Posted at Liberty Maven by Marc Gallagher:
The GOP primary ballot access laws in several states force candidates to pledge to not run on another party’s ticket if they should not win the Republican nomination. In an email sent to us (included below) by Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s spokesman and campaign communications manager, clarified this fact:
Marc,
I enjoy your writing very much and check your website regularly. As a fan, I do have clear one point up with you.
Ron Paul could not have run Libertarian if he wanted to. In order to be on the GOP Primary Ballot in at least 11 states, including Texas, Ron had to pledge that he would not seek the presidency on another ticket if he failed to secure the GOP nomination. Not running third party was the price of admission.
We are certainly open to fair criticism of Dr. Paul. But criticizing him for not running third party is not fair criticism. I hope this clears things up.
Best,
Jesse Benton
I replied to Jesse thanking him for the clarification and expressed a wish that Ron Paul had mentioned this fact when asked about a third party run by the media. I was not aware of such rules and I expect many others who have been critical of Paul for “choosing” not to run on another party’s ticket were not aware of such rules.
So in the end, once Ron Paul was on the ballot in one of these “GOP hostage” states he gave up his ability to run outside the Republican Party.
Hopefully, this information will temper the criticism of Ron Paul on this point.
Further analysis at The Western Standard.
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/11/the-saga-of-the.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5467.html
although I could buy reason #2, one wonders why non-disclosure would be necessary. What “trade secret” would the republicans be trying to hide? That they want to rig the game from the get-go with their donkey party counterparts?
A couple of possibilities here
1) He may have thought that leaving the door of speculation just a little bit ajar would fuel his fundraising
2) Part of the oath was non-disclosure of the oath
There may be other possibilities I haven’t thought of.
My only statement on this is that I wish he had disclosed this a long time ago instead of now. It might have boosted his numbers, perhaps not, but it would have been nice to have it out in the open then.
Good question. You may want to ask at Liberty maven and Western Standard, and C4L. I’d also be interested in a list of the eleven states.
Is the text of the pledge or pledges available any where?
Well, he only interfered in Montana because he thought Baldwin should’ve been placed as the nominee for the CP–as was previously indicated. For example, he also didnt stop electors in California from making him an official write-in candidate.
True, but libertyuk2000 is still incorrect in saying he didn’t do anything.
Also, since I did not see the 11 states where the oath applied listed, there’s no inherent contradiction, unless Louisiana or Montana were among them.
But he DIDNT ask for his name to be removed in LA.
Incorrect. He asked for his name to be removed in Montana, but it wasn’t.
He also did not do anything to have his name removed!
He did not sign anything to authorize that.
Hmm,
Well that did not stop Sir Paul from running on as the CP candidate in MT nor the LA Taxpayers Party in LA did it?
I am down with johnlowell’s opinion on this one. Despite all the attacks on Barr’s supposed lack of libertarian credentials and his dismal (albeit typical) showing, no one let the libertarian movement down more than Ron Paul did this election cycle. The gospel of Luke tell us “To whom much is given, much is expected.” Barr did the best he could campaigning in total obscurity with a million bucks. RP pissed 35 times that amount of money down a toilet to I don’t know where.
And no one knows what RP’s polling numbers would have been if he had continued to campaign. Had he risen to Ross Perot type numbers (a distinct possiblity since we had two pro-bailout candidates in McBama), I would have loved to have seen the demopublicans try to stop him from running 3rd party, regardless of what document he signed. Considering the current approval ratings of our federal government, that would have been unadvisable to say the least.
Internal party rules are different from sore loser laws.
Most courts have ruled that sore loser laws do not apply to presidential candidates.
Perhaps this could be the nationwide push for state initatives that the Ron Paul Revolution is thinking up. It’d be a hard sell, since no one except us would find it necessary to do such a thing (run “sore loser” run), but it’d be a start and free up the competition a lot more. Someone wanna pitch this to C4L? They’d probably flat out reject it, since they appear to be running the show as badly as RP’s actual campaign…
I assume the Texas Republican presidential primary pledge is similar to the Texas Democratic presidential primary pledge. Dennis Kucinich refused to sign it, and then he sued the Texas Democratic Party to get on its presidential primary even though he hadn’t signed it. So far he has lost. The Texas Democratic Party’s big defense is that the oath has no teeth except moral force. So I am guessing the same is true of the Republican oath.
