Maybe Ron Paul will do for the Democrats what Ralph Nader did for the Republicans

Witness this exchange from last night's debate:

Mark Strauss, Davenport, Iowa.

This question is for Ron Paul. 

Mr Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run.

My question is for Ron Paul: Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent?

Thank you.

PAUL: Now that's what I call a tough question, because I have no intention of doing this.

I am a Republican. I have won 10 times as a Republican and we're doing quite well. We had 5,000 people show up at a rally in front of the Independence Hall with blacks and Hispanics and a cross-section of this country.

You know that we raised $4.3 million in one day?

Without spending one cent. We didn't even pay an individual to go out and they weren't professional fund-raisers. It came in here -- it was automatic.

We're struggling to figure out how to spend the money. This is country is in a revolution. They're sick and tired of what they're getting. And I happen to be lucky enough to be part of it.
Anderson Cooper: "I'll take that as a no".

But should he? 

To my ears, "no intention" and "no plans" are a politician's answer from a man who claims to be above - or at least beyond - the usual run of politics.

It sounds a lot like the words used by Michael Heseltine back in Britain whenever he was asked if  he challenge Margeret Thatcher for the Conservative Party leadership. Everyone knew he would. And, eventually, he did.

As Paul points out, he has money to burn which he does not know how to spend. I wonder how much he is keeping back in reserve for the general election?

As an independent libertarian candidate (something he has been before but without his new national profile or money) he would shave a few votes from the Democrats, as well as attracting others out of the woods, but the main losers would be the Republicans.

And, if he matched the 2.74% of the vote secured by Ralph Nader in 2000, he might just tip the election to the Democrats.

So perhaps Republican candidates in their next debate should think twice about patronising cranky old Paul, stop giving his rants sneering looks and shaken heads - because he may yet be a genuine threat to their chances of retaining the White House.

Comments

[Brien Comerford]

Ran Paul is a very unenlightened person. He voted to slaughter horses for food consumption as a member of Congress. Enough said ! Guliani and Romney were horrible at Wednesday's debate. McCain eas excellent.

[Christopher McMahon]

That is one of the most ignorant responses to an article I have ever read.

You should learn how to spell for one. It is obvious you'll vote for McCain. Good for you.

Namecalling and inventing data will leave you cold and with no friends.

We ALL know McCain will not win.

[Lorenz]

Ron Paul is the man i have been looking for. He reminds me of your MP George Galloway - HONEST. Though you can say both are on the other extremes when it comes to economics.... It is hard to find a politician who has a history in congress that backs up their message, and one who speaks the truth. The American people want out of the Iraq war, and neither the democrats or republicans are allowing that - it is a shame. There is more loyalty to the party, than to the country.

[Brian O'Neill]

It is a tragedy when democracies are controlled by tiny parties delivering or denying the margin of victory to one of the more representative parties.

Ron Paul is NOT running for President of the US. If he sincerely thinks that there is any chance of that happening, then he is even more out of touch with reality than his positions and speeches suggest.

Ralph Nader's vanity campaign in 2000 is directly responsible for the war in Iraq, the serious threats that endanger our Constitution, decades of devious appointments throughout our government, and countless other tragedies brought on by the Bush administration.

This is the cost of one man's need to see his name on banners and balloons.

[Brien Comerford]

Christopher McMahon:

I will improve my spelling. Ron Paul has a horrible record in reference to environmental and wildlife issues. Vote for him and fall for his self-righteous invective.

[David Fryauf]

What Republicans fail to realize is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who stands a chance in the general election against the Democrats, especially if its against Hillary, which is looking more and more likely. The Neoconservative policy trend of big government shaping our domestic and foreign policy is currently unpopular to the vast majority of citizens surveyed. This is obvious, just look at approval ratings of Bush administration decisions, the Iraq war path, or just about anything in the Federal government that can be surveyed! The Democratic candidates receive 3 times the amount of campaign contributions as the Republicans, and from more individual donors as well.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate willing to bring the party back to its roots and actually oppose the unnecessary involvement overseas, oppose the ridiculous waste of government resources here and abroad, and bring a respectable image back to our proud country.

The other GOP candidates have made it obvious that they dont plan to make any drastic change, and it will lose to any democrat in the general election. They shouldn't be afraid of Ron Paul's power as a third party candidate. He seriously wont run, just to avoid the situation brought up in the article. He probably agrees that any Republican is better than Hillary, so he wouldn't want to diverge votes. What the other candidates should be afraid of is the general election, and how they can convince the nation that a continuation of the current establishment is a good thing.

Dr. Paul is the only viable solution. That is obvious enough from this simple logic alone.

[Sarah S.]

Brien, horses are slaughtered for dog food every day. If they can also feed hungry people, who cares? As for McCain, he uses his years as a member of the military to put himself on a pedestal, much like Giuliani uses 9/11. He was just a man doing the job he signed up for. Even worse, he can't even get his facts about WWII right - and you trust his judgement about the war in Iraq? (WWII was essentially a direct effect of WWI; specifically, the Treaty of Versailles.) Ron Paul's responses to him were intelligent and (most importantly) absolutely correct.

I'd also like to remind Mr. Baldwin that even when Paul was on the Libertarian ticket in '88, he was still a Republican. :)

[Paul Grad]

Dr. Paul will not tip the election to the Democrats, or to the Republicans. He will win it himself. (I strongly opposed the horse slaughter, but I still support him).

[JoeBlow]

Or....he just might win. The problem with Ron Paul is that he isn't getting the attention he needs. If more people listened to him they would realize this man is what America needs. If he ran as an independent he would have a very good chance at beating out whatever republican nut wins the primary, and certainly he can win against Hellary if she wins the primary.

However, Dr. Ron Paul is very honest and not a typical politician, he does not receive money from lobbyists, I believe him when he says he will not run as an independent. The only way he will run is if enough of his supporters demand he run as an independent. He would only go back on his words if the people demanded him to take action, so I only hope all of his fans don't even let a primary loss ruin their energy.

Ron Paul for president, join the rEVOLution!! :)

[Matt Myers]

Not surprising really that British journos are so dismissive of Ron Paul. The British people will never let go of their beloved welfare state.....until it bankrupts them....and that is a very real possibility. A sizeable majority of us have never lived in our country without it. It's worked because there there has been just about enough productive output to support it. But nobody considers the godzilla sized debts that our governments have run up to sustain it. If the US goes into hard recession (highly likely), the UK will follow swiftly. The UK will be broke, just like the US is right now.

[Fawzi M. Saad]

After some investigative work, it seems Mark Strauss and CNN collaborated on that particular question to make Ron Paul look unelectable as a maninstream Republican nominee.

My YouTube video cites 2 articles where Mr. Strauss back on July 24, 2007, after asking a question at the Democratic Debate, clearly admits to CNN asking him to edit, and re-shape a question for this Republican Debate.

I did the research, but am shocked the main stream media isn't running with this story, and I am not even a journalist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsL7e4bgqkI

[Chris Pirouline]

Ron Paul is the only one who has not been corrupted by Washington. America needs a doctor; someone with the talent for fixing things instead of exploitation. Dr. Paul is the man!

[Alexander Slotty]

As an actual respose to the article:

Why is everyone caring so much about what he'll do after the election? All he (and we) should care about is winning the election. Saying now that he is not a republican but an indipendent (liberal) would only hurt his campain further and people who want this question asked know it.
As Mr Paul said in his response, although his polling numbers are still low, there is a lot of monumentum building up. Just now he already fundraised in 2 months more than 10 million.

[EQ, San Francisco]

It's unfortunate that Ralph Nader is still inaccurately and conveniently blamed for what happened in 2000. Anyone who takes a serious look at that election will see that in Florida more registered Democrats voted for BUSH than Nader, and not by a narrow margin.

If blame need be assigned, it rests squarely with Al Gore, who ran a blundering campaign, and then didn't have the gumption to fight for a presidency that was rightfully his.

But for non-critical thinkers, clearly it's easier to conjure up false urban legends and vilify a man who's devoted his entire life to the advocacy of citizenry and the public good, than to look for fault in a one-party, two-headed system.

As with Nader, the media (as in this article), look past Ron Paul's message and focus rather on the phenomenon of his candidacy. That 'phenomenon' in either case is the voice of The People supporting candidates with a history of progressive politics, which corporate media will hear none of.

[shay]

Tom Baldwin is an idiot. He doesn't understand the US at all. He needs to be sent back home, simply for saying the ludicrious things he says about the US. Brits have the wrong impression of us. It's just a shame.

[TEH PROOFREADA]

"Strategic voting" is garbage. Vote for who you want to win, and if your uninspired, passionless candidate doesn't win, then blame your candidate for not inspiring more people to vote for him or her. Blame rightly deserves to be placed on Al Gore, who actually WON the 2000 election... yet didn't FIGHT the obviously fishy results to the bitter end. He gave up. Regardless, he and the Clintons are just as neo-con as George W and his band of elitist "leaders of men." Either way, war in Iraq.

I voted for Nader in 2000 because I wanted an end to the obsolete two-party system. I'll vote for Ron Paul in 2008, because he's the man who DESERVES to be president... a man who LEADS by EXAMPLE. Can't imagine any other big-name politician besides George Galloway who'd I call a true role model and LEADER.

[Brian O'Neill]

Please, let's not toss out solid facts as "urban legend."

In 2000, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Ralph Nader received 97,000 votes in Florida.

According to the Washington Post, exit polls there showed that "47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21 percent for Bush." This would have given Gore a margin of some 24,000 votes over Bush.

Even without the Washington Post's exit poll, common sense would lead most of us to expect that a reasonable majority of Green voters would prefer the author of "Earth In The Balance" over a hanging-governor and an oil man.

Something similar happened in New Hampshire. Either state would have given the Electoral College victory to Gore.

We can all guess and complain about what Al Gore or anyone else should or could or might have done- but he would have won the election without doing anything any differently, if Ralph Nader had stayed off of the ballot in Florida.

Had that happened, there would be no US troops in Iraq today, the US would be leading the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court would not include Justices who favor "the unitary executive," and this and every other bit of US internet traffic wouldn't be being monitored by the NSA.

Please tell me where the "urban legend" is in any of that.