This morning Ron Paul announced he will not be seeking reelection for his congressional seat.

When he ran for the GOP nomination in 2008, he was still running for his congressional seat at the same time.  But he says in his local newspaper the Facts:

“I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election,” Paul said. “It’s about that time when I should change tactics.”

Dr. Paul’s 12th term in congress will be his last.

But this is less likely about focusing on a single race and more likely a smooth transition into retirement from congress.  He likely could have won his congressional seat, just by having his name on the ballot alone.  He could have focused all his attention on the presidential run, and still been elected to his 13th term.

Election results in 2010: Paul 76% Opponent 24%

Election results in 2008: Paul was uncontested in the general, but was contested in a primary.  He won the primary 70% to 30%, while running in the presidential primary.

It is no secret that Dr. Paul is getting up there in years, but he is far from the oldest sitting congressman.  Currently 17 members of the house are older then Congressman Paul as well as 11 senators, with Congressman Hall of Texas being the oldest at 88 years old.

Congressman Paul has inspired a new generation of constitutional conservatives.  Two ‘Ron Paul Republicans’ in particular who will be carrying the torch of liberty include Senator Mike Lee, the youngest sitting senator at 40 years old, and congressman Justin Amash, the second youngest congressman at 31 years old.

Some have speculated, that dropping the house race and being all in for the presidency could indicate that Dr. Paul may be contemplating a 3rd party run if he does not get the GOP nomination.  I don’t anticipate him confirming thoughts of a third party run, even if it is true, as it would be unwise to do so during a primary.  Needless to say a Paul third party ticket could make things very interesting during the general.  He would be able to pull from both truly limited government Republicans away from a likely big government Republican nominee, as well as Democrats disappointed in Obama’s broken promises and expanded wars.

Needless to say, those who believe in states rights and constitutional governance, will have one less defender in congress…might as well get him into the white house.

3 comments
  1. All he would be doing in a third party, if we nominated a conservative, is drawing votes from an anti-Obama candidate. I truly hope he isn’t dumb enough to do that!  He would not be a patriot in that case when we are trying to get Marxists out of the government.  He needs to help us take our country back,  not get back on his ego trip. This is not politics as usual…it’s our survival at stake.

  2. i believe states rights is the one defining issue today.

    no other candidate supports our liberation from oppressive federal mandates like ron paul. both parties subject us to abuses like obamacare, bushes patriot act, fed’s monetary policy that steals only from the poor, etc.

    rarely does liberty get a champion of this caliber. let me explain.

    the founding fathers did not envision one set of rules for every state. each state would be dynamic, and free to solve the problems in a way that was best suited to their locality.

    instead what we have today is a federal govt that tries to make us all the same. it just doesn’t work. for example, you cannot have the same sort of gun control policies for thugs in inner city chicago as you do in rural texas or wyoming where kids learn hunter safety as soon as they are weened. why do we try to have such consistent rules for every state? why not let most of the current political issues be decided at the state level?

    instead of an abusive federal govt that dictates rules for the states, why not freedom?

    on a side note, many comments on this site dismiss ron paul as a gay-marriage supporting, pot-loving hippie.

    actually, he is a freedom loving constitutionalist. with freedom comes responsibility, and sometimes people make bad decisions. sometimes people hurt themselves with their freedom. do you want a govt that mandates every moral decision that you make?

    we conservatives cant have it both ways. we want a smaller, less intrusive govt. but in the same breath, we want a govt that has the size and force to stop all of the debauchery in those gay-marriage folk. it simply isn’t a consistent world view. as long as no one is being hurt, leave everyone alone.

    another way to look at this morality issue is like this: assume that in the future, we fundamentalist christians finally won an amendment that defines marriage “correctly.” we may all celebrate. but through that one act, we would give the govt the ability to regulate our very intimate relationships. finally, when the balance of power shifts to a more liberal group, they would redefine marriage in a way that we find grotesque. we are unwittingly creating a monster if we give the current govt the power to define these sensitive moral issues.

    the best solution is liberty. keep the govt out of the marriage business. i don’t even think that we should have to get marriage certificates from the govt. it should be between the couple and the church.

    instead of an oppressive bureaucracy that mandates our morality and forces us to comply, why not freedom?

    ron paul is the only candidate that is right on all of these issues. he is a dedicated christian and he abhors gay marriage and pot, but he is willing to let liberty work.

  3. i believe states rights is the one defining issue today.

    no other candidate supports our liberation from oppressive federal mandates like ron paul. both parties subject us to abuses like obamacare, bushes patriot act, fed’s monetary policy that steals only from the poor, etc.

    rarely does liberty get a champion of this caliber. let me explain.

    the founding fathers did not envision one set of rules for every state. each state would be dynamic, and free to solve the problems in a way that was best suited to their locality.

    instead what we have today is a federal govt that tries to make us all the same. it just doesn’t work. for example, you cannot have the same sort of gun control policies for thugs in inner city chicago as you do in rural texas or wyoming where kids learn hunter safety as soon as they are weened. why do we try to have such consistent rules for every state? why not let most of the current political issues be decided at the state level?

    instead of an abusive federal govt that dictates rules for the states, why not freedom?

    on a side note, many comments on this site dismiss ron paul as a gay-marriage supporting, pot-loving hippie.

    actually, he is a freedom loving constitutionalist. with freedom comes responsibility, and sometimes people make bad decisions. sometimes people hurt themselves with their freedom. do you want a govt that mandates every moral decision that you make?

    we conservatives cant have it both ways. we want a smaller, less intrusive govt. but in the same breath, we want a govt that has the size and force to stop all of the debauchery in those gay-marriage folk. it simply isn’t a consistent world view. as long as no one is being hurt, leave everyone alone.

    another way to look at this morality issue is like this: assume that in the future, we fundamentalist christians finally won an amendment that defines marriage “correctly.” we may all celebrate. but through that one act, we would give the govt the ability to regulate our very intimate relationships. finally, when the balance of power shifts to a more liberal group, they would redefine marriage in a way that we find grotesque. we are unwittingly creating a monster if we give the current govt the power to define these sensitive moral issues.

    the best solution is liberty. keep the govt out of the marriage business. i don’t even think that we should have to get marriage certificates from the govt. it should be between the couple and the church.

    instead of an oppressive bureaucracy that mandates our morality and forces us to comply, why not freedom?

    ron paul is the only candidate that is right on all of these issues. he is a dedicated christian and he abhors gay marriage and pot, but he is willing to let liberty work.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Politics, the Church and the Common Good

I am going to do something unusual for me, I am going…

Sacrifice? Give me a break!

Oswald Chambers kept me from being a Jonah. God had asked me…

If Obama Wins: My Prediction

What if Obama wins? As conservatives in the midst of an election…

Brrrrrr – It’s Cold, but Warmer in….Alaska!

Ok, looking at my Weather Bug – it’s 13 degrees Farenheit in…