LESSER OF TWO EVILS PART 1&2 By Jon Christian Ryter (Two-Party System) | AMERICAN BLOGGER: GUNNY.G ~ WEBLOG.EMAIL
September 17, 2008
Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX.], who isn’t running for anything (except President in the State of Montana) wants to change the outcome of the upcoming national election. Dr. Paul, accompanied by three longshot presidential candidates at the National Press Club on Wednesday, Sept. 10, opened his speech saying “The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction…
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice…” Offered by Dr. Paul at the Press Club as the preferred candidates you should first consider voting for were three longshot candidates that the Congressman attempted to package as a “third party choice.”
First was conservative Crossroads Baptist Church pastor Chuck Baldwin. When conservatives speak about Sen. Barack Obama‘s qualifications to pick up the red phone at 3 a.m., his under-two-years of political experience dwarfs Baldwin’s complete and utter lack of anything that could even remotely be construed as political experience.
The same can be said about longshot liberal citizen’s advocate and environmentalist Ralph Nader who, granted, has been a fixture around DC for more years than most of us have lived. But, like Baldwin, he has no political experience that qualifies him to sit in the Oval Office.
MSNBC | The Bullshit Fighter ~ (“Former Governor Jesse Ventura was on CNN this Tuesday where he was interviewed about his new book, DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government. At the end of the interview, he urged folks to vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson if they were looking for a serious alternative to the current two party candidates. If you were watching CNN on television, you would have seen this endorsement. If you went to CNN’s website, you would have seen the endorsement edited out.”)
At the end of the interview, he urged folks to vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson if they were looking for a serious alternative to the current two party candidates.
If you were watching CNN on television, you would have seen this endorsement. If you went to CNN’s website, you would have seen the endorsement edited out.
Before election day in 2008, Ron Paul held a press conference in DC, featuring the third party candidates for president; Ralph Nader Green, Chuck Baldwin Constitution and, in absentia, Bob Barr Libertarian.
Ron urged his supporters, as well as all who were frustrated and fed-up with the two-party monopoly to vote for anyone of the third party contenders, rather than the lesser of two evils.In this video, he recounts the story of what happened when the McCain campaign called asking for Ron’s endorsement. He said: “Well, I don’t like the idea of getting two or three million people angry at me”. The McCain people countered with the argument that he would do less harm than the others.
Like many Christian Conservatives desperately seeking just one capable decent honest pro-American presidential candidate this year, I was watching with interest to see if any of the GOP candidates could really emerge as a clear leader of deep conservative conviction and principle. But once again, the International Left is playing the American Right like a finely tuned fiddle.Mitt Romney is clearly the RNC chosen one,
like McCain in 2008 — the “safe bet” beauty contestant able to attract voters from across the much divided political spectrum, under the misguided belief that the GOP needs to run an Obama-Lite in order to defeat Obama. People who buy this fallen theory probably buy into Romney.
Of course, they bought McCain in 2008 too… on the same false premise.It was equally obvious that libertarian fringe candidate Ron Paul would become the GOPs Ralph Nader, always around, but never actually in the race.
In a new poll, out yesterday, 7 out of 10 Republicans and right leaning independent voters believe Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee for President. Click here for that poll. Does that mean it’s over for Congressman Ron Paul? I think it is safe to say it is probably a long shot he will be the Republican nominee, but what about a third party run?
Can Ron Paul win as a third party candidate? I say that is much less of a long shot, and here’s why.Let me first say, Dr. Paul has repeatedly said that he has no interest in running as a third party candidate. I do not know or have talked to anyone in his campaign. This is my objective analysis and nothing more. Ron Paul as a third party candidate would be much different than the third party candidates of the past. Conservative presidential candidate Ross Perot of the 1992 and 1996 elections predominantly took votes away from the Republican candidates. In 1992, national exit polls had Perot splitting the Republican and Democrat vote equally, but it was not split equally in every state. Click here for more on this. A president is voted in by winning each state’s Electoral College votes.
It’s a winner take all game, so every state gives a certain number to the winner of each state. Also, Perot spent millions hammering Bush in the 1992 primaries; so, Perot mostly had a negative effect on the Republicans. The ultra-liberal Ralph Nader’s third party campaign in 2000 took votes away from Al Gore, the Democrat. More than 97,000 voted for Nader in Florida alone. Gore would have easily won the election and Florida if Nader would have not run.Then there is Ron Paul.
He would, no doubt, run on a Libertarian type ticket. Paul would take votes from Republicans that think Romney is not conservative enough. After all, he has, so far, come in second in the caucuses and primaries, but that is just with the GOP. He would take a large percentage of the 40% of people who call themselves “Independent” voters. Paul also does well with young voters. In Iowa and New Hampshire, nearly half of all GOP voters under 30 voted for Dr. Paul.
The Third Party Possibility
Townhall.com ^ | November 13, 2011 | Salena Zito
Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:29:03 AM by Kaslin
The only time in modern history that a third-party candidate got more votes than a major-party candidate was in 1912.
Each generation arrogantly assumes the events of its lifetime are “firsts.” Yet 2012’s election will have nothing over 1912’s electoral drama.
The one thing both elections have in common is record dissatisfaction with both parties.
Four main candidates ran in 1912: a Republican president (William Howard Taft), a former Republican president turned “progressive” (Teddy Roosevelt), a Democrat (Woodrow Wilson) nominated only after 46 ballots and the eventual support of populist William Jennings Bryan, and a Socialist (Eugene Debs).
Are Bush And Obama War Criminals?
OfficialWire, DavidRivkin.com ^ | 11/10/2011 | Colin Fuess
Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:51:58 PM by american_steve
The debate format consists of two moderators and four debaters. Arguing against the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes are attorneys David Rivkin and Lee Casey. Rivkin served in the Department of Justice under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and is renowned for articulate commentary on the U.S. Constitution and presidential war powers. Casey, Rivkin’s frequent collaborator, also served in the DOJ under Reagan and H.W. Bush, and currently specializes in compliance issues under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), U.S. trade sanctions regimes, and federal ethics requirements. He has also served on the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Arguing for the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes are attorney and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein and retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer.