The rEVOLution Ends Now

Ron Paul is dropping out of the presidential race.

The new phase of the revolution officially begins with a speech tonight in Houston and a Web video to be posted on his site, officially ending Paul's presidential campaign and freeing up the more than $4.7 million in campaign cash for investment in a new advocacy group, The Campaign for Liberty.

Paul will not endorse McCain tonight, in case you've been paying no attention and thought that was a possibility. I talked with Paul spokesman Jesse Benton a little while ago to confirm some more details.

- Formally, Ron Paul 2008 will be suspended, not shut down. It will exist for "a few more months" as the campaign workers "close up shop."

- Paul will not release his delegates, kinda-sorta. "I believe they'll technically be released," Benton said, "but Ron will actively be encouraging them to become a positive presence on the convention floor."

- The Campaign for Liberty will be based in Virginia and Texas; Benton will be on staff, as will certain (unknown so far) members of RP2008, but they're looking for "new blood."

- The rumor that CfL will be publishing books by Paul and friends is not true: "We'll be publishing, but it'll be new media, streaming video, and blogs. There are no plans for books right now."

- CfL plans to keep the 20,000-odd volunteers who signed up as precinct leaders active. "If we expand that program," Benton said, "we train them, and we recruit and support more people who want liberty, we can take over the country."

Comments

[DannyK]

Now we know what that Bilderberg Group meeting was about.

This is disappointing; the paralell convention would have been great political theater.

[Bingo]

Hopefully this will take off and become a movement. I doubt that it will.

[Jamie Kelly]

Even though I didn't know about the contents, I beat your fucking ass on this, Weigel.
I FUCKING BEAT YOUR ASS.
Who's the superior journalist now, huh, bitch?

[Jonathan Hohensee]

GOOGLE RON PAUL

[brotherben]

or maybe Weigel has a real job and not so much free time?

j/k

[David Weigel]

Or maybe I wanted to interview someone from the Paul campaign and not just post a press release.

Should be on the horn tonight with RP to get more details.

[Warren]

Jamie Kelly: "Any idea what the announcement will be?"

Dave Weigle:"Ron Paul is dropping out of the presidential race."

Sorry Jamie, but Dave tenderized your ass, grilled it over mesquite, took a bite out, chewed it up, spit it out, and then ground it under the heal of Ron Paul's Texas cowboy boots.

[creech]

One hopes the Campaign for Liberty will be non-partisan, and educational in addition to backing candidates for office.

[Rhywun]

I guess this is as good a time as any: What the hell is EVOL?

[JLM]

"What the hell is EVOL?"

It's love the wrong way, which is now legal in most states.

[Ben]

Jamie--I got that message emailed to me two hours before you made your post and I'm not a journalist or affiliated with the campaign. You didn't beat anyone to anything.

[Jamie Kelly]

Oh yeah, Ben and Weigel and Warren, well you can all just ... sniff my weiner, you weiner-sniffers.
OK, now, back to the topic at hand.

[Jamie Kelly]

Of course, I cover arts and entertainment in western Montana, so I can't be expected to cover the Paul campaign from Missoula.
So nyah.

[matt]

Speaking of scoops, Lew Rockwell's blog just scooped the shit out of HnR on the story of Judge Kozinski's online porn stash.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021489.html

Well, at least I thought it was newsworthy, what with him presiding over the only obscenity trial in the nation right now...

[Libertarian Socialist]

This is really sad. Ron Paul is one of the few true libertarians out there who recognize the corruption in American - and he's one of the few who have the brains and guts to reform it and make it a better place to live in again.

[Brian Defferding]

The Wonktards won't have any material now!

[Pro Libertate]

How many delegates did he have?

[Jamie Kelly]

Libertarian Socialist:
Gargle my hog, you wealth-spreading toilet bowl flecked with high-fiber diarrhea.

[Brian Defferding]

But to be serious - I'll be writing in Ron Paul regardless. Sure, the Barr/Root ticket is great and all, but Paul has a stronger and more proven libertarian history and background, so he gets my favor.

The thing of it is - Paul's campaign will at least have McSame's campaign as collateral damage, which warms my Coolidge/Goldwater-admiring heart.

[Nigel Watt]

I'll probably be there. I'll be the short guy.

[tim]

I am shocked! Shocked! I say! Who would of forsaw this?!?!

Seriously - who actually thought this guy had a chance?

[Jim Treacher]

Wait, so... is the Race War still on?

