tonesforjonesbones
07-08-2008, 11:02 AM
This is a very interesting article from Nolan chart about Ron Paul's motives on endorsing a third party candidate. Somethings I've suspected myself in terms of his place in the GOP> Tones
Ron Paul on Bob Barr: "We're allies"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Paul is not going to endorse Barr. Here's why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Since Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party nomination just over a week ago, a question that has been bothering Nolan Chart readers for two months -- Will or Won't Ron Paul endorse Barr? -- has begun to invade the main stream media. As well it should, as the answer could determine the next President.
As, for example, the Huffington Post explains the situation:
Paul has no use for either anointed GOP nominee John McCain or the party establishment. However, he does have support from a tenth or so of the Republican electorate. And should Paul signal his followers to back this year's presumed Libertarian presidential nominee, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, some pundits think the latter could take 2-3 percent of the November vote, siphoning off enough disgruntled conservatives to beat McCain. (1)
Paul has been unremittingly positive in talking about Barr to the media. On June 2, when Newsweek asked him, "What are your feelings toward [Libertarian nominee] Bob Barr?", his response was: "We're pretty friendly. We're allies, he's a good friend. He has called me a couple [of] times recently, so it's very cordial." (2)
On May 30 Paul also praised Barr, to Jason Rosenbaum of the Columbia Daily Tribune: "He'll be a good candidate. Some Libertarians are excited, and some are leery, but I think he can do a very good job."
Rosenbaum asked the obvious follow-up -- "Would you consider endorsing him?" -- and Paul responded in the negative:
"Well, 'considering' means the thought crosses your mind, and he has made inquiries as to what I might be able to do, and my answer is that I don't plan to get involved, because Chuck Baldwin is a candidate for the Constitution Party, and he's a good friend, and he also worked very hard on my campaign, so it's pretty hard for me to endorse one or the other." (3)
Earlier in the month, at a May 7 book signing for his bestseller, The Revolution: A Manifesto, Paul had told Reason editor Dave Weigel that "he won't endorse Baldwin or Barr. He'll kinda-sorta endorse both. He won't stop them from using photos of him or talking about his campaign." (4)
Paul told Weigel that Baldwin has also been in contact: "Chuck was in my office today to say hello, but I haven't said anything about supporting either one of them. I support both of them in what they're doing, and I encourage them, but that's all."
On May 28, Weigel repeated that Paul is "neither going to endorse Bob Barr nor the Constitution Party candidate -- maybe not even after the Republican convention wraps up." Weigel then pointed out another good reason for Paul not to do so:
At issue is Paul's congressional seniority. He's worried, and rightfully so, about losing his precious banking committee seat if he hands over too much support to third party candidates who are trying to bleed the GOP. (5)
That is not a minor consideration. Paul is the Ranking Member of one House Committe on Financial Services subcommittee (Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology), and the Vice-Chair of another (Oversight and Investigations). He also serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint [House-Senate] Economic Committee. All of those positions give him forums for his message, with greater publicity for it now than ever before; but Paul enjoys all of them at his party's pleasure.
Even more could be at stake. Paul has more than a few enemies in the party -- as Baldwin puts it, "Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists" (6) -- and it's not inconceivable that some of them would move to strip Paul of his Republican nomination for Congress as well, should he formally endorse another party's candidate.
Already there is some pressure on Paul to endorse his own party's "anointed nominee" -- some even, reports Weigel, from within Dr. Paul's own campaign:
this is actually a sticking point in the Paul campaign: Some people in his circle want him to swing his weight behind McCain once the primaries are over. At the moment, they're being overruled. (4)
Paul himself appears to be one of those doing the overruling. He has not bothered to hide his opinion of the "presumptive nominee." Asked point-blank, "What's your relationship like with McCain?", he told Newsweek: "It pretty much doesn't exist. He has his beliefs and I have mine, and they just don't come together very well." (2)
Or as he quipped at the booksigning:
"Maybe you'll endorse McCain and surprise everybody," asked one of the people walking out of the event with us. "That would surprise me, too!" said Paul. (4)
Ron Paul on Bob Barr: "We're allies"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Paul is not going to endorse Barr. Here's why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Since Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party nomination just over a week ago, a question that has been bothering Nolan Chart readers for two months -- Will or Won't Ron Paul endorse Barr? -- has begun to invade the main stream media. As well it should, as the answer could determine the next President.
