PDA

View Full Version : Can Ron Paul Control The GOP By Threatening To Run As An Independent?




anaconda
04-17-2010, 03:31 AM
Interesting talk about strategy. This Fox contributor wonders if the GOP might give the nomination to RP if he refrains from running as an independent. I have now finally began to wonder if he could split the Republican vote and hand the 2012 election to democrats very easily?

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/cody/2010/04/16/codytwit-ron-paul-vs-obama-buy-this-tech-stock-and-i-told-you-goldman-would-get-prosecuted-for-fraud/

speciallyblend
04-17-2010, 08:16 AM
well if the gop wants votes. they better make sure Ron Paul 2012 HAPPENS. If the gop tries to pull what they did in 2008. They can wrote this election off!!!!! Ron Paul CANDIDATES 2010 , Ron Paul 2012!!! the gop better get with the program or be left at the station!!

ChaosControl
04-17-2010, 08:35 AM
The GOP would rather Obama win again than Ron Paul, they'd just say "go for it" rather than put any sanity into the crappy party.

Agorism
04-17-2010, 08:36 AM
I'm sure he could, but it would detrimental to recruiting new Paul fans. The reason is most GOP voters are primarily focused on defeating the dems.

If Paul becomes more a of a destructive force rather than someone running in the primary, people will stop considering him.

If people want to vote a protest vote in a general election there are plenty of options: Constitution part, libertarian party, stay home, write in candidate, etc.

tmosley
04-17-2010, 08:45 AM
If he runs as an independent, it would be the start of a new party, and the Republican party would be torn apart. The Dems would have a good chance at 8 or so more years of rule before the new party consolidated enough power that the rest of the Republicans jumped ship either to the new party or to the Democrats.

sratiug
04-17-2010, 08:52 AM
Does he have to agree to be on the ballot for another party, or can he be placed there anyway? If he were already on the ballot for the constitution or libertarian parties around the country could he still run for the republican nomination?

dr. hfn
04-17-2010, 08:55 AM
if we don't get the nomination, ron needs to run independent

jabf2006
04-17-2010, 08:55 AM
If Ron Paul runs independent, the GOP would ensure to run a Ron Paul-esque candidate in rhetoric only with the expectation to lose but the effort to minimize defectors.

dr. hfn
04-17-2010, 09:00 AM
If Ron Paul runs independent, the GOP would ensure to run an Ron Paul-esque candidate in rhetoric only with the expectation to lose but the effort to minimize defectors.

it would also punish the GOP and yes you're right it would pull them to our side further, we would be influencing the environment

jabf2006
04-17-2010, 09:12 AM
Chances are the repubs will bring out an individual that talks anti-establishment, but will still support the Repugs neo-con foreign policy. Because of this, Paul would bring very few repubs over to his independent run that do not already out-right support him.

zach
04-17-2010, 09:22 AM
If Ron Paul runs independent, the GOP would ensure to run a Ron Paul-esque candidate in rhetoric only with the expectation to lose but the effort to minimize defectors.

Who, Sarah Palin? :p

Agorism
04-17-2010, 09:31 AM
No, Paul doesn't need to run as an independent. He needs to run within he existing primary system

sratiug
04-17-2010, 09:38 AM
No, Paul doesn't need to run as an independent. He needs to run within he existing primary system

Why not do both if it is possible? The repubs already know he will not endorse a neocon republican nominee. If he was already on the ballot for a 3rd party in the general election and running in the republican primary the republicans would be threatened with their own extinction if they don't make major concessions on war and sound money to gain his endorsement. It could even gain him the nomination.

All is fair in love and war. They think he is too weak, why not give them a fight and show that's bullshit.

jabf2006
04-17-2010, 09:52 AM
I work techsupport for a company....talking to a lead IT guy within the a department in the US government...this guy worked on Obama's transition team, worked for Reagan...he seems to think a Paul/Romney ticket would have beat Obama in 08...even though he's an Obama supporter.

TER
04-17-2010, 10:01 AM
i was thinking this same thought last night.

I think it is clear to us at least and likely to a growing number of republican leaders that Ron Paul is the BEST chance of beating Obama since he would attract independents and democrats more so than Palin or Romney or anyone else I can think of.

If the GOP knows this and STILL fights tooth and nail through the dirty tactics they played in the 2008 elections to shun and discredit Ron Paul, there is no alternative in my mind than for RP to run independent and systematically destroy the GOP. Would this hand Obama a victory? It likely would. But it would give the GOP 4 more years to rid itself of its neocon warmongering filth, allow Ron Paul republicans more time to infiltrate local and national positions of leadership, and open the opportunity for other parties to have more influence in the debates and the elections.

Ron Paul must run, either to the glory of the GOP or to its demise. The people can't wait forever.

KramerDSP
04-17-2010, 10:14 AM
i was thinking this same thought last night.

I think it is clear to us at least and likely to a growing number of republican leaders that Ron Paul is the BEST chance of beating Obama since he would attract independents and democrats more so than Palin or Romney or anyone else I can think of.

