Interpreting Dr. Paul's 3rd party run statusSubmitted by Micah68 on Wed, 09/05/2012 - 15:20
I'm trying to understand how to interpret Dr. Paul's views on how serious the situation in our country is, based on whether or not he deems a third-party run worth the risk and effort.
If he truly felt that the writing was on the wall for this country and that it might collapse before 2016, wouldn't he consider the risk of damage to long-term strategy (Rand Paul, gradually transforming GOP, gradually educating people about Liberty, etc.) worth taking for the chance to get into the debates this fall and go down fighting to give us a shot at an alternative to Obamney? If it is do or die time, what sense does it make to not say 'damn the torpedos' and go all-out?
Or perhaps he thinks things are so bad, it's better to get out of the way, let it collapse, and try not to get blamed for it somehow--then help pick up the pieces later?
Or perhaps he thinks things aren't really that bad, and that we have time to be patient and not act rashly in terms of impact on long-term participation in the GOP?
Or maybe he's just worn out and is leaving it to us to spearhead, regardless of the timetable?
How should I interpret how serious Dr. Paul sees things if he does or does not run third-party?