As, for example, the Huffington Post explains the situation:
Paul has no use for either anointed GOP nominee John McCain or the party establishment. However, he does have support from a tenth or so of the Republican electorate. And should Paul signal his followers to back this year's presumed Libertarian presidential nominee, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, some pundits think the latter could take 2-3 percent of the November vote, siphoning off enough disgruntled conservatives to beat McCain. (1)
Paul has been unremittingly positive in talking about Barr to the media. On June 2, when Newsweek asked him, "What are your feelings toward [Libertarian nominee] Bob Barr?", his response was: "We're pretty friendly. We're allies, he's a good friend. He has called me a couple [of] times recently, so it's very cordial." (2)
On May 30 Paul also praised Barr, to Jason Rosenbaum of the Columbia Daily Tribune: "He'll be a good candidate. Some Libertarians are excited, and some are leery, but I think he can do a very good job."
Rosenbaum asked the obvious follow-up -- "Would you consider endorsing him?" -- and Paul responded in the negative:
"Well, 'considering' means the thought crosses your mind, and he has made inquiries as to what I might be able to do, and my answer is that I don't plan to get involved, because Chuck Baldwin is a candidate for the Constitution Party, and he's a good friend, and he also worked very hard on my campaign, so it's pretty hard for me to endorse one or the other." (3)
Earlier in the month, at a May 7 book signing for his bestseller, The Revolution: A Manifesto, Paul had told Reason editor Dave Weigel that "he won't endorse Baldwin or Barr. He'll kinda-sorta endorse both. He won't stop them from using photos of him or talking about his campaign." (4)
Paul told Weigel that Baldwin has also been in contact: "Chuck was in my office today to say hello, but I haven't said anything about supporting either one of them. I support both of them in what they're doing, and I encourage them, but that's all."
On May 28, Weigel repeated that Paul is "neither going to endorse Bob Barr nor the Constitution Party candidate -- maybe not even after the Republican convention wraps up." Weigel then pointed out another good reason for Paul not to do so:
At issue is Paul's congressional seniority. He's worried, and rightfully so, about losing his precious banking committee seat if he hands over too much support to third party candidates who are trying to bleed the GOP. (5)
That is not a minor consideration. Paul is the Ranking Member of one House Committe on Financial Services subcommittee (Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology), and the Vice-Chair of another (Oversight and Investigations). He also serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint [House-Senate] Economic Committee. All of those positions give him forums for his message, with greater publicity for it now than ever before; but Paul enjoys all of them at his party's pleasure.
Even more could be at stake. Paul has more than a few enemies in the party -- as Baldwin puts it, "Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists" (6) -- and it's not inconceivable that some of them would move to strip Paul of his Republican nomination for Congress as well, should he formally endorse another party's candidate.
Already there is some pressure on Paul to endorse his own party's "anointed nominee" -- some even, reports Weigel, from within Dr. Paul's own campaign:
this is actually a sticking point in the Paul campaign: Some people in his circle want him to swing his weight behind McCain once the primaries are over. At the moment, they're being overruled. (4)
Paul himself appears to be one of those doing the overruling. He has not bothered to hide his opinion of the "presumptive nominee." Asked point-blank, "What's your relationship like with McCain?", he told Newsweek: "It pretty much doesn't exist. He has his beliefs and I have mine, and they just don't come together very well." (2)
Or as he quipped at the booksigning:
"Maybe you'll endorse McCain and surprise everybody," asked one of the people walking out of the event with us. "That would surprise me, too!" said Paul. (4)