[Elemenope]

Speaking of scoops, Lew Rockwell's blog just scooped the shit out of HnR on the story of Judge Kozinski's online porn stash.

Um, Slashdot beat the shit out of Lew Rockwell on that one, scoop-wise.

[J]

Awww.

[Bingo]

But to be serious - I'll be writing in Ron Paul regardless. Sure, the Barr/Root ticket is great and all, but Paul has a stronger and more proven libertarian history and background, so he gets my favor.

I continue to be baffled by this mindset. You are writing in a man that is no longer running for the office, what exactly do you hope to accomplish?

[DannyK]

If nobody else votes, that Ron Paul vote will be there, ready to send a message of Liberty!

If anybody else votes, it doesn't mean squat. Pray for apathy, people!

[Brian Defferding]

Bingo - You vote for a person who you believe will be the best person for the job. It really is that simple.

The only time you waste your vote is when you vote for a candidate you don't believe in, or requires sacrificing a significant amount of one's principles. If you do that, you accomplish nothing - or, perhaps, you only accomplish to be counterproductive.

[liberty mike]

Libertarian Socialist?

Yes, kinda of like military man or police hero or american superiority or lincoln freed the slaves.

[Bingo]

Brian:

But he's not running for office. You're voting for a man rather than the ideas he's tried so hard to foster.

[Brian Defferding]

Bingo - Couldn't disagree more. I'm voting for exactly the ideas he's fostering. More choice, more freedom.

We shouldn't be bound by a fixed amount of choices on who we vote for.

[GG]

Here's the Campaign for Liberty site.

~ Bob Barr 2008 ~ ~ Gary Johnson 2012 ~

This is disappointing; the parallel convention would have been great political theater.

The Twin Conventions in the Twin Cities is still a go, DannyK.

[Bingo]

We shouldn't be bound by a fixed amount of choices on who we vote for.

Ooookay that's some great political zen thinking. You might as well write in "Howard Roark" if voting for an idealistic personality is somehow promoting freedom and ideas.

And don't give me the bullshit that "if all us Ron Paul supporters group together and write in his name then they'll have so many Ron Paul votes and his name will be in the news! FREEDOM! RON PAUL 2008!" You've been in the Ron Paul groupthink mode too long and you need to step back and take a look at the reality of this election cycle.

The reality is that we have two statists from two statist parties that are firmly entrenched in the system. 100,000 people writing in Ron Paul isn't even going to register on the radar. You might have a chance to promote libertarian ideals if you do for Barr and the LP what you did for Paul. However, I doubt you can see beyond the veil of your cult-like worship of a man who, from the get-go, said it was all about promoting a message of liberty.

[Mosby]

I agree with Brian. I also order lobster at McDonalds. I will not be limited by a fixed menu when there are better options out there.

[Ayn_Randian]

Yes, kinda of like military man or police hero or american superiority or lincoln freed the slaves.

you can't be a military man? There is no such thing as heroic police officers?

America isn't superior to other nations?

Put down the crack pipe, liberty mike.

[Derek]

I agree with Bingo. There's no point to writing in Ron Paul's name in November. We'd be much better off voting for someone actually running yet, like Barr or Chuck Baldwin, and making a statement that way.

[Danny]

Bingo,

Look. If I vote for Obama or McCain, my vote will be lost in the masses... and all so that my vote has the possibility of being on the winning side. I couldn't care less.

Instead, if everybody voted for who they wanted, instead of who the DP or GOP or LP or GP decided on, then you have your voice heard. Instead of a vote being lumped into 4 (really, only predominantly 2) categories, you really don't get your voice heard. Your voice is lost, and people think that all those who voted will vote with party lines, and this will promote people to do this even more in the future.

If, on the other hand, everybody votes for who they want, then we get a true representation of who America wanted to be their president.

Instead of (hypothetically, of course):

55% McCain
44% Obama
0.75% Barr
0.15% GP Candidate (too lazy to look up)
0.10% Undecided

We would have a more true representation of who people want as their president:

24% McCain
18% Obama
14% Clinton
9% Romney
6% Huckabee
5% Thompson
4% Paul
2% Edwards
.5% Barr

And so on...

So you see how this makes more of a difference? The American people might actually see what other people really believe in instead of thinking, "Well, everybody else is a sheep, so I'll be one too!"

