The Third Party Question, Pro and Con

Justin Raimondo had a piece last week on why Ron Paul should run on a third-party ticket. An excerpt:

The fun doesn’t have to end in Tampa: if you decide to run an independent campaign for the White House – a strategy some of your supporters are already urging on you – your celebration of liberty and peace can continue right on up until November, and beyond. Because a third party candidacy will leave a legacy, a lasting monument to your campaign and the movement it created: a viable third party alternative to the twin parties of war and Big Government.

Polls show you getting as much as 17 percent of the vote in a three-way race – and those are just the starting numbers. It’s a long way until November, and a lot can happen: another economic crash, another war, another federal power grab so egregious it makes the PATRIOT Act seem like a mild precursor.

Republicans and conservatives argue that a third party campaign on your part would ensure President Obama’s reelection, a scenario I don’t think is all that credible. If Romney loses it will be because most people simply don’t like him, don’t trust him, and don’t want him anywhere near the Oval Office.

Yet even if it’s true your third party run would cost Romney the election, then isn’t it clear the Republicans deserve to lose? In the face of overwhelming public opposition to their warmongering, the other three GOP presidential contenders have relentlessly advocated escalating our overseas commitments: all three have explicitly threatened to go to war with Iran. Far from listening to your warnings about the dangers inherent in such a position, it’s clear they have nothing but contempt for your foreign policy views. Nor have they made any significant concessions on the domestic front: they’re all big spenders, Big Governmentconservatives,” and if they ever got into office they would continue along the same path.

In short, Republicans need to be taught a lesson, one they will never forget. By disdaining the substantial and growing libertarian wing of the GOP, and ignoring the desire for peace on the part of the larger public, they have earned nothing but defeat. You have said you are trying to save the Republican party, but it’s too late for that: what’s needed now is for someone to save the country from the GOP.

Yes, the Democrats also pose a major threat to liberty and peace, but the Republicans, I would argue, pose a much deadlier menace because their leaders and much of their base are unabashed militarists and dogged opponents of the Constitution. When it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, the Obama administration is just as bad if not worse, but the difference is rhetorical: the Republicans openly proclaim their intent to continue and escalate our policy of permanent warfare, and take great pride in their willingness to throw the Bill of Rights overboard in the name of an endless “war on terrorism.” Obama, on the other hand, is careful to sugar-coat his authoritarianism and belligerent foreign policy in terms of “liberal” bromides and appeals to “pragmatism.”

Gary North came back with a piece of his own; an excerpt:

The cost of getting Ron Paul’s onto the ballot in every state is prohibitive. The political system is rigged for a two-party system. There will also be little time after the Republican National Convention.

Then there is Rand Paul. If his father openly bolts, Rand’s chances will be zero in 2016, assuming that Romney loses in 2012. There will be pent-up rage against the name “Paul,” in the same way that there was Republican rage against the name Roosevelt after 1912. But in 1920, Franklin Roosevelt got the nomination for Vice President . . . as a Democrat.

Ron Paul sat out the 2008 debacle. He did not get blamed. If Romney loses without his endorsement, he will not be blamed. If Romney loses in the face of a third party move, Ron Paul will be blamed.

If Romney wins, he will get to preside over a train wreck. That still opens the door in 2020….

Third party politics in a non-parliamentary system is the leprechaun’s lure of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 was the last serious candidate to run on a third party. That led to the election of Woodrow Wilson. Taft lost. The Republican faithful never forgave Roosevelt.

That century-old legacy is crucial for a successful political revolution inside the Republican Party over the next 8 years.

When I was on Ron Paul’s Congressional staff in 1976, we had no idea of what he would accomplish. What’s another 8 years?

We need 8 years to quietly infiltrate the Republican Party’s county organizations, especially in rural counties where Democrats are dominant. Nobody wants to be a Republicans in in those counties. Ron Paul Republicans should take advantage of this.

No one wanted to be a Republican in the South, 1877-1960. In 1964, Southern conservative Republicans’ patience paid off. Lyndon Johnson lost the South. The Republicans took it and kept it.

