Paul supporters, what are you going to do....

[dblack]

The Libertarian Party is more interested in becoming "mainstream" than it is about genuine libertarianism. Ron Paul is probably too extreme for them, but he won't run third party again. He knows there's no point.

It's been a while since I've been involved with the Libertarians, so I'll have another look. But what you're saying doesn't square with my experience at all. In general they've always been more radical than Paul and even less likely to compromise for mainstream success.

If they are moving in that direction, I'd consider a good thing. If they can do it without giving up their core convictions, the nation will benefit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You think there is any chance the LP will run him anyways? I was surprised they didn't nominate him anyway in '08, but I don't know how the party works.

The Libertarian Party is more interested in becoming "mainstream" than it is about genuine libertarianism. Ron Paul is probably too extreme for them, but he won't run third party again. He knows there's no point.

Interesting to hear you say that. What is the point in the LP becoming more mainstream? I mean, if they want to be GOP Lite, then why not just fold the tent and join the GOP?

And where does that leave Paul and his supporters? I just don't see them taking over the GOP.

The point of the LP becoming more mainstream is that they want to win elections, and they don't feel they can do that by being genuinely libertarian. I can't really say why they don't just join the GOP, probably because those high up in the Libertarian Party make pretty good money at it and know they'd be nobodies in the GOP.

But look at how far we've come. We may not "take over" so to speak, but becoming a very important and legitimate segment of the Republican Party is already happening. Like I said, Ron Paul's treatment from the party itself is completely different from the last time he ran, and look at the effect he's had outside of his own success. Rand Paul was elected to the Senate, and Justin Amash was elected to the House in Michigan. Like I said, our influence is growing in the GOP.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only point of contention: I don't think the GOP/DNC keep the third parties down. I think it's a biproduct of our winner takes all election system. Look at a parliamentary system, that encourages power sharing versus ours.

Agreed.

And a parliamentary system allows for actual coalitions to form in order to govern, the members may retain their identity and unique voice. We have de facto coalitions in the American system as well, but they’re forced into one or other of the two main parties, compelled to compromise their principles to realize any influence in the party overall, such as the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party and the TPM in the Republican.

This is the source of much of the friction and frustration we see.

I have no remedy, btw, I merely recognize the problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

when the GOP tosses your boy under the bus again? Because you, me, and everybody else knows it's going to happen. There is simply no way in hell that an isolationist who wants to dismantle the FED is ever going to be given the keys to the GOP kingdom. We all know it.

My question is, as this is Paul's last hurrah, why do you guys even try to find a home in the GOP? Why not just run as a Libertarian. In this election cycle, that might actually work, as people are pissed at both parties. Even if not the case, why keep doing the same thing and expecting different results? From what I can tell of the Paul supporters, they aren't exactly in the bag for the GOP machine either. I mean, they stole your Tea Party idea. No you would think that Michelle Bachman came up with the idea.

Frankly, I just don't get it. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Congrats on the second place finish behind Bachmann in Iowa. I do respect the groundswell that Paul carries with him.

However, we all know where this is heading.

If this were to happen again then I'll take a look at the third party candidates. If the LP pulls another Bob Barr out of the hat I won't be voting for that ticket, and I'll have to see if I like anything about the Constitution Party candidate and go from there. If I don't like anybody then I won't vote for anybody for President.

Why not run as a Libertarian? Because the Democrats and Republicans make it impossible for a third party candidate to win. Why continue on in the Republican Party? Look at how much more respect our ideas have from four years. From the other candidates openly laughing at Ron Paul on the stage to rushing to sound like him. Maybe we won't win it this time either, but imagine what it could be in another four years? We achieved quite a bit in moving the Republican Party our way.

In four more years maybe we'll see another Paul run. Rand is a better politician than Ron for sure, and would easily unite a wider Republican base than Ron does. Who knows what will happen? I think continuing to do what we've been doing is the best way forward, however.

Good post. Thanks.

