Comments on: Ron Paul signed a pledge not to run as an independent or alternative party candidate

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:34:18 +0000

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/11/the-saga-of-the.html

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:18:51 +0000

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5467.html

By: AnthonyD

AnthonyD — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:24:10 +0000

although I could buy reason #2, one wonders why non-disclosure would be necessary. What “trade secret” would the republicans be trying to hide? That they want to rig the game from the get-go with their donkey party counterparts?

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:18:27 +0000

A couple of possibilities here

1) He may have thought that leaving the door of speculation just a little bit ajar would fuel his fundraising

2) Part of the oath was non-disclosure of the oath

There may be other possibilities I haven’t thought of.

By: Michael Seebeck

Michael Seebeck — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:12:57 +0000

My only statement on this is that I wish he had disclosed this a long time ago instead of now. It might have boosted his numbers, perhaps not, but it would have been nice to have it out in the open then.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:03:37 +0000

Good question. You may want to ask at Liberty maven and Western Standard, and C4L. I’d also be interested in a list of the eleven states.

By: citizen1

citizen1 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:02:23 +0000

Is the text of the pledge or pledges available any where?

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:14:15 +0000

Well, he only interfered in Montana because he thought Baldwin should’ve been placed as the nominee for the CP–as was previously indicated. For example, he also didnt stop electors in California from making him an official write-in candidate.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:12:33 +0000

True, but libertyuk2000 is still incorrect in saying he didn’t do anything.

Also, since I did not see the 11 states where the oath applied listed, there’s no inherent contradiction, unless Louisiana or Montana were among them.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:46:05 +0000

But he DIDNT ask for his name to be removed in LA.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:04:22 +0000

Incorrect. He asked for his name to be removed in Montana, but it wasn’t.

By: libertyuk2000

libertyuk2000 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:55:29 +0000

He also did not do anything to have his name removed!

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:08:27 +0000

He did not sign anything to authorize that.

By: libertyuk2000

libertyuk2000 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:51 +0000

Hmm,

Well that did not stop Sir Paul from running on as the CP candidate in MT nor the LA Taxpayers Party in LA did it?

By: AnthonyD

AnthonyD — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:58:37 +0000

I am down with johnlowell’s opinion on this one. Despite all the attacks on Barr’s supposed lack of libertarian credentials and his dismal (albeit typical) showing, no one let the libertarian movement down more than Ron Paul did this election cycle. The gospel of Luke tell us “To whom much is given, much is expected.” Barr did the best he could campaigning in total obscurity with a million bucks. RP pissed 35 times that amount of money down a toilet to I don’t know where.

And no one knows what RP’s polling numbers would have been if he had continued to campaign. Had he risen to Ross Perot type numbers (a distinct possiblity since we had two pro-bailout candidates in McBama), I would have loved to have seen the demopublicans try to stop him from running 3rd party, regardless of what document he signed. Considering the current approval ratings of our federal government, that would have been unadvisable to say the least.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:24:19 +0000

Internal party rules are different from sore loser laws.

By: citizen1

citizen1 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:20:34 +0000

Most courts have ruled that sore loser laws do not apply to presidential candidates.

By: Spence

Spence — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:59:18 +0000

Perhaps this could be the nationwide push for state initatives that the Ron Paul Revolution is thinking up. It’d be a hard sell, since no one except us would find it necessary to do such a thing (run “sore loser” run), but it’d be a start and free up the competition a lot more. Someone wanna pitch this to C4L? They’d probably flat out reject it, since they appear to be running the show as badly as RP’s actual campaign…

By: richardwinger

richardwinger — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:43:27 +0000

I assume the Texas Republican presidential primary pledge is similar to the Texas Democratic presidential primary pledge. Dennis Kucinich refused to sign it, and then he sued the Texas Democratic Party to get on its presidential primary even though he hadn’t signed it. So far he has lost. The Texas Democratic Party’s big defense is that the oath has no teeth except moral force. So I am guessing the same is true of the Republican oath.

South Carolina party oaths do have teeth. That’s why a Green who also ran in the Democratic primary for state legislature this year was enjoined from campaigning as a Green. However, his lawsuit against the oath’s binding force is still pending and might eventually win.

By: Catholic Trotskyist

Catholic Trotskyist — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:28:13 +0000

No, the older people like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, were the best at the primary debates. Ron Paul also saved us from Rudy Giuliani, severely weakening him in the early debate.