I think the Republicans would rather lose than nominate Ron Paul.

[RonPaulFever]

If Ron Paul is elected, the gravy train for these parasites in Congress ends. But with another 4 years of Obama, things carry on as usual. I think the party's rejection of RP has less to do with ideology and more to do with money and power. So instead of nominating Paul, the candidate most likely to attract disgruntled Dems and independents and beat Obama, they would rather put up a Romney or Perry and lose the general. Thoughts?

[FSP-Rebel]

I think we can anticipate a third party run by a Trump or thereabouts if Paul gets the nom. So, yes to the OP.

[LibertyEagle]

If Ron Paul is elected, the gravy train for these parasites in Congress ends. But with another 4 years of Obama, things carry on as usual. I think the party's rejection of RP has less to do with ideology and more to do with money and power. So instead of nominating Paul, the candidate most likely to attract disgruntled Dems and independents and beat Obama, they would rather put up a Romney or Perry and lose the general. Thoughts?

Have you ever wondered why, regardless of whether there is a Democrat in power, or a Republican, they both lead us to bigger government, more spending, and more wars? Or, have you noticed that when one party is in power the other rails against legislation passed by the other party, but when the other party gets in power, they do absolutely nothing to get rid of that thing they railed so hard about? In fact, they add on to it.

All things to ponder.

But, yes, to answer your question, the goal is to keep an advocate of big government in power and all that entails.

[TheDriver]

I think they're going to lose if they don't nominate Ron Paul.

[DaninPA]

I think you're right.

[MJU1983]

Totally... Anyone establishment (Perry, Romney, even Bachmann) = gravy train continues. By that I mean the Fed, and the Military Industrial Complex. Lobbyists, Fat Cats, and PACs. The media connections all remain intact, etc.

Oh and yes, keeping Obama in place would be very similar to having Perry, Romney, or Bachmann in place for the money manipulators, thought controllers, and government cronies. Just slightly different rhetoric for the public.

[Theocrat]

I don't think Republicans would rather lose than nominate Congressman Paul. It's more so that mainstream Republicans will not let go of their interventionist foreign policy and irrational support for Israel, two things of which Dr. Paul criticizes the most, especially as those two things continue to bankrupt our country.

[anewvoice]

This is the opposite side of our coin, should not be a surprise. We see no difference between Republican and Democrat statists, and the statists do not either. Ron Paul represents a true threat to the power base in D.C. and we should expect strong resistance.

[anaconda]

I think we can anticipate a third party run by a Trump or thereabouts if Paul gets the nom. So, yes to the OP.

I think we can anticipate a Paul 3rd Party run if he doesn't get the nomination. By the way, I don't think Trump will get many independent votes by the time November rolls around.

[mhad]

I think we can anticipate a Paul 3rd Party run if he doesn't get the nomination. By the way, I don't think Trump will get many independent votes by the time November rolls around.

It will be too late to run 3rd part... registration is closed in many state.

[Paul4Prez]

There is no "the Republicans". The nomination will be decided by the people who register and turn out to vote in the Republican primaries, caucuses, and conventions. If Ron Paul keeps gaining momentum, and enough Americans decide to vote for him, he will win the nomination.

Of course, when Ron Paul does win the nomination, the neocons will immediately start pushing for Rudy Giuliani to launch a third party campaign. The Establishment always mocks and dismisses third party campaigns, until their favored candidate loses the nomination, whereupon they become the biggest fans of them.

[libertybrewcity]

I think it would be fair to say you wouldn't have full party support. If Rand didn't have Grayson's full support, the establishment part of the Republican Party may have not have voted, giving Conway the election. The Republican Party is made up of different factions. (i.e. Defense hawks, fiscal cons, and social cons) We will have work to do.

[Anti Federalist]

Have you ever wondered why, regardless of whether there is a Democrat in power, or a Republican, they both lead us to bigger government, more spending, and more wars? Or, have you noticed that when one party is in power the other rails against legislation passed by the other party, but when the other party gets in power, they do absolutely nothing to get rid of that thing they railed so hard about? In fact, they add on to it.

All things to ponder.

But, yes, to answer your question, the goal is to keep an advocate of big government in power and all that entails.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University

[anaconda]

It will be too late to run 3rd part... registration is closed in many state.

Registration for? The Libertarian National Convention is May 4-6. They offered it to him in 2008.

