Washington (CNN) - Rep. Ron Paul of Texas won't run for re-election to his House seat next year.
"I have decided not to seek re-election to Congress," said Paul in a Tweet Tuesday.
The Republican lawmaker, who has served nearly 24 years as representative of Texas' 14th Congressional District, is currently making his third bid for the White House.
"Dr. Paul will not seek re-election in Texas-14 and will focus his efforts on winning the presidency," Paul political director Jesse Benton told CNN.
"I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election," Paul told "The Facts," which covers Brazoria County, Texas.
Paul said his announcement will give candidates who are thinking of making a bid to succeed him enough time to prepare.
"I didn't want to hold off until in December. I thought it shouldn't be any later than now," Paul said.
Paul's district includes ten counties along the state's Gulf Coast, from suburban Houston south towards Corpus Christi.
After running for the White House in 1988 as a libertarian candidate, Paul made a bid in 2008 for the GOP nomination. He is now making a second run for the Republican nomination.
Watch Rep. Paul on CNN's "John King, USA" at 7 p.m. ET Tuesday.
- Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @PsteinhauserCNN
Strike up the band! Don't let the door hit you in the backside, nutjob!
The funny thing is he's hated by democrats because he calls himself a republican (which he isn't), and he's hated by republicans because he's a nutjob. One more reason we need term limits in Congress!!!
Too old and dementedl to win. Just another of the many crazy republicans running for president. Romney could win the nomination even thought he belongs to a religious cult!
This is front page news for everyone else. I think it should be on the CNN front-page. If Bachmann said this, it would be. Heck, if McCotter said he wasn't running for reelection it would be front page news. Time for CNN to stop picking winners and to report the news (and candidates equally).
Now if we could just get rid of the other Paul, the one who wants to get rid of Civil Rights, he's not good for the country.
Is that because he thinks he'll become president and that he won't need his seat in the house? Or – is it that he knows he'll lose his bid for president, and so to get back at us for not electing him president–he will punish us by depriving the country of his infinite worldly wisdom, dizzying intelligence and brilliant political strategies?
Easy boys and girls... RON PAUL 2012! problem solved.
He's the ONLY candidate that will turn this country around, while all the rest will "stay the course".
RON PAUL 2012!
@RudyNYC: I might agree with you if were anyplace else but Texas. They have a death grip here and they fight
dirty. I don't live in his District, but will keep my fingers crossed. Don't forget, we have the lovely Guv Goodhair
thinking about being POTUS. Another great opportunity if he leaves, but a very big long shot.
GI Joe: You might be suprised to know that Ron Paul DECLINED his congressional pension and returns a portion of his office budget to the government each year. So yeah he is settling for what the working people are settling for: the fruits of his labor ravaged by taxes.
So many hateful people that have probably never taken an HONEST look at what Ron Paul has been saying for over 30 years. He has warned of the crisis we face today, and predicted the outcome at each step along the way.
In order to understand Ron Paul’s platform, there are two conclusions one must reach. The first is that libertarians are correct that violence is only justified in response or reaction to a prior violation of private property rights. Block does not limit the definition of “private property” to land ownership or even physical property in general. Instead, property includes all of one’s life, liberty, and justly acquired possessions. So, any murder, assault, theft, fraud, or coercion would be violation of a private property right. Based upon that understanding, ask anyone if they agree that violence should never be initiated, but instead only used in defense, and you will almost always get agreement. So far, so good.
The second thing that one must conclude in order to understand Ron Paul is that all government action is violent action. This is where it gets difficult for conservatives and liberals alike. While it is easy to see the government’s use of its military as an act of violence, it is harder for people to see that other government activities represent violence. How could providing healthcare, ensuring workplace safety, or licensing barbers be violent acts?
This is the great truth that hides in plain site under every human being’s nose. In order to recognize it, one must disengage the deep, emotional attachments that almost everyone has developed to some or all government activity. Once you get someone to that point and they are truly ready to reason, they will come to the libertarian conclusion every time. To the genuinely interested and rational person, only one question is necessary:
“What if you do not cooperate?”
Suppose that I do not wish to participate in Medicare and withhold only that percentage of my payroll taxes that would otherwise go to fund it. In return, I agree not to make use of any of the Medicare benefits. What will happen to me?
You will be charged with income tax evasion.
What if I don’t answer the charge?
You will be arrested.
What if I do not agree to submit to the arrest?
You will be physically forced to submit.
And if I resist further?
You will be killed.
So, you now agree that we are forced to participate in Medicare under the threat of violence, correct?
Is there any government tax, law, or regulation that we are not similarly forced to participate in under the threat of violence? Are not all of these answers the same in relation to even the least significant government regulation, like a parking ticket?
thank goodness, there is finally one less principled man in congress. That institution already has an abundance of men willing to stand on logically reasoned principles that never contradict themselves. I sure hope more men like him stay away from leadership positions.
Take the blinders off schmucks. You won't find a more honest and principled politician.
GIJoe... Congressman Paul does not participate in the Congressional pension plan.
I would say that Ron paul is the only decent person in politics, the only person who speaks the truth, and the u.s should have elected ron paul along time ago as the POTUS, but now personally i belive he has not being elected as the POTUS is because certain higher people do not like Ron pauls politically beliefs. Would have being far better than bush snr,clinton, bush jnr.
Actually, he has had some good ideas and even some of his son's ideas are not that bad. But, they are too radical for most of us and for me, way too far to the right on some issues.