This can happen again in counties that are not inner-city counties. Most aren’t.

Ron Paul, as a good Republican, needs to put aside some of his campaign money to put together a post-election team of specialists in winning local elections. They need to set up an online training program for Republican activists who will become the next generation of leaders at the county level.

He must do what no Republican national leader has done: teach Republicans the basics of local politics. He needs to take a long view of the battle that he is in and we are in. He did that in 1976. He needs to do it in 2013 and beyond.

Both articles need to be read in their entirety to do justice to each person’s argument. Should you choose to read them, I welcome your thoughts in the comments!

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • George

    That’s a possibility, sir. I would have to think about it. I wouldn’t overestimate his chances, though. What matters is what Ron Paul would think of it. (On decentralization, please see my new reply to Dr. Woods’ blog.)

  • jen

    I would also ONLY donate if Paul went third party in order to really give gop/dnc establishment a challenge and a place for those desiring liberty where GOP estab has less grabs to co-opt and infiltrate or otherwise cause havoc and assimilation into Romney.

  • Conrad C. Elledge

    Saw both these articles when they were first out and think there is plenty more to the analysis on each side than they provide.

    Gary North entirely misses the point when he says time is on our side.  In fact, we are in a crisis and time is of the essence.  The concept of slow build, low boil, and broaden the base within the Republican party is a surefire method to minimize the movement.  Besides, they cannot stop participation in the party irrespective of continuing third party efforts so all those sort of arguments are nil.  How anyone could advocate accepting a loss when the fight is still on because next time we won’t have to lose as bad is really sort of pathetic.

    The other aspect of time North fails to appreciate is the point in time of Ron Paul’s political career, that is, this is it.  It’s now or never for Dr. Paul and for that matter the movement which he currently leads.  You take ‘em to the church, you better marry ‘em and all this groundswell didn’t sign up for a dry run–the sign says revolution.

    Finally, both authors make too big a deal of Republican backlash against the future efforts of Rand Paul.  Last time I checked the Republicans were backlashing about as much as they could backlash and its high time they felt a little lash back themselves.  Besides, Rand Paul is a big boy and he can carry his own weight.  In fact, his stature is increased by the threat of his going on without the Republican party because in simple fact, they need us more than we need them.

    The Republican primary will have served its purpose of providing Ron Paul with a platform from which to spread his message and if they don’t appreciate that message then I say take it to the American public and let’s see what they say. 

    Conrad C. Elledge

  • Joe

    Here the Daily Bell chimes in….http://thedailybell.com/3782/Ron-Holland-Part-I–Beware-the-Establishments-Third-Party-Trap……..and also………….http://thedailybell.com/3785/Ron-Holland-Part-II-Paul-Supporters-Why-Our-Political-Future-Is-In-the-GOP

  • Anonymous

    Romney cannot win and Ron Paul’s supporters will be blamed regardless. 

    The MSM loves to show two-way polls but such polls are irrelevant.  We already know that Gary Johnson is running for the Libertarian Party nomination and is likely to win their nomination.  The few polls that have shown a three-way race show Johnson getting 7% to 9% of the popular vote, mostly at Romney’s expense.  Either Johnson or Obama will win New Mexico, Johnson’s home state which is a swing-state, but Johnson shifts many other swing-states to the Obama column too.  

    I have seen many posts by delusional Theocons who actually blame Ron Paul for Obama beating McCain in 2008.  They will blame their inadequacies on anyone but themselves and that means Ron Paul will be blamed for Romney’s inevitable loss too.

  • Javier

    Im with North on this one.

  • Javier R.

