Here is a Daily Bell interview with money expert Dr. Edwin Vieira. He covers many subjects including a possible third party run by Ron Paul. He suggests a Constitution Party/Libertarian Party fusion ticket.
Daily Bell: How about Ron Paul?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: The Republicans will never nominate him. He is as dangerous to them as he is to the Democrats. Perhaps more so.
I hope that, after the Republicans and their lap dogs in the big media perform their usual “hatchet job” on him, Dr. Paul will run on a “fusion ticket” of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and whatever other third parties still desire their members to live in a free society. In that way, he might be able to find a place on the ballot in all or most of the States. If such a “fusion ticket” drew enough support, it would signal the impending death of the Republican Party. (And good riddance.)
Having decided not to run for re-election to Congress, Dr. Paul has nothing to lose, and can afford to go all out. And he could contribute nothing more valuable than to leave this country with a true “second” party. Then elections will become real contests between American patriots (the Whites, the traditional color of counterrevolution), and the fascist-socialist combine (the Browns and the Reds).
HT: BT
@ 45 Robert Capozzi
42 sw, “keep in mind, I don’t think anyone seriously thinks RP can WIN, as either a R or L. The point is to setup a transformative situation down the road by laying a foundation in 2012.”
Me- a transformative (sic) situation to what by whom ?
“A “serious” run requires getting in the debates,”
Me- The Ds and Rs have closed off that loophole!
“being on most ballots, showing high enough in the polls, getting bountiful face time, not stumbling badly (NewletterGate being an ex.).”
Me- ballot access can be gained however, polls can be manipulated, face time can be stopped or used to assassinate the campaign (ie racist nlrs) if you gain too much support .
“Get enough people saying Enough is Enough is enough”
Me- Total economic collapse might help this BUT about half the citizens currently receive some type of gov’t check (benefit) and there just isn’t much hope enough would have had enough as long as their check keeps coming. Over 46 million receive food stamps already. That’s almost one in six depending on the taxpayers to feed them daily !
A third party challenge (not run by the powers that be) must have enough money to run ads to override the “free face time” the handpicked chosen ones receive to have any chance. Paul or anyone would need a half billion or more for advertising to have a legit hope.
***
I have recently heard that Ronald Reagan appeared in gay porn back in the day. Naturally it was kept secret. Anyone here ever heard of Bohemian Grove and what goes on there each year by the male world leaders (Reagan, Clinton, Bushes, etc. included)? Male prostitutes are the only prostitutes invited !
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
The Libertarian Party would increase employment opportunities by slashing taxes and government red tape. We would also end the welfare system with its culture of dependence and hopelessness. Most important of all, we would promote low-cost private alternatives to the failed government school system.
The Libertarian Party offers a positive alternative to the failed welfare state. We offer a vision of a society based on work, individual responsibility, and private charity. It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion It is a society built on liberty.
– http://www.lp.org/
For more information, or to arrange an interview,
Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222
2011 Libertarian Party Candidates
Arizona
Thane Eichenauer
Phoenix Mayor
2605 East Culver Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
Web: http://ilovegrover.com
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (575) 513-7825
Bill Barker
Phoenix City Council
Web: http://billbarkerphxaz.com
re RC @43. Try this on for size.
“Particularly when homosexuality is as American as apple pie. The 15th president of the United States, James Buchanan, almost certainly was gay. Finally, prize-winning historian James W. Loewen, author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” has outed President James Buchanan, who served as chief executive during tumultuous events on the eve of the Civil War, and had more pre-White House domestic and international expertise than all of the current crop of presidential wannabes put together. In Prof. Loewen’s newest book, “Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong,” the scholar asserts that Buchanan’s long-time living companion, William Rufus King, was referred to as “Aunt Fancy” by that era’s Beltway crowd. Apparently, Buchanan’s sexual orientation was widely rumored around Washington, to the point that King was called “Mrs. Buchanan.” “
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/was-james-buchanan-our-first-gay-president/question-49802/
Robert Capozzi / Don Lake / Jul 27, 2011:
I do look forward to our first g [ood] president [of the 21st Centrury] ….…just because.
42 sw, keep in mind, I don’t think anyone seriously thinks RP can WIN, as either a R or L. The point is to setup a transformative situation down the road by laying a foundation in 2012. A “serious” run requires getting in the debates, being on most ballots, showing high enough in the polls, getting bountiful face time, not stumbling badly (NewletterGate being an ex.).
Get enough people saying Enough is Enough is enough.
more…
If there’s any truth to it, I suspect Perry wouldn’t run. I don’t see that one flying with the GOP base…as it stands.
41 tk, my gay-dar is def. not finely tuned, but this surprises me. This could be the Brokeback Mountain election, in more ways than one! Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
He is married, I checked when P floated that one.
In recent memory, there were such rumors about Hillary, too.
I do look forward to our first gay president…just because.
An anti vote usually only exists while in the House of Reps. The average american voter won’t risk a full anti party swing vote on something like a president or senator. Ron Paul has maxed out his vote potential. He has been vocal and open on his place on many issues. There is no ace in the hole or any variable that I know of that could move him within a sequence.
The elephant will rally around someone as they did with Bob Dole. Ross Perot had his one shot and blew it. Ron Paul has run twice before and failed.
The only variable that I see moving any player within a sequence would be a total economic disaster. This would be defined as a full depression (25% unemployment) and a debt/GDP of 125%. Debt load or loan capacity aside, the global market will dictate many things for us in the next thirty months.
RC@40,
There are rumors going back several years that Perry is gay. So far as I can tell, nothing substantiating those rumors has ever been published, though.
39 p, outed for…?
Perry might be in trouble if he gets publicly outed, though. We’ll see if anyone goes there.
37 p, yep, guilt by association sometimes happens. I understand from people close to RP that he’s concerned about a rather imminent meltdown that would make the last few years look tame. It might even make the 30s look tame. If we’re on the eve of destruction, worrying about a son getting re-elected seems low on the list. And Rand’s been known to disagree with Dad.
I do hear you, though. It’s probably a consideration. The RP forces seem to think he’ll win the Iowa straw poll. If he does, I would expect a NewsletterGate counter sooner rather than later.
It gets richer. Now it’s looking like Perry will get in. Since Perry recently got his “marching orders” at Bilderberg ( 😉 ), the JBS in RP might get really feisty in the coming months. I can see Perry leaping to the front of the pack right quick. He’s got all the bases covered, at least on paper. He can play to both GOP bases, corporates and conservative Christians.
I certainly don’t share their opinion either. However, there are enough of them in the Republican primary electorate to cause a possible problem for a freshman Senator seeking reelection or any other Pauls who might want to run for office. That was the sole extent of my statement on that. I stand by it.
35 p: All the people out there screaming from the rooftops that he is a Marxist, Muslim, out to destroy America, etc, and so forth.
me: At the end of the day, I don’t care about these people’s opinions. I respect they HAVE these opinions, but I don’t share it, certainly not in its extremism. On the margin, the Obama-phobes might be a consideration for some, but I don’t think RP should be concerned about them. He may be, though. We’ll see.
The left is less open to it now after Nader 2000. Prior to that, there were many on the left that believed the Clinton-Gore Democrats were in no way representative of their view and were willing to go a different route. After being incessantly hammered that they were supposedly the reason for Shrub’s election, most lost any such enthusiasm. I also still run into conservatives who make the equally inaccurate claim that Perot caused Clinton to be elected, and therefore refuse to sign Libertarian or Constitution Party ballot access petitions.
All the people out there screaming from the rooftops that he is a Marxist, Muslim, out to destroy America, etc, and so forth. I trust you don’t need proof they exist.
Yes, but my point was not about you; it was about Republican partisans and the fact that they might blame an Obama reelection (which they think is a major catastrophe) on a hypothetical Ron Paul independent or alt-party run.
Divided is good. But, entirely besides my original point, which I think still stands.
Knapp, that’s a good point you make in post 30. Although I’ve thought the chance of Paul running as an alternative party candidate is slim to none, I hadn’t thought of that point. And that outcome WOULD demoralize many Libertarians, IMO. But I also suspect many would blame that result on something else, like voter fraud or sabotage or the LNC, etc., and say, “If not for X, Ron Paul would have won.”
25 p: My point was that Republicans would claim that is what happened, regardless of the actual facts.
me: Sure, there might be some of that. I do think that this is not the same as Nader in some important ways. I don’t see the “left” as being open to a real third party. I see some in the Tea Party as openly flirting with the idea.
