Topic: Third Party Strategies
Ron Paul's No-Third-Party Deals Answered: Why Ron Paul was not the 2008 Libertarian candidate for President. Not answered: Why Paul's campaign kept quiet about it.by George Dance
(libertarian)
Friday, November 14, 2008
The day after the November 4 presidential election, the campaign of insurgent Republican candidate Ron Paul revealed that Paul had made deals with several state Republican parties to not run a third party presidential bid.
According to Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, the deals were made before the state primaries, and were a condition of Paul's participation in those primaries.
Benton was responding to Marc Gallagher of the blog Liberty Maven, who in an Election Day post had lamented Paul's refusal to seek the Libertarian Party nomination:
I firmly believe that if Ron Paul chose to run as a Libertarian after losing the GOP nomination as Bob Barr and the Libertarian National Committee wanted back in December of 2007 we'd be looking at a very different electoral map on CNN and other news outlets today. Ron Paul was a great unique unifying figure. His supporters are a wire mesh of far left, far right, and in between. The decisions he made after losing the GOP nomination caused that wire mesh to rip apart. (1)
In reply, Benton e-mailed to Gallagher: "Ron Paul could not have run Libertarian if he wanted to. In order to be on the GOP Primary Ballot in at least 11 states, including Texas, Ron had to pledge that he would not seek the presidency on another ticket if he failed to secure the GOP nomination. Not running third party was the price of admission." (2)
Benton tartly added: "We are certainly open to fair criticism of Dr. Paul. But criticizing him for not running third party is not fair criticism." Yet criticism of Paul for not running Libertarian has been widespread throughout 2008. Doubtless Benton had felt the unfairness of that criticism, in light of Paul's No-Third-Party deals, then as well as now. For whatever reason, the campaign's decision was to say nothing about those deals.
Simlarly, stories and rumours of Paul's impending Libertarian Party bid have circulated for more than a year, with the campaign doing nothing to stop them (indeed, by one account, Paul's campaign staff at least once being the ones starting them). Again for whatever reason, the Paul campaign chose not to make public the one piece of information that would have put a stop to them.
2007
Speculation that Paul would eventually be the Libertarian candidate began as soon as he entered the presidential race. On January 12, 2007 -- the day after Paul filed to incorporate his exploratory committee -- Ballot Access News was writing:
If Paul fails to win the Republican presidential nomination, he could then seek the Libertarian nomination (which he would be virtually certain to obtain) and run in November as the Libertarian nominee. John Anderson established the precedent in most states that "sore loser" laws do not apply to presidential candidates. John Anderson ran in two-thirds of the 1980 Republican presidential primaries, and he also won a place on the November 1980 ballots as an independent candidate in all 50 states. In some of the states in which Anderson happened not to run in the 1980 Republican presidential primary, there is still a precedent that "sore loser" laws don’t apply to president, because others set such precedents. (3)
The idea no doubt played a role in the early, enthusiastic support by Libertarians -- in those days the major support -- of Paul's candidacy. By March, one candidate for the Libertarian nomination was complaining that "Paul is siphoning off campaign funds that are critical to the Libertarian Party's nominee." (4)
The speculation was virtually viral by fall, hitting the widely-read (5 million vistors/month) online magazine Huffington Post in October:
After taking several recent announcements into consideration, I have gazed into my crystal ball and foreseen Ron Paul as the nominee of the Libertarian Party for 2008. Paul will be supported by droves of "family values" voters and will actually gain a respectable percentage of the popular vote. The Democratic nominee then waltzes into the White House, spikes the ball, and does an end-zone dance in the Oval Office. (5)
The story had reached a point that Paul was asked about a third-party run by the Wall Street Journal on October 4; and though he shot the idea down, he did not rule one out:
"The thought does not cross my mind about a third party," Paul told us today after speaking at the Americans for Prosperity conference, a forum for fiscal conservatives. "I did it and I know what the problems are. Unfortunately this country does not offer democratic opportunities. There's too many rules and laws and bias against an alternative party whether you're left or right or wherever you're coming from. You can't get on debates, you can't get on ballots." (6)
On December 4, political blogger Andrew Romano predicted in Newsweek that Paul would run third party, and speculated he would make an announcement in early February: "In all likelihood, Paul will wake up on Feb. 6 with millions in the bank (he says he's spending carefully') and hundreds of thousands of serious supporters unwilling to let the dream die. Then what? Let those investments go to waste? Or buck up, break with a party he largely disdains and soldier on?" Romero wrote after meeting Paul, asking him the same question as the Journal, and getting a similar non-denial:
"Would I stay in the race as an independent?" he asks, acknowledging the option. It's a question that no candidate still competing for his party's nomination can answer in the affirmative. So Paul just says "I don't forsee that"--and leaves the door (noticeably, if not wide) open. (7)
A week later the Libertarian National Committee unanimously passed a resolution (authored by Regional Rep. Bob Barr) urging Paul to seek the Libertarian nomination "in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008." (8) (The resolution has since been removed from the Libertarian Party website.) (9)
Benton responded to the Libertarian overture by telling the press: "Ron has no intention to run third party whatsoever." Once again a third party bid was not ruled out, and again there was no mention of any No-Third-Party deal with the Republican party. (10)
On December 23, Paul again explicitly refused to rule out running third party, telling Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that "I deserve one wiggle now and then." However, Paul did say that he was "99.9 percent" sure he would not do so. (11)
2008
Bright and early in January 2008, the Washington Post reported:
For weeks rumors have swirled that Paul, who trails his opponents in national and state polls, will eventually run as an independent or libertarian candidate.
