Ron Paul's Endorsement

From Politico, a week ago:

Paul told Politico recently that he has “no intention of running as a third-party candidate” if he doesn’t win the GOP nomination. (He was the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988.) Before an appearance at American University in Washington, Paul said he would endorse the candidate who “promises to get us out of Iraq and support liberty at home.” (At the moment, no other Republican candidate has signed up for a withdrawal from Iraq.)

But of course it's hard to imagine either major-party candidate promising to get us out of Iraq, or endorsing Paul's definition of "liberty at home." Which in turn clears the way for Paul to reluctantly endorse ... Ron Paul!

Update: However ...

There is a potential stumbling block to Paul jumping to the Libertarian ticket: A number of states, including Paul's home state of Texas, have "sore loser laws" that prohibit a candidate who loses in the primary of one party from appearing on the ballot with a different party in the general election. "If Paul were to seek our nomination, he'd have to make sure his name wasn't on those ballots," said Cory. "It would not disqualify him from being our candidate, but would weigh heavily on the minds of our delegates."

Comments

I believe him when he says he won't run as a third party candidate. But as someone who believes we need to get the Republican party as far away from power as possible, I say Run, Ron, Run!

Posted by tgb1000 | November 6, 2007 3:17 PM

Would it be possible for Connecticut to enact a retroactive Sore Loser Law?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 6, 2007 3:52 PM

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!

Posted by Klug | November 6, 2007 5:33 PM

If only Connecticut had a sore loser law when Lieberman, the ultimate sore loser, lost his primary.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 6, 2007 6:17 PM

Yeah, I think he will just refuse to endorse, and no one will care.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 6, 2007 7:30 PM

I'm no expert on this, but aren't those "sore loser" laws unconstitutional?

Seems to me like a violation of Free Assembly.

Posted by southpaw | November 6, 2007 7:44 PM

I don't know if they are unconstitutional, but the Sore Loser laws seem to be rather unfair.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | November 6, 2007 8:02 PM

Politically, America is a duopolistic cartel. There's nothing natural about having the same two parties alternate in power for 151 years. Democrats and Republicans always win because they've rigged the system. In contrast, I can't even remember the name of Canada's current ruling party because there have been so many different center-right parties in Canada in recent years.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 6, 2007 11:44 PM

I am voting (and so are my Wife and Two Adult Children) for Ron Paul in our states Republican Primary.
I we will be voting for him in the general election as well, whether that be by selecting his name on the ballet as the republican nominee or as a write in.
He is the ONLY person running that will effect meaningful change in Washington. The kind of meaningful changes voters have been clamoring for since Bush I.

Posted by Earle Howard | November 7, 2007 2:03 AM

I think I've discovered the magic cure for not attracting 85 commenters all praising Dr. Paul -- just say His name magically three times!

Posted by Klug | November 7, 2007 11:05 AM

I am 16 and i am not able to vote but i do know that if I was older I would vote for Ron Paul. His experience in the military is very outstanding. He wants all Americans to come home and leave the war in Iraq alone cause he thinks there is no point to the war at this time. I just really want to say since I am 16 year old African American boy and know so much about Ron Paul, and i want him to win the 2008 election I believe that everybody should vote for Dr. Paul.

Thank you
Dario Sharp

Posted by Dario Sharp | November 18, 2007 7:12 PM