Ultimately, who cares if Obama is re-elected? Personally, I might slightly prefer a Romney in the WH to Obama in the short term, but in the intermediate to long term, the Rs and Ds are equally hurtful in slightly different ways. And Obama with a R House is getting checked pretty strenuously. The Senate, at this moment, is in play, too.
I root for divided government until a third Liberty Party can come forward.
30 tk, could be. Whether 3rd partiers would be MORE demoralized than usual is hard to say, and how much more demoralized they’d be with him getting, say, 2%, and a no-name candidate getting 0.5%, hard to say. Yes, expectations might be greater, but people get over such things.
If he polls well and continues to get reasonably high exposure into October, it’d be worth it, I’d say, even if in the end he got 2%.
Will he be exhausted in March of ’12? Or will he be invigorated? His physical and psychological state might be the biggest factor.
Going out with a whimper and putting his efforts in C4L — which is likely cresting in terms of its potential — seems unsatisfying to me. Can’t speak for RP.
Of course, another factor is what is happening in the Spring of ’12. National and world events will be a swing factor, perhaps the biggest of all. If the economy is on the mend then, then perhaps he rides off into the sunset. If the US is in technical default and CPI is at 15% and the US troops are in Pakistan, pressing toward Islamabad, maybe that implies a go-for-it stance.
It all depends on the specifics. What is indicated cannot be known until the future is now.
Love him or hate him, RP has a certain audacity.
Ah the Messiah Envy!
One reason I haven’t seen mentioned for why Paul might not run third party is that he does seem to admire third parties (particularly the LP and CP) and want them to survive and spread their messages.
Paul’s not dumb. He knows there won’t be any “breakout” in an independent or third party run. He’d get low single-digit percentages as anything other than a major party nominee.
The problem with doing that on a third party ticket is that it would tend to demoralize that party (and other third parties), many of whose members fantasize that if they just got the “right” candidate, they’d be in the ball game for real.
Since he probably understands that third parties serve a vital role — I hate to use the word, but it’s close enough, an “educational” role — he probably doesn’t want to disillusion them by running on their ticket and not turning in at least Perot-like numbers.
A fusion ticket will not work in this county since third parties have not pull whatsoever. In Mexico, however, we have seen minor political parties allign themselves with major parties in order to accomplish two things: a) keep their registration and b) gain some seats in congress. The leftlist parties in Mexico are working to run as a unit in order to win the presidency in Mexico next year.
Going back to Paul, I would love to see him run as the Libertarian Party Candidate since its the perfect fit for him and will bring a huge boost for the party. We live in a time were Libertarianism is defeating Right-wingism. Even the Republican Party will have to embrase the Libertarian philisophy if they want to continue as a party. The LP should get Paul. And I would not be surprised if we see a Ron Paul/Wayne Allyn Root ticket.
I’d love to see Ron Paul run as a “3rd party” or independent candidate in 2012, but I doubt that it’s going to happen.
p, Oh, it’s always close. Yep, sibling’s’ll be toast. And…
Regarding a fusion CP-LP campaign: whichever party would forego its ballot line in any state where fusion is not allowed would lose ballot access in some states where it otherwise would not. This would then put one party or the other, or both, further behind in ballot access efforts for the next round.
My point was that Republicans would claim that is what happened, regardless of the actual facts.
It doesn’t matter to all the Democrats that continue to villify Nader and the Greens for supposedly costing them the 2000 election that Nader did no such thing. In fact, about half of Nader’s vote om Florida came from Arab-Americans, who usually vote Republican but voted for Nader because of his Arabic ancestry. Other voters only came out to vote at all because of Nader – yet some of them switched their vote to Gore at the last minute. In short, had Nader not been in the race, chances are that Bush would have won Florida in an undisputed fashion. But, in politics, perception matters more than reality.
If the election is close and Paul runs as an independent, he’ll be about as popular with Republicans after 2012 as Nader was with Democrats after 2000. Rand Paul will be hard pressed to endorse his party’s candidate against his father. Even if he does, he will still get smeared anyway, Ditto for any of his siblings that may decide to enter politics.
Read up on Irregular Times and Ballot Access News about Americans Elect. Someone will run with them, even if it’s not Bloomberg or Trump. I’m guessing it will be one or the other, and the one that is not running as the AE candidate may well be getting on as an independent.
