Libertarian History/Philosophy

Should Ron Paul Run As a Libertarian Party Candidate?


ABC News talks to a representative from the Libertarian Party and finds that Texas Republican Ron Paul, who ran as the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988, would find a welcome home in the LP once again in 2012:

Paul, long a favorite of the Libertarian Party, is drawing enthusiastic support from its leaders, who are openly pushing him to consider a third party run for the White House.

"Absolutely, that would be fabulous," said Jim Lesczynski, media relations director for the Manhattan Libertarian Party.

Lesczynski says his party agrees with Paul on most of the major issues, calling him an "ideal candidate." He added that Paul will do better than he did four years ago, but ultimately thinks he will fail in his bid to gain the Republican nomination.

Would Paul do it? As The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire observes, when the subject came up in recent interviews, Paul did not entirely dismiss the idea:

Mr. Paul, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," said no one has asked him to make a third-party run.  "I have no plans whatsoever to do it," Mr. Paul said.

He conceded that an independent run by one of the GOP candidates "would cause a little bit of a problem."  But the Texas congressman also said a third-party bid wouldn't doom Republicans, citing John Anderson's independent bid in the 1980 presidential election. "Ronald Reagan did quite well with Anderson in it," he said.

During a Fox News appearance last week, Mr. Paul declined to make a firm pledge that he wouldn't run on a third-party ticket.  With a laugh, he offered this instead during the Fox interview:  "I pledge that I have no intention of doing it."

For more on Paul and his campaign, check out Reason's candidate profile from our Presidential Dating Game.


NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Fulfilling The President's Green Dreams Through Private Competition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No. He’s making far more of a splash where he is.

  2. He should simply as a “fuck you” to everyone that said he wasn’t “top tier”.

    1. Then when he take 5% of the vote and somehow Obama wins (which is highly possible at this point) then the RNC will once again lay blame upon libertarians (whose votes they assume ownership of). Nah, Paul should stay out of it and then the dead-enders have less to blame for their own idiocy.

      1. Given I believe Obama to be an AnCap sleeper agent, why wouldn’t I want four more years of Obama?

        Stay the course, and rip that band aid off, already!

  3. No. If he doesn’t take the GOP nomination, he should run as an independant, but not on any party ticket.

    1. I’d say go Reform Party, but also seek the LP and Constitution Party nominations. Reform Party is probably the most positively viewed third party by independents after the Perot run, and it’s been sadly neglected/ineffective for a decade. A Paul/Johnson coalition ticket would be helpful in getting ballot access and partially insulating them from LP anarcho-radicalism.

      1. partially insulating them from LP anarcho-radicalism.

        1. Hate to say it, but the LP is irrepairably tainted by its Rothbardian history. Don’t get me wrong – I still vote for it in almost every election. But as a vehicle for libertarianism it has failed its purposes.

          1. Rothbard was the best thing to happen to the libertarian party

            1. Yes, that’s why the LP has been so exceedingly successful. Smoke out the moderates, incrementalists, pragmatists and utilitarians! It’s the only way we’ll ever get REAL freedom!

              Really, WTF is the point of being a political party if you aren’t playing to win? The LP’s elitist radicalism painted itself into a corner and allowed the two major parties to grow government endlessly unchallenged. Most anyone who knew the LP laughed them off. Ron Paul’s success proves that it’s not that libertarianism has no appeal – so it’s obviously the party has been run by political idiots for much of its existence.

    2. “If he doesn’t take the GOP nomination, he should run as an independant, but not on any party ticket.”

      He should run with any third party that is close to his political philosophy and can get him on the ballot in the greatest number of states. That would be the LP, IIRC.

      His run would destroy the Repug’s chances at the Imperial Throne being occupied by magic underwear and put the Dems in the really hot seat during the next great financial crisis which will be far worse than 2008, assuming it doesn’t happen before the election.

  4. What about Gary Johnson?

        1. Are you sure it’s not the late Wisconsin assemblyman?

        2. Are you sure you’re not thinking of Gary Johnson the motorcycle racer (Isle of Man TT and all that)?


        3. Or did you mean Gary Johnson, Ford’s VP of Mfg for China? He probably WANTS to be President…

    1. What about him? He died, you ignoramus.

      1. I bet a dead Gary Johnson would do less damage than a live Obama or Romney. Maybe Episiarch is onto something here.

      2. He’s dead, Jim…

      3. You’re a fucking idiot. I said Gary Johnston, you just read heard me wrong. He invented the Yukon gold potato.

      4. You’re late with your lateness.

        Wasn’t there a Gary Johnston character in Team America? Maybe they left out the “t”?

