View Full Version : Paul concedes that he is looking at a third party run? Not sure what to make of this
RonPaulVolunteer
12-27-2007, 03:53 PM
From: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_on_iowa_and_beyond.html
If he doesn't do well in the early primaries, Paul said he would re-evaluate his Republican bid and the possibility of a third-party run depending on how he does in the contests on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.
"With my staff I've never discussed it, but I sort of have that in my mind."
I suspect a misquote here. ??
.
scubasteve01
12-27-2007, 03:54 PM
I call shenanigans!
MsDoodahs
12-27-2007, 03:54 PM
I suspect a complete fabrication.
:)
devil21
12-27-2007, 03:55 PM
From: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_on_iowa_and_beyond.html
I suspect a misquote here. ??
That makes no sense whatsoever. Every time he is asked about that he says he has no intention of running third party. That must be a misquote or outright fabrication.
Joe3113
12-27-2007, 03:56 PM
It's bull
RPinSEAZ
12-27-2007, 03:58 PM
On an NPR interview they asked him something like. "With all of the money you have raised, do you think a third party run, assuming you don't get nominated as a Republican, is viable?" He responded. "It's certainly feasible."
FluffyUnbound
12-27-2007, 03:59 PM
Actually, I read that quote as more addressing when he would withdraw from the Republican primaries. If he gets shellacked everywhere through Super Tuesday, he would stop and re-evaluate what he's doing.
AlexMerced
12-27-2007, 04:00 PM
Yeah, it's odd, though if he were to expand on his answer that is what I'd imagine he'd say to be fair.
It's his ace up his sleeve. When he goes to the RNC, he will have this as a trump card if it is brokered.
Think12345
12-27-2007, 04:04 PM
It's his ace up his sleeve. When he goes to the RNC, he will have this as a trump card if it is brokered.
+1
They must know no Paulites will vote for a neocon.
RonPaulVolunteer
12-27-2007, 04:06 PM
It certainly is an ace up his sleeve. IF he loses the nomination (possible), and he declares a third party run, he is handing a guaranteed victory to the Democrats. Now, if the Republican party had a clue, they would soon realize this and offer Paul a VP spot, which I imagine he would actually accept. Or, he will put his foot down and say, "the nomination or a Dem in the White House, your call".
.
Eponym_mi
12-27-2007, 04:11 PM
I will vote RP in the general election....doesn't matter to me whether anyone nominates him or not. Writing Ron Paul is very simple.;)
Bradley in DC
12-27-2007, 04:14 PM
From: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_on_iowa_and_beyond.html
I suspect a misquote here. ??
.
Sounds feasible to me. The official campaign has no one with any Republican Party or presidential campaign experience--and most of them are hostile to it anyway.
jmunjr
12-27-2007, 04:15 PM
+1
They must know no Paulites will vote for a neocon.
Ummm, even the Neocons are better than Hillary.. Since both plan on taking my freedom, I'll pick the one that lets me keep a little more money.
AlexMerced
12-27-2007, 04:17 PM
It certainly is an ace up his sleeve. IF he loses the nomination (possible), and he declares a third party run, he is handing a guaranteed victory to the Democrats. Now, if the Republican party had a clue, they would soon realize this and offer Paul a VP spot, which I imagine he would actually accept. Or, he will put his foot down and say, "the nomination or a Dem in the White House, your call".
.
Ron Paul has said he'd be hesistant to accept a VP slot from any of the candidates on Jay Leno
devil21
12-27-2007, 04:19 PM
I will vote RP in the general election....doesn't matter to me whether anyone nominates him or not. Writing Ron Paul is very simple.;)
Can you do a write-in on the electronic voting machines?
Eponym_mi
12-27-2007, 04:22 PM
Can you do a write-in on the electronic voting machines?
We don't do Diebold here, but if we did, I'd demand a paper ballot.
It certainly is an ace up his sleeve. IF he loses the nomination (possible), and he declares a third party run, he is handing a guaranteed victory to the Democrats. Now, if the Republican party had a clue, they would soon realize this and offer Paul a VP spot, which I imagine he would actually accept. Or, he will put his foot down and say, "the nomination or a Dem in the White House, your call".
.
