3 Reasons Why Ron Paul Should Go 3rd Party
Filed under: 2008 elections, Feature, Lead Story, Opinion, Ron Paul — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on December 11, 2007 @ 11:22 am CET
Today we can publish the seventh guest post: Justin Gardner believes that Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate.
I like Ron Paul. I think he’s consistent, honest and has a very “American” message. When I talk about him over at my blog, I rarely miss an opportunity to share my opinion about his 3rd party viability. Needless to say, I think it’s pretty damn good.
However, many of his supporters loathe that I share that view so often and with such conviction. They think I’m trying to subvert his candidacy. They think I don’t want him in the debate any longer. They think I don’t like him.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
And so, here’s the truth. There hasn’t been this much support for a politician who doesn’t fit neatly into either party’s ideological structure since Perot. Paul pulls from every demographic and from every party affiliation, and it’s all because of his freedom message. To have all that end because he didn’t win the GOP nomination wouldn’t be just a waste, it would be irresponsible and stupid.
So the simple fact of the matter is I’m trying to save his candidacy.That’s why I’ve come up with 3 reasons why he should go 3rd party:
- Ron Paul won’t win the GOP nomination and he knows it. The only shot Ron Paul had was to become the dark horse and then ridethat status to rack up wins in the first few primary states. That way he could compete with Giuliani and/or Romney in the later stages of the primary season.Well, the GOPers have picked their wild card and his name is Mike Huckabee. Like it or not, that’s the reality.Also, with a field of candidates as broad as this, the chance for an anti-war candidate to somehow gather enough delegates to win the nomination of an extremely pro-war party is gone. Paul’s message hasn’t caught on with the average GOP voter, and he knows it.But wait, his supporters say, he’s raising a lot of money! Look at all the people at his meetups! What about the blimp?Yes, he has passionate support within the Republican party, but there’s also a lot of support from democrats and independents too. He’s pulling people in who weren’t involved in politics before. The result is that he appears to have more Republican support than he actually does.
Also, let’s be frank here, the very reason he’s popular is because he wasn’t courting the GOP’s base. And whether you like it or not, you have to win those voters in order to win the nomination. Add to that this news that the surge is working and that Iraq is fixable and the GOP is now firmly against Paul’s anti-war POV.
Simply put, Paul can’t remake his party from the inside out. It has to come from the outside in.
How to do that? There’s only one way.
3rd party.
- Ron Paul can easily get on the ballot in all 50 states.Remember Perot? Remember 1992? For all intents and purposes, the internet didn’t even exist. And yet, Perot was able to get on the ballot in all 50 states. So how did he pull off such an amazing feat? It was combination of two things: national support and money. Paul has both too.
But when asked about running on a 3rd party ticket, Paul often cites his largely ignored Libertarian run in ‘88 as a reason he wouldn’t be able to get traction. Well, if he’s being honest with that comparison, he can’t see the forest for the trees. Within 24 hours of him announcing a 3rd party run, his vast Meetup posses will be well on their way to getting him on the ballot in all 50 states. In fact, I bet he’ll get on all 50 ballots so quickly that the speed at which he accomplished that task will become a story in and of itself.Plus, if he’s interested, he can try to harness Unity08’s organizationfor free access to get on the ballots. That’s why they exist. All he would have to do is pick a bi-partisan unity ticket and he’s off to the races.And lastly, if Ralph Nader can do it, so can Paul.Again, 3rd party. - If Ross Perot almost won, Ron Paul can actually win.2008 is the year of the “change” candidate. It’s prime time for a new political voice to emerge. If you don’t feel that by now, you’re not paying attention to the electorate. They voted in the anemic Dems because they’re desperate for any kind of change. What did they get? More of the same.Again, I go back to Perot as an indicator for the electorate’s behavior. In June ‘92, he was polling at 39%, with Bush Sr. and Clinton taking 31% and 25% respectively. Why? Because people liked his ideas.They liked his honesty. They thought he could actually change things.But then he dropped out in July. The reason? Republican operatives threatened his daughter’s wedding or something like that. He reemerged in September and got back into the race. What was the final result? He still got 19% of the popular vote. Had Perot stuck with his campaign he very well could have taken the Oval Office. But he was too flaky and people lost faith. Even so, “flaky” got 19,741,065 votes.What about a non flaky candidate? What kind of support could he grab and from where? Well, here’s some more from Wikipedia about Perot’s base:
He adopted specific positions that had been abandoned by both parties — he was nationalistic and isolationist; he was conservative in social policy. He opposed free trade. He was above all a crusader for a balanced budget, as he warned of the horrors of the national debt.A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot’s support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually).
That should sound familiar to a lot of people. Ross Perot’s base was America, not the elite.
Can you say the same about Ron Paul?
And so, 3rd party.
There you have them. Those are my three reasons. I have more, but I only have so much time in my day to devote to saving politicians from themselves.
Still, I would hazard a guess that if you asked his supporters what they thought about this post, they’ll probably say I’m trying to subvert his candidacy, that I don’t want him in the debate any longer, that I don’t like him.
You see, they’re a pretty stubborn group. And that’ll serve them well when they’re trying to convince the nation that a 3rd party candidate can actually win.
1 C Stanley
December 11, 2007 @ 2:37 pm CETI agree, this seems to be the logical path for Paul and his supporters to take and it could well be successful, or at least force certain issues into the forefront of the general election.
One question I’ve seen asked elsewhere though, and don’t know the answer to, concerning the process of getting on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate: how many states have spoiler laws which would prevent that, since Paul is now running in the GOP primary? And if he bows out of the GOP race, will those laws be nullified? If so, what’s the date by which he’d have to withdraw?
2 Kevin Sullivan
December 11, 2007 @ 4:23 pm CETBest way to elect a Democrat, I guess. So I’m all in!
3 Michael van der Galien
December 11, 2007 @ 4:25 pm CETHa! I’m not so sure about that Kevin. Paul also draws from the Democratic base / people who would normally vote for the Democratic candidate.
4 C Stanley
December 11, 2007 @ 4:30 pm CETYes, I’d guess even more so that a Paul 3rd party run would hurt the Dems by dividing the antiwar vote. Or who knows, maybe this would be a first where a third party candidate could draw off enough from both parties (and draw in those who otherwise wouldn’t vote) so that he won’t act as a spoiler for either mainstream party.
5 sashal
December 11, 2007 @ 4:34 pm CETSomething strange and wonderful is happening. People don’t think Ron Paul has a shot, but his supporters are all active as individuals - they WILL go to the caucuses. The power of liberty and the free market and individual, entrepreneurial, creative solutions is underestimated.
6 Michael van der Galien
December 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm CETSashal: not by me.
Christine: although I know what you mean, I think that "spoiler" is a very unhappy choice of words. When people vote for you because they think you’ve got good ideas, you’re not a spoiler.
7 Ben
December 11, 2007 @ 4:48 pm CETAll of this is moot, since he HAS been winning delegates, and has a strong shot at most early primary states.
8 Kevin Sullivan
December 11, 2007 @ 4:48 pm CETEh…my problem with that argument is that you hear it from <i>every</i> third party candidate. Ross said it. Nader said it. But I think we are mistaking a "freedom" message for what is really an anti-government, anti-tax message.
At the end of the day, who does that resonate with when they step into the voting booth?
9 C Stanley
December 11, 2007 @ 4:58 pm CETKevin: Help me out…I’m having trouble figuring out how a message of freedom is different from an "anti-government, anti-tax message."
10 underground
December 11, 2007 @ 5:06 pm CETI would hope it resonates with people who are sick of the war, sick of the debt (and inflation that goes with it), sick of being taxed at the federal level in the name of services that are mostly provided locally and by the state (education, roads, hospital grants).
And I still think Ron Paul has a chance at the primaries. Huckabee might be up now, but I don’t think he can last a whole month at the top.
11 marc
December 11, 2007 @ 5:20 pm CETPro-freedom is somewhat equivalent to anti-government in that laws constrain freedoms. Taxes go both to how much law enforcement can be done and what individuals are allowed to do with their money.
That message resonates with people like me who don’t live in big cities dependent on government services, who make a good living and resent paying taxes to subsidize others’ lifestyles, and who don’t particularly care what other people do so long as they don’t tread on me.
12 Justin Gardner
December 11, 2007 @ 6:52 pm CETRon Paul has no shot at winning the primaries. None. Huckabee is the guy now.And honestly, I’m glad. Paul doesn’t belong in the GOP. It’s folly to try and change a party in one year that is now essentially controlled by the evangelicals and neo-cons, who’ve been working towards that goal for decades now.Paul should just do his own thing. That way he can get into the debates in the fall. It’ll make for a great national debate, the likes of which we haven’t seen in a LONG, long time.
13 Ben
December 11, 2007 @ 6:52 pm CETYour three reasons sound logical but is there a better way? I think there is!
1) earnestly seek the Republican nomination keeping in mind it is not over until it is over. - this is a battle for the heart and soul of the republican party.
