PDA

View Full Version : LP VP question




Bradley in DC
05-15-2008, 08:01 PM
I left the LP some years ago (in part because of their idiotic attack on Bob Barr trying to influence another party's primary!) so I don't know the answer, but I know a candidate for president for the LP has to agree to accept the nomination (I think).

So, let's say the LP nominates someone besides Dr. Paul...could that person pick Dr. Paul as his veep even without his consent? :cool:

Kludge
05-15-2008, 08:03 PM
I left the LP some years ago (in part because of their idiotic attack on Bob Barr trying to influence another party's primary!) so I don't know the answer, but I know a candidate for president for the LP has to agree to accept the nomination (I think).

So, let's say the LP nominates someone besides Dr. Paul...could that person pick Dr. Paul as his veep even without his consent? :cool:

I hope not. I would not vote LP if they drafted Dr. Paul against his will. Barr/Ruwart would be ideal... Anything but WAR.

torchbearer
05-15-2008, 08:05 PM
I left the LP some years ago (in part because of their idiotic attack on Bob Barr trying to influence another party's primary!) so I don't know the answer, but I know a candidate for president for the LP has to agree to accept the nomination (I think).

So, let's say the LP nominates someone besides Dr. Paul...could that person pick Dr. Paul as his veep even without his consent? :cool:

Here is where the idea that the majority of national delegates can't elect someone who doesn't want the nomination is wrong.
The current rules don't allow it.
The majority of delegates decide the rules.
A new rule could allow for it.

SO in that context- anything is possible at convention.
It is the will of the majority.

nate895
05-15-2008, 08:20 PM
Here is where the idea that the majority of national delegates can't elect someone who doesn't want the nomination is wrong.
The current rules don't allow it.
The majority of delegates decide the rules.
A new rule could allow for it.

SO in that context- anything is possible at convention.
It is the will of the majority.

What I would do is make a provision to make it unamendable.

torchbearer
05-15-2008, 08:22 PM
What I would do is make a provision to make it unamendable.

Nothing is unamendable really.
If 100% of the people don't agree with a rule. There would be no one to raise an objection.

Feelgood
05-15-2008, 09:04 PM
Hmm I think a Barr/Badnarik ticket would be nice myself. Who knows...

Bradley in DC
05-15-2008, 09:08 PM
Hmm I think a Barr/Badnarik ticket would be nice myself. Who knows...

Oh, gawd, no, please, no more joke candidates.

mdh
05-15-2008, 09:14 PM
I left the LP some years ago (in part because of their idiotic attack on Bob Barr trying to influence another party's primary!) so I don't know the answer, but I know a candidate for president for the LP has to agree to accept the nomination (I think).

So, let's say the LP nominates someone besides Dr. Paul...could that person pick Dr. Paul as his veep even without his consent? :cool:

VP's are not picked by the candidate, they're elected at the convention. In the real world, a compromise ticket usually ends up happening, where you have a more radical pres and a more reformer vp, or visa-versa. Something like {Kubby,Ruwart}/{Barr,Gravel} or {Barr,Gravel}/{Kubby,Ruwart} is most likely. If there's a huge turnout of "let's be GOP-lite" style reformers, we could see something like Barr/Root or Barr/Phillies, and if there's a huge turnout of radicals, we could see something like Ruwart/Kubby, but neither of those is particularly likely.

Which way the delegates supporting "moderate" candidates like George Phillies go will have an impact, as well. The only correct answer though, is that it's extremely hard to gauge prior to the third or fourth round of voting at the earliest.

Kludge
05-15-2008, 09:16 PM
Oh, gawd, no, please, no more joke candidates.

Badnarik wasn't THAT bad...

mdh
05-15-2008, 09:16 PM
Oh, gawd, no, please, no more joke candidates.

Robert Milnes for president! (http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl8.asp?SiteID=1099&PageID=17752&Trial=false)

Seriously, who else can claim that their presidential campaign website discusses their psychological disorders in great detail? :)

mdh
05-15-2008, 09:19 PM
Speaking of Milnes, lets not forget adding stars to the flag for the Canadian provinces... (http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl8.asp?SiteID=1099&PageID=22079&Trial=false)


Another possibility could be federation with Canada. That could add 13 stars.

crazyfingers
05-15-2008, 09:28 PM
Robert Milnes for president! (http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl8.asp?SiteID=1099&PageID=17752&Trial=false)

Seriously, who else can claim that their presidential campaign website discusses their psychological disorders in great detail? :)

Milnes is good, but he'll only come to the convention if the LP pays all his travel expenses. :D

I could be wrong but I think the LP vice presidential nominee is traditionally chosen from an entirely different field.

