Recently Ron Paul gave an historic press conference asking for voters to consider voting for third party candidates. He invited 4 third party candidates to be present at the conference and gave them all an endorsement.
Here is the press conference for your review:
In his press conference he made three major points;
1.) A large number of people do not want a McCain or Obama presidency - collectively we are a political force,
2.) All four of his suggested third party candidates have 4 positions in common; bring the U.S. troops home; protect our civil liberties, investigate the Federal Reserve and balance the federal budget.
3.) Any of the four candidates would be better than Obama or McCain as president of the United States.
Currently, our large group of disenfranchised voters is not focused on one candidate to rally behind. Even if more people move towards a third party vote, our votes remain divided four ways and we still do not have a chance to win. We can only win by coming together... United we stand, divided we fall.
So... What should we do?
One idea is to hold a four-way money bomb event where the winner of the money bomb takes all.
All of the money collected will be spent in support of the winner's campaign and we the grassroots would agree to get behind the winner in every way (meetups, sign waves, tell your friends, etc.) pushing as hard as we can for a real shot at the white house. If we do this, and can come together in support of one candidate, using the money bomb as the deciding factor of who will be the one candidate, we can enter into the game with funding for a real run and a chance at over 15% in the polls. That will mean we will be included in all the debates and we will have a real chance to win the election!
After Ron Paul's speech the big question the main stream media wanted to know was who the grassroots will rally behind. Which third party candidate will challenge the status quo? So far, there is no clear answer. When we do this money bomb and we give them the answer, I believe the press will go wild. This will be the first real challenge to the two party system since Ross Perot.
So.. what do you think? Are you in? Thoughts? Feedback?
Update: I'm hoping to get as much feedback from as many different people as possible so I dugg this thread. Feel free to digg it here if you like: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Uniting_the_third_party_movement
Update II: We've set up a pledge site at http://www.ThirdPartyTicket.com for people who are interested in this idea and want to see it happen. We need over 10,000 pledges to move forward so please spread the word.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 10879 reads
****
Just to clarify, for anyone who was wondering -- this is no longer "winner takes all." Instead you send money to your candidate of choice now.
They still need pledges to participate over at http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/. So let's get those candidates some publicity! (And while we're at it, let's show the public which third-party candidate has the most support!)
You can pledge here: http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/
And remember to watch the debate on Sunday October 19th, 2008 from 7pm to 9pm EST!
(And tell others about it too!)
I'm not sure the candidates have agreed to participate yet. There are links to persuade them on that same site. We are the driving force for this -- let's get that momentum rolling!
It would send a powerful message if you got the League of Women Voters to support the debates. They used to sponsor the debates, before the CPD, and they let third party candidates like John Anderson in. They have been very disapproving of the CPD in the past.
That's a great idea, it would send a fair message to the people.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
Dr Ron Paul could have Obama for lunch, on the economic problems and the war
and everything else. Things are moving so fast, now is the time (48 hrs) for
Dr. Ron Paul to appear in Fridays debate and save this country.....
McCain says he isn't going to be there. What a awesome time for anther
Republican to appear on the scene?
Just a thought...
Please come on Dr. Paul.... pretty please?
Ron Paul and Ralph Nadar should debate after the two losers from the Democratic and Republican party bore us. I haven't heard such pointless messages since Al Gore and George Walker Bush in the 2000 debates.
He was pointless with the best of them, plus he looked and sounded like Herman Munster. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Some thoughts about the money bomb contest --
Many in the liberty movement seem reluctant to financially support a to-be-determined candidate (winner-take-all), and would therefore not participate. These would unfortunately be those who feel most strongly about which candidate to support, while this method would leave their opinions uncounted.
Also, we may want to rally behind the candidate with the greatest number of supporters rather than with the supporters giving the most money. (I can see this being argued either way, but my own preference would be to see numbers of supporters rather than numbers of dollars for this. We do need to raise money though.)
So here are a couple thoughts.
One idea would be to just take a poll to see which third-party candidate has the most support. This gives one vote per person (among BTM members), and would give everyone a sense of what the community is thinking. (It might also be interesting to tally up both positive and negative ratings for each option.)
Another idea is to change the "winner-takes-all" part of the money bomb contest. Instead of all the money going to the winner, it could go toward debates between the candidates. We can probably agree to support that!
