How Ron Paul Can Effectively Fire Back at the Third Party Question
Ron Paul and his supporters are sick of it, but the media never tires of asking him about running third party. With a little verbal judo, Ron Paul can defend himself, damage his enemies, and shift the issue to something more important by Evan Mazur
(libertarian)
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Over and over and over again, Ron Paul gets asked the same question by the media. "If you don't win the GOP nomination, will you run as a third party candidate?". Paul has repeatedly answered that while he won't completely rule it out, he doesn't think about running as a third party candidate, he has no intention to, and he doesn't want to. The topic has been covered ad nauseam but the same question keeps on coming. At the January 23rd GOP primary debate in Florida held by NBC, moderator Brian Williams asked Paul when he would "give an honest answer" about his third party plans, putting Paul on the defensive and suggesting that his consistent answer so far has not been honest. The third party question diverts from more important issues and puts a target on Ron Paul's back that the media keeps firing at, but if Ron Paul wants to fire back, perhaps he could answer in this way:
"I have no plans or desire to run as a third party candidate and I've made that clear many times. So why leave the door open? I ran for office in the first place back in 1974 because Nixon completely severed the link between gold and the dollar. I knew that not only would this lead to increased economic instability but eventually to high inflation or even hyperinflation. We've experienced very high inflation in the 1970s and many bouts of economic instability since then, such as the collapse of the housing market in 2008 that I had long warned about. But still the worst is yet to come. So if I don't get the GOP nomination in 2012 and suddenly America finally comes face to face with the dollar crisis I've long predicted, I would then be willing to jump back into the race as a third party. The other candidates would neither understand the nature of nor know how to properly deal with a dollar collapse, which would not only be a threat to an already fragile economy, but a threat to America's national security. I see it as my duty as an American to ensure the protection of both."
This answer accomplishes many things. It shifts the dialog from a third party issue to an economics issue, which many voters consider to be Paul's strongest stance. It gives Ron Paul a chance to mention that he accurately predicted the 2008 financial crisis. It puts to rest the issue of whether or not he would run third party. And it gives voters confidence that if the currency crisis he has long predicted does occur before the election is decided, Ron Paul will not abandon America in its time of need.
And make no mistake, America's day of reckoning is fast approaching. In 2020, 17 percent of all federal spending will go towards paying interest on the national debt. GAO data from 2007 shows that by 2040, nearly every dollar the government collects in taxes will be needed for Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the national debt. A report by the Bipartisan Policy Center released in November 2010, well after the financial crisis of 2008 occurred and after the Obama deficits, has a much more pessimistic view. The group, co-chaired by a former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board and consisting of former government officials across the political spectrum as well as business leaders such as the former CEO of Kellogg, wrote that "by 2025, federal revenues will be completely consumed by the combination of interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Treasury will have to borrow money to finance all of its other obligations – including defense, homeland security, law enforcement, food and drug inspection and other vital operations."
But that doesn't mean America can afford to wait until 2025 or 2040 to fix the problem of debt and oncoming inflation. The healing must begin now. Sounding much like Ron Paul or his former economic adviser Peter Schiff, the Bipartisan Policer Center's report went on to warn about the risks of rapidly rising interest rates, the plunging value of the dollar, and the risk to national security if the debt issue isn't dealt with:
These projections are based on fairly moderate assumptions about future interest rates. The nation’s outlook will grow far more ominous if America’s creditors lose confidence in the federal government’s commitment to address its debt problem – which will increase interest rates. A loss of confidence in the markets could also send the value of the dollar plunging overseas, which could trigger runaway inflation and still higher interest rates. Rising debt and rising interest costs could evolve into a “death spiral,” with the two feeding off one another in an ever-more vicious cycle. No one knows when such a catastrophe might occur, but no prudent nation would put itself at such risk. Even without a crisis, rising debt will increase our reliance on foreign lenders, raising a host of other economic and national security issues. Already, more than half of U.S. federal debt is foreign-owned and China is the largest foreign holder.
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate with a serious plan to tackle the deficit, calling for $1 trillion in cuts the first year of his presidency and a balanced budget by year three. CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer was recently interviewed by reporter Jan Helfeld and stated that unlike Ron Paul's actual spending cuts, the other GOP candidates "would have reductions in the projected increase" in spending. In other words, the debt and the borrowing would increase under Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum, just not as much as is currently projected. Sarah Palin said that Ron Paul "is the only one who has been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets – $1 trillion a year, he’s been specific about until we get our hands around this – I respect that”. Senator Jim DeMint stated "the libertarian principles are the conscience of the Republican Party... We're going to end up with less military than Ron Paul wants if we don't get our budget under control back home... I'm very comfortable having give and take with libertarians. But I'm not comfortable having a debate and compromising with people who think we need to spend more and grow the government. There's no room for so called moderates and liberals when a nation is 15, 16 trillion dollars in debt".
DeMint didn't directly state this but I will: Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are the big government moderates masquerading as fiscally responsible conservatives. Romney laid the foundation for the Obamacare entitlement, supported the TARP bailout, and had is own plan for a 2008 Republican stimulus package that called for government infrastructure spending and an expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. Newt Gingrich has voted to increase the debt ceiling atleastfourtimes, supported Bush's Medicare Drug expansion plan, and "reluctantly and sadly" supported the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Santorum voted 5 times to increase the debt limit, and like Gingrich voted to support the Bush Medicare D drug expansion program which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker referred to as "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s." There is only one true conservative running for the Republican nomination and his name is Ron Paul. The real question isn't whether or not Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate in 2012. The real question is whether or not American voters will make the wise choice and select Ron Paul as the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 so that America will be prepared to deal with the very difficult challenges of debt in inflation that lie ahead.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 32
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Evan Mazur only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Evan Mazur 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.