If the GOP knows this and STILL fights tooth and nail through the dirty tactics they played in the 2008 elections to shun and discredit Ron Paul, there is no alternative in my mind than for RP to run independent and systematically destroy the GOP. Would this hand Obama a victory? It likely would. But it would give the GOP 4 more years to rid itself of its neocon warmongering filth, allow those Ron Paul republicans more time infiltrate local and national positions of leadership, and other parties to have more influence in the debates and the elections.

Ron Paul must run, either to the glory of the GOP or to its demise. The people can't wait forever.

I agree. But I'm starting to think Ron Paul really doesn't want to run. I think he is more content with the idea of his son becoming President in 2016 or 2020 than he himself running for POTUS at the age of 77.

If he does decide to run, and I could easily see him grudgingly agreeing to go all-in once more, but this time to win, the thing that I keep going back to is the fact that virtually every one of us agree that the Democrats and the Republicans are just two wings of the same vulture. It's almost like they take turns playing the roles of good cop/bad cop every 4 or 8 years. Knowing this, or at least believing this to be true, the same special interests control both parties. Therefore, the powerful officials in both parties are beholden to the same special interests, who decide how things will be.

Why did Romney back out in 2008? He would have crushed McCain in the general election. Someone said to him "it's not your time". The same someone (abstractly speaking in a plural sense) simply will not allow anyone remotely like RP to come within sniffing distance. That's why I knew Obama was a fraud. If that was Ron Paul in Barack Obama's body, Obama would have never been president. I feel the GOP and DNC are too entrenched and beholden, and that no matter what the people do, tricks and shams will be played all over the country in local GOP meetings.

I just hope I am wrong and that we don't expend so much energy fighting a stubborn and difficult GOP that we don't have enough left over for Round II, if need be.

TER
04-17-2010, 10:22 AM
I just hope I am wrong and that we don't expend so much energy fighting a stubborn and difficult GOP that we don't have enough left over for Round II, if need be.

As much as we would love for this movement to become the new political reality of the 21st century quickly and easily, we know it will not. As you stated, the two major parties are too powerful and the special interests too well entrenched to allow that to happen. This movement will have to grow through the grassroots and infiltrate the entire political arena slowly and diligently through local town and state elections. The seed has been planted, the sprouts are beginning to form, but the flower of the liberty movement is still time away. It will requite much watering, pruning, sunlight, and rain before we can sit back and enjoy the beauty of its brilliance.

Are we up to the challenge? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!!

KramerDSP
04-17-2010, 10:24 AM
The other thing I am keeping an eye out for is the fact that the proponents of Big Government may be willing to take a few steps backwards in order to achieve their long-term goals. What I mean by this is that if it seems like the wheels are being greased for a Ron Paul 2012 run (the timing of the Rasmussen Poll in particular, who bought it, why it ran, why those questions were asked, and so forth remains somewhat suspicious/unclear to me). If the goal we have all worked on actually becomes achieved, we're looking at the 45'th President of the United States, Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D.

Sorry, I had to re-read that last sentence :D The thing is, the people holding up the economy by a thread could just let all hell break loose during an RP presidency, and nobody here can eliminate the possibility that there would be a very strong effort to connect everything RP stands for as being responsible for the chaos swirling around in the country doing his presidency. I feel like I'm not explaining myself well enough, but I think most of you get the gist. Would it be within the realm of possibility that the special interests really controlling this country would grease the wheels enough to see an RP presidency and a collapse that would be blamed on him and his ideas actually being the best thing to end up meeting their long-term goals?

TER
04-17-2010, 10:30 AM
is it possible? Sure. But I don't they would take such a risk. They would much rather avoid it all together. But you can bet anything that when Ron Paul does become president, they will then do what you mentioned. Whoever thinks a Ron Paul presidency is going to be easy or even fun will be in for a rude awakening. It will entail alot of pain and hollers for impeachment not unlike what we hear for every president. You can't believe cutting the federal goverment down and putting a multitude of government employees out of work will not have some serious consequences. Ron Paul's presidency will not be thought of as the spark of the American Renaissance until years afterwards... IMHO

KramerDSP
04-17-2010, 10:37 AM
is it possible? Sure. But I don't they would take such a risk. They would much rather avoid it all together. But you can bet anything that when Ron Paul does become president, they will then do what you mentioned. Whoever thinks a Ron Paul presidency is going to be easy or even fun will be in for a rude awakening. It will entail alot of pain and hollers for impeachment not unlike what we hear for every president. You can't believe cutting the federal goverment down and putting a multitude of government employees out of work will not have some serious consequences. Ron Paul's presidency will not be thought of as the spark of the American Renaissance until years afterwards... IMHO

You're probably absolutely right. But at least he would have the bully pulpit and the Mainstream Media would HAVE to cover him as he explained every step of the way why so and so is happening.

Peace&Freedom
04-17-2010, 10:39 AM
Paul should definitely not promise he will not run on an independent line---he did that in 2008, and did it get him better treatment by the Republican leadership? He should say "he's keeping his options open" precisely to control the GOP from choosing another neocon, and going down in flames come November when Paul responds by going independent. There must be pain associated with shunning Paul a second time, and the 3rd party threat provides him that leverage.

