[mnehring]

My Response:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and (hand) the victory to your enemies.

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
- Ayn Rand

[mnehring]

Ping

[Sybeck1]

And yet he runs as a pubbie for congress?

[Larry Lucido]

Thanks for that quote by Rand. Very good!

[LSUfan]

Ron Paul was, is and always will be nothing but a fraud.

[wideawake]

So, will Ron Paul run for Congress as an independent, or will he remain a Republican?

Will he engage in the experiment that he is asking other Americans to make?

It's interesting that the press release admits, not in so many words, that voting third party is the same as not voting.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Anti war dope smokers unite for Ronald Ernest Paul.
***

Real version of “Shrimp Boats”.

Shrimp Boats is a comin,
Their sails are in sight.
Shrimp Boats is a comin,
There will be dancing tonight,

*Ronald Ernest Paul version

Shrimp Boats is a comin,
Their pork is in sight.
Shrimp Boats is a comin,
They will be snorting dope tonight.

[capt. norm]

Only on Ron Paul's home planet does he make sense.

[wideawake]

BTW - the press release beginning with a quote from one of America’s most refined conspiracy theorists was a nice Paul touch.

[tacticalogic]

I notice the New Deal apologists have a habit of trying to equate maintaining the originally intended limits on the power of the national government to anarchy. Somewhere along the line they got the idea that if the federal government can’t control everything, it can’t control anything.

[bcsco]

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

So, Ron Paul's answer to a two-party system, where both parties appear to be reflections of one another, is to randomly vote for any of the opposing minority parties; not because of their ideological beliefs but just because they exist. That's real leadership at work (Do I really need the /sarc tag?).

I'm sure many of his minions will agree (if they haven't already) and vote 3rd party. But judging by the following he's accumulated over this election cycle, and by those who would normally rally to a Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader to begin with, I'd say the Republicans won't feel much affect from this announcement.

[SJackson]

Guess it’s over for the GOP and DNC now. Not sure if 32% will do it, but if it will, collectively they’ve got only 31% to go. Go Cindy Go!

[mnehring]

Update..

Apparently Bob Barr didn’t show.
So Paul’s endorsement is now just Nader, McKinney and Baldwin.

[weegee]

This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Gee Mr. Paul, does this include voting for the Communist Party USA, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers' Party, or Worker's World Party? Or maybe the Green Party. So many socialists, and only one vote.

[Bertram3]

I’m surprized we haven’t seen more of this. Ron Paul is a joke even in the Texas palmetto swamps where he lives. He ran on promoting the return of the gold standard for years. He appeals to those who don’t know we are on the gold standard, at market rates.

The media may try to promote Paul as a spoiler, siphoning off fringe conservatives.

The equivalent response to Ron Paul is to promote Ralph Nader’s campaign: “Real liberals for Nader!”

[steve8714]

Ron Paul has officially just actively betrayed all the people who have supported his run for the presidency. While many of us have made light of them, their attachment to him has run deep. I guess the cut runs just as deep.

[AuntB]

Perfect quote for this situation!

[gunnyg]

**********
NO LESSER OF EVILS--
JUST THE GENUINE ARTICLE!

**********

[Chunga]

Ron Paul is an idiot. So are his supporters.

[Allegra]

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire.

Under your magnificent plan, Ron, what we could expect to hear is car-bombs and IEDs going off in our own neighborhoods.

No, thanks, Ron. Been there, still there, no thanks.

[NinoFan]

“The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. “

Uh, WHAT? Maybe, maybe, I can understand the comment about the welfare state, but no real disagreements on foreign policy? That’s absurd.