Ron Paul open to a fourth-party campaign?

October 26, 2007

For the last several weeks, there’s been plenty of talk about a third-party campaign, but all of it has been focused on the GOP’s religious right base. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and other far-right social conservatives have been surprisingly candid about their intentions to break with the Republican Party, if the presidential nomination goes to a supporter of abortion and gay rights (i.e., Rudy Giuliani).

But what about a fourth-party campaign from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)?

A couple of weeks ago, during a Republican debate, Paul was asked whether he promised to support the GOP nominee next year, no matter who emerges from the primary process. “Not right now I don’t,” Paul said, “not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.”

During an MSNBC interview this week, Norah O’Donnell followed up on this point.

O’DONNELL: Congressman, as you know, most of the other Republicans running for president that you have stood onstage with during the debates, they support a continuation of the war in Iraq. You want to end the war in Iraq. If one of them is awarded the Republican nomination, will you choose a third party? Will you not back that nominee?

PAUL: No, I don’t plan to run in a third party. That’s not my goal. But if we have a candidate that loves the war and loves the neo-con position of promoting our —

At that point in the interview, O’Donnell interrupted, and the interview didn’t return to the subject. But the more I think about it, the more I think Paul and his supporters would make a logical third- (or fourth-) party run.

The Dobson crowd is certainly annoyed by the prospect of a Giuliani nomination, as they should be. But the truth is, all of the leading GOP candidates, including the former NYC mayor, are still trying to make the religious right happy. Giuliani has effectively abandoned any hint of social liberalism that he embraced as mayor.

But Paul seems like a more obvious choice for an independent run. The party isn’t even trying to reach out to Paul’s supporters.

Watching the debates and watching the interviews, Ron Paul isn’t necessarily running as a Republican candidate; he’s running as Ron Paul. His ideas and policy agenda are entirely detached from the GOP mainstream — indeed, they are entirely antithetical to the GOP mainstream — and his supporters seem far more interested in Paul specifically than the Republican Party in general.

In other words, Paul is leading something akin to a movement. It’s almost a textbook case of the kind of candidate who would launch an independent run for the White House.

He has a base of unusually-devoted fans who would no doubt work tirelessly to get him on the ballot, and he’d give voice to the libertarian wing of the GOP, which may be anxious to send a message to the party establishment. (Indeed, he’s already done it once, running as the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988.)

A third-party bid from the religious right seems conditional on one event: a Giuliani nomination. If Paul is considering an independent run if the party nominates a supporter of Bush’s Iraq policy, that’s pretty much the entire rest of the field.

With this in mind, could we conceivably have four candidates next year? The Dem, the Republican, the religious right fave, and Paul? It seems far fetched, but I wouldn’t bet against it.

Well – maybe. He might be convinced to mount a Libertarian Party challenge if neither the Dem candidate nor the Republican candidate take getting out of Iraq as their issue. That would leave an anti-war hole among the candidates that could actually be tactically exploited as a wedge issue.

I’ve actually wondered if Ron Paul might not be a candidate for the religious right to back as their third party run. He’s got the cult of personality around him, and his stances are a near perfect fit to what the religious right wanted back in the 80s. He’d be almost assured of putting judges on the stand who would overturn Roe (because of the state’s rights thing and his own anti-abortion stance).

The downside of the religious right running with Paul is that a Paul spoiler campaign doesn’t give a clear victory to the religious right wing of the party – they’d have to split “credit” for the spoiler with the libertarian wing. And, beyond that, the media narrative is almost certain to revolve around PAUL himself and his personality – not the two ideological movements that would be standing behind him.

  • The more the merrier, although Paul could conceivably draw votes away from Hillary Clinton. What a shame that the only anti-war candidate might be a Republican.

  • Taking a lesson from Howard Dean’s big bumble.

    When the Dem Party cornered Dean and asked him about his loyality to the Dem Party – Dean play right into the their hands – then they ruined him, just when he could have had the Dem Party eating right out of his hands too. tsk, tsk!

    Ron Paul learned that loyality to anyone other then your voters is a nothing but a dead end street. Today’s Republican Party is all about Bushism, and how to be more Bush when Bushie is at 24%. Ron Paul could change the GOP into a third party status, since Bushism almost has the Party there now anyway. And because the GOP apparatus is so corrupt, there is no way but down on the current track of loyal Bushism.

