A United 2008 Presidential Ticket?

Because of my work on previous presidential campaigns, it’s a rare day that some person or group doesn’t call or e-mail me with regard to forming some coalition-type presidential campaign for 2008. I was involved in three such concepts (totally different groups) yesterday, and two already today. Some of these activities are top secret, others quasi secret, and some are out in the open.

Vox Day (who supported Badnarik in 2004) has now provided his take on how third parties and independent movements could work together to produce a super candidate to defeat the Republican and Democratic machines:

There are certainly ideological differences between ”third” parties such as the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party and the current American Party, but these pale in comparison with each parties differences with the bi-factional ruling party of Democratic-Republicans. It is time to set differences aside and form an American Alliance that subscribes to the following three arch-principles:

1. The sovereign rights of the individual Man.
2. Constitutional literalism and originalism.
3. Absolute national sovereignty.

Could not even a conscientious Green sign on to that? Everything else is secondary, because without those three principles, all else can be modified at the momentary whim of those who hold the levers of power. Yes, the birth of a competitive new party will take time; yes, it would mean a Rodham presidency in 2008 (although since the Lizard Queen’s victory is already in the cards, that’s a feeble objection), but the reality is this:

You are either with the concept of American liberty or against it. The Democratic-Republicans have proven themselves to be firmly against it. Either an American Alliance will restore America to herself, or her people will be swallowed up by the bureaucratic Brussels on the Potomac that is now aborning.

If such a concept is to work, some of the groups involved are going to have to get in contact with each other. This means some of the veil of secrecy will have to be lifted, for good or bad. My suggestion is to hold a locked door national conference (no media except for a press conference or two) of third-party/independents (and even some primary party folks) if such an alliance is to be created. If your organization, potential or former candidate, ad hoc alliance, or other group would be interested in such a meeting, I’d be happy to help organize the contact list — or even facilitate such a meeting. Just pop me an e-mail if interested in such a concept.

BTW, if anyone is curious about the liberty-oriented presidential dream team I’m thinking could actually win in 2008, think about this potential ticket: Russ Feingold/Ron Paul 2008.

posted by Stephen Gordon
  • TerryP

    I have a hard time seeing something like this working unless some celebrity or rich well-establiched person steps up. But that could happen with just one party as well not a conglomerate of parties. If a group of parties would get together there would be to much in-fighting about what we should be doing with policy and issues, no matter what the stated principles are. Without a headliner for a candidate what would this party get, 1% of the vote instead of .5%.

    I can’t see a celebrity or well established rich person stepping up unless they have a large say in what we will be doing on the issues and this might be at odds with the principles of the the different parties making up the coalition.

    It would be great if it happended I just don’t see it working.

  • Paul Pace

    I would disagree that a Clinton win is in the cards, even if a strong third party candidate ran. The polls show that among voters she has a highly negative reaction, even among women voters. And personally, I have doubts on if she’ll even run.

    That ticket though… reverse it and maybe I’d be fine with it, but Russ Feingold is partly responsible for McCain Feingold, a serious blow to the first amendment. I wouldn’t want him as president, although looking at his record on Wikipedia, he isn’t as bad as I thought.

  • Stephen Gordon

    I’m not stating that I agree with all of Feingold’s or even Paul’s political positions. I’m merely suggesting that it could be a combination of players who could inspire enough support to win an election.

  • Wes

    Winning platform: NO UNNECESSARY WARS!

  • Joe

    It surprises me how frequently when these plans for “a super third party” come up the names mentioned for the national ticket are members of the two major parties. I don’t know about Feingold, but Ron Paul isn’t interested in running for president again. But even if he were, a Feingold/Paul ticket wouldn’t be an alternative party project since they are each members of one of the two major parties. A Feingold/Paul ticket however, is much like the notion of a super third party: a nice fantasy for some but totally divorced from reality.

  • http://www.chrisbennettfromillinois.blogspot.com Chris Bennett

    what we need to do is contact those groups/organizations where the liberty movement will agree on 80 percent of the time. Civil liberty, pro-2nd Amendment, less government spending, anti-war groups, and such. I would say we need to eliminate the abortion (pro or anti) and immigration groups because even within the liberty movement there is a split.

