If Ron runs for POTUS again and isn't nominated is it time for a 3rd party?

[MN Patriot]

When Ron Paul is steam-rolled by the Establishment and their media and he fails to receive the Republican nomination AGAIN, will people start thinking about creating a third party to replace the Republican party? Or will people keep jumping through the hoops the Establishment has created to prevent the voters from having a REAL choice?
If enough people are disillusioned and motivated for a real change, a third party could become a realistic option. We need to start thinking about that.
This is a screwy situation, libertarians are trying to take over the Republican party. What if libertarians succeed? Where will the Republicans go? To the Libertarian Party? Or are names and labels irrelevant now?

[rp08orbust]

When Ron Paul is steam-rolled by the Establishment and their media and he fails to receive the Republican nomination AGAIN, will people start thinking about creating a third party to replace the Republican party? Or will people keep jumping through the hoops the Establishment has created to prevent the voters from having a REAL choice?

You are not proposing a new idea. Ron Paul tried it in 1988. The Libertarian Party has been very successful at getting steamrolled by the establishment for 40 years.

[MN Patriot]

You are not proposing a new idea. Ron Paul tried it in 1988. The Libertarian Party has been very successful at getting steamrolled by the establishment for 40 years.

The Establishment doesn't need to steamroll a party with incompetent leadership, the LP has been run by incompetents ever since it was started. If enough people get involved, and enough competent people are running a third party, it could be enough to change things.

So this is our choice, get squashed trying to take over the Republican Party, or maybe get squashed with a third party. The third party option really hasn't been seriously attempted EVER. Big mistake assuming the future will look like the past for the LP.

Imagine if there were viable candidates running for EVERY partisan office in the USA. Congress + all the state legislatures. Pretty hard to ignore if every ballot has a libertarian for every race.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Problem is ballot access. Once he participates in the Republican primary he becomes ineligible to appear on the ballot as a third party candidate in some states (not sure how many).

I personally think it is all or nothing on the Republican primary. Which means it is all or nothing on winning Iowa and South Carolina early to have any chance.

[cindy25]

things have changed since 1988; for 1 thing Trump will probably go 3rd party, and he would be in the debates, so a 4th party would also have to be included.

the problem is the electoral college. if 4 way, it would end up in the house, and they would just select Mitt

[FrankRep]

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

[Sovereign Forever]

I'm all for this idea ... well said
The (D) and (R) Dog and Pony show is a scam. It is up to us liberty minded people to point that out to the uninformed or misinformed to get this republic back where it needs to be

[ItsTime]

Bingo. Pick a party you can win in, be honest and principled and people will elect you.

[FrankRep]

Bingo. Pick a party you can win in, be honest and principled and people will elect you.

That's why Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN.

[IDefendThePlatform]

My other issue with ditching the Republican party would be that Dr. P's message would then get marginalized and ignored by a lot of people, especially Republicans.


On the other hand, if decides to go Independent and he picks Jesse Ventura as a running mate, he'd get plenty of publicity.

[FrankRep]

On the other hand, if decides to go Independent

Ron Paul will NOT run third party.
Ron Paul knows the game and he's not stupid.

[cindy25]

GOP 2012: Mitt has the establishment
Trump the airwaves, the sheeple
Huck the religious vote
Ron or Rand the libertarian , youth vote

I just can't see it being enough to win

[Theocrat]

I believe the current political climate is such that Americans are getting tired of the two-party system. Many citizens are beginning to see how similar Republicans and Democrats are on a number of issues, like foreign policy and monetary policy (especially with the Fed). They also are starting to see how childish and unproductive the bickering across the aisle is becoming because nothing is being done to fix our current problems. Also, because our economy is getting worse, and it's affecting more and more of people's wallets and households, it could inspire more people to do something drastic by voting for third-party candidates.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Ron Paul will NOT run third party.
Ron Paul knows the game and he's not stupid.

Does the "Rep" in your handle stand for Republican? Cuz you seem kind of defensive about the whole indie thing.