"I have no intention of doing that," Paul told The Trail.
Asked how he'd respond if his supporters clamored for him to mount a run outside the GOP, Paul responded: "We'll see if the supporters keep sending the money. But right now, our focus is on February 5th." (12)
Following the February 5 primaries (as Romano predicted and the Libertarian Party had asked), Paul did publicly announce a decision on a third party run. However, he decided against, writing to his supporters on February 8: "I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no 3rd party run. I do not denigrate third parties; just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican." He was widely criticized for that decision by even some of his staunchest supporters; for example, Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com, who wrote under the title, "A Revolution Betrayed?":
One's heart sinks: where has [Ron Paul] been this whole campaign? Didn't he notice that, in spite of the respectable crowds of thousands that flocked to hear him on the campaign trail, he rarely pulled more than 10 percent of the vote in mostly closed GOP primaries? His appeal is to younger, non-Republican independent voters, not to your typical GOP primary goer: he cannot realize his full electoral potential without running as a third-party candidate.
Indeed, the field has never been more inviting for a third-party candidate of the Right, as the man conservatives love to hate takes his place as the GOP standard-bearer in 2008....
Paul's dismissal of the third-party option is mysterious and inexplicable. The idea that he would have to use up his millions to secure ballot status is nonsense: the Libertarians have ballot access in most states, and those few which are problematic could be managed just as they have been in the past....
The reality is that for Ron Paul to rule out a third-party run, at this point; when his announcement of just such a move would have had maximum impact; is a tragic error, one that we will look back on and regret all the more as time goes on. It is a major opportunity, forever lost because the Paul campaign, for all its educational impact, in the end means nothing absent an effort to take it all the way to November, and beyond. (13)
Paul's campaign did little if anything to respond to any of this criticism, much less point out the "unfairness" of it all.
Nor did Paul's announcement do anything to damp down the speculation that he would eventually become the Libertarian candidate. Even Barr's nomination by the Libertarian Party in May did not end that. As late as September, when Paul hastily called a press conference for September 10 (and it was learned that Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin would be present), there was a flurry of new stories that "Baldwin and Barr are stepping aside so that Paul can become the nominee of both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties" (14)
When those stories again turned out to be false, Paul was again criticized:
Why after Paul failed in his valiant attempt to win the Republican nomination, did not he himself make a third-party bid? Indeed, Paul was in a far better position than any of those standing beside him this morning to lead such a venture -- with his breakthrough into the MSM, with his solid eCampaign, and miraculous supporter-generated "Money Bombs." If Bob Barr can pull in 6% in a recent Rasmussen poll, then I think it's safe to say that Paul could be getting support somewhere in the 20s.
In the end, the ideas-free "just vote!" advice, sounds like something you'd hear in an NBC public service announcement.
The fact is, Paul has developed a knack for alienating the GOP enough to achieve pariah status, but then not having the guts to go all the way, abandon the party, and really accomplish something. (15)
Bob Barr also came in for his share of criticism when he pulled out of Paul's conference, rejected its "just vote!" message, and countered with one "final offer" to Paul to run on the Libertarian ticket -- as the candidate for Vice-President. Many Libertarians and Paul supporters were shocked and appalled at Barr's offer. For instance, here at Nolan Chart David Nolan declared the gesture an "insult to Ron Paul, who is far better known and more widely admired" and called for a donation boycott of Barr's campaign (16); while Melinda Pillsbury-Foster fumed:
Anyone who has been a Libertarian longer than a day knew that Ron was the LP candidate in 1988 and could have had the LP presidential nomination at any time for the asking. Mary Ruwart, the candidate for the nomination this year who nearly defeated Barr, would have stepped aside to give it to him - if he would have taken it - in a heart beat. So why would Ron Paul want to accept a second slot to Barr? (17)
One obvious reason would be the No-Third-Party deals which prevented Paul from taking the top spot. It is certainly conceivable that Barr, when trying to recruit Paul as the Libertarian nominee, had been told of them; and that Paul was offered the second spot instead as a way around that obstacle. Given that context, the ensuing criticism of Barr was just as unfair as that of Paul.
Once again, though, Paul's campaign was the only one in any position to publicly refute unfair criticism by revealing the relevant information; and once again the campaign chose not to.
Of course, Paul's staffers had no reason to be bothered by unfair criticism of Barr. The fallout from Paul's September press conference and Barr's no-show revealed a long-enduring turf war between the two camps, as it quickly degenerated into a tangled snarl of name-calling and recriminations between them. Among the mutual accusations, though, was one which furnished a possible further reason for Benton et al to have kept quiet about the No-Third-Party deals: On Sep. 11, writing at the Barr 2008 website, manager Russ Verney alleged that the early September Paul-will-run-third-party stories had originated with the Paul campaign itself:
After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race just to hype the event I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul's staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press. (18)
If true -- if Paul's campaign was behind the September story (and if that one, why not all the others?) -- that casts a new light on the silence around the No-Third-Party deals.
Summary
In light of Benton's post-election revelation of those deals, criticizing Ron Paul now for not pursuing the third party option would be unfair. Raimondo is correct that Paul's decision to not run Libertarian was a missed opportunity which squandered the rEVOLution's potential; Gallagher that it had a divisive and demotivating effect on the rEVOLution's support base. However, if Paul had not been in the Republican primaries (and therefore in the televised Republican debates) there would have been no rEVOLution in the first place. It is questionable just how much of anything Ron Paul would have accomplished had he not agreed to the No-Third-Party deals.
However, it is not unfair to criticize Paul's campaign for not making those deals public previously. If they found the resulting criticism of Paul unfair, they have no one to blame but themselves.
If Paul's staffers kept those deals a secret or even (as Verney alleged) spread stories to the contrary, so that Libertarians would "keep sending the money," or to "attract the press," such decisions can also be fairly criticized.
At this point, of course, all judgements have to be tentative. I find myself in agreement with Kalim Kassam's comments on the revelation at Canada's Western Standard:
It's not difficult to see why this information wasn't made public before the press conference at which Ron Paul made his presidential endorsements: of course the GOP would prefer it never to see the light of day, and until that point Paul could coyly respond to inquiries that he had "no plans" to mount a third party run while not completely ruling it out, keeping the media interested and the major parties on their toes....
Then again, who am I to know? Maybe the GOP also had a non-disclosure agreement which gagged the Paul campaign from talking until after the November 4th election. I wouldn't be surprised, would you? (19)
----------
Sources
(1) Marc Gallagher, "Ron Paul Criticism In Bob Barr's Final Hours," Liberty Maven, Nov. 4, 2008. http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/04/ron-paul-criticism-in-bob-barrs-final-hours/3033/
(5) Chris Weigant, "The Ron Paul Third-Party Scenario," Huffington Post, Oct. 8, 2007. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-ron-paul-thirdparty-_b_67622.html
(6) Susan Davis, "Ron Paul: No Third-Party Bid for Me," Washington Wire, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 5, 2008. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/05/ron-paul-no-third-party-bid-for-me/ (7) Andrew Romano, "Ron Paul, Third-Party Candidate? Why Dems Should Worry (At Least More than Republicans)," Newsweek, Dec. 4, 2007. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/12/04/ron-paul-third-party-candidate-bad-news-for-dems.aspx
(8) "National Party Resolution on Ron Paul," Libertarian Party of Allen County, Dec. 11, 2007. http://allencountylp.blogspot.com/2007/12/national-party-resolution-on-ron-paul.html
(12) Jose Antonio Vargas, "Paul Has 'No Intention' of Making Third-Party Bid," The Trail, Washington Post, Jan. 6, 2008. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/06/paul_has_no_intention_of_makin.html
The views expressed in this
article are those of George Dance only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I don't think one needs to have such a "conspiracy theory". The issue is simply IMHO that Paul intended to run in the Republican primaries and the constant third party question by journalists and interviewers steered away from the real issues he is addressing, takes away some of the seriousness of how his campaign is taken and also hurt him with some Republicans, who consider the LP as a fringe and libertine party. Paul also has diffrences witht he LP with regard to its current platform, and Paul's own platform of pro-life and the issue of illegal immigration.