The only point of contention: I don't think the GOP/DNC keep the third parties down. I think it's a biproduct of our winner takes all election system. Look at a parliamentary system, that encourages power sharing versus ours.

Look at the crazy election laws third party candidates have to go through just to get on the ballot. All those laws were written by Democrats and Republicans.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarian Party is more interested in becoming "mainstream" than it is about genuine libertarianism. Ron Paul is probably too extreme for them, but he won't run third party again. He knows there's no point.

It's been a while since I've been involved with the Libertarians, so I'll have another look. But what you're saying doesn't square with my experience at all. In general they've always been more radical than Paul and even less likely to compromise for mainstream success.

If they are moving in that direction, I'd consider a good thing. If they can do it without giving up their core convictions, the nation will benefit.

They ran Bob Barr, who I voted for, in 2008. That's a sign that they're trying to become more mainstream, and not doing so without giving up their "core convictions." This is certainly not the party of Rothbard any longer.

 

[Missourian]

p.s....I don't know how that little angry guy got up there. I must have press a button by accident. I am not angry. I am tired.

^^^I laughed so hard it hurt.


Rep on the way...

 

[Stashman]

The only point of contention: I don't think the GOP/DNC keep the third parties down. I think it's a biproduct of our winner takes all election system. Look at a parliamentary system, that encourages power sharing versus ours.

Agreed.

And a parliamentary system allows for actual coalitions to form in order to govern, the members may retain their identity and unique voice. We have de facto coalitions in the American system as well, but they’re forced into one or other of the two main parties, compelled to compromise their principles to realize any influence in the party overall, such as the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party and the TPM in the Republican.

This is the source of much of the friction and frustration we see.

I have no remedy, btw, I merely recognize the problem.

Why have any political parties at all? Why not let candidates just give their opinions of the issues, and let the voters choose solely on those opinions alone without having to wear a label? Letting a party like the G.O.P. or D.N.C. choose a candidate for us is not very democratic. Would be much more democratic if we did so ourselves.

We think we have freedom to choose in this country, but we really don't as long as our choice has to be one of the two party system choices. Why should a candidate worry what an organization thinks when it ultimately comes down to the votes of the American citizens?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Remains to be seen. What are you a Gypsy fortune teller? Yeah he came in #2 in Iowa. It's early and there are 49 other States to go...your thread is meaningless at this point in time.

Aren't you one of those "conservatives" that loathes Paul?

There is a small, but dedicated cadre of you. I can't keep you all straight.

As for a fortune tell, you don't have to be Kreskin to see what's going to happen with the Paul Campaign.

Time will tell if all the money he spent to lose to Bachmann in Iowa was well spent. He might pick up a VP nod.

He'll never win the primary.

And you know it.

First of all Ron Paul is the most conservative on the platform. Just because other GOP candidates no longer follow the true conservative ideology does not mean anything.

Bachman is from Iowa and spent more time campaigning there and more money to do so, yet won by only 152 votes.

Everything Ron Paul believes in is Constitutionally based. Have you forgotten that that document is the very foundation for our Government?

Is it the document you disagree with? Or are you just against its messenger? An American opposed to the U.S. Constitution is scary indeed.

Paul's problem is that he still thinks this is 1776, and the world view is just the same as back then.......Back in 1776 , his platform would have worked just fine.

Well, the world view has changed dramatically since then. Our interests worldwide have changed dramatically since then.

I agree with a lot of things he has to say. Unfortunately, as was fully proven during the debate the other night, he's friggin' nuts!

 

[geauxtohell]

The only point of contention: I don't think the GOP/DNC keep the third parties down. I think it's a biproduct of our winner takes all election system. Look at a parliamentary system, that encourages power sharing versus ours.

Agreed.

And a parliamentary system allows for actual coalitions to form in order to govern, the members may retain their identity and unique voice. We have de facto coalitions in the American system as well, but they’re forced into one or other of the two main parties, compelled to compromise their principles to realize any influence in the party overall, such as the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party and the TPM in the Republican.

This is the source of much of the friction and frustration we see.

I have no remedy, btw, I merely recognize the problem.

Thanks. It's just Poli Sci 101. I think I learned that my Freshman year in college.

Look at our history, it's been that of two parties. When another party dies off, a second one takes it's place. If a third party becomes too powerful, they simply are simply engulfed by the other more powerful party.

The only way to change it is to change our electoral system, and I am not sure that is really that necessary.

 

[geauxtohell]

If this were to happen again then I'll take a look at the third party candidates. If the LP pulls another Bob Barr out of the hat I won't be voting for that ticket, and I'll have to see if I like anything about the Constitution Party candidate and go from there. If I don't like anybody then I won't vote for anybody for President.

Why not run as a Libertarian? Because the Democrats and Republicans make it impossible for a third party candidate to win. Why continue on in the Republican Party? Look at how much more respect our ideas have from four years. From the other candidates openly laughing at Ron Paul on the stage to rushing to sound like him. Maybe we won't win it this time either, but imagine what it could be in another four years? We achieved quite a bit in moving the Republican Party our way.

In four more years maybe we'll see another Paul run. Rand is a better politician than Ron for sure, and would easily unite a wider Republican base than Ron does. Who knows what will happen? I think continuing to do what we've been doing is the best way forward, however.

Good post. Thanks.

The only point of contention: I don't think the GOP/DNC keep the third parties down. I think it's a biproduct of our winner takes all election system. Look at a parliamentary system, that encourages power sharing versus ours.

Look at the crazy election laws third party candidates have to go through just to get on the ballot. All those laws were written by Democrats and Republicans.

Which laws?

 

[geauxtohell]

The only point of contention: I don't think the GOP/DNC keep the third parties down. I think it's a biproduct of our winner takes all election system. Look at a parliamentary system, that encourages power sharing versus ours.

Agreed.

And a parliamentary system allows for actual coalitions to form in order to govern, the members may retain their identity and unique voice. We have de facto coalitions in the American system as well, but they’re forced into one or other of the two main parties, compelled to compromise their principles to realize any influence in the party overall, such as the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party and the TPM in the Republican.

This is the source of much of the friction and frustration we see.

I have no remedy, btw, I merely recognize the problem.

Why have any political parties at all? Why not let candidates just give their opinions of the issues, and let the voters choose solely on those opinions alone without having to wear a label? Letting a party like the G.O.P. or D.N.C. choose a candidate for us is not very democratic. Would be much more democratic if we did so ourselves.

We think we have freedom to choose in this country, but we really don't as long as our choice has to be one of the two party system choices. Why should a candidate worry what an organization thinks when it ultimately comes down to the votes of the American citizens?

There is no legal provision for political parties. There is no constitutional requirement for them. The only constitutional protection they have is the "right to assemble" and "free speech". Parties evolve because people don't do nuance and also realize that their needs to be some organization to get things done.

The party system is inevitable. It's a little silly (IMO) to bemoan it. It's just a fact of politics in this country.

 

[Paulie]

You think there is any chance the LP will run him anyways? I was surprised they didn't nominate him anyway in '08, but I don't know how the party works.

The Libertarian Party is more interested in becoming "mainstream" than it is about genuine libertarianism. Ron Paul is probably too extreme for them, but he won't run third party again. He knows there's no point.

Interesting to hear you say that. What is the point in the LP becoming more mainstream? I mean, if they want to be GOP Lite, then why not just fold the tent and join the GOP?

And where does that leave Paul and his supporters? I just don't see them taking over the GOP.

The only thing running someone like Paul as a 3rd party candidate would do is fracture the GOP and hopefully give them a wake up call to change some of their positions back to their roots.

But Paul isn't stupid. He knows if he ran 3rd party in the general he'd risk taking votes away from a GOP candidate and handing Obama another term.

He's trying to knock some sense back into the GOP. Judging by his growing support and how far he's come since 2007, I'd say he's doing a damn good job.

Don't worry about Paul and his supporters, we'll be fine. Focus on Obama and getting him reelected, and let us worry about Paul

 

[geauxtohell]

Aren't you one of those "conservatives" that loathes Paul?

There is a small, but dedicated cadre of you. I can't keep you all straight.

As for a fortune tell, you don't have to be Kreskin to see what's going to happen with the Paul Campaign.

Time will tell if all the money he spent to lose to Bachmann in Iowa was well spent. He might pick up a VP nod.

He'll never win the primary.

And you know it.

First of all Ron Paul is the most conservative on the platform. Just because other GOP candidates no longer follow the true conservative ideology does not mean anything.

Bachman is from Iowa and spent more time campaigning there and more money to do so, yet won by only 152 votes.

Everything Ron Paul believes in is Constitutionally based. Have you forgotten that that document is the very foundation for our Government?

Is it the document you disagree with? Or are you just against its messenger? An American opposed to the U.S. Constitution is scary indeed.

Paul's problem is that he still thinks this is 1776, and the world view is just the same as back then.......Back in 1776 , his platform would have worked just fine.

Well, the world view has changed dramatically since then. Our interests worldwide have changed dramatically since then.

I agree with a lot of things he has to say. Unfortunately, as was fully proven during the debate the other night, he's friggin' nuts!

I call it the "Paul Phenomenum".

Voters outside of his hardcore supporters really like about 30% of what he says and are really turned off by about 70% of what he says.

In my case I like his stance on getting us out of the middle East (to include Iran), legalizing drugs, and Cuba.

I really hate his stance on abortion, The Fed, NAFTA, Closing our bases abroad, Social Security, the fact that he wouldn't have pulled the trigger on the OBL raid, The goofy Gold Standard idea, Elimination of the Department of Education (and other Departments), Affirmative Action, Ending the VA, and his silly views on the 1964 civil rights act.

Maybe more like 20%/80% in my case.

 

[cutter]

IF Paul doesn't make it or one of the TEA PARTY candidates isn't on the ballot I will vote for ANYONE the Republicans run to get rid of the a**hole currently in the oval office. A F'in moron could do a better job and I will vote for a F'n moron if I have to as long as he or she isn't a F'n moron named obama.

You know, you can say "fucking" here.

What about if Paul jumped over to the LP ticket, would you still vote for him or support the GOP candidate?

I usually don't include fucking in my normal speech but sometimes some people bring me down to that level so I use the F'n abbreviation instead. Just me. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. I don't think Paul would run 3rd party, He knows where that would lead. But yes I would.

 

[geauxtohell]

The Libertarian Party is more interested in becoming "mainstream" than it is about genuine libertarianism. Ron Paul is probably too extreme for them, but he won't run third party again. He knows there's no point.

Interesting to hear you say that. What is the point in the LP becoming more mainstream? I mean, if they want to be GOP Lite, then why not just fold the tent and join the GOP?

And where does that leave Paul and his supporters? I just don't see them taking over the GOP.

The only thing running someone like Paul as a 3rd party candidate would do is fracture the GOP and hopefully give them a wake up call to change some of their positions back to their roots.

But Paul isn't stupid. He knows if he ran 3rd party in the general he'd risk taking votes away from a GOP candidate and handing Obama another term.

He's trying to knock some sense back into the GOP. Judging by his growing support and how far he's come since 2007, I'd say he's doing a damn good job.

Don't worry about Paul and his supporters, we'll be fine. Focus on Obama and getting him reelected, and let us worry about Paul

So you are supporting Paul simply to change the GOP? I can respect that.

I am not overly concerned with Paul supporters. Just have a desire to discuss politics on a political message board. If we were out drinking beer and the ballgame was on, I'd talk baseball instead.

 

[dblack]

There is no legal provision for political parties. There is no constitutional requirement for them. The only constitutional protection they have is the "right to assemble" and "free speech". Parties evolve because people don't do nuance and also realize that their needs to be some organization to get things done.

