Why would bob barr stand on stage with socialist like nader and mckinney?

[werdd]

Why is Ron Paul standing on stage with them???

Nader and mckinney are diametricly opposed to just about everything we have ever stood for, and they have no part in the liberty movement.....

Liberty is about smaller goverment, less foreign intervention, and more sound money.

Nader and mckinney stand for none of these things.

When i first started reading today, i saw that they were going to be at this conference. I was like WTF?

Then i saw that Bob Barr didn't show up, at first i saw it like most of you a diss, but i see their point.

And now Barr is offering RP a VP spot? WTF?

I see RP's objective today about unifying third parties and trying to bring down the two party system, but some also see it as an abandoment of our principles.

[KewlRonduderules]

Isn't that what liberty is partly about? Having different third parties.

[Aratus]

ron paul does not want people lockstepping without deep thoughts into a binary mccain verses obama tunnel vision mindframe?

[kathy88]

The point was that we have OTHER options than the GOP and the DEMS, as I understood it.

[acptulsa]

OFGS

Because he wants more than conservatives to give up on TPTB's official shill parties. Why the hell not?!

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

ron paul does not want people lockstepping without deep thoughts into a binary mccain verses obama tunnel vision mindframe?

Exacty. Getting people to believe they have choices and that they should vote for those choices is a big part of this battle.

[ArrestPoliticians]

The most important aspects of this movement were agreed upon by the third party candidates present. As long as those goals are accomplished, any compromise is WELL worth it.

Oh, I'm a total constitutionalist conservative and Austrian-leaning in economic ideology, but I know that my first job out of Law School will be volunteering for Ventura in 2012. Ron Paul's movement isnt about ideological dogma, its about the BIG PICTURE.

[DRV45N05]

Isn't that what liberty is partly about? Having different third parties.

Liberty is about the government's role being limited to enforcement of private property rights and enforcement of contracts and protecting individual rights to life and liberty from coercion. Parties who want the government's role to be larger than this do not stand for liberty, and people who want liberty should not support those parties.

[werdd]

ron paul does not want people lockstepping without deep thoughts into a binary mccain verses obama tunnel vision mindframe?

So? They stand for the same things they stand for...

global warming propaganda

bigger goverment

more fiat keysnian and less austrian economics

redistribution of wealth

gun controll

etc.

Just because they are against the war, and one is a 911 truther we are supposed to work in unison with them?

Im puzzled, and this is honestly the first time i have disagreed with something ron paul has done. If been 100% with him all of the way.

It's not a big deal and i still love RP but...

first time ive disagreed with his decisions.

[DRV45N05]

Oh, I'm a total constitutionalist conservative and Austrian-leaning in economic ideology, but I know that my first job out of Law School will be volunteering for Ventura in 2012. Ron Paul's movement isnt about ideological dogma, its about the BIG PICTURE.

And the big picture is the realization of Dr. Paul's principles, which is not served by including those who do not fully embrace them and advocate them in their campaigns in an umbrella of support.

[jkr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrSLnKeHRKw

[LJHudd]

Because, maybe - people who are angry enough that they'd pick Nader or McKinney, might just begin to really think - they may see Dr. Paul standing there reaching out and wonder... "Who is this Ron Paul exactly?" I think that's a plus for our movement.

Barr just kicked us all in the shins today. I'm royally ticked.

[ArrestPoliticians]

And the big picture is the realization of Dr. Paul's principles, which is not served by including those who do not fully embrace them and advocate them in their campaigns in an umbrella of support.

The big picture was laid out by Ron Paul verbally and in writing today. Or didnt you hear?

Get in line, soldier.

[Chiznaddy]

Why is Ron Paul standing on stage with them???

Nader and mckinney are diametricly opposed to just about everything we have ever stood for, and they have no part in the liberty movement.....

Liberty is about smaller goverment, less foreign intervention, and more sound money.

Nader and mckinney stand for none of these things.

When i first started reading today, i saw that they were going to be at this conference. I was like WTF?

Then i saw that Bob Barr didn't show up, at first i saw it like most of you a diss, but i see their point.

