Ron Paul still hasn't ruled out the possibility of running as a third party if he fails to attain the Republican nomination. His supporters — or at least the most vocal among them — seem to be actively encouraging him to take this track.
Let's be clear: a third-party bid would be purely selfish. When a candidate enters a primary, he agrees to accept the primary's outcome. If the candidate is planning to run as a third-party, he should do so from the start. A third-party bid by Paul means deliberately sabotaging the winner because he didn't like the primary outcome.
Paul's supporters who support a third-party run for the presidency should stop to think about the consequences of their argument. What would they say if Paul managed to win the Republican nomination only to have any chance at the presidency swiped out from under him by a third-party Romney bid?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bman
WELL, for me I'm voting for Ron Paul. That'll be the only one I vote for, I'm an independent now registered Republican for the primaries.
I'd rather vote for honesty, end of wars, a true small government, and the constitution then vote for a flip flopping crook. Obama, Romney, Newt, why should I vote? I don't see much of a difference, one crook/liar is as good as the next.
2 - Erik Soderstrom
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't vote for Dr. Paul, and I would support him over Obama. I'm not even suggesting Paul won't/can't win the nomination. However, assuming he fails to attain the nomination, I think it would be disingenuous for him to have participated in the Republican primary only to undermine that system because he didn't get the outcome he wanted.
Again, how would it be any different than Romney (or Santorum, Gingrich, etc.) declaring a third-party bid if Paul won the nomination?
3 - Christopher Rose
Perhaps you should study thinking rather than the ugly twins Political Science and Economics, both of which are failing we the people.
There is zero connection between taking part in the Republican Presidential nomination process and subsequently launching a third party.
Although Ron Paul is clearly a more honest person than anybody else wanting to be the Republican candidate, as a President hew would be a disaster for the USA and the world.
You and bman seem to want to live in a very simplistic black and white world. Time to grow up...
4 - Baronius
I think Eric's point is solid. And I don't see why Chris has to mix insults into his opinion and analysis.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
as a President he would be a disaster for the USA and the world.
Quoted for truth! Without even addressing his belief that businesses have a right to discriminate on basis of race, creed, color, and religion, in one fell swoop Ron Paul would devastate America's economy. How? By his determination to no longer fund the National Flood Insurance Program, which is the only reason that anyone in Florida, anywhere living in flatlands in the Mississippi River Basin from Minnesota to Louisiana and everywhere in between, anyone on the coasts, and anyone living in a city near a river has any flood insurance.
Why is this important? Because NO bank will approve mortgages in such areas without flood insurance...but insurance companies were getting out of the flood insurance business back in the late 1960's, which is why our government started the NFIP. Get rid of that, and all of a sudden zero mortgages get approved in over half our nation.
Imagine that - our real estate market (which is the biggest single slice of our economy) goes Tango Uniform overnight because of the loss of a single taxpayer program! But ask any Realtor worth his or her salt if he can sell a house or building without flood insurance - ask them! (Disclaimer - I was a Realtor once, and most of them are conservative as is the Realtor organization).
But Ron Paul would still get rid of the NFIP. Why? Because he is an ideologue...and an ideologue is a very, very dangerous person to have as a nation's leader.
6 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, please point out any insults in my comment...
7 - Igor
Chris and Glenn are right: Ron Paul would be a disaster. His naivete and simplemindedness make him an easy target for the expert connivers and manipulators of the Potomac.
The nation would end in chaos and anarchy with regional brushfires across the country. Why, it would be a lot like the middle east.
8 - 68vette
Regarding Glenn Contrarian-- Given the choice (that I don't have) to with hold my taxes that contribute to National Flood Insurance is vary appealing. I certainly don't want to pay to rebuild some idiot's house because they didn't obtain or can't obtain insurance. If you can't obtain insurance than perhaps you shouldn't live there to begin with. It's called being personally responsible and using common sense. It's the reason so many people never returned to New Orleans,they know better. Private insurance companies are reluctant to offer flood coverage in flood prone area's because of the risk. That should raise an obvious red flag... LIVE HERE AND GET WET. NFIP is yet another entitlement program that endorses bad decisions made by people that knowingly exercise bad judgement. As for ideologue and very dangerous...right-wing ideologue Thomas Jefferson said, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." Radical right-wing ideologue Thomas Paine added, "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." And get a load of this anti-government sentiment by radical right-wing ideologue George Washington: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master."
You get to exercise your 1st amendment rights thanks to these ideologue's. And yes, I have flood insurance.
9 - Baronius
Seriously, Chris? You don't think that telling someone to "study thinking" or to "grow up" is insulting?
10 - Glenn Contrarian
68vette -
You don't think you would be directly affected if half the nation's real estate market came to a screeching halt? Really?
Dude, have I got some swampland to sell you!
11 - roger nowosielski
@68vette
Glenn is our resident marionette, vette, imagining himself to represent the liberal's conscience, so I wouldn't put much stock in what he has to say if I were you. Everyone who disagrees with him is an ideologue, especially if they're "right wing."
A recovered racist, by his own admission, he acquired a keen sense of smell for everybody else's hypocrisy except his own.