[The Free Hornet]

So I was watching Meet the Press today, and they show the graph of presidential candiates. Ron Paul in 3rd with 13% and a trailing Huntsman with 1%. They harp on and on and on about Huntsman even saying he represents 15% (!) of the GOP. A very lazy 15% that doesn't vote for him. They really want Huntsman and they think he has a chance (RP = no chance despite 13X as much National support).

When Ron Paul is nominated, I suspect not a 3rd party surprise as the logistics of that are too difficult. Ross Perot had millions of dollars and started his campaign sufficiently early. I suspect that a Huntsman-like Republican will cross parties and become Obama's running mate. Or, possilby Hillary Clinton. Anyway, that is my guess. Joe Biden is fun, but they will pick someone to counter whoever win the GOP nomination.

[anaconda]

It will be too late to run 3rd part... registration is closed in many state.

Can you expand on that a little...it would be much appreciated...are you referring to some kind of registration for the candidate?

[CaptainAmerica]

Every chairman of every local GOP district all across the united states are about to lose their chairs. Every state chairman is about to lose their chair. It is a power they do not want to lose, and their senators/house reps don't want to lose. The representatives and local chairmen are all in bed with each other and the chain of corruption is tightly knit from local to national level.I have seen it in Arizona, it is a lockstep allegiance to power and money. Once they begin losing their chairs they change the rules and shut local elections down using sheriffs (happened in az district 4)

[puppetmaster]

the upper echelon does not care which party wins.....as long as it is their guy.

[Jandrsn21]

I think they're going to lose if they don't nominate Ron Paul.

Yeah they will, people just aren't ready for another Bushesque type president.

[dntrpltt]

I don't know. Some strongly anti-Paul republicans I know say that they would vote for him, albeit reluctantly, if he was the nominee. Others say that they wouldn't waste their gas driving to the voting booth... (...Because "he doesn't have a chance./he isn't a real republican./he is going to be just as bad as Obama.")

A lot of the anti-Paul rhetoric I hear from these republicans has to do with his so called "far-out" foreign policy positions. But no matter how much they hate the guy, they say first, He was/is a great congressman; and two, His economic policies are outstanding and are needed in this economy. I believe that both of those would be a driving factor for most establishment republicans to vote for him over Obama on general election day, regardless of his views on war.

[speciallyblend]

bottom line ,if the gop does not nominate Ron Paul 2012, obama wins via obama republicans!!

[anaconda]

bottom line ,if the gop does not nominate Ron Paul 2012, obama wins via obama republicans!!

I respectfully disagree. Obama is too unpopular. I'm afraid the RINO will beat Obama. Unless a popular 3rd Party candidate peels votes from the RINO. The liberty movement will be better positioned with an Obama second term. If a RINO gets elected to the White House in 2012, Rand won't get near the White House for at least another 8 years. Maybe never.

[Ronpauljones]

I respectfully disagree. Obama is too unpopular. I'm afraid the RINO will beat Obama. Unless a popular 3rd Party candidate peels votes from the RINO. The liberty movement will be better positioned with an Obama second term. If a RINO gets elected to the White House in 2012, Rand won't get near the White House for at least another 8 years. Maybe never.

It depends on who it is. Perry and Romney are there to lose to Obama. He would beat either one by a landslide. I also don't see Bachmann beating him. The only other candidate I see beating him besides Ron Paul is Sarah Palin. Palin is massively popular.

[acptulsa]

This is the opposite side of our coin, should not be a surprise. We see no difference between Republican and Democrat statists, and the statists do not either. Ron Paul represents a true threat to the power base in D.C. and we should expect strong resistance.

This. The only way I disagree with the OP is I don't see what it has to do with Republicans.

There are rank and file Republicans who would rather give up the wars than lose. The talk radio has done a good enough job of brainwashing that they aren't particularly numberous, but they are out there, especially in my end of the nation. And we do need to win them over.

There are also rank and file Republicans who just don't want to lose, period. They are a tougher sell. But if we can convince them of two things--one, that their states won't legalize meth and two that these wars aren't really keeping them safe in their beds--we can have them as well. Tough sell. Believe me, I know. But there it is.


I think we can anticipate a Paul 3rd Party run if he doesn't get the nomination.

Not a snowball's chance around Hannity.


By the way, I don't think Trump will get many independent votes by the time November rolls around.

