Will the Libertarian Party support Ron?

[rpliving]

Does anyone if the Libertarian Party is interested in supporting Ron Paul? I'm thinking of giving the party a call but was wondering if the LP party has aready made a statement regarding this.

 

[LibertyOrDie]

http://www.libertyforamerica.net/node/378

This is an interesting article claiming that the Libertarian Party won't endorse RP because of it's bylaws, but that there are many Libertarians in the party that are supporting RP and questioning why there party isn't.

 

[Razmear]

I've already gotten emails from LP Presidential candidates asking for support, so I'm guessing there will be a Libertarian candidate in addition to Ron Paul.
If Ron does not seek the LP nomination, which I believe he will not, then the LP will run someone against him.
I've long believed that the LP needs to stop wasting resources on Presidential candidates that have no chance of winning and should concentrate their resources on getting people elected at the local level. A few Libertarians in the State Houses and Senates would do a lot more for the cause than another failed presidential or US Senate campaign.

eb

 

[Melchior]

I think the LP should still nominate someone like always, don't break tradition or prevent candidates from running, but I don't think the LP should be ignoring Ron Paul either.

In their last newsletter there was no mention of Ron Paul whatsoever, you can't even find his name on their website if you search. There is no good reason for that.

I think progress can only be made if we make a strong showing on all fronts, not worry about what will divide the votes (you can't micromanage voters), and more libertarian representation shows evidence of a strong libertarian presence. Besides, if Ron Paul loses I want an available LP candidate to fall back on.

EDIT: Nevermind, I just checked and their are Ron Paul related articles in their search engine.
EDIT AGAIN: Actually he seems to be mentioned only in the comments.

 

[mrapathy]

thought I heard Michael Badnarik say there wasnt going to be a LP candidate and they support Ron Paul but if he doesnt get far they may do something.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/23/libertarian-badnarik-endorses-ron-paul/

 

[Kandilynn]

I read an article by L.Neil Smith that was telling Libertarian Party to cross endorse Ron Paul. I'll look around and see if I can find a link to the article.

 

[Kandilynn]

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle417-20070513-02.html

 

[Therion]

I've always thought that the capital-L Libertarians were failing on purpose. If they fail to endorse Ron Paul, that will prove it. Anybody who throws away their vote on a 3rd party with RP in the running is a fool.

 

[mdh]

Had Ron Paul not been running for the R nomination, I'd be voting in the LP primary and then voting for the LP candidate in the generals. If Ron Paul is not a choice in the generals, I still hope there is an LP candidate that I can vote for. Those numbers count for something regardless.

 

[abouthadit]

If Dr. Paul is not successful in his bid for the Republican nomination, better than the LP would be the Constitution Party. IMHO the CP are much more in line with our beliefs in unalienable rights from our Creator, limited Federal, constitutional republic, states rights ( read individual liberty ). The MSM only gives a nodding acknowledgement to the LP because they don't see them as a threat. The CP would be much stronger at galvanizing the "remnant" as Dr. Paul called us during his Austin speech on 5/17.

For VP: Dr. Alan Keyes.

 

[Bob Cochran]

Lou Dobbs suggested in his recent book War on the Middle Class that all registered Republicans and Democrats re-register as Independents, en masse.

That would certainly get the attention of those partys' HQs.

The hard part is getting masses of people to do something all together.

Anyway, if we did that (Republicans and Democrats and even Libertarians all convert to Independent), then Ron Paul could run as an Independent, and it would be like a legal revolution from the grass roots.

Well that's the fantasy anyway. Fun to think about.

I'm seriously considering urging my wife, kids, coworkers and friends to do this, and of course, doing it myself.

 

[TheDuke]

Isn't he scheduled to speak on the Libertarian Convention? I don't know for sure, but I think I picked that up somewhere.

I believe, if Ron Paul gets elected as Republican candidate, the Libertarian Party almost has to endorse him and maybe redraw its own candidate, he would be the only way for the Libertarians to get a man with their beliefs in office.

 

[mdh]

I have some philosophical differences with the Constitution Party that I feel I'm more ideologically at home with the Libertarian Party. There are a few issues where my views are more in line with the CP (primarily border-related issues and immigration), but as a non-deist, the CP generally seems a bit more theocratic than myself, and the LP seems more secular-friendly, which I consider a more divisive issue.

