If Ron Paul runs 3rd party what happens to his congressional campaign?

[misconstrued]

Can he run as a republican for the house while running a 3rd party presidential campaign? Anyone know the rules?

[misconstrued]

Anyone...?

[robert4rp08]

doubt it.

[RageAgainstDC]

who cares, really? noone in congress is listening to him anyway. the only way to make them listen is to run independent and seal the coffin on the gop. i mean think about, he's been in congress 20 years fighting this fight and we're still where we are today. it's obviously not the most productive way of bringing about the change we need. i would much rather see an independent run energize the movement and, just possibly, put ron in the white house than see him spend another 4 years in congress getting laughed at. we have to demonstrate our power. and independent run is how we do it.

[misconstrued]

who cares, really? noone in congress is listening to him anyway. the only way to make them listen is to run independent and seal the coffin on the gop. i mean think about, he's been in congress 20 years fighting this fight and we're still where we are today. it's obviously not the most productive way of bringing about the change we need. i would much rather see an independent run energize the movement and, just possibly, put ron in the white house than see him spend another 4 years in congress getting laughed at. we have to demonstrate our power. and independent run is how we do it.

I'm not saying he should or should not do anything. I'm just am curious what would happen. Obviously this will be a factor in what ever he ultimately decides to do.

[Rob]

Can he run as a republican for the house while running a 3rd party presidential campaign? Anyone know the rules?

No, he cannot. Unless he runs independent there too, which I think would be VERY unlikely, it's over for Ron Paul as Congressman.

[scooter]

Does anyone have an official ruling on this?

I don't see why he couldn't run independent for president and still run as a Republican for Congress. It's two totally different elections. As long as he was selected by the Republican primaries for Congress I don't see why he couldn't run.

[familydog]

No, he cannot. Unless he runs independent there too, which I think would be VERY unlikely, it's over for Ron Paul as Congressman.

Sweet. Now we have no one in congress to look up to.

[RageAgainstDC]

he didn't get anything done in 20 years in congress. it's not a huge loss. we need him leading the movement, not getting laughed at on the floor of the house by a bunch of neocons for another 4 years.

[Wyurm]

It's so wierd how Ron keeps saying "No" yet a few here keep hearing "definitely". Seems there is a serious disconnect there. Ron is going to keep his congressional seat.

[RageAgainstDC]

if ron gives up on us over keeping the congressional seat that hasn't accomplished shit to promote the message in 20 years, i will be very, very disappointed. like they say, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

[cjhowe]

Warning:Pure speculation.

There is no Democrat contender for his district's house seat. If he wins the Repub. nomination on March 4th and continues as a Republican until the party nominee filing deadline (can be found on the Texas SoS website) then if he were to go "independent" there would be no ballot access for a Republican or a Democrat. By state deadlines, he would likely have an (R) next to his name on the ballot even if he left the party in addition to no competition in November.

[amy31416]

he didn't get anything done in 20 years in congress. it's not a huge loss. we need him leading the movement, not getting laughed at on the floor of the house by a bunch of neocons for another 4 years.

I disagree. He was the one dissenting voice amongst so much insanity. While it may seem to you that it's not a huge loss, it is to me. We need the dissenting voice, the one who calls these people to task for what they're voting for, even if it seems nobody is listening.

Plus, in my opinion, it is also part of a longer-term strategy. How many people know what Ross Perot stood for anymore? How about Buchanan? There's us die-hards who remember, but it doesn't have a long-term effect.

In congress, Senate, mayors, governors, etc. I believe we need to be united and change things from the ground up. Having a "maverick" or "fringe" candidate get some limited popularity every four years will not get someone like Paul into the White House (don't even accuse me of "giving up on him" because I'm not.) With him still in Congress, and more like him being elected every cycle: Murray Sabrin, Jim Forsythe, Brett Sanders, etc. etc., then we will actually have a real shot next go-round.

It's about the message and us continuing to educate ourselves, educate others and watch those politicians like a hawk. We can't let them get away with this any longer and we can't dilute what we have. I am all for breaking the Republican party with my vote for Ron Paul, whether it be by write-in or actual vote.

[scooter]

If you think he didn't get anything done in Congress, read this.

http://www.dailyspoon.com/topics.aspx?ID=529

At the very least he at least turned some heads or made them feel stupid.

Wait... they probably just ignored this speech.

[Jeremy]

No, he cannot. Unless he runs independent there too, which I think would be VERY unlikely, it's over for Ron Paul as Congressman.

I think you mean over if he left the GOP.

[4Horsemen]

Paul staying in Congress isn't going to change anything. He'll just ignored by the media.:rolleyes:

[Maltheus]

If Hillary gets the nom, then he should dump the congressional seat. If Obama gets it, then he should stay. If we don't run 3rd party against a Hillary-McCain run, that'll do a lot to kill this freedom movement. People will be screaming for it and denying them would only plunge them back into apathy.

[hueylong]

It doesn't effect his congressional campaign at all.

[Maltheus]

It doesn't effect his congressional campaign at all.

I know people close to the campaign who all say that it does.