From Daily Paul via Lew Rockwell comes a post describing a personal exchange between Ralph Nader and a Ron Paul supporter going by “rhino”:
[Nader] was here in Cincinnati and I went down to see him speak hoping that he would take questions afterwards and he did.
I asked him if he was aware of a third party unification ticket to be announced this Wednesday.
He said he was unaware of a “third party unification ticket” but said that he would be at the press conference along with Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr and that there would be an “unprecedented announcement”.
IPR previously reported Chuck Baldwin‘s invitation to the press conference here. The conference also appears on Bob Barr’s official Events itinerary here.
Apparently the Barr no-show was a big surprise around the libertarian blogosphere. Despite the fact this was reported yesterday and I commented about it here.
Nader is probably more libertarian than Barr at this point.
Speaking of extraconstitutional national bans…..
what all has Baldwin said about English as an official language?…..couldn’t find mention on his site. I’m looking for somebody to vote for now that Barr’s gone vocally “English only.” (I’m anti-embryo but abortion is low on my list of issues)
Sounds like the Barr campaign still doesn’t want him to appear on a dais with any other “third” candidates just yet. Maybe he will after they finally hold a McBama debate without him.
According to Don Rasmussen, who is involved with the CFL, “Barr committed to participate, but had his campaign manager call us minutes before it started to tell us that Bob thinks “it just isn’t worth it.” I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy. ”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=154449
I’d like to see Barr bring Ron Paul activists into the Party. To that end, I’ve adopted a policy of rewarding good campaign decisions with my wallet.
Bob Barr got a $50 donation from me when he attended the Rally for the Republic. I had planned to make another donation after he attended this Ron Paul press conference, but apparently the campaign doesn’t want my money. He missed an earlier $50 donation by skipping the Ron Paul R3VOLution March.
Bob Barr continues to find ways to slap the Ron Paul movement in the face and embarrass the LP. Clearly he is in D.C. and at the national press club, since he has his own event there in 15 minutes. It is inconceivable to me that he would be a no show.
And the entire announcement, including the 4 point platform was already released to the press and available through any Google News search yesterday. Some announcement.
Ok, here we go. The “big announcement” was just a four-point platform. Here — http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=484
Barr will be endorsing it at his own deal @ noon.
It was a dud, there was no announcement, no endorsement, no Campaign for Liberty 3rd-party debate scheduled…
Dr Ron just said he ain’t endorsing McCain , write-in votes are naive, and one of these (three or four) people would be better than McBama… that’s it
Looks like Barr dind’t show after all…
I didnt.
I will say that Chuck Baldwin’s extraconstitutional national abortion ban is very consistent with neoconservatism, and a blight on his platform. He should listen to Bob Bird and Ron Paul. Did you see how Paul handled the abortion question on CSPAN before the Rally? I was kinda surprised.
“yea…our announcement is that we are on the least ballots since 1988”
Ok, I am just quoting the Washington Post story.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/09/three_third_party_candidates_c.html
“Former Georgia congressman Barr will appear separately at noon for a “major campaign announcement,” according to the Bob Barr 2008 campaign.”
Bob Barr is appearing with Ron Paul I beleive
What is the deal with Bob Barr appearing separately with his own “special announcement”?
“Trent – Though individual neocons may be “pro-life,†neoconservatism is pro-abortion as a tool of population control and destabilization of the family. The founders of the neoconservative movement were atheists, secular Jews, and ex-Communists — not “right to lifers.â€
Im quite familiar with the history of neoconservatism–trust me. My point was that many neoconservatives claim to be pro-life. Sarah Palin is a good example, as is John McCain.
Dodge-
Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Scroll down.. Who’s the first picture you see?
and listen to this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-26_028_what_is_neoconservatism.mp3
Chuck Baldwin is socially conservative and/or restrictive. That’s true and that can be critiqued in its own right. But he is NOT a neocon. The neocons hate people like Chuck Baldwin and Pat Buchanan, etc.
I would say their social aspect is “opportunist.” They come in any shade or stripe.
I guess Scoop Jackson was the first of them, but it seemed to spread to the Republican party and not the Democratic one
That’s just about the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Drift_away_from_New_Left_and_Great_Society
And I guess it’s the norm that both parties are pro Israel, but the Republicans are more so I beleive
Both parties are neoconservative 😀
So you’re saying Scoop Jackson, Moynihan, and Leiberman are more neocon that the socially conservatives politicians? I conceded to Trent saying that I automatically assumed neocons applied in social aspects as well. If one could only be neocon in foreign policy, then I understand I was incorrect. But if neocons have a social aspect to them, I think it would the conservatives of today. Why would Bush and Cheney be called neocons if they were socially not neocon? That just wouldn’t make sense. Either there is no social aspect of the neocon (which would make sense that Bush and Jackson would both fit into that. But they’re of course very different socially), or the social aspect is that they’re intolerant. Why else would all the Republicans be considered neocon? And if the neocons are only applicable to foreign policy, then you’re right about their roots being in the Democratic party. I guess Scoop Jackson was the first of them, but it seemed to spread to the Republican party and not the Democratic one (Leiberman is the only blatantly pro war former Dem I can think of. And I guess it’s the norm that both parties are pro Israel, but the Republicans are more so I beleive).