[nobody's_hero]

I say he should go for it. There's really nothing to lose by trying again, and considering that we are running out of attempts . . . I mean, the dollar isn't going to wait around for Republicans to get their shit together and nominate the best man for the job.

[s35wf]

When Ron Paul is steam-rolled by the Establishment and their media and he fails to receive the Republican nomination AGAIN, will people start thinking about creating a third party to replace the Republican party? Or will people keep jumping through the hoops the Establishment has created to prevent the voters from having a REAL choice?
If enough people are disillusioned and motivated for a real change, a third party could become a realistic option. We need to start thinking about that.
This is a screwy situation, libertarians are trying to take over the Republican party. What if libertarians succeed? Where will the Republicans go? To the Libertarian Party? Or are names and labels irrelevant now?

We NEED ALL of US to not only campaign for Ron to get him thru the primaries as a Republican, but also AT the SAME Time, We ALL Need to become active in this so that we are prepared in advance for what they've done to us in their two party "system" So when that day comes WE HAVE A SAY in getting "someone" decent be it Ron or ________. To be in debates as a Independent:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286013-Petition-Campaign-for-2012-Election!-What-do-you-think-about-quot-Americal-Elect-quot (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286013-Petition-Campaign-for-2012-Election%21-What-do-you-think-about-quot-Americal-Elect-quot)

Starting in CA, then from what I've been informed will spread nationally! Told the FL (miami/dade county) area will be opening up end of May. FL (orlando/central FL area, probably May/June).

Need to follow progress from this in ALL States & become active in it!

[sailingaway]

If he ran 3d party he wouldn't keep his committee, and Rand would feel a backlash, and the mainstreaming of his message would be marginalized if we weren't successful. So unless we'd WIN, I think it isn't a good idea.

[TCE]

MN Patriot, I know you bring this up every few months in terms of a Third Party candidacy, the fact of the matter is always the same, Ron is never going to do it, so no matter how good or bad an idea it is, it will never be on the table. Ron has said numerous times how the system is rigged against Third Parties and the likelihood of him trying it again is infinitesimally small.

[sailingaway]

MN Patriot, I know you bring this up every few months in terms of a Third Party candidacy, the fact of the matter is always the same, Ron is never going to do it, so no matter how good or bad an idea it is, it will never be on the table. Ron has said numerous times how the system is rigged against Third Parties and the likelihood of him trying it again is infinitesimally small.

And suggesting it turns off GOP voters. It makes it seem like he is not really one of them, when the Libertarians only even broke off the GOP after Goldwater. And Ron was a Goldwater Republican before then, and didn't break off.

[nate895]

I think we might see the emergence of a third party that could replace the GOP. I don't think either the Constitution or the Libertarian parties could do anything to be that party. They've simply been around too long. However, I do think that if the GOP doesn't get its act together in 2012 many of the Tea Partiers will break off and form a conservative party, and they'd be able to have a political machine right off the bat unlike other third party start-ups.

[FrankRep]

Edit:

Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Tea Party Alliance - TRUE Third Party Initiative
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286967-Constitution-Party-Libertarian-Party-Tea-Party-Alliance-TRUE-Third-Party-Initiative

[nate895]

Get the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party to merge and we'll talk about a Third Party potential.

I don't think that's going to happen. The LP is based on secular libertarianism, while the CP is, for the most part at least, Christian to the core. There cannot be an ideological compromise between the two. What could happen is that the membership of those two parties could be incorporated into a larger conservative/Tea Party "big tent" third party whose platform is Christian and conservative enough for the CP, but not so far to that degree that the majority LP is offended. There would still be the hardcore factions in both who would refuse to join, but they would be small. More than likely the members of those two parties would form separate caucuses within the larger tent.

[Theocrat]

I think we might see the emergence of a third party that could replace the GOP. I don't think either the Constitution or the Libertarian parties could do anything to be that party. They've simply been around too long. However, I do think that if the GOP doesn't get its act together in 2012 many of the Tea Partiers will break off and form a conservative party, and they'd be able to have a political machine right off the bat unlike other third party start-ups.

