Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans United States

Has Ron Paul Quit? 878

Posted by kdawson
from the internet-in-flames-film-at-11 dept.
Lally Singh sends us to the inside-the-Beltway blog Wonkette for a quick take on a letter Ron Paul sent to his supporters. In this analysis, Dr. Paul has basically called it quits. "Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it's over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has Ron Paul Quit?

Comments Filter:
  • Real summary. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Romancer (19668) <romancer@de3.141 ... oor.com minus pi> on Saturday February 09, 2008 @06:12PM (#22363502) Journal
    FTA:

    "Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

    I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

    In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

    Sincerely,

    Ron"
    • It's hard to believe that Ron Paul's chief political strategy was apparently to hope for deadlock between the front runners so that he could attempt to sway people to his side at a hypothetical brokered convention. And this, while encouraging his own rabid supporters to spend their own money out of pocket to try to create a grassroots following. Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770)
        At this stage, was there any other strategy left? This is the "I've tried until every last glimmer of hope was vanquished" speech, basicly you need to tell people that you didn't quit because you're a quitter. At aby rate, even when you don't end up in the majority it's usually a good idea in a democracy to make your opinions public and let those in government and others know that there's a minority which would like a different policy. It would hardly be the first time that more popular candidates picked up
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Blakey Rat (99501)
        Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?

        Have you seen the film "Chronicles of Riddick?" The answer is: yes. At least Ron Paul was entertaining.
  • by daddyrief (910385) on Saturday February 09, 2008 @06:17PM (#22363558) Homepage
    I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and voted for him in the primaries. That said, reality cannot be ignored or distorted, McCain will be the nominee. Focus should now be reshifted to helping Dr. Paul keep his seat in the House.

    Let's learn from our lessons this time around. (Money bombs -can- work, Internet support doesn't necessarily translate to high election numbers, the power of the MSM to shape opinion, etc..) Next time around, if we have another candidate who supports liberty, with a voting record to back it up, we can try again. I may be an old man by then...
    • by alan_dershowitz (586542) on Saturday February 09, 2008 @08:00PM (#22364494)
      I will tell you why I gave Ron Paul some financial support. I don't agree with all his politics, but I am a conservative who is against torture, is against the police state, is against the surveillance state and is against this war. I supported Ron Paul because every debate he shows up at he fucks up the unstated agreement among ALL other Republican candidates to not talk about any of that shit. He disrupts their big snow-job on the American public about the sins of the Republican party for the last eight years, and I love every minute of it.
  • by The One and Only (691315) * <[ten.hclewlihp] [ta] [lihp]> on Saturday February 09, 2008 @06:21PM (#22363618) Homepage

    Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:

    But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.

    I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday February 09, 2008 @06:24PM (#22363642) Homepage Journal

    With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter.
    What part of "fight on in every primary and caucus remaining and at the convention" did you people parse as "I quit"?

    The "fight on" or the "every primary and caucus and at the convention" part?
  • Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sqrt(2) (786011) on Saturday February 09, 2008 @06:34PM (#22363734) Journal
    Maybe the astroturfing and spam can finally end now. Ron Paul definitely gets the award for most annoying campaign ever. I've never received spam in my inbox from any of the other candidates. And if I have to ignore one more invitation to a Ron Paul supporters group on facebook I'll scream.

    One question though: what happens to all the money he raised? I'm sure he hasn't burned through all of it, and he raised a lot from what I've read. Now that he's running a "leaner" campaign he will be using it even slower.
  • by michaelmalak (91262) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Saturday February 09, 2008 @07:22PM (#22364156) Homepage
    I've donated $600, knowing that Ron Paul would not win due to electronic voting and biased media, for two reasons: for Ron Paul to spread the message of freedom and to build the freedom movement for next time. Compared to the paltry showings of the Constitution Party that I've been supporting since 2000, compared to my own past efforts at underreported.com, and even compared to Ron Paul's own 1988 presidential run, it was money well spent. The message has spread further than anyone dreamed of even a year ago.

    I was elected to be a delegate on Feb. 5 for my precinct in Colorado, and I plan to go through with representing Ron Paul to the county level March 2 (and then possibly also to the state level on May 31) so that he does not lose any of the projected 42 delegates nationwide he is counting on.

    There is one last additional hope to further spread the message this cycle, and that is if Ron Paul can get first place in four states (he has no first place finishes so far, at least according to official tallies), then he will be allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention. And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms [slashdot.org] can be reinserted. Not that a Republican president elected in 2008 would honor that, but it would ensure that in the 2012 debates that a small-government candidate can score points by quoting the platform and criticizing the neocons.

    • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Saturday February 09, 2008 @09:23PM (#22365268)
      Maybe other people didn't want to vote for Ron Paul.

      Presupposing that the reason he didn't win is to flatly state that if everyone were informed and voted their hearts, Ron Paul would have won.

      Did you ever just stop to think that maybe a majority of people don't agree with you? That if the world was well informed, they wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusions as you?

      Only an egotist would put forth their choice of candidate as the only valid one.
  • by opencity (582224) on Saturday February 09, 2008 @07:54PM (#22364432) Homepage
    Ron Paul's campaign is a symptom of the same foolishness that was Nader 2000, the idea that politics isn't local, that all you need is a trendy / genius / misguided / radical / (insert opinion) platform or platforms and one candidate can run for the highest office in the land and Change Everything. Ron Paul doesn't have a party. As far as I can tell he's not a Republican (I mean that as a compliment and I did RTFA), says he isn't a Libertarian (and exactly how many Libertarian state governors are there? Just curious). He's running for the Republican party he wants not the Republican party which exists which is like being a Muslim feminist [rawa.org]. Or, for that matter, many of the Ron Paul internetters who seem to be supporting the Ron Paul they want, not the Ron Paul they have.

    So all you Ron Paul-ites / Naderites / Greens / whatevers. Get some mayors elected first, some governors, take over a few states. (and yes the Greens do have some elected officials). Making bold/bizarre speeches about the gold standard or keeping government out of environmental regulation (what? we settle it with guns?) is very entertaining, but it doesn't get the trash picked up, the schools financed, the roads fixed.

    That said, he was/is far and away the most intelligent of the Republicans and in a better world not wanting to slaughter Muslims wouldn't be a deal breaker and the Republican party would actually be the party of small government. A Paul VS Obama debate on social welfare would be very interesting.

    Instead we get Hillary 'corporate welfare' Clinton VS John 'kill kill kill' McCain. Or maybe Obama decides to play the substance card.
  • by gebbeth (720597) <slashdot AT evilgenius DOT us> on Sunday February 10, 2008 @01:58AM (#22367174)
    I have watched on Slashdot as people posted stories of Ron Paul breaking Internet fundraising records of most funds in a single day (twice!) and stories of how he has never voted to regulate the Internet etc. that were never accepted as stories (surely the previous two examples are of interest to geeks) and then this letter comes out which says he is going to fight all the way until the end and Slashdot quickly has it up on the front page with the interpretation that Ron Paul has called it quits. Furthermore one of the tags was "thankgod". I mean how insulting. Regardless of what ones opinion of a candidate is, shouldn't he/she still be treated with respect and courtesy?

    His decision seems fairly logical to me when the main goal of an on the ground campaign is to get out the vote and most of the elections are over (there are still some late caucuses left though) that he should lean up his machine (less votes to get out).

    Bah, people say that the media was totally fair with Dr. Paul. These people weren't paying attention. When the media did cover him, they only questions they asked him were whether or not he planned to run as a third party candidate or to paint him as a racist. Of course when the chairman of the NAACP refuted the claim that Dr. Paul was a racist, you didn't see that on the news.

    I am just disgusted with this whole political process. You have both parties that are leading us down the path of a corporatist/fascist police state and the one man who calls a duck a duck is the crazy whacko. The one candidate who won't take corporate donations and he is called nuts and un-viable. Guess who are the ones calling him not-viable...the ones he won't take donations from...but whatever.

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Sunday February 10, 2008 @11:50AM (#22370008)
    The plain fact is, people want to vote for a 'winner' and allow the MSM to dictate who that should be. Ron Paul was excluded from debates when Guilanni was not because he was deemed 'not viable'. Turns out, they had that backwards. I have NEVER felt more jaded towards politics as I do right now. Observe:

    1) For a candidate to win, MSM support is required

    2) MSM is in favor, some directly and others indirectly, of 'news worthy' wars and other events

    3) The best interests of the average American ARE NOT in line with the best interests of the average MSM corporation

    Therefore: Allowing the media to select our election candidate is nothing short of complete insanity. Anyone that didn't vote for Paul ought to be committed, as they cannot form simple value judgments without the support of the idiot-box.

    And, by the way, if we ever want this to REALLY change, we're going to have to bring the word 'revolution' back to an earlier meaning. Those powerful people are entrenched, folks, and it's all YOUR fault.

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...