Badnar-ock the Vote!

Michael Badnarik is quasi-ditching the LP* to endorse Ron Paul's Republican presidential run:

"My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008," Badnarik said Friday night at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a pro-liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project.
…
Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. "I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, 'Oh ho, somebody we can trust!' and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee," he said. "We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person."

There are actually a few states where this is possible, like New York, which also has a history of losing candidates staying on the ballot to irritate the main party in November (see Mario Cuomo's Liberal run against Ed Koch in 1977). Paul's bid certainly complicates the party's presidential gameplan; I'm hoping it inspires them to concentrate more on small, winnable races.

I interviewed Bob Barr on this subject; Brian Doherty recently interviewed Rep. Paul.

*Link fixed.

Comments

[Antarctic Penguin]

Oh, my God NO! Badnarick is supporting the idea "libertarian" over the party label "Libertarian"!!! You mean he cares more about advancing libertarian ideas that supporting a political party that has never elected a President or U.S. Senator! The horror!!

[rdkraus]

Makes sense to me.

If I have a chance to vote for Paul in a primary or general election, I will, regardless of whether he's on the Repub or Lib'n line.

He is so much closer to "us" than the usual, it's a no-brainer, REGARDLESS OF ANY PARTICULAR ISSUES WHERE I MIGHT DISAGREE.

Sorry for shouting.

[Michael Hampton]

Er, you quoted MY blog, and linked to someone else. Not cool.

[thoreau]

The best thing that the LP can do for Ron Paul is stay far, far away.

That won't be enough to elect Ron Paul, but it may enable him to get some positive attention in the primaries.

[c]

I agree, Thoreau. Badnarik is an embarrassment. An energetic embarrassment, but still.

In other news, Ron Paul remains exiled from the Pajamas Media poll unlike such heavy hitters as Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter. They're nice enough to include people like Chuck Hagel, who isn't even running.

They should rename it "Douchebag Media."

[Brian Defferding]

I support this, it makes sense to me too. I hope in the end Ron Paul recieves the LP endorsement.

[The Real Bill]

I'm going to vote in the Republican primary this year so I can vote for Paul. (I hope he's still in the race at that time.) I'm afraid that an LP endorsement would tank the infinitesimal chance he has to be the Republican nominee. BTW, I've been telling some of my evangelical family members about Paul and the fact that he's anti-abortion. I think I'm having some effect on them.

[Number 6]

Take a breath, Penguin. No one was criticizing Badnarik for endorsing Paul. I recommend reading what is actually being said, not what you expect to be said.

[creech]

Does making statements such as "My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure Ron Paul is elected president" inspire listeners or turn them off? Anyone with even one foot in the real world knows that it will be impossible to elect Ron Paul president.
Wouldn't it be more inspiring to say "My short term goal is to do every thing I can to let voters know Ron Paul is running and what his positions are?" I'm sick of hyperbole and unrealistic b.s.

[VM]

"Paul and the fact that he's anti-abortion"

enough to make this libertarian totally ignore him. Just like that asshole who ran for senate here in Illinois last time.

Cannot possibly reconcile that position with being a libertarian.

[Jacob T. Levy]

There are actually a few states where this is possible, like New York

It's possible everywhere. If the LP and GOP both nominate Paul, he'll appear on ballots in two places.

What's distinctive about New York is that the votes from the two columns would be added together.

In a non-fusion state, if the votes went

49% Paul R
48% Clinton D
3% Paul L

then Clinton would win the state; Paul would "spoil" himself.

There may be specific FEC rules about presidential campaigns that make it impossible to run as the presidential candidate of two parties, but the lack of fusion ballots isn't itself an obstacle.

[Jacob T. Levy]

Whoops. Numbers were wrong. Monday morning.

I meant that if the results were
Clinton 49
Paul 48
Paul 3

Clinton would win the state, even though

Paul (R) + Paul (L) > Clinton.

[Warren]

creech,
For reasons I don't fully understand, everyone associated with a serious campaign (of any party) will always say "we are in it to win it" right up until they stop. I'm pretty sure it's a money thing.

[Warren]

VM,
Cannot possibly reconcile??? Oh come on, you aren't even trying. If a fetus is a person, and a person has a right to life, then the government has a duty to secure that right.

It's not my position. As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't recognize the little bastard's rights until he gets a job. But still theirs nothing unlibertarian to a 'right to life' position.

And you say that abortion is a top priority to you? That's unusual for a libertarian.

I have a bigger problem with Paul's immigration policy. It's awful, but he is just so very much better on everything else, than everyone else running for anything. Any chance I get to vote for him, will be an honor, a privilege, and a pleasure.

[creech]

Warren, if it's a money thing, then I, for one, would be far more likely to give to a campaign with realistic goals than one that prattles about winning an impossible race.

[I. Self. Divine.]

Somehow creech, I don't see a large percentage of the general population sharing your realism. I think saying, "We won't win this but..." will alienate a huge percentage of donors, no matter what follows the but.

[Stevo Darkly]

You know, a few weeks ago I was wondering whether it was possible for the LP to nominate Ron Paul as well as the GOP, but I decided it was too embarrassingly stupid of a question to ask.

[ChrisO]

Since the LP isn't an officially recognized party in a number of states, an LP endorsement of Paul might not affect him that much. Of course, that's me living in my version of Candyland in which Paul has a fighting chance to win. Yes, I will vote for him if I have the opportunity.

