Home→General→Ron Paul Tells Fox News he Won’t Rule Out Running Outside Major Parties

Ron Paul Tells Fox News he Won’t Rule Out Running Outside Major Parties

Posted on October 28, 2011 by admin

Ron Paul’s recent interview on Fox News included a discussion on the possibility that Paul would run outside the major parties. See this story.

Comments

Ron Paul Tells Fox News he Won’t Rule Out Running Outside Major Parties — No Comments

Casual Bystander on October 28, 2011 at 12:59 pm said:

Well, it’s about time!
Brad M on October 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm said:

Libertarian Party here comes!!!!

Its gonna be a fun ride in 2012.
Ross on October 28, 2011 at 4:41 pm said:

Is that even possible, though, because of sore loser laws and independent/third party petition deadlines?
Casual Bystander on October 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm said:

Yes it is.
Richard Winger on October 28, 2011 at 5:08 pm said:

#3, John Anderson ran in two-thirds of the Republican presidential primaries in 1980 and he still got on the ballot in all 50 states as an independent. He switched from the Republican race, to running as an independent, on April 23, 1980. He won all five of his lawsuits against early petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates.

There is no logic for applying sore loser laws to presidential primaries. In presidential primaries the true candidates are running for Delegate to the national convention. In November the true candidates are the candidates for presidential elector. They aren’t the same people, so they aren’t sore losers.
Demo Rep on October 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm said:

Deja Vu 1860 or 1992 or about 50 B.C. (J. Caesar) ???

DIVIDE and Conquer.

Obama and the Donkey hoards would LOVE to have Paul as a Prez candidate.
RJ on October 28, 2011 at 5:31 pm said:

Based on ballot access, Paul would have to run on either the Libertarian Party or American’s Elect, should they decide to consider Paul. Both groups should have access in at least 45 states or more.
Indy on October 28, 2011 at 7:18 pm said:

LP would love to, if Paul wants to do it.

Americans Elect probably would not, but it may be worth trying anyway. After all it is free to sign up as one of their delegates and what would it hurt?
Alaska Constitution Party on October 28, 2011 at 8:01 pm said:

Life is getting VERY interesting now…The next question is…Who might his running mate be?
Brad on October 28, 2011 at 8:19 pm said:

#9 Gary Johnson easily comes to mind.

Or for laughs how about Ron Paul/Rand Paul.
Indy on October 29, 2011 at 5:51 am said:

Demo rep,

Divide and conquer what exactly? Is Romney, Perry or Cain any better than Obama? The differences between them are cosmetic.
Jim Riley on October 29, 2011 at 6:02 am said:

#5 In Texas, it is an independent candidate who files, and designates, with their permission, the presidential electors, and vice presidential candidate.

And for the presidential primaries, there are no delegates associated with the candidates on the ballot. Remember, it was Dennis Kucinich who wouldn’t sign the loyalty oath, not Willie Nelson.
Jeff Becker on October 29, 2011 at 6:32 am said:

Why Doesn’t the Constitution Party Endorse (help elect) Ron Paul for President? Read this excellent on-target article by Randy Stuflebeam:
http://www.mw-cp.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=why-doesna-t-the-constitution-party-endorse-help-elect-ron-paul-for-president-.html&Itemid=77
Richard Winger on October 29, 2011 at 7:06 am said:

#12, it doesn’t matter how presidential elector candidates get on the November ballot; they are the true candidates in November. Article II of the U.S. Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” and a federal law passed in 1844 tells the states to choose their electors on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of years divisible by four. The November event is a selection of presidential electors, not a selection of the president. The president is elected in December.
Andy on October 29, 2011 at 8:02 am said:

If Ron Paul dropped out of the Republican primaries and ran as Libertarian Party candidate he could save the Libertarian Party from its current course, which right now looks like it is going to be another disappointing presidential election year. Ron Paul would have no problem getting on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC as a Libertarian Party candidate because the Libertarian Party will have ballot access in at least 30 states by the end of the year. I think that Ron Paul could get an impressive vote total in November if he ran as a Libertarian as well.
Alaska Constitution Party on October 29, 2011 at 9:25 am said:

#13 Who is going to be the Constitution Party nominee? Also the article you reference is now outdated. True, we need to build the CP and we need to preserve the Republic so it matters. In order to do so we may need to think outside the box. Again, who is the viable CP candidate?
Jim Riley on October 29, 2011 at 11:13 am said:

There are no presidential elector candidates on the November ballot in Texas. On that day, Texans vote for a presidential and vice presidential candidate duo. Associated with that duo are 38 presidential electors who are appointed based on the votes cast for the presidential candidates.

Florida permits the political parties to use the presidential primary as a direct primary. If a party did so, who would be the “real” candidates?
Richard Winger on October 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm said:

#18, the Texas voters elect the electors. The electors are not appointed. Texas Election Code section 192.035 is titled, “Vote for candidate counts for corresponding electors.” The text of that section is, “A vote for a presidential candidate and the candidate’s running mate shall be counted as a vote for the corresponding presidential elector candidates.”
Jed Siple 2012 on October 29, 2011 at 3:16 pm said:

#13 & #16 Because Ron Paul believes in individual liberty, and the Constitution Party are a bunch of big-government right wing theocrats.
Baronscarpia on October 29, 2011 at 4:35 pm said:

17 –

Just say the words, Jimbo. It will be cathartic.

“I’m a Republican tool.”
Jim Riley on October 29, 2011 at 7:18 pm said:

#18 Texas Election Code 192.032(h) is referring to the presidential candidate.

If you were to challenge that statute in court, you wouldn’t bother with trying to interpret “candidate” to mean delegate candidate or presidential elector candidate.
Alaska Constitution Party on October 29, 2011 at 10:05 pm said:

#19 Really?
Drugwarisevil on October 30, 2011 at 7:45 am said:

Given that we are electing electors and not presidents, Ron Paul could run as the nominee of both the Libertarians and the Constitution Party (and America Elects as well).
Humongous Fungus on October 30, 2011 at 9:28 am said:

@23 Are you sure? If Richard Winger is still reading this thread I would be interested in his opinion.
clay on October 30, 2011 at 9:32 am said:

Ron Paul will only run for President as a Republican.
Demo Rep on October 30, 2011 at 10:13 am said:

# 11 Divide and conquer the rightists.

See 1992 — the mighty Clinton win with about 43 percent of the popular votes.

See 1860 — Lincoln with a mighty about 40 percent of the popular votes — with about 620,000 DEAD Americans in 1861-1865 on both sides as a result — with Lincoln being one of the last killed.

Does EVIL history repeat – again and again — due to EVIL minority rule political structures ??? Duh.
Indy on October 30, 2011 at 11:17 am said:

“Rightists” in what sense?

Is Romney, Perry or Cain any better than Obama? The differences between them are cosmetic.

They all support military imperialism, endless wars, US troops in over a hundred countries, the federal reserve, trillions of dollars in social spending a year, the war on drugs, the war on terror and “homeland security,” massive debt that keeps growing, huge government giveaways to giant corporations…

All of them, Democrats and Republicans.

Ron Paul opposes all those things.

Maybe the Republicans should cross-nominate Obama if Ron Paul runs as an independent or alternative party candidate so that they don’t split the big government vote against him?
Doremus Jessup on October 30, 2011 at 11:57 am said:

#23 is correct. The voters are being decieved by election laws which prohibit the listing of the names of the actual presidental electors on the ballots. All of those laws need to be repealed.
. on October 30, 2011 at 2:07 pm said:

Absolutely spot-on! Ron Paul should run for president as the nominee for the libertarian party. He would provide much publicity for our party, he is one of the most well-known libertarians out there, and he would PWN the souls of Obama and Romney in debates. RON PAUL 2012!
George Whitfield on October 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm said:

I hope Ron Paul will run for the Libertarian Party’s nomination. I would vote for him at the Convention and do all I could to support his campaign.
Demo Rep on October 30, 2011 at 5:43 pm said:

# 27 The rotted Ponzi scheme govts in the U.S.A. have borrowed/spent about 22 percent more than govt incomes since 1929.

The now about $$$ 18 TRILLION in govt debts (Fed plus State/local debts) in 1929-2011 WILL cause things to happen.

i.e. the Titanium Carbide laws of economics WILL take over — esp.

Savings = Investments.

See the advanced govt deficit ROT in Europe with the nonstop band-aid machinations — for econ brain cancer govt regimes.
Indy on October 30, 2011 at 7:17 pm said:

Yep, under both Democrats and Republicans.

So, if it’s Obama and Perry, Romney or Cain VS Ron Paul, Ron Paul is not “splitting the rightists,” Obama and the Republican will be splitting the big government vote and Ron Paul will have the small government vote to himself.
Gary Odom on October 31, 2011 at 1:11 pm said:

Ya know, after being constantly bombarded for years about whether the Beatles would ever “get back together,” Paul McCartney and John Lennon (right up to the time of his death) as well as George and Ringo for that matter, finally simply got tired of saying “No” to a public that just didn’t want to hear “No,” and that refused to stop hoping for a reunion, so they (the individual ex-Beatles) started saying “well, you never know” and “anything is possible” and that sort of thing, even when they still really meant “NO.”

Even though Dr.No has said he wouldn’t completely rule it out, it’s very difficult to believe that the real answer is still anything other than “No.” He would have to drop out of the Republican race very early, something he refused to do in 2008, when he really wasn’t doing all that well in the primaries. With no clear frontrunner in 2012, the liklihood is that Paul will be doing a bit better in the primaries than he did in 2008 and that he will again opt to stay in the race until the convention in late summer after which it will be far to late to gear up an independent race.

But, of course, you never know because…”anything is possible.”