Ron Paul should run as a Libertarian

[PeacePlan]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and should run as one. He votes against many of the Republicans because he is not a Republican. We need him on the ballot and let the grass roots raise funds and do their work to get him votes.

I think it is phony for him to run as Republican when his heart is Libertarian...

My two cents worth..

[Flash]

He's got such an important position in the House now that running as a Libertarian or Independent wouldn't make any sense. He wouldn't be chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy anymore. And being in the Congress AS a Republican is better than Libertarian. For one, he can influence people of his own party on issues like the war on drugs, war on terror, non-intervention, Federal Reserve, etc...

Now all we need is a few Ron Paul Democrats.

[torchbearer]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and should run as one. He votes against many of the Republicans because he is not a Republican. We need him on the ballot and let the grass roots raise funds and do their work to get him votes.

I think it is phony for him to run as Republican when his heart is Libertarian...

My two cents worth..

are you saying ron paul isn't smart enough to figure out his own path in politics?
he has been more successful than any other modern libertarian.

[UtahApocalypse]

Ron Paul is a republican

[gls]

Your frustration is understandable but he is not going to abandon his son or the thousands of other activists he has encouraged to become involved in the Republican Party. Besides, the deck remains heavily stacked against third parties.

[FrankRep]

Again, the Goal is to Take Control of the Republican party. Remember? Political Parties mean nothing. They're just a vehicle to get elected.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/History/larrymcdonald.001.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/world/270-kal-flight-007-remembered)
Ron Paul: "[Larry McDonald] was the most principled man in Congress."
- The Philadelphia Inquirer


Ron Paul on Congressman Larry McDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald), the President of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/).



Ron Paul went to Congressman Larry McDonald, a Democrat, for advice on running for Congress. McDonald said, "Run in the party you think you can WIN because political parties are irrelevant." This made Ron Paul become a Republican.


Ron Paul explains:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQQ--ju7Vxk

[PeacePlan]

I just don't think he can be nominated in the Republican party. I will have to consider if he does decide to run, if I will contribute my time and money again. Last time I had to write his name in. GOP is not the friend of Ron Paul, they are the enemy IMO.

Ron Paul of course has done a great job getting elected and I am no way saying I know better than him. At the end of the day I want someone on the ballot to work for and vote for. GOP will make sure it is not RP

[Chester Copperpot]

Ron Paul isnt liked by either major party.. but we will eventually infect the GOP with enough Liberty to change the tide.. Ron Paul running in a minor party insures he will never be heard or allowed in a major debate.

Stay the course.. GOP

[brandon]

Why does it master one bit what party you are in?

[ctiger2]

REAL Republicans ARE Libertarians.

[Philhelm]

A political party is only an empty vessel. It's the people within the party that determine its ideologies.

[Kotin]

Lol no

[mello]

It was bad enough that Ron Paul averaged 6 minutes of talk time during the 2008 debates.
As a Libertarian that would drop to zero since the mainstream media don't have debates for
3rd parties.

Also, it is incredibly unfair to get on the ballot if you run as a 3rd party candidate. He would
have ended up blowing that 20 million to just get on the ballot in every State.

[dean.engelhardt]

My two cents worth..

Value may be overestimated.

[sratiug]

If you want him to run as a libertarian, have the Libertarian party nominate him before the Republican primaries please.

[hazek]

To the OP: Ah hell no!

[Fredom101]

It's been tried before. Harry Browne was the greatest libertarian ever, and he fell far short of his goal of getting 1 million votes. I think he ended up with around 350,000 in 96 and even less in 00. Big-L Libertarianism simply doesn't work. RP won't likely win the GOP, but his message will reach far and wide, while if he ran as a Libertarian, no one would ever hear a thing about his campaign except for the choir (us).

[libertyfan101]

I just don't want 2012 to be the same thing all over again.. Two different versions of big government and the same neo-con foreign policy. I admire Paul a lot and would love for him to win the GOP nomination. Unfortunately the GOP will not pick him. The GOP isn't worth saving. They will pick another big government neo-con that will continue the same policies. Just look at the GOP backing off there cuts in spending along with trying to pass the Patriot Act. And that's even with the so called pro-constitution Tea Party. IMO Paul would be more effective if he ran third party or indie. Because then he would generate enough energy, money and support to get in the presidential debates. And really do some damage.

[ronaldo23]

The Libertarian Party is a joke. He'll get no coverage, won't be included in any debates, won't be lots of states ballots etc.

[Flash]

The Libertarian Party is a joke. He'll get no coverage, won't be included in any debates, won't be lots of states ballots etc.

