Why doesn't the Cato Institute support Ron Paul?

[giskard]

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=546

Cato Scholar Responds to Republican Presidential Debate

Friday 04 May 2007

The Republican debate in California last night showed that the field of candidates still lacks a Reagan-style small-government conservative among the top tier of candidates, according to Michael Tanner, director of health & welfare studies at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. The candidates invoked Reagan's name at least 19 times, Tanner noted, but one had to go all 5the way down to Rep. Ron Paul's quixotic campaign before someone reflected Reagan's commitment to limited government.

"None of the major candidates," Tanner said, "made a serious call to limit the size, scope, and power of government. While they talked about cutting spending in the abstract, none of them could identify a single government program they would eliminate. On the other hand, from alternative fuels to a national ID card to government regulation of health care, they seemed all too happy to embrace bigger government."

"There's still a long way to go," Tanner concluded, "before any of these candidates can lay claim to the Reagan legacy."

I don't understand why Cato isn't supporting Ron Paul. His stands most closely matches their mission of all the candidates.

Their mission:
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.

What gives? Is there something about Cato I don't know?

If you want to email them:
Micheal Tanner, the writer quoted in the article: [email protected]
Full list of contact emails
http://www.cato.org/people/staff.html#contactus

 

[zMtLlC]

They probably think he has no chance of winning and isn't a "major" candidate. Seeing how he mentioned his campaign as "quixotic," the writer probably sees him as just another crazy old man like Gravel.

 

[MsDoodahs]

I don't know much about the Cato Institute, but usually, if one plays "follow the MONEY" one will find the answer.

Any way to see who is feeding the Cato beast? Because that beast knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.

 

[dwdollar]

I emailed a couple members.

 

[dwdollar]

I received a reply from Ryan Young, Government Affairs Assistant at Cato and this is what he had to say.

We don't support Rep. Paul because Cato does not get involved in campaigns or electoral politics. If we did, we would lose our 501(c)3 tax status.

I can tell you he is easily the most popular candidate around the office, and the staffers around here who usually vote Republican will more than likely support him in the primary, especially given how mediocre the rest of the field is. Many Cato staffers support Ron Paul as private individuals, but Cato as an institution is required by law to keep mum. Maybe one day the law will change, and Cato can take a position in future races.

Hope that helps, Dustin.

 

[JoshLowry]

Good info Dustin!

They could have at least wrote about him in a better light than they did in the article above...

 

[mesler]

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=546



I don't understand why Cato isn't supporting Ron Paul. His stands most closely matches their mission of all the candidates.

Their mission:
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html


What gives? Is there something about Cato I don't know?

If you want to email them:
Micheal Tanner, the writer quoted in the article: [email protected]
Full list of contact emails
http://www.cato.org/people/staff.html#contactus

Cato is a very respected libertarian think tank. My understanding is that they are apolitical, and they likely won't endorse anyone. They've been around for a long time, have been advocating many of the libertarian viewpoints that Dr. Paul has for many years now, so they likely see this year's race as the same old same old, and they likely don't have the hope that we do that Dr. Paul will appeal to the masses.

I do have much respect for Cato, however, and they have done much to advance libertarian ideas of freedom and liberty in US politics.

They scholars there have a blog, and I do see RP's name mentioned:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?s="Ron+Paul"&submit=GO

 

[giskard]

Micheal Tanner emailed a reply to me, copied with permission:

Let me say at the start that I greatly admire Ron Paul. If we had more congressmen like him, this country would be in far better shape. And, I have repeatedly said that I am glad he is a candidate and that he deserves to be on the debate stage.

However, one has to be realistic. It takes $30-50 million to run a credible primary campaign, perhaps more this year. Ron Paul has raised around $350,000. He cannot run TV ads, hire staff, and do all the other things necessary to win the nomination. Moreover he has no organization on the ground in crucial states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Indeed, I am not sure that he has any professional campaign staff or organization at all.

In the major polls of Republican primary voters, (Gallup, USA Today, Washington Post, Strategic Visions, ARG, etc), Paul polls less than one percent nationally. New Hampshire is the only state where he polls close to 2 percent. As much as I might wish it otherwise, he is not going to win the nomination.

