This could be a good thing _IF_ he's willing to emphasize the issues where he is in sync with our core beliefs. And so far, those are the issues he's stressed in his campaign to date: anti-war, anti-tax, sound money, restoring civil liberties, etc. One determining factor as to his being our nominee will be his choice of running mate. Ideally, he will let the convention make that choice. If he tries to impose a non-libertarian choice on the delegates, this could be a problem. And ideally, those of us who favor a hard-line, consistent approach will be able to unite behind a preferred choice. (I'm available, if needed, as I am now semi-retired and financially secure.)I think the delegates would rubber-stamp pretty much anybody Paul wanted as VP, and with all due respect to Nolan, I doubt Paul would constrain himself to such a traditional LP insider. Paul himself already mentioned two excellent choices -- Walter Williams and John Stossel -- neither of whom the LP could ever hope to recruit on its own. But since I still think Paul is very unlikely to put an anticlimax on his R3volution by repeating his 1988 LP race, the most interesting question becomes: is there an LP candidate that could hope to get Ron Paul's endorsement?
Paul has publicly said that his endorsement could only be won by a firmly antiwar candidate, so that rules out Ron Paul fan Wayne Allyn Root. George Phillies has effectively called Paul a "homophobic bigot", and so nominating Phillies would pretty much write off not only a Paul endorsement but also the bulk of Paul's r3volutionaries. I can't imagine Paul endorsing Christine Smith, so only Steve Kubby would have a prayer of getting any kind of Paul nod. I doubt Paul would be willing to fully endorse (much less campaign for) an LP candidate foreordained to win the traditional meager LP vote share, but even an expression of approval or appreciation would surely clinch the nomination for Kubby.
Nolan segues to the LNC inviting Ron Paul to try the LP as a fallback nomination:
If Bill Redpath (or someone) did not contact the Paul campaign in advance to see how they'd react, then the LNC is a bunch of idiots. And if someone DID contact the Paul campaign first, then why did they proceed with the resolution? Weren't they told that there would be an almost immediate public rejection of the invitation? The timing seems even odder in light of the fact that Eric Garris at antiwar.com was in the process of putting together an ad for the February '08 issue of LP NEWS, wherein a "blue ribbon" list of Libertarians would have done just what the LNC did in December: asked Ron Paul to seek our nomination. The ad was to appear right AFTER the February 5th Mega-Primary, when it will almost certainly be clear that the GOP will not be nominating Dr. Paul. Redpath knew of this plan, and told Garris that there was something "secret" in the works. Clearly, he was referring to the planned LNC resolution. But why put the Paul campaign "on the spot" in December, thus virtually forcing Dr. Paul to say that he will not run a third-party campaign?But LP Executive Directory Shane Corey had already answered Nolan's question in a Dec 11 interview with Steve Kubby. He explained that LP National has been under blistering heat from the LP's rank and file to do something -- anything -- to support Ron Paul. So they did all the Bylaws would let them do, and were promptly and viciously attacked from both sides: some Paul supporters idiotically complained the LNC should have unilaterally endorsed Paul (and restored the Platform), while some LPitarians complained that the LNC wasn't putting the Party ahead of the cause of liberty. One such was George Phillies, who replied that we need to elect to the LNC "at least one" person who
would opposes the use of theft and fraud in our internal party spending, namely the fraud of telling donors that the LNC is raising money to support the Libertarian Party, and then taking the money to support a Republican.He also said one unnamed LNC member
gave the LNC a fraudulent statement of his conflicts of interest, namely failing to disclose that he supports *two* Republican Presidential candidates.Meanwhile, Tom Knapp advised the radicals to respond to a Ron Paul coronation by
horse-trad[ing] for [...] a radical VP candidate as the price of not having a down-and-dirty public nomination fight. Yes, the radicals would lose such a fight by an overwhelming margin ... but we could lose it very VISIBLY. If we have the chance to extract a price for putting on our Sunday best and our brightest smiles, we should do so.Heh. Please, Tom, hurt us mainstream Libertarians with the problem of more LP radicals lying down in front of the Ron Paul steamroller. :-) Much of the its weight will come from the 17 radicals I've already spotted riding it.