    Im not addressing this at everyone but quite a few. I dont understand this attachment to party labels especially the Libertarian Party (LP).  Ron Paul must stay in the Republican party. Its not about the party you choose to run under but the degree by which you advance liberty. Im sorry but the LP has done little to nothing for it. I have no animosity to the LP but I see it in the same light that Rothbard saw it. He kew it wasnt going to amount to much. Thats why Rothbard, to my understanding, rarely if ever involved himself with the LP. Interestingly enough he did support a few Republcain candidates for president  enough. Ron Paul has done wonders as a Republican. If he had stayed in the LP we probably would never had heard of him. Im not some mindless enthusiastic elephant hat wearing Republican. When it comes to politics principles have to merge with the pragmatism. Right now its the RP that is going to be the vehice that allows us to spread the message. Whether its wrong or right is very unimportant. Its the nature of the ugly beast of politics and we have to play the hand the we are dealt. Frankly, I wish that the LP did become a major politcal force but sadly it never did. Ok fine it didnt happen that way. So does that mean we retreat and not support  good solid conservative/libertarian republicans. Not very smart.The RP has a Liberty Caucus made up of mostly solid folks (Amash, Flake, and of course the leader himself Ron Paul). We need for the Republcian party to be one big Liberty Caucus. I call for something radical. I want to see the LP and the Constitution party  to disband as soon as possible and tell their supporters to work within the RP to elect the next generation of libertarians/constituionalists. We cant criticize the RP if we choose not to support RP candidates because they are republicans. How many LP folks in VA will not be voting for Karen Kwiatoski because she is runnig as a Republican? Shame on anyone who doesnt because of that reason and she ends up losing. How many didnt vote for Schiff?. In my state, TX, a good man, Glenn Addison, is running for U.S. Senate in the RP. He’s rock solid. Dr Tom Woods would agree since he is advising his campaign which is about time someone hired him on. These people are running in the RP because its more important to win and advance. They are taking their principles and being pragmatic about how to win thats all. As voters we have to approach it the same way rather than saying or thinking “Hey Im voting differetnly than you!”North is so right. We need to takeover, legitimately, Republican county and local organizations.   This need to be angry at the RP instead of transforimg it will hurt the cause.
     

  • Javier R.

    The only person living in la la land is you Justin. If its a choice betwen Romney and Obama of course there is a difference. Romney is no Paul but hes no Obama either. I would vote for Romney as a way of keeping the damage to a minimum until we could get  a Ron Paul type elected one day. Im under no allusion that Romney would be a radical for liberty but he is way better than Obama. If not voting for the lesser bad candidate means gettign more Obama for 4 more years than not voting is irresponsible. Voting is not a pancea and no one is putting it forth as such.

  • David

     What you say may be true for a few really delusional neo/theo cons, but I don’t think most GOPers blame Paul for Obama winning in 08, nor do I think they would blame him if he doesn’t run this year. The extent to which there will be anti-Paul backlash will be much greater.  I hope Gary Johnson can sustain his momentum, but I’m not sure whether that will be the case. And as you hinted, Johnson appeals to Democrats more than Paul does in my opinion, which would balance his effect on the race. Further more, a Johnson run would not negatively affect Rand Paul in any way.  Again, I’m not saying this disqualifies a Ron Paul run, I’m just giving my thoughts on the consequences of such a run.

  • Javier R.

    Yeah and thats another thing. Its stupid conspiracy fanatsies that are attached to Paul’s campaign that damage it. As a Paul suporter its frankly embarrasing and silly. So for folks like Slipknot ^ or whatever I defend your right to your ideas but please don tell anyone your voting for Paul. Do vote for him by all means just dont tell anyone, if in fact you do want to help his campaign, ok? 

  • Javier R.

    You are uninformed about Senator Paul. He went toe to toe with Harry Reid on the floor too push for gun rights amendments to the Patriot Act once it was apparent the votes were not there to defeat the Act http://www.washingtonpo…st.com/blogs/2chambers/post/harry-reid-rand-paul-spar-over-patriot-act-on-senate-floor/2011/05/25/AGcgWRBH_blog.html He voted against the Act’s extension. Senator Paul voted against S. 1867 ‘Indefinite Detention’ bill, you know, the one where you and I can get thrown in Gitmo forever. This is what he said and tell me this doesnt sound like his dad. Senator Paul warned on the Senate floor: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won … detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.” He courageously forced a roll call to an attached amendent to S. 1867 that would have made the S1867 even worse, believe it or not. By forcing that roll call vote fresh sunlight was brought in to smoke out roaches who wanted it passed and and as a result that attachement was defeated. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/rand-paul-single-handedly-stops-bill.html Senator Paul is no neocon by any stretch. Or do we forget that he introduced an amendment to a Defense bill to formally end the Iraq war?http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=378 Is he like his dad? You bet he is. Does he speak more pragmatically and less philosohphically then his dad? Yes he does and there is nothing wrong with that. Hes a great senstor. He’s the Senator Robert Taft of our generation. To say you would not vote for him is in my judgement not serious thinking. 

  • Javier R.

    Let me repost the first link:

     http://www.washingtonpo…st.com/blogs/2chambers/post/harry-reid-rand-paul-spar-over-patriot-act-on-senate-floor/2011/05/25/AGcgWRBH_blog.html

  • Javier R.

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/harry-reid-rand-paul-spar-over-patriot-act-on-senate-floor/2011/05/25/AGcgWRBH_blog.html

  • Javier R.

    And a second time ^

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HK3QBG3AVBFEXATKQT5WZEONDI Glen Rice

    So the most Libertarian Senator, possibly in history isn’t good enough for you?  When people are able to find major fault in Rand Paul, it is very clear that they aren’t serious about advancing freedom. They would much rather live in theoretical nerd world and gripe about the system.

  • Anonymous

    Paul clearly draws support from across the “left-right” political divide. He has more support among people who ordinarily eschew the Republican party, and he could spark a political realignment drawing much support from people ordinarily aligned with either established party or neither party.

    Many people would pull a lever for Paul but will never join a Republican coalition of neocons, left behinders, gay bashers, drug warriors, state-industrial complexers and too-big-to-fail bankers. I’ve shown up at local Republican Party functions, and despite a few friendly faces, the overwhelming impression is “What am I doing here?” I see more friendly faces outside of the party.

    I’d like to see Paul on the ballot in the general election, and political reality suggests that his name won’t appear in the Republican column. Even if his name could appear there, he could win fewer votes, because too many possible supporters will not vote “Republican” and too many established Republicans will not vote “Paul”.

    Paul doesn’t need to win ballot access as an independent candidate. He can have the Libertarian column if he acts now. Americans Elect is another possibility, however remote.

    Can he win the general election in any column? I doubt it, but I also doubt that he can enact his agenda if elected. He’ll have the bully pulpit and the veto for four years, and he’ll be the commander in chief at a particularly perilous time, when a burgeoning empire badly needs reigning. I support Paul for this reason, not because I expect him to alter the course of history.

    “Party building” just doesn’t interest me. Frankly, I don’t expect any individual or political party much to alter the course of the Federal government. How long did it take for the party of John Fremont to become the party of Lincoln?

    Advocates of decentralized authority need Federal office for only one purpose, to refuse to exercise its authority. Ron Paul can be trusted to fill an office this way, but the world is not full of Ron Pauls. If nominal “libertarians” ever control the Federal government, they’ll exercise its authority somehow. Maybe they’ll impose a statutory gold standard on the United States through the established banking system, thus suppressing entrepreneurial alternatives like Shire Silver and Bitcoin, as Larry White suggests here.

    http://www.freebanking.org/2011/12/22/making-the-transition-to-a-new-gold-standard/

    Whatever they do, it won’t be liberty. It’ll be “liberty” instead. We already have plenty of “liberty”.

  • Anonymous

    Right. Without “Paul” in the Republican column, I won’t be supporting the Republican candidate anyway, and all the talk of “taking over the Party for 2020″ is nonsense. The Party will take us over instead. A third party might swim against the tide for a while before being absorbed into the Borg, but ultimately, libertarianism “within the political system” is oxymoronic. Libertarian solutions always emerge from the bottom up, never from the top down, even if nominal “libertarians” somehow make it to the top.

  • Anonymous

    Regardless of Ron Paul’s many virtues, and regardless of Rand’s, a Paul dynasty will be like the Bush dynasty and every other dynasty in the history of humanity. Personal virtues are irrelevant.

  • jen

    I like that – you are implying that one cannot truly be a libertarian when they are solidly associated with the GOP and have establishment and hardcore GOP. 

