Posted on 12/27/2007 6:02:59 AM PST by connell
ModernConservative.com has received a tip from a reliable source that may have election-shattering implications.
According to our source, an activist here in Arizona has been approached by the Ron Paul campaign; the campaign has requested that he run the Arizona effort to get Ron Paul on the general election ballot as a candidate of the Constitution Party.
Our source has requested anonymity, and we have agreed. We can, however, vouch for his/her general reliability. Our source also provided us with details that added credibility to the account. (Unfortunately, disclosure of those details would put at risk our promise of anonymity. We apologize for the unnamed sourcing and lack of further details, but those were the requirements that accompanied this revelation.)
We will keep you apprised of any new developments.
There has been a lot of analysis on the impact that Ron Paul has already had, and on the impact that he might...
(Excerpt) Read more at modernconservative.com ...
Another Perot?
The little general took 19% of the vote.
I just stating my observations over the past few months. I find it ironic that people bitch and moan about Paul, say he has no conservative support and that his supporters are all left wingers. Now the third party angle is presented and suddenly Paul becomes Ross Perot?
You have to factor in that a Paul candidacy may make Hillary seem like the reasonable one.
If the GOP is ‘yay WOT, more more!’, and the Paulists are ‘out now’, then Hillary saying ‘We need to be responsible, fix it and split’ ... that covers both bases and positions her in the warm, confortable middle for most people.
“He is by far more of a threat to Hillary than the GOP niminee — where Hil is considered “pro-war” to the far lefties.”
Then we should support a Paul third party run as being good for conservatives.
Good assessment. Also if the “real” conservatives don’t get their way and Rudy, Romney or McCain is nominated there may be another third party candidate that could step forward to quell their angst (e.g., Keyes?). Again, tapping off just enough of the vote...
I won’t be surprised if he goes third-party. He was probably sincere about not wanting to do it originally, but he’s been raising crazy money, getting rock-star adulation, and become the darling of the drive-by media because he bashes President Bush and he’s always good for a kooky out-of-context sound bite.
Why wouldn’t he want to keep the ball rolling? He looks out there right now and sees what looks like pretty solid support, better than anything he saw when running on the LP ticket many years ago. He can’t win, but he can sure get out there and push his agenda—and now, he’s probably got money that any other third-party candidate would only dream of.
The question is, who’s he going to have the bigger impact on? Will he pull the radical anti-war vote away from Hillary! or Osama, or will he pull the paleo/libertarian vote away from the Republican nominee? Or both?
}:-)4
I have to ask this question. Are you dumb or just playing dumb? How many times does someone on this thread have to tell you that his left wing support is FINANCIAL support designed to pump him up to get libertarians/conservatives to vote for him as a third party candidate to insure a Democrat wins. Can you grasp that concept or are you just going to keep making that same idiotic statement.
By the way...you need to look up the definition of irony.
One of their idiots, Chuck Balwin, spends 99.9% of his words/energy attacking GOP candidates and about .1% attacking our supposedly common shared enemies.
I agree, this would benefit the GOP.
Ron/Dennis ‘08!!
I am not sure whom he will take more of the vote from, but I do think that in a head-to-head against any of the main GOP nominees, HRC loses...unless there is a third-party candidate. So, R. Paul is a wild card we don’t need, in my view.
Ron Paul (third party)=President Hillary Rodman (socialist)
CP. Naw........ That spot has been reserved for the rent-a-candidate Keyes.
7 Days and the wannabes become less of a factor.......
Ron Paul is not the best choice for conservatives due to his foreign policy stands, among other matters. However, he is more conservative overall than Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain, based on their comparative records in public office. He is, however, less conservative than Hunter or Thompson. The harshness of the attacks on someone who has yet to reach rise higher than fourth or fifth place in the impending Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary is astounding. But then, some people like horror and fantasy stories, and portraying Paul as the sock puppet of Dr. Evil (George Soros) and sinister followers of the Fourth Reich is an adult version of DC or Marvel Comics.
There’s been countless people here claiming Paul’s supporters, not just money, are left wingers. All you have to do is read any Paul thread PRIOR to the Moveon/Soros threads to see that.
The disconnect of FReepers claiming he’s no threat because he doesn’t have any republican support, then freaking about a possible third party run and calling him Ross Perot shows there’s either a herd mentality here or people are less informed than they claim.
In every poll I see that I can even halfway trust, Thompson comes out on top.
Maybe without the MSM twisting the truth, Fred will prevail.
Too bad Hunter never got off the ground. Too true, too conservative, I guess.
Anyone remember what percent perot took first time around?
finally a useful post, rather than the glib Freep-o-mania that has become all too common. Similar to the DU, FR posters cannot resist the “pile-on” mentality of the playground.
Just watch, a reply will prove me right.
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.