That's why we need some solid, principled legislators in our states to reform the laws which hinder third parties from getting ballot-access. We need more competition in the political process, as you well know. Instead of having this attitude that "third parties can't win," we should be pressing our representatives and senators in state legislatures to fix the rules for allowing third parties to compete in elections.

[thedude]

I think we might see the emergence of a third party that could replace the GOP. I don't think either the Constitution or the Libertarian parties could do anything to be that party. They've simply been around too long. However, I do think that if the GOP doesn't get its act together in 2012 many of the Tea Partiers will break off and form a conservative party, and they'd be able to have a political machine right off the bat unlike other third party start-ups.

It is my belief the party is being taken over from the inside. We have to recognize that no efforts will be accomplished (essentially) overnight. There has been only one real effective election. Did we lose some of the candidates? Of course. It would be foolish to think we wouldn't. Has the debate been controlled toward deficit reduction and less spending? Yes, and it was directly influenced by the election in 2010. Instead of running away to a third party (which the general population will not throw support behind because of decades of only two parties), I think we can do more to influence change within the Republican party and bring it back to its original conservative values. If the neo-conservatives can spend a few decades highjacking the Republican party, the conservatives can do the same to take it back. I think this has already begun. We just need to stick with it. I for one will gladly welcome a GOP that evolves from big government to libertarian-leaning. Furthermore, this is the only way to garner enough independent votes as well. Independents usually only vote in the general election on the side that speaks most (or less least) to their values. I don't think it's a far-off notion to say they don't usually follow politics to the extent required of knowing of or even supporting a third party.


For more information on third parties, I recommend watching this:

From September 10, 2008: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Press Conference on Third Party Candidates

http://www.cspan.org/Events/Rep-Ron-Paul-R-TX-Press-Conference-on-Third-Party-Candidates/11261/

[nate895]

That's why we need some solid, principled legislators in our states to reform the laws which hinder third parties from getting ballot-access. We need more competition in the political process, as you well know. Instead of having this attitude that "third parties can't win," we should be pressing our representatives and senators in state legislatures to fix the rules for allowing third parties to compete in elections.

Third Party ballot access isn't that hard if you have a machine. It's a drain, sure, but if you have a popular third party, then it won't be a big deal and will be a moot point after the first two election cycles of their existence. The laws in regards to party ballot access differentiate between "major" and "minor" parties, and most states aren't that unfair. Most states 5% of the vote will get you "major party" status. Some states are a bit unfair, but not impossible. Also, many states allow parties to gain ballot access by the amount of registrants they have. In CA, I know, a lot of parties have automatic ballot access because they have the required amount of registrants.

[nate895]

It is my belief the party is being taken over from the inside. We have to recognize that no efforts will be accomplished (essentially) overnight. There has been only one real effective election. Did we lose some of the candidates? Of course. It would be foolish to think we wouldn't. Has the debate been controlled toward deficit reduction and less spending? Yes, and it was directly influenced by the election in 2010. Instead of running away to a third party (which the general population will not throw support behind because of decades of only two parties), I think we can do more to influence change within the Republican party and bring it back to its original conservative values. If the neo-conservatives can spend a few decades highjacking the Republican party, the conservatives can do the same to take it back. I think this has already begun. We just need to stick with it. I for one will gladly welcome a GOP that evolves from big government to libertarian-leaning. Furthermore, this is the only way to garner enough independent votes as well. Independents usually only vote in the general election on the side that speaks most (or less least) to their values. I don't think it's a far-off notion to say they don't usually follow politics to the extent required of knowing of or even supporting a third party.


For more information on third parties, I recommend watching this:

From September 10, 2008: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Press Conference on Third Party Candidates

http://www.cspan.org/Events/Rep-Ron-Paul-R-TX-Press-Conference-on-Third-Party-Candidates/11261/

All of you "anti-third party, no matter what" people seem to have no recognition that what I am talking about has happened before. Pretty much every country that has had elections for any length of time has seen the collapse of one party only to see the rise of another. What I'm saying is that if the GOP doesn't get its act together, it will collapse and there will be a replacement.

