Eric Garris just reported over at the LewRockwell.com blog that Ron Paul will be an official write-in candidate in California. This is in addition to Ron Paul being on the ballot in Montana and Louisiana.
The California Secretary of State will announce tomorrow that Ron Paul has been certified as an official write-in candidate for President.
This means that write-in votes for Ron Paul in California will be counted, although the numbers for write-in votes are rarely reported until weeks after the election.
I have spoken with several people over the past few hours aout how many votes Ron Paul will score nationwide. Depending on whether and where write-in votes are counted, estimates range from 30,000 votes up to 250,000. Ron Paul did accrue over 125,000 primary votes in California earlier this year in a much more crowded field, but he was also on the ballot then. Eric Garris goes on to say:
In order the qualify Ron Paul as a write-in for California, former Libertarian Party state chair Gail Lightfoot recruited 55 electors who had to file notarized forms with the Secretary of State.
On a personal note: I must confess that I contributed $200 to Bob Barr during the early days of his campaign. I am so disappointed with his campaign that I am serving as an elector for Ron Paul from California, and will be writing him in on my ballot.
If anyone can find out who all of the electors are, I will publish the list here. I suspect it is somewhat of an all-star list of libertarian/conservatives in California.
79 responses so far ↓
1 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:51 pm
@ TPW
# Bill Lussenheide Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I can assure you that Ron Paul IS NOT a write in candidate in California.
I was involved in the process of getting Chuck Baldwin on the California certified write in list. The Secretary of State requires a declaration of candidacy SIGNED by the candidate, in addition to 55 notarized and jurated electoral college nominees. So unless Ron Paul signed a declaration, then he is not a write in candidate.
The deadline for paperwork was October 21st.
2 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I know Bill, he’s a decent guy.
But I trust Eric Garris, who has worked with Richard Winger for years and who once took over the Peace and Freedom Party via election-law finagling, more.
3 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:54 pm
For the record, Ron Paul scored 125,365 votes–4.27%, in a crowded field. But he was ON the ballot. His highest scores were in Santa Cruz County (8.93%) and Sierra County (9.5%).
I predict,that if they work hard they’ll score 25,000 write-ins.
4 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Did Ron Paul fill out a form like this?
http://www.frankmooreforpresident08.com/forms/california_statement_write-in_2008.pdf
Did all the paperwork get turned in by Oct 21?
Has the state said everything was in order and accepted?
5 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:58 pm
What im hoping for: 7% in MT, 5% in LA, 60,000 write-ins in California.
My prediction: 4% in MT, 2% in LA, 10,000 write-ins in CA.
6 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 pm
No idea Paulie. But Eric Garris said it’ll be accepted. If it isnt, i’ll print a retraction.
7 svf // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 pm
… yet another bizarre chapter in Ron Paul Nation lore… someone oughta write a book or something……..
8 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Someone will, im sure. Once he dies or retires.
9 Sivarticus // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:06 pm
If true, this is amazing news. California is a good state for Ron Paul to be there as an option–it’s an obvious safe state where some of the lesser evil Republicans might go for him, unlike Montana and Louisiana where he’s on the ballot.
10 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Hmmm, I wonder if Tibor Machan would write an editorial in the OC Register urging people to write-in Ron Paul?
11 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:10 pm
No idea Paulie.
I’m not just asking you, but anyone reading who may know more.
12 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Beat me to it Trent!
I’ve gone over this and I’m unclear about whether or not it is in fact necessary for RP to sign the declaration - I think they might have re-written it since I looked at it last, because before it seemed very clear to me that the declaration was in fact necessary, and now it doesn’t seem that way at all. Garris says it isn’t.
We’ll know who all the write-in candidates are tomorrow.
13 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I’m also glad I was waiting until tomorrow to fill out my ballot. My wife and mother-in-law would also vote RP, as would others I know.
14 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I just spoke with Garris, and he insists it isnt required. He also says that Ron Paul did NOT object to being made a write-in candidate.
Which I suppose means he was asked? Any predictions on how many write-ins Paul will pick up?
15 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Fred,
Tell as many people as you know. =)
16 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Tell as many people as you know. =)
Oh, I will.
Tough to predict what his vote total will be. 125K from the GOP primary, an uncertain figure in the LP primary, a news bump over the last couple months since the stock market surrendered… maybe 30K?
17 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Bad news for Barr and Baldwin (especially Barr) if true.
18 svf // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:25 pm
the whole Ron Paul “movement” is so splintered and impotent at this point I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…. You couldn’t possibly have forseen the clusterfuck we have before us right now. I mean wow.
19 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Are there any other states where this is being done or in the works?
20 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:26 pm
the whole Ron Paul “movement†is so splintered and impotent at this point I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…. You couldn’t possibly have forseen the clusterfuck we have before us right now. I mean wow.
Getting 55 electors is no easy task.
21 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I dont see it as splintered. I see it as unorganized and confused, but we all still love liberty. And when Ron Paul comes out and says “please do this”—it gets done. Look at the BJ Lawson moneybomb or the CFL ads against the bailout.
22 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:29 pm
The big question is whether Ron Paul will formall y endorse this and ask for write-in votes before election day. If yes, I think he might break 100k just in California alone, and possibly come in ahead of Barr in that state. He may even come in ahead of Barr nationwide, with just being on the ballot in two states, and a handful of states that count unregistered write-ins.
23 svf // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:30 pm
when Ron Paul comes out and says “please do thisâ€â€”it gets done.
So you’re saying Chuck Baldwin is going to rack up the kind of numbers that force the GOP to take notice and adopt a more Constitutionalist platform…? You’re saying BJ Lawson has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected? And even Bob Barr got more press on his anti-Bailout stance than the CF/4L as far as I can tell…
Sorry, I’m just bitchy about it all. I’m used to funnelling time and money into lost causes but this one bites a little bit nastier than the rest… though not as bad as the Cubs.
24 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I dont think Ron Paul would do that, as it would actively hurt Barr and Baldwin’s chances in the state—something he wouldnt want to do.
It’s a shame California wasnt earlier in the primary schedule—it was an active area for Ron Paul. Apparently the OC Register was prepared to endorse him when he fell off the map in FL and SC.
25 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“So you’re saying Chuck Baldwin is going to rack up the kind of numbers that force the GOP to take notice and adopt a more Constitutionalist platform…? ”
Of course not. But wait and see who Ron Paul endorses in 2012. I gaurantee that most people solidify behind that person (assuming Paul deosnt run himself, and I dont think he will).
26 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Oh–and Gail Lightfoot is the official VP candidate, but you needn’t write in HER name in order to vote for Paul. I’d suggest Barry Goldwater Jr.
27 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 23, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Hmm, I thought we just wrote in the presidential candidate…
28 sunshinebatman // Oct 23, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The text of the law in the linked pdf clearly states it’s the ELECTOR CANDIDATES who need to file a declaration, not the Prez/VP candidates.
29 AnthonyD // Oct 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm
paulie,
you must be on acid, man.
the old kook ron paul will not beat Barr in California. the old kook ron paul will not ask people to write his name in. the old kook ron paul will not get 100K votes in california. the old kook ron paul will not beat Barr nationally.
I will make a wager with you on any of the above statements, for any amount of money, at any point in time, up to and including election day.
30 Hugh Jass // Oct 23, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I’m predicting about 10,000-20,000 votes from California. I predict that boosts his national total to 65,000. If more of the 121,000 Paulites in California find out about this before Election Day, then his total will go up. I’m just glad that I’ll finally be able to vote for Dr. Paul. I had been torn between not voting or making a write-in for Baldwin.
31 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Anthony D, you missed where I said this depends on Ron Paul endorsing the write-in effort and asking for votes.
If he does, you’re on.
32 AnthonyD // Oct 23, 2008 at 10:39 pm
To be honest, I find voting write-in a waste, especially when the person you are writing it in is telling you not to do it.
On the other hand, if writing in the RP name is what you must do, I can live with it simply because it is a vote for liberty, even if it wont be reported for weeks, if at all. The folks in the Demopublican party will see it.
33 paulie cannoli // Oct 23, 2008 at 10:40 pm
BTW Trent is probably correct that it will not happen. But it could, I’m not ruling it out.
