Should RP run as an independent?

[nate45]

I think that if he does not get the nomination he should

run as an independent.

He has the money and the grassroots support.

If nothing else he can continue to expose the fact that

with any other candidate you get more of the same, the

same Nanny State, the same unconstitutional laws and

regulations, the same advances toward global

government, the same attacks against individual liberties,

the same arrogance, the same hypocrisy, the same social

programs, the same back-breaking taxes, the same jack-

booted federal police tactics, the same IRS, the same

lobbyists, and the same corrupt Washington politics.

With Bloomberg possibly entering the field it could be a

four way race and who knows RP might pull it out.

At the very least he would continue to spread his message

and give all those who feel hopeless, helpless and

disaffected an alternative place a cast their ballot.

 

[hogdogs]

either way he runs he is just a dem supporting vote thief! Like perot, he will insure enuff votes from die hard republicans to give them the seat!
0% chance of a win! it is about who is the most electable candidate closest to my beliefs/intentions...
Brent

 

[nate45]

either way he runs he is just a dem supporting vote thief!

Odd you should worry that a man who it is claimed has

only small support might possibly cause your

establishment candidate to lose.

 

[hogdogs]

It is not ODD at all! One Looney candidate can insure a dem win!
he has a few NEATO ideas but not a frickin' clue how they could be implemented. They will not be implemented in todays political machine so is a NOBODY! H. Ross Perot had far better ideas, he had far more business sense which his ideas were business related, he had viable ways to implement them. I wasted my vote on Perot who STOLE the needed votes from Bush SR to insure Klinton won! Paul is close to nuts! He has outrageous intentions and no concept of how to implement them!
Brent

 

[nate45]

I wasted my vote on Perot who STOLE the needed votes from Bush SR to insure Klinton won!

That is a fallacy hogdogs Clinton would have one in a two way race.

You say stole like the votes belonged to Bush.

Votes belong to whom ever earns them.

 

[hogdogs]

Nate, yer wrong! I reviewed the votes! The margin at which clinton won was decided by the perot votes! In a 2 way race Bush would have won! perot had maybe 100 votes from dems... the rest were repubs like my self that agreed this nation oughta run like a company! i just think that ron paul is no better a choice for pres than that fruit loop that convinced a bunch of people to drink poison and sleep on bunk beds awaiting a dern comet! Ron might be a stand up individual but he ain't no better a choice for pres than I am! I would go in the door after inauguration and "bonk some heads together" and get down to brass tacks! Then I would be charged with assault!
Brent

 

[Thumper]

In a close race (as we've seen before), an independent candidate will certainly serve as a spoiler.

Democrats have known this about Paul all along (multiple Daily Show appearances, Daily Kos support, etc.). What's unfortunate is that some of our less politically astute members don't see the real ramifications.

Or maybe they do and they simply don't care. I believe in some cases, a few of our members' self identity issues with Paul have become far more important to them than gun rights.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

If he does, he'll be a liar...just like the rest of them. What's left of his credibility of the undecided voters and republicans that either are going to vote for him or are leaning to will go down the toilet.

If he's smart, he won't do it and spend the next 4 years getting his word out on his true stand in politics and run again in 2012....and invest in hearing aids...

 

[Thunderhawk88]

If he does, he'll be a liar

And that would surprise anyone?

 

[Pat H]

No, I don't think he should run as an independent candidate. He's served as a Republican of the Robert Taft wing of the party for 20 years, so he's a real Republican.

Unlike the RINO's running.

 

[hammer4nc]

The message is more important than the man...

Anything that keeps Ron's revolutionary message (small, non-intrusive government, constitutional limitations, rational monetary policy, et al) in the forefront is a good thing. Right now, americans are fat, dumb, and happy. Plasma TV's, access to credit card debt, sports diversions... Look at all the forum flak focused on the personal traits of Ron Paul. As he's said on many occasions, he has many shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings.

Watch as the dollar tanks, US credit rating tumbles, default rates on CC's and mortgages soar, and US car manufacturers fail; all at the same time.

As the house of cards begins to crumble, and people begin to really feel the pinch from the unsustainable status quo policies; Ron's alternative message will gain more traction. It may not be with him as the leader.

The real possibility exists that the repub nomination won't be wrapped up on super-duper tuesday. We could go into the convention with the delegates evenly split among Romney, McCain, Guiliani, and Huck. A brokered convention would be a perfect opportunity for the minority to insert a few planks into the party platform. If disarray continues after the convention, another opportunity for Ron's message to attract new followers.

I'm sure all these factors, plus a few more wildcards could make for a viable third party bid.

In summary, the message is more important than the man!

 

[Thunderhawk88]

In summary, the message is more important than the man!

That is very true, but......we need the right man to carry it out, and the Mad Doctor isn't him!

 

[ssr]

So, instead we should vote for Republicans who want assault weapon bans (Romney), free speech before election bans (McCain), ends to gun shows (McCain), increased governmental spending (Huck and all the rest), continued limits on personal freedom and governmental intrusion into personal lives (all of them), all because they are simply Republicans? Tell me again why you are wanting to vote for these people?

