Sometimes I think people work way too hard at all the wrong things. But that may just be me. But I would like to really know why Ron Paul is working so hard on behalf of third party candidates like Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney?
Ron Paul had the chance to be the biggest third party candidate in our lifetime. But he chose to stay the course and stay in the Republican Party. He decided that retaining his Congressional seat as a Republican was tmore important as well.
If party ties do not matter, tell me why Paul could not have won election as a Libertarian congressmen? Would that not have been the best thing for the Libertarian movement? Would that not have been one giant step forward for third party candidates?
Ron Paul had many chances to go for the Libertarian nomination or an independent run. He chose neither. So how is that decision working for the promotion of the liberties we all seek? I say it is not.
Ron Paul blew it. Look around. This is more of a two-party race than any Presidential Race we have had over the last twenty years. Instead of being a real game changer, what we have is a non-event.
You say we have to tear apart the ineffective third parties we have today to build something stronger? I say you are just tearing apart the third parties.
We have people upselt because the low delegate count was misstated at the Republican Convention. Ron Paul had to have his own convention because he was not even invited to speak at the convention of the party he refuses to leave. How poorly must the Republican Party treat someone before they leave? Even former Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman got to speak. Mitt Romney got to speak. Mike Huckabee got to speak. Fred Thompson got to speak. Ron Paul? Nope. So how did staying in the Republican Party help you, Ron Paul? You only got to address those that already know and agree.
So Ron Paul is now conducting meetings with third party candidates and people are insulted that Bob Barr did not show. Well, I am no Bob Barr fan, but I have to ask what are you really angry about?
Are you angry that Ron Paul did not seize the opportunity presented?
Are you angry that Ron Paul is not a third party candidate either?
Are you angry at all the effort you made for Ron Paul, all the money you contributed for Ron Paul, to find that the most important thing he can do now is meet with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney?
I am angry. Not at Barr for some skipped meeting. I am angry at Paul for not seizing the opportunities that he had.
Barr stepped up and went for the Libertarian nomination. Like it or not, he got it. Like it or not, Paul did nothing of the kind. He stayed a Republican for some reason. I hope it was worth it to him personally because it did not help the cause of liberty.
Before you go and tell me how I do not get it, how to do so would compromise this or that principle, let me tell you this: It is not that complicated. You have to play the game at hand and make some headway before you can change the rules. You can stand on principle from dusk til dawn but if you do not play the game, you will not matter.
Ron Paul chose not to play the game as outlined. He could have left the Republicans, joined the Libertarians, garnered the nomination, and then had a meeting with third party candidates. That meeting would have made sense. He would have been a leader. There would be Ron Paul bumper stickers everywhere. We would still be raising funds for Ron Paul.
Instead of being leader of the Libertarian movement, he is going to be a congressional Republican when all is said and done. Nothing will really have changed.
Instead, we are seeing the demise of third party campaigns altogether.
So for all the promise we were seeing at the beginning of the year, we are seeing nothing but failure and disappointment in the end.
I see a lot of misplaced anger out there. The movement of freedom will get no where unless you sit and honestly look at what has transpired, and where it went wrong, and what opportunities were missed. If you don't, then I suggest you are part of the problem as well.
I know I am angry. I am angry that the best use of Ron Paul's time today seems to be meeting with Raph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. That is not where I thought we would be in the fall of 2008.
©2008 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, September 12, 2008
Last modified: Friday, September 12, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by EJ Moosa of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By EJ Moosa |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Jonathan
Date: 2008-09-12 07:28:09
wow , there is intelligence in this web site after all.
Posted By: Kathleen
Date: 2008-09-12 08:40:02
With all due respect, EJ, I'm surprised at how many libertarians and Libertarians still don't "get it" when it comes to Ron Paul. You're judging his actions as though is is like any other politician. Ron Paul is a statesman and a leader whose actions are based on principles.
With one notable exception, Ron Paul has valiantly attempted to work within a broken, bankrupt and biased system. He has been the lone voice of reason and liberty inside the U.S. House of Representatives for 10 terms, as a Republican. He's a LIRC (a Libertarian in Republican clothing). And it has given him a platform from which he can advocate for personal freedom, individual responsibility, etc.
Realistically, before last year, Ron Paul would have had zero chance to get elected as a Libertarian. Zero. He tried it once, realized the futility, and went back to Plan A.
Today, third parties and third party candidates have no chance in American presidential and congressional politics. None. They have to spend the bulk of the money they raise to overcome onerous ballot access laws, circulate petitions, buy advertising (because they don't get free media coverage like the "mainstream" candidates), and pay for other things the Republicans and Democrats give themselves for free.
Ron Paul is walking a high wire as he attempts to create both change inside the GOP, as well as make it possible for third parties to have a meaningful chance to win a presidential (or even a House or Senate) election.
More and more Representatives are coming to Ron Paul to ask him how he was able to engage so many new voters and young voters and raise so much money. (Presumably, his answer will include "having freedom-oriented positions on the issues.") And this is a bad thing, how? Would this be possible had Ron Paul chosen to throw out the baby with the bathwater and turned his back on the GOP?
