So what happens if the Constitution Party nominates Dr. Paul on Saturday?

[Stallion]

For those of you who don't know, the CP national convention is this weekend in Kansas City. This quote is taken from ballotaccess.com:

Constitution Party Nominates on April 26 (Saturday)
April 23rd, 2008
The Constitution Party national convention in Kansas City will actually vote for a presidential nominee on Saturday, April 26, starting at 8 a.m. Nominating speeches will have been made the preceding day. There will probably be a strong vote for Alan Keyes, a strong vote for Chuck Baldwin, and a strong vote for drafting Ron Paul. Thanks to Glenn Brown for the details about the schedule.

So what if the CP delegates choose Ron as their nominee? Do you think he would accept? Wouldn't he kinda be obligated at that point? Yes, I realize he is still seeking the GOP nomination, but he has said himself that victory is unlikely. Can the CP convince him to run 3rd party once and for all?

[acptulsa]

Dr. Paul will politely but firmly refuse. Hopefully, they will draft him anyway and save us the trouble of getting ballot access petitions signed and/or eliminating any risk of splitting our vote.

[ItsTime]

What are his realistic chances of getting that nom?

[Stallion]

What are his realistic chances of getting that nom?

Unfortunately, probably pretty slim, since he already stated that he was not interested. I would love to see them nominate him anyway though. They will ruin their party if they nominate Keyes IMHO.

[ItsTime]

Thats what I thought. I agree Keyes would not be good for the Constitution Party. But might drive more constitutionalists back to the Republican Party and join the fight with Ron Paul to bring the party back to its constitutional values.

Unfortunately, probably pretty slim, since he already stated that he was not interested. I would love to see them nominate him anyway though. They will ruin their party if they nominate Keyes IMHO.

[hambone1982]

Thats what I thought. I agree Keyes would not be good for the Constitution Party. But might drive more constitutionalists back to the Republican Party and join the fight with Ron Paul to bring the party back to its constitutional values.

Agreed. Keyes is no Constitutionalist!

[Truth Warrior]

Ron will either accept or decline the nomination. My bet is on decline.

[mdh]

I am under the impression from speaking to CP insiders whom I know, that it would violate their bylaws to nominate someone not seeking their nomination.

It is similarly not possible for the LP to do so.

[Kludge]

CP is tiny and ineffective anyways, like the LP, but EVEN TINIER and MORE ineffective

[RP4EVER]

Im a CPer; I dont believe we have a realistic shot at getting a president elected; but we did make inroads last election in the west. Mainly in Nevada and Montana; loads of Local officals in Montana and Nevada; and one state Legislature member elected in Montana. We can make a serious statement.

[Bradley in DC]

My understanding (not sure) is that Dr. Paul would have to agree to accept the nomination to be drafted.

On another note, Dr. Paul COULD be the nominee for president from more than one party by simply selecting the same presidential electors to the electoral college. It would be confusing in that his name could appear on the ballot multiple times but with all votes going to the same slate of electors.

That said, Dr. Paul has said it isn't going to happen. For better or for worse, I believe him.

[haigh]

Ballot access status for the Constitution Party

Arizona - need 22,500 signatures for independent candidate by 6/4/08
Arkansas - ON BALLOT
California - ON BALLOT
Colorado - ON BALLOT
Connecticut - need 7,500 signatures by 8/1/08
Delaware - ON BALLOT
District of Columbia - deadline mid-August
Florida - ON BALLOT
Georgia - need 44,000 signatures by 7/8/08
Hawaii - ON BALLOT
Idaho - ON BALLOT
Illinois - started, deadline 6/20/08
Indiana - need 33,000 by 6/30/2008
Iowa - should be on ballot soon
Kansas - 5,000 by 8/4/08
Kentucky - should be on ballot soon
Louisiana - should be on ballot soon
Maine - 4,000 signatures by 8/15/2008; state convention 4/15/08
Maryland - need 10,000 signatures by 8/4/08
Massachusettes - need 10,000 by 7/29/08
Michigan - ON BALLOT
Minnesota - should be on ballot soon; state convention 3/29/08
Mississsipppi - ON BALLOT
Missouri - should be on ballot soon
Montana - ON BALLOT
Nebraska - ON BALLOT
Nevada - ON BALLOT
New Hampshire - need 3,000 by 8/6/08
New Jersey - 800
New Mexico - should be on ballot soon
New York - problem
North Carolina - most difficult state
North Dakota - ON BALLOT
Ohio - should be on the ballot soon; state convention 3/29/08
Oklahoma - problem; state convention 3/29/08
Oregon - ON BALLOT
Pennsylvania - need 25,000 by 8/1/08
Rhode Island - need 1,000 by 9/5/08
South Carolina - ON BALLOT
South Dakota - ON BALLOT
Tennessee - should be on ballot soon
Texas - problem
Utah - ON BALLOT
Vermont - ON BALLOT
Virginia - need 10,000 by 8/12/08; state convention 4/12/08
Washington - ?
West Virginia - need 15,000 by 8/1/08 (have 8.000)
Wisconsin - should be on ballot soon; state convention 4/12/08
Wyoming - started collecting signatures, need help

source
http://www.alankeyes.com/discuss/showthread.php?t=751

Haven't done a head to head, but I'd guess they are well behind the LP.

[Jeremy]

I bet Alan Keyes will win

[mdh]

Im a CPer; I dont believe we have a realistic shot at getting a president elected; but we did make inroads last election in the west. Mainly in Nevada and Montana; loads of Local officals in Montana and Nevada; and one state Legislature member elected in Montana. We can make a serious statement.

As the chair of the LP of WV, I honestly feel the CP of WV has some great enthusiastic folks.
There're plenty of places where our parties can work together. Just not on banning porn, that's just silly.

[nate895]

Ballot access status for the Constitution Party

Washington - ?

If you can't get on in Washington, you're pathetic. You need 1,000 signatures at a "convention."

[TruthAtLast]

Unfortunately, probably pretty slim, since he already stated that he was not interested. I would love to see them nominate him anyway though. They will ruin their party if they nominate Keyes IMHO.

so if they draft him anyway and get him ballot access, does he need to agree to it?

Can they just raise money and run ads even if Ron Paul didn't campaign himself for the nomination? He doesn't need to worry about debates because he wouldn't be invited anyway. And he would probably still be doing his normal speaking engagements so it would be "like" campaigning but not. haha

Just wondering if they actually need his approval to put his name on the ballot.

Edit: You may have answered my question already sorry.

My understanding (not sure) is that Dr. Paul would have to agree to accept the nomination to be drafted.

[Magsec]

Didn't the LP try convincing him to be their nominee?

[Knightskye]

CP is tiny and ineffective anyways, like the LP, but EVEN TINIER and MORE ineffective

Okay, point to yourself and read the quote in your signature, please.

[josephadel_3]

Most people don't know what the Constitution Party is or that it exists.

[bulloncoins]

Agreed. Keyes is no Constitutionalist!

Amen brother! Keys turns into a ranting lunitic when he is questioned about the war in Iraq. He supports Bush's war 200%.

Just ask him.......Several members of the Houston meetup group did......they were in shock at his response.

[nate895]

Amen brother! Keys turns into a ranting lunitic when he is questioned about the war in Iraq. He supports Bush's war 200%.

Just ask him.......Several members of the Houston meetup group did......they were in shock at his response.

Keyes is a brilliant debater, though. I listen to him debate sometimes before going to Speech and Debate competitions.

[G-Wohl]

Umm... Ron Paul's message does not fit with the religious zealotry platform that the Constitution Party upholds.

[american.swan]

remember you only need to win your electors in the 11 most populous states and you win the presidency. Of course not easy, but it's that simple.

[bucfish]

The LP and CP needs to come into agreement to TAKE BACK AMERICA! Them along with the former REFORM PARTY could make a dent in the 2 party system.

[hillbilly123069]

[Stallion]

Umm... Ron Paul's message does not fit with the religious zealotry platform that the Constitution Party upholds.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the CP platform? It's pretty darn close to RP's views. I would venture to say that it is a better fit than the LP. Constitution Party members are Right Libertarians (pro-life), they are virtually one in the same and I would put Dr. Paul in the Right Libertarian category.

[mdh]

Didn't the LP try convincing him to be their nominee?

Shane Cory sent an open letter to Dr. Paul asking him to seek our nomination. He politely declined, and has said that he has no interest in running on any third party ticket nor as an independent.

Umm... Ron Paul's message does not fit with the religious zealotry platform that the Constitution Party upholds.

I don't know that it's that bad, but I definitly get your point and agree. Stuff like the porn ban violates free speech, though it may be that the CP only pushes that at the state level rather than violating the constitution by promoting it at the federal level. It could also be that they seek a porn ban amendment. Either way, it seems silly to me. The LP is 100% dedicated to libertarian ideals at every level of government from dog catchers to presidents.

The LP and CP needs to come into agreement to TAKE BACK AMERICA! Them along with the former REFORM PARTY could make a dent in the 2 party system.

I don't know anything about the reform party - does it even still exist? There's no state affiliate here. Anyways, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the LP and CP would merge, but there's plenty we agree on and plenty of room for us to work together on issues where we agree.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the CP platform? It's pretty darn close to RP's views. I would venture to say that it is a better fit than the LP. Constitution Party members are Right Libertarians (pro-life), they are virtually one in the same and I would put Dr. Paul in the Right Libertarian category.

