posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:43 AM
The reason Ron Paul is running as a Republican is because the media ignores you even more if you are an independent. Donors ignore you, people laugh
at you, and the media isolates you. I've worked for independents and run as an independent for an elected office, getting shut out by ballot access
laws. For better or worse, Paul is stuck in the two-party matrix because that is how Americans think.
That said, I think the idea that Paul running as a third party candidate automatically secures an Obama victory is wrong. His most controversial
position about ending all foreign involvement is that which does not appeal to Republicans, but more to progressives and Democrats. I personally know
a number of Democrats, Greens, and others for whom this is an important enough issue that they would vote for Paul.
I was a Republican for a number of years, and if they select a candidate whose views don't fit my own such as Mitt (let's waterboard them all)
Romney, I would not only not vote for him, but would welcome a third choice.
In terms of what Paul has to say, I agree he delivers a terrible sound byte and lacks polish, but there is reason and logic behind all he says. I'm
not nearly as radically libertarian as he is, but I suspect having someone inclined to using little power as the executive would serve to focus both
parties in Congress in a better way, and make an immediate dent in our ongoing debt and budget crisis by reducing our foreign commitments
Unless his perspective has radically changed from 2008, I believe Paul will be disinclined to run as a third party candidate, but I also believe that
a great many of the votes posters claim will be lost from the GOP if he runs are votes that other candidates might not find so easy to get. They
wouldn't vote for Obama, but they very well might just sit on their hands.