Pat Buchanan Says Ron Paul Will Not Run Third Party

Pat Buchanan has a new column out addressing the Ron Paul campaign. In it he addresses a potential Ron Paul third party run.

There is a gnawing fear in the GOP that Paul will quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election.

Not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party’s certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama.

Paul would become a pariah in his party, while his son, Sen. Rand Paul, who would be forced to endorse his father over the GOP nominee, would be ruined as a future Republican leader.

Why would Dr. Paul do this, when the future inside the GOP looks bright not only for him but for his son?

The course Ron Paul will likely take, then, is this.

Commit to this nomination battle all the way to Tampa, contest every primary and caucus, amass a maximum of delegates.

If Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich lose in South Carolina, they will lose in Florida, and begin to peel off and drop out, for none is a cause candidate and each will soon come to realize that his presidential aspirations are done for now if not for good.

Their departure will leave the Republican contest a Romney-Paul race, giving Paul half a year on the campaign trail to increase his visibility, enlarge his following, grow his mailing lists and broaden his donor base.

In return for a commitment to campaign for the ticket, Paul should demand a prime-time speaking slot at the convention and use the speech to emulate Barry Goldwater in 1960 when he admonished conservatives at the convention to “grow up,” so that “we can take this party back.”

Read more…

25 thoughts on “Pat Buchanan Says Ron Paul Will Not Run Third Party

  1. Stewart Flood

    How could Dr Paul even consider campaigning for someone who’s past political policies and proposed solutions to our economic and social crisis are completely at odds with his and those of any rational libertarian minded individual?

    This is just right-wing political rhetoric.

    I agree that it is very possible that Dr Paul will contest the nomination all the way to the convention. I agree that he would damage his son’s future in the party of Lincoln’s first term, but I believe he will then step down and retire from the political field and let Romney and the Republicans do their own campaigning.

    If he were to commit to supporting and campaigning for Romney (for whom there appears to be a paid ad at the top of this comment section), then he would certainly disappoint his supporters. It is possible that they would be angered to the point of seriously damaging Dr Paul’s image during his “swan song” in American politics.

    Dr Paul cannot possibly be thinking of doing what Buchanan suggests. If he were to campaign for Romney, he would most likely be remembered as the political Judas Iscariot of our day.

  2. RedPhillips Post author

    I have several comments.

    First, the column as a whole is clearly Paul friendly. While it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Buchanan is friendly to Paul, it has been observed in paleo circles that Buchanan has been less enthusiastic about Paul than one might expect, especially since Paul is know to have stepped aside for Buchanan in ’92. Seculation is that this has been out of deference to his sister Bay, who is a convert to Mormonism and supports Romney.

    Second, I wonder if Buchanan regrets his Reform Party run. All the reasons he uses to suggest that a third party run for Paul would be unwise could have applied to Buchanan’s run in 2000.

    Third, I don’t think Paul can get away with endorsing the eventual GOP nominee which is very likely to be Romney. His supporters would go bonkers, and I don’t think Paul could bring himself to do it. I think the best Romney can expect is for Paul to remain silent and not endorse anyone else.

  3. Pingback: Pat Buchanan’s New Column Has Kind Things to Say About Ron Paul | Conservative Heritage Times

  4. Brian Holtz

    From the Buchanan column:
    “Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different,” said an astonished Journal, “it’s shockingly different.”

    Twenty-one percent of his $2.4 to $5.5 million was in real estate, 14 percent in cash. He owns no bonds. Only 0.1 percent is invested in stocks, and Paul bought these “short,” betting the price will plunge. Every other nickel is sunk into gold and silver mining companies.

    Bernstein “had never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe,” said the Journal.

    “This portfolio,” said Bernstein, “is a half step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and 9-millimeter rounds.”

    How is he invested in mining companies if not via stock?

    I tend to agree with Less Antman’s advice to buy and hold diversified equities: “Gold cannot buy non-existent products: it also depends on continued productivity in society. Production is the foundation of any livable future: there is no reward for successfully predicting the end of the world.”

  5. pete healey

    Buchanan’s comments strike me as more about what Buchanan might or would do than about what Paul might or should do. Buchanan, let’s remember, has had Presidential aspirations of his own, and is probably still looking at things through that unique prism.

  6. johncjackson

    @2
    If I were a paul supporter ( and I might be) I would not want too much of Buchanan’s support. Paul’s current success is in spite of, not because of, that whole dark Buchanan “paleo” era.

  7. George Phillies

    Buchanan’s arguments are not at all good. Paul the younger can perfectly well say “I am a loyal Republican, and while I love my father I am supporting the Republican nominee, Senator Santorum.” Paul the younger emphatically says he is a conservative, not a libertarian, and anything that damages a sitting conservative politician is good news.

  8. paulie

    Paul the younger can perfectly well say “I am a loyal Republican, and while I love my father I am supporting the Republican nominee, Senator Santorum.

    Sure he could, but I don’t think he would.

  9. Gene Berkman

    GP – Rand Paul has led the opposition to NDAA – where were you?

    Rand Paul introduced a bill to end the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq -where were you?

    Rand Paul has proposed major cuts in government spending – I have not heard any such proposals from you.

    In his book “The Tea Party Goes to Washington” Rand Paul makes several statements in favor of libertarianism. That may not be enough for you, but his opposition to big government certainly impresses me.

  10. paulie

    I wonder if Buchanan regrets his Reform Party run.

    No need to wonder, he’s openly said so.

    All the reasons he uses to suggest that a third party run for Paul would be unwise could have applied to Buchanan’s run in 2000.