The real issue also that Ron and Rand Paul have referred to the issue of running third party is the "sore-loser" rule in a few states, including Texas, which would mean that Paul would have been barred from running as a third party if he already run under the GOP ticket in the primary and not win the primary. This is probably the issue Benton is referring regarding the NRA agreement, or it could be that the NRA agreement is for even more states than the sore-loser states. The NRA was probably confidential, therefore Paul could not make it known publicly earlier.
George, face it, if Paul would theorically have run third party in say 45 satets, he would have scored say 10-20%, but he would also have been seen as the reason why McCain and the GOP lost and be blamed for it. This also means his libertarian policies would have been critisized as the reason why the GOP failed and only strenghtened the "big govt. and neocon. faction" within the GOP. Now the "neocon/big govt. faction" under McCainhas been dealt a defeat and some introspection about the policy of the GOP (Iraq war and its financial toll, financial spending by Bush etc.) and Pauland the libertarian faction can certainly not be blamed, in fact it can be seen as the solution for the future direction of the GOP.
BTW: Ron Paul will decided till about mid next year whether he himself will run again for president in 2012, according to Jesse Benton (see reason blog), which would be very good news! Otherwise Gary Johnsonis the possibility, with Dr. Paul as campaigner for him and possibly VP candidate, as the one with moreexperience and theoretical knowledge.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-11-15 07:47:57
Wow, George, talk about over analyzing. Dr. Paul is a Republican and has said so repeatedly. He gave his reasons for not running as a third party candidate over and over but the blind and deaf LP faithful cannot hear his words or see his actions for what they are.
Dr. Paul knows third parties are a waste of time and energy and can have no lasting impact on the future of American politics. The GOP is the most powerful political tool available and he isn't willing to abandon it to his enemies as so many LP members long for him to do.
As he said in an interview last week when asked if people should join third parties, "The fact that I'm still a Republican says where I stand on that."
Your article stands as an example of why the Ron Paul campaign didn't make a big deal over the 11 states that required a pledge not to run as a 3rd party candidate. They knew that the religiously LP membership would be blinded by their faith and attempt to hold up such stipulations as THE reason Dr. Paul eschewed a third party run.
I'm sure the little LP sandbox is crawling with outraged choir members like yourself who think they have finally found THE answer, that ONE ANSWER that they are willing to accept as a reason Ron Paul didn't jump into their little sandbox with them. It is this built-in irrationality that so many LP members exhibit that makes the LP such a sad, sad joke.
I'm sure you and the choir will enjoy venting your outrage and playing in the sand. Meanwhile, the enemies of individual liberty are still wielding the most powerful tool for its destruction. Some of us are determined to take it away from them. The LP remains a social club for those unwilling or unable to do anything productive in the political world to wrest control from the liberals who run the GOP.
Enjoy your outrage-induced endorphins. They are the only manifestation of your behavior in the real world.
When looking at all the aspects of the decisions made by the Paul campaign it comes down to this...
The man knows politics and played his cards in the most effective way he felt would make the biggest impact. It is obvious to me that he didn't want to risk running on a 3rd party ticket from the beginning to be lost in the sauce so-to-speak, so he took the deal to get the issues out there and to make sure they were heard by sticking Republican.
It is too bad that the deal had to be made at all which goes to show how much this REVOLUTION needs to keep going.
Stefan: Thanks for mentioning the 'sore loser' laws. I'd looked into them, and forgetting to mention them was a serious flaw in the article. So I've rewritten to put that in the article. The BAN cite makes it clear that Benton (and now Paul, too, in a NY Times blog) are not talking about presidential sore loser laws, since only four states have them (and both Benton and Paul have referred to "at least 11".
