Thomas Sipos at Libertarian Peacenik blog:
People are urging Ron Paul to run once again, in 2012:
I can’t think of a better candidate.
If Paul runs, it will probably be for the Republican Party nomination. If he loses (as he probably will), he can then run on either the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, if he wants.
But perhaps the smartest move would be for Paul to run as an independent, with a more progressive-leaning/antiwar (and anti-corporatist) candidate. A right-left antiwar fusion ticket.
I still like the idea of Karen Kwiatkowski as Ron Paul‘s VP pick, but Ralph Nader might be more attractive to those on the left.
127 responses so far ↓
1 Vaughn // Feb 3, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Paul/Kucinich
2 Robert Milnes // Feb 3, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Damn it Sipos, will you swtop pushing this dino-turd.
& you stole my Strategy!
If I’m not the candidate then I want a TOP job for the candidate-& Extremely well paid.
We do not want Kucinich unless he dumps the democratic party.No reactionaries.
Or counterrevolutionaries.
KK is iffy. She must dump Lew Rockwell & withdraw endorsement of Paul.
& that would ruin THAT ticket!
3 Mark Seidenberg // Feb 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm
I voted for Dr. Ron Paul for President in 1988.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
4 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:17 am
Milnes: “Damn it Sipos … you stole my Strategy!”
Yes, I realize that multi-political coalitions have never before existed in any nation, at any time in history, until YOU came up with the idea.
But did you ever patent this unique and innovative contribution to political science?
Milnes: “If I’m not the candidate then I want a TOP job for the candidate-& Extremely well paid.”
Yes, every coalition government in the world owes you royalties for using your idea.
5 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 2:01 am
I’d think that REAL Paulnuts would not support any leftist/progressive with Paul on the ticket.
Paul/Nader, Paul/Kucinich etc is doomed to failure.
Likewise, Paul/Kwiatkowski would not appeal to progressives enough to tear them away from Obama. Also doomed to failure.
True, political coalitions are nothing new. But this has my markings all over it. Everybody will know if I’m not involved or do not endorse it or actually against it, it has been stolen from me.
& I’m against The Pauls.
6 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 4, 2011 at 2:18 am
Milnes: “Everybody will know if I’m not involved or do not endorse it or actually against it, it has been stolen from me.”
Everybody?
Ron Paul was appealing to the Left long before anyone ever heard of Milnes.
In fact, Paul and his millions (tens of millions?) of admirers on the Left still don’t know who Milnes is. They’ve never even heard of PLAS.
For that matter, Ralph Nader was talking of Greens reaching out to “true conservatives” as early as 2000. I saw him do it on C-Span.
Everybody?
Maybe several hundred (is it even a thousand?) of IRP regulars know who Milnes is.
7 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:54 am
Paul & Nader are repeated losers. They never tried my Strategy.
8 AroundtheblockAFT // Feb 4, 2011 at 9:23 am
Ha Ha Milnes. Adolph Hitler was mockingly referred to, by the Wehrmacht, as “grofaz”
(the greatest warlord of all time.) Anyone know the German word for “greatest political strategist of all time?”
9 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 9:30 am
Obermilnesbahnfuehrer?
10 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 9:31 am
As soon as Nader picked Gonzales for vp he demonstrated he basically didn’t understand what he was doing. He eventually got more than enough ballot access to win. So he had significant national grassroots progressive support. So Gonzales only verified that bringing little new support.
Paul is in an awkward position. He is a counterrevolutionary who is able to get voted in GOP’. & a history with the LP but actualoly fits best in the CP. He cannot win even a primary. He endorsed Baldwin.
How do you think he would even consider a leftist on his ticket?
& why is it always the elitists who are considered? There is an obvious disconnect if you are right that they don’t know who I am. I ran into this when I tried to contact Gravel.
11 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 9:44 am
He’s been making the rounds lately with Nader, talking about an anti-corporatist, anti-war coalition. And in 2008, he was happy to have Nader and McKinney on stage with him along with Baldwin, agreeing on several key issues.
The weak point in Sipos’ proposal, if any, is not that – Paul has always been willing to work in diverse coalitions.
It’s what Paul said in 2008 about why he did not run alt party/independent: that he had to sign promises not to do so in order to participate in Republican primaries. In a 2012 run, I don’t think he would see it as wise to give up the Republican primaries. That’s just my guess.
12 Thomas L. Knapp // Feb 4, 2011 at 10:06 am
Paulie @ 11,
If Paul runs this time, I think there’s a much better chance that he’ll go third party / independent after he loses in the GOP primaries (as he likely will).
Last time he ran, there was just barely a chance that he had a second run left in him. There’s no reasonable doubt this time that this will be his last run unless 2016 would be seeking re-election.
Last time he ran, he wanted to remain in Congress if he couldn’t be president (and needed GOP support to do that). Maybe he still will want that, but it seems at least less likely now, with two more terms under his belt and a son who didn’t just succeed him but got onto the next rung up the ladder. He’s in much better position to retire with a “mission accomplished” feeling after this presidential cycle, and if he plans to do that he’ll be much less worried about keeping the GOP apparatchiki happy.
13 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 10:24 am
TLK, good points.
On the other side of the ledger, Paul Sr. can serve in Congress for another 20, 30 (or – depending on the rate of advancement in medical technology – more) years, provided he doesn’t bolt his party.
He can introduces legislation in the House that his son introduces in the Senate.
And “Ron Paul Republicans” working their way up through party ranks won’t be facing as many charges of party disloyalty, as they will if he goes the independent route.
14 JT // Feb 4, 2011 at 10:40 am
Thomas: “He’s in much better position to retire with a “mission accomplished” feeling after this presidential cycle, and if he plans to do that he’ll be much less worried about keeping the GOP apparatchiki happy.”
