Convincing Ron Paul to accept $MILLS in matching funds for an independent presidential run

[economics102]

To me the argument to take the money is similar to his argument on earmarking. It's not like if he DOESN'T take the money it goes back to the people -- it's just going to get spent on some other unholy government war or boondoggle. So he may as well take it.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

They would have to decide it is worth it to them. No one is forcing them, but Ron brings a lot to the table. I just think it is as Pres or not worth it, but the LP doesn't have to do it at all, of course. I can understand them wanting to stick to their procedure. However if they were planing to break procedure to make Ron VP, I think that simply isn't worth it and Ron should run independent or not at all in that case. The presidential debate is what would make it worth it, and Ron, not GJ, polls well enough for that to be a real chance.

BUT, the LP is its own party and can make up its own mind if it wants to move things around as much as it would have to to do that. I don't think anyone is saying the LP HAS to do anything.

Yea, I actually support a vote of the previous LP voters on it. Even then I could see some of them feeling disenfrachised.
And, I agree, it's RP for president or it doesn't make any sense. There will be 'R' candidates that would be effected, and VP would not make it worth creating difficulty in their situation. If Ron were running 3rd party as Pres and was in the debates, some of the backlash at the 'R' liberty candidates could be alieviated by Ron's no-nonsense positions in the debates.

 

[sailingaway]

To me the argument to take the money is similar to his argument on earmarking. It's not like if he DOESN'T take the money it goes back to the people -- it's just going to get spent on some other unholy government war or boondoggle. So he may as well take it.

well,his earmarking argument is more complicated in that the Constitution doesn't permit most of the spending, so he votes against it on the ultimate vote, but where spending IS permitted, it is Congress, not the executive which is supposed to do ALL earmarking, so he'll amend it in, in case the bill passes over his vote. No one else who tries to use 'his' argument votes AGAINST all the spending at the end, they trade their earmarks for votes. Ron never does.

But all the other parties getting funding creates barriers to entry for anyone else, and disenfranchises the people, as we have seen through the RNC this year. THAT is the reason I think Ron should take it.

 

[amonasro]

For this to be at all useful, Dr. Paul would have to improve upon his delivery during debates. Do you really see that happening?

His delivery is straightforward and truthful. It is what it is, and it'll provide a juxtaposition to the two other charlatans onstage. I would love to see Obama attempt to refute some of his points. Neither of them want to go near Ron's truth bombs but they will be forced to. And it'll make Obama go on the offensive, making him look weak. That is is weakness as a politician IMO.

 

[Lindsey]

they got $18 million directly and another $50 million was spent on security, I read, although that might have been for both the DNC and RNC combined. But also their secret service protection is paid for at $40,000 a day, from whenever they start getting that in the primary, the list goes on.

Do the Constitution, Libertarian and Green Parties get $68 million in taxpayer dollars for their conventions too? Why are we funding political parties through taxes - shouldn't that be something that people could contribute directly if they want it? What good does spending $68 million on a "party" do for the public? Are political parties public or private entities - or do they just take what they just dictate their public/private status as it meets their own needs? I could go on, it's time for a Revolution.

 

[sailingaway]

Do the Constitution, Libertarian and Green Parties get $68 million in taxpayer dollars for their conventions too? Why are we funding political parties through taxes - shouldn't that be something that people could contribute directly if they want it? What good does spending $68 million on a "party" do for the public? Are political parties public or private entities - or do they just take what they just dictate their public/private status as it meets their own needs? I could go on, it's time for a Revolution.

no, which is part of why Ron MIGHT be persuaded to take the matching funds if he were not in a major party. But a lot would have to come together in a short time, and the easiest way to make that happen would be if the LP WANTED him enough to make him P on their ticket. If they don't it is much less likely to happen, although I would support his run, independent, write in, or whatever. I plan to vote for him, in any event.

 

[affa]

For this to be at all useful, Dr. Paul would have to improve upon his delivery during debates. Do you really see that happening?

look at your own avatar. Ron Paul does just fine at debates. Amazing, even. There's a reason he's got millions of supporters.

 

[affa]

Yea, I actually support a vote of the previous LP voters on it. Even then I could see some of them feeling disenfrachised.
And, I agree, it's RP for president or it doesn't make any sense. There will be 'R' candidates that would be effected, and VP would not make it worth creating difficulty in their situation. If Ron were running 3rd party as Pres and was in the debates, some of the backlash at the 'R' liberty candidates could be alieviated by Ron's no-nonsense positions in the debates.

If Ron had run for the Libertarian nomination this cycle we wouldn't even be talking about Gary Johnson. Ron Paul is the absolute best path forward for this movement, even now. Without him, we splinter into groups. With him third party, we unify for one final hurrah... before splintering into groups.

The absolute best way to get our message out to the masses is to have Ron Paul in a debate with Romney and Obama. By far. In many ways, it will equal if not exceed the movement's accomplishments of the past 8 years.

I don't think he'll run. If he does run, I doubt a third party can win against the entrenched establishment. But for liberty? I can't think of a better path forward.

Everything else ends in bickering among the 'keep at the GOP', 'go libertarian', 'i love Rand', 'i hate Rand', 'etc' factions.

 

[kill the banks]

in two words DR NO

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Will Johnson get these?

 

[AdamT]

He would never accept government funds /pipedream

 

[WhistlinDave]

look at your own avatar. Ron Paul does just fine at debates. Amazing, even. There's a reason he's got millions of supporters.

I agree. He does awesome! Made a fan of me during this primary, starting from the first debate I watched, and I watched them all from that point on. (And I never used to watch debates.)

The day Ron Paul develops a polished, poised, scripted delivery, that's the day he loses half his appeal. We have enough candidates who come off as too polished. The sincerity of Ron Paul and the way he speaks from his mind, and his heart, not from a script or pre-planned answer, that is half the reason why he has such a following, imo.

 

[rp08orbust]

Will Johnson get these?

I haven't gone to GJ's website since he put up something about the US military being "a mighty force for good on earth", but I've heard most of it is about Ron Paul. So who knows, he might even be reading this thread.

 

[Sematary]

I think I would be correct when I say that Dr. Paul would NOT accept the funds on principle alone

 

[Indy Vidual]

After Leno Tues, most people will be willing to focus on something more productive.

 

[rp08orbust]

But perhaps GJ can be reasoned with. Gary, wouldn't you like to get into national televised debates? I'm sorry, but you and Gray aren't going to get there. Even if you replaced Gray with Ron Paul, you still wouldn't get there. But if you made the ultimate sacrifice for your party and stepped down to VP so that Ron Paul could lead the ticket, you'd almost certainly get to debate Joe Biden on national television and you'd be part of making Libertarian Party history.

 

[Shotdown1027]

He can't sub out. In most states, he is not allowed to replace his name on the ballot. He's said he's a Ron Paul supporter and that Paul would be in his cabinet--that's pretty much all he can do. It's too late for Paul to be on the ballot in a third party or independent fashion.

 

[rp08orbust]

I think I would be correct when I say that Dr. Paul would NOT accept the funds on principle alone

But the whole point of the thread is to brainstorm for a higher principle than "don't ever accept any $ from the federal gov" that also applies.

We know that principle isn't absolute: While he rejects the US Congressional pension, he does accept a salary and a significant portion of his office stipend.

 

[rp08orbust]

He can't sub out. In most states, he is not allowed to replace his name on the ballot. He's said he's a Ron Paul supporter and that Paul would be in his cabinet--that's pretty much all he can do. It's too late for Paul to be on the ballot in a third party or independent fashion.

The LP official quoted in a recent article merely said it would be "difficult" to replace GJ with RP, not that it was impossible. It sounded like they might lose ballot access in a few states, not "most". But even if they lost access in half of the states, so what? 10 million votes from 25 states is still better than 400,000 votes from 50.

 

[sailingaway]

He can't sub out. In most states, he is not allowed to replace his name on the ballot. He's said he's a Ron Paul supporter and that Paul would be in his cabinet--that's pretty much all he can do. It's too late for Paul to be on the ballot in a third party or independent fashion.

Ron can just run write in then, as independent, but I think he can still make some of the ballots. I know he can make certified write in in CA. I'd support whatever he did and his matching funds could at least help him make an impression. But if it isn't with the LP or CP it is less likely to happen, probably.