[TCE]

All of you "anti-third party, no matter what" people seem to have no recognition that what I am talking about has happened before. Pretty much every country that has had elections for any length of time has seen the collapse of one party only to see the rise of another. What I'm saying is that if the GOP doesn't get its act together, it will collapse and there will be a replacement.

The GOP isn't going to collapse anytime soon. Sure, it was catastrophic for them in 2008 and bad in 2006, but the GOP is back on the rise. I know there is a sect of people who believe the GOP is on its way out, but look at the facts, it isn't going away anytime soon. Someone else can make a Third Party viable, we don't have to waste our energy doing it. May as well use the Democratic and Republican parties to accomplish our goals. I am saddened that more people are not running as Democrats, we could easily elect some people there and then create a Republican (Rand, Ron, Amash)/Democrat bridge.

The point is, Ron will not be the one and Rand certainly isn't going to run Third Party, so unless Gary Johnson wants to be disliked even more, a Third Party is not viable anytime in the near future.

[FrankRep]

All of you "anti-third party, no matter what" people seem to have no recognition that what I am talking about has happened before.

Make this happen and we'll talk.


Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Tea Party Alliance - TRUE Third Party Initiative
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286967-Constitution-Party-Libertarian-Party-Tea-Party-Alliance-TRUE-Third-Party-Initiative

[thedude]

All of you "anti-third party, no matter what" people seem to have no recognition that what I am talking about has happened before. Pretty much every country that has had elections for any length of time has seen the collapse of one party only to see the rise of another. What I'm saying is that if the GOP doesn't get its act together, it will collapse and there will be a replacement.

I am not "anti-third party, no matter what". I see where you are coming from, and in theory it will work. Unfortunately, the democrat and republican parties control the debates through an establishment they created. Donald Trump, like Ross Perot, will only be in the general election debates because of the ability to finance it himself. The problem is that money talks. Yes, in theory, enough support behind a third party candidate could garner enough money to buy participation. However, the second Obama or the GOP nominee backs out of the debate because a third party bought his or her way in, the television network will cancel it. Then all the money is lost and we need to do it over and over again. It is NOT impossible. It IS a struggle. In theory, it will work. In practice, we need to be a bit more realistic in what we can and cannot accomplish in this current political environment. As soon as the rules regarding the debate are changed (for instance, allowing any party nominee on the ballots in all 50 states to join the national debates), then I am on-board with you.

[BarryDonegan]

A third party can't happen in a single election cycle. That will take 25 years of legislative reform at the state level. While competition between political parties is good, it's just scientifically impossible, even probably with the full support of the people, to overcome that much legislative corruption during a single election cycle. There is a ground game to politics, and you can't play it from a third party right now.

[TNforPaul45]

I honestly do not know the answer to this question. I know of AN answer that I want to give, but Truth is Treason in an Empire of lies, and this government is effective at using fear to squash truthful answers.

[MikeStanart]

If we want to ruin Rand's chances in 2016; then yes.

[AZKing]

GOP 2012: Mitt has the establishment
Trump the airwaves, the sheeple
Huck the religious vote
Ron or Rand the libertarian , youth vote

I just can't see it being enough to win

Don't be so sure of any of that. I've talked to a fair number of GOP voters who dislike Mitt because of his healthcare stance. They think that he won't bother to try and get Obama's health care laws repealed/changed. I don't reckon Huck is running. Trump is an interesting prospect, admittedly. We'll see about him.

IIRC, there was a poll showing that Ron outperforms everyone in the 65+ voter group.

As for third party, it would be great but you can't get into debates as a third party anymore. It's pointless to simply show up on a ballot if you're not in the main debates.

[nobody's_hero]

The point is, Ron will not be the one and Rand certainly isn't going to run Third Party, so unless Gary Johnson wants to be disliked even more, a Third Party is not viable anytime in the near future.

