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 NBCs 'Meet the Press' asked the Texas congressman if hed 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 ...
I told you he was going to run 3rd party two months ago. Don’t forget our bet Captain Kirk.
If nothing else it should be entertaining watching GOP statists try to convince the libertarian part of their base to vote for Rudy/Huck aka Baby Killer/Nanny Stater ‘08 and not for the Libertarian candidate.
The same people who laughed at the “leave me, my rights and my money alone” libertarians will be begging and pleading for us to vote for their idiot GOP establishment nominee.
Oh good, somebody got a photograph of him in one of his more lucid moments.
OMG, it’s Stan Laurel! Who is Hardey...Huckabee? LOL!
Just how fat is she? I've never seen her.
“Shouldnt this disqualify him from being allowed to appear at the GOP debates? He doesnt deserve official sanction as a Republican if he is going to run against the party.”
More of Paul’s inconsistencies. If he’d had his way in a resolution he co-sponsored with liberal congressman JESSE JACKSON he would have been kept out of the debates.
. H.CON.RES.263 : Expressing the sense of Congress that any Presidential candidate should be permitted to participate in debates among candidates if at least 5 percent of respondents in national public opinion polls of all eligible voters support the candidates election for President or if a majority of respondents in such polls support the candidates participation in such debates. Sponsor: Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] (introduced 11/6/2001) Cosponsors (2)
See some of Pauls CO sponsored legislation here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1940847/posts?page=28#28
Since Huckabee is running as a pro life big government Democrat, shouldn't the same rules apply to him?
In all seriousness, taking Paul out of it for a second, I know what you mean. You need a license and test to drive, hunt, fish but any leftist can run with an R next to their name. See Mike Bloomberg. You are right that something needs to be done to protect the brand.
this isn’t fair...if i recall correctly he said he was 99% sure he wouldn’t run as a 3rd party
Ron Paul is an anti-Christian bigot and a prick.
Dude, you just said on the other thread that if Ron Paul runs, he'll hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. So why are you and others getting all bent out of shape over this?
You guys don't want Paul to run as a Republican but you secretly hope he doesn't run 3rd party or independent either. Make up your minds, you're worse than women at a department store, sheesh.
Did you know that Paul's 3 brothers are active in the ministry and Paul himself considered going?
Does this sound like an anti-Christian "prick" to you?
Those "kooks" are the same people who coalesced around Reagan in 1980. People who are hungry for limited government and freedom.
Have all of you guys gone completely bat-s--t insane?
Don’t you ever get tired of schilling for this hypocrite. Man you make yourself look like a fool defending this nut.
He cries for term limits and has spent 18 years in Congress.
He whines for less spending and then inserts multi-millions in earmarks while refusing to vote for a bill he knows will pass.
Paul is the biggest hypocrite DC has ever seen.
If nothing else it should be entertaining watching GOP statists try to convince the libertarian part of their base to vote for Rudy/Huck aka Baby Killer/Nanny Stater 08 and not for the Libertarian candidate.
The same people who laughed at the leave me, my rights and my money alone libertarians will be begging and pleading for us to vote for their idiot GOP establishment nominee.
Good point, because in the general election every percentage point of Republican turnout will be essential to victory. Like it or not, whoever is the Republican candidate needs every one of the Republicans and independents who are supporting Ron Paul today to show up and vote Republican in November 2008.
“Shouldnt this disqualify him from being allowed to appear at the GOP debates? He doesnt deserve official sanction as a Republican if he is going to run against the party.
Sorry, that was a quote that I quoted from someone else. I wouldn’t disqualify Paul from the debates, but his own resolution if passed would have. The more he talks the worse off he is.
He is not running as a 3rd party or independent candidate. Both CNN and the Washington ComPost have completely taken his words out of context - AGAIN, and FReepers have knee-jerked and fell for it - AGAIN.
Dr. Paul doesn't believe in absolutes, which is why his real statement was this: "I have no intentions of running 3rd party, I'm 99.9% sure." He told his wife that he wouldn't run 3rd party, for God's sakes.
As far as the money, all of it is from individual donors across the political spectrum.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we dont each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path".
--Ronald Reagan
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.