The purpose of my podcast-and my new book-is to criticize the leading candidates (one of whom is likely to be the Republican nominee) for straying from those small government principles that Ron Paul champions.


Michael Tanner
Director
Health & Welfare Studies

Have you read my new book, Leviathan on the Right: How Big Government Conservatism Brought down the Republican Revolution?
http://tinyurl.com/2pwm92

Michael Tanner
Director
Health & Welfare Studies
Cato Institute

 

[dwdollar]

How can you win something if you already think you're defeated?

 

[garywatson]

Cato gets it wrong

The Cato guy says: "It takes $30-50 million to run a credible primary campaign, perhaps more this year. Ron Paul has raised around $350,000. He cannot run TV ads, hire staff, and do all the other things necessary to win the nomination. Moreover he has no organization on the ground in crucial states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Indeed, I am not sure that he has any professional campaign staff or organization at all. In the major polls of Republican primary voters, (Gallup, USA Today, Washington Post, Strategic Visions, ARG, etc), Paul polls less than one percent nationally. New Hampshire is the only state where he polls close to 2 percent. As much as I might wish it otherwise, he is not going to win the nomination."

With respect, I disagree with Cato. A large percentage of likely primary voters watch the debates, and all polls that I have seen show that Ron Paul won the debates. All that needs to happen is that he continue his stellar performance in the debates, and somehow we convince the news media to end its blackout of Ron Paul news, and the primary votes will come. If he gets, say, 10% in the first primary, enough money will come in to keep the ball rolling.

The $30M figure is needed if you have a candidate who is basically the same as all the other candidates and you want to differentiate him. The difference with Ron Paul is that once a voter is made aware of his views, there is at least a 50% chance that he will vote for him. You can't say that about any of the other candidates. There are an AWFUL lot of registered Republicans like myself who are so angry at our party that we are going to looking for any way to give the existing power structure a major smackdown. When you have Republicans advocating increases in government funding and power that people like Bill Clinton didn't even dare to dream about, something is very VERY wrong with a party that likes to call itself "conservative".

 

[Vjklander]

CATO & Tanner

Michael Tanner
"The purpose of my podcast-and my new book-is to criticize the leading candidates (one of whom is likely to be the Republican nominee) for straying from those small government principles that Ron Paul champions."

That is all well and good, but wouldn't Tanner's criticism of the "Major Candidates" be all that much more effective by comparison to Dr. Paul?

 

[giskard]

Somebody invite him to this discussion.

 

[ModeratorTest]

The Cato guy says: "It takes $30-50 million to run a credible primary campaign, perhaps more this year. Ron Paul has raised around $350,000. He cannot run TV ads, hire staff, and do all the other things necessary to win the nomination. Moreover he has no organization on the ground in crucial states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Indeed, I am not sure that he has any professional campaign staff or organization at all. In the major polls of Republican primary voters, (Gallup, USA Today, Washington Post, Strategic Visions, ARG, etc), Paul polls less than one percent nationally. New Hampshire is the only state where he polls close to 2 percent. As much as I might wish it otherwise, he is not going to win the nomination."

With respect, I disagree with Cato. A large percentage of likely primary voters watch the debates, and all polls that I have seen show that Ron Paul won the debates. All that needs to happen is that he continue his stellar performance in the debates, and somehow we convince the news media to end its blackout of Ron Paul news, and the primary votes will come. If he gets, say, 10% in the first primary, enough money will come in to keep the ball rolling.

The $30M figure is needed if you have a candidate who is basically the same as all the other candidates and you want to differentiate him. The difference with Ron Paul is that once a voter is made aware of his views, there is at least a 50% chance that he will vote for him. You can't say that about any of the other candidates. There are an AWFUL lot of registered Republicans like myself who are so angry at our party that we are going to looking for any way to give the existing power structure a major smackdown. When you have Republicans advocating increases in government funding and power that people like Bill Clinton didn't even dare to dream about, something is very VERY wrong with a party that likes to call itself "conservative".

Very well said Gary!

I am in the same boat as you. Ron Paul didn't need to spend a dime on me, I just needed to hear what he had to offer.