Actually if Ron Paul did go third party he'd probably get 15% points in the polls, which will get him into the debates. But like I said. It's not worth doing at all. Ron Paul is becoming more & more influential within the GOP, why go third party?

[Chieppa1]

The Libertarian Party is a joke. He'll get no coverage, won't be included in any debates, won't be lots of states ballots etc.

I think Ron Paul telling the Republican to F themselves and going rouge would be interesting. Its no 2008, its different now.

Saying that, the shit is rigged, better chance fighting the Neo-Cons I guess....

[silentshout]

I think he should run unaffiliated. But i am in the minority. However, the GOP war hawks will not nominate him. It will not happen. Maybe rand or Gary Johnson could get a nomination in 2016 or later, but right now, no matter their tea party or faux-constitutionalist rhetoric, most republicans are tied to the policies of old ( enforced social conservatism/endless war, etc) and probably won't shift gears until they suffer a few more presidential losses.

And Ron Paul democrats? Sure, i am a former Democrat, so i guess i am one, and I always vote my conscience, no matter what party people are in, but most Democrats will not vote for a republican, as the name is associated with Bush/Cheney/Palin types. Go ahead and think otherwise, but i don't see that happening.

[Fredom101]

Actually if Ron Paul did go third party he'd probably get 15% points in the polls, which will get him into the debates. But like I said. It's not worth doing at all. Ron Paul is becoming more & more influential within the GOP, why go third party?

I don't think so. Even if he were truly at 15%, somehow the polls would be magically be registering him at 10% and they wouldn't let him in. The game is rigged, especially against 3rd parties.

[Chieppa1]

Actually if Ron Paul did go third party he'd probably get 15% points in the polls, which will get him into the debates. But like I said. It's not worth doing at all. Ron Paul is becoming more & more influential within the GOP, why go third party?

Because Obama voters that don't want Obama WILL NEVER REGISTER AS REPUBLICANS. But they might vote for an Independent....

playing Devils' Advocate here.

[RonPaulCult]

No, he should run as a Republican in the primary. He should get into the debates. It will be a large number of neo-cons splitting the vote. It won't take a huge percentage to win in Iowa or New Hampshire. We are polling at 8% nationwide before the primary season even begins. Back in 2007 Ron Paul was polling at near 0. We are halfway to the percentage needed.

IF Ron Paul can't get the nomination - then he can and SHOULD run as an independent. Hopefully he will have enough support, money and attention to make it onto the ballots and into the general election debates. That he won't be in congress any longer is ok. This is his shot at the white house. His son is locked in to the Senate for the next 6 years.

Let's not panic because of a-holes at CPAC. They aren't the normal everyday voters anyway (neither are we).

[gls]

Actually if Ron Paul did go third party he'd probably get 15% points in the polls, which will get him into the debates.

Yeah, and if there was any chance of that happening they would up the required percentage, or find some other way to block him. The commission that runs the debates is headed by former RNC and DNC chairs, and they learned their lesson with Perot. The game is rigged so bad it is almost laughable.

[silentshout]

Because Obama voters that don't want Obama WILL NEVER REGISTER AS REPUBLICANS. But they might vote for an Independent....

playing Devils' Advocate here.

Yep. they won't. I don't even have to in California anymore, as anyone can vote in any party's primary.

[Chieppa1]

Yep. they won't. I don't even have to in California anymore, as anyone can vote in any party's primary.

John Dennis lost for 2 reasons, Pelosi's district, and the "R" next to his name. That's it. Just because we infiltrated Kentucky to get Rand elected, doesn't mean the same plan works NATIONALLY for Ron. The anti-war will kill us with Neo-Cons. Instead of convincing them, ignore them. Focus on the NEW class of voters, it is 4 years later..

[TCE]

This thread breaks up into three groups (for anyone wanting a summary in one post):

1: The people who think Ron should run Third-Party. They claim he'll never win the Republican nomination and that he stands a much better chance education-wise and in terms of winning as an Independent or Libertarian.

2. The people who believe Ron should run as a Republican and has a great chance to win the nomination if he plays his cards correctly. Ron has been a Republican for decades, they say, and all of his success has come as a Republican, why throw that all away? Additionally, they say third parties get no coverage in elections and he can never win as one.

3. The people who believe Ron can't win regardless of which party he chooses. These people state Ron is won't be accepted by the mainstream, and thus, has no chance at the Presidency.

And there you have it. Siphon yourself off now while there's still room in each camp!

[anaconda]

Here is what NO ONE on the forums seems to want to talk about and keep front and center in their minds (why?): Ron has a different ace up his sleeve this time. As he participates in the Republican debates this time, when he is asked repeatedly if he will run as an independent if his party does not nominate him, he must say that he will pledge to run third party if the Republicans do not nominate a real conservative. This will put the fear of God in the Republicans and allow Ron to extract maximum concessions on policy or appointments. Otherwise he can likely hand the presidency back to Obama by running as a third party (I refer to the Obama-Romney-Paul poll from a few months back). Plus Paul as a third party will keep the education process going all the way through November 2012.

[emazur]

He should only run as Libertarian if he doesn't get the GOP nomination - this will be his last chance to run as president b/c of his age

[Sola_Fide]

REAL Republicans ARE Libertarians.

/end thread.

[AtomiC]

He should only run as Libertarian if he doesn't get the GOP nomination - this will be his last chance to run as president b/c of his age

I agree.

[FrankRep]

He should only run as Libertarian if he doesn't get the GOP nomination - this will be his last chance to run as president b/c of his age

Ron Paul will not run third party. Period.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Here is what NO ONE on the forums seems to want to talk about and keep front and center in their minds (why?): Ron has a different ace up his sleeve this time. As he participates in the Republican debates this time, when he is asked repeatedly if he will run as an independent if his party does not nominate him, he must say that he will pledge to run third party if the Republicans do not nominate a real conservative. This will put the fear of God in the Republicans and allow Ron to extract maximum concessions on policy or appointments. Otherwise he can likely hand the presidency back to Obama by running as a third party (I refer to the Obama-Romney-Paul poll from a few months back). Plus Paul as a third party will keep the education process going all the way through November 2012.

This is actually a good idea. It would scare the shit out of the GOP. But the question is are Republicans more afraid of Ron Paul or 4 more years of Obama?

[FrankRep]

Here is what NO ONE on the forums seems to want to talk about and keep front and center in their minds (why?): Ron has a different ace up his sleeve this time. As he participates in the Republican debates this time, when he is asked repeatedly if he will run as an independent if his party does not nominate him, he must say that he will pledge to run third party if the Republicans do not nominate a real conservative. This will put the fear of God in the Republicans and allow Ron to extract maximum concessions on policy or appointments. Otherwise he can likely hand the presidency back to Obama by running as a third party (I refer to the Obama-Romney-Paul poll from a few months back). Plus Paul as a third party will keep the education process going all the way through November 2012.

Ron Paul will NOT run third party or independent. Period.

[emazur]

Ron Paul will not run third party. Period.

I remember all the posts that :collins: used to make with authority saying that Paul wouldn't run for prez in 2012, and now he's changed his tune. If the GOP nominates another Dole/Bush/McCain type candidate but Ron gave that candidate some serious opposition in the primaries, I can see him opting for a Libertarian run.

[FrankRep]

I remember all the posts that :collins: used to make with authority saying that Paul wouldn't run for prez in 2012, and now he's changed his tune. If the GOP nominates another Dole/Bush/McCain type candidate but Ron gave that candidate some serious opposition in the primaries, I can see him opting for a Libertarian run.

Ron Paul isn't stupid enough to run third party. Ron Paul knows the system is biased towards Two Parties.

[heavenlyboy34]

real republicans are libertarians.

lmao!

[Dr.3D]

REAL Republicans ARE Libertarians.


lmao!

I don't see anything funny about what he said. It's the truth and there are darned few REAL Republicans left anymore.

[anaconda]

Ron Paul will NOT run third party or independent. Period.

When the Republicans fail to nominate a real conservative Ron will simply carry the torch himself. It is the best way to "spread the brush fires" at this point. This can all go down after Super Tuesday.

[TCE]

REAL Republicans ARE Libertarians.

Uh...what? You mean Libertarians like Abraham Lincoln? Libertarians like Herbert Hoover? Libertarians like Eisenhower? Nixon? Bush?

They're not Libertarians, never have been, and may never be. So to say "we're bringing the Republican Party back to its roots!" is wrong. Abraham Lincoln are its roots. You're thinking the Democratic-Republicans, because the Republican Party as we know it now stemmed off Lincoln, not Jefferson.

[Dr.3D]

Uh...what? You mean Libertarians like Abraham Lincoln? Libertarians like Herbert Hoover? Libertarians like Eisenhower? Nixon? Bush?

They're not Libertarians, never have been, and may never be. So to say "we're bringing the Republican Party back to its roots!" is wrong. Abraham Lincoln are its roots. You're thinking the Democratic-Republicans, because the Republican Party as we know it now stemmed off Lincoln, not Jefferson.

That's why he qualified his statement with the word REAL. You are correct, none of those people were/are REAL Republicans, thus they were/are not Libertarians.

