Tom Woods V flip flop - Stay true Ron Paul!

[jdcole]

I disagree. Ron Paul going 3rd-party/independent (3-P/I) would be an unmitigated disaster for the Revolution.

It *would* be exciting - and I would vote for RP if he were in a 3-P/I ballot slot - but it would be an utlimately pointless "last hurrah." As satisfying as it might be, it would accomplish nothing in the long term (or even in the short term). It would amount to nothing but a grand symbolic gesture.

Think about it ... going 3-P/I is *exactly* what the GOP establishment wants Ron Paul to do. Why do you suppose that is?

It's because 3-P/I efforts are a "safety valve" that effectively diverts discontentment into channels that pose no threat to the establishment. The establishment - Republicans, Democrats & the MSM - have rigged the game to ensure that 3-P/I efforts will go nowhere (by means of ballot access restrictions, debate shut-outs, media black-outs, etc., etc.).

It's also because the GOP could then claim that a 3-P/I run would "prove" that Ron Paul & his supporters were never "really" Republicans to begin with, and they would use this "proof" to justify thier treatment of RP. They would also use it as an excuse to "purge" all the RP supporters who have successfully gained positions in state parties across the country.

A successful grassroots insurgency within the GOP, from the precinct level up, is the absolute *LAST* thing the establishment GOP wants to see. And that is exactly what is happening right now. A 3-P/I campaign by Ron Paul would stop that dead in its tracks.

Fortunately, Ron Paul is smart enough to understand these things. I am confident he will not torpedo the Revolution by "going rogue" just when we are getting a good toe-hold in state & local parties across the country. He knows - and has repeatedly said - that this movement is *not* just about him & his campaign.

The establishment *wants* Ron Paul out of their hair. Well, I say, let's not give them what they want! Let's do just the opposite!

100% agree. +rep for great justice.

 

[anaconda]

Rand's tenure so far in Congress has been rogue for freedom beyond my wildest expectations. He's a threat to both sides of the aisle on a weekly basis. He is unlike any Senator I have seen.

I do wonder sometimes to what extent we may be making him play the game with one hand tied behind his back? His playbook is a little different from Ron's. In a nutshell, Rand likes to appear to take an ambiguous middle ground at times because it gives him political cover to continue to argue his libertarian positions in a patriot style delivery.

On the other hand, kudos to Tom Woods for making Rand squirm and holding his feet to the fire.

 

[floridasun1983]

Rand's tenure so far in Congress has been rogue for freedom beyond my wildest expectations. He's a threat to both sides of the aisle on a weekly basis. He is unlike any Senator I have seen.

I do wonder sometimes to what extent we may be making him play the game with one hand tied behind his back? His playbook is a little different from Ron's. In a nutshell, Rand likes to appear to take an ambiguous middle ground at times because it gives him political cover to continue to argue his libertarian positions in a patriot style delivery.

On the other hand, kudos to Tom Woods for making Rand squirm and holding his feet to the fire.

You could well be right. The danger in that approach though is that it is counter to what draws a lot of people to Ron, which is his unambiguous stands on issues and his disregard for seeking political cover. I personally am on neither side of the Rand debate. I think from an objective standpoint he's certainly one of the liberty-friendliest folks we have in the Senate. I don't think he's his father, though there are times when that is both good and bad.

 

[anaconda]

I disagree. Ron Paul going 3rd-party/independent (3-P/I) would be an unmitigated disaster for the Revolution.

It *would* be exciting - and I would vote for RP if he were in a 3-P/I ballot slot - but it would be an utlimately pointless "last hurrah." As satisfying as it might be, it would accomplish nothing in the long term (or even in the short term). It would amount to nothing but a grand symbolic gesture.

Think about it ... going 3-P/I is *exactly* what the GOP establishment wants Ron Paul to do. Why do you suppose that is?

It's because 3-P/I efforts are a "safety valve" that effectively diverts discontentment into channels that pose no threat to the establishment. The establishment - Republicans, Democrats & the MSM - have rigged the game to ensure that 3-P/I efforts will go nowhere (by means of ballot access restrictions, debate shut-outs, media black-outs, etc., etc.).

It's also because the GOP could then claim that a 3-P/I run would "prove" that Ron Paul & his supporters were never "really" Republicans to begin with, and they would use this "proof" to justify thier treatment of RP. They would also use it as an excuse to "purge" all the RP supporters who have successfully gained positions in state parties across the country.

A successful grassroots insurgency within the GOP, from the precinct level up, is the absolute *LAST* thing the establishment GOP wants to see. And that is exactly what is happening right now. A 3-P/I campaign by Ron Paul would stop that dead in its tracks.

Fortunately, Ron Paul is smart enough to understand these things. I am confident he will not torpedo the Revolution by "going rogue" just when we are getting a good toe-hold in state & local parties across the country. He knows - and has repeatedly said - that this movement is *not* just about him & his campaign.

The establishment *wants* Ron Paul out of their hair. Well, I say, let's not give them what they want! Let's do just the opposite!

This is the most clear and concise presentation I have read for the case against a 3rd Party run.

 

[anaconda]

It's amazing that people think the establishment will ever let someone like Ron Paul win. If somehow we took over the Republican party they would just start a new party and call us the fake Republicans and themselves the true republicans and the media would go along with it.

Ron's only chance is to run third party with a fair election. That is the only way we can peacefully take this country back.

This is a very compelling argument. Except that the establishment faces the same problem we have, which is the average GOP voter's "brand loyalty." People are so uninformed that they want to vote "republican." It is my understanding that this is why we are trying to take over that party.

 

[TNforPaul45]

"Fair Election"

There is no such thing.