I watched him at the debate and saw that he stood for a different cause than the rest of the politicians who want to increase the size of our government and trample on the very constitution our country was founded on.

 

[garywatson]

Cato's premature evacuation

Something else that bothers me about Cato's stance -- the first primary is in January of next year, over 30 weeks from now. Surely it's far too early to declare the death of a candidate, especially the first one in living memory who is mostly compatible with Cato's position on the issues. Even if they believe it, it's a self-fufilling prophecy when your most obvious supporter poo-poos your run for office, and I don't think it's the least bit helpful.

They are smart people and must know this, so I am at a loss to explain their behavior.

One other thought about funding -- Cato is right that RP will definitely have an uphill struggle to raise the usual "dirty money" which fuels politics today. Since he advocates the dismantling of most government slush funds, there is little reason for vested interests to push their employees to donate cash to the RP campaign -- after all, RP doesn't want to have any influence which is worth peddling to these people.

I was upgraded to first class a few weeks ago on a flight, and seated in front of me was some kind of corporate executive. He placed a call to a colleague during our long taxi into the gate, and although he was whispering the acoustics were such that I heard his side of the conversation which went something like this:

"If we get 10 thousand to him his people said we can get that thing we talked about"
"No, it's illegal for us to donate directly to a federal campaign"
"Well, I'll have some of my staff donate $3000 each to him."
"Oh, in a couple of months I'll give my staff 'bonuses for outstanding leadership to cover their out of pocket costs'. (laughter)"

Unfortunately (or fortunately if we want to take the moral high ground, and we do of course), no company is going to play this kind of mickey mouse game to funnel money to Ron Paul like the way they might do for somebody like John McCain who plans to spend a load of cash on military stuff, or Hillary Clinton who plans to tear up the way our health care industry operates.

 

[DrStrabismus]

Cato's Daily Podcast has a fairly favorable take on Ron Paul's debate performance:

May 16th: Reviewing the Republican Debate (8min37sec)
http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php

 

[Bruehound]

Extra! January/February 1998

Media Moguls on Board
Murdoch, Malone and the Cato Institute

By Norman Solomon


Last fall, when News Corporation owner Rupert Murdoch joined the board of directors at the Cato Institute, the announcement went unreported in major media. Perhaps it seemed routine for one of the world's most powerful media moguls to take a leadership post at one of the most influential think tanks in Washington.

http:///www.fair.org/index.php?page=1409

Nuff Said.

 

[Horace]

I do have much respect for Cato, however, and they have done much to advance libertarian ideas of freedom and liberty in US politics.

I couldn't even spell libertarian when I first saw the Cato-sponsored debates on C-SPAN in the 80's. (C-SPAN is actually probably why I vote Libertarian -- between those debates and the coverage of the Lib conventions, I got 90% of my early info about them through guys like Brian Lamb).

Cato will occasionally be invoked by politicians as a gold star of fiscal conservative (or social liberal) approval, especially when talking to an inside baseball Beltway crowd. They're a good group, and they didn't go off the deep end for the bad guys the way Heritage and AEI did.

 

[Brandybuck]

Last fall, when News Corporation owner Rupert Murdoch joined the board of directors at the Cato Institute...

Holy Blasphemous Cries of Dismay! Has everything inside the Beltway been corrupted by the sociofascists?

 

[axiomata]

From an earlier thread where a member emailed CATO about endorsing Ron Paul:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=280&postcount=5

We don't support Rep. Paul because Cato does not get involved in campaigns or electoral politics. If we did, we would lose our 501(c)3 tax status.

I can tell you he is easily the most popular candidate around the office, and the staffers around here who usually vote Republican will more than likely support him in the primary, especially given how mediocre the rest of the field is. Many Cato staffers support Ron Paul as private individuals, but Cato as an institution is required by law to keep mum. Maybe one day the law will change, and Cato can take a position in future races.

Hope that helps, Dustin.

 

[JacobLyles]

Ha! I hope Tanner is choking on that snarky "it takes $30-$50 million to run a campaign" comment! Ye of little faith!

Ron could raise over $30 by the end of the campaign, easily.


Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots! Bah! As for me, give me liberty or give me death!