Thx, P for setting the guy (or gal) straight on BA. Paul doesn’t have the fund$ or activists to mount an indie run and have anything left to fight (run ads) in the general election race. An indie run is a SURE failure!
The fusion isn’t about holding two or more ballot lines, it would be about putting forth an actual challenge. The LP and CP (and others?) could combine strategy to $ave funds on ballot access to spend on ADS. Each could target certain states saving funds (for ads) in the ones they don’t target. Paul could top the ticket of whichever Party has the access. If they both do, one can leave the slot blank to meet whatever laws apply. The main advantage is having more activists and MUCH more ca$h for advertising that could be saved on ballot access by a fusion campaign.
Since he is retiring he just might consider it this time. As for helping reelect B.O. I disagree. He (Paul) can run a heavy ANTI-war, PRO Free Market, RE-LEGALIZE campaign, punching LARGE holes in B.O. ‘s base. Most of that base realizes B.O. is a FRAUD and owned by the same bunch who gave us Bush. They just have no where to go and will stick with the same ole, same ole “lesser of two evils” if given only tweedleDum and tweetleDUMMER. They might could be drawn away if Paul will try it.
Dreams, dreams. If you want to dream, dream ! A candidate can be elected POTUS with LESS than 30 million votes, IF those votes fall correctly in a multi-candidate race. Paul might raise $30-50 million this cycle. Could he put up a Perot type effort? No, but if we are dreaming, let’s dream !!!
* * * ~ ~ ~ * * *
What’s the Diff?!: http://www.youtube.com/user/clearsky24#p/u/27/KOji-ZIv4Vs
Controversial/T-Shirts/Village Idiot > http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=674
This Change Sucks MP – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=639
Controversial/T-Shirts/Obamination > http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=520
tk and gp, actually, the “limo services” was a small number as a percentage of the budget and there was no analysis of what it would have been if it was only “taxis,” as I recall. GP ran away and refused to engage in standard business trade-off analysis, as I recall. Car services are infinitely more expensive than walking from the airport in cash expenditures, but whether that’s the best use of time is another matter. Similarly, car services are often incrementally small increases over taxis, but are also relative time (and hassle) savers.
An extra $10 bucks to get from Reagan National to the CNN DC studios might be the best $10 to be spent, actually.
The point I was making, though, was the idea that IF RP were to switch over to the LP to run under our banner, and he kept using the jet, it might be just too much for our MA friend. Perhaps there is a “total transportation costs as a percentage of total campaign expenditures” figure that is ideal in GP’s mind. We’ll probably never know what that might be, as one gets the sense that complaints about mouse-nuts amounts may well be less about the mouse-nuts and more about ideological differences (hostilities, even). That too, though, we’ll never know…
@18
I’m all in favor of Republicans and Democrats wasting arbitrary amounts of money. Mind you, when you have enough money, which the Libertarian candidate did not, private plane flights mean that the candidate can confer with advisors, etc.
RC@18,
Phillies was concerned about the limo expenditures because it was the Libertarian Party’s candidate spending quite a big chunk of a small campaign war chest.
I suspect he thinks it’s great when another party’s candidates waste money.
I see that the Paul campaign is leasing a private jet now. After Barr’s use of a car service in 08, I’m not sure GP’s heart could stand the strain of a Paul jetting across the country slamming caviar and champagne while gliding through the clouds. 😉
7 P: More importantly, I don’t think Ron Paul will run against a Republican for President. He could end up being blamed by Republicans for getting Obama reelected, which could put Rand Paul, as a freshman seeking his first reelection in 2016, in a very awkward position, and perhaps shut the door to any other Pauls considering running for office.
ME: Possibly. Hard to know. I don’t know if that sticks to Rand or not, and the extent to which it sticks. My sense is the Pauls put party way down on their list of priorities; they are far more interested in advancing ideas. Paul/Johnson or Paul/Barr or Paul/Penny or Paul/Ventura could advance ideas into November in ways not seen to date.
“Bloomberg or Trump, possibly both at the same time separately”
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who has the biggest ego of them all?
Of course, there may be a third Republican in the race, Rudy Sex on the City Giuliani.
I don’t think Bloomberg or Trump will run.
