The Ron Paul Third-Party Scenario

A few months ago, the chattering classes were all a-tizzy over the prospect of a Michael Bloomberg third-party bid for the White House. Nothing much came of it, but we all had fun pontificating about the possibility (yours truly included -- 7/11/07). Since it was such an enjoyable exercise, I'd like to be the first to roll out another third-party scenario to provide fodder for the punditocracy (in case this turns out to be a slow news week).

After taking several recent announcements into consideration, I have gazed into my crystal ball and foreseen Ron Paul as the nominee of the Libertarian Party for 2008. Paul will be supported by droves of "family values" voters and will actually gain a respectable percentage of the popular vote. The Democratic nominee then waltzes into the White House, spikes the ball, and does an end-zone dance in the Oval Office.

Now, I realize I should have saved this for my Hallowe'en column (where I present nightmarish scenarios for both parties), since it would be absolutely disastrous for the Republican Party as a whole. But recent events forced my hand.

The first was Ron Paul's third-quarter fundraising total, a whopping five million dollars plus. That is nothing to be sneezed at, considering he outraised many candidates from both parties, and (going solely by fundraising) has effectively risen from "third-tier longshot" to "second tier" candidate within his own party. Of course, the mainstream media hasn't noticed this yet, but with five million bucks to spend Ron Paul's name is going to be on some airwaves soon -- as paid ads if not in the actual news.

The second thing which happened last week was James Dobson (president of Focus on the Family) announcing after a secretive meeting of right-wing Christian bigwigs that the Christian Right may very well back a third-party candidate if they deem the Republican nominee insufficiently zealous on their favorite issues. This is a shot across the bow to Rudy Giuliani, the current Republican frontrunner.

Some dismiss this talk as bluster. The soul-killing question reverberating around Washington is no doubt that old chestnut: "Who else are they going to vote for?" This question is often used by both parties when one of their constituent groups threatens to go off the reservation. Anti-war types enraged by Democrats? Who else are they going to vote for? Blacks annoyed that their votes are taken for granted by Democrats? Who else are they going to vote for? On the Democratic side, this is often followed in ominous tones with: "Look what happened with Ralph Nader." But this time, the question is coming from the Republican side of the aisle, with the same sneering little chuckle of laughter -- The religious right isn't happy with the presidential nominee? Who else are they going to vote for?

This is pure cynicism distilled from the entrenchment of the two-party system in American politics. The problem is, when you've identified yourself as a one-issue (or even handful-of-related-issues) voter, and the party doesn't nominate someone reliably on your side, what do you do? The evangelical right is terrified that Rudy Giuliani will win the nomination, because he's tolerant on almost all the things the religious right demands intolerance on: God, guns, and gays -- as well as the 800-pound gorilla in the room, abortion.

Time will tell whether (1) Giuliani even gets the nomination, and (2) whether the religious right will bolt the GOP en masse in the election or not. But assuming for the sake of argument that Rudy walks off with it in February, and the family values crowd isn't bluffing, it opens up another third-party scenario for the election.

Enter Ron Paul. Since if (1) is true and Paul loses to Giuliani, he will be free to be courted as a third-party candidate. This is about the point that everyone will realize the fact that Ron Paul has already run as a third-party candidate. In 1988, Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. He's really a Libertarian in Republican clothing to begin with, so this wouldn't be an enormous philosophical political journey for him to make.

And while Ron Paul has been getting a lot of attention in the online world for his stance on the Iraq war (he's against it) and for other equally Libertarian viewpoints, something many people (especially on the left) haven't noticed is that Paul has unshakable bedrock-values anti-abortion views. These views will not change one iota, it should be noted. Ron Paul is a doctor -- an OB/GYN to be precise. Which means his views on the life of a fetus are not something he puts on as a cloak of convenience to get elected to office (like some Republicans I could mention), they are fundamental viewpoints he has held in his profession for his entire life.

If Ron Paul loses the nomination battle in the Republican Party, it is conceivable that the Libertarians would court him. Since he's already run as their nominee previously (and since he's got a better shot at it this time around due to the internet "buzz" which surrounds him), it is also conceivable that he would be open to the Libertarian Party's nomination.