How much more "near future" do we have remaining, though? That's my argument for a third party run.

Scenario #1: Ron does not win the Republican nomination, and refuses to run 3rd-Party. Economy collapses.

Scenario #2: Ron does not win the Republican nomination, and runs third party. Loses. Economy collapses.

With the situation we're facing, I don't really care if the Republicans get their feelings hurt, get 'turned off', etc. etc. Either he wins in 2012, or we're screwed.

[Flash]

I like the idea of forming a new third party and calling it the "Taxpayers' Party" or "The Conservative Party"

[RCA]

It already IS time to think beyond Statism as a means to solve society's problems.

[Theocrat]

I like the idea of forming a new third party and calling it the "Taxpayers' Party" or "The Conservative Party"

Actually, there was a "U.S. Taxpayers Party" formed back in 1992. In 1999, at its national nominating convention, its name was changed to the "Constitution Party," which is what we have today.

[heavenlyboy34]

It already IS time to think beyond Statism as a means to solve society's problems.QFT!!!! :cool:

[MN Patriot]

If we want to ruin Rand's chances in 2016; then yes.

Why couldn't Rand and any other libertarian leaning Republicans join the revitalized CP/LP? Give the new third party new credibility while sticking it to the Establishment RINO Republican Party.

This would have to be a long term endeavor, many election cycles. People who are critical of third parties are so short sighted, it isn't just this election, it is for building for future elections.

Republicans have proven themselves to be just as bad as the Democrats, they are hypocritical despicable back stabbers, election after election and the faithful just bend over for them. If Ron runs again in 2012, they WILL prove it again. Guaranteed.

The best thing Ron could do is go third party from the get go. The Republican Party has served him well until he ran for POTUS in 2008. If he were to help create a successful third party that would put the Republicans into third party status, he would be doing future generations a great service.

[MaxPower]

I would gladly support a third major party, and have already voted third party in past elections.

[MN Patriot]

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.

This makes no sense. If parties are irrelevant, then why don't more independents and third parties win? Parties ARE relevant, people identify with them. Is Larry suggesting to be deceptive?

What about the case when the two dominant parties are controlled by the same group?

As I said, get a full slate of credible third party candidates running for every Congressional and state legislative seat. Too big to ignore, capitalize on the two old parties continual failures. Both parties support the income tax, use that against both of them.

[Aldanga]

I think the point was that neither party is truly interested in anything other than power. If one party will give you an advantage, you should use them to your advantage.

[Flash]

This makes no sense. If parties are irrelevant, then why don't more independents and third parties win? Parties ARE relevant, people identify with them. Is Larry suggesting to be deceptive

I interpreted it as Larry saying parties are irrelevant when it comes to principles. You shouldn't RUN as a Republican in an area where you can easily win as a Dem all because you're more ideologically aligned with the GOP.

[MN Patriot]

I think the point was that neither party is truly interested in anything other than power. If one party will give you an advantage, you should use them to your advantage.


From Flash: I interpreted it as Larry saying parties are irrelevant when it comes to principles. You shouldn't RUN as a Republican in an area where you can easily win as a Dem all because you're more ideologically aligned with the GOP.

I find this reprehensible and dishonest. Why not run on what you actually believe in, rather than fake like you are a Democrat or Republican? It might work for an election or two, but the political chiefs will oppose you, like they have been doing to Ron for years.

I would rather run as a libertarian, because libertarians actually believe in something: liberty. What do "conservative" Republicans believe in? Conserving the status quo. That is what we are fighting against. Both parties support the income tax, the Fed, big government. If I truly wanted those things, I would enthusiastically support the Republican Party or the Democrats.

[low preference guy]

I think Ron can't run third party once he runs as a Republican due to sore loser laws.

Plus, he is probably too old and unenthusiastic to run third party if he loses the Republican nomination.

In conclusion, this thread is a waste of time.

[MN Patriot]

I think Ron can't run third party once he runs as a Republican due to sore loser laws.