2) When and if (1) fails launch a nonprofit foundation to promote the wisdom of Ron Paul through speeches, infomercials and the Internet so that the man and his message are well known.
3) Continue the grassroots revolution by launching a write in campaign Keeping in mind that 435 house seats and 35 senate seats are also up for grabs - A write in campaign by-passes the entire corrupt election system. In my opinion this is better strategy than running as a third party candidate.
14 Kevin Sullivan
December 11, 2007 @ 8:32 pm CETC,
Haha…well, since Republicans have done very little as of late to really reduce government, I suppose then that we are all slaves.
15 C Stanley
December 11, 2007 @ 8:55 pm CETWe’ve all given up a measure of freedom- that doesn’t make us slaves, but there are shades of gray in between complete freedom and slavery.
16 nicrivera
December 11, 2007 @ 9:53 pm CET<blockquote><p>But I think we are mistaking a "freedom" message for what is really an anti-government, anti-tax message.</blockquote></p>
For intents and purposes, an anti-government message is a "freedom message."
Government is force. When legislators meet in the Capitol to make pubic policy, they aren’t suggesting that we pay a certain amount of our income taxes, or that we refrain from using illicit drugs, or that we avoid purchasing cigars from Cuba. They’re making laws…laws that are backed up by the implicit use of force.
The fact that you or I may agree that law XYZ is completely logical or necessary doesn’t change the fact that neither you or I had any choice in whether it passed or not (unless you’re a lobbyist with millions of dollars with which to influence the decisions of our politicians).
There are many powerful groups in this country that have the potential to harm or exploit us. But only the government has a monopoly on the use of force. As such, opposing the government not only is consistent with supporting freedom…it is a necessary component.
Obviously, some people are going to be more "extreme" in their defense of freedom in others. But we need not be anarchists to realize the basic truth that smaller government means more individual liberty while bigger government means less individual liberty.
17 Donklephant » Blog Archive » 3 Reasons Why Ron Paul Should Go 3rd Party
December 11, 2007 @ 10:07 pm CET[…] at PoliGazette) time savedtime saved This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 11th, 2007 and is filed under […]
18 kritter
December 12, 2007 @ 3:53 am CETPaul does draw some support from Democrats, but I still think his third party run would help their candidate, because his position on domestic issues is too far out. Most Democrats wouldn’t go for a flat tax or eliminating the IRS. Most who support him now do so because of his non-interventionist foreign policy.
19 C Stanley
December 12, 2007 @ 4:01 am CETYou guys like the IRS?
20 Interested
December 12, 2007 @ 6:41 am CETlol no Christine, they like Others to pay more to the IRS.
It’s not the Democrats that you’d need to be worried about - it’s the independent/swing voters that you do. And contrary to Democrat opinion - large chunks of Middle Class America feels they pay enough taxes - and as noted - the Middle Class is Paul’s core.
21 Jason
December 13, 2007 @ 3:18 pm CETI will be helping get him on the ballot no matter what he says. If he doesn’t get the Republican nomination, then fine, we arent going to stop… this thing moves to hard and fast to stop because the party trys to get in its way.
I am a Republican by the way. Always have been, but they have abandoned the things that made me vote for them. If it takes a 1964 election to get us another Reagan then that is what we have to do. I like how everyone always says that 70+% of Republicans support the war… well by that same statistic, Paul alone has around 30% of the vote because all the other candidates are solidly in the pro-war group. 25 to 30% is enough to win every primary… but should it not happen, with Pauls consent or not, I promise, his supporters will put his name on the ballot.
22 Robert E.
December 18, 2007 @ 2:57 pm CET<< We’ve all given up a measure of freedom- that doesn’t make us slaves, but there are shades of gray in between complete freedom and slavery. >>
Now there is a statement that gives me the shivers. I’ll be good and hold my tongue however and ask only one question:
Who is going to determine where in that grey soup the line between my being free and my being a slave will be drawn? Will you allow me to be the arbiter? Or do you reserve that privilege for yourself?
If neither of these, please don’t give me any "the democratic majority" bromides. We both know that democracy in practice is nothing but the dictatorship of a well organized and well armed minority.
23 best way to reduce debt
March 18, 2008 @ 4:09 am CETbest way to reduce debt…
…
24 1988 burt reynolds
March 18, 2008 @ 6:12 am CET1988 burt reynolds…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
25 Adele
May 28, 2008 @ 12:24 pm CESTAdele…
The more you are willing to accept responsibility for your actions, the more credibility you will have….