Exactly. And to boot, I think Dr. Paul could seriously diminish the Democratic candidate as well. He's strongest for civil liberty, and the anti-war stance.
All Dr. Paul has to do is show up with 25% of the delegates or more, and say "Want to lose 25% of your base, and likely 50% of your future base?"
lynnf
12-27-2007, 04:37 PM
Can you do a write-in on the electronic voting machines?
could in Texas, wasn't totally user-friendly, but wasn't impossible, I did it in
2004.
lynn
PatriotOne
12-27-2007, 04:52 PM
I suspect RP has lightened up on his stance not to run a 3rd party. He had no idea what the extent of his support was going to be or that he would have the funds to do it until recently. Now that he knows he will be supported and has the people behind him and that his message is being spread at the rate of a dry grass fire, he may just feel empowered and perhaps obligated to run a 3rd party now. It will give him and us more time to spread the message.
I hope he does if he isn't chosen as the Repub nom. I, for one, plan on pushing this as long as possible. More time will be on our side, no one else's.
MayTheRonBeWithYou
12-27-2007, 04:54 PM
Of course! If the GOP sheep diss him, we will go 3rd party. This is great news!!!
Mark Rushmore
12-27-2007, 04:56 PM
Ummm, even the Neocons are better than Hillary.. Since both plan on taking my freedom, I'll pick the one that lets me keep a little more money.
I hear Hillary's citizen detention camps have nicer facilities.
dircha
12-27-2007, 04:57 PM
I would expect nothing less.
Just think, if, say, Huckabee gets the nomination, how many Republicans nationally do you really think would vote for George W Bush 2.0 given the choice to vote for a true fiscal conservative who is against Clinton-esque nation building and big government?
I'd like to see him run as the Constitution Party candidate.
RPinSEAZ
12-27-2007, 05:01 PM
Ummm, even the Neocons are better than Hillary.. Since both plan on taking my freedom, I'll pick the one that lets me keep a little more money.
Will they really though? Who amongst the current Republican candidates are truly for smaller government? Fred Thompson.... maybe? Every one of them will continue to consolidate power and raise costs, which ultimately MUST be paid for by us.
The way I look at it is like this. The sooner that Democrats bring on the collapse of Socialism in the US the better. If we don't have a dramatic collapse no lessons will be learned and we'll just keep moving down the road to serfdom.
RPinSEAZ
12-27-2007, 05:02 PM
I would expect nothing less.
Just think, if, say, Huckabee gets the nomination, how many Republicans nationally do you really think would vote for George W Bush 2.0 given the choice to vote for a true fiscal conservative who is against Clinton-esque nation building and big government?
I'd like to see him run as the Constitution Party candidate.
The Constitution party is for banning gambling, pornography and prostitution.
shadow26
12-27-2007, 05:03 PM
Will they really though? Who amongst the current Republican candidates are truly for smaller government? Fred Thompson.... maybe? Every one of them will continue to consolidate power and raise costs, which ultimately MUST be paid for by us.
The way I look at it is like this. The sooner that Democrats bring on the collapse of Socialism in the US the better. If we don't have a dramatic collapse no lessons will be learned and we'll just keep moving down the road to serfdom.
There was a huge thread at Free Republic earlier claiming that Paul was going to run as a Constitution Party candidate.
Mattsa
12-27-2007, 05:04 PM
Ummm, even the Neocons are better than Hillary.. Since both plan on taking my freedom, I'll pick the one that lets me keep a little more money.
Much as I dislike Hitlery, I'd rather her in the Whitehose than Ghouliani or Romney or Fekkwitabee.
Though having none of the above in the Whitehouse would be infinitely preferable
KCIndy
12-27-2007, 05:05 PM
The problem is that he gets hammered with this question in almost every interview I've seen.
Dr. Paul is fairly literal in his thinking. He doesn't want to give a flat "Yes" or "no" because it's impossible to know what the future holds. It would be like me asking one of you, "do you absolutely rule out the possibility you might take a trip to Italy sometime in your life?" How the heck do you answer a question like that?
He has been consistent in saying he has no plans to run as a third party candidate - although I'm sure the Libertarian Party is chomping at the bit to sign him up again.
