 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 22, 2007 at 01:11:29
Mike Gravel Announces Third Party Bid; Why Ron Paul Will be Next |
|
|
Bless his heart. Mike Gravel, who is currently running for President as a Democrat, has already declared that he will run as a third party, and he hasn’t even lost the Democratic nomination yet! Call me old fashioned if you must. I am all for scrappy insurgencies trying to fight their way into America’s two party system, but shouldn’t Gravel at least wait until after he loses before quitting? “Hold out your hand, take your thumb and connect it to your little finger. What do you get,” Gravel asked his on looking audience. “A third party!” he answered. “I’m running as a Democrat right now, and my string is going to run out in February. It’s already run out; I just don’t know it,” Gravel said to a small group of supporters. “If I want to stay in this election all of the way until next November, I will have to make a decision: ‘Will I go as a third party?’ Obviously you can figure that out.” The implication is that he will. Gravel is entertaining a notion that he can approach established existing third parties, such as the Libertarians, Greens, and perhaps also the Reform or Constitution Party, and who knows what else, and unite them under one cause with himself leading the charge. “We’re going to coalesce … we’re going to take all of the other parties together,” Gravel explains. “We’ll go… you’ll go to the Green Party, to the Libertarian Party. Let’s coalesce, let’s come together, we’ll coalesce to win.” The notion is well and fine, but the Libertarian and Green Party are currently busy nominating their own candidates. And for that matter so are the Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party, Patriot Party, American Party, Reform Party, Populist Party, Personal Choice Party and even more. Getting Republicans and Democrats to come together in harmony will seem like child’s play compared to bring together socialists with libertarians, and greens with communists. To put it quite frankly, it’s not a notion that is based in reality. The Ron Paul Factor Moreover, Gravel is ignoring the strong possibility that Ron Paul may make a run for the White House as an independent. Though Paul has repeatedly denied such plans to run as an independent, he has increasingly left his statements open ended. The former Libertarian Party presidential candidate says that he plans to win as a Republican, but will not discuss any actions that he might take were he to lose the GOP nomination, other than to say that he will likely not support any other nominee. Ron Paul is currently polling poorly both nationally and in important early nominating states, but he is sitting on a mountain of gold. Without a doubt, he could raise enough money to finance his own third party candidacy and make a strong showing in national polls – maybe even strong enough to be included in debates. The virtual inevitability that Paul will lose his party’s nomination coupled with his uncanny fund raising ability and massive support base makes his third party run all the more likely. With a crowd that size and that passionate, they’re not going to just go away because their candidate lost a silly thing like a primary. Gravel’s lonely road… It saddens me to see Mike Gravel forced out of the debates just as much as it saddens me to see him give speeches about fanciful ideas, such as uniting third parties behind him. I fear that his message will become lost in the curious spectacle that his campaign would become. The positive aspect of this development is that it frees Gravel’s supporters to get behind someone else for the Democratic nomination. It doesn’t matter if they vote for Gravel in the primary, because they can vote for him in the general election anyways. Gravel supporters, to you I say this; now is your opportunity to take a look at the rest of the democratic field. Answer this question: Who is the candidate that would be your second choice? Vote for that person. Help to defeat the candidate who is the greater evil; make the world a better place. 
www,revrob.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 16 comments |
|
Ron Paul Third Party Bid? Why?
Why should Ron Paul run as a third party candidate, when he can take the Republican nomination? Oh, yes- the matter of those incredibly omnipresent polls. Time to update your reportage to the 21st Century! In these outdated, biased polls (the ones that actually LIST Ron Paul as a choice!) the methodology shows they only ask people that voted in the last Republican Primary (that's the translation from 'Pollspeak' for 'Likely Republican Primary Voters'). That's a FOUR YEAR OLD pool of data, and consists primarily of G.W. Bush supporters, as he ran unopposed four years ago. These 'scientific' polls can hardly be called accurate, or even close to the +/- 5% margin of error, as they fail to take into account the ACTUAL pool of voters eligible to vote in these primaries and caucuses. Even in these woefully inadequate polls, only Ron Paul is steadily climbing in support. In Iowa and New Hampshire he is in the top-tier of candidates, and in South Carolina, only 25% of the people polled had even HEARD of Ron Paul (!) yet he still pulled in 11% support- meaning almost HALF of those who even HEARD of Ron Paul ended up choosing him as the candidate they support! Imagine if they actually polled informed voters who had actually HEARD of Ron Paul! Furthermore, while all the other Republican challengers seem to be in constant damage-control mode from putting their feet in their mouth, Ron Paul, by every other method of measurement, is the LEADING candidate. Fund Raising, Straw-Poll wins, size of grass-roots support, number of individual donors, number of first-time donors, size of support at campaign rallie, and on and on and on. Every other candidate would KILL for the size, amount, type and intensity of support that Ron Paul receives, qand many have said as much. If ANY other candidate had the same strength of support in the above-mentioned areas as Ron Paul currently enjoys, he would be touted as the runaway front-runner by every major media outlet! You can spin the Ron Paul story any way you want, and throw in inaccurate appelations such as 'fringe' , 'long-shot', 'dark horse' and 'largely internet-based' but the facts are obvious and incontrovertible. And many a pundit, reporter, journalist and blogger will be eating their words when the only polling numbers that matter come in- the caucus and primary votes. Expect Ron Paul's enthusiastic and large grass roots base to turn out in larger numbers than is currently being reported xtrabiggg ++++++++++++++++++ by Thaddeus Kaczor Jr (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 46 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 2:14:52 AM  (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul does not need to go third party
The growing number of Ron Paul supporters have proven first in online votes and text message votes, but have they proven votes in person, where you actually have to leave your computer and travel somewhere, listen to stump speeches then wait in line to vote? The only test of that are straw polls. Straw polls are actually a rehearsal for Caucus and Primary day. They are held in almost every state and require a person to travel then sit through speeches and stand in line to vote. Furthermore straw polls are also GOP fund raisers, so in order to vote you often have to pay money. There have already been close to 50 official straw polls throughout the country. There is a website that keeps track of these events and tallies the scores just like the Media and pollsters do. Now remember straw polls are the closest you can get to actual voting. There is no spammers clicking on 50 internet polls per day, there is no phone polling to the miniscule remnant of the decimated Republican Party. These are real people taking the day off to go and support their candidate. So without further ado here are the results. Source www.usastrawpolls.com As you can see the candidate with the most number of Straw poll wins is Ron Paul. Also notice that the current break through front runner in the phone polls Mike Huckabee has won only 2 straw polls. Candidate# Wins Ron Paul 25 Fred Thompson 24 Mitt Romney 22 Rudy Giuliani 7 John McCain 5 Mike Huckabee 2 Now here is the really shocking statistic of these real life votes. If you look at the total straw polls and average Ron Paul's polling percentage the same way phone polls are averaged, the percentages of votes for Ron Paul is 33.02%. 33.02% is the media pundits answer to their question of translation to actual votes. So if you were hesitant to throw your endorsement towards Ron Paul because of the Medias assessment of viability, you can now justify Ron Paul as your candidate. Welcome to the Ron Paul Revolution. by collin28 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 7:22:34 AM (0+)
|
|
More vicious tripe from this blogsite.
"Moreover, Gravel is ignoring the strong possibility that Ron Paul may make a run for the White House as an independent." by N H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 10:34:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Juvenile insults aside...
Ron Paul is probably not going to with the Republican primary. The GOP will not allow that to happen, so let's just assume for the sake of argument that Ron Paul does not win the nomination. Do then his supporters and their money go away? Of course not. He would be insane to not run as a third party. In fact, his supporters would not allow him to go quietly into the night. They would demand a third party run. I am right and you know it. by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra (32 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 9:21:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Juvenile insults
Juvenile insults aside... why did you post such a silly picture of Ron Paul? Let’s just assume you are right, since that is how you want to frame the discussion and you’ve just made your point that is all you want to hear. Let's just assume that Ron Paul does not win the nomination. Any of his supporters who want to take their eye off the ball to chime in and agree with you that you are right and his supporters and their money will not go away and will demand a third party run is welcome to do so. Anyone who wants to agree that you that “everyone knows it” is welcome to do that too. As for me, I choose not to play along with your framing of the issue, because Ron Paul has said he will not run as a third party candidate. Just because you wish to try the same ploy others have, a little more subtly perhaps, but the same ploy nonetheless, implying that he has no chance of winning the nomination, doesn’t mean people must play along with you. I am right about that and you know it. Sorry, but the silly picture you posted of Ron Paul proves it. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 3:07:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul does not deny that he may run as a 3rd Party
So, now how do you feel that Paul says he is leaving the door open on a third party run, hmmm? by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra (32 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:46:41 AM (0+)
|
|
I like Ron Paul
I like Ron Paul...he puts America first. In doing so, however, he is a danger to the powers that be. They will do whatever it takes to stop him. His supporters should be filing court actions to force the end of computer voting and computer counting of votes. You cannot win if those that control the source code can program in whatever results that they want. Also, you cannot win if the bastards have killed your candidate (like RFK, JFK, etc.). Ron Paul needs to get some really good security and NOT depend on the US Secret Service. by Lord Stirling (26 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 151 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 2:25:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Third Party
The Two Party system is at least 90 percent of what's screwed up about US politics. The electoral college system almost guarantees that no one but members of one of only two major parties has a snow ball's chance of getting elected Pesident. The people lose for several reasons: 1) The huge amts of money needed to win national office necessitates that both parties go to the only folk who have that kind of money: CORPORATIONS. The choices are always reduced to Tweedle dum and tweedle dee. 2) The primary system is long, boring and absurd. What if the US had real debates, grass roots movements, community level organizations alive and active in not just two parties, but several? 3) Because only Democrats or Republicans have a chance of winning, voters are reluctant to waste votes on a third party candidate, let alone a fourth. Remember the heat Ralph Nader took for having siphoned off Gore support. I propose: 1) Eliminating the electoral college; instituting the direct, popular election of the Presidential ticket in a range voting system or possibly a Borda count. 2) Encouraging a reform of the state primary system. A handful of state's --Ohio, for example --wield disproportionate influence. Even smoke filled rooms are preferable. At least the party bosses were responsible to someone in the 'hood. What's wrong with National Conventions. I remember when Candidates were actually selected at conventions. Now the convention is a mere media event. 3) Outlaw corporate contributions --PERIOD! Corporations are not people. How about a Constitutional Amendment making it clear that the First Amendment apply on to living, breathing people --not legal abstractions with millions to spend buying elections. This is not rocket science and there is no compelling reason why complicated political issues must be shoe horned onto a two party system that cannot possibly represent to an acceptable level the collective desires of the electorate. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 3:59:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Largely Agree With You
I’m no expert on the electoral college or the overall Presidential election process, so it sounds like you know a lot more than me. From what you say, it would seem to support the rationale that Ron Paul gives for running as a Republican and not as a third party candidate. I’m with you on anything that would force real debates, encourage grass roots movements, and community level organizations in more than two parties. It is true that voters are “reluctant to waste votes on a third party candidate”, although I often try to change people’s minds about that. How will dissenting opinions ever see the light of day if everyone is afraid to vote for other than Republican or Democrat? I can look up a Borda count, but why does Ohio wield disproportionate influence in the primaries? I agree that corporate contributions should be outlawed for exactly the reason you gave. And, I disagree with Ron Paul on the issue of individual donations. He thinks that there should be no limitations, while I like the idea that contributions should be limited. We are all limited to one vote, and money influences votes, so allowing unlimited contributions is like giving a wealthy person more than one vote. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 4:13:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Food For Thought
There are many more people and much more money associated with Ron Paul than the other candidates. The so called “Polls” do not give insight into what is happening. I would say that what you and the others of your ilk are doing is looking at the same place in the sky and trying to predict the weather. The Storm is coming from the direction you are not paying attention to. When it arrives, how will you reconcile with yourself, that you did not see it coming because you refused to look when you heard the thunder. Your article shows that you truly do not understand what is at stake this election cycle. Fortunately for you, Others do. America is being undermined on many fronts. The one most eminent is our Bankruptcy. Fueled by War, Empire Maintenance, and Fallacious Spending of congress; The economic Overtaking of America will not be far off. The effects are just now becoming evident. We will be sold to our enemies rather than forced into submission. Ron Paul is the only candidate running for president that has the vision of the founding fathers of this country ingrained in his heart. Core Character Counts. He is the only one in the field that I would trust my money and my family's safety with. The honesty and integrity displayed by Ron Paul coupled with the message he espouses is the glue that binds the support together. The word could not do it alone and this is precisely why you and the others are baffled. The Ron Paul Supporters Value Substance Over Symbolism. We fully believe that Ron Paul will follow his words as his record shows. He is not as the others with Pandering Platitudes. The commonality with all Americans is the Constitution. This is why his support group can not be pigeon holed in to a specific category. We Are Diverse And Many. There is no singular stereotype that even comes close to the specification of the group. Some sites I recommend you visit to get a better understanding: A particular good read: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm Others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul Think For Yourself; Do Not Be Easily Led. Views Untested Are Worthless. by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 4:11:05 PM (0+)
|
|
How about finding a Candidate who SUPPORTS Impeachment
Ron Paul says nothing about supporting impeachment and bringing Bush and Cheney to justice. If he is for the Constitution and the Law why doesn't he support the impeachment process to the present corrupters and murderers? Why doesn't Mike Gravel stump for impeachment? He is the man who would know, given his experience with the Nixon impeachment process. I think candidates who ignore the crimes by this administration and say not a peep about impeachment don't deserve our vote. That's the problem America. You think electing a new Prez comes before cleaning up the historical crimes the Executive Office has always produced. Ron Paul is a pro gun supporter. In other words a guy who accepts Virginia Tech massacres, and Mall shootings. Where is his stand on gun control, and reeling in the military? Ron Paul doesn't even know if he is a Libertarian or a Republican. I find no answers or viable reckoning to his contribution in getting America back on course. by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 8:20:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Impeachment, Second Amendment, etc
Well, if you think Ron Paul might have trouble winning the Republican Party nomination as it is, what chance do you suppose he would have if he called for impeachment? It might make you happy, but you sound unlikely to vote for him regardless of his position on impeachment. Correct me if I’m wrong there. I don't think Kerry would have won the Democratic nomination by calling for Clinton's impeachment either. If you look at Ron Paul’s record, he does support the Constitution and the Law, and if more Republicans and Democrats thought the same way, our military would not be in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you would not be complaining about him not calling for impeachment. That being said, I respect and support the sentiment you express that we Americans should not be satisfied with moving on before cleaning up the historical crimes the Executive Office has produced in the past. Regarding the gun issue, you are way off base there. To say that a Second Amendment supporter accepts Virginia Tech massacres and Mall shootings is ignorant, bigoted, and offensive. I personally stopped a probable murder from occurring by interceding with my childhood .22 rifle, a few blocks from my college campus. Had someone like me been in a classroom at Virginia Tech with a legal concealed carry permit, many tragic deaths might have been averted. You have every right to an opinion on gun control, but if you choose to smear a person’s character, prepare to be challenged. You needn’t ask about Ron Paul’s stand on gun control or his position on reeling in the military. He has consistently supported the Second Amendment, consistently voted against discretionary wars, policing the world, and is adamantly opposed to the concept of “preventive war”. He supports bringing the military home and not just from Iraq. Ron Paul is a Republican because in our current two party system, the deck is stacked against third party candidates. You say you “find no answers or viable reckoning to his contribution in getting America back on course”, yet you seem to know very little about him. How hard have you looked? by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 3:51:10 AM (0+)
|
|
Gravel Supporters
Hopefully Gravel supporters will support Kucinich now in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:27:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Deaf or a manipulator?
There are two kinds of "journalists" who continue to beat the "Ron Paul / third party" drum. Those who are deaf... who haven't heard RP say, "no, I have no intention on making a third party run for president." ...and those who are intent to discourage votes for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. The latter attempts to entice the voter into thinking, hey... I'll vote for McRomhuckani instead of RP in the Primary since I'll be able to vote for him as a third party candidate in the General Election anyway (sort of hedging one’s bet). But these journalists conveniently ignore the fact that the two-party system makes it effectively impossible for a third party candidate to participate in debates, obtain ballot access in all 50 states, and be accepted by the average voter as anything more than a protest vote. Which are you, Reverend? Deaf or a manipulator? by Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 1:50:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Paul, a Progressive Democrat's Nighmare
I do not dislike Ron Paul, but a few weeks will decide. Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican Nimination. He can never capture the Christian Right, and Republicans seem not to like maverics who will not toe the GOP line. It is the main reason that John McCain has not walked away with the nominaton. What does Paul face in the GOP, a minister that most people with any inclination for the separaton of Religion seem to be uncomfortable with, a Mormon that if elected the Reliious Right will do one of two things, vote for Senator Clinton or stay at home; a thrice married, pro-abortion sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative Republican who has more scandal smelling up his closet than President Clinton had girl friends. There is profound contradistinction between Paul and Progressive Democrats. Paul's political philosophy of returning to the Old Constitution as it then was is much more basic than that simplicity. Paul believes that the less government is the best government, that men and women should be able to live their lives as they wish. This basic philosophy is historically called laissez faire. It ends up allowing the rich to have all the money, destryoying Unions, and taking all harnesses off governement to allow the rich and industry to run wild as they wish. If they can buy the National Parks and cut the timber, do strip minning, pollute air and water, then that is their business. Government should not interfere with them. Progressive Democrats have a greater distrust of big corporations than they do with big government. To return power to the states is to allow the states to withdraw from the Union, have slaves, have an apartheid, suspend any law and pass any laws they wish. Progressives think governement should provide public education, public welfare for the poor, the fatherless, the sick and the elderly. Progressives believe State's rights are an evil for the most part. Paul would have sided with the Articles of Confederation against the US Constitution, with Confederate States of America against the United States on the grounds of state's rights; hence Paul's condemnation of Abraham Lincoln, He would have sided against Roe vs Wade as wrongly decided, he would have decided against Brown in Brown vs Board of Education wanting to refer the case back to the state so each state could decide. Paul would not have intervened with force as Eisenhower did in Little Rock. He would have opposed a graduated income tax and every program that FDR had passed and the all that Johnson had passed such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ron Paul is a Progressive Democrat's nightmare. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 6:34:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Exclusive interview with democratic presidential candidate S
Check out our exclusive interview with democratic presidential candidate Senator Mike Gravel. We discuss his current campaign as well as his recent exclusion from the Des Moines Register debate. Listen to it in its entirety at http://media.libsyn.com/media/thirdrail/Third_Rail_Senator_Mike_Gravel_12.19.07.mp3 by Chuck Browder (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 4:37:13 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