Better for Paul to win the early primaries, try to lock of the GOP presidential nomination by early February, take a few weeks to win the Congressional primary to retain his House seat in March 2012, then decide if he will also pursue the LP and CP line as well. If he goes for the 3rd party lines as well, it will benefit the liberty movement for years, regardless of whether he wins the election, because a 5% showing in each state on the LP/CP line will give that party permanent ballot status in most states, making it immensely easier to run liberty candidates in most of the country.

One last issue is whether the 'sour grapes' or spoiler laws in the crucial states of Texas and Ohio will prevent Paul from running on the presidential ballot on multiple lines. If he doesn't win the Republican nod and goes independent, he will have to win by near landslide margins across the rest of the country to make up for not being on the ballot in Texas and Ohio. Whatever the scenario, in 2012, I mainly agree with TodaysEpistleReading, 'Ron Paul must run, either to the glory of Liberty, or to its demise.'

johnrocks
04-17-2010, 10:46 AM
The GOP would rather Obama win again than Ron Paul, they'd just say "go for it" rather than put any sanity into the crappy party.

Pretty much my thoughts. He should run in the GOP primaries again and hopefully bring more freedom lovers on board .

speciallyblend
04-17-2010, 12:04 PM
if the gop doesn't nominate Ron Paul 2012. I will have to look elsewhere. What the gop is trying to sell us is not worth a dam except Ron Paul 2012!! this is really not up to the gop or Ron Paul anymore. It is about reality. The Gop has to earn my vote and after many yrs of corruption and lies within the gop! They have dug their own holes! I am more then willing to build bridges for the gop but not if they are gonna blow them up! I have to see signs the gop is willing to build them not blow them up!!! Ron Paul 2012 will happen with or without the gop! The gop should expect no less after all the unethical,corrupt and down right dirty actions they have taken the last few election cycles!! The Line Has Been Drawn In The Sand by the gops own actions! if they want to cry fowl they only have to look in the mirror!! they can either get with the program or get out of the way!!

South Park Fan
04-17-2010, 01:02 PM
There is a middle ground here. Even though Ron Paul technically didn't go third-party in 2008, activists still put his name on the ballot in Louisiana and Montana, and gave him write-in status in California. And that was done less than two months before the election and with only Paul's passive consent. If we start the effort two years ahead of time instead of two months ahead of time, by gathering signatures, paying any fees, finding electors, etc., we could probably put Paul's name on most states' ballots in case he doesn't win the GOP nod.

silentshout
04-17-2010, 01:09 PM
The GOP would rather Obama win again than Ron Paul, they'd just say "go for it" rather than put any sanity into the crappy party.

I agree. Also, for however much the GOP whines about despising Obama, I think most of the GOP establishment would prefer Obama with his nation-building ideals over a non-interventionist like Paul.

itshappening
04-17-2010, 01:52 PM
Ron should run as an independent and ensure an Obama victory if he doesn't get the nomination so Sen. Rand Paul can take it next time

he would have to stand down from congress though but he's getting to 80 and he might think the nuclear option is the best thing to do

There is also a chance that if the economy sucks and people are fed up he can win on the LP ticket

dr. hfn
04-17-2010, 02:08 PM
The CP and LP should endorse Ron

AJ Antimony
04-17-2010, 03:37 PM
I think some of you may be clueless.

Let me see if I understand what some of you are saying...

You want Ron Paul to run Republican in 2012, then when he comes up short, you again want him to run third party. You want this despite the fact that for the past 2 years Ron Paul has been actively trying to get all his supporters to enter the GOP and influence it from within. You want him to run third party even though that would ENTIRELY undo everything that his supporters have done the past 2 years.

You want to throw away everything since 2008 JUST so Ron Paul can get 5% of the general election vote?

That's not clueless. That's retarded.

itshappening
04-17-2010, 04:11 PM
I think some of you may be clueless.

Let me see if I understand what some of you are saying...

You want Ron Paul to run Republican in 2012, then when he comes up short, you again want him to run third party. You want this despite the fact that for the past 2 years Ron Paul has been actively trying to get all his supporters to enter the GOP and influence it from within. You want him to run third party even though that would ENTIRELY undo everything that his supporters have done the past 2 years.

You want to throw away everything since 2008 JUST so Ron Paul can get 5% of the general election vote?

That's not clueless. That's retarded.


I would rather have Obama than a neocon like Romney if he is the nominee then Rand Paul can run in 2016. Think long term.

sratiug
04-17-2010, 04:24 PM
I think some of you may be clueless.

Let me see if I understand what some of you are saying...

You want Ron Paul to run Republican in 2012, then when he comes up short, you again want him to run third party. You want this despite the fact that for the past 2 years Ron Paul has been actively trying to get all his supporters to enter the GOP and influence it from within. You want him to run third party even though that would ENTIRELY undo everything that his supporters have done the past 2 years.

You want to throw away everything since 2008 JUST so Ron Paul can get 5% of the general election vote?

That's not clueless. That's retarded.

That's not what I want. I want him already on the ballots in all 50 states, for the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the TEA Party or any other party that will nominate him before he runs for the Republican nomination.

Let the Repubs know what's going on.
Ron Paul - accept no substitute. A real statesman for 2012.

parocks
04-17-2010, 04:37 PM
You're saying that the bankers in charge would let Ron Paul win, then screw with America and then blame Ron Paul.

Well, if Ron Paul won, I would assume that's what the bankers would do. But I don't know that the bankers would put him there.


The other thing I am keeping an eye out for is the fact that the proponents of Big Government may be willing to take a few steps backwards in order to achieve their long-term goals. What I mean by this is that if it seems like the wheels are being greased for a Ron Paul 2012 run (the timing of the Rasmussen Poll in particular, who bought it, why it ran, why those questions were asked, and so forth remains somewhat suspicious/unclear to me). If the goal we have all worked on actually becomes achieved, we're looking at the 45'th President of the United States, Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D.

Sorry, I had to re-read that last sentence :D The thing is, the people holding up the economy by a thread could just let all hell break loose during an RP presidency, and nobody here can eliminate the possibility that there would be a very strong effort to connect everything RP stands for as being responsible for the chaos swirling around in the country doing his presidency. I feel like I'm not explaining myself well enough, but I think most of you get the gist. Would it be within the realm of possibility that the special interests really controlling this country would grease the wheels enough to see an RP presidency and a collapse that would be blamed on him and his ideas actually being the best thing to end up meeting their long-term goals?

parocks
04-17-2010, 04:39 PM
You are correct.


I think some of you may be clueless.

Let me see if I understand what some of you are saying...

You want Ron Paul to run Republican in 2012, then when he comes up short, you again want him to run third party. You want this despite the fact that for the past 2 years Ron Paul has been actively trying to get all his supporters to enter the GOP and influence it from within. You want him to run third party even though that would ENTIRELY undo everything that his supporters have done the past 2 years.

You want to throw away everything since 2008 JUST so Ron Paul can get 5% of the general election vote?

That's not clueless. That's retarded.

phill4paul
04-17-2010, 05:09 PM
I think some of you may be clueless.

Let me see if I understand what some of you are saying...

You want Ron Paul to run Republican in 2012, then when he comes up short, you again want him to run third party. You want this despite the fact that for the past 2 years Ron Paul has been actively trying to get all his supporters to enter the GOP and influence it from within. You want him to run third party even though that would ENTIRELY undo everything that his supporters have done the past 2 years.

You want to throw away everything since 2008 JUST so Ron Paul can get 5% of the general election vote?

That's not clueless. That's retarded.

Perhaps RP wanted those that follow his beliefs to get inside the Repub party and sway those that are truly conservative in to his corner? 33% is becoming a very favorable option once you get past the "It's only a two party system rhetoric."
It is ridiculous at this point to conjecture on the state of the nation and the public sentiment in 2012.
We're in for a world of hurt. ALL that hurt will be created by the two parties currently experiencing a duopoly.

AJ Antimony
04-18-2010, 03:35 AM
I would rather have Obama than a neocon like Romney if he is the nominee then Rand Paul can run in 2016. Think long term.

And that answers my comment how?

AJ Antimony
04-18-2010, 03:42 AM
That's not what I want. I want him already on the ballots in all 50 states, for the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the TEA Party or any other party that will nominate him before he runs for the Republican nomination.

Let the Repubs know what's going on.
Ron Paul - accept no substitute. A real statesman for 2012.

That's the most absurd idea I've ever heard. Hint: if it worked, everyone would do it

The shocking truth is that if you want the Republican Party to nominate RP then you have to join, show up, and support him.

AJ Antimony
04-18-2010, 03:46 AM
Perhaps RP wanted those that follow his beliefs to get inside the Repub party and sway those that are truly conservative in to his corner? 33% is becoming a very favorable option once you get past the "It's only a two party system rhetoric."
It is ridiculous at this point to conjecture on the state of the nation and the public sentiment in 2012.
We're in for a world of hurt. ALL that hurt will be created by the two parties currently experiencing a duopoly.

I don't really understand what you're saying, but yeah, it's still a retarded idea to go third party.

anaconda
04-18-2010, 03:48 AM
If Ron Paul runs independent, the GOP would ensure to run a Ron Paul-esque candidate in rhetoric only with the expectation to lose but the effort to minimize defectors.

Interesting..

sratiug
04-18-2010, 03:49 AM
That's the most absurd idea I've ever heard. Hint: if it worked, everyone would do it

The shocking truth is that if you want the Republican Party to nominate RP then you have to join, show up, and support him.

Don't just tell me it's absurd, tell me what law prevents it from happening. Ron Paul is obviously the best candidate for the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the TEA Party and the Republican Party, so it is not absurd in any way shape or form.

anaconda
04-18-2010, 03:54 AM
I work techsupport for a company....talking to a lead IT guy within the a department in the US government...this guy worked on Obama's transition team, worked for Reagan...he seems to think a Paul/Romney ticket would have beat Obama in 08...even though he's an Obama supporter.

I think he's thinking of Ron Paul in terms of his current popularity, not his 2008 popularity, when he wasn't as widely known. Paul would not have accepted the party talking points. It would not have been a viable ticket.

anaconda
04-18-2010, 03:57 AM
The OP was not about how RP would perform as an independent, but how much power he might have in the GOP with simply the threat of his running as an independent holding them hostage?

Peace&Freedom
04-18-2010, 05:46 AM
That's the most absurd idea I've ever heard. Hint: if it worked, everyone would do it

The shocking truth is that if you want the Republican Party to nominate RP then you have to join, show up, and support him.

What's more absurd and shocking is trying to make any meaningful reform happen in the GOP, which has failed for 80 years to reverse any aspect of the welfare-warfare state. Every movement that genuinely threatens to inflict pain on Republicans to get them to reform from within has gotten infiltrated and co-opted by its leadership---the Tea party being the latest example. Everybody DIDN'T go third party, they instead bought the seductive moonshine of "reforming the Republican party" for decades, and got nowhere.

The goal is not to revive the corpse that is the GOP, but to use its status as a major party to leverage the election of alternative (liberty) candidates and pass pro-liberty legislation. Where we can find Ron Paul Democrats, we should use that party to leverage them into office as well. This is the way out of the major party--'compromised, so no progress' ghetto, as opposed to the third party--'marginalized, so no progress' ghetto. Run where it's realistic to do so for a major party's nomination, on a third party principled platform (the Paul template of 2007-8).

It will still be rough going, but this way we should be able to elect a Rand Paul here or there who will change policy, as opposed to electing nobody, or mounting up another 80 years of legislative failure. To repeat, WE HAVE TO INFLICT PAIN ON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS FOR REJECTING LIBERTY, OR THEY WILL JUST CO-OPT US YET AGAIN. That's why Paul needs to keep the third party threat alive, and certainly exercise it if denied the nomination yet again. Re-read an excellent recent column related to this by Gary North on LRC:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north833.html

ninepointfive
04-18-2010, 05:55 AM
The OP was not about how RP would perform as an independent, but how much power he might have in the GOP with simply the threat of his running as an independent holding them hostage?

I think he can, but it will be an interesting line to walk. I can't say I have the best idea on how to go about it.

Other people have brought up that for now, working in the GOP is paying dividends in a number of different races.

sratiug
04-18-2010, 06:15 AM
What's more absurd and shocking is trying to make any meaningful reform happen in the GOP, which has failed for 80 years to reverse any aspect of the welfare-warfare state. Every movement that genuinely threatens to inflict pain on Republicans to get them to reform from within has gotten infiltrated and co-opted by its leadership---the Tea party being the latest example. Everybody DIDN'T go third party, they instead bought the seductive moonshine of "reforming the Republican party" for decades, and got nowhere.

The goal is not to revive the corpse that is the GOP, but to use its status as a major party to leverage the election of alternative (liberty) candidates and pass pro-liberty legislation. Where we can find Ron Paul Democrats, we should use that party to leverage them into office as well. This is the way out of the major party--'compromised, so no progress' ghetto, as opposed to the third party--'marginalized, so no progress' ghetto. Run where it's realistic to do so for a major party's nomination, on a third party principled platform (the Paul template of 2007-8).

It will still be rough going, but this way we should be able to elect a Rand Paul here or there who will change policy, as opposed to electing nobody, or mounting up another 80 years of legislative failure. To repeat, WE HAVE TO INFLICT PAIN ON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS FOR REJECTING LIBERTY, OR THEY WILL JUST CO-OPT US YET AGAIN. That's why Paul needs to keep the third party threat alive, and certainly exercise it if denied the nomination yet again. Re-read an excellent recent column related to this by Gary North on LRC:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north833.html

Thank you! But if it is possible, I think it is better to make the 3rd party candidacy very real by being their nominee BEFORE the republican primaries.

Does anyone know if this is possible?

ninepointfive
04-18-2010, 06:36 AM
Thank you! But if it is possible, I think it is better to make the 3rd party candidacy very real by being their nominee BEFORE the republican primaries.

Does anyone know if this is possible?

Not possible. Parties and states have rules about "sore loser" candidacies which prevent a person from seeking the nomination of more than one party.

Having an Independent strategy which simmers in the background could make an Independent run a real possibility, and something to position with.

torchbearer
04-18-2010, 06:40 AM
no.

pcosmar
04-18-2010, 08:21 AM
No,
The GOP "leadership" is the same as the DNC leadership. The same people. With the same agenda.
You need to accept that Dr.Paul will not be allowed to end their strangle hold on politics.
Both parties are run by the same people with the same agenda.
A true victory would be to awaken a majority of Americans to that fact.