And now Barr is offering RP a VP spot? WTF?

I see RP's objective today about unifying third parties and trying to bring down the two party system, but some also see it as an abandoment of our principles.


No, its not an abandoment of principles at all. Nor is it the acceptance of other third parties' principles.

Ron Paul's announcement is important because it is a public recognition that:

1) The process is severaly flawed. The goal of joining forces is to change the process, not to unify ideology.

2) They recognize that even within their different ideologies, the agree on major principles. So insofar as the are working towards changing the process, they limit their ideological agreement to stated principles.

[idiom]

The are anit-foreing intervention, anti-deficit and generally pro-constitution.

If the debate could move to being about smaller vs bigger government that would be huge. At the moment the debate is 'how much should we borrow for the war'

Except both parties answer "as much as we can".

The Two center parties ARE SO BAD that even the communist party could keep t together better.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Paul has always been about reaching across the aisle.

Go back and watch some of his videos from the eighties; he frequently states that he'd be willing to allow us to continue public welfare provided that we balance the budget, and cut way back on our military spending and aggression. A mildly socialist state that respects civil liberties is far, far more preferable to an out-of-control, propagandizing warfare/welfare state. It may not be the spitting image of your anarcho-utopia, but it's the perfect compromise we need to bust the two-party hegemony. And now that the spokespersons for the far left are officially on board with tackling the fed, you really should all be jumping for joy.

Also, during her time in Congress, McKinney was a strong voice in opposition to the war and invasion of privacy. She was the only one who asked vital questions about what really happened on 9/11. Those of you who seek to further divide this movement by calling her a kook are only acting against Ron Paul's wishes.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, "If someone put a gun to my head and demanded that I make a choice between McCain, Obama, or Nader, who would I choose?" If the answer isn't Nader, then you are as much an enemy of freedom and prosperity as the first two choices.

[freelance]

It's not about Nader.
It's not about McKinney.
It's not even about Paul.

IT'S ABOUT AWAKENING ANYONE WE CAN ... to the duopoly.

[SLSteven]

Why would bob barr stand on stage with socialist like nader and mckinney?

To support Ron Paul and further the freedom movement!

[specsaregood]

Why is Ron Paul standing on stage with them???
Nader and mckinney are diametricly opposed to just about everything we have ever stood for, and they have no part in the liberty movement.....


If one's message of Freedom is so weak and timid that it can not stand the scrutiny of simply standing on a stage with people of opposite views.... then that message is weak. Clearly Ron Paul's message is not weak.

[jkr]

cnn commentary coming up!

[KewlRonduderules]

Liberty is about the government's role being limited to enforcement of private property rights and enforcement of contracts and protecting individual rights to life and liberty from coercion. Parties who want the government's role to be larger than this do not stand for liberty, and people who want liberty should not support those parties.

While I mostly agree with you, who are you to decide that for anyone else?

People have differing opinions and should be able to choose anyone they want as a third party candidate.
;)

[RonPaulCult]

Why is Ron Paul standing on stage with them???

Nader and mckinney are diametricly opposed to just about everything we have ever stood for, and they have no part in the liberty movement.....

Liberty is about smaller goverment, less foreign intervention, and more sound money.

Nader and mckinney stand for none of these things.

When i first started reading today, i saw that they were going to be at this conference. I was like WTF?

Then i saw that Bob Barr didn't show up, at first i saw it like most of you a diss, but i see their point.

And now Barr is offering RP a VP spot? WTF?

I see RP's objective today about unifying third parties and trying to bring down the two party system, but some also see it as an abandoment of our principles.

You are missing the BIG picture! They united to say THIRD PARTIES SHOULD BE IN THE DEBATES AND ON THE BALLETS.

The majority of Americans believe this and WE all need to unite - stand on the same stage (so to speak) and fight for this.

Ron Paul is my hero yet again for doing this today. Did you even listen to the whole thing? They said they don't agree on many things.

But they are united in saying our elections are not free and open.

Wake up!

