Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week

[grundle]

I don't know what to make of this.


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/09/ron-paul-to-make-major-announcement.html

Friday, September 5, 2008

Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week

Congressman Ron Paul will make a major announcement next week in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club.

Both Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin are expected at the news conference. Barr is the Libertarian presidential nominee and Baldwin is the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party.

Speculation is that that Baldwin and Barr are stepping aside so that Paul can become the nominee of both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties
The Montana Constitution Party has removed Chuck Baldwin from the ballot and is putting the ticket of Ron Paul for President and Michael Peroutka on the ballot for Vice-President.

UPDATE: Eric Garris reports: Ron Paul was aware that the party planned to do this, and has said that as long as he can remain passive and silent about the development, and as long as he need not sign any declaration of candidacy, that he does not object.

[X]

Where's the "Who cares?" option?

[Spicollidriver1]

I think a lot of people care but I think he is a little too nutty for me. You listen to the guy for like half and hour and your like he I might like this guy, then he drives the bus off the cliff.

[Jack Straw]

I think the Obama camp cares a whole lot.

[mosquitobite]

I think the Obama camp cares a whole lot.

I know earlier this year when I was actively campaigning for Dr Paul in our area, I met more Democrats than I had ever met before. ;) There were quite a few I was surprised to find support Dr Paul when you really talk issues with them. It was his honesty and anti-war position that hooked them.

But, I think his appeal is on both sides of the aisle.

[wendersfan]

Where's the "Who cares?" option?I certainly don't.

[General Zod]

Way too late to have any significant impact.

[classicman2]

If he runs as a Libertarian/Constitution Party candidate, the Republican leadership in the House just might take away his privilege to caucus with the Republicans.

That's the only reason he calls himself a Republican - caucus privileges.

[Venusian]

Even for the non Paul fans, this has some impact, doesn't it?

If Barr is off the ticket in GA, doesn't that hurt Obama, just a little?

[Groucho]

Guess this means the white supremacists don't have to hold their nose and vote for a black guy OR a woman. Whew!

[Thor Simpson]

This could put CA and OR in play.

[Breakfast with Girls]

Talk about a Hail Mary pass. :lol:

I think he is a little too nutty for me. You listen to the guy for like half and hour and your like he I might like this guy, then he drives the bus off the cliff.I agree completely.

Although I think Paul could take votes from both sides, I'll be pretty depressed if any scenario occurs where McCain is elected. I don't especially want Obama, either, but given the choice of Obama or a possible war with Iran, I pick Obama. Don't forget, Nader is in the race, too. He's a bigger threat than Paul.

[DVD Polizei]

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1741/leaveronpaulalone1ex2.jpg

[Jason]

Maybe he's selling the Ron Paul blimp on eBay?

[Nazgul]

He's skipping the country with all the money donated by suckers...err...supporters.

[B.A.]

The more the merrier.

[abrg923]

Who cares, he has absolutely zero chance of winning. I hate it when people run just to get attention.

[Baron Of Hell]

I don't think it is for attention. I think he honestly thinks the two main choices are equally bad. His main problem is he can not lead. The people that follow him do so because they believe in his message and can absorb it without being swayed. He is unable though to sell his message and get people to trust him that might need a little more convincing.

[VinVega]

I think the Obama camp cares a whole lot.
Run Paul Run, Run Paul Run! :dance:

[Red Dog]

Meh.

[DVD Polizei]

Run Paul Run, Run Paul Run! :dance:

A-doo-run-run-Ron A-doo-run-Ron. :)

[Brent L]

Would Ron Paul really hurt Obama all that much? I could see some of the young voters who will vote for Obama going for Paul if he ends up in the race. I doubt it will hurt McCain much, if at all, since most people who would go for Paul wouldn't go for McCain in the first place.

[Venusian]

but the ones who might have gone for barr, might not go for paul and might go for obama - at least in georgia....maybe?

[Thor Simpson]

The only people it will hurt is us, since it means we have to hear about Ron Paul for another 8 weeks.

[kvrdave]

While I like him, if he is going to run, then I don't like him any more. Not because I care that he runs, but because it shows me that he is stupid if he thinks he has any shot. If you run as a third party, you only do it for ego.

[Brent L]

Does this mean the nut will be added to at least some of the debates.

