You have a point here. I think Paul should have gone third party-- BUT, this “strange bedfellows” problem you are so miffed by isn’t a bad idea. Whether Nader is wrong on the size of government or not he is VASTLY superior to the main party candidates. An alliance with a lefty like him MAKES SENSE on many levels. If someone’s right one empire, they are worth talking to.

Most importantly, the fact that the third parties are banding together in any way is major. Paul should be applauded for recognizing this. They should be demanding the debates be open or as my friend Dylan Hales has suggested, they should be touring together and holding debates, getting as much recognition as possible. Anything that strengthens the chances of third party candidates having a major impact on the election is good. If Paul hopes to reform the GOP he is hoping in vain. This is a step in the right direction. Anti imperialists of all stripes are natural allies. A limited partnership is a good idea.

Just reread this. I understand your mistrust of the left, but it’s crazy to think that we can’t form alliances with them and then claim there’s some soft of validity in supporting McCain’s pet Palin because she’s ok on abortion and guns, when she’s going to be part of an imperial administration that will push the country further down the path to absolute ruin.

Sadly, I agree with you. RP’s latest message sends mixed signals. I always thought the 3rd party route would be a dead-end, ensuring an Obama presidency and discrediting the constitutionalist wing of the GOP. This latest message is along those lines. I agree with his overall point but anyone believing there will be a realignment where Naderites and Paulians will be able to work together are delluded. The left-wing reaction to Sarah Palin’s alleged praise for Buchanan shows what the left really thinks of Paleos.

Maybe he’s tired.

He’s right, though about not voting for the supposed lesser of 2 evils.

Unfortunately, even most of those who supported him - and most of the bloviators on this site - will probably do just that, vote for the continuation of the status quo under the republi-crat party.

If i WERE a citizen of Rome, so to speak, despite being what most here would label paleo-conservative i’d vote for Ralph Nader over Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin anyday.

Knock yourselves out over your “choice”.

Dr. Paul’s phenomenal support was born out of his integrity, character, and the specific, philosophically driven nature of his positions.  The worth of his candidacy was in the content of these positions, not in his insight into political tactics. 

What will be the lasting legacy of his most recent recommendation?  Further ostrisization of his ideology and one of the “two evils” getting elected anyway. 

I think I understand his motivation, but he has simply thrown his seeds to the wind.

I agree that Paul should have run third party, and this announcement makes his refusal to do so all the more puzzling.  He will now lose his seniority and what little power he has on the Hill, and it will all be for nothing.

On the other hand I think a united front against corporate liberalism is almost always a good thing.  I don’t see how McKinney who is non-existent in the polls, will dominate anything.  Furthermore the fears of a “left wing” co-option of the conservative grassroots ignores the fact leftists always had a presence in the Paul netroots and Paul never gravitated toward them.  In fact they gravitated toward Paul.

It is funny to me that folks are getting excited about the GOP VP nomination of an extreme war hawk, with no known views on several other key issues, just because she supported Pat Buchanan in the past and is good on God and Guns.  That doesn’t suggest the revival of a “constitutionalist wing of the GOP” and I’m not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

I’d vote for Nader a thousand times before I would vote for Palin once.

I used to believe that it was pointless to vote for one of the major party candidates. Certainly, the differences between Al Gore and Dick Cheney were not great enough to worry about. The last eight years have convinced me that I was wrong. The small differences can have great practical effect. The last eight years have been appalling by any standards.

I am particularly disturbed by the effect of a Palin vice-Presidency. McCain has no real constituency of his own; only the Republican brand and the Palin power will put him into power.

Cheney based his power on the skills gained in a lifetime spent in bureaucratic infighting; he knew how to work the system, and had a weak-minded president, easy to work. But Palin will have a larger constituency than McCain, but she is as brainless as Bush. This is not a good combination. There’s a better than even chance that McCain will win; there’s a greater chance that Palin will rule, or at least over-rule McCain.

If McCain wins, my recommendation to him is that his first act should be to hire a food-taster.

Richard: “And thus why would we allow some leftists to jump on our bandwagon?—for what!?! What do we gain? And why? because we agree with Cynthia McKinney on a few civil liberty issues? PLEASE!”

Amen.

Daniel:  The left/right coalition will not work.  It did not serve Paul well in the primaries.  In fact, it confused people.  During the primaries, I actually met people upset over immigration who believed that Paul was pro-amnesty and Romney was the tough one on immigration.  Pat Buchanan’s 1996 strategy of steering towards the Right worked better; Buchanan actually won some primaries.

He said back in 2007 that if he didn’t get the Republican nomination he wouldn’t run 3rd party.  His wife isn’t in the best of health which IMO is the real reason he didn’t go 3rd party.  And there’s really not much of a difference between Obama and Juan Insane. Chuck Baldwin for President. Bob Barr destroyed himself today!

This is not to say that a type of anti-globalist coalition would not work, one which centered around:

(1) opposition to unnecessary wars
(2) opposition to suicidal free trade pacts
and
(3) opposition to illegal immigration, unnecessary work visas, chain migration, etc., which are driving down American wages.

The overwhelming popularity of Lou Dobbs testifies to the popularity of this platform.

The problem, however, in Ron Paul’s coalition is that many disagree with this platform.  Many are pro-free trade, and many, like Barr, have become pro-amnesty.  And Paul’s favorite issue, monetary policy, is not a winning issue.  Paul’s left/right coalition is not nearly as populist as it needs to be.

The only one who betrayed the revolution today is Bob Barr.

Mr. Roberts is exactly right.

Opposition to the Fed is not a “winning issue” in the sense that the other three are, but it is a complimentary issue that can shore up a coalition.

Couldn’t you just tell Ron Paul was more or less a spectre going through the motions, now you see him now you don’t.  Sort of the ghost of slain Hamlet’s father.  Sure he was ignored by the MSM but when he was on somewhere, didn’t you just cringe to hear him and to hear the way he articulated our own values-?-not to mention when there was also spittle accumulating in the corners of his mouth-?- Then at least my cringing,
became a visceral revulsion.  (Unless the networks were adding that digitally to turn off viewers?) All I could think of was: Vote Mealy-mouth in ’08.

