0 votes

Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club

From the C4L site
The American Majority

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Et tu Barrus???

Pawnstorm

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Has Dr. Paul made it clear enough yet

that he doesn't want us to write him in?

--------
"Just like Alex Jones will do; he'll try to put words in my mouth... You try to put words in my mouth too, just like Alex Jones does." - Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watc

--------
"Just like Alex Jones will do; he'll try to put words in my mouth... You try to put words in my mouth too, just like Alex Jones does." - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2370864598223573012&...

So vote your dreams!

I will be ... Frank Moore has my vote! He is an independent presidential candidate from California. http://www.frankmooreforpresident08.com/ You will be able to write him in in the following states:

Alaska
California
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Why this strategy can work

First, Dr. Paul succeeded in getting national media attention to the important message that Americans need to stop voting the lesser of two evils and vote third party instead. This helps us lay a foundation to build on for future elections.

Second, if a huge number of Americans go to the polls and vote third party as a result of our grassroots efforts, the establishment and the whole world will take note of it. More people will be attracted to learn more about us and our movement.

Third, we can use all the support we've built this year, keep building it over the next four years, and maybe we will be able to find a third party candidate the majority of us can support next year. Right now we have some impressive third party candidates to choose from, but what we don't have is one of them who has won the high level of support Ron Paul has won.

Fourth, if we all agree to stick together, simply encourage everyone to vote for the third party candidate of his/her choice this year, we can make history together. If we keep bickering amongst ourselves over which third party candidate to pick or not pick, it won't be long before we start driving people away from us and our important, historic movement.

God bless everyone. Thanks for reading and considering my thoughts.

Bravo!

Bravo!

VOTE RON PAUL!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsqLpwHt6I8

--------------
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

* * * * * * * NEW R3VOLUTION HIP HOP TRACKS!! * * * * * * *
Http://www.YouTube.com/mortisnoctu

does it show

201 views for you too?

I see 201 views listed as of

I see 201 views listed as of 9:59PM EST

...

Podcast

Found this on Ralph Naders website
http://rnwebteam08.hipcast.com/deluge/f1e16274-7707-ce84-5c4...
Full Conferance, not the best quality but atleast you can listen to the whole thing.

The best and worst that this approach will do

is to create a situation that neither Rep or Dem get enough electoral votes which will cause the House of Reps to pick the President. Scary as hell with Pelosi running that show.

Vote "Neither of the Above"

Many people have wanted a "None of the Above" option for a long time.

What Ron has just done is point out that they already have a "Neither of the Above" option: the "third party" candidates.

A vote for a minor party candidate says that, and more. It says "Here's a vote you could have had if you hadn't ignored my interests." And by pointing to a candidate with a recognizable political position it also says "... and here's how to change to fix that."

Because a minor party candidate doesn't stand a chance of actual election (at least so far) you don't even have to worry about what he'd do if he actually DID win. So you can vote for the candidate with the best STATED position to make the signal as clear as possible.

But the only thing keeping a mionr party from graduating to major party status is the expectation of the voters that it can't happen. If enough people simultaneously vote for party/candidate X it DOES happen. Thus, for instance, the governorship of Jessie Ventura. So the problem of overcoming the two-party lock is to get voters to realize their power and exercise it.

If a bunch of people realize, simultaneously, "the thing to do is X, the time is now, and enough of us realize it", it happens. Such an event, if it happens without explicit planning and agreement among them or orders to them, is called a "Schelling Point".

IMHO what Ron is trying to do is to get the electorate to realize their power and create a Schelling Point in the next presidential election.

He's doing this by breaking the meme of the "wasted vote" and spreading the meme of the protest vote. If enough people accept this paradigm shift at this point you can expect:
- a surprisingly large number of of votes for third-party presidential candidates this time - enough to show that there ARE enough voters to elect third-party candidates if they are willing to try and can mostly agree on one candidate.
- a "dry-run" in the next congressional election, with a significant number of third-party candidates elected to congress (and a salutory shakeup of the duopoly)
- then the next presidential election has the Schelling Point. The electorate is willing to vote for third-party candidates and possibly one of them wins.

So what this means is that, THIS election, it's VERY important to vote for a minor party candidate. ANY minor party candidate. Better to vote for one with a good position. But what matters is the total for ALL of them. The bigger the better. You don't have to have enough to actually beat even the lesser of the major party candidates. You just have to have enough to "shock and awe" the political establishment.

But if the total is more than that of the lesser of the two major party candidates, so much the better: You're set up for a "dynastic succession" like the one where the Republicans replaced the Whigs. Ron can use that to beat the Republican party over the head: "Change NOW or DIE!"

And if the total is more than that of EACH of the two majors the point is made. Next time a third party presidential candidate is obviously a potential winner.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

YES PEOPLE...

I am indeed "SPECIAL.."

Manystrom

I am bumping this one because Bob Barr is included.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/2660779139/sizes/l/

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Actually

Even if the 3rd party vote is split across 10 candidates, the message is clear that the 2 major parties are not sufficient to represent the American people.

The idea--at least this go-round-- is not to get one of the 3rd party candidates elected, although that would be nice. The idea is that every vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote against the status quo. The true pragmatic thing to do is to vote 3rd party. Otherwise, you will always get "more of the same."

YES!

get your "Vote Third Party" bumber stickers at Cafe Press

also for those of you who are supporting Chuck Baldwin...
I just got 2 that says ..."Chuck (the two party system) Baldwin 2008

that is a beauty!

Baldwin Yard sign is in the mail

thank you Dr Paul for continuing to speak wisdom and truth and
and staying consistent and for confusing those in MSM who think
they have it all figured out....

Protest Votes 2008 - Vote Third Party!

Rallying and supporting Ron Paul's speeche and wishes from today
can be a branch of the Revolution - for the next 2 months -
LET'S DO SOME DAMAGE BY SENDING A MESSAGE!

i don't want to do any more DAMAGE

I WANT PEACE

michael- i have so much respect for you. how are we going to turn this around now? i know in my heart that there is a way and am willing to find it. split voting plays right into these neocon hands. how is that helping? the tallies won't even be shown as there won't be enough in any one column to make ANY difference. If you think that people in congress, senate etc. will notice that people voted third party and it will change their minds about their agendas- well, i don't know what to say.

~peace

~peace

Don't you guys see!!?!?!

The reason they want us to vote is make us believe our vote counted. They want us to believe we actually have a chance or our vote can make a difference. Why are we playing a game they created, they control, and they distort to there benefit!
No matter, the person of choice will be picked, we will believe that he acquired the necessary votes and we can't do anything about it.
Sounds familiar right?!?!?!
Yeah it happened to Dr. Paul with the Republican nomination!!!!!
If all fails the courts will pick our next president again!!!!!
Yay checks and balances!!!!!!!

__________________________________________________________
"The real terrorist's are in this country. They are not planning to blow us up,......... but rather, take our money, our freedom, and our country."

Forgive me if I am naive...

Forgive me if I am naive... but how will this help if our vote is split between ten different candidates? Why couldn't they form a "coalition" or whatever they call it and have ONE person we could stand behind?! That would've definitely recharged the Movement in my opinion...

NONE BUT PAUL!

You're not naive

You are pragmatic, realistic and right.

END the FED before it ENDS US

Where's the meat?

Oh great, now we have four alternative candidates poised to divide and and diminish their individual impact. There simply is not enough room for four "third party" candidates in terms of media attention, voter recognition and contributions.

My hope was that Ron Paul would unite the alternative parties to mount a single ticket (Pres & VP) in serious earnest. This was our only serious opportunity to challenge McCain and Obama.

Like many of you, I will now explore Barr, Baldwin, Nader and McKinney to hopefully find a good candidate; which is exactly what should not happen. A consensus was needed to maintain and channel our collective efforts and support.

Now our votes, as suggested by Ron Paul, will simply be symbolic - "sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change."

END the FED before it ENDS US

Michael Nystrom's picture

Don't you see?

Ron Paul is fighting for freedom. He doesn't want to make up your mind, what he wants is open debates so that the people can make up their own minds.

