Congressman Ron Paul has made a decision about keeping his name on the ballot as Mike Bloomberg’s vice president. Of course, the decision only affects voters in Virginia, who have the choice of voting for a Bloomberg/Paul ticket due to the Independent Green Party.
Paul’s spokesman, Jesse Benton, said:
“We’re not going to take any action to get his name off, but at the same time we’re not encouraging it.”
89 responses so far ↓
1 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:30 pm
You beat me to the punch!
2 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Oh, I wish I were a Virginian. For even though Bloomberg is quite odious, he at least takes a stand against duopoly politics and he is a self-made entrepreneur — certainly more admirable than McCain or Obama. And I would cast my vote for the anti-smoking gun grabber, gladly, given his running mate.
3 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Lew Rockwell says:
4 Mike Indiana // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Does anyone know if Virginia law requires candidates to submit a signed statement of canadacy like some other states due, and if so would Paul’s Republican primary statement work or would the statement have to be ammended (which he just said he’s not doing) to include the correct political party. Then again this may all be a mute point because Bloomberg has said he is not running.
5 SovereignMN // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Makes you wonder how Paul would have reacted if the CP or LP would have emerged from their conventions with Paul as their Presidential pick.
6 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Mike – If you read the stories and comments, you’d have your answers.
SMN – Very true. But in most states, Paul would have to actively participate. In VA, he just has to NOT demand to be taken off.
7 Mike Gillis // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:54 pm
GE,
Bloomberg is VERY hawkish on Iraq and takes the McCain “stay forever” stance on it.
8 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:55 pm
So? He’s still better than the other two, and Ron Paul as VP is what I’d be voting for.
9 svf // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:58 pm
better than the other two
How sad to see this statement on a site supposedly “offering the latest and best news coverage for all alternative-parties in the United States Political System. Including, but not limited to, the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party.”
10 Ross Levin // Aug 19, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I’m betting the election won’t be as close as Lew Rockwell assumes, and Obama will blow McCain away. No way it goes to the House.
11 Mike Gillis // Aug 19, 2008 at 6:15 pm
“So? He’s still better than the other two, and Ron Paul as VP is what I’d be voting for.”
“Better than the other two” is like saying that someone is a better gymnast than Stephen Hawking.
12 langa // Aug 19, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Ross – I agree with your prediction. I expect Obama to get at least 55% of the popular vote, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a blowout in the Electoral College.
13 Mike Gillis // Aug 19, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I concur. Obama will win easily.
14 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 6:33 pm
svf – How sad it is that your candidate Bob Barr has left me in this sorry state. I would not only vote for Mary Ruwart, but would walk through hell for her. Bob Barr makes me choose from the lesser of X evils.
15 Trent Hill // Aug 19, 2008 at 7:49 pm
GE,
Barr does no such thing. You resort yourself to such a terrible dilemna. That was a gaffe,just admit it.
16 Nexus // Aug 19, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Will any of the Virginia Ron Paul meetup groups actively campaign now?
17 Thomas M. Sipos // Aug 19, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I doubt Bloomberg/Paul will affect who wins Virginia.
But Bloomberg/Paul will drain votes from Barr/WAR.
18 Deran // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:05 pm
It’s a very interesting political maneuver by the IGVP.
It’s odd no one looked for other states where they could passively put Ron Paul on the ballot. Does Florida require “consent” from a presidential candidate?
And I believe the point of including both Bloomberg and Paul is to avoid the claim of spoilerism; “taking” votes from one of the major parties.
It will be a interesting to see what the IGVP can do with this financially. I mean, having a presidential campaign with no active candidates? And if anyone responds financially to the campaign.
Is it too late for state parties where “passive candidacy” for president is permitted, for those parties to switch the ir presidential and vp ticket to Bloomberg/Paul, or Paul/Bloomberg? (I don’t like what Bloomberg has helped developers do to NYC, or his support of the war in Iraq.)
19 inDglass // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:18 pm
70,000 signatures? Perhaps Bob Barr should hire these people.
20 NH // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I guess I’ll have to ask them to remove MY name from the Campaign for Liberty. I will in no way abide by the association of Ron Paul with an elitist, globalist new world order SHILL like Bloomberg.
This was done to sully Ron’s name. I’m OUT!
I wonder how many others will drop out?
21 NH // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I can’t even believe any of you are discussing this like it was a real possibility… it’s a sick joke intended to ruin Ron’s name.
You should be writing outrageous letters to the campaign for liberty and demanding they take his name off! I’m sick of people painting Ron Paul as a liberal, globalist, socialist, or any of the other things he is diametrically OPPOSED TO.
22 Ross Levin // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I don’t think others are as elitist as you, as you are not willing to accept people who might not 100% agree with you on all counts.
23 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 19, 2008 at 10:09 pm
If you’re concerned about his good name being sullied, why are you threatening to abandon his new project? The IGP did this themselves to attract votes, not to attack RP. “Yeah this’ll take him down a peg, let’s put him on the ballot!”
Be thankful someone gets another chance to vote for him, and hope some will for the first time. If you’re that upset, try directing it at the top half of that ticket.
24 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 10:22 pm
What do you mean?
If Mary Ruwart had been the LP nominee, then I could have voted for pure goodness. As it is, I have no such choice.
25 G.E. // Aug 19, 2008 at 10:23 pm
My guess is somewhere between none and zero.
26 Hugh Jass // Aug 19, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Is there anyone in Louisiana who is interested in being an elector for a Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell ticket? Given the situation with Bloomberg, I think it would be worth it to put Paul on the ballot in other states, particularly ones with easy ballot access.
27 Hugh Jass // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:15 pm
No responses?!
28 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Not that many uncommitted Louisianans here, I guess. But this guy sounds interested, if you can track him down.
29 vbfree // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I’m a Virginian, and the issue here is ballot access. The bar is way to high. The years old intention of Carey Campbell, the wiz behind the 70,000 signatures, has been to enable more candidates of any persuasion to gain ballot access. If a party affiliated candidate receives 10% of the vote in a given area (statewide, congressional district, state legislature district or county), that party will be able to “nominate” candidates for four subsequent years without having to qualify the absurdly high number of petition signatures. I know for a fact that the IG party will agree to nominate virtually any sane and sober person who has the will to run for office, with the exception that they would need to be selective in the event that more than one candidate might seek affiliation in a race for the same office.
I can vote for Ron Paul in the VP race and any or no other candidate in the presidential race. IF Ron Paul were to obtain 10% of the VP votes, the IG party would be able to put candidates on the ballot for any office in the state for the next four years.
More likely, if the IG candidate in my otherwise uncontested and secure congressional district takes 10% of the vote, the IGP will be able to nominate candidates for any state or local office in this district for the next four years.
That would be a major achievement. And that is why I’ll be voting the straight IGP ticket this election year. Tjhere’s no “risk” that any of these candidates will be elected, but there is a chance that we can weaken the stranglehold that the two parties currently have over the process.
30 Hugh Jass // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:48 pm
In that case, vbfree, I think it is a good idea to vote for Bloomberg/Paul, so we can have a ballot line for a libertarian-leaner in 2012.
31 vbfree // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:52 pm
btw, obama is unlikely to win due to the Bradley Effect: guilt addled white voters lie to pollsters about their intentions to vote for non-white candidates. The average margin of such insincerity in past elections calculates out to about 9% –so only when Obama starts showing a 10% advantage in the polls can we actually begin to predict that he may win by a narrow margin.
32 Hugh Jass // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Thank you, Fred. I have sent Mr. Hayes an e-mail.
33 vbfree // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:16 am
exactly, fred. The Bloomberg/Paul seems absurd at face value only because Campbell selected the candidates that HE deemed most likely to obtain the magic 10% (and not withdraw their names from consideration. Based on the article above, it seems that he made good choices.
34 vbfree // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:20 am
oops, I was responding to Hugh.
35 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:22 am
No one ever agrees with me, I’ve learned to live with it.
But if you can really vote for VP separate from president in VA, then I feel much better about this development.
36 langa // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:26 am
vbfree,
Regardless of what the polls say now or any racial effect, history says a McCain victory is highly unlikely. Whenever the economy is bad, the incumbent party almost always loses. Ditto for when there’s an unpopular war going on. Combine those 2 factors with the fact that McCain is not a very popular guy even with his own base, and it’s hard to see how Obama could lose, barring some sort of major scandal.
