“Call on Ron Paul Libertarians to Stay in the GOP”
The following is a post from Eric Dondero who runs Mainstream Libertarian, and Libertarian Republican. As background there is a certain degree of suspicion within the GOP that if Ron Paul is unsuccessful in his effort to win the nomination he might take the opportunity to stand as a “third Party” candidate.
This would have devastating consequences to the very real chance the Republicans have, to win the presidency again. They have very credible candidates in Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and probably Fred Thompson, and are gaining ground in grassroots campaigns across America.
Some Libertarians though have expressed an intention of joining the GOP in order to support Ron Paul, then leave again if he fails. If he were to stand as a third party candidate, he could take with him a great deal of the parties libertarian/Republican support.
It would be a terrible thing to see a man of his stature act as a spoiler.
“Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis calls on Ron Paul Libertarians to Stay in the GOP”
By Eric Dondero
8/29/7 — With the race for US President on the GOP side becoming more and more solidified for frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, MI GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis made an appeal last night to Ron Paul supporters to stay within the GOP and support the eventual Nominee.
Anuzis was a guest on the Blog Talk Radio show “Libertarian Politics Live” hosted by Eric Dondero, and Co-Hosted by Andre Traversa. At the end of the half hour interview Anuzis said:
“I’ve been very involved in the conservative libertarian side of the Party… If you don’t get involved, don’t want to get involved you’re not going to make a difference… throwing bombs from the outside it’s not going to help. It’s important to have people who are passionate about the issues involved. I mean take a look at a mainstream libertarian group like the Cato Institute. Cato has had an enormous influence… In Michigan we have the Macinac Center which is also libertarian… libertarian conservative.
They’re important, but activists need to also get involved and get their hands dirty and not just jump in because Ron Paul is running and then jump out again… Their credibility is shot.”
During the half hour interview Anuzis also discussed Michigan politics, GOP outreach efforts to minorities in the State, and the prospective run of Ted Nugent for Governor as a Republican for 2010.
Listen to the entire interview here!
Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.
31 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
jc on Minimum wages frozen 
John Humphreys on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
papachango on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
nicholas gray on What Type Of Libertarian Are… jc on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
DanD on Animals, Morality, and Margina… jc on Minimum wages frozen jc on Minimum wages frozen DanD on Liberal budget response: tax … DanD on Bob Carr on the wrongs of a bi… DanD on Queensland Fuel Rebate John Humphreys on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen
-
LINKS
-
Featured Book
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
I assume “libertarian conservative” means non-libertarian on social issues such as abortion and gay rights. Ron Paul is not particularly libertarian on those issues.
Ralph Nader played a spoiler role against the Democrats when George W Bush was elected the first time. I wouldn’t want to see Ron Paul help Hillary Clinton win.
But I’m also concerned about the Congressional elections. If a strong Democrats majority emerges in reaction to the Iraq war, there will be no limit to the taxing and spending.
This fellow seems to be endorsing anyone who isn’t Ron Paul.
He has favourable mentions of some pro-life politician in Alaska on one of his blogs. And he doesn’t seem to mind Giuliani who prosecuted people for selling junk bonds. Giuliani may be the best the Republicans can offer but he is hardly libertarian. M
We all got behind George Bush too and look what happened. No thanks. Sometimes getting your hands “dirty” is what it takes to eventually get rid of those who do not adhere to or even know the Constitution. I for one will follow Ron Paul regardless. No more choosing between rotten apples for me.
We all got behind George Bush too and look what happened. No thanks.
I wouldn’t defend Bush entirely, but surely neither Al Gore nor John Kenny were better options. Gore would have sent the world into recession to “save” it from global warming.
I assume “libertarian conservative” means non-libertarian on social issues such as abortion and gay rights. Ron Paul is not particularly libertarian on those issues.
NO, it is essentially the same as us, or me, if I were over there that is about where I would find a political home, economic conservatism, social tolerance, and pro defense. I would not be in the Libertarian Party who I tend to regard as a bunch of pacifist, isolationist, anarcho-capitalist ratbags.
You might want to read the Libertarian Party’s platform.
