LOL Ron Paul's Money Raising Third!

[chris]

HAHAHAHA, how I'd love to see Romney with a pickaxe and a ball and chain, ho ho ho.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9t5OYUCWf7o

[Anders Lindman]

Ron Paul should massively spend his money in the early primaries. If he succeeds there, he will be able to receive huge amounts of more donations later on.

[chris]

Ron Paul should massively spend his money in the early primaries. If he succeeds there, he will be able to receive huge amounts of more donations later on.

Yeah, I think that's what they are gunning for. They are running a very good campaign, I'm impressed...I just thought they would put Ron Paul in the debates and he would be kind of like Mike Gravel but he's actually highly organised and frugal. This is not even mentioning all of his supporters who are donating their time and enginuity for free...

[Anders Lindman]

Yeah, I think that's what they are gunning for. They are running a very good campaign, I'm impressed...I just thought they would put Ron Paul in the debates and he would be kind of like Mike Gravel but he's actually highly organised and frugal. This is not even mentioning all of his supporters who are donating their time and enginuity for free...

Alas, buying expensive advertisement is only a small part of the campaign. He must get mainstream media to support him or else he is fucked.

[ryanc]

Apparently, Paul's campaign has a ton of cash to spend at this point, having raised $5 million last quarter and so far spent almost nothing. I saw Paul interviewed on television the other day and he dsaid he intends to spend every cent of the money he has on hand, but that they'll be strategic about it. I take that to mean he's going to spend quite a bit in New Hamphsire in the weeks leading up to the primary. He has almost no chance to win, or even finish very strongly, in Iowa, but New Hampshire is a state with a strong libertarian tradition---their license place still say "Live Free Or Die" on them---and I wouldn't put it past Paul to come in second or thirs there quite easily, and with the right amount of media exposure could maybe---just maybe---even win the thing.

Then, the Republican race would be a whole new ballgame, since the "front-runner," Ghouliani, who will amost certainly get trounced in Iowa since he's not even campaigning there much---will be in a position where he won't have won either of the two early-voting states, and South Carolina is third on the schedule, and he's almost certain not to win there since the religious right more or less controls the state party apparatus. I'll go out on a limb and predict that Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, with Paul coming in second in New Hampshire, and South Carolina will probably go for either McCain or Thompson or maybe even Huckabee, but Ron Paul at that point will have survived the early contests and gain some exposure for doing so, which could propel him to do what I think is the real goal here, which is---

Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee and he knows it, but his strong early showing will give him a huge amount of momentum to run as a third-party candidate, probably for the Libertarian Party, whose banner he ran under in 1988. He should be able to give the party more exposure than it's ever had, and will probably be polling around 5-10% nationally at that point, which will mena that he'll be included in the national general election debates along with the Republican and Democratic candidates (unless they change the rules halfway through the game on him like they did to Nader). Will Paul be the next president? Do pigs fly? He will, however, be a strong third-party candidate, probably doing at least as well as Nader in 2000, and will probably be accused of being a "spolier," (only this time siphoning votes from Republicans instead of Democrats), but he'll be able to stand that label just fine, I think.

Sure, a third-party candidacy by Paul makes a Hillary Clinton "victory" more likely, but was there ever any doubt she was the chosen one anyway? And if the GOP nominee is Ghouliani or McCain or Romney, who cares if Paul "spoils" their chances? None of them are any better---and barely any different---than Clinton, anyway. The "election" is already over and done with as far as the elite string-pullers are concerned, but the longer the genuinely committed and honest folks like Kucinich, Paul, and Gravel can hang in there, the longer the whole thing will at least remain interesting and the longer issues of real relevance and import will be addressed, at least on some level.

[Anders Lindman]

Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee and he knows it, but his strong early showing will give him a huge amount of momentum to run as a third-party candidate, probably for the Libertarian Party, whose banner he ran under in 1988.

Ron Paul has been asked by many journalists if he will run as a third-party candidate if he's not nominated, and he says no. He could change his mind of course, but it sounds like he really is not interested in that option at all.

[ryanc]

Yeah, I've heard him say that, or actually words to that effect---every time I've seen him asked that he says "I have no plans to do that." Very careful wording there, his "plans" can change at any time. He's also said that he will not support the Republican nominee unless it's an anti-war candidate, so since he's the only anti-war Republican running, that basically means he's stated outright that unless he's the nominee of the party, he won't be supporting his own party's candidate.

Putting the two statements together, I have to say I think he's planning an aggressive third-party bid---in fact, I think his candidacy in the Republican primaries is probably designed to draw more funding and attention to his eventual third-party candidacy than he would have received otherwise. Think about this for a moment---what would get more publicity, an obscure Congressman from Texas leaving the Republican party to run for President as an independent of Libertarian, or the guy who came in third or fourth in the vote totals in the Republican primary season---and won all the debates---leaving the party and running as an independent or Libertarian? I think his very entry into the Republican race has been a well-planned effort to draw support for his eventual third-party run.

Besides, he wouldn't be lying if he said he had no "plans" to run as a Libertarian but then his "plans" changed.

[Anders Lindman]

I don't know much about how the election works, but I guess if he is not nominated he could run as a third party candidate.

[chris]

Besides, he wouldn't be lying if he said he had no "plans" to run as a Libertarian but then his "plans" changed.

Maybe he could borrow some of John Kerries footware.

http://www.thinkfirstthenvote.com/Kerry-flip-flop.jpg

[Anders Lindman]

He could do a Ross Perot:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/80/Ross_Perot.jpg/180px-Ross_Perot.jpg

[alleendewaarheid]

i'm gonna vote for the guy.

it'll be the 1st time i'm voting in 15 years..i've only ever voted once in my life

[Anders Lindman]

i'm gonna vote for the guy.

it'll be the 1st time i'm voting in 15 years..i've only ever voted once in my life

Cool. Don't forget to register as a Republican. :cool:

[alleendewaarheid]

anders,

yeah..i already figured i got to do that soon..

[ryanc]

anders,

yeah..i already figured i got to do that soon..

That depends on which state you live in. Some states require party registration in advance, some will allow you to register as a party member on the day of the primary, and others don't require party registration at all---they'll just give you a ballot for whichever party you ask for (although they won't give you one of each if you ask for both---you have to specify!), which is how it works here in my home state of Minnesota. Check your local ordinances to see what your state requires, you may not have to take the Orwellian step of having to actually register as a member of a party.

For my part, I was leaning towards Paul but I have decided to vote for Kucinich. I have yet to hear Ron Paul actually say anything about 9/11, so why the 9/11 truth movement seems to be backing him is a mystery to me. Kucinich has called for a new 9/11 investigation, and I think that shows real guts. Also, Kucinich seems to me to be slightly better on issues of personal freedom than Paul. Don;t get me wrong, Paul is good on personal freedom issues, but he favors overturning Roe vs. Wade and said he'd leave gay rights issues up to the states. Kucinich would leave Roe vs. Wade as law and favors equal rights for everybody regardless of sexual orientation. I also heard Kucnich say he supports withdrawing troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq, which is an important distinction---I've heard Paul say that he supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but I haven't heard him mention anything about Afghanistan and I don't see it mentioned on his website.

So for me it was a close call, as far as cnadidates fro President go, these two guys are the only decent ones I've seen probably in my entire voting lifetime, but I just think Kucinich has a slight edge in terms of being better on the issues. Either one, though, would be a vast improvement over Hillary or Giuliani or the other neocon clones that make up the rest of the field in both parties.

[alleendewaarheid]

i honestly believe ron paul is being strategic because if he ever says 911 was an inside job he'd be immediately labeled a nutjob and won't win.

he has the best chance of winning..not kucinich..though i like kucinich also

ron paul is loved because he knows the constitution and has a record of voting that way..

as long as we have someone who restores the constitution the rest shall follow, including 911 truth..

[alleendewaarheid]

also regarding abortion...

ron paul is very clear about wanting it left up to the states and not the federal government..he's just following the constitution...power to the states