12 - Costello
Christopher proves with his own words why he's incpabale of doing the job properly. He admits to being a bigot toward those of faith and is unaware of the insults he hurls. He should be replaced. A comment editor shouldn't be a lifetime appointment
13 - Paul Christoforo Jr.
When a candidate enters a primary, he agrees to accept the primary's outcome.
Do you have a citation for this? Because it sounds like you just pulled it out of your ass. I donated money to Paul because I want him to be President and if his best route means doing it outside the party, so be it. The two parties are part of the problem with Washington. If you don't see that, you shouldn't being writing about politics
14 - roger nowosielski
... you shouldn't being writing ...
When you first introduced yourself to me, Paul, didn't you say you were an attorney?
15 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, no, I don't, although I may of course be mistaken.
I think someone displaying immaturity and/or presenting poor reasoning is pretty insulting though, albeit indirectly.
Costello, you appear to have such a large chip on your shoulder that is it making you unbalanced.
I've explained to you more than once that there is a clear distinction between my personal participation on this site and the exercise of my duties.
I looked up the definition of the word bigot and got this: "intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views".
I can see how to a careless or inattentive reader my views could be characterised that way but if one pays closer attention they will find that I am tolerant of anybody's right to choose to believe whatever they want to.
When they present those views however, on whatever topic, they are open to robust debate and, indeed, that is part of what this space is all about, the free exchange of views.
Unlike many sites, including some you apparently frequent, we don't have a party line that must be adhered to so the exchanges can sometimes be strong, even heated at times.
My view, and why I still care so much about this site despite its shortcomings, is that this openness to passionate debate is really important.
None of that impinges on my ability to manage and edit the comments space, and the general consensus has been that I do a difficult job well, which I hope will continue to be the case, despite some inevitable criticism, sometimes founded and sometimes for motives that remain opaque at best...
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Isn't this interesting? Chris said:
I looked up the definition of the word bigot and got this: "intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views".
Let me see - I never attacked him for his atheistic views, never insulted him about them but even said "You're quite right that there are so many things that I don't see - absolutely! I am very much aware of how ignorant I am of so many things."
And his very next reply was that I was incurious and had a lack of humility because I would "let go of my beliefs", apparently to become an atheist like him. In other words, I was the one who was incurious and had a lack of humility because I would not think as he thought I should think!
Ah, but I forget - I'm the intolerant one, and Chris is the free thinker! See? It's all so simple now!
17 - Christopher Rose
The thing is Glenn, you say these things but you don't actually walk the walk, which makes you either deluded (my bet) or a liar.
Two of the most important things in the world are politics and spirituality and on both you have your set beliefs - or second set to be precise - whereas I question and challenge both.
I didn't say you were intolerant, what I am saying is that you are irrational and can't actually substantiate your opinions, so yet again your remarks are both confused and confusing.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
No, you didn't say 'intolerant' - but your words certainly fit the rest of the definition.
That's okay, I'm not offended. I will say, however, that as the years go by, you might find that 'challenging religion and politics' come to mean something quite different from what you now believe.
19 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, until you can actually follow the meaning of what people say, basic comprehension skills, this conversation is going nowhere.
I have explicitly stated more than once that I defend and support everybody's right to believe whatever they want, yet you still keep trying and failing to make the case that I am being intolerant.
Of course you're not offended, that would mean that you were taking words and their meanings seriously, that you were capable of actual analysis and thought.
As to your final words, you retreat into obscure and meaningless mumbling mixed with condescension, so typical of the magical thinker. How disappointing yet so predictable...
20 - Jordan Richardson
Oh puh-lease, Christopher.
Quit acting like it's such a magical stretch to consider you intolerant of religious people. Glenn doesn't lack "basic comprehension skills" because he sees you differently than you see yourself. I bet you don't think it's an insult or a personal attack to suggest that Glenn isn't "capable of actual analysis or thought."
You say you "defend and support everybody's right to believe whatever they want," yet you consistently belittle those beliefs and believers.
Your approach is not exactly respectful and you've stated numerous times that you don't respect religious belief systems. You consider them "dangerous" and recently told Glenn that his persistence is "in service of such determined dimwittery" that it depressed you.
You also recently referred to religious believers as "superstitious muppets" and stated that what religious people believe is an "insult to humanity." That doesn't exactly sound like tolerance to me.
And honestly, why would you be tolerant of religious beliefs? It doesn't seem like the natural stance for someone with as much disdain for believers as you. Why not own your intolerance and be done with it?
21 - Christopher Rose
Jordan, as you are normally a reasonable chap, I wonder if you got out of the wrong side of the bed today?
It is absolutely a stretch to consider me "intolerant of religious people", I'm not. Glenn doesn't lack basic comprehension skills because he sees me differently, he lacks them because he continuously misunderstands what is said to him.
I would have thought you were smart enough to see the difference between supporting people's right to believe what they want and trying to debate what they are believing. You do, right?
I'm not respectful of ludicrous arguments or sloppy thinking and do consider monotheism a cruel deception but I'm not advocating blowing up churches or imprisoning or killing theists, things that other theists do all around the world.
