Earlier this week Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC. His purpose was to announce that he was definitely not endorsing John McCain for the presidency and that he wanted to urge people to support third party candidates in the presidential election. On the stage with him were several candidates and political allies and representatives of groups Paul wanted to promote. They were Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and independent candidate Ralph Nader. Former Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura and John McManus, President of the John Birch Society were also there to lend support. Although invited, Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr smelled a rat (in the tradition of Patrick Henry's response to the Constitutional Convention) and chose not to attend.
Although Paul's ostensible goal was to awaken the public to the idea of party diversity, what he ultimately did was to endorse three third parties with agendas completely at odds with his supposed libertarian beliefs. He ended up lending some of the respect which he has earned with his outsider presidential campaign to candidates with ideas so radical and dangerous that most of the public find them completely unacceptable, not because they are minority parties, but because they are crazy extremists. The only third party candidate with any real mass appeal and the potential to be competitive in an election is Bob Barr and he was smart enough not to take part in Paul's little dog and pony show.
Just being an underdog does not automatically validate your ideas. If you believe in an oppressive state, the destruction of free enterprise and the elimination of basic constitutional rights, you're still a bad guy, even if Ron Paul has the poor judgment to give you his stamp of approval. Nothing can make the anticapitalist message of Nader, the theocratic leanings of Baldwin or McKinney's outright communism appealing to a wide audience.
I agree with Paul that we need more than two dominant political parties. Yet embracing McKinney, Baldwin and Nader just because they showed up demonstrates that he puts the opportunity for cheap publicity ahead of principle. If he stood by his libertarian beliefs he would have sent the statists away and brought in Bob Barr who was having his own press conference nearby, or he would have accepted Barr's generous invitation to join the Libertarian Party ticket. A Barr/Paul ticket might have generated enough attention and support to actually break the two-party stranglehold in a way that all the other third party hopefuls together will never come close to.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Dave,
The less publicity Paul gets from any source, the better. You are acting like an Israeli leftist, holding hate in your heart and pursuing a victim after he can do no damage. In the process, you are giving Paul publicity he doesn't deserve.
The fact that Jesse Ventura showed up for this "event" throws cold water on the numerous fools who voted for him in 1997. The question arises if he somehow helped Paul get the location. He would have been wiser to have attended Bob Barr's event. I noticed that the Russian
propagandaYouTube piece you quoted didn't mention Ventura. Typical.Now to make a point for all the Palin-bashers out there. Ventura's career and Palin's track a great deal. He started ass a small town mayor, and so did she. He got elected as governor with an independent stance and so did she. Where do the two part ways? Palin's career has been about serving Alaska. Ventura's career was about using his office to score high paying gigs for Jesse Ventura.
They have both been appropriately rewarded.
2 - john
You are crazy. That is not at all what was said or done. What Paul said is pay attention. We know that there is one party bent on corporatism. You have McCain shaping policies which effected billions on cross media ownership, Obama,Dodd,Clinton,McCain taking hundreds of thousands from Freddie Mac. Most importantly you have the imperialism danger of arming Georg. We have plenty of blow back from interventionist. Blow back because of rejection of the hundred years of war perpetuated by preemptive forced socialism. Paul's message the the evil of two lessers. War Crimes and Imperial Fantasies as freedoms are stolen. It's exactly like housing prices going to 3.5 times income... Just truth.. There were 18,000 people at the rally... Paul wants ideas and morals to rule. The first amendments has been blown up. The press, religions should be ashamed of themselves. Ron Paul is supporting free ideas not Statism.
3 - Clavos
Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane!
Nah. It's just another Paultard.
4 - Dave Nalle
That comment reads sort of like free association. And makes just about as little sense. I'm particularly amused by John's assumption that corporatism is a bad thing, when in fact it's the one power in the GOP which can stand up to the threat of real fascism from the religious right.
Dave
5 - spinnikerca
I smell a rat, right here. Barr didn't fail to get support because of anything Ron Paul did. On major media across the country since Barr was nominated by the LP Ron Paul said he or Baldwin best described Ron Paul's own beliefs, and that is what led people to take Barr seriously to this point. I was going to vote for him, because Baldwin isn't on the ballot in my state, and I figured that while Barr seemed a bit interventionist, not a true believer, and downright smarmy, it would help the Libertarian Party. I always had doubts Barr stood for the principles he had suddenly adopted. As a long time Republican, I had seen flip flops of that breadth before, and it never spoke well for the candidate's sincerity.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, has a 20 year record of sincerity.