Ugh.

[Red Dog]

Does this mean the nut will be added to at least some of the debates.

Ugh.


That would be the only good that would come out of his entry.

[abrg923]

I don't think it is for attention. I think he honestly thinks the two main choices are equally bad. His main problem is he can not lead. The people that follow him do so because they believe in his message and can absorb it without being swayed. He is unable though to sell his message and get people to trust him that might need a little more convincing.

Even if he honestly believes that, he knows he has zero chance in hell of winning...he was trounced in the Republican primaries. Why even bother at this point?

[abrg923]

While I like him, if he is going to run, then I don't like him any more. Not because I care that he runs, but because it shows me that he is stupid if he thinks he has any shot. If you run as a third party, you only do it for ego.

Bingo.

[matta]

While I like him, if he is going to run, then I don't like him any more. Not because I care that he runs, but because it shows me that he is stupid if he thinks he has any shot. If you run as a third party, you only do it for ego.

Or to get into the major debates and get your message out

Or to get enough support to increase your bargaining power within the party

Or to get enough votes to qualify for federal funds in the next election

As a McCain/Palin supporter, I really hope he doesn't run. But, if he does, I'm not going to hold it against him. There are many reasons for him to go that direction.

[CRM114]

That would be the only good that would come out of his entry.

I agree. The value of a 3rd party candidacy is the ability to broaden the discussion.

[Thor Simpson]

I agree. The value of a 3rd party candidacy is the ability to broaden the discussion.

...as if we don't have enough broads in this year's discussion. -rolleyes-

;) ;)

[classicman2]

Or to get into the major debates and get your message out

Or to get enough support to increase your bargaining power within the party

Or to get enough votes to qualify for federal funds in the next election

As a McCain/Palin supporter, I really hope he doesn't run. But, if he does, I'm not going to hold it against him. There are many reasons for him to go that direction.

How does running on a 3rd party ticket increase his bargaining power within the party?

If anything - he loses what precious little bargaining power he has already.

[Groucho]

How does running on a 3rd party ticket increase his bargaining power within the party?It worked brilliantly for Lieberman. ;)

[parrotheads4]

While I like him, if he is going to run, then I don't like him any more. Not because I care that he runs, but because it shows me that he is stupid if he thinks he has any shot. If you run as a third party, you only do it for ego.

He has stated that he would continue voicing his message. This would give him an opportunity.

Also, he is a Republican. I believe his running would help McCain.

[kvrdave]

Or to get into the major debates and get your message out
Which didn't get you the nomination of your party, so it is ego.

Or to get enough support to increase your bargaining power within the party
Which you use so that they offer you stuff to get you to get out because you are putting yourself ahead of the party, which is ego.

Or to get enough votes to qualify for federal funds in the next election
Where you can spend more money on your ego and be seen by more people because to run then, you'd be 77 years old.

As a McCain/Palin supporter, I really hope he doesn't run. But, if he does, I'm not going to hold it against him. There are many reasons for him to go that direction.

As a guy who is very disappointed with the choices we have, I'd love an alternative. But only a viable one. And this isn't a viable one.

[JasonF]

Why are we all assuming that the announcement has something to do with the presidential race? I think he's going to announce that he's undergoing gender reassignment surgery, and that from now on we should refer to him as Rhonda Paul.

[Thor Simpson]

I figured he would announce that he's the father of one of the Palin babies... but not reveal if it's the down syndrome one or the teen daughter's.

[Venusian]

it could be like Huck's big annoucement: HuckPac or whatever it was.

With the Campaign for Liberty, Paul could just be announcing some kind of PAC or soemthing

[General Zod]

Why are we all assuming that the announcement has something to do with the presidential race? I think he's going to announce that he's undergoing gender reassignment surgery, and that from now on we should refer to him as Rhonda Paul.

:lol:

You know, a transgender in this race is just what it needs to spice it up a bit more..

[DeputyDave]

What little shred of respect I had for Ron Paul went out the window when he had Jesse Ventura as a key speaker at his "convention".

[parrotheads4]

He's hosting a debate open to ALL candidates.

[Kerborus]

Oh, I thought he was going to publicly admit he was insane... I kid! I kid!

[matta]

As a guy who is very disappointed with the choices we have, I'd love an alternative. But only a viable one. And this isn't a viable one.

You could always vote matta / Spicollidriver1 (that was my VP, right? I don't really remember).

[Jeremy517]

His "big announcement" was that he wants his supporters to vote for Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, or Chuck Baldwin. Exciting.

[starman9000]

Yeah, he won't endorse McCain as a lesser of two evils.

Paul rejects McCain's plea for endorsement:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gj4x1Ijw4MDlWEadWey5y9c0GlhgD933TVRG7
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ron Paul says he rejected John McCain's appeal for his endorsement.

At a news conference Wednesday, Paul said he received a surprise call from McCain's campaign on Tuesday asking for his endorsement. Paul turned them down.

Paul said: "The idea was that he would do less harm than the other candidate."

Paul won no primaries in the Republican nomination contest but developed a strong following on the Internet. He appeared at a news conference with third-party candidates, including Ralph Nader and former Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Paul suggested backing the non-major party candidates.

[grundle]

His "big announcement" was that he wants his supporters to vote for Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, or Chuck Baldwin. Exciting.


I am very disappointed.

[VinVega]

His "big announcement" was that he wants his supporters to vote for Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, or Chuck Baldwin. Exciting.
:sad:

Don't cry wolf Ron Paul, I won't be listening next time. :(

[wendersfan]

I know that Congressman Paul is the very definition of disgruntled right now, but the idea that he is encouraging me to vote for Cynthia McKinney is pretty funny.

[X]

I know that Congressman Paul is the very definition of disgruntled right now, but the idea that he is encouraging me to vote for Cynthia McKinney is pretty funny.That just doesn't fit in with my concept of "rational" in any way I can imagine.

[movielib]

I know that Congressman Paul is the very definition of disgruntled right now, but the idea that he is encouraging me to vote for Cynthia McKinney is pretty funny.
Well, Paul was at a news conference with the third party candidates. It would have been rude to say "vote for a third party candidate but not one of the weirdos like McKinney or Nader" so he made the blanket statement.

That's what I'd think anyway.

[classicman2]

He's cooked his goose.

[movielib]

He's cooked his goose.
Do you think he'll lose his seat?

[wendersfan]

Well, Paul was at a news conference with the third party candidates. It would have been rude to say "vote for a third party candidate but not one of the weirdos like McKinney or Nader" so he made the blanket statement.Looking at it from a rational perspective, there are two reasons why someone would generally advocate that people vote third party:
To weaken the two-party system.
To encourage one or both of the major parties to adopt positions espoused by a third party.
I don't realistically see (1) happening, barring some sort of catastrophe or constitutional crisis. The problem with (2) is he's encouraging people to vote for one of four different sets of positions, many of which are in direct conflict with another. So, for example, how would the major parties interpret a larger than expected vote share for both the Constitution Party and the Green Party? That we should simultaneously increase <i>and</i> decrease government spending? It sends a mixed message at best and isn't rational at all.

[classicman2]

No, but I don't believe the Republicans will allow him to caucus with them.

Just a thought - maybe the Democrats will invite him to caucus with them.

[movielib]

Looking at it from a rational perspective, there are two reasons why someone would generally advocate that people vote third party:
To weaken the two-party system.
To encourage one or both of the major parties to adopt positions espoused by a third party.
I don't realistically see (1) happening, barring some sort of catastrophe or constitutional crisis. The problem with (2) is he's encouraging people to vote for one of four different sets of positions, many of which are in direct conflict with another. So, for example, how would the major parties interpret a larger than expected vote share for both the Constitution Party and the Green Party? That we should simultaneously increase <i>and</i> decrease government spending? It sends a mixed message at best and isn't rational at all.
I'm just saying he didn't want to be rude. I think you're overanalyzing and making more of this than is there.

A graph would help. ;)

[wendersfan]

Of course I'm overanalyzing it. You must be new here. ;)

[movielib]

Of course I'm overanalyzing it. You must be new here. ;)
Which is why I edited in the last sentence in my last post. :)

[classicman2]

I still don't understand why the Libertarians don't infilitrate the Republican Party in large numbers - hell, there's a plethora of them on this forum - much less the entire internet.
They could take over operational control of the party.

[wendersfan]

Which is why I edited in the last sentence in my last post. :)Dr. Paul is, if nothing else, a very nice and polite man, and your belief that he simply didn't want to be rude is probably the best explanation.

[movielib]

No, but I don't believe the Republicans will allow him to caucus with them.

Just a thought - maybe the Democrats will invite him to caucus with them.
No more reindeer games for Dr. Ronnie. :(

I'll bet either would let him if the House was otherwise tied at 267. :)

[JasonF]

Looking at it from a rational perspective, there are two reasons why someone would generally advocate that people vote third party:
To weaken the two-party system.
To encourage one or both of the major parties to adopt positions espoused by a third party.
I don't realistically see (1) happening, barring some sort of catastrophe or constitutional crisis. The problem with (2) is he's encouraging people to vote for one of four different sets of positions, many of which are in direct conflict with another. So, for example, how would the major parties interpret a larger than expected vote share for both the Constitution Party and the Green Party? That we should simultaneously increase <i>and</i> decrease government spending? It sends a mixed message at best and isn't rational at all.

It sends a mixed message if the message is "Support my particular principles by voting third-party because neither of the major parties represent those principles." It does not send a mixed message if the message is "Make sure your own principles are represented by voting third-party if neither of the major parties represents those principles."

I haven't seen or read Rep. Paul's statement beyond the brief article starman9000 posted, so I don't know which message he was going for, but if he was telling people to vote Nader, I assume it was the latter.

[classicman2]

Joe Lieberman probably wil face the same problem in the Senate.

His vote will no longer be needed - unless there's 58 Democrats in the Senate.

[wendersfan]

It sends a mixed message if the message is "Support my particular principles by voting third-party because neither of the major parties represent those principles." It does not send a mixed message if the message is "Make sure your own principles are represented by voting third-party if neither of the major parties represents those principles."Then the way I see it that would be reason (1) - to weaken the two-party system generally.

[starman9000]

. So, for example, how would the major parties interpret a larger than expected vote share for both the Constitution Party and the Green Party? That we should simultaneously increase <i>and</i> decrease government spending? It sends a mixed message at best and isn't rational at all.

I think both parties already send out that mixed message on their own.

[Red Dog]

I think both parties already send out that mixed message on their own.


Absolutely.

[kvrdave]

Yeah, he won't endorse McCain as a lesser of two evils.

Paul rejects McCain's plea for endorsement:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gj4x1Ijw4MDlWEadWey5y9c0GlhgD933TVRG7


Title of article says "plea" and article says "appeal." :lol:

[starman9000]

I don't think those words are as conflicting as you think they are.

American Heritage Dictionary
plea n.
1. An earnest request; an appeal: s


Dictionary.com Unabridged
ap·peal /əˈpil/
–noun
1. an earnest request for aid, support, sympathy, mercy, etc.; entreaty; petition; plea.



(or did you just think it was funny they used either word in the first place?)

[Numanoid]

I think kvrdave is trying to imply that it's unlikley that McCain's request was earnest. ;)

[Xytraguptorh]

I still don't understand why the Libertarians don't infilitrate the Republican Party in large numbers - hell, there's a plethora of them on this forum - much less the entire internet.
They could take over operational control of the party.

Kind of like neoconservatives have pushed out traditional conservatives and taken control of the party? There isn't enough room for more than one group of infiltrators at the top. The fact that Lieberman can speak at the convention but Paul is completely ignored should tell you that neoconservatives have complete control of the party.

[classicman2]

I don't buy the argument that neoconservatives have complete control of the party.

[Red Dog]

Kind of like neoconservatives have pushed out traditional conservatives and taken control of the party? There isn't enough room for more than one group of infiltrators at the top. The fact that Lieberman can speak at the convention but Paul is completely ignored should tell you that neoconservatives have complete control of the party.


I wouldn't say they have complete control, but they do seem to have control. The problem is that the religious faction of the party doesn't like libertarian faction and the neocon faction of the party doesn't like the libertarian faction for obvious reasons. Therefore, the neocons and the religious can basically forge an alliance (because it is far easier to find candidates that can appeal to both the religious faction and neocon faction than to 1 of those 2 and the libertarian faction) and keep the libertarian faction from ever gaining control.

[GatorDeb]

So what was the announcement? These threads get quite big :)

[movielib]

So what was the announcement? These threads get quite big :)
Ron Paul is not going to run for re-election. He's going to do "Dancing with the Stars" instead.

[JasonF]

So what was the announcement? These threads get quite big :)

At 3 whole pages, I can see why you might get lost.

The announcement was that he won't endorse Senator McCain, and that voters should vote for third party candidates such as Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader.

[Red Dog]

At 3 whole pages, I can see why you might get lost.

The announcement was that he won't endorse Senator McCain, and that voters should vote for third party candidates such as Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader.

Didn't we know this already?

Nice thread once again grundle. rotfl

[classicman2]

I don't believe the neocons are in the majority in the Republican Party.

I do believe there are neocons who had a great deal of influence on the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

[Red Dog]

I don't believe the neocons are in the majority in the Republican Party.

I do believe there are neocons who had a great deal of influence on the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

You don't have to be a majority of the party to control it. Hell, look at all the dick swinging that took place on foreign policy in the GOP debates. That alone should tell you that the neocons are in control.

[classicman2]

You apparently assume that the Executive Branch is the GOP.

You don't have to be neocon to support the War in Iraq.

Perhaps you have a different defintion of a neocon that I have.

You can be a non-isolationist and not be a neocon.

[Sean O'Hara]

Perhaps you have a different defintion of a neocon that I have.


A neocon is a conservative that liberals hate more than normal.

[Xytraguptorh]

A neocon is a conservative that liberals hate more than normal.

Really? I don't see why. Only if their only concern is foreign policy. On many other ideas neoconservatives and liberals are exactly the same.

[Xytraguptorh]

You don't have to be a majority of the party to control it. Hell, look at all the dick swinging that took place on foreign policy in the GOP debates. That alone should tell you that the neocons are in control.

Yup. That, and the fact that there was no mention whatsoever of immigration policy during the convention, despite immigration being at the top of the polls for what GOP voters think is important. "Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world" might as well sum up the party platform.

[Dr Mabuse]

Talk about a non event.

That wimpy little fruitcake made a non-announcement.

[abrg923]

So basically he's encouraging people to throw away their votes. What a waste of space.

[Sean O'Hara]

So basically he's encouraging people to throw away their votes. What a waste of space.

Do you think Democrats in Texas and Republicans in New York are throwing away their votes? Their position is no different from someone voting for a third party that has no chance of victory.

If you think the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is how they want to screw us over, why should you vote for either one?

[Red Dog]

So basically he's encouraging people to throw away their votes. What a waste of space.


I think voting for somebody you don't like, even as a 'lesser of 2 evil' is throwing away your vote. I require a candidate to earn my vote.

[classicman2]

I heard part of Paul's speech this morning on CSPAN.

I can't believe anyone can be so naive (dangerously so) about foreign policy as this guy is.

[mosquitobite]

I heard part of Paul's speech this morning on CSPAN.

I can't believe anyone can be so naive (dangerously so) about foreign policy as this guy is.

So you're a neocon ;)

[wendersfan]

So you're a neocon ;):up: :lol:

Remember, the last guy c-man really wanted in the White House was "Scoop" Jackson. ;)

[classicman2]

No, and I am not an neanderthal either.

Paul's foreign policy in a nutshell: 'If we just be a friend to a country and trade with them everything will be find & dandy.'

[wendersfan]

Paul's foreign policy in a nutshell: 'If we just be a friend to a country and trade with them everything will be find & dandy.'I'm inclined to agree with this rather harsh assessment. Free trade works really well as a diplomatic and foreign policy tool with respect to other nations that stand to benefit from trade. Countries with real, working economies. But a country like Afghanistan? Maybe not so much.

On the other hand:

http://www.pajhwok.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=36547

So maybe there's hope after all.

[Mordred]

I think voting for somebody you don't like, even as a 'lesser of 2 evil' is throwing away your vote. I require a candidate to earn my vote.My vote is available for the first candidate who sends me $12.

[Sean O'Hara]

I'm inclined to agree with this rather harsh assessment. Free trade works really well as a diplomatic and foreign policy tool with respect to other nations that stand to benefit from trade. Countries with real, working economies. But a country like Afghanistan? Maybe not so much.


Maybe if we tried actual free trade with Afghanistan and bought up their major cash crop instead of encouraging poor farmers to burn it, things would be different.