But all that's jumping the gun. There's a lot of speculation that Dr. Paul is going to do exceedingly well in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada. That's one more reason it would be silly of him to start talking about third party ambitions. He doesn't need to!
jarofclay
12-27-2007, 05:14 PM
Will they really though? Who amongst the current Republican candidates are truly for smaller government? Fred Thompson.... maybe? Every one of them will continue to consolidate power and raise costs, which ultimately MUST be paid for by us.
The way I look at it is like this. The sooner that Democrats bring on the collapse of Socialism in the US the better. If we don't have a dramatic collapse no lessons will be learned and we'll just keep moving down the road to serfdom.
I wouldn't give the GOP the time of day if they don't put Ron Paul in as the candidate. I will burn my card and register as a Libertarian the same day.
They think/want us to vote for whatever shlock they put up. NFW.
jarofclay
12-27-2007, 05:16 PM
There was a huge thread at Free Republic earlier claiming that Paul was going to run as a Constitution Party candidate.
Yeah that makes no sense whatsoever. First a Republican and then Libertarian and now Republican and then Constitutional party?? Makes no sense.
dircha
12-27-2007, 05:30 PM
The Constitution party is for banning gambling, pornography and prostitution.
The national party's platform is to eliminate unconstitutional federal meddling in state laws on those issues.
JohnnyWrath
12-27-2007, 05:33 PM
Let's hope to do well as Republican first, but by god I hope he runs as a third party and gives us more time to gain support. Time to gain name recognition has been one of the biggest hurdles.
kaligula
12-27-2007, 05:37 PM
The national party's platform is to eliminate unconstitutional federal meddling in state laws on those issues.
If he's not going to run as a Libertarian he should just run as an independent. He would lose a lot of libertarian support if he ran explicitly on the constitutional party ticket. I wouldn't support him in that endeavor.
RPinSEAZ
12-27-2007, 05:41 PM
The national party's platform is to eliminate unconstitutional federal meddling in state laws on those issues.
Look again.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Pornography
We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
Bison
12-27-2007, 05:45 PM
The Constitution party is for banning gambling, pornography and prostitution.
You like to keep posting that but it is very misleading.
The CP wants to remove the Government out of gambling. And they just want to make sure the Porn is not forced upon people who don't want to see it or on minors who should not see it.
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.
Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.
The above quotes are from the platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php).
They are not looking to Ban anything. If you want to piss away your money at casinos or on the lottery or hole up in your home to view perversion as an adult, no one wants to stop you. In the four years I have been involved with the CP I have never even heard this topic discussed. Yes, its in the platform and I would suppose is believed by most in the Party but stop acting like they are on some crusade to ban all vice.
We now return you to our regular programming.
militant
12-27-2007, 05:46 PM
basically i think RP meant that if he *doesn't* do well in the primaries, there wouldn't be much need for a 3rd party run, but that if he does decent and it looks like he just needs more time to recruit the troops, so to speak, it'll be reasonable to do it. ... or was this obvious from the comments, if he actually did make them? i dunno, i'm half asleep, iowa in a week is scaring the hell out of me, someone get me some coffee and a camel nonfilter ....
axiomata
12-27-2007, 05:48 PM
Big mistake on Paul's behalf if true.
rexsolomon
12-27-2007, 05:48 PM
Ron Paul Moderators PLEASE be vigilant.
There are people pretending to be Ron Paul advocates on this site.
They are spreading false information.
Kindly delete such trash whenever you find it.
Just create a junk folder open to anyone to review.
Thanks.
constituent
12-27-2007, 05:49 PM
Who cares besides the MSM?
President Paul is what he is...
beyond label, that is.
....oh yea, future President too if that counts for anything.
Badger Paul
12-27-2007, 05:50 PM
But to what end does this go on? We could probably win the LP and CP nominations if we ask for them but for what in the end? Eight per cent? Ten percent? What does that prove? Is RP going to be active members of both parties? Run as an Independent? OK but comes after 2008? Form a new party?
The reality is we have two major parties and we have the opportunity, if we stick with it, to shape one of them. The rest is just dead-end politics. Regardless of how we do, we should run in every primary and every caucus until the end, see how many delegates we get pledged to us and work to change the GOP. It can be done and has been done in the past. There's no reason why Ron Paul and his supporters cannot do the same.