Or the contest could let participants specify where their money will go, while counting the amount as being for their candidate of choice. (There could be an option to send the contribution to the winner of the contest, and another option to send it only to the chosen candidate.) This would show us more completely where the greatest support is among the candidates, while allowing participants to choose where to put their money.
I think my vote would be to fund a third-party debate for now, and maybe try a winner-take-all contest after the movement is more familiar with the candidates.
Edit: I just noticed Ron Paul's endorsement of Baldwin! I take back the winner-take-all part. I say those of us who either favor Baldwin or favor a united vote should support Baldwin at this point, and should continue to respectfully work together with other liberty-minded third-party supporters.
There is a new moneybomb for Chuck Baldwin this Friday the 26th www.buckforchuck.com
we had a small one last week and we will do another this friday.
This event will also be broadcasted from 9am until midnight on www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
UPDATED : I was asked to add this : Revolutionbroadcasting nor buckforchuck receives 1 penny from this money bomb 100% of all donations go directly to the Chuck Baldwin campaign.
As Ron Paul has thrown his support behind Baldwin, why don't we do the same? I don't think we would alienate any TRUE supporters of liberty by doing so. Baldwin stands with Nader and McKinney on the 4 Issues of Agreement, and departs from them where their platforms are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO LIBERTY. If BTM has any influence at all, I believe that it can help the most getting behind a candidate that people truly committed to freedom can live with. What do you think?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
I was all for this until seeing a post below that pointed out that Nov. 5 is the day after the election. So, unfortunately, Nov. 5 will be too late to help Baldwin this time.
Constitution Party: Chuck Baldwin for President 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3ql_1AUmk
I can't see why all the criticism. At any rate I recall the 5th of November website and the small soundbites from V. For me that is what first grabbed my interest. When I heard it and read the website I felt very excited that there were people out there who felt like me. It was emotional and it was fantastic. It was and still is exciting to be a part of your crowd.
There were hundreds of videos on youtube with the 1812 overture as the background music, all touting Ron Paul and the independent ideas we all share. That really put momentum together for not only Ron Paul the canditate, but his next money bomb as well.
The people need a rally cry and they need some emotional link to their cause. Right now many people seem depressed and despondent.
Trevor, you and your team could really help us all capitalize on the 5th of November again. Maybe something could bring us all together en masse like it did before.
We need something to hold on to, something to spark inspiration. When we are excited and confident we draw the most attention from those who are on the fence and unsure about not only their vote, but the future of their country as well.
There's a bit of coincidence, if you believe in such things.
Keep the rEvolution ALIVE!!! Sometimes I just wonder if the supporters for a morally correct movement just want to remain philosophical about it rather than to really put some work towards waking up our sleeping giant about the direction we are headed unless enough people say HEY!!! U.S. Government, Where are you going??? WHat are you Doing???
There is strong force moving in Texas - look up a_texian in break the matrix
anna
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
--
The Revolution can't die.
What will the sleepers do when they awaken? Go back to sleep?
--
Don't Think, Act!
Don't Question, Follow!
And don't bother telling an enraged lynch mob with a raging bloodlust, the truth.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ - THESE ARE YOUR WORDS
Have you ever heard of the DVD film called Kymatica. The movie states or poses your very "IFs" but the answer in the film says We are the ones to blame, deep down in our unconscience, we the people want people to rule us. to Guide us its been ingrained. Its like we don't know how to act unless someone isn't telling us what to do, what to feel especially what to believe in...
You may immediately disagree but it would be better to know what you are disagreeing with...so watch the film...unless you already have...I have the suspicion you have..
Its unconcievable that so many things just go on and on there are those who know better but there is not enough of us or there isn't a leader we unconsciously really want...until we can come clean with our ego's and issues that lie deep within us...we might not have a chance to turn things around...the jist of the film.
"Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth" - St. Augustine
poulianna
The eye of G_d is watching us....
"THESE ARE YOUR WORDS"
Nah, more a copy and paste ;-)
But inbetween the copy and paste and my sig, were my words...
I'm Reading Taylor Caldwells, the Devils Advocate at this moment...
It turns the world as perceivable upside down... (And I am only on page 40.)
As a template projected on what is going on....