34 Gene Trosper // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:10 pm
If this is true, I will write in Ron Paul’s name on the ballot.
35 Lussenheide // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:43 pm
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 8600-8605
8600. Every person who desires to be a write-in candidate and have his or her name as written on the ballot of an election counted for a
particular office shall file:
(a) A statement of write-in candidacy that contains the following information:
(1) Candidate’s name.
(2) Residence address.
(3) A declaration stating that he or she is a write-in candidate.
Statement of Write-In Candidacy for President of the United States
1. The statement of write-in candidacy must be completed by the presidential write-in candidate and shall contain the following information:
a. candidate’s name,
b. residence address,
c. a declaration stating that the candidate is a write-in candidate,
d. the name of the office for which the candidate is running, and
e. the date of the election.
In addition, we request that you provide us with a telephone number to reach the presidential candidate and an address to which correspondence regarding the write-in candidacy may be addressed so that we can expedite communications.
From http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/cand_qual_wi_pres_ge2004.pdf
36 Trent Hill // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Lussenheide,
The California SoS is working with Gail Lightfoot (the organizer behind all this) right now to get a full listing of the electors. He is going to accept the paperwork,it seems.
37 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Good job looking up a 4-year old document. Here’s this year’s:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/qualifications/wi_pres_nov2008.pdf
38 Lussenheide // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:54 pm
The post above from the California election code shows that a declaration of candidacy is required in California.
When I got together the write in campaign for Chuck Baldwin in California, the above stated declaration was obtained and signed by Mr. Baldwin and submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State of California, along with our 55 electors.
I was called today by a California Ron Paul supporter who stated that they had filed the necessary 55 notarized signatures for electors, but they were unsure or unaware about the need for a declaration signed by the candidate himself.
With Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin, I would find it unusual for him to sign a declaration of candidacy. I have discovered though, that in this life, Third Parties, and with the offices of Secretary of States around the country…
THAT ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN! LOL!
If the California SOS accepts the paperwork as is, well there it is!
39 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I have discovered though, that in this life, Third Parties, and with the offices of Secretary of States around the country…
THAT ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN! LOL!
This is true. I will not be sleep easy tonight.
40 Lussenheide // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Fred:
Please refer to the current election code quoted above. It states that a candidate declaration is required. This is from the CURRENT California election code, not just 4 years ago…
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=08001-09000&file=8600-8605
41 Trent Hill // Oct 24, 2008 at 12:00 am
“A. Declarations of Write-In Candidacy - Presidential Elector
1. Voters in the November General Election are technically voting for the 55
presidential elector candidates, not directly for the candidates for President and
Vice-President. Therefore, in order to be a write-in candidate, a person must have
55 write-in presidential elector”
From the link posted by Fred. Clearly Paul doesnt have to sign anything.
42 Trent Hill // Oct 24, 2008 at 12:01 am
Bill,
We’ve seen that form already. All it says is that the candidate must sign a declaration of candidacy and list address, name, office sought,etc.
Electors sign on as the candidates for elector.
43 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 24, 2008 at 12:05 am
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=08001-09000&file=8650-8653
Only mentions the elector’s needing to file the declaration.
Your understanding is the same as mine was Lussenheide, so I’m wait-and-see.
44 Lussenheide // Oct 24, 2008 at 12:11 am
Trent:
I will stand corrected if the SOS certifies this and from my experience this past summer with the SOS and the AIP, I believe literally that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE with them.
However, election code is LAW, and California election code 8600 is quite clear of the need for the candidate declaration form.
Not to rain on anyones parade, but why is the Secretary of State waiting until tommorow , October 24th to make this grand announcement (according to Eric Garris’ post at Lew Rockwell) , when the deadline for filing write in information was October 21st ?
45 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 24, 2008 at 12:35 am
Not to rain on anyones parade, but why is the Secretary of State waiting until tommorow , October 24th to make this grand announcement (according to Eric Garris’ post at Lew Rockwell) , when the deadline for filing write in information was October 21st ?
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/calendar/section9_general_2008.doc
Oct 24, 2008
(Suggested date)
60.