I'm voting for a principled third party this year, and it would have been Barr if Barr had shown up on the 10th.
Now it won't.
Slur Paul, and you are putting your credibility against his. Do you really think you will be the one people believe?
6 - troll
I always enjoy Dave's extrapolations...here's a link to Paul's presentation of the areas of agreement that came out of the meeting (I leave it to the reader's imagination to explain why Dave left such a link out of his article)
7 - Alexander
I was at the event, video taped the entire thing at the request of the Nader campaign, its all up on YouTube for people who want to see it.
Were you there, did you watch it? By what you wrote I think No. If "the Body" was there I did not see him and he sticks out in a group like that.
Was anyone there endorsing every policy of the other. No
What were they doing? They were agreeing to a set of principals, end the war, repeal the patriot act and restore habius corpus, end deficit spending and reduce the national debt, and investigate fraud in the national treasury.
It was about giving all candidates with enough state ballots accessed the right to be in the national debate. To debate real issues, and not this people magazine political sphere.
Anyone disagree with those ideas? Because if you do you are probably just a Republican or Democrat that cant get along with your own kind.
Do we all disagree on how to solve the healthcare problem, yes, but we could work together better to solve it than the current oligarchy.
There is a lot more in common between Greens and Libertarians than Republicans and Democrats, both value a smaller government than the one we have now, if you can't see that and accept that I feel sorry for you.
8 - lLumpy
I can't believe these people stick by paul when he has betrayed them again and again.
9 - Al Barger
Have I ever mentioned that RON PAUL IS A DISGRACE TO THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT?
10 - Benjamin Vander Jagt
I was disappointed that Barr missed the meaning of the press conference. Nader understood.
There are four key issues. The two major parties got them wrong. The four third parties got them right. The majority of the US gets them right.
It has nothing to do with being underdogs. Paul didn't endorse them just for showing up.
The moral of the story is that the two major party candidates are very, very bad for the country. Any of the four third-party candidates would be very, very good for the country.
If all of the third-party candidates have more support, then all of the registered voters who normally just sit at home will have someone good to choose. If ten times as many third-party voters show up to vote, then there would be a competitive six-way vote.
Finally, endorsing support for four third-party candidates who share those four main points means that there's now four times the chance to raise the important issues at debates.
I find your article utterly skewed, but please keep writing! (-: It brings up good debate.
11 - Dave Nalle
Slur Paul, and you are putting your credibility against his. Do you really think you will be the one people believe?
I haven't lied to them repeatedly and taken their money under false pretenses. Maybe that will count for something.
I always enjoy Dave's extrapolations...here's a link to Paul's presentation of the areas of agreement that came out of the meeting (I leave it to the reader's imagination to explain why Dave left such a link out of his article)
Bliffle, I have a link to a compressed version of the whole press conference from a news report. Paul's lengthy rationalization was only available in separate videos which didn't include the three candidates and I only wanted to have one video. In fact, at the time I was looking this video was the only one which showed anything other than Paul's rationalizing introduction.
Paul's mendacity aside, by endorsing these candidates he isn't just endorsing the things they say which he likes, he's endorsing THEM and that means all the things they believe in, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not. What he has in common with Cynthia McKinney I can't imagine - maybe their mutual love of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Dave
12 - troll
that was me Dave - and your posted compressed version didn't cover the points of agreement
13 - troll
(btw - good luck with the storm...what's expected for Austin - ?)
14 - Cade Thacker
First off, you obviously did not watch the press conference, or if you did you did not pay attention. This event had a very specific agenda. I sat down and watched the entire Press conference last night because I was hearing so much fuzz. I wanted to see what the deal was myself.
Google Video (1 hour)
1) There is a set of 4 points that all 4 candidates (Barr, Nader, Baldwin, and McKinney) agree upon: End Iraq War, Civil Liberties are critical, Federal Deficit is out of control, Federal Reserve needs sunshine on it. The 4 points as read by Dr. Paul
2) The two major parties are ignoring these issues.
3) The debates are a sham, and the Commission for Presidential Debates is a farce.
4) The press should cover these issues rather than covering "Lipstick-Gate" and other equally useless items
5) The majority of Americans agree on these issues.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Ron Paul using his credentials to put these issues on the front burner if he can. I personally believe Bob Barr made a mistake by not showing up, but that is just my opinion.
Dave -- with all due respect, it appears that you did not watch the video before writing this article. If you had, then you would know that the 2nd half of your article is a blatant misrepresentation of the press conference. Paul did not endorse all the points of every candidate, instead all the candidates endorsed the 4 points together as a group. (ie a coalition).
