Nationalist Party?
Freedom Party?
Not "Nationalist"! "Nationalism" is associated with a mindless following of governmental
bylines through and of a total lack of individualism and introspect.
E Post Facto has a pretty good idea here. I wonder if it's doable???
I think we may only need two. CP being one of them. I believe both parties would welcome
Dr. Ron Paul. This appeared on the CP site about 3 days ago:
___________________________________________________________________
Originally pasted at:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=725 on 02/07/2008
Why a Third-Party Candidacy Makes Sense for Ron Paul
by Joe Schembrie
Until Super Tuesday, many Ron Paul supporters believed his efforts to win the presidency were best served
by remaining within the Republican Party. They believed the primaries would end in a brokered convention
from which Paul could emerge as the "compromise" candidate. Proponents of this scenario argued that
Paul must remain a Republican, for history tells us that third-party candidates have no chance of winning
the presidency.
The results of Super Tuesday, however, tell us that Paul now has no chance of winning the GOP
nomination. Even if front-runner John McCain doesn’t lock up the nomination, a brokered convention of
neocon delegates will choose Joe Lieberman ahead of Ron Paul.
Winning the GOP nomination would be a hollow victory anyhow, for the Party hierarchy has shown itself
willing to undermine Paul’s candidacy. The already-faltering GOP fundraising machine would be unlikely to
shower corporate donations upon a candidate who opposes pork on principle. And given that millions of
Americans have become so outraged at this Administration that they have sworn off voting Republican
forever, the nomination could be more drag than lift.
Running as a Republican had benefits. The campaign generated media attention and organized followers.
But now it’s plain that wresting control of the GOP from the neocons for this election cycle is a lost cause.
Everything changes once Ron Paul goes to a third party, however. He would no longer be an "Also Ran,"
he would be "The Spoiler." As with Nader in 2000, the establishment parties could ignore him only at their
peril. Even if he never rises above single digits in the polls, his ideas would continue to gain a public
hearing.
But a third-party run wouldn’t be just about education. There is a good chance Paul could win that way.
Yes, historically third parties have failed in presidential elections, but in the past third parties have always
represented fringe viewpoints – whereas today, the major parties represent fringe viewpoints, while Paul’s
views harmonize with those of most Americans.
For example, most Americans want the Iraq War to end. The major-party candidates, however, hold the
fringe view that we should continue the war through the next presidential term. In a three-way race, Ron
Paul would be the only candidate who agrees with the majority that we should leave Iraq now.
Likewise, most Americans oppose illegal immigration. The major-party candidates, however, hold the fringe
view of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. In a three-way race, Ron Paul would be the only candidate
who agrees with the majority that we should stop illegal immigration.
The biggest issue in the election is the economy, and yes, unfortunately, most Americans think the
solution to the current economic crisis is "more stimulus." However, in a three-way race, the economic
ignorance of the major-party candidates would soon be exposed, while Ron Paul has the expertise to
coherently explain the interrelationship between spending, deficits, and inflation, and impress the public
that he is the only one who engages in analysis rather than pandering.
Thus, in a three-way presidential race, Ron Paul would be the voice of moderation, while the major parties
would be seen as hijacked by socialist and imperialist fringe factions. Once this truth sinks in, most
Americans will find that Paul is not a "fringe candidate" but instead the only candidate who champions
their concerns. (No, Beltwayites, the Constitution is not a "fringe issue!")
It was good that Ron Paul ran as a Republican, but now let’s move on. There’s no point crying over Paul’s
failure to win the Republican nomination, as corruption has alienated so many voters that the GOP is in
danger of extinction anyway. Better to run as the candidate of a third party, than of a doomed party.
True, history says that third-party presidential candidates can’t win. But long ago, a certain group of
revolutionaries contemplated that no colony had ever successfully rebelled from its mother country.
Nonetheless, they went ahead with their enterprise, which by all accounts has been successful.
Apparently, they were living in one of those major turning points in history for which the old rules do not
apply. And you know, they didn’t even have the Internet.
Joe Schembrie is a writer who lives in Bellevue, Washington.
___________________________________________________________________
But the questions remain about weather they could or would get behind Dr. Paul's
message. It's a very clear message and we've had it in writing for over 200 years
so they know what it is without doubt. Additionally Dr. Paul is pretty clear about the
message and it's implicit force of direction.
If those parties can leave whatever marxist and dictatorial ideals they hold at the door
and get behind the original
conon (play on words intended!) as laid out in the Constitution
and Bill of Rights, it could well work.
Such are the maneuvers of intelligent men and I wonder if there are enough of them
produced in today's U.S. society. One thing remains a certainty. If we do not win some
major ground in the 08/09 election cycle the American people will be led beyond the point
of no return with the only recourse to freedom and liberty left to them being an armed
conflict. Every man will need to evaluate the worth of freedom and liberty. My concern
is that modern Americans may to their eventual demise, find the weight of their rumps
on the sofa and the remotes in their hand much heavier than the weights of such
fundamental humanitarian ideals.
If indeed we are to merge or multiplex two or more parties in a unified stance
against the totalitaristic marxism that prevails in the CFR, promoted by the world
bankers, and which has so inundated our current federal body politic, we must act
with great speed and singularity or purpose. Our opponents would indeed have
already laid such plans so if this be a course of interest let us expedite the tao
of our actions.
Certainly such modifications as de-federalizing the enforcement of drug and abortion
policy cannot pose a serious obstacle to liberty. Will we sacrifice liberty in it's entirety
for such mere jurisdictional preferences? That is the question before us as a people
and the collective party leaders brought into review here in this thread.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMC9RqClHa0