Refusing to endorse John McCain is one thing, but I believe endorsing any other third party candidate would have made it utterly impossible for Ron Paul to have any role inside the GOP. And right now he's the most effective "mole" the freedom movement has in Washington.
I think it's commendable, historic (and, most importantly, newsworthy) that Ron Paul was able to bring together such a disparate group of third party candidates. Again, the purpose was NOT to endorse any one candidate (which is apparently what caused Bob Barr's unforgiveable tantrum); it was to endorse fair and equal access to ballots, media coverage and presidential debates for ALL viable candidates (i.e., those capable of gaining enough Electoral College votes to be elected).
I think Ron Paul is very wise to work within the GOP until it either returns to its roots or goes entirely Fascist. And in the mean time, make it easier for third party candidates to get the fair treatment that will make it possible for a third-party candidate to eventually be elected.
Posted By: EJ
Date: 2008-09-12 09:06:38
Kathleen,
Thank you for the feedback.
Ron Paul would have had the opportunity to end the third party access issues for the Libertarian Party for good. So it is pretty difficult for me to see how having a meeting with a group of third parties less than 60 days before the election has any value whatsoever.
Paul did engage many voters. The key is keeping them. He could have had those voters casting a ballot for him this November. They will not be.
Ron Paul may have principles. He may be a statesman. But if he is part of the republican party, that also makes him part of the problem. The key is, that of all republicans, he had the greatest opportunity to make a change and have it mean something.
EJ
Posted By: spinnikerca
Date: 2008-09-12 09:32:56
This has been frustrating, and exhausting, and I'm done with it.
Ron Paul spent 30 years building a record of credibility. What is Barr's record? Ron Paul is doing what he thinks is best for the freedom movement which clearly he thinks needs the ballot/debate access rules changed as point one to ever get anywhere meaningful. He built a lot of capital and was spending it on that and to further the four principles. Barr agreed to join into this so was included in all advance press releases AND by incorporation by mention into RP's program, boosting his profile. He chose to betray RP's confidence in him by backing out long after he was expected by the press to attend, to create a controversy to build press for himself. Well, fine. That was his choice.
However, Ron Paul supporters, like myself, also have a choice to make. It is not about the Libertarian party, at least not urgently. It is only about who to support and vote for in November. I thought Barr was to careful in his phrasing of some key issues to me like noninterventionism, and I hated his record, but because Ron Paul had raised him most often as the person whose platform was like his own, I was planning to vote for Barr.
Now I'm not.
I don't need anger, I just need to get busy finding and supporting a different liberty candidate.
Posted By: Bill McCaskill
Date: 2008-09-12 10:14:38
Support Chuck Baldwin and win.
Blessings Bill
Posted By: Mr. AV
Date: 2008-09-12 12:14:31
Upset because Ron Paul didn't accept a third party bid. Yeah, like that would be any different than what he's doing now. Oh, wait. It would. It would completely remove Ron Paul from the political world once and for all. Face this fact, no matter what Ron Paul did, he would not be president. Ron knows this. So, if you can't be president, go for the second, more effective method. Build up numbers in Congress. BJ Lawson, Bob Conley, people who wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if Ron Paul's message hadn't got out.
Obama or McCain will be president no matter what we do, no matter what Ron Paul did. The fight is far harder than that or haven't you noticed how corrupt our society is? People rejecting "radicalism", yet demand change? "Radicalism" is the only change there is. People who want change but don't want to feel uncomfortable in the process are lying to themselves. However, that's the reality of the situation and it's not something that can be fixed by November.
All Ron Paul's doing is planting seeds. It's all he can do. It's our call what we want to do with them.
Posted By: ej
Date: 2008-09-12 12:33:32
MIV,
I thought when Dr. Paul ran for President, he was running for President. If the only objective was to build up Congress, he should not run for President and accepted our campaign contributions.
I know the system is corrupt. But the better platform would have been for Paul to be in a National Debate with Obama and McCain and have him call it corrupt to all of America, rather than a Rally where everyone already agrees with him.
Why would Ron Paul have been completely removed from the political world if he had run as a Libertarian? Was Harry Browne? Ralph Nader? Nope
I wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. I think Paul would have been an even greater force in 2012.
Thanks for the feedback,
EJ
Posted By: Al
Date: 2008-09-12 21:35:35
Yes, it is a sad thing. My problem with RP's decision to endorse four 3ed party candidates is that all that will accomplish is to fragment the loyal RP votes. He should have picked one candidate, Baldwin or Barr and asked all his supporters to vote for that candidate. It is over, I can't be a Republican any more and I will never be a Democrat. In a two party system where both are corrupt what is the use. We are going to face some terrible times. I will for myself and my family prepare for survival mode, store food, water, amunition and fire wood. Keep your powder dry, you going to need it.
Posted By: Dusty Sensiba
Date: 2008-09-13 10:49:43
If Ron Paul ran for president on a third party ticket it would be a short term gain with long term loss.