    Rand Paul, Demint, and Lee proved to be disappointments and destructive, and yet had people fooled that they were libertarians or sympathetic to them or shared thier beliefs.

    Like a frog in a pot of water that Romney is planning on boiling very soon, it is best to jump, which means cutting ties with him, but keeping the door open to working with those that are anti-establishment (like Palin).

  • jen

    Rand Paul lives purely in an ideological world, and only wants to gripe with the system but continue to live under likes of Romney, because he feels that is ‘priviledged’.  I think he and his followers would be better off if he returned to Kentucky and left Washington, where he has been unsuccessful and would not fight the elites he said he would, but seems to be picking on the non-elites.

  • jen

    Separate Ron and Rand – I think it is rude and thuggish to link the two, although they have a lot of the same staff/advisors.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HK3QBG3AVBFEXATKQT5WZEONDI Glen Rice

    What are you 18? If you are looking for a better choice to implement free market policies Rand Paul and maybe Mike Lee to a lesser extent are it. Are you looking for a pure anarchist to get elected? Is that what you want? People like Raimondo are the worst. They would rather put up candidates who get .5% of the vote and whine about how evil the man is than actually make positive change.

    Rand Paul was major voice against the NDAA, he was the major author a means testing Social Security Bill, he proposed the most aggressive budget of any Senator within his first 100 days of being a Senator that actually made sense and seems doable.  Good luck finding someone better.

  • Justin

    “the damage to a minimum ” What are you talking about. The damage will not be kept to a 
    minimum. He supports more war even more than Obama. He will not change course on any  civil liberties violation Obama and Bush supported. He will not cut spending on entitlements or defense. So what is it that he will do to minimize the damage, nothing. This is the fairy tail that the Repubs are selling you. This is the same nonsense that the left went through during the last election. Obama the peace candidate and now he is more aggressive than Bush. Why do you and others like you keep falling for the lie. I feel so sorry for you and me because i get stuck with your decisions. 

  • Javier

    Yes thats right keep it to a minimum. I made it very clear that his FP is no better than Obama’s. As for cutting entitlements you know or should know that evenif Ron Paul were to get elected to the presidency  he would not be able to either. The only difference is that Ron Paul would at lesat introduce the budgets only to be shot down by Congress. 

    The only nonesense is thinking that you should do nothing until another Ron Paul comes along.

    So please dont give me your speech about Romney’s negatives in FP,civil liberties, etc, I know  about them much more than you do. I am aware of them. But Obama is even worse. I disagree with you on FP. At least Romney verbaly questioned Obama’s military intervention in Libya. Obama is far worse which is saying a alot.Politics is not about purity and perfection as it must be in your fantasy land. I want to see Paul elected but if not then what?

    The only lie is the one your living in. And thats somethig I truly feel sorry for.  

  • Justin

    i think the comments section is funny it just keeps getting smaller and smaller. 

    I wish you well Javier I really do. If you feel it necessary to elect another criminal to save the country then i am just warning you, you are going to be sorely disappointed. What is funny i have never mentioned voting for Ron Paul because that is not the issue. The issue is government as it is comprised. 

    “Romney verbaly questioned Obama’s military intervention in Libya”

    You now are now trying to imply that Romney is the peace candidate. I think i have proven my case about who thinking wishfully about politics and who is ignorant. It you really listened to what Romney and what most Republicans say about war instead of just seeing an “R” by his name you would know that Romney’s is not mad that the Pres went to war just that a Republican wasn’t in charge of the war. Again this is how democrats were acting 4 years ago when they said Bush is a war monger, Bush is evil unless my guy goes to war then its ok.

  • Daniel

    This revolution is an intellectual one, a slow burner, you cannot just speed it up with a run at third party just wanting to stick it to the GOP. This movement will be built from the bottom up until it finally permeates the white house.

    Just a thought, would it be the greatest thing ever if Ron Paul was to get to the white house? no doubt that would be an immense euphoric moment, but how much could he really do? what sort of tricks could the elites pull and blame on him?

