digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at westernstandard.blogs.com

GOP forbade Ron Paul from pursuing a third party run

westernstandard.blogs.com — the GOP would prefer it never to see the light of day, and until that point Paul could coyly respond to inquiries that he had "no plans" to mount a third party run while not completely ruling it out

Who dugg this?

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

11 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+10I knew this had to be the case
  • Acrinimiril, on 11/07/2008, -0/+10"Ron Paul could not have run Libertarian if he wanted to. In order to be on the GOP Primary Ballot in at least 11 states, including Texas, Ron had to pledge that he would not seek the presidency on another ticket if he failed to secure the GOP nomination. Not running third party was the price of admission.

    We are certainly open to fair criticism of Dr. Paul. But criticizing him for not running third party is not fair criticism. I hope this clears things up." - Jesse Benton, Ron Paul campaign communications manager

    Good story. That should clear up many unfounded doubts.
  • le0pardess, on 11/07/2008, -0/+10Yes, he was that much of a threat to them, the federal reserve and the nwo.
  • XxtraLarGe, on 11/07/2008, -0/+5You're assuming he's thinking. 3rd party totals were up this year between 15-20%, except for Ralph Nader.
  • XxtraLarGe, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4Just out of curiosity, I wonder what the GOP could have done if he hadn't honored the agreement? Not much more than just complain, I suspect.
  • dmjarrington, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4where do you get such silly ideas? aren't you tired of not thinking for yourself?
  • RobertTaft, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4More here: http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/05/ron-paul-third- ...
  • dmjarrington, on 11/07/2008, -0/+2figures...
  • Yinepuhotep, on 11/07/2008, -0/+1Just goes to show how honorable Dr. Paul is. Even when the demands were unreasonable, when he agreed to them, he felt bound to honor them.
  • inactive, on 11/08/2008, -0/+0This is a great example of what is wrong with party politics. The parties wield too much power in the ability to restrict who we have to choose from and what is discussed during a campaign.
    Anyone who believes blindly in any party is fooling themselves. The party invariably becomes more important than the country.
  • NoLibertarians, on 11/07/2008, -12/+0Good for the GOP..Paul needs to make up his mind, is he a Republican or not...He had no prayer no matter what party he ran as...He's not a Republican, he's a Libertarian who already lost once in that party..He's not presidential material in any party..In fact he was destructive to the 3rd party movement this year...Mainly their total and utter disappearance from the election lies on his shoulders. If he hadn't screwed around with his endorsement the 3rd parties combined might have pulled as much as 2%

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.