Never would have in any case. He wouldn't be there to do this; he'd there to give Republicans someone to vote for in the general other than Ron Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

I think we can anticipate a Paul 3rd Party run if he doesn't get the nomination. By the way, I don't think Trump will get many independent votes by the time November rolls around.

Give it up. He has said NO, he isn't going to do it. Focus on winning the Republican nomination.

[LibertyEagle]

There are rank and file Republicans who would rather give up the wars than lose. The talk radio has done a good enough job of brainwashing that they aren't particularly numberous, but they are out there, especially in my end of the nation. And we do need to win them over.

There are also rank and file Republicans who just don't want to lose, period. They are a tougher sell. But if we can convince them of two things--one, that their states won't legalize meth and two that these wars aren't really keeping them safe in their beds--we can have them as well. Tough sell. Believe me, I know. But there it is.

I absolutely agree. We really can do this.

It's important for everyone to delineate between the leadership of a given political party and the rank and file. They are two very different things and usually have totally different motivations.

[anaconda]

It depends on who it is. Perry and Romney are there to lose to Obama. He would beat either one by a landslide. I also don't see Bachmann beating him. The only other candidate I see beating him besides Ron Paul is Sarah Palin. Palin is massively popular.

What's your reasoning that Romney or some other centrist RINO can't absolutely destroy Obama? Especially in the economy of November 2012...

[anaconda]

Give it up. He has said NO, he isn't going to do it. Focus on winning the Republican nomination.

Your statement is incorrect. He has not said "no." I do, however, think Dr. Paul has a real shot at the Republican nomination.

[therealist]

I talk to a lot of neocon friends. I actually find their hatred of Ron Paul to be equal to the disdain they have for Obama. It's kinda scary

so yea, there seems to be some credence to the fact hardcore Repubs might prefer Obama for Paul. It's quite disturbing to me the way neocons cling to their failed views.

plus as many posters already pointed out, they are afraid the gravy train will run out

[amaimbourg]

Once a candidate runs on a particular party for the nomination and loses, he cannot switch to a 3rd party.

[sailingaway]

It will be too late to run 3rd part... registration is closed in many state.

not for the general election. There are other issues, though, and I can't really see Ron doing that unless some extraordinary crises occurs and none of the other candidates will do anything about it.... which is always possible.

[HeyArchie]

Your statement is incorrect. He has not said "no." I do, however, think Dr. Paul has a real shot at the Republican nomination.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8ECtPUDW64
That's from yesterday. Skip to 6:05 for the third party question.

Wolf Blitzer: "So if the Republican turns out not to be you, Congressman, didn't change his or her positions, didn't come around to where you stand, would you consider running as a third party (perhaps Libertarian) candidate for the president?"

Ron Paul: "I haven't thought about it and I have no plans to do that, so no that wouldn't be in the cards for me."

[speciallyblend]

bottom line if the gop does not nominate Ron Paul 2012. i truly believe the gop will elect obama!! romney will get ripped apart by obama no matter what the media polls say!!

[phill4paul]

If that is their plan than fine by me. No One But Paul! I'm tired of their dirty politics.

[ctiger2]

"I think the Republicans would rather lose than nominate Ron Paul."

LOL! You're just figuring out now that BOTH the R's and D's in charge don't want to lose POWER?

The status quo LOVES POWER and Ron aims to take the POWER away from both of them.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKJZZrTMs1hQJjVgfDC21Gmk_TnIWhb GpYw3x05I6_raXiNgEtjE_VWfDn

[heavenlyboy34]

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown UniversityYou must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. :( This ^^ cannot be stressed enough.

[slamhead]

Any other GOP stooge will loose because we are going to write in Ron Paul. In 2008 I wrote in Ron Paul but just looking at the results from 2008 I am discouraged as he barely registered with 0.04%.

[libertybrewcity]

I think in reality the Republicans just want to win. Elections are all about winning and really have nothing to do with "continuing the gravy train". Republicans protect their establishment candidates because they usually have the best chance of winning. Look at the tea party candidates in the 2010 elections. Sure, some did win but most lost or only won by a small margin.

If Ron Paul had the best chance of winning Republicans would probably vote for him.

[Carole]

If Ron Paul is elected, the gravy train for these parasites in Congress ends. But with another 4 years of Obama, things carry on as usual. I think the party's rejection of RP has less to do with ideology and more to do with money and power. So instead of nominating Paul, the candidate most likely to attract disgruntled Dems and independents and beat Obama, they would rather put up a Romney or Perry and lose the general. Thoughts?

Precisely what you said. They would be happy with Obama. They may even like the fact that the Dems keep the Senate, then they could postpone doing anything for four more years.

We had better hope that some excellent RP Republicans run for the Senate and House and win in 2012.

There is one not so little wrinkle. That is that the country is true in dire economic shape. Even Congress will have to cut spending. It will all be over, all the spending party they so love. Bu that time we could be a one world government. It was all set to happen by 2012-2014 anyway I think.

[Carole]

I think we can anticipate a Paul 3rd Party run if he doesn't get the nomination. By the way, I don't think Trump will get many independent votes by the time November rolls around.

Totally disagree. Ron Paul will not run on a third party ticket.

[John F Kennedy III]

bottom line if the gop does not nominate Ron Paul 2012. i truly believe the gop will elect obama!! romney will get ripped apart by obama no matter what the media polls say!!

Getting Obama re-elected is the plan.

[John F Kennedy III]

So if Ron doesn't win the republican nomination he can't run as an independent?

[heavenlyboy34]

Totally disagree. Ron Paul will not run on a third party ticket.
Yep. 3rd party would be a ridiculous waste of money-unless he changes his mind and wants to make this an "education" campaign. Even then, I think it would be a waste of money. JMHO.

[speciallyblend]

So if Ron doesn't win the republican nomination he can't run as an independent?

if the gop alienates him and marginalizes him and does not nominate him! Then i think ron paul could be a vp on a indy ticket or vp on 3rd party ticket. At that point the gop has said no. Then we say YES!!! I can see Ron paul accepting a vp slot as a 3rd party or indy once the gop has screwed him!! Then the gop electing obama or a 3rd party ticket winning against both parties as ron paul is in a vp slot.

[speciallyblend]

Yep. 3rd party would be a ridiculous waste of money-unless he changes his mind and wants to make this an "education" campaign. Even then, I think it would be a waste of money. JMHO.

once the gop has said no, what is a waste?? we are talking about the gop alienating him at this point already over for the gop!

[John F Kennedy III]

if the gop alienates him and marginalizes him and does not nominate him! Then i think ron paul could be a vp on a indy ticket or vp on 3rd party ticket. At that point the gop has said no. Then we say YES!!! I can see Ron paul accepting a vp slot as a 3rd party or indy once the gop has screwed him!! Then the gop electing obama or a 3rd party ticket winning against both parties as ron paul is in a vp slot.

I love the enthusiasm, but can you or someone else please answer my question?

[speciallyblend]

So if Ron doesn't win the republican nomination he can't run as an independent?

ok ,in some states they have sore loser laws so he can't run but this does not stop him from being a vp choice if the gop does not nominate him!! Not all states have sore loser laws but many do. If the point comes and the gop does not nominate ron paul! Then vp his really is only option on an indy ticket!!

[John F Kennedy III]

ok ,in some states they have sore loser laws so he can't run but this does not stop him from being a vp choice if the gop does not nominate him!! Not all states have sore loser laws but many do. If the point comes and the gop does not nominate ron paul! Then vp his really is only option on an indy ticket!!

Then honestly id rather see him run for governor of Texas. He would be able to do ALOT more good than as VP. And he would beat Perry in a landslide.

[cdc482]

[QUOTE=LibertyEagle;3512888]Have you ever wondered why, regardless of whether there is a Democrat in power, or a Republican, they both lead us to bigger government, more spending, and more wars? Or, have you noticed that when one party is in power the other rails against legislation passed by the other party, but when the other party gets in power, they do absolutely nothing to get rid of that thing they railed so hard about? In fact, they add on to it.

All things to ponder.

But, yes, to answer your question, the goal is to keep an advocate of big government in power and all that entails.[/QUOT exactly. This is why the third parties need to work together

[rp713]

you gotta realize, that most republicans right now and through next year will be in "anyone but obama" mode. so most will support a fiscal conservative, especially the tea party. they know they can criticize and debate other small issues later on.

[Keith and stuff]

I agree that Ron Paul is less like Romney than Obama is like Romney. I also think that lots of GOP insiders don't want Paul to get elected.

My guess is that if Romney gets the GOP nomination then he will be the next POTUS. I thought he was polling better with ind. voters than Paul. I know Romney is doing better with ind. voters than anyone else in New England, the part of the country with the most ind. voters per capita.