Why Ron Paul should not run third party...

[zebov]

A very interesting article on why it's better to run as Republican or Democrat even if your ideals don't match up directly with that part:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/31/the_third_party_temptation_discredits_its_candidat es_and_their_ideas?page=1

It's a little long, but it does mention that Ron Paul is doing the right thing by running on the Republican ticket and not a third-party ticket. He talks about how running on the Republican ticket with slightly differing ideals is the way that political paradigms have shifted in the past, not third-party runs.

[RevolutionSD]

A very interesting article on why it's better to run as Republican or Democrat even if your ideals don't match up directly with that part:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/31/the_third_party_temptation_discredits_its_candidat es_and_their_ideas?page=1

It's a little long, but it does mention that Ron Paul is doing the right thing by running on the Republican ticket and not a third-party ticket. He talks about how running on the Republican ticket with slightly differing ideals is the way that political paradigms have shifted in the past, not third-party runs.

"slightly" different ideals?
LOL!

[johngr]

Weren't the republicrats and demopublicans 3rd parties at one time?

[zebov]

Weren't the republicrats and demopublicans 3rd parties at one time?

Only in the most bizarre sense of the term... republicans came into being when there was only one party: the democrats (the whigs had died out). They were never third-party in the sense that we think of it. They were simply the replacement for the second party.

[zebov]

"slightly" different ideals?
LOL!

If you think about it, the ideals aren't THAT drastically different. Rewind the republican party to goldwater and reagan's runs and you'll see very similar talks that Ron Paul is giving. Goldwater and Reagan were "oddballs" too, but they converted the party (it took a couple presidential runs to get the ideology in the whitehouse, but it came about eventually).

I really do think that the author has a good point. We should try to change the Republican party into aligning more with what we believe, not try to overtake Repubs and Democrats with a third party (Libertarian). If all the Ron Paul Republicans became extremely active in their local GOP over the next 5-10 years, we'll see a major shift even if Paul doesn't get elected.

[JMann]

If Paul does decide to run if he doesn't get the nomination it should be as an independent. He shouldn't get involved in 3rd party politics and the disaster that is the Libertarian Party in particular.

[zebov]

If Paul does decide to run if he doesn't get the nomination it should be as an independent. He shouldn't get involved in 3rd party politics and the disaster that is the Libertarian Party in particular.

I agree with the article; I think Paul running third party would not only hurt the Republican nominee, but his ideology as well. By running third party it makes the libertarian-leaning republicans look fringe (compared to the momentum now that republicans are realizing they are more libertarian-leaning than they think), and it also directly removes all of the differences between current Republicanism and Ron Paul from the Republican party (ie. anyone who sorta agrees with Paul will have to choose a) stay with the Republican party and drop the Ron Paul parts of my ideals or b) drop from the Republican party and maintain my Ron Paul ideals... meaning there won't be anyone left in the Republican party that supports Ron Paul's ideals). Much better to let this election slide and for us all to get involved in our local GOP and try to get a good Ron Paul republican running for Prez in 2012 (after the eventual GOP nominee gets blown away in the general election and everyone freaks out saying "what can we do to improve our image and get votes").

[jmdrake]

Maybe so. Certainly Ron Paul can say "Been there, done that, didn't work". On the flip side if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination I'll be looking for a third party candidate to vote for. There's no way I'm voting for Hitlary or Ghouliani. And I regret not voting 3rd party back in 2004.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[zebov]

Maybe so. Certainly Ron Paul can say "Been there, done that, didn't work". On the flip side if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination I'll be looking for a third party candidate to vote for. There's no way I'm voting for Hitlary or Ghouliani. And I regret not voting 3rd party back in 2004.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I'm feeling the same way. I want the Republican party to pick Ron Paul for nomination, but if they don't, I don't want them to win with the person they do pick (except MAYBE a couple of the others I can tolerate). I'll likely give a protest vote to a third party, but I'd like that third-party candidate to be someone besides Paul so his ideologies can still "belong" in the Republican party for the coming years.

[RonPaulStreetTeam]

yeah this is all fine but if he doesnt make primaries he SHOULD run 3rd party!!!!

[zebov]

yeah this is all fine but if he doesnt make primaries he SHOULD run 3rd party!!!!

Why? What's the point? He will not win. He will discredit his ideas. He will pull all the people that support him from the Republican Party and thus segregate Republicans from Ron Paul Conservatives. What is the up side of a third party candidacy?

[Starks]

Why? What's the point? He will not win. He will discredit his ideas. He will pull all the people that support him from the Republican Party and thus segregate Republicans from Ron Paul Conservatives. What is the up side of a third party candidacy?

We save our country.

[zebov]

We save our country.

Please explain to me how voting for a candidate who will not win will save our country. Do you think he could actually win as a third party?

Him NOT running third party has a MUCH better chance of us saving our country in the long run than if he DID run third party.