Richie
05-15-2008, 09:33 PM
I actually liked (and still do) Michael Badnarik. He puts out an excellent Constitution class. I attended one, and got to meet him in person. I can't say I'm particularly fond of his temper, but he knows his stuff and he's a great guy.

mdh
05-15-2008, 09:51 PM
I could be wrong but I think the LP vice presidential nominee is traditionally chosen from an entirely different field.

Sort of. As far as I know, only one person has actually registered as seeking the VP nod, generally it ends up being someone who lost the presidency.

kombayn
05-15-2008, 09:52 PM
They need to go with... Barr/Root, Barr/Gravel, Barr/Ruwart... In that order. I'm personally hoping myself it's either Gravel/Barr or Gravel/Ruwart in this LP election. But I doubt that'll happen. If Barr wins, I think he'll endorse Wayne Allyn Root, he'd be smart to do it. Energizing the party, and Root is actually a pretty True Libertarian, he just objects to some of the positions (he's not for drugs but supports the legalization). It's sad extremists in the party label him as GOP-lite, he's far from it and they usually do that because he has a good relationship with Murdoch's companies. Which is ACTUALLY... A GOOD THING! :eek:

mdh
05-15-2008, 09:56 PM
kombayn, I would suggest you take some time to understand the convention process a bit. Barr/Root is about as likely as Barr/Milnes.
Gravel/Barr and Gravel/Ruwart are good possibilities if Gravel is seen as a compromise candidate between the larger factions after picking up early round drop-offs from folks without a chance like Imperato, Jingozian, etc. I'd imagine the larger contingency would pick the VP.
For Barr/Root to pass, you'd need not only a huge number of "let's play GOP-lite" reformers, but also for them to pick up a lot of moderates when candidates like Phillies drop off.

Kludge
05-15-2008, 10:00 PM
They need to go with... Barr/Root, Barr/Gravel, Barr/Ruwart... In that order. I'm personally hoping myself it's either Gravel/Barr or Gravel/Ruwart in this LP election. But I doubt that'll happen. If Barr wins, I think he'll endorse Wayne Allyn Root, he'd be smart to do it. Energizing the party, and Root is actually a pretty True Libertarian, he just objects to some of the positions (he's not for drugs but supports the legalization). It's sad extremists in the party label him as GOP-lite, he's far from it and they usually do that because he has a good relationship with Murdoch's companies. Which is ACTUALLY... A GOOD THING! :eek:

WAR has no problem with staying in Iraq until "democracy is established". I have a problem with that.
Gravel went to the fucking LP debate and called that the US gives "healthcare to all" - UNFORGIVABLE.

Ruwart, Barr and Smith are the only acceptable candidates.

Alawn
05-15-2008, 10:29 PM
The worst thing the LP could ever do is nominate Gravel. I will not vote for the LP with him on the ballot no matter what. Even if it is just for the VP. I will lose all respect for the LP if he is nominated. If the LP becomes the socialist party then I don't want to have anything to do with it. If someone else is nominated then I will vote for the LP nominee. I am sure I am not alone on this. Many people really dislike him. They have to stay very far away from him. He isn't even remotely close to libertarian anyway. He just thinks they might like him more than the Democrats do because he is famous.

BarryDonegan
05-15-2008, 10:30 PM
barr ruwart would be good. barr because he can get onto the television shows, and ruwart because she has the best head on her shoulders in the party.

Cleaner44
05-15-2008, 10:48 PM
Hmm I think a Barr/Badnarik ticket would be nice myself. Who knows...

I would take Badnarik over Barr anyday.

BKom
05-15-2008, 11:24 PM
People are actually considering supporting Barr for the LP nomination? That's pretty amazing. I thought the party was going in the toilet back when Marrou was the candidate. Apparently, the toilet is bottomless. Gravel and Barr should be shuffled back to the parties they belong in: their original ones. Sheesh.

Kludge
05-15-2008, 11:28 PM
People are actually considering supporting Barr for the LP nomination? That's pretty amazing. I thought the party was going in the toilet back when Marrou was the candidate. Apparently, the toilet is bottomless. Gravel and Barr should be shuffled back to the parties they belong in: their original ones. Sheesh.

Barr at least has some experience and has a fairly libertarian voting record (less a few highly publicized acts...). He's an excellent choice for a gradual shift from conservatism to libertarianism in America. Gravel's simply on the wrong sides of the Nolan chart and should have never come to the LP.

Libertarian Ideals
05-15-2008, 11:41 PM
People are picking Barr over Kubby & Ruwart...?

Glad Ron Paul didn't join the LP this election, there would be way too many factions to have any serious presence in the general election.

Kludge
05-15-2008, 11:53 PM
People are picking Barr over Kubby & Ruwart...?

Glad Ron Paul didn't join the LP this election, there would be way too many factions to have any serious presence in the general election.