    For me, at least, i think this massive expansion of the state with it’s invasive policies is necessary. We need it. Would there be any revolution today if i were not for the events of 9/11 and the subsequent shift of gear toward totalitarianism – notwithstanding the deaths of all those innocent people twin towers, iraq etc, those were horrific. If there was no economic meltdown austrian economics would not be as popular as it is today.

    So perhaps the best bet would be for Ron to run Willard all the way then to be falsely robbed of the nomination. That would piss off a lot of idealistic college and high school kids of all political stripes

  • jen

    Rand has long said he would support Romney (and seems escastic about it), so it doesn’t matter what he does because I know his bottom line – and that is supporting the elites.  He only went against ndaa, etc… only because it was known that it would pass by a longshot anyway.

  • jen

    You are indeed scared alright of the elites, and allowing them to dictate the terms is one of the reasons why libertarians haven’t ended up accomplishing much. 

    I don’t see any ‘partnership’ within the Republican party other than with Romney.  The thought of other conservatives doesn’t settle well with libertarians, and choose Romney above all the others.

    Romney will lose to Obama or bring another Obama back in office – and that should be how you can remain vigilent and strong against phony attacks to instill fear.

    There is noone in the republican party to keep this going (except maybe justin amash, but they may work on getting rid of him thru redrawing districts as they did with Kucinich). 

    Gary is bad on research because Paul already set up millions for a Campaign for Liberty under Tate, who solicitied even more money, but ended up not doing anything to recruit or for liberty.

  • jen

    Rand should be on his own – leave nepotism to the side.  And I think that is how he wants it as he likes the tea party and that is his comfort zone.  So, leave him be where he is instead of pulling him to somewhere he does not belong or does not want to be. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.swaringen Matthew Swaringen

    Ugh, did he really vote for sanctions?  Ugh.  I have heard of other things about him that made me unhappy, such as this here.. 
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/02/does-rand-paul-really-want-to

    In any case, I think he’s still better than most alternatives. 

  • Javier

     I have NEVER said Romeny is a peace candidate. I have stated the VERY opposite. Cmon Justin actually represent what I said correctly

  • rojam

    Could you please explain how Davids post is “rude and thuggish?” I believe he brings up some very good points. How can anyone NOT link the two? They are father and son for crying out loud!! Even you admit they are linked by having “a lot of the same staff/advisers.” 

    The GOP establishment hates Ron Paul. All you have to do is listen to talk radio or Carl Rove or Dick Morris  to see this as an absolute fact. If Paul runs third party and Romney loses to Obama you can bet that he will be the scapegoat (fairly or unfairly) and what better way to get back at him than to take it out on his son? Rand Paul will certainly be persona non grata in the GOP if this scenario plays out.

  • rojam

    Are you implying that Rand Paul supports Mitt Romney over his father? Or are you implying that Rand Paul supports Mitt Romney over Barack Obama? If it is the former that is just preposterous! If it is the latter….well….yes I guess you are correct, but what is your point? Should he support Obama? Or maybe just not endorse anyone?

  • rojam

    Terri, your passion and enthusiasm is very refreshing. Excellent post! Your first sentence certainly makes it hard to completely agree with Mr. North. While some of what he says may be true this idea of waiting 4 or 8 years is perplexing considering what Obama has done in just a little over 3 years.

  • David

     Rand has stated he would support Romney over Obama, and while I will not be voting or supporting Romney in the election, I think using that alone as proof that Rand is an establishment tool is kind of ludicrous, and reeks of “No True Scotsman.” We don’t know Rand’s reasoning behind it. Perhaps he feels Romney is slightly better than Obama, and that’s enough for him to support him. I disagree with that, but I at least understand it, as I used to think like that myself.  Perhaps he’s simply protecting his chances of becoming president in the future. I don’t really like that, but if it’s the difference between President Rand and no President Rand, I’m fine with it.  Or maybe he wants Romney to be president so he could expose him by challenging an incumbent Republican president from the right, and offering conservative proposals that Romney won’t support. This could help Rand (and the movement) a lot. I’m not claiming that I know what his reasoning is, I’m just offering other possibilities that you ignore

  • David

     Thanks for that rojam. I was kind puzzled myself as to why she used the terms “rude and thuggish”

  • David

    *kinda

  • Jim

    “those that are anti-establishment (like Palin)”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Yeah, like Bill Kristol and Jeb Bush. All those anti-establishment guys.