Back to the religious right. Now, it's one thing to threaten to vote for a third party, but it actually takes a whopping amount of time, money, and effort to "create" a political party which gets on the ballot in all 50 states. Ross Perot created a political party out of whole cloth (and a bottomless checkbook), but then he was a billionaire to begin with. It's also one thing to threaten to "just stay home" on election day, and quite another to actually vote for someone else.

But what if the evangelical right was presented with a strongly anti-abortion candidate as the nominee of a party that was already on the ballot in every state? That would be a tremendous shortcut -- one which might indeed fracture the base of the Republican Party. The question is whether the family-values crowd can put up with Ron Paul's other policy stances, some of which may be a little unpalatable for such voters -- his anti-war stance, for instance. Or the Libertarian Party's stance on the War on Drugs, for instance (they're for legalizing everything).

It's hard to even estimate exactly what the religious right's strength is within the Republican Party in the first place, and harder still to estimate how many of them would bolt Rudy's nomination. But it's a pretty safe bet that a Ron Paul Libertarian candidacy would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt Democrats. Paul could get a respectable percentage of the popular vote, perhaps even on the scale of Ross Perot (who got 19% in 1992), but it's doubtful he could win any electoral college votes (Perot got zero, even with one-fifth of the total votes). Which would turn him into a spoiler for the Republican Party. He might even precipitate a general and fundamental shakeup within the GOP itself, between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives -- something moderate Republicans have been hoping will happen for years.

So while there are many caveats to my prediction, the following outcome should be seen as predestined. If Rudy is the GOP nominee, if Ron Paul is the Libertarian nominee, and if the evangelical leaders start supporting Paul -- then the result is an absolute lock on the White House for whoever the Democratic nominee happens to be (who will doubtlessly begin practicing end-zone dances the day after Ron Paul announces as the Libertarian candidate).

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Eridani]

In a recent radio interview on The American View, http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/898/aview_20070825.mp3?PHPSESSID=da0fb7564466b18359c8064c4708f011 Mr. Paul agreed with the commentator that laws that contradict God's law are not law. (at 18:29 in the interview) In his view, the Bible is God's law, and it is inerrant (5:09), as he also agrees in this interview.

This putting of religious law above the law of the land is rather disturbing, not only from someone who claims to be a Libertarian, but especially from someone whose sworn duty would be to uphold the Constitution.

He believes Roe v Wade should simply be ignored and the states allowed to prosecute abortion as murder. He also supports disallowing appeals on these cases to the federal level. It's one thing to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. It's another to ignore it out of hand.

He also said he can't possibly win without being part of the GOP, even in his own district. So I would tend to doubt that he would jump ship.

Besides, the Libertarian nominating convention is in May. The GOP convention isn't until September. That means the Libertarian party will have named its candidate before he's out of the running for the GOP nomination.

If you want to elect a Libertarian to office, then it makes sense to vote Libertarian and not for someone who claims to be Libertarian but is frankly GOP.

[Eridani]

Sorry, typo, I meant to say DR. Paul...

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

People here will soon call Dr. Paul an isolationist.

This could not be further from the truth.
In fact, what he states is that right now, we have a "serious" form of Isolationism going on...
I agree with this.
He states that by placing embargoes and hindering trade, solely for the reason the said country does not follow US policies or values of the US, is isolationism.
He states that NEVER should the US get involved in another countries internal debates and laws, with our trade policies as ammo!
This is not our right.
In fact, he argues this goes against the Constitution.
We must stay out of meddling in other counties affairs and mind our own business.
If we had been doing this all along, he feels we would not be in the shape we are in.
I agree.
We do not trade with Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, now Myranmar, Costa Rica if they dont sign on to CAFTA...and many, many others as well.
Dont you see, THESE are examples of isolationism, not free trade...
Dr. Paul believes in Real free trade...The kind you have no limits or conditions on.
He belives in Harsh oversight and views what is happening now with the damaged goods coming across the borders, and gutted protections are failed policies.
He vows to insist on harsh labeling laws, origin and ingredients.
Strict oversight of containers coming into this country by land and sea.
Many mix his military NON INTERVENTION with ECONOMIC ISOLATIONISM...