Barr is a popular and experienced "compromise", Ruwart is a hardcore libertarian and an excellent speaker. A Barr/Ruwart ticket is ideal. Kubby hasn't shown enough interest recently, IMO.

mdh
05-16-2008, 01:13 AM
I'm on the opposite side of that - I'd say a Gravel/Ruwart ticket would be ideal, though I'd be perfectly happy with a (far less likely in reality) pure radical ticket.

Gravel hasn't been helping Republicans beat Libertarians, nor does he issue wishy-washy answers. I know where I agree with him, and I know where I disagree with him. I can't say the same of Barr right now, which makes it impossible for me to say I really support him.

revolutionary8
05-16-2008, 02:08 AM
Gravel hasn't been helping Republicans beat Libertarians, nor does he issue wishy-washy answers. I know where I agree with him, and I know where I disagree with him. I can't say the same of Barr right now, which makes it impossible for me to say I really support him.

I agree with this. . (not that it matters, but mdh - I think you and I are on opposite ends a lot of the time, which says something lol)

MMolloy
05-16-2008, 06:15 AM
If Ron doesn't get the nomination in the Republican Party... You'll have to write him in if you want to vote for HIM because he won't be running in any other party.

But as he's said a thousand times... this revolution is not about him.

Bradley in DC
05-16-2008, 06:25 AM
People are picking Barr over Kubby & Ruwart...?

Kubby doesn't seem to be physically up to the rigorous campaigning we'd like, and Ruwart did not handle the (unfair) attacks by Root well (basically telling all parents that she didn't want their vote).

Richie
05-16-2008, 07:20 AM
Kubby should not be running, with his physical problems and... ahem... "requirements." He hasn't been able to make it to very many state conventions.

Personally, I hope that Barr should get VP, if anything. Gravel should just leave. I agree with you on one thing, mdh. Gravel did not shift his opinions to pander, and I have to give him credit for that. However, he should've joined the Green Party.

My dream ticket - Ruwart/Barr

BarryDonegan
05-16-2008, 11:15 AM
Barr flip flopped on big government after 911, which i see as acceptable. I could see that someone has been warned that our government is about to make major power grabs for probably a decade, and swore it off as a "conspiracy theory", and reasonably so. Then 911 happens and a major power grab happens, Barr, being from a legal background, recognizes the intent in the legislation after further review, panics due to cognitive dissonance, then goes to the biggest recognizable anti big government party he can find to form new alliances that fit what he feels is a truer picture of what is going on.

This is an acceptable time to flip flop.

G-Wohl
05-16-2008, 11:34 AM
What about Jingozian/Kubby with Gravel as Secretary of State? :D

Kludge
05-16-2008, 01:22 PM
What about Jingozian/Kubby with Gravel as Secretary of State? :D

Jingozian would be an excellent candidate if we were speaking of an election in which there was any hope of winning at. LP POTUS runs are just propping up spokesmen to spread libertarianism through news interviews and grassroots coordination. Based on the LNC debates, Jingozian is simply a mediocre speaker. His message is good and he's a solid libertarian - but he's monotonous and frankly boring to listen to.

Kubby's physical conditions have already been touched on. I don't believe he can handle the media if he won't even show up to the most important LP debate of the election year.

Ruwart, Barr, Smith, Gravel and Phillies were all excellent speakers. Ruwart, Barr, and Smith, however, are the only good speakers with proper libertarian values.

By chance (okay, maybe not...), I'm wearing a Bob Barr '08 shirt right now to spark discussion by the 93% of Americans who want to know why Bob Barker is running for POTUS.:D

mdh
05-16-2008, 06:52 PM
Kubby doesn't seem to be physically up to the rigorous campaigning we'd like, and Ruwart did not handle the (unfair) attacks by Root well (basically telling all parents that she didn't want their vote).

Actually, she came out with the right statement, but it was too late from a political perspective. Still, I don't hold it against her, she's an academic far more so than a politician, and this is the first time the LP has really had career politicians running - we usually have a field of academics and personalities.


Kubby should not be running, with his physical problems and... ahem... "requirements." He hasn't been able to make it to very many state conventions.

It is genuinely unfortunate, but it's a real issue to consider. Keep in mind that Steve Kubby entered the race long before Barr, Ruwart, and Gravel joined. For quite some time, he was very clearly the best radical candidate in the race and his only real competition was coming from Phillies.


What about Jingozian/Kubby with Gravel as Secretary of State? :D

How about Milnes/Root with Dr Steve as secretary of state?


Jingozian would be an excellent candidate if we were speaking of an election in which there was any hope of winning at.

Jingozian has come out and said that he's aiming for I think 7% or 8%. I don't find that particularly inspiring. The serious candidates all say they're in it to win it. This is the attitude we need from the candidate, even if it isn't realistic. The fact is, you'll get a small percentage of what you aim for, so you'd better aim for the top if you want to be noticed at all.

