Ron Paul and a Third Party Run

In contrast to this article, I would recommend this one: The 2012 election and the death of the American experiment

Although the reelection of Obama would mean four worse years for our country, if this country cannot act on principle after seeing the mess the Democrats-light politicians have created for our country (ie. Bush and Romney) and the actual Democrats, we have truly lost our way.

William Mckinley took down America's Last chance William Jennings Bryan over the Gold Standard by a SUPERPAC ad on Bryan for sacrilege in his "Cross of Gold" speech. He is shown with crown and cross, but trampling the Bible. Mckinley lead the people to believe if they vote for him factory's would shut down and everyone would leave America and go back to England, the scheme worked and Mckinley become President in 1887A.D.

While this article is filled with many errors - the last sentence is somewhat true. Ron Paul is not the right man for he job... He is the only one for the job, the only one we can trust to do what he says.

I am always amused when commentators get his non-interventionist foreign policy confused with isolationism. What America does now is more closely linked to isolationism. We tell other countries what to do and how to run their lives. We place sanctions on them and claim that is America's job to police global community. (I know its hard to understand for warmongers.)

Bring our troops home will save us the money that we don't have. It is what the young generation wants (we will be left with the mess once all the old-neoconservatives are dead.)

One more point. Ron Paul has said he has no plans to run third-party. So your news reporting and commenting skills need work. Also - the GOP needs to recognize the new GOP members that Paul has helped to bring in. No self-respecting Paul supporter will vote for another candidate if they are part of the establishment. That means no votes for anyone that the media anointed. There are no conspiracies here, just the ugly truth.

First, feel free to let me know what the errors are.
Don't assume everyone who doesn't think Ron Paul would win either a. Doesn't like him or b. is a war monger
The young people who support Ron Paul tend yo look at the world somewhat differently than the older people do. Don't forget we were all young once.

Not getting involved in any foreign relations is isolationism. As stated in the piece, people like Iran and North Korea, don't like us. It has nothing to do with the fact we have given them aid as Paul suggests in one of his books (which I have read) but because they don't like the fact we are Christians plain and simple. They either already have or soon will have nuclear weapons and they will use them. Iran will use them on Israel, North Korea on anyone.

China is also not our friend, never have been, never will be. We can't ignore them or the threat from Russia.

I thought I had mentioned Paul has stated he wouldn't run as a third party candidate, but looking back I realized I did not, me error.

Stop the fear/warmongering. Israel has 300 nukes, Iran has none. Israel can, and should want to, take care of itself. Our bible and constitution are in accord on that, but the establishment elite is not. Why? Follow the money.

1. Another poll this Wednesday also showed that, when the candidates are polled head-to-head against Pres. Obama, Ron Paul is in a virtual tie with Obama, even despite hit pieces like this. See CBS national opinion poll released January 19th. Just like Mr. Romney, Ron Paul has consistently run even against Pres. Obama in head-to-head polls for months now. No other contender is even within single digits against Pres. Obama. So I think Ron Paul is justified in staying the course, and perhaps you should direct your attention to the real "unelectable" candidates.

2. You're onboard with Paul domestically but not on foreign policy, so all I'll ask is that you support the troops by listening to them, whom know best about all the waste overseas and overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. I'm sure they have a better grasp on what our military needs than Karl Rove or whoever else misguided you about what's really going on over there.

This is not a "hit" piece against Ron Paul. It does prove my point in the last line however, that Paul supporters think that everyone is against Paul and there is this big conspiracy against him. Every time he has run it is the same.

Unfortunately, I even though the poll you mention does show a tie, I don't think by the time the election were held, Obama v. Paul, these numbers would be more in Obama's favor.

see my comment above regarding Paul's foreign policy. I was around during the Carter years when he basically let the military go to hell and I recall the sorry shape it was in. We were not far from war with the Soviets and they would have won. Do we need to be fighting the wars we are in? No. But we can't just pull everyone out and stop spending on the military. It won't be long before we are threatened and/or attacked.

For the record, I have never read or listened to Karl Rove, however I have read Karl Marx. If Rove would like to send me some money to write for him, I can be bought.

Because it's true.

Unfortunately, your projection runs contrary to every poll over the past year, showing Ron Paul steadily gaining support. No one ever reports on this when every other candidate goes for a nosedive.

Ron Paul was also around during the Carter years. Considering his military service, support, and predictions regarding that region from ten years ago, I'm going with Ron Paul's judgment over yours.

He doesn't have to send you money, but you are right and I apologize.

But he can send me money if he would like, I wouldn't refuse, after all I am a capitalist.

That's not capitalism. People like you are pushing the youth and indie vote away from the GOP and back to Obama. The tired old GOP base and rhetoric is not enough to win, not even close. That's the reality, regardless of what you're paid or not paid to wrongly think or write.

Authors Note: I forgot to mention in the article that Ron Paul has said on several occasions he will not run a s a third party candidate. However in the crazy world that is politics, one never knows.

P.R. Jr.

Ron Paul has said on several occasions he will not run a s a third party candidate

If you research past interviews with various news media reporters, you will find that Dr. Paul actually never stated that he would "not" run as a third party candidate. Instead, each time he was asked the question during an interview, he would always leave the question partially open/unanswered, choosing to state in several different ways that he saw no reason to presently (at the time) consider that option.

Dr. Paul is a career politician and as such, he will never provide definitive answers to perinent questions which may come back to haunt or hinder him at some future date.

Both he and his supporters are to be congratulated for finding themselves a factor (3rd - 4th) in the race for the Republican nomination. This is especially true since Dr Paul is no Republican in any sense of the name/title/ideology.

He will not and should not run 3rd party. Let's just vote for him in the GOP primary.

I don't see why the author of this "hit piece" doesn't have what it takes to own up to what he is doing. You end the article with "If only they could see he just isn't the right person for the job." And you think we'll buy the idea that you are not writing a hit piece? Show some courage.

Apparently you are NOT an isolationist, if you are willing to impose sanctions on foreign countries, bomb them and intimidate them, claiming police status and insisting "my Way or the Highway", but you ARE an isolationist if you are willing to trade, talk and are only willing to attack another country with an actual Declaration of War from Congress as the Constitution requires.

Being a Ron Paul fan it is hard not to notice that Ron gets misquoted, gets Dissed, and ignored as a matter of measurable fact. Realizing that the mainstream media wants a mainstream candidate (by which I mean someone who will not threaten the status quo) does NOT make you paranoid or a conspiracy theorist. That is just your way of trying to marginalize Ron Paul's supporters.

As a Ron Paul supporter I find it necessary to point out that he is in a dead heat with Obama, DESPITE the media and mainstream republican bias. I find it hard to imagine that his numbers would go DOWN were he to secure the Republican nomination. Surely the Anyone but Obama people would fall in line behind him. Can you really imagine ANY other candidate that could realisticallly inspire democrats, independents and the young to show up in record numbers to support them?

As things stand right now only Romney and Paul have a NATIONAL effort going. They are the only two on the ballot in several states.

70% of Republicans want a conservative rather than a moderate. In the long haul it is very likely to boil down to Mitt and Ron. Gingrich is no real conservative and has tons of baggage. Santorum offers no government downsizing for all his rhetoric to the contrary on his website he makes it clear that he won't cut military spending by even a penny, while he favors a FREEZE on entitlement spending for the next 5 YEARS. Doesn't leave much for those of us who want to see government cut does it?

The most dangerous thing about Ron Paul's foreign policy is he refuses to act like a King, and would not wage war without authorization. This only threatens the Military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

Seriously, if you think Iran is an imminent threat, what would be so hard about getting congress to declare war?

Spend a minute and look up the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist foreign policy. If you are going to write about these things at least educate yourself.

And man up. You wrote a hit piece. Own it.

Here is a link to another article I wrote more favorable to Paul:
http://www.examiner.com/tea-party-in-boston/time-to-rethink-ron-paul-s-candidacy

Please send me links to these mysterious polls which show Paul running neck and neck with Obama. Gallup has Obama winning by a lot, Rasmussen the same.

"Mysterious" . . . seriously? I even said, "See CBS national opinion poll released January 19th" in my post, and you acknowledged it already. Wow.

Here you go:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/19/us/politics/19poll-documents.html

I was so impressed when Obama won. A nation that could have picked a trusty commander who could be counted on to hold the line(and I still think McCain might be the best president America never had) instead went for the virtually unknown quantity that was Obama. What guts! That's throwing the long bomb. That's trying to win, not just stay in the game.
So to say that it's inconceivable that America could try the hail Mary that a Paul presidency would be is as fallacious as saying he's not up to the job. He's stacking the also-rans at his feet like cord wood. Bachman, Perry, Johnson(sigh)...all gone. Won Maine, well on the way to forcing a brokered convention. Think of the flim-flammery necessary for Romney just to claim a(soon reversed) 2 point win in his own backyard. Consider the fear the party establishment have of the man to panic and behave so grossly. Long way to go...but it's no stupid dream, Paul,it's the most compelling political story of the decade. Thanks for the article.

Thank God this man is out as of today. He never really had a chance. He knows the constitution about as well as a seventh grader knows it. He was caught too many times fumbling issues he should have had down.