[gaazn]

We are going back to the past, when there was a Democratic-Republican party. Now it has merged. Both candidates for President support the government's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Neither was on the brink of bankruptcy, but the government decided to help out the Chinese, Russian, and American bond holders. Congress made it possible.

[BarryDonegan]

Why is Ron Paul standing on stage with them???

Nader and mckinney are diametricly opposed to just about everything we have ever stood for, and they have no part in the liberty movement.....

Liberty is about smaller goverment, less foreign intervention, and more sound money.

Nader and mckinney stand for none of these things.

When i first started reading today, i saw that they were going to be at this conference. I was like WTF?

Then i saw that Bob Barr didn't show up, at first i saw it like most of you a diss, but i see their point.

And now Barr is offering RP a VP spot? WTF?

I see RP's objective today about unifying third parties and trying to bring down the two party system, but some also see it as an abandoment of our principles.

yeah, the bottom line here is that the press conference, while being good for 3rd party politics, is specifically bad for the LP. the LP is the largest, best organized third party. obviously it makes better sense to run more candidates with varying views in the LP,a nd let the LP voters decide what the candidate should be like, and run only one.

honestly, I would have been happier by seeing Nader and McKinney run in the LP primary(where their socialist views would have been shot down) so we could have one candidate for the Liberty movement to run and get behind.

that being said, its not my decision, and I respect the decision Dr. Paul made because it flirts with the idea of unifying all of the 3rd party candidates under a set of "more important" issues, which I agree with.

unfortunately, the situation was set up to where Bob Barr really could not attend and subordinate himself to the level of the Constitution Party, which has much weaker ballot capability, a theocratic state government view, and a lesser known candidate. the whole idea of the barr campaign was to elevate the libertarian party to a mainstream brand, to give it a shot to win, and this press conference would have hurt that image.

it is truly awful, though, because the press conference was not bob barr's choice, it was something that happened to him, in that sense, and he had to respond. Ron Paul should have probably known that he could not allow himself to be perceived as the "same level" as the CP, that allows a long term view that you can either vote for the CP or the LP, when, in reality, there is no reason to split those parties. the CP people should be in the LP, creating a voter bloc that is useful, and squabbling over issues whereever they get traction. if the CP runs an LP candidate in Utah, wins, and introduces theocratic local reform, well, at least other libertarians can win with the credibility of more elected officials, and, on the federal level, it is not against the parties views specifically.

this is an akward situation, but, in this case it would have been much better if this event never happened at all. both the barr people and whoever's idea this was in the RP campaign made a mistake here. RP should either have endorsed no one, endorsed the LP candidate, had this press conference and invited no one specifically.

bob barr should have probably chalked this one up as a loss, went to the event, contacted very little press about it, and reflected on how harmful it was on november after the campaign ended. ron paul's power in the movement is too great to stand up against any decision he makes, at this point, thats just the reality of it.

however, that being said, if barr actually gets RP to accept his VP nomination, this would go down as the most ingenius move ever.

the streets would run blue and white, and the republican party might get 3rd place this time.

[Rhys]

Why is Ron Paul standing on stage with them???

Nader and mckinney are diametricly opposed to just about everything we have ever stood for, and they have no part in the liberty movement.....

Liberty is about smaller goverment, less foreign intervention, and more sound money.

Nader and mckinney stand for none of these things.

When i first started reading today, i saw that they were going to be at this conference. I was like WTF?

Then i saw that Bob Barr didn't show up, at first i saw it like most of you a diss, but i see their point.

And now Barr is offering RP a VP spot? WTF?

I see RP's objective today about unifying third parties and trying to bring down the two party system, but some also see it as an abandoment of our principles.

Barr can't offer RP a veep spot because he doesn't choose his veep... the LP convention has already chose one for him....

Today was about finding things in common, and Barr failed. He's establishment.

[Barney]

Because they all signed onto this:

http://digg.com/world_news/We_Agree

... which is pretty much everything dear to Ron Paul and his supporters.

If they agree stop the Fed from monetizing debt and printing up the shortfall and also agree to balanced budgets, they won't have the tools for insane socialist projects at home.