37 vbfree // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:27 am
again, anyone who cares that VA is apparently up for grabs in the o’cain/mcbama race can go ahead and vote for their preferred presidential pick and still vote for Ron Paul
38 vbfree // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:31 am
when a race is theirs to lose, democrats have a knack for finding ways to do it. witness john kerry.
likewise, when democrats gain power, they have a knack for finding ways not to exercise it. witness nancy pelosi.
39 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:47 am
I believe there is probably going to be a concerted effort to put Paul/Rockwell on the ballot here in LA…
Not sure how I feel about that.
40 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:00 am
Damn. I’d almost be willing to move to Louisiana to cast my vote for that dream ticket!
41 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:04 am
GE,
It may not be Paul/Rockwell. That is still being discussed. It could be anything from Paul/Baldwin to Paul/Rockwell to Paul/Hostettler to Paul/Jimmy Duncan or Paul/Walter Jones. Lots of names are being discussed. But Rockwell and Baldwin seem to have the most support.
It’d be an interesting election though, Baldwin would be getting votes for Pres and VP in LA…
42 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:08 am
None of those other tickets are nearly as appealing. Who is Hostetler? Jeff? The former Raiders QB?
Walter Jones is no good. This Jimmy Duncan figure thinks he should be hoisted high for having the “courage” to vote against the Iraq war. Baldwin would be the least objectionable.
43 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:11 am
Walter Jones is no good? WHY? He’s the second most constitutionalist man in Congress….easily.
Hostettler is a former paleoconservative congressman,unseated in 2006.
As for being less appealing–the idea is to bring someone to the ticket whom anti-McCain republicans would vote for,without cedeing our responsibility to offer voters a choice of freedom. People like Walter Jones and Jimmy Duncan accomplish this.
44 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:11 am
I think Hostetler refers to fmr. Congressman Mike Hostetler, one of six GOP Congressmen to vote against the Iraq War.
45 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:12 am
I should probably point out that I do not live in Louisiana, and am conducting this entirely through the internet.
46 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:12 am
Thomas E. Woods has been mentioned additionally, and also Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr.
47 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:13 am
Hugh Jass,
I do. So does Randall T. Hayes. And it isnt the first time the idea has come up.
48 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:13 am
I am just wondering, Trent, where are you getting this information from?
49 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:15 am
Hugh Jass,
I shouldnt say. =)
But i’ll make everytihng clear in the coming days. Nothing is finalized and all involve participants currently consider this a “maybe”. Election law must first be viewed.
50 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:16 am
Trent – Walter Jones is a bum who voted for raising the minimum wage in 2006.
51 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:17 am
And if Duncan, who seems to be the pet favorite of Bill Kauffman, is even less constitutionalist than Walter Jones, then he too is a bum.
52 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:18 am
And when I said appealing, I meant to ME, which matters absolutely zero.
53 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:26 am
What about Paul/Ventura or Paul/Napolitano? Of course, the former might lose votes among anti-McCain conservatives, but would gain votes among left-libertarians. The latter would appeal to anti-McCain conservatives and people concerned with civil liberties.
54 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:29 am
GE,
Walter Jones has a few problems—of course. But, he has a broader appeal, as I stated. Same with Duncan. Goldwater Jr. accomplishes that better than anyone.
And both endorsed Paul.
55 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:31 am
Hugh Jass,
Napolitano is a small name, though a good choice.
Ventura would have to agree to it…and im not sure he would.
56 sunshinebatman // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:46 am
Mr Hill, your La CP should have nominated baldwin/paul in the first place…
And if you’re going to sully yourself enough to condescend to vote for Walter Jones, why not Paul/Barr or Barr/Paul?
57 sunshinebatman // Aug 20, 2008 at 1:48 am
I’m pretty sure Mr. Vb is smoking crack if he thinks the Prez & VP races are separate in Va. This is one set of electors for the electoral college here.
58 antiwar // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:19 am
From Richard Winger:
There is some misinformation in the comments above. It is not true that a party can become ballot-qualified in just part of Virginia. A party must poll 10% in a statewide race, or it has no qualified status at all. Virginia is not one of the states in which a party can be a qualified party in just part of the state.