Also, Paul might have done a lot better with better media coverage and without people saying, "He can't even win... Just forget about him." For some reason, people just believed that instead of learning about him and possibly voting for him. It seemed to have been in the back of everybody's mind that, "Oh, well, if he won't win anyways then why waste my vote?" It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Danny]

Oh, and you guys are perpetuating that whole mindset of "why waste your time?" It's all just a self-fulfilling prophecy. Barr won't even come close to getting the amount of votes that Paul did in the primaries.

[jimmy]

many states don't even bother counting write-in votes, or at least don't report them in the official results. the press never reports write-in results even from the states that do count them. nobody will even notice any write-in votes for ron paul. maybe you'll be able to find the total in a footnote on some webpage in a few years' time. brilliant idea from the cult of personality crowd.

[Bill Wood]

In Virginia a vote for Barr/Root could help the Libertarian Party of Virginia gain ballot access for the next 4 years. No petitioning would be needed to get Libertarians on the ballot for President/VP, Senate or Congress. That would save between $10,000 to $20,000 which could be better spent promoting Liberty.

[M\']

I was, born in the CSA!

[Danny]

jimmy | June 12, 2008, 8:25pm | #
many states don't even bother counting write-in votes, or at least don't report them in the official results. the press never reports write-in results even from the states that do count them. nobody will even notice any write-in votes for ron paul. maybe you'll be able to find the total in a footnote on some webpage in a few years' time. brilliant idea from the cult of personality crowd.

Well that sounds like a problem with the system. Why do we allow "the press" or "the state" to do this? Clearly it costs money to count them, but Christ... why shouldn't every vote count?

[John-David]

If, on the other hand, everybody votes for who they want, then we get a true representation of who America wanted to be their president.

I assume your blog or newsletter that reaches 99% of the American voting public will be able to convince them of the rationality of your plan. Or not.

[Bingo]

Danny, the enthusiasm for Dr. Paul's ideas is appreciated but you are not thinking rationally. There is simply no way that Ron Paul is going to get 4% of the national vote based on write-ins alone. The idea is naive and asinine.

[Angry African]

It seems as if the Republicans are getting their knickers in a knot over Michelle Obama. And getting ready to take aim at her over the next few months. But maybe they should take a look in the mirror and ask themselves what are they so "proud" of? Maybe they should revisit what Michelle Obama has seen from her American leaders since she was born the year after President Kennedy got killed. And then, no matter what they come up with and manage to spin, I'll still take a straight shooter who doesn't mince words - the Michelle way. That's American. That's the American way. And the choice of spouses also tells me loads of the candidates themselves. And not the way you think. http://angryafrican.net/2008/06/12/michelle-not-a-stepford-wife/

[Roger Maltz]

Mosby | June 12, 2008, 7:28pm | #

I agree with Brian. I also order lobster at McDonalds. I will not be limited by a fixed menu when there are better options out there.

This might be cute if McDonald's wasn't known regionally in the northeast to sell lobster rolls during the summer months.

[finally]

No surprises, Paul never spent money like he was seriously running for president. It was all one grand excuse to raise money for his retirement project -- which we now know is called Campaign for Liberty. Included in that campaign, based on history is the liberty of states to violate individual rights, impose religion on their citizens and generally ignore the Bill of Rights. And by liberty we don't mean freedom for the millions of workiers who are here without state permission -- Paul wants them rounded up and deported. And liberty doesn't mean choice on pregnancy but mandated 9 month sentences.

[Brandybuck]

Bingo - You vote for a person who you believe will be the best person for the job. It really is that simple.

Did you write him in in 2004? Why not? By your argument you should have written him in in 2004. He wasn't running for president, but neither will he be running for president in November. Will you also write him in in 2012 if he doesn't run? WTF not?!?!

If you believe you should write in people's names even if they aren't running for office, then tell us who you're voting for for governor, senate and congressman in your district? Have you ever written in your first grade school teacher for city council?

[LevStrauss]

Too bad no thread for the Ron Paul announcement. I really would have liked to see the jokes about Ron's music choice and such in the comments. Guess all the Reason writers are drinking up enough courage to dance at the Jefferson Memorial later tonight.

[Brandybuck]

[Chris Potter]

Formally, Ron Paul 2008 will be suspended, not shut down. It will exist for "a few more months" as the campaign workers "close up shop."

ie, until his family members find new jobs.

The Campaign for Liberty will be based in Virginia and Texas; Benton will be on staff, as will certain (unknown so far) members of RP2008, but they're looking for "new blood."

oh wait, maybe they won't have to find new jobs.

[Chris Potter]

Also, it's interesting to note that Dr Paul would have had 150,000 troops withdrawn from Iraq in a shorter time than it will take his campaign to "close up shop". What a scam.