 

[Tom in NYC]

Tom asks Rand about Ron-related matters starting around 11:50 mark.
Tom's exellent post-interview commentary starts around 14:45 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg7u_IYBr38




I disagree. Ron Paul going 3rd-party/independent (3-P/I) would be an unmitigated disaster for the Revolution.

It *would* be exciting - and I would vote for RP if he were in a 3-P/I ballot slot - but it would be an utlimately pointless "last hurrah." As satisfying as it might be, it would accomplish nothing in the long term (or even in the short term). It would amount to nothing but a grand symbolic gesture.

Think about it ... going 3-P/I is *exactly* what the GOP establishment wants Ron Paul to do. Why do you suppose that is?

It's because 3-P/I efforts are a "safety valve" that effectively diverts discontentment into channels that pose no threat to the establishment. The establishment - Republicans, Democrats & the MSM - have rigged the game to ensure that 3-P/I efforts will go nowhere (by means of ballot access restrictions, debate shut-outs, media black-outs, etc., etc.).

It's also because the GOP could then claim that a 3-P/I run would "prove" that Ron Paul & his supporters were never "really" Republicans to begin with, and they would use this "proof" to justify thier treatment of RP. They would also use it as an excuse to "purge" all the RP supporters who have successfully gained positions in state parties across the country.

A successful grassroots insurgency within the GOP, from the precinct level up, is the absolute *LAST* thing the establishment GOP wants to see. And that is exactly what is happening right now. A 3-P/I campaign by Ron Paul would stop that dead in its tracks.

Fortunately, Ron Paul is smart enough to understand these things. I am confident he will not torpedo the Revolution by "going rogue" just when we are getting a good toe-hold in state & local parties across the country. He knows - and has repeatedly said - that this movement is *not* just about him & his campaign.

The establishment *wants* Ron Paul out of their hair. Well, I say, let's not give them what they want! Let's do just the opposite!

Fantastic. Great, great points. We need to continue doing just what Dr. Paul has been. Frankly, I'm surprised how much success we've had overtaking party regulars. No reason to stop now. This is a long-term effort, and a 3rd party run is a short term satisfaction but a long-term disaster.

 

[angelatc]

THIS ^^.

On the other hand, if Romney is nominated & loses - and Ron Paul DOES run 3rd-party/independent - things will go just like kathy88 says. The GOP will never admit that it made a huge mistake by nominating Romney (because no one cares about him). Instead, they'll put all the blame on Ron Paul & his supporters, and the foot-in-the-door we've gained in the GOP will all go for nothing.

What if we won?

 

[Occam's Banana]

What if we won?

Well, of all the possible scenarios, a Ron Paul 3rd-party/independent win is by far the least likely. In fact, I'd put the odds at pretty much zero (for the reasons I gave in my first post).

But for the sake of argument, let's suppose RP *does* run & win as a 3-P/I candidate. This would be a a scenario with great promise AND great peril.

For the "peril" part: we would have to expect the GOP to follow through with a "purge" of RP supporters (on the basis that they have no business being in the Republican party). This would wipe out the significant inroads we've made on that front. We'd essentially have to start all over again, but without an already-existing party infrastructure to take advantage of. We'd have to bootstrap ourselves into a brand new party.

And that leads to the "promise" part: there could be no better opportunity to establish a viable "Revolution" party than to have a sitting president on our side. This would have to be done very quickly & efficiently, though, and we'd definitely need some party-switchers in Congress & various state legislatures to "seed" the new party with. All in all, a very heady & exciting prospect - but also a very iffy one.

If this new party didn't get off the ground (we're back to "peril" again), then we would end up in the worst possible situation. We wouldn't have any kind of "home" - not even in a hostile GOP, with which we'll have burned our bridges. So after RP left office, we'd end up in an even worse position than we are in now (i.e., trying to take over a significant part of the GOP with the odds against us).

But as I said, I think the chances of a Ron Paul 3-P/I win are so vanishingly small as to be non-existent. I also think RP knows this and won't gamble with the not-inconsiderable gains were making.

 

[EBounding]

I'm convinced more than ever that Paul is not going to run 3rd party. The campaign is actively encouraging supporters to get involved with the local GOP and become precinct delegates. For those precinct delegates who have upcoming elections, I hear there are plans to assist the PD's in their elections. That's going to be really hard/weird to do if your candidate suddenly decides to run 3rd party.

 

[Elle]

The only concern I would have on a third party run would be states, such as Michigan, that would not allow him to be on the ballot as a third party candidate. Our SOS is not allowing Gary Johnson to be on the ballot if he is the Libertarian party nominee. http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/0...name-on-the-november-ballot-as-a-libertarian/

 

[RickyJ]

The only concern I would have on a third party run would be states, such as Michigan, that would not allow him to be on the ballot as a third party candidate. Our SOS is not allowing Gary Johnson to be on the ballot if he is the Libertarian party nominee. http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/0...name-on-the-november-ballot-as-a-libertarian/

Who does this guy think he is, a dictator? Denying the people a chance to vote for a major candidate just because they are in a party he doesn't like is things dictators do. Surely something can be done to get him on the ballot and to impeach the SOS of Michigan.

 

[klamath]

No it is not mathematics. You must of failed math because over half this nation does not even bother to vote! When they are motivated to vote the established parties mean nothing to them, they vote for who they like. Jesse Ventura ran and won the governorship in Minnesota running Independent. He won because the voters that usually don't vote, voted for him because they liked him so much.

Why didn't they vote for him in the primaries? Oh because the hated the gop so much they would rather let the country go to hell than register R. Oh yeaw they are going to register to vote for a third party that is obvious by ALL polls would lose.