I have no doubt that if he was to truly "force their hand" they would simply kill him.
:(

speciallyblend
04-18-2010, 08:32 AM
honestly we are beyond threats. I am In Promise MODE, Ron Paul Candidates 2010 and Ron Paul 2012. If the gop wants to win in 2012. they better nominate their only viable option left!! Ron Paul 2012!!

as far as i am concerned the gop backed themselves into this corner!! The gop will be begging Ron Paul to Run in 2012 or the gop will be basically handing obama 2nd Term. If the gop wants to win in 2012. They have to have credibility to WIN and that is RON PAUL 2012 with or without the gop!!! the gop better see the writing on the walls after blowing up bridges for the last 12 yrs!!

Peace&Freedom
04-18-2010, 09:31 AM
Not possible. Parties and states have rules about "sore loser" candidacies which prevent a person from seeking the nomination of more than one party.

Having an Independent strategy which simmers in the background could make an Independent run a real possibility, and something to position with.

There are only 4 states with sore loser laws, though two of them are huge (TX and OH). The party rules apply if a candidate makes the commitment to go 3rd party before locking up the major nomination, so it may cause Paul difficulties there. If Paul is denied the nomination, which should be cleared up by February 2012, all bets are off, and he should easily get the CP nod in April and LP nod in May 2012.

I tend to think even as the prospective Republican nominee Paul should then be in position to bend GOP rules and take a 3rd party line without a big hassle. Without at least threatening to go independent I don't think Paul or the liberty movement stands a chance of getting the establishment to budge.

KramerDSP
04-18-2010, 11:00 AM
No,
The GOP "leadership" is the same as the DNC leadership. The same people. With the same agenda.
You need to accept that Dr.Paul will not be allowed to end their strangle hold on politics.
Both parties are run by the same people with the same agenda.
A true victory would be to awaken a majority of Americans to that fact.

I have no doubt that if he was to truly "force their hand" they would simply kill him.
:(

I am in the camp of those who think that a third party run would likely be unfeasible, but I am also in the camp that thinks no matter how much we try to work within the GOP for reform, the people at the very top (the ones that supposedly forced 41 as Reagan's Veep and ordered Romney to step aside and allow McCain a clear, unobstructed path to winning the primary) are going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Simple as that. All I am asking is that we be realistic. If the GOP pulls the same tricks on RP that they did in 2008 (not allowing him on debates, openly laughing at him, mocking him, marginalizing him at every turn), how can I "grin and bear it" and continue to support reform with the GOP? It's tantamount to being a hypocrite, IMHO. We either show the GOP that we're not going to back down on our insistence that the RP wing of the party be welcomed and accepted within the GOP (edited to add - or we do as we are told and go sit in the corner, hoping the promises they make to appease us will actually be honored one of those years down the road.)

Regarding your last sentence, I'm not so sure about that. I think the blowback from anything even mildly suspicious will be immense and enormous. I mean, most folks think he's one of the healthiest elderly men they've seen, so even a natural cause would be viewed with suspicion by many. I feel weird talking about this, though.

South Park Fan
04-18-2010, 11:57 AM
There are only 4 states with sore loser laws, though two of them are huge (TX and OH). The party rules apply if a candidate makes the commitment to go 3rd party before locking up the major nomination, so it may cause Paul difficulties there. If Paul is denied the nomination, which should be cleared up by February 2012, all bets are off, and he should easily get the CP nod in April and LP nod in May 2012.

I tend to think even as the prospective Republican nominee Paul should then be in position to bend GOP rules and take a 3rd party line without a big hassle. Without at least threatening to go independent I don't think Paul or the liberty movement stands a chance of getting the establishment to budge.

And even in those four states, we could easily circumvent the process by nominating Ron Paul, Jr. as the candidate.

peacepotpaul
04-18-2010, 11:58 AM
looks like people never give up on third party questions

anaconda
04-18-2010, 01:06 PM
There is a middle ground here. Even though Ron Paul technically didn't go third-party in 2008, activists still put his name on the ballot in Louisiana and Montana, and gave him write-in status in California. And that was done less than two months before the election and with only Paul's passive consent. If we start the effort two years ahead of time instead of two months ahead of time, by gathering signatures, paying any fees, finding electors, etc., we could probably put Paul's name on most states' ballots in case he doesn't win the GOP nod.


Amazingly interesting concept. This would theoretically take Ron off the hook.

fj45lvr
04-18-2010, 01:12 PM
The GOP has to be worried about that happening for sure, but remember lying to people is the FIRST thing to know when being a political party or candidate (so the GOP will "say anything" and then once they get what they wanted they will do what they wanted).

Constitutional Liberty loving members can vote as a block and assure that the GOP never gets power again because of their lying ways without any integrity (what they deserve).


You can call yourself anything you want but it doesn't change what you actually are.

sratiug
04-18-2010, 01:18 PM
Sore loser laws sound like they wouldn't apply to a winner. Does the Republican Party not allow Republicans to nominate a candidate already nominated by other parties or already on the ballot in 50 states? Couldn't the Libertarian and Constitution Party conventions be moved ahead of the Republican Primaries if they wanted?

anaconda
04-18-2010, 01:26 PM
No,
The GOP "leadership" is the same as the DNC leadership. The same people. With the same agenda.
You need to accept that Dr.Paul will not be allowed to end their strangle hold on politics.
Both parties are run by the same people with the same agenda.
A true victory would be to awaken a majority of Americans to that fact.