  • Graham

    “2. Constitutional literalism and originalism.”

    Does that mean God wrote the Constitution or not?

  • KenH

    I don’t think that the Constitution Party would be happy with a less than total ban on abortion plank so I doubt its leadership would join such a coalition – although some of its members might back such an idea.

    As far as a “celebrity” candidate – what about Jesse Ventura? Is he libertarian enough to fit this scenario?

  • Paul Pace

    Some people take Constitutional originalism to mean that a higher power is responsible for the rights found in the constitution, but I think in this instance it is simply to say that rights, in the abstract form, exist, and have always existed beyond any form of governing body. The only thing a government can do to rights is restrict them, a government cannot create rights, and the Constitution is a contract to not restrict our rights.

    That’s basically my take on originalism. Whether or not God came up with those rights is irrelevant to the idea of originalism.

  • Stephen Gordon

    KenH,

    Part of the conversations which pass my ears are along the lines of what Vox suggested: You drop this particular issue and I’ll drop that one.

  • KenH

    Stephen,

    Have you found very many among the Constitution Party members who are willing to drop the hard line on abortion? The ones I have met on the Internet don’t appear willing to do that.

  • undercover_anarchist

    I’d sooner support Communist Party USA than be in the same room with an innerbred degenerate from the Constitution Party.

  • undercover_anarchist

    “Okay, I have a great idea for a super third party uniting the Libertarian, Constitution, Independent American, White Knights, and Neo Whigs. It consists of three things that we can all, more or less, agree on.

    1. The Biblical foundation for all law
    2. A woman’s womb is the collective property of the proliteriot
    3. The Negro is inferior because he is a Negro

    Do you think even a conscientious Green could sign on to that?”

  • Stephen Gordon

    KH,

    While Vox has been slightly more LP-leaning than CP-leaning, if he can make that move, I’d suspect many CP folks would follow.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Sorry to post three times in a row, but… Here’s another major problem I have with the right-wingedness of the LP. The “dream ticket” that Mr. Gordon proposed of Fiengold/Paul. I would certainly consider supporting such a ticket. However, what is the main beef everyone has with it? The Fiengold half. Why? Because McCain/Fiengold is somehow seen as an injustice rivaling the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, wiretapping, etc. I know I am so oppressed because I can’t donate more than $4,000 to a federal candidate–”woe is the white man!” As far as McCain/Fiengold goes, yes, it is “bad.” But whatever. There are about 10,000 greater injustices perpetrated each day. No one seems to have a problem with Ron Paul’s protectionist, anti-immigrant, homophobic, ovarian marxist and Bible thumping ways. He is exalted. But Fiengold, who opposed the Patriot Act and the war from its inception, is the villain.

  • Devious David

    I don’t see Constitution Party members willing to support the Alliance Party. The ideological differences with Greens is simply too wide. So who does that leave us with? Nobody.

    Feingold is unacceptable. Ron Paul’s problem is that he’s unwilling and a Republican. Maybe Paul and a celebrity would work.

    But, this Alliance Party should be populist… that way it can rip liberals away from Clinton and get centrist voters too, not too mention the worthless Libertarian nucleus.

    Conservatives are too dumb to get away from the GOP. Those that have half a brain go to the CP and WILL NOT budge from abortion and gay marriage. That shows you how dumb conservatives are: the (faux) wedge issues are the most important to them.

  • Devious David

    BTW… never underestimate the stupidity and laziness of an American. They have learned their lesson about “wasting” their vote with Perot.

  • Karen Jensen

    To toss out a name for conversation: Fox News-guy Judge Andrew Napolitano. I’ve read his recent book ‘The Constitution in Exile’. It is an excellent summary of how bad Supreme Court decisions have nearly destroyed America and freedom. He advocates restricting Congress “expressly” to its 18 enumerated powers and repealing the 16th and 17th amendments. He is very much against the repeated misinterpretation and abuses of the Commerce clause and wishes to see it restricted to its earlier intent of regulating interstate trade only — not manufacturing/production nor intrastate activities. He is articulate and doesn’t appear to be hot-headed. He has national recognition.

    …. anyone else have an opinion on him ?