RPinSEAZ
12-27-2007, 05:50 PM
You like to keep posting that but it is very misleading.
??? It says right in the description you posted that they would like to use the power of the government to play a "vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards".
Regulation like that is anathema to Dr Paul and the constitution, so I point it out as a reason why he wouldn't run on that party's platform. Personally, I have nothing against the party and would agree that pornography is damaging, I just don't think they should be able to pick and choose like that if they're going to call themselves the "Constitution Party".
Bradley in DC
12-27-2007, 05:55 PM
Ron Paul Moderators PLEASE be vigilant.
There are people pretending to be Ron Paul advocates on this site.
They are spreading false information.
Yeah, especially beware those with few posts. :p
constituent
12-27-2007, 06:01 PM
Yeah, especially beware those with few posts. :p
you're good.
jesshwarren
12-27-2007, 06:05 PM
Miss QUOTE
RonPaulVolunteer
12-27-2007, 06:07 PM
Ron Paul Moderators PLEASE be vigilant.
There are people pretending to be Ron Paul advocates on this site.
They are spreading false information.
Kindly delete such trash whenever you find it.
Just create a junk folder open to anyone to review.
Thanks.
Excuse me. You might want to watch your mouth Mr whole 12 posts.
My support of Ron Paul is unquestionable.
.
Bison
12-27-2007, 06:12 PM
Where does it say they want to Ban it completely?
Its community standards that say to darken the windows on porn shops and cover the magazines in the stores. That is done so people who don't want to view it don't have to. Thats not unreasonable nor does it ban people from viewing it.
Ultimately its the people who set the standards for their own community, after all we are the government. Also the government they would be talking about is state or local government. If you prefer looser decency standards you can always go to San Francisco or Province town.
If a certain town or county voted to have tighter decency laws would this be anti Constitution? Or is it constitutional to force indecency on a community that does not want to be exposed to it? Should it be left up to the people at all? Should the Government say you will have loose decency standards and you will like it?
Personally I think it should be left up to the people of the community. Stinktown NY has no business telling Mud hole Oregon what their community standards should be.
CelestialRender
12-27-2007, 06:30 PM
+1
They must know no Paulites will vote for a neocon.
QFT.
dirknb@hotmail.com
12-27-2007, 06:39 PM
The GOP has been the vehicle for getting exposure and building support. RP will wisely ride it as long as possible. If he doesn't get the nomination, he would be much better off running as an Independent than 3rd party. By the time it gets to that point where a decision has to be made, he'll have enough support. He probably also knows most of us will write him in regardless, he may as well run with it. He's going to win either way.
RonPaulVolunteer
12-27-2007, 06:42 PM
I think he HAS to fight for the nomination. I doubt very much he could win 3rd party or even come 2nd. Do people seriously think he would win as a 3rd party? I guess we would have a good chunk of time to get the word out at least.
.
Jaykzo
12-27-2007, 06:44 PM
Something similar is being discussed on Fark right now.
http://www.modernconservative.com/the_metablog/1285_Modcon_exclusive:_Ron_Paul_to_make_third_part y_run_on_Constitution_Party_ticket.html
richk
12-27-2007, 06:45 PM
+1
They must know no Paulites will vote for a neocon.
After that hate speech by Bill Kristol on Fox News Christmas Eve, I don't think anyone for Dr. Paul should even consider voting for a neo-con. I'm certainly not. I've had enough of their BS. Let the neocon party die a quick death. :mad:
Bison
12-27-2007, 06:47 PM
Its possible that the CP and LP would put him on the ballot regardless of his decision to run third party or not. That would put him on the ballot in all fifty states. Of course if he wins the nomination that won't be necessary.
Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
12-27-2007, 06:55 PM
winning isn't the most important thing, really.
Getting seats in Congress and in the Courts is the legacy of hope from this campaign whether he wins or not
slantedview
12-27-2007, 06:57 PM
"the nomination or a Dem in the White House, your call".
.
;)
hahaha
dirknb@hotmail.com
12-27-2007, 06:59 PM
winning isn't the most important thing, really.