Trent – Though individual neocons may be “pro-life,” neoconservatism is pro-abortion as a tool of population control and destabilization of the family. The founders of the neoconservative movement were atheists, secular Jews, and ex-Communists — not “right to lifers.”
Dodge – You are kidding, right? You need to study up on the neocons. They have their roots in the Democratic Party! HELLO! The neocons were all Scoop Jacksonites.
Wow. Read up a little, Dodge.
Is Condi Rice a neocon? She’s pro-abortion, moderately pro-gay, not particularly religious. The neocons are led by secular Jews, not Christian rightists. They are pro-war liberals at heart. You need to do some studying, guy.
I never said pro life and gay marriage are small government or big gov’t. Oftentimes social issues can be seperated from that, but you’re right, 90% those issues to either become big gov’t or small gov’t. Thanks for the clarification.
And yes–Scoop Jackson is the ideological ancestor of the neocons.
Dodge,
For the record, being pro-life is not a big-government position, nor is being against gay marriage. Both CAN be, but neither HAS to be.
So would that mean Scoop Jackson would be a neocon? As for Trent’s comment about my comment about Scranton, I sight Scranton for his socially tolerant veiws. He was terrible economically (big government liberal) but socially he was very good. As for the paleoconservative, I think you could be right. I always assumed neocons applied to social aspects as well. Touche, and I guess I have some learning to do. But that’s what highschool’s for (debating my liberal teachers).
Dodge,
A neoconservative can be pro-choice or pro-life (well..anti-abortion), anti-gay or pro-gay—a neocon is largely defined by foriegn policy and has little (or nothing) to do with social issues.
Read some about the original neoconservatives.
Dodge clearly doesnt know anything about how neoconservatism developed, or what the alternatives are (namely, Paleoconservatism).
Couldn’t the same be applied to the social shifts to intolerance in the Republican party? Surely there has to be a name to distinguish the socially tolerant Goldwater/Taft Republicans from the Bush/Huckabee Republicans. And I’d imagine that word would be neocon. Why wouldn’t it apply to ocial values? And if you go by that logic, then Scoop Jackson would be considered a neocon (which I don’t think he was. His foreign policy beleifs were neoconservative, but his social beleifs were liberal). But “neocon” stands for “neoconservatism” which is new conservatism. That would also apply to social values, though I could certainly be wrong, it would just make sense that there’s a term to distinguish social differences. Though now, social issues really seem to be put in the back burner, which is a shame.
Baldwin is terrible economically–he’s a protectionist. He’s good on monetary policy, but never really talks about it. His social positions are sort of “blah”–but he’s definetly the best candidate in the race, ahead of Barr.
I agree that the legacy of Taft is worth going back to, and certain parts of the Goldwater legacy—but Sen. Scranton? No way,he was a centrist big-governmentalist.
I think you’re conflating neoconservatism with social conservatism Dodge. A neocon may be a social conservative – Romney, Huckabee, Bush arguably – but not all neocons are. Joe Lieberman, for example, is pretty strongly pro-abortion. Typically, neoconservatism is used to describe the one field in which they tend to stand out – unapologetic foreign intervention.
More properly, it refers to a specific cabal of intellectuals that moved from the left to the right a few decades ago and put this program into practice.
And G.E., I disagree with your statement. Neocons always talk about “family values” and the “gays taking over our culture.” I find them to be intolerant. And the neocons are vehemently pro life. If you consider Romney, Bush, Huckabee, and the lot neocons, then they fit my description to a tee.
Neocons also reflect a switch in social policy as well. With the LP today, it is 50% more socially liberal/anarchist people, and 50% disgruntled Republicans who feel that even socially, there party has changed. For example, Barry Goldwater, in his later years, was pro gay marriage and pro choice, unlike Chuck Baldwin, though he feels he’s different than the neocons. What I find scary is that people only look at the Republican’s switch on foreign policy. No one remembers their social tolerance towards civil rights that Chuck Baldwin obviously lacks. Many people are following this guy like sheep. Baldwin is not the next Ron Paul, nor is he the next Barry Goldwater (Ron Paul, to me, is very moderate on gay rights, and I just happen to disagree with his abortion view, while, Baldwin is vehemently anti gay rights). We forget our social heroes like Goldwater, Taft, and Scranton. Of course Baldwin is pretty good economically.
Dodge – The neocons are largely anti-religion, pro-abortion, and moderately pro-gay.
Not just Israel, it’s also based on a foreign policy based on imperialism and preemptive strikes to overthrow governments viewed as being against your interests.
Dodge – Baldwin has his problems, but he is NOT a “neocon.” That’s absurd. If he’s a “neocon” than what is a regular con? And “neocon” IS entirely defined by unwavering support for Israel, so he is by no means a “neocon.”
Dodge,
But isn’t neoconservatism mostly based on a candidate’s stance on foreign policy?
Fred, I feel that Baldwin is a neocon except for the fact that he is anti war. I think I put in incorrectly, I should of said, “man who’s essentially a neocon on everything except for the war.” But Baldwin is pro religion in our government (which to me, means bigger government), pro-life, anti-gay, and in my opinion, anti freedom.
