Ron Paul

Ron Paul: His Future Will Not Be Third Party, But the GOP is Not His Party Either, and He Thinks Gary Johnson is "Wonderful"


Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) appeared again on the Tonight Show starring Jay Leno last night. He seemed to authoritatively put paid to the dreams of some of his fans that even at this late date he might go third party.

Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired

Paul admitted his lack of a RNC speaking slot was probably because he refused to endorse Romney, and hinted that he agreed his son Rand's speaking slot was likely a political sop to Paul's fans (and over 2 million primary and caucus voters–Paul hinted that he knows many, many more people who would not vote in a GOP primary would likely vote for him).

Paul hit Romney's "nice" speech for ignoring foreign policy and the troops, even though Paul notes that the perceived peace candidate generally tends to win national presidential elections. (Paul notes Clint Eastwood got cheers for suggesting we should bring the troops home, as Paul would have himself.)

Then Leno asked the big question: Thinking about a thrid party run?

"No, not much," said Paul, joking about resting up for a 2016 run. Then: "The system is very biased; we talk a lot about democracy, we send our troops overseas…but democracy is not all that healthy in this country because if you're a third party you don't get into debates. The truth is if I tried in last several years to do what I have done in a third party I probably wouldn't have made it to your show…."

Paul then trails off noting that some might conclude there is no real difference between the two major parties, and that not even an enormous amount of money would have propelled him to victory right now, since "we are taking on a lot of special interests, the military-industrial complex, financial interests, Keynesian economics, we made pretty good strides but still have a little ways to go" in intellectual and ideological education of the public before a candidate like him would win.

Paul also told Leno he considers Paul Ryan's deficit hawk reputation fraudulent, and that though he expected to vote this year, he would not say who for.

The Leno video:

As far as Paul's party affiliation goes, Paul told Bloomberg News last week regarding the Republican Party that it "is not my party. I do not like politics at all. I think both parties are Keynesian economists, and support positions that I do not like. So, the party, in many ways is irrelevant."

And then, who is this mystery person Paul will vote for? There is some reason to believe, even though he has not endorsed him, that it might be Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Paul told a Fox reporter he thinks Johnson "wonderful" in this pro-Johnson campaign clip full of Paul fans talking up Johnson's qualities:

NEXT: Remember Clinton's Booming Economy? Remember His Comparatively Restrained Government, Too

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. “Nobody” isn’t on the ballot, Johnson is.

  2. Someone should write a book about this guy

    1. …being sure to make mention of the movement he inspired, bien sur.

  3. even though Paul notes that the perceived peace candidate generally tends to win national presidential elections.

    Yeah, Bush was totally the dove in the 2004 election. Nixon was totally elected to a second term because people thought he’d end the war he didn’t manage to quit in his first term. Eisenhower was elected in ’52 to pull us out of Korea, and FDR lost in ’44 for taking us to war, just like he lost in ’40 because he looked like he was going to take us in. McKinley of course lost badly in 1900 for getting us into the war in the Philippines and TR lost in 1904 for not getting us out, and Taft won in 1908 because he was expected to finally get us out. McClellan’s victory in 1864 was because he was perceived as the peace candidate, and Lincoln won in 1860 on the platform of avoiding war. Monroe, of course, lost for getting us into the War of 1812.

    Look, I’m not saying that we should be at war. But anyone who thinks “the perceived peace candidate generally tends to win national presidential elections” is not actually connected to reality.

    1. Actually Ike did run on ending the war in Korea…and Nixon said “new leadership will end the war in Vietnam.”

      1. Look, go read the “I shall go to Korea” speech, from October 27, 1952.

        In that, Eisenhower declared that going to war in Korea was “utterly right” and there was “no other way to save honor and self-respect.” He wasn’t interested in bringing the troops home, he declared “United Nations forces cannot abandon that unhappy land” and indefinitely committed “United Nations forces in reserve positions and supporting roles”. He declared that anyone who says the US can’t bring the war “to an early and honorable end” is “a defeatist” because the US is “the strongest nation in the history of freedom”.

        And Nixon’s talk about Vietnam was all the same “we’ll use our power to force them commies to give us peace with honor” that Eisenhower pioneered in ’52, not a declaration that the war was a bad idea and we should bring the troops home.

        I mean, if you want to spin that as being a “peace candidate”, fine, but then we might as well count someone who came out and said “We’re going to get peace in Afghanistan by the end of my term, if I have to draft two million boys into the Army and bomb the Taliban with nerve gas and nukes in order to get it” as a peace candidate.

        1. What Eisenhower and Nixon were really saying was “I’ll stop fucking up this war like Truman / Johnson.” In that regard, both did okay.

  4. Hey, and ad on here says “stop the Koch Brothers” help bring funding back to the EPA. Who the hell places these ads? I mean, really? I think I’ll run a tofu ad on a beef website.

    I donated to Gary Johnson. I think he’s a good guy and has actually created a real business and has a successful record as Governor of NM.

    Maybe Breaking Bad will have some allusion to him as they did Ron Paul, especially considering the NM connection.

    1. Click it.

      1. Awesome, have the anti-Kochers fund the Koch funded website. That’s meta, dude.

  5. This needs to be put to music.

    Ron Paul for President
    What he says is what he means
    Ron Paul for President
    He’ll sweep this country clean

    He’ll kick out the old UN
    And keep us out of wars
    The income tax will see an end
    And we’ll legalize drugs and whores

    With Walter Williams as his running mate
    We’ll get back our fair share
    And with old Rockwell at Department of State
    We can thumb our nose at world affairs

    No more bailouts of the banks
    He’ll give your tax money back to you
    So you can buy a Sherman tank
    Or build a castle too

    Ron Paul for President
    He’s real nice, not mean
    Ron Paul for President
    He’ll swee-eep this count-ry clean!

  6. Paul should start taking it easy. Write some books, keep developing policy, and continue to be a spokesperson but leave the headaches of elected politics behind. Doing what he’s done would turn me in to a crank ass.

    1. Maybe he should start a newsletter or something.

  7. I wish the guy would stop being so coy and start denouncing the GOP. Maybe if he came out strongly for Johnson and put his 2 million name e-mail list behind him, a real and growing third party might someday become a force to be reckoned with. Another gripe – what percentage of Leno’s audience knows what “Keynesian economics” is? 2%? C’mon Ron, stop using it as a buzz word and use a short description that most high school graduates could understand.

    1. . . .use a short description. . .

      Good idea, except they won’t let you say “clusterfuck” on television.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.