I'd say that if you are interested in either of these parties, research both before deciding, as they are both very good in general, and both support the constitution. Don't just go on someone saying "Blah blah, my party is better than yours, don't listen to those LP guys." and whatnot.

 

[Hawaii Libertarian]

Multiple Party Affiliation

Some states, like New York, allow a candidate to run for office in multiple parties, (e.g. Republican Party and Conservative Party or Democratic Party and Liberal Party.) I'm not sure how many states allow this, however.

I've become so disgusted by the neocon hijacking of the GOP that I now most closely align myself with the Libertarians. I do disagree with some of their core positions, such as open borders and some of their social policy issues, but I guess there isn't any party out there that someone would 100-percent agree with on everything. While the Libertarian social positions would be very appealing in many Blue-leaning states, they are a tough sell at best in the Red states.

I'm very comfortable with Dr. Paul's positions on the key issues and I think he will continue to attract lots of Libertarians back to him. I predict there will be enough hardcore Libertarians that may disagree with him on abortion and immigration enough to run their own slate of candidates, but that's most unfortunate.

Long term, if they are to gain any more traction, I think the Libertarian Party needs to do a substantial inward look of who they are and what they stand for. It's great to have a big tent, but if the tent is too big, there is the danger of losing focus and identity.

BTW, the Libertarian trend is to get away from a Left/Center/Right political spectrum, but to use the model described below. Take the quiz and see how you place.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

 

[Melchior]

If Dr. Paul is not successful in his bid for the Republican nomination, better than the LP would be the Constitution Party. IMHO the CP are much more in line with our beliefs in unalienable rights from our Creator, limited Federal, constitutional republic, states rights ( read individual liberty ). The MSM only gives a nodding acknowledgement to the LP because they don't see them as a threat. The CP would be much stronger at galvanizing the "remnant" as Dr. Paul called us during his Austin speech on 5/17.

For VP: Dr. Alan Keyes.

Ugh... I didn't know much about Alan Keyes before watching him in the debate with Obama, but afterward I got the impression that the guy thought way too much of himself and his "logic." He tries to sound logical and treat all the issues he addresses as if they were a math problem, too bad his religious injections create an inconsistency there.

The Constitution Party is for overly religious libertarians who attribute the principles of limited government to an interpretation of Biblical law. They alienate non-Christians and atheists such as myself.

Only once have I heard Ron Paul mention religion or God, in a recent speech of his where he said he believes his rights come from a creator and freedom includes the freedom to practice religion freely. Nothing theocratic about that, just because the man is a Christian doesn't mean he should be represented by the theocratic-libertarian hybrid party known as the Constitution Party.

 

[Melchior]

From wikipedia:

The party opposes gambling as destructive and contributing to crime, as well as government's support of gambling organizations.[14] The party also opposes pornography, believing the government needs to take a stand against it.[15] While stressing the responsibility of individuals and corporations, the party maintains that government has responsibility in preserving standards of decency in America.

Didn't Ron Paul address the congress a while back about them trying to regulate gambling on the Internet? The CP looks like it would be all for that. They also would ban/regulate pornography, sexuality, all things fun under the sun.

Screw the Constitution Party.

 

[torchbearer]

What?

The Libertarian Party has ballot access in all 50 states. The Constitution Party only has 29 states. Ron Paul's plan B should be the Libertarian party.

 

[Kuldebar]

I don't envy the LP this election cycle. As a former member of the LP and a supporter of the late Harry Browne for two presidential bids, I can sympathize with the possible dilemma they might face.

Having said that, I entirely understand why Ron Paul needs to remain a Republican Party candidate. We think he's getting shut-out/cold shouldered now, try running third party, lol.

I can't read the future but this election has a lot of "future" historical implications for the Republican party and of course, for our nation.

The press quotes I have read from LP officials are friendly toward Paul but nothing more than that and I saw no mention on their official website.

 

[Kregener]

They are too stupid to breed if they fail to throw every resource they have at getting Ron Paul elected.

Period.

 

[NewEnd]

I agree with kregener. I hear the LP can be quite stubborn though.
Even so, I think there is a good chance, if RP gets the nomination, they will back him 100%, and withdraw their candidate.