    Be interesting to see if John McCain, who whole hearted supported Ralph Nader, and his third party candidacy, whole hearted supports Ron Paul too.

    But I bet not.

    But like I said, it’s not always winning that counts, it’s the journey. Ron Paul has when his hands the power to change the GOP, and to finally and completely get the GOP to denounce Bush and Cheney for what those two really are. A couple of big time criminals.

  • There are days when I’d like a third party, particularly after the Democrats in Congress act like the whipped minority party yet again. But historically third parties in the US are undiluted nutcases. I guess I’d rather support the whimps than the nuts.

  • Why so much talk of third and fourth party when we haven’t even had the first primary?

    Ron Paul has a real chance if regular people like you (yeah you the one reading this) get out there and start talking to your family, and friends, and neighbors, the omus is on you, do something. Go to meetup.com and get involved with your local Ron Paul supporters, find out when the next straw poll is in your area and send a message to the republican party that you will not be ignored by casting a ballot for Ron Paul. That’s what I did and last night Ron Paul won another straw poll thanks to me and 57 other people who showed up he has now won there at the monthly south sound republican club three times in a row with steadily increasing margins.

    I personally don’t see anyone active for the other campaigns here in Seattle. Of all the other candidates, republican and democrat, I have seen a sum total of none of them on the street, and 0 signs compared to many Ron Paul supporters and numerous signs promoting his hope for America message. I don’t know what it’s like in your community but I think he is winning here and we’re just getting started.

    I suggest you concentrate more energy on organizing your precincts and less on theorizing four party races.

  • The cult that has grown around Paul may not be so different from the one around Ross Peroe ((can’t spell it)) in 1992, and he took 19% of the vote, mostly from the Rethugs, making Billy our 42nd president. A third or even fourth candidacy may be unavoidable in 2008, but Paul is unlikely to attract the ever more disaffected left-wing of the Dim-Dems, which with a Hillary candidacy leaves them nowhere to go. It’s probably impossible to handicap this race at this moment.

  • Graham,

    Ron Paul is a perfect third party candidate. If your only issue is removing troops from Iraq, he may be your man. But on everything else, he is pretty obviously a few screws short. He’d be a worse president than Bush.

  • We have at least four candidates in a lot of states in most elections, actually. H. Ross Perot’s Reform party may have come and gone but the Green party and the Libertarians have put up a candidate in nearly every recent presidential election. Ron Paul himself was the Libertarian party’s presidential candidate in 1988.

  • Hey NonyNony, I can’t see the Religious Right supporting any anti-war candidate. Giuliani still has some traction among Fundevangelical voters because they see bombing and torturing Muslims as a moral imperative that almost measures up to “saving babies.”

  • That’s absolutely ridiculous Jen Flowers, RP would put an end to American Imperialism (which is bankrupting our country and killing our troops as well as breeding blowback, aka “terrorism,” against innocent Americans because of what has been and is done in our name) as well as end the Plenipotentiary Executive. How would that be worse than Dubya?

    It would be a transparent lie to say these things about Hillary based upon her Senate votes. But please tell yourself whatever you want to believe.

    And by the way, RP’s support is not a “personality cult” like that of the Hitler-In-Chief –Ron Paul’s support is centered around his message of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

    What the hell, I’ll be brash enough to say this –if anything, Hillary’s support is cultish. It would seem that women voters are choosing to support her simply because she is a woman –in fact I know two women who fit that demographic. In my opinion, that is a foolish way to choose a candidate.

    I base my vote on the candidate’s record, period. I could care less about any other characteristic.

    Let the JKap bashing and smearing begin!

  • Jen,
    Since when did a presidential candidate promising to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution show that a person was a few screws short? As the history books recount, the British Crown ignored, then marginalized, scorned, ridiculed, slandered, and lied about our founders’ fledgling liberty movement. Let’s not repeat history’s mistakes.

  • Why not. This is a representative republic. Why shouldn’t there be more choices. The two parties have alienated most people. I will not vote for the first time in decades if I am not represented.

  • You have that backwards. It is the other GOP candidates that aren’t “necessarily running as a Republicans”. Ron Paul is the most conservative of them all.

  • Unless there’s some block of wealthy families defect from either established party, no 3rd party will sustain enough drive to break the 2 party system.
    Our current system requires tons of cash, and the wealthy families are their foundation.
    Pleaase note that I refer to “families” and that is intentional. Families tend to dominate corporations, provide the young executives, and most of the contacts needed to fund the television money machine.
    So, Paul Guys, lobby those wealthy folk that you know. Drag them away from the unhinged Republican party.

  • “His ideas and policy agenda are entirely detached from the GOP mainstream — indeed, they are entirely antithetical to the GOP mainstream — and his supporters seem far more interested in Paul specifically than the Republican Party in general.”

    Name and Issue other than the “War on Terror” where he doesn’t line up with the GOP.

  • Ahhh!

    The cult that has grown around Paul may not be so different from the one around Rudy. When it comes to cults, I mean, cause there isn’t much difference between a walnut and pecan.

    If half of Dobson/Paul pecan leaves only half of what Cheney/Julie walnut – what difference is it going to make in what nut you pick – none at all since a nut by any other name is still a nut.

  • JKap @10

    Don’t overlook the uber-lib’rul men who want a woman president just for the sake of living through the day that we had one. There’s an astonishing number of THEM too.

    None of them mention policies of hers that they like. Specifics are never volunteered.

    Richardson would probably make moves to lower the costs of the drug war and may make some headway with immigration issues as the racism angle can’t be used against him.

    Obama’s multi-faceted religious upbringing could make him the only candidate capable of untangling the religious Gordian knot that is the middle east. His recognition of the pitfalls of protectionism give me hope he will show tough love to American workers but not give away the store to corporate America. His statement he would raid Pakistani positions if it meant taking Bin Laden down were gutsy and I think warranted. No country should want that dirtbag in their borders. If Pakistan wants to object, take some initiative and hand the SOB over.

    Dodd’s filibuster of the telecom immunity shows he’s just plain got a truckload of horse sense where the others preen and pose on stage.

    Kucinich is right on just about everything if a little too far ahead of the rest of the country.
    He isn’t thinking about impeachment. He filed the papers. Props.

    Clinton? F’d up national health care in 1994 to cater to health insurance companies that bankroll DLC candidates. 2007, she’s proposing the same stupid plan. Her other positions? If she’d tell me what they were, maybe I could comment on them. She just likes to say how bad Edwards and Obama’s plans are. “Obama would meet with Venezuela?! Ohmigod! He’s SO naive! Not me!”

    If she’s the Dem, I’m voting third party. (In Maryland, I don’t claim much courage. If she loses HERE, she loses everywhere.)

    Keep singing the truth, JKap.

  • Graham Naylor –

    There is zero chance that I’m going to vote for Ron Paul, let alone go out and work to get him elected. If I thought he had half a shot at getting the presidency I’d be scared shirtless and I’d be actively working to get even CLINTON elected instead. He’s like Pat Buchanan – Buchanan was also against the Iraq War, Buchanan is also against American Imperialism. But I’m sure as hell not going out to support Pat Buchanan. Buchanan wants to end American Imperialism by turning us into an Isolationist state that closes our borders, slows down trade and diplomacy with the rest of the world, cuts way back on immigration, and basically end almost everything that has made the country great for the last 200 years.

    Ron Paul spouts the same isolationist agenda. Paul would also appoint judges to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Paul would eliminate the IRS, Social Security, and pretty much every other Federal assistance program if he could. His entire stance is about dragging American back to where we were in 1895. He looks better that the other Republicans because they seem to be trying to drag us all back to 1095, but I’d rather have someone in charge who is living in this millennium if I’m given a choice.

    I’m sorry – I’m against the Iraq War and I want it to end now – but I don’t want that to come about at the expense of the First World status of my own country.

  • I’m still sticking with my theory that there won’t be a religious-right campaign, because everyone but Dobson is afraid of bucking the GOP — but yes, I could see absolutely Paul running. And a fair number of the stupider liberals would actually vote for him.

    And by the way, Nader will run, because he hates the Clintons with a hate that’s truly Hitchensesque.

  • It will take a strong president to undue the damage to this country done by “W”.
    Choose heads or tails for more of the same.
    Ron Paul is the only one offering us another coin.

  • The problem with running as a third party candidate is the system is broken. You don’t get allowed into the debate. The mainstream ignores you.

