If by some miracle he is the RP nominee unless he wins enough
primaries prior to the LP convention in '08 to win the nomination
the LP will not be in position to endorse him. We all know that the
convention of the two oldest parties are unnecessary because their
nominees are known prior to their conventions. However, like I
stated unless it is a given that he will be the RP nominee prior to
the LP convention the LP will not be able to endorse him and will
need to have it's own nominee.
$
--- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hopefully, the Libertarian Party would have the good sense to
endorse Ron Paul if, by some act of God,
> (which is what it will take) he were to become the Republican
nominee for president. Among other benefits, as
> you mentioned, it would stiffen the philosophical spine of the LP.
>
> For life and liberty,
> David Macko
>
> NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National
Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant,
or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative
oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the
impeachment of the current President.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan Hogarth
> To: [email protected] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:55 AM
> Subject: [Libertarian] Ron Paul: a Good Thing for the
libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party
>
>
> I'm rarely surprised by the actions of politicians any more, but
I
> admit to being nearly stunned last night when I went to stop my
phone
> from persistently beeping and realized the message it was trying
to
> get me to read was that Ron Paul was considering a presidential
bid -
> as a Republican.
>
> I was at a Wake County Libertarian Party meeting when I glanced
at my
> phone for that message, which I think can only be considered
irony.
> Ron Paul is probably the person I can most directly give the
credit
> (or blame, if you like) to for my presence at that meeting. His
> presidential race in '88 took him to some pretty strange and wild
> places, including somewhere in western Kansas where an unfocused
young
> farm wife (that would be me!) first heard real live people
speaking
> political sense and from that moment on considered herself a
> Libertarian (not a very good one for a long time, but that's
another
> story).
>
> Naturally I shared the news with the folks at the meeting, and
it was
> right then - with the war drums of Bush's escalation beating and
the
> still-stunned sense of seeing in my own life the war madness I'd
only
> heard and read about - that the perfect description of Paul's
> candidacy came to mind: Paul is the Republican Dennis Kucinich.
That
> was a happy thought, as it seems as if the Republican Party has
> suffered from not having a 'conscience candidate'. His bid,
along with
> that of other limited-government Republicans who are finally
rising in
> response to the Bush threat, can only be good for the Republican
> Party.
>
> But what does Paul's bid mean for the Libertarian Party, and more
> importantly, for the freedom movement? For the movement as a
whole the
> answer is very clear: having someone stand up and say the things
Ron
> Paul will say to the Republican Party and the people of America
will
> only grow people's understanding of freedom and its potential -
as it
> did for me back in '88. That's an unqualified good.
>
> And for the Libertarian Party? Again, I see only good news in a
Ron
> Paul candidacy - even if he is running as a Republican, and
perhaps
> because he is running as a Republican. When Paul stirs a love
of, and
> a longing for, justice and freedom in the hearts of those who
listen
> to him, many will find that the Republican Party will never be
serious
> about freedom, preferring to struggle for power instead. Many of
these
> folks will - because of Paul's candidacy - have heard about the
> Libertarian Party for the first time. After the presidential
race,
> they will seek us out. It is vital to the success of our
movement and
> its goals that when they come to the Libertarian Party it catches
> their inspiration rather than quashes it. We cannot disappoint
these
> new idealistic folks with nonsense about new taxes and
replacement
> taxes and regulating drugs and regulating travel and
regulating ...
> freedom. They will be leaving the Republican Party precisely
because
> that's the sort of talk they got there. When I joined the
Libertarian
> Party, I still had many very un-libertarian ideas, and kind,
> intelligent, and more-or-less patient folk in the Party helped
me to
> learn to think consistently about freedom. They did not try to
> re-orient the Libertarian Party to center around my muddled
> understanding, but helped me to really understand freedom and its
> implications.
>
> The Libertarian Party must position itself to take a new wave of
> idealism created by Paul's candidacy and offer the people whose
hearts
> and minds he will surely stir a crystal clear vision of real
freedom
> and how it can work in America. I want to be here - and I want
other
> Libertarian Party folks to be here with me - to welcome them home
> properly.
>
> --
> Susan Hogarth
> http://www.lpradicals.org
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