  • http://www.westcottforcongress.com Bruce Westcott

    Watch Reform Party of Nevada candidate, Bruce Westcott, 1st Congressional District in Nevada.
    http://www.westcottforcongress.com

  • Paul Pace

    I really love Napolitano, I read his “Constitutional Chaos” recently about the government breaking its own laws and it was excellent. However, our high opinions of him are probably influenced by us not really knowing much about how he stands on many potential wedge issues. I’d make that man a supreme court member if I could based on his writings and strict interpretations of the Constitution, but I’d have to know more about him to put him in one of the other two branches.

  • Mark

    What we need is united resources. If each party would pony up X dollars for a series of TV/Radio ads where each candidate has a few seconds to plug his party then nice blurb about voting your conscience, I think that would stir up some publicity.

    More realistically, because of the costs, the LP candidate and Green candidate could do some ads together with a slogan “vote for change.”

    Or… show some pics from Badnarik and Cobb being arrested outside the presidential debate in Arizona with a party/platform message from each party’s candidate with the slogan “Let us debate in oh-eight” or something.

    Hmmm. “Let them debate in 08.” Gotta nice ring to it.

  • KenH

    “Let them debate in 08.”

    That does sound good. Or, with ballot access issues, how about “Let my people vote!”?

  • undercover_anarchist

    I like some of these later ideas of a Green/Libertarian ticket that would NOT try to have a “unified” platform… It would openly admit that the president/VP did not agree on key issues.

    The problem is, who would be the headliner and who the running mate? Neither party would ever accept a secondary position.

  • IanC

    UA — simple. Run the two together with the one who has the greatest amount of votes at the end be the President and the other the LP. (Y’know, back before ‘running mates’ they did exactly that. #2 guy got the VP position.)

    *That* alone could turn out the ornery LP’ers.

  • Timothy West

    Vox Day is late. I blogged this idea early last year. I got attacked as a spy sent from the majors to destroy the LP, but thats pretty much the reaction I got from August 2004 to middle of last year anyways. :)

    All I know is that there is a *huge* political vacuum ( insert Ro$$ Perot’s giant sucking sound) in this country and the LP can fill it, if it stops playing mind games and resolves to start filling it. 2006 will be the deciding year….for everything.

  • Timothy West

    and there’s not much need to have the green party or the Cp involved at all. Whats needed is to expand libertarianism to defend against *every* affront to liberty, including those that come from corporations and private sources in addition to government.

    The LP cant get traction as a single issue anti government party. But it can get a lot of traction if it starts taking on the collusion of big government and big business and the laws that big business passes on it’s own behalf by it’s lackeys and stooges in Congress.

    Simply co-opt their issues where those issues relate to freedom. Become the Liberty Green Party. Become the Constitutional Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Republican Party. The Democratic Libertarian Party.

    Take their issues from them and make them ours. This makes us a multi issue party, against EVERY threat to individual freedoms, no matter the source. It’s the only way to ever broaden the LP’s appeal enough to matter.

  • http://www.sundwall4congress.org Eric Sundwall

    Aside from all the flap created by the Weld nomination in NY, what was missed was the Senate race. Steve Greenfield (a Green essentially) tried for the LPNY nomination stressing the war and civil rights. He lost the Green nomination after the failed LP attempt. There was great potential in this strategy against Hillary.

    Aside from the strong emotional attachments each party member has for its own it seemed like health care and education were the biggest sticking points in this ideological fusion attempt. Ultimately he agreed not to highlight or feature either in his literature and website.

    The bottom line was that party and ideological identification was too strong to attempt a fusion candidacy. There were definate personality issues and some chicanery on both sides.

    Obviously a more proportional system (which Ben Franklin advocated) would serve all the ideologies better. In order to crack that nut, you have to get people to back down on pet issues. Maybe if things get worse ?

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Tim – The LP is already a multi-issue party. As for taking on big business and big government, here’s what is already in the platform:

    We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State.

    In order to achieve a free economy, in which government victimizes no one for the benefit of any other, we oppose all government subsidies to business, etc.