The party system is inevitable. It's a little silly (IMO) to bemoan it. It's just a fact of politics in this country.

There are plenty of legal structures, laws and requirements put in place jointly by Democrats and Republicans over the years, that squelch the formation of alternative party movements. But you're right to point out that plurality voting is the real culprit. As long as they can sell the 'lesser of two evils' line, we're pretty much guaranteed a choice between two 'evils'.

 

[geauxtohell]

There is no legal provision for political parties. There is no constitutional requirement for them. The only constitutional protection they have is the "right to assemble" and "free speech". Parties evolve because people don't do nuance and also realize that their needs to be some organization to get things done.

The party system is inevitable. It's a little silly (IMO) to bemoan it. It's just a fact of politics in this country.

There are plenty of legal structures, laws and requirements put in place jointly by Democrats and Republicans over the years, that squelch the formation of alternative party movements. But you're right to point out that plurality voting is the real culprit. As long as they can sell the 'less of two evils' line, we're pretty much guaranteed a choice between two 'evils'.

Yeah, I am sure the other parties don't make it easy (and don't get me started on Gerrymandering - which gave us a gem like Bachmann), but it's the way our system is set up that is the real culprit.

 

[geauxtohell]

IF Paul doesn't make it or one of the TEA PARTY candidates isn't on the ballot I will vote for ANYONE the Republicans run to get rid of the a**hole currently in the oval office. A F'in moron could do a better job and I will vote for a F'n moron if I have to as long as he or she isn't a F'n moron named obama.

You know, you can say "fucking" here.

What about if Paul jumped over to the LP ticket, would you still vote for him or support the GOP candidate?

I usually don't include fucking in my normal speech but sometimes some people bring me down to that level so I use the F'n abbreviation instead. Just me. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. I don't think Paul would run 3rd party, He knows where that would lead. But yes I would.

Thanks. The point of the thread is just to see what people think would happen and what they would do.

 

[Paulie]

Interesting to hear you say that. What is the point in the LP becoming more mainstream? I mean, if they want to be GOP Lite, then why not just fold the tent and join the GOP?

And where does that leave Paul and his supporters? I just don't see them taking over the GOP.

The only thing running someone like Paul as a 3rd party candidate would do is fracture the GOP and hopefully give them a wake up call to change some of their positions back to their roots.

But Paul isn't stupid. He knows if he ran 3rd party in the general he'd risk taking votes away from a GOP candidate and handing Obama another term.

He's trying to knock some sense back into the GOP. Judging by his growing support and how far he's come since 2007, I'd say he's doing a damn good job.

Don't worry about Paul and his supporters, we'll be fine. Focus on Obama and getting him reelected, and let us worry about Paul

So you are supporting Paul simply to change the GOP? I can respect that.

I am not overly concerned with Paul supporters. Just have a desire to discuss politics on a political message board. If we were out drinking beer and the ballgame was on, I'd talk baseball instead.

Not just for that. I support him because he's the only politician I trust. I know what he'll do with his vote because it's always the same, and I agree with 95% of his votes.

I can't say that about any other candidate. The man doesn't play politics and change positions, he just is who he is and I respect the hell out of that. The sad and ironic part is that is one of the big reasons why he has such a tough time competing against the establishment.

He doesn't tell you what you want to hear, use canned responses over and over, revert back to talking point sound bytes when confronted with a tough question...he looks America in the eyes and tells them what he feels they NEED to hear. He's not afraid to say we're broke, or that we can't do something.

We're not God. We can't do EVERYTHING.

 

[dblack]

Not just for that. I support him because he's the only politician I trust. I know what he'll do with his vote because it's always the same, and I agree with 95% of his votes.

That's pretty much the crux of it. I suppose only agree with him 75-80% (he loses me a bit on abortion and immigration), but the areas of agreement are rock solid. I'm might find a 'commercial' candidate I can agree with 20-30% of the time, but that 30% will almost certainly be bullshit.