  • NonyNony,

    You have Ron Paul pegged incorrectly. Unlike Buchanan, Ron Paul advocates diplomacy and trade with everyone in addition to ending the war. He advocates supporting the entitlement programs of Soc Security and Medicare by being fiscally repsonsible. He advocates weening the masses off the entitlement programs slowly and carefully so as not to damage our society. His position is actually quite intelligent on these matters. He does want to abolish the IRS but that is possible because the income tax only pays the interest on the national debt, not the other programs that are financed through other taxes (corporate, excise, tariffs, etc.) We can eliminate the IRS and federal income tax if we reduce spending to year 2000 levels allowing us to pay down the debt, not 1895 as you suggested. He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve’s control over the dollar which causes an inflation rate that only hurts the poor and middle classes while the rich benefit through tax loopholes. By eliminating the IRS and income tax those loopholes disappear. His economic plan is very fair and maybe even more advantageous to the poor and middle classes because the wealthy will no longer have ways to avoid their contributions through accountant and lawyer maneuverings. Listen to some of Ron Paul’s real explanations. He is not given the time during debates to educate on his positions and reasons for them. But he has written many articles and given many speeches. Please, for the sake of our country and the solvency of our economic future, please find out for yourself and do not misrepresent the candidate that speaks the truth and has reasonable, workable plans to save our country. Thank you.

  • As for Roe v Wade, even G W Bush with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court he stacked with conservatives couldn’t overturn it or get laws banning it. Legalized abortions aren’t going anywhere no matter who is president unless the 14th Amendment is repealed that the court has argued does ot define a fetus as a person. That may be a goal of his, but that’s not going to happen. If that is the only beef with Ron Paul who was an OB/GYN (I wonder why he favors babies actually surviving to term) don’t lose sleep over him being president. He will not be worse than GWB by any stretch.

  • ***Ron Paul open to a fourth-party campaign?***

    That would be the “Foaming-at-the-Mouth Flaming Twit Howler Monkey Party”—yes?

  • Ron Paul is a Republican.

    Robert Taft.
    Barry Goldwater (minus his warhawk nature)
    Ronald Reagan (watch a Time for Choosing)

    Paul supporters support the Old Right, the paleoconservatives. Today we are told that the neoconservatives are the only Republicans and if we don’t support them, we aren’t Republicans! I think it is everyone in the party that lost their way rather than Paul, Paul is just preaching the Old Right for the most part.

  • There is really no such thing as a “3rd” or “4th” party. All minor parties all pretty much referred to as “3rd party.”

    There are ALWAYS 4+ options on the ballot. Last time out you had Dems, RP, CP, LP, GP, and Nader Independent. All of those appeared on a majority of state ballots. In previous elections there was the Reform Party ( conservative pat Buchanan with millions of dollars and great ballot access got less than 1%), Natural Law,etc. And almost all those parties fail to register more than 0.5% of the vote. The exceptions are celebrities ( Nader) and billionaires ( not millionaires).

    So no we wont have 4-probably at least 6. There is already a 3rd party for Religious Conservatives- The COnsitution Party and they always run a candidate. I dont any reason Paul and the Dobson people would automatically jump to the head of the minors. They will still have no media, no debate invites, little money. You are talking about maybe 1% instead of 0.5%

  • I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if the Democratic and Republican parties were true to their principles and operated properly, we’d be facing a contest next November between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

    And, I think, we’d all win. Imagine, two populist, anti-war candidates duking it out! One right-wing, and one left-wing, take your pick. And both committed to civil liberties, the rule of law, and the sovereignity of the people.

    Interestingly, Paul and Kucinich both agree on pulling the USA out of NAFTA and the WTO. And reduce the size and influence of the military-industrial complex. Again, we all win. Paul and Kucinich both would immediately halt all the spying, and torture, and other immoral crap that the Bushies have perpetrated. Once again, we’d win.

    But Paul wants to dismantle the Federal government, privatize everything, and pull the USA out of the UN and all kinds of other nonsense that I can’t agree with. So there’s no way I’d ever vote for him: Kucinich would be my man. Again, though, what a great choice that’d be to have to make.

    Could you imagine if politics operated this way?? Two candidates, of strong dedication to their principles, disagreeing sharply on the means but absolutely in agreement on the ends, because in either cases those ends are those desired by the people, not by the ruling class.

    No need to pinch me, I already know I’m dreaming.

  • .
    Ron Paul has some good ideas, just some that is…
    .
    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    just blame America

    for all the ills of the world
    don’t blame simple dictators

    .
    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    ignore the threat of jihad

    SCREAM that it’s made up
    an excuse for blood for oil
    .

    http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/

    🙂
    ….

    • Comments are closed.