Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Revolution and the Republican Party Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_future_of_the_revolution#18248 Post contents: Good Lord, I should read and edit my comments before I post them. Here is a slightly more coherent version: I am grateful for the many thoughtful comments and thought I'd offer a few quick responses. First, I'm not as interested in the Republican Party per se as I am in the idea of a movement based on more than one candidacy. I would rather have some influence through even just a handful of congressmen -- Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan -- than having no elected officials but an exciting protest candidacy. If Paul is going to be a Republican congressman, I would rather he have at least some influence in his party than have none as a protest candidate. I do, however, agree with Jeff Albert that a Paul or Jones primary defeat changes the calculus. Second, I think a third party based on the defection of a single political leader can only be effective if it does well enough for an election cycle or two to have influence on one of the major parties. Building an effective new party would require a mass defection supported by multiple political leaders. Ron Paul can't do it by himself. Third, Joe Allen is right about Ralph Nader and Meet the Press. I wrote this piece before Nader's appearance. I also believe Nader and Pat Buchanan got to debate on one of the Sunday shows before the 2000 election. As a sitting member of Congress and former Republican presidential candidate, Paul as a third-party presidential hopeful would probably get more media coverage than, say, Michael Peroutka. But he'd get much less than the major-party candidates. Finally, I am still not clear on what benefit we would get out of a Paul third-party candidacy other than someone for whom we could cast a protest vote. But aren't there other people we could support as a protest candidate without losing a congressman? Sent at: 2008 07 04