Certified List of Write-In Candidates
Secretary of State will prepare and send to affected county elections officials a certified list of write-in candidates showing the name of every write-in candidate eligible to receive votes within the county at the general election, their address and the offices to which they seek election. This list will be mailed to each person in the affected offices.
46 antiwar // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:08 am
Fred:
The Secretary of State (SOS) official I spoke with originally told me they would have all the paperwork checked by today (Oct. 23). But they were apparently not done with all of them, and she told me that they would be announcing them tomorrow (Oct. 24). I asked nicely and she told me that Ron Paul was qualified and would appear on the list.
Eric Garris
47 antiwar // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:10 am
Oops, I see I should have been answering Lussenheide, not Fred. Fred got it right.
48 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:10 am
Thanks Eric!
49 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:11 am
And that’s for both the information and for doing this.
50 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:32 am
Yeah, props to everyone that got it done. I wish I had read it clearly in the first place so I could have pitched in, but at this point I’ll be content to spread the word.
51 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 12:22 pm
@BAN
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/10/24/california-only-has-4-declared-presidential-write-in-candidates/
California Only Has 4 Declared Presidential Write-in Candidates
October 24th, 2008
California has cumbersome procedures for filing as a declared write-in candidate for president. A slate of 55 presidential elector candidates must file on behalf of any write-in presidential candidate. Each of the 55 candidates must fill out a notarized declaration of candidacy form. However, the presidential candidate need not do anything. The deadline was October 22. The only four slates filed are on behalf of Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), James Harris (Socialist Workers Party), Frank Moore (independent), and Ron Paul. Therefore, write-ins for president for these four individuals will be tallied.
Candidates for president who are on the ballot in California are Obama, McCain, Barr, Nader, McKinney, and Alan Keyes.
52 svf // Oct 24, 2008 at 12:26 pm
the presidential candidate need not do anything…
there is just something incredibly strange and sorta sad about this whole thing (see also Louisiana/Montana).
eh, whatever — at least the Ron Paul follies continue to entertain….. I guess that’s some kind of return on my investment at least…
53 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Regardless as to whether or not Ron Paul is a write-in or on the ballot on any state, this is just more support for how ridiculously short-sighted Shane Corey, Russ Verney and the whole Barr campaign was in dissing Ron Paul by not attending the Press Club press conference in August.
Leave it to Barr, Verney , and Corey who think they had a huge opportunity, but could “go it alone”. Let’s face it, Barr’s ego got in the way of allowing the C4L and the “Revolution” be the lead.
No such problem would have come to fruition if Mary Ruwart had been the LP nominee.
54 AnthonyD // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm
as strange as it is to vote for a write-in candidate who doesn’t even want to be a “already written-in candidate,” is still is a vote for liberty and better than any other option on the California ballot…except for Barr.
55 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Just out of curiosity, is there some ideological significance in adding an extra e (”Corey”) to Shane Cory’s name? I notice it a lot among people who don’t like him, but I’ve never understood whether there was something behind that.
Otherwise, Steve LaBianca is correct.
And Anthony has a point as well: better that POed libertarians write in Ron Paul and have it count, than either that they write in Baldwin - or write in Ron Paul and have it not count.
56 Brian Miller // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm
You couldn’t possibly have forseen the clusterfuck we have before us right now.
Sure you could. I started pointing it out last year, and got bombarded by raving loony bands of Paultards.
I pointed out that Ron Paul had unsavory connections with the fringe right, including Stormfront and other racist movements. I was slammed as a “Ron Paul hater,” until Newslettergate and later StormfrontDonorgate.
I pointed out that Ron Paul was a right-wing theocratic time bomb waiting to explode, who was more settled in the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party. I was slammed as “unfair to Ron Paul” right up to the day he endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
I got tired and stopped commenting on it constantly. Whether I was tired out of frustration at being Cassandra, or sheer exhaustion from the impenetrable retardedness of the Paultard Minions, I’m not sure.
But it’s difficult for anyone (and I mean *anyone*) to claim they weren’t warned, repeatedly, about the bad things that were coming. They, and every Ron Paul supporter, made the deliberate and committed decision to ignore the facts that went against their own opinions, and pushed the pedal straight to the floor, crashing through the barrier warning “CLIFF AHEAD.”