It will take a long time to change things. But if we can drain away tens of millions of votes from McBama, believe me, they will start to listen to us!!!

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

With all due respect, that's BS and I'm tired of it.

Of course Ron Paul cannot make up MY mind; I will do as I think best.

What this is actually about ...is that Ron Paul is not willing to make up HIS own mind. Instead he has decided to be weasely about it; and to NOT make a decision, to NOT take up the baton of a "leader".


Don't get me wrong, I think this "Agreement" is good -- as far as it goes. (I "called for it" a few days ago... online here at DP.)

But it doesn't go very far.


The four separate points are SEPARATE -- nothing ties them together into a "whole" (return to Constitutional Government) that can be repeated as a main point over and over and OVER again -- which is what needs to happen.

This COULD have gone further -- even WITHOUT designating a particular candidate. If they could have gone just a few steps further and come up with that "whole" that would tie it all together, and THEN to have made a "theme" that could have been used by ALL of the candidates in their literature, etc THAT would have gone much further. (Yeah, it's "BS" marketing... but that is the world we live in.)

Let's face it, this isn't 1776, and the great mass of people won't read "Common Sense" -- they need simplified "Sound Bites" to rally around. They swallow "memes" rather than ideas.

So again, this is good as far as it goes -- but it (like the campaign) could have gone so much further and accomplished a LOT more.

I disagree

I don't think Ron Paul was being weasely. I think he is realistic about what a third party or an independent can accomplish in a two party system. By voting for a third party..ANY third party...the voters are expressing their dissatisfaction with the two main parties in a way the politicians can understand. The Reps and Dems will look at a 10, 15, or 20% showing by third parties as a threat and an opportunity, not because the minor parties can win, but because the Reps and Dems will perceive their losses to be from the voters who voted third party, and so to win they need to win these voters to their side. So the tendency will be for the Reps and Dems to modify their message and their actions to try to win those third party voters for themselves.

This is the best argument for voting your concience. Remember: don't vote for the lesser of two evils...it only encourages them.

As to your comment about the message not going far enough because there was no overriding theme tying the four ideas together, I might agree, but I think it is a secondary issue. To the average person, political principles and philosophy are egg-head luxuries that they are just not interested in. On the other hand, these four key ideas are pretty concrete (and they just happen to be consistent with individual liberty) and a person with even moderate intellectual curiosity can see how some of them relate to their own real lives. The unifying philosophy is implied, not explicit, but that is OK. People who grasp these four ideas are likely to grasp why they are all interconnected.

As I learned while canvassing to get Roger McBride on the Michigan ballot in the 1970's, everyone has something against freedom. I've spent 33 years trying to talk about the theory of freedom only to be met by an infinite number of objections. Maybe Ron Paul's more concrete approach will succeed where pontificating on philosophy has not.

The Whitehouse was possible

Michael I have a lot of respect for your efforts and optimism but I can't hide my profound disappointment with this announcement and my cynicism for the "system." They will not listen to us when it is far more successful and rewarding to listen to the lobbyists and ruling elitists; all with the blessings of the media.

I really think we would have been able to mount a serious challenge by uniting the third parties under the umbrella of the Constitution and leadership of Ron Paul.

END the FED before it ENDS US

Most excellently stated, and...

If this is correct, that 60% of the American people are dissatisfied with the 2 party system, then after reading this, the majority of voting people COULD change it!

Pawnstorm

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

the MSM didn't blow it, it

the MSM didn't blow it, it did its job of hiding the truth and burying Ron Paul!

Constitution Pledge

http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/pledge.php

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."
—Edmund Burke

I Know Better, Of Course

But it pisses me off that this wasn't show on live TV.

Seems like giving a half hour to the third party candidates who are otherwise completely ignored would be the right thing to do.

They were all there in one place, no muss, no fuss.

But the MSM blew it again. So much for "the news."

MSM is a business.

MSM is a business. Businesses don't do what's right, or subscribe to any our values, unless it's the most profitable thing to do.

So you must eliminate the easy money they are getting elsewhere, which most definitely means shrinking the government. It's easier for them to appeal to interests of centralized power than to widely varying interests of the power distributed among individuals.