You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
He tells followers he wants to lead a movement to build the Libertarian voice in the GOP, stopping short of withdrawing from the race. But later his website unequivocally announces an end to his bid.
By Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
7:49 AM PDT, June 13, 2008
The " Ron Paul Revolution" isn't over until Ron Paul says it's over. And he's not done yet.
Amid reports that Paul would formally end his presidential campaign, the iconoclastic Texas Republican congressman instead told supporters Thursday night that he intended to lead a "Campaign for Liberty" movement to give libertarians a bigger say within the GOP.
During his campaign over the last year, "something happened . . . I know we struck a chord," Paul said during a rambling speech at a hotel rally in Houston near the Texas Republican Convention.
But overnight, the campaign website made his withdrawl official: "After much serious thought, I have decided to end my campaign for the Presidency of the United States," Paul said in a statement posted there.
Although at the rally, Paul stopped short of a formal declaration that his presidential run was over, he acknowledged -- as he has before -- that he lacked enough delegates to win. Sen. John McCain of Arizona sewed up enough delegates in early March.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Paul characterized his latest move as a "technical change" and said his campaign was "going to shift gears."
But Paul, 72, had symbolically held off on conceding the nomination and said he did not intend to endorse McCain, with whom he clashed over the Iraq war and other issues.
Paul says he hopes the Campaign for Liberty will harness some of the enthusiasm his campaign generated to force grass-roots reforms on the Republican Party.
"We'll identify and support political candidates who champion our great ideas against the empty suits the party establishments offer the public," Paul said in a statement on the Campaign for Liberty website. "We will be a permanent presence on the American political landscape. That I promise you."
Paul's most notable achievement in the presidential campaign was the $34 million raised on his behalf, most of it by grass-roots supporters operating outside the campaign itself. That sum was more than twice the amount raised by Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. At the end of April, Paul still had $4.7 million in the bank.
Yet the fundraising success didn't translate into many votes. By the Associated Press' count, Paul garnered only 24 delegates and won no primaries or caucuses.
Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq made his campaign a political refuge for antiwar Republicans, and his insistence on a reduced international role for the United States attracted those uncomfortable with the size of the U.S. government.
His other political views have veered far from the mainstream, including a belief that programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and drug law enforcement, should eventually end because they fall outside what he regards as the proper role of government. He also calls for the U.S. to leave the United Nations.
Supporters have been trying to use party rules at state conventions to wrest more delegates for Paul, and they have lobbied national party figures to demand that he be given a speaking role at the national GOP convention.
Perhaps anticipating that the effort will fall short, Paul has scheduled a daylong rally at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis on Sept. 2, the second day of the GOP convention, which will take place across the Mississippi River in St. Paul.
It was unclear how much of a schism Paul could represent within the party -- or whether he could coalesce already disaffected conservatives.
"It depends on his definition of libertarianism, which is a very elastic term," said John J. Pitney Jr., an analyst at Claremont McKenna College. "Paul's own brand of libertarianism might not have a large following, but a broader definition that is Republican -- fiscal conservative but less conservative on social issues -- that brand might have a following."
Chuck Muth, a libertarian Republican activist in Carson City, Nev., welcomed Paul's move. He said the Republican Party needed to find ideological room for libertarians or lose them to the independent Libertarian Party, whose presidential candidate is Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia.
"And it's not just libertarians," Muth said. "Conservatives have been having problems with the Republican Party for a few years now. It cost them in 2006. If they don't learn their lesson, it will cost them in 2008."
Paul, an obstetrician/gynecologist, garnered few delegates during the GOP nomination fight, but his army of followers spread his name far and wide. Their "Revolution" signs -- with the "evol" transposed to read "love," so that they read Rloveution -- cropped up on lawns and street corners around the nation, and his supporters have been a steady and occasionally inflammatory presence in cyberspace.
Just ironic every news source picked this up but failed to give him any airtime...
The Revolution isn't really about winning this election, this government is flawed to the core with its 2 party system destroying the Constituion. The only way to make our country healthy is to educate our fellow citizens and remove the lobbyists and parasitic politicians from office and replace them with patriots from the ground up.
this government is flawed to the core with its 2 party system
That's one of the biggest problems- you're totally right about that, but how could you fix it short of getting rid of the electoral college completely? Lower the total number needed to win?
Jeez everyone acts like I hate Ron Paul because I poke fun at his interweb fanboy-fanbase. I like some of his ideas but a fair amount of them are batshit crazy. Change is great when implemented gradually but radical change will never win an election (no matter how needed it may be).