Own it, kids, you bought it after all.
57 Brian Miller // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm
this is just more support for how ridiculously short-sighted Shane Corey, Russ Verney and the whole Barr campaign was
As generally distasteful as I find those three to be, I would rather be apologizing for their stupidity than for Ron Paul’s newsletters, Baldwin endorsement, floor speeches, etc.
Until Libertarians purge themselves of their personality cult for Ron Paul and willingness to make him a deity to be worshiped, who can do no wrong, whose critics are to be cast into the Outer Darkness no matter how accurate they are, the clusterfucks will continue.
The irony is that Paul has done nothing for his minions. He takes their money with a smile, makes some comment about “small government,” and persists as perhaps the most impotent elected official in America, profiting all the while.
I used to think Libertarians were smart and facts-driven… it took the Paultard Nation to open my eyes in that regard.
58 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm
A lot of words on this thread are shaped like sentences, but when I read them aloud all I hear is “bitch, bitch, bitch”
59 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Cory, Corey, potato, potatoe, blah, blah, blah
60 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:53 pm
potatoe-head?
61 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm
What Brian Miller fails to realize is that the most devastating statism by far, in our time is war and intervention in the economy. These are two of Ron Paul’s three main issues. For that, GLBT obsessed people like Miller continue to use derogatory language like “Paultard”.
Of course, all positions of liberty should be addressed and supported. But GLBT issues are simply one in a whole basket of “civil liberties” issues, while war and economy ADVERSELY AFFECTS ALL OF US!!!
62 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 pm
As for voting, I’m not partaking this year.
BTW Paulie, I was just making light of your comment. I simply haven’t taken notice of the ex-LNC National Director’s last name spelling.
63 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ron Paul cultism does get out of hand, it’s true. Still, I think that overall, he is the best member of Congress (looking at his total record), was the best major party presidential contender this year, and brought issues to the debate that would have otherwise been ignored. He was also not the worst or least libertarian candidate the LP has run for president either.
64 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm
BTW Paulie, I was just making light of your comment. I simply haven’t taken notice of the ex-LNC National Director’s last name spelling.
I know, but I’m really wondering. I see a lot of people doing it, most especially ones who dislike Cory, so I’m wondering if there is any significance to it I missed.
65 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I also am starting to believe ( though I obviously have no way to prove speculation) that Ruwart, Kubby, and maybe even Gravel or Jingozian would get a higher vote total than Barr/W.A.R.
This Barr/W.A.R. campaign, the so-called “best ticket ever” for the LP has made more critical errors than is comprehensible!
Barr/W.A.R . . . improperly managed, and improperly grounded (not grounded in libertarianism) has become the nightmare even worse than I imagined.
66 Fred Church Ortiz // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:10 pm
The extra “e” comes from when they spell your name “pauli”.
67 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm
LOL. Give me back my E, Shane!
68 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm
paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ron Paul cultism does get out of hand
So, Ron Paul is to blame for that? Some Paul supporters are cultish I suppose, but tell me of any “leader” who doesn’t have such things happen in their endeavors?
69 Brian Miller // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm
What Brian Miller fails to realize is that the most devastating statism by far, in our time is war and intervention in the economy.
By whose measure?
Oh yeah, yours and yours alone.
And anybody who doesn’t accept your whole “throw out the rest of Libertarian philosophy and solutions and focus solely on these two issues and get behind a big-time statist who just happens to agree with me on these two issues” schtick is now a Bad Libertarian.
So, Ron Paul is to blame for that?
Not really. But he is to blame for his cozy relationship with Stormfront, his positions in opposition to immigration (and resulting efforts to label Muslims as “terrorists”), his social-conservative control-freak legislative efforts, his put-a-wall-and-troops-on-the-border xenophobia, etc., etc., etc.
And quite a few Libertarians simply aren’t willing to adhere to your demand that we abandon our consciences and morals to embrace your socially-statist God, Steve. Sorry.
70 paulie cannoli // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:24 pm
So, Ron Paul is to blame for that?
No, I never said he was.
71 Brian Miller // Oct 24, 2008 at 5:25 pm
This Barr/W.A.R. campaign, the so-called “best ticket ever†for the LP has made more critical errors than is comprehensible!