[Chris Potter]

It was all one grand excuse to raise money for his retirement project -- which we now know is called Campaign for Liberty.

He already has a very lucrative pension package in place from being a Congressman all these years, so I doubt that's true. His campaign's payments to his own family members is far more stinky, though.

[John-David]

finally,

[citation needed]

[LevStrauss]

Chris Potter | June 12, 2008, 10:32pm | #

Most of those payments were rather small increments concerning the cost of travel especially with rising fuel costs. For all the stuff that was going on I'd bet most of them didn't break even. This isn't anything like Fred's son running his PAC for six figures or anything. Though I do question the usefulness of some non relatives that hang around him. Those that have let him out in the cold right around New Hampshire when he needed someone to man up.

[LevStrauss]

LevStrauss | June 12, 2008, 10:48pm | #
concerning=considering

[UCrawford]

Chris Potter,

Actually, he's not enrolled in the Congressional pension program. That's one of the trivia blurbs the Paulestinians love to point out to try and distract attention away from the fact that he's historically a rather ineffective politician...at least as far as convincing any other Congressmen to buy into the libertarian portion of his message goes.

[Chris Potter]

Lev,

I believe the total was over $200,000 paid to family members. That's an awful lot of travel, high fuel costs or no.

[LevStrauss]

UCrawford | June 12, 2008, 10:58pm | #

What planet are you from? The Libertarians weren't doing so hot themselves. He got decent percentages compared to what the Libertarians do as far as influence. Anything going forward is positive and something is better than nothing. Conservatives are getting very disgruntled too. It's not being reported but the change at conventions is very visible. We won't get a President but we will get more representatives in the future, 2010 and on. Primary voter turnout can be small compared to the general elections and people haven't even begun to care about the election yet. There should be a second surge of support.

Chris Potter | June 12, 2008, 11:00pm | #

Why not post the breakdowns? That is spread over a lot of people. Take one coach plane trip, rental car, and hotel in some cases and and multiple fill ups of gas and hotel in other cases across multiple family members and during the duration of a National campaign. They actively campaigned. Also does that include Benton, who up until recently was not a fiance to Ron's relation? He was the full time Headquarters guy. That was his job.

[Nigel Watt]

I was there. That was intense. Not sure what this CFL is going to be, but I'll see what I can do with it.

[Chris Potter]

LevStrauss, no, that doesn't include his bumbling spokesperson, who will continue to be employed by a suspended campaign since he's part of the family now. In any case, $200,000 split between even 20 family members would be an average of $10,000 each.

Basic point: you shouldn't be paying your own family members out of your campaign money. It creates at the very least the appearance of corruption. There were thousands of people working hard for the campaign and getting paid zilch, why should his family not be able to do this.

[Chris Potter]

And I reiterate, the idea that it takes months to "close down" a campaign is ludicrous. This is the sort of thing libertarians usually make fun of, but I guess not when it's one of our own.

[Joe S.]

Chris, no one thinks that it takes 'months' to close down a campaign. They're keeping it nominally alive so that the delegates can have a voice at the convention, that's all.

[Stefan]

What an utter nonsense heading. Is this the "quality" of journalism? David just expose himself again as being unable to understand. The revolution continues in a new phase, with greater zeal. The suspension of the campaign is very logical: there are NO primaries left to campaign!
The suspension of the presidential campaign means he will not use any more money for the presidential campaign, it will be freed to support candidates and the operation. Hillary Clinton also suspended her campaign, but did not end it (like Paul). In case there is some revelation about Obama and/or McCain, it means theoretically the delegates can then switch their votes to Clinton and/or Paul respectively.

[Gene Trosper]

For those of you who want to write in Ron Paul's name this November, check this out:

http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/05/31/ron-paul-write-in-options-rules-for-each-state/1124/

[Fluffy]

Basic point: you shouldn't be paying your own family members out of your campaign money. It creates at the very least the appearance of corruption.

Uh - no, it doesn't.

Not one dime of public funds is in the campaign kitty.

You're just buying into the bullshit put out by antiliberty fuckwad "campaign finance reformers" like McCain.

Political corruption [if we're talking about legislators] is when officeholders accept bribes in order to vote a certain way on legislation. It's not when a candidate pays his daughter a few thousand dollars a month - out of campaign funds, and not out of public funds - when she's working full time on the campaign.

Things like that are painted as corrupt by statist scum who hate freedom of association and hate any private money being in politics at all, and are bound and determined to propagandize any use of private money as "corrupt".