    In particular, we condemn any effort to forge an alliance between government and business …

    Of course, nobody reads the LP platform (including most libertarians). These issues and a number of others are in the LP platform and they are in there for a reason. When viewed through a libertarian lens (as opposed to conservative or liberal blinders), all of the LP platform items make pretty good sense. Granted, these ideas are a hard sell to brainwashed and indoctrinated partisans from the GOP or Dems – but if you can sell the ideas, you have sold the LP.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Eric – Kevin Zeese is a fusion candidate running for Senate in Maryland. Check out http://www.kevinzeese.com – this will be an interesting campaign to watch. The libertarians have already endorsed him and I suspect the Greens will also in June.

  • Timothy West

    Tom, I dont agree with you. There’s never been a time where a PRIVATE monopoly has ever been challenged by the LP as a threat to liberty that I know of with the the possible exception of the players in the emiment domain issue – where Wal Mart has been targeted, and rightly so. We need a lot more of this.

    But by far most threats to liberty from non government sources get a free pass from libertarians becuase IT’S NOT GOVERNMENT.

    I think very much the LP is a single issue party – and that it’s candidates ( myself included in 2000) tend to run for the LP’s sake, instead of for themselves as candidates to GOVERN a GOVERNMENT.

    “…..but if you can sell the ideas, you have sold the LP.”

    the party should always be #2 on he sell list. #1 should always be the person running for office – and dragging the LP along by selling themselves…not the LP.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Tim – I don’t know why you disagree. I never said the LP challenged anything – I simply wrote that the type of things you complained about are indeed in the LP platform.

    Generally, private corporations are fairly impotent without the collusion with government to give them some special status or prevent competition. So the problem is the government, although perhaps not apparent on the surface.

    If your complaint is that LP candidates don’t raise these issues and many others, that is merely a reflection of the candidates themselves. Although LPHQ seems to focus on just a few conservative issues these days.

    It doesn’t surprise me that middle-aged, middle-class, middle-of-the-road white guys who limit their issues and spout conservative platitudes and jingoistic patriotic bromides aren’t setting the electorate on fire. They are boring and unimaginative.

    But the LP meme now is to never appear radical and never talk about the platform because it may turn off conservatives.

  • http://www.auburn.edu/libertarian Jim Greenleaf

    Rebel Alliance, anyone?

  • David Tomlin

    >Tim West: ‘There’s never been a time where a PRIVATE monopoly has ever been challenged by the LP as a threat to liberty that I know of with the the possible exception of the players in the emiment domain issue – where Wal Mart has been targeted.’

    I’m curious to know under what theroy Wal Mart could be characterized as a ‘monopoly’.

  • David Tomlin

    I’m wondering if Vox Day is in the Book of World Records for being the dumbest member of Mensa.

    The Greens aren’t going to sign on for ‘Constitutional literalism and originalism’, and neither are many Libertarians. They like Roe v. Wade just fine, as well as court decisions striking down sodomy laws, just to name two.

  • Timothy West

    ask the businesses who have to compete with them.

    having said that, I have no problem with their size – except for the fact that huge corporations tend to be able to write themelves exemptions or otherwise favorable treatment in the law that corporations not of their size cant get. I dont find downtown businesses here in Charles Town using E.D. to gain land for their operations at teh expense of others. I dont find them making “donations” to local lawmakers pet pork projects in the area here, but our wal mart does. They call it “giving back”, but it’s always “giving back” to someone thats connected somehow. They never “give back” to anyone I know thats not a pol or a developer.

    Wal Mart is NOT the libertarians buddy. They belong to the R’s and D’s. They are also West Virginia’s largest employer. :)

    I might have to get a job with them as a greeter if my condition gets any worse. ;D

  • TerryP

    Tim I think you are going about this big company thing all wrong. If we got rid of all the big businesses that someone feels is using the gov’t to write themselves their own exemptions or favorable treatment, we would have ten times as many businesses ready to step in right where the void was left. The problem is that gov’t can give out these exemptions and favorable treatment in the first place. You are going after the end result and not the source. By doing so you will be spinning your wheels forever since their will always be another business waiting in the wings to do the same thing that Wal-Mart is doing. We need to fight the battle at the source and use big businesses missteps and their collusion with the gov’t as a reason for making changes at the source (ie gov’t power & control).

  • Timothy West

    Terry,

    The important thing is that we as a party need to go about it at all. I dont care how big they get. My only concern is when they become big enough to start writing their own laws and submitting them through a paid off stooge to enrich themselves and gain a edge through this hat the mom and pop cant get.