[The Dude]

If Ron doesn't get the nomination, then I'd say go the Libertarian or Independent route. Although the LP would be pretty dumb not to give Ron the ticket if he has a strong showing this GOP primary season but doesn't win. He should absolutely go all out regardless of what the GOP primary ends up like. He knows he has a boatload of supporters that will follow him to the ends of the earth and back to push him in the election.

[CableNewsJunkie]

Run as a libertarian?

So the GOP rank-and-file can say "we lost to Obama because Ron Paul split the vote"?

Nah, we're trying to make inroads. The sooner they realize they have only themselves to blame for losing - the better for our movement.

If people aren't mature enough to respect substance over style and principle over party - they deserve what they get.

[AZKing]

It wouldn't matter if RP became a Libertarian. They have refused to put 3rd parties in debates since Perot. They wouldn't even let HIM debate in 1996 -- look how much worse he did. 18.9% (20 million) vs 8.8% (8 million) of the vote.


Ron Paul would be a bigger threat than Ross Perot was. He could actually win as a 3rd party candidate if they let him debate. Sadly, they won't.

[ronaldo23]

Uh...what? You mean Libertarians like Abraham Lincoln? Libertarians like Herbert Hoover? Libertarians like Eisenhower? Nixon? Bush?

They're not Libertarians, never have been, and may never be. So to say "we're bringing the Republican Party back to its roots!" is wrong. Abraham Lincoln are its roots. You're thinking the Democratic-Republicans, because the Republican Party as we know it now stemmed off Lincoln, not Jefferson.

How about the roots of Calvin Coolidge? He was fairly close to being a libertarian president. Also Ron is always citing Senator Robert Taft in his speeches, particularly his rejection of NATO etc. You are right that many Republican mainstream presidents weren't libertarians, but there has always been a segment and part of the Republican party that has stood for liberty and small government.

[juvanya]

He's got such an important position in the House now that running as a Libertarian or Independent wouldn't make any sense. He wouldn't be chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy anymore. And being in the Congress AS a Republican is better than Libertarian. For one, he can influence people of his own party on issues like the war on drugs, war on terror, non-intervention, Federal Reserve, etc...

Now all we need is a few Ron Paul Democrats.

You couldve called me that in 2008. I still probably would run as a Democrat, if I picked a party.

[cindy25]

Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain, ran as an independent, and still kept his chairmanship


is a Libertarian run viable? Yes-if Bloomberg, Trump or someone else runs 3rd party then anything can happen. it would go to the House where each state is equal. and if Trump gets support in polls, but no traction with the base he will run 3rd party.

[hotbrownsauce]

Paul belongs to no political party only to that of advancing liberty. He only works through the system because the only way to bring it down is from the inside. It's his decision and I'll support him either way. He has done more through the Republican party than he arguably would have done elsewhere. I do not have time to fritter away on these posts. Give me something I feel is worth my time. Liberty is slipping away and I don't want to get lost in this bureaucratic crap.

[MN Patriot]

The Tea Party movement needs a serious debate about going third party. Many "Republicans" who call themselves "conservatives" are enemies of liberty and libertarianism. Libertarianism and so-called "conservativism" have some similarities, but they are different ideologies. To be a conservative means you don't want change, using the strict definition.

Those who think libertarianism has any chance of infiltrating the Republican party to the point that Republicans = Libertarians will be proven wrong. Ron Paul has had success being elected as a Republican, but that worked for him in the past. The political Establishment that owns both parties have fought against him for years, they don't want their parties taken over by libertarians. Another reason why libertarians should break free and create an independent party, once there are enough people involved to make it viable.

I would like to see the Libertarian Party take the forefront in trying to put the Republican Party into third party status. But the LP leadership is completely inept, both nationally and in most states.

[nobody's_hero]

If he can't get the Republican nomination, then he should run 3rd party. He'll have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Sure, it might burn bridges with the republican party, but they'll have had their last chance to claim support for the Constitution, anyway.

[jack555]

I just don't think he can be nominated in the Republican party. I will have to consider if he does decide to run, if I will contribute my time and money again. Last time I had to write his name in. GOP is not the friend of Ron Paul, they are the enemy IMO.

Ron Paul of course has done a great job getting elected and I am no way saying I know better than him. At the end of the day I want someone on the ballot to work for and vote for. GOP will make sure it is not RP

Ron's election was not just about winning. His campaign CREATED the tea party. This huge antigovernment movement is a result of that election. I remember going to a campaign for liberty seminar where we were told that we wanted to "move the political box" in our direction. At the time I didn't think much of it but that is exactly what has happened. The nation has taken a few steps toward liberty as a result of his campaign.