posted by Kyle on Sep 12
I’ll begin by saying that I am thoroughly disgusted with Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty. I don’t regret supporting them; a great deal has been accomplished. Now, they are, for lack of better words, pissing it away. For the first time I can recall, Dr. Paul has publicly endorsed statists. Vote for a statist, he says, so that we may…defeat statism?
There is a great deal of controversy today surrounding Ron Paul’s press conference, which was attended by Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr had been scheduled to attend, and then decided not to, about thirty minutes before the event. Instead, he held his own press conference.
The whole event has been chronicled over and over throughout the blogosphere, so I won’t go into any details about the personal spitting matches that have been going on for the last few days. But, I’m willing to say what almost everyone in the know knows but none of them want to say: Ron Paul broke his promise to Bob Barr.
Don Rasmussen, in a dishonest and quite frankly absurd statement distributed across the internet today claims, “I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy. ” Invoking the morality of a promise over the course of events started by a broken promise. This, ladies and gentlemen, is political rhetoric at its finest.
Here’s the truth:
Back in March of this year, Bob Barr and Ron Paul met. There were no press reports about it, but those of us who were deeply involved heard about it through the grapevine. Eric Garris, in a post at LewRockwell.com gave us a one sentence heads up.
What took place at this meeting? That was another open secret: Ron Paul offered his endorsement to Bob Barr if he would run for president. Barr launched his exploratory committee in April. While Barr was interested in running for president before that, he had more or less written the idea off (hence the draft Bob Barr effort) because he didn’t think a serious campaign was possible. This all changed when Paul offered his support in that meeting.
(Obviously, all of this is hearsay–unless Paul himself admits it, it will remain hearsay forever, but I trust my sources and what they told me is backed up by the LewRockwell.com report, today’s events, and a little bit of information about what has been going on in congress.)
On May 28th, David Weigel or Reason Magazine, mentioned Ron Paul’s current troubles in congress:
He’s worried, and rightfully so, about losing his precious banking committee seat if he hands over too much support to third party candidates who are trying to bleed the GOP.
I suspect that this sort of pressure is why Dr. Paul decided not to endorse Bob Barr.
On July 25th, the Campaign for Liberty sent out an email announcing the Rally for the Republic. In it, they said,
And the evening will afford a legendary speech by Dr. Ron Paul. This will be the most courageous moment of Dr. Paul’s career. You won’t want to miss it.
The question that was on my mind during that speech was, “when is he going to endorse Bob Barr?” I suspect that amidst all of the pre-rally/convention wrangling with the McCain camp (as reported by the Washington Post), Dr. Paul got cold feet. Or, he was made an offer he just couldn’t refuse (i.e. wanna keep your seat on the house banking committee?)
Those in the know from the Barr camp tell me that Paul kept putting off the endorsement. A huge, high-stakes game of political chess was going on behind the scenes.
I am glad that I supported the Ron Paul campaign. We made more progress in one year than I thought we would make in fifteen. Now, Ron Paul is done. He has quit. By telling his supporters that not voting, or, even worse, voting for statists, constitutes even semi-effective advocacy of liberty, he has essentially thrown away his chance to educate his numerous casual supporters who are receptive to libertarianism but are drawn, like moths to the flame, to theocratic statists like Chuck Baldwin.
Dr. Paul, you had so much going, and you’ve thrown it all away. Shame on you.
To Bob Barr: I hope that what you did proves to be prudent. You got more attention this way than you would have ever gotten standing on stage with those statists.
(By the way, Bob Barr isn’t perfect, but he is saying the right things, and introducing people to libertarianism, and that’s what needs to happen right now.)
To Don Rassmussen, who wrote that nasty hit piece: Shame on you, too! Remember the conversation you and I had at the Iowa Straw Poll? I didn’t realize how much you really meant it when you said that you are a moderate libertarian. Moderate enough to support statism! Wait…you did that in Costa Rica too, didn’t you? Why are my words so harsh? Because you know better! You are well acquainted with libertarian philosophy, and as such ought to display moral courage. Grow a pair and stand up to Dr. Paul!
One more open secret (since I’m no longer interested in keeping my mouth shut about it): Remember the racist newsletters? They were written by Lew Rockwell…one of Dr. Paul’s closest confidants. Ah, the honest Doctor!