  • jen

    Jeb Bush is clearly one of the true, original insiders.  Bill Kristol is a partial fake elite as he is so dumb, that he became like Santorum and bent on their knees for acceptance to get some GOP love. But I do give Kristol credit for not liking Romney and trying hard to swerve to anyone but Romney.

  • jen

    Rand started out in the tea party and has made is clearly repeatedly that he is hardcore Tea Party.  I don’t like some of the people he associates with.  He also said that Romney is his second choice for the GOP nomination, which I find unacceptable.  Romney shouldn’t even make it last on anyone’s nomination list.  And, to kick all other conservatives in order to make Romney the nominee is repulsive and is revealing of his true colors.   Not to mention he has long been adamantly against third party, which is to rule out competition and other choices.

    Who cares what Rand’s budget is?  He will do abide by the leash that Romney gave him and as Romney approves Paul Ryan’s plan and that is what Rand will go with ultimately. 

  • jen

    I am not implying Rand supports Romney over his father. 

    He believes Romney is at least a cut better than the other conservatives and should come in second for the nomination.  Meaning, if his father does not get the nomination, he is  behind Romney full force  and has said kind things about Romney that are not exactly true and regardless, just not acceptable.

    Yes, indeed – Romney is a tad better than Obama, but it doesn’t matter, because he will get done what Obama would do in his second term regardless and if elected, just bring in another far leftie as Bush did.

  • jen

    I said ‘rude and thuggish’ as this is what some establishment folks are doing and I think they are thuggish.

    If Paul loses as a third party, then it doesn’t matter because he is going to lose in the GOP as well.  And it is better because liberty will have a ‘house’ so to speak that doesn’t have GOP scum buzzing around it as much, for someonelse to pick up on. 

    Who cares if elites make Paul to be the ‘scapegoat’?  I thought RP supporters don’t care what media says.  What about when Romney loses to Obama – which is an almost certainity.

  • rojam

    Even though the meaning of your second post is completely different than your first, it doesn’t really matter. I disagree with both anyway.

     BTW look at what I wrote; I never said anything about Ron Paul supporters caring about what the media says. Please get your facts straight before typing inaccuracies. 

  • Anonymous

    I’d say the future is a new “3rd” party, called something like “Conservative Party”.  The GOP is rotten to its core, and cannot be fixed.  Using it as a bully pulpit to educate makes sense, but Paulites have no real future in the GOP.  Starting a new true-Conservative party would be a fantastic legacy for Dr. Paul.

  • Javier

    This was at Politcal Theater at the LRC http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/04/ron-paul-partisans-go-pro-120644.html

    This is how its done. Bravo to Paul supporters in Nevada for following North’s advice

  • jen

    Romney is a hideous being and worse than Bush-Cheney, so it is irresponsible to be full of glee towards Romney and say it would be an honor to be considered to be his VP.  While on the other hand, Rand said he was sent to Washington to the fight the likes of Newt, but then goes off and supports the same elites he was sent to fight.  Rand is a serial hypocrite.

    You are dumbing down Rand’s wild enthusiasm for Romney.  He did state he wants Paul first and Romney to come in second and not another conservative who doesn’t support Romneycare.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joel-Munson/590981293 Joel Munson

    I agree that we would both be happier with either, because either would offer a drastic improvement over Plurality. And I agree that the system perceived to be easier will gain acceptance. But I disagree with a few of your points. Single digit RV can be administered just as easily as AV (both can be implemented on any voting machine currently used today), and RV empirically yields much greater support for third parties than AV.

    The problem we face is getting people to understand it. If you can understand how olympic judges give higher scores to better performers, then you can understand RV. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think that should be simple enough to understand by anyone 18 years of age or older.

    However, having politicians amend the system to RV or AV would be just as likely as them voting for term limits or to reduce their own salaries. That is the ultimate problem we face.