And if Barr is a libertarian, I'm the Queen of Druidia.

[werdd]

yeah, the bottom line here is that the press conference, while being good for 3rd party politics, is specifically bad for the LP. the LP is the largest, best organized third party. obviously it makes better sense to run more candidates with varying views in the LP,a nd let the LP voters decide what the candidate should be like, and run only one.

honestly, I would have been happier by seeing Nader and McKinney run in the LP primary(where their socialist views would have been shot down) so we could have one candidate for the Liberty movement to run and get behind.

that being said, its not my decision, and I respect the decision Dr. Paul made because it flirts with the idea of unifying all of the 3rd party candidates under a set of "more important" issues, which I agree with.

unfortunately, the situation was set up to where Bob Barr really could not attend and subordinate himself to the level of the Constitution Party, which has much weaker ballot capability, a theocratic state government view, and a lesser known candidate. the whole idea of the barr campaign was to elevate the libertarian party to a mainstream brand, to give it a shot to win, and this press conference would have hurt that image.

it is truly awful, though, because the press conference was not bob barr's choice, it was something that happened to him, in that sense, and he had to respond. Ron Paul should have probably known that he could not allow himself to be perceived as the "same level" as the CP, that allows a long term view that you can either vote for the CP or the LP, when, in reality, there is no reason to split those parties. the CP people should be in the LP, creating a voter bloc that is useful, and squabbling over issues whereever they get traction. if the CP runs an LP candidate in Utah, wins, and introduces theocratic local reform, well, at least other libertarians can win with the credibility of more elected officials, and, on the federal level, it is not against the parties views specifically.

this is an akward situation, but, in this case it would have been much better if this event never happened at all. both the barr people and whoever's idea this was in the RP campaign made a mistake here. RP should either have endorsed no one, endorsed the LP candidate, had this press conference and invited no one specifically.

bob barr should have probably chalked this one up as a loss, went to the event, contacted very little press about it, and reflected on how harmful it was on november after the campaign ended. ron paul's power in the movement is too great to stand up against any decision he makes, at this point, thats just the reality of it.

however, that being said, if barr actually gets RP to accept his VP nomination, this would go down as the most ingenius move ever.

the streets would run blue and white, and the republican party might get 3rd place this time.


Good post sir, you made sense of what people are generally accepting as a diss........ im trying to see all sides of the situation and i dont beleive Barr's campaign to be totally at fault here.....

[ArrestPoliticians]

Good post sir, you made sense of what people are generally accepting as a diss........ im trying to see all sides of the situation and i dont beleive Barr's campaign to be totally at fault here.....

There is a legitimate argument to be made for consolidating votes(although I think it would lead to disappointing numbers and the ultimate numerical brush-off of this movement...better to let things simmer until 2012). There is nothing legitimate about openly challenging and showing up the leader who had perfectly good intentions and broke new ground in the solidarity of major third parties.

[BarryDonegan]

this was definately not meant to be a diss. Barr's reaction was a half-court shot. basically, since the press conference was a serious lose-lose and would diminish the LP status, he decided to roll the dice and try to encourage R. Paul to run as VP to keep him in the public eye all the way to nov.

this is not a diss, its more like your coach going to your star quarterback and yelling at him to show that you are disappointed that he won't be playing the championship game, as a way to try to convince him to play.

I'm not saying its a good idea, it may wind up being good or real bad, but thats how half court shots go. if ron paul formally announces that he will not accept the VP status, then the Barr campaign better get to work mending the bridge. if RP accepts, then we just got 3 points late in the game, the crowd will be on their feet, and the libertarian party might get 2nd place or better in the general.

right now, IMO, the only sensible move for everyone involved, is for ron paul to accept the nomination. ultimately, this may be the degree of genius at work here. The C4L and the LP need each other. too many people are beholden to either one or both. I, personally, will still have to vote for Bob Barr, even if he suicides his campaign, because, bottom line, the metrics and platform, long-term, for the Libertarian Party, are the best vehicle for liberty. a vote for CP is a vote for theocratic local government, because that is their platform. a vote for Nader or McKinney is a vote for collectivism, which i cannot do. there are a lot of people like me, and we all need to be on the same page.

hopefully a. ron paul accepts the nomination, we discover this was high drama to keep the liberty candidates on everyones lips, or b. bob barr apologizes once this half court shot wiffs.

