Posted on 12/23/2007 7:36:15 PM PST by melt
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Texas Rep. Ron Paul refused to rule out a third party bid Sunday if he fails to win the Republican Party presidential nomination.
When Tim Russert of NBC’s 'Meet the Press' asked the Texas congressman if he’d consider an independent bid, he replied: "I have no intention of doing that."
When pressed by Russert to state unequivocally that he would not, Paul demurred. "I deserve one weasel wiggle now and then, Tim!"
Paul lost to Phil Gramm in the 1984 Texas Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Four years later, he ran for president as the Libertarian Party nominee.
The Republican presidential contender — who has an intensely loyal national following — is pulling in record fundraising sums, prompting speculation that he may continue his White House bid even if he does not fare well among Republican primary voters.
Paul is currently averaging single-digit showings in most recent surveys of GOP voters nationally and in early-voting states.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
The far left don’t like him, check out these articles by Noam Chomsky and his cohorts railing against Ron Paul:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/on-the-issues-dennis-kucinich-and-ron-paul-by-lo/
Most of the Democrats he’s attracting seem to be middle class/educated suburbanites who are fiscally conservative/socially moderate and have voted Democrat in recent years because they view the GOP as having been taken over by the Huckabee/big govt types, as well as independents who defected to the Dems in 2006 because of Abramoff&Iraq.
If he has run as a libertarian in the past, then that’s a good indication of what direction he might take in the future. The libertarians have no hope of actually winning an election, so the trade-off would have to be beneficial to them. There would be some kind of political concession by the republicans or a hope on their part for a democratic win.
This year, though, Paul might pull as many from the looney left as he does from the anti-war republicans.
traditionally conservatives are much more isolationist. There is nothing conservative about extensive global entanglements.
Nowadays, the republican party sounds like Woodrow Wilson when it comes to foreign policy.
I don’t know what Dole said, don’t much care, but here is the only thing you’ll need to see on the matter of “Conservatism and War”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec63BGemTQs&feature=related
When one tries to classify, categorize, and label, one has to generalize. In my previous post I made the classification of left and right against the middle. You can also make the classification based on Populism versus Elitism.
The modern GOP has been a coalition between the cultural populists and economic elitists while the modern democratic party has been a coalition between cultural elitists and economic populists. Within both parties, the populists are dis-satisfied with the elitists. And Ron Paul is trying unify the nationalist populists against the global elitists, trying to dovetail with paleo-cons versus the neo-cons.
"....in 2008 there's going to be a significant third party movement........angered by the budget deficit........seething about the war.......sick of immigration and foreign trade........add a recession and kapow....
The anecdotal evidence is overwhelmingly in Paul's favor.
He has won straw polls, text polls, and online polls, and has the most money raised in the 4Q. Plus he has an extensive network of grassroots support.
Without Paul, these folks wouldn't have registered Republican & would have remained apathetic and voted 3rd party or stayed home as they have done in the past.
They do sound alike don;t they?
LOL. Paul's not part of the "traditional" polls. All of his support is from newcomers and those who aren't part of the current GOP's base.
If you can't see what's going on here, then you need a CAT scan.
A war that has been largely won. You can't fight these jokers forever, you know.
What the Ron Paul supporters don’t seem to get is that if we don’t win that war, all those other issues do not matter.
War costs money. I don't want to see the dollar being used as toilet paper and our country having Zimbabwe inflation rates. You?
"Saddle Me Up"
“Riight[sic], because being for limited government, pro-free market, cutting taxes and spending, pro-life, strongly pro2A, pro-sovereignty, sticking to the constitution, is SO “liberal.”
ROTFLOL!! Are you kidding .. and just how long will we be “sovereign” if the borders remain open and WE NEVER ANSWER ANY ATTACK UPON OUR COUNTRY.
Ron Paul is so dangerous .. it’s frightening. And anyone who threatens to go 3rd party with the possibility of giving the country HILLARY CLINTON is not only stupid - they’re arrogant and don’t give a damn about America.
I’ve already thought for myself and figured out that Ron Paul’s idiocy is exceeded only by that of his supporters.
Now you figure out who I’m talking about.
No, I won’t agree.
The man’s hypocrisy is exceeded only by his lunacy.
I want Paul to run as a third party. He’s the true blue anti-war cut and run candidate. He’ll destroy hillary’s chances of winning. So run Paul run!
I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Paul runs as a third party candidate. Unfortunately, there are enough kooks on the right who will vote for him and enough kooky so called Independents who will vote for him. A vote for Paul is a vote for Hillary. I still think Hillary will win the Dummycrat nomination because there are enough leftists out there who want to see the Clinton’s back in the White House.
Maybe one or two. It is the moveon.org crowd that loves this guy. I hope he goes for it.
Whether Paul goes 3rd party or not is irrelevant.
EEE ~ 12/23/2007
I agree. I actually think he has picked up the former Deaniacs.
Eh. I’d vote for him over Romney.
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.