These two ideas are of different natures.

He believes in no preemptive military action and the US should only go to war to defend its national interest.(IRAQ, IRAN, SYRIA, SUDAN, CHAD, N. KOREA) there is no national interest to go into these countries or declare war.(something he views ONLY the congress has the constitutional authority to do).

He has never voted to increase the executive power and vows to reduce it (drastically) once in office.
No wonder why Bushies hate him...He wants to undo all they have done!!!
TOO FUNNY!

[gpr-2007]

It doesn't matter if he is a third part nomination or the GOP nomination, he will take away votes from every corner of the spectrum. Anyone, who has half a brain is paying attention right now and considering him as their candidate. Like most, I don't agree with everything he stands on but the two main arguments (war and monetary policy) are absolutely crucial to stopping this country from spiralling downward. I for one am a independent who always votes democrat. Very odd, that I would support a GOP candidate but he is the only one who recognizes the real problems in this country and he is the only one who knows how to solve them.

All anyone needs to do is show a little inquisitive interest and wonder then research why he holds to the platform he does. One you discover that for yourself, you will see all other candidates ideas on how to run this country are all wrong.

[musicmax]

Repeat after me:

Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.

1. He will (hopefully) be the Republican nominee. If his people aren't contacting Dobson and other values groups, they need to be: the the ultimate nightmare for Democrats is a coalition of conservative Christians, anti-war liberals, small-L libertarians and Hillary-haters.

2. Barring (1), he can and will run for re-election to his House seat. Texas allows him to keep both campaigns going for quite a while. (Colorado does not, so Tancredo will be dropping out soon, and Paul will likely get most of Tancredo's supporters.)

3. He cannot simultaneously do (2) and run for president as a Libertarian or independent.

4. The commission on presidential debates won't invite a Libertarian or independent.

So, Democrat dreamers, return to reality:

Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.
Ron Paul will NOT run as a 3rd-party candidate.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

One more thing,

You referred to him as an MD and a OB/GYN...
This would be correct.
What you did not state is that he was also a flight surgeon in Vietnam. I think it is important to know all of the facts. I feel that it is important for the whole truth to be told. He was trained as a military surgeon initially and more importantly served our country and has no deferments or missing records.

BTW he also advocates for the Federal recognition of all relgions and by doing this would allow for gay marriage.
This, he claims, would be another issue the Supreme court has no business being in....(a state right that may be taken away)
He claims this should be a state right to vote and decide, not the federal govt...The fed is in our life too much, he claims....
He also believes a gay couple could cross state lines and get married if they wish and the federal government should recognize this.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Although you point out many times the need for a third party, you never discuss Dr. Pauls unwillingness to do so. He is very grounded and seldom has he changed a position he has publicly stated.
Your description of him as a "strong anti-abortion" candidate is certainly true in the eyes of some, but I would disagree with "most". I especially disagree with you stating the right may view him as a "strong anti- abortion candidate"...I think you eluded to this.
If this your opinion it would be wrong. The right DO NOT view him as strong on abortion. Although he advocates for life to begin at conception, he also feels the individual states should have the right to outlaw abortion.(as opposed to a federal law banning abortion, which some on the right desperately want)
The Christian right want Roe V Wade "overturned" and debate on abortion returned. With the end result leading to a federal ban.
Ron Paul wants current federal law "negated"(his word) and wants the issue placed into state court, where he feels it would be constitutionally protected, unlike it is now.
He claims the Constitution does not claim the right for the Fed to make such a ruling as R V W....He states this is a state right that was taken away. Something he wants to restore, The Constitution.

He believes states should decide their own ruling based on the popular vote of the people. I agree with this.

One more big issue that Ron Paul advocates (another, I fully agree with) is that women should have the right to cross state lines and go to a state that does permit abortion.
This further lessens their(Christian right) view of him of which you have described "STRONGLY anti-abortion."