    I don’t think Buchanan has a son he’s grooming as a successor.

    Third, I don’t think Paul can get away with endorsing the eventual GOP nominee which is very likely to be Romney. His supporters would go bonkers, and I don’t think Paul could bring himself to do it. I think the best Romney can expect is for Paul to remain silent and not endorse anyone else.

    Agreed…unless Rand is VP candidate.

  11. Gene Berkman

    Anyway, the Republican nominee will not be Rick Santorum, and Rand Paul can easily be silent during the Presidential race. Many incumbent politicians have refrained from endorsing candidates, leaving the choice to the voters.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Apart from his support for the anti-libertarian “right to work” [sic] garbage, Paul the Younger seems fairly good as conservatives go.

    As far as tagging him with the libertarian label, he’s specifically rejected it. Why try to plaster it on him if he doesn’t want it?

  13. George Phillies

    In his election campaign, Rand Paul said ‘they tried to stick me with the libertarian label but they failed’.

    He proudly says he is a Republican conservative.

    He is no libertarian.

  14. AnthonyD

    I’m no paleo, nor a big fan of Buchanan, but I have to say I agree with his theorizing on what Ron Paul is ultimately going to do. The potential risks and difficulties of a third party run, along with the potential damage to his son’s career, will sway him to the safer alternative of a prime-time speaking spot at the convention, and a belief (however delusional), that he is moving the party in the right direction.

    However, I still suggest there is the possibility that Ron Paul is forced to run 3rd party; that this thing he is creating grows to the point where it may ironically be the decision to NOT run third party that would “sunder the movement Paul has pulled together…”

  15. D. Lou Shenoll

    @15 Ditto !!!

    Rand Paul coattailed Ron Paul’s support to a US Senate seat ! Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul and you who think so will be sadly disappointed in due time. Ron Paul lands in the L quad of the Nolan Chart (barely IMightAdd) Rand Paul doesn’t. Sadly tens of thousand who land much higher in the L quad are giving much money and much time to Ron Paul and Rand Paul instead of the LP and LP causes!

    Ron Paul is 76 years old, face it, this is his final rodeo. Those expecting Rand to just smoothely move in and take over “the movement” face disappointments. I don’t doubt that Rand will attempt to do so, but he doesn’t even want the small l label attached to him. He is a conservative not a libertarian. The RLC types may rejoice, but this anti-Dum & Dummer won’t choose to lay down with the Rs or Ds (politically speaking anyway)! Ron Paul is the “head” of this R(3ov_l)ution and Ron Paul needs to “lead” it through the General election in Nov.!

    I liked Buchanan years ago. I now feel he is a sale out and just another puppet in the false left-right paradigm. IOW he and his words must be watched closely. Their family is close and he can be promoting this to help give his sis’ candidate a better chance……

  16. RedPhillips Post author

    johncjackson, Ron Paul has always been a figure associated with the right even before the deliberate “dark” (whooo… scary!) paleo strategy of Rothbard and Rockwell. That is why Paul had built up good graces among the “far right” long before he was making a play for liberal anti-war activist and lefty libertarians. Ron Paul is able to serve as the unifying libertarian/conservative candidate that he is because he is historically a figure of the right. He is not doing well in spite of his past. He is doing well because of it. Stop being a PC thought slave.

  17. ATBAFT

    Rand Paul will be a (if not “the”) leader of the “libertarian conservative” wing of the GOP.
    There will still be a need for the LP. Rand will exemplify the hope that the LP would, over time, move at least one major party’s views in a libertarian direction. And, over time, Rand could become more libertarian (as did, e.g. Barry Goldwater) and their will be others in Paul’s wing who will be even more libertarian while remaining in the GOP.

  18. paulie

    Paul had built up good graces among the “far right” long before he was making a play for liberal anti-war activist and lefty libertarians.

    And I agree with JCJ that he is succeeding despite, not because of, those graces among the far right now. It doesn’t matter what he was doing before the paleo strategy, although I seem to recall he was pretty good as an LP candidate.

    Rothbard et al were always at their best when making alliances with the left, such as during Vietnam and in the last ten years, and at their worst when kowtowing to the Strom Thurmonds, Pat Buchanans, David Dukes et al.

  19. Pingback: Pat Buchanan Says Ron Paul Will Not Run Third Party | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  20. SoCal Moderate

    Paul won’t endorse the GOP candidate and Ron Paul is garnering support for his son, Rand Paul. I fully expect Rand Paul to run for Governor of Kentucky in 2015 and he’ll probably win. Then he’ll look at making a run for the GOP nomination in 2020 or 2024. It’s a methodical process as the 2016 GOP field will be stacked with Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, etc. They all know that Obama will win re-election barring something crazy happening and the democrats will be extremely weak in 2016 if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run and no way that Joe Biden gets the Dem nomination in 2016

  21. Rob Banks

    “Paul won’t endorse the GOP candidate and Ron Paul is garnering support for his son, Rand Paul. I fully expect Rand Paul to run for Governor of Kentucky in 2015 and he’ll probably win.”

    Good chance you’re right.

    “Then he’ll look at making a run for the GOP nomination in 2020 or 2024. It’s a methodical process as the 2016 GOP field will be stacked with Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, etc.”

    Rand will run for President in 2016 even if he has no chance at the nomination, it will help him build himself up for a stronger run later.

    “They all know that Obama will win re-election barring something crazy happening ”

    Correct.

    “democrats will be extremely weak in 2016 if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run”

    She’ll run.

  22. citizen1

    Ron Paul will most likely not run third party simply because he will still be in the Republican party race until it is too late for him to make a third party bid.

Leave a Reply