Posted on 10/10/2007 1:15:22 PM PDT by SJackson
Could Ron Paul be considering a third-party run for the White House after the GOP primaries are over? After all, in 1988 he left the GOP to run as the Libertarian Party candidate. He is just ornery enough to do it again.
A hint of his dissatisfaction came last night during the CNBC debate when Chris Matthews asked him if he would promise "to support the nominee of the Republican Party next year." Mr. Paul's answer was a flat no. "Not unless they're willing to end the war and bring our troops home. And not unless they are willing to look at the excess in spending. No, I'm not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes."
When I saw Mr. Paul last Friday after a speech he gave to Americans for Prosperity in Washington, he was clearly feeling his oats on the public reaction to his stand opposing the Iraq war. He rejected my comment that his anti-war emphasis was crowding out his free-market message "Everything is tied to the war. It threatens our financial security as well," he told me. I left our brief encounter with the clear impression he wanted to continue to talk about his message well into the future beyond the GOP primary race.
Despite his libertarian views, a Paul third-party run might hurt the Democrats more than Republicans. If he emphasized his support for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately, he would trump Hillary Clinton on the left. If he talked about his support for drug decriminalization, he would clearly appeal to a constituency ignored by both major parties.
The logistics of a Paul run are also there. The Libertarian Party national convention doesn't meet until late May in Denver, and becoming its nominee guarantees a spot on 26 state ballots immediately. Another 20 state ballot lines are fairly easy to obtain.
Mr. Paul could, of course, retire from the House if he ran for president. But Texas law also allows him to both run for president and seek re-election to the House, thanks to a statute rammed through by Lyndon Johnson. The GOP primary in which Mr. Paul is being challenged for his seat is held in early March, well before he would have to publicly announce any third-party intentions. Nothing prevents him from running as, say, a Libertarian for president and a Republican for the House at the same time.
It's also likely that Mr. Paul might be the rare third-party candidate who could actually raise his own money. He took in over $5 million in the last quarter, exceeding the fundraising totals of candidates such as John McCain and Mike Huckabee. A chunk of his money comes from liberals such as singer Barry Manilow, and he might find himself the recipient of some support in a general election from anti-Hillary Democrats who deplore the grip of the Clinton clan on their party.
Woo hoo!! Run, Paul, Run!!
(as an anti-war moonbat libertarian)
Ron Paul is a real bad idea for President. Were he to be elected he would not just be impeached, he would be crucified by both parties.
“Not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.”
The only war we got going is the War on Terror and bringing the troops back from Iraq won’t end it.
Why do people who want to bring the troops home assume that the Islamo-Facists want to call it a draw? They gave their demands. Out of the ME. Let them destroy Israel and we have to convert to Islam or die.
He’s not only anti-war, he’s selling himself as anti-freemarket. How this guy plays himself off as libertarian with that position is beyond me.
Don't say that, it seems a lot of his cult already has a Jesus complex about him.
The lefty anti-war MOONBATS are giving Paul money....he’s a Moonbat himself.
>> Paul for the Long Haul
I was hoping that this headline meant Paul was dropping out and going into the trucking business.
H
I’d love to see Crazy Ron draw a bunch of kook votes from hillary. Run, Ron, Run! Pump those crazy little legs!
>> He doesn’t believe in trucks, they aren’t in the Constitution. He also is refusing to use the US highway system as it is funded by federal tax dollars.
Maybe he’ll haul goods on horseback ... that’s what the founders did.
“Ron Paul Revere Archaic Transportation Co.” ... making your important deliveries in 6 months or less, or your gold-standard-money back. “The RedChinese are coming! The RedChinese are coming!”
H
While you and I may think he will pull more votes from Hillary than the Republican nominee, enough moonbats believe he will hurt the Republicans that they are financing him. I pray that we are correct. It would be a sad day for America if through some disaster we had Hillary, Rudy, and Ron to choose from in November.
I lamented, therefore, the impolicy, tyranny, and injustice, which, with a sovereign contempt of the people of America, studiously neglected to take their collective sentiments of the British proposals of peace, and to negociate, under a suspension of arms, for an adjustment of differences; I lamented it as a dangerous sacrifice of the great interests of this country to the partial views of a proud, ancient, and crafty foe. I had my suspicions of some imperfections in our councils, on proposals prior to the Parliamentary Commission of 1778; but having then less to do in the Cabinet than the field (I will not pronounce peremptorily, as some may, and perhaps justly, that Congress have veiled them from the public eye), I continued to be guided in the negligent confidence of a Soldier. But the whole world saw, and all America confessed, that the overtures of the second Commission exeeded our wishes and expectations; and if there was any suspicion of the national liberality, it arose from its excess.
Do you really think that very many liberals will give up the chance to vote for hillary and get a clinton redo just so they can support this moonbat? I don’t.
Here is the problem, a lot of the libs that support Paul, if you read the forums and meetup groups are young college kids who haven't voted before. The rightwingers who support Paul are older, seasoned voters. The first group hasn't been counted before, therefore pulling from that demographic wouldn't have a huge impact on liberal votes, even if it is a large percentage. However, even a small third party shift to Paul by the right, if they are seasoned voters, could impact the final vote. Especially with all of Dobson and other's rhetoric about voting third party if they don't get their 100% candidate.
Will he pull in Nader for VP????
It will be a sad day for America if Rudy becomes the (newly liberal) Republican Party nominee. And if that happens, you can bank on the fact that there would be a new conservative party forming. The Republican party would be dead. The country does not need two major liberal parties.
I agree with you completely. This has gotten me ragged on by a fairly large crowd here because I will not support the nominee if it is Rudy. The number of people that are so afraid of Hillary that they will pull the lever for “any Republican” is disheartening. I cannot vote for someone that is that much in opposition to America.
With the news today that 1/2 of self-identified Christians saying they will not vote for Rudy and knowing that this group made up 40% of the votes President Bush received, I have no idea how they think that voting for Rudy would help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.