Ron Paul rejects the Libertarian Party Candidate for POTUS.

The following is an excerpt from Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty website. It can be found here:

This discussion refers to a recent appearance Ron Paul made at the National Press Club where he encouraged every American to rally behind one “third party” candidate in order to consolidate the power of non-Republican Party and non-Democratic Party voters. His last line of this announcement clearly states that he endorses Chuck Balwin (of the Constitution Party), and not Bob Barr (of the Libertarian Party), for President in 2008. Also present at the same National Press Club appearance were Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent), and Chuck Baldwin. Here is some of what Ron Paul had to say about this:

“Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year.  They take time.  But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up.  The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue.  Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating.  He stated that his support for the four points remains firm.  His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me.  To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance.  I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end.  Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined.  And I’m convinced they are.  That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.   It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman.  It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well.  The more votes they get, the better.  I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option.  This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”

-Reid Greenmun


19 Responses to Ron Paul rejects the Libertarian Party Candidate for POTUS.

  1. richroberts says:

    I was dissappointed when I read that Barr backed out of the Paul press conference.
    He really needed to touch base with Ron Paul suuporters.
    Barr missed a big opportunity for the Libertarian Party.
    If only the Constitution Party could buy into separation of church and state, we could consilidate our bases like Dr. Paul suggest.

  2. reidgreenmun says:

    To state that I am disappointed in Dr. Ron Paul is an understatement.

  3. Don Tabor says:

    I too am very disillusioned. Dr. Paul has burned his bridges with the Libertarian Party as far as I am concerned.

    His revolution has become too much about him instead of the principles he claims.

  4. reidgreenmun says:

    Rich, I don’t recall where the Constitution contains a provision requiring a “separation of church and state”. While i appreciate the intelligence of the seperation of church and state, I want to point out that is found in the Federalist papers, not the Constitution.

  5. richroberts says:

    I think the seperation of church and state is part of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
    I agree with a lot of what the Constitution Party wants to do however part of their mission statement is:
    “to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations”
    I am a devot Christian myself; however, I don’t believe that we should legislate from the Bible since not all Americans are Christian.

    That’s all that I was trying to get at. If they give up on the religious aspects of their party, leave that to their Pastors, and focus on the Constitution and shrinking our bloated government, we could get some things done.

  6. Don Tabor says:

    The phrase “separation of church and state” first appeared in a letterwritten by then President Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticut, explaining that on the Federal level, the First Amendment created a wall of separation of church and state. Several States, however provided no such protection.

    The phrase had no legal bearing until it was quoted in a Supreme Court decision decades later after the 14th Amendment had extended Bill of Rights protections to the State level.

  7. reidgreenmun says:

    Thanks Don. Rich, I agree that our law needs to be based on our Constitution and not some version of the Christain Bible. I too am a “working hard to be” Christain. I’m not so much “devout” as i am in “learning mode”.

  8. KBCraig says:

    I don’t believe it was Dr. Paul who burned bridges here. Bob Barr was not only invited to be a part of this press conference, he was expected right until the last minute; he chose to no-show, and held his own press conference.

  9. Don Tabor says:

    I strongly disagree.

    While the Libertarian Party has achieved ballot access in all but 2 states, The Constitution Party has not. Further, Libertarians gave generously of their time and money to support the Ron Paul bid for the GOP nomination, to the point of draining funds and energy form Libertarian campaigns. To then abandon the party that gave so much of itself to him is betrayal of the worst sort.

    Further, it is a betrayal of the ideals Dr. Paul claims to support. The Libertarian movement, which includes the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Republican Liberty Caucus and other small “L’ libertarian groups when acting in concert are stronger than acting individually. By splintering the movement by backing a futile write-in campaign our chance of reaching the threshold for inclusion in televised debates is delayed indefinitely.

    Had Dr. Paul called on his considerable following to join a unified effort to reach political critical mass behind a strong candidate like Bob Barr, we could have reached respectability in this election cycle, but he placed ego ahead of loyalty, tactics and principle to avenge what he saw as a slight.

    Barr would have been a fool to appear on the same stage as Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, and by doing so himself, Dr. Paul has perpetuated the minor party image as a carnival sideshow alongside the real election.

    It will take longer than I will live to regain what Ron Paul has thrown away.

  10. James says:

    I would have to disagree and join Craig here. Bob Barr voted against EVERYTHING we stand for. The war, Patriot ACT 1 & 2, etc. Then when he gets booted out of ofice he all of a sudden is Libertarian??? Sorry but I have a Huge trust issue and Im sure Dr Paul along with many others have the same feeling. Oh yeah and hes ex CIA. One thing about the CIA is once in, death out.

  11. Ron Paul says:

    I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven’t seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view, and much else.NoamChomskyNoam Chomsky

  12. Don Tabor says:

    James, I have had those same concerns, and wrote about them here but at some point, we have to decide if we are a political party or just a bunch of guys and gals with roughly similar views.

