
Let’s not be naive. Ron Paul made a deal with the Republican Party. You don’t think Ron could have taken the MILLIONS RAISED and ran a successful Third Party campaign. A contentending campiagn. he would have ran a much better campaign than Barr , would have been on more ballots, would have had the media time, would have been able tio run Commercials and would have been able to raise anotehr 35 million. His excuse does not hold any water, not for him. He would have been Ross Perot
I’m still disappointed he didn’t run.