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 ...
First line of the home page. As Hannity claims, we are Conservatives. About the only conservatives running on the Republican ticket are Fred and Duncan, since Tom Tancredo quit. So why are you expecting resounding support for those MSM weenies at the top of the republican polls?
I’m not expecting support for them. I’m just suggesting there is a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here, on the one hand attacking the leading GOP candidates, while on the other hand attacking someone for possibly running third party (putting aside his near-categorical denial).
Shhh, don't interupt a good bashing with facts: GOP candidate 99.9 percent certain he won't run on a third party ticket
Seriously, it's embarrassing to watch.
Keeper Of Odd Knowledge—A friggin’ KOOK! Ron Paul is one of this lodge’s founding fathers. He is a mess, and,unfortunately, I have seen more than a few of his bumper stickers on cars in the Midwest. Lord, please let this end soon!
Whether Paul goes 3rd party or not is irrelevant. The GOP in its current makeup does not have the votes to defeat Hillary in the general. That is a fact.
With Paul, all of the factions are united. There won't be any libertarians voting LP or constitutionalists voting for the CP in the general. Many independents and both the populist left and right would vote for Paul because of the war. And even the remaining portion of the GOP base (religious and pro-war conservatives) would still vote for Paul, because there's no way in Hell they're going to vote for Hillary.
So to say that Paul would hurt the Democrat more than the Republican in a three-way race is ludicrous. It's quite possible that Paul could win a three-way race as the sheer volume of voters will vote for him and negate both the remnants of the current base of the GOP and the hardcore left who'll vote for Hillary.
I think his most ardent supporters lately are former Democrats who like his anti-war, get America out of everywhere stand.
I believe he was a Libertarian until recently and only changed registration so he could get a ticket to ride the media coverage of the candidates.
Paul might take more hardcore anti-war types from the liberal wing of the Democratic party than any Republican constituency, with the exception of heavily libertarian-leaning Republicans whose likelihood of voting for another Republican candidate is iffy at best.
What a goofball.
I'm looking at this situation as if Hillary is the annointed Dem. She has to be crapping her boxers over the faint suggestion that RP might mount a third party run. Just look at it like this: between those two, the beast or paul, which is the most obviously anti-war? Along those lines, WHY all the Soros?? support/money? With all that money available, you think he won't run, and pull the entire moonbat ultraleft fringe with him? Hillary is way too hawkish on the war for half (or more) of her party.
All that having been said, much of what you say about Dem loyalty vs. Rep independence is true, one reason being that in the past, to have any say, you had to vote Dem, there was no Rep in many of the Southern states.(Primaries were where the action was.)
I just realized, it might just be a very lucrative investment to purchase at this time a life insurance policy on RP, if legal. (Maybe as good as certain cattle futures.)
I think Ross Perot had more going on between his ears than this guy.
That's a tough call.
Not hardly. Reagan was a true conservative. This nut is just a nut.
With Paul, all of the factions are united. There won't be any libertarians voting LP or constitutionalists voting for the CP in the general. Many independents and both the populist left and right would vote for Paul because of the war. And even the remaining portion of the GOP base (religious and pro-war conservatives) would still vote for Paul, because there's no way in Hell they're going to vote for Hillary."
Excellent post. I think there are a number of Republicans in denial about this, but it is so true that if we end up with a status-quo Republican as the nominee, we lose. Say hello to president Hildabeast. The numbers just aren't there.
I have no doubt that if the race came down to Paul vs Hillary, Paul will stomp Hillary. People are sick of Clintons/Bushes, they are sick of politicians who are sold out to other interests, they're sick of the status quo, they're sick of corruption, they want someone genuine and someone who isn't sold out.
Paul has not only the disgrunted Republicans, but independents, libertarians, third party conservatives are uniting behind him, plus crossover Democrats, AND a large number of new (previously apathetic) voters and young people who have never voted before. No one else has that. People can laugh at this if they want, but I honestly believe he is the ONLY one who can beat Hillary in the general, hands down. I'm going to repost what you said, because people need to get this...
"Whether Paul goes 3rd party or not is irrelevant. The GOP in its current makeup does not have the votes to defeat Hillary in the general. That is a fact."
Ron Paul running as a independent will have a lesser impact than who we end up nominating does.
LOL, well it certainly is interesting, I don’t quite know what to make of it.
You must’ve watched Meet The Press yesterday.
The term limits thing wasn’t an issue I heard anywhere until yesterday (although the earmarks was an issue here).
I believe Paul’s position on term limits was that there should be term limits, but he wasn’t going to pledge to limit his own terms. In my opinion, a completely non-controversial position.
I suspect you would agree, so I won’t bother making the argument.
To expand on your sentiments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1940361/posts?page=17#17
You might want to do a little research. He was a Libertarian for about a year around 1988. He’s a 10 term Republican Congressman from Texas.
Like putting lipstick on a pig! We who fund all this crap are tired of it. What it's called doesn't matter. A pig is still a pig.
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.