I have no doubt that if he was to truly "force their hand" they would simply kill him.
:(

But I think many people are awakening to this. I think you might be surprised at how many of these "leadership" types start running for cover when the they can no longer keep plugging the new leaks in the dam. The levee is starting to break, and when it does the resistance my ultimately be less than what you would expect. Kind of like the Berlin Wall coming down. Or, maybe WW1..while it was expected for a long time, when it actually started it caught everyone by surprise.

anaconda
04-18-2010, 01:29 PM
Sore loser laws sound like they wouldn't apply to a winner. Does the Republican Party not allow Republicans to nominate a candidate already nominated by other parties or already on the ballot in 50 states? Couldn't the Libertarian and Constitution Party conventions be moved ahead of the Republican Primaries if they wanted?


Damn there are some really interesting and brilliant posts on this thread!

This is yet another great point. You are a smart individual, sratiug!

Smitty
04-18-2010, 01:29 PM
The two dominant political parties are owned and controlled power structures.

Those who own them will never allow them to be taken over.

The best the liberty movement can do concerning the republican party is to end its viability so that a conservative, liberty oriented party can take it's place.

As long as liberty minded people continue to cast their lot with the GOP, it will remain viable and it will continue to be a vehicle which benefits those who own and control it.

pcosmar
04-18-2010, 01:31 PM
But I think many people are awakening to this. I think you might be surprised at how many of these "leadership" types start running for cover when the they can no longer keep plugging the new leaks in the dam.

People need to stop seeing them as "leadership". They are not supposed to be leadership.

They are supposed to be representatives.

very few represent me. :(

AJ Antimony
04-18-2010, 01:34 PM
Don't just tell me it's absurd, tell me what law prevents it from happening. Ron Paul is obviously the best candidate for the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the TEA Party and the Republican Party, so it is not absurd in any way shape or form.

Why would the third parties waste all their money putting a guy on the ballot whose just going to say no and run Republican?

Why would volunteers and donors waste all their time and money collecting signatures to put a guy on the ballot who is just going to run Republican and not even use the third party ballot access?

It just makes absolutely no practical sense.

AJ Antimony
04-18-2010, 01:46 PM
What's more absurd and shocking is trying to make any meaningful reform happen in the GOP, which has failed for 80 years to reverse any aspect of the welfare-warfare state. Every movement that genuinely threatens to inflict pain on Republicans to get them to reform from within has gotten infiltrated and co-opted by its leadership---the Tea party being the latest example. Everybody DIDN'T go third party, they instead bought the seductive moonshine of "reforming the Republican party" for decades, and got nowhere.

The goal is not to revive the corpse that is the GOP, but to use its status as a major party to leverage the election of alternative (liberty) candidates and pass pro-liberty legislation. Where we can find Ron Paul Democrats, we should use that party to leverage them into office as well. This is the way out of the major party--'compromised, so no progress' ghetto, as opposed to the third party--'marginalized, so no progress' ghetto. Run where it's realistic to do so for a major party's nomination, on a third party principled platform (the Paul template of 2007-8).

It will still be rough going, but this way we should be able to elect a Rand Paul here or there who will change policy, as opposed to electing nobody, or mounting up another 80 years of legislative failure. To repeat, WE HAVE TO INFLICT PAIN ON ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS FOR REJECTING LIBERTY, OR THEY WILL JUST CO-OPT US YET AGAIN. That's why Paul needs to keep the third party threat alive, and certainly exercise it if denied the nomination yet again. Re-read an excellent recent column related to this by Gary North on LRC:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north833.html

Lol, third parties don't inflict pain! Republicans aren't going to care if a Ron Paul candidate runs against them as a third party. Let him get his 2%. You deliver pain by running against them IN THE PRIMARY.

AJ Antimony
04-18-2010, 01:52 PM
I am in the camp of those who think that a third party run would likely be unfeasible, but I am also in the camp that thinks no matter how much we try to work within the GOP for reform, the people at the very top (the ones that supposedly forced 41 as Reagan's Veep and ordered Romney to step aside and allow McCain a clear, unobstructed path to winning the primary) are going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Simple as that. All I am asking is that we be realistic. If the GOP pulls the same tricks on RP that they did in 2008 (not allowing him on debates, openly laughing at him, mocking him, marginalizing him at every turn), how can I "grin and bear it" and continue to support reform with the GOP? It's tantamount to being a hypocrite, IMHO. We either show the GOP that we're not going to back down on our insistence that the RP wing of the party be welcomed and accepted within the GOP (edited to add - or we do as we are told and go sit in the corner, hoping the promises they make to appease us will actually be honored one of those years down the road.)