Would you say that what is going on, by those 545 persons is generating a revolution (Either peaceful OR Violent!) in time FOR Certain, if the trends of what the population perceives as reality of what those people do (Considering law, Constitution and stuff.), continue? And that revolution would turn back the clock considering Freedom, Responsibility?
So Basically, the more restrictive laws they put forward, the more repressive the regime is considered to be, the more urgent the yearn for freedom among the population will become, until the last drip overfills the bucket?
There might be some patriots where we don't expect them, using methods that we will despise them for.
--
Don't Think, Act!
Don't Question, Follow!
And don't bother telling an enraged lynch mob with a raging bloodlust, the truth.
good idea
Been off the grid for a few days..., so you'll have to excuse the few days delay in responding.
608 lousy pledges. This is typical of every single clarion call for money bombs of all varieties since Ron Paul dropped out, i.e..., totally insignificant.
Where the hell are those 1 million plus who voted for him in the primaries?
I thought BTM was going to be the avenue; or the hub, if you will, for preserving the momentum of Dr. Paul's campaign. I'm finding it very hard to believe much apathy was "cured" at all.
I am TimSGolf and I approve this message.
The Chuck A Thon is on NOW Chuck Baldwin need money now
To continue what hes doing!!! Go to http://www.Revolutionbroadcasting.com
And listen to Chuck Baldwin and many others NOW also donate up to $2300
To http://www.Baldwin08.com NOW
Chuck Baldwin on the issues: LQQKS GOOD!
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chuck_Baldwin.htm
watchman2008,
I'm with you on this one. My main issues are our economy, the war and the border. Chuck looks great on all these. Appointing Ron Paul as the Treasury Secretary would be an unprecedented step towards protecting our dollar. Add to that bringing our troops home and not spending any more money in Iraq, looking better. Then there's securing the border and his promise to pardon Ramos and Compean. Oops, I forgot his complete disdain for the real ID.
JimB
Mr. Lyman:
I really believe this is ineffectual.
I have always voted for liberty-minded third party candidates, and they have not won a national seat in recent history. If our goal is to elect liberty-minded people to government, we have three options:
1. We can run third party, such as Libertarian or Constitution party. This could also involve uniting into a single third party. For various reasons (media, dualistic thinking, debate control, etc.), this has yet to work. This hasn't even come close to working on the presidential level.
2. We can unite behind an independent candidate. Some examples of Independent success include Ross Perot (not bad) in 1992 and Jesse Ventura (though he was officially in the Reform Party) in 1998. Perhaps Dr. Paul could have had Perot-like success, but, for the reasons listed above, it is still very difficult to break the two-party stranglehold.
3. We can infiltrate the two parties. Both parties. We can focus on winning, above all else, and support liberty-minded Democrats in blue states and liberty-minded Republicans in red states, just as Dr. Paul has done with his seat in Congress. In states like Texas or Idaho, for instance, all we would have to do is win the Republican primary for House or Senate; in states like Oregon or Vermont, the Democratic primaries. This, too, would be challenging, and there will be many failures along the way, but I believe it is the only way we can actually win elections. Think of it this way:
How close did Ron Paul get to winning the presidency in 1988? And how close did he get in 2008?
Please, abandon all third party hope. Following Dr. Paul's example, Break The Matrix and the Campaign for Liberty need to create and support candidates within the major parties.
I agree. There is no point in supporting third party candidates anymore. I take it one step further: don't bother supporting ANY candidate anymore.
Elections are broken, the system doesn't work, and we can't win by playing by their broken rules. So why do we continue to validate them and legitimize their candidates by participating in their system?
Instead, why not step away from the system and invalidate their "wins" by proving that the American people are no longer interested in their fake elections and false winners! How can they claim to be "representative" of the People when only 5, 7, or 10% of the People voted for them?
We're playing in a game where they are the Harlem Globetrotters and we're the Generals. We have ZERO CHANCE OF WINNING in that game!
It's time to rethink the entire process and stop wasting our time and energy fighting in a system where THEY set the rules, THEY decide the consequences of breaking them, and THEY decide who gets to flaunt them!
Instead, let's start a REAL REVOLUTION and quit fiddling around in a game we can't win!
--Aaron
The Militant Libertarian
http://www.MilitantLibertarian.org
The major parties already nominated someone.
Why not...