So in most states if both the CP and the LP nominated Paul and he was on the ballot on both lines, those votes wouldn’t combine?
What if both parties put forth the same set of electors?
There are states where that is legal, but in most states a single presidential ticket can only have one ballot line.
So in most states if both the CP and the LP nominated Paul and he was on the ballot on both lines, those votes wouldn’t combine?
What if both parties put forth the same set of electors?
I suspect what Vieira has in mind by fusion is that Paul secure the nomination of both parties. There was some talk of Pat Buchanan attempting to secure both the RP and the CP nomination in 2000.
You are correct, my mistake. They got one state. On the other hand the LP has 16 that they don’t, including some of the toughest ones.
According to the July 1st print edition of BAN the CP is listed as “already on” while all other minor parties are listed as “can’t start”. That was the basis for my comment at #3 above.
“Like it or not, he will define the brand, not the other way around.” – paulie
Spot on. If/when the LP has a breakout successful POTUS campaign (Paul or any other), for the vast majority of voters that candidate will define the LP. Long-time uber-activists will undoubtedly get their panties all twisted, but to absolutely no avail. The brand will be defined and there will be no undoing it.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/07/02/june-2011-ballot-access-news-print-edition/#7
A decision to buck the Republicans would most likely be made after being eliminated in the primaries, which leaves very little time for getting on the ballot in all the states, practically simultaneously. For any of you who harbor the illusion that Ron Paul could do it with volunteers, consider the fact that in 2008 he had to hire petitioners to get on the ballot in Republican primaries, which is a far smaller number of signatures in only a handful of states,
Furthermore, there will be one or more other independent/third party tickets getting on at the same time – Bloomberg or Trump, possibly both at the same time separately, perhaps others, in addition to the usual ones. Experienced petitioners are likely to be in short supply, and training new petitioners is a very hit and miss proposition – the vast majority don’t work out.
If Ron Paul decides in March 2012 to run independent, he’ll probably need to spend 8 figures to get on the ballot everywhere. The Texas deadline will be in May, with some others soon after that. Even when spending a huge amount of money, mistakes can still happen when trying to juggle so many deadlines so close to each other.
By that same time, the LP will have probably about 35 states, including most of the tough ones, and the rest will be a much easier job than an independent candidate starting from scratch would face. And, Ron Paul would most likely be able to get any concessions he wants in terms of platform or national office messaging if he was willing to accept the Libertarian nomination.
Regardless of whether you think that it would be good for the LP, or good for Ron Paul, it would be stupid for him not to take it.
And as far as the LP label being a drag on Paul – the number of people who will associate it with anything other than him will be relatively minor. Like it or not, he will define the brand, not the other way around. The same would hold even more true if he runs as a CP candidate.
However, it’s true that some of the people around Ron Paul would continue to harbor their misgivings for the LP, and overestimate their ability to get ballot access, so it’s far from a done deal.
More importantly, I don’t think Ron Paul will run against a Republican for President. He could end up being blamed by Republicans for getting Obama reelected, which could put Rand Paul, as a freshman seeking his first reelection in 2016, in a very awkward position, and perhaps shut the door to any other Pauls considering running for office.
According to Ballot Access News, neither the LP nor the CP is on in Wisconsin. Per their chart, there are no states which the CP is on and the LP is not. That did not use to be the case.
I hope Ron Paul is smart enough to run as an independent.
A push to get Paul on the ballot will unite left and right activists — whereas the LP and CP are just a couple of balls & chains to anchor down Paul.
Let the LP and CP fondle and swoon over their treasured ballot access. It hasn’t gotten either of them very much so far, apart from making them feel like a grown-up political party.
But please don’t burden Paul with your parties — he has serious work to do.
Another person who doesn’t understand ballot access. Fusion won’t be allowed in most states, so continue with the “dream”.
Right now, only Wisconsin.
es, agreed. Unlikely that fusion can work. I could imagine that if the CP has ballot access where the LP doesn’t, that might look like fusion. Is that the case anywhere?
Not only is fusion a mixed bagged throughout the states, the two third parties won’t gel based on either’s idiosyncratic memberships.
With enough cash and savvy they could put together an all together independent ticket. I tend to doubt that given Paul’s previous reservations.
Queue the newsletter harpies and the immigration banshees . . .