Ron Paul won't rule out third-party run

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: The Politico

By: Daniel W. Reilly
Dec 23, 2007

Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused to rule out the possibility he may run as a third-party candidate during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Paul, however, downplayed expectations that he will run on a potential third-party libertarian ticket, saying “I have no intention of doing that.” When asked by host Tim Russert if he would promise not to run, Paul demurred, saying, “I deserve one wiggle now and then” and that he was “99.9 percent” sure he would not run.

Paul — who has set a torrid fundraising pace despite trailing in the polls — outlined many of the tenets of his presidential campaign, saying he would abolish the IRS, remove U.S. troops from bases around the world and cut off foreign aid to Israel and other Middle Eastern nations.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7539.html

[YOY]

1. I'm sure it would mean a Democratic victory.

Even if we ran the worst of our candidates Ron would sap the right the same way the Greens sap the left.

Just desserts IMHO.

Hope he does.

[AndyTiedye]

18. Maybe Not. He May Take A Bunch of the Anti-War Vote

and the Republicans who don't like Bush** would vote for RP instead of HRC.

I think we may have more to lose from an RP 3rd-party run than the Repiglicans.

[YOY]

19. Just a clear message that we need an Anti-War Dem and not Hillary or Obama

Who both appear to not be as Anti-war as many of us would be....perhaps as much of the country is 70% or so it appears...I hope I am wrong about them.

I wonder how their adamant supporters would defend the mistake that is Iraq if either of them get elected...

[AndyTiedye]

22. The Democrats Will Never Nominate an Anti-War Candidate. They Are Afraid of a Repeat of 1972

You would think that coming out against a war that was opposed by 70% of the population would be a sound electoral strategy, but we lost 49 states.

The Democratic party was severely traumatized by this, and has never really recovered.

The party will never back another anti-war candidate again. Ever. Not for the Presidency, not for Congress, not for anything.

[bemildred]

2. Hope he does. Ross Perot take #2. nt

[Javaman]

3. Oh pleeeeeease ron, run 3rd party...

that would put the nail in the repukes coffin.

[Benhurst]

4. Run, Ron. Run!

[AZ Criminal JD]

5. Ron Paul can't run as an independent

Most states, and all the big ones, have 'sore loser' election laws. When you run for office in one of the party primaries you are not allowed to later run for that office as a third party or independent. He won't run and he can't run.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Depends

Right now, he's hoping for some miracle that gives him a third place finish in either Iowa or New Hampshire, and the dazzle of media resulting from it. He has an army of Paulbots out there who will go ballistic, making sure every Rethug out there hears about Ron Paul, just as there is a muddle happening in their party, with Hick-a-bee winning Iowa, McCain winning New Hampshire, Giuilani winning Florida or South Carolina, etc. In that case, Paul stays in to see if his campaign has legs.

However, its much more likely that Paul will finish down there where Tancredo was going if he had stayed in. In that case, he withdraws quickly from the other states, and can then run as a third party in a general election. Where you've got Giuliani as the Repuke nominee who cannot get fundie votes (because he had to piss off Huckabee supporters) Hillary as our nominee who cannot get anti-war or black votes (because she had to piss off black voters by dissing Obama) and possibly Michael Bloomberg running, it will be a free-for-all with Cynthia McKinney siphoning off disgruntled African-American voters.

Paul might just see this as an opportunity to get in there and mix it up himself. It could be the most successful effort ever by a Libertarian Party candidate, and would lend legitimacy to his cause for future years.

[AZ Criminal JD]

11. What you are saying is true

But because of the compressed primary schedule he would really have to act quickly to withdraw. By the time New Hampshire is done, many of the withdrawal deadlines for the Super Tuesday February 5th states will have come and gone.

[customerserviceguy]

12. He really doesn't stand a chance in most of them, anyway

as they're the "bigger" states. All Ron Paul needs to do is a George Wallace, in other words, win some electoral votes in some small states, then he gets to be the champion-father of libertarianism. And if the Rethugs are in total disarray after losing to the Democratic candidate, they'll be looking hard for someone to unify them in years to come. Going with the country-clubbers like Rudy, or the hardline fundies like Huckabee is not going to work for them, they need someone who can bring elements of both sides together.

If it wasn't for their pig-headed support of the war, Paul would probably be doing a LOT better among the right-wing right now. They're still in the mode Nixon had them in; in 1972, only the progressive party of George McGovern could see that Vietnam was a major loss for this country. I hope that everybody catches up on this issue in the next few years, but I fear that if we nominate and elect Hillary, she's got too much of a stake in keeping the wars going for the sake of the international business conglomerates that are making so damn much money off of it.

[Benhurst]

10. It's too bad Connecticut didn't have such a law in 2006.

Of course Joe's "party" was a clear violation of the law which stated a "party" couldn't be created to further the candidacy of a single candidate.
But it's Bush/America. What difference do the laws make?

[tanstaafl]

20. Too bad that did not apply to Lieberman

Too bad these "sore loser" laws did not apply to Joe Lieberman when he ran for his senate seat.

[balantz]

6. Ron Paul's a worm.

Just my take

[Brrrp]

21. Well, that's a little strong, isn't it?

He's good on the war.

[BulletproofLandshark]

23. Not strong enough.

As a lifetime liberal, I have a BIG problem with xenophobes and racists, regardless of their anti-war position. I think this surge in interest in his campaign is rooted in ignorance.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. 99.9% sure means he won't

Besides, as another poster pointed out, he can't do this.

[tom_paine]

9. Run, Ron, Run! Be our Nader!

You can do it, don't let the naysayers stop you. If it's illegal in 37 states, run the the 13 left over!

:rofl:

[customerserviceguy]

13. We're going to have our hands full

with Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party, and if Hillary has to play her trump cards with the superdelegates to surpass Barack Obama at the convention, I really don't know what I'd tell black Americans as to why they should vote for Hill over Cynthia...

I could be wrong, but this coming election could be the biggest muddle-mess this country has seen in many, many generations. The 2000 election got people used to the idea that things don't have to necessarily be clear-cut and orderly, like they were in the last few generations before that election.

[Faux pas]

14. Due to insomnia, I just happened to see Meet The Press with

Ron Paul at 4:00AM. I had never heard him speak before, nor did I know anything about him. No offense and no flames required but his ideas sound better to me than the 'top' three Dems. Now I understand the Kucinich remark about making him his VP/running mate.

[fascisthunter]

15. This Would Split the GOP, BIGTIME!

This will be interesting to watch. This is great news for the Democratic Party, but to be honest, I don't think the GOP was going to win anyway. America has had enough of the GOP to last them a lifetime.

[bamacrat]

16. Nor should Kucinich.

He is our sides Ron Paul. Well, I dont know about that Im not totally sold on Paul like so many are. But I would love to see a Kucinich presidency no matter what

[Acadia Blue]

17. All the repubs who hate bush love Ron. Lots of them on youtube.com