How exactly would Paul retire with a “mission accomplished” feeling by running as the Libertarian candidate for President?
15 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:17 am
16 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:23 am
Given the state of intellectual property law, it may not be too late.
17 Fun K. Chicken // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:57 am
Paul/McKinney
-Both have been in Congress (and both have come back after leaving Congress, too)
-Both have run for President
-Combines experience in D, R, G and L parties, plus support from independents and constitutionalists
-Race and gender balance; offsets bloc voting potential for Obama as well as Palin.
18 June // Feb 4, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Paul can not run in the Republican primaries and then accept the LP nomination. He made it very clear after the 2008 run that in order to appear on the Republican primary ballot in a number of states he had to promise that he would not run third party if he lost. I doubt the R’s are going to change their rules in 2012.
19 George Phillies // Feb 4, 2011 at 12:31 pm
@18 After Murkowski, the Republicans can hardly complain seriously about that sort of decision.
20 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 12:51 pm
If I’m not the candidate then I want a TOP job for the candidate-& Extremely well paid.
21 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm
After Murkowski, the Republicans can hardly complain seriously about that sort of decision.
They can, and almost certainly would.
Murkowski probably did not have to sign a party loyalty oath.
And if she did, it’s far less likely that she cares. Ron Paul apparently takes that sort of thing seriously, even if it doesn’t have any teeth, quite unlike a normal politician.
Besides, who ever heard of hypocrisy and establishment big party politicians going together? LOL.
22 Fun K. Chicken // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:15 pm
why is it always the elitists who are considered? There is an obvious disconnect if you are right that they don’t know who I am. I ran into this when I tried to contact Gravel.
No ifs about it – they don’t know or care who you are.
Think of it as a job application. You are running for CEO of the world’s biggest corporation. When you apply for the job, people want to see what sort of experience you have.
Suppose you walked in to apply for CEO of Microsoft. They may ask: what is your background in running companies? Finance? Team management? Experience with computer hardware and software? Marketing background?
And so on.
Now, suppose you walked in (literally walked in, because your license was revoked) and said
“I had the same idea that Bill Gates had, only I had it first. I’ve spent most of my life broke and depressed and haven’t really accomplished jack shit. I have been diagnosed as ill by mental health professionals, and did some prison time for stalking a news reporter, but I was set up, I swear. Have you heard my ideas about eugenics, adding foreign countries as states to the union, and perpetual motion machines?”
…Which one do you think they would call first: you for a second interview, or security to have you escorted out of the building?
23 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Do you people really want a counterrevolutionary president?
You want to further empower Rand Paul/Tea Party?
Think about it.
This is an opportunity to sweep out the dems & reps-reactionaries.
24 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:43 pm
If you want new, untried, suppressed, and/or unheard of ideas & leaders, you better figure some are going to be pretty wild & far out & fasten your seat belts.
Or call Bill Gates.
25 NewFederalist // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Nice to see you are up and around again, Bob.
26 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Mental health professionals & institutions that R.D. Laing questioned the actual sanity of.
A judiciary that Frank J. Donner describes as routinely gets used & duped by the FBI.
27 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:55 pm
You didn’t answer the question, Robert.
…Which one do you think they would call first: you for a second interview, or security to have you escorted out of the building?
28 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Paul/McKinney
Could have potential…
29 Alan Pyeatt // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Once again, the LP will probably hold its nominating convention months before the Republicans and Democrats. So by the time the GOP “leadership” finds a way to keep Dr. Paul off the ticket, the LP will already have a presidential nominee (unless, of course, we vote for “None of the Above”). And of course, Ron will stick with the Republicans so he can stay in office.
As for VP, I think Karen Kwiatkowski would be the perfect choice, with Peter Schiff coming in second. I just think the differences between Paul and Nader, Kucinich, or or McKinney will be too much to overcome.
30 Thomas L. Knapp // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:43 pm
JT@14,
I didn’t say Paul was in a position to retire with a “mission accomplished” feeling by running for president on the LP ticket. I said that Paul is in more of a position to retire with a “mission accomplished” feeling now than he was in 2008, having served two more terms in the House and having seen his son elected to the Senate. Running for president on the LP ticket could be something like that Alaska fishing vacation you always wanted to take, but could never get away from the office to take.
June @ 18,
Yes, Paul would have to promise not to run third party to get on some GOP ballots in 2012. However, there’s likely nothing in law to bind him to keeping that promise. Nor is there any evidence that Paul has any problem with lying if lying benefits him politically.
31 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Paul/McKinney, fuggetabouddit..
Paul is out. However we can use the $35 million/2008 he is probably going to usurp AGAIN/2012 from the libertarian movement.
Who is going to brief these people about this as we postulate/volunteer them in comments?
32 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:50 pm
@30, Tom, I love it when you skewer Paul with your rapier, double edged wit.
George, care to take a turn?
33 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Once again, the LP will probably hold its nominating convention months before the Republicans and Democrats.
Definitely, not probably. LP is early May 2012 in Las Vegas, the Democratic convention will be held the week of September 3-7, 2012 in Charlotte, NC, and the Republican convention will be held for one week in Tampa starting August 27, 2012.
So by the time the GOP “leadership” finds a way to keep Dr. Paul off the ticket, the LP will already have a presidential nominee (unless, of course, we vote for “None of the Above”).
I expect Ron Paul to be eliminated from the Republican field well before May, although he would still probably get more mileage out of one speech at the Republican convention than an entire LP run.
I just think the differences between Paul and Nader, Kucinich, or or McKinney will be too much to overcome.
Not necessarily. It depends on which issues get prioritized. Both the founding issues of the Campaign for Liberty as well as Ron Paul’s recent publicity wave with Ralph Nader announcing an antiwar, anti-corporatist coalition indicate it could happen.