Plus, he is probably too old and unenthusiastic to run third party if he loses the Republican nomination.

In conclusion, this thread is a waste of time.

If Ron doesn't get the Republican nomination in 2012, THAT will be a monumental waste of time.

I wasn't recommending Ron to run as a Libertarian after he doesn't get the nomination, I am well aware of sore loser laws. What I am suggesting that libertarians abandon the Republican Party and start running as third party candidates in 2014.

The Republican Establishment opposes any candidate that is a self described libertarian. Will libertarians ever wake up and stop trying to convert "conservatives" within the Republican Party? Make the Republicans irrelevant, since they are pretty much irrelevant anyway. If Libertarians take votes away from Republicans, so what, our ideas would probably be more widely disseminated if there were LP candidates in every congressional district and state legislative race.

The biggest mistake of the Ron Paul revolution is expecting one person to miraculously change things. We need thousands of people running campaigns opposing the status quo that Republicans want to conserve.

[low preference guy]

I wasn't recommending Ron to run as a Libertarian after he doesn't get the nomination, I am well aware of sore loser laws. What I am suggesting that libertarians abandon the Republican Party and start running as third party candidates in 2014.

Ron tried both things and he was much more successful running as a Republican. I think the libertarians need to leave the Libertarian Party and starting taking over the Republican Party like Ron, Rand, Amash, and others are doing.

[MozoVote]

If Ron (or Rand, or Gary Johnson) run for the GOP nomination, they will be in several debates and at least be *visible* to mainsteam voters, and there will be video evidence that they exist and have something to say. It cracks the door open to new ideas and debating points.

There will be no press coverage of a third party, unless it is mega-bankrolled like Ross Perot did.

That's good enough for me.

[low preference guy]

The Libertarian Party is a very fine debating society, but not good to win political offices.

[TCE]

How much more "near future" do we have remaining, though? That's my argument for a third party run.

Scenario #1: Ron does not win the Republican nomination, and refuses to run 3rd-Party. Economy collapses.

Scenario #2: Ron does not win the Republican nomination, and runs third party. Loses. Economy collapses.

With the situation we're facing, I don't really care if the Republicans get their feelings hurt, get 'turned off', etc. etc. Either he wins in 2012, or we're screwed.

You really think even Ron winning the White House will prevent the collapse? His hands will be tied by Congress. His entire Presidency would be through Executive Orders, and there is only so much you can do if Congress keeps passing budgets that spend trillions of dollars. Face it, the collapse is coming no matter what happens, the 2012 Presidential race is to determine who will be holding the bag. Unless we give Ron dictatorial powers so that he can end the Fed, establish competing currencies, dump tons of regulations and pay off all the debt, we're still heading for a collapse.

[TCE]

And yes, the Third Party solutions are either: 1. Combine all of them into one and join forces or 2. Create a new one and make sure that is funded EXTREMELY well and has the best campaign strategists in the history of politics. The easiest solution is to abandon all third parties and try and take over the two existing ones.

[low preference guy]

You really think even Ron winning the White House will prevent the collapse? His hands will be tied by Congress. His entire Presidency would be through Executive Orders, and there is only so much you can do if Congress keeps passing budgets that spend trillions of dollars. Face it, the collapse is coming no matter what happens, the 2012 Presidential race is to determine who will be holding the bag. Unless we give Ron dictatorial powers so that he can end the Fed, establish competing currencies, dump tons of regulations and pay off all the debt, we're still heading for a collapse.

TCE, what do you expect Ron's presidency to be like if when he wins, the Republicans also obtain super-majorities in both houses?

This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/09/us-elections-2012-congress) made me wonder about that possibility.

[TCE]

TCE, what do you expect Ron's presidency to be like if when he wins, the Republicans also obtain super-majorities in both houses?

This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/09/us-elections-2012-congress) made me wonder about that possibility.