The irony of it all is liberalism is in fact exiting into history before our very eyes, and so it is not we who are the passing phantoms of memory, but the future and increasingly the present.  We have to look like Dr. Fleming does to a much more substantial and ancient format for our principles, which are founded in both the conceptual and the actual.  And forged in permanence between the ongoing back and forth link between the two.  Otherwise even reality as it has it done so today goes astray into the unreal (i.e. liberalism) and so the untenable.  And inevitably becomes its own undoing, at all of Our expense; and not probably when it falls at the expense of those at the top of the charade.

I tend to agree. There is no value in allying with any one on the left. They care more for being proven right (their own ego) than America’s interests. They are intellectually lazy and selfish.

Despite this, I will continue supporting Ron Paul 100%. The fact that Nader showed up may be an indication that he is capitulating to Paul’s views and not vice versa.

I think some of you are over interpreting this. I agree a left/right coalition will not work, but he wasn’t proposing a left/right coalition. He was just saying vote third party, and don’t empower the status quo. This is a message the public needs to hear. If people are going to “work within the party” then fine, work within the party in the primary. But you have to be willing to abandon the party’s nominee in the general if he is a dud. Otherwise, they have no incentive to not offer up in-your-face insults like McCain.

Did Barr not show up? Why?

We have to look like Dr. Fleming does to a much more substantial and ancient format for our principles, which are founded in both the conceptual and the actual.

At least Dr. Paul was a practicing medical Doctor. Calling Fleming a “Dr” is too frou-frou.

One of my Sister-in-laws is a Doctor of Audiology. Another of my Sister-in-laws has a Doctorate and is an English Professor at a Southern University.
‘
Neither of them refer to themselves as “Dr.”

My Daughter is going to become a Physiatrist and work with those who have become Brain-injured (like me).

I doubt she’ll call herself a Dr.

Not surprisingly, I agree with these critical comments entirely. And like Richard
I am especially irritated by the DUMB strategy of declaring common cause with the
social Left to achieve any substantive goal. This makes about as much sense as the
efforts of Zionist fanatics to enlist the aid of the Nazis in order to drive the
British out of Palestine. When will the Right ever learn?

Did Barr not show up? Why

Dr. Phillips. He is in the Ronald Reagan Memorial Hospital Emergency Room. Sarah Palin kicked his ass when she mistook him for Snidley Whiplash.

Seriously, maybe he was getting married (for the fourth time).

I think many here forget that he is an elected representative.  He could go independent, but he has some effect in the house where he is.  I don’t think he could switch to Democrat.

If he were to stage a 3rd party bid, he would not win the presidency.  Would he garner votes?  Maybe.  Probably not get into the debates (see if Barr does).  Would he even be on the ballot which proves monumental every 4 years for the LP.

You might not worry about those he has to work with each day and his effectiveness - perhaps small but at least a voice that is listened to - in the house, but Ron Paul does.  What happens after November?

A call for a 3rd party candidacy is a call for him to retire from politics entirely.  He would be reelected to his seat, but I think he perceives - rightly - that he would only make enemies of people he might need to work with if there were another run and perchance even victory.

If you disagree with how he is handled it, run for congress in 2 years so that in a decade or two you can do a presidential candidacy the way you want.

We all want instant gratification, and want the spark to be the flame that consumes the world in time for the 11 o’clock news.  Tell me - anyone - if anything in this world ever worked that way.  Some things happen faster because of the internet and jet travel, but the human heart still moves at a stone’s pace.  The battle at Trenton didn’t win the revolution, there was the winter at Valley Forge.

Tom Paine’s missive about the sunshine soldier even applies on the edge of the age of nuclear fusion power.

The fight is one against evil, which is in every heart including those who want liberty.  It is easy to criticize having done nothing except write a few blog entries which preached to the choir.  Actually running for office and winning is far more difficult - and requires perseverance which is a virtue, not mere cash or intellect or other easy or fungible things.  This is why I suspect so few who complain that they could have run someone else’s campaign better never put themselves to the test.

Do we not need dozens of Ron Paul clones in the house?  You are all campaign experts by what you are saying.  It should be trivially easy.  Go do it.  Lets see how many r3ovlutionaries win their campaigns in 2010.  There is no lack of advice.  So let this motivate you.

Spencer in 010!  Patiak in 010!  Lets get started…

Chuck Baldwin is clearly the best of those three, I don’t think anyone here disputes
that. But do you think Ron Paul should be even more polarizing with his comments?
Many of your libertarian bedfellows (Eric Dondero) do not even oppose the War Party.
Why don’t you get upset about that? These three have been very strong and courageous in their
opposition to wars. And how many politicians oppose AIPAC’s influence? Again these
three do and they deserve some credit. Yes, even Cynthia McKinney. And maybe the banks
aren’t Zionist controlled and Cynthia is throwing in a red herring but do you really
want to defend the bankers??????

We need to defeat the 2 party system first.

Tough issue. On the one hand it is important to show just how big the dissatisfaction with the two-party mafia is. And that requires bringing together reasonable people and whacky people. On the other hand, these two may not get along together for long.
Unless there is some other man out there like Ron Paul, it will be difficult to ask the movement to move beyond Paul. Whereto one might ask?

P.S. What did Barr do or say?

Let’s not forget the human element.  Ron Paul is soon to be 73. He’s probably tired and his
wife is sick.  Perhaps if he were a few years younger he’d take up the Third Pary cause.
Indeed, he gave America the chance in 1988.  The movement has always been bigger than
the man.  Paul may not be best political tactician but let’s get serious here. How can
a message of liberty, rule of law, and limited government enjoy broadbase support and
electoral success in our corrupt system? We must work on the culture.  Maybe its time
we begin our own Long March through the Institutions.  The internet is a start. Support
home schooling.  Have large families and always keep a smiles on our faces. Christianity
conquered the Roman world not through the sword but through faith, hope, and charity.

@ tz

There is much to agree with in your comments.  RP has created more positive recognition for genuine libertarian/conservatism in this election cycle than many of us (including himself) ever thought possible.

It is not up to a 72 year old man with an ill wife to do anymore than he has to date.  I take particular offense at the sophomoric charge that he “...lacks guts...to really accomplish something...”. He has throughout his career shown over again many times his courage and fortitude. He has in this election cycle stood up to the RepubliCratic party and shown them them to be the hypocritical phonies that they are. He has awakened a couple millions of young people to stand up against the welfare state. 

As long as conservatives fail to understand that the victory cannot be one currently in a single presidential election we are doomed.  Paul realizes that the battle must be fought and won, one district, one state house, one senate seat at a time.  From the ground up, not from the top down.

The money and the people power must be invested in supporting more candidates who think and believe like Ron Paul.  Consider if you will:  20-30 Ron Pauls in the House, 6-10 in the Senate and this country will change for the better almost overnight.  Much faster than blowing a few millions on a feel good 3rd party run.

The deck is stacked against 3rd parties and RP knows this all too well.  He knows what he is doing and what needs to be done.

Just watched Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on CNN.

Does anyone truly believe Nader, a socialist, no doubt, would be worse than McCain? I tend to agree with Chuck Baldwin - the line between globalists (McCain, Obama) and patriots (Paul, Nader) should be emphasized much more than conservative and liberal. Particularly when the “conservative” is McCain and the “liberal” is Obama.

Years ago Tom Fleming called the jousting between the two major parties “shadowboxing.” He was right.

Mr. Paul is an admirable man but he had absolutely zero political sex appeal. He attracted nine Americans during the Primaries.

Those of us who like a Constitutional Republic, etc (Mr. Roberts limned the litmus for us) have got to find someone with political sex appeal.

That is, largely, what the Sarah Palin phenomena is all about.

We had Barack’s carefully planned and staged coronation and the press swooned over the anticipated love-in being realised so successfully (sort of like an “Up-with-people” sing along or “I’d like to teach the world to sing,” Coca Cola feel-good Ad) and, it was anticipated, the Stupid Party Convention would be a friggin bore by comparison with the sepulchral Bat-Shit-Crazy McCain staring blankly into the camera and raising his arms towards the viewer like some demented,heavily-armed,Mini-Me.

And, suddenly, like a tornado blowing in out of the West, Sarah Palin arrives in the midst of a snoring, bored, nation and kicks-ass.

It was as though the TV Guide (printed a week in advance)read, “Tonight at 10:00 P.M. The Republican Convention will feature “The Cowsills,” singing, “The Rain, the Park, and Other things,” when ....

SUDDENLY, America turned in and turned on hearing this woman ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YAfqZk7P1M&feature=related

Sure. She was “small town” but she is BIG TIME.

Now, all the Paleos have to do is find a Pol like Sarah Palin (or like Tina).

Is that too much to ask?

(BTW, were my references obscure enough?)

@ -Spartacus
It’s probably too much to ask. Sex appeal stems from some sort of self-centeredness that others find interesting. That’s why people who deeply care about others and their country, and whose center is outside of themselves (Buchanan, Paul) lack sex appeal. Those folks are problably not interested in politics but actually out there doing things to benefit others.

JR:

As to Barr, see: 
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=316475225&blogID=431855381

I don’t know if he approved the statement, but coming after his skipping the event, I think it’s fair to say he and the good doctor are not best buds.  Barr probably resents not getting Paul’s endorsement, now that the hurdle of Republican party loyalty has been cleared.

I just took my Paul sign’s off my car. What a waste, he says he wants to build up a Libertarian republican party and throws away all the time and money that has been spent. Good for Barr. If he would have led his people into the party like he said was his goal we could have taken it over. The Republican platform is the most conservative in my lifetime, with plenty of Libertarian ideas. Nobody said he had to support the ticket but to go to Nader and McKinney. Mccain needed him but he threw all that away for pique. When he had the opportunity to lead an antiwar third party or help fund one he did nothing. Now with no chance he throws away whatever was gained. There is a reason most of his delegates voted for McCain. He had to keep his seat in the house but now he just threw away all his seniority in the republican caucaus. Frankly he ran a horrible campaign.

i am spartacus:

Bearing a grudge, are we? I don’t see Dr. Fleming here on this thread, and he isn’t referring himself to as “Doctor” (nor does he do so at the Chronicles website), so could you be more obvious with your emotions?

The title of Doctor is appropriate for a teacher at the unversity level. If it is anyone should be stripped of that title, it should be medics or physicians.

Dr. Paul’s comments carry a different tone than did the text earlier linked. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7fcbst3VE

Bearing a grudge, are we?

No. My grudges, like kites, are light and brightly colored and slice through the atmosphere. (Think of me as a Christian Kite-Runner).

I don’t see Dr. Fleming here on this thread,..

Chronicles and VDARE and Taxi’s sites are constantly referencing each other. Mr. Spencer was recently, criticised at Chronicles, for instance

<I> and he isn’t referring himself to as “Doctor” (nor does he do so at the Chronicles website), so could you be more obvious with your emotions?<.I>

I would hope I am as obvious in my derision in response to his haughtiness as he is obvious in his hatred for Sarah Palin, of whom he charged with being proud about her Daughter’s unwed pregnancy.

When haughty men get naughty with small-town American women, real Paleos stick-up for the small-town women.

It is what real men used to do.

I would LOVE to hear Tom Fleming try and rip Sarah Palin in the presence of her husband, Todd.

Um, can we say chum?

But, Tom Fleming doesn’t have the cojones.

I disagree with Mr Spencer on this for his hypocritical intolerance and agree with so many of you on the need for a “last alliance of men and “Quendi” ...

I have no perfect candidate.  I am stuck with either Baldwin or McKinney.  I want the wars ended, our foreign policy to resemble the SwiB [Washington’s farewell address], the border sealed and everyone to hold that gun with both hands.  I think most of us here agree with those policy course corrections.