Getting seats in Congress and in the Courts is the legacy of hope from this campaign whether he wins or not
As a Congressman he didn't get the microphone on the national stage, as President they couldn't deny him the microphone. It's our best hope to win Congress as well.
anewvoice
12-27-2007, 07:01 PM
Hillary or Guiliani
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! !
Sorry, I just went fetal. That decision is much akin to choosing which ear to have cut off, which of the boys to be kicked in, which type of skin eating disease to be rolled in... well you get the point.
It's follow the Constitution or nothing. Ron Paul is simple to spell and write.
dirknb@hotmail.com
12-27-2007, 07:04 PM
I think he HAS to fight for the nomination. I doubt very much he could win 3rd party or even come 2nd. Do people seriously think he would win as a 3rd party? I guess we would have a good chunk of time to get the word out at least.
.
He definitely has to fight for it, and so do we.
However, the general election is still over 10 months away. Think about how much his support has snowballed to this point, and project that forward. Perot got almost 20% of the vote after shooting himself in the foot twice. If he hadn't dropped out for awhile and picked who he did for a running mate he would probably have done much better. And RP has a way better message than he did. People were hungry for a change in the status quo even back then, they are even more ready for it now.
torchbearer
12-27-2007, 07:09 PM
Sounds like a subtle warning to the GOP leadership, accept the revolution or you will loose.
Bison
12-27-2007, 07:22 PM
Sounds like a subtle warning to the GOP leadership, accept the revolution or you will loose.
Good point.
dirknb@hotmail.com
12-27-2007, 07:34 PM
Sounds like a subtle warning to the GOP leadership, accept the revolution or you will loose.
Hillary is the annointed one, the Republicans aren't supposed to win this time. Anyone who thinks the top levels of the two parties are independent of each other is kidding themselves.
MsDoodahs
12-27-2007, 07:38 PM
Hillary is the annointed one, the Republicans aren't supposed to win this time. Anyone who thinks the top levels of the two parties are independent of each other is kidding themselves.
Absolutely. I was told that very thing by a Republican party official - the GOP does not expect to win this time, they WANT Hillary - they think she'll screw up the country really badly and then the GOP will "ride in to save us all" in 2012.
They're insane.
Peace&Freedom
12-27-2007, 07:49 PM
I think he HAS to fight for the nomination. I doubt very much he could win 3rd party or even come 2nd. Do people seriously think he would win as a 3rd party? I guess we would have a good chunk of time to get the word out at least.
.
Third party candidates have failed because 1) they get no coverage, 2) they have no deep infrastructure of support, and 3) because of 1 and 2, they are unable to raise money to run a 50 state race that is competitive with the two big parties.
November 5 and December 16 changed everything. The grassroots has not only massively established its dedication and unity behind Paul (deep infrastructure), it also has developed an efficient way to get SERIOUS funding to him that bypasses the media blackout. Put this together and you have the basis for a 3rd party candidacy that CAN win. All fifty states are winner take all---you may only need to get 35-40% (in a 3-way dance) to win each. A popular candidate with Perot-like money can do that. Now that we have two giant money bombs behind us, WE KNOW WE CAN DELIVER THE LATTER.
As I thought-ballooned weeks ago: Let's say 'it's over' by late February with Giuliani or Romney as the locked-in GOP nominee (yuck). Paul quits the GOP primaries and announces in early March he's running for the LP nod. Then he can reasonably expect 7-8 well-planned money bomb 'drops' between March and October averaging $5-7 million each, or $35 to 50 million for his summer-fall campaign, PLUS matching funds if he elects to go for that. Old line media won't be able to shut him out due to this money, as paid commercials and his already-organized web presence will bypass them.
Suggested moneybombs---March 17 (Iraq war 5th anniversary), April 15 (Tax Day), Memorial Day (anti-war protest), Independence Day (obvious), August 6 (Hiroshima anniversary), September 11 (start a new 9-11 inquiry) and Columbus Day ('Discover Hope for America'). Paul should go the 3rd party route IN ADDITION to seeking the Republican nomination, since once he collects the mid-year money bomb donations and the clout that comes with them, Republicans will KNOW his presence on the ballot in November means certain defeat for the GOP UNLESS they also nominate him in September.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.