Says a resolution passed by the LNC:
In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008.
Should he take the offer? And which establishment party would it hurt more at the polls?
Its insane of the LP party to ask him. It will forever brand their party as not serious.
As if the Libertarian Party ever was serious?
I actually indulged in protest votes for the Libertarian in a couple of Presidential elections, but even then I knew they were a joke.
Doing things like this keeps them one.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It will forever brand their party as not serious.
That's been the case for a very long time now. And it has especially been the case since the party turned into a leftist anti-war fever swamp filled with people who would be voting for the Democrats but think they are too supportive of the war.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
....on a third party ticket, saying "he didn't want to play the spoiler".
I think the left is going to be unified behind the Democrat nominee because they are so desperate to win the White House. While I don't think he will, if Paul chooses to run on a third party ticket, it would hurt Republicans for, IMO.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
What you say is true about most leftists, possessing at least the trace level of rationality to unite behind the Democratic nominee to stop the Republican. But even by leftist standards, Ronulans are kooks.
While Ronulans' anti-war passions might make them support the Democratic nominee otherwise, Paul running on the Libertarians' national ticket would give a lot of them the delusion, that they're building a movement which will eventually prevail. Letting the Republicans win in 2008 would be a price worth paying to achieve the future victory of their principles - you know, make things worse to wake up those dumb Americans, so they eventually recognize the Ronulans' wisdom. Of course that's kooky reasoning, but remember we're talking about Ronulans.
He could run a serious-ish campaign as Nader did in 2000. If he spends all of his money in the GOP Primary, it won't make a huge difference.
At dinner one night, two hispanic politically ill informed liberals said that they liked Ron Paul because "he was the only Republican with any good ideas."
I couldn't help myself but to be indignant - at their ignorance as much as anything. As liberals I knew that they loved big government and so I started in on them with how RP wanted to eliminate the Federal Reserve and adopt the gold standard. While I don't like the way it was created (as a whole new federal beaurocracy instead of a simple funding reassignment like it was promoted to be,) he wants to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security?
I then started in on the things I agree with him on that I don't think you would agree with and that is eliminating the Dept. of Education, Energy, etc. etc. I told them that I KNEW that they didn't agree with him on that.
Then I told them that I hadn't even gotten to abortion yet. They have no problem slaughtering innocent fetal human beings, but RP is adamantly against it and agrees that abortionists should be prosecuted. He wants to lock down the borders. I knew that they disagreed with both of those terms.
So I told them, "at least be honest with yourselves...you just like him because he is the only Republican against the war. You don't like any of his other ideas."
Needless to say, that was the end of that. :-)
But we should never underestimate how dumb liberals are. If Ron Paul runs as a libertarian, many a Democrat may be tempted to vote for him. And what if Michael Bloomberg lured him into being his VP nominee with the promise of half a billion dollars in campaign funds in order to tap into Ron Paul mania?
The worst thing is that if the election is Hillary v. Mike Huckabee v. Ron Paul...I might be forced to vote for Ron Paul in that scenario.
... and if you care about who your country is stuck with for the next 4 (probably 8) years, you'll vote for whichever you believe is better for your country, even if that means whichever is less horrible.* Voting for a 3rd party Paul or Bloomberg means you don't care what happens to your country, regarding all the good or damage that a President can do.
If Huckabee is the nominee I'd probably hold my nose and vote for him. That assumes he doesn't really believe the nonsense he spouts, and is just playing the suckers he thinks can get him the nomination. If I was convinced he really did believe his own BS, I'd have to consider voting for Hillary as less damaging to America - not waste my vote on a 3rd party joke. Same motivation as with a hypothetical Paul nomination: better a rational crook in the White House than a virtuous lunatic.
* Standard exception for when you know there's no chance the election will be close, at least in your state.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
How about us New York Republicans? If Mike Huckabee is the nominee, and I want an economic conservative, why do I "have to" vote for Huckabee? The Democrat will win NY. Hillary is even cruising past Rudy there. We don't use the popular vote for anything other than warm fuzzies - and besides, I don't think the totals will be close enough that we will repeat 2000. So what is gained by me casting a vote for a guy I don't think is the best choice for my issues?
Your argument has merit in places like Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania among others. It has no value in a state like Idaho or Utah or Massachusetts, where one party has such a huge advantage that it would take a Perot '92 level third party to make any impact.
...I had been thinking that this was the best comment I've seen you write.
...when Mike Huckabee was a complete disaster as president, I could tell my multitude of liberal friends, "Don't look at me, I didn't vote for that incompetent. Besides you should be happy, he's doing everything that you guys always wanted a Democrat to do." :-)
Its insane of the LP party to ask him. It will forever brand their party as not serious. If he does He will be mounting a doomed campaign and won't be able to hold his congressional seat. Maybe Eric Dondero will be able to pick it up ;-).
Which party will he hurt more ? If the nominee is Hillary it will be about equal if not us more.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777