I disagree with Baldwin on abortion and disagree with Mckinney on the border and gun control.

I am far too inteligent [in my own little world anyway] to be branded a conservative or liberal.  Libertarian is somewhat close, but not in the LewRockwell strain. 
On affirmitive action I believe it should exist, unfair as it is, until the majority of black people are ready to dismantile it.  Face it, if Africans had had a free market in Caucasian children for almost a hundred years under the Constituion, we’d be a little tweaked too. 

Anyway, here’s something I wrote back before Christmas when “the Left” was arguing whether or not to support Ron Paul.
.

http://eggheadalliance.tripod.com/onepresidentpaulplease/id2.html

Personally I believe it’s better than most of the dribble I read that’s syndicated ... although I do need an editor to cut it back. 

Peace Love Flowers .... both hands son

Quote: “I disagree with Baldwin on abortion and disagree with Mckinney on the border and gun control.”

Then vote Nader who is pretty good on the Border.

I was listening to a wonderful setting of Anton Brukner’s Christus Factus Est. I wish I could do it this Sunday to celebrate the Exaltation of the Cross. But I have as much chance of that as being pleased to see who wins or steals the election. McCain is fighting his own demons of inadequacy compared to his fathers and Palin is Bush all over again with no education. 6 years and 5 no name colleges for a Journalism degree. The corporate press are taking down Obama.

I am with Pope Benedict. Find a place to hide and wait for the new dark ages to pass. The Church will survive and hopefully will restore what was lost.

I have met both Cynthis McKinney and Ralph Nader personally. I found both of them quite eloquent about our country’s misguided foreign policy despite my libertarian leanings and strong support for Ron Paul in the primary.

McKinney is a true hero for having taken on the Israel Lobby directly for having taken us into the Iraq war. She did it knowing that she would suffer for it politically which she did. She didn’t back down when the Democratic party top hacks told her to back off or suffer the consequences.

Even Ron Paul was very wary of mentioning The Lobby by name, only referring to these warmongers as being neocons. I guess he was already looking ahead to his future reelection bids. 

This makes McKinney and the equally vociferous Nader two of the true heroes in this ongoing debacle in the mideast. I guess Mr. Spencer’s slurs against her were directly the result of her being disrespectful of Israel. After all we already know that being anti Israel is exactly the same as being anti-semitic.

I guess Spencer was about as bothered by McKinney’s finger pointing as AIPAC was and for the same reasons.

Dr. Kevin MacDonald refers things like NASCAR and home schooling as “implicitly white communities.”

He speaks of the need to make these explicit.

Well, I think it pretty clear that the Ron Paul “revolution” is an “implicitly white” movement. 

And so it begins?

The epidemic of bailouts, the falling dollar, quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, ballooning debt, and
the impending entitlement crisis all point to a general crack up.  But with crisis comes opportunity.
There’s little chance of positive change coming from within the system.  Empires collapse.  They don’t
reform.  When the Federal Government finally goes belly up and can longer coerce or bribe, “crazy” ideas
like secession and political decentralization will not only seem reasonable, but the only option. Does
this is just deluded doomsaying?  Remember, most people were blindsinded by the collapse of the Soviet
Empire in the late 1980s.

The reason the left always comes out on top in these “left-right” coaltions is beause the left doesn’t
shirek and jump on a table like some house marm at the sight of mice, or in this case the sight of
leftists (Eeek! Cynthia McKinney!; Eeek! Ralph Nader!)

Ron Paul wasn’t proposing a left-right coaltion. He was simply saying that he has a set of principles
that these non-major party candidates are agreeing to because we share them in common. And as Jesse
Walker and Anthony Gregory have pointed out, these are principles that have a libertarian/anti-state
bent to them that perhaps such candidates and non-amjor parties in the past would not have agreed to,
especially on the left.

Paul was clear about this in Minneapolis. He is not going to be of one party or clique but work to see
all parties are influenced by or adopt what he believes in. Bob Barr doesn’t understand this and thus
made hismelf look like a jerk, slapping away Ron Paul’s outstretched hand in a pentulant fit of pique.

And spending years sperated by walls in ideological ghettos, it’s nice to see parties and candidates
transcend to support some basic principles which they can work together on in a broad movement. That’s
been the whole point to the Paul camapaign from the beginning.

Well spoken John Dudley. Mr Spencer’s slur that McKinney is “insane and reprehensible” is contemptible. McKinney has fought against AIPAC, against American militarism, and American imperialism, in addition she has worked tirelessly to expose the truth about the events of 911 and she has called for Bush’s trial as a traitor. She may be black and a socialist, but if a few more American politicians had a small fraction of her courage then the country may not be in quite the mess it is. Mr Spencer, instead of contemptible attacks on Cynthia McKinney you might direct your aim at the vacuous attack-dog called Sarah Palin.

Paul should be praised for all he’s done, whether or not folks agree entirely with his ideals and strategy.

He’s proven himself a great man and has done a lot. Will Paul’s efforts be for naught? Well - we don’t know if our own efforts will be for naught.

All a man can do is his duty, and Paul has done his duty. We can’t expect mere men to accomplish more, but rather we should offer him the praise he’s earned.

As usual I agree with Sean Scallon.

It’s also worth noting, that on the anti-globalist issues Mr. Roberts pointed to above, Nader is arguably as good a candidate as Baldwin.

The author is apparently ignorant of ballot access laws in most states that prohibit a candidate who has run for president from one party from then running on another ticket for the same office.

The two major parties don’t want any “splits”, and this is their way of preventing them.  Had Ron Paul NOT run as a Republican, he would of course be free to run for president on another party’s ticket.  But since he ran as a Republican, he cannot run for president as a third-party candidate in most states.  He simply cannot get on the ballot.  And if he cannot get on the ballot, he cannot win.

So, Richard… get a clue before you leap to assassinate Paul’s character.

It’s not “not having the guts to go all the way”. That’s just BS from the unschooled.  Paul shows guts every time he stands up to vote for something that’s right - even if the vote is 434-1.  You ever do that Richard?  Stand up as the lone vote for something that’s right when 434 other people are pressuring you to wilt like a rose in a microwave?

I thought not.

It’s not a lack of guts.

It’s accepting the reality that the law, as currently formed (by the two major parties) prohibits a run as a third-party candidate for one who has run as a major party candidate in the same election cycle.

Could Ron Paul run as Bob Barr’s VP pick?  I don’t know.  That’s certainly worth looking into.

But to impugn Paul’s integrity, fortitude, intelligence or tenacity is only to make yourself look inept, unknowledgeable, venal or petty.

Next time get the facts first.

As for myself, I haven’t decided yet who I will vote for.  I HAVE decided it won’t be McCain or Obama.  The two major parties should be ashamed for even permitting their candidacies.

I second Sean Scallon.

I think Ron Paul’s point is that genuine leftists and rightists would be better choices for offices, than the usual two-party elite (actually one-party elite) which campaign differently (slightly), and do the same things when they are in office, not to mention that the things they do are often harmful, and represent the interests of only a tiny fraction of their voters.

Ron Paul does not say, that once the Republican-Democrat two-party system is gone, Paul and Nader would campaign for the same things, if competing for office.

Paul and Nader both love their country, and would work to improve it to the best of their knowledge and according to what they believe in.  Their beliefs on how to do that are very different, but they are both a big improvement over the current Republican-Democrat elite for whom their country is no more than a vehicle for the realization of their own corrupt and false goals.

“On affirmitive action I believe it should exist, unfair as it is, until the majority of black people are ready to dismantile it.”

Meaning it will not be dismantled, because too many blacks blame anyone but themselves for their failures.

“Face it, if Africans had had a free market in Caucasian children for almost a hundred years under the Constituion, we’d be a little tweaked too”

So commit more evil to make up for evil, thus perpetuating the cycle. Not a single American former slave lives.  By your logic, I should be able to demand privileges from American blacks based on the current depredations of the black criminal sub-culture.  Know the statistics, Will?

Not to mention the insult that is government bigotry disguised in the bogus expression ‘affirmative action’..It is an affront to be told that you need a boost because of your race and receive your position or privilege because of it and not because of your merit.  How groupthink of you, Will, and by the way, who will be making the sacrifices necessary for your little program?  Why not start with yourself and your family, and anyone else you can convice to your cause, or do you need some jackboots to show the reluctant non-black masses who is boss?

Richard, I agree with some of your statements, but most definitely not with the heading. OK McKinney’s performance was a bit of a distraction - to put it mildly - but getting her to sign a 4 point libertarian plan is quite some progress, it symbolizes something. Nader delivered a good speech, very constitutional. Paul has basically managed to bring together two “leftists” with a paleocon and the libertarian should also have been there.

Those that call on Paul to leave the GOP fail to realize that there are not only a few Ron Paul Republicans, but also that Paul has a few allies within the GOP, like congressman Walter Jones and a few others. Should he drop them too or ask them to join the LP?

Paul could be the LP’s presidential or VP candidate for the next two months, but after that be totally out of politics, unable to question Ben Bernanke and influence the other congressmen, now that they take him very seriously! He has the right strategy, facilitate a combined third party effort while working in the GOP at the same time.

Barr also endorsed the strange bedfellows campaign. McKinney will not attract any number of votes from the Ron Paul campaign, but she could attract votes from other who would vote for Obama or not at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vl2t3n74SM

I think this interview illustrates what Paul and Nader have in common, and also makes references to where they differ.

BambiB, I am not advocating that Ron Paul run third party esp. not at this late date, but sore looser laws do not apply to the presidential election in most states, and those where they still do could face legal challenge. These laws have been overturned by the courts on several occasions. The reason is because in the Presidential election you are not technically voting for the candidate. You are voting for electors.

Reality check, folks. I’m astonished that on a prominent political blog only one person was knowledgeable enoughto know that ballot access laws would prevent RP running on another ticket. Not only are there the sore loser laws already mentioned, but ballot access deadlines are long past in most if not all states. All this criticism has been directed at Paul for not doing something that was impossible anyway!

Oh ... and what’s with that photo of Paul at the head of the article? Couldn’t find a LESS flattering pose?

Sir,

I am happy that some reader’s are questioning your utterly needless slur against Cynthia McKinney.

I am also happy, that some readers do your homework for you as far as ballot access laws are concerned.

Thermonuclear war is, by the way, another government programme unlikely to be taken back.

Sincerely

“Not only are there the sore loser laws already mentioned, but ballot access deadlines are long past in most if not all states.”

Kent, ballot access deadlines are past in most states, but see my post above re. sore loser laws.

But I think people are upset he didn’t run earlier, not that he didn’t announce yesterday.

@ Red Phillips

Having to fight those laws in court first might make for a somewhat less than efficient campaign.

Apart from that, it might be interesting to follow the future career of Senator Lieberman, who apparently overdid it this time. It is quite reasonable to assume that Dr. Paul does not want to sacrifice the result of more than a quarter of a century’s effort for very little possible gain.

@ Kent

That picture says more about those who posted it than about Dr. Paul.

Embarassing.

“Having to fight those laws in court first might make for a somewhat less than efficient campaign.”

Obviously. My point was that those laws remain in only a few states at the presidential level.

As was mentioned, the four points of agreement between the candidates are the most important issues facing this country; completely ignored by the big-two candidates. On the CNN interview, Dr. Paul noted that the League of Women Voters was replaced as the hosts of the debates specifically because they had allowed third party candidates to participate - his point that all candidates with substantially 50-state ballot access should be included in the debates is key.

Obama, McCain, Nader, and McKinney are, frankly, communists, whether or not they admit it (although I admire McKinney for taking on AIPAC).

Bob Barr is a front for Perot, and is only in the race to throw it to Obama. Google Russ Verney, his campaign manager and recall the second Buchanan campaign where Perot allowed his own party to be destroyed when it got out of his control.  Any remaining Libertarians please note. I deeply regret sending him $100 before I caught on.  Oh, well.

That leaves Baldwin, but the best that can be said about the Constitution party is that they aren’t trying very hard.  Ron Paul has done, and will continue to do, more good as a congressman and presidential candidate than the rest put together.  Have a little faith, Richard!

@ Richard Spencer ”the movement must move beyond the man.

I agree.  For whatever reasons; the man will no longer be the leader of the movement.

Facing the future of third parties in America....I have a question…

Would “electoral fusion” be an option for third parties?  It is allowed in New York State.

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court case Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party ; the New Party’s argument that electoral fusion was a right protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of association clause was rejected.

However,....

SCOTUS didn’t state that electoral fusion would be forbidden if a state decided to allow it.

Since, the Constitution doesn’t state that only two parties are allowed.  A way to strengthen third parties in relation to the two major parties is certainly permissible...on a state to state basis.

Electoral fusion might be an incentive for the major parties to place their presidental candidate on a third party ballot. In turn,
the power of endorsement by a third party would give the smaller parties a plank on the major party platforms.

Perhaps third party candidates should concentrate on state ballot initiatives to allow electoral fusion.

Agreement?

Disagreement?

Discussion....

When ‘small-town women’ act in extremely narcissistic and hypocritical fashion, and
refuse to punish their offspring for hugely stupid and foolish behavior(not to mention
behavior that explicitly violates the standard of behavior that they espouse-over and over
and over and....), real small town men tell their wives to quit being a fool and embarrassing
them and their name and to get dinner on the table-now(and ensure the offspring are properly
punished). Toddy Palin, like so many American males from Manhatten to Nome, is a cuckold in
all but the physical sense-at least. I’d expect Hillary could beat him bloody, never mind Oprah.

“That leaves Baldwin, but the best that can be said about the Constitution party is that they aren’t trying very hard.”

Jeff, unfortunately the CP doesn’t have the money to try hard.

I agree that Ron Paul should have separated himself from the Republican Party and allowed
himself to be drafted by one of the so-called Third Parties.  He would have given those of
us who see the present system as a travesty and danger for America a chance.  Nevertheless,
I will vote for him as a write-in in November.  I would be committing moral, intellectual,
and social suicide if I were to vote for either McCain or Obama.

Ron Paul has always had a fatal flaw:  he is not willing to call out the creepiest of his small cadre of supporters.  Thus in the early 90s there was all too much talk of the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati and today he has been far too passive about 9/11 Truthers and other assorted idiots that have latched onto his bandwagon.  He has a good message, but he is not a serious person, and he is, truth be told, a bad manager and a bad leader, which are the sine qua non of presidential effectiveness regardless of his views.

To: I am not Spartacus,

I aplogize for referring to (I was just about to do it again, it’s just a habit) Thomas Fleming as “Dr.” Perhaps the likes of myself should not even be referring to him at all. I hold him, like say Paul Gottfried in high esteem and in my book they can refer to themselves as anything they like and it is ok by me.  Also at his own site Thomas Fleming does not refer to himself as “Dr.”, so dopey myself I should have remembered that.  I may have brain-damage myself for all I know, I suffer from ‘selective memory’ although it probably manifests in so many, it’s more pervasive than the common cold and then some.

But the poster pb has a point - beware today of those with the *actual medical degree. You know what I’m saying?  A lot of folks today say (perhaps also out of habit), “trust me, I’m *not a Doctor.”

They have far too much of what Oscar Wilde referred to, when its being in EXCESS as so *retarding – experience.  Whereas education, especially as an appropriate complement to experience is the greatest thing since the wheel.  Thus I suspect we’re coming full-circle and now I do not know whom to refer to as “Dr.” any longer?  Perhaps only the patients, I don’t know? 

Alas, in the fru-frou vein you know the joke: “only doctors need patience err, patients.” And they get’em too, just like cemeteries aren’t for want of biz.  Vhat a vorld?!?  I hear you.

Well,well, well, if it isn’t good ol’ Christopher Roach. That’s what the Ron Paul movement needs, a nice purge, just like the old days with Buckley.

“Ron Paul has always had a fatal flaw:  he is not willing to call out the creepiest of his small cadre of supporters.  Thus in the early 90s there was all too much talk of the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati and today he has been far too passive about 9/11 Truthers and other assorted idiots that have latched onto his bandwagon.  He has a good message, but he is not a serious person, and he is, truth be told, a bad manager and a bad leader, which are the sine qua non of presidential effectiveness regardless of his views.”

If a candidate were always to be sunk by his supporters than Obama would have foundered over his radical/bigot background, and McCain met Davey Jones regarding his end of the world bunch.  As far as 9/11 goes, skeptics, CR, skeptics - the only idiots are the ones who swallow the centgov’s 9/11 fantasy, a tale so tall that the said gov has altered repeatedly, and has been condemned by members of the ‘establishment only’ 9/11 committee, who rebelled and publicly complained about US centgov stone-walling, lying, evasion, and obstrunction. CR’s back, wrong as ever with both fists flying.  Christian Mystic

Richard Spencer has about as much authority to say “The R3VOLUTION is over” as I have saying “Richard Spencer’s career is over”!

NONE!

Ron Paul is NOT the R3VOLUTION!  Neither is Richard Spencer.  It is people like me who have WORKED OUR TAILS OFF to lay the foundation of REAL CHANGE for the last year-and-a-half.  And this is IN SPITE OF A MEDIA BLACKOUT!  Try as you may, WE CANNOT BE STOPPED UNLESS YOU KILL US ALL!

Good luck with that.

The R3VOLUTION continues.....

The most effective support of the policies Congressman Paul espouses is to simply watch as the Bunko Parlor on the Potomac drives the lapsed-Republic further into penury and magnificent ruin. The Imperial Edifice and it’s trusty “media” (we once had a “press”, now we have a 24 hr. wankerfest called a “media") are ironclad in their effectiveness and inasmuch as the overall goals are hyper consumptive and baksheesh addicted, they’ll furnish absolute ruin sooner than anyone thinks. The opportunity to reform this government passed us by sometime in the 80’s. Should a reformer actually get elected, they’ll be chewed up and spit out within months.

