Why is Paul Running as a Republican?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Ross Perot made more of an impact running as a third-party than had Ross Perot run as a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. But that doesn't mean the same would hold for anyone running for president.

Also, you're neglecting the possiblity that if RP loses the nomination, he can still run independently.

[SleeperHE]

There are actually several different factions within the republic party(see 1). As you probably have observed some of these differ as far as ideology is concerned.(see 2)

1. See the "Current Ideology" section of the Republican Party entry at Wikipedia .



2. See sections on "Distinction from other conservatives" and "Conflict with libertarians"Neoconservatives.

Actually this is a better wiki entry for a discussion on factions within the republican party.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
elwood,

Are you being deliberately dense? He ran as a Republican because he's not an idiot. Only Republicans or Democrats can be elected to any office higher than County Water & Soil Commissioner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statists will tell you to work for change within the system. Then when someone does it, they say he's a sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he should work for change within the system and I think he is a sellout for running as a Republican. Those aren't contrary views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, they are. Like it or not, the two parties are the system and he has to choose one of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me put it this way, at the end of the day Ross Perot will have made more of a national impact running effectively as a third party than Ron Paul will have. Further, Ross Perot made more of an impact running as a third-party than had Ross Perot run as a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul isn't a billionaire. It takes a billionaire to make a "serious" run against the established parties. Perot spend an estimated $65.4 million of his own money on his campaign, and that doesn't include additional money from donations. And you know what? If Perot had waited to do what he did until a Republican president didn't get the auto-nomination and instead run on the Republican ticket, I bet he would have won! Sure, he made more impact in 1992 than he would have running as a Republican because you can't beat a sitting president in the primaries, but in another year, he would have made a much large impact as a Republican.

[AlexM]

As for your original post, Ron Paul was a Republican and served 4 terms in the House in the 70s as a Republican. He gave the Libertarian Party a fair shot when they started their rise to "third party power" (lol), and sensibly went back home to the Republicans after it was obvious that trying to accomplish anything in a third party was worthless.

It's also worth noting that parts of his platform like his stance on immigration are very much Republican and very much not libertarian. The fact is that he really does see himself as a "real" Republican like the libertarian-Republicans of the 60s and 70s when he first got involved in the party and he sees the upstart neocons as the RiNOs.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, actually, they are. Like it or not, the two parties are the system and he has to choose one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that a two party system is the most likely outcome of our structure. That does not mean that 1) third-party candidates can't have a significant impact or 2) that the two parties have to be the current two parties. Ron Paul is VERY unlikely to win the nomination. He has to know this. If he doesn't he is naive beyond belief. Knowing that he is unlikely to win the nomination/presidency, he must be running for other reason (the likely reason is that he wants to change hearts/minds.) I think he is much more likely to do that running as a third-party than as a Republican.

[ QUOTE ]
If Perot had waited to do what he did until a Republican president didn't get the auto-nomination and instead run on the Republican ticket, I bet he would have won!

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I wish there was some way to actually make this bet happen.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, he made more impact in 1992 than he would have running as a Republican because you can't beat a sitting president in the primaries, but in another year, he would have made a much large impact as a Republican

[/ QUOTE ]

He ran in 1996 also.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ross Perot made more of an impact running as a third-party than had Ross Perot run as a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. But that doesn't mean the same would hold for anyone running for president.

Also, you're neglecting the possiblity that if RP loses the nomination, he can still run independently.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be interesting to see if he chooses to run as an independent when he loses the nomination.

[pokerbobo]

He is what the republicans are supposed to be.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
elwood,

Are you being deliberately dense? He ran as a Republican because he's not an idiot. Only Republicans or Democrats can be elected to any office higher than County Water & Soil Commissioner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statists will tell you to work for change within the system. Then when someone does it, they say he's a sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he should work for change within the system and I think he is a sellout for running as a Republican. Those aren't contrary views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are. You're essentially saying, "He should run for president in a way that insures that he will be excluded from national debates, and in fact be arrested if he tries to attend them, i.e. in a way that insures that he has no shot, as intended by the current electoral system in the United States." Sorry to disappoint you.

Not to mention the fact that you are simply mistaken. There is room in the "Republican" Party for Libertarians. Should the rest of the Republican Liberty Caucus switch parties and immediately lose the next election too?

What a joke.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me put it this way, at the end of the day Ross Perot will have made more of a national impact running effectively as a third party than Ron Paul will have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ross Perot was a billionaire. You conveniently forget this.

[ QUOTE ]
Further, Ross Perot made more of an impact running as a third-party than had Ross Perot run as a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this counterfactual how? Ross Perot made an impact because he was a frigging billionaire. Ron Paul isn't. Had Ross Perot run as a Republican, he damn well might have won, or at least not split the Republican vote and put Clinton in office.

You Paul haters will grasp at any straw to marginalize him. Why not just say you don't agree with his policy ideas and leave it at that? You like big government, think the IRS is a great piece of policy, love an ever depreciating currency, and are all for foreign wars of aggression. Isn't it enough to disagree with policy without having to make up bull [censored] like "He's a sellout for not guaranteeing he will lose."

Ugh.

Edited out a paragraph; got confused about what thread this was in. My apologies.

[SleeperHE]

He has said in several interviews he would not run as an independent if he is not nominated on the republican ticket.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
2) that the two parties have to be the current two parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

It hasn't happened much in our history, but it seems like one of the reigning parties has to completely implode for a third party to take their place, and that doesn't seem possible these days.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing that he is unlikely to win the nomination/presidency, he must be running for other reason (the likely reason is that he wants to change hearts/minds.) I think he is much more likely to do that running as a third-party than as a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the fact that Ron Paul has accomplished more to get his message out and motivate the libertarian base in the past 9? months than the Libertarian Party has in the last 20+ years despite normally being on the ballot in all or almost all 50 states pretty much proves you wrong. The fact is that this is the only way for a "libertarian" leaning presidential candidate to get into a debate with actual contenders.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, he made more impact in 1992 than he would have running as a Republican because you can't beat a sitting president in the primaries, but in another year, he would have made a much large impact as a Republican

[/ QUOTE ]

He ran in 1996 also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but not as a Republican, and after his 1992 run, everyone saw the futility of not voting Democrat/Republican.