I agree that is a mischaracterization of what the woman said, but I do not get the impression that this guy cares much what Romney does with respect to making concessions with Paul. To me it read that he was simply saying “If Romney even wants to think about getting a Paul-supporter vote, he’d have to agree to something like this…and that would ‘get my attention’”. For one thing, I don’t remember him saying anything about “Romney does this, and I will vote for him”…just that “this is the kind of thing he would have to do before I would even consider it.”
And he does spend time talking about how campaign promises cannot be trusted and such. I don’t think he’s desperate to believe Romney. It sounded to me like he was just considering all possibilities and giving his take on it, and not ruling anything out…not speaking in absolutes…like Ron Paul says.
And for the record promising to not raise taxes or something like that is not the same as having someone as your running mate. I guarantee you if Rand Paul becomes the VP candidate, he’s not going to get fired right after the election. That would be suicide for Romney and the Party. You might be able to say “no new taxes” during a campaign and then raise taxes while in office a couple years later, but you can’t name someone as your VP to basically ensure an entire sect of the electorate, and then remove him from the post for no reason. And I think the same would go for a Ron Paul cabinet position. Sure it’s not as public as the VP post, but there would be enough people who knew about it that it would basically be just as big of a scandal as firing the VP. (Plus, the Vice President of the United States would be on staff making sure the appointment went through…and if not, he would be the one telling the news organizations all about how the POTUS went back on a deal. Again. Political suicide for the GOP.)
In short, something like a Rand VP, Ron Secretary would not be a “promise” that Romney could just easily go back on like any 'ol campaign promise. If that deal was made, it’s pretty much guaranteed it would go through.
I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an “R” by his name.
Exactly my point. 55% of 1.1%. Aka, nothing.
So why bother repeating it as if you were saying something new…let alone something that was contradicting the article?
Because that whole comment was just a whole lot of nothing. It was some of the most over-the-top fluffery I’ve ever read, and it’s exactly the kind of thing I would expect a very clever writer to say if he were trying to poke fun at the excitement displayed by Ron Paul supporters.
It doesn’t at all match up with the tone or direction of the rest of your post, and seems completely out of place. It just made the most sense as a joke as opposed to something serious.
That’s great if you really feel that way. I just don’t see what that has to do with running 3rd party. As I said in before in this very thread, Ron Paul has already educated millions, and will continue to do that up through the election, and probably even after. He doesn’t have to waste his time running a losing campaign for a 3rd party to do that. I fail to see the argument there. Multiple people in this thread have basically argued that Paul should run third party as a way to educate people and wake them up to the ideas of liberty or something. As if he’s so far been unsuccessful in doing that, or that somehow running a losing campaign in a third party would somehow make him more effective at it. It’s just nonsense.
Running as a 3rd party candidate has virtually no bearing on bringing more people to the philosophy of liberty…and as I said, quite possibly would do nothing more than alienate a lot of people and turn them off to him and his message.
I think the most important point the article makes is that the entire 3rd party existence is nothing more than a matrix…an illusion of choice and option that is welcomed by the establishment to keep those of us who operate outside of the Hillary Clinton/John McCain spectrum at bay…ineffective, and irrelevant.
They want the movement to go 3rd party because it will mean the certain defeat of it. They are fearful because the movement as infiltrated their party (by playing by their own rules) and is threatening to take it over. And I think the author is right, as long as we are not distracted and seduced or fooled into going that losing route of 3rd party, we will take over the GOP and be in a position to change the entire country, and effectively history. This obviously won’t happen in one election, but it is happening.
The future of the movement (if it is to have any future) is not in some 3rd party. It is in transforming the GOP. And all this talk of “Ron Paul needs to go third party so he can educate millions” does nothing but undermine that (and make people sound naive and actually kind of stupid). It doesn’t make sense, and is basically one of the worst ideas. And if you want evidence for this, all you have to do is listen to what the establishment is saying about it (exhibit A is right at the top of this page).