Why? The great bulk of the public in this historiphobic nation do not believe there is anything really wrong. They swoon over this silly little “Change” mantra but don’t really have a clue nor care what that “change” might be. If they did, the candidate’s would have proffered a definition already instead of barking the tag line and watching as their Pavlovian supporters go bleary eyed and cheer wildly.

When the public has finally figured out that the “leaders” they beg for have sold them down the river for a farthing or two, we might see some change. Self-government is exactly what the name says it is and we have perverted that notion beyond recognition. Until that sorrowful moment, everything we watch is a rather amateurish but nonetheless effective charade. Mr. Paul should receive nothing but our admiration for howling into the wilderness all these years and capping that career by actually raising a wider awareness of the dire problem we confront for the first time in years.

When the left says stop all immigration including student visas, work visas, etc. because it causes genocide of white people, we can work with them.  They want the genocide of white people. 

The left doesn’t want freedom. It wants totalitarian control of minds to the level of molecules.  They want to go into your head and remove racist molecules.  To them that means you have to look at the skin and remove all the genes that are under skin that is white.

When the left says stop all immigration including student visas, work visas, etc. because it causes genocide of white people, we can work with them.  They want the genocide of white people. 

The left doesn’t want freedom. It wants totalitarian control of minds to the level of molecules.  They want to go into your head and remove racist molecules.  To them that means you have to look at the skin and remove all the genes that are under skin that is white.

Posted by Old Atlantic on Sep 11, 2008.

Jeez, Old Atlantic.  I swear, I saw the face of God when I read your words (HaHa!).

Keep up the good work.

Captainchaos, thanks.

Ron Paul is a man of his word. This is why so many people LOVE him. He stated on the record at the start of his bid that he WOULD NOT RUN 3rd PARTY if he didn’t get the Republican nod. Stop whining. We need to wake them up at the polls, a 3rd party candidate will not win, that is besides the point. We need to show the dissatisfaction with the current system, and one way to do such is to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. It would be great if we could combine the major 3rd parties and choose Pres/and VP candidates to put the numbers of dissatisfied voters out their and/or break the two party system. That is a pipe dream of course, because they wouldn’t be cohesive enough to make an election cycle. It is a shame really.
I love how everyone is so quick to attack the most principled statesman in our lifetime. He has been standing against Goliath for 30 years....What have you done?
How many of those who have made disparaging comments actually attended the classes offered on Saturday and Sunday prior to the rally?
Or did you all stay home hiding behind your computer screens waiting for the broadcast of Tuesdays events? As far as Bob Barr and his staff and their comments they were just bent out of shape that they were not given any time on the stage. Barr was there pandering to the crowd in the entrance to the Target Center. I think it has been made clear that Ron Paul has made his third party choice and it is not Nader or Barr. Chuck Baldwin has had the stage at most of the recent events (minus the last). He has always spoken very highly of Baldwin.
As I was reading this article and the subsequent comments I can’t help but think about what fickle patriots (sic) you all are. Go head and give up before the true fight even begins..........

:( Saddened in PA

Just how is immigration “genocide”?

Low birth rates are killing off the “White folks” in America.

It’s collective suicide, not genocide, get your facts straight.  Don’t blame a Mexican for your inability to have children*.

*is it your homosexuality or immaturity that prevents you from getting a wife pregnant?

“[Paul] ... has been far too passive about 9/11 Truthers and other assorted idiots that have latched onto his bandwagon”

EVERY aspect of the government-sanctioned official conspiracy theory has been discredited. Even the claimed cell phone calls from passengers in the doomed planes, which were the sole support for the Muslim hijackers tale, appear to have been faked. See this Griffin article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-America-Attacked-by-Mu-by-David-Ray-Griffin-080909-536.html
And yet still Mr Roach calls 911 truthers “idiots”.
Dictionary definition: idiot = person incapable of rational conduct.

Ian, right as usual.  Kudos for your posting of the Rense site story here (2 to 3 weeks before the imedia carried it) about the US/Israeli plot to use Georgian airfields to attack Iran. Is one a conspiracy nut if one denies centgov conspiracies, even when they are exposed, or is one supposed to swallow the State Kool-Aide without question?  Christian Mystic

Link to rebuttal of latest NIST fraud:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/37

NIST is part of the Department of Commerce, so that guarantees that the report did not cherry-pick evidence, use flawed methodology or modelling, or that the researchers responsible for the report would not be subject to any politcal pressure to reach a conclusion (almost 7 years after the enormity) that would embarass our masters.

I am looking forward to the speedy release of all data and methodology used by NIST to reach its ‘independent and unbiased’ conclusion.  Christian Mystic

I can disprove the official story from personal experience, as can many many travelers: cellular phones don’t work above a few thousand feet and a few hundred miles per hour.

Recently, I was flying into the Atlanta airport, and my phone started buzzing just right before touchdown; at that point I had realized that I had left my cellular telphone on during the flight.  Come to find out, a lady from our parish church had called me while we were making our approach, and the call simply did not go through, and was saved as a message and delivered to me when I was in range to receive a telephone call.

No one was calling their wives, girlfriends, or mothers from several thousand feet at several hundreds of miles per hour in rural Pennsylvania.  Of this I can assure you.

With that being said, I wholeheartedly support the destruction of Islamic “culture”.  Unfortunately, GW Bush&Co;. are Hell-bent on replacing it with Enlightened Liberal Democracy.  Of course, they’re all Liberals, so what should you expect?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-America-Attacked-by-Mu-by-David-Ray-Griffin-080909-536.html

Ian, a truly chilling and shocking debunking of the official fraud.  Taki should have Griffin post here regularly, so the poor ‘idiot’ can put in his place, as well as generate site hits.  Please keep posting regarding the 9/11 Holocaust. A Christian Mystic

For the 9/11 stories the following may also be of interest.  Giulietto Chiesa has recently made a documentary entitled “Zero”, which asks many questions about 9/11.  The US media has so far refused to air the film, but yesterday a video interview was available with G. Chiesa on russiatoday.com .