More important, Carey Campbell, head of the Independent Greens of Virginia, has the authority to change the names on his petition. He told me 3 weeks ago that he would change the candidates on his petition to Chuck Baldwin for president and Darrel Castle for vice-president. Maybe he has changed his mind in the last 3 weeks. Someone in the U.S. ought to telephone him and ask him what he will do.
Richard is traveling and cannot currently post, he asked me to post this comment.
~ Eric Garris, Webmaster, Ballot Access News
59 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:36 am
Napolitano is way more well known than Walter Jones or Jimmy Duncan, Trent. You need to get out in the world!
60 Peter Orvetti // Aug 20, 2008 at 7:39 am
Bloomberg and Paul are both smart and honorable men, but they seem to be polar opposites politically. Bloomberg believes every aspect of life is the rightful target of governmental regulation, Paul almost none.
I remember when Bloomberg decided not to run for president, The Onion said he wanted to focus on enacting mandatory cholesterol tests every three months for all New Yorkers instead. That sums his philosophy up nicely.
61 Nexus // Aug 20, 2008 at 8:00 am
Paul/Rockwell….
Paul/Goldwater Jr…..
I’m not sure America deserves a ticket that good.
62 svf // Aug 20, 2008 at 8:18 am
Pathetic how so many cling to the ephemeral wisp of hope that Ron Paul is still running for president in some way shape or form.
If only Ron Paul himself were so dedicated to the concept…
63 Thomas L. Knapp // Aug 20, 2008 at 9:53 am
Ross,
You write:
“I’m betting the election won’t be as close as Lew Rockwell assumes, and Obama will blow McCain away. No way it goes to the House.”
I expect a fairly narrow McCain win …
… and I wouldn’t be so sure that it will be versus Obama if I were you. There’s a reason that the Clintonista forces fought for a roll call vote in Denver.
64 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 20, 2008 at 10:23 am
Pathetic how so many cling to the ephemeral wisp of hope that Ron Paul is still running for president in some way shape or form.
These are draft efforts, I haven’t seen anyone here do the whole “no, he hasn’t quit” thing.
I expect a fairly narrow McCain win …
… and I wouldn’t be so sure that it will be versus Obama if I were you. There’s a reason that the Clintonista forces fought for a roll call vote in Denver.
Two scenarios I could see McCain winning from are Hillary taking the convention or Obama picking Kerry as VP, but I don’t consider the first very likely given the spread.
65 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:34 am
“Pathetic how so many cling to the ephemeral wisp of hope that Ron Paul is still running for president in some way shape or form.
If only Ron Paul himself were so dedicated to the concept…”
We don’t think Paul is still running for president. That is why we chose Louisiana, where the laws regarding consent to being on the ballot are similar to that of Virginia. And if Paul consenting to being on a ticket with Bloomberg, why wouldn’t he consent to being on a ticket with someone he actually agrees with?
66 svf // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:41 am
Since when does “we’re not encouraging it” imply “consent”…?
67 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:43 am
GE,
Only within the Vast Freedom Movement in Napolitano more well known. Goldwater Jr. Is definetly the best VP consideration if we’re going for name-recognition.
68 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:59 am
Since when does “we’re not encouraging it†imply “consentâ€â€¦?
It doesn’t. “We’re not going to take any action to get his name off” does, especially since it doesn’t seem to be a very onerous process to refuse.
69 Ross Levin // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Tom – If Clinton attempted that, it would be the end of her. If by some slim chance she succeeded, there would either be a McCain landslide or a boon for third parties and independents.
70 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Ross, I realize that this is all a pipe dream, but do you think that if Clinton succeeded, several state chapters of the Democratic Party would disaffliate and nominate Obama?
71 Ross Levin // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:34 pm
No, I think there would be something like what happened with the Florida/Michigan delegates. A big meeting of Democratic big-wigs, that is, to decide what they were going to do. In the end, Clinton would probably end up having her political career die, and I have no clue who would be on the Democratic ticket come November.
72 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Trent – NOBODY knows who the hell Walter Jones or Jimmy Duncan is, man. Wake up. Napolitono was on Fox News. He’s an author. He’s about 10,000 times more famous than undistinguished congressmen.
73 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I think Walter Jones put himself out of any consideration after the loss of his wife, but I could be mis-remembering. Napolitano, BG Jr, and Rockwell would all be cool.
