Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club On 2008 Election: Released Today

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 08:59 AM
Original message
Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club On 2008 Election: Released Today

Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club

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.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=483
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demokatgurrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. Anyone who takes the bait
is helping McCain and they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. How's That? Not According To The Polls
Edited on Wed Sep-10-08 09:06 AM by Better Believe It
The Nader effect: Bad for Republicans?
August 27, 2008
Themorningcall.com

Ralph Nader, pursuing yet another run for president, isn't exactly a blip on the radar in battleground states. On the contrary, Nader is polling between 6 and 8 percent in Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, a new Time/CNN poll shows.

A depressing sign for Democrats? Not exactly. Nader appears to be pulling almost all of his support from potential John McCain voters.

In Pennsylvania, for example, Barack Obama leads McCain by just 5 points (48 percent to 43 percent) when voters are asked to choose between the two, but 9 points (47 percent to 38 percent) when Nader is thrown into the mix. Nader gets 7 percent.

Maybe the Obama campaign should be helping to keep Nader on the ballot.

http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/2008/08/the-nader-effec ...

-------------------------------------------------

Does Nader hurt McCain in PA?
By Wally Edge
August 27, 2008
Politickerpa.com
In addition to showing U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) with a 5 point advantage (48 percent to 43 percent) over U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), today's TIME/CNN poll also suggests that Obama's chances in the Keystone State may be boosted by the presence of third-party candidates on the ballot.

When voters were asked to choose among Obama, McCain and three third-party candidates, the Democrat's 5 point lead grew to 9 percentage points.

Obama leads McCain 47 percent to 38 percent, while independent candidate Ralph Nader attracts 7 percent of the vote and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr drew an additional 1 percent.

http://www.politickerpa.com/wallyedgepa/1513/does-nader ...

NBC/WSJ Poll: Obama keeps lead over McCain
Voters see Democrat as riskier pick, but rival has negatives of his own
By Mark Murray
Deputy political director
NBC News

After embarking on his highly publicized trip overseas, Obama enjoys a 47-41 percent advantage over McCain, which is unchanged from last month. The survey was conducted of 1,003 registered voters from Friday to Monday, July 18-21, during Obama's overseas trip. It has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

But Obama’s lead over McCain expands to 13 points when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added into the mix — with Obama at 48 percent, McCain at 35 percent, Nader at 5 percent and Barr at 2 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25816799 /

-----------------------------

Could Third-Party Hopefuls Foil McCain?
AOL News

Polls show Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama running close in the presidential election. But could third-party candidates siphon votes away from McCain, much as Ralph Nader was blamed for doing to Al Gore in 2000? The idea has been floating around for awhile, and this week's NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll underscores the possibility that such candidates could hurt McCain.

According to the poll results, Obama had a 6-point lead over McCain, even though most respondents thought he was a riskier pick for president. But when voters were asked to factor in two other candidates -- former GOP congressman Bob Barr, who's running for president as a Libertarian, and Nader, who's running as an independent -- Obama's lead opened up.

Here's how MSNBC summarized it: "... Obama’s lead over McCain expands to 13 points when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added into the mix — with Obama at 48 percent, McCain at 35 percent, Nader at 5 percent and Barr at 2 percent. However, it’s important to note that the pro-Obama (48 percent) and anti-Obama vote (adding up to 42 percent) is consistent with the result from the two-way match up."

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/could-third-party ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Exactly. They split the any white guy will do vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. Staying home helps the GOP. Paul continues to be intellectually dishonest
His followers are bigger rubes than the McCain/Palin crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. hopefully this is the last we hear of him
hopefully he goes back to obscurity in his no-name congressional district, and all of his followers find lives for themselves while taking a break from fighting the "one-world shadow government"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. ! there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties
Edited on Wed Sep-10-08 09:15 AM by lamprey
Funny how big money is spending big bucks this year to keep the Democrats out. I wonder why that could be? Just throwing their money away for philanthropic pursuits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abburdlen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Pretty amazing isn't it
2000 & 2004 Nader was front page news despite the fact that he didn't have much real support.
2008 a former republican candidate - who actually beat McCain in some primary states - tells his supporters not to vote for the parties nominee and it's a page 3 story.

Heck compare the BBC and AP headlines to the story.

AP: "Paul rejects plea to endorse McCain"
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gj4x1Ijw4MDlWEadWey5y9c0GlhgD933V6L01

BBC: "Ron Paul urges third-party vote "
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7608500.stm

Notice how our media softens the headline for the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hear, hear! Let's have more people voting for Barr and Nader!
Considering the polling has consistently shown that these people are currently voting for McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. um . . . that's some REALLY bad advice, Ron . . .
Edited on Wed Sep-10-08 09:28 AM by OneBlueSky
there may not be a whole lot of difference between the parties, but there's a hell of a lot of difference between Obama and McCain . . . not to mention between Biden and Palin . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. Ron P. can be a buffoon. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
9. How is it the "American Majority" when
30 percent is "die-hard" Repukes, 30 percent is "die-hard" Dems?

I mean, with the math of the righties, a 49 percent white population is considered a "minority" ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. Ron Paul Says He Turned Down Appeal To Endorse McCain
September 10, 2008
Associated Press
Paul says he turned down appeal to endorse McCain
By SUZANNE GAMBOA

Republican Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Texas lawmaker who attracted a devoted following in the GOP primaries, said Wednesday he rejected an appeal to endorse John McCain's presidential bid.

Paul said the request came from Phil Gramm, the former McCain adviser and ex-senator whom the campaign jettisoned after he said the country was a "nation of whiners" about the economy. Gramm defeated Paul in the Republican primary for the Senate in 1984.

Speaking to reporters at a news conference, Paul said Gramm called him this week and told him, "You need to endorse McCain." The Texas congressman said he refused.

"The idea was that he would do less harm than the other candidate," Paul said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/10/ap5409786.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dog72 Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Former Ron Paul Supporter
I was a huge Ron Paul supporter, and I even contributed money to his campaign.
( The first I had ever done so )

After numerous conversations with my best friend, who is a democrat, I am not going to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate which stands no chance in hell in getting elected, but moved my support to Barrack.

I appreciate Dr Paul's opinion, but I cannot vote for McCain.
I am a registered Republican, but my party has gone to hell.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC