PDA

View Full Version : So Ron Paul Won’t Make A 3rd Party Run, Eh?




Bradley in DC
10-25-2007, 10:40 PM
http://donklephant.com/2007/10/25/so-ron-paul-wont-make-a-3rd-party-run-eh/

So Ron Paul Won’t Make A 3rd Party Run, Eh?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 3rd Party, Ron Paul, 2008 Election

I found this over at Political Insider…
During an MSNBC interview Wednesday, Rep. Ron Paul was asked if he would run for president as a third-party candidate. Paul replied, “No, I don’t plan to run in a third party. That’s not my goal. But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neocon position of promoting–” Interviewer Norah O’Donnell cut Paul off at that point, and did not return to the topic during the rest of the interview.

Unless Paul can pull of an amazing feat of political maneuvering, the GOP will most likely nominate somebody who at least is in favor of war and Bush’s neo-con agenda. Look at the front runners…Giuliani, Romney…hell, even Thompson hasn’t give any clear signs that he wouldn’t continue the WoT the way Bush has laid it out. McCain may be the only one who has said unkind things about Bush’s agenda, but he’s not gonna get it.

So there ya go Ron Paul fans. I know you told me how he would NEVER run as a 3rd party candidate, but he may have other ideas.

Thoughts?

Original_Intent
10-25-2007, 10:55 PM
I have always thought that Ron's claims of not making a third party run were overstated by people.

He always answered like, "no, that is not something that we have considered at this point, third party runs are difficult due to ballot access issues..."

It never seemed to me that he was saying it would never happen. He was saying at this point in the campaign that it was not something that he had considered and something that he did not WANT to do (my subtext on that is because he WANTS to win the nomination)

And that should still be our coal and our focus.

But seriously, with all the meetups all over the country, would it be that hard to get ballot access in all 50 states? I mean we have the numbers that the LP and CP could only dream of...

dsentell
10-25-2007, 11:03 PM
Of course RP wants the Republican nomination and right now he is not in any position to start talking about a third party run. But in one interview I saw, when asked if he would run third party if not nominated, he said something to the effect of if support continues, I don't think we could shut this thing down.

I have been told (have not personally checked this out) that the Constitution Party will already appear on nearly all, if not all ballots. I have always thought that if not nominated by the Reps, the Constitutional Party and/or Libertarian Party candidates would step down and name RP ................

goRPaul
10-25-2007, 11:50 PM
All Ron needs is at least 5% polling as a third party and he will make it to one of the nationally televised debates. If the other two candidates are Hillary and Rudy, with the entire nation watching, it'll be quite the historic debate. How likely is it that Ron will poll 5%?

yaz
10-25-2007, 11:52 PM
thompson is so stupid that he might change his mind on foreign policy once he gets in office and someone talks to him. i agree with nixon, "fred thompson is an idiot."

Duckman
10-25-2007, 11:59 PM
How likely is it that Ron will poll 5%?

I'm certain Ron polls 5% NOW if you asked ALL potential voters, not just registered Republicans.

Perry
10-26-2007, 12:02 AM
http://donklephant.com/2007/10/25/so-ron-paul-wont-make-a-3rd-party-run-eh/

So Ron Paul Won’t Make A 3rd Party Run, Eh?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 3rd Party, Ron Paul, 2008 Election

I found this over at Political Insider…
During an MSNBC interview Wednesday, Rep. Ron Paul was asked if he would run for president as a third-party candidate. Paul replied, “No, I don’t plan to run in a third party. That’s not my goal. But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neocon position of promoting–” Interviewer Norah O’Donnell cut Paul off at that point, and did not return to the topic during the rest of the interview.

Unless Paul can pull of an amazing feat of political maneuvering, the GOP will most likely nominate somebody who at least is in favor of war and Bush’s neo-con agenda. Look at the front runners…Giuliani, Romney…hell, even Thompson hasn’t give any clear signs that he wouldn’t continue the WoT the way Bush has laid it out. McCain may be the only one who has said unkind things about Bush’s agenda, but he’s not gonna get it.

So there ya go Ron Paul fans. I know you told me how he would NEVER run as a 3rd party candidate, but he may have other ideas.

Thoughts?


I think you have some things out of context. I watched the interview. Now he did say he has no intention of running on a third party ticket as he always does but as far as i recall when Paul said the following:


But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neocon position

...it was in response to to the question of whether he would support the republican nominee if it was someone other than himself.

The only reason Paul does not rule out running on a third party ticket is not because he is currently considering it but because he is a wise enough man to know that he does not know the future and that anything can happen.
Stark contrast.

Johncjackson
10-26-2007, 12:12 AM
I don't know if he would, but there would be no point. If you think he gets ignored as a Republican, you haven't seen anything. As a LP or CP candidate, he might get 1% and certainly won't be invited to debates. He would do better as an Independent as both the LP and CP have a very negative image attached to their labels. He can buy ballot access and get plenty of volunteer petitioners as well. He doesn't need the LP or CP, THEY need him. He has way more money than the LP's entire operating budget and balot access drives. Plus he will already get a high % of LP and CP votes whether he runs with them or not.

IMHO, he should only go for the GOP nom, and if it ends there go back to his COngressional seat. When Hillary wins, he will still be in a position to influence future revolution.

Primbs
10-26-2007, 12:15 AM
Republicans will have a hard time voting for Ron Paul knowing that Hillary might win as a result. However, Nader is talking about running.

Also if Ron Paul were to look competitive with 20% or more of the electorate then people might go for him.