[idiom]

"Mr Barr, do you publicly support Ron Pauls Ideals?"

"No"

I can see how thats not a diss.

[Flash]

Why would bob barr stand on stage with socialist like nader and mckinney?

So not associating with people with different political beliefs would somehow help the 'revolution'?

[dr. hfn]

This is about opening up the debate system and election system. This is a loose and temporary alliance to achieve common goals.

[BarryDonegan]

"Mr Barr, do you publicly support Ron Pauls Ideals?"

"No"

I can see how thats not a diss.

i understand that you are angry, but please be reasonable in your judgement of this event. you may view that as him disagreeing with every single one of ron paul's ideals, just because Barr didn't feel it was politically sensible to associate himself directly with Ralph Nader and accept the idea that the LP is just a split vote between 4 or 5 different irrelevant choices.

nowhere in any of this did Bob Barr disagree with Ron Paul's vision of AMERICA, or that ron paul is a TRUE PATRIOT, or that he would be willing to reorganize his campaign to get ron paul on the ballot as VP. and that his VP candidate would be willing to step down as a vice presidential candidate in order to allow him on the ballot.

this is not a diss. the two arguments here are as follows "argument 1: ron paul's argument: we need to show the american people that we have other choices, and I will endorse the idea of the other choices so that people will ditch the lesser of two evils idea"

here is argument 2: bob barr's "im polling at 6-11% everywhere, I am polling far better than the other candidates. i have the same message as you. just endorse me, and we will set a record, and have the best record for a 3rd party, vote wise, in the past 30 years of american politics. this will show a change in the heart of america, and a future LP candidate could win! this event diminishes our campaign, and will show us in press release as similar to Nader, who was viewed as responsible for the election of George W. Bush, and as similar to candidates such as Chuck Baldwin who don't have media credibility"


I'm in the sad boat of agreeing, wholeheartedly, with both.

because of this, i wish the event never happened. it is a net loss. ron paul could have accomplished the same thing, by not inviting anyone, and just giving a speech denouncing the 2 major parties and asking that you make your own choice.

[BarryDonegan]

This is about opening up the debate system and election system. This is a loose and temporary alliance to achieve common goals.

there was no real plan as to how we would be doing that.

if you don't have a single figure to push for in the debates, and a ton of money behind it, then its not happening. this year, its not happening. there is no time to get a 3rd party on the debates.

the message is nice,and it will likely resonate for quite some time in the heart of america, but it would have been MUCH smarter to make the statement in FEBRUARY 2009!!!! WHEN IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO TEH HIGHEST POLLING 3rd PARTY CANDIDATE!

[werdd]

So not associating with people with different political beliefs would somehow help the 'revolution'?

Associating with people who push

global warming propaganda

bigger goverment

more fiat keysnian and less austrian economics

redistribution of wealth

gun controll

etc.

Does not help the revolution.

Just because they are against the war, and one is a 911 truther we are supposed to work in unison with them?

[Bman]

Reasonable?

Ron Paul put his ass on the line. This conference today wasn't about the CFL. It also wasn't about the political desires of this group. Not everyone is going to agree with the message most of us have or some of us share, and it's evident that we don't all agree all the time.

Today was about trying to show the american public that they have the power. they can break this two party system. that we can forge ahead for a new future rather than being stuck in a spin cycle of continuing mistakes of our past.

What Barr did today was something I will never agree with. The attitude of if your not for us your against us gets you nowhere but isolated. It's kinda of like politics of the old. maybe a fairer corelation would be President Bush's foreign policy.

Maybe some people will agree with what Barr did. I however will not. It was the wrong time and the wrong place for the message he offered as an excuse.

Today I am deeply disappointed on one hand. but on the other hand I'm extremely proud to have lived to see a man like Ron Paul. I will not walk away from today disheartened. I will only show up tomorrow more aligned.