And yet the irony is that even after all those mistakes and fuckups, they’re still going to get more votes on November 4th than the Paultard “revolution” and its preferred candidate Chuck Baldwin.
72 antiwar // Oct 24, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Here is the list of certified write-ins released today from the California Secretary of State:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/certified_list_of_candidates_writeins.pdf
73 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Wow!!! Brian Miller is saying that I want to “throw out the rest of Libertarian philosophy”!!! HAH, that is really funny!
He also says that I “embrace (my) socially-statist God”. These comments just split my gut with laughter!!
Simply because I don’t put GLBT issues out in front and center, and showcase it as my MAIN issue, I am a “social statist” and I ignore the “rest of Libertarian philosophy”.
Did I say Mr. Miller was “obsessed” with the GLBT issue? Nah, he can’t be . . . especially since by not linking “everything libertarian” to GLBT, I must be a statist.
If Miller wants to accuse me of anything, I plead guilty of being obsessed with defending liberty.
YES, such devastating interventions of government in the economy AFFECTS EVERYONE, but then, in Miller’s view GLBT infringements by government affects everyone I guess as well. I suppose that’s true in one’s mind, if you’re obsessed.
I do find it amazing how one person’s obsession with one issue can cloud their thinking and call me a statist.
74 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 6:52 pm
What’s next . . . Miller charges that I’m a homophobe?
75 svf // Oct 24, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Ruwart, Kubby, and maybe even Gravel or Jingozian would get a higher vote total than Barr/W.A.R.
Pro-Barr, anti-Barr, or a little o’ both — we should all at least agree that this statement simply makes no fucking sense.
76 Steve LaBianca // Oct 24, 2008 at 8:24 pm
svf is the one who makes no sense.
Barr and W.A.R. have alienated so many libertarians that his so called “best LP showing ever” will now likely be just like all the previous LP prez campaigns. Anyone else, who was willing to ride with the C4L would have been poised to get the lion’s share of the Ron Paul support.
THAT makes sense. svf is still looking at this as Barr being some kind of Rock Star. Even if he was, his star is tarnished beyond repair . . . at least in most libertarian circles.
77 svf // Oct 26, 2008 at 10:12 am
Barr and W.A.R. have alienated so many libertarians that his so called “best LP showing ever†will now likely be just like all the previous LP prez campaigns. Anyone else, who was willing to ride with the C4L would have been poised to get the lion’s share of the Ron Paul support.
THAT makes sense. svf is still looking at this as Barr being some kind of Rock Star. Even if he was, his star is tarnished beyond repair . . . at least in most libertarian circles.
I’ve known rock stars… and Bob Barr is no rock star.
I agree with you that Barr will only do slightly better than “all the previous LP prez campaigns.”
Your contention that “Ruwart, Kubby, and maybe even Gravel or Jingozian would get a higher vote total than Barr/W.A.R.” is what makes no sense.
Even with “the lion’s share of the Ron Paul support” — what remained of it, anyway, after the botched primary campaign and momentum-killing sputtering around — you would be looking at a general election total of perhaps 0.5-1%.
The only person who might have done better than that, if an indie campaign had been launched early and managed at least competently, is Ron Paul himself, which he clearly has no interest in.
The Ron Paul endorsement is not some kind of magic touch, which is painfully obvious given the lack of a “Baldwin fundraising surge” and the bleak prospects of the various RP/C4L-approved congressional campaigns (both in primary and general elections).
78 svf // Oct 26, 2008 at 10:26 am
Barr will only do slightly better than “all the previous LP prez campaigns.â€
And since we’re talking about quite a range of “success stories” here, I assume you think he won’t top Clark’s 1%ish, will do better than Browne, Badnarik, Paul & co’s 0.5%ish. I think you can at least concede he’ll do better than McBride and/or Berglund, although Hospers will likely remain the all-time LP electoral vote getting champion.
79 julie // Oct 26, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I’ve already sent in my ballot (mail in) and my vote was a write-in for Ron Paul. I voted my conscience and he is the best man for the job. If this becomes official tomorrow, it will be icing on the cake!
Leave a Comment