Ron Paul: Open the Debates!

The process isn't working. When you think about what we do around the world on the pretense of spreading democracy and how many people die, I think this is a tragedy. It's a tragedy that the third party candidates and those who want to improve this country, defend our principles, defend the Constitution and want to have a descent process-- are treated this way, and shut out of the debates.

I'm not a candidate, but I'm still very interested in what's happening.  And this is my attempt to make a very strong suggestion of what we can do.

Quite a few years ago when Bill Clinton was inaugurated, in one of his speeches he recognized one single individual as being very important to him philosophically. That was a bit of a surprise because I knew about the individual, and some of you may know about him, but he's worth looking into. His name was Carol Quigley and he wrote the book "Tragedy and Hope."- The important part of "Tragedy and Hope"- and Carol Quigley is that he claimed that he was part of the inside group that handled this sort of planning.

Did he write "Tragedy and Hope"- to expose these people behind the scenes? No. He believed that the group was advanced enough that they didn't need to be secret any longer and that they could be out in the open.  He was quite open in describing that this is just the way it all works. To me he was saying, it's a tragedy if you don't accept this and there's hope if you know who really runs the show. That's my interpretation, but I think it is correct.

Let me read a quote from him and just think about where he's coming from. Professor Quigly said,

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies of the Right and of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and the 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"- Either party in office becomes in time, corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it every four years if necessary, by the other party--which will be none of these things but will still pursue--with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."-

I think that's a profound statement. Because it tells us what's going on and why things don't change. 

Today we are trying to say that we represent the majority, we deserve to be heard and we deserve to be in the debates.

You may say, well how can they be? They're minor candidates, and they won't have enough support if you let everybody in the debate. But there is a simple way for cut-off because it's true--if you have 200 people who filed for the presidency--you can't expect all those individuals to be on the stage. But there is a good way to do it, and that is to have any candidate who has gone through the onerous process--which is so biased against us, yet are still on enough state ballots that they theoretically could have enough electoral votes to win. It is those candidates who ought to be in the debates, and that is what our goal is.

Now what are the odds of this happening? What are the odds that the Commission of Presidential Debate will--all of a sudden, become fair and balanced?

None. Absolutely none.  So what are we going to do about it? We have to come together. To me, it's fantastic that we've been able to get four candidates together in the principle that it's the process that they're begging to change. To me, this is remarkable and important.

So what else can we do? I think we could get the four candidates together and have our own. That generally was something I had to do in the primary race because of our repeated exclusion and marginalization, so we would just go and have our own. And I know it's difficult to think about and there's probably arguments against it, and I don't even know if the four would agree. I haven't even talked with them. But if they could get together and bring all their supporters together, then maybe, MAYBE the media would pay attention and admit that maybe there are some important issues.  Maybe civil liberties do count.  Maybe foreign policy does count.  Maybe we ought to change the federal reserve.  Maybe we shouldn't continue to bailout all the corporations of the world. Corporations like the auto makers are all lining up for welfare behind Fannle Mae and Freddie Mac, but that's not going to work.

That's why the American people are waking up. We know we are getting near the end of this grand experiement, and that's why I think it's a much bigger number than 60% who are unhappy with thier presidential 'choices,' but you'd never know that by watching television!  Because it's coved like a horse race.  And who's the most evil!

I think what we need is to have an open debate, and the only way we can have this showing is to prove the point that right now there is no choice.

Now first off, where are these 60% coming from? Well there's a bunch of them who make an intellectual decision not to vote, and we shouldn't just say they're apathetic because I know a lot who aren't apathetic.  They are pretty intelligent and they've figured it out, but I'd like them to vote. My recommendation is to vote, but if you add up those who decided intellectually to not vote, and you take that number of people who vote just for the lesser of two evils, then we are the majority!  But the more the merrier!

The first challenge is to overcome the notion that I want to hurt the Republicans. No. I don't want to hurt anybody.

 1  |  2  |  3