Ron Paul's opinion just aren't in alignment with enough people to get enough votes. A Ron Paul 3rd party run would most likely guarantee an Obama victory.

I'm rethinking my opinion of Paul. He was originally my backup choice if Herman Cain failed, but I have changed my mind. Paul wouldn't protect the country like a non-libertarian would.

Paul is crazy

what's wrong with Paul?

I'm going to be honest, I haven't been paying much attention, but from what I know I like Ron Paul, he wants to get our troops out of other people's countries.

Wow.

I REALLY might have voted for a Republican, given the fact Obama's been far from overwhelming--not really "bad," just not nearly as effectual as I'd hoped--but WOW...

Michelle Bachmann--hate her (she creeps me out a bit, actually...)

Herman Cain--hate him (IDIOT...I'm sorry, once you say "I'd have all bills be 5 pages or less!" you officially come off to me as a backwoods yokel who knows nothing of politics)

Rick Perry--Well, between his bashing FDR, Social Security, and his statement that he'd like to essentially wreck Checks and Balances even further by having a Congressional vote override Supreme Court decisions and make their terms limited and not for life...why WOULDN'T I want to vote for him?

Rom Paul--Already said in a previous thread what my problems with him are...sorry, folks, a Thomas Jefferson will never come again, and even if he did, an 18th century political activist doesn't exactly fit for a 21st century leader of a nuclear superpower in multiple wars and a globalized economy.

Mitt Romney--Meh...he's maybe the best of the lot, but he still leaves a lot to be desired.

Newt Gingrich--Seriously? First McCain, and then Gingrich...is the GOP TRYING to run even older and crankier white men in flanel suits out their against en ever-diversifying base?



I honestly don't know who I'll vote for...probably Obama, since I at least like some of his ideas...he might be ineffectual, but unlike these fellows, he doesn't make me retch.

And then...

Hillary 2012, anyone?

Vote for a third party. We have one here. It just gets angry at people and pretends it matters.

Paul will not run as a third party candidate. Remember, he already was the Libertarian nominee in 1988 so he knows how little a minor party can do. No, this guy is setting up the infrastructure for his son Rand to lead a libertarian coup in 2016 or (hopefully) 2020. Rand is so much more normal in a lot of ways than his father. I think he'd be an extremely serious contender in the next non-incumbent GOP primary.

The future of the Republican part is one of increasing libertarianism. The neocons and culture warriors are dying. People with a strong commitment to individual liberty are the future, and the with them Rand Paul has a successful future ahead (at least in Republican primaries). That's not necessarily a good thing, but it is something we need to address and take into account.

The interesting thing about Ron Paul is that between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Dr. Paul actually polls worst among Republicans. Democrats and independents in particular have a more favorable opinion of him, (I suspect largely due to his foreign policy views). He has a fanatically loyal and fairly sizable following who will move heaven and earth for him.In a two or three way race for president in a general election, I think he would have a real shot at it (if the elections weren't fixed, that is).

However, I don't think Dr. Paul is really interested in being president. Mrs. Paul almost died on the campaign trail in '08, and Dr. Paul is 76 now (although in fantastic health). He is primarily running an educational campaign. Which is great - he has obviously had a huge influence already, and the Republican establishment is absolutely terrified by the fact that Paulistas completely dominate the under 30 GOP demographic - but I don't think a President Ron Paul is really an option, particularly when running the special interest gauntlet in the elephant party. I will be attending the 2012 Libertarian National Convention on the off chance that I'm wrong, and will be twisting (or breaking) arms to get him the Libertarian nomination if he wants it, but unfortunately I don't think that's on the menu.

"Perot actually had a record of accomplishing things and wasn't a wingnut."

Puhleaze. I know you're not old enough to remember, but Perot was constantly accused of being a crazy crackpot wingnut, even more so than Ron Paul is today. The lamestream media ended him by constantly beating the "Ross Perot is crazy" drums, particularly after he temporarily withdrew from the '92 election (much as they ended Howard Dean in '04 after the entirely contrived 'Dean Scream' "scandal").

"The future of the Republican part is one of increasing libertarianism. The neocons and culture warriors are dying. People with a strong commitment to individual liberty are the future, and the with them Rand Paul has a successful future ahead (at least in Republican primaries)."

I largely agree (Ron Paul just won the California GOP straw poll with 48%), but am a little wary of Rand Paul. He ran a bit farther to the right in the '10 election than I would've liked. Such is the practice of practical politics, I suppose, but it kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Rand Paul may have 50% of Ron Paul's DNA, but unfortunately the fruit sometimes falls far from the tree as they say. I have been somewhat encouraged by some of his post-election statements, but he's not getting my stamp of approval until he proves his libertarian street cred to me (6 years' voting record should be enough to make a decision).

@ obiwanobiwan

"Herman Cain--hate him (IDIOT...I'm sorry, once you say "I'd have all bills be 5 pages or less!" you officially come off to me as a backwoods yokel who knows nothing of politics)"

Herman Cain is not an idiot. They don't exactly hand out degrees in mathematics and computer science to any idiot yokel. He pulled Godfather's Pizza out from bankruptcy. I believe he could do the same for the federal government. I love the fact that he has no political experience. He thinks like a businessman, not a politician. I am distrustful of the rest of the GOP field (and Obama) because they are all politicians. Politicians are the reason we are in this mess.

"Politicians are the reason we are in this mess."

Riight, not the banks or the businessmen who lied to the government and ripped us off. Indeed, Cain ripped off his own workers more than most businessmen by forcing them to invest in Aquila stock and then proceeding to manage that money by putting it into risky energy trading. A disgusting act of Enron proportions, actually.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/herman-cain-aquila-lawsuit-2012

This is a guy you "trust". Because if corporations rip you off, it's ok. Cain was Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. That's right, he's such a non-politician he worked for our central banking system. You're distrustful of politicians but you want to support a guy who opposes auditing the federal reserve.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that Cain wants to make Muslims second-class citizens in the US.

Did anybody bother listening to Ron Paul at the last debate? He's absolutely barmy.

"Puhleaze. I know you're not old enough to remember, but Perot was constantly accused of being a crazy crackpot wingnut, even more so than Ron Paul is today."

So what, that is irrelevant to the fact that Perot had a record of accomplishment that Ron Paul doesn't have. Ron Paul is that elderly man who shows up to city council meetings complaining about the curbs every week. He's nothing but a crank. He's so callous his own campaign manager died with 400K in debt and had no health insurance. That's libertarianism-in-action.

Perot rescued EDS employees held hostage by Iran. Perot was given a medal for his work helping Vietnam POWs. Perot implemented drug law reforms and education reforms in Texas. What on earth has Ron Paul ever done beside shill for gold and whine about the fed?

He delivered a hell of a lot of babies.

"And that doesn't even get into the fact that Cain wants to make Muslims second-class citizens in the US."

A bold faced lie.

How is it a lie? He defends mob actions against building mosques and openly said he'd refuse to appoint any Muslim anywhere in his administration.

"What on earth has Ron Paul ever done beside shill for gold and whine about the fed?"

How about writing over a dozen books? How about getting elected to congress ten times? How about delivering 4,000 babies? How about starting a political movement that is shaking and remaking the Republican party? I'll bet you $5 that in 50 years Ron Paul will get more ink in Poli Sci and American history textbooks than Ross Perot will.

"He's so callous his own campaign manager died with 400K in debt and had no health insurance."

Kent Snyder had $400,000 in medical bills because he *did* get medical treatment, in spite of having no insurance. If he had lived, that $400,000 bill almost certainly would've been negotiated down quite a bit. Wild accusations not withstanding, there is no evidence that medical insurance would've saved his life - I expect the fact that he had been working 80-100 hours a week for a year probably did most to do him in (and no one outside the family knows what his pre-existing condition was, or how it may have factored into his death). Some people die before their time. It is a fact of life, and would still happen even under Obamacare when everyone is forced to buy insurance from the same insurance companies Obama was saying on the campaign trail were out to kill people.

"How about writing over a dozen books? "

Right, pretty much all of them about either gold or the fed. Like I said, what has he done besides that? I notice you haven't pointed to a single legislative accomplishment despite being elected ten times. And giving him credit for the astroturfed tea party is something I don't even think Paul would do, considering he thinks it is being pushed by corporate interests. I mean his own "movement" booed him at the tea party debate. That's how inspirational he is.

Putin33, Ron Paul is defined by what he hasn't done. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted to raise taxes. He never gone on a government junket. He does not participate in the Congressional pension fund and he even gives part of his salary back to the government every year. His notoriety comes from being Dr. No, not by being a font of still more government solutions. That's anathema to his ideology. You may not like him, and there's a lot not to like, but he is a serious guy who has done a lot of hard work in Congress and taken positions that were unpopular for decades but are now being proven correct.