    Bob Barr’s conversion seems sincere. On the issues that concern us, he did not say he was misled, or that things had changed, he said, ‘I have been convinced I was wrong.’ You don’t hear that very often from a politician.

    In any case, if we are to reach the next level in national politics, we have to break through into the debates. Libertarians do not lose debates if we can get into them. The people who decide if we get in base that invitation on poll numbers and ballot access. The LP has done the work to get ballot access, the Constitution Party has not. Further, a splintered libertarian movement with two or three candidates dividing our available numbers and donations can never reach the threshold to get into those debates.

    I would have preferred the Party nominate Wayne Alan Root, but the convention chose otherwise. Barr is what we have. Sometimes you go to the debates with the candidate you have instead of the candidate you wish you had.

    Or you don’t go to the debates at all.

  13. richroberts says:

    Right on Don,

    The most important thing Barr was able to do was get into the national media more than any other Libertarian candidate that I can remeber (the party is older than I am).

    Barr had no shot at the presidency, but he was polling strong, getting attention, and delivering the message. He was giving us something to grow on for future campains.

    Even before Barr canceled out on Dr. Paul, there seem to be some frcition between the two, I don’t know how far back it goes or why it is there. If Paul was truely more concerned with promoting liberty than promoting himself, he would have stepped behind Barr and gave him his support and try to build on the momentum that Barr was creating.

    Instead, he choose to go with the less orgnaized group who, although they promote smaller government, disregard the first amendment for religous zealotry and disregard liberty for those who don’t embrase Christian ideals. And in the process he splintered the conservative base and killed the momentum we had going.

    We don’t need to focus on personal differences if we want to bring change.

    We need to focus on coming together and getting into the debate.

    We need to spread the message and give people faith that a Libertarian candidate is viable and is not a waste of their vote. Many people I talk to really like Barr but say they won’t vote for him cause he can’t win. This is why we needed those polling number up where they were, to give people some faith that we are for real.

    Ron Paul delievered us a large set-back. Hopefully we can continue to move forward and reclaim that ground that has been lost.

  14. reidgreenmun says:

    News from Chuck Baldwin: (thanks to “Ronette” Leslie for sending this to me):

    Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his
    endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at
    the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin,
    the Constitution Party candidate.” (See the complete statement at: )

    Obviously, I could not be more delighted and honored to have Dr. Paul’s
    endorsement. I called him last evening and thanked him personally. And now I
    want to thank him publicly.

    I am fully aware that Dr. Paul was under considerable pressure from various
    groups that were actively soliciting his support. I can honestly say that I
    never lobbied Dr. Paul for his endorsement. He knew I would be thrilled to
    have it, but I have too much respect for Ron Paul to be so presumptuous as
    to expect him to endorse me. I completely understood his neutrality. He has
    strong ties to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties–not to mention
    the obvious fact that he is a ten-term Republican Congressman with much
    support from the Republican Party in his home district.

    I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I
    believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several
    states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In
    fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the
    Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still
    be supporting Ron Paul.

    I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron’s
    Paul’s message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and
    non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry
    this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to
    be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American
    people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul’s endorsement is
    further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will
    not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the
    big-government, globalist, interventionist, “big box” party candidates, John
    McCain and Barack Obama.

    Ron Paul’s message is my message; Ron Paul’s fight is my fight.

    I want to return America to constitutional government. “The powers not
    delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
    the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    (Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the
    federal government accordingly.

    My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act
    and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it
    rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called “war on drugs” and the
    so-called “war on terror.” No more warrantless searches and seizures. No
    more eavesdropping on Americans’ phone calls, or collecting Americans’
    emails, or spying on American citizens without court order and oversight. No
    more stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in the name of
    “national security.” In addition, I would use every power and authority
    vested to my office to preserve and protect the right of the people to keep
    and bear arms. And, yes, I will immediately restore Posse Comitatus. As
    President, I want to protect America from Washington, D.C., as much I want
    to protect it from foreign powers.

    I will also take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously,
    where it states, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be
    Free and Independent States.” This means the day I am sworn in as President
    of the United States, the New World Order comes crashing down! The NAFTA
    superhighway is dead. The North American Union is dead. I will work to
    eliminate NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. The FTAA is DOA. I will not
    expend tax dollars for the support of the United Nations.

    Furthermore, I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, when it
    states that one of the express purposes of the federal government is to
    “repel Invasions.” This means we will secure America’s borders, because the
    illegal immigration crisis is more than mere immigration: it is an invasion,
    and I will stop it! Even if I have to send the U.S. Army to the borders, we
    will put a stop to this invasion of illegal aliens. I will also aggressively
    prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegals. And did I mention
    that my first day in office is Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean’s last
    day in prison? I will personally open the prison doors and restore to these
    men their freedom. I will also give them their jobs back (with pay), if they
    want them. And one more item on this point: my first day of office is also
    U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton’s last day on the job.

