As previously reported, the Constitution Party of Montana nominated Ron Paul for president and Michael Peroutka for vice president. The Montana CP was emboldened to do so after Paul said that he did not object to being nominated vice president by the Virginia Independent Green Party. (The VA Indy Greens eventually nominated Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle instead). But now, according to the Flathead Beacon, Paul says that the Montana CP nominated him without his permission, and he wants off the ballot.
“While I certainly appreciate the Constitution Party of Montana’s nomination, and all of the hard work of its members,” Paul said, “I am writing to respectfully request that you remove my name from the ballot in Montana as I did not seek nor consent to this nomination.”
Dave Hart, who coordinated Ron Paul’s Republican campaign during the Montana primary, says he’s surprised, because Paul allegedly told him that he accepted the nomination.
“I told him the Montana Constitution Party made this request. He said he was not going to encourage or discourage it, and as long as it didn’t require him to sign a form with the secretary of state, it would be fine,” Hart said. “I’m a little perplexed now.”
Regardless, it may now be too late for Paul’s name to be removed.
“We have received the letter, and we are looking at the law. So far, we are not sure that the law allows for anything to be done about the situation,” said Montana Secretary of State spokesman Bowen Greenwood.
One would assume that Paul would take similar action to be “un-nominated” in Louisiana, where he is paired with Barry Goldwater, Jr., however, one of the reasons he wants off the ballot in Montana is that his nomination denied Chuck Baldwin the CP’s ballot line. The Montana Constitution Party disaffiliated with the national party years ago.
35 responses so far ↓
1 HumbleTravis // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I hope Ron Paul doesn’t request to be removed in Louisiana, especially since the LP currently isn’t on the ballot there. Its a shame about Montana being that its a closer race!
2 Spence // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:20 pm
That makes sense that Paul might not want to deprive Baldwin of some access after his big empty endorsement, but there was likely a reason similar to this that the state party disaffiliated. I dunno, maybe Paul doesn’t think a vote for him is as of equal protest as a vote for a regular third party. Maybe he’ll request to remove his name from Louisiana Taxpayers even though they formed their own vehicle for his run.
Maybe he just doesn’t get it.
3 sunshinebatman // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:23 pm
He’s probably chastened by the LP’s disappointment with his failure to endorse its candidate and doesn’t want to hurt its tally in Montana.
4 G.E. // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Wow. You people truly have no integrity, do you?
Is there even one Barr backer who uses his real name or is even remotely known within the movement?
Step forward.
5 Spence // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:35 pm
It’s funny when one person speaks of integrity, though personally, he possesses little of it if any, especially when it comes to journalism.
6 G.E. // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:39 pm
If you think that, then you’re free to leave.
Otherwise, thanks for boosting our page count.
Who are you, by the way, Spence? Do any real libertarians know you? Or are you another alias set up by the Barr campaign and LPHQ?
7 G.E. // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:42 pm
BTW: IPR nearly tripled TPW again today. 15k+ to 5+ plus. Whatever money Viguerie spent on TPW, it was a total waste. The plot to block anti-Barr news has failed, and paid disinfo agents who can’t identify themselves are failing in their missions, too.
8 darolew // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:51 pm
My guess is Paul doesn’t want to hurt other third-party efforts. Maybe he has personal reasons too, IDK.
“Whatever money Viguerie spent on TPW, it was a total waste. The plot to block anti-Barr news has failed, and paid disinfo agents who can’t identify themselves are failing in their missions, too.”
The beauty of the Internet and free competition in general: whenever monopolies go sour, competitors arise.
9 G.E. // Sep 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Tom Knapp and I had IPR up and running less than 24 hours after Gordon announced the sale to Viguerie. We knew what TPW would become.
10 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 12:42 am
“If you think that, then you’re free to leave.”
I’ve already explained to you before, but facts don’t seem to make it through that thick skull of yours.
“Otherwise, thanks for boosting our page count.”
I really wouldn’t pride yourself upon that. I have a feeling most people don’t turn out for your shittastic excuse for news, but rather for the little flame brigades you start.
“Who are you, by the way, Spence? Do any real libertarians know you? Or are you another alias set up by the Barr campaign and LPHQ?”
I love this hypocritical tactic. You’re allowed to use a “moniker”, but anyone using an alias is equated to being part of the Barr campaign. I’m the one that advocates totally starting from scratch, and whenever I say that in any of these posts, it doesn’t seem to be popular.
Either it seems that my opinion is too concrete for you to say doesn’t exist, or you pass it over because you people enjoy your little infighting. Here’s a question: who are you really? How do WE know that you’re not an insider working to destroy the freedom movement with heretical reporting such as this? Oh, does the shoe fit? Wear it, asshole.
“BTW: IPR nearly tripled TPW again today. 15k+ to 5+ plus. Whatever money Viguerie spent on TPW, it was a total waste. The plot to block anti-Barr news has failed, and paid disinfo agents who can’t identify themselves are failing in their missions, too.”
Once again, you make no excuses for your crude behavior, as if this whole hardcore wave of pride rises you above answering people to call you out on your faults. Got news for you. Before you call other people out, perhaps you should do the same for yourself.
11 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 12:43 am
And one more thing, keep in mind that I can doubt just as much evidence that you throw at me as you would the other way around, so please don’t even bother refuting that. Waste of time.
12 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:05 am
Spence – People know who I am. I am a “real-life” Libertarian and not an anonymous a-hole like the Barr backers.
13 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:21 am
In what sense of “real-life” are you implying? Are you being practical about the situation libertarians (big L or small L) are in? It doesn’t seem like it.
14 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:25 am
In the sense that I’m not an anonymous screen name. I’m a real person who does real stuff with other real people who know me. I’m not a guy whose never done anything for libertarianism or someone pretending NOT to be a Barr campaign worker, and people can vouch for that.
15 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:26 am
Well, it would be my right to deny that even if it were objectively true, wouldn’t it?
16 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:27 am
How am I not being practical? I want a coalition with other like-minded groups (C4L). What’s impractical about that? It’s Bob Barr who’s impractical — thinking HE is the “leader” of the Freedom Movement. Puh-lease. He’s a statist thug unfit to lead anything except his wife to the abortion clinic, which he did.
17 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:27 am
You have the right to delude yourself if you want. Sure. What are you talking about? I was on C-SPAN, sucka. You are a young Robert Milnes.
18 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:46 am
How hilarious of you, bringing things not relevant to this specific debate into play. Of course, that’s how you “operate” isn’t, G.E.? Fun to play isn’t it, Captain Rabb? You’re not the only one who can call names and fabricate statements. It’s not such a small pond after all is it?
But go on, keep telling yourself I’m a Barr shill, while simultaneously decrying me as the new Robert Milnes. The two are polar opposites. But I’m sure you’ll “lesson” me soon. For instance, you completely missed the point that it is easy to accept what facts to believe and what not to. Then again, you do this on a daily basis.
19 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:46 am
I think comparing yourself with Milnes would be a bit more apt.
20 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:47 am
You have done as much libertarian activism as Robert Milnes. That was my point. Jeez.
21 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:49 am
Spence, really, man… If you’re 17… Don’t you need to get up and go to school tomorrow? Even on the West Coast, it’s getting late.
22 MattSwartz // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:53 am
Spence,
GE pushes news stories, which is sort of what blogs are supposed to do. If he gets it wrong, he fixes it. You’ve produced nothing, you’re supporting a terrible candidate who may or may not be paying you, and you’re bringing personalities into it.
Give it a rest.
23 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 2:05 am
Oh, so let’s equate my online posts with true activism, shall we? Flawed off the bat. And second of all, where’s my right to stay up late? Something I’m missing here?
”
Spence,
GE pushes news stories, which is sort of what blogs are supposed to do. If he gets it wrong, he fixes it. You’ve produced nothing, you’re supporting a terrible candidate who may or may not be paying you, and you’re bringing personalities into it.
Give it a rest.
”
I’m going to let you go. You obviously do not understand what a blog actually does, what this one claims it is supposed to be, and how often those fixes truly occur. Secondly, you have no idea of the actual time I’ve put into supporting Ron Paul this past year. Such a terrible candidate, yes? No, I completely agree. In hindsight, he was terrible and completely ignorant of the harsh realities of politics. But well-versed in everything else. So I’d appreciate it if you withdrew peaceably.
Lastly, you’re absolutely right. It’s always been about personality from day one. How can you expect to keep well-informed on ALL aisles of the political scope when the more “independent you go”, the more simple standards like neutrality, transparency, and accuracy drop like flies. This guy sits here and defends it, and you are too. There is no excuse for that.
24 MattSwartz // Sep 12, 2008 at 2:11 am
I’m sorry if I underestimated what you’ve done. I should have said that you haven’t done anything I’ve seen, which of course doesn’t mean much.
I do think you’re beating down the wrong door here, though. I visit daily and GE fixes headlines and edits stories the moment he’s confronted with a discrepancy of any kind. Blogs are supposed to provide commentary, and this site does that. If you want different commentary, or no commentary at all, go start that site.
25 Spence // Sep 12, 2008 at 2:18 am
Believe me, Matt. I plan on it.
The point of the matter is that he never fixes outright statements in his articles that stand whether or not something else has been changed. Indeed, I completely agree that blogs are for commentary, hence the name, but for a site that pitches themselves as the “independent political report”, it’s sure at odds with the inherent purpose of a blog. Proof in concept.
And really, the thing is, I don’t have any problem with commentary. In fact, I encourage it. After all, what are we doing right now? Commentary. Great. So long as it’s separate. What may be obvious to you or me is not the universal standard, though. And we are not very happy about this situation in the MSM, so why should it be permissible here?
26 Adrien Monteleone // Sep 12, 2008 at 2:54 am
What I see here is someone with the moniker “G.E.” claiming other people are being anonymous and not using their real names. (if you didn’t catch that ‘G.E.’ then you really need to read that again, you, who uses initials instead of your name, is accusing others of hiding behind anonymity)
Second, I keep seeing G.E.’s comments all over this site full of ad hominem attacks. I see little issue discussion on your part, and instead, your comments are filled with flame throwing/baiting.
What’s the deal man? Lighten up will you? This isn’t the end of the world, and if it is, you won’t stop it. Express your opinion, but how about a little more substance and a little less vitriol.
27 johncjackson // Sep 12, 2008 at 3:50 am
G.E.= Global Elitist, duh.
28 G.E. // Sep 12, 2008 at 5:28 am
Adrian – Anyone who cares knows who I am. I use a moniker to stay out of Google searches, just like mscrib.
29 Trent Hill // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:24 am
Adrien,
Pretty much everyone at this site knows who GE is, we know who he works with, what he does for a living, and what he looks like. It is no mystery. He’s just smarter than me, not wanting to turn up in Google searches.
30 Coming Back to the LP // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:31 am
This is good news that Ron Paul has asked to be removed from the Montana ballot. He should be removed from all Presidential ballots.
Why?
Because, Ron Paul has a great opportunity to be a sponsor, through his Campaign for Liberty, of a 6 way debate among all the candidates for President who have qualified for enough ballots to actually be elected by winning 270 or more Electoral Votes.
Of course some candidates may decline the invitation. But, the CFL has enough money to sponsor the debates, enough credibility to bring in good moderators and questioners, enough clout to be recognized and covered, and enough money to pay to get the debates on nationwide TV.
Let’s hope a debate announcement will come soon.
31 Coming Back to the LP // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:34 am
GE,
I have no fight with you, but although I know personally dozens of famous Libertarians, including Ron Paul, whom I worked with in DC, I have no idea who you are. Perhaps your fame has not transcended IPR’s little universe.
32 Trent Hill // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:44 am
If Paul asks us to remove him from the ballot, we will do so–if only to respect his wishes. And more and more, Im suspecting he WILL ask.
33 NewFederalist // Sep 12, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Trent- If that happens will you substitute another candidate?
34 Trent Hill // Sep 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Im not at liberty to say, as it would be a decision by ALL the elector candidates, not just me. There are nine of us, so it’d be up to each.
As for my particular vote on the situation–I believe fusion isnt allowed, so Baldwin/Castle could not be nominated, and I dont think most of our electors would put Barr/Root on the ballot because we are Ron Paul supporters (even though some are big L, libertarians). So–I’d vote to let our ballot access lapse.
35 libertyforone // Sep 13, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi all.
I just found this great article about voting for Ron Paul in all 50 states: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html
I think it is a wonderful solution for those that are not pleased with any of the other choices we have. Plus, it is better at sending a message than not voting at all.
Pass it on.
Leave a Comment