I'm not tolerant of religious beliefs, I'm tolerant of people's right to believe them. It follows then that I AM owning both my right to debate with offensively lazy arguments that lack any demonstrable foundation other than "belief" AND people's right to believe them.
22 - pablo
11 Roger:
Referring to AuContrarian
"A recovered racist, by his own admission, he acquired a keen sense of smell for everybody else's hypocrisy except his own."
Touche
23 - roger nowosielski
Chris,
Though the distinction you're making is a logical one, I don't believe it can be realized in practice. No matter how hard one tries, I don't think it's humanly possible for at least some of the contempt one has towards "religious beliefs" not to spill over to the very people who hold them. After all, if you do have such contempt, it didn't come about in isolation, purely as a result of your own thoughts on the matter, but surely also in conjunction with the kinds of arguments that are typically advanced on behalf of those beliefs, arguments which you consider "magical" and thoroughly unconvincing, So for you to insist there is a workable distinction of the kind you're pressing for is, in a manner of speaking, a fool's errand.
I'll be the first to admit that most of the "arguments" we hear here on behalf of a religious belief are very ill-conceived. If anything, the emphasis ought to be more on faith (one's stance with respect to the universe and how we see ourselves in relation to all there is) rather than on the content of the actual belief (which is the imagined object of our faith). But that's another subject.
As to "monotheism," it's not such a beast as you make it out to be, whether in religious or other applications and contexts. If anything, it represents an advancement in human thought in having come to regard the universe, in spite of the many apparent contradictions, as having a kind of unity. Even the ancient, Aristotle for instance, spoke of a telos -- an end/purpose towards all things aim, a movement from the actual to the potential -- and Aristotle wasn't a deist by any stretch.
In fact, the very project we call science is predicated on a sort of belief on the part of the practitioners that there is a certain unity underlying the universe and nature, a belief which informs and defines the practice as a quest for discovery of the unifying laws.
24 - pablo
13 - Paul Christoforo Jr.
"When a candidate enters a primary, he agrees to accept the primary's outcome." So says the author of this article
"Do you have a citation for this? Because it sounds like you just pulled it out of your ass. I donated money to Paul because I want him to be President and if his best route means doing it outside the party, so be it. The two parties are part of the problem with Washington. If you don't see that, you shouldn't being writing about politics"
Says Paul
Instead of addressing a quite reasonable question the author hope over to his blog and posts this cute tidbit:
"Not only does this comment entirely miss the point of my article, it's illustrative of the selfish attitude that pervades Dr. Paul's base. If Paul's best route to the presidency lay outside the party system, then he should have taken that route. He chose not to; he chose to participate in the Republican party's primary."
The point of Paul's post was quite simple. Can the author point to a citation of this absurd claim? Nope instead he says that Paul misses the point! Now that truly is ironic, not to mention about as evasive as his hopping over to his own blog site to say it!
The current republican corporate New World Order candidates, with the exception of Dr. Paul are a bunch of scumbags. All of which have been branded by their masters by being members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Dr. Paul is the only one of them that has shown any integrity and dare I say honor of the lot of them. He stands out like a healthy thumb, in a pack of sniveling, lying, conniving vipers. He exudes humanness, whereas the others exude bought and paid for slime.
Just so no one gets the idea that I am partisan in this race, the current commander-in-thief is worse than all of them put together.
Then the author of this piece goes on to say even more! He actually said:
"If Paul's best route to the presidency lay outside the party system, then he should have taken that route." HUH?
Ron Paul has said numerous times that the best way to get to the White House is through one of the two parties, he has said so publicly and often. Amazing.
I do suggest that the author of this piece take a remedial lesson in logic, and plain common sense before he writes such a half cocked load of bull again.
Ron Paul has every right, to run anyway he sees fit, and he will have millions supporting him when he does.
Another cute thing that I have noticed about Paul's race, is that virtually EVERY poll done online he has won hands down, usually beating the nearest rival by a 2-1 margin. Of course all of the naysayers and corporate shills will always say that Paul's fans fix the polling data, instead of using their heads and seeing its the other way around. The fix is in, he has been negated, ignored, chastised, ridiculed, and maligned in every way possible by the lying whores of the MSM, right up to and including the last debate.
I hope he runs as an independent, he sure is more independent than Newt the fascist, Romney the silver platter boy, or inSanitorum the fake bible thumper. Just my two sense folks. :)
25 - Christopher Rose
Roger, I truly do distinguish between, as I see it, the deception and the deceived.
If I saw it the way you put it, that would be the same as feeling contempt for the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators.
I agree that it is an advance to see the universe in unitary terms but I don't really see that there is much real difference between worshipping multiple gods or just one.
I've no idea if there is an end purpose, although I do like the idea that intelligence, of which we humans are the best iteration to date (although very much a work in progress), is the process of the universe understanding and exploring itself.
On a scientific level, there is a unity underlying all things. In terms of life on this planet, all life shares DNA and an atomic structure and on a universal level I was quite excited to learn recently that apparently no two electrons can be on the same energy level, so if any electron anywhere in the universe changes its energy level, some or all other electrons instantly change their energy levels too. I've no idea how that information is transmitted or that process happens.