    I also share Ron Paul’s concerns for the way the two major parties have
    allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist,
    nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of
    international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring
    our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other
    130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will
    get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend
    themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other
    nation’s business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare
    State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global
    empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.

    Furthermore, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is over, when I become
    President. Because I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, I
    would never send troops to invade and occupy a foreign country without a
    Declaration of War by Congress. In dealing with rogue terrorist
    organizations such as al Qaeda, I will seek letters of Marque and Reprisal
    from Congress, which would give me the authority to use whatever special
    and/or private forces are necessary to seek out and destroy those who desire
    our hurt.

    And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take
    my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American
    seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God)
    according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist,
    Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith
    as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty.
    Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will
    be no man’s slave, neither will I be any man’s master.

    I also share Ron Paul’s commitment to the sanctity of life. When I become
    President, I will use the bully pulpit of the White House to press Congress
    to pass Dr. Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which would overturn Roe v. Wade
    and end abortion-on-demand. On this topic, the GOP is especially
    hypocritical. The Republican Party controlled the entire federal government
    for six years and did nothing to save the life of a single unborn child.
    Saving unborn babies from the abortionists’ scalpel is more than rhetoric
    with me, however.

    Another area of agreement with Ron Paul is my philosophy of economics. Dr.
    Paul has been predicting the current financial meltdown in this country for
    years. And when all is done, the current bailout being proposed will do more
    harm than good. The problem is, America’s leaders have rejected sound money
    policies for years, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

    As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the
    Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the
    charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce
    federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal
    departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with
    America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the
    Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that
    Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending.

    Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will do any of the above. If he were
    President, Dr. Paul would do it, however, and so would I.

    Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place
    enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no
    higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for
    this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell
    Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in
    inviting all of Dr. Paul’s supporters to help us take the message of
    constitutional government into the general election on November 4.

    Thank you.

  15. richroberts says:

    Well, I like a lot of what he says.

    Except I like free trade (NAFTA) and think we need the Fed.

    If only we could come together on gay rights and abortion, the liberty movement would be so much stronger.

    Ah the memories of the Contract with America. I was so hopeful then, I was naive and young and actually thought those things would happen. Silly Silly me.

  16. KBCraig says:

    Rich, I like free trade too, but NAFTA is not free trade. It is 10,000 pages of highly regulated trade.

  17. reidgreenmun says:

    This past week the Ron Paul meet up group and discussions have been very active discussing this topic. It is clear that the riff between Ron Paul and Bob Barr has fractured the unity between many the Libertarian Party and many of the Ron Paul supporters. In several cases the views expressed by Ron Paul supporters were somewhat a kin to a profession that they support Ron Paul – the individual, and not any political party or third party movement. Others expressed their newly found willingness to embrace the Constitutional Party as a result of Ron paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. Many, by far the majority – blame Bob Barr for the riff and feel that Bob Barr is the problem and not Ron Paul. I am simply sharing what i observed as a result of many emails that went back and forth this past week from Ron paul supporters.

    From these exchanges I have come to the conclusion that the active force that is the “Ron Paul Revolution” is no longer united with the Libertarian Party.

    I believe this is a loss for the possibility of a single third party garning at least 15% of the vote in the next Presidential election. I believe that Bob barr was thebest chance for this to happen because his name appears on far more ballots in many more states than the other thrd party candidates that Ron paul rallied to the podium at the National Press Club.

    What I took away from the email conversation was that the Ron Paul movement is not as concerned with helping a third party gain greater national recognition then they are following the lead of Ron Paul.

    Since the purpose of Ron Paul’s press Conference was to promote unity between the third party supporters to advance a COMBINED effort for all third party voters to unite behind the same third party – it makes little sense to me that he chose the Constitution Party to achieve this goal.

    It is clear to me that the Libertarian Party is in the best position (on the most ballots in the most amount of states) to have the possiblity of garnering at least 15% of the Presidential vote.

  18. Ron Paul has a 10 term track record of caring about liberty, and putting his votes where his mouth is. Barr’s conversion may be sincere. In fact, I believe it is, based on his establishment of a lobbyist organization specifically to undo the “Barr Amendment”, and other laws he not only voted for, but sponsored, and in some cases wrote. The problem is, Barr sincerely opposed the resolution that authorized the war in Iraq. He was quite public about it. Then, when the time came for the rubber to hit the road, he voted yes. He regretted that vote immediately, and I believe, sincerely. But he voted yes. If you go back over his track record, you find numerous instances of Barr voting against his own principals.

    And I’m supposed to trust him now?

  19. Rockabilly says:

    Ron paul also has repeatedly introduced federal legislation to define life as beginning at conception, while claiming that abortion should be left up to the state.

    Yeah, barr isn’t perfect, but neither is paul.
    Paul isn’t running, barr is.

    Chuck baldwin is not a friend of the constitution, the constitution party platform would involve the federal government in the private lives of millions of citizens, where it has no business whatsoever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: