Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Government United States Politics

Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign, Forms New Org 341

Posted by timothy from the new-kind-of-paulist dept.
JoeKuboj writes "Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced Thursday he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to focus his time on building an organization to help recruit and elect 'limited government Republicans.' Paul's decision to leave the race is an acknowledgment he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But even in loss, Paul is one of a handful of candidates who walked away from this presidential contest a winner. His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign, Forms New Org More

Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign, Forms New Org

Comments Filter:

  • No, I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2008 @06:40PM (#23772135)

    His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq.
    The socially conservative Republicans were strongly against Ron Paul.

    • Re:No, I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2008 @06:47PM (#23772243)
      Unless the submitter has some special definition of "socially conservative" (like how liberal is completely transformed when you call it classical) then yeah, the entire tiny government thing is 100% against the current "socially conservative" movement of having the government making sure you live your life the right way.

      • "Social conservative" in the US (Score:4, Informative)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @08:51PM (#23773303) Homepage Journal

        Unless the submitter has some special definition of "socially conservative"
        In the United States of America, "social conservatism" tends to mean some measure of theonomy [wikipedia.org], based on a (selective) interpretation of the Torah. For example, social conservatives would be more likely:
        • to offer adoption instead of feticide to women with unwanted unborn children ("thou shalt not kill"),
        • to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life"), and
        • not to provide for civil unions of same-sex couples that are analogous to marriage ("a man who lies with a man the way one lies with a woman commits an abomination").

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The majority of people in the country since its inception including the founders of the country could be summed up as mostly "socially conservative." In the old days, we just called these "cultural traditions."

          Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.

          Signed,

          Big City slashdot

          • Re:"Social conservative" in the US (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @07:25AM (#23776517)
            Yes, but those cultural traditions weren't forced on anyone. That was the whole point of the "freedom of religion" bit: acknowledging that the cultural traditions of the majority shouldn't be imposed on minorities.

            Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.

            I'm white and have no problem keeping my culture. I can go to concert halls and see the music of my ancestors played; I can go to a restaurant and eat European food; I can go to any church I care to.

            I agree that there's been an artificial glorification of minority culture in some respects (ever seen a Black History Month in an elementary school? It's disgusting), but this is no threat to "white" culture.

            You certainly can keep your religion; you're just expected to not harass other people with it. If that's a problem, well, it's not my problem that your superstitions require you to heckle others with little nametags that say "Elder Bob".

            And religion is NOT what makes the core of any culture. That's an absurd claim. Cultures with indigenous religions often manifest core cultural traits IN their religions (qv. ancient Greece), which is a different matter -- the culture came first, the religion was created to fit it.

        • Re:"Social conservative" in the US (Score:5, Informative)

          by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @12:46AM (#23774803) Journal

          # to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life")


          Negatory there chief. "An Eye for an Eye" is an argument FOR justice and AGAINST escalation. As in, against the previous unchecked vigilantism. It's better phrased, "no more than an eye for an eye."

          not to provide for civil unions of same-sex couples that are analogous to marriage ("a man who lies with a man the way one lies with a woman commits an abomination").


          Yeah, you're probably right there, though. On the other hand, there's no compelling state interest in same-sex marriage. Perhaps we should evaluate whether there is a compelling state interest in marriage, at all.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

            Perhaps we should evaluate whether there is a compelling state interest in marriage, at all.

            Marriage* is conducive to stable families.
            Stable families are good for babies
            Babies grow up, get jobs, and pay taxes.
            The State runs on taxes.

            Not only does the State have a compelling interest in marriage, the State has a compelling interest in figuring out how to lower the divorce rate.

            *I mean marriage as in the legal contract between two people, not the religious ceremony.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2008 @06:42PM (#23772171)
    It seems that he still wants to remain a Republican. This is actually good news for his sympathizers.

    Whoever wins the Presidential election in November, it's clear that the Republicans are in a the midst of a deep identity crisis. This is a tremendous opportunity to swing one of the major parties in a new direction.

    As they say, there is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. I think Dr. Paul is going to try to take the tide. It will be interesting to see where this leads.
    • reagan beat Poppa Bush because of his promising everything to the religious right wingnuts. Prior to that, pubs NEVER gave into all the items that they now claim, but never back. Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations (except covertly; nam was started covertly by Eisenhower), balanced budget, pushed small gov, and wanted gov out of ppls lives. Now, they say all the above while waging war every couple of years, run up monster deficits, double the size of gov, push all sorts of legislation

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by nategoose ( 1004564 )
      For the last decade or so the Republican party has been pretty successful at keeping roughly 3 different groups with different interests convinced that the their interests were what the Republican party was all about even though the interests of those groups often conflict.
      • Indeed. Also, they seem to have ignored the interests of all three of those groups to do what they really wanted: pander to the Democrats' base, for some reason.

  • Not a bad plan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptainNerdCave ( 982411 ) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @06:45PM (#23772211)
    he could have continued running for a position he had no real hope to win, or, he could step down and start trying to rally people behind a new set of goals.

    whether or not anyone here agrees with his positions or thinks he is/n't right about anything, i think we can all agree that this represents a step towards what this country's political system needs most: diversity.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by foxxo ( 262627 )
      I concur! We need a real third party in this country. And if it splits the Republicans, all the better!

      • Re:Not a bad plan (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @07:37PM (#23772721) Journal
        We need a real third party in this country.

        As long as we stick to the antiquated "one man, one vote" system we will only every have a two party system. [wikipedia.org] Of course the party bigs know this and would never dream of letting the US transfer to to something like instant runoff voting or range voting. If we had instant runoff voting there would be no "spoilers" like Nader or Perot when a third party is forming. [wikipedia.org] That is why Ron Paul is staying Republican, because he might change the party from within but he will never be able to start a successful third party. Our only hope of ever having a better voting system is to change it first at the State level through referendums, until a majority of States use it and develop viable third parties.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 )
          "Approval voting" FTW. It has most of the benefits of IRV, plus it's easier to explain to layman.

        • As long as we stick to the antiquated "one man, one vote" system we will only every have a two party system

          The problem is not "one man, one vote", but the fact that each eletorate goes to one party only; so you can have a situation where party A wins more than half the eletorates by a very small margin, while it loses less than half of the electorates by a huge margin, which means that party A wins the lection, but actually represents a minority of the voters. The reasons for having this system are no doubt historical - in earlier times, when communication was more difficult, it would not have been as easy to h

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mcvos ( 645701 )

          As long as we stick to the antiquated "one man, one vote" system we will only every have a two party system. [wikipedia.org]

          If you'd read that link, it's not the "one man, one vote" that condemns the US to a two-party system, but the "winner takes all" district system. In proportional representation systems, you also have "one man, one vote", but there every vote gets represented in the parliament, and not just the majority votes in each district.

          However, that's only relevant for seats in congress. For presidential elections, approval voting would probably be the most fair way to do it without marginalising third-party candidat

    • Re:Not a bad plan (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 7Prime ( 871679 ) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @06:56PM (#23772329) Homepage Journal
      Not sure if diversity is the problem. We've got an insanely divided party system as it is, with ultra-conservative republicans and moderate democrats (we need more liberals). We don't have a lack of diversity in ideology, no matter what these brats say about "all politicians are the same", we've got a lack of diversity in PARTIES. The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese. Of course, they're smaller countries, which has advantages too.

      I guess what I'm saying is that there will always be corruption and payoffs, but the more parties there are, the more spread out those things become, and the more breathing room there actually is.

      Ron Paul may have acted like a libertarian (a socially conservative libertarian), but by awknowledging the republican party, he made it clear that diversification of party power wasn't a main priority. I'll support (though maybe not agree with) a libertarian candidate, a green party candidate, or otherwise... but Ron Paul was just another republican to me, with more of a "get off my lawn" type of attitude.

      • Re:Not a bad plan (Score:5, Interesting)

        by WiseWeasel ( 92224 ) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @07:53PM (#23772871)
        I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain, once you get past the different tones they use to the actual meat of what they say they will do. Clearly, there is a large number of Americans that feel poorly represented by both candidates, and this leaves an opportunity for the formation of serious alternative political parties. When we factor in the revolution taking place in media distribution, it's quite possible that we are in for some serious changes in American politics.

        Paul has a heavy economist and foreign relations background from the committees he's been a member of in Congress, combined with little hesitation to speak out without fear of ruffling feathers, and this has allowed him to articulate proposed radical technical changes to the structure of our country which get at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in. Those types of ideas would not have come from most party apparatchiks, and while it's easy to argue that they are impractical and beyond the scope of the powers granted a US president, they have illuminated some of the fundamental problems this country must wrestle with, and exposed a large number of people to some of the workings of our government, which is never a bad thing.

        The fact that we're having discussions on monetary policy, the US's role in the world, and other serious issues often glanced over in most political debate is worth a great deal to this country, and anything that helps more people get involved in their government can only be to our advantage, regardless of ideology. Politics as usual as covered in classic media has been extremely shallow and limited up to this point, and we're witnessing a great shift as populism controls the distribution of information on the internet. If the Democratic and Republican parties can't tell which direction the wind is blowing, and fail to adjust their trajectory, then it is entirely possible that they might start losing support in favor of new groups.

        Either way, with such a fundamental change in information distribution taking place at the national and global level, it's foolish to count on historical trends alone to predict future outcomes.
        • I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain

          It's not difficult at all to find substantial differences. At least one was all over the news today:

          http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html [guardian.co.uk]
          http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mccain-habeas-court/ [thinkprogress.org]

          We've recently discussed some substantial differences in tech policy and in advisor selection on slashdot.

          I get it that to some extent, certain political realities force every mainstream candidate into certain positions. But it's wildly wrong to take the further step and equate all their positions, and furthermore, it's dangerous.

          • You make a good point, and I should have qualified my statement by requiring 'many' differences. You do highlight a significant difference on a very important issue. That being said, the scope of their differences is still fairly limited when compared with the issues Paul was putting on the table, such as what our foreign policy in general should be towards other countries. It's not often that we get to support such radical notions as humility in foreign relations, or greater trust in the regulatory power o
          • One more thing: I think it's especially interesting that this sentiment isn't just from supporters of Candidates like Paul (who is in fact starkly different from most candidates on several fronts). This portrayal of the general presidential election as one of small differences is actually apparently a mainstream media meme:

            http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-obamacain8-2008jun08,0,543931.story [latimes.com]
            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aH8EMkkeMCtw&refer=politics [bloomberg.com]

            Not unanticipated, or without precedent:

            http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/how-will-the-campaign-be-covered/ [nytimes.com]

            I think the question is: Why? Why, when there are easily locatable differences are there people who seem to like level them? I can understand why Paul looks different compared to Obama and McCain, but that's not even who we're talking about -- we're talking about a media that played up the heat of the contest between Obama and Clinton, but now appears to be playing down the much greater gulf.

            Maybe it's because McCain appears to be a moderate if you average his positions:

            http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html [thecarpetb...report.com]
            http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15649.html [thecarpetb...report.com]

            Or maybe it's some inner working of mainstream "journalism" that's just too mysterious for me.

            Or maybe it's true what my acquaintances who've worked in the Senate have said: McCain's great in front of the cameras, assiduously cultivates one media image, but in private, he's at best a tyrant and quite possibly mentally instable (note: before you try to pass that off on partisan rancor, note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff).

            But that's a rumor, one you can't verify unless you also have the acquaintance of Senate staff, and I don't expect you to believe a random poster on the internet about this. Just whatever you do, don't fall for the line that McCain and Obama are somehow twins, that voting for either won't make a difference.

            http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/pl_nm/usa_politics_issues_dc [yahoo.com]

            Who you cast your vote for absolutely matters this fall. If you absolutely HAVE to -- vote for Ron Paul or your favorite third party candidate to send a message, sure. Everybody has that right and it's a legitimate use of a vote. But make sure you really understand who the candidates are before you cast your vote. If you genuinely think Obama and McCain are the same, you quite simply haven't done that yet, and your vote will be cast irresponsibly.

            • note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff).
              FWIW I've heard the exact same thing from a friend of mine who was a Republican Senate staffer. Said Mccain was a total prick and incredibly abusive to his staffers.
            • You don't need the staffer. Just look at how he's responded to criticism of his pet project, the incumbent protection act (a.k.a campaign finance "reform"). Or more recently, what he's been saying about illegal immigration.

              He's pretty squarely in the prima donna category.

            • Maybe it's because 2 isn't nearly enough (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @02:13AM (#23775185) Journal
              Maybe because for Joe Sixpack what matters is "how well they reperesent _my_ point of view?" If the answer is "neither", in a sense, yes, they're both the same.

              Essentially it's like having to choose between two women as your wife. (Assuming you're a guy.) One is cute, but is really a guy in drag, dumb as a brick and only talks about his/her hypochondriac imaginary diseases. The other is smart and has big tits, but weighs 300 pounds at 5 ft tall, is butt-ugly and is the stereotypical rabid man-hater. Which one, would you say, better represents your tastes in women?

              And if you have an urge to say, "whoa, dude, that's a false dichotomy. There are more kinds of women than that!", congrats, then you get my point perfectly. It shouldn't be a dichotomy in the first place.

              Way I see it, it's the same in two-party politics. You have to choose between two package deals, and you're lucky if one issue of each really represents your views.

          • Re:Not difficult to find differences at all (Score:5, Insightful)

            by 7Prime ( 871679 ) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:49PM (#23773719) Homepage Journal
            Exactly. This is why I find the, "all candidates are too similar" arguement to be so disturbing. For fuck's sake, I heard it back in 2000 against Bush and Gore. "Bush/Gore...what's the difference?" Holy shit, how naive are these people? If they can't tell the difference between a philistine semi-fascist war-monger, and an intellectual-minded left-leaning "let's listen to the experts" leader... then I don't know what else to tell ya.

            Now isn't quite as extreme as the year 2000, which may have been the most extreme in the nation's history. But still the differences are very clear. The main difference, once again, is in the roll of privatization vs. government. THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. It may not be "abortion" it might not be "should we go to war", but it's the kind of decision that leads a type of decision on substantial issues. For instance, War in Iraq would not have been an issue if not for the fundimental roll that private contracts/armies played.

            Do you think that massive privatization is a good thing for the country? If yes, vote McCain, if No, vote Obama... that should be a pretty defining issue.

            Secondly, how do you want your leader to communicate with other individuals/leaders? This is a big decision because it shows how likely the person is to be able to convince other people/leaders to follow through with their plans. Both McCain and Obama are fairly wise individuals, and project themselves fairly possitively. But McCain has the ability to intimidate (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing), where as Obama is more likely to adopt inspirational speak. As an idealist, I tend to like Obama's style better... but there is a time and place for the kind of communicative pattern that McCain has.

            And we haven't even gotten to the issues yet. But the issues aren't really as important as the philosophy behind them. The bottom line is, most of the important decisions a president will make, we can't even guess at this point (Bush's legacy, no one could have expected in 2000, for instance). Who's going to best processes the incoming issues? Who's going to make decisions that fit with your particular world view.

            The fact is, Obama and McCain are wildly different candidates. If you think they're similar, you're either not paying attention, or you probably are just saying that because you don't like either of them. If that's the case, then just say you don't like either of them. I think that they're of the highest caliber politicians we could ask for, personaly. As a liberal democrat, I of course strongly endorse Obama. But I couldn't ask for a better republican opponant.

            • Now isn't quite as extreme as the year 2000, which may have been the most extreme in the nation's history.

              That you can even say this with a (metaphorically) straight face shows that you have no historical perspective, or at least are prone to wild exaggerations.

              Do you think that massive privatization is a good thing for the country? If yes, vote McCain, if No, vote Obama... that should be a pretty defining issue.

              If you think McCain will actually bring about "massive privatization", I've got a bridge to sell you. Bush talked the "small government" talk, too, and he's done fuck-all to back it up.

              In fact, the entire Republican party has basically abandoned its stance on limited government (while still paying lip service to it, of course, so as not to alienate t

      • The problem comes down to how the legislature is set up. The British parties are formed as a party representation, if 15% of the population votes for your party you get about 15% of the Parliament seats. Here each seat is based on geography instead of political identity. It made sense when we were a rural nation. Though some geographic representation still makes sense I think the best would be to change one of the two houses of Congress into party representation while leaving the other Geographic representa

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ed Avis ( 5917 )

          The British parties are formed as a party representation, if 15% of the population votes for your party you get about 15% of the Parliament seats. Here each seat is based on geography instead of political identity.

          The British system is also based on geographical constituencies. It is not proportional to number of votes cast.

          For example, in 2005 the Labour party won 35% of the vote but 55% of seats, making it the next government. The Conservative party got 32% of the vote and 31% of the seats, and the Libe

      • Re:Not a bad plan (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Friday June 13, 2008 @03:10AM (#23775425) Homepage

        The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese.
        These two sentences completely contradict each other. The United Kingdom has basically a two-party system, with government and opposition swapping places every decade or so. There is one small third party and the remaining parties are all regional/nationalist ones with only a handful of representatives.

        As for Japan, it was ruled by the same single party from 1955 until 1993, and for much of the time since then.

        If you want to see a system with lots of small parties, look at Italy. Germany is in between the two extremes, with four or five medium to large parties.
  • I mean, by withdrawing is he somehow trying to say that he'd prefer McCain to Obama? What are the benefits of withdrawal? I don't understand this action at all!

    • Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @07:16PM (#23772525)
      The thing about presidential campaigns in the US is that they, more than any other event, get people talking about public policy. Half of the stuff that gets debated really has nothing to do with the presidency - it is really more the job of congress. But it is these campaigns that frame the political conversation for the next 1-3 years to come. So if you want your ideas, and your issues to have a place in this media short-list, then you are best off if you can get them into discussion surrounding the presidential election.

      That is really what "no-chance" third party runs are about. And the Ron-Paul campaign has succeeded in creating a lot of discussion that wouldn't have happened if it was just an activist group. Now that the primaries are over there is no more venue to do this. Neither he nor his cause has anything to gain from being an annoying thorn-in-the side at the GOP Convention. He knew from the beginning that he wasn't going to win the nomination, and stepping down gracefully is the best thing to do.

      Furthermore, I don't think there is really anything to be gained from running as an independent. First off, for good or bad, Paul has decided to work within the Republican party. Secondly, I don't really know who his campaign would draw more voters from - McCain, Obama or the Libertarian candidate. Most importantly, Paul wants to return to his congressional seat which he would have to forfeit if he made a run for the presidency. He can do more good serving another term as congressman then he would by extending this campaign another half year.
  • So Ron Paul, who is (or at least claims to be) a libertarian, attracts "traditional social conservatives", who are primarily interested in having the government enforce their own beliefs on others about what consenting adults should or should not be allowed to do privately? Anybody else see anything wrong with this picture?

  • Paul realized this was the wrong year (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2008 @07:19PM (#23772541)
    for a serious third party candidacy, since the two major party candidates both appeal to independents, which is a rarity.

    Had the two parties nominated Romney and Clinton, we might have seen any number of serious challengers, including Paul, Bloomberg, and Hagel. At least one of them would've taken 5-7 pct of the vote in November. As it is, I don't expect Barr or Nader to take even half of 1 pct between them.

    • Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drachenstern ( 160456 ) <drachenstern@gmail.com> on Thursday June 12, 2008 @07:34PM (#23772703) Journal
      Three parties is just as bad as two. We need six or seven parties...

      I guess just so long as there is no Party of Five on my presidential or congressional election stub...

  • why stop now? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2008 @08:04PM (#23772989)
    I had really hoped he'd was going to continue his campaign though to the end. He could have done to McCain what Perot and Nader did in the 90's and 2000 elections. We need someone to keep some votes away from the third term of Bush.
  • I'm kinda bummed out about Ron Paul dropping out, but also excited by the hope that many of his supporters will choose to support Bob Barr now. Barr is currently the best hope for Freedom and Liberty among Presidential candidates.

    Of course there are others of us running for various other offices who also adhere to the ideals of small government, rule of law and the principles Ron Paul has been advocating. My own campaign for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina might be of interest to some of you, for example. http://www.philrhodes2008.com/ [philrhodes2008.com]

    We can regain our Freedom, if we choose to.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • The irony is that Ron Paul is a liberal (Score:3, Informative)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @02:27AM (#23775243)
    i find it ironic that the Democratic party in the US is accused of being liberal when in fact they are social democrats. Ron Paul's policies are closer to true liberalism than either of the larger parties.

      Z

Slashdot Top Deals

Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen

Close