74 langa // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Actually, if you asked most people who Walter Jones is, the most common answer would probably be: “the left tackle for the Seahawks”.
75 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I concur with Fred’s VP picks. My personal favorite is Rockwell, but I like the other two as well.
76 sunshinebatman // Aug 20, 2008 at 2:54 pm
A Paul/Ventura ticket would be worth moving to Louisiana for.
77 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm
GE,
The point is moot, Jones has been removed from contention. We expect he would allow his name to go on the record.
As for him not being acceptable. The man is a Republican, in a highly-military populated district, and is on CSPAN RIGHT NOW helping Dennis Kucinich bring forth Impeachment articles.
78 Trent Hill // Aug 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The group of VPs has basically been narrowed to Barry Goldwater Jr., Chuck Baldwin, and Lew Rockwell.
79 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 7:45 pm
How are you guys going to decide? Are the nine potential electors just going to take a vote to decide who gets to be Paul’s running mate?
80 randallthayes // Aug 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Hugh,
We’ll probably develop a short list of candidates that we all agree are acceptable.
Then, we’ll discuss our way to a consensus on which one is the best choice.
If we can’t reach a consensus less formally, then we might reach it by majority vote.
So far, I agree with Trent that Baldwin, Goldwater, and Rockwell are the most likely choices.
81 langa // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Do you guys think Lew Rockwell would consent to be on the ballot? He’s pretty much vehemently opposed to the very idea of elections. I don’t know how running for VP would sit with him.
82 G.E. // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I don’t think Lew would take any action to get his name off the ballot. That’s all that’s required.
The question is: Would Paul possibly ask to be taken off, given that he would be on the top of the ticket? That might make a difference to him.
83 randallthayes // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm
langa,
I don’t know if Rockwell would affirmatively consent, but he might refrain from requesting that his name be removed.
84 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Would Paul possibly ask to be taken off, given that he would be on the top of the ticket? That might make a difference to him.
Then counter-offer by flipping Rockwell and Paul’s spots. Good enough.
Trent, Hugh, Randall: America’s counting on you.
85 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm
No pressure though
86 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:28 pm
This might be a good reason not to have Rockwell on the ticket, though he was probably joking.
87 Hugh Jass // Aug 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021897.html
88 randallthayes // Aug 21, 2008 at 12:27 am
I guess this is just another example of life imitating art.
89 Thomas L. Knapp // Aug 21, 2008 at 8:04 am
Ross,
You write:
“If Clinton attempted that, it would be the end of her.”
My hypothesis is that now that Clinton has arranged for a roll-call vote, it will be someone else (with some level of plausible deniability of association with her campaign) who breaks a very ugly story on Obama over the weekend.
The spread is not as wide as people think.
It takes 2,118 delegates to secure the nomination. Obama has 2229.5 — 463 superdelegates, 1766.5 pledged delegates. Clinton has 1896.5 — 257 superdelegates, 1639.5 pledged delegates.
If something bad enough about Obama comes out to sway superdelegates, fewer than half of Obama’s (222, to be exact) would have to switch to Clinton to give her the nomination on the first ballot.
So, imagine that the Sunday morning talking head shows this weekend are dominated by something on Obama on the level of, say, the John Edwards affair/love child scandal. Sure, there would be some nattering to the effect of “I bet Hillary paid the private investigator who took those pictures,” but the bottom line is that she would be riding in on a white horse to save the Democratic Party at the last minute as it was about to commit suicide.
She’d probably still lose the general election to McCain (as Obama likely would have anyway, ugly story or not), but her stock would be blue chip with her party, she could blame the loss on the Obama fallout, and she’d be the obvious 2012 nominee.
How likely is something like this to happen? I had discounted the idea almost 100% until it became obvious that getting a roll call vote was a major goal for her.
Like I said, there’s a REASON she wants one so badly … and the most obvious possible reason is that she has some incredible piece of dirt ready to drop on Obama’s head before that vote takes place. A less obvious possible reason is that congresscritters will get some kind of national security briefing this weekend divulging information about Obama that the rest of us will only hear about later (e.g. he met with Osama bin Laden last month in Afghanistan or some weird shit) … and there are more than 222 Democratic superdelegates who are congresscritters.
Leave a Comment