GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
From ABC News:
Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, which was a pugnacious, ideological crusade against big government and interventionist leanings in the Republican party, will officially end Thursday at a rally outside the Texas GOP’s convention, ABC News has learned.
Paul told supporters back in March, in a video posted on his website, that he was “winding down” his campaign and planning a new phase to what he and fans call their “revolution.”
The new phase of the revolution officially begins with a speech tonight in Houston and a web video to be posted on his website, officially ending Paul’s presidential campaign and freeing up the more than $4.7 million in campaign cash for investment in a new advocacy group, The Campaign for Liberty.
The new entity will be used to push a slate of libertarian-minded Republican candidates for public office in local districts nationwide, according to a description provided to ABC News by the Paul campaign. Paul also recently published a new book on his political philosophy, The Revolution: A Manifesto.
Now this is an avenue in which Rep. Paul can really accomplish a lot of good in getting the Republican Party get back on track.
H/T - R4′08 reader Josiah
June 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Does Ron Paul deserve caps in a headline?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I’m very interested to see how this works out.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
#2:
No offense, but I’m very interested in seeing him go away.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Sampo #1,
Have you been paying attention to the success the Ronulans have had in organizing and exerting their influence at the state level?
These guys will be players in the future of the Republican Party. Better get used to it.
They have a long term plan of changing the GOP from the ground up and enough foot soldiers to have a realistic change of achieving some success.
There is a huge void at the grassroots level in the Republican Party right now; and the Ronulans are intent on filling it.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Now maybe we can get Bob Barr to abandon the Libertarians Run for POTUS if we can assure him that Sarah Palin will be McCain’s Veep. She has noted libertarian sympathies and should be attractive to that group.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
#4 Kavon,
Speaking of which, keep an eye on BJ Lawson, a Ron Paul-approved candidate, who just snagged the Republican primary nomination for NC’s 4th congressional district with over 70% of the vote. He’s very, very close to Ron Paul philosophically and, with his anti-war + socially conservative views, he actually has a shot at putting a long-entrenched Democratic seat into the (R) column this November.
#5 Ted,
Or Maybe McCain should pick Barr for his runningmate.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Ted, just what will you do if McCain doesn’t pick Palin?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Josiah,
I have heard a little bit about Lawson. I’m sure he’s not the last.
Dr. Paul is, in some ways, our Obama in the fact that he is drawing completely new people to politics that were sitting it out before. In that sense, Paul really isn’t changing the base, he’s expanding it.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
#5 Ted:
I wouldn’t worry about Bob Barr. He, like Ralph Nader, will be a non factor in this election. If there was
a candidate running to the right of McCain on everything, than we might have some troubles, but there isn’t
so we won’t.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The website’s up now: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
June 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I am not sure what the good doctor has in mind. I just read the site’s mission statement and it basically trashes both parties with familiar anti-war rhetoric (although he says he will seek to influence the GOP platform). He refers to a “shrinking” republican party. Paul also writes about the shadow convention he will hold in MN yet seems to want a speaking role at the GOP convention. I get the feeling he is not sure whether he wants to be inside or outside.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Memnon #11,
“Convention” is not a word Dr. Paul has ever used to describe the rally he will be holding in Minneapolis. Ron is in the Republican Party to stay–his biggest immediate goal is to remind the GOP of its underlying principles.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
#7, if McCain doesn’t pick Palin, frankly that would say a lot about McCain.
In any event, I’d probably end up saying — albeit I wouldn’t want to have to — “I told you so” when McCain either looses the election or eeks out an ever so slight win.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I know people have been poking fun at (or sometimes deriding) me for my persistence on Palin. But, really, am I missing something here? I don’t think so. This is not rocket science.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Ron is in the Republican Party to stay–his biggest immediate goal is to remind the GOP of its underlying principles.”
..since when has a weaker defense stance ever been part of the underlying principles of the GOP?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Actblog, Robert Taft…
June 12th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
From WWI into the fifties the Republicans had a very strong isolationist/protectionist element (the two tendencies generally, but not always, go together, in my opinion). Besides Taft, another was Charles Lindbergh (his father voted against entry into WWI as a Minnesota congressman) and his America First movement in the thirties. Pat Buchanan continues in this tradition.
Under Roosevelt and Truman and continuing through to JFK/LBJ, the Democrats were the internationalist and free trade party.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Boy the neocons have truly done a number with the Party when smaart guys like Act think that REAL Republican principles include a Wilsonian foreign policy.
I wonder what Edmund Burke would say about bankrupting a country pursuing utopian idealism?
June 13th, 2008 at 4:24 am
I have been monitoring our regional Pauleroids since they boasted of taking over our local party…several of them have resigned the party to help Barr, and half have decided to resign in a public fashion as soon as they can find a reason to do so.
Some of them will stay and help conservatives fight to pull the party back to the right (when they aren’t calling us neocons), but I have no faith in the majority of them because they are dope smoking anti-war types…at least in my neck of the woods.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Seems the Pauleroids can now rally round Sarah Palin (”Palinoids”).
June 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
act #15 & ecg #16,
Since when has having a military stretched thin across the globe, having to man over 700 installments (60 of them being major bases) in over 100 countries, while at the same time being mired in not one but two endlessly expensive ground wars = having a strong national defense?
Neither Sen. Taft nor Rep. Paul have supported a “weak” national defense, unless you gauge the strength of a country’s national defense purely by how many dollars are in its budget, or, even more foolishly, by how many troops and bases are stationed on foreign shores. Taft, Paul, and any constitutional conservative will tell you that a stronger, more efficient US military is the goal–not the fatigued, inefficient US military of our time.
BobH #17,
Isolationism and protectionism are not two separate elements, rather protectionism is merely a part of isolationism. Neither Taft nor Paul were/are isolationist. Both were/are strong supporters of free enterprise, free trade, free travel, and diplomacy. However, Taft and Paul were/are foreign non-interventionists, which means that they do not believe the US military should involve itself or promote sides in wars which pose no direct threat to national security, nor should the US government meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries (meaning everything from organizing foreign coups to using to giving out foreign aid money). Non-interventionism and isolationism are as different as night and day. Pat Buchanan is a true isolationist–Taft and Paul were/are not.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
This is an idea that people like myself can rally around. I don’t agree with Paul on some things, and I definitely had problems with some of his militants, but overall, he’s got a lot of things right.
My biggest problem with him is that I don’t agree with him on our present situation. Believe it or not, I don’t necessarily think that invading Iraq was the best idea, but that is hindsight. The fact is that we are there, and I think that withdrawing the troops without any sort of stability in Iraq would be disasterous. Leaving Iraq in it’s present state would not be in the best interest of anybody, except Al Queda and the resurgents. We have really screwed things up, and it is our responsibility to clean up the mess.
Other than that biggie, I believe most of his ideas should be taken seriously and honestly debated over.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Tommy #22,
What do you think about the constitutionality of a central bank, and the merit of balanced budgets, sound money, and economic liberty?
The only way our massive overseas presence and involvement in Iraq is possible is because of a central bank with discretionary powers, unbalanced budgets, fiat money, and economic oppression. If we truly believe that the economic liberty Dr. Paul talks about is the best course to take, there would be no way to pay for our current military situation–it’s simply unaffordable and totally irresponsible from a fiscal standpoint.