September 12th, 2008 at 5:27 am
I was with you until you called Chuck Baldwin a theocratic statist. That shows you have no real understanding of what’s going on or the people involved. It proves that you will type anything to prove your point, even if it’s an exaggeration or an outright lie.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I assure you, that is precisely what I think of Baldwin. Shortly I will publish an essay explaining why.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I will post here essentially the same thing that I would post were this blog attacking Barr over the same events:
In any large movement, there will be personality conflicts, disagreements, errors, and the like.
If the Libertarian movement is to continue it’s growth, we must avoid spending our time attacking eachother. It does not matter, in the long run, who did what to whom. It does not matter who is to blame for any given gaffe. Personal loyalty is a non-issue. The issues are the issues.
I tend to avoid attacking anybody who is generally Liberty oriented. To me, this includes Paul, Baldwin, and Barr. I have policy disagreements with all three. These disagreements do not matter in the broad scheme of things, because if you look at the distance between me and the two wings of the Big Government party, it makes the distance between me and any of the Small Government candidates mentioned here look tiny.
This all reminds me of “The Life of Brain”: are we going to destroy the movement with a rousing cheer of “The only people we hate more than the Romans are the People’s Front of Judea”?
September 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Since you quote me as one of the major sources for your assertions, I thought it is important that I correct you. Let me start by saying that I supported Barr for the nomination and have continued to enourage libertarians to support him. I was a private unofficial advisor to the draft Barr campaign (since I run a nonprofit, I can’t be officially associated). I contributed $200 to the Barr campaign.
I posted a notice about the Paul-Barr meeting based on information from my contacts with the Bob Barr draft campaign and my contacts with Ron Paul’s campaign.
Both sets of contacts told me the same thing after the meeting: Ron Paul declined to agree to endorse Bob Barr. Barr asked Paul for access to the mailing lists for fundraising, and Paul indicated it was a possibility after Paul dropped out of the race, but made no firm commitment. The Barr campaign people were disappointed but told me that they were “encouraged” by their belief that Paul would eventually share the mailing list.
Most of the rest of your post is based on anonymous and dubious claims. You certainly could have contacted me for more information or verification, but you declined to do so, choosing instead to explain your theory of events not based on any actual facts. Anyone who wants additional information may contact me at egarris2@antiwar.com.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Thank you for that public assertion. It is the first public explanation of what took place at that meeting that I have heard. I am glad that I provoked such discussion. If you are correct, then I have been lied to. Then again, this is politics, and it wouldn’t be the first time lies have been spread. I’ll believe my sources over yours, because I know my sources. You will, no doubt, continue to believe your sources. It is up to others to to judge for themselves. I think that my sources are backed up by the various events that took place this summer.
My disgust at Dr. Paul’s actions stands: he has endorsed statism and completely failed to make a case for freedom. He has pissed away his opportunity to promote his philosophy of individual liberty.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I believe that creating divisions in the Liberty Campaign is probably the most harmful thing to do. And that is what Bob Barr did on Wednesday.
The thing that makes me curious is why Bob Barr offered his VP spot to Dr. Paul, knowing full well that Nader and McKinney would be there, and why, if he is so angered at Dr. Paul, has he not retracted that invitation.
Whatever the answer, I have yet to read any release by Bob Barr that didn’t sound like a high school drama queen or (gasp) a typical Washington Politician.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:58 am
I don’t think Paul ever agreed to endorse Barr. Baldwin was a personal friend of Ron Paul and a supporter of Paul’s campaign, so Paul didn’t want to endorse another candidate.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5YaqKf-yTg
September 14th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Dr Ron & Ralph
“The two parties should be
almost identical, so that
the American people can
‘throw the rascals out’
at any election without
leading to any profound or
extensive shifts in policy.”
- Carol Quigley
Cynthia Mike Dennis Jesse Ross Jimmy
And the men* who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality
Closer to the heart
September 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Sorry, but this piece is ridiculously biased and just an excuse to lash out on Ron Paul.
Ron Paul was not endorsing statism or anything, he just wants people to be aware of third parties and vote for them. I see no wrong with that. Statist parties are allowed to exist, you know, and Ron Paul has a right to acknowledge them.
As for pretty much attacking Ron on his chair on the banking committee . . . isn’t it painfully obvious that we NEED him on that committee? There’s no proof he folded under pressure to keep the position, but let’s be honest . . . we want him there.