That's one of the biggest problems- you're totally right about that, but how could you fix it short of getting rid of the electoral college completely? Lower the total number needed to win?
This is most likely the reason RP is trying to work within the system to change the course. I just finished reading Jesse Ventura's book yesterday and being and independent made his job difficult to say the least and this issue will only be more pronounced on the federal level. There is already a small base of real conservatives in the Rep party, but they must do the bidding of the higher ups or their seats will not be safe.
Jeez everyone acts like I hate Ron Paul because I poke fun at his interweb fanboy-fanbase. I like some of his ideas but a fair amount of them are batshit crazy. Change is great when implemented gradually but radical change will never win an election (no matter how needed it may be).
"batshit crazy"
Well, I guess that is a totally subjective description. I personally think the bloated government, lobbyist's, occupying 130 countries, running a government on a deficit, ignoring a basic set of instructions that made this the best country in the world, inflation and not Stopping it all immediately as batshit crazy. Its not as if all of a sudden that stuff is going to work. There is no easy let down, pulling the bandaid off slowly doesnt make it less painful.
Well, I guess that is a totally subjective description. I personally think the bloated government, lobbyist's, occupying 130 countries, running a government on a deficit, ignoring a basic set of instructions that made this the best country in the world, inflation and not Stopping it all immediately as batshit crazy. Its not as if all of a sudden that stuff is going to work. There is no easy let down, pulling the bandaid off slowly doesnt make it less painful.
I'm sorry but Ron Paul is not going to stop ANY of those things immediately. You have some messed up perception of RP as the second coming of Christ. What I was stating before is he will never see election unless he backs off of some seriously radical changes he's trying to make. You can't tell everyone you're going to flip the country upside down and expect the general public (read: ignorant) to vote for you.
I'm sorry but Ron Paul is not going to stop ANY of those things immediately. You have some messed up perception of RP as the second coming of Christ. What I was stating before is he will never see election unless he backs off of some seriously radical changes he's trying to make. You can't tell everyone you're going to flip the country upside down and expect the general public (read: ignorant) to vote for you.
Did you read this post? How do I have some messed up perception? I think you have the messed up perception here. I wished with all my heart he would be the man, but I know the reality and the how powerful and dug in the elite are. So keep trying i suppose, because i'm neither batshit crazy or a person of messed up perception on this matter.
I like how the news source called him 'rambling'. it's like if someone doesn't just spout one liners they are crazies.
also, it's clear what RP is talking about is just creating a force inside the party of libertarian ideals. I didn't see one quote that sounded like he was continuing his bid for president.
That's one of the biggest problems- you're totally right about that, but how could you fix it short of getting rid of the electoral college completely? Lower the total number needed to win?
The electoral college is important for protecting state's rights. Getting rid of it would very much hurt the libertarian movement. The best way to improve this country, the only way really, is for people to take responsibility to read and discuss politics.
Consider that most people now are trained not to think in schools, but to make quick decisions based their feelings. Public schools almost never talk about politics and it's treated as a taboo or religion. Students are not even taught to plan ahead and sort out their careers and finances, or even informed that they can start their own business, let alone taught how.
Most teachers can't teach that kind of stuff because they never learned it. They don't complain about high taxes because their salaries are paid by taxpayers. If they say anything at all it's to complain that they don't get paid enough. But in L.A. it's about $12,000 per year per student, and the dropout rate was announced recently to be 52%! So we spend about $100,000-$150,000 on a student who not only doesn't understand the concepts of individual rights or rule of law, but who will probably drop out and remain functionally illiterate.
This is why the blue states are so blue, and why we need the electoral college. Without it, they'd control everything already. It's the last line of defense right now, and it's about to come under attack. So definitely keep that in mind and let's do whatever we can to save it.
Having red states doesn't help libertarians much since Republicans are behaving a lot like Democrats (and socialists) by spending our money very foolishly. But it's better than nothing. Think of the electoral college as that last little branch we have left to hold onto after we've already fallen off a cliff. At least now we still have a chance to climb back up.
^ Agreed, although I'm not so pessimistic as you with regards to the ability of our youth firing more than one synapse during school; however, they should at least have read the Constitution before graduating. Years ago I was for getting rid of the EC until I actually sat down and thought about it for more than a knee jerk minute. Large populated urban centers determining a presidential election require a sanity check, which is exactly what the EC brings. The forefathers knew what they were doing.
"Ron Paul declines to concede at rally, but his website says it's really over"
