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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

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

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.