Harry96
10-26-2007, 12:26 AM
All Ron needs is at least 5% polling as a third party and he will make it to one of the nationally televised debates. If the other two candidates are Hillary and Rudy, with the entire nation watching, it'll be quite the historic debate. How likely is it that Ron will poll 5%?

In 2000, formal criteria were set for the first time for inclusion in the presidential debates. The polling criterion was set at 15%, not 5%. So unless it's been changed since then (and I don't think it has), you're wrong.

Ron Paul seems like a wise person to me, and I wise person generally avoids making absolute guarantees about the future. So, when he says something like "I have no plans to do that," my guess is he's sincere, but he's choosing his words carefully so that he doesn't have them thrown back in his face if he changes his mind due to circumstances that today are either unforeseen or that seem impossible.

For example, if I were Ron Paul (or anyone else without $100 million of my own money to spend on a campaign), I would have no desire to run a typical third-party campaign, where the deck is stacked against you in various ways that prevent you from making an impact.

But if support for my campaign continued to snowball, and by the time it became obvious that I'd lost the Republican nomination, I still had $20-30 million in the bank, high poll numbers and a lot of people clamoring for me to run as a third party candidate, and it looked like I could get into the debates, I might change my mind. And, while I think today that such a scenario has less than 1% probability, I would choose my words carefully, as Dr. Paul has, just to leave the door open for such an improbable scenario, because the future is uncertain.

goRPaul
10-26-2007, 12:41 AM
In 2000, formal criteria were set for the first time for inclusion in the presidential debates. The polling criterion was set at 15%, not 5%. So unless it's been changed since then (and I don't think it has), you're wrong.

That's right, I forgot about that. For Perot it was 5%, or maybe you just need that number to get federal funding for the next election. The laws are so biased.

http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2004.html

New question: Can Ron get 15% as a third party? Damn, that's so much tougher.

I'm under the impression that if he's in just one nationally televised debate, he will destroy both major parties' candidates in a style similar to that of Godzilla.

Man from La Mancha
10-26-2007, 06:43 AM
With 100 million in the bank it would be hard to not try. Who needs the debates when he has money to sell himself and challenge them. 10 million people x $100 = 1 billion. just a thought
.

Ron Paul Fan
10-26-2007, 06:57 AM
I've always said that all of this speculation and talk about a 3rd party run is a moot point. Ron Paul will be the nominee for the dying Republican Party. I guarantee it.

Leslie Webb
10-26-2007, 10:37 AM
Run him as a write-in. 'Ron Paul' is not so hard to spell.

jmdrake
10-26-2007, 10:55 AM
The neocons are salivating for the chance to paint Ron Paul as a "disloyal republican". That's what's behind all of these "Will you support the eventual nominee" questions. And they would love to take any hint that he might run as a third party candidate and run with it! It's vital to focus on winning the republican party nomination and nothing else. There are always other bridges that can be crossed without too much effort if we get to them.

Regards,

John M. Drake

kevman657
10-26-2007, 11:20 AM
If RP didn't win and he enabled Rudy to win IT WOULD NOT BE WORTH IT. Rudy is going to be Bush #2 and we cannot AFFORD that. He would still more from Hilary than he would from Rudy.


Please don't run as a third party RP!

jmdrake
10-26-2007, 11:38 AM
If RP didn't win and he enabled Rudy to win IT WOULD NOT BE WORTH IT. Rudy is going to be Bush #2 and we cannot AFFORD that. He would still more from Hilary than he would from Rudy.


Please don't run as a third party RP!

I really don't see a dimes bit of difference between Rudy and Hillary or Bush and Hillary for that matter. Did you know that the Bushes and the Clintons vacation together these days? Are you aware that the owner Faux News is actively fund raising for Hillary? I'm also not convinced that a Ron Paul run would get more of Hillary's votes than Giulianis. Remember Dr. Dobson hinting that conservative Christians might launch their own third party candidate if Rudy gets the nomination?

Oh, I'm sure that if there is a serious third party candidate who doesn't actually win the general election that he will be blamed for whoever the eventual winner is. But if Hillary and Rudy are the nominees then America looses no matter WHO "wins". We either win the nomination, or we're just in a world of trouble.

Regards,

John M. Drake

DrNoZone
10-26-2007, 01:46 PM
I have been told (have not personally checked this out) that the Constitution Party will already appear on nearly all, if not all ballots. I have always thought that if not nominated by the Reps, the Constitutional Party and/or Libertarian Party candidates would step down and name RP ................

I hope and pray he does NOT run on the Constitution Party ticket if he does decide to continue on IF he loses the Republican primary run. They aren't as Constitutional as their name would suggest. Go check out their platform. My number one issue with them: it seems that they support the War On (Some) Drugs, at least at the state and local levels. I personally do not see how even THAT is Constitutional, since the Bill Of Rights recognizes our freedom to do with our own bodies as we see fit. If we don't have THAT freedom, what freedom do we have?

IF he runs as a 3rd party, I hope it's as a Libertarian or, even better, an Independent.

Corydoras
10-26-2007, 05:08 PM
even better, an Independent.

Ballot access is incredibly difficult for independents, no?

kylejack
10-26-2007, 05:10 PM
I suspect he'll run (I) or third party. But its important for him and for us to keep saying that its not going to happen, or else he won't have a chance in the Republican primary. Repeat after me: "Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he has no intention of doing that."

Mandrik
10-26-2007, 05:13 PM
No one's thinking about it, but if he stays as healthy as he is now, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't run in 2012. Think of how unknown he was going into 2007. Come 2011 when he starts campaigning again (or at this rate, 2010 :P), we could pick up where we left off and really get the RP Revolution in full swing. ESPECIALLY if Clinton is in the White House.

Just a thought.