      5. The Founding Fathers are dead too, what have you got against them?

        1. What don’t I have against them? They oppressed womyn, you know.

          1. Enslaved blacks, stole from the Indians, denied the vote to people without property–really, we should nuke DC, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia to erase most traces of these horrible, horrible men. How dare they lack 21st century enlightenment?

            1. The only people who stole from the Indians were the Yankees, when they got CC Sabathia and doomed the [WHITE] Injuns to 6 more years of darkness.

              But that was, like, 100 years ago, so WHATEVER.

              Hystory – how does it work?!

              /Ezra Douchenozzle

              1. You oppressors. Always oppressing.

                1. Oppressors gonna oppress, yo.

      6. He’s talking about the former governor of NM who endorsed Ron Paul in 2008:

        “On December 28, 2011, Johnson formally withdrew his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, and declared his candidacy for the 2012 presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party.”

    2. Didn’t he die in a grease fire?

    3. What about Gary Johnson?

      So if we don’t like the Republican globalist scumbag or the Democrat globalist scumbag, we’ll be able to vote for the Libertarian globalist scumbag… ain’t democracy grand?

      Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.
      –Henry Ford

      1. Ha! Henry Ford would never have said “color” with a “u” in it! Your crypto-globalism is showing through.

  5. Ron Paul is smart enough not to put Obama back in office and simulatenously ruin his son’s career.

    1. Yes. Somebody is paying attention.

      The Pauls and Johnson are pulling the GOP towards Libertarianism. Leaving the party and getting Obama re-elected throws it all away.

      1. Perhaps, but it’d still be nice to see his name printed on the ballot instead of written on it.

        The more exposure the better, and if he could get into the debates, he’d pull at least 20% of the popular vote and his son or GJ would have a chance to roll in some real change in 2016.

      2. What do you mean “getting Obama re-elected?” The failings of the Republican candidate to convince a plurality is all that would do that. Nominating Romney will just make a lot of libertarians and constitutional conservatives stay home. I’d rather Obama be re-elected and get a GOP Congress so at least divided government kills the excesses of both parties.

        Paul/Johnson would also likely pull a good number from the anti-war/pro-civil liberties Left.

        1. Proprietist – Basic math tells me that if 60% of the voters are going to vote against Obama – then divide that 60% by 2 candidates – Obama will probably win 40-30-30, and carry enough states to pull it out.

          The result is four more years of Obama and an enduring hate for Paul and Libertarians. All chance of meaningful spending and tax reform is gone for a generation.

          1. Sorry but you can’t “vote against” somebody. You vote for somebody, and if Romney isn’t worth voting for to a majority or plurality of voters, he won’t win. I’m not convinced that hatred of Obama is worth voting for someone almost as bad in most areas and even worse in some. Devil you know, and all that. Plus, the merits of divided government.

            Also, we don’t know where Paul’s support will come from – will he really harm Romney as much or more than he will harm Obama? He’s running to Obama’s Left on a good number of issues that are important to Obama’s base. There’s a large number who wouldn’t vote for anyone else anyway, or will vote Libertarian or whatever third party candidate Paul endorses. I’d probably even go so far as to vote Nader before I’d vote for Romney. But if Paul ran as an independent or 3rd party, I’m sure he’d be smart enough to hit Obama and Romney equally hard from the Left and Right so he wouldn’t be a traditional spoiler.

      3. As much as it might be nice if this were true (and similar would be nice for a pol from the other side of the aisle), I’m not sure it is. I think the best that can be said is he’s slowed the rate at which Republicans have been getting further away from libertarianism. Or maybe he’s simply drained away elements completely out of the Republican party who feel that way.

        I thought I read somewhere that less than half of Paul voters would vote for the Republican nominee if Paul isn’t that nominee. These people might be libertarian in leaning, but it’s hard to claim that they are Republicans at this point.

        1. Goldwater was an isolated incident. The last time the party was even close was the Coolidge Administration.

        2. I’m voting for Ron Paul in the general election in 2012, whether or not he wins the Republican, Libertarian, or Constitution Party nomination, or goes independent, or drops out. I wrote him in in 2008, and voted for him in 1988.

          I am a registered Republican voter, with the junk mail to prove it.

    2. Plus, the libertarians can always write his name in in protest regardless.

  6. Tricky. It wouldn’t really matter in most states. I don’t see him carrying Texas- or causing it send it’s electoral college votes to the dems.

  7. If Romney gets the GOP nom, then yes. I think it would be less splitting the non-Obama vote, and more providing a tolerable option.

    1. I go back and forth about this. My instinct is to say no because it would re-elect Obama. But who is to say Romney might not be worse? And if Paul did that, he would likely poll ahead of Romney in the general election and finally kill the Republican establishment. That might not be such a bad thing.

      1. Totally agree with this. Paul winning would be awesome, but the thought of Paul pulling a second-place finish ahead of Romney puts a big grin on my face, too.

      2. Totally agree with this. Paul winning would be awesome, but the thought of Paul pulling a second-place finish ahead of Romney puts a big grin on my face, too.

      3. If you’re arguing that a Republican house and senate trumps a 4-year lame duck Obama presidency, then maybe that’s OK.

        I just can’t stand the thought of seeing the prick on TV for another 4 years.

        1. While I seriously doubt Romney will get the nomination, I suppose a Romney presidency might result in a kind of divided government.

          1. Romney with complete support of the house and the senate would just be stuff like the Bush II medicare prescpription plan give-away and more.

            It only works if a democrat sits in the white house.

            1. I’m not voting for Obama, regardless. The man is just bad news.

              1. I will vote for R Paul on the Republican ticket or who ever is on the Lib ticket.

                1. I’m not voting at all. I’m done with it.

                  Never voted for a winning candidate in my entire voting life and I’m tired of giving my consent to be governed.

                  I might make an exception if Paul wins the nomination, but I’m with George Carlin: “If you vote, you can’t complain, because IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT.”

          2. Romney could be a one-man divided government. Gridlock without the need for partisanship!

        2. In a thread not too long ago some Reasonite said that he hopes that Obama does get re-elected because the whole mess the democrats and Obama created is going to come into play in the next four years. Better to fall on Obama then someone else.

          I want to agree with that.

          1. Except I would rather not have the house come crashing over my head. I mean I know its unrealistic to expect otherwise, but I still hold onto the slim hope that somehow we can extracate ourselves from this mess.

          2. That may have been me. Some days I wonder if the Republicans wouldn’t be better off in the long run having Obama win. A second Obama term would be a train wreck to end all train wrecks. It might completely destroy the Democratic Party. In contrast, if the Republicans don’t put up someone with the balls and the convictions to actually fix something (and it doesn’t look like they will), a Republican Administration would accomplish nothing except let liberals escape blame for the mess they are making.

            1. I don’t think the country can afford that much incompetence to continue. Congress is godawful enough.

              1. But a second Obama term would discredit liberalism for a hundred years. This country has survived worse.

                1. Like what?

                  1. The Civil War, the Nazis (I hate those guys), Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson. It is a short list granted.

            2. Ask the people that voted for Ralph Nader what they think of that strategy.

              1. Interesting question Kinnath. They got George W. Bush. And that was pretty bad for liberals, for a while. But they ended up with the most leftist President in history with a 60 vote majority in the Senate. I am not sure the Leftists who voted for Nader in 2000 did so bad for themselves. Had Gore been President in 2000, he would have done the exact same things in Afghanistan and with the economy and with the Patriot Act. What good would it have done them?

            3. I think John is right. Look how much Bush the Younger discredited the Republican Party. Only a libertarianish president can save us.

              1. W practically destroyed the limited government “brand” (with help from the Dems) by claiming it as his own.

                1. CN,

                  Obama is doing the same to the big government liberal brand. That is why liberals are all claiming he is not liberal enough and doens’t fight. They know he is a disaster and don’t want to go down with him.

                2. After 911, W became a foreign policy President. He blindly signed whatever domestic nonsense Republicans in Congress sent him. I blame Hastert and Bill Frist more than W.

                  If they had sent W spending cuts and a flat-tax, he would have signed it. Instead they sent him drug benefits and ethanol subsidies.

                  The one real reform that Bush proposed – Social Security reform – the Congressional Republicans could not run away from fast enough.

        3. To me, one party rule isn’t worth the risk if there isn’t some chance of killing ObomneyCare.

      4. I can just see the bumper stickers now and it makes me smile.

        Ron Paul
        Romney can Suck it 2012

      5. For what it’s worth, I would say the majority of people I know who would vote for Ron Paul if given the option would vote for Obama over Romney in a two-man race. Of course, as a young urban professional my demographics may be a bit skewed.

        1. Yuppie mormon bigotry?

          1. That’s pretty funny. Initially typed “young professional” and inserted “urban” at the last second completely oblivious to the connotation of the three words strung together. Does that mean I’m in denial?

            1. Its a river in Egypt.

            2. Yeah pretty much. But then there’s nothing really objectionable about being a yuppie as long as you don’t carry around some of the baggage they like to carry.

        2. You are in Chicago, right? I’m in Seattle and generally speaking I’d say the same thing. The people I know who pay at least a little attention fall roughly into two categories: people who would never dream of voting GOP, and people who would never dream of voting GOP who would consider going third party given how disappointing Obama has been.

          1. My girlfriend used to work for a small-time orchestra. At her farewell dinner after she took a new job, my girlfriend mentioned to her old co-workers that her new co-workers were mostly Republicans. The shocked, uncomfortable silence that followed was amazing. I had to restrain myself from whipping out my NRA card or something.

            1. Working in the arts for about the past decade, I run into this way too much. It’s like a post-hypnotic suggestion that they have to respond with disgust and revulsion at the thought of a Republican or anything but a Democrat policy.

              It’s entertaining for about the first 5 minutes.

          2. Yeah, that’s about it. I find lots of my friends are very receptive to libertarian ideas (fiscally conservative, socially liberal) but see Republicans as being full of shit when it comes to fiscal conservatism and openly hostile social liberalism. After four years of economic stagnation and social disappointment, they’re itching for an alternative but don’t view the GOP as an improvement… except for Ron Paul.

      6. I have a crazy, idealistic dream that adding RP to the ballot would increase turnout for a bunch of people who otherwise wouldn’t bother voting. The bigger and better and more well known the third party candidate, the faster we break down the duopoly. (I’m sure this uncharacteristic moment of not-despair will pass shortly.)

        1. Every time you feel despair, try buying another case of surplus ammo. If nothing else, you’ll be able to build yourself a fort in the living room after a while.

          1. A fort sounds fun. To allow for some variety in the boxes I should probably buy another gun soon too. I got my first a few months back (Taurus 38 revolver).

              1. And bulletproof sofa cushions.

              2. And maybe some sort of pink camo getup to match? This could be the start of a whole new look for me.

                1. No, people will think you’re a “warrior against breast cancer” or some shit.

                2. Make sure you pick up some camo garters while you’re at it.

        2. Once you leave the computer and talk to an actual voter about it I’d imagine your “not-despair” will pass in about 15 seconds.


      7. Paul still wouldn’t poll better than Romney because Obamanites, as much as they’re disappointed with their fearless leader, dare not jump ship. Red vs. Blue you know.

    2. If Romney were the nominee, Paul could put a little bow around both of them and beat them both on every single issue. No other candidate is more different than Bush/Obama/Rommney than Paul.

  8. oh yes plus the riders-in-the-sky partie should draft bachmann.

    1. Mohammed jihad!

  9. If Romney is the candidate, then yes.

    Or rather he should do it unless he exacts a price from Romney such as and end to the drug war or an end to the income tax.

    1. How about an end to the Obama Administration?

      1. Obama, Romney… anti-liberty in different forms. Don’t fall for the two-party us vs them mentality. Individualism vs collectivism is all that counts and we’ve been backed to the edge of the cliff. We can’t elect anyone we only HOPE will not be as bad as the other guy. This is how we got where we are today.

        We have to back who we KNOW hasn’t lied or flip-flopped and is truly concerned for the American founding principles.

        No more holding your nose. No vote is better than a vote for the lesser of two evils.

    2. You know, that’s a great idea. He should get a major concession of some sort in return for not splitting the vote. An LP or Independent Paul could hurt the GOP enough to lose the general.

      Assuming he doesn’t win the nomination. I still think he has a chance at it, given the weakness of the opposition.

      1. Wouldn’t do any good. The only way that Paul’s agenda gets implemented is if he controls the veto pen.

        1. Not if he has to trust Romney, no. Maybe a change to the platform? It’s got to be something he could get immediately.

          1. The platform? Really, Pro Lib? If you had massive leverage over a politician’s (and political party’s) future, you’d settle for a change to the platform?

            1. No, not really. I guess I’m conceding that any promises made in such circumstances would be worthless.

              Probably the best he could do is insist on a massively public and immediate statement on something important. Like repealing the 16th, something like that.

              1. 16th is moot. It gave no new authority to tax. It just closed a loophole with the Internal Revenue laws of 1864

                1. Everyone’s a critic today. I haven’t given this much thought, but I’m sure Paul would have some sort of nice to have to toss out. He’d basically control the election, so I imagine he could get something decent. For the moment, anyway.

          2. I will give you a good concession Pro. Rand Paul as VP. Think about it. Ron Paul as VP would be a dead end because he is too old to run for President after this year. But Rand is younger. Rand as VP for four or eight years would set him up to be a huge force in the Party for the next decade. Rand as VP would do more to continue Paul’s ideas than a failed third party run.

            1. It would have to come with the deal that the VEEP is free to criticize the Prez for stupid policy decisions.

              1. Once elected, the VEEP is totally free to do that. Remember, the VEEP is elected. The President can’t fire him. He can only choose not to run with him again.

                1. I’d like to see Rand twirling his fingers next to his head whenever Cain/Perry/Romney (in this scenario) speaks.

                2. Technically true.

                  But a Veep that the Prez doesnt like gets cut out of the loop.

              2. that’s what the VP did up until the 1900’s I thought. He was pretty much the sore loser or opposition hack that got to poke the president from the senate floor, right?

            2. Better is Gary Johnson becoming VP and Rand becomming Senate Majority Leader for a long time.

              1. Johnson is nothing but a former governor. He has no juice and few supporters. Rand Paul is actually becoming a big deal.

                1. Johnson makes for a typical VP candidate — a former governor from the mountain west balances the ticket headed from a former governor from the east coast. There is a minor chance he could get elected for one term following a two-term Romney presidency ala Bush I.

                  Rand could easily spend 40 years in the Senate in control of a major committee affecting every piece of law that gets passed for decades.

                  Rand doesn’t help Romney get elected after being in the Senate for two years, and Senators rarely get elected president on their own (with Obama and McCain, one of them had to get elected). Their voting records come back to bite them in the ass.

                  The best path to the presidency is through the governor’s office of a major state.

                  1. Senators are not that powerful. And as you point out, it is easier to become President after being VP than being a Senator. Make Rand Paul the VP. He has a better future than Johnson. More upside.

            3. We really should go back to the days when the VP was the person who got the second most votes for president.

      2. Fed Chair should be the concession. I know it isn’t possible but it would bring significant lulz when his report to Congress every 6 months was “My policy has be to do absolutely nothing, the economy got better on it’s own.”

        1. Or Treasury Secretary? He could tame the Fed and stop the printing presses.

    3. How about Treasury Secretary? I’m sure from that position Paul could crack the whip on the Fed and tame them. But also he wouldn’t be as much of a political liability, if he’s perceived as such by Romney. The downside will be Congressional approval.

  10. Gary is more accomplished than Ron, but lacks name cachet. Ron brings a sycophantically dedicated cadre of cultists to the table. Both lack charisma. What to do…

    1. Gary is more accomplished than Ron

      [Citation needed]

      Note: being a politician is not much of an accomplishment.

      1. well then gary wins, because aside from being governor of new mexico he’s clearly not a very good politician.

    2. Are you kidding? If Johnson gets elected VP, there’s a near-100% chance that someone whacks the prez and he ascends. That’s just simple statistics.

  11. Oh yeah and Ron is running a decent third in so-con-shithole Iowa, and a decent third in cow-banging New Hampshire. Once malicious rumors sink Cain he may even move into second in these places. Unless the “tea party” dumbasses bust out their cult-of-personality MO once again. This time it appears to be Newt Grinch that they are obsessed with.

  12. Oh yeah and Ron is running a decent third in so-con-shithole Iowa, and a decent third in cow-banging New Hampshire. Once malicious rumors sink Cain he may even move into second in these places. Unless the “tea party” dumbasses bust out their cult-of-personality MO once again. This time it appears to be Newt Grinch that they are obsessed with.

    1. *website derp squirrels*

    2. I don’t think the rumors are going to sink Cain. The Republican voters hate the media. And they can see what bullshit they are. If anything the BS politico smear will help him by making voting for Cain a way to tell the major media to fuck off.

      1. I’ve seen some commentary guessing that is was was someone in the Republican establishment that tried to torpedo Cain.

        You couldn’t have picked a more effective means to rile up the Tea Party that was starting to loose a little steam.

        1. I wouldn’t be suprised if it was. But I don’t think it is going to affect him at all. First, no one who actually vote in the Republican primaries cares what the major media have to say about anything. Second, the brazen hypocrisy of trying to claim that Cain should have to answer for some claim he made a pass at someone 20 years ago when just over a decade ago we were told it was okay for the President to get blowjobs from an unpaid intern half his age, means no one other than rapid partisan trolls who hate Cain anyway are going to care.

          1. I guess I was saying this will help Cain and really hurt the “villian” behind the leak. I assume that somone did the leak on behalf of Romney. Coming only two days after the Des Moines Register’s poll of likely caucus-goers showing Cain ahead of Romney, Romney is the only one that benefits from Cain being hurt.

            This could become a huge problem for Romney in Iowa if there is any link at all to his campaign or a third-party acting on his behalf.

            1. Ah sorry I misunderstood. If this gets traced back to Romney, there will be hell to pay.

              1. Better this gets leaked before the first primary than during the sprint to the finish line in November.

          2. By the way, the Register poll last weekend is big fucking news. They poll people likely to vote in the caucuses, and they have a reputation for getting it right.

            Cain is leading in Iowa with 8 weeks to go. He has announced that he plans to spend lots of money and lots of time here in the weeks leading to the caucuses. He’s a lot more real than I thought he was a week ago.

      2. Blame it on Cain; don’t blame it on me.

        1. Blame Cain for what?

        2. Blame it on the Cain, yeah yeah.

  13. If Paul ddoesn’t win the nomination, he should run as a third party, but necesarily the Libertarian.

    1. Reform / Libertarian / Constitution coalition?

  14. Does he really want to be remembered as the “most successful third party candidate since H. Ross Perot”?

    1. Ouch. You really know how to hurt a guy don’t you Tim?

  15. If you mention RP on the Libertarian Party Facebook page, you will be blocked.

    RP is being “used” by the Republican Party to trick libertarian voters into registering as Republicans so that LP candidates can’t get on the ballot. Or, something along those lines is what those douchebags, who shall remain nameless, say.

    Yeah, Mr Whipple was banned from the LP FB page. Fucking statist assholes.

    1. I took a course in college from a guy named Henry Bellmon. He was the first Republican Governor of Oklahoma. Oklahoma had been a dixiecrat one party state since statehood. The reasons went back to Republican Presidents fucking the state over when it was a territory.

      Anyway, he said the trick to campaigning as a Republican was to never let the local Republicans in a town know you were coming. The reason for this was that Republicans were such a small minority that the town Republican was always the local gadfly, nut or all purpose asshole. To have any hope at winning the town over, you had to make sure you were not associated with them.

      Your experience reminded me of this story. If Paul wants to run as a third party and have any hope of winning, he has to avoid being associated with the LP.

      1. +1 zillion.

    2. Ha. After a quick visit I found this:

      I’d like to address this issue of re-registering in another political party to “influence” the vote in the primary from a strictly practical viewpoint. Question, when has your 1 vote changed the outcome of any primary election? Especially for President of the United States? None? So, why bother re-registering if you have no chance of “influencing” the outcome? You only control 1 vote and that 1 vote is not going to change the outcome of any POTUS primary. It’s a complete waste of time that accomplishes nothing…..other than to weaken the Libertarian Party and in some states it may affect our ballot status. Lose, lose…………..not good……..Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair
      11 hours ago ? 4 people

      1. Many are planning this, not just one (1) primary vote. So, Mr. Hinkle would have us believe that many votes have no impact. This is a party line of BS.

        Paul’s libertarian-principled supporters took over the Minneapolis GOP last time he ran. His supporters are the most active anyone has seen in decades.

        Mark Hinkle needs to put principle over his party.

    3. Ron Paul can have the nomination when he pries it out of Wayne Allen Root’s cold dead hand.

      1. But, but, but, what about Mary Ruwart and RJ Harris?

        1. You joke, but Harris is currently leading the Kentucky Libertarians facebook page poll.

          1. I’d rather see RJ get it, than Root.

            1. I’d take Harry Browne’s rotting corpse over Root.

              1. Who else is running for the LP nomination besides Root and Harris? I’d like to see Alex Snitker make run at it. He seems to be a good debater.

                1. I’d love to see Steve Kubby try again.

  16. Paul should run 3rd party if necessary. If nothing else, it would expose progressives who supposedly are disappointed in Obama’s civil liberty/war policies.