He is not strong on this issue and has said several times that the will of the people be done. He knows (has stated) there would be know likely way to put this idea through congress and will not push it because of the majority opposed to the overturn.("negate", his words)

[AnimalFarm]

Why do you allow comments if you do not intend to post them. It's like my comments have fallen into a black hole. This is not the 1st time. What power you editors have...

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

The real Party hack Dems are watching him just as much as the Republicans...
This man is a threat to both parties, which I truly believe have become one.(while we were sleeping!)
The Dems no sooner want Paul than the Repubs....
Its quite funny watching them all squirm.
They'd better squirm.
Watch the next few months unfold and watch both parties' war mongering views be placed on TV screens for all the world to see.

These fools want to attack a PRO AMERICAN country.
Iran.
God help us.

[tjknapoleon]

I actually think that people have this backwards. My strong suspicion is that because of his anti-war views, Ron Paul running as a third-party candidate might hurt the Democrats as much, if not more. Rudy Giuliani isn't running toward the base anyway, unless you are a neo-conservative. His aim is to steal so-called "Security Moms" from the Democrats.

[dangfitz]

Excellent, and I'm not worried about who said it first.

Dr. Paul _has_ all but shot down the idea of running as a Libertarian (for one, he wouldn't be on the ballot in a number of states, thanks to the "sore loser" laws promulgated because of Pat Buchanan). However, let me correct this:

"If Ron Paul loses the nomination battle in the Republican Party, it is conceivable that the Libertarians would court him."

The corrected senetence should read:

"If Ron Paul loses the nomination battle in the Republican Party, it is certain that the Libertarians would court him."

If Dr. Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, I'll return to the LP & become a delegate to the national convention, where I pledge to try to be the first to place his name in nomination. Also, when I return, I will try to take as many Paul supporters as I can with me. Republican meetings & conventions across the country have seen a new phenomenon: Rooms that were full of 60 & 70-somethings a year ago are suddenly seeing a surge of 20 and 30-somethings showing up with enthusiastic support for Ron Paul. We will gladly take them all back home with us, and bury the Republican party for the next generation.

Dan Fitzgerald
New Member - GOP
Life Member - LP

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Some will attack you Dan....Listen not!
They are just the fleeting cries of the traitorous Dembot establishment wailing to be heard over Hillaracks' war-mongering.

YEA!!!
YEA!!!
Finally!
If you end up with Dr. Paul after it is said and done, Im with you...
There is no one else quite like him...

As Ive done on several posts,
I CHALLENGE someone to find a better, more consistent voting record in the last 20 years. ALL Senators and House Reps may be included.

Please, I ask.
Find me someone who could BETTER unite the country with each other and our Constitution, and not simply piss-off the other party.

Welcome Dan.

[zenpiper]

To the person who wrote why he disliked Ron Paul:

Panders to religious right and racist groups like John Birch society
Panders to the gun nuts
regressive taxation like "fair" and "flat" taxes

You got some wrong information friend. Paul panders to nobody. He has his views and he sticks to them. To pander means to change his tack to suit the audience. Never happened, never will.

Has long advocated NO income tax of any kind, not "fair" nor "flat" nor anything else. He has often stated, abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing.

So, do your homework please before you start flinging mud.

[AnimalFarm]

I'm, or was, an unaffiliated registered voter who changed my enrollment to Republican so as to vote for Ron Paul in my state's closed primary.

Ron Paul has said he will not run on a 3rd party ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMJXY7Dy7SU

A consensus is forming on the both sides of main street that RP can defeat HRC in the general election.

Also check out todays' CNBC's "Who won the debate" poll?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21209903
This from the investor class and RP's Internet army of volunteers

The above link no longer works. The last time I viewed it there was over 5 thousand votes cast with RP winning with a 75 percent take and Huckabee a distant 2nd with about 6 percent.

I guess CNBC/MSNBC/WSJ decided that they could not allow that a so-called "no chance candidate" could win their poll by a landslide.

RP does not need a 3rd party he just needs to continue doing what he's doing: gaining broader and broader support every day.