....take the 10,000 or more pledges, then offer to donate an equal portion to each of the three universities/organizations that are sponsoring the presidential debates upon their inclusion of the 4 third party candidates with equal time. Once they agree then the pledges commence with the money bomb. If all three agree, split it 3 ways. If only 2 agree, split it in half. If only one agree's that university/organization gets the whole pot.
If all three reject the offer...
-Use the money to buy ad time during the debates and run seperate ads for each of the 4 candidates. Each candidate could appear in their own ad saying "Hi, I'm so and so. I'm on the ballot in however many states. I really wanted to join the other candidates in tonights debate, but they said the American people are not important enough to hear my ideas. They claim you, the American people, are to confused to have more than 2 choices."
- Use the money to host your own debate on primetime network television. ABC, NBC, or CBS. Even though they'll probably decline the invitation, make sure you invite Obama and McCain to participate. Don't want to stoop to their level you know.
I like the hosting your own debate idea most. I think we whould deffinately do that.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
Trevor,
I believe in your concept. Let's move onward.
Cheers,
Christina Tobin
National Coordinator
*We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. - Benjamin Franklin
Hawkeye, the true individualist who never abandons his principles.
I really like Jim's idea of urging voters to decline the top of the ticket and just vote locally. Don't you just wish you could go into the booth and write in Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, or Sponge Bob for president rather than these bozos. It happened when Pat Paulson, a commedian on the Smother's Brothers show, conducted a write in. And then there was Eugene McCarthy, the Ron Paul of the 1968 election. So we got Ross Perot who scared the two parties with 15% of the vote, and Teddy Roosevelt of the Bull Moose party (who actually won) to look to for our inspiration. For those of us who want to express our distaste for the candidates in the"one" party system in this election we have to think creatively. How can we get our voice heard? The idea of forging a message that can be heard far a wide that we are angry and we won't take it anymore, outside of sticking our heads out of our collective windows and shouting it to the deaf and dumb populace, is to offer a challenge to have them listen to our silence. The money bomb idea could work this way; Trevor could set up a site where the money bomb on a certain day will be a 2 cent donation, as in "I am putting in my 2 cents worth" to show the "one" party system that I am fed up and I won't take it anymore. You couldn't donate any more than 2 cents. The accumulated 2 cents worth would represent a deafening silence to the media and others that we, the independent voter, will be a force in this election if we can stand behind a leader who has the guts to challenge them. He has to be someone like James Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington, or Davey Crocket, who can stand before the assembled congress and tell them where they can all go. I liken this to the movie Seabiscuit. We could be the crowds who put our bets on Seabiscuit, the underdog challenger to the high and mighty rich and elite, our hopes riding on a pure faith that he will win. All the big money is going the other way so our odds of winning are 100 to 1. What a tremendous achievement it would be if, low and behold, Seabiscuit wins and we hold in our hands something more precious than a winning ticket. The challenger hasn't really won; we are the ones who have won the race by having the faith it could be done. We are the ones who can look at our country and know we have done the right thing.
I want to make it clear that attribution for the wonderful idea of national anti-McBama ads goes to bigdstocktrader in his post below. Wish I'd thought of it first. I also lilked DavidS's remarks. I, too, am a DownsizeDC.org member, and I'd like to second David's commendation of them to readers of this blog.
Best to all,
Elliott
I share the opinion of the several posters who express skepticism concerning the ability of any of the third-party candidates to attract broad support by themselves. And in any case, one of the of the basic strengths of the Ron Paul campaign has been the intention of its supporters to vote their principles--how can we abandon that idea in good conscience?
The one idea that I DO like is a money bomb to support national ads that run against McBama. In fact, I _love_ that idea. We all agree that the rigged two-party "system" is our common enemy. So why not do our united best simply to undermine it--get the population at large so disillusioned and mad that they're forced to seek alternatives, as we have.
We're so used to being nickle-and-dimed to death, that maybe we forget that incrementalism can work for us. No alternative candidate is going to actually win the election, so what difference does it make how those alternative votes are distributed? If third-parties and write-ins got a collective 20% of the vote this time around, think of the impact!
To be successful in the present context, all we have to do is create legitimacy for the _idea_ of voting third party (that is, voting one's principles) in the minds of the general public. If we can create a climate that encourages people to vote their principles, rather than their fear, then we have created the conditions for future victory.