It could make people more open to the idea of voting for a third party/indy candidate.
Not sure how endorsing 4 candidates will help. If he endorsed one, we could measure his effect on the vote total. But with 4, everyone will just shrug and vote for whoever they were planning to anyway, including Obama or McCain. This does nothing but officially blacklist him within the GOP.
anti-war neocon?
I don’t know why IPR hasn’t posted this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDgHGLpSnR4V9L_yGzr2USAwY4BQD933E5BO2), but, as I guessed, Ron Paul just copped out and said, “hey, don’t vote for the big two!” It’s kind of ridiculous how build this pretty much as the second coming. He should’ve just put out a press release instead of getting all of his extremely dedicated supporters batshit insane. I’m sure a few of them are very angry right now. But I’m glad he’s doing this, and showing support for all parties. This is really the best and most noblest thing he could’ve done. Now people will be aware that there’s a third party, whoever it is (and let’s face it, the only ones polling anything to be taken seriously are Nader and Barr. I’m shocked that there was that poll that had McKinney and Baldwin at 1%). I was scared that Paul would go ahead and endorse the anti-war neocon Baldwin.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/ron-paul-to-announce-presidential-endorsement-plans/
“Ron Paul to announce presidential endorsement plans
From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston
Ron Paul is urging his supporters to pick a third party candidate.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will call on supporters to back a third party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his own party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.
Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, according to a senior Paul aide.
The announcement will take place in the morning at the National Press Club in the nation’s capital.
While Paul failed in his bid for the Republican nomination, he found a large, diverse audience for his anti-war and anti-tax messages. The Texas congressman’s campaign was fueled by a successful on-line grassroots fundraising operation. Throughout the campaign, Paul supporters called on others to join the “Ron Paul Revolution.â€
Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,†the Paul aide said.”
Interesting stuff. Exciting to see Paul go the principled route that Kucinich and others have always wussed out on.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/ron-paul-to-announce-presidential-endorsement-plans/
“Ron Paul to announce presidential endorsement plans
From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston
Ron Paul is urging his supporters to pick a third party candidate.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will call on supporters to back a third party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his own party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.
Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, according to a senior Paul aide.
The announcement will take place in the morning at the National Press Club in the nation’s capital.
While Paul failed in his bid for the Republican nomination, he found a large, diverse audience for his anti-war and anti-tax messages. The Texas congressman’s campaign was fueled by a successful on-line grassroots fundraising operation. Throughout the campaign, Paul supporters called on others to join the “Ron Paul Revolution.â€
Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,†the Paul aide said.”
Maybe they’ll all drop out and endorse Ron Paul for President. But it’s too late to put his name on most ballots, so that doesn’t make sense…
I’ve been expecting something anti-climactic as well, but if Nader’s hyping it as unprecedented, maybe it actually is. I don’t think a 3rd Party debate would fit the bill by his standards (didn’t he participate in one in 2000?)
I’m going with anticlimactic, or it’ll blow up in all our faces.
I bet this press conference will be lame and uneventful. Probably something boring like Ron Paul saying “hey, guess what, these guys are better than Obama and McCain! Join the campaign for liberty!” I love Ron Paul, but he loves to over hype things. I think he enjoys the publicity, but we all do. He could just issue a press release saying it, but I guess he needs the hype. He’s doing a noble thing though.
“I guess socialists aren’t worried about spreading their morally bankrupt ideas the way libertarians are concerned with spreading their truth.”
Zing! Snark on, dude!
I agree that all the candidates of minor aprties on enough state ballots to theoreticaly win the EC vote, should organize two debates. And not just kumayahing, either. Real discussion of the issues and their plans.
I think if the four “major” minors set up the debate, and it was streamed live on where ever, then posted on youtube, with proper promotion, it would be cool as hell.
But, I’m betting Nader’s ego, if not Barr’s, would prevent this? I wish not. From what I know of McKinney and Baldwin, they don’t seem to think of themselves as the be-all and end-all.
Also – just thought I’d let all of you know that I’m now also writing for http://www.keystonepolitics.com
You can see my first article up there.
I wonder if they’re not just hyping it up a bit. It probably will just be something for the Campaign for Liberty or something equally anticlimactic.
Mike Gillis – Sure. And a debate WITH Nader and Barr is a “waste of time” for the majors.
I guess socialists aren’t worried about spreading their morally bankrupt ideas the way libertarians are concerned with spreading their truth.
Possibly a debate set up on primetime television, or possibly just a statement on the issues that ALL of them want to get talked about: I.E. – Civil liberties, Non-interventionism, and money.
With Nader and McKinney being there, I’m guessing the whole thing is going to be about the Campaign for Liberty getting the word out out the thrid parties and the CfL possibly working for more inclusive debate access, or even a third party debate. Although, all of this doesn’t sound to unprecedented, so it’s got to be something bigger, but I can’t image what it could be.
I don’t know about “superior”.
But any debate without at least one major party candidate is a waste of time.
Maybe Nader and Barr can explain why they won’t debate their superior counterparts.