I would disagree that the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul than the LP. Keep in mind that Dr. Paul is a life member of the Libertarian Party. Many LP members are Christians but realize that that has nothing to do with governance, while the CP leans more towards wanting to heavily involve their faith in the way they govern. Like those Christian Libertarians, Dr. Paul sees his faith as a deeply personal force, and one that is not something to be brought into politics to the extent that many CP members wish to.

[Stallion]

I would disagree that the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul than the LP. Keep in mind that Dr. Paul is a life member of the Libertarian Party. Many LP members are Christians but realize that that has nothing to do with governance, while the CP leans more towards wanting to heavily involve their faith in the way they govern. Like those Christian Libertarians, Dr. Paul sees his faith as a deeply personal force, and one that is not something to be brought into politics to the extent that many CP members wish to.

I am a Christian, and I consider myself a libertarian. However, I am hesitant to affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party on the basis that they seem to refuse to take a stand on abortion. To me, straddling the fence on the issue and turning a blind eye is just as bad as being openly pro-choice. There are many pro-choice Libertarians that I respect as patriotic Americans, but unfortunately could never vote for.

Both the CP and LP have their flaws. The CP seeks to restrict the rights of individuals to view pornography. The LP (IMO) fails to explicitly advocate the protection of the rights of unborn babies to life. In the end, you have to decide for yourself which issue is more important to you. Honestly, I see these 2 issues as the major differences between the two parties. We all know Dr. Paul is a libertarian. I believe libertarians come in all shapes and sizes and I believe each and every one of us could be labeled "libertarian." The reason I believe the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul is because I believe he would place more importance on the need to end abortion in this country than on the need to make sure pornography continues to exist. That is just my opinion, and I know some of you will disagree with me and that's fine.

[mdh]

I am a Christian, and I consider myself a libertarian. However, I am hesitant to affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party on the basis that they seem to refuse to take a stand on abortion. To me, straddling the fence on the issue and turning a blind eye is just as bad as being openly pro-choice. There are many pro-choice Libertarians that I respect as patriotic Americans, but unfortunately could never vote for.

This comes down to the fact that the party is just about split down the middle on the abortion issue. There are a lot of pro-life libertarians. There's a lot of intellectual debate on the subject, and without concensus, the party isn't going to take a stand either way. I believe this is the best thing that the LP can do.

Both the CP and LP have their flaws. The CP seeks to restrict the rights of individuals to view pornography. The LP (IMO) fails to explicitly advocate the protection of the rights of unborn babies to life. In the end, you have to decide for yourself which issue is more important to you. Honestly, I see these 2 issues as the major differences between the two parties. We all know Dr. Paul is a libertarian. I believe libertarians come in all shapes and sizes and I believe each and every one of us could be labeled "libertarian." The reason I believe the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul is because I believe he would place more importance on the need to end abortion in this country than on the need to make sure pornography continues to exist. That is just my opinion, and I know some of you will disagree with me and that's fine.

Well, I think Dr. Paul has more or less spoken on this issue by being a member of the LP.

Fundamentally speaking, I think your wording is wrong though. I believe Dr. Paul would believe it more important not to advocate weakening free speech than to more explicitly advocate the unborn right to life. One of the planks of the CP platform is in direct opposition to one of his core values, while the LP simply fails to take a stand either way on another. Your analogy would only be correct if the LP somehow advocated keeping abortion legal, which isn't the case. The vast majority of libertarians, including pro-abortion libertarians, believe that Roe v Wade is a miscarriage of justice (what an awful pun.) In that, the vast majority of us agree with Dr. Paul's position, too, which goes further towards showing that the LP is better aligned with Dr. Paul.

[torchbearer]

I am a Christian, and I consider myself a libertarian. However, I am hesitant to affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party on the basis that they seem to refuse to take a stand on abortion. To me, straddling the fence on the issue and turning a blind eye is just as bad as being openly pro-choice. There are many pro-choice Libertarians that I respect as patriotic Americans, but unfortunately could never vote for.

Both the CP and LP have their flaws. The CP seeks to restrict the rights of individuals to view pornography. The LP (IMO) fails to explicitly advocate the protection of the rights of unborn babies to life. In the end, you have to decide for yourself which issue is more important to you. Honestly, I see these 2 issues as the major differences between the two parties. We all know Dr. Paul is a libertarian. I believe libertarians come in all shapes and sizes and I believe each and every one of us could be labeled "libertarian." The reason I believe the CP is a better fit for Dr. Paul is because I believe he would place more importance on the need to end abortion in this country than on the need to make sure pornography continues to exist. That is just my opinion, and I know some of you will disagree with me and that's fine.

There is no one in the LP who is for killing babies. The debate is and always has been when does one become a human.
And since no one has come up with the answer to that questions, there is no way a libertarian can subscribe to a blanket party platform taking a position either way.