Why don't you run for something instead of just criticizing Paul?
Posted By: ej
Date: 2008-09-13 11:01:47
Dusty,
Tell me what long term loss would be suffered.
I have given Ron Paul plenty of praise. I have given him plenty of my money. If someone is beyond criticism, there is a problem with the movement.
Thanks for the feedback,
EJ
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2008-09-13 11:57:30
Let's see . . . Ron Paul has been promoting a very libertarian oriented agenda for over 30 years. He's been in the congress for ten terms, introducing bills, working with Republicans and Democrats (even Bernie Sanders-the Independent socialist, on areas of agreement!), speaking out against statism, war, reckeless spending (virtually everything at the federal level!), inringement on civil liberty and privacy, and this is how he is treated?
Ron Paul, The most successful libertarian elected, maybe ever, who has diligently worked his way through the "system", and these folks want to second-guess his motives, strategies and dedication?
To top it off, Barr, whose "freedom agenda" is due to an epiphany in the last few years, is now touted as THE man to be praised, and let's throw Ron Paul under the bus?
Give me a freakin' break! Sure, Ron Paul has made some mistakes . . . sure Ron Paul may be using tactics and strategy that the rest of us might not use . . . sure Ron Paul isn't perfect on all the issues. But Barr's interest in running for the LP nomination, then insulting Ron Paul with the VP slot when he damn well knew that he wouldn't accept that, is now praised as THE hero, and Ron Paul, dissesd as being the goat?
Folks, this is the most disingenuous partisan Barr praising wih zero virtue that I have ever heard! Get your head screwed on straight EJ Moosa!
Posted By: ej
Date: 2008-09-13 14:17:26
Steve, my head is screwed on straight. You can review my previously written articles on Paul for proof.
I am still waiting to read how if Paul had gone for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, or independent route, it would have hurt more than helped.
Ron Paul was not to be thrown under the bus. He needed to get ON the bus. Standing on the side of the road as the rest of the process motors on by is not a viable strategy.
We could have had a Paul-Barr shootout at the Libertarian convention. Instead this whole dialogue is relegated to blogs and page 8 of the political section of the newspaper.
Things could have been a lot different. If you cannot admit that, then you are hiding from the truth.
EJ
Posted By: Rick Fisk
Date: 2008-09-13 18:17:43
Throwing away his congressional seat and his ability to work with some of the new blood that comes in would be idiotic. You can pretend that he could get elected as a libertarian in the 14th but that is pure speculation. He's running unopposed in November. He'd have to run against a republican (and a tool at that) if he would have switched parties.
A third party run would have also destroyed his credibility long-term.
Dr. Paul is ensuring that he will have the ability to continue introducing legislation, making speeches on the house floor and raising money for the new organization that he's started.
I really get disgusted by so many of the fair weather "patriots" that built up the expectation in their minds that one man was going to rescue the Republic. Sorry but that will never happen. It is up to each of us as individuals to actually do something. Merely voting is a waste of time. The most that was accomplished this past 18 months was due to the hard work of true patriots concerned with this country's future.
Things would have been different had he gone for the third party run. He'd have to give up his congressional seat and he never would have had the funds to start up his new organization. He NEVER would have had the McCain campaign seek his endorsement either. That alone shows how much political capital he has garnered for himself and the people he represents.
Keep your eye on the prize. Dr. Paul already has accomplished more than anyone could have imagined and speculation that more could have been accomplished had things been done your way is just an insult rather than a decent criticism. If you are such an expert, I encourage you to act on your beliefs. I wish you success but I do not think that you realize just how difficult your path will be or how well Dr. Paul has executed.
Posted By: Rob
Date: 2008-09-13 19:52:11
Well, I found this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html
Now I know what I am going to do. Fourth party voting!
Posted By: EJ
Date: 2008-09-14 08:27:39
Rick,
I disagree that he would have been throwing away his congressional seat. You are saying that the same people who would vote for him as a republican would not vote for him as a libertarian, despite Dr. Paul being the same? Dr. Paul's message would be the same. It would sound as if you do not trust the people in Ron Paul's congressional district despite the fact that they have put him there in the first place. I would have trusted the people. Isn't that where we say the power belongs? With the people at the local level?
With what segement of the voting public would Paul have destroyed his credibility in the long term? Republicans? Democrats? Shouldn't the message reach beyond party lines. Am I to believe that there are folks who believe in Ron Paul's message ONLY because he ran as a Republican? I do not believe that either. If you believe that, how wishy-washy are these supporters?
Dr. Paul raised money whenever he asked for it. Why would a third party run have been different?
Dr. Paul did not accomplish more than anyone could have imagined. I imagined more. Others like me did the same. Others like me who walked door to door, distributed campaign materials, and donated money.
I have but one question. Is it the message that is important or is it Dr. Paul as a Republican Congressman that is most important?
John McCain does not need the support of Ron Paul. He needs the support of the people who share the ideals of Ron Paul. For those that grasp that concept, they will know the difference.
Thanks for the feedback,
EJ