    1. If Progressives were actually honest and cared about anything except leftist economic policy and winning, Paul could win as a third party. If the Republicans nominate Romney and Paul goes third party, a lot of Republicans and right leaning independents would vote for him. If you put that with a large number of Progressives who were willing to vote for him in order to do something about the wars and civil liberties, he would win. But no way will progressives break ranks. Forget it. All it would do is put Obama back in the White House.

      1. right. I should have wrote “expose as frauds progressives …”

        1. But they can have Obama and the smug satisfaction of knowing they beat those evil Republicans. If assasinating US citizens and making all of the worst aspects of the Bush administaration bipartisan policy is the price for that, so be it. It is all about smug satisfaction and making sure the “other” doesn’t win.

          1. John is better than all those hypocritical liberals because he supported the unlimited executive all along.

            1. It is all about smug satisfaction and making sure the “other” doesn’t win.

              And right on cue Tony proves my point.

              1. I freely admit, often, that I think your team is so godawful and frightening that I’m willing to tolerate quite a lot from my team, just to keep them out of power. You act like I should feel bad about not patting your head and saying It’s OK you supported Bush because Obama is just as bad. He’s not just as bad. He’s not perfect, but nowhere near as bad as the Republicans, who would literally destroy this country out of sheer stupidity if ever given the chance.

                1. Bush never killed a US citizen Tony. Bush never went to war without Congressional authorization. When a Republican President does both of those things Tony and there is nothing you can say about it, you will understand why Obama was worse.

                  Bush made bad decisions. Obama is setting bad precidents. There is a difference.

                  1. Bush didn’t set bad precedents with his lawless executive torturing stuff? Bush killed 4000 American citizens as far as I can tell, maybe more.

                    1. Tony,

                      The Dems voted for the war in large numbers, continued funding it when they retook Congress in 2007 and continued it once they took the Presidency. So, sorry but they own the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just as much as Bush.

                      Further, Bush went to Congress and got authorization for a war you don’t like. Even if you are right, that just means we shouldn’t got to war. It doesn’t make the power of the Presidency any greater than it was. Obama in contrast went to war with no Congressional authorization. If he gets away with it, future Presidents can be expected to dispense with the need for such authorization altogether. That is much worse for the future.

                      And Obama has endorsed and continued the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ of the Bush administration. So, he has made that bi partisan policy.

                    2. Tony wait util a Republican President uses a drone strick on some environmental activist.

                    3. I don’t like a lot of the executive power stuff, regardless of which party is in control. But there’s no way in hell I’m gonna accept a false equivalence between the president who sent thousands upon thousands of troops to their deaths for NO PURPOSE and his successor whose (perhaps questionable) actions in Libya resulted in no American deaths. You are a slimeball for even suggesting I stroke your ego by making such an equivalence.

                    4. And stop lying about torture.

                    5. ….from denouncing the Clinton/Obama War Machine….they are killing innocent people all over Asia and Africa. It ought to be more than “questionable” to a decent person….are you just closing your eyes???

                    6. Re: Bloodthirsty sockpuppet,

                      But there’s no way in hell I’m gonna accept a false equivalence between the president who sent thousands upon thousands of troops to their deaths for NO PURPOSE and his successor whose (perhaps questionable) actions in Libya resulted in no American deaths.

                      The very guy who likes to get his ass raped by men with big guns he pays taxes to prefers a brand of presidents that bombs brown people without having Americans break their nails. Oh, so prissy!

                    7. Do you talk to your children with that mouth?

                    8. the accelerating Obama-caused death rate in Afghanistan before defending “Your Party’s President.”

  17. Then, there was this (2008):

    The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

    I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

    In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

    I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.…..president/

    1. Is he talking about Barr?

      1. Yeah, Barr made a real ass of himself by pressuring Paul last time around. A Paul endorsement of a third party candidate could have real impact this time though.

  18. I second the sentiment for Johnson.

  19. Ron Paul running as a 3rd party in 2012 would be the most certain way to ensure a second Barack Obama victory.

    If you loved Barack Obama’s 1st Term as President of the United States than you DEFINITELY want Dr. Paul to run as a Libertarian.

    1. *rolls eyes*

      nobody owns votes. If Romney was a better candidate, Paul wouldn’t be a threat to his vote count. Parties blaming groups for stealing votes is just hackery. However, since they’re bound to do that, strategically for the libertarian cause, Paul shouldn’t run.

    2. If you loved Barack Obama’s 1st term as President of the United States than you’ll LOVE Mitt Romney’s 1st term as well. And then, it’ll be Mitt Romney up for reelection in 2016, versus some D shithead just as bad.

