Ron Paul and the Republican Party: Why he can't be ignored

" I fear the Grand Ol' Party can't win without him on the ticket. " Bingo. Totally nailed that one home dude. If the Republicans are hanging their hopes of winning against Obama with the current crop of so called "front runners", they might as well start writing their concession speech now. I am more and more convinced that there is not a single other Republican who can beat Obama. His philosophies of liberty, not sticking our noses in to hornets nests all over the world, sensible and sound monetary policy, keeping government out of the bedroom, etc are very universally appealing to a wide demographic. But, he is Ron Paul and is therefor "extreme", "fringe", etc. John Stewart did a BRILLIANT piece on the media's treatment (or rather non-treatment) of Ron Paul. It was hilarious (I mean really hilarious, almost pis$ed my pants laughing) and made it about as plain as it could what was going on: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-29-2009/ron-paul To answer your direct question, I really could not say. He might if he doesn't run as an alternative candidate and if directly asked. But who knows.

I don't really see anything moderate about Bachmann and I doubt people who define themselves as moderate republicans would support her. The media blackout of Ron Paul is the only reason Bachmann is even competitive right now. I think he'd be a clear front-runner if the media wasn't doing their best to bury him. I don't think ANYONE would choose him as VP. The only candidate who even bothered to acknowledge him in the debates was Santorum and that was only to criticize and frame him as an isolationist. I read an article that said Santorum broke the cardinal rule of "Do not acknowledge Ron Paul". If someone wanted him as VP, I think he'd turn it down. VP's are expected to walk in lock step with the president and he would NEVER do that. This is the man who wouldn't even endorse McCain in 2008. I don't think he'd have a chance running as a libertarian. Go around and ask 10 people who Bob Barr is to see how much people know about libertarian candidates. Basically he'd get a double blackout at that point. One for being Ron Paul, and another for being a third party candidate.

And Paulites will continue to marginalize him and themselves by considering anyone who doesn't share their worship of him too stupid to think for ourselves. Paulites are Ron Pauls biggest stumbling block.

Honestly I could not say whether he would or not. If he is power hungry like most politicians are, he probably would....but I just don't know. I am not sure that I would go so far as to say that without him on the ticket the Republican party can't win though. Obama is very unpopular with a large number of voters and many of those would accept just about any alternative.....especially if there is a chance that whomever gets the nomination would actually get rid of Obamacare. But I am not nearly as sure of Paul now as I was. The more I hear him talk, the more I wonder about him.

Ron Paul absolutely has to run under the Republican ticket. He would not have a chance if he ran under either independent or libertarian. A lot of Republicans like Ron Paul and a lot don't. He certainly has some fanatical fans but he is like every other candidate. Not everyone is going to like him. If you have been following the straw poll, you will find it is very misleading.

hello blathasar, i don't have the residence qualifications to take part in this discussion, however as its an interesting one, i am going to anyway. this is pure guesswork on my part, as i only can only pick up information from uk newspapers, which just isn't the same as being there. i think this split in the republican party is going to grow. because i think that there is a large section of it that know they can't win with a tea party candidate. because most of the electorate are somewhere near the centre in politics, and probably quite cautious about who they want as president. this is what the conservative party have found in the uk, that they cannot get above a 36% share of the vote, because they are just too far to the right. even with the labour party incredibly unpopular the voters just wouldn't switch. and the problem for the tea party is that a large minority is, no matter how you look at it, still a minority. and if they can't win popular support outside of the political ground they inhabit then one of them doesn't make a good choice for candidate for president, or vice president. whether paul would accept an offer to stand on the ticket as vp is secondary, in my opinion, as to whether he would be a good choice, after all it didn't do poor john mccain much good chosing sarah palin, did it! though it was unlikely he would have won even with the most sensible choice on earth as his running partner, given the mood of the country. its a difficult situation for the republicans, because the tea party is a large group within it. but if their political aims cannot gain popular support outside of a minority, however large, they can't have a candidate from that wing of the party. and the problem for the republicans is that tax cuts for the rich is hard to sell when people are worrying about unemployment. because they know that that party would reduce their benefits to hand over tax cuts to the rich. i do not know how they are going to sell that one, i really don't! will this be the end to the two party system, is also an interesting question. my feeling is that it is unlikely to do so. again based on my UK knowledge. where the cost of campaigning, is incredibly high, and also the two main parties are a known product, and i think a lot of people when voting for something important as president go for the "better the devil you know, then the devil you don't know" option, and so a new party, or an indepent candidate, would have serious problems establishing their credientials with the voters.