Finally to imply that John McCain or Sarah Palin are somehow carrying the banner of Liberty or reform is just laughable. I can only guess that you put that last sentence in your writing only to make a emotional point rather than to make a solid argument as the facts do not back you up.
15 - Dave Nalle
troll, the storm is turning north and it looks like Austin is going to get a mild breeze and scattered showers. Plus a hell of a lot of evacuees from the gulf coast - they're like locusts.
Dave
16 - Dave Nalle
First off, you obviously did not watch the press conference, or if you did you did not pay attention. This event had a very specific agenda. I sat down and watched the entire Press conference last night because I was hearing so much fuzz. I wanted to see what the deal was myself.
I eventually watched all of it bit by bit, actually. I replayed parts of it because I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
1) There is a set of 4 points that all 4 candidates (Barr, Nader, Baldwin, and McKinney) agree upon: End Iraq War, Civil Liberties are critical, Federal Deficit is out of control, Federal Reserve needs sunshine on it. The 4 points as read by Dr. Paul
They can SAY they all support these things, but I think they all have very different interpretations of what civil liberties actually means. Paul didn't make any effort to look into what these candidates actually believe and the platforms they are running on. He just let them use him as he used them for some cheap publicity.
2) The two major parties are ignoring these issues.
Bull. No one is ignoring the war. Both major candidates have well established positions on it. They also have clear positions on civil liberties, and neither of them is for taking them away, unlike the people Paul endorsed. And the federal reserve is not an issue.
3) The debates are a sham, and the Commission for Presidential Debates is a farce.
I agree on this one. Bob Barr ought to be included in the debates. No question.
5) The majority of Americans agree on these issues.
True. However they don't agree with Paul or his statist friends.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Ron Paul using his credentials to put these issues on the front burner if he can. I personally believe Bob Barr made a mistake by not showing up, but that is just my opinion.
He went up several notches in my estimation by being wise enough not to share the stage with Cynthia McKinney. He reminded us that he's a REAL candidate.
Dave
17 - Clavos
The latest 5-day forecast map has Ike taking a hard right turn, then going through all or part of OK, AR, MO, IL, IN, and winding up on the fifth day, deep into Ohio, almost to Lake Erie, still at Tropical Storm strength! the southwest end of which will almost surely feel Ike's effects
Think of it...shipping on Lake Erie will have to be watching for a tropical storm!
Al Gore must be having orgasms...
18 - troll
well the reporters certainly are - the mention of 'certain death' last night sent them all to the moon
19 - NH
I doubt Chuck Baldwin wants a 'theocracy'. He understands the issues just as Paul does. But I can see why Barr did not want to associate with McKinney and Nader as they are outright communists.
But here is the method to Ron's madness: He realizes that some will NOT vote for a 'conservative' or another 'republican' so he presented them with the anti-world government leftists.
They are for home grown socialism which is wrong, but at least it can be fought here and not internationally.
In other words, Nader and McKinney are against NAFTA and managed trade that comes with that. They are for true free trade (I think)
20 - Gnu Jorden
Dave,
Just because you arrogant, it doesn't make you right. The Fed prints money to fund wars, the public has been lied to about 9-11, and Obama and McCain both supported FISA so they are undermining our civil liberties. Period.
Some things are complicated and some are simple, and the American people are simply being f'd hard by their unethical leaders.
21 - Dave Nalle
NH, McKinney is an international socialist, not a homegrown socialist. She is a member of various organizations which are members of the Socialist International. And as for free trade, I doubt you can really have it when all of the businesses are collectivized or nationalized.
Dave
22 - troll
She is a member of various organizations which are members of the Socialist International.
.....it's true - ! look at her relationship with that nasty House of Representatives
outside the windows we hear: drum roll - thwack - cheers; drum roll - thwack - cheers
"Are you now or have you ever been a human being - ?"
23 - Dave Nalle
Good one, troll, but I was thinking more in terms of the Democratic Socialist Alliance which she used to be on the board of.
Dave
24 - Truthmonger
Dave once again you horribly mislead your readers (all 3 of them) and spew lies from your corrupted pie hole. None of the ideas that you talk about can exist if they support the 4 ideas listed below. Dave at this point, I'm not sure if you just have a mental disorder or are outright evil. It has to be one of the two.
"Paul offered an open endorsement to the four candidates because each signed onto a policy statement that calls for "balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve," an aide to the congressman said.
Paul said a strong showing by the third-party candidates would express the public's frustration with the current system.
25 - Matthew T. Sussman
RON PAUL