The American people need to quit voting for their own enslavement and financial ruin. The two party system functions to fool the American people and simply maintain their own power, at the expense of what is right for the country.

No vote for freedom is a wasted vote. I cannot vote for continued erosion of our freedom, if you want to, go ahead. People need to stand up and stop allowing politics as usual to continue.

 

[rhgunguy]

That is a fallacy hogdogs Clinton would have one in a two way race.

No, that is a fallacy. Clinton had 43% of the vote, Bush 37.4% and Perot 18.9%.

Georgia, New Hampshire, Ohio, New Jersey, Montana, Nevada and Kentucky were all taken by Clinton by less than 4%. Colorado, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Tennessee were all won by less than 5%. If you look at the demographics, Perot took more votes from Bush than Clinton, ergo he could have very well cost Bush most of the states in the first list, if not all from both lists, thus the election.

If Paul runs independant in 2008 he will not get even close to Perot's numbers in '92. He could steal a couple million votes from the Republican nominee, but considering that Bushes win in '04 was by about 3 million, that could severly hurt our chances. If he does run he will only prove that he does not care about his "principles" but about his own power.

 

[miboso]

From my point of view, Bush the elder did not lose because of Perot. He lost because of "Read my lips, no new taxes". That is why people wanted an alternative.

 

[miboso]

Also, there are many Paul supporters who would never vote Republican, except for Paul. Then there are some of us who have voted Republican in the past, but have given up on voting for the lesser of 2 evils. So, the actual number of votes that Paul would "steal" from the Republicans is a very small percentage of the votes that Paul will get in the primaries, which some of you describe as neglegible anyway.
So quit worrying about it. Just continue supporting your "superior" candidate

 

[rhgunguy]

And that POV would be wrong. Bush lost to Clinton by 5.3%. If he got that and they split the other 13.3% your POV might be valid. The fact is that Perot took more votes from Bush than he did Clinton.

I for one do not want another lunatic with the initials RP handing the Clinton's another free ride to the White House. I was lucky enought to turn 21 a couple of weeks after the AWB sunset and I still felt the after effects when I wanted to get hi-caps for my first pistol.

The Clinton's will try and make the second AWB PERMANENT. If you think it is cool to have Ron Paul thumb his nose at the system(which sucks, but you have to play ball sometimes)to prove his point(whatever the heck that is) and run, you are the worst kind of delusional. If he gets even 10% of the vote(which is a very liberal suposition) that Perot got in '92, it could be enough to give the Hidlabeast free reign on all of our rights.

For a supposed strict constitutionalist like Paul, giving the worst socalist of our time the keys to the White House should seem like sacrilege, but he is a politician and they will do or say anything to get elected.

 

[rhgunguy]

Also, there are many Paul supporters who would never vote Republican, except for Paul.

So I am left to assume that you are a Democrat by this statement. Since you are already an avowed member of the Democrat party due to your previous statement(after all even the strongest independant can only suffer embarassing defeat after defeat) why not Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, et al? The only thing that the Democrat party and Ron Paul have in common is the cut-and-run approach to Iraq.

Ron Paul supposedly supports strong borders, lower taxes, smaller government, gun rights, etc. I would be happy with a canidate that supports the majority of these things and will not step out of party line on the rest. After all the day after innauguration is the first day of running for re-election.

So, the actual number of votes that Paul would "steal" from the Republicans is a very small percentage of the votes that Paul will get in the primaries, which some of you describe as neglegible anyway.
So quit worrying about it. Just continue supporting your "superior" candidate

As I pointed out earlier, even a small percentage(shich he is likely to get with an emphasis on the small) could cost us the difference between a Republican that will kowtow to the party(strong borders, lower taxes, smaller government, gun rights, etc) and a Democrat that will kowtow to theirs(see republican kowtowing in reverse).

 

[MeekAndMild]

nate45, I don't believe that his running as an independent would accomplish anything and it would probably mean the election of that 100% anti RKBA candidate, Obama.

While I can understand the depth of passion people hold for him once we strip away the emotion we find his economic viewpoints are nearly identical with the rest of the Republicans and he is only a tiny bit more liberal on the off topic social issues than Rudy Giuliani.

You might find the survey link from this thread to be of interest in clarifying the point a bit further and also in seeing where your own opinions lie in the field of candidates.

Personally I think that there is nothing black and white coming out except that there are some candidates who are for and some who are against RKBA. There a lot of folks here are involved in the emotion of the moment. Once they decide one shade of grey is the best they are disregarding just how close it is to similar shades.

 

[Al Norris]

a Republican that will kowtow to the party(strong borders, lower taxes, smaller government, gun rights, etc) and a Democrat that will kowtow to theirs(see republican kowtowing in reverse).

You mean, as they have the last seven years and are now?

Should Ron Paul run as an Independent, after his defeat in the Republican Convention (or sooner, like say the day after Super Tuesday), then he will have reneged upon one of his major campaign promises.

At that point, I will no longer pay attention to the man.