[Flash]

Associating with people who push

global warming propaganda

bigger goverment

more fiat keysnian and less austrian economics

redistribution of wealth

gun controll

etc.

Does not help the revolution.

Just because they are against the war, and one is a 911 truther we are supposed to work in unison with them?

Of course they support those things, they're liberals. Ron Paul wasn't endorsing their view but he was asking for them to have a right to debate Mccain/Obama. I never understood why so many people were anti-Kucinich as if they expect him and every anti-establishment politician to be 100% Conservative or else they're a fraud.

[BarryDonegan]

As of right now I don't agree with what either of them did.

Nader just stole the RP movement.

[Bman]

Associating with people who push

global warming propaganda

bigger goverment

more fiat keysnian and less austrian economics

redistribution of wealth

gun controll

etc.

Does not help the revolution.

Just because they are against the war, and one is a 911 truther we are supposed to work in unison with them?

That's such a bogus statement. The first thing to do is find out where you agree and you try to make roads from there. I have yet to find a person who agrees with me 100% of the time. you simply can't ignore someone who disagrees with you as if the message they hold is completely invalid. Nothing, NOTHING! can be accomplished in this manner.

Sure stick to your guns, but don't trade reason for madness.

[BarryDonegan]

That's such a bogus statement. The first thing to do is find out where you agree and you try to make roads from there. I have yet to find a person who agrees with me 100% of the time. you simply can't ignore someone who disagrees with you as if the message they hold is completely invalid. Nothing, NOTHING! can be accomplished in this manner.

Sure stick to your guns, but don't trade reason for madness.

we have yet to see what the short-term usefulness of this united front is. if the republican party and democratic party both adopt those four planks to their platforms this year, then you will be proven right.

if nader outperforms baldwin and barr in the election, the move will be proven a mistake.

in the long run, this will draw more attention to the idea of voting 3rd party, which is good, but this is another reason for having this conference in february of 2009, rather than september of 2008.

[idiom]

If Barr had shown up he would have won a lot of support and probably have been our point man in debates and fund raising.

RP was trying to get the LP into debates. Barr obviously thinks that is just stupid.

[werdd]

I think this was a terrible move on both part's, Ron Paul should of just gave a speech urging us to vote 3rd party......

[BarryDonegan]

If Barr had shown up he would have won a lot of support and propably have been our point man in debates and fund raising.

RP was trying to get the LP into debates. Barr obviously thinks that is just stupid.

that was not the likely consequence of this.

the likely consequence was that the MSM would cling to the R. Paul/Nader connection.

the CNN coverage has proven that that is what the result was destined to be. Nader even said that Barr agrees with the planks, so Barr not showing up does not affect the usefulness of the plank concept.

the problem was that this event was just bound to be devisive. it was a risky move, and I don't think that the risk is yielding a reward.

i agree that bob barr made a mistake, he should have just showed up, and chalked his 4-5% loss in the polls that the event was destined to cause. by not showing up he is likely to lose even more, however, that doesn't change the fact that, if he wanted the LP to be the top 3rd party, he had to try some sort of a 3 point shot, as this was effectively a no-win situation for the LP.

[SLSteven]

I think this was a terrible move on both part's, Ron Paul should of just gave a speech urging us to vote 3rd party......

Ron Paul expected Barr to show up. Maybe that was Dr Paul's mistake.

[dannno]

OP, you have a lot to learn.

[werdd]

that was not the likely consequence of this.

the likely consequence was that the MSM would cling to the R. Paul/Nader connection.

the CNN coverage has proven that that is what the result was destined to be. Nader even said that Barr agrees with the planks, so Barr not showing up does not affect the usefulness of the plank concept.

the problem was that this event was just bound to be devisive. it was a risky move, and I don't think that the risk is yielding a reward.

i agree that bob barr made a mistake, he should have just showed up, and chalked his 4-5% loss in the polls that the event was destined to cause. by not showing up he is likely to lose even more, however, that doesn't change the fact that, if he wanted the LP to be the top 3rd party, he had to try some sort of a 3 point shot, as this was effectively a no-win situation for the LP.