I agree with the author that the Republicans will gain several seats in the Senate, but not enough for a super-majority. Even then, you still have Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Mark Kirk along with any other Moderates who will get elected, none will go along with what Ron would propose. The Senate would be in a perpetual filibuster and Ron gets nothing done. The House will stay Republican, but the Senate would be the place where our good bills would go to die. Also consider the GOP would push through all of this anti-liberty legislation such as REAL ID III, PATRIOT Act extension, etc that Ron would either have to veto or sign depending on what bill it was riding. I see the 2012 President as a sacrificial lamb no matter who it is.

[low preference guy]

I agree with the author that the Republicans will gain several seats in the Senate, but not enough for a super-majority. Even then, you still have Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Mark Kirk along with any other Moderates who will get elected, none will go along with what Ron would propose. The Senate would be in a perpetual filibuster and Ron gets nothing done. The House will stay Republican, but the Senate would be the place where our good bills would go to die. Also consider the GOP would push through all of this anti-liberty legislation such as REAL ID III, PATRIOT Act extension, etc that Ron would either have to veto or sign depending on what bill it was riding. I see the 2012 President as a sacrificial lamb no matter who it is.

I disagree. I think there will not be filibusters of the things Ron likes. The reason is that when politicians notice the winds changed, they also change.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If Ron gets in the 2012 game it would be a let down if he doesn't cash in all of his political capital. There is no reason to hold back or pull any punches. Does anyone expect any more Ron Paul campaigns after this one?

I doubt many people care what team Ron is batting for this presidential election but I would like to see Ron on the ballot in a general election if he doesn't cut the GOP tryouts. If Ron is going to step up to the plate I would prefer to see Ron Paul spread the message as far as it will go because as far as national elections go... this is it. There will not be another Ron Paul in my lifetime because no one on the national political stage has the long term credibility in voting record, austrian economics, and free markets.

[fj45lvr]

there are already a third, fourth, fifth, etc. and etc. party. disconnect from the matrix

[MN Patriot]

Ron tried both things and he was much more successful running as a Republican. I think the libertarians need to leave the Libertarian Party and starting taking over the Republican Party like Ron, Rand, Amash, and others are doing.

For one thing, the Libertarian Party probably has only 10,000 members nationally. Just a guess, but at its peak it had ten times that. The LP attracts new members, but they quickly get disillusioned and move on. So what few members in the LP don't matter much. Maybe what you would like to do is outlaw the Libertarian Party, so the Republican Party isn't threatened.

And as I have said before:
where will the "conservatives" go if libertarians take over the Republican Party?

"Conservatives" do not want libertarians in the Republican Party. Rank and file "conservatives" are the willing zombies of the political Establishment who do not want to change things because they want to conserve the political Establishment as it is. The "conservative" zombies are really no different than the "liberal" zombies who support the Democrats, who are controlled by the same political Establishment. Both side have been programmed to revile and scorn libertarians.

Conservatives do not want to end the income tax.
Conservatives do not want to end the Fed.
Conservatives do not want to end the alphabet soup of government agencies like the DEA, HUD, DOE, EPA, etc.
Conservatives do not want to end the perpetual wars on drugs and terror.
Conservatives do not want to end the ballot access laws that would give the Libertarian Party a greater voice.

Libertarians want to end all those things.

The Establishment Republicans define themselves as conservatives, not libertarians. All of the people who call themselves conservatives but agree with libertarians are being misled by the Establishment just to keep them in the Republican Party so they can be neutralized. The Establishment wants to maintain the image that there is a REAL difference between both parties. If the dang Libertarian Party starts taking votes away from the Establishment controlled Republican Party, people will see there really is no difference between the two. Corporate bailouts will continue, wars will continue if Libertarians don't win on a large scale.

[sofia]

The goal here should be to get Ron up to 20% and make a big wave in the primary....then, we parlay that base into a Ventura Independent run. (assuming Ron wont go Independent)

Thats our only hope....cuz dumbed down GOP primary voters will never elect a peace candidate for President.

[randolphfuller]

No matter who would be selected as a running mate, the "sore loser" statutes and other ballot access impediments would be an obstacle that couls not be overcome.