      So Vote Romney, and then you’ll have 2020 at the earliest to get somebody who ISNT a hardcore statist lying piece of shit. Or you can tell Romney to fuck hisself and move that possibility up 4 years to 2016.

    3. We could have almost any of the other BigParty Republicans eke out a win and end up with Obama 2 anyway…maybe less creepy in some ways but more in others….and still makin’ war.

  20. Yes he should run 3rd party, but it would be better if someone from the right without such a low ceiling of support did it.

    1. Go home to have your ass raped by the men with the big guns you pay taxes to. Go on, git.

  21. Are you nuts? Who would favor Ron Paul for the nomination over the national celebrities and high achieving individuals who have already announced for the LP nomination?

  22. My god, the Ron Paul fanatics on the ABC article are really cultish nuts. They’re all lambasting the article’s author for claiming “The Genuinely Reliable and Trustworthy Doctor” will likely not win the GOP nod when “he’s won like every straw poll” and how the media is trying to “split the Republican vote” by publishing this story.

    I like Paul more than most other politicians, but I’m sad for their mindless politician worship and divorce from reality.

    1. Ya, the media love Paul. They would never screw him over. Only tin foil hat wearing cultist could even entertain such a thought. It is known.

  23. No. He’s been there, done that. What would he gain by going back.

  24. If the GOP nominee turns out to be someone like Romney, he’d be smart to announce his decision to appoint Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary or Federal Reserve Chairman. That would avoid a third party fight, gain libertarian support and bring about sane monetary policy.

    Someone above mentioned Rand Paul as VP. That would make me vote for Romney in a heartbeat if that were the ticket. Rand has more mainstream appeal and would also appeal both to libertarians and the Tea Party, two groups the GOP sorely needs if they want to win in 2012.

    1. We know what it would mean to appoint Paul to a post like that – he would have to tow Romney’s lion and implement policies he hates – and Romney will cover himself by saying that even Ron Paul etc.

    2. Ron Paul supporters are fanatics who constantly wildly overestimate his popular appeal.

      Mitt Romney will do plenty of damage on his own without the help of the crazy libertarian uncle whose “ideas,” horrifyingly, have become the mantra of a major political party.

      1. Ron Paul detractors are fanatics who constantly wildly underestimate his popular appeal, which they take great pains to suppress by labeling him “libertarian”, “crazy”, “the longest of long shots”, and “unelectable”, even though by all objective measures he is one of the top three Republican contenders for the nomination, and has by far the best voting record ever on fiscal issues.

      2. If the War Party and military expansionism is not horrifying to you and being anti-war is horrifying, then vote for Hillary/Obama, or most any of the other Repubs. You are not forced to consider Paul.

  25. If the Republican candidate gives *credible* promises of supporting at least *some* useful reforms (Romney wouldn’t do this – no promises by him would be credible), Paul should graciously bow out and endorse that nominee.

    Othersise, then I say let Paul run as an independent and let as many third parties as want to do so, endorse Paul for Pres and nominate diverse candidates for VP (the Libertarians can go with Johnson, the Reform with the wrestler dude, etc). We’ve had examples of same-Pres candidate/different VP candidate in previous elections.

    Paul should then aim at getting a decent slice of the vote – enough to scare the donkeys and the elephants. George Wallace (a much less desirable individual) did this and prodded Nixon to the right on some issues. Perot did this and prodded Clinton and the Rs into supporting balanced budgets – but after the shock of Perot’s candidacy receded into the past, they went back to their budget-busting ways. Why not put *another* scare into them?

    As for what kind of deal to cut with the Rep candidate – audit and limit the fed (have Cain go to Canossa and say he wouldn’t serve on the Fed again, and they brainwashed him into serving), balance the budget by phasing out big-spending programs (specifically including military), close down the American Empire and let Western Europe in particular look to its own defense (pulling their chestnuts out of the fire three times should be enough – fourth time they’re on their own!), etc.

  26. My prediction is that if Ron Paul did win the Republican nomination (not a long shot at all considering he has more individual donors than Perry and Romney combined, more cash than Cain, and outpolls Perry everywhere), the Republican talking heads who whine and cry about a third-party Paul bid reelecting Obama would nominate Rudy Giuliani as an independent before the last Paul supporter cheers died out at the Republican National Convention.

  27. It doesn’t matter what Ron Paul does or doesn’t do.

  28. Too true.

    See: Johnson, Gary

    … Hobbit

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.