34 JT // Feb 4, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Thomas: “I didn’t say Paul was in a position to retire with a “mission accomplished” feeling by running for president on the LP ticket. I said that Paul is in more of a position to retire with a “mission accomplished” feeling now than he was in 2008, having served two more terms in the House and having seen his son elected to the Senate.”
Okay, but how? If you’re not saying he could get that “mission accomplished” feeling from eventually running for President as something other than a Republican, then what are you saying he could do differently this time to get that feeling? Even though he’s a Republican officeholder, he already routinely bucks the Republican leadership with his words and votes, such as denouncing the income tax, central banking, regulation, welfare, foreign interventionism, etc.
Thomas: “Running for president on the LP ticket could be something like that Alaska fishing vacation you always wanted to take, but could never get away from the office to take.”
Except he did get away from the office to take it. He was a U.S. Representative in the 1980s and then became the Libertarian nominee for President in 1988. He wasn’t as well known then as he is now, clearly. But he has since been critical of his run as a Libertarian, publicly saying he doesn’t know what was really accomplished by that (I heard him say this on TV). He pointed out that any third party/independent candidate has to deal with ballot access, raising much less money, being excluded from TV debates, etc. It seemed like he felt very exasperated by that, despite his friendly relations with the LP.
35 Thomas L. Knapp // Feb 4, 2011 at 6:44 pm
JT @ 34,
“If you’re not saying [Paul] could get that ‘mission accomplished’ feeling from eventually running for President as something other than a Republican, then what are you saying he could do differently this time to get that feeling?”
Once again, it’s not something he can do, it’s something he has already done, or at least will have already done.
In 2008, he still had stuff left that he wanted to get done in Congress. By 2012, he’ll have served two more terms, one of them as chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, which will allow him the best pulpit he’s ever going to get from which to act on his top issue, the Federal Reserve.
In 2008, he was the Lone Taft Republican Ranger in Congress, near retirement with no successor. With the election of his son to the US Senate, he’s founded a political dynasty of sorts, and secured that dynasty’s influence through at least 2016.
Mission, such as it is, accomplished.
One thing you seem to be missing is that I’m not predicting that Paul will run third party in 2012. I’m just saying that he’s much more likely to do so in 2012 than he was in 2008.
36 Green Party put Ron Paul on ballot in 2008 // Feb 4, 2011 at 8:32 pm
That was the Independent Green Party of Virginia that put Ron Paul on their Presidential/Vice Presidential Ballot line in 2008.
Bet they’d do it again in 2012!
37 Darryl W. Perry // Feb 4, 2011 at 8:41 pm
@36 – check your facts, the IGP gave their ballot line to Chuck Baldwin.
38 paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 8:49 pm
They circulated for Bloomberg and Ron Paul, then sold the line substitution to the highest bidder (Baldwin).
39 Darryl W. Perry // Feb 4, 2011 at 8:57 pm
@Paulie, I recall that – though 36 stated the IGP “put Ron Paul on their Presidential/Vice Presidential Ballot line in 2008.”
40 Gene Berkman // Feb 4, 2011 at 10:41 pm
The Independent Green Party of Virginia circulated petitions for a ticket of Mike Bloomberg for President and Ron Paul for Vice-President, but both men declined the honor.
In the general election the IGP provided a ballot line for Chuck Baldwin of The Constitution Party.
41 Thane Eichenauer // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:21 pm
@2
Robert M.,
If you are going to promote an idea and then complain when people utilize it you are hardly going to win any further converts.
It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
42 Robert Milnes // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Thane @41, this is a longstanding disagreement between me & Sipos.
Starting with his fool support for Ron Paul, who I despise.
& his dissing me & patronizing me at every opportunity.Kinda like paulie.
Now it has morphed to his misuse of my idea to promote Ron Paul, whose likely campaign -an impending disasterous do-over of 2008.
What do you expect?
43 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 5, 2011 at 1:37 am
Milnes: “Paul is out. However we can use the $35 million…”
Yes, we can. We can also use Bill Gate’s billions.
It may also be helpful to develop an invisibility formula so we can spy on our political opponents.
But none of this is within the realm of reality.
You’re not getting $35 million — even if a woman libertarian agrees to be your VP candidate, and you call a press conference to announce it.
44 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 1:49 am
Hey, you steal my idea-
I steal Ron Paul’s 35 million.
Sounds fair to me.
45 Califas // Feb 5, 2011 at 2:56 am
Milnes: Care to disclose how much you have in campaign contributions? You can include your 2008 total too…
46 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:30 am
Milnes: “I steal Ron Paul’s 35 million.
Sounds fair to me.”
You miss my point.
As I said, your wish is not “within the realm of reality.”
Besides, nobody stole your idea. Libertarians have been discussing potential coalitions with the Left and Right for decades.
I specifically recall Libertarians discussing — OFTEN discussing — potential alliances with the Greens and other progressives, back in the 1990s.
Maybe you were lurking on our Los Angeles Libertarian listservs, and you stole our idea?
47 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:59 am
@45, $0.00.
48 Joe Keg // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:05 am
Let’s leave out the mental health and legal issues for a moment.
Suppose you walked in to apply for CEO of Microsoft and said
“I had the same idea that Bill Gates had, only I had it first. I’ve spent most of my life broke and depressed and haven’t really accomplished jack shit. Have you heard my ideas about eugenics, adding foreign countries as states to the union, and perpetual motion machines?”
…Which one do you think they would call first: you for a second interview, or security to have you escorted out of the building?
49 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:17 am
C’mon Sipos, a few sporadic coalitions of opportunity in the 90′s?
We need a deliberate, well thought out, coordinated effort.
Support for Ron Paul is for counterrevolution at the ecpense of revolution/progressivism/libertarianism.
Maybe he’ll drop dead.
ght out, coordinated effort. one big oomph for 2012. Supporting Ron Paul if counterprodutie. It is supporting counterrevolution at the ecpense of revolu
50 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:27 am
Didn’t Hewlett Packard start with 2 broke guys in a garage?
51 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:37 am
By that analogy, you can personally secede from the US and declare yourself your own president. No need to run, you can stay right where you are.
Dodge the question all you want – if you don’t have a record of accomplishment, you are not going to be put in charge of a large, existing organization, or seriously considered. You can call that elitist if you want, but people generally want to see what you have actually done in the real world, not just your words.
52 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:42 am
Since you have no way to do that, why set your sights so low? As long as you’re going to engage in fantasies, go for the big time – steal the US Treasury printing press!
53 Robert Capozzi // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:49 am
p51: By that analogy, you can personally secede from the US and declare yourself your own president. No need to run, you can stay right where you are.
me: I see the idea of Nonarchy Pods is growing on you!
Imagine what the revolution might look like in Paulietania!
54 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 9:01 am
Actually, I agreed with you about the idea of archy pods a long time ago, as soon as you agreed that as many people could join the anarchy area as would like. That would make any remaining people voluntary subjects of any authority they choose to live under.
My idea of anarchy has always included the right of people to form communes and voluntarily give up as much freedom as they wish to as large or as small a collective as they wish, so long as they always retain the right to leave and not be governed by any collective.
The only thing we may disagree about is that you think very few people would choose to live in the anarchy areas – so few that you characterize them as “pods” – whereas I think over time they would grow to encompass most people.
However, my idea is not significantly impacted by what I predict people will choose to do, and I freely admit I could be wrong. It is more important to me that people have that choice; everything else will work itself out.
Moving back from the ideal world to the real one, if I choose to ignore the regime, it does not mean the regime will choose to ignore me.
55 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 9:43 am
paulie@51, wrong again.
It is difficult to predict, as you glibly have, people’s choices.
Just look at Obama. Very little accomplishments, esp. when compared to other competirtors. Hyped as a compelling story. Skyrockets to presideny. Then handed a Nobel Peae prize for little more than just words.
56 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 9:48 am
Bob- Do you consider yourself to be a libertarian or a progressive?
57 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 9:50 am
Obama was a US Senator. Before that, he was a State Senator. Before that, he was a law professor. Earlier on, he went to Harvard Law School and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. What have you done in your life?
Thanks for proving my point.
58 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm
http://polizeros.com/2011/02/04/how-obama-silenced-the-anti-war-movement-and-how-to-reclaim-it/
by Bob Morris.
What happened to the anti-war movement that thrived under George W. Bush? Obama got elected. That’s what really ended the anti-war movement, which at its peak brought millions into the streets worldwide in opposition to the Iraq War.
The protests had been getting smaller, as more realized that the powers-that-be were simply ignoring them. But once Obama got elected, the movement really fizzled. Sad to say, but the truth is many of the protesters, as it turned out, were much more anti-Bush than they were anti-war. Once their side got back in power, the wars and Guantanamo Bay suddenly became much more palatable to many former protesters.
This, too often, is how our politics of confrontation operate. If the other side is doing it, it is bad. If our side does it, then it must be good. Yet Bush and Obama have near identical policies on war, detention, and government intrusion into civil liberties. If the TSA had instituted their grope-and-scan policies while Bush was in office, liberals would have been howling. As it was, the most vocal protest came from factions of the Tea Party.
The left did make some serious tactical blunders, which were compounded by ideological blinders. Some prominent antiwar coalitions were controlled by far left groups whose primary purpose was to use the front group to recruit for their micro-party. But you can’t build a genuine, mass antiwar organization that way, because your motives and actions will always be at cross purposes.
On the right, Congressman Ron Paul, the original Tea Party father, has long been the most vocal critic of the wars. Other conservatives, like Grover Norquist, and a few in the Tea Party are becoming more vocal in opposition to the wars, especially considering their staggering cost in an era of gaping budget deficits. But, as the libertarian Antiwar.com points out, many newly elected members of Congress with Tea Party ties are already starting to lose their anti-war zeal as they get courted by the Pentagon, lobbyists, and the hawkish wing of their party.
Tell me, what is it that happens to people when they get elected and go to D.C.? Do they get turned into pod creatures, controlled by entities the rest of us can’t see? So it seems sometimes.
The left, even if it wants to, can’t stop the wars on its own. Neither can the right. But together, maybe we can. Vocal anti-war sentiment is now coming from the edges of the left and the right. Polls clearly show this is hardly a fringe position, as the vast majority of the American public now opposes the Afghanistan war. The problem is that D.C. is still ignoring what the public wants.
Anti-war forces on all sides of the political spectrum should consider joining together in opposition to the wars. They don’t have to agree on everything (and almost certainly will not!) But in a real coalition, the various members agree to forget their differences and focus on a common goal. A real mass movement is people from the left, right, and center working together to accomplish something.
That’s the way to end the wars.
59 FYI! [More Don Lake] // Feb 5, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Change viz a viz Obama, my Yokahama Momma, is not much more than the coinage under the sofa cushions ………..
60 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm
N’yuk, n’yuk, n’yuk…
61 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm
NF@56, I’ve said this more or less several times.
I consider myself a left anarchist who has realized progressivism is the best next step.
Evidently this is a problem for right anarchists-libertarians-like paulie & Tom K.
62 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm
paulie257, Obama was born into privilege. He spomehow found his way to the Kennedys-or they-Teddy-found him.
He was backed by the liberal democratic machine along with Deval Patrick. Around 2000.
By 2004 he was best in position to push for the presidency starting with a showcsae keynote speech as noted by Billary-& Obama has a speech. In which he presented himself as an anti-war progressive. Fake, though. Teddy would never have endorsed a left progressive.
He won on an anti-Bush anti-war campaign. But whoever won the dem nom would have won.
The the Nobel commission fed into the praise Obama mantra by handing the peace prize to him for excellent oratory.
& he got a free dog from Teddy.
63 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Paulie @58, agreed. Good article. EXCEPT:
We do not need the rightists.
We can win electorially without them.
We definitely do not need the rest of their counterrevolutionary baggage.
64 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Bob- A “left anarchist”… wow! I fail to see how anybody who considers themself an anarchist of either extreme could embrace progessivism. TR was a big government kind of guy. So was Wilson. How can you possibly reconcile the differences? Are you saying you are a Big Government Anarchist? I do not get it.
65 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Incorrect characterization.
66 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Whether one agrees with your view of Obama’s rise or not is besides the point. The point is that Obama climbed a ladder. He was not elected president out of nowhere; he was a US Senator immediately before that, and so on. Answer one simple question:
Can you name anyone who has been elected president or seriously considered who did not have some sort of record of achievement in politics, business, military, etc?
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Implementation is what matters. When considering anyone for a top executive position of any sort, most people place a lot of emphasis on their past experience in various leadership positions further down the ladder or in other fields. You may not like that, but it’s a fact.
Being chosen to head an existing large organization is different from starting a new company or venture and making it big.
67 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Correct.
68 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Incorrect. He made clear during the campaign that he would double down in AfPak and had no immediate plans to exit Iraq. People chose not to listen to what he actually said.
69 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:50 pm
We have a difference of opinion.
70 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Some alleged anarchists consider business to be more coercive than government, and back big government in the real world while they talk anarchy in the abstract.
71 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Somehow using “ararchist” and “big government” in the same sentence seems to me an oxymoron.
72 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 6:59 pm
That would be “anarchist”.
73 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Actually, I know how to spell “progressivism” as well.
74 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Archy means power. Some alleged anarchists believe that the employer-employee relationship is not truly voluntary, since the employer is in a position of authority, and that therefore employees only enter this relationship under the threat of economic blackmail. They oftentimes also consider property ownership to be in and of itself illegitimate authority.
So long as they also oppose the existence of government, they can still claim to be anarchists, although I would say that by preventing people from voluntarily entering into economic relationships they become a de facto government, even if it’s very local.
However, where I would argue that they cease having any claim to being called anarchists is where they see existing, big and even bigger government as a bulwark against economic authority.
To me, it seems that people who take that view aren’t real anarchists at all.
Of course, they would say the same about those of us who would favor a small government to protect property rights in the meantime.
The difference, I think, is that even in the meantime, we want government to at least be much smaller than at present, whereas they do not.
75 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:20 pm
paulie- I love you dude, no sh*t but let Milnes speak for himself. Don’t give him ideas to parrot.
76 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:23 pm
He can provide his own answer, which may differ as to what he means by calling himself an anarchist from what I described, which is a general answer based on ideas other people I have talked to have expressed.
77 Joe Keg // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:30 pm
From
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/paleocon-red-phillips-discusses-potential-libertarians-for-president/
Fun K. Chicken // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:52 am
Somebody get Paulie elected to the Alabama legislature already, and don’t forget to get him a urine jug for his podium time. He certainly has the art of the filibuster down pat…
41paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Well, my felony conviction would not necessarily be a problem. This is the Alabama legislature we’re talking about, after all.
More serious roadblocks: I’m an anarchist, a member of a non-recognized party, foreign born, don’t profess faith in Christ, look like I sort of might be a Mexican or a Muslim, 38 year old single male, broke as a joke, speak with a New York accent, and spend most of my time outside Alabama.
Besides that, I could probably get elected
42paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Although, not having a car or a license would present problems both for campaigning as well as serving…
78 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:47 pm
I would not know paulie if I ran over him. I would vote for him for (fill in the blank) if he ran in PA. He seems to be a very intelligent and well intentioned individual. Go paulie!
79 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm
I’m more likely to be caught alive running from the police than caught dead running for office
80 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:01 pm
OR caught with a live girl in bed instead of a dead boy! (Either one usually doesn’t help a campaign much unless in San Francisco.)
81 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:15 pm
paulie=milnes=felon.
NF, I’m just being practical.
Where we are>anarchy.
Next best step=inclusive progressivism.
82 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm
paulie=milnes=felon.
No prison time in my case, just some county jails here and there. No more than 3-4 weeks max at a time. Also, no psych diagnosis, and I don’t expect anybody to hand me $35 million or elect me president or anything else
83 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Plus, I actually have made a few million in my life. I blew it all and burned myself out, but hey, not claiming to be perfect here…
84 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Did you see the Star Trek episode where Spock runs a computer comparison,.
Enterprise current condition/Enterprise ideal condition?
85 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Hey, this is America. My turn to earn a few million.
86 NewFederalist // Feb 5, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Practical?
87 Robert Milnes // Feb 5, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Yes, practical.
As things are the libs & progressives are virtually powerless.
Election victory would provide power.
88 paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Milnes is the epitome of practicality. Didn’t you know?
89 Sebastian Knowlton // Feb 6, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I love Ron Paul and would welcome a 2012 campaign from him.
Seeing as the GOP still seems to be run by idiots trying to appeal to religious zealots and “tea party” candidates (most of whom voted for the bailouts btw), they’ll most certainly not elect him their nominee.
And should the LP nominate Root, fuck it. I’d sooner write-in Marion Berry.
90 paulie // Feb 6, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Marion Shepilov Barry FTW!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marion_Barry
* Goddamn bitch set me up!
o Barry said this in front of an FBI camera after agents arrested him for smoking crack in a hotel room with an escort. This phrase (and variants) was emblazoned on novelty tee-shirts at the time.
* Outside of the killings, DC has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
o Source: USA Today: Mar 24, 1989. pg. 02.A
* They made all this up to justify questioning me. It’s all made up. I don’t know what happened. Whatever they say was all made up.
o Responding to allegations by Park Police that he was found with a white substance under his nose and trace amounts of cocaine in his car.
o Source: The Washington Post: 26 March 2002. pg B2
* There is a sort of an unwritten code in Washington, among the underworld and the hustlers and these other guys that I am their friend.
o Explaining why he was upset at being robbed at gunpoint.
o Source: Washington Express: 4 January 2006. pg 11
Unsourced, many are fake, but funny:
http://www.skeptictank.org/barry.htm
“The contagious people of Washington have stood firm against diversity during this long period of increment weather.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“I promise you a police car on every sidewalk.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“First, it was not a strip bar, it was an erotic club. And second, what can I say? I’m a night owl.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“Bitch set me up.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“I am clearly more popular than Reagan. I am in my third term. Where’s Reagan? Gone after two! Defeated by George Bush and Michael Dukakis no less.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“The laws in this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“I am making this trip to Africa because Washington is an international city, just like Tokyo, Nigeria or Israel. As mayor, I am an international symbol. Can you deny that to Africa?” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“People have criticized me because my security detail is larger than the president’s. But you must ask yourself: are there more people who want to kill me than who want to kill the president? I can assure you there are.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“The brave men who died in Vietnam, more than 100% of which were black, were the ultimate sacrifice.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“I read a funny story about how the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republicans are the ones who created slavery by law in the 1600′s. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was not a Republican.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“People blame me because these water mains break, but I ask you, if the water mains didn’t break, would it be my responsibility to fix them then? WOULD IT!?!” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
“I am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man; I am a humble man.” — M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
Reasons for the LP to run Marion Barry for President:
1) He May Not Be Perfect, But He’s Perfect for D.C
2) Barr campaign signs from 2008 can be recycled with the minor addition of a “y” on the end and pasting “12″ over “08,” thus saving money.
3) proven leadership experience
4) Has only lost once, out of a dozen or so times running for office in every election since 1972
5) Very knowledgeable on drug policy and prison reform issues; also, demonstrably pro-stripper and pro-sex worker.
6) As the four-time mayor of a city with many foreign embassies, he already knows a great deal about foreign affairs. As well as other types.
7) He hates taxes; “According to one prosecutor, Barry has not filed his taxes eight of the last nine years.”
9) When asked why he was running to get back on the city council, Barry explained that it was an easy job and pays well. Refreshing honesty in a political leader!
91 Robert Milnes // Feb 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm
paulie, I think you have ruined this thread with your Barry comment.
why don’t you delete it as frivolous?
92 paulie // Feb 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm
93 paulie // Feb 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm
BTW, since Barry is already a DC resident, we’ll save on moving costs if he wins, thus demonstrating that we are serious about saving the taxpayers money.
Also, he’s about 9 months younger than Ron Paul. That would show that we are in touch with the concerns of young people.
And if we pair him up with a libertarian woman VP, all bets are off – he could…go…all…the…way!
I’m thinking http://www.normajeanalmodovar.com/mybio.html
94 LibertarianGirl // Feb 6, 2011 at 8:29 pm
definitely monica lewinski
95 Mashed Potato with a Twist // Feb 6, 2011 at 8:34 pm
She’s a libertarian?
96 LibertarianGirl // Feb 6, 2011 at 9:08 pm
no it was a joke
97 Mashed Potato with a Twist // Feb 6, 2011 at 9:14 pm
The LP has some catching up to do
http://carnalnation.com/content/7608/3/republicans-19-times-more-sex-scandal-democrats
98 paulie // Feb 7, 2011 at 1:11 am
Barry-Lewinski 2012: with blow and blow jobs for all! lol
99 Robert Milnes // Feb 7, 2011 at 1:50 am
paulie, you are humorous, politically knowledgeable, skilled writer & internet.
But what do these comments have to do with this thread?
Sipos & I were debating, if you don’t mind. Now I don’t blame him for staying away.
& you have the nerve to bust on me & segregate MY comments?
I can see we are on our way to lose again in 2012.
100 paulie // Feb 7, 2011 at 2:37 am
@ 99. Thank you for the compliments.
But…
You are confused, as usual. The last comment from Sipos was @ 46. Any “debate” between you two ended long before @ 90, which was a direct followup to Sebastian Knowlton @ 89. Everything else proceeded as a flow, with each comment relating to the one before it. (In reality, there was no debate. Sipos does not take you seriously).
If you had bothered to pay attention, you might have noticed that @ 93 – the hypothetical Marion Barry/Norma Jean Almodovar ticket – actually fits your definition of “PLAS,” as well as a left-right coalition as outlined by Sipos in the post we are commenting on, although in truth I don’t know Marion Barry’s foreign policy views.
As for segregating some of your comments, that was a group decision by IPR writers. Don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger.
As for losing in 2012…my chances of seeing anyone I like win major office in 2012 are lower than winning a multi-million dollar lottery jackpot, and I don’t even play the lottery.
As several comments I made earlier in the thread indicate, you have to work your way up the ladder. You don’t get to start at the top. Sorry, it just does not work that way in the real world. Unless of course your parents place you there, and yours didn’t.
I suggest picking some achievable goals to start with. As was suggested by someone in a couple of threads, here’s an example;
I think you may well form a strategic alliance with the Psycho-Lunatic Asylum Strategy* and the Mormon Maoist Shining Path to create a better veterans mental health clinic in or around Barstow, California, governed by a 100-candidate patient-selected and ranked system. That sounds like a totally achievable goal, actually.
*PLAS
101 Robert Milnes // Feb 7, 2011 at 3:24 am
paulie is in lol lol land.
Sipos stole my idea & applied it to Paul tard. How can he not take me seriously. If he doesn’t take me seriously, his blog post is absurd.
102 paulie // Feb 7, 2011 at 8:42 am
Go back and read his comments, Robert, he did not steal your idea. A left/right anti-war, anti-corporatist, pro-privacy, anti-federal reserve, anti-debt, anti-homeland “security”/surveillance, anti-police militarization, anti prison-industrial complex coalition is an idea that many people who have never heard of you have thought of, and more and more are starting to consider seriously.
It’s the other aspects of your strategy that they don’t take seriously, and neither does Sipos. As well, no one except you takes the idea that you should be a presidential candidate or high ranking well paid advisor seriously. All laughter aside, I’ve explained why in this very thread.
103 paulie // Feb 7, 2011 at 9:02 am
If Ron Paul does run as a Republican again here are some problems he needs to deal with
1. Ground game. Do New Hampshire and Iowa early and often, and be there in person. A lot.
2. The official campaign should be run more like a meritocracy, less like a nepotocracy.
3. Concentrate on young, independent and left-leaning people in states like NH where they can choose which primary they vote in. Chasing the Tancredo/Duncan Hunter vote, rather than the independent votes which mostly ended up going into the Democratic primary for Obama, was a bad decision. They also should have concentrated much more on Michigan.
4. Lessons from Iowa, besides being there in person early and often: learn the methods that Jefferson County used, which was the only county he won. Apply them in every county this time. Make sure you have frequent redundant database backups, and multiple people who can access and run them. Last time, one person junked the get out the vote effort in a tantrum at the last minute and it did not happen. Get out the vote is crucial.
5. Deal with the newsletter question early. Even if it makes Lew Rockwell confront an unpleasant part of his past that he would rather sweep under the rug, and even if it tarnishes the memory of Murray Rothbard. Even if it means that Ron Paul himself has to admit that at some point he had some of those thoughts and resentments himself. Confront it head on, deal with it and get it out of the way. Otherwise, it will come back bigger and worse than ever, at the worst possible time, and grow to stink worse and worse the longer the authorship question is swept under the rug.
6. Particularly with the newsletter issue lingering, make sure the campaign is thoroughly denazified. Yes, they can be very hard working and dedicated activists, but the last thing he needs is any more hidden or not very well hidden nazis working on his campaign being exposed. Between that, and the spin that will be put on Rand Paul’s statements on the Civil Rights Act, it creates an impression that can and will cause problems – especially if Ron Paul makes more headway this time.
104 paulie // Feb 7, 2011 at 7:32 pm
As several comments I made earlier in the thread indicate, you have to work your way up the ladder. You don’t get to start at the top. Sorry, it just does not work that way in the real world. Unless of course your parents place you there, and yours didn’t.
More generally, although not to the same degree, this afflicts alt parties and independents in general. A lot of people want to start at the top, but they don’t want to work to incrementally moving up the lower rungs of the ladder, so they remain stuck at the very bottom.
On a related theme, Ross Levin writes in Green Party Watch comments,
There are places like PA, New Jersey, and Illinois where there are tons of small local positions. Unfortunately, our strongest place in PA right now is Philadelphia where you need something like 10,000 votes to win the smallest district, but my point is that there are plenty of places to run around the nation where you need a few hundred or a few thousand votes to win instead of the tens of millions needed to win (or millions needed to have a reasonable impact) when it comes to the presidency.
I think focusing on the presidency – disregarding for a second the issue of ballot access, because in some states the presidential candidate needs a certain percentage for the party to retain ballot access, and there’s even an argument to be had that that’s not worth it – is a mistake, it goes against Green principles, and it values short term thinking and showiness over what’s really important. We need people ELECTED to local offices, showing that they really can improve their communities. In Maine, hopefully we’ll get a state representative or two, as with some other areas. But in 99.9% of the nation, we don’t even have a realistic shot at those races, and we need to appreciate that, and act on it, which means campaigning hard and putting most of our attention on smaller races.
I wouldn’t take it as far as Ross – alt parties that stop running presidential candidates often die soon after, and big ticket races bring some degrees of media and voter attention that local races don’t – but he does have a point that we should consider.
Post on this might be coming up….
105 Robert Milnes // Feb 7, 2011 at 9:46 pm
no, paulie, it is you & Sipos that do not get it.
NOTHING about supporting Ron Paul makes sense.
He is a republican. Any support of Paul is directly AND indiretly support for the republican party. What libertarian wants to deliberately support the republican party?
106 Robert Milnes // Feb 7, 2011 at 9:56 pm
He is a counterrevolutionary.
Exactly the opposite of revolutionary libertarians or leftist progressives.
He is a contributions magnet.
Misguided contributions from libertarians.
He cannot win. He can’t win even one primary. He is getting @8% according to Tom K.’s calculations recently. More or less The Libertarian Vote. That is just not enough.
107 Robert Milnes // Feb 7, 2011 at 10:01 pm
The Libertarian Vote =@13%.
Even if he did win the presidency, he would be pitted against a dem & rep Congress. Every legislation rejected. Every veto overridden.
108 paulie // Feb 7, 2011 at 11:46 pm
109 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 8, 2011 at 12:58 am
Milnes, I was doing Left/Right antiwar coalition work long before I ever heard of you.
In 2005, I participated, as an antiwar libertarian speaker, at an antiwar progressive play: http://hollywoodinvestigator.com/2005/aboutiraq.htm
In 2008, I was speaking to college students, at the invitation of a Green Party teacher: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2008/06/glendale-community-college-hears.html
Those are just some of the things I’ve done. There’s more, but my time is limited, so I won’t list everything.
Many people have talked Left/Right coalitions long before you commented on IPR or TPW.
Back the the 1970s, the late anarchist, Samuel E. Konkin III, was advocating Left/Right coalitions.
You’re a latecomer, Milnes.
Sure, my coalition ideas include Ron Paul. Millions (tens of millions?) of progressives, paleo-conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, and others, welcome Ron Paul into our Left/Right coalitions.
You did nothing to form these coalitions, Milnes, so you don’t get to decide who’s included and who isn’t.
If you don’t like the current Left/Right coalitions that were formed before you came on the scene, start your own.
But you won’t. Instead, you’ll insist that people start “your” coalitions for you. Others do the work, but you call the shots.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
110 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 2:27 am
Sipos, I was burned out on leftist politics before you were born.
Don’t patronize me, you little snot.
Your left-right coalition is overloaded with COUNTERREVOLUTIONARIES.
You used the concept of fusion ticket as I have & CALLED IT THAT.
Where did that come from?
why didn’t Nader ever mention it or try it?
You are talking about little groups doing incidental things once in a while.
I’m talking about winning. Sweeping the reactionaries out.
You
& paulie are not. You scoff at that.
You are wrong. We can win. But not if you are going to LOL every time that is said like paulie.
You want peace? You better vote the warmongers out.
Or you are stuck with them.
111 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 2:37 am
Good luck talking Paul into a progresive vp.
112 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 2:46 am
I remember being surprised that an anti-war right even existed.
Paul & counterrevolutionaries & nationalists do have among their poison policies anti-war as part
of america first & only. Nationalists wish other nation ill. Internationalists do not.
That’s the pig in disguise among your anti-war coalition.
You think anti-war is simple & easy?
113 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 8, 2011 at 2:57 am
Milnes, “You are talking about little groups doing incidental things once in a while.”
No, I’m not talking about it — I’m doing it.
Milnes: “I’m talking about winning.”
You talk about a lot of stuff. But you never do anything.
You wait for others to do for you, then gripe when they instead follow their own vision.
114 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 3:44 am
I’m only one person, Sipos.
What vision? Barr, Root, The Pauls?
& yes, I lump the Pauls in with Barr & Root.
Once again I ask you, how can you be so right about Root but wrong about Paul?
115 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 3:54 am
What you are doing is not good enough.
For every step forward you MAY accomplish, the counterrevolutionaries are sure to take 2 steps back.
Why has Paul never talked about a fusion ticket?
As if Paul wasn’t enough of a problem, now we have his Tea Party son?
You never answered my question about Rand, either. What about Rand, Sipos? Like father, like son? Like son, like father?
116 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 8, 2011 at 4:34 am
I did answer your question about Rand, some months ago. I’m sure of it.
I’ll answer it again: I have no strong opinion on Rand, pro or con.
So really, I have nothing to say about Rand.
117 JT // Feb 8, 2011 at 5:17 am
Milnes: “I’m only one person, Sipos.”
Thank god. I don’t think we need clones of you.
118 LibertarianGirl // Feb 8, 2011 at 9:39 am
P_Barry-Lewinski 2012: with blow and blow jobs for all! lol
me_ ROFLMAO
119 paulie // Feb 8, 2011 at 9:53 am
Crack and…more crack?
120 paulie // Feb 8, 2011 at 10:07 am
Because he was running for the Republican nomination. He hasn’t said anything about an independent run. If it does happen, given the work he is doing with Nader lately, a fusion ticket is possible – although I would prefer McKinney over Nader. Both were on stage with him at the Campaign for Liberty kickoff. The fusion ticket, in a manner of speaking, is already happening. The only questions is whether it will be an actual independent presidential ticket.
At LewRockwell.com, many have taken to calling (Rand) Paul the Lesser.
121 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 11:00 am
Lew Rockwell is another problem.
Kwiatkowski should quit there IMO.
A fusion ticket-Paul/Nader/McKinney is alreadsy forming? Do they realize that or are you figuring that by taking what I’m zsaying & wishful thinking?
Sipos, last I heard you said you weren’t sure about Rand & was thinking about it.
I see you haven’t thought it through or are in denial.
122 Thomas M. Sipos // Feb 8, 2011 at 11:24 am
Milnes, I have no strong opinions on Rand at this time. Sorry, but I don’t have opinions about everything.
Kwiatkowski writes for Lew Rockwell and for The Huffington Post. That’s a good thing, because it means she’s reaching a broad, Right/Left audience.
It’s called fusion.
Lots of people are doing Right/Left fusion, Milnes. Just not precisely as you would have them do it.
123 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Well if a lot of people are doing it, why haven’t they tried to vote fusion?
124 Robert Milnes // Feb 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm
You just do not want to deal with Rand.
125 paulie // Feb 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/ralph-nader-and-ron-paul-on-freedom-watch-alliance-against-corporatism/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/nader-advocates-for-progressive-libertarian-alliance/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/ron-paul-could-lead-a-new-libertarianprogressive-coalition/
The fusion ticket, in a manner of speaking, is already happening. The only questions is whether it will be an actual independent presidential ticket.
126 Daily Paul: Ron Paul says NO 3rd Party or Independent Run | Independent Political Report // Feb 10, 2011 at 6:14 pm
[...] have had joint media appearances regarding a coalition against war and corporatism, and there had been speculation that Paul might run on an independent or third party ticket, perhaps with someone like Nader, [...]
127 Summary of Republican Candiates // Oct 2, 2011 at 3:32 am
It’s too bad that Ron Paul will never be taken seriously by the media. He continues to be ignored and flies under the radar because the media outlets never give him any of the lime light.
Leave a Comment