[JasonL]

Paul's bid is a sideshow. Now it is sidier than it was before.

It is awesome to hear Badnarik proclaim "My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008." He is going to make sure. With his clout and credibility and stuff. Or something.

[Michael Hampton]

Thanks.

P.S. Ron Paul raised over $10,000 this weekend from a gathering of 150 New Hampshire supporters.

[Sam McManus]

i'd vote for paul, regardless of his chances for winning. As i see it, with the widespread dissatisfaction with the bush administration's authoritarian policies and the disillusionment of a large portion of small-government conservatives that follows such dissatisfaction, the proverbial iron is hot for the striking for libertarians. a vote for paul would be one more vote that says "THIS is what conservativism should be," and with the definition of that term as nebulous as it is nowadays, that might actually mean something.

I'm a college student, and the majority of the intelligent conservatives i know describe themselves not as conservatives or republicans but as libertarians. this is of course anecdotal, and i don't know if it's just a phase college students go through, but it seems to me that there is a definite shift away from republicanism towards libertarianism amongst younger people, at least in the northeast. it could just be foolish hope, but maybe the times really are a-changing.

[ChrisO]

Sam, I'd like to agree with you, but your data sample is insufficient. A growing percentage of Republicans are "values conservatives" who are less concerned about the size of government than with redirecting Behemoth toward their pet concerns. These voters might not be a majority of Republicans, but they are the most reliable voters in the party and the ones who do a lot of the political foot work. As such, their importance is outsized. And getting them to vote for Ron Paul would be a challenge in any circumstance. 🙁

[tomtom]

Sam,
I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph. Also, I wish your second were true, and maybe it is for the Northeast, but in Texas it is far from it. Among college age people here it seems that a vast majority of "conservatives" have locked on to the Republican party and root for them as if they were a football team. "R" next to a name automatically ensures support from these people regardless of the individual politician.

That being said, the "R" next to Paul's name as opposed to an "L" gives him much needed cred. among these voters. I'm not sure of the statistics but I would imagine that a lot more voters than we would like to imagine vote a straight party ticket with little thought given to each candidate. The consequence of this is that most voters are voting against one party not for the other.

[Jane]

US Congressman Ron Paul wows crowd of 150 in NH
Pembroke, New Hampshire
Saturday, February 24, 2007

US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul was still receiving applause as he walked out the door of a private home in Pembroke, NH on Saturday evening after speaking to 150 supporters who donated over $14,000 to seed his bid for the presidency. Paul arrived at 9 PM and stayed to mingle with the adoring crowd until 11:30 PM as they drank coffee and dipped fruit from a large arrangement into a chocolate fountain.

While visiting New Hampshire on a presidential exploratory trip, he also appeared at the NH Liberty Forum in Concord, where he had been endorsed for the presidency on the Friday evening before by former Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.

Paul's speech at the private reception, which was recorded professionally by California filmmaker Bill Dumas, centered around the financial state of the country, the war in Iraq, and the limited roll of government, and was met with long bouts of applause by the standing-room only crowd.

Supporters believe that Paul's message can unite fiscal conservatives, republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists, and others who are disillusioned with the direction in which the country is headed, in the cause of less government and reasonable spending and on getting the country back on track with regard to foreign policy.

[Jane]

This is for you VM:

""Paul and the fact that he's anti-abortion" enough to make this libertarian totally ignore him. Just like that asshole who ran for senate here in Illinois last time. Cannot possibly reconcile that position with being a libertarian."

I can't believe you'd be so petty as to dismiss the chance to support a nearly perfect candidate. There are plenty of pro-life libertarians who feel if you are going to go against the death penalty, you'd better be anti-abortion (as a birth control pill for 12 year olds) as well.

Shut up or put up.

- Jane (who nearly singlehandedly just raised $14K for Ron -- what have YOU done for Ron lately?)

[Stevo Darkly]

Hey, VM's okay, Jane -- he's just one of the many who feels strongly about abortion, one way or the other.

VM, you know I love ya like a brother -- not like a Brother in a gay Catholic all-boys' school sense, but in a manly, hairy, whiskey-drinking, shoulder-punching sense -- but there are plenty of libertarians who oppose abortion.

There's the "Libertarians for Life" organization -- which you might be tempted to dismiss as a fringe group of a fringe group. However, in the early 1990s the Libertarian Party took a poll at one of its conventions, and the libertarian magazine Liberty conducted a nearly identical poll of its readership. A sizable minority -- around 30% IIRC -- said they thought abortion was "wrong." Liberty conducted the poll again in 1998, and the figure was 43%.

There's also Nat Hentoff, the atheist columnist for Village Voice who opposes abortion on civil rights grounds and is one of the better spokespeople for that viewpoint.

It all depends on your conclusions re the status of the zygote, which is not as abvious as some would have it.

Now, whether those libertarians who think it's "wrong" also think it should be illegal is another matter. I don't recall whether the polls made this disctinction, and alas, I can't find them online.

IIRC correctly, Ron Paul believes that abortion should not be a federal matter but would leave its legality up to each state.

[Stevo]

"abvious" should be "obvious," obviously.

[Stevo Darkly]

"Abvious" refers to "something that is readily apparent, and also has really terrific stomach muscles."

[Stevo Darkly]

Also, "disctinction" is how you can tell two CDs apart.