Add to that the fact that Jingozian doesn't really have name recognition in the LP (like Ruwart, Kubby, and Phillies do) or outside of it (ala Barr and Gravel).

G-Wohl
05-16-2008, 07:10 PM
How about Milnes/Root with Dr Steve as secretary of state?

I don't like Root... at all.

Soccrmastr
05-16-2008, 07:21 PM
Robert Milnes for president! (http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl8.asp?SiteID=1099&PageID=17752&Trial=false)

Seriously, who else can claim that their presidential campaign website discusses their psychological disorders in great detail? :)

lmao that site is nuts

Dorfsmith
05-16-2008, 07:34 PM
Badnarik wasn't THAT bad...

Yep. I voted for him :cool:

mtmedlin
05-17-2008, 08:09 AM
I still think the LP needs to get off its ass and hard recruit Judge Andrew Napolitano. The freaking money bomb that we would have a month after his nomination would kill all records.

Bradley in DC
05-17-2008, 08:16 AM
I still think the LP needs to get off its ass and hard recruit Judge Andrew Napolitano. The freaking money bomb that we would have a month after his nomination would kill all records.

+1

Richie
05-17-2008, 08:20 AM
I still think the LP needs to get off its ass and hard recruit Judge Andrew Napolitano. The freaking money bomb that we would have a month after his nomination would kill all records.

+1

stevedasbach
05-17-2008, 11:22 AM
The nominee has to sign a declaration of candidacy, which then has to be sent to each state along with whatever paperwork that state requires. If the nominee doesn't sign, he/she won't appear on the ballot. You cannot place a candidate on the ballot without his/her concent.

That's why LP rules require a candidate to agree to accept the nomination prior to being nominated.

stevedasbach
05-17-2008, 11:49 AM
Barr flip flopped on big government after 911, which i see as acceptable. I could see that someone has been warned that our government is about to make major power grabs for probably a decade, and swore it off as a "conspiracy theory", and reasonably so. Then 911 happens and a major power grab happens, Barr, being from a legal background, recognizes the intent in the legislation after further review, panics due to cognitive dissonance, then goes to the biggest recognizable anti big government party he can find to form new alliances that fit what he feels is a truer picture of what is going on.

This is an acceptable time to flip flop.

Having spoken with Barr at some length, I think this is pretty close to what happened. He is genuinely concerned about our slide toward staism and wants to help turn things around.

Aratus
05-17-2008, 12:09 PM
barr/gravel could be a bright idea if the Libertarians opt for prominent senators on the 26th...
in the mid-east, g. w. bush just hinted at who he was addressing his remarks around if not to...

singular or plural? a senator or senators? g. w bush has several critics, methinks not all of them
are technically on the political left. some are on the political right and are easily as equally patriotic...

mdh
05-17-2008, 04:43 PM
Having spoken with Barr at some length, I think this is pretty close to what happened. He is genuinely concerned about our slide toward staism and wants to help turn things around.

It's my sincere hope that Congressman Barr will respond to Susan Hogarth's open letter in a way that is truly open and unwaveringly honest, and put to rest the concerns that many of us share.

mdh
05-17-2008, 04:44 PM
barr/gravel could be a bright idea if the Libertarians opt for prominent senators on the 26th...
in the mid-east, g. w. bush just hinted at who he was addressing his remarks around if not to...

singular or plural? a senator or senators? g. w bush has several critics, methinks not all of them
are technically on the political left. some are on the political right and are easily as equally patriotic...

I don't find that ticket appealing. They're both relative newbies to the party. We need at least one real long-time Libertarian on the ticket.

libertea
05-17-2008, 05:09 PM
Badnarik wasn't THAT bad...

Badnarik Rocks! He is just too easy for MSM to ignore, as is the case with any alternate party candidate.

stevedasbach
05-17-2008, 07:49 PM
I don't find that ticket appealing. They're both relative newbies to the party. We need at least one real long-time Libertarian on the ticket.

How about Barr/Ruwart?

mdh
05-17-2008, 08:22 PM
How about Barr/Ruwart?

I think that could be a good ticket and has a very realistic chance of becoming the case.

In general, I think it is important to have someone who is a long-time advocate of our ideals on the ticket. I'm not opposed to Barr or Gravel as our presidential candidate, but at this point, Gravel has been more up-front, while Barr seems to have dodged some hard questions. If he were to respond in good faith and full candor to Ms. Hogarth's letter, I think he'd do wonders for his campaign and for making those of us who feel a bit unsure of his current stances and some outstanding issues (like the management of his namesake PAC) a whole lot more comfortable with him as our candidate.

One other thing I'd say in favor of Congressman Barr is that he's been a good participatory member in the LNC for some time and has avoided doing anything bad during his tenure in that position. That speaks well for him and if he decided to be right up front in taking on the aforementioned issues that have been presented to him, then he'll be a fine candidate.