    There can be no corruption without a payee and a payor. Both must be attacked for corruption. Attacking one without the other is useless, and does not serve to attract those to the LP that might be attracted by persuing both ends toward the middle.

  • http://www.rlc.org Eric Dondero

    Ron Paul on the same ticket as Russ Feingold??? That’s insane. That’s like putting Ayn Rand together with Adolph Hitler. Feingold is an outright Fascist who has NOTHING in common with libertarians or other liberty-minded Right-wingers.

    Ron Paul/Jesse Ventura would be 1,000 times better. Or maybe Rick Jore/Tom McClintock? Or, maybe Ted Nugent/Ed Thompson?

    Putting the Libertarian Party with the Constitution Party makes great sense. But inviting Leftist/Fascists like the Greens and Feingold into the coalition is absolutely insane!

    Eric Dondero
    Fmr. Chief Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul

  • http://www.rlc.org Eric Dondero

    Chris wrote what we need is a coalition of “Pro-liberty/Anti-War groups”. What a misnomer. If you’re Anti-War in Afghanistan/Iraq you are by definition Anti-liberty. You put yourself on the side of Islamo-Fascism which seeks to destroy the United States and our Western tolerant culture.

    What is more needed is a coalition of Pro-War/Pro-libertarian groups for the 2008 race.

    Jesse Ventura, Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Gene Simmons, Neal Cavuto, Ted Nugent or some other Pro-America/Pro-libertarian candidate would be perfect!

    Stay away from the America-hating Leftist Libertarians.

  • http://www.rlc.org Eric Dondero

    I’m Pro-Choice, but I would support a Pro-Life Republican for President in 2008, before I’d support some 3rd Party fusion ticket with a Left-winger/America-hater on the ticket.

    A Constitution Party/Libertarian Party fusion ticket makes all the sense in the world. Yes, the CPers are extreme on abortion. But let’s not forget that we Libertarians ran Ron Paul – also an extremist Pro-Lifer – for President in 2008.

    Let’s ask Rick Jore, State Representative from Montana to run as the CP/LP fusionist candidate. Or California Assemblyman Tom McClintock. Or Michigan Rep. Leon Drolet.

    If the “Fusionists” deal with Islamo-Fascist loving Greens or other America-haters, I’d urge ALL LIBERTARIANS to vote Republican in 2008.

    Better to hold your nose and vote GOP, than to align ourselves with America-hating Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore type Leftists.

  • http://www.chrisbennettfromillinois.blogspot.com Chris Bennett

    Eric Dondero does no justice to the liberty movement. This war you greatly support is unconstitutional and proves that you are a Bush buttkisser. I am not in favor of our actions in Iraq. Our foriegn policy of interventionism warranted an attack on our soil. Until we learn that spreading democracy to other countries that do not want democracies, we gain more and more enemies every day. We must find Bin Laden and leave. We must exit Iraq immediately! Mr. Dondero is no friend of liberty he does a great job of masking his true colors.

  • http://www.pnar.org/ Tom Blanton

    How odd that Mr. Dondero seeks to associate himself with Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is adamently against the war in Iraq and is against any future war against “Islamofascism” in Iran.

    Does that make Dr. Paul an “America-hating Leftist Libertarian”? Ron Paul doesn’t seem to share Dondero’s concern that a small number of crackpot Muslims with rifles and homemade bombs can destroy America and western culture.

    Dondero demonstrates what too many “libertarians” suffer from – and that is being unable to distiguish between conservatives, liberals and libertarians. These are three different things. My idea is to keep the LP libertarian and let the GOP and Dems have the conservatives and liberals.

    I know many in the LP seem to disagree with this, but isn’t the mission of the LP to move things in a libertarian direction? Let Dondero go form a party with Boortz and Cavuto – or better yet, send their conservative asses to
    the Mideast where they can fight “Islamofascism” on their own dime.

  • Timothy West

    Yeah, I cant buy into Dondero’s stuff. I dont want the LP tent to b big enough to where outright lies and ineptitude or possible gross conspiracy to lead the nation into a un winnable war is considered somehow “libertarian”.