South Carolina party oaths do have teeth. That’s why a Green who also ran in the Democratic primary for state legislature this year was enjoined from campaigning as a Green. However, his lawsuit against the oath’s binding force is still pending and might eventually win.
No, the older people like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, were the best at the primary debates. Ron Paul also saved us from Rudy Giuliani, severely weakening him in the early debate.
I agree with the commentary here that Ron Paul made bad choices, but not among them, was honoring his word.
He could have simply not signed the pledge. There would have been consequences for that, but so what.
He was really a let down, and, confused, and ineffective leadership and confused leadership, has nothing to do with idealism, it just has to do with Ron Paul’s style of leadership.
I mean the man stuttered around at debates, and sometimes looked as if he hadn’t even prepared…that isn’t because he’s an idealist, its because he’s an old man, and doesn’t happen to be really great at debating.
I agree with my fellow Catholic crusader John Lowell, and even with my new nemesis, Libertarian Joseph. Ron Paul should have run anyway, no matter whether or not he was breaking an oath. His seniority in Congress hasn’t accomplished much, and he could have galvanized popular support by challenging ballot access laws. He could have gotten at least Perot’s numbers. I personally think that Obama still would have won, but as a non-ideological Catholic now, it doesn’t matter too much anymore (I still support Obama and hope he does well, but I am not longer completely obsessed with him). Paul would have taken many votes from both sides. Hopefully Paul would have campaigned aggressively on his pro-life position which McCain did not, and hopefully he would abandoned his anti-immigrant position, leaving that constituency still relatively homeless, as Barr and Baldwin would have dropped out to endorse him. Maybe Nader and McKinney would have endorsed him as well, in fact.
___________
God bless the pope, God bless David Brownlow, God bless our President and Congress, and god bless Proposition 8. amen.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/
Nono. Intestinal fortitude. Wouldn’t want your candidate of choice getting the runs, would you?
LaineBRT,
Forget the pledges, the sore-loser laws are more important,and they exist in Texas and elsewhere.
I think you meant testicular fortitude, not instestinal fortitude.
trent hill,
Why wouldn’t they, Trent? How have independent candidacies always sprung up? With conviction and – ah, yes – just a smiggin of intestinal fortitude, perhaps? Sorry but your comments make no sense.
Ron Paul’s seniority has amounted to what exactly? He has no power whatsoever. All he has is a vote.
I still don’t understand how such a pledge would have stopped him from seeking ballot lines as an independent or third party candidate. I suppose that the danger of losing his senority of congress was more real than any attempt to keep him off of ballots.
Ron Paul is a broken record. He’s too much of an idealist, that’s why noone ever takes him seriously. Idealism is good, but to an extent.
johnlowell,
Why would someone run for President if he couldnt be on in at least 10 states, had signed pledges not to run third party in others, and had already run an extensively long campaign.
Sorry–but your comments make no sense.
This explanation is hair splitting hog-wash. Third-party, schmird-party, no pledge prevented Paul from running as an independent. The point is that he wussed out after having raised expectations. Ron Paul is a schmegeggie. Do the excuses ever end for this clown’s cowardice?
Ron Paul would be a warlock if he chose to break his oath. That’s fine by me.
I bet those rules go back to a reaction to John Anderson?
I had always assumed it was because the GOP would try to mess him over on the Monetary Policy subcommittee like the Democrats are trying to do to Joe Lieberman now. I guess it goes to show that there’s always more to the story than meets the eye!
He may have considered it a point of personal honor not to break any kind of oath.
Oh no, well his credibility would have been shot if he broke an oath with the Republicans, LOL.
That he would have broken an oath, for one.
And what exactly would the consequences have been if Paul defied this contract and decided to run third party/independent anyway?
I don’t know, but it applied in eleven states, and Keyes was only on the general election ballot in three. That might have had something to do with why he did not try for more states?
Did this rule also apply to Alan Keyes?
Did this rule also apply to Alan Keyes?
Bill Lussenheide
http://www.FaithFamilyFreedoms.blogspot.com