[Westmiller]

"I'd like to be first ..."
Sorry. You're the 2,456th person to suggest this and maybe the 2,455th to discover that Paul has ruled out that option at every opportunity. He did that in 1988 and has no interest in a repeat.
He'll either win the GOP nomination or he'll be running for re-election to Congress (in Texas, he could do both at the same time).
What is a valid scenerio is that IF Ron does not win the GOP nomination, THEN Bloomberg will launch an independent bid to oppose the war mongers that are likely to be nominated by both parties (probably a Nixonian "secret plan" to get us out of Iraq).
It's either Ron Paul for President or another round of elitist establishment hawks who crave the unlimited exercise of American Military Power around the world. Chose one.

[zenpiper]

Chris raises an interesting question about the religious right. This would be moot, of course, if James Dobson threw his support to Ron Paul. It could happen; their values are very similar and Paul is probably the most Jesus-like of anyone running in that he has no ego. Nor is Paul a member of the CFR, which is a huge credit in his favor.

If the Christian right could come to their senses about Dr. Paul, this could possibly turn the tide: in voter recognition and in financial support. It would be a coup and a crushing blow to the other Republican (and Democrat) candidates.
.

[therealredstateblues]

Things I like about Paul

Get out of Iraq
Scrap Nafta and the WTO and bring jobs back home
Stricter interpretation of the constitution
No BS approach
Get out of foreign entanglements and interventions
Border security
Less govt intrusion in personal lives
Ending the war on drugs
Fiscal responsibility

Things I don't like about Paul

Panders to religious right and racist groups like John Birch society
Panders to the gun nuts
regressive taxation like "fair" and "flat" taxes

On balance his pluses outrank his minuese

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

Your observations of your "dislikes" above are untrue. Your dislikes would be noteable if true. BUT THEIR NOT!
Dr. Paul panders to no one.

His tax statement for 06 was 2.5 mil in worth and he ONLY holds Gold and Silver.
No income from stocks or bonds or any other type of investment. He holds no position on any board for any company. Never has. Owns 2 homes and that is it as far as real estate.
In 8 months of campaigning he has never held a rally for those who hold the 2nd amendment dear.
He has not held a NRC rally.
His first, (Pander) to them was this weekend at their annual convention, along with three other candidates in attendance.(In which he spoke for 20 or so minutes and received the most thunderous applause any candidate received.
He has never advocated for a "fair" or "flat" tax..
In fact, just the opposite.
No IRS.
No Income tax.

He is not a member of this John Birch society thus disproving your (pander) claim...
HE IS NOT A MEMBER.

Your assessments are wrong and needed to be corrected.

[Misanthrope2]

Check this post from 4 days ago:

"RON PAUL MUST RUN IN A THIRD PARTY!

He is the perfect third party candidate. A former third party candidate for President, he knows the ropes. And the mainstream Republicans are not recognizing his brilliance, so it will take a third party bid to pull all that Independent and Democratic support that he has.

Besides, he hates abortion and wants laws to say life begins at contraception. You can't get more anti-choice than that. Just what the Christian right needs!

We must all convince Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate so he can save America. posted 10/04/2007 at 15:11:27"

Damn, I'm a psychic!

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

He knows this is what all the Dembot hacks want, but it wont happen...
So you and Chris can claim the first(equally) to be wrong, when, after it all unfolds, it is clear that he WILL NOT be a third party candidate in 08!

Where are all your negative, useless RANTS today?
How about that "one" issue you vote on....
No comment today?
Chris has your "one" issue pasted all over the post.

Ahh! I see! Your issue "to be the first" outweighed your "one" voting issue.(abortion)

Figures.

BTW- misAntrax2 said-"
"Besides, he hates abortion and wants laws to say life begins at contraception. You can't get more anti-choice than that."

WRONG again misinformed2!

Ron Paul COULD fight for a federal BAN on abortion, but he DOES NOT!
This would be getting more anti-choice
NO?..

"Just because someone is formally educated does not mean they also have, by default, absorbed common sense." Me-10/11/07

Why must you peddle such nonsense?