Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: A Revolution Betrayed? Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_revolution_betrayed#17021 Post contents: The complaints are well stated and fair in their logic to a point, but I would not call Dr. Paul's decision not to run third part a mistake--and certainly not "a revolution betrayed"--it is just an alternate course which time might show was the best course. As many of the comments note above, the political system is completely rigged against third parties. Does Mr. Raimondo really think Dr. Paul could have done any better with a third party run than Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, or Ross Perot? Nader, Buchanan, and Perot all had devoted followings, good name recognition--and, in the case of Perot, billions in the bank to spend on a campaign. Yet, despite all valiant efforts of these and many other very worthy candidates, the two party system is nevertheless alive, well, and thriving as of 2008. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who runs the largest city in the country, has billions in the bank, and owns a media company was considering running third party, but according to recent news reports he appears to have given the idea up as it requires too daunting an effort. Realistically, with Dr. Paul running third party, we were looking at a candidacy which would have carried no states and which would have had, at best, just a few percentage points of voter support in the general election. This is not the fault of Dr. Paul or the Paulian message. This is the system--a system which belittles third party candidates, starves them of funds, gives them media coverage, and throws every possible legalistic barrier in their way just to run for office. As the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, knew the well the huge obstacles involved and passed to fight another day on a more even battlefield. Instead of waging an inherently futile effort to gain the presidency via a third party (or coalition of third parties), Dr. Paul and the rEVOLution are going to wage a guerrilla fight inside the party for its soul against the neocons. The neocons have control of the party, but there are many pockets of opposition within the party and its institutions that the Paulites can ally with. And if, as anticipated, Obama and the Dems crush McCain and the GOP in the November elections opposition to the neocons will skyrocket like never before within the party, and the party will be seeking to rebuild from the ground up in the aftermath. It is in this latter scenario that Dr. Paul could actually become the party's nominee come 2012. One last point. As acknowledged by Mr. Raimondo, the freedom movement which Dr. Paul and the rEVOLution have sparked is bigger than Dr. Paul or any one candidate. Former Congressman Bob Barr is increasing being talked about as a Libertarian Party and/or fusionist Libertarian-Constitution Party presidential candidate. Congressman Barr, who introduced Dr. Paul at the recent CPAC conference, looks a good, media savvy candidate who is more than able to carry the torch of the freedom movement in the general election. I really think Mr. Raimondo should redirect his efforts away from criticizing Dr. Paul for not running third party, and rather refocus his efforts to convincing former Congressman Barr to run Libertarian-Constitution Party as its presidential nominee. Sent at: 2008 05 16