Saturday, June 02, 2007

Liberals Should Encourage Ron Paul to Run as Independent

Salon Magazine has an article about Representative Ron Paul, the libertarian who is running for the GOP nomination by being against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act,advocating the United States out of the United Nations, the phasing out of Social Security, and a return to the gold standard for American currency. According to Salon Magazine, Paul is driving the power brokers of the Republican Party crazy. Not surprisingly they have already lined up a challenger for him in the 2008 Republican primary for his Congressional seat.

Interestingly he has a growing presence on the Internet. An example is support for his videos on You Tube. His videos have been viewed over 980,000 times. That is more than Romney, McCain, or Giuliani, all of whom are the top three in most polls Republicans. He is attracting support from young people who are interested in his views on the Iraq War. He is also unconventional, appearing on the Bill Maher show and scheduling an appearance on the Jon Stewart Show.

Now, this guy is not going to win the Republican Party nomination, but clearly there is a market for his message. Liberals and progressives should find a way to fund this guy and encourage him to run as an independent. He would probably pull about 1 or 2% of the vote, much like Nader. Like Nader, however, if he pulled that 1 or 2% in the right states, say Florida, Ohio, or perhaps Virgina, he could shift those states to the Democratic victory column.

That was why, of course, that Republican donors supported Ralph "It Doesn't Matter If a Democrat or a Republican wins" Nader. That resulted in Florida being lost to Bush and that resulted in the terrible mess that we are in with Iraq. Maybe its time for liberals and progressives to return the favor.


Anonymous said...

Bad idea in my opinion. Ron Paul is likely to pull more potential Democratic votes than Republican ones thereby doing a Nader on us!

Anonymous said...

... you mean how George the daddy lost to Bill, because of Peroit running as an Independent? Yep, that might work ... cause a Clinton sure can't win on their own accord!!!

Team Member said...

Actually exit polls that were taken in 1992 showed that voters who voted for Perot would have split 50/50 for Clinton and Bush.

What Perot did was allow Republicans to push the myth that you are pushing that Perot cost Bush the presidencey, thus casting doubt on the validity of his election.

Of course, since George W. Bush took office by actually losing the popular vote and by depending on a black-robed coup, we hear less of that clap-trap than we used to. Glad to see that you are still repeating it.