And by the way - the "appearance of corruption"? Don't make me laugh. Those are three of the most loathsome antiliberty words employed by the SCOTUS in the last 50 years.

[Brian Defferding]

Brandybuck - In 2004 I voted for Badnarik.

Sure I could have wrote Ron Paul in then too. I wouldn't have felt any worse if I did. I also thought Michael was good for the job.

What's your point again?

[Brian Defferding]

Bingo - if you want to see why people are almost always unhappy during election time, if you want to see part of the reason why people complain how less of a democracy we have become, read your own posts and you'll see why. They keep voting for the lesser of two evils.

What a great mindset to subscribe to.

I guess I'll have the warm mush instead of the cold mush today at McDonalds.

[robc]

Danny,

In my state, they count all the write in votes for anyone who registers that they are running. If you dont register as a "write-in" candidate they dont count the votes. Thus, it makes no sense to write-in unless the person is a registered write-in. Also, in my state, write-in isnt an option for president (it is for every single other race though).

I always vote for the person I most want to win, FROM THE LIST OF THOSE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNTED.

I will be "throwing my vote away" on Barr. If Paul was on the ballot, I would much prefer to vote for him. But he isnt, he has dropped out of the race. Thus, I have to vote for someone else (or not vote). I prefer to vote, and will thus vote for Barr, as the best eligible candidate.

[robc]

That last post was for Brian Defferding too.

[robc]

My point above is, if you want to write in Ron Paul that is fine. However, before you do, find out your state's laws on counting write-ins. Writing in a name that wont be counted is exactly the same as not voting. Which is okay, if that is what you want your vote to look like. If your state will actually COUNT and PUBLISH Paul's vote total, then feel free. Otherwise, I recommend you reconsider your strategery.

[jtuf]

So the Libertarian Party ended up being an incubator for libertarian minded Republicans. Well, plenty of Libertarians describe how the Democratic Party adopted the platform of the Socialist Party and see it as a role model.

[Chris Potter]

no one thinks that it takes 'months' to close down a campaign. They're keeping it nominally alive so that the delegates can have a voice at the convention, that's all.

Nonsense. Delegates have to pay their own way to the convention anyway, and the existence of the campaign has nothing to do with whether they get seated. If he's no longer campaigning, the campaign should be completely shut down within two weeks or less.

Fluffy,

Not all corruption involves public funds. If you solicit donations for a cause, and you use that money for another purpose, that's corruption (or fraud if you like). I donated money to be used a political campaign, not for a Paul family full-employment scam. If that makes me "statist scum", so be it.

[Ed Vallejo]

Ron Pauls' Presidential Campaign maybe 'suspended' and 'winding down', but to state unequivocally in an article title that "the R3VOLUTION ends now" is about the most despicable slander I've ever seen! Spin, skew, call it what you will, IT IS A LIE! The R3VOLUTION is alive and well and living in the hearts and minds of MANY disenfranchised Americans that have just gone through an equally despicable MEDIA BLACKOUT of the most principled Statesman to ever run for the office!

Hold on to your socks because the R3VOLUTION is JUST GETTING STARTED!

Call me whatever names you will and let the vilification of Patriots continue - I don't listen to ignorant people anyway.....

[Brian Defferding]

robc - no kidding? Yikes! The policy of your state sucks, that's a very anti-democratic policy. That's an issue that needs to be addressed, stat.

At least you're voting for Barr, though.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I am wondering about the backstory here. It would seem as if the RP delegates would have more clout, and certainly get more media coverage concerning "the message," if RP were still in the race, come convention time. But by bowing out now, RP allows the GOP poobahs to save face, and give McCain a choreographed coronation, instead of the potentially embarrassing floor revolt that some muckey-mucks feared.

Was a deal cut? If so, and if it was to guarantee RP a speaker's slot or achieve some advantage for the Paulistas on the floor, perhaps the bargain was a good one. But for now, it looks as if Paul gave up what leverage he had to make the party leaders and McCain happy.

If there was no deal, I still wonder if some kind of pressure was applied to Dr. Paul to get him to abandon even the threat of a floor fight.

Who has the dirt?

[Apaulogist]

Thank you, Dr. Paul for a well-fought race. There is no one in Washington fighting harder for our liberties and for peace.

[Travis]

"I also order lobster at McDonalds. I will not be limited by a fixed menu when there are better options out there."

I'll take a McLobster with fries & a Coke please.