Maybe I'm not seeing the subtle distinctions, but what, exactly, is the difference between Ron Paul's announcement in March that he can't win the Republican nomination and will stop campaigning, and Ron Paul's announcement today that he's suspending his campaign? Notice that Paul still hasn't officially dropped out of the race, though he hasn't held any campaign events in months. Not that this has stopped him from taking more than 10% of the vote in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Oregon and Idaho even after John McCain wrapped up the nomination.
Paul plans to transfer the energy his campaign generated to his new Campaign for Liberty, an organization for activism and education. That's probably for the best. Ron Paul is a lot better at raising important issues and building a movement than at winning votes in a national campaign. No word yet on whether he'll endorse Bob Barr - or anyone else. Reason confirms that he won't be endorsing John McCain - a big duh on that one, despite the work of some delusional McCain supporters.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Deja Vu: Ron Paul Suspends His Campaign
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I just found this blog, and I have to admit its interesting. I consider myself a small l libertarian, and I had been considering Obama (I'm also considering writing in Ron Paul, but we'll see where he goes)
One question I have is what will Obama's healthcare proposal cost? Do you know? Is he going to raise taxes to pay for it or cut something else (like the war?) If Obama can end teh war, stop this Bush taking of our liberties and not raise taxes (that's a big IF) then I might vote for him.
Write-in votes are seldom counted; a vote for Bob Barr makes a lot more sense than a failed attempt to cast a write-in vote for Ron Paul. Obviously Ron Paul would be a better candidate than Bob Barr, but Barr is actually running; Paul isn't.
Randy:
I don't know the exact answers to your questions, but I will try to find out and answer them.
Post a Comment