Weld Dropping NY Race?

It looks like Bill Weld is going to drop his gubernatorial race in New York. From Fox23:

With support for a run eroding, Republican Bill Weld will drop out of the race for New York governor, according to two sources informed of the decision.

The former Massachusetts governor ended his effort to be the first man since Sam Houston to be the governor of two states after he was defeated last week in a quest for the party designation against John Faso, the former Assembly minority leader.

Weld decided Tuesday morning to drop out, said the two sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Weld wanted to make the announcement publicly himself.

Weld scheduled an 11:30 a.m. press conference at his Manhattan headquarters.

UPDATE: I’ve been told by multiple sources that Weld agreed to run with or without Republican support. I’m not sure whether this was at the NY LP Convention or in some meeting shortly before the meeting. If anyone knows of exactly what was said and agreed upon, please let me know.

posted by Stephen Gordon
  • Nicholas Sarwark

    What an asshole.

  • john

    so the NYLP traded principles for ballot access and now have neither. WTG

  • Brian S

    Gee, imagine getting screwed by a Republican.

    First the NYLP ran Stern, who could have been a winner, but he just treated his campaign and the LP as a big joke. Now, they got played again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I guess I’ll get fooled again.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Tim West

    What principles did they trade? Did weld promise to increase taxes and grow government?

    Too bad he’s turned out to be a liar. The NYLP made a politically calculated decision that offered the chance for big gain with little downside. Now they can just go to their second guy. Weld was using the LP as a vehicle, but the LP was using him in return. In the end, nobody won. Thats politics.

  • Paul Pace

    “In the end, nobody won. Thats politics.”

    Tim, that’s got to be quote of the year.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    As I recall he signed an agreement to run even if he didn’t get the GOP nom. The NYLP ought to take him to court.

  • john

    nigel

    I’d pay to watch spitzer prosecute this one ;D

  • http://www.serfcity.us Jim Lesczynski

    He didn’t sign an agreement, but he did promise repeatedly that he would stay in the race no matter what. If we could take politicians to court every time they lied, we wouldn’t need to run candidates.

    I agree wholeheartedly with John. We traded our principles for ballot access and got neither. I promised several people that I would withhold any criticism of Weld from the time of his nomination until the race was over. Now that the race is over, I feel free and obliged to start the post-mortem. The LPNY has got to learn its lesson. Every time we try to take a shortcut to success by running a LINO, we get burned.

    Ironically, the purists have consistently been our most successful campaigners (myself included, all modesty aside).

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    I say again:

    WHAT FUCKING PRINCIPLES DID YOU TRADE!?!??!?!??!???!

    I’m starting to feel like I’m stuck inside a endless loopback.

    Did EITHER of the candidates for NY Governor that spoke at the LPNY convention call for higher taxes or more government spending? How about greater government control over our private life? How about calling for national health care?

    Name me ONE (1) libertarian principle that was tossed aside becuase Weld was chosen. WHICH ONE WAS IT, SPECIFICALLY?

    As for Stern, he only does whatever promotes his show, and he’s never claimed anything but.

    It was the right decision to make. If it had played out, the NYLP would have had ballot access for YEARS. The fact that Weld is a liar doesnt make the decision bad in retrospect. The worst that could have happened did, which is that Weld dropped out – with the consequences being they have to nominate someelse. That’s lot of possible gain for very little down side. The decision was 100% correct, *politically speaking*

  • http://www.serfcity.us Jim Lesczynski

    Let’s see, not only did Weld tell the LPNY convention he would not support any reductions in NY’s infamous Rockefeller drug laws, not only did he say he would not support marijuana legalization, he he said he would not even support a state _medical marijuana_ bill, insisting that any such reform would have to come from the federal level. Meanwhile, the NYS Rifle & Pistol Association (the state affiliate of the NRA) would have nothing to do with Weld because he signed an “assault” weapon ban in Massachusetts. He also went on record as opposing any legislation that would legalize prostitution. His entire campaign was based on the pitch that he would “govern just like George Pataki”, who, trust me, is no libertarian.

  • http://www.serfcity.us Jim Lesczynski

    Oh yeah, and Weld declared his support for Bruce Ratner’s eminent domain scheme to build a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets in Brooklyn.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Jesus Christ.

    Did he call for expansion of drug laws?

    Did he call for expansion of gun laws?

    Did he call for expansion of vice laws?

    NO.

    Doing any one of those things would be principle reduction.
    You think maybe calling for legalized hoes might have hurt him at the Rpublican Convention, by any chance?

    Weld is maybe 40% libertarian at best and always has been, and I called him as such before this started.

    Weld is not now nor has he ever been a libertarian in the sense that the LP demands of it’s supporters. I called him a liberterian leaning republican and thats exactly what he is.

    It was not a bad decision, it was a POLITICAL DECISION. The possible good for the NYLP vastly outwieghed the negative, which is that you nominate someone else.

    If the LP does not like the political process, complete with failures, risks, dealmaking, and possible success, then why do we have a political party at all?

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Was the NYLP told about that last point?

