Ron Paul - spineless

[vinea]

For folks that thought he would stand up to Republican Party he turned out to be a real non-event. At least Liberman had dumped his D for an I. Ron Paul still lists himself as an R.

I really don't much care for the guy but he could have fought for the heart and soul of the Republican Party from the religious wingnuts. If he had, I'd have backed him. Instead he wimped out for a convention that no one cared about instead of a platform fight that yes, he would have lost but would have put some real fire into the libertarian movement.

As a third party the libertarians are a hopeless bunch but it's fucking high time that the Goldwater Republicans made a damn stab at retaking the party but there's nobody to rally behind. Ron Paul is a nutjob but jeez, at least he had some momentum and name recognition.

But no balls unfortunately.

I remain a Republican and not some spineless self proclaimed "Libertarian" that ran when they should have stayed and fought.

Of course, that probably puts me in the same position as those Republicans for Choice and Log Cabin Republican losers that gets completely screwed over every convention without a courtesy reacharound.

So be it. This year I'm going to donate and volunteer for the Obama campaign.

[jimmac]

For folks that thought he would stand up to Republican Party he turned out to be a real non-event. At least Liberman had dumped his D for an I. Ron Paul still lists himself as an R.

I really don't much care for the guy but he could have fought for the heart and soul of the Republican Party from the religious wingnuts. If he had, I'd have backed him. Instead he wimped out for a convention that no one cared about instead of a platform fight that yes, he would have lost but would have put some real fire into the libertarian movement.

As a third party the libertarians are a hopeless bunch but it's fucking high time that the Goldwater Republicans made a damn stab at retaking the party but there's nobody to rally behind. Ron Paul is a nutjob but jeez, at least he had some momentum and name recognition.

But no balls unfortunately.

I remain a Republican and not some spineless self proclaimed "Libertarian" that ran when they should have stayed and fought.

Of course, that probably puts me in the same position as those Republicans for Choice and Log Cabin Republican losers that gets completely screwed over every convention without a courtesy reacharound.

So be it. This year I'm going to donate and volunteer for the Obama campaign.

Recently he seems to be trying to confuse the issues for voters. He can't win so write in an independent. Which will do zip, zero, nadda except take votes away from whoever is ahead. Pretty selfish if you ask me. I really think Hillary hit on something in her speech at the convention. Are people voting for the candidate who'll take care of the many issues facing this country? Or are they voting for a person, or something else?

It's the issues! This country has never needed a good leader more than now. Our last one screwed us on the issues. We don't need that again.

[vinea]

So you're arguing tactics and strategy here.


Ron Paul has a strategy? Hopefully one more nuanced than just pulling all our troops home from overseas as a military strategy.


(NOTE: I read somewhere, can't find the source right now, that Ron Paul was essentially shut out of the RNC by the powers that be anyway.)


He had 78 delegates and 200 or so possible "silent supporters" according to the WSJ. That should have been enough for a platform fight in a year we're likely to lose ANYWAY. IF he showed up even without a speaking slot.

Especially if he brought along 12,000 supporters instead of doing his own largely ignored convention.


Statements like this make it difficult to take you seriously. As do these (in combination with each other):


We've had this argument. His positions are far to extreme. He's no Reagan or Goldwater.

[@_@ Artman]

This (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_el_pr/ron_paul_third_parties;_ylt=Ala5T3XFSeyTlWLOuKhx65 ys0NUE).

And this...

Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=484)

The American Majority

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils."

--

"The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation.

However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds."

Thanks Ron Paul.

Imagine if Ron Paul came on television to announce that he was supporting McCain for president.

In that moment, the internet would implode on itself, and the resulting shockwaves would knock the LHC (http://twitter.com/cern/statuses/916122478) out of alignment, thus negating existence.

[PBG4 Dude]

Yes, but only because Ned Lamont beat him in the primary.

He had to run as an independent in the general election since he lost the primary.

I was excited when Lamont won the primary. That didn't stop Lieberman though. I do think his next election (if he runs) will definitely be a much tougher race for him since CT is quite the blue state (even if it has an 'R' governor).

[vinea]

Nader. Unelectable.
McKinney. Green...Largely unknown and Unelectable.
Baldwin. Conservative Pastor. Unelectable.
Paul. Best name recognition but still...Unelectable.

None are moderate centrists but more extreme versions of the Democrats or Republicans. Therefore there's no viable 3rd party people are going to rally behind.

Too bad the "Modern Whig Party" is too nascent to be of any relevance.

[franksargent]

Nader. Unelectable.
McKinney. Green...Largely unknown and Unelectable.
Baldwin. Conservative Pastor. Unelectable.
Paul. Best name recognition but still...Unelectable.

None are moderate centrists but more extreme versions of the Democrats or Republicans. Therefore there's no viable 3rd party people are going to rally behind.

Too bad the "Modern Whig Party" is too nascent to be of any relevance.

Bill Burr. :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

Nader. Unelectable.
McKinney. Green...Largely unknown and Unelectable.
Baldwin. Conservative Pastor. Unelectable.
Paul. Best name recognition but still...Unelectable.

None are moderate centrists but more extreme versions of the Democrats or Republicans. Therefore there's no viable 3rd party people are going to rally behind.

Too bad the "Modern Whig Party" is too nascent to be of any relevance.

So you went from the position of weak Ron Paul supporter to supporting Obama, someone most "experts" agree will win anyway. Now there's some backbone.

[vinea]

So you went from the position of weak Ron Paul supporter to supporting Obama, someone most "experts" agree will win anyway. Now there's some backbone.

When was I Ron Paul supporter? Never. I might have changed my mind had he attempted a platform fight even if I think he is a nutter. Perhaps I just like doomed efforts.

I was a 2000 McCain supporter.

The polls are awful close for McCain vs Obama. I think Obama will win but I don't think it's a sure thing. Biden was a weak choice. Palin even weaker but the base doesn't care. She's an evangelical nutter and they like that.

Are you objecting to me calling so-called Libertarians who are former Republican lame? Because they voted for Bush 8 years ago and done butkus to fix things since other than wash their hands of the mess they helped create. These asshats are likely to vote McCain/Palin.

[SpamSandwich]

When was I Ron Paul supporter? Never. I might have changed my mind had he attempted a platform fight even if I think he is a nutter. Perhaps I just like doomed efforts.

I was a 2000 McCain supporter.

The polls are awful close for McCain vs Obama. I think Obama will win but I don't think it's a sure thing. Biden was a weak choice. Palin even weaker but the base doesn't care. She's an evangelical nutter and they like that.

Are you objecting to me calling so-called Libertarians who are former Republican lame? Because they voted for Bush 8 years ago and done butkus to fix things since other than wash their hands of the mess they helped create. These asshats are likely to vote McCain/Palin.

Thanks for clarifying your point of view.

As I've mentioned before, I think Obama will end up winning, despite the little love affair with Palin and the GOP neo-conservative base right now. As for Ron Paul, some of his supporters are nuts, for proof of that just go to DailyPaul.com. On the other hand, there are certainly more "koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs" Obama and McCain supporters because there are simply more supporters in terms of real numbers. The number of nutcases seems to scale proportionally. :p

Your last paragraph... I don't understand what you mean so I can't address your comment.