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.
“Rush Limbaugh’s Occupy Wall St. Rant Proves The Protesters Are Winning,” claims Politicususa.com, a blog boasting “Real Liberal Politics — No Corporate Money. No Masters.”
On Friday, Limbaugh had called the Occupy Wall Street protests “laughable.” Moreover, and exactly mirroring accusations on the left regarding the Tea Party and the GOP, he charged that the protests were “not spontaneous,” a mere front for Democrats and the Obama re-election campaign. Specifically, he pointed to support from the country’s biggest and most politically powerful unions.
Regardless of any attempted (or even successful) manipulation by the usual political powers that be, the seething anger and fear — on both right and left (and in-between) — is most assuredly spontaneous and genuine. The protests have now spread beyond Wall Street, across the country. The anger is everywhere. It is boiling against the politicians, who have mismanaged everything they’ve touched (and that’s quite a lot) and also against those in the Wall Street-corporate-government complex who have been bailed out at great expense to the average American, who even now pays more in taxes than did most medieval serfs.
We know, sorta, what the protesters are protesting. Unfortunately, we have to read between some of the lines, since “Wall Street,” and “capitalism” prove tricky to understand, as vague as those words have become — by processes George Orwell warned us about in “Politics and the English Language.”
We cannot know in any official sense what these protests are designed to achieve. When a list of specific demands was posted at the OccupyWallSt.org forum — universal single-payer healthcare, raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour, “fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end,” free college education for all, “re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods,” a trillion dollars spending on infrastructure, another trillion for ecological restoration, and so on — the site was quick to declare, “This is not an official list of demands. . . . There is NO official list of demands.”
The Freeman’s Sheldon Richman is right: “Their agenda is vague, but they at least have the good sense to know that something is awry with the political-economic system we labor under.”
Despite tenets to their protest to which I cannot subscribe — and despite the loathsome term “occupy” — I’m glad these people are protesting. I like protests. They are active, rather than passive. As Frederick Douglas once said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” Time permitting, I plan to attend and to talk with my fellow countrymen (and woman) about our governance. Sure, some Saul Alinsky-wannabes will be there, as will some people whose policy prescriptions are poles apart from my own.
But I’m not afraid of honest disagreement. We must not permit the partisans to unnecessarily divide us. I’m convinced many if not most of those participating are allies in the fight to restore a republic with basic liberties, constitutionally protected, as well as democratic checks on government power.
They are friends and not enemies.
Friends, perhaps in part, as the enemy of your enemy can be your friend. But also friends to the degree that they can be persuaded to recognize that the problem is systemic, and not solvable by either Republicans or Democrats gaining a more powerful majority grip on power. Indeed, that has been proven time and again.
Honest, thoughtful citizens on the left as well as the right have an abundance of reasons to be disgusted by the Obama Administration, and by Democrats in Congress, just as they were by the former Bush Administration, and Republicans in Congress. The time has come for us to work together, everywhere we can find common ground, to restore a legitimate political process — one that allows the people to decide, and makes government listen.
To the gnashing of special interests’ teeth.
In a recent interview for The American Conservative, Ralph Nader spoke in exceedingly positive terms about Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.Â “Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties,” the legendary consumer advocate argued. “They’re on our side against the military-industrial complex. They’re on our side against Wall Street. They’re on our side for investor rights. That’s a foundational convergence. It’s not just itty-bitty stuff.”
Nader is on to something.
It might be amusing to sit like has-been celebrities on American Idol and judge the Occupy Wall Street (and various other cities’) protests — just as Tea Party efforts were snarkingly sneered at. But these days the stakes are simply too high and the prospects too frightening for such petty amusements. We need all the allies we can muster to help us restore a government of the people.
No, I don’t want to “occupy” Wall Street. Or any other American city.
But I do want to work with every willing American to end the occupation of our constitutional, democratic republic by a political class filled with mucky-mucks from Wall Street, and other boulevards, who wallow in bailouts and special privileges bestowed upon them by the power-obsessed politicians on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
via Occupied America.
The conventional wisdom is in and the verdict is unanimous: The Republicans ran roughshod over President Obama in the laborious debt-ceiling/budget debate and his prospects for re-election are now looking fairly remote. In addition, the Tea Party has emerged as the most powerful force in American politics, having totally eliminated tax hikes as part of the solution to cutting the deficit while striking a devastating blow against the usefulness of government in general and the spineless Obama in particular. Plus, troops are still dying in Afghanistan and Standard & Poor’s just lowered the boom.
What’s more there’s evidence that the limpid Left may be in revolt. Among other things, the ghastly visage of Ralph Nader – the addled egomaniac that Michael Moore and other “progressives” backed in 2000 – has been spotted in the media spouting his own peculiar brand of self-serving political psychobabble and hinting at another presidential run. The lefty blogosphere (also known as the Political Amateur Hour) is moaning about how they have been let down and duped by the duplicitous Obama and now appear committed to hold their breath until they turn purple because nobody knows the troubles they’ve seen.
“What happened to the change we voted for,” they will wail incessantly like beaten seals. A boycott of the election will be called for. Having worked so hard only to be betrayed yet again by a centrist masquerading as a liberal, they will chant, “Fool us a bunch of times and shame on us.” Keith Olbermann will deliver a series of angrily narcissistic “Special Comments” on Obama’s failings to his Current TV audience of three or four dozen people. In other words, it will be just another day at the office for the increasingly irrelevant Left.
Now all of this is well and good and serves as a kind of gristle for ideological masturbation and the perverse joys of righteous self-pity. And to all those who wallow in the ooze of that particularly sticky morass, I can only urge them to knock themselves out since the only thing that really matters now is what will happen in November 2012, which I hope and pray will be Obama’s re-election. (Note: Very early in life I swore to what I call the Political Hippocratic Oath, which instructs “First, elect no Republicans,” and I see no reason to waver from that sacred vow.)
As things look now, the Republican nominee will either be Mitt Romney or Governor Rick Perry of Texas. These are the two Republicans who would have the best chance of beating Obama, and then only if the economy is in bad shape next year — which seems more likely after the debt-ceiling debacle that saw the Tea Party-led GOP succeed in insuring that economic growth over the next year will be sluggish at best.
Romney has big problems with the evangelicals (because he’s a Mormon) and the Tea-Partiers (because he’s a moderate). He also fails to generate any real enthusiasm from anyone, something Perry should be able to do with his popularity among the “Teavangelicals.” Both should have solid support within the Republican establishment and both should be able to make a decent case for themselves as being capable handlers of the economy. On paper, Perry looks like the ideal candidate because of the enthusiasm he could produce and Romney’s negatives among the right-wing GOP base, which Mitt could shore up only slightly by choosing someone like Senator Marco Rubio as his running mate. Perry, however, is unproven nationally and could fall on his face i
In the primaries.
No matter who……………..
via Is Obama Finished?.
As for the progressive-libertarian joint effort, it isn’t as far out as it sounds, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader get it as did 1960s radical activist Carl Oglesby but Paul is a “nutcase” despite his anti-interventionist, antiwar, pro-civil liberties, anti-Federal Reserve stance and he wants to abolish the Gestapo TSA as well. Nader is poison to the Democrats and progressives/liberals who still believe in the functioning system despite watching Bush family operatives steal the 2000 election in Florida and then have not do a goddamned thing other than jerk off and point fingers at Nader when the Supreme Court put George W. Bush into the White House. Oglesby is a “conspiracy theorist” the dreaded pejorative that is used by all establishment lackeys and those enshrouded in comfortable cocoons of denial when they dare to ask serious questions. For even suggesting such a thing, even temporarily I was shunned as a leper, mocked and derided as much for that as for my inability to suck it up, turn the other cheek and be a pacifist. I must admit that I always had a bit of sympathy for the Jack Nicholson character, Colonel Nathan Jessep in the movie A Few Good Men, his methods were unsound and his arrogance was his undoing but he had it right when he barked that:
You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. The liberals and progressives are impotent and on the verge of extinction, of being hunted and persecuted in their own country simply because they never understood that there had to be someone on that wall to beat back the hordes. Better get a clue folks, they are closing in now.
Just my two cents
When Ralph Nader wants to impeach a liberal African-American president for war crimes, you start to get the idea how odd these present times are. Odd and getting odder. Nor is it likely, in spite of the wall of comments concerning our Libyan intervention, that anyone can grasp the meaning.There seems one likelihood to suggest. It is that this won’t be the last intervention.
We live in that kind of world.Which is what kind of world, exactly? The kind we know from the history books — in which, rather than sort out their varied grievances like gentlemen, the non-gentlemen usually in charge of public affairs will bloody each other’s and other’s noses. It has always been thus. The 192 disunited nations that belong to the United Nations don’t get along and never have………………………
Frequent candidate for President Ralph Nader is back on the scene and proves, at the very least, he is consistent with his viewpoint. Arguing that President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were war criminals and then claiming that the Obama administration continues to engage in the same activity, Nader made the logical deduction that President Obama must also be a war criminal who should be impeached.
Innocents are being slaughtered, we’re creating more enemies, he’s violating international law, he’s not constitutionally authorized to do what he’s doing, he’s using State secrets, he’s engaging in illegal surveillance, the CIA is running wild without any kind of circumsribed legal standards or disclosure . . . why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.”
Excerpt Read more at mediaite.com …
LESSER OF TWO EVILS
PART 1 of 2
By Jon ChristianRyter
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. And while the office of President is on-the-job training for every new chief executive, the core knowledge of running a nation must already exist in that new President at 12:01:01 p.m. on January 20, 2009 because at that time, its too late for a new president to crack open a textbook called “Politics 101: A Primer On Being President.”