Ron Paul should attack Citizens United & run as a reformist 3rd party

stu2002

Banned
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
1,118
By Brent Budowsky - 02/10/12 09:15 AM ET

With a growing number of Ron Paul supporters advocating that he run as a third party, Paul has two big decisions to make. In last my last column, "Calling wealthy Democrats," I called for a national campaign to reverse the Citizens United decision, which enables wealthy individuals and special interests to spend unlimited money to buy our democracy. Ron Paul should support this campaign. Second, Paul needs to decide whether he is a typical insider Republican, in which case he will stand proudly endorsing Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. Or whether he is a true alternative to business as usual, in which case he will run as a third party.

The Republican Party today is looking very European. Some Republicans quote Austrian economists. Others resembles conservative leaders in Germany and France. Others play to anti-immigrant attitudes similar to the far right in Europe. Most Republicans today advocate the fusion of big business and big government. Does Ron Paul support this, or oppose this?

I agree with those Ron Paul supporters who call for a third-party candidacy. He will be discredited if he stands on the platform at the Republican convention side by side with a smiling Mitt Romney. Or Santorum. Or Gingrich. He will receive far greater attention, acclaim and credibility if he runs as a third party and champions a true alternative to Republican candidates he now says are almost identical to each other.

There is a second, very large issue involving Ron Paul.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ens-united-and-run-as-a-reformist-third-party
 
The problem is Budowsky is a leftist and collectivist. He supports Ron on certain things but his philosophy goes in a very different direction. Ron doesn't believe in corporate personhood, however. But he does believe in freedom of speech.
 
So, we reverse Citizens United and then only companies that have a media arm can spend untold millions pushing a candidate on us?

This is just stupid logic.

Get rid of the power the politicians are peddling and the money goes away. Why would you bribe a politician if he can't give you anything?

The Constitution already solves this problem. No need to create more government to fix the problems that are created by too much government.
 
Most Republicans today advocate the fusion of big business and big government. Does Ron Paul support this, or oppose this?

Assuming this statement is just a rhetorical device, it still is misleading to an uninformed reader (there are many).
 
I don't think RP will run 3rd party, but I certainly don't think he'll be endorsing any of the three stooges.
 
Back
Top