More or less my thoughts...

I think the CFL had a lapse of reason, and is the only thing i will ever fault Ron Paul for....

There was no good alternative for the LP.

The name of the game for the LP was to get to the 15% threshold, and restore legitamacy to a third party. If they broke this barrier, people would start to believe that a 3rd party really could win. A party whos platform, i mostly agree with....

But i dont see how standing next to a couple of communist fringe canidates could ever do the liberty movement any good.....

[Bman]

I think this was a terrible move on both part's, Ron Paul should of just gave a speech urging us to vote 3rd party......


You try to bring four different sides to the same table and that's a mistake?

Your argument sounds like you like what the MSM does. you just don't like it that it's not your idea that may be winning.

I think you need to watch some George Carlin. It would be some good medicine.

[BarryDonegan]

More or less my thoughts...

I think the CFL had a lapse of reason, and is the only thing i will ever fault Ron Paul for....

There was no good alternative for the LP.

The name of the game for the LP was to get to the 15% threshold, and restore legitamacy to a third party. If they broke this barrier, people would start to believe that a 3rd party really could win. A party whos platform, i mostly agree with....

But i dont see how standing next to a couple of communist fringe canidates could ever do the liberty movement any good.....

i think that it can do the liberty movement some good. i think that long-term this will allow the collectivist anarchists and people like that to see that the federal reserve is now officially one of the top 4 issues. they are now going to find out that the federal reserve is causing corporatism. in this sense, ron paul forced Nader to accept the gold standard to the main forefront of his platform. that is good. if the greens and leftists are going to run against the Fed, then the lesser of two evils aspect is still a big winner to me.

however, that being said, there was a chance to have a 10 plus percent libertarian result in november, and that libertarianism would be mainstream and whatnot, by 2012, and this press conference threw that out the window before it began.

so there are ups and downs to this. long term, big ups, short term, big downs.

[BarryDonegan]

You try to bring four different sides to the same table and that's a mistake?

Your argument sounds like you like what the MSM does. you just don't like it that it's not your idea that may be winning.

I think you need to watch some George Carlin. It would be some good medicine.

its not that bringing four different sides to the table is a mistake, but realizing that you don't actually have the ability to bring everyone into the fold, primarily because it is a political disaster for the third party candidate who wants to compete with the major two on any level.

the goal was to create a united front, with four planks, against the establishment. long term, this occurred. it forced nader and mckinney to take his side on the Fed, which is cool, but, on the other end, he derailed any hope that all of this energy would unite behind a candidate who gets elected to office.

basically, this is another example of using third parties as a farmclub for the major two parties to pick platform agendas. the major two parties, however, don't ever actually vote in the way their platforms explain, so it is up in the air how valuable this is.

IMO the next liberty issue that will hit critical mass will be decriminalization of marijuana. we are nowhere close to getting the Fed at the dinner table discussion until we get a serious advocate candidate running all the way up to nov 4, then getting a decent respectable percentage.

so idk, this is a toss up to me, but disheartening overall, the whole deal, everyones reaction to it.

and, ultimately, if this splits the vote evenly enough, everyone else can just say that it proves the four planks are "fringe"

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

The LP had a lapse of reason when Barr was selected. A lot of the current issues stem from that.

Just imagine how different things would be had someone else been nominated. Ron Paul supporters wanted someone to rally around but with someone like Barr that will only happen begrudgingly at best.

It looks to me as though the LP wants to pin their failures on Ron Paul. Ron Paul set up the LP to have amazing results this election and the LP dropped the ball with Barr/Root.

[RickyJ]

Mckinney may be a socialist but she was the only one on that stage with the balls to question the official version of 9/11. She wins points in my book for that. I wouldn't vote for her, but I would vote for her over Nader and Barr.

[Spider-Man]

Don't fall for Barr's political stunt, please. You seem like a level-headed guy. You have go to see through this. Do you seriously think he expects Ron to accept the offer? No, it's a ploy. It's called damage control, and it's aimed at folks like you.