We are not pacifists, we are defensists. We do not believe that America has an obligation to police the world. We do believe that the American government has an obligation to defend America. That means keeping to ourselves, and responding with OVERWHELMING force to any attack. After such response, we should return home. Let them do their own damn nation-building.
We are not isolationists, we are free traders. We believe in trading with anyone who wants to trade with us, assuming that we are not in active hostilities with them.
We are almost anarcho-capitalists. We are minarcho-capitalists. We believe that that government governs best which governs least. We believe that freedom allows people to solve their own problems, and allows them to do it a damn sight better than government ever will. We believe that government exists to protect it’s citizens from actual, physical threats, either foreign, (like invasion or war), or domestic (like real crimes — those which actually have a victim). That makes us minarchists, not anarchists.
I, for one, would not vote for any of the big-government, gun-grabbing, nanny-stating, constitution shredding, tax-raising, money borrowing, fear-mongering Republicans. Give me Ron Paul, or give me a Libertarian. As for the Democratic and Republican wings of the ruling party, a plague on both your houses.
I’m independent. If Paul is not on the ticket. Sorry, the Republicans aren’t getting my vote. It is too important to me.
Dondero is trying to unseat Paul in his congressional district because he is against the Iraq war. His post is disingenuous.
In my opinion libertarians in the US should concentrate on growing the movement. They should try and capitalise on voter disgust with the Republicans AND Democrats.
Paul has the potential make a good showing as a 3rd party candidate, which would be good for the long term growth of the movement.
I don’t care whether Clinton or a Republican wins the presidency – all are big-government warmongers. Giuliani is only a libertarian if libertarianism is nothing more than low taxes and gay rights.
Ron Paul has already indicated that he’s not going to make a third party run if he doesn’t get the Republican nomination. But I think a third party spoiler on the right could still emerge, *especially* if Giuliani gets the nomination, since that will leave serious pro-gun/pro-life voters totally out in the cold.
You neo-con turkeys better get this, and get it straight. *We* are not going to compromise. We compromised last time over Kerry.
What did it get us? Smaller government? Cheaper gasoline? Are we more secure today than 4 years ago?
We did *our* bit 4 years ago. Now it’s your turn.
*You* had better compromise (on Ron Paul) or *you* will be the one tearing apart the “Big tent”. You know darn well that Frudy McRompson can’t win the general election.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that can strip away enough moderates, independents, Libertarians, and even some Democrats for heaven’s sake, to win in November ‘08.
In Australia a candidate that ran against their former party would get called a lot of things but with preferencial voting (what they call instant runoff voting in the USA) it would make no sense to call them a spoiler. Instant runoff voting seems to be making gradual inroads at the local government level in the USA and I’m hopeful that it will move up through their democratic system. Instant runoff voting is by no means a cure all and it does not necessarily bust the two party dominance. But by making a third party vote viable (ie it’s a runoff vote) it ensures that the mainstream politicians must broaden their appeal (ie govern more for the greater good and less for narrow interests).
I think a third party spoiler on the right could still emerge, *especially* if Giuliani gets the nomination, since that will leave serious pro-gun/pro-life voters totally out in the cold.
A good point. I’ve been wondering about that myself. As a shooter I couldn’t vote for Giuliani irrespective of his other policies. You couldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t trust you.
Abortion issue is a low level issue in Australia but again, I couldn’t vote for someone who thinks it’s any business of the government.
David, abortion IS an issue if the government forces me, as it does, to pay taxes that are used to support abortions. Get rid of Meddle-care, and then I’ll stop feeling like a victim!
While Giuliani is the frontrunner at the moment, there is a long way to go in the contest. Fred Thompson is declaring as a candidate on the 6th Sep and has been running at around number 3 in polls despite not being declared. The liberal media have been doing more hit jobs on him than most of the declared candidates.
Candidates tend to ‘feel the water’ before finalizing their policies, and I am sure that after the NRA and a few other freedom loving groups have their bit to say, things will look a lot different.
I feel that it would be a good thing if Paul and other libertarian leaning candidates were to make a strong showing, as this would affect the ultimate policies that the election is fought on. Fiscal conservatism has to make a strong showing in the primaries, as this is the worst area of the current administration, and a Democrat victory would only make matters worse.