    Then I would have to say that they should have made im renounce that support before they took him. I can readily accept that tht is a case in principle reduction. I would have voted against him myself if I had known bout that tidbit.

    I want the LP to win elections but not to the point of supporting emiment domain candidates.

  • Devious David

    Tim West, you have been officially owned.

    …BTW…

    TOLD YA SO!

  • http://www.serfcity.us Jim Lesczynski

    Yes, Weld announced his support of the Brooklyn eminent domain project about a week and a half before the LPNY convention. Weld’s handlers told us that he needed to support the Ratner project because he was hoping for Bloomberg’s endorsement, which he would not receive if he dissed Ratner Arena.

    I disagree that the only negative is that we just nominate someone else. One of the few assets the LP has is its alleged adherence to principle. When we nominate LINOs like Weld, it seriously diminishes the support of people who were brought into the party on the promise that we’re different than other political parties that will set aside their principles for political expediency. This is not just hypothetical; I can name names of several former hard-working volunteers for the LP who we lost with the Weld nomination, and we’ll have a hard time getting them back.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    given the same set of circumstances, I would have taken the same course of action.

    Minus the eminent domain project, which I didn’t know about. That alone would have me vote against him myself. That counts as principle reduction to me.

    D.D, enjoy the taste. NO regrets.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    Is it too late for the NYLP to nominate another?

  • Devious David

    You would make a great Republican, Tim.

  • TerryP

    IMO the LP still made some progress with this nomination. They at least received some MSM coverage. Without Weld they would have received absolutely none. They would have had a candidate who would likely receive less than 1% without any attention being brought to any libertarian principles. The republicans also made a big deal about Weld getting the LP nomination. Why? most likely because he was for smaller gov’t and didn’t tow the republican leadership line on everything. It at least now gives us the distinction that if republicans want to vote for smaller gov’t they will have to cross party lines and vote for a libertarian. Many republican voters still believed that they were the party of smaller gov’t (ha! ha!), but little by little they are being shown that they are not. Who will these small gov’t republicans turn to. I hope it is the liberatarian party. If we shun them like DD wants us to than we are doomed to be a party of insignificance forever.

  • Devious David

    You fail to understand the stupidity and stubborness of a Republican. They are not going to change in any significant number under ANY circumstance. We need to turn our backs on the GOP and stop sucking them off. It is proven over and over and over and over and over and over and over to be a loser and to our detriment. If they want to come on over of their own volition, fine. But this accomodating Republicans and thinking that they are our friends and we are in any kind of agreement is horse shit. Republicans do not want less government or any other libertarian idea, except rhetorically. The instant you act on that rhetoric, you have burned your bridge with them. Conservatives are not libertarians. They are the number one enemy! And they should be treated as such, not patted on the back and accomodated at our own expense. Libertarians need to stand up as libertarians. Proud and distinct libertarians. Not the GOPs cum guzzling wannabe bitches.

  • TerryP

    We also have to remember that the voters that are giving the party designation are not the ones we are going to win over. It is the the more general republican, democrat, or independent voter. They are not the ones making the decisions for either the republican or democrat party. The leadership of these parties want to continue to keep out people like Weld and Jeffers. This may be to our advantage in the long run. It will show the general voter the true character of the leadership in their parties. In the long run these people will be looking for another party and we need to be there to welcome them.

    The republican party is killing itself and we need to step up to the plate and fill the void that they are leaving or at least what people thought that they stood for (ie smaller govt). The democrats killed themselves a few years ago but no party stepped up to the plate to take their voters and now they may be resurrecting themselves. We can’t let that happen again with the reps

  • TerryP

    While I agree that there are many republicans that are stupid and stubborn there are at least as many of the same in the democratic party. Heck we have plenty of those in our party. But these aren’t the people that we should be going after anyway. We need to be going after the general republican voter that thought they were the party for smaller gov’t. We need to be going after the general democratic voter that finally is realizing that bigger gov’t isn’t the answer to all their problems either and give them a party that will stand up for their individual rights. We need to give the independent voter someone they can be proud of voting for that isn’t completely radical in their ideas and isn’t corrupt like the other two parties. We need to go after these voters without bending our principles. If not who is left, pretty much the group we have now that gets us less than 1% every year. Yipee.

  • Stuart Richards

    Is it for certain that Weld is out of the race? If so, shit. If not, well, we’ve still got a pretty strong candidate, and he can probably give a great big fuckyou to Ratner Arena and return to principle.

    I agree with Tim, if the Ratner project had been publicized I doubt most of the moderates here would have supported him. It would be a tough question, certainly-is it okay to revoke one liberty in one area if two liberties are granted in another, if the candidate has a realistic shot at success? I do think that the reform faction needs to decide an answer to this question, and but quick.

    It’s a tough question any way you look at it.

  • TerryP

    You look at the Nolan chart and virtually the entire top half is void of any republican and democratic politicians. But this area likely makes up at least one-half of the population. We need to step up to the plate and reach out to the voters from both the right and left that fit into this area. We need to make them aware that there is a party for them. We don’t need to compromise our principle of smaller govt in all areas to reach out to them. We just can’t be the party of the far upper 10% or one side and expect everyone to come to us and get elected. That is illogical. We need to be the party of the upper 40% or so. Many of these people will come to realize that even the areas that they currently feel gov’t is needed that actually the may even be a hinderance in these areas as well. Get them into the libertarian fold and over time they will move more and more over to libertarian ideals as they see the light. Don’t expect them to do it 100% overnight, however.

