View Full Version : A bit too early but...

02-08-2008, 04:48 PM
While I feel this is premature because with Romney down the race has been completely altered, but I just want to throw this out there.

First, to the people who wish us to create a new third party or join an existing one and run as a presidential candidate on that ballot, I believe that doing so would work against us. The current third parties for presidential nominations have been destroyed by delusions of grandeur. They went straight for the presidency, didn't do very well and now no one believes they can win, so therefore they get less votes. This is also the reason why we should not create a third party to run for president, basically if Paul doesn't win a sizeable portion of the vote it is all for naught as subsequent elections have a much greater chance at having worse showings for that party. A new party, like any good movement, must come from the ground up, not from the top down.

Secondly, we do not want Paul to lose his congressional seat as a small voice in government is better than no voice, now I know he has won his district by a landslide these past few elections but if he were to announce his running outside the party right now, the GOP probably would not let him remain in his districts congressional primary. So this bodes well for us to wait until at least March when Texas votes to decide anything of this magnitude. Also, with only three candidates left, Paul could definitely win a few states allowing him to possibly get a bit of media coverage (if he wins, they may be forced to admit there are more than two people left running).

As a final note, almost any movement away from the national GOP may appear to people as Paul being a sore loser. Although we know better, you must remember that most Americans, and especially the conservatives that we want to side with us wont see it as a protest for reduced government and personal liberties but as an attack on the Republican party.

So what does that mean for us? Well first of all, nothing yet. We should definitely continue on trying to win the states in the Republican primaries/caucuses, this may (probably not) give us a bit of media coverage and if we are doing well enough we may consider going to the Republican National Convention to try to accomplish a brokered convention win. However the decision to do so should not come until later this month after a few more states have given their results.

If it does seem that McCain can lock up the nomination without a struggle, then we can mobilize with a solution that I believe can satisfy everyone. In starting, we create a third party that will run a number of candidates in state legislation districts where you have only a democrat running or only a republican. In addition the party will draft a single congressman to run under its banner for re-election to the house, that man will be Ron Paul. Paul will come out to his constituency with a speech stating that while he believes in the conservative movement in this country and generally sympathizes with the average Republican voter, the Republican party has been ignoring its commitments to local area citizens. And so Paul declares that this run will persuade the Republicans that they need to move back from their big government stances. With the overwhelming support that Paul enjoys from his district it will make it much easier to win as a third party, currently the Democrats have no one running in the 14th congressional district, so it will only be Paul and the Republican candidate, so with a bit of support for this congressional run he should win under a third party banner. This way we get media attention for being the first third party to get congressional representation in a long while as well as keep Paul in government.

The third party we create must remain compassionate to the conservatives however, which is why I stated they must only run in areas that have a single major party candidate running. This way people don't see them as a "spoiler" (I don't believe in the idea of a spoiler, but many Americans do). Also, for candidates that we support that are running under the Republican banner, we should encourage those supporting the party to work to give support to those candidates as well, make this about conservatives just having a difference in opinion and temper down a bit the assaults on the major parties (we can still do it, just make it seem more like friendly rivalry with the GOP, you can still attack the Dems). With enough candidates running against usually unopposed candidates for the major parties we could definitely garner enough support to make decent showings (this is doubly so in the places where we would be running against a Dem and getting all the conservative votes). We may even get a few people elected to our state legislatures.

Despite all this, I do not wish to take out Paul's presidential run. If Hillary gets the nomination we have a very good chance of actually winning, less so but still a moderate chance if it is Obama. However, a full on presidential run may alienate some of his district who could think he is abandoning them as well as some national voters who may think he is a sore loser. Therefore, Paul must move his rhetoric towards making his campaign about sparking a movement (yes, I know he already does this, but make it much more prominent and accessible to the common person). Paul should come out a say something like, "the people have spoken and charged me with a mission, to go out a spread the message of peace, liberty, and the constitution. I believe that everyone can agree that freedom is popular." He can run as an independent and garner much of the anti-war vote as well as the anti-big government vote, but if you make it primarily about the message, even those who may have issues with a Paul presidency would still vote for him to send that message to Washington.

Anyway, those are just my ideas. It allows us to work with the Republican party for change, while still trying to get Paul elected to president, and spark a state-side third party that who knows? Might be strong enough in a few years time to take congress. For those of you who read all this, I thank you.

02-08-2008, 05:21 PM
These are mostly pretty reasonable arguments. The only thing I can add is that if there's an independent run, it needs to start around May or June, simply because some states have ballot access deadlines in the summer needed to get him on the ballot.