My feelings for Ron Paul have had their ups and downs over the years, and while I respect his libertarian principles, I tend to regard him as one of the more eccentric libertarians, and his support for the 9/11 truther lunatics has ended my regard for him as a serious candidate.
It is important that the paul supporters don’t take their bats and balls and go home if they don’t get their way as they can still make a substantial difference in the final result. Ask yourselves, if Ron Paul were to win the nomination, how well would he do if the supporters of Giuliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson were to get into a huff and refuse to support him.
This is too important for hissy fits. Rons supporters are the only ones talking this way, which probably is a reflection of the man.
and his support for the 9/11 truther lunatics has ended my regard for him as a serious candidate.
See:
Here
and here
There is no such thing as a “libertarian conservative”. There is not much about the current system (or George Bush) that a libertarian wants to conserve.
If Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination (which isn’t likely) then there is absolutely no reason to prefer the Republicans. May as well vote for the LP.
I just read an interview with Eric Dondero where he claimed that Rudy was ‘the real libertarian’ in the race. If this is what Dondero thinks I can’t take him seriously. Rudy is the best of a bad lot but if he is a libertarian, I’m a life member of the Shooters Party.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
I agree, these people should be told straight out, “No way”, pussyfooting around will only encourage them in their luny belief.
There is no such thing as a “libertarian conservative”.
Libertarian Republicans, tend to the view that it is better to support a candidate who is 70% libertarian, with a reasonable chance of being elected, than a 100% ‘pure’ libertarian who has none. This tends to be my position and that of Eric Dondero.
The Libertarian party has a reputation of being rather eccentric and loopy and don’t tend to do anything to disuade people from this idea. To quote one of the comments on the ‘Reason’ article, i’m going to abstain in the general election since i disaprove of Paul’s voting for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. proof that he’s not a true libertarian.
Even Ron Paul can’t pass some peoples libertarian purity test.
Actually, Jason I don’t regard Rudy as the most libertarian candidate, I think Fred Thompson would be better. Rudy has however excellent economic credentials, to quote Eric: – I fail to see how a guy like Rudy Giuliani who cut taxes 23 times as Mayor of NY and was called by the NY Times a “free market extremist Ayn Randian” could be considered a RINO, but fine. Unfortunately I differ with him too much on personal freedom issues.
Jim
The need for some libertarians to prove how ‘libertarian’ they are reminds me of my fifth form (10th grade) days at private school when we tried to out-Red each other.
Personally i cannot stomach Ron Paul and would vote for Rudy all day ahead of him. In fact i think i would vote for Hilary ahead of Paul.
I am in the position of straddling the two extremes on foreign policy as a realist. While I am leery of extreme isolationism, Rudy is the candidate for perpetual war.
Fred Thompson is both pro-life and voted for campaign finance reform (i.e. restricting political free speech) and is even less of a small government candidate than Rudy while sharing Rudy’s pro-war instincts.
If Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination (which isn’t likely) then there is absolutely no reason to prefer the Republicans.
Well I can think of 1 reason.
It would mean a sane person (Giuliani) was in charge of the most powerful country in the world instead of megalomaniac crazy person (Hillary Clinton).
Thanks, Pommy and Yobbo, I was starting to feel a bit lonely. (Johns picture looked very severe.)
Jason, Pro-war tends to mean many things. Freds foreign policy speech indicates that he supports the Iraq war, but other than that he seems to indicate that the stated intentions of foreign leaders should be taken seriously. Fair enough. I find it difficult to take you seriously with your “candidate for perpetual war” remark. More reality, and less histrionics would be appropriate.
Fred seems to have a federalist approach, and also an acceptance of a smaller government, as well as a healthy skepticism of politicis, as the following quotes will show: -
If
PaulMarx doesn’t win theGOPnomination (which isn’t likely) then there is absolutely no reason to prefer theRepublicansALP.May as well vote for the
LPCommunist Party.Plus ça change.
Libertarian conservative just means right-libertarian, neolibertarian, Republican Liberty Caucus people etc. It definitely exists as a political paradigm and I consider myself one of them. And we still consider ourselves libertarian even though we support the War on Terror*, don’t support completely open borders, and have sympathies to stuff like ‘family values’ etc
—————————————
*and, again, for JH that’s the political and military philosophy not the verb.
The word conservative actually means “supporter of the status quo”. It’s not a philosophy or ideology in itself.
Considering how distant the status quo is from libertarianism, it is difficult to see how anyone could be a libertarian conservative in that sense. However if we redefine it to mean what Michael says, then I’m one too.
On the other hand, I’d prefer to be known as a libertarian who thinks individual liberty in other countries is also important.
It’s just a label. I think there is plenty of people who call themselves conservative but don’t hate change. They just want the change to occur in a certain direction!
On the other hand, I’d prefer to be known as a libertarian who think individual liberty in other countries is also important.
For me, this one is all about the angle that you approach it. I don’t subscribe to the military charity approach of peace keeping forces to try to help an uncivilised society behave in a way that is beneficial to them. Basically, if there’s nothing in it for us we shouldn’t bother.
Liberty in other countries is important to us because it increases our own security, and permits things like trade and social capital flows, and can allow us access to other resources like oil etc, which benefit us. So if the country is capable of achieving a free society then we should assist them to do so for our own benefit. Of course, this will also benefit them, and mutual benefit is the nature of relationships in a free society. I admit you can extrapolate this down a ‘common good’ argument if you have nothing better to do with your time, but I’m perfectly happy with the rational self-interest approach.
Dondero, if you want Ron Paul libertarians to remain in the GOP, then you’d better see that the GOP nominates Paul. There’s no way that Ron Paul libertarians are going to stick around to vote for neocons like Giuliani.
Eric Dondero is running against Paul in the next Congressional election. He’s hardly a source of non-biased material on Ron Paul. Furthermore he would have to be one of the most disengenous individuals in libertarian circles.
Also Jim, if you think Romney and Giuliani are credible candidates then I have to question your libertarian credentials. I know that the ALS and LDP likes to maintain a ‘moderate libertarian’ stance but I didn’t know that is so broad as to include socialist authoritarians!!!
Your dislike of Ron Paul is not a secret though.
DavidLeyonh: There are very good libertarian arguments in favour of pro life. While I am pro-choice myself I don’t go around calling pro-lifers non libertarian. Besides Ron Paul is running for President and wants a state matter to remain a state matter. An entirely reasonable stance
As for gay rights, he is not for gay marriage but many libertarians aren’t either (gay government marriage) that is. He is against a federal constitutional amendment and wants it also to stay a state issue. As he is running for President its not particularly a relevant issue.
Without Ron Paul, the GOP is not worth supporting, and I’m not going to support a Romney, a Giuliani, or yes even a Thompson just because they are supposedly the lesser of two evils.
On the subject of gay marriage, I can’t see how it’s a libertarian measure. It basically extends to gays the recognition that the state gives to monogamous heterosexual unions intended to be permanent. The question is, what business is it of the state to give ‘recognition’ or benefits to anyone on the basis of their intimate, sexual, private relationships? People nowadays often mistakenly think that governmental intervention is of the essence of marriage, whereas government did not start registering marriages until the nineteenth century. And why only monogamous marriages? Why should bigamy or polygamy be a crime? Why not recognition of polygamous heterosexual marriages?
It would be more to the point to abolish the Marriage Act, the Family Law Act, the Property Relationships Act, and the Child Support Act. Relations should be based on consent, the courts should enforce personal contracts in whatever terms their parties see fit to enter into, and if people can’t obtain consent, then tough luck – they shouldn’t be able to call on government to force other people to pay their living expenses!
Ash; Eric is not standing against Ron Paul, he dropped this idea several weeks ago and announced it. As a Paul supporter I thought you would know that, it would be very significant to Ron.
This is not about Eric Dondero though, and while I have very strong reservations about Ron Paul, I don’t actually dislike him. The purpose of the post was to call on Ron Paul supporters not to abandon the GOP if he did not succeed.
Gay marriage is only an issue for those gay statists who have to have the government involved in their relationships and is therefore a non-issue.
Nope, I positively will support no one else in this campaign other than Ron Paul even if I have to write him in.