Monday, November 7, 2011

Ron Paul Won't Rule Out Independent 2012 Presidential Run

That's the conclusion reached by Politico after reading between the lines of a Ron Paul comment during his interview yesterday on Fox News Sunday. Alexander Burns at Politico writes under the title, "Ron Paul won't rule out independent 2012 presidential run":

[Y]esterday on "Fox News Sunday," Paul said he would "probably not" support another candidate who won the GOP nomination, and gave this answer to the third-party question:

Paul was asked whether he would be interested in a third party, independent run for president if he does not get the Republican nomination.

“I have no intention doing that. That doesn't make sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that.”

If Paul really has absolutely no interest in running outside the GOP, a shorter answer would be "no." But he keeps going back to "no intention," a famously non-binding construction


  1. I wonder if that is how they will make him lose... obviously besides the media semi-ignoring him. (last I heard, I think it was ~60 fox interviews since January).

  2. This is bull. I listened to the interview and he said at the end of the interview when pressed for about the forth time as to why, he said "becuase I don't want to". I don't know how many ways one can say no and for it not to mean no, but apparently if the media wants to hear yes, which would of course be a great thing for the Dems, then they print a maybe. This is just another way to destroy Ron Paul's campaign by making him look like the spoiler and thus not a serious candidate capable of taking on the establishment GOP.

  3. Paul should make a deal with the GOP. If he is kept out of the debates, or there is funny business going on in the primaries, as happened in 2008, he should tell the GOP leadership that he will run on a third party ticket to make sure the candidate they sneak in does not win. But if they treat him fairly, he will not.

    A deal with the devil, perhaps, but what can you do. Even evil like the GOP can repent, I suppose.

  4. If the GOP is really worried that Paul will go 3rd party and wreck their chances of winning, then they should get behind him. He is the biggest threat to a GOP win, and has a GREAT chance of beating Obama in 2012.

  5. I think Paul could take many votes away from Obama as well as the Republicans if he were to run Independent. It's not like Obama has a high favorability rating!

  6. I love how Paul has the GOP terrified. Isn't this the same GOP who keeps saying Paul doesn't have any supporters, like what that Mark Levin idiot says? If no one supports him, how could he hurt the GOP in 2012 by running third party?

  7. Off topic but why is it Americans refuse to accept the idea of blow back, that is, killing innocent people angers their surviving relations, while we seem to be ready to go to war with Iran on the basis that it might sometime develop a weapon which they might sometime use?

  8. The GOP is worried their Establishment candidate won't beat the Dem's Establishment candidate. I'd vote for Ron Paul no matter how he ran. I feel bad I didn't know about him in 2008. I was younger and not paying attention.

  9. Anon 9:47,

    I would guess that it is the manifestation of collectivism and nationalism that is taught to them from a very young age and then reinforced during adulthood. Since the majority of American's are not critical thinkers, those that do engage in rational thought are ostracized and excluded from the group (the collective norm). The pressure from the majority for the minority to conform is quite great and often has direct consequences in regular daily affairs (jobs, friends, family, etc). Cooperation and acceptance from peers is an entirely natural and innate instinct in human beings, it is what has allowed us to be so successful as a species. However, it is often the case that these same attributes that contribute to our success are used against us for our own demise, or the elevation of those who claim to be the "rulers" of the group (collective).

    It really is a hard nut to crack within an individual's consciousness, because societal norms make it seem as if they are indeed the outsider, or the "crank" if they purvey views outside of the accepted, established norms. Just imagine what the result would be if during your public education that you pointed out (correctly) the logical contradictions associated with Lincoln and the Civil War; you would be ostracized to no end. In fact, you would most likely be called a racist, even if you are pointing out that Lincoln himself was an ardent racist.

    Collective agreement amongst the masses is what keeps the status quo alive. Without it, the entire edifice of "American exceptionalism" would crumble, and people would be able to speak their minds without worries of "societal" repercussions.

    Our very social and cooperative nature is used in a twisted arrangement in order to keep us little ducks in a row. If you speak out, you are an outsider (not one of the whole). Luckily, this stranglehold is beginning to loosen, even if only slightly.

  10. Anon@947pm-

    Most readers of this site, and a large minority of the rest of the US, know that killing people doesn't win friends, and that 9/11 was a direct result of this policy.

    That's why they're scared of Dr Paul- he would pull from the anti-war left as much as the anti-gov't right in a fair election.