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

    Fresh Red Meat . . .

    http://sundwall4congress.org/weblog/

    Video of Weld accepting . . . have fun.

  • Stephen VanDyke

    Eric, that’s pretty damning video. He straight up lied to the NY LP.

  • http://www.thirdpartywatch.com Austin Cassidy

    The LP had no candidate that was going to get the votes needed to get ballot access. What was traded was the chance to nominate a nobody that would do nothing for the party for the chance to cross-endorse a libertarian-leaning Republican and win ballot access.

    Nothing has been lost here, and at least some media coverage was gained.

    I completely understand Weld’s decision to drop out as well. You can call him a liar or whatever, but in the world of reality his campaign had run out of gas.

    He did win the LP line, but he lost the Conservative nomination. Then he lost the GOP endorsement by an embarrassingly wide-margin. Then the Independence Party nomination by an embarrasingly wide margin. Then the people that encouraged him to run jumped ship and asked him to drop out. He would have to have been a fool to continue, after this many defeats were dealt to him in quick succession.

    The LP did the right thing nominating him.

    Weld did the right thing dropping out.

  • http://www.freedomrings.net/ John Teschky
  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth

  • http://www.chuckmoulton.org/ Chuck Moulton

    A point of clarification on the Howard Stern race…

    It was my understanding that Howard Stern dropped out of the race because of a conflict of law. State law required him to report his income in campaign filings. His employment contract prohibited him from revealing his income. If he had revealed his income in a campaign filing, he could have been fired and sued for large sums of money.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    I don’t think Howard Stern screwed over the Libertarians intentionally. He wanted to run. Bill Weld on the other hand screwed over the Libertarians by choice.

  • http://www.chuckmoulton.org/ Chuck Moulton

    I agree with Tim West. Failure to advocate every anarchist solution doesn’t make someone un-Libertarian or a bad Libertarian candidate. Affirmatively advocating an increase in government or a reduction in freedoms from the status quo does make someone un-Libertarian or a bad Libertarian candidate. The eminent domain thing is un-Libertarian. The others aren’t.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Just for the record, if I had known about the Ratner secret deal, I would have urged the NYLP pass on Weld. That’s a true case of principle reduction, as well as somewhat shady.

    I also think that Weld would have not gotten 50K votes running pure LP, so the gain that could have been really was not there anyway, the second he lost both the R and the Conservative nomination, the goose was cooked.

    I still think the NYLP made the right decision The upside was incredibly huge snd the downside was that he would lose and drop out. When you gamble, you look for limited risk and a huge jackpot. Weld was that exactly.

    Having said all that, I now know he has no personal integrity in any case.

  • http://www.freedomrings.net/ John Teschky

    “Having said all that, I now know he has no personal integrity in any case.”

    Wow. Fancy that: Not being able to trust a career politician, especially when you really have nothing to offer him.

    “Bill Weld on the other hand screwed over the Libertarians by choice.”

    Remember the frog and the scorpion?

    There is no subsitute for building the party one precinct at a time. Everything else is just mental masturbation.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    John,

    That’s true enough. But that’s not the “LP Way”. If the LP could raise the one million dollars they raised for Badnarik in 2004 and instead put that money into our best 2 to 3 races around the country, we’d have some elected libertarians.

    I still think having a presidential candidate that nets .04% of the vote every election is a fools game, but I’m very much in the minority. Libertarians have a thing for appearances, and they want a LP presidential candidate.

  • Devious David

    I agree that money needs to go to the most winnable races. Maybe SG can work on publicizing those races and fundraising for them. The important thing is getting the campaigns kicked off early and showing continual progress and creative solutions to publicity in winnable races.

    I also like the ballot access 527. That is going to be a huge help. It’s just the kiss of death when you have 3 months, if that, when you try and make it happen, especially in a tough state like Alabamastan.

    As for the Weld debacle, it’s best to take the lessons learned here and remember them well and move on. But before we do, let me rub it in just one more time: TOLD YA SO!

  • http://www.LPWI.org Rolf Lindgren

    TerryP,

    “You look at the Nolan chart and virtually the entire top half is void of any republican and democratic politicians. But this area likely makes up at least one-half of the population.”

    Great point made simple. We Libertarians need to go after voters in the top half of the Nolan Chart.

  • http://www.phillies2008.org George Phillies

    The governor election in NY this year will be a runaway for the D. The R are running an anti-abortion Republican. A Libertarian running this year would have had a fairly strong position if they ran on orthodox Libertarian issues, namely social liberal, fiscal conservative. There is no ‘wasted vote’ discussion, because an R vote is a total vote, like voting for Dole for President in Massachusetts in 1996. There are clear differences with both other parties.

  • Pingback: Austin Cassidy’s Third Party Watch