Regarding your last sentence, I'm not so sure about that. I think the blowback from anything even mildly suspicious will be immense and enormous. I mean, most folks think he's one of the healthiest elderly men they've seen, so even a natural cause would be viewed with suspicion by many. I feel weird talking about this, though.

The only reason the GOP pulls that shit at the top if because not enough of us have joined and elected BETTER leaders.

anaconda
04-18-2010, 01:56 PM
The GOP has to be worried about that happening for sure, but remember lying to people is the FIRST thing to know when being a political party or candidate (so the GOP will "say anything" and then once they get what they wanted they will do what they wanted).

Constitutional Liberty loving members can vote as a block and assure that the GOP never gets power again because of their lying ways without any integrity (what they deserve).


You can call yourself anything you want but it doesn't change what you actually are.

Exactly. This has been my position all along. Campaign for the libertarian Republican then withhold our votes in the general election and perpetually sink the GOP establishment. I suppose if we get big enough we can simply form a party and coast to victory. This could possibly be as soon as 2012. A lot can happen in a short period of time. I think we are shifting into a very dynamic period.

pcosmar
04-18-2010, 01:57 PM
The only reason the GOP pulls that shit at the top if because not enough of us have joined and elected BETTER leaders.

Nope, and you won't. Ever.


People need to stop seeing them as "leadership". They are not supposed to be leadership.

They are supposed to be representatives.

very few represent me. :(

We are the LEADERS.
at least we are supposed to be.

anaconda
04-18-2010, 01:58 PM
The two dominant political parties are owned and controlled power structures.

Those who own them will never allow them to be taken over.

The best the liberty movement can do concerning the republican party is to end its viability so that a conservative, liberty oriented party can take it's place.

As long as liberty minded people continue to cast their lot with the GOP, it will remain viable and it will continue to be a vehicle which benefits those who own and control it.

This sums it up perfectly.

anaconda
04-18-2010, 02:00 PM
People need to stop seeing them as "leadership". They are not supposed to be leadership.

They are supposed to be representatives.

very few represent me. :(


I understand this. You used the word "leadership" in quotes in your post. I merely quoted your quoted quote to try to make a point.

My speculative point was that the power structure may crumble when we least suspect it. And possibly with surprisingly less resistance than we would have thought. When we thought we were batting our heads against the wall over the last couple of years we may, in fact, have been poking holes in the dam. The dam looked tall and solid, but in fact was weakening within and about to crumble. Just a thought. I think we are seeing large dividends from the Paul 2008 campaign and the follow up.

sratiug
04-18-2010, 02:11 PM
Why would the third parties waste all their money putting a guy on the ballot whose just going to say no and run Republican?

Why would volunteers and donors waste all their time and money collecting signatures to put a guy on the ballot who is just going to run Republican and not even use the third party ballot access?

It just makes absolutely no practical sense.

To ensure that someone who represents their views and that has a decades long track record of actually carrying out their views gets into the white house.

The question is would he have to say no or even say anything at all to be able to run in the Republican Primary or could he do both.

Zippyjuan
04-18-2010, 02:15 PM
You cannot control any party by being outside it. If Ron was to decide to go Independent in the next election, the Republicans would say "fine". Remember how they tried to exclude him from the debates last time? As in independent he could be more easily excluded. And not just by the Republicans but the media as well. If he is polling five percent then as an independent he would not warrent coverage. If he got up to 20% or better, then they might start noticing but without media coverage or being tied to a party it is hard to get to those numbers. The only independent to get anywhere close to that in recent years was Ross Perot- and he spent millions of his own dollars on TV time.

sratiug
04-18-2010, 02:18 PM
Lol, third parties don't inflict pain! Republicans aren't going to care if a Ron Paul candidate runs against them as a third party. Let him get his 2%. You deliver pain by running against them IN THE PRIMARY.

Ross Perot was leading in the polls and making the other idiots look like the fools they were before he was threatened by the goon squad and dropped out temporarily. He still got around 20% of the vote after being lambasted in the media as a kook for saying his family was threatened. Ron Paul is way way ahead of where Perot was before the campaigns got underway. Nobody knew who Perot was. Republicans have not forgotten.

pcosmar
04-18-2010, 02:20 PM
You cannot control any party by being outside it.

Ok.
But I have no intention of becoming one of the Globalist elite. We will never be in that party. They own the GOP And The Democratic party.

You are just voting for who gets to work for them.
:(

Smitty
04-18-2010, 02:31 PM
I can see both sides to the discussion.

The bottom line is, the GOP establishment must be made to understand that no candidate they present will be acceptable to us except those who are there to represent our views.

,..and the liberty movement will have to be very dilligent and listen very carefully to the candidates for the 2012 election.

Many have learned how to speak the language and will try to use it to garner our votes.

Governor Rick Perry frequently alludes to the 10th amendment and related liberty issues, but he's in the pocket of the warmongers and sounds as if he'd like to escalate into Iran and possibly Pakistan.

You may think it's a bit premature to be discussing Rick Perry, but I'm convinced that he's positioning himself for the 2012 nomination and I expect him to get a lot of positive media from the powers that be.