Here is a written interview where some of the questions are asked:

http://russiatoday.com/news/news/30260

Simon
I agree that it would be great if someone like Griffin was induced to write for this site. Once you start to get an inkling as to what was behind 911, the anthrax scare etc it rather changes your outlook on various political subjects. There is certainly some deadwood amongst the current contributors to this site and all of them seem to accept (willingly or unwillingly) the official fairy tale of what happened on 911 (which doesn’t say much for their intellect or integrity). I am not too bothered by the likes of Mr Roach. Most readers seem to have figured him out. I have tried to present a reasoned argument to him, but he presumably is incapable of considering information that contradicts his preconceived opinions. Being called an “idiot” by him is a mark of honour. The type of contributor that I find “scary” is the likes of Justin Raimondo. He is obviously very clever, very well-informed, and a very persuasive writer, and yet he always states that 911 was carried out by Muslim terrorists and furthermore he censors 911 truth-type stories from his anti-war website. This is curious considering that Justin is awake to the anthrax scare and even more so when you read some of his old articles on 911 that were perhaps a bit too close to the mark:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3115
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100402.html
Hmm. Makes you wonder about the games that some columnists play with their readers. All very, very sad, particularly when we have just been reminded of the ghastly events that occurred on, and flowed from, 911 (and I am not even an American).
Cheers
Ian

“Just how is immigration “genocide”?

Low birth rates are killing off the “White folks” in America.” - Patrick Hall

Massive non-White immigration puts a tremendous downward pressure on White birthrates.  Get your facts straight.

Actually the movie “Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11” is on youtube in nine parts.  Here is the first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0&feature=related

It does not draw any conclusions, it just debunks the official story (includes Dario Fo, Gore Vidal, Giulietto Chiesa, military experts, etc.)…

Justin Raimondo is now warning that bin Laden may be planning a nuclear attack on America:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13448
If such does happen (let’s pray it doesn’t), it wont be the handiwork of bin Laden or “al Qaeda”. Surely, Justin is aware that all the evidence suggests that bin Laden has been dead for at least 4 years. What sort of silly games is Justin playing?

Maybe he’s tired of the stress of campaigning because he’s an elderly man!

Ever think of that?!

The Revolution is not over until we give
up.

“Well, well, well, if it isn’t good ol’ Christopher Roach. That’s what the Ron Paul movement needs, a nice purge, just like the old days with Buckley.” -Red Phillips

Red, do you mean we have achieved such prestige now, we are ripe for the infiltration (and a child shall lead them.) Led by C. Roach and his neo-con’artists, like they targeted, inflitrated & purged Buckley back in the day?  If Chris Roach believes it’s a promotion is it?  The cornucopia (the washed-out horn) is empty, what’s to be had, not like when it was ripe and full in going after Buckley?  If I were a neo-con these days I’d be wary of who gets the point-man job?  I sense from reading Chris R. he’s wired in such a way it’s going to be painful for him to even modify his ‘beliefs’ much less significantly change them.  He thus could be perfect for the mission.  You know, he’s such a serious person.  I feel for him (which is a very bad habit of mine.)

Sometimes the obvious needs pointing out. Ron Paul lost. He did not get his party’s nomination. He had lots of disappointed followers, and he had to tell them something.

He could have thrown his weight behind people he basically agrees with (Libertarian and Constitution Party supporters and candidates) or those he does not (John McCain). He chose neither option. It was lame, but, after one loses, one is lamed. That is the nature of defeat.

A third party run depended on a Third Party, eh? He didn’t have time to create one, and the major parties have sewn many states up pretty tight, against latecomer challengers.

Bob Barr did offer him a second banana slot, which was a gesture, and might have kept the movement going for a while. But Ron has reasons to reject that.

So what to do?

Richard Spencer is quite right: find another standard-bearer. Next time ‘round.

“Why ... did not he himself make a third-party bid?”

Paul has not been totally transparent about the facts of the matter. Running third party would have exposed him to the risk, under Texas law, of having his GOP nomination in his 4CD cancelled, removing him from the ballot. Clearly, he is not willing to sacrifice his congressional seat for another losing Presidential campaign.
Secondly, many states have “sore loser” laws, where he would have been banned from the ballot after his failed GOP candidacy. I’m not sure how many there are, but it would have doomed a third-party (or even independent) campaign from the start.
Now, has Paul *ever* mentioned either of these facts to his star-struck supporters. No. Never.

Patrick Hall,

your spinning of the immigration issue is manipulative and dishonest. You should be ashamed, though I’m sure you’re quite proud of your evil hatred of the West.

Were there no immigration and no nonwhites living within, whites could refrain from having many children and remain intact.

I find it laughable that Ron Paul is not serious because he hasn’t repudiated the 9/11 people, who are no doubt responsible for so much ill in this country, while the two major party candidates can openly consort with anti-American PACs and lobbyists.  I wonder if in light of recent events on Wall Street that Ron Paul should also rescind his non-serious proclamations of America’s pending financial collapse.

Jeff W., I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to Buckley’s purges (Randians, Birchers) of the “conservative movement.” Not that I have much use for Randians, but the effect of purges is not just to weed out the undesirables but also the less pragmatic and less mainstream in general.

Sorry, Red I thought you were referring to the neocon infiltrations of buckley’s & etc.

But that too is politics. Politics when we make it a god or an idol a be all and end all, ‘as if’ it too weren’t then a game, is who we *aren’t. The subject and object is an animal who became conceptual, and that is us. That’s why aristotle called us a ‘political’ animal. It means conceptual. Sorry, I misunderstood you, lost in the translation. Ever play telephone as a kid? And in being honest… don’t care much or follow much of the political. I defer. Thanks. IN that I’m comfortable to follow you and people of your ilk, so far as I can see.

You seem to care in this arena - albeit I’m not sure yet, it matters?