The rest of your comments, and Jahfre's, deserve another read and some more thought before hazarding a reply; but I wanted to acknowledge your constructive criticism right away.
Fumed? It is inappropriate to ascribe emotions; doing so is often projection and often frightfully inaccurate, as in this case.
Moving on, I will point out that Barr's most likely motivation was to boister his truly pathetic fundraising. Having Paul on the ticket would have resulted in a tsunami of money from all points on the ideological compass. No one studying Barr's record could continue in the opinion that he is ideologically motivated or that he is more interested in individual rights than in self promotion, however. Merely offereing Paul the top of the ticket would have been far better, giving Barr a patina of modesty and probably done his fundraising much good no matter what Paul did.
Notice Barr did not do that.
Third party strategies all focus attention and energy on attempts to reform the failed hierarchy of Federal power with its ungrounded assertion of legitimacy, unsupported by the Constitution. They are doomed to failure. The only strategy with promise is to go local. Start a local barter - trade system, grow food, get into or stare a co-op, become part of the local solution. If you want to find others either look locally or help us provide information and resources. A group of us are working on that here. America Goes Home
America was intended to be the people who govern themselves. That formula is founded on our individual rights, our spiritual connection to each other, and using consensus and persuasion within communities. That is what our Founders experienced and we can have that again.
Wow, this is truly a waste of an article for one simple reason. If the case about the "sore loser" laws not being applicable at all, then it should make it clear to you how much Ron Paul did not sincerely want to run and how truly offensive Barr was. Stop being an apologist for him.
It would have been simple for Paul to say, very early, "No, I will not run third-party or independent, whatever the outcome of the GOP nomination."
I suppose there's merit in the idea of a media "tease" for attention, implied by his "wiggle room" comment. But, that became irrelevant on February 5th, when Paul failed to carry any primary states. He simply could not be nominated - or even insist on a speaking slot - at the GOP Convention.
I haven't researched all the "sore loser laws", but it's possible that they offer candidates an option to sign ... even if not required by law. Rich Winger makes a good case for overturning those laws, but that would have entailed a lot of expense and time in each of those four - or eleven - states.
Here's what I suspect: Republicans in Texas threatened to remove Paul from the ballot in his Congressional District if he publicly "affiliated" with any other party. Texas law is vague enough to allow parties to find a candidate "unqualified" as their representative, at the discretion of party officials, and replace him with another candidate. Paul simply wasn't willing to give up his congressional seat in order to resume a presidential campaign on any third-party ticket. Had Paul announced that such a threat had been made and that he didn't want to take the risk, he might have been faulted for refusing to put his own political status in jeopardy on behalf of his pursuit of liberty ideals. His supporters would not have been pleased.
Ron Paul said about a billion times that he was not running as a third-party candidate. He was asked over and over, and the answer was always no.
The problem was that people kept asking him. People like the idiots at CNN did not help. But the LP idiots didn't help either. They asked him more than anyone. They are the ones who were responisble for the marginalization of Ron Paul.
Thanks a lot for screwing up Ron Paul's campagain.
Barr's campaign still spinning??? That's something!!! I can't beleive it. Still attacking Ron Paul to save Bob Barr's legacy? This is beyond the pale. Are you after Ron paul because he is anti-war and anti-government? Contrary to the beautiful statist Bob Barr?
What about an article on the Bank of Canada and its bailouts of the "strong" Canandian banking system that still requires tons of fiat money? What about a piece on the Canadian governments getting ready to run massive deficits according to their own words?
If your really want to stick to your Barr fetish; what about a piece on the financial situation of his campaign. He is a fiscal conservative, that should be quick: no debt, even a small surplus given back to the Libertarian Party! Right?
Excellent column, Mr. Dance. It's not surprising the Ron Paul cultistas can't see the forest for the trees and continue to rally behind their messiah in spite of the fact that RP plays politics just like anyone else and sold all of his supporters out so that he could have his seat in Congress back.
Something I'd like to ask the cultistas ... what has RP actually done since being elected to Congress? Sure he's voted against stuff, he's submitted bills, but he has never ACCOMPLISHED anything by working inside the GOP besides keeping his job and pretending like he's doing something.
RP had the oportunity to do something truly great, to shake the political establishment to its knees by launching a third party/indie run for the White House, but instead, he decided he'd rather just keep his job and fade into obscurity.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
