Ron Paul’s Major Announcement Is Music To McCain’s Ears

September 12th, 2008 12:39 am  |  by  |  Published in Activism, Bob Barr, Election, John McCain, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Philosophy, Politics, Ron Paul  |  11 Responses

After a day or so of thinking about Ron Paul’s supposedly major announcement yesterday I’ve come to the conclusion that it truly benefits John McCain. I’m purposefully ignoring Barr Campaign Manager Russ Verney’s decision for Bob Barr to skip Paul’s press conference announcing the news. That is an entirely separate argument. The criticism leveled by Verney (and Barr) at Ron Paul regarding his support of spreading the non-McBama vote four ways is what I’ve been pondering.

Spreading the vote this way seems to benefit John McCain more than anyone in the race. If Ron Paul were to endorse (or choose to run on the same ticket with) a single candidate it would likely hurt McCain more than any other candidate. Instead the so called “liberty” vote is now divided amongst several candidates. That is of course if people choose not to join the “league of non-voters” that Ron Paul mentioned in his statement at the press conference.

Taken singularly and shallowly Ron Paul’s “big” announcement seems to show he still has political courage to stand up to his own party and say don’t vote for our nominee. So now instead of a single candidate or ticket getting the majority of the non-McBama vote it gets marginalized amongst several candidates. Ron Paul was the primary target of media marginalization during the primaries and now he seems to be the one lobbying for the marginalization of liberty.

If he were to endorse or join a single candidate as a running mate there would be an outside shot at getting into the debates with 15% or better in the polls. Having that third voice in the debates, the only one speaking up for liberty, now has virtually no chance of being heard. McCain could not be more happy about that, especially now that he is leading in the polls over Obama.

If I were a conspiracist I’d likely believe Ron Paul did this on purpose to help John McCain. I’d point to the fact that Ron Paul refused to endorse any candidate running against an incumbent Republican in the primaries to give my argument more weight. I’d also point out the several foreign policy interventionist lawmakers endorsed by Ron Paul on his Liberty PAC web site.

I’m no conspiracist so I’ll leave that to others.

Could it be that former CIA Neocon Drug Warrior Patriot Act Loving Iraq War Sympathizer Fake Libertarian Bob Barr actually has shown more principle than Ron Paul? After all the Barr campaign knew very well they would be castigated for shunning Ron Paul’s press conference. They did it anyway and are now paying the consequences. Did they do it out of spite or did they do it for liberty?

I still think Russ Verney and Bob Barr should publicly apologize for misleading Ron Paul and not appearing at the press conference. They should do that out of common decency to a fellow man, but their reason for not appearing is not as preposterous as some of us Ron Paul supporters may want to believe.

I wonder what Harry Browne would say about this if he were still alive?

Responses

  1. wrdalton says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 3:50 am (#)

    Marc, if you have listened to Ron Paul at all, you will know that it is a matter of complete indifference to him whether McCain or Obama wins this fall’s election. He even proposed and dismissed the idea that McCain would be the lesser of two evils. Paul’s objective is to maximize the number of votes AGAINST the two major parties. By aligning with one another, even while they appeal to very different voters, Baldwin, Nader and McKinney, make it possible for the media to report their votes in total rather than separately. This is the purpose of the movement – not to change the outcome of this year’s election, but build the credibility of the Liberty Movement for the coming election cycles. But, if there is a possibility any of the minor party candidates can change the outcome of the election, it will be on a state by state basis. In this case, the fact Nader may be the only alternative on the ballot in one state, and Baldwin may be only one available in another, means that the Ron Paul strategy will encourage Baldwin supporters to vote for Nader and Nader supporters to vote for Baldwin, who would otherwise never have considered doing so, and INCREASING the impact of all the minor party candidates. It is the greatest misfortune that Bob Barr, to this point, has not embraced the strategy and has turned off many erstwhile supporters in states like North Carolina, where there is no other alternative on our ballots.

  2. wrdalton says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 4:19 am (#)

    Speaking for myself, and not Ron Paul, if I were the Congressman, I would much prefer to see Barack Obama win this election than McCain. It would mean 1) Republicans in Congress would no longer be taking orders from the White House, and 2)Ron Paul could again become a champion to his fellow Republicans as he takes on the disastrous policies of the Obama administration, even its WAR policies. If we are indeed fortunate, the GOP will take back the House by 2010, and Ron Paul would cap his career as Chair of the House Banking Committee, without ever sacrificing his principles.

  3. ChrisK says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am (#)

    I disagree, primarily because I don’t see the liberty vote being split 4 ways.

    No liberty leaning individual is likely to vote for McKinney or Nader.

    Again, this announcement was targeted at all of America, not just Paul supporters, in order to bring more votes to all third party candidates, not to tell Paul supporters where to place their votes.

    Additionally, as you mentioned, Barr’s no show certainly hurt him with Paul supporters. I doubt he would have accepted either way, but if Barr were serious about extending his VP slot to Ron Paul, he probably would have had a better chance of his offer being accepted if he hadn’t stood up the good doctor on Wednesday.

  4. meme_warrior says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm (#)

    Paranoia runs rampant…

    “I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen.”
    - W.H. Auden

  5. robinsoncom says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 10:00 pm (#)

    Marc,

    You are not thinking like Ron Paul, which you must in order to understand his play. 1. He said from the earliest days of his run that he was not going to run with a Third Party. 2. He is a man of principles first, winning second. 3. Freedom is about having choices. This is all you need to know to understand why he did what he did.

    -By promoting all four minor party candidates, he brings valuable press coverage to all of them and exposes the corrupt system, perhaps sparking demands to let them in the debates or hold alternative debates
    -Liberty voters, ie. his fans, will likely not vote for Nader or McKinny, so that leaves Barr and Baldwin
    -Barr took himself out of the game with his drama queen antics… exposing his lack of savvy and authenticity
    -This leaves Baldwin as the heir apparent to the Ron Paul 2008 effort

    Once again, Ron Paul promoted the “truth” and let the cream rise to the top. Example: Personally, I was planning to vote for Barr over Baldwin but now have reversed my choice. If for some reason Balwin is not on my ballot, I pick Nader. If Nader is not, then McKinny. If Barr is my only choice, then I’ll pick him, reluctantly.

  6. Mike Miller says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 11:01 pm (#)

    I believe that wrdalton and robinsoncom have hit it on the head.

  7. Marc Gallagher says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 11:37 pm (#)

    If he is so principled for liberty then why does he endorse 5 (at least) candidates that do not share his belief in foreign policy with his Liberty PAC?

    Why did he not endorse Ron Paul Republican challengers against Republican neocon warmonger incumbents during the primary season?

    I’m still a huge fan of Ron Paul and his ideas, but after following him like an addiction for almost 2 years I find some chinks in his armor.

    I realize what he is doing and the point of it. I agree with the effort, I just believe he could have done more, much like I believe his campaign that raised $35 million could have accomplished a lot more too.

    As others have pointed out and Dr. Paul implied a few times, he wasn’t really interested in actually winning. He was in it to educate and shape the debate.

    What we need is a candidate with the humility of Ron Paul who also has the burning desire to actually fight every fight and use all resources to win. I’m not sure that type of dynamic person exists. Bob Barr seems to only have the desire to fight. Ron Paul has the humility.

    That is why I pipe-dreamed of a Barr/Paul ticket. Barr alone is an egotistical self promoter, but he still has a better message in my view than Chuck Baldwin, Mckinney, or Nader. So I will vote for the message, not the man. If Paul were on the ticket then I could vote for both, but as I said, that is and always was a pipe dream.

    There is no doubt Ron Paul has accomplished more than his “fair share” with his campaign and now the C4L, but the hard truth I’m beginning to see is that he truly could have done so much more to advance the cause of liberty.

    As it is, I need to learn to accept that what I think he should have done doesn’t really matter. He is his own man and deserves to do what he wishes. I will always support him, but also will lament what I believe was a missed opportunity.

    -Marc

  8. Chuck says:

    September 12th, 2008 at 11:37 pm (#)

    I backed Paul big time, but he’s no God to me. His press conference got no appreciable press and will make zero difference. He could have made a big difference by either endorsing Barr or running himself, either as Libertarian or Independent. Doing one of these things could have gotten a freedom candidate into the debates, which would be huge.

    I don’t really understand how any freedom lover can be ambivalent about this race. The thought of Obama in office makes me want to throw up. McCain is a buffoon, but he’s better than Obama on all counts that matter. Like it or not, McBama are both on the same page on foreign policy, and nothing is going to happen on drugs or abortion no matter who is elected, if those are your hot buttons. All Obama could possibly have going for him is a less hawkish foreign policy, but the amount of damage he could do at home with a complicit congress is immense.

  9. wrdalton says:

    September 13th, 2008 at 12:41 am (#)

    Marc, I think Ron Paul was wise not to mount a third party race after losing the Republican nomination. Such a campaign would not have a great impact, at least not great enough to win any electoral votes, which is the only thing that would have made such a campaign worthwhile. Keeping his seat in Congress is important to the liberty movement, as we have hope of adding to the numbers of such Congressmen this year who will look to Ron Paul as their leader. The fact he was able to raise as much money as he did this year means that when the new Congress convenes in January, he can no longer be shunted to the side as an irrelevance. A lot more Congressmen will be voting with him in the Party Caucus, particularly if they are freed from having an anti-Paul Republican in the White House. Then the battle will be control of the RNC, and Ron Paul, anti-war,anti-Fed Republicans will have to be given the same respect as pro-choice, pro-immigration and other “dissident” Republicans are today.

    Chuck, Barack Obama will be no more of a danger in the White House than the Clintons were, and, at least from him, I expect no rerun of Clinton’s sexual peccadillos. I’m rather hopeful he will be more honest, and, as Martin Luther said, I would prefer to be governed by an honest Muslim than a corrupt Christian. I’m really hoping the beating of the war drums by both candidates reflects more their assessment of necessary political strategy than their own best judgment of the needs of the nation, but that fact alone tells me that we will never have a decent President until we reform the American electorate. In the words of Pogo, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

  10. libertyforone says:

    September 13th, 2008 at 4:14 am (#)

    I found this great article tonight: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html

    It is called Voting Fourth Party and does a great job of exposing the fallacy of being able to vote in this country.

    I loved it. Pass it on. Maybe it will catch on.

  11. Noor udeen Mukhopadhyay says:

    January 2nd, 2013 at 3:42 pm (#)

    Noor udeen Mukhopadhyay…

    Ron Paul’s Major Announcement Is Music To McCain’s Ears :: Liberty Maven…