A couple of months ago, I got a lot of abuse for suggesting that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hillarycare. But it would appear that I’m not the only observer to whom this unpleasant thought has occurred:
Paul’s camp has shot down suggestions since he launched his campaign that he might try a third party bid. But the question seems increasingly salient after Paul’s recent financial successes. He raised a notable $5 million in the third quarter and reported $5.3 million in the bank — more than candidates like Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Does anyone really believe that a guy who has already run for President on the sure-to-lose Libertarian ticket will simply fold up his tent, close his fat bank account, and go away when Republican primary voters reject him?
And, if he decides to run as an independent of some stripe, his wacky supporters will enable this Quixotic project. This comment posted on the Washington Wire blog (linked above) is increasingly echoed by Paul’s supporters:
Ron Paul should run as a 3rd-party candidate if he cannot win the Republican primary. 3rd-party candidates are vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. Their presence forces the mainstream candidates to adopt the ideas of the 3rd party if mainstream puppets expect to win the race.
Like that other Texas wackjob, Ross Perot, the virtuous Dr. No has a real shot … at putting a Clinton in the White House.
Comments 7
What difference does it make? If any of the pro-war Republicans win the nomination, Hillary is garanteed to win the whitehouse. At least Paul would give a voice to those voters favoring smaller government, civil liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Posted 05 Oct 2007 at 11:38 pm ¶This kind of thinking is morally bankrupt as well as crippling to democracy, and needs to end. Your vote can count but first you have to reject this “lesser of two evils” nonsense and vote for the best man (or woman) for the job. If more people did just that this conversation wouldn’t even be taking place. If it takes a few election cycles of spoilers then so be it, I’m looking to the country my grandchildren will grow up in and compromises aren’t going to cut it at this point.
Posted 05 Oct 2007 at 11:45 pm ¶What difference will it make? The Republicans are going to lose if they do not nominate Ron Paul, simple as that. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can draw people into the party, if the 2006 election did not teach you anything then you were not paying attention.
The Christian Coalition has already promised to pull support from the Republican party if they nominate a pro-choice candidate. So thats about 13%. According to Cato institute about 14% of the voting population is Libertarian. Add to that the Constitutionalists and the 4% fringe of Republicans for Ron Paul, and you might see that Ron Paul would have a real chance of winning vs. Guilianni and Hillary, because Ron Paul would also be able to draw in a large % of the anti war vote, which is about 55%-70% of this country.
The Republicans are going to lose whether Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party or not, but if Ron Paul does run as an independent or 3rd party then he does have a shot of actually winning. The only shot that the Republicans have of winning is nominating Ron Paul. Its just that simple.
Posted 06 Oct 2007 at 12:18 am ¶Amazing, I haven’t heard anyone talk about him running as a third party candidate at all. Being part of the Ron Paul Centex Meetup group, and scanning most of the blogs that endorse Ron Paul, that’s the wildest thing I have heard.
Now you are spreading disinformation……cute, but its a lie.
Posted 06 Oct 2007 at 12:29 am ¶Agreed, a third-party run would only help Hillary. One of the myriad reasons to work for him to get the Republican nomination.
Posted 06 Oct 2007 at 3:03 am ¶Well, since the “conservatives” have abandoned the idea of small government, are no longer opposed to socialism, want government involved in every aspect of our lives, and are unconcerned about abandoning our civil liberties, what exactly makes them better than Hillary?
Ron Paul or a Libertarian. That is where my vote will go. Unless the Republicans abandon their big government, tax and spend ways. And that does NOT seem likely.
Posted 06 Oct 2007 at 3:26 am ¶Actually, a vote for Romney is a vote for Hillarycare. A vote for Giuliani is a vote for nothing with regard